GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY REFORM ACT OF 1964

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 355
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: OPEN

15242
the United Nations Charter. If it were
not so tragic, it would be amusing, when
one considers the answer he has given to
the proposal to go to a 14-nation con-
ference, as recommended by the Presi-
dent of France. Mr. de Gaulle. What are
we afraid of? No one is suggesting that
while we are at that 14-nation Confer-
ence we should abandon southeast Asia.
No one is suggesting that while the Se-
curity Council and, if necessary. the
General Assembly consider the United
Nations jurisdiction, we remove ourselves
frcm southeast Asia, although I wish we
would desist from our warmaking in
southeast Asia and start a policy of
peacekeeping.
I would, as I have said so many times.
while the matter is before a 14-nation
Conference, as recommended by De
Gaulle. or before the Security Council or
before the General Assembly, call upon
our alleged?and I underline the word
"alleged"?SEATO allies to join us with
a sufficient body of men to patrol the
area, to keep the adversaries separate.
and to stop the killing and warmaking
until the procedures of the United Na-
tions can be brought to work upon the
threat to the peace of Asia and, poten-
tially, the peace of the world.
The position taken by Henry Cabot
Lodge cannot be reconciled to any de-
cree with the clear international obliga-
tions of the United States under the
United Nations Charter.
I did not expect that the stature of the
President of France for peacekeeping
would rise above the stature of the Pres-
ident of the United States; but at this
bour, that is exactly what is happening.
The President of France is becoming
recognized in many areas of the world as
more determined and dedicated to the
cause of peace than the President of the
United States, because the President of
France is calling for negotiation. The
President of -France is calling for the
conference table. The President of
France is calling for the application of
ihe rule of law to the threat of peace in
Asia
The President of the United States is
rattling the saber and telling the world
that we are willing to risk war with Red
China unless Asia accepts American
policy in southeast Asia.
I cannot understand why my Govern-
ment cannot see, before it is too late.
that that kind of warmaking policy on
the part of the United States spells
trouble. Let me make it clear. as I
close, that there is no question that we
are joined In our outlawry by South
Vietnam, by North Vietnam, by the
Pathet Lao Communists in Laos, and by
Red China.
Does that justify our outlawry? Does
that justify the policy of expediency ap-
plied to international affairs which best
describes American policy tonight in
Asia? Does the end-justifies-the-means
principle square with American precepts
of foreign policy?
Since when do two wrongs make a
right?
Never before has that been our
pol-
icy. I pray again th.it my country will
see the horrendous mistake it is making
in Asia as a matter of policy, before it
is too late.
Approved For RialWiribS?NneLAA-RDP66BO
' _RECORD ? SENATE July 1
: D403R0
I close by saying, for the benent or CitiNgft91%ii-2)F ADDITIONAL
those who do not like my speeches and
for the benefit of such journalists as
Mr. Freedman, "You had better check
it with the American people."
I am satisfied that millions of fellow
Americans. as they begin to understand
the issue at stake in southeast Asia, will
support my position.
I can now say, along with the Senator
from Alaska, that my mail is running
better than 100 to 1 in support of my
position. My mail is coming in from
coast to coast. as Senators will see some
samples placed in the CONURESSIONAI.
RECORD from time to time. I placed a
large quantity in the RECORD today. It
is coming from the leaders of many com-
munities in this country.
I wish to state to President Johnson
that I am satisfied that the American
people do not approve of America's war-
making policy in Asia. and that the
American people wish the President of
the United States to join with the Presi-
dent of France and other advocates of
negotiation, that we go to the conference
table and seek to apply the rule of law
to the crisis which exists In Asia.
I say most respectfully to my Presi-
dent, whom I shall continue to support
on most issues, that I oppose him on this
issue only because I owe a greater trust
to my country than I owe to him.
Mr. President, I yield the floor,
APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT
PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN in the chair). The Chair, on
behalf of the President pro tempore, an-
nounces the appointment as members on
the part of the Senate of the National
Commission on Food Marketing, created
by Senate Joint Resolution 71. the fol-
lowing Senators, namely, the Senator
from Washington (Mr. Msceesoril. the
Senator from Wyoming ( Mr. WOW.
the Senator from Michigan iMr. }Wel.
the Senator trom Kentucky (Mr. Moe-
TON I, and the Senator from Nebraska
( Mr. HRUSKA I.
COMMIT 1 tE MEETING DURING
SENATE SESSION TOMORROW
Mr. HART. ? Mr. President. the dis-
tinguished Senator from Nebraska I Mr.
HRUSKA1 is in the Chamber: and we have
discussea the problem presented to the
Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monop-
oly of the Judiciary Committee in meet-
ing tomorrow, in view ot the lime set for
the beginning of the session of the
Senate.
We have cleared this with those in-
volved, and I ask unanimous consent
that the subcommittee be permitted to
tv during the session of the Senate
1,011101TONV.
The PRESIDING OFFIer?R. Is there
objection?
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, not
only is there no objection, but I also con-
cur in the request of the Senator from
Michigan and wish to confirm that
there has been clearance on this matter
with the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
ROUTINE BUSINESS
By unanimous consent, the following
additional routine business was trans-
acted;
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE?
ENROLLED 13rf SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives. by Mr. Bartlett. one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the Acting President pro tern-
pore:
S. a. An art to authorize the Housing and
Home Finance Administrator to provide addi-
tional assistance for the development of
comprehensive and coordinated mass trans-
portation systems. both public and private.
In metropolitan and other urban areas, and
for other purposes: and
H.R. 10433. An act making appropriations
for the Department of the Interior and re-
lated agencies for the fiscal year ending June
30. 1965. and for other purposes.
ADDITIONAL BILL INTRODUCED
Mr. HART by unanimous consent. in-
troduced a bill (S. 2972) for the relief
of Dr. David J. Sencer, U.S. Public Health
Service, which was read twice by its title
and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
ADJusTmEarr OF-RATES OF BASIC
COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF-
FICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?AMEND-
MENTS
Mr. MORSE submitted two amend-
ments (Nos. 1089 and 1090), intended to
be proposed by him, to the bill (H.R.
11049) to adjust, the rates of basic com-
pensation of certain officers and em-
ployees in the Federal Government, anc
for other purposes, which were orderer
to lie on the table and to be printed.
Mr. LAUSCHE submitted an amend-
ment (No. 1091) . Intended to be proposec
by him, to House bill 11049, supra, whizl
was ordered to lie on the table and t(
be printed.
Mr. ICEATING for himself and Mr
JAvrrs) submitted an amendment iNo
1092), intended to be proposed by them
jointly. to House bill 11049, supra, whicl
was ordered to he on the table and to la,
printed.
Mr. ELLENDER submitted amend
ment +No. 1093), intended to be pro
posed by him, to House bill 11049, suprr
which was ordered to lie on the table ant
to be printed.
AMENDMENT OF INTERNAL REV
ENITE CODE OF 1954. TO IMPOS:
A TAX ON ACQUISITIONS OF CM?
TAIN FOREIGN SECURITIES-
AMENDMENTS
sagorosinurr NO. loos
Mr. JAVITS submitted an amendmen
In the nature of a substitute, intended t
be proposed by him, to the bill (H..1
8000) to amend the Internal Review.
Code of 1954 to impose a tax on acqu
ppr oveCI r-or Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
July 23, /964 Approved F5
of the bill lends adequate protection to
civilian employees and eliminates certain
inequities in the hiring of retired mili-
tary persons.
The Civil Service Cominissipn advises
that section 206 is unnecessir y,restric-
tive and strongly endorses the elimina-
tion of this provision.
Senate amendment No. 2 is a technical
conforming ?amendment required by the
eliminatiqn pt4ealpti 205. It would re-
number present Section 203 to section
205.
Senate amenOnent No. 3 adds a new
section 206. winch would place certain
ceilings-. on the amount of combined mili-
tary retired:pax and civilian compensa-
tion to be1.,:by retired military
personnel' employe in a Federal, civilian
position.
The section Would prescribe two ceil-
ings: -
,
First. In cases where the military re-
tiree is employed in a civilian office with
compensation 'determined under the
Classification Act 4,1949,, the combined
military retired pay _and civilian pom-
pensatipn could not e_xceeccilie:fop rate
of ?Ad Of no, as
soneneleP.
Second, 1/1., eases Where the civilian
co/ripe/1841On, is not, determined under
the Class/Dealt:M., .ACt of 1949, the com-
bined maximuM rate ?OP_Uld?. 110,k,eXceetl.
the rate of compen_Sat19.n.reMYPPLIV? the
head of the denartirient or agency,
The peiling_31.Wler the. Areit /7.1-,/le meas-
ured Iv; the top_rite-?f the 014ssification
Act would apply to retired members of
any Regular _component, but the ceiling
Under the se-son4 rule,Woilel,aPply to any
retired Member pt iy or the uniformed
services, ?
Mr. GROSS. , Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDEIISON;, I ani-haPPY to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr, GROSS ? he written
_ _
'in an attempt to eliminate the so-called
buddy system still retained in the bill
IS/I.r._,ZIENDg440.M. It itewtAy is.
The gentleman well knows of my long
interest_ in tbis?, I lave ,gene into this
carefully. There have been no Changes
in this section as passed by the House.
Mr. GROSS. .?M ar,sT al?) con-
cerned,:this is one of the most Important
provisions-of-the biltandifit Terrtaim in
it; I have no further questions concern-
ing the conference report.
Mr. ligNE*1:00, '
N, appreciate the
gentleman's_ Interest.,
- . -
Mr. BECKWOPTH. 1V4 Speaker will
the gentleman yield?
.
Mr. HENDERSON,. 4i happy to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas. _
Mr. BECKWOldlt ttelieVe the so-
called bUddY system should be
elimi-
nated. Just Aester aY. ,741-Ing man
came toMy 6' e Whp,wPric,,s? torsi-ie. of
the departments of the Gove,rnment. Ie
told me that for scycrfa, weelp now a
given agency' NIS been looking for a
grade 13 Man. It Was not announced
that the officials,of the department were
looking for the man. As soon as they
found him, they then announced that
the position was open, and the an-
?alfingi2c909,5/11i8ItebR_DPAWNO3R000500050001-9
nouncement closes quickly. That means
that, to all intents and purposes, most
people who might be qualified for the
position are denied the opportunity of
even knowing about the vacancy. This is
wrong.
I also want to add this. I have intro-
duced as of December 10, 1963, H.R. 9407
a bill that would if it should become law
require reasonable notice on all examina-
tions, where practical, and then genuine
written examinations, where practical.
I feel that this bill will be opposed,
because selfish bureaucrats do not
want that kind of thing. There are some
people in our Government and outside
our Government who believe the bill
would be good legislation. The summer
jobs program for students evidences
some great injustices. We passed twice
a bill here to bring about more fairness.
There has been so much opposition to
the legislation that the legislation has
received little consideration in the other
body. I say to you, though, that if we
mean business when we say that we want
effective and able Federal employees, we
ought to go the full length in making it
known that jobs are available and give
true, worthwhile competitive examina-
tions instead of what is known as com-
plying with civil service standards,
which are quite different to a true written
competitive examination.
Mr. HENDERSON. The gentleman
from Texas is to be commended for his
longtime interest in this field. He well
knows the provisions of this bill are a
vast improvement over what he have
had. As the gentleman from Iowa indi-
cated, the provisions of this bill will go a
long way toward eliminating the buddy
system, as we refer to it. In the employ-
ment of retired former military person-
nel, this is a vast step forward in the
improvement of the civil service em-
ployment procedures.
? Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude
with the further explanation of the
amendments of the Senate.
The Civil Service Commission strongly
objects to this amendment.
It would cause inequities and incon-
sistencies in the cases of those few re-
tired members whose combined military
retired pay and civilian compensation
would be affected by these ceilings.
A retired regular member employed in
the Department of Defense in a GS-18
Classification Act scientific position
would have a salary reduced by the total
amount of his retired pay; however, if he
were employed to do exactly the same
kind of work by the same agency under
Public Law 313 which authorizes com-
pensation to be fixed outside the Classifi-
cation Act, the reduction in his salary
would be insignificant, if any, because he
could be paid as much as the Secretary of
Defense?up to $35,000 under the new
salary bill as passed by the Senate, H.R.
11049. _
If the same individual were a Retired
Reserve member, he would have no re-
duction in salary in the GS-18 position,
but he could be subject to a reduction
if he were employed under Public Law
313.
The provisions of section 206 would
encourage all kinds of artificial,arrange-
ments to avoid the adverse maximum of
the limits on particular individuals and
groups, as indicated above.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 relate to em-
ployment in the Senate, the House of
Representatives, and the Architect of the
Capitol. They are designed to continue
the present employment policy of pro-
hibiting any employee of those offices
from receiving salary for more than one
civilian office if the aggregate amount of
basic compensation from such offices
exceeds the sum of $2,000 per annum.
Amendment No. 8 provides that the
limitation on dual compensation for
more than one civilian office under sec-
tion 301 of the bill shall not apply to per-
sons employed under Public Law 87-82,
relating to employees of the Architect of
the Capitol in the Senate restaurants, or
to employees employed under section 208
of Public Law 812 of the 76th Congress,
relating to employees of the Architect of
the Capitol in the House of Representa-
tives restaurant.
The present law referred to in amend-
ment No. 9 (2 U.S. C. 66a) prohibits dual
compensation if one of the positions is in
the U.S. Senate; however, one person
may be employed in more than one part-
time position in the House of Representa-
tives if the basic compensation does not
exceed $2,000 per annum.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 will retain the
present dual employment rules, applica-
ble to the employees of the Senate, the
House of Representatives, and the Archi-
tect of the Capitol.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Abbitt
Alger
Ashmore
Avery
Baring
Bass
Bennett, Mich.
Blatnik
Bolling
Brock
Buckley
Celler
Chelf
Davis, Tenn.
Diggs
Dingell
Eying
Fine
Flynt
Gibbons
Gill
Gray
[Roll No. 1881
Griffiths
Hansen
Harris
Harvey, Mich.
Healey
Hebert
Hoffman
Holifleld
Hull
Jones, Ala.
Kee
Kilburn
Kilgore
Knox
Laird
Lankford
Lipscomb
Long, La,
Martin, Mass,
Miller, N.Y.
Moore
Moorhead
Morrison
Morton
Pilcher
Pool
Powell
Pucinski
Purcell
Quie
Randall
Roberts, Ala.
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Senner
Skubitz
Thomas
Thompson, La.
Toll
Wallhauser
Wickersham
Wilson, Bob
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 369
Members have answered to their names,
'a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
d For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
?
pprovecl For Release 2005105/48 : CIAARDP66B00403liq9,0500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
tlIMPR MESSAGE FR.,OM THE
SENATE
further message from the Senate
' by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, an-
nounced:that the Senate had passed a
joint resolution of the following title,
In which the concurrence of the House
Is requested:
Si'. Hes. 184. Iola resolution for the
coMmembra,tion of the, Honorable Herbert
Hoover's $0tb, birthday, August 10, 1964.
VMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN
MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF _RE-
TIRE'? MEMBERS OF THE UNI-
FORMED SERVICES
? The SPEAKER, The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina Mfr. HanasszoNl.
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laidqn4h
table.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LARY
nEVOR/V1 ACT OF 1964
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill 11049) to
adjust the rates of bask Compensation
of certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, with Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, re-
serving the right to object, this is the Pay
bill which was passed by this body and
has now been passed by the other body.
I hope the Members of the House real-
ize that In the version of the other body
there is a provision which takes a direct
slap at the members of the Supreme
Court of the United States. This version
' would limit the raise of Supreme Court
members to $2,500 instead of $7,500. I
Want to go on record as saying that no
matter how anyone may feel about the
actions of the Supreme Court in various
Instances, this is highly inappropriate.
It certainly would be a severe blow to
our whole system of government. We
should, if we so desire, have the courage
to take action 011 the basis of whatever
we inight want to do to review their
decisions ,and take positive legislative
- action to do so. Certainly it is picayune,
small, and unseemly to act as the other
body proposes.
I hope that the cOnferees on our side,
on the part of, the House, will insist that
the compensation of justices of the Su-
preme Court be at the level at which
pasSed by the House.
July 23
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take, from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10222) to
strengthen the agricultural economy; to
help to achieve a fuller and more effec-
tive use of food abundances; to provide
for improved levels of nutrition among
economically needy households through
a cooperative Federal-State program of
food assistance to be operated through
normal channels of trade; and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 2, line 5, strike out "economically
needy" and insert: "low-income".
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, strike out "in eco-
omic need" and insert: "with low incomes".
Page 2, line 20, strike out all after "(b)"
clown to and including line 25 and insert:
"The term 'food' means any food or food
product for human consumption except al-
coholic beverages, tobacco, those foods which
are identified on the package as being im-
ported, and meat and meat products which
are imported."
Page 4, after line 20, insert:
"(b) In areas where a food stamp program
is in effect, there shall be no distribution of
federally owner foods to households under
the authority of any other law except during
emergency situations caused by a national
or other disaster as determined by the Sec-
retary.".
Page 4, line 21, strike out "(b)" and insert
ci
Page 5, strike out lines 4 to 16, inchteive,
and insert:
"Sze. 5. (a) Participation in the food
stamp program shall be limited to those
households whose income is determined to
be a substantial limiting factor in the at-
tainment of a nutritionally adequate diet."
"(b) In complying with the limitation on
participation set forth in subsection (a)
above, each State agency shall establish
standards to determine the eligibility of ap-
plicant households. Such standards shall
Include maximum income limitations con-
sistent with the income standards used by
the State agency in administration of its
federally aided public assistance programs.
Such standards also shall place a limitation
on the resources to be allowed eligible
households. The standards of eligibility to
be used by each State for the food stamp
program shall be subject to the approval of
the Secretary."
Page 6, line 17, after "a" insert "low-cost".
Page 11, line 8, after "required." insert "In
approving the participation of the subdi-
visions requested by each State in its plan of
operation, the Secretary shall provide for
an equitable and orderly expansion among
the several States in accordance with their
relative need and readiness to meet their
requested effective dates of participation."
Page 11, after line 19, insert:
"(g) If the Secretary determines that there
has been gross negligence or fraud on the
part of the State agency in the certification
of applicant households, the State shall upon
request of the Secretary deposit into the
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to separate account authorized by section 7 of
the request of the gentleman from Ten- this Act, a sum equal to the amount by which
,
IleSSee? ns , the value of any coupons issued as a result
,
of such negligence or fraud exceeds the
Mr. za, Mr, Speaker, I object. amount that was charged for such coupons
- The SPEAKER. ,Objection is heart" under section 7(b) of this Act."
Page 17, lines 11 and 12, strike out "not
in excess of $25,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1964;".
Page 17, line 16, after "1967" insert "; and
not In excess of such sum as may hereafter
be authorized by Congress for any subse-
quent fiscal year".
Page 18, line 2, after "section." insert "If
in any fiscal year the Secretary finds that
the requirements of participating States will
exceed the limitation set forth herein, the
Secretary shall direct State agencies to reduce
the amount of such coupons to be issued
to participating households to the extent
necessary to comply with the provisions of
this subsection."
Amend the title so as to read: "An act
to strengthen the agricultural economy; to
help to achieve a fuller and more effective
use of food abundances; to provide for im-
proved levels of nutrition among low-income
households through a cooperative Federal-
State program of food assistance to be oper-
ated through normal channels of trade; and
for other purposes."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr: Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, I assume the
gentleman from North Carolina wi11- ad-
vise the House as to the nature and the
import of the Senate amendments.
Mr. COOLEY. I might say to my
friend that the only one that is of great
Importance is what is known as the Mil-
ler amendment dealing with imported
meats. I had anticipated that some
question would be propounded concern-
ing that, and I would like to place this
matter before the House now.
The language in the bill clearly indi-
cates that we do not intend for food
stamps to be used to buy imported meat.
We definitely do not want to do anything
which would adversely affect the live-
stock industry of this country.
Not even by legislative history do we
want to indicate that food stamps could
not be used to buy meat products pro-
duced domestically, but certainly we do
not intend to require retailers to main-
tain a private reporting service to warn
them that they may be allowing custom-
ers to use food stamps to buy imported
beef which may be commingled with do-
mestic meats in processed foods. I un-
derstand that some foreign meats are
used in processed foods. A recent report
of the Tariff Commission indicates that
a small amount of imported meat is
sometimes used in frankfurters, bologna,
luncheon meat, and canned products, but
that on an average 80 percent of the
meat used in these food articles is Ameri-
can-produced meat.
The definition "food" in this legisla-
tion would require to the extent practi-
cal that if the retailer knew he was offer-
ing imported meat for sale, he could not
sell such meat for food coupons.
He could sell no food product that is
labeled as imported on the package for
food stamps.
He could not, for example, sell any
meat product that is identified as being
imported when he bought it?such as
carcass beef or frozen block beef?no
matter whether he ground it for ham-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
House of Represent
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 19k,\
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
Rev. William C. Howland, Jr., pastor,
the First Christian Church, Long-
view, Tex., offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, grant this prayer may
be more than mere fulfillment of ex-
pected ritual. In spirit and truth enable
us to acknowledge that Thou alone art
Creator, Sustainer, and Lord of life.
As Thou hast brought us to this
moment by Thy providence, strengthen
us with Thy power, making us glad with
Thy presence.
We beseech Thy blessing on those who
serve here, and the people and the coun-
try whom they seek to serve. Grant
them ability equal to their opportunity,
wisdom equal to their responsibility, and
courage equal to their awesome task.
Through their labors give birth to in-
sights which employed, can lead to full
realization of good will among all men
and peace among all Nations.
In Christ's name, we pray. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Ar-
rington, one of its clerks, announced that
the Senate had passed without amend-
ment bills of the .House of the following
titles:
H.R. 8313. An act to repeal the District of
Columbia Credit Unions Act, to convert cred-
it unions incorporated under the provisions
of the act to Federal credit unions, and for
other purposes;
HM. 9833. An act granting a renewal of
patent numbered D-162,975, relating to a
medal of the American Legion; and
H.R. 9834. An act granting a renewal of
patent numbered D-161,955, relating to a
plaque of the American Legion.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the amendment of the
House to a bill of the Senate of the fol-
lowing title:
5.944. An act to provide for the presenta-
tion by the United States to the people of
Mexico of a monument commemorating the
independence of Mexico, and for other pur-
poses.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the report of the com-
mittee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amend-
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
10300) entitled "An act to authorize cer-
tain construction at military installa-
tions, and for other purposes."
16260
EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN
MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF RE-
TIRED MEMBERS OF THE UNI-
FORMED SERVICES
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R.'ALI) , to
simplify, modernize, and consolidate the
laws relating to the employment of ci-
vilians in more than one position and the
laws concerning the civilian employment
of retired members of the uniformed
services, and for other purposes, with
amendments of the Senate thereto, and
consider the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 12, strike out lines 6 to 21, inclusive.
Page 12, line 22, strike out "206'' and in-
sert "205".
Page 12, after line 25, insert:
"SEC. 206. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, no retired member of any reg-
ular component of the uniformed services
who holds any civilian office the compensa-
tion for which is determined in accordance
with the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, shall receive salary for the per-
formance of the duties of such civilian office
at a rate which combined with the rate of
retired or retirement pay received by him is
in excess of the maximum rate authorized by
such Classification Act of 1949, as amended;
and no retired member of any of the uni-
formed services who holds any civilian office
the compensation for which is not deter-
mined in accordance with the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended, shall receive salary
for the performance of the duties of such
civilian office at a rate which combined with
the rate of retired or retirement pay received
by him is in excess of the rate of salary re-
ceived by the head of the department or
agency by which he is employed."
Page 13, strike out all after line 17 over to
and including line 2 on page 14 and insert:
"(c) Unless otherwise authorized by law,
no money appropriated by any Act shall be
available for payment to any person of salary
from more than one civilian office if the
aggregate amount of the basic compensation
from such offices exceeds the sum of $2,000
per annum, and if (1) one of such salaries
is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate
or the Clerk of the House of Representatives
or (2) one of such offices is under the Office
of the Architect of the Capitol."
Page 14, after line 17, insert:
"(5) compensation received by any person
holding an office or position the compensa-
tion for which is disbursed by the Secretary
of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of
Representatives or any office or position un-
der the Architect of the Capitol:"
Page 14, line 18, strike out "(5)" and in-
sert "(8)".
Page 14, line 21, strike out "(6)" and in-
sert "(7)".
Page 16, after line 20, insert:
"(f) This title shall not be applicable to
persons employed under the Joint resolution
approved July 6, 1961 (75 Stat. 199; Public
Law 87-82), or under section 208 of the First
Supplemental Civil Functions Appropriation
Act, 1941 (54 Stat. 1056; Public Law 812, '76th
Congress)."
Page 34, after line 3, insert:
'(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall
be construed to repeal or modify the provi-
sions of the last paragraph under the head-
ing 'Administrative Provisions' in the appro-
priations for the Senate contained in the
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1957
(70 Stat. 360; 2 U.S.C. 66a)."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I assume that the
gentleman from North Carolina will take
a few minutes, at least, to explain what
transpired in conference.
Mr. HENDERSON. I shall be glad to
do so.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I of-
fer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HENDERSON moves to concur in Sen-
ate amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9 and disagree to amendment No. 3.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, Sen-
ate amendment No. 1 to HR. 7381
eliminates section 205 which would re-
quire that before a retired member of
any of the uniformed services may be ap-
pointed to a civilian office in the com-
petitive civil service of any agency in the
executive branch there must be public
notice that a vacancy exists and that an
assembled examination, where prac-
ticable open to all persons, is to be giv-
en. The vacancy could be filled only
from among those qualified persons who
successfully complete such examination.
The provision would require public
notice, a waiting period, and open com-
petitive examinations in order to fill any
vacancy in the competitive civil service if
a retired member of the Armed Forces is
a candidate for the position. An agency
could never positively determine whether
a retired member would be interested in
applying for such a position; con-
sequently, the entire examining and ap-
pointing procedures of the Civil Service
Commission would have to be revised in
order to comply with the requirements of
this section. It is felt that section 204
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 16259
MASSACHUSETTS
Paul H. Benoit, Southbridge, Mass., in
place of J. H. LeClair, retired.
MICHIGAN
James B. Koyne, Bellaire, Mich., in place
of S. F. Blake, retired.
Richard K. Smarter, Lakeview, Mich., In
place of M. C. Woodard. resigned.
John 0. Boynton, Saint Ignace. Mich., in
place of 0. C. Boynton, Jr., retired.
MINNESOTA
Lawrence J. Mahan. Brandon, Minn.. in
place of W. H. 'loving. retired.
Violet L. Howard, Lyle, Minn., In place of
0. J. Mortensen, declined.
MISSOURI
James G. Curry, Jr., Bucklin, Mo., in place
of J. 0. Finney, deceased.
Harold F. Taylor, Jonesburg. Mo., In place
of C. J. Jones, retired.
MONTANA
Eugene Kennedy, Manhattan. Mont., in
place of J. P. Waters, retired.
Sarah M. Riley, West Yellowstone, Mont.,
in place of A. E. Hansen, retired.
NEW JERSEY
Jeanne L. Tamplin, Hewitt, N.J., in place
of M. F. Sando, retired.
No. 14l-).9
William L. Krieger, Maplewood, N.J., In
place of 0. V. Mclia.ny, resigned,
NEW YORX
Robert K. Baker, Argyle. N.Y., in place of
A. C. Hall, retired.
Joseph F. CarrIga.n, East Rockaway, N.Y..
In place of F. B. Crowley, retired.
Archie C. Ralmondi, Glasco, N.Y., in place
of Charles Riccardi, deceased.
Barbara A. Alkinburgh, Neiliston, N.Y., In
place of J. W. Van Alstine. retired.
OKLAHOMA
Cora H. Gossmann. Arapaho. Okla., in place
of E. E. Wiley. retired.
Carl B. Grime45, Elmer. Okla., in place of
Velma McKinzie, retired.
rENN5YLVAIVIA
Joseph J. Morris. Bryn Mawr, Pa.. In place
of M. C. Barone, transferred.
Raymond G. Mathews, Doylestown, Pa., in
place of F. A. Fonash, retired.
William H. Couch. Greenville. Pa., In place
of J. W. Reznor. retired.
Harvey A. Baddorf. Halifax, Pa., in place
of R. R. Kinsinger. retired.
Alice M. Bustin. Milan, Pa., in place of A.
G. Flood, retired.
Robert P. DeLotto, New Kensington, Pa.,
In place of A. G. Sullivan, retired.
Irving E. Rath, Pillow, Pa., in place of C. M.
Koppenhaver, r,sIgned.
Charles W. Plunkett. Turtlepoint. Pa., hit
place of G. L. Carlson, retired.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Edwin L. Plaits, Ridge Spring, S.C., in
place of B. D. Boatwright, retired.
Warren L. Walkup, Timmonsville, S.C., in
place of S. F. Harper, retired.
TENNESSEE
William B. Milstead, Hornsby, Tenn., in
place of H. B. Milstead, retired.
James H. Miller, Surgoinsville, Tenn., in
place of E. W. Marshall. retired.
TEXAS
Cloyce W. Floyd. Dawson, Tex., in place 0:!
C. D. Barry, retired.
Minna L. Squires, Eustace, Tex., in place
of W. H. Wheeler, deceased.
Eunice B. Dayton, London, Tex., In place
of Jessie Robinson, retired.
John M. Tidwell, Roanoke. Tex., in place
of G. R. Jones, transferred.
Bernard G. Scrogin, Wallis, Tex., in place
of A. H. Brandt, deceased.
VERMONT
Mary J. Reagan, Moretown, Vt., in place of
M. B. Ward, retired.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
July 23, 1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16261
of the bill lends adequate protection to
civilian employees and eliminates certain
inequities in the hiring of retired mili-
tary persons.
The Civil Service Commission advises
that section 205 is unnecessarily restric-
tive and strongly endorses the elimina-
tion of this provision.
Senate amendment No. 2 is a technical
conforming amendment required by the
elimination of section 205. It would re-
number present section 203 to section
205.
Senate amendment No. 3 adds a new
section 206 which would place certain
ceilings on the amount of combined mili-
tary retired pay and civilian compensa-
tion to be received by retired military
personnel employed in a Federal civilian
position.
The section would prescribe two ceil-
ings:
First. In cases where the military re-
tiree is employed in a civilian office with
compensation determined under the
Classification Act of 1949, the combined
military retired pay and civilian com-
pensation could not exceed the top rate
of the Classification Act of 1949. as
amended.
Second. In cases where the civilian
compensation is not determined under
the Classification Act of 1949, the com-
bined maximum rate could not exceed
the rate of compensation received by the
head of the department or agency.
The ceiling under the first rule meas-
ured by the top rate of the Classification
Act would apply to retired members of
any Regular component, but the ceiling
under the second rule would apply to any
retired member of any of the uniformed
services.
Mr: GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Is the provision written
in an attempt to eliminate the so-called
buddy system still retained in the bill
Mr. HENDERSON. It definitely is.
The gentleman well knows of my long
interest in this. I have gone into this
carefully. There have been no changes
in this section as passed by the House.
Mr. GROSS. As far as I am con-
cerned, this is one of the most important
provisions of the bill and if it remains in
it, I have no further questions concern-
ing the conference report.
Mr. HENDERSON. I appreciate the
gentleman's interest.
Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. I am happy to
yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. BECKWORTH. I believe the so-
called buddy system should be elimi-
nated. Just yesterday a young man
came to my office who works for one of
the departments of the Government. He
told me that for several weeks now a
given agency has been looking for a
grade 13 man. It was not announced
that the officials of the department were
looking for the man. As soon as they
found him, they then announced that
the position was open, and the an-
nouncement closes quickly. That means
that, to all intents and purposes, most
people who might be qualified for the
position are denied the opportunity of
even knowing about the vacancy. This is
wrong.
I also want to add this. I have intro-
duced as of December 10, 1963, H.R. 9407
a bill that would if it should become law
require reasonable notice on all examina-
tions, where practical, and then genuine
written examinations, where practical.
I feel that this bill will be opposed,
because selfish bureaucrats do not
want that kind of thing. There are some
people in our Government and outside
our Government who believe the bill
would be good legislation. The summer
jobs program for students evidences
some great injustices. We passed twice
a bill hem to bring about more fairness.
There has been so much opposition to
the legislation that the legislation has
received little consideration in the other
body. I say to you, though, that if we
mean business when we say that we want
effective and able Federal employees, we
ought to go the full length in making it
known that jobs are available and give
true, worthwhile competitive examina-
tions instead of what is known as com-
plying with civil service standards,
which are quite different to a true written
competitive examination.
Mr. HENDERSON. The gentleman
from Texas is to be commended for his
longtime interest in this field. He well
knows the provisions of this bill are a
vast improvement over what he have
had. As the gentleman from Iowa indi-
cated, the provisions of this bill will go a
long way toward eliminating the buddy
system, as we refer to it. In the employ-
ment of retired former military person-
nel, this is a vast step forward in the
improvement of the civil service em-
ployment procedures.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude
with the further explanation of the
amendments of the Senate.
The Civil Service Commission strongly
objects to this amendment.
It would cause inequities and incon-
sistencies in the cases of those few re-
tired members whose combined military
retired pay and civilian compensation
would be affected by these ceilings.
A retired regular member employed in
the Department of Defense in a GS-18
Classification Act scientific position
would have a salary reduced by the total
amount of his retired pay; however, if he
were employed to do exactly the same
kind of work by the same agency under
Public Law 313 which authorizes com-
pensation to be fixed outside the Classifi-
cation Act, the reduction in his salary
would be insignificant, if any, because he
could be paid as much as We Secretary of
Defense?up to $35-.000 under the new
salary bill as passed by the Senate, H.R.
11049.
If the same individual were a Retired
Reserve member, he would have no re-
duction in salary in the GS-18 position,
but he could be subject to a reduction
If he were employed under Public Law
313.
The provisions of section 206 would
encourage all inds of artificial arrange-
ments to avoid the adverse maximum of
the limits on particular individuals and
groups, as indicated above.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 relate to em-
ployment in the Senate. the House of
Representatives, and the Architect of the
Capitol. They are designed to continue
the present employment policy of pro-
hibiting any employee of those offices
from receiving salary for more than one
civilian office if the aggregate amount of
basic compensation from such offices
exceeds the sum of $2.000 per annum.
Amendment No. 8 provides that the
limitation on dual compensation for
more than one civilian office under sec-
tion 301 of the bill shall not apply to per-
sons employed under Public Law 87-82,
relating to employees of the Architect of
the Capitol in the Senate restaurants, or
to employees employed under section 208
of Public Law 812 of the 76th Congress,
relating to employees of the Architect of
the Capitol in the House of Representa-
tives restaurant.
The present !aw referred to in amend-
ment No. 9 (2 U.S. C. 66a) prohibits dual
compensation if one of the positions is in
the U.S. Senate; however, one person
may be employed in more than one part,-
time position in the House of Representa-
tives if the basic compensation does not
exceed $2,000 per annum.
Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 will retain the
present dual employment rules, applica-
ble to the employees of the Senate, the
House of Representatives, and the Archi-
i tect of the Capitol.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Abbitt
Alger
Ashmore
Avery Harvey. Mich.
Baring Healey
Bass Hebert
Bennett, Mich. Haffman
Blatnlk H !field
'Roll No. 1881
Griffiths Morrison
Hansen Morton
Harris Plicher
Pool
Powell
Pucinskl
Purcell
Quie
Randall
Roberts, Ala.
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Senner
Skubitz
Thomas
Thompson, La.
Toll
Wallhauser
Wickersham
Wilson, Bob
Bolling
Brock
Buckley
Celler
Chelf
Davis, Tenn.
Digs
Dingell
EvIns
Fine
Flynt
Gibbons
Gill
Gray
Hull
Jones, Ala.
Kee
Kilburn
Kilgore
Knox
Laird
Ltrikford
L pscomb
L mg. La.
Martin. Mass.
Miler, N.Y.
Moore
Moorhead
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 369
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
16262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE
SENATE
A further message from the Senate
by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, an-
nounced that the Senate had passed a
joint resolution of the following title,
in which the concurrence of the House
Is requested:
S.J. Res. 184. Joint resolution for the
commemoration of the Honorable Herbert
Hoover's 90th birthday, August 10, 1964.
EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS IN
MORE THAN ONE POSITION AND
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT OF RE-
TIRED MEMBERS OF THE TJNI-
FORMED SERVICES
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON].
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 11049) to
adjust the rates of basic compensation
of certain officers and emploVees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, with Senate amendments thereto,
disagree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, re-
serving the right to object, this is the pay
bill which was passed by this body and
has now been passed by the other body.
I hope the Members of the House real-
ize that in the version of the other body
there is a provision which takes a direct
slap at the members of the Supreme
Court of the United States. This version
would limit the raise of Supreme Court
members to $2,500 instead of $7,500. I
want to go on record as saying that no
matter how anyone may feel about the
actions of the Supreme Court in various
instances, this is highly inappropriate.
It certainly would be a severe blow to
our whole system of government. We
should, if we so desire, have the courage
to take action on the basis of whatever
we might want to do to review their
decisions and take positive legislative
action to do so. Certainly it is picayune,
small, and unseemly to act as the other
body proposes.
I hope that the conferees on our side,
on the part of the House, will insist that
the compensation of Justices of the Su-
preme Court be at the level at which
passed by the House.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 10222) to
strengthen the agricultural economy; to
help to achieve a fuller and more effec-
tive use of food abundances; to provide
for improved levels of nutrition among
economically needy households through
a cooperative Federal-State program of
food assistance to be operated through
normal channels of trade; and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments
thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate ,amend-
ments, as follows:
Page 2, line 5, strike out "economically
needy" and insert: "low-income".
Page 2, lines 13 and 14, strike out "in eco-
nomic need" and insert: "with low incomes".
Page 2, line 20, strike out all after "(b)"
down to and including line 25 and insert:
"The term 'food' means any food or food
product for human consumption except al-
coholic beverages, tobacco, those foods which
are identified on the package as being im-
ported, and meat and meat products which
are imported."
Page 4, after line 20, insert:
"(b) In areas where a food stamp program
Is in effect, there shall be no distribution of
federally owner foods to households under
the authority of any other law except during
emergency situations caused by a national
or other disaster as determined by the Sec-
retary.".
Page 4, line 21, strike out "(b)" and insert
"(cr.
Page 5, strike out lines 4 to 16, inclusive,
and insert:
"SEC. 5. (a) Participation in the food
stamp program shall be limited to those
households whose income is determined to
be a substantial limiting factor in the at-
tainment of a nutritionally adequate diet."
"(b) In complying with the limitation on
participation set forth in subsection (a)
above, each State agency shall establish
standards to determine the eligibility of ap-
plicant households. Such standards shall
include maximum income limitations con-
sistent with the income standards used by
the State agency in administration of its
federally aided public assistance programs.
Such standards also shall place a limitation
on the resources to be allowed eligible
households. The standards of eligibility to
be used by each State for the food stamp
program shall be subject to the approval of
the Secretary."
Page 6, line 17, after "a" insert "low-cost".
Page 11, line 8, after "required." insert "In
approving the participation of the subdi-
visions requested by each State in its plan of
operation, the Secretary shall provide for
an equitable and orderly expansion among
the several States in accordance with their
relative need and readiness to meet their
requested effective dates of participation."
Page 11, after line 19, insert:
"(g) If the Secretary determines that there
has been gross negligence or fraud on the
part of the State agency in the certification
of applicant households, the State shall upon
request of the Secretary deposit into the
separate account authorized by section 7 of
this Act, a sum equal to the amount by which
the value of any coupons issued as a result
of such negligence or fraud exceeds the
amount that was charged for such coupons
under section 7(b) of this Act."
July 23
Page 17, lines 11 and 12, strike out "not
in excess of $25,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1964;".
Page 17, line 16, after "1967" insert "; and
not in excess of such sum as may hereafter
be authorized by Congress for any subse-
quent fiscal year".
Page 18, line 2, after "section." insert "If
in any fiscal year the Secretary finds that
the requirements of participating States will
exceed the limitation set forth herein, the
Secretary shall direct State agencies to reduce
the amount of such coupons to be issued
to participating households to the extent
necessary to comply with the provisions of
this subsection."
Amend the title so as to read: "An act
to strengthen the agricultural economy; to
help to achieve a fuller and more effective
use of food abundances; to provide for im-
proved levels of nutrition among low-income
households through a cooperative Federal-
State program of food assistance to be oper-
ated through normal channels of trade; and
for other purposes."
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina?
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, I assume the
gentleman from North Carolina will ad-
vise the House as to the nature and the
import of the Senate amendments.
Mr. COOLEY. I might say to my
friend that the only one that is of great
importance is what is known as the Mil-
ler amendment dealing with imported
meats. I had anticipated that some
question would be propounded concern-
ing that, and I would like to place this
matter before the House now.
The language in the bill clearly indi-
cates that we do not intend for food
stamps to be used to buy imported meat.
We definitely do not want to do anything
which would adversely affect the live-
stock industry of this country.
Not even by legislative history do we
want to indicate that food stamps could
not be used to buy meat products pro-
duced domestically, but certainly we do
not intend to require retailers to main-
tain a private reporting service to warn
them that they may be allowing custom-
ers to use food stamps to buy imported
beef which may be commingled with do-
mestic meats in processed foods. I un-
derstand that some foreign meats are
used in processed foods. A recent report
of the Tariff Commission indicates that
a small amount of imported meat is
sometimes used in frankfurters, bologna,
luncheon meat, and canned products, but
that on an average 80 percent of the
meat used in these food articles is Ameri-
can-produced meat.
The definition "food" in this legisla-
tion would require to the extent practi-
cal that if the retailer knew he was offer-
ing imported meat for sale, he could not
sell such meat for food coupons.
He could sell no food product that is
labeled as imported on the package for
food stamps.
He could not, for example, sell any
meat product that is identified as being
imported when he bought it?such as
carcass beef or frozen block beef?no
matter whether he ground it for ham-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16667
History will be kind to much of what has
happened here. Needless to say, more
has happened here to give the citizens of
this country, yes even of the world, a
more abundant and peaceful life.
As one who has a deep and abiding in-
terest in history and who reflects on It
often, I recommend to the senators in
our presence that their study of history
never cease. There are important les-
sons to be learned from history. Proper
study of history can help us avoid the
mistakes of the past.
So I say to you of Girls Nation, watch
carefully, study diligently, and absorb
well what you witness here today. Main-
tain your interest and perhaps someday
you will take a scat down here on this
floor as a Member of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
DONNA L. TUSSING, PRESIDENT OF
GIRLS NATION
(Mr. McINTIRE asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Speaker, I feel
highly privileged and proud to advise
this body that Donna L. Tussing of Brew-
er, Maine, Second Congressional District
of Maine, yesterday was elected presi-
dent of the Girls Nation. Girls Nation
is, as we know, a culmination of Girls
State, and is the wonderful youth citi-
zenship training program conducted an-
nually by the American Legion auxiliary
to give high school Juniors practical ex-
perience in the processes of government.
Donna was born in Island Falls. Maine,
the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene
Tinging, now of Eddington. Maine. She
Is 17 years of age and is in the class of
1965 at the Brewer High School. She Is
an active participant in comunity activi-
ties, and in her school program she takes
a leading part in debating and basket-
ball. Donna is also a member of the
national honor society.
She is one of four children, having two
brothers, James, 13, and Philip, 9 years
of age. She also has a 16-year-old sis-
ter, Susan.
Donna's father is a long-time employee
of the Soil Conservation Service in
Maine, and presently he is employed in
conservation work in Penobscot County.
Donna Tussing has every reason to be
eminently proud, for this is the first time
that the presidential office of Girls Na-
tion has come to a representative from
Maine. All Maine is indeed proud and
applauds Donna's attainment.
The Maine congressional delegation
extends hearty congratulations to Donna
on her very fine achievement?it is in-
deed a high honor to serve as the head
of an organization with those high ideals
that are the standard of Girls Nation.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MARTIN of California. Mr.
Speaker, I make the point of order that
a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
California makes the point of order that
a quorum is not present. Evidently, a
quorum is not present.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
(Roll No. 1911
Alger Hawkins PRASERRO
Avery Healey Pepper
Baker Hebert Pilcher
Baring Horton Powell
Bass Jarman Sheppard
Bennett. Mich Kee Slack
Buckley Kilburn Steed
Celler Kilgore Teague. Tex.
Clausen, Lankford Thompson, La.
Don If. Leainski Toll
Davis, Tenn. Lloyd Van Pelt
Duncan Long. Md. Walihauser
Edmondson Morris Wickersham
Evins Norbiad Williams
Harris Os'..ertag Willis
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
Sisic). On this rollcall 388 Members
have answered to their names, a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
PRAYER AND BIBLE READING IN
THE PUBLIC scHoom
(Mr. BECKER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Speaker, it is quite
evident now to everyone that the chair-
man of the Committee on the Judiciary
does not intend and will not bring in a
resolution to amend the Constitution to
permit prayer and Bible reading in the
public schools. I have this word from
members of the Committee on the Judi-
ciary. Therefore, Discharge Petition
No. 3 is at the desk. We need less than
50 signatures now in order to bring this
to the 218 required.
There were Members on the floor here
earlier complimenting the American
Legion for the operation of Girls Nation
and Boys Nation. While they are com-
plimenting the American Legion these
Members should sign the petition, be-
cause the American Legion has at two
national conventions endorsed prayer
and Bible reading in the public schools,
and every Member is aware of this.
Our Lord states, "Suffer ye little chil-
dren to come unto Me," but the Supreme
Court says "not in public schools." But
we have the opportunity here at this ses-
sion to correct this. I think this, being
the greatest issue in the country, it
should be done now.
THE LATE DR. THOMAS HENRY
CARROLL II
(Mr. McCORMACK asked and was
given permission to address the House
fo- 1 minute and to include an editorial
from the Washington Evening Star.)
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker it is
with a sense of personal sadness that I
call to the attention of the House the un-
timely death of Dr. Thomas Henry Car-
roll II, the 13th president of the George
Washington University of Washington.
D.C. The death of this great educator
brings 1.0 an end the astounding career
of a man deeply devoted to educational
ideals and to the aims of public service.
His interest in Joining together a knowl-
edge of public affairs, along with studies
of business and government, has brought
new and vital ideas to the George Wash-
ington University. President Carroll, by
his able administrative leadership and
his high academic standards, leaves a
legacy that long should Clallenge the
Gerge Washington University which he
served so brilliantly and so willingly.
The entire educational community
mourns the loss of Dr. Carroll. To his
beloved wife and family I extend the
deepest sympathy of both Mrs. McCor-
mack and myself.
Loss or A LEADER
George Washington University, the local
community and in a broad sense the cause
of higher education share a grievous loss In
the death of Thomas H. Carroll. Its untime-
liness adds a poignant touch of tragedy.
He was still a young man, at the outset of
a new career. His ceaseless energy and a
singularly InfecUous enthusiasm were only
beginning to unfold to others and to en-
list their determined support in realizing the
visions he saw fcr the university's future.
In the brief 3 years since his inauguration
as George Washington University's 13th presi-
dent he had completed the groundwork and
the outline of foundations to support the
sort of structure his own dedication to
purpose made es ident to others as a prac-
tical, necessary, and attainable objective.
He had won the confidence of a faculty and
student body which found in him a cham-
pion of their Interests in his insistence on
academic excellence and of a board of trus-
tees to which his personality and aspirations
were attracting added national representa-
tion. He had won ready acceptance by the
community as one who seemed destined for
constructive leadership.
He leaves for others the pursuit and
achievement of high aims that will not be
abandoned but which seemed more readily
accessible under his inspirational, dyne/111c
guidance.
ADJUSTMENT OF RATE OR BASIC (
COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF-
FICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE
hDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. O'NEILL from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 803, Rept. No. 1630)
which was referred to the House Calen-
dar and ordered to be printed:
Resolved, That ?mmediately upon the adop-
tion of this resolution the bill (HR. 11049)
to adjust the rates of the basic compensa-
tion of certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other purposes,
with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and
the same hereby :s taken from the Speaker's
table, to the end that the Senate amend-
ment be, and the same is hereby disagreed
to, and that the conference requested by the
Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses be, and the same Is hereby agreed to.
THE POVERTY BILL
Mr. YOUNG, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 806, Rept. No. 1631)
which was referred to the House Calen-
dar and ordered to be printed:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole Huse on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
11377) to mobilize the human and financial
resources of the Nation to combat poverty in
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66BOOVR000500050001-9
16668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU July 29
the United States. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill and con-
tinue not to exceed six hours, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
the ranking minority member of the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor, the bill shall
be read for amendment under the five-min-
ute rule. At the conclusion of the consid-
eration of the bill for amendment, the Com-
mittee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted and the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to re-
commit with or without instructions. After
the passage of the bill MR, 11377, it shall
be in order in the House to take from the
Speaker's table the bill S. 2642 and to move
to strike out all after the enacting clause of
said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof
the provisions contained in H.R. 11377 as
passed by the House.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Does the rule
carry a motion to recommit with instruc-
tions?
The SPEAKER. The answer of the
Chair is that if the proposed rule is
adopted such a motion will be in order.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the
Chair.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr.
Speaker, on rollcall No. 189, page 16630 of
the RECORD, I am recorded as being
absent. I was present, and answered to
my name, and I ask unanimous consent
that the permanent RECoRD be corrected
accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
There was no objection.
AUTHORIZING TRANSPORTATION
OF HOUSE TRAILERS AND MOBILE
DWELLINGS OF MEMBERS OF UNI-
FORMED SERVICES
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 8954) to
amend section 409 of title 37, United
States Code, to authorize the transporta-
tion of house trailers and mobile dwell-
ings of members of the uniformed serv-
ices within the continental United
States, within Alaska, or between the
continental United States and Alaska,
and for other purposes, with a Senate
amendment thereto and concur in the
Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment, as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert: "That section 409 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"'I 409. Travel and transportation allow-
ances: trailers
"Under regulations prescribed by the Sec-
retaries concerned and in place of the trans-
portation of baggage and household effects
or payment of a dislocation allowance, a
member, or in the case of his death his de-
pendent, who would otherwise be entitled to
transportation of baggage, and household
goods under section 406 of this title, may
transport a house trailer or mobile dwelling
within the continental United States, within
Alaska, or between the continental United
States and Alaska, for use as a residence by
one of the following means?
" ' (1) transport the trailer or dwelling and
receive a monetary allowance in place of
transportation at a rate to be prescribed by
the Secretaries concerned, but not more
than 20 cents a mile;
" '(2) deliver the trailer or dwelling to an
agent of the United States for transpor-
tation by the United States or by commer-
cial means; or
"'(3) transport the trailer or dwelling by
commercial means and be reimbursed by
the United States subject to such rates as
may be prescribed by the Secretaries con-
cerned.
However, the cost of transportation un-
der clause (2) or the reimbursement un-
der clause (3) may not be more than the
lesser of (A) the current average cost for
the commercial transportation of a house
trailer or mobile dwelling; (B) 51 cents a
mile; or (C) the cost of transporting the
baggage and household effects of the mem-
ber or his dependent plus the dislocation
allowance authorized in section 40'7 of this
title. Any payment authorized by this sec-
tion may be made in advance of the trans-
portation concerned. For the purposes of
this section, 'continental United States"
means the forty-eight contiguous States
and the District of Columbia.'"
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill H.R. 8954, with
the Senate amendment thereto, and
agree to the Senate amendment.
The amendment by the Senate pro-
vides a new ceiling on the maximum
amount which may be paid for the com-
mercial transportation of mobile homes
owned by military personnel on perma-
nent change of station.
The Senate ceiling is established at
51 cents per mile as contrasted to the
House ceiling which provided that re-
imbursement was to be actual cost pro-
vided that such cost did not exceed what
it would otherwise cost to move the
household effects of the member, plus
the dislocation allowance to which he
would be entitled.
Under existing law, the maximum
amount payable on a trailer move is 36
cents per mile.
The bill as passed by the House would
result in increased annual transporta-
tion costs of approximately $1,246,000.
The bill as passed by the Senate,
which provides a lower ceiling on these
costs, would result in increased annual
transportation costs of approximately
$1,075,000, a reduction of approximately
$179,000 from the House bill.
Although the bill as amended by the
Senate is not as generous as the House-
passed bill, I have been authorized by
the Committee on Armed Services to
request House approval of the Senate
amendment on HR. 8954 since it does
provide an assured and substantial in-
crease in the trailer allowances for mili-
tary mobile home owners from the pres-
ent maximum of 36 cents to a new maxi-
mum of 51 cents a mile.
The Senate amendment was concurred
in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS
OF 1964
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, under
the direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up the resolution (H. Res. 802)
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
11865) to increase benefits under the Fed-
eral Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability In-
surance System, to provide child's insurance
benefits beyond age 18 while in school, to
provide widow's benefits at age 60 on a re-
duced basis, to provide benefits for certain
individuals not otherwise eligible at age 72,
to improve the actuarial status of the Trust
Funds, to extend coverage, and for other
purposes, and all points of order against said
bill are hereby waived. After general debate,
which shall be confined to the bill, and shall
continue not to exceed five hours, the bill
shall be considered as having been read for
amendment. No amendment shall be In
order to said bill except amendments offered
by direction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and said amendments shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding. Amendments offered by
direction of the Committee on Ways and
Means may be offered to any section of the
bill at the conclusion of the general debate,
but said amendments shall not be subject
to amendment. At the conclusion of the
consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may
have been adopted, and the previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one mo-
tion to recommit.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may require, and
at the conclusion of my remarks, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. BsowN].
(Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 802 provides for consideration
of H.R. 11865, a bill to increase benefits
under the Federal old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance system, to provide
child's insurance benefits beyond age 18
while in school, to provide widow's bene-
fits at age 60 on a reduced basis, to pro-
vide benefits for certain individuals not
otherwise eligible at age 72, to improve
the actuarial statuq of the trust funds,
to extend coverage, and for other pur-
poses. The resolution provides a closed
rule, waiving points of order, with 5
hours of general debate.
The purpose of H.R. 11865 is to im-
prove the benefit and coverage provi-
sions and the financing structure of the
Federal old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance system.
The last across-the-board adjustment
in social security insurance benefits, and
the last adjustment in the amount of
annual earnings that is taxed and credit-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
16841
Passage, by a 72-to-15 vote Tuesday
last by the other body confirmed this
story. Now the pressure is on to kill
the proposal in the House. As a matter
of fact, I understand that Secretary of
Agriculture Freeman was up here on the
Hill last night conferring with the Demo-
cratic leadership. I think the House
ought to know what this visit was all
about.
The administration hopes to avoid the
embarrassment of a veto, enabling Presi-
dent Johnson to maintain the agreement
giving New Zealand and Australia a big
share of American beef markets, a big
share of our beef imports.
It seems logical to me that if the Sen-
ate overwhelmingly voted for the limita-
tion of foreign meat imports, by a 57-
vote margin, then certainly the proposal
should come before the House of Repre-
sentatives for a vote.
I, for one, will look with great interest
to see what is going to happen in the
next few days.
IMPORT QUOTAS ON BEEF
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I have
asked for this time because what the
gentleman has just said is news to me.
I want to advise the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. GURNEY] that his statement
about Mr. Freeman's conferring with the
Democratic leadership is news to me. I
did not know anything about such a
meeting.
THE LATE SENATOR CLAIR ENGLE
(Mr. JOHNSON of California asked
and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr.
Speaker and Members of the House, it
is with a heavy heart that I notify you
of the death of your friend and mine,
Senator CLAIR ENGLE, who passed away
this morning at 3:10 in his home on New
Jersey Avenue.
Mr. Speaker, CLAIR was a very dear
friend of mine. I succeeded him in the
congressional district which he repre-
sented at the time of his election to the
U.S. Senate.
Mr. Speaker, CLAIR ENGLE was an un-
tiring worker for our district, the State
of California and the Nation.
I know- of no other person in our dis-
trict of whom the people thought more
and held in higher esteem.
Mr. Speaker, CLAIR was elected by the
votes of both Republicans and Demo-
crats. He enjoyed a very distinguished
career in this House. He had just com-
pleted 6 years of service in the U.S. Sen-
ate.
Mr. Speaker, CLAIR ENGLE will be
missed by all of us in California and I
am sure by many of us here in the House
of Representatives who were his very
good friends as a result of his 16 years
of service in the House of Representa-
tives.
Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt
sympathy to Mrs. Engle and their
daughter Yvonne in this great loss.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Alger
Ashmore
Avery
Baring
Barrett
Bass
Bennett, Mich.
Bolling
Brock
Buckley
Davis, Tenn.
Dawson
Diggs
Duncan
Evins
Harris
[Roll No. 1941
Harsha
Healey
Hebert
Hull
Johnson, Pa.
Jones, Mo.
Kee
Kilburn
Kirwan
Lankford
Lesinski
Lloyd
McIntire
MacGregor
Miller, N.Y.
Norblad
Passman
Pepper
Pilcher
Powell
Rains
Ryan, Mich.
Sheppard
Slack
Toll
Tupper
Van Pelt
Vinson
Wallhauser
Willis
Winstead
The SPEAKER. On this rallcall 387
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were disp ed
with.
RELATING TO H.R. 1104
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 803 and ask for its
Immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That immediately upon the
adoption of this resolution the bill (H.R.
11049) to adjust the rates of basic compen-
sation of certain officers and employees in
the Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, with the Senate amendment thereto,
be, and the same hereby is taken from the
Speaker's table, to the end that the Senate
amendment be, and the same is hereby dis-
agreed to, and that the conference requested
by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses be, and the same is hereby
agreed to.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Baown] and pending that I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 803
simply provides for H.R. 11049 to go to
conference. The situation regarding the
pay bill dealing with the executve,,legis-
lative, judicial, civil service, and postal
employees was objected to at the time
that a request was made to disagree to
the Senate amendment and to ask for
a eonfernce. As a result, it was referred
to the Committee on Rules, and we here
today present a resolution as the Clerk
has read.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we
can expeditiously act upon this resolu-
tion to permit the conferees on the part
of the House to sit down with the con-
ferees on the part of the other body to
discuss the differences that exist be-
tween the pay raise bills within the two
Houses and then report back, at which
time of course, the House will have an
opportunity either to accept or to re-
ject the action of the conferees.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SISK. I will be glad to yield to
the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thought that accord-
ing to some of the newspapers the mem-
bers of the Democrat delegation from
California were going to be opposed to
this bill unless the Senate increased the
salary of Members of Congress by
$10,000. The Senate left the increase
at $7,500. I fully anticipated that there
would be strong objection to this bill
from the Democrat Members of the
House in view of the publicity I read
in the newspapers.
The gentleman says he wants to han-
dle this matter expeditiously. Appar-
ently there is not going to be any op-
position from the California Democrats.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, of course I
am not here delegated to speak for the
California delegation or for any part of
the California delegation. But I will say
this, speaking for the Member now on
the floor, that at the time the original
pay raise bill came out I was a strong
supporter of the increases provided in
the first bill. I happened to handle the
rlle at the time that bill was before
e House. I supported it very vigorous-
ly at that time. The bill, as my good
friend from Iowa knows, was defeated
in spite of the fact that I voted for it.
We have back here again another bill
of somewhat different nature with lesser
increases in some instances and more
increases in others. But, having studied
the art of compromise as I know my
friend from Iowa sometimes finds him-
self confronted with, I think now is the
time to permit our conferees from the
two bodies to sit down and see what we
can work out. Then our positions, mine
as well as the positions of other Mem-
bers of the House, will be expressed at
the time the conference report is brought
back to the House.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will my
friend from California yield?
Mr. SISK. I am happy to yield to
my good friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from
Iowa seldom if ever gets compromised
to the point of not objecting to a bill
that he feels constrained to object to.
Mr. SISK. I agree with the gentleman.
I think the gentleman properly made an
objection to this bill going to conference,
giving us an opportunity here at least to
talk about it and to discuss with our con-
ferees what their attitude might be. I,
for one, have no criticism at all of the
objection which the gentleman made,
rightfully, in line with the parliamen-
tary procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the
resolution and reserve the balance of my
time.
(Mr. SISK asked and was given Per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
16842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
this resolution simply provides that upon
its adoption, there shall be taken from
the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 11049,
the so-called pay increase bill, disagree
to the Senate amendments, and send the
bill to conference. There will be only one
vote, and that is on the adoption of the
resolution.
HR. 11049 itself was a controversial
measure. It was approved by this House.
A similar bill was defeated in March, as I
recall. This bill was approved by the
House, was sent to the other body, and
amended over there. There are consid-
erable differences between the House bill
and the measure as it was amended by
the Senate.
As the bill cleared the House it, in
my opinion, gave a little too much of a
break, too much consideration, to those
Government employees, officials, or ap-
pointees in the higher brackets of in-
come, and did not give sufficient consid-
eration to those Government workers,
postal workers, and classified employees
of the Federal Government, in the lower
brackets of income.
Mr. Speaker, as I understand the
amendments adopted in the other body,
certain increases are now included in the
bill as it came here for consideration of
the Senate amendments so as to give,
or it does give, greater consideration and
greater pay increases, or a higher per-
centage of pay increases?to the lower-
paid employees and workers in the Fed-
eral Government, and not quite so much
of the so-called gravy to some of the
higher paid officials of our Government,
including, by the way, certain Federal
Court officials who seemingly are more
engaged these days in legislative work
than in judicial work.
Mr. Speaker, I hope when this bill goes
to conference careful attention will be
given to these differences and that when
the bill comes back to the House from
the conference committee, it will con-
tain some of the amendments adopted in
the other body just a little more fair
to the lower income groups among our
Federal employees than provided in the
original House bill, and not quite so lib-
eral an arrangement as the House bill
provisions for increasing the pay of some
of the higher paid appointees and offi-
cials of the Federal Government who now
seem to be doing pretty well here in
Washington, none of whom are seem-
ingly anxious to leave their present posi-
tions because of any feeling their com-
pensation is entirely too low.
Mr. Speaker, I feel this resolution
should be adopted so this matter can
follow the usual procedure, or legislative
course of going to conference, being con-
sidered by the conference committee,
and brought back to the House in the
form of a conference committee report.
The House itself can then pass upon any
of the amendments, or any of the
changes, that may be made in the bill
by the conference committee itself.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a
moment to point out that I understand
both the House and the Senate bills con-
tain an increase for Members of Con-
gress of, not $10,000, as had been re-
quested by some groups here in the
House, but of $7,500 per annum. In
view of the fact this provision is not in
dispute?that item in the bill will not
be subject to consideration by the con-
ference committee.
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker. will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself 1 additional minute in
order to yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. May I
compliment the gentleman on his good
statement.
I would like to point out to the Mem-
bers of the House, to those of us who
are conservative Members of the House,
that this bill calls for a cost-of-living
increase and adjustment of pay rates on
a fair and equitable basis.
This bill should be sent to conference
to work out the small differences between
the Senate and the House versions of the
This pay raise legislation will make for
good, efficient, and economical Govern-
ment service voluntarily given by em-
ployees who feel that we in Congress are
interested in their welfare and that of
their families.
Therefore, I would suggest to my friend
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gaossl
that in order to be conservative we should
all be constrained to vote for this rule
and send the bill to conference.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I would like to remind the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] and the
other Members of the House that even at
the best, as I understand this bill, it will
cost about $550 million yearly. That will
be the cost tag placed upon the measure,
and the price which will have to be paid
by the taxpayers of the United States
once this bill becomes law.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS].
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON]
has a great deal more faith I think than
anyone else in the House of Representa-
tives as to the results of the conference
on this bill. It is an event when a con-
ference of the House and Senate cuts
spending on almost any bill.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to
be defeated. I am opposed to this pay
increase bill, and if the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is opposed he will vote
against the resolution as will everyone
else who is opposed to a pay increase.
Why send it to conference? Let it be
defeated here and now.
However. I labor under no illusion as
to what will likely happen here today
because the rubberstamp is in operation,
and it has been since the House back in
March, by a 38-vote margin, defeated a
pay increase bill in a direct confronta-
tion on the issue. Then the legislation
was resurrected and, as the gentleman
from Ohio has well said, and despite
July 30
minor amendments on the part of the
other body, this bill authorizes the
spending of more than a half-billion a
year on salary increases. Members of
the House are going to participate in a
331A -percent increase, no matter how
thick or how thin you try to slice it, if
you vote for this bill.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield'?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. SISK. The gentleman mentionad
that Membeis of the House will be vot-
ing at least a 331/3-percent increase. I
want to say it is my understanding if
this bill passes in either form we will be
voting to pay Members of Congress,
the 89th Congress, who are here next
January. The new rate of pay, I believe,
will be something like $30.000 after Jan-
uary 1. I do not know how many of us
will be in the Congress next year, but I
think it is well to bring that out. The
original bill and the present bill pro-
vide for the Members of the 89th Cor.-
gress, the Members who serve in that
Congress.
Mr. GROSS. I am sure it will be good
news to the Republican opponent of the
gentleman from California to know that
he does not expect to come back in Jan-
uary.
Mr. SISK. I might say it apparent-
ly is true that my Republican opponent
In California is an avid reader of the
RECORD, but I did not infer I was not
desirous personally to be back. We will
have that little discussion out there,
however, in the next few months.
Mr. GROSS. There will be a good
deal of discussion on this and related
aspects in the gentleman's district, and
in my own district.
Mr. Speaker, once again I warn tha ;
approval of this irresponsible pay legis-
lation will stimulate another wage and
price spiral across the country and feed
the flames of inflation.
In this connection I call attention to
a statement made by President Johnsor.
at Atlantic City last March at which
time he said:
We roust not choke off our needed and
speedy economic expansion by a revival of
the price-wage spiraling. Avoiding that
spiral is the responsibility of business, and
It is also the responsibility of labor,
Since Lyndon Johnson is applying
heavy pressure in support of this salary
grab, I assume that any statement he
may make at the Democrat National
Convention in Atlantic City in August
will be just as meaningless as the one
I just read and which emanated from the
same place, Atlantic City, last March.
It is impossible for me to comprehend
how a President of the United States can
call on business and industry to hold the
wage-price line and at the same time
beat Members of Congress over the back
to support a pay increase bill that will
cost well above a half billion dollars a
year. And it is impossible for me to com-
prehend how Members of Congress can
yield to this pressure and boost their
own salaries 33 percent when they know
that the money to pay their increases
and others will have to be borrowed,
thus adding to the already staggering
debt and deficit.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
????
.11111.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. Speaker, I again call attention to
the fact that the Federal employees re-
tirement fund is $34 billion in the red,
and that this bill, increasing salaries,
will only compound that deficit.
Incidentally, I understand that con-
ferees on this bill have already met even
though they have not been so designated
by the Speaker. So perhaps this is an
exercise in futility here today. Perhaps
the time devoted to this bill now and
the time devoted to an official conference
would have been better spent on the
so-called poverty legislation that is to
follow.
This is quite a demonstration you are
giving the people of this Nation today,
promoting a salary-increase bill, and
then coming to the floor, probably next
week or at a very early date, with a war-
on-poverty bill. I wonder what the pub-
lic is going to think about a Congress
that votes itself handsome pay increases
and the same for Federal judges and
Justices of the Supreme Court who pay
nothing into the retirement fund and
have lifetime jobs. Incidentally, where
is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
today who is scheduled to get an $8,000-
a-year pay increase? He is off enjoying
a vacation, in Europe while the report
on the assassination of the late President
Kennedy, which was supposed to have
been made on June 1, we are now told
may be made by the middle of Septem-
ber. I am sure everyone is anxious to give
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
who is the chairman of an investigating
committee, an $8,000-a-year increase
so that he can enjoy a vacation when
he is supposed to be here doing his work,
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN].
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, yes-
terday a billion and a half dollars. To-
day a half billion dollars. Next week an-
other billion dollars?this time to end
poverty.
And so we go merrily and irresponsibly
on our way to more permanently incurred
obligations, to more deficit financing, to
still higher national debt, to more inter-
est charges on that debt, and to more
borrowing to pay for the pyramiding cost
of borrowing.
This is not the occasion to discuss the
details of the Federal pay bill.
Suffice to say at this point that in ad-
vancing this bill one step toward final
enactment we are repeating today the
offense we committed yesterday.
Yesterday with respect to the social
security amendments we undertook to
offset the consequences of inflation by
involving the social security program
more deeply in the processes of inflation.
Today it is proposed we do the same
thing with respect to the compensation of
Federal employees, and we compound the
offense by including unconscionable sal-
ary increases for Members of Congress
and the Federal judiciary and for top
officials of the executive branch.
On the pretext of undertaking to off-
set the effects of inflation in the area of
Federal compensation, we are proposing
to involve the Federal salary and wage
system even more deeply in the processes
of inflation.
I urge the defeat of this resolution.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT].
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, the
subject before us is a simple matter of
whether or not we are going to allow
the majority of the House and Senate to
work its will on this bill. The House
passed this bill 243 to 157; that is 61
percent to 39 percent. The Senate
passed the bill by 58 to 21, which is 73
to 27 percent.
We have been fooling around with this
bill since it was first suggested in May
of 1963. We ran into one obstruction
after another, not the least of which was
objection to even going to conference.
All that they have succeeded in doing
by this tactic :s to waste time. The mer-
it, of the bill are not under consideration
and cannot be in the time that is avail-
able to us.
I want to note in contrast that the
military pay raise bill was introduced in
the other body and passed by the com-
mittee and passed by the other body and
has been reported out by the committee
here in less than 1 month. It is the sec-
ond military pay raise in recent years.
We will probably be voting on it soon.
But the simple resolution before this
body today is, I repeat, whether or not
a majority of the House and of the
Senate are to be allowed to be repre-
sented in a conference committee meet-
ing to work out the differences in a bill
which has been agreed on and which has
been budgeted for.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
this resolution and urge that we get on
with our business.
The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, my good
friend, the gentleman from Iowa, made
some remarks regarding the position of
the California delegation and of the par-
ticular Member here discussing the mat-
ter, and particularly with reference to
who would receive these increases. As
I understand, the gentleman from Iowa
seeks reelection to the next Congress, as
I am seeking reelection, and I am just a
bit curious, assuming that this legislation
passes, as to whether the gentleman pro-
poses to accept his salary increase next
year assuming that he is a Member of
the 89th Congress. I will be glad to yield
to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS]
for his answer.
Mr. GROSS. In view of what the gen-
tleman said a little while ago, and the
fact that he apparently will have a cam-
paign in his district, I was giving some
slight consideration to turning over my
share of the increase to his campaign. I
doubt that I will do it, but I was giving
it consideration. I think the gentleman
is going to need help.
Mr. SISK. Let me say to my good
friend that I appreciate the generosity of
that gesture and I hope he goes through
with it. I am more than happy to re-
ceive any campaign funds that are given
in good ethics because I think we can do
a good job out in California. I under-
16843
stand that recently my potential op-
ponent out there inherited some help
which I do not think he is too happy
about, but anyway he is going to be on
the ticket and running with the gentle-
man's candidate for President. I think
we will have an interesting campaign this
fall. Of course, if the gentleman can
make a contribution to my campaign, it
is more than welcome.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, I am sure that after the
Democrat convention there will be a lot
of changing of minds on your side of the
aisle about some of the spending that is
going on because I am sure the Presi-
dent is going to go over to Atlantic City
and repeat what he said last March. I
did not believe he meant it at that time,
but he may mean it sometime?I do not
know. I have a hard time keeping up
with him on what he means.
Mr. SISK. If the gentleman from
Iowa will permit me to say so, you know
I served for some 6 years as a Member
of the Congress under the gentleman's
President, President Eisenhower. I think
President Eisenhower's position was not
very clear and sometimes I did not know
quite what his position was on certain
issues. I did the best I could to follow
him. I think my good friend will agree
with me that it was not an easy time, so
I think in the final analysis this thing
will all work out and we will wait and
see what happens in Atlantic City.
Mr. GROSS. You are going to have a
plank in your platform against inflation
and spiraling of wages; are you not?
Mr. SISK. Oh, I am sure about that.
But the gentleman failed to answer my
question, assuming that we are both back
here as Members of the 89th Congress,
whether he will accept his salary in-
crease.
Mr. GROSS. Will the gentleman let
me cogitate on that for a little while,
at least until we see what happens?
Mr. SISK. We hope to be together to
discuss this in early January.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the resolution and move the previous
question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the "ayes" ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point
of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the
roll.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 244, nays 131, not voting 56,
as follows:
[Roll No. 195]
Addabbo
Albert
Anderson
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Ashley
Aspinall
YEAS-244
Auchincloss
Barrett _
Barry
Bates
Becker
Beckworth
Bell
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Blatnik
Boggs
Boland
Bolton,
Frances P.
Bolton,
Oliver P.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
16844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Bonner
Bow
Brooks
Broomfield
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, Va.
Burke
Burkhalter
Burton. Calif.
Byrne. Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Cahill
Cameron
Carey
Casey
Ceclerberg
Geller
Clausen.
Don H.
Cohelan
Conte
Cooley
Corbett
Corrnan
Daddario
Daniels
Davis, Ga.
Delaney
Dent
Denton
Derouman
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Downing
Dulski
Dwyer
Edmondson
Edwards
Elliott
Ellsworth
Fallon
Farbstein
Fascell
Feighan
Finnegan
Fino
Flood
Flynt
Fogarty
Fraser
Friedel
Fulton, Pa.
Fuqua
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gary
Glairno
Gibbons
Gilbert
Gill
Glenn
Gonzalez
Goodell
Grabowski
Gray
Green. Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Grover
Gubser
Hagan Ga.
Hagen, Calif.
Halpern
Hanna
Abbitt
Abele
Abernethy
Adair
Andrews, Ala.
Ashbrook
Ayres
Baker
Baldwin
Battin
Beermann
Belcher
Bennett, Fla.
Berry
Betts
Bray
Brock
Bratzman
Broyhill, N.C.
Burleson
Burton, Utah
Chamberlain
Chelf
Chenoweth
Clancy
Clark
Clawson, Del
Hansen
Harding
Hardy
Harrison
Hawkins
Hays
Healey
Henderson
Herlong
Hoffman
Holland
Horton
Hosmer
Ichord
Joe'son
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Pa.
Johnson, Wis.
Karsten
Kastenmeter
Keith
Kelly
Kilgore
King, Calif.
King, N.Y.
Kirwan
Kluczynaki
Kornegay
Kunkel
Laird
Libonati
LindsaY
Lipscomb
Long, La.
Long, Md.
McCulloch
McDade
McDowell
McFall
McLo,key
McMillan
Macdonald
Madden
Mahon
Mail'lard
Martin, Mass.
Mathias
Matsunaga
Matthews
Michel
Miller. Calif.
Milliken
Minish
Monagan
Montoya
Moore
Moorhead
Morgan
Morris
Morrison
Morse
Morton
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Nodal
Nix
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara.
O'Hara, Mich.
OKonskt
Olsen, Mont.
O'Neill
Garners
NAYS-1.31
Cleveland
Collier
Colmer
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtin
Curtis
Dague
Derwinskl
Devine
Dole
Dorn
Dowdy
Everett
Findley
Fisher
Ford
Foreman
Fountain
Gathings
Goodling
Grant
Griffin
Gross
Gurney
Haley
Hall
Ostertag
Patman
Patton
Peily
Pepper
Philbin
Pike
Pirnie
Pool
Powell
Price
PutMaki
Purcell
ReId, N.Y.
Reuss
Rhodes, Pa.
Riehlman
Rivers, Alaska
Robison
Rodin()
Rogers, Colo.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Roosevelt
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roush
Roy bal
Ryan, N.Y.
St Germain
St. Onge
Schwengel
Scott
Benner
Sheppard
Shipley
Sibal
Sickles
Sisk
Smith, Calif.
Smith. IOWA
Stafford
Staggers
Steed
Stephens
Stratton
Sullivan
Taleott
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Thomas
Thompson, N.J.
Thompson, Tex.
Tollefson
Trimble
Tuten
Udall
Ullman
Van Deeriln
Vanik
Waggonner
Watson
Watts
Weltner
Westland
White
Whitener
Wickersham
Widnall
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wright
Wydier
Wyman
Young
Zablocki
Harsh a
Harvey, Ind.
Harvey, Mich.
Hechier
Hoeven
H3ran
Huddleston
Hutchinson
Jarman
Jensen
Johansen
Jonas
Jones, Ala.
Kyl
Langen
Latta
Lennon
McClory
MacGregor
Marsh
Martin, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
May
Meader
Mills
Minahall
Mosher
Hatcher Rogers, Tex. Springer
Nelsen Roudebush Stinson
Perkins Rumsfeld Stubblefield
Pickle St. George Taft
Pillion Saylor Thomann, WIS,
Poage Schadeberg Tuck
Pot/ Schenck Utt
GlOte Schneebell Weaver
Quillen Schwelker Whalley
Randall Secreat Wharton
Reid, Ill. Selden Whitten
Retie!. Short Williams
Rhodes, Ariz. Shrivel' Wilson, Bob
Rich Slier Wilson, Ind,
Roberta, Ala. Skubitz Winstead
Roberta, Tex. Smith, Va. Younger
Rogers, Fla. Snyder
NOT VOTING-56
Alger
Arencis
Ashmore
Avery
Baring
Bass
Bennett, Mich.
Bolling
linidemas
Bromwell
Bruce
Buckley
Davis, Tenn.
Dawson
Duncan
Eying
ForreAer
Frelinghuysen
Fulton, Tenn.
Halleck
Harris
I lebert
Holifield
Hull
Jennings
Jones. Mo.
Karth
Kee
Keogh
Kilburn
Knox
Landrum
Lankford
Leggett
Lesineki
Lloyd
McIntire
Miller, N.Y.
Norbiad
Olson, Minn.
Pe.ssman
Pitcher
Rains
Rivers, S.C.
Ryan, Mich.
Sikes
Slack
Staebler
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, La.
Toll
Tupper
Van Pelt
Vinson
Wallhauser
Willis
So the resolution was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
- Mr. Hebert with Mr. WallhaUser.
Mr. Keogh with Mr. Tupper.
Mr. Brademsui. with Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Evins with Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Hull with Mr. Norblad.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Mc-
Intire.
Mr. Willis with Mr. Knox.
Mr. Harris t?Tith Mr. Miller of New York.
Mr. Duncan with Mr. Bennett of Michigan.
Mr. Slack with Mr. Van Pelt.
Mr. Baring With Mr. BromWell.
Mr. Sikes with Mr. Alger.
Mr. Baas with Mr. Kilburn.
Mr. Jennings with Mr. Avery.
Mr. Holifield with Mrs. Kee,
Mr. Karth with Mr. Buckley.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Ryan of Michigan with Mr. Dawson.
Mr. Toll with Mr. Lesinski.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee With Mr. Passman.
Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr.
Staebier.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Davis of Ten-
nessee.
Mr. Leggett with Mr. Vinson.
Mr. Rains with Mr. Forrester.
Mr. Ashmore with Mr. Filcher.
Mr. RHODES of Arizona changed his
vote from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints
the following conferees: Messrs. MURRAY,
MORRISON. and CORBETT.
NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESER-
VATION SYSTEM
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union to consider the bill
(H.R. 9070) to establish a National Wil-
derness Preservation System for the
permanent good of the whole people, and
for other purposes; and pending that
- July 30
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that Members speaking in gen-
eral debate may have the privilege ct
including charts, tables, and other perti-
nent matter with their statements.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Co:-
orado?
There was no objection.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the cor.-
sideration of HR. 9070, with Mr. GARY
In the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first reat.-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself 14 minutes.
(Mr. ASPINALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, it is
with a deep sense of satisfaction and
with great pleasure that I advise the
House that HR. 9070, the wilderness
bill as amended by the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, is a core -
promise measure that I feel can be sup-
ported by everyone.
In bringing the bill to the floor today
I take this opportunity to acknowledge
the cooperation of those who have mace
it possible for this compromise to have
been reached. I want the record to te
clear that the Kennedy and Johnson
administrations cooperated very closely
with the chairman of your Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs nom
speaking.
President Kennedy was personally Ir -
terested in the success of the movement
for a compromise wilderness bill, which
was assured just a few days before the
tragedy of November 22, 1963.
So many others contributed to the
development of the compromise that I
could not possibly name and thank them
all. I would be remiss, however, if I
did not mention the cooperative spirit
of the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. SAYLOR], long one of the leading
advocates of wilderness preservation: the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. DIN-
GELL 1, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
BARING] who, as chairman of the Sut -
committee on Public Lands, conducted
the hearings on this legislation: and
finally, those private citizens represent-
ing organizations interested in the we
of national forests and other federally
own lands, ranging from those who
desire preservation of large areas in the:r
natural state through those who seek
recreation in these areas and to thwe
whose livelihood depends on the availa -
bility of these public land areas.
There is no statutory authority at the
present time to set aside and retain arecs
of federally owned lands in their natural
state. However, since 1924 the Chief of
the Forest Service and the Secretary of
Agriculture have in one way or another
set aside areas within the national forests
for wilderness preservation. For the part
several years we have had a national dis-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CJA-RDP.66BAD403R000500050001-9 17267
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECUttu kil_PUJE
cattlemen is for the House to pass iny
resolution. This would limit meat im-
ports in general to the average for the
5-year period ending on December al,
1963. It would assign strict quotas to
beef-producing nations, setting an im-
port ceiling 30 percent below last year's
nonrestrictive quota.
The cattle industry is today one of the
most significant elements in the Amer-
ican agricultural economy. For example,
$1 of every $5 received from sales of
agricultural products is derived from
calves and cattle. Moreover, 80 percent
of the U.S. corn crop and 70 percent of
all harvested crops are consumed by
American stock; and, of course, the beef
industry indirectly affects the entire
economy, froin the large implement man-
ufacturers to small local businesses.
The Senate passage of H.R. 1839 to
restrict the importation of beef, veal,
lamb, and mutton challenges the House
of Representatives to respond in like
manner to the problems facing Amer-
ican stockmen.
The establishment of import quotas
will not, of course, completely solve the
price dilemma which faces cattlemen.
Yet imports add significantly to the low
price problem; and the setting up of
quotas would make a meaningful con-
tribution to improving the outlook for
the U.S. agricultural economy. A very
few years ago, the beef imports con-
stituted only from 2 percent to 4 percent
of the total market. In 1963 the figure
was over 11 percent. Such an increase
must inevitably affect the domestic
cattle raisers to a large degree. Further-
more, this great rise in imports occurred
at a critical time when there was an in-
crease in domestic production, thus ag-
gravating an already adverse situation.
American stockmen are certainly pre-
pared to accept and deal with the
normal cyclical fluctuations in the do-
mestic beef market, but a new element
has complicated their problems. It must
be remembered that prior to 1958 the
U.S. beef and cattle markets were, in ef-
fect, protected. The modification of the
United Kingdom-Australian meat agree-
ment in that year released a flood of
Australian beef exports. The mainte-
nance and increase of western European
trade barriers has helped to concentrate
this Australian increase on the already
unstable beef market in the United
States. American stockmen have suf-
fered because of the actions of the
United Kingdom in -encouraging its own
cattle industry. In my own State of
Montana, a recent study shows that our
State lost nearly $4 million in 1963 alone
because of imports of beef and veal.
How long can we allow this situation to
exist?
It has been charged that congressional
legislation of quotas would impair the
position of the executive division of our
Government in its negotiations in Geneva
for a lowering of trade barriers. Yet this
position is indeed open to question.
While the United States provides fewer
restrictions and higher prices than the
other nations importing large quantities
of meat, both Australia and New Zealand
effectively prohibit importation of most
meats. In view of this, it would seem that
a firm, resolute stand by the Congress
of the United States would strengthen
the American trade position, since it
would show U.S. desire to rectify unfair
and unbalanced trade situations. Amer-
ican negotiators in Geneva would be
"able to reach more equitable agreements
if they were able to bargain on the basis
of a clear statement of concern for
domestic industries by the elected Rep-
resentatives of the American people.
It has also been stated that establish-
ment of beef import quotas would dam-
age our relations with our allies, partic-
ularly Australia and New Zealand. This
charge also seems questionable. We
must remember that Germany recently
Increased tremendously their tariff on
frozen chickens without damaging the
United States-German alliance; and, as
pointed out before, both Australia and
New Zealand restrict importations of
meats. The proposed American quota
on beef is certainly a modest measure.
Between allies a certain flexibility, a
certain give and take is part of the nor-
mal course of relations. This import bill
certainly falls in this category.
But one of the most important con-
siderations which calls for passage of
this bill lies in the prospects for the fu-
ture of American stockmen. As the
statements of cattle producers from all
over the United States clearly indicate,
the beef industry and related industries
are deeply concerned over what seems to
be a lack of interest and understanding
by their elected Representatives. The
future of cattle prices ,is uncertain and
stockmen know it. A Department of
Agriculture study indicates that domestic
problems will continue for some time.
Furthermore, the current lull in imports
cannot be expected to continue indefin-
itely. When the present beef shortage
on the world market ceases, foreign
meats may flood America in greater
quantities than ever before. The volun-
tary agreements thus far concluded do
not really meet this situtation-by 1966
Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand will
be able to ship more beef, into the United
States than they did even in 1963.
For all these reasons, I am urging the
House to support my resolution, House
Resolution 812. I have written the Com-
mittee on Rules and requested early
hearings and favorable consideration.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
Mr. MURRAY submitted the following
conference report and statement on the
bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates of
basic compensation of certain officers
and employees in the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1647)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
11049) to adjust the rates of basic compen-
sation of certain officers and employees in
the Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, having met, after full and free con-
ference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate and
agree to the same with an amendment as
follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to
be inserted by the Senate amendment insert
the following: "That this Act may be cited
as the 'Government Employees Salary Reform
Act of 1964?
"TITLE I-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS
"Short title
"SEc. 101. This title may be cited as the
'Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964'.
"Classification Act employees
"SEC. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Clas-
sification Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat.
843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b)), is amended to read
as follows:
"'(b) The compensation schedule for the
General Schedule shall be as follows:
Per annum rates and steps
It I
1
2
a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
GB-1
$3, 385
$3, SOO
$3, 615
$3, 730
$3, 846
$3, 960
$4, 075
$4, 190
$4, 305
$4, 420
08-2
3, 680
3,805
3,030
4,055
4, 180
4,305
4, 430
4,555
4, 680
4,805
08-3
4,005
4, 140
4, 275
4, 410
4, 545
4,680
4, 815
4, 950
3,085
5, 220
08-4
4, 480
4,630
4,780
4,930-5,080
3,230
5,380
5,680
5,680
5,830
GB-S
5, 000
5, 165
5, 330
6, 49.5
5, 660
5, 826
5, 990
6, 155
6, 320
6, 485
08-6
5, 505
5,600
5,875
6,060
6,245
6, 430
6,615
6,800
6,985
7, 170
08-7
8,050
6,250
8,450
6,650
6,800
7, 050
7,260
7,450
7, 650
7,830
08-8
6, 630
6,850
7,070
7,200
7,510
7,730
7,050
8,170
8,300
8,610
08-0
7220
7,465
7,710
7,953
8,200
8,445
8,690
8,035
9,180
0,425
GB-j0
7, 900
8, 170
8, 440
8, 710
8,060
0,280
9,820
9,700
10,060
10, 330
08-11
8, 650
8, 945
9,240
9,635
9,830
10,125
15,420
10,715
11,010
11, 305
GS-12
10,250
10,605
10,060
11,315
11,670
12,025
12,380
15,735
13,000
13,445
08-13
12,078
12, 495
12, 915
13, 335
13, 755
14, 175
14, 695
15, 015
15, 435
15, 855
08-14
14, 170
14, 660
15, 150
16, 640
16, 130
16,620
17, 110
17, 600
18,090
18,580
GB-is
16,460
17, 030
1.7,800
18,170
18, 740
19, 310
19, 880
20,460
21,020
21, 590
08-16
18,035
10,590
20,245
20, 900
21, 555
22, 210
22, 865
33,320
24, 175
08-17
21,445
22,105
22,045
23,695
24,445
08-18
24,500
.
'
"(b) Except as provided in subsection
(d) of section 504 of the Federal Salary Re-
form Act of 1962, the rates of basic compen-
sation of officers and employees to whom the
compensation schedule set forth in subsec-
tion (a) of ibis section applies shall be ini-
tially adjusted as of the effective date of this
section, as follows;
"(1) If the officer or employee is receiv-
ing basic compensation immediately prior
to the effective date of this section at one
of the rates of a grade in the General Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, he shall receive a rate of basic
compensation at the corresponding rate in
effect on and after such date,
"(2) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate be-
tween two rates of a grade in the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended, he shall receive a rate of basic
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17268 Approved For Ree Z005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
LAINGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 3
compensation at the higher of the two cor-
responding rates in effect on and after such
date.
"(3) If the officer or employee is receiv-
ing basic compensation immediately prior to
the effective date of this section at a rate
in excess of the maximum rate for his grade,
he shall receive (A) the maximum rate for
his grade in the new schedule, or (B) his
existing rate of basic compensation if such
existing rate is higher.
"(4) If the officer or employee. Immedi-
ately prior to the effective date of this sec-
tion, is receiving, pursuant to section
2(b) (4) of the Federal Employees Salary In-
crease Act of 1955. an existing aggregate rate
of compensation determined under section
208(b) of the Act of September I. 1954 (68
Stat. 1111), plus subsequent increases au-
thorized by law, he shall receive an aggre-
gate rate of compensation equal to the suns
of his existing aggregate rate of compensa-
tion, on the day preceding the effective date
of this section, plus the amount of increase
made by this section in the maximum rate
of his grade, until (1) he leaves his position.
or (it) he is entitled to receive aggregate
compensation at a higher rate by reason of
the operation of this Act or any other pro-
vision of law; but, when such position be-
comes vacant, the aggregate rate of com-
pensation of any subsequent appointee
thereto shall be fixed in accordance with
applicable provisions of law. Subject to
clauses (i) and (11) of the immediately pre-
ceding sentence of this paragraph, the
amount of the increase provided by this
section shall be held and considered for the
purpose of section 208(b) of the Act of Sep-
tember 1, 1954, to constitute a part of the
existing rate of compensation of the em-
ployee.
"(5) If the officer or employee is in a
position in grade 16 or 17 of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended, to which he was promoted on
or after the first day of his first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1964. and
if he held such position, or another position
in the same grade, on the effective date of
this section, his rate of basic compensation
shall be adjusted, as of such effective date.
to that rate of basic compensation to which
he would have been entitled if the compen-
sation schedule in subsection (a) of this
section had been in effect on the date of
his promotion.
"(6) If the officer or employees, at any time
during the period beginning on the effective
date of this section and ending on the date
of enactment of this Act, was promoted from
one grade under the Classification Act of
1949, as amended, to another such grade at
a rate which Is above the minimum rate
thereof, his rate of basic compensation shall
be adjusted retroactively from the effective
date of this section to the date on which he
was so promoted, on the basis of the rate
which he was receiving during the period
from such effective date to the date of such
promotion and, from the date of such promo-
tion, on the basis of the rate for that step of
the appropriate grade of the General Sched-
ule contained in this section which corre-
sponds numerically to the step of the grade
of the General Schedule for such officer or
employee which was in effect (without re-
gard to this Act) at the time of such promo-
tion.
"SEC. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1131), relating to
new appointments, is amended to read as
follows:
"
'SEC. 801. All new appointments shall be
made at the minimum rate of the appropri-
ate grade, except that in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Commission
which provide for such considerations as the
candidate's existing salary, unusually high
or unique qualifications, or a special need of
the Government for his services, the head of
any department may, with the approval of
the Commission in each specific case, appoint
individuals to positions In grade 13 and above
of the General Schedule at such rate or rates
above the minimum rate of the appropriate
grade as the Commis/310n may authorize for
this purpose. The approval of the Commis-
sion in each specific case shall not be re-
quired with respect to appointments made
by the Librarian of Congress.'.
" ( b) Section 505(b) of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)),
relating to the limitation on numbers of
positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule of such Act, Is amended by
Inserting '(i)' immediately following the
words in addition to', and by inserting im-
mediately following the words 'which may be
placed in such grades' a comma and the fol-
lowing: 'and (II) two hundred and forty
examiner positions under section 11 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 244;
5 U.S.C. 1010) which may be placed In grade
16 and nine such positions which may be
placed in grade 17'.
"(c) Section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Em-
ployees Pay Act of 1945, as amended (5 U.S.C.
944(c) (3) ). Is amended to read as follows:
" '(3) All rates shall be computed to the
nearest cent, counting one-half cent and
over as a whole cent.'.
"Postal field service employees
"SEc. 104. Section 1. of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
period at the end of such section and Ingest-
ing in lieu thereof It semicolon and the fol-
lowing:
" ' "revenue unit" means that amount of
revenue of a post office from mail and special
service transactions which is equal to the
average sum of postal rates and fees received
by the Department during the fiscal year for
1,000 pieces of originating mail and special
service transactions determined in accord-
ance with section 2331 of this title.'.
"Ser. 105. Section '102 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
" '1 702. Classes of poet offices
"'(a) Effective at the beginning of each
fiscal year the Postmaster General shall di-
vide post offices Into four classes on the basis
of the revenue units of each office for the
second preceding fiscal year. He shall place
in the first class those post offices having
950 or more revenue units. He shall place
in the second class those post offices having
190 or more revenue units, but fewer than
950 revenue units. He shall place in the
third class those post offices having 36 or
more revenue units, but fewer than 190 rev-
enue units. He shall place in the fourth
class those post offices having fewer than 36
revenue units.
" '(b) The Postmaster General shall ex-
clude from the revenue credited to a poet
office for the purposes of this section money
received at that office for?
'(1) setting meters for patrons beyond
the area served by the office unless author-
ized by the Department;
" '(2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold in large or unusual quan-
tities to be used in mailing matter at other
offices; and
" (3) stamps. stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold for mailing matter diverted
from other offices and mailing of matter so
diverted without stamps affixed.
" '(c) Whenever unusual conditions pre-
vail at a post office of the fourth class, the
Postmaster General may advance such office
to the appropriate class based on his esti-
mate of the number of revenue units which
the office will have during the succeeding
twelve months. Any office so advanced need
not be relegated to a lower class before the
end of the second fiscal year after the ad-
vancement. At that time, the office shall be
assigned to the appropriate class in accord-
ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this
section.'
"SEc. 106. Section 704 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by deleting 'of the
first, second, or third class' appearing there-
in, and inserting in lieu thereof '(other than
one for which the postmaster furnishes quar-
ters, equipment, and fixtures on an allow-
ance basis) '.
"Sec. 107. Subsection (b) (1) of secton
2102 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
" '(1) for post offices at which the post-
master does not furnish quarters on an
allowance basic'.
"SEC. 108. t a) Section 3501 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by inserting
a new subsection (c) following subsection
(b) as follows:
"'(c) The Postmaster General shall deter-
mine and, effective at the beginning of the
first pay period In each calendar year, shill
adjust the rankings of all positions for whi:)11
the number of annual revenue unite of a
post office or its class is a relevant factor of
the ranking, using the revenue units of the
preceding fiscal year and the class in which
the office will be placed at the beginning of
the next fiscal year. The Postmaster Genetal
also may adjust rankings of such positioas
at other times of the year based upon su a-
stantial changes in service conditions.'.
"(b) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
"(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST
OFFICE CLERIC. RP-4 ) '; and
"(B) Add the following new sentence :sr
the end of paragraph (1): 'This office has
fewer than 190 revenue units annually.'.
"(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POS'.7-
MASTER. ( RP-18 )
"(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approx.-
mately $1,700' in the second sentence of pars-
graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'ap-
proximately 40 revenue units annually'.
"(3) /n subsection (b) of section 3517--
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'foss-
MASTER. (KP-20)
"(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $4.700' in the second sentence cf
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof 'ap-
proximately 110 revenue units annually'.
"(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518--
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST -
MASTER. (RP-22)
"(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $6,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 140 revenue units annually'.
"(5) In subsection (b) of section 3519--
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. ( RP-24 ) '; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi.'
mately $63,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 1,490 revenue units an-
nually'.
"(6) In subsection (c) of section 3519?
"(A) Change of catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. ( RP-25 ) ;
"(B) Delete 'second class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (I); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $16,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 380 revenue units annually'.
"(7) Insubsection (b) of section 3520?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. ( KP-27 .;
"(B) Delete Sirst class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 17269
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $63,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 1,490 revenue units annually'.
"(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (Kr-29)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $129,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 3,060
revenue units annually'.
"(9) In subsection (b) of section 3522-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-31. ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1) ; and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $314,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 7,450
revenue units annually'.
"(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523-
(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-33 ) ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete the second sentence of para-
graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof: 'This
office has approximately 110 employees, ap-
proximately 14,350 revenue units annually,
13 government-owned vehicle units, one
classified station and 42 carrier routes within
its jurisdiction?.
"(11) In subsection (b) of section 8524-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-35>';and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 64,000
revenue units annually'.
"(12) In subsection (c) of section 3524-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-36)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $1,000,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 23,700
revenue units annually'.
"(13) In subsection (a) of section 3525-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-37) ; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,000'
In the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
200,000 revenue units annually'.
"(14) In subsection (b) of section 3525-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-38) ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 64,000
revenue units annually'.
"(15) In subsection (a) of section 3526-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (Kr-3D>'; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
400,000 revenue units annually'.
"(16) In subsection (b) of section 3526-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'posr-
MASTER. (KP-40>';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $4,470,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
106,000 revenue units annually'.
"(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527-
" (A) Change the catchline to read 'AssIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-42 ) '; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
1,000,000 revenue units annually'.
"(18) In subsection (c) of section 3527-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-43)
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 200,000
revenue units annually'.
"(19) In subsection (b) of section 3528-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (Kr-45)'; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
2,500,000 revenue units annually'.
"(20) In subsection (c) of section 3528-
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-48) ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
400,000 revenue units annually'.
"(21) In section 3529-
"(21) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POST-
MASTER. ( KP-47 ) ;
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph ( 1 )
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
1,000,000 revenue units annually'.
"(22) In section 3630-
"(A) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POST-
MASTER. ( KP-48 ) ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,-
000,000' in the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
2,500,000 revenue units annually'.
"SEc. 109. Section 3642(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows-
" ' (a) There is established a basic com-
pensation schedule for positions in the postal
field service which shall be known as the
Postal Field Service Schedule and for which
the symbol shall be "PFS". Except as pro-
vided in sections 3543 and 3644 of this title,
basic compensation shall be paid to all em-
ployees in accordance with such schedule.
Postal field service schedule
"Pies
10
11
12
13
14_ _
15
16
l7_
18
19
20
1
$3, 945
4, 270
4, 615
5, 0(10
5, 345
5, 735
6, 140
6, 650
7, 190
7,t30
8,650
0, 570
10, 575
11,665
12, 885
14, 240
15, 755
17, 450
19, 345
21, 445
2
$4,070
4, 410
4, 770
5, 165
6, 525
5, 926
6,345
6,870
7,430
8,005
8,945
9, 895
10, 940
12,065
13, 330
14, 735
16, 305
18,060
20, 020
22, 105
3
$4, 205
4,550
4, 025
5,330
5,705
6, 115
6, 550
7,090
7, 670
8,160
9, 240
10, 220
11, 305
12, 470
13, 775
15, 230
16,855
18, 670
20, 695
22, 945
Per annum rates and steps
4
$4,315
4, 690
5,080
5, 495
5,885
6,105
6, 755
7, 310
7, 910
8, 625
9, 535
10, 545
11, 670
12,875
14, 220
15, 725-
17, 405
19, 280
21, 370
23, 695
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
to No ....L..
cu. ? LIN -a to CO 00 G0 I
CO 0 0 IA 0 00 01 CO c0 CO I
. Ca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0
$4, 465
$4, 595
$4, 725
$4, 855
$5, 115
$5, 245
85, 375
4,830
4, 970
5, 110
1, 250
6, 530
5, 670
5, 810
5, 235
5, 390
5, 545
5, 700
6,010
6, 165
6, 320
6, 660
5,825
5, 990
6, 155
6, 485
6, 650
6,815
0,065
6, 245
6, 425
6,905
6, 965
7, 145
7,325
6, 495
6, 685
6, 875
7,065
7, 445
7,635
7,821
6, 960
7, 165
7, 370
7, 575
7, 985
8, 100
7, 530
7, 750
7, 970
8, 190
8, 630
8, 150
8,390
8, 630
8,870
9,350
8, 890
9, 155
9, 420
0,685
10, 215
9,830
10, 125
10, 420
10, 715
11,305
50,870
19,195
11,520
11,840
12,495
12,035
12,400
12, 765
13, 130
13,860
13, 280
13, 685
14,050
14, 495
15, 305
14, 665
15, 110
15, 555
16,000
16, 890
16, 220
16, 715
17, 210
17, 705
18, 695
17, 955
18, 605
19, 055
19, 605
20, 705
15,800
20,500
25,010
21,720
22, 940
22, 045
22, 720
23, 395
24, 070
24, 445
'
? "SEC. 110. Section 3543(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as
f ollows-
" '(a) There is established a basic corn-
pensation schedule which shall be known as
the Rural Carrier Schedule and for which the
symbol shall be "RCS".
" ' Rural carrier schedule
" Per annum rates and steps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Carriers in rural de-
livery service:
Fixed compensation
per annum
Compensation per
mile per annum
for each mile up to
30 miles of route_ _
For each mile of
route over 30
miles
$2,240
82
25
$2,345
84
25
$2,450
86
25
$2,555
88
25
$2,660
90
25
$2,765
92
25
$2,870
94
25
$2,975
96
25
$3, 080
98
26
$3,185
100
25
$3,290
102
25
$3,395
10,1
25'.
"SEc. 111. (a) Section 3644 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended, to read as
follows:
"1 3544. Fourth Class Office Schedule
"'(a) There is established a basic com-
pensation schedule which shall be known as
the Fourth Class Office Schedule and for
which the symbol shall be "FOS", for post-
masters in post offices of the fourth class
which is based on the revenue units of the
post office for the preceding fiscal year.
Basic compensation shall be paid to post-
masters in post offices of the fourth class
in accordance with this schedule.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
11 cvenue units
1
2
$3,894
2,800
2,1174
30 but has than _
24 but lessi than 30_
18 hut less than 24_
_ _ 769
_ 3,456
_ 2877
12 but leas than l4_
2, 2,91
2.331
II lot less than 12
I 1,828
1,880
lass than 8
I 1 313
1,365
" 'Fourth-class office seheduk
Per annual rata, and lapis
3 I 4
I
6
6 I
i 7 8
9 I le
11
12
14.01e
34,144
$4,269
14.394 $4,519
14,1144
I
$4,76U $4,804j
$6,019
$6, 144
3, 711
3, 880
3.041
4, 084 4,175
4.215) 4,405i4,528
4.835
4,750
3.171
3,188
3.28.5
,
3.382 3,459
3,118 3,613 : 3.710
3,847
3.944
2,104
2,477
'2,650
2,152:3 i 2,698
2,789
2,842 I 2.915
2, 988
3,041
1,722
1,784
1,83e
1
1,81414 , 1,940
1.992
2,044 2,005
2, 148
2.200
1,3117
1,439
1, 481
1,523 I 1,511.5
1.007
1,6411 1,891
I
1,733
1,775
"'II)) The basic salary of postmasters in
fourth-class post offices shall be readjusted
for changes in revenue units at the start of
the first pay period after January 1 of each
year. When a post office is restored to a rev-
enue unit category held by It prior to rele-
gation to a lower revenue unit category, the
postmaster's basic salary may be adjusted to
the highest salary step held by him when
the post office was in the higher revenue unit
category. In all other cases. In adjusting a
postmaster's basic salary under this section.
the basic salary shall be fixed at the lowest
step which is higher than the basic salary
received by the postmaster at the end of the
preceding fiscal year. If there is no such
step the basic salary shall be fixed at the
highest step for the adjusted revenue units
of the office. Each increase in basic salary
because of change in revenue units shall be
deemed the equivalent of a step increase un-
der section 3552 of this title and the waiting
period, for purposes of advancement to the
next step, shall begin on the date of ad-
justment.
" '(c) The basic salaries of postmasters
at newly established offices of the fourth
class shall be fixed at the lowest salary rate.
Whenever unusual conditions prevail at any
post office of the fourth class the Postmaster
General may advance such office to the ap-
propriate category based on his estimate of
the number of revenue units which the of-
fice will have during the succeeding twelve
months. Any fourth-class office advanced
to the appropriate category pursuant to this
subsection shall not be reduced in category
until the start of the first pay period after
January 1 of the calendar year following the
calendar year in which It was so advanced.
at which time it shall be assigned to the
category indicated by the revenue units for
the preceding fiscal year.
" '(d) Persons who perform the duties of
postmaster at post offices of the fourth class
where there is a vacancy or during the ab-
sence of the postmaster on sick or annual
leave, or leave without pay, shall be paid
the same basic salary to which they would
have been entitled If regularly appointed as
postmaster.
" '(e) The Postmaster General may allow
to postmasters in fourth-class post offices ad-
ditional compensation for separating serv-
ices and for unusual conditions during a
portion of the year, in lieu of an allowance
for clerical services for this purpose.
" '(f) At seasonal post offices of the fourth
class, the Postmaster General may authorize
the payment of the basic salary prorated over
the pay periods the office is open for business
during the fiscal year.
" '(g) Where the revenue units of a post
office of the third class for each of two con-
secutive fiscal years are less than 36, or where
in any fiscal year the revenue units are less
than 33, the post office shall be relegated to
the fourth class and the basic salary of the
postmaster shall be fixed In the manner pro-
vided in subsection (b) of this section.
-(h) When required by the Postmaster
General a postmaster at a fourth-class office
shall, and any other postmaster in PFS level
5 when permitted by the Postmaster Gen-
eral may, furnish quarters, fixtures, and
equipment for an office on an allowance
basis. The allowance for this purpose shall
be an amount equal to 15 per centum of the
Miele compensation for the postmaster at
the office.'
"Gal As of the effective date of this section,
the Postmaster General shall place the posi-
tion of each postmaster in a fourth-class
office in the appropriate revenue units cate-
gory of the Fourth-class Office Schedule
(FOS) determined on the basis of revenue
units for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1063. The Postmaster General shall assign
each such postmaster to the lowest step of
the appropriate revenue units category
which will provide him compensation not
less than 110 per centum of the compensa-
tion to which he would otherwise be entitled
under FOS II (as it existed immediately prior
to the effective date of this section). If there
Is no such step or category, the postmaster
shall be paid compensation at the rate of
110 per centem of the compensation to which
he would otherwise be entitled under FOS
II las it existed immediately prior to the
effective date of this section).
a(c) If changes In the gross receipts cate-
gory or changes in salary step would occur
on the effective date of this section (with-
out regard to the enactment of this section) .
such changes shall be deemed to have oc-
curred prior to any action taken under sub-
section its) of this section.
"Sec_ 112. (a) Subsection (a) of section
6007 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) The Postmaster General shall pay
to persons, other than special delivery
messengers at post offices of the first class,
for making delivery of special delivery mall
such fees as may be established by him not
in excess of the special delivery fee.'.
"(b) Section 2009 of title 39, United States
Code. is amended by deleting 'at any price
lees than eight cents per piece' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 'at any price less than
the fees established pursuant to section
6007( a ) of this title..
"Sac. 113. Section 3560 of title 39, United
States Code, Is amended-
(I) by striking out 'gross receipts' in
subsection ( a) (3) and inserting in lieu
thereof 'revenue unit'; and
'(2) by striking out 'gross receipts' in sub-
section (f) (1) and inserting in lieu thereof
'revenue unit'.
"sec. 114. (a) Section 3552(a) of title 39,
United States Code, Ls aznended to read as
follows :
" 't a ( 1 ) Each employee subject to the
Postal Field Service Schedule, each em-
ployee subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule.
and each employee subject to the Fourth
Class Office Schedule who has not reached
the highest step for his position shall be ad-
vanced successively to the next higher step
as follows:
" '(A) to steps 2. 3. 4, 5, 6, and 7-at the
beginning of the first pay period following
the completion of fifty-two calendar weeks
of satisfactory service; and
" '(B) to steps 8 and above-at the be-
ginning of the first pay period following the
completion of one hundred and fifty-six cal-
endar weeks of satisfactory service.
A li,gud 3
" '(2) The receipt of an equivalent inereas,
during any of the waiting periods specifie(
in this subsection shall cause a new fu)
waiting period to commence for furthe.7 ste:
increases.'
"(b) Section 3552 of title 39, United State
Code, is further amended by adding the fol
lowing new subsection at the end thereof
" '(d) Notwithstanding the provisio as c
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this seetior
the Postmaster General is authorized to ad
vance any employee in PFS level 9 or beim
who-
" '( 1) was promoted to a higher level be
tween July 9, 1960. and October 13, 1962
and
" '121 is senior with respect to total posts
service to an employee in his own post offic
promoted to the same position since Octo
ber 13, 1962, and is at a step in the level be
low the step of the junior employee.
Any increase under the provisions of thi
subsection shall not constitute an equlvalen
increase and credit earned prior to adjust
ment under this subsection for advanceinen
to the next step shall be retained.'.
"Sac. 115. (a) Section 711 of title 3c.
United States Code, Is repealed.
"(b) The table of contents of chapter 7 o
title 39. United States Code, is amended
deleting
" '711. Method of determining gross receipts.
"Sac. 116. The basic compensation of eacl
employee subject to the Postal Field Servic
Schedule or the Rural Carrier Schedule im
mediately prior to the effective date of thi
section shall be determined as follows:
"(1) Each employee shall be assigned t(
the same numerical step for his pos:tioi
which he had attained immediately prior 1,
such effective date. If changes in lave o
steps would otherwise occur on such effeutiv,
date without regard to enactment of thi.
Act, such changes shall be deemed to sale
occurred prior to conversion.
"(2) If the existing basic compensation is
greater than the rate to which the employee
is converted under paragraph (1) of this sec-
tion, the employee shall be placed in the
lowest step which exceeds his basic corn:len-
sation. If the existing basic compensation
exceeds the maximum step of his posiaion,
his existing basic compensation shall be es-
tablished as his basic compensation.
"Employees in the Department of Medicine
and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
"Sac. 117. (a) Section 4103 of title 38,
United States Code, relating to the appcint-
ment and annual salaries of certain staff
positions in the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, is
amended to read as follows:
" '; 4103. Office of the Chief Medical Direstor
" .(a) The Office of the Chief Medical Di-
rector shall consist of the following-
-(1) The Chief Medical Director, who
shall be the Chief of the Department of Medi-
cine and Surgery and shall be directly re-
sponsible to the Administrator for the opera-
tions of the Department. He shall be a quali-
fied doctor of medicine, appointed by the Ad-
ministrator.
" '(2) The Deputy Chief Medical Director,
who shall be the principal assistant of the
Chief Medical Director. Ile shall be a quali-
fied doctor If medicine, appointed by the
Administrator.
"'(3) Not to exceed five Assistant Chief
Medical Directors, who shall be appointed by
the Administrator upon the recommendation
of the Chief Medical Director. One Assistant
Chief Medical Director shall be a quail led
doctor of dental surgery or dental medicine
who shall be directly responsible to the Chief
Medical Director for the operation of the
Dental Service.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18_.? CIA-RDR6V0403R000500050001-9 17271
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOU
" '(4) Such Medical Directors as may be
appointed by the Administrator, upon the
recommendation of the Chief Medical Direc-
tor, to suit the needs of the Department.
A Medical Director shall be either a qualified
doctor of medicine or a qualified doctor of
dental surgery or dental medicine.
"'(5) A Director of Nursing Service, who
shall be a qualified registered nurse, ap-
pointed by the Administrator, and who shall
be responsible to the Chief Medical Director
for the operation of the Nursing Service.
" (6) A Chief Pharmacist and a Chief Die-
titian, appointed by the Administrator.
" '(7) Such other personnel and employees
as may be authorized by this chapter,
" '(b) Except as provided in subsection
(c), any appointment under this section
shall be for a period of four years, with re-
appointment permissible for successive like
periods, except that persons so appointed or
reappointed shall be subject to removal by
the Administrator for cause.
"'(c) The Administrator may designate a
member of the Chaplain Service of the Vet-
erans' Administration as Director, Chaplain
Service, for a period of two years, subject to
removal by the Administrator for cause.
Redesignation under this subsection may be
made for successive like periods. An individ-
ual designated as Director, Chaplain Service,
shall at the end of his period of service as
Director revert to the position, grade, and
status which he held immediately prior to
being designated Director, Chaplain Service,
and all service as Director, Chaplain Service,
shall be creditable as service in the former
position.'.
"(b) The table of contents of chapter 73
of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking out
"'4103. Appointments and compensation.'
and inserting in lieu thereof:
"'4103. Office of the Chief Medical Direc-
tor.'.
"(c) Section 2 of the Act a July 31, 1894,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 62), shall not apply
to any individual appointed, before January
1, 1964, as Chief Medical Director under
section 4103 of title 38, United States Code;
but section 212 of the Act of June 30, 1932,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 59a), shall apply, in
accordance with its terms, to any such indi-
vidual.
"SEc. 118. Section 4107 of title 38, United
States Code, relating to grades and pay scales
for certain positions within the Department
of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans'
Administration, is amended to read as
follows:
"'1 4107. Grades and pay scales
"'(a) The per annum full-pay scale or
ranges for positions provided in section 4103
of this title, other than Chief Medical Di-
rector and Deputy Chief Medical Director,
shall be as follows:
"'Section 4103 schedule
"'Assistant Chief Medical Director, $24,500.
"'Medical Director, $21,445 minimum to
$21,445 maximum.
"'Director of Nursing Service, $16,460 min-
imum to $21,590 maximum.
"'Director, Chaplain Service, $16,460 min-
imum to $21,590 maximum.
"'Chief Pharmacist, $16,460 minimum to
$21,590 maximum.
"'Chief Dietitian, $16,460
$21,590 maximum.
"(b) (1) The grades and per annum full-
pay ranges for positions provided in para-
graph (1) of section 4104 of this title shall
be as follows:
"'Physician and dentist schedule
"'Director grade, $18,935 minimum to
$24,175 maximum.
minimum to
"'Executive grade, $17,655 minimum to
$23,190 maximum.
"'Chief grade, $18,460 minimum to $21,-
590 maximum.
"'Senior grade, $14,170 minimum to $18,-
680 maximum.
"'Intermediate grade, $12,075 minimum
to $15,855 maximum.
"'Full grade, $10,250 minimum to $13,445
maximum.
"'Associate grade, $8,650 minimum to $11,-
305 maximum.
"'Nurse schedule
"'Assistant Director grade, $14,170 mini-
mum to $18,580 maximum.
"'Chief grade, $12,075 minimum to $15,855
maximum.
"'Senior grade, $10,250 minimum to $13,-
445 maximum.
"'Intermediate grade, $8,650 minimum to
$11,305 maximum.
"'Full grade, $7,220 minimum to $9,425
maximum.
"'Associate grade, $6,315 minimum to
$8,205 maximum.
"'Junior grade, $5,505 minimum to $7,170
maximum,
"'(2) No person may hold the director
grade unless he is serving as a director of a
hospital, dornicilary, center, or outpatient
clinic (independent). No person may hold
the executive grade unless he holds the posi-
tion of chief of staff at a hospital, center, or
outpatient clinic (independent), or the posi-
tion of clinic director at an outpatient
clinic, or comparable position.'.
"Foreign service officers; staff officers and
employees
"SEC. 119. Section 412 of the Foreign Serv-
ice Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867),
is amended to read as follows:
"'Foreign service officers
"'SEC. 412. There shall be ten classes of
Foreign Service officers, including the classes
of career ambassador and of career minister.
The per annum salary of a career ambassador
shall be at the rate provided by law for level
IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule.
The per annum salary of a career minister
shall be at the rate provided by law for level
V of such schedule. The per annum salaries
of Foreign Service officers within each of
the other classes shall be as follows:
"'Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
$22, 650
18, 296
14, 860
12,075
9, 945
8, 295
7, 010
5,050
$23, 440
18, 930
15,375
12, 405
10, 290
8, 580
7,245
6,250
$24, 600
19, 565
15,890
12, 916
10, 635
8, 865
7,480
0,450
$20, 200
16, 406
13, 335
10, 980
9, 150
7,715
6, 650
$20, 836
16, 920
13, 755
11,325
9, 435
7, 950
0,850
$21, 470
07,435
14, 171
11, 670
9, 720
8, 185
7,050
$22, 105
17,950
14, 595
12, 015
10, 005
8, 420
7, 250'.
"SEc. 120. Subsection (a) of section 415 of
such Act (22 U.S.C. 870(a) ) is amended to
read as follows:
"'(a) There shall be ten classes of For-
eign Service staff officers and employees, re-
f erred to hereafter as staff officers and em-
ployees. The per annum salaries of such
staff officers and employees within each class
shall be as follows:
'Class 1
$14,860
515,375
$16, 890
$16, 406
$16, 020
Class 2
12,075
12,491
12,915
13,315
13,71i
Class 3
9,945
30, 290
10, 635
10, 980
11,325
Class 4
8,295
8,580
8,865
9,150
0,435
Class 5
7,480
7,735
7,900
8,245
8,500
Class 6
6,755
6,080
7,205
7,430
7, 651
Class 7
0,205
6, 410
6, 611
6,820
7, 025
Class 8
5,490
5, 676
5,860
6,045
6,230 1
Class 9
0,010
5,175
5,340
5,505
5,670 1
Class 10
4,480
4,630
4,780
4,930
5,080 1
$17, 436
14, 175
11,670
9,720
6,755
7,880
7,530
11,415
5,831
,5, 230
$17,950
14, 595
12, 015
10, 005
9, 010
8,105
7,435
6,600
6, 000
5,380
$18, 465
1.5, 015
12,360
10,250
9,265
8,330
7,640
6, 785
6, 165
5,530
$18,980
15, 436
12, 705
10, 575
9,520
8,555
7,845
5,970
6,330
5, 680
$19, 495
15, 855
11,006
10,860
0,771
8,780
8,050
7, 156
6,491
5,830'.
"SEc, 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve
officers, and Foreign Service staff officers and
employees who are entitled to receive basic
compensation immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of this section at one of the rates
provided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1916, shall receive basic com-
pensation, on and after such effective date,
at the rate of their class determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of State.
"Agricultural stabilization and conservation
county committee employees
"SEc. 122. The rates of compensation of
persons employed by the county committees
established pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) shall be increased
by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac-
ticable, to the increases provided by section
102 of this Act for corresponding rates of
compensation in the appropriate schedule
or scale of pay.
"Miscellaneous provision
"Sac. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
1173) is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new subsection:
"'(d) The rate of basic compensation, es-
tablished under this section, and received by
any officer or employee immedately prior to
the effective date of a statutory increase in
the compensation schedules of the salary
systems specified in subsec (a) shall be
Initially adjusted on the Motive date of
such new compensation schedules in accord-
ance with conversion rules and regulations
prescribed by the President or by such agency
or agencies as he may designate.'
"SEc. 124. Subsection (b) of the first sec-
tion of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide
retirement, clerical assistants, and free mail-
ing privileges to former Presidents of the
United States, and for other purposes', ap-
proved August 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 838; 3 U.S.C.
note fol. 102), is amended by striking out
'$50,000' and inserting in lieu thereof
'$65,000'.
"Absorption of costs
"SEc. 125. (a) The cost of not less than
10 per centum of the aggregate amount of
the increases In compensation provided by
this title for the fiscal year 1985 shall be ab-
sorbed by the departments, agencies, estab-
lishments, and corporations in the executive
branch; and no amount beyond the addi-
tional sum for such compensation increases
proposed in the budget for the fiscal year
1965 is authorized to be appropriated by any
provision of this Act. The total amount
of such absorption shall be alloocated by the
Bureau of the Budget among such depart-
ments, agencies, establishments, and corpora-
tions in such manner and to such extent as
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Release...20,0MM', CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17972 Approved For
wrquKtssioNAL RECORD ?HOUSE
August 3
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
deems appropriate in the light of their es-
sential functions.
"Iets) Pursuant to the objective of this sec-
tion. heads of the executive branch activities
concerned are directed to review with metic-
ulous care each vacancy resulting from
voluntary resignation, retirement, or death
and to determine whether the duties of the
position can be reassigned to other employees
or whether the position can be abolished
without seriously affecting the execution of
essential functions.
"(c) Nothing contained in subsection (a)
of this section shall be held or considered to
require (1) the separation from the service
of any individual by reduction in force or
other personnel action or (2) the placing of
arty individual in a leave-without-pay status.
''TITLE II-FEDERAL LEC/SLATIVE SALARIES
"Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the
'Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964.
"Ste. 202. (a) Each officer or employee in
or under the legislative branch of the Gov-
ernment whose rate of compensation is in-
creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees
Pay Act of 1946 shall be paid additional com-
pensation in an amount equal to the greater
of the following amounts, as applicable:
"(1 ) an amount equal to 3 ta per centum
of his ETOSS rate of compensation (basic com-
pensation plus additional compensation au-
thorized by law) in effect immediately prior
to the effective date of this section plus 1
per centum of such gross rate for each whole
multiple, or part of a multiple, of $500 basic
compensation; or
"(2) an amount equal to 5 per centtim
of such ernes rate.
"(b) The total annual compensation in
effect immediately prior to the effective date
of this section of each officer or employee of
the House of Representa(ives. whore compen-
sation is disbursed by the Clerk of the
house of Representatives and is not increased
by reason of any other provision of this title,
shall be increased by an amount which is
equal to the amount of she increase provided
by subsection (a) of this section in that
gross rate which is nearest in amount to
the total annual compensation of such officer
or employee.
"(c) Each of the limitations on gross rate
per thousand and gross rate per hour per
person provided by applicable law on the
effective date of this section with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the House or Representatives shall be in-
Creased by 7 per centum. The amount of
each increase under this subsection shall be
computed to the nearest cent, counting one-
half cent and over ass whole cent.
"(d) The additional compensation pro-
vided by this section shall be considered a
part of basic compensation for the purposes
of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C.
2251 and the following).
"(e) The basic compensation of each em-
ployee In the office of a Senator is hereby
adjusted, effective on the first day of the
month following the date of enactment of
this Act, to the lowest multiple of $60 which
will provide a gross rate of compensation not
less than the gross rate such employee was
receiving immediately prior thereto, except
that the foregoing provisions of this subsec-
tion shall not apply in the case of any em-
ployee if on or before the fifteenth day fol-
lowing the date of enactment of this Act, the
Senator by whom such employee Is employed
notifies the disbursing office of the Senate in
writing that he does not wish such provisions
to apply to such employee. No employee
whose basic compensation is adjusted under
this subsection shall receive any additional
compensation under subsection (a) for any
period prior to the effective date of such ad-
justment during which such employee was
employed in the office of the Senator by
whom he is employed on the first day of the
month following the enactment of this Act.
No additional compensation shall be paid
to any person under subsection (a) for any
period prior to the first day of the month
following the date of enactment of this Act
during which such person was employed In
the office of a Senator (other than a Senator
by whom he is employed on such day) un-
less on or before the fifteenth day following
the date of enactment of this Act such Sena-
tor notifies the disbursing office of the Sen-
ate in writing that he wishes such employee
to receive such additional compensation for
such period. In any case in which, at the
expiration of the time within which a Sena-
tor may give notice under this subsection,
such Senator is deceased such notice shall
be deemed to have been given.
" f ) Notwithstanding the provision refer-
red to in subsection (g), the rates of gross
compensation of the Secretory for the Ma-
jority of the Senate. the Secretary for the
Minority of the Senate. the Official Reporters
of Debates of the Senate, the Parliamen-
t:Irian of the Senate, the Senior Counsel In
the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the
Senate. and the Chief Clerk of the Senate
are hereby increased by an amount which is
equal to the amount of the increase which
would be provided by subsection (a) of this
section in that grass rate determined with-
out regard to the provisions referred to in
subsection ( g) of this section which is near-
est in amowit to the total annual compensa-
tion of such officer or employee.
"(g) The paragraph imposing limitations
on basic and gross compensation of officers
and employees of the Senate appearing under
the heading "SENATE" In the Legislative Ap-
propriation Act, 1956. as amended (74 Stat.
304: Public Law 116 568), Is amended by
striking out '$18,880' and inserting in lieu
t h ereof '$22,945'.
"(h) The limitation on gross rate per hour
per person provided by applicable law on
the effective date of this section with respect
to the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the Senate is hereby increased by 7 per
centum. The amount of such increase shall
be computed to the nearest cent, counting
one-half cent and over as a whole cent. The
provisions of subsection (a) of this section
shall not apply to employees whcee compen-
sation is subject to such limitation.
"( I) The gross rate of compensation of the
Postinaeter of the Senate shall be $18.420,
and the gross rate of compensation of the
Asaistant Postmaster of the Senate shall be
814.570. The provisions of section 106 of the
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act. 1963,
shall not hereafter apply to employees refer-
red to In this subsection.
"(j) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re-
orgstnization Act of 1946, as amended (2
U.S.C. 72a ( e) ) , is amended-
1) by striking out 18,880' where it
first. appears in such subsection and' insert-
ing in lieu thereof 'the highest amount
which, together with additional compen-
sation authorized by law, will not exceed
the maximum rate authorised by the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended.'; and
"(2) by striking out '$8.880' at the second
place where it appears in such subsection
and inserting In lieu thereof 'the highest
amount which, together with additional com-
pensation authorized by law, will not exceed
the maximum rate authorized by the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended'.
"(k) (1) This subsection is enacted as an
exercise of the rule making power of the
House of Representatives with full recog-
nition of the constitutional right of the
House of Representatives to change the rule
amended by this subsection at any time, in
the same manner, and to the same extent
as In the case of any other rule of the House
of Representatives.
"(2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended?
"(A) by striking out '$8,880' where it first
appears In such clause and inserting .n lieu
thereof 'the highest amount which, tcgether
with additional compensation authorized by
law, will riot exceed the maximum rate au-
thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended,'; and
"(B) by striking mit '$8,880' at the 5 econd
place where It appears in such clause and
Inserting ia lieu thereof 'the highest amount
Which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended."
"Sec. 20-3. (a) The compensation of the
Comptroller General of the United :States
shall be at the rate of $30,000 per annum.
"(b) The compensation of the Assistant
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $28,500 per annum.
"(c) The compensation of the General
Counsel of the United States General Ac-
counting Office, the Librarian of Congress,
the Public Printer, and the Architect Cf the
Capitol shell be at the rate of $27,00-) per
annum.
"(dl The compensation of the Deputy Li-
brarian of Congress. the Deputy Public
Printer, and the Assistant Architect o.! the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $25,500 per
annum.
"(e) The compensation of the Second. As-
sistant Architect of the Capitol shall he at
the rate of e23.500 per annum.
"(f) The compensation of the Chapla.n of
the House cf Representatives shall be at the
rate of $12,500 per annum.
"g) The compensation of the Secretary
of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the
Senate, and the Legislative Counsel of the
Senate shall be at :..he rate of $27,500 per
annum.
"(h) The compensation of the Chaplain of
the Senate shall be at the rate of $15,00C per
annum.
"Sec. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended
(2 U.S.C. 31), Is amended to read as follews:
" '(a) The compensation of Senators.
Representatives in Congress, and the Resi-
dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall
be at the rate of $30,000 per annum esch;
and the compensation of the Speaker of the
House of Representatives shall be at the
rate of $43,000 per annum.'
"Sec. 205. No officer or employee sub,)ect
to section 202(a) or 202(b) of this title shall
receive, by reason of any provision of this
title, an increase in gross rate of compensa-
tion (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by law), or in total
annual compensation, which is in excess of
the amount of the increase in basic com-
pensation provided by the amendment made
by section 102(a) of title I of this Act for
positions In grade 18 of the General Schedole
of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
"T/TLE III--TEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARIES
"Stec. 301. This title may be cited as the
'Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964'.
"Sec. 302. There is hereby established Mr
offices and positions tr.; which section 303 of
this title applies a basic compensation sched-
ule, to be known as the 'Federal Executive
Salary Schedule', which shall be divided into
five salary levels.
"SEc. 303. ) a ) Level I of the Federal Exec's-
tive Salary Scnedule shall apply to the fdl-
lowing offices and positions, for which the
annual rate of basic compensation shall be
$35,000:
"Ill Secretary of State.
"(2) Secretary of the Treasury.
"(3) Secretary of Defense.
"(4) Attorney General.
"(5) Postmaster General.
"(6) Secretary of the Interior.
"(7) Secretary of Agriculture.
"(8) Secretary of Commerce.
"(9) Secretary of Labor.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
.1964 Approved Feardeas.e 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
RESSIONAL REtORD ? HOUSE 17273
"(10) Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
"(b) Level II of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $30,000:
"(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
"(2) Under Secretary of State.
"(3) Administrator, Agency for Interna-
tional Development.
"(4) Administrator of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
"(5) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
"(6) Administrator of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
"(7) Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency.
"(8) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion.
"(9) Chairman, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
"(10) Chairman, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System.
"(11) Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
"(12) Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
"(13) Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency.
"(14) Director of the United States In-
formation Agency.
"(15) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice, so long
as the position is held by the present in-
cumbent: Provided, That thereafter the posi-
tion shall be placed in level III.
"(16) Director of Central Intelligence.
"(17) Secretary of the Air Force.
"(18) Secretary of the Army.
"(19) Secretary of the Navy.
"(c) Level III of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $28,500:
"(1) Deputy Attorney General.
"(2) Solicitor General of the United
States.
"(3) Deputy Postmaster General.
"(4) Under Secretary of Agriculture.
"(5) Under Secretary of Commerce.
"(6) Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportation.
"(7) Under Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
"(8) Under Secretary of the Interior.
"(9) Under Secretary of Labor.
"(10) Under Secretary of State for Politi-
cal Affairs or Under Secretary of State for
Economic Affairs.
"(11) Under Secretary of the Treasury.
"(12) Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs.
"(13) Administrator of General Services.
"(14) Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
"(15) Deputy Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs.
"(16) Deputy Administrator, Agency for
International Development.
"(17) Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board.
"(18) Chairman of the United States Civil
Service Commission.
"(19) Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission.
"(20) Chairman, Board of Directors, Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation.
"(21) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board.
"(22) Chairman, Federal Power Commis-
sion.
"(23) Chairman, Federal Trade Commis-
sion.
"(24) Chairman, Interstate Commerce
Commission.
"(25) Chairman, National Labor Relations
Board.
"(26) Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission.
"(27) Chairman, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
No. 149-18
"(28) Chairman, National Mediation
Board.
"(29) Chairman, Railroad Retirement
Board.
"(30) Chairman, Federal Maritime Com-
mission.
"(31) Comptroller of the Currency.
"(32) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
"(33) Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, Department of Defense.
"(34) Deputy Administrator of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(35) Deputy Director of the Bureau of
the Budget.
"(36) Deputy Director of Central Intelli-
gence.
"(37) Director of the Office of Emergency
Planning.
"(38) Director of the Peace Corps.
"(39) Director of Selective Service, so long
as the position is held by the present. incum-
bent: Provided, That thereafter the position
shall be placed in Level IV..
"(40) Chief Medical Director in the De-
partment of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration.
"(41) Director of the National Science
Foundation.
"(42) Deputy Administrator of the Hous-
ing and Home Finance Agency.
"(43) President of the Export-Import
Bank of Washington.
"(14) Members, Atomic Energy Commis-
(.45) Members, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
"(46) Associate Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Department of Jus-
tice, so long is the position is held by the
present incumbent: Provided, That there-
after the position shall be placed in Level IV.
"(d) Level IV of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $27,000:
"(1) Administrator, Bureau of Security
and Consular Affairs, Department of State.
"(2) Deputy Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
"(3) Deputy Administrator of General
Services.
"(4) Associate Administrator of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(5) Assistant Administrators, Agency for
International Development (6) .
"(6) Regional Assistant Administrators,
Agency for International Development (4).
"(7) Under Secretary of the Air Force.
"(8) Under Secretary of the Army.
"(9) Under Secretary of the Navy.
"(10) Deputy Under Secretaries of State
(2) .
"(11) Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture
(3)?
"(12) Assistant Secretaries of Commerce
(4) .
"(13) Assistant Secretaries of Defense (7).
"(14) Assistant Secretaries of the Air
Force (3) .
"(15) Assistant Secretaries of the Army
(3).
"(16) Assistant Secretaries of the Navy
(3) ?
"(17)
ucation
"(18)
(4).
"(19)
"(20)
"(21)
"(22)
"(23)
ury (4).
"(24) Chairman of the United States Tar-
iff Commission.
"(25) Commissioner, Community Facili-
ties Administration.
"(26) Commissioner, Federal Housing Ad-
ministration,
Assistant Secretaries of Health. Ed-
and Welfare (2).
Assistant Secretaries of the Interior
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Attorneys General (9).
Secretaries of Labor (4).
Postmasters General (5),
Secretaries of State (11).
Secretaries of the Treas-
"(27) Commissioner, Public Housing Ad-
ministration.
"(28) Commissioner, Urban Renewal Ad-
ministration.
"(29) Director of Civil Defense, Depart-
ment of the Army.
"(30) Director of the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service.
"(31) Deputy Chief Medical Director in
the Department of Medicine and Surgery of
the Veterans' Administration.
"(32) Deputy Director of the Office of
Emergency Planning.
"(33) Deputy Director of the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology.
"(34) Deputy Director of the Peace Corps.
"(35) Deputy Director_ of the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency.
"(36) Deputy Director of the United
States Information Agency.
"(37) Assistant Directors of the Bureau of
the Budget (3).
"(38) General Counsel of the Department
of Agriculture.
"(39) General Counsel of the Department
of Commerce.
"(40) General Counsel of the Department
of Defense.
"(41) General Counsel of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
"(42) Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior.
"(43) Solicitor of the Department of
Labor.
"(44) General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board.
"(45) General Coupsel of the Post Office
Department.
"(46) Counselor of the Department of
State.
"(47) Legal Adviser of the Department of
State.
"(48) General Counsel of the Department
of the Treasury.
"(49) First Vice President of the Export-
Import Bank of Washington.
"(50) General Manager of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission.
"(51) Governor of the Farm Credit Ad-
ministration.
"(52) Inspector General, Foreign Assist-
ance.
"(53) Deputy Inspector General, Foreign
Assistance.
"(54) Members, Civil Aeronautics Board.
"(55) Members, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
"(56) Members, Board of Directors of the
Export-Import Bank of Washington.
"(57) Members, Federal Communications
Commission.
"(58) Member, Board of Directors of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
"(59) Members, Federal Home Loan Bank
Board.
"(60) Members, Federal Power Commis-
sion.
"(61) Members, Federal Trade Commis-
sion.
"(62) Members, Interstate Commerce
Commission.
"(63) Members, National Labor Relations
Board.
"(64) Members, Securities and Exchange
Commission.
"(65) Members, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
"(66) Members, United States Civil Serv-
ice Commission.
"(67) Members, Federal Maritime Com-
mission.
"(68) Members, National Mediation Board.
"(69) Members, Railroad Retirement
Board.
"(e) Level V of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following
officers and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $26,000:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17274 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 3
"(I) Administrator, Agricultural Market-
ing Service, Department of Agriculture.
"(2) Administrator, Agricultural Research
Service, Department of Agriculture.
"(3) Administrator, Agricultural Stabili-
zation and Conservation Service, Department
of Agriculture.
"(4) Administrator. Farmers Home Ad-
ministration.
"(5) Administrator, Foreign Agricultural
Service, Department of Agriculture
"(6) Administrator, Rural Electrification
Administration, Department of Agriculture.
"(7) Administrator, $oli Conservation
Service, Department of Agriculture.
"(8) Administrator, Bonneville Power Ad-
ministration, Department of the Interior.
"(9) Administrator of the National Capi-
tal Transportation Agency.
"(10) Administrator of the Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation.
"(11) Deputy Administrators of the Small
Business Administration (4).
"(12) Associate Administrator for Admin-
istration, Federal Aviation Agency.
"(13) Associate Administrator for De-
velopment, Federal Aviation Agency.
"(14) Associate Administrator for Pro-
grams, Federal Aviation Agency.
"(151 Associate Administrator for Ad-
vanced Research and Technology. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
"(16) Associate Administrator for Space
Science and Applications, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
"(17) Associate Administrator for Manned
Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
"(18) Associate Deputy Administrator, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(19) Deputy Associate Administrator. Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(20) Associate Deputy Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs.
"(21) Archivist of the United States.
(22) Area Redevelopment Administra-
tor, Department of Commerce
"(23) Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
for Administration.
"(24) Assistant Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation. and Welfare for Administration.
"(25) Assistant Secetary of the Interior
for Administration.
"(26) Assistant Attorney General for Ad-
ministration,
"(27) Assistant Secretary of Labor for Ad-
ministration.
"(28) Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
for Administration.
"(29) Assistant General Manager, Atomic
Energy Commission.
"(30) Assistant and Science Adviser to the
Secretary of the Interior.
"(31) Chairman, Foreign Claims Settle-
ment Commission of the United States.
"(32) Chairman of the Military Liaison
Committee to the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, Department of Defense.
"(33) Chairman of the Renegotiation
Board.
"(34) Chairman of the Subversive Activi-
ties Control Board.
"(35) Chief Counsel for the Internal Reve-
nue Service, Department of the Treasury.
"(36) Chief Forester of the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture.
"(3'7) Chief Postal Inspector. Post Office
Department.
"(38) Chief, Weather Bureau, Department
of Commerce.
"(39) CommIssioner of Customs, Depart-
of the Treasury.
"(40) Commissioner, Federal Supply Serv-
ice, General Services Administration.
"(41) Commissioner of Education. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
"(42) Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.
Department of the Interior.
"(43) Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
"(44) Commisaloner a Immigration and
Naturalivation. Department of Justice.
"(45) Counnissioner of Indian Affairs. De-
partment of the Interior,
"148) Chief Cotnrnissioner, Indian Claims
Conunission.
"1471 Associate Commissioners, Indian
Claims Commiasion (2} .
"(48) Commissioner of Patents, Depart-
ment of Commerce.
"(49) Commiasioner, Public Buildings
Service, General Services Administration.
"(50) Commissioner of Reclamation, De-
partment of the Interior.
"(51) Commissioner of Social Security,
Department of Health. Education, and Wel-
fare.
"(52) Commissioner of Vocational Reha-
bilitation. Department of Health. Education,
and Welfare.
"(53) Commissioner of Welfare. Depart-
ment of Health. Education, and Welfare.
"(54) Director, Advanced Research Proj-
ects Agency, Department of Defense.
"(55) Director of Agricultural Economics,
Department of Agriculture.
"(56) Director, Bureau of the Census, De-
partment of Commerce.
"(57) Director, Bureau of Mines, Depart-
ment of the Interior.
"(58) Director, Bureau of Prisons, Depart-
me lit of Justice.
"150) Director, Geological Survey. Depart-
ment of the Interior.
"(60) Director. Office of Research and
Engineering. Post Office Department.
"(61) Director, National Bureau of Stand-
ards, Department of Commerce.
821 Director of Regulation, Atomic
Energy Commission.
"(63) Director of Science and Education.
Department of Agriculture.
"(64) Deputy Under Secretary for Mone-
tary Affairs, Department of the Treasury.
-(65) Deputy Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. Department of the Treasury.
"(68) Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation.
"(61) Deputy Director. Policy and Plans,
United States Information Agency.
"188) Deputy General Counsel. Depart-
ment of Defense.
"(891 Deputy General Manager, Atomic
Energy Commission.
"(70) Associate Director of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service.
"(711 Associate Director for Volunteers.
Peace Corps
"(7) Associate Director for Program De-
velopment and Operations, Peace Corps.
"173) Asalatants to the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department
of Justice (2).
"(74) Assietant Directors, Office of Emer-
gency Planning (3).
"(75) Assistant Directors. United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (4).
"(76) Federal Highway Administrator, De-
partment of Commerce.
"(77) Fiacal Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury.
"(78) General Counsel of the Agency for
International Development
"(70) General Counsel of the Department
of the Mr Force.
"(80) General Counsel of the Department
of the Army.
"(81) General Counael of the Atomic
Energy Commisaion.
"(82) General Counsel of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
"(83) General Counsel of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
"(84) General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy.
"(85) General Counsel of the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
"(88) General Counsel of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(87) Governor of the Canal Zone.
"(88) Manpower Administrator, Depart-
ment of Labor.
"(89) Maritime Administrator, Depaat-
ment of Commerce.
"(90) Members, Foreign Claims Settle-
ment Commission of the United States.
"(91) Members, Renegotiation Board.
"(92) Members, Subversive Activities Cen-
trol Board.
(931 Members, United States Tariff Com-
mission.
"(94) President of the Federal National
Mortgage Association.
"(95) Special Assistant to the Secretary
(Health and Medical Affairs), Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
"(90) Deputy Directors of Defense Re-
search and Engineering, Department of
Defense (4).
"(97) Asaistant Administrator of General
Services.
"(98) Director, United States Travel Serv-
ice. Departmc-nt of Commerce.
"(99) Executive Director of the United
States Civil Service Commission.
"(1) In addition to the offices and posi-
tions listed in subsections (d) and (e ) of
this section, the President is authorized to
place from time to time offices and positions
held by not to exceed thirty persons in leaels
IV and V of the Federal Executive Sa..ary
Schedule when he deems such action neees-
sary to reflect changes in organization, man-
agement responsibilities, or workload in any
Federal department or agency. Any such
action with respect to an office to which ap-
pointment is made by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate
shall be effective only at the time of a new
appointment to such office. Each action
taken under this subsection shall be pub-
lished in the Federal Register, except when
It is determined by the President that such
publication would be contrary to the interest
of the national security. No action shall be
taken under this subsection with respect to
an office or position the compensation for
which is fixed at a specific rate by this
section or by statute enacted subsequert to
the date of enactment of this Act.
"(g) In addition to the offices and posi-
tions listed in subsections (d) and (e) of
this section and the offices and positions
placed by tae President in levels IV and V
pursuant to subsection (f) of this section,
the President is authorized to place, during
the period which begins on the day imme-
diately following the date of enactment of
this Act and which terminates on the first
day of the sixth month which begins fcalow-
ing the date of enactment of this Act, in
levele IV and V of the Federal Execative
Salary Schedule offices and positions he'd by
not to exceed thirty persons, the duties: and
responsibilities of which he deems appro-
priate for :such levels. No action shall be
taken under this subsection with respect to
an office or potation the compensation for
which is fixed at a specific rate by .this sec-
tion or by statute enacted subsequent to the
date of enactment of this Act.
"Sem 364 (a) Section 104 of title 3, United
States Code (relating to the compeneation
of the Vice President), is amended by .atrik-
ing out 135,000 and inserting in lieu thereof
143,000.
"(b) Section 105 of title 3, United Incites
Code, is amended to read as follows:
" '? 105. Compensation of secretaries and
executive, administrative, and
staff assistants to President
''The President is authorized to fix the
compensation of the six administratiee as-
sistants authorized to be appointed under
section 106 of this title, of the Exemtive
Secretary of the National Security Courcil, of
the Executive Secretary of the National
Aeronautics and Space Council, and of eight
other secretaries or immediate staff assist-
ants in the White House Office at rates of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18_.? CIA-RDPMB00403R000500050001-9 17275
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HO u St
basic compensation not to exceed that of
level n of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule.'.
"Conforming changes in existing law
"Sso. 305. The following provisions of law
are hereby repealed;
"(1) The Federal Executive Pay Act of
1956, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), es-
tablishing rates of basic compensation for
heads of executive departments and other
Federal officials.
"(2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Army.
"(3) Section 3013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary
of the Army at $20,000 a year.
"(4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy.
"(5) Section 5033(c) of title 10, United
States Code, providing the annual salary of
$20,000 a year for the Under Secretary of the
Navy.
"(6) Section 306 of Public Law 87-651, ap-
proved September 7, 1962 (76 Stat. 526; 10
U.S.C. 5034, note), providing compensation
of $20,000 a year for Assistant Secretaries of
the Navy.
"(7) Section 8012(g) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of
$22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Air
Force.
"(8) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secre-
tary of the Air Force at $20,000 a year.
"(9) Section 137(c) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the compensation of the
General Counsel of the Department of De?
tense at the rate prescribed by law for as-
sistant secretaries of executive departments.
"(10) (A) The last sentence of section 22
a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C.
2032(a)), relating to the annual salaries of
the Chairman and members of such Com-
mission, which reads: 'Each member, except
the Chairman, shall receive compensation at
the rate of $22,000 per annum; and the
member designated as Chairman shall re-
ceive compensation at the rate of $22,500
per annum.'.
"(B) That part of the first sentence of
section 27 a. of the Atomic Energy Mt of
1951 (68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a) ), re-
lating to the salary of the Chairman of the
Military Liaison Committee which reads:
and who shall receive compensation at the
rate prescribed for an Assistant Secretary
of Defense'.
"(11) That part of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 861;
75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note)-
"(A) In section 2(b), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Director of the Office of
Emergency Planning, which reads: 'and shall
receive compensation at the rate now or
hereafter prescribed by law for the heads of
executive departments':
"(B) In section 2(c), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Deputy Director of such
Office, which reads: 'shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate now or hereafter prescribed
by law for the under secretaries referred to
in section 104 of the Federal Executive Pay
Act of 1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203),'; and
"(C) In section 2(d), relating to the an-
nual salaries of three Assistant Directors of
such Office, which reads: 'shall receive com-
pensation at .the rate now or hereafter pre-
scribed by law for assistant secretaries of
executive departments,'.
"(12) (A) That part of the second sen-
tence of section 202(a) of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429;
42 U.S.C. 2472(a) ), relating to the annual
salary of the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
which i reads: and shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $22,500 per annum'.
"(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 202(b) ? of such Act (72 Stat. 429; 42
U.S.C. 2472 (b) ), relating to the annual sal-
ary of the Deputy Administrator of such
Administration, which reads: ', shall receive
compensation at the rate of $21,500 per an-
num,'
"(13) (A) That part of section 201(f) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ), relat-
ing to the annual salary of a civilian execu-
tive secretary in the National Aeronautics
and Space Council, which reads: 'and shall
receive compensation at the rate of $20,000
a year'.
"(B) That part of section 204 of such Act
(72 Stat. 431, 432; 42 U.S.C. 2474(a) (1), and
(d) ), relating to the annual salary of the
Chairman of the Civilian-Military Liaison
Committee, as follows:
"In subsection (a) (1), that part which
reads: ', and shall receive compensation( in
the manner provided in subsection (d) ) at
the rate of $20,000 per annum'.
"In the second sentence of subsection (d),
that part which reads: 'fixed by subsection
(a) (1)%
"(14) (A) That part of the second sentence
of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949
(63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a)) as amended,
relating to the rank and salary of the Coun-
selor and of the Legal Adviser of the De-
partment of State, which reads: 'and shall
receive the same salary as'.
"(B) The last sentence of section 2(a) of
the Act of May 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C.
151b (a) ) as amended, relating to the rate of
basic compensation of the Deputy Under
Secretaries of State, which reads: 'Unless
otherwise provided for by law, the rate of
basic compensation of the Deputy Under
Secretaries of State shall be the same as that
of Assistant Secretaries of State.'.
"(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as
amended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ), re-
lating to the annual salary of the Under Sec-
retary of State for Political Affairs or for
Economic Affairs, as designated by the Presi-
dent, which reads: 'shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $22,000 a year and'.
"(15) The last sentence of 210(a) of title
38, United States Code, relating to the an-
nual salary of the Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs, Veterans' Administration, which
reads: 'Ile shall receive a salary of $21,000 a
year, payable monthly.'.
"(16) (A) The last sentence of section 201
(a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) (2) ), relating
to the annual salaries of the Chairman and
members of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
which reads: 'Each member of the Board
shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000
per annum, except that the member serving
as Chairman shall receive a salary at the rate
of $20,500 per annum.'.
"(B) That part of the second sentence of
section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744; 49
U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual sal-
ary of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency, which reads: and who shall
receive compensation at the rate of $22,600
per anuum'.
"(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 714; 49
U.S.C. 1342(a) ), relating to the annual sal-
ary of the Deputy Administrator of such
Agency, which reads: 'shall receive compen-
sation at the rate of $20,500 per annum, and'.
"(17) (A) The last sentence of section 22 of
the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (75
Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2562), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Director of the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, which reads: 'He shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum.'.
"(B) The second sentence of section 23 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2553), relat-
ing to the annual salary of the Deputy Direc-
tor of such Agency, which reads: 'He shall
receive compensation at the rate of $21,500
per annum.'.
"(C) The second sentence of section 21 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2564), relat-
ing to the annual salaries of the four Assist-
ant Directors of such Agency, which reads:
'They shall receive compensation at the rate
of $20,000 per annum.'.
"(18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1955
(69 Stat. 10; 5 U.S.C. 294, 293, 295a), relat-
ing to the annual salaries of certain officials
of the Department of Justice, which reads:
" 'Sze. 3. (a) The compensation of the
Deputy Attorney General shall be at the rate
of $21,000 per annum.
"'(b) The compensation of the Solicitor
General shall be at the rate of $20,600 per
annum.
''(c) The compensation of each Assistant
Attorney General, other than the Adminis-
trative Assistant Attorney General, shall be
at the rate of $20,000 per annum'.
"(19) (A) The last sentence of section
102(c) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 7
of 1961 (75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note),
relating to the annual salaries of the Chair-
man and members of the Federal Maritime
Commission, which reads: 'The Chairman of
the Commission shall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,600 per annum, and each of the
other Commissioners shall receive a salary
at the rate of $20,000 per annum.'.
"(B) That part of section 201 of such re-
organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C. 133z-
15, note), relating to the annual salary of the
Maritime Administrator in the Department
of Commerce, which reads: 'shall receive a
salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum,'.
"(20) That part of the fourth sentence of
section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and 913; 15
U.S.C. 78d(a) ),relating to the annual salaries
of the Chairman and Commissioners of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which
reads: 'shall 'receive a salary at the rate of
$20,000 a year, except that the Chairman
shall receive additional salary at the rate of
$500 a year and'.
"(21) Section 8 of the Food Additives
Amendment of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5 U.S.C.
2205, note), fixing the annual salary of the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs at $20,000
per annum.
"(22) That part of the first sentence of
section 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act
(75 Stat. 48; 42 U.S.C. 2502), relating to the
annual salary of the Area Redevelopment
Administrator in the Department of Com-
merce, which reads: 'who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to that received by
Assistant Secretaries of Commerce'.
"(23) The last sentence of section 203(b)
(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 ('72
Stat. 620; 5 71.S.C. 171c(b) (1) ), relating to
the annual salary of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering in the Department
of Defense, which reads: 'The compensation
of the Director is that prescribed by law for
the Secretaries of the military departments.'.
"(24) In section 303(a) of title 23, United
States Code,
"(A) That part of the second sentence,
relating to the annual salary of the Federal
Highway Administrator in the Department
of Commerce, which reads: 'shall receive
basic compensation at the rate prescribed by
law for Assistant Secretaries of executive
departments and'; and
"(B) The last sentence, relating to the an-
nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway
Admint-trator in such department, which
reads: 'The Deputy Federal Highway Admin-
istrator shall receive basic compensation at
a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided for
the Federal Highway Administrator.'.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17276 Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
"(25) The last proviso in the paragraph
under the heading 'IraasnatATioar AND NAT-
URALIZATION SERVICE' and under the subhead-
ing 'SALARIES AND EXPENSES' in the Depart-
rnent of Justice Appropriation Act, 1959 (72
Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206. note), relating to
the annual salary of the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice, which reads: ': Provided further, That,
hereafter, the compensation of the Commis-
sioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall be $20.000 per annum'.
-(26) The second paragraph of section 3
of title 35, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Commissioner of
Patents which reads: 'The annual rate of
compensation of the Commissioner shall be
$20,000.'.
"(27) That part of section 4(a) of the
Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612. 22 U.S.C.
2503(a)), relating to the annual salaries of
the Director and of the Deputy Director of
the Peace Corps, which reads: ', whose com-
pensation shall be fixed by the President at
a rate not in excess of $20,000 per annum,'
and '. whose compensation shall be fixed by
the President at a rate not In excess of *19,500
per annum'.
"(28) (A) Section 308 of title 39. United
States Code, fixing the annual rate of basic
compensation of the position of Chief Postal
Inspector in the Post Office Department at
$19.000.
"(B) That part of the table of contents
of chapter 3 of title 39, United States Code,
which reads as follows:
"'308. Chief Postal Inspector:.
"(29) That part of the first sentence of
section 4 of the International Travel Act of
1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating
to the annual salary of the Director of the
United States Travel Service in the Depart-
ment of Commerce. which reads: 'who shall
be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per
annum:.
"(30) Section 14(b) of the Federal Em-
ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat.
716; 5 U.S.C. 3013(b)). which fixes the com-
pensation of the Executive Director of the
United States Civil Service Commission at
$19.000 per annum.
"(31) That part of the first sentence of
section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of
1951. as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C.
App. 1217(c)), relating to the annual salary
of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation
Board, which reads: ', and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $19.000 per annum'.
"(32) (A) That part of the third sentence
In section 201(a) of the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 538;
40 U.S.C. 6131(a)), relating to the annual
salary of the Administrator of the National
Capital Transportation Agency, which rends:
and who shall receive compensation at a
rate equal to the maximum rate for grade 18
of the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended. plus $500 per
annum'.
"(B) That part of the first sentence of
section 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538; 40
U.S.C. 661(b) ). relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency,
which reads: ', and who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to the maximum
rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended'.
"(33) The last sentence of section 624(d)
(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ( '75
Stat. 447: 22 U.S.C. 2384(d) (Ii), as amended,
fixing the compensation of certain officials in
the Department of State, which reads: 'The
Inspector General. Foreign Assistance, shall
receive compensation at the rate of $20,000
annually; the Deputy Inspector General,
Foreign Assistance, shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $20,000 annually, and-each
Assistant Inspector General, Foreign Assist-
ance, shall receive compensation at the rate
of $19.000 annually:.
"(34) That part of section 202 of the Act
of July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 5 U.S.C. 623g),
relating to the annual salary of the Admin-
istrative Assistant Secretary of Health. Edu-
cation, and Welfare, which reads: ',and whose
annual rate of basic compensation shall be
$19,000'.
"(35) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1963, under the heading
'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' and un-
der the caption `BUREAU or RECLAMATION'
and the subheading 'atuarauaramrivis a/roar-
stoats' (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 3735-1), re-
lating to the annual salary of the present
incumbent of the position of Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads:
"'Alter September 30. 1962, the position of
Commissioner of Reclamation shall have the
annual rate of compensation as provided for
positions listed in section 2205(a) of title 5,
United States Code, so long as held by the
present incumbent!.
"(36) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1962. under the heading
'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' and
under the Caption 'BONNEVILLE POWER AD-
MINISTRATION' and the subheading 'CON-
STRUCTION' (75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1),
relating to the annual salary of the present
Incumbent of the position of Administrator,
Banneville Power Administration, which
reads:
" 'After Oc1.4.aser 1. 1961. the position of
Administrator. Bonneville Power Adminis-
tration. shall have the same annual rate of
compensation as that provided for positions
listed in section 2205( b) of title 5, United
States Code, so long as held by the present
incumbent:.
"(37) Section 205 of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act. 1958 (71 Stat. 423; 5 U.S.C.
483-1 note. 2208 note), as amended, relating
to the salary of the present incumbent of
the position of Administrator of the South-
western Power Administration In the Depart-
ment of the Interior, and to the salary of the
Administrative Assistant Secretary of such
Department, which reads:
" 'Sec. 205. After August 31, 1957. the
salary of the Administrator of the South-
western Power Administration shall be the
same as the salary of the Administrator of
the Bonneville Power Administration, so long
as held by the present incumbent; and the
salary of the Administrative Assistant Sec-
retary of the Department shall be the same
as the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior.'.
"(38) The proviso in the first paragraph
under the heading 'FEDERAL Btrarati or IN-
vEsTtcerioN' and under the subheading
'SALARIES AND EXI.ENSES' in the Department of
Justice Appropriation Act, 1964 (77 Stat.
782; Public Law 88-245), relating to the
annual salary of the present incumbent of
the position of Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, which reads:
?. provided. That the compensation of the
Director of the Bureau shall be $22,000 per
annum so long as the position is held by
the present incumbent' and provisions to
the same effect contained in other appro-
priation Acts enacted prior to the effective
date of this section relating to the annual
salary of the present incumbent of the posi-
tion of Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
"(39) That part of section 7801(b) (2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, relating to the annual salary of the
Assistant General Counsel of the Treasury
Department who shall be the Chief Counsel
for the Internal Revenue Service, which
reads: 'and shall receive basic compensation
at tile annual rate of $19,000'.
"(40) (A) Sections 3018. 6014, and 8018
of title 10, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the general counsels of the
military departments.
August 3
(Hi The respective tables of contents of
chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 1C, United
States Code, are amended by striking out
" '3018. Compensation of Genera. Coun-
sel.';
" '5014. Compensation of Genera: Coun-
sel.'; and
" '8018. Compensation of General Coun-
sel.'.
"(41)(A) That part of section 2(a of Re-
organization Plan Numbered 2 of 1962 176
Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), relating
to the compensation of the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology, which
reads: 'and shall receive compensation at the
rate of $22,500 per annum'.
"(B) That part of section 2(b) of such re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating to the compensation
of the Deputy Director of the Office of Science
and Technology, which reads: 'anti receive
compensation at the rate of 620,500 aer an-
num'.
'(C) That part of section 22(a) of such re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1255; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15. note), relating to the compensation
of the Director of the National ;Science
Foundation, which reads: 'shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $21,000 per Inn=
and'.
"(42) That part of section 624(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447;
22 U.S.C. 2384(5)), relating to the ccmpen-
Batton of twelve officers in the agency pri-
marily responsible for administering part I
of such Act, which reads: 'of whom--
'(1) one shall have the rank of an Under
Secretary and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized ay law
for any Under Secretary of an executive de-
partment;
'"(2) oae shall have the rank of Deputy
Under Secretary and shall be compensated at
a rate not to exceed the rate authoriaed by
law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an
executive department; and
"*(3) ten shall have the rank of Assistant
Secretaries and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized by
law for any Assistant Secretary of an execu-
tive department:.
"(43) That part of the first sentence of
section 104(b) of the Immigration and Na-
tionality Act 166 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104.(b)),
relating to the rank and compensation of
the Administrator. Bureau of Securita and
Consular Affairs, which reads: 'and compen-
sation'.
"(44) That part of section 3 of Reorgani-
zation Plan Numbered 1 of 1953 (67 Stat. 631;
5 U.S.C. 623, note), relating to the Special
Assistant to the Secretary (Health and Med-
ical Affairs), Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, which reads: ', and shall
receive compensation at the rate now or
hereafter provided by law for assistant secre-
taries of executive departments'.
"Sze. 306. (a) (1) Section 508 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
" '? 508. Salaries
" 'Subject to subsection if) of section 3C3
of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964,
the Attorney General shall fix the annua sal-
aries of United States attorneys, assistant
United States attorneys, and attorneys ap-
pointed under section 503 of this title at
rates of compensation not in excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended.'.
"(2) Subject to section 303(f) of this Act,
each incumbent United States attorney and
assistant United States attorney shall be
paid compensation at a rate equal to that of
attorneys of comparable responsibility and
professional qualifications, as determined by
the Attorney General, whose compensation
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196,4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
is prescribed in the General Schedule of the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
"(b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service
Eict of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 22
J.S.C. 866), relating to the per annum
;alaries of chiefs of mission, is amended by
striking out the second sentence of that sec-
don and inserting in lieu thereof the follow-
ng: 'The per annum salaries of chiefs of
nission within each class shall be at the
'ate provided by law for the levels of the
Tederal Executive Salary Schedule as follows:
:lass 1, the rate for level II; class 2, the rate
or level III; class 3, the rate for level IV;
end class 4, the rate for level V.'.
'(c) That part of section 201(f) of the
gational Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ), fixing a
Limit of $19,000 on the compensation of seven
persons in the National Aeronautics and
Space Council, is amended by striking out
compensated at the rate of not more than
1119,000 a year,' and inserting in lieu thereof
compensated at not to exceed the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General. Schedule of
:he Classification Act of 1949, as amended,'.
"(d) Clause (A) of section 203(b) (2) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2) ), as
emended, is amended to read as follows:
(A) to the extent the Adminstrator deems
such action necessary to the discharge of his
responsibilities, he may appoint not more
than four hundred and twenty-five of the
scientific, engineering, and administrative
personnel of the Administration without re-
gard to such laws, and may fix the compensa-
tion of such personnel not in excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended, and'.
"(e) Section 6(f) of the Act of September
24, 1959 (73 Stat. 706; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f) ),
relating to the maximum compensation pay-
able to employees of the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations, is
amended by striking out 'at a rate in excess
of $20,000 per annum' and by inserting in
lieu thereof 'at a rate in excess of the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended'.
'(f) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is further amended as follows:
"(1) In the last sentence of section 24 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034
(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the
General Manager of such Commission, (A)
by inserting 'and' immediately before 'shall
be removable by the Commission' and (B)
by striking out that part which reads: ',and
shall receive compensation at a rate de-
termined by the Commission, but not in
excess of 822,000 per annum';
"(2) In the last sentence of section 24 b.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034 (b) ), relating to
the annual salary of the Deputy General
Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert-
ing 'and' immediately before 'shall be re-
movable by the General Manager' and (B)
by striking out that part which reads: ', and
shall receive compensation at a rate de-
termined by the General Manager, but 'not
in excess of $20,500 per annum';
"(3) In the last sentence of section 24 c.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c) ), relating to
the annual salaries of the Assistant General
Managers (or their equivalents) of such
Commission, (A) by inserting 'and' im-
mediately before 'shall be removable by the
General Manager' and (B) by striking out
that part which reads: ', and shall receive
compensation at a rate determined by the
General Manager, but not in excess of 820,-
000 per annum';
"(4) In the second sentence of section 25
a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035
(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di-
rectors of program divisions of such Corn-
mission, by striking out that part which
reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
in excess of $19,000 per annum';
"(5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat.
612; 42 U.S.C. 2035 (b) ), relating to the an-
nual salary of the General Counsel of such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
in excess of 819,500 per annum';
"(6) In the first sentence of section 25 c.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C.
2035(c) ), relating to the annual salary of the
Director of the Inspection Division in such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: 'and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
In excess of $19,000 per annum';
"(7) In the last sentence of section 25 d.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2085(d)), relating
to the annual salaries of certain executive
management positions in such Commission,
(A) by inserting 'and' immediately before
'shall be removable by the General Manager'
and (B) by striking out that part which
reads: ', and shall receive compensation at
a rate determined by the General Manager,
but not in excess of 819,000 per annum'; and
"(8) In the second sentence of section 28
(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2038), relating to the
compensation of the active member of the
Armed Forces serving as Director of the Di-
vision of Military Application in such Com-
mission, by striking out that part which
reads 'and the compensation prescribed in
section 25' and inserting in lieu thereof, 'and
the compensation established for this posi-
tion pursuant to section 303 or section 309
of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964'.
"(g) Section 2 of the Act of July 30, 1946,
as amended (60 Stat. '712; 70 Stat. 740; 22
U.S.C. 287n), relating to the compensation
of the United States representatives and al-
ternates at sessions of the General Confer-
ence of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is
amended by striking out 'Such representa-
tives and alternates shall each be entitled
to receive compensation at such rates, not
to exceed 815,000 per annum, as the Presi-
dent may determine,' and inserting in lieu
thereof 'Such representatives and alternates
shall each be entitled to receive compensa-
tion at such rates provided for Foreign Serv-
ice officers in the schedule contained in sec-
tion 412 of the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as
amended, as the President may determine,'.
"(h) The third sentence of section 2 of
the Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C.
402, nate), is amended to read as follows:
'Except as provided in subsection (f) of sec-
tion 303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act
of 1964, no officer or employee of the Na-
tional Security Agency shall be paid basic
compensation at a rate in excess of the high-
est rate of basic compensation contained in
such General Schedule.'.
"(1) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of
17277
July 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs.
1-204a and 1-204b), relating to the compen-
sation of the Commissioners of the District
of Columbia, are amended to read as fol-
lows:
"'Sze. 2. Except as otherwise provided by
this section and section 3 of this Act-
"'(-1) the compensation of the Commis-
sioners of the District of Columbia shall be
at the rate of $26,500 each per annum; and
"'(2) the Commissioner detailed from the
Corps of Engineers of the United States Army
shall receive an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he receives
as an officer of the United States Army, will
equal the compensation authorized by para-
graph (1) of this section.
"'Sze. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law-
" '(1) the compensation of the President
of the Board of Commissioners of the Dis-
trict of Columbia shall be at the rate of
826,000 per annum; and
"'(2) if the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army is chosen President of the Board of
Commissioners, he shall receive, as President
of the Board, an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he receives
as an officer of the United States Army, will
equal the compensation authorized by para-
graph (1) of this section.'.
"(2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law 88-
211), relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief Judge and the associate Judges
of the District of Columbia Court a Appeals,
is amended-
"(A) by striking out 119,000' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof '$25,000'; and
"(B) by striking out 118,500' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof '$24,500'.
"(3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of
Columbia ;Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law 88-
241) , relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief judge and the associate Judges
of the District of Columbia Court of General
Sessions, is amended-
"(A) by striking out '818,000' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof '$24,000'; and
"(B) by striking out 117,500' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 123,500'.
"(4) The first sentence of the second para-
graph of section 2 of the District of Colum-
bia Revenue Act of 1937, as amended (D.C.
Code, sec. 47-2402), relating to the compen-
sation of the person appointed to the Dis-
trict of Columbia Tax Court, is amended by
striking out '$17,500' and inserting in lieu
thereof '823,500'.
"(5) That part of the salary schedule in
section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach-
ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (76 Stat.
1229; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501), relating to
the compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools, of the District of Columbia, which
reads:
" 'Class 1: Superintendent of Schools ..1$19, 000
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent_ 16, 600 I
is amended to read as follows:
'"Class 1: Superintendent of Schools _j$26, 000 I
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent__ j 22, 000 I
"(6) That part of the salary schedule in
section 101 of the District of Columbia Police
and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
480), as amended (sec. 4-823, et seq., D.C.
Code, 1961 edition), relating to the compen-
sation of the Fire Chief and the Chief of
Police, which reads:
" Class 10
Fire Chief.
Chief of Police.'
is amended to read as follows:
" Class 10
Fire Chief.
Chief of Police.'
17, 000
I21,000
17,
21,
900
500
17, 800
22, 000
18, 200
22, 000 I
18, 600 19,
I23, 000 I 23,
000 I
600
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
"(j) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out'; compensation'
"(2) The table of contents of chapter 303
of such title 10 is =ended by striking out
" '3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by; compensa-
tion.'
and inserting in lieu thereof
" '3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by.'.
"(3) The catchline of section 5031 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out '; com-
pensation'.
"(4) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"'5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili-
ties; compensation.'
and inserting in lieu thereof
"'5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili-
ties...
"(5) The catchline of section 5033 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out '; com-
pensation'.
"(6) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"'5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap-
pointment; duties; compensation.'
and inserting in lieu thereof
"'5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap-
pointment; duties.'.
"(7) The catchline of section 8012 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out '; com-
pensation'.
"(8) The table of contents of chapter 803
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
" '8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation by; com-
pensation.'
and inserting in lieu thereof
"'8012. Secretary of the Aix Force: powers
and duties; delegation by.'.
"Changes in position titles
"SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in
any law or reorganization plan to the--
"Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral,
"Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Interior,
"Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture,
"Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Labor,
"Administrative Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury, or
"Administrative Aseistant Secretary of
Health, Education. and Welfare,
"such reference shall be held and considered
to mean the
"Assistant Attorney General for Adminis-
tration,
"Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Administration,
"Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Administration,
"Assistant Secretary of Labor for Adminis-
tration,
"Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Administration, or
"Assistant Secretary of Health. Education,
and Welfare for Administration,
respectively.
"Limitation on salaries fixed by administra-
tive action
"SEc. 308. Except as provided by this Act
and notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law, the head of any executive depart-
ment, independent establishment, or agency
in the executive branch who is authorized
to fix by administrative action the annual
rate of basic compensation for any position,
officer, or employee shall not fix such rate in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act of
1949, as amended. Nothing contained in this
section shall be construed to impair the
authorities provided in the Central Intelli-
gence Agency Act of 1949, as amended (50
U.S.C. 403a and following), in section 3 of
the Tenenssee Valley Authority Act of 1933
(16 U.S.C. 831b), in section 9 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), in
section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12
U.S.C. 2481. or in section 5240 of the Revised
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481. relating to the Comp-
troller of the Currency).
"Afisceilatterrus positions in the executive
bra rich
"Sec. 309. Each office or position in the
executive branch specifically referred to in,
or covered by, any conforming change in
law made by section 305 of this Act, or any
other office or position in the executive
branch for which the annual salary is es-
tablished pursuant to special provision of
law enacted prior to the date of enactment of
this Act, at a figure of $18.500 or above, which
is not placed In a level of the Federal Execu-
tive Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303
of this Act, shall be paid basic compensation
at a rate which is equal to the salary rate
of a grade and step of the General Schedule
of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
All actions taken under this section shall be
reported to the United States Civil Service
Commission and published in the Federal
Register, except when it is determined by
the President that such report and publica-
tion would be contrary to the interest of
national security.
"Saving provisions
"Sec. 310. (a) Except as provided by this
Act, the changes in existing law made by
tids Act shall not affect any office or posi-
tion existing immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of any such changes in existing
law, the compensation attached to such
office or position, and any incumbent thereof,
his appointment thereto, and his entitlement
to receive the compensation attached there-
to, until appropriate action is taken in ac-
cordance with this Act or other law.
"(b) Notwithstanding any provision of
this Act, the rate of basic gross, or total an-
nual compensation received by any officer or
employee immediately prior to the effective
elate of this section shall not be reduced
by reason of enactment of this Act.
%Tres tv ? FEDER AL JUDICIAL SALARIES
"Sec. 401. This title may he cited as the
'Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1984'.
"Sac. 402. (a) The rates of basic compen-
sation of officers and employees in or under
the judicial branch of the Government whose
rates of compensation are fixed by or pur-
suant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a of
section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.
102(a) (2)), section 3650 of title 18, United
States Code, the third sentence of section
603, sections 872 to 675. inclusive, or section
604(a) (5), of title 28, United States Code,
Insofar as the latter-section applies to graded
positions, are hereby increased by amounts
reflecting the respective applicable increases
provided by title I of this Act in correspond-
ing rates of compensation for officers and
employees subject to the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended. The rates of basic
compensation of officers and employees hold-
ing ungraded positions and whose salaries
are fixed pursuant to section 604(a) (5) may
be increased by the amounts reflecting the
respective applicable increases provided by
title I of this Act in corresponding rates of
compensation for officers and employees sub-
ject to the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended.
"(b) The limitations provided by applica-
ble law on the effective date of this section
with respect to the aggregate salaries payable
to secretaries and law clerks of circuit and
district judges are hereby increased by
amounts which reflect the respective appli-
cable increases provided by title I of this
A;Igust ;
Act in corresponding rates of compensasio
for officers and employees subject to ti
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
"(c) Section 753(e) of title 28, Unit(
States Code (relating to the compensa tic
of court reporters for district courts).
amended by striking out the existing sala
limitation contained therein and inserting
new limitation which reflects the respecti-
applicable increases provided by title I of tla
Act in corresponding rates of conmensatic
for officers and employees subject to ti
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
"(d) Section 40a of the Bankruptcy A
(11 U.S.C. C8(a) ), as amended, relating
the compensation of full-time and part-;in
referees in bankruptcy, is amended by a;ril
Mg out the existing compensation limitat ice
contained therein and inserting new limit)
tions of '$22,500' and 111.000', respective'
"Sac. 403. (a) Section 5 of title 28, Unite
States Code, relating to the salaries of ti
Chief Justice of the United States and )
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Con
of the United States, is amended by strikit
out 1.35,500' and substituting therefor '$40
000', and by striking out '$35.000' and sill
stituting therefor '$39,500'.
'Op) Section 44(d) of title 28, Unite
States Code, relating to circuit judges,
amended by striking out '825,500' and sui
stituting therefor '$33,000'.
"(c) Section 135 of title 28, United Stan
Code, relating to district judges, is amends
by striking out 122,500' and substitutir
therefor 130,000', and by striking out $23
000' and substituting therefor 130,500'.
"(d) Section 173 of title 28, United Etat)
Code, relating to judges of the Court (
Claims, is amended by striking out 125,50
and substituting therefor '$33,000'.
'(e) Section 213 of title 28, United State
Code, relating to judges of the Court of Cu
toms and Patent Appeals, is amended b
striking out 125,500' and substituting there
for 133,000'.
'(f) Section 252 of title 28, United State
Code, relating to judges of the Custom
Court, is amended by striking out 122,50t,
and substituting therefor 130,000'.
"(g) The first paragraph of section 603 of
title 28, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the Director and the Daputy
Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, is amended to read as
follows:
" 'The Director shall receive a salsry of
$27,000 a year. The Deputy Director shall
receive a salary of $26,000 a year.'
" ( h) Subsection (b) of section 792 of title
28, United States Code, relating to the com-
pensation of commissioners of the Court of
Claims, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Each commissioner shall receive
basic compensation at the rate of $2f,000 a
year, and also all necessary traveling expenses
and a per diem allowance as provided in the
Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amanded.
while traveling on official business ans. away
from Washington, District of Columbia.'
"(1) Section 7443(c) of the Internal Rev-
enue Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 879), as
amended, relating to judges of the Tax Court
of the United States, is further amended by
striking out '$22,500' and substituting there-
for '$30.000'.
"(j) Section 867(a (1) of title 10, ?Jnited
Staten Code, relating to judges of the Court
of Military Appeals, is amended by s ;taking
out '$25,500' and substituting therefor
'$33,000'.
"TITLE V- ?EFFECTIVE DATES
"Sac 501. (a) Except to the extent provided
in subsections (bi and (c) of this section,
this Act and the increases in compensation
made by this Act shall become effective on
the first clay of the first pay period which be-
gins on Cr after July 1, 1964.
"(b) Section 204 of this Act, relating to
increases in compensation for Members of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17279
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Congress, shall become effective at noon on
January 3, 1965.
"(c) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act (but except as otherwise provided
In subsection (b) of this section)?
"(1) no rate of compensation which is
squal to or in excess of $22,000 per annum
shall be increased in any amount, by reason
of section 202 of this Act, until the first day
of the first pay period which begins on or
after January 1, 1965; and
"(2) no rate of compensation which is less
than $22,000 per annum shall be increased to
an amount per annum in excess of $22,000,
by reason of section 202 or 203(g) of this
Act, until the first day of the first pay period
which begins on or after January 1, 1965.
"(d) For the purpose of determining the
amount of insurance for which an individual
is eligible under the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, all changes
in rates of compensation or salary which re-
sult from the enactment of this Act shall be
held and considered to be effective as of the
date of such enactment.
"SEC. 502. (a) Retroactive compensation or
salary shall be paid by reason of this Act
only in the case of an individual in the serv-
ice of the United States (including service in
the Armed Forces of the United States) or the
municipal government of the District of Co-
lumbia on the date of enactment of this Act,
except that such retroactive compensation
or salary shall be paid (1) to an officer or em-
ployee who retired during the period begin-
ning on the effective date prescribed by sec-
tion 501(a) and ending on the date of enact-
ment of this Act for services rendered during
such period and (2) in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of August 3, 1950 (Pub-
lic Law 636, Eighty-first Congress), as
amended (5 U.S.C. 61f-61k), for services
rendered during the period beginning on the
effective date prescribed by section 501(a)
and ending on the date of enactment of this
Act by an officer or employee who dies during
such period. Such retroactive compensation'
or salary shall not be considered as basic
salary for the purpose of the Civil Service Re-
tirement Act in the case of any such retired
or deceased officer or employee.
"(b) For the purposes of this section, serv-
ice in the Armed Forces of the United States,
in the case of an individual relieved from
training and service in the Armed Forces of
the United States or discharged from hos-
pitalization following such training and serv-
ice, shall include the period provided by law
for the mandatory restoration of such indi-
vidual to a position in or under the Federal
Government or the municipal government of
the District of Columbia," and the Senate
agree to the same.
Tom MURRAY,
JAMES H. MORRISON,
ROBERT J. CORBETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
MIKE MONRONEY,
FRANK CARLSON,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
STATEMENT
The managers on the part of the House at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 11049) entitled "An
act to adjust the rates of basic compensation
of certain officers and employees in the Fed-
eral Government, and for other purposes,"
submit the following statement in explana-
tion of the effect of the action agreed upon
by the conferees and recommended in the
accompanying conference report.
The Senate struck out all of the House bill
after the enacting clause and inserted a sub-
stitute text. The committee of conference
recommends that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Sen-
ate with an amendment which is a substitute
for both the House bill and the Senate
amendment and that the Senate agree to the
same.
Except for technical and conforming
changes, the differences between the House
bill and the conference substitute are ex-
plained below.
COST OF SALARY INCREASES
The budget expenditure for the fiscal year
1965 under the conference substitute is not
expected to exceed $544 million, the Presi-
dent's maximum budget figure for the 1965
fiscal year. The annual cost of the confer-
ence substitute would be approximately $558
million on the basis of the current employ-
ment figures. However, the Bureau of the
Budget has advised that the fiscal year 1965
expenditure because of this legislation will
be held to the budget figure of $544 million
through attrition, unfilling of vacancies, and
other actions to increase the amount of cost
absorptibn required under section 125 of the
conference substitute.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TEXT OF THE HOUSE
BILL AND THE CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE
Title I?Federal employees' salary systems
Title I of both the House bill and the con-
ference substitute provides salary rates rea-
sonably comparable to those for substantially
equal responsibilities in private enterprise
for employees subject to (1) the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949; (2) the 'postal field service
compensation provisions of title 39, United
States Code; (3) the salary schedules of the
Foreign Service Act of 1946; (4) section 4107
of title 38, United States Code, relating to
positions in the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration; and
(5) employees of the agricultural stabiliza-
tion and conservation county committees.
The coverage of title I of the House bill is
identical to the coverage of title I of the
conference substitute. The major differ-
ences are discussed below.
Middle salary grades
The House bill guarantees a minimum 3-
percent salary increase for postal employees
and for employees in the lower grades of the
Classification Act of 1949, but less than 3
percent for employees in the middle grades
of such act?GS-9, GS-10, GS-11, and
GB-12.
Section 102(a) of the conference substitute
guarantees a minimum 3-percent increase for
the middle grades as well as for the lower
grades by increasing the rates provided in
the House bill by $10 for GS-9, $60 for GS-
10, $100 for GS-11, and $50 for GS-12. All
other rates of the General Schedule of the
Classification Act of 1949 are identical in both
the House bill and the conference substitute.
Similar increases are provided under sec-
tion 118 of the conference substitute for the
middle grades of the salary schedules for
employees in the Department of Medicine
and Surgery of the Veterans' Administration
and under section 119 for the salary sched-
ules of the Foreign Service Act of 1946.
Initial appointments
Section 103(a) of the House bill and
103(a) of the conference substitute both
amended section 801 of the Classification
Act of 1949 relating to new appointments,
The conference substitute adds the require-
ment to the House bill provisions that new
appointments to positions in GS-13 and
above at a rate above the minimum rate may
be made only with the approval of the Civil
Service Commission in each specific case.
Such requirement will not apply to appoint-
ments made by the Librarian of Congress.
Professional engineering positions
Subsection (b) of section 103 of the House
bill excludes professional engineering posi-
tions primarily concerned with research and
development and professional positions in
the physical and natural sciences and medi-
cine which are placed in grades 16, 17, and
18 of the General Schedule of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949 from the provisions of sec-
tion 507 and titles VII and VIII of such act.
Section 507 relates to salary retention on
reduction in grade. Title VII relates to step
increases and title VIII relates to such mat-
ters as the rate within the grade payable on
initial appointment or promotion.
The conference substitute does not include
a comparable provision.
Hearing examiners
Section 103(c) of the House bill and sec-
tion 103(b) of the conference substitute
relate to additional positions exempted from
the maximum limitation of 2,400 supergrade
positions ?which the Civil Service Commis-
sion may approve for 05-16, GS-17, and
GS-18.
The House bill added two new exemptions:
(1) hearing examiner positions under sec-
tion 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 1010); and (2) positions placed in
the supergrades in accordance with section
309 of the House bill. In general, section
309 covers certain positions which were not
placed in the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule by this legislation.
The conference substitute adds to the ex-
emptions from the 2,400 supergrade post-,
tions, 240 positions of hearing examiners for
GS-16 and 9 positions of hearing examiners
for 05-17. The House bill did not contain
any numerical limitation on the number of
hearing examiner positions to be placed in
the supergrades. It is to be noted that the
limitations on hearing examiner positions
to be exempt from the total limitation of
2,400 does not prohibit the placing of more
than 240 hearing examiner positions in grade
16 or more than 9 hearing examiner posi-
tions in grade 17 should the Civil Service
Commission approve additional hearing ex-
aminer positions for the supergrades within
the 2,400 numerical limitation.
The second exemption contained in the
House bill relating to section 309 is not in-
cluded in the conference substitute, as sec-
tion 309 of the conference substitute provides
that employees occupying positions covered
by section 309 will receive pay equivalent to
a rate of the General Schedule of the Classi-
fication Act of 1949 but does not contem-
plate that the positions will be placed un-
der the Classification Act of 1949 or placed
In the supergrades as did the House version.
Pay computation
Section 103(d) of the House bill amends
section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Employ-
ees Pay Act of 1945 (5 U.S.C. 944(c) (3) ) to
change the method of computing salary rates
for all pay computation purposes affecting
most employees of the Federal Government
and of the municipal government of the Dis-
trict of Columbia so that in the computa-
tion of rates all remaining fractions of a cent
shall be eliminated. The existing method of
computing rates is to compute in full cents,
counting any fraction of a cent as the next
higher cent.
Section 103(c) of the conference substitute
requires rounding off to the nearest cent,
counting one-half cent and over as the next
higher cent. This method of computation
is the same method now provided under sec-
tion 3541(f) of title 39, United States Code,
for postal employees. Consequently, sec-
tion 116(b) of the House bill amending sec-
tion 3541(f) is not included in the confer-
ence substitute.
Ranking of positions in the postal service
Section 108(a) of the House bill and sec-
tion 108(a) of the conference substitute both
amend section 3501 of title 39, United States
Code, by adding a new subsection (c) relat-
ing to the ranking of positions for which the
number of annual revenue units of a post
office or its class is a relevant factor of the
ranking of positions.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17280 Approved For Reltaae_2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
LTRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE inigUd 3
Under the conference substitute the re-
ranking of such positions will be as of the
beginning of the first pay period in calendar
year 1965, whereas the House bill would have
required the first reranking of such poet-
tions as of the beginning of the first pay
period occurring on or after the date of en-
actment of this bill.
Fourth-class postmasters
Section 111 of the House bill and section
111 of the conference substitute bath amend
section 3544 of title 39, United States Code,
relating to the compensation of postmasters
at fourth-class post offices.
The House bill proposes a measure which
would accomplish pay reform for postmasters
at fourth-class offices in line with reforms
provided other_ Federal employees in the Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 841:
Public Law 87-793, part LI). The reform
would evaluate the positions of postmasters
in fourth-class offices in PF5-5 and determine
their pay for essentially part-time work on
the basis of actual time required. The pro-
posal would authorize the Postmaster Gen-
eral to establish and determine the work re-
quirements in these part-time offices and
to fix the compensation of postmasters ac-
cordingly. Where the actual compensation
to be fixed by this method was less than that
-due under FOS schedule IL compensation
would have continued to be fixed under FOS
schedule II as though such schedule con-
tinued in effect.
The House bill also made other changes
respecting postmasters in fourth-class offices
which recognized the part-time nature of
their work. The I5-percent allowance for
rent, light, fuel, and equipment was based
on the rate for step 1 rather than on the
actual compensation of the postmaster as at
present where quarters are not furnished.
The change would have given the Post Office
Department the option to furnish quarters
when this was desirable, necessary, or more
economical and, at the same time, rationalize
the allowance for postmasters furnishing
quarters.
Section 111(a) of the conference substi-
tute does not contain the reform measures
included in the House bill but provides a
new salary schedule for postmasters at
fourth-class poet offices. The schedule is
based on the new revenue unit concept and
provides increases ranging from 10 percent
in the highest group for fourth-class offices
to 15 percent in the lower fourth-class office
levels. Postmasters at fourth-clam offices of
the lowest two existing levels will receive
increases substantially In excess of 15 percent
of their present salary. This group Is among
the lowest paid of Federal employees and has
the greatest need for substantial salary in-
cremes.
The conference substitute also provides
the necessary language to properly com-
pensate postmasters at fourth-class offices
under the revenue unit concept, to permit
the Postmaster General to advance fourth-
class offices to higher categories, to com-
pensate persons serving in place of post-
masters at fourth-class offices, to provide
additional compensation to postmasters at
fourth-class offices for unusual conditions,
to provide for compensation to postmasters
at seasonal fourth-class offices, to provide for
the relegation of third-class offices to the
fourth-class under certain conditions, and
to provide for an allowance of 15 percent
basic compensation for quarters, fixtures.
and equipment.
Section 111(b) of the conference sub-
stitute provides a method of converting post-
masters at fourth-class offices to the new
schedule. Each postmaster will be placed In
the lowest step for his revenue unit cate-
gory which exceeds his existing compensa-
tion by not less than 19 percent. If there
is no such step, he will retain his existing
compensation plus 10 percent. Because the
increases incident to changing to the new
schedule are not equivalent, increases, any
credit toward the next step increase earned
prior to the effective date of section 111 will
be carried forward for purposes of determin-
ing eligibility for the next step increase un-
der the new schedule.
Section 111(c) of the conference substi-
tute provides that changes in gross receipts
categories or steps which otherwise would
have occurred on the effective date of sec-
tion 111 shall be considered as occurring
prior to conVerSlorx.
Because of the change from adjusted gross
postal receipts to revenue units for determin-
ing class of office and category, some post
offices, classified as fourth-class offices on
July 1, 1964, will not fail within the revenue
unit categories prescribed in the new sched-
ule. In such cages, the offices will be con-
tinued as fourth-class post offices until re-
classified by operation of other sections of the
bill. Postmasters in such offices will con-
tinue to receive the 10-percent increase in
basic compensation until the salaries are
adjusted as otherwise -required.
Postal field service annual step increases
Section 114(a) of the conference substi-
tute extends to all levels of the Postal Field
Service Schedule annual step Increases up to
step 7. Under present law, only employees in
levels I through 6 receive annual. step in-
creases up to step 7, and employees in level
7 or above receive annual step increases to
steps 2, 3, and 4. and biennial step Increases
to steps 5, 6, and 7.
The House bill has no comparable pro-
visions.
Staff allowance for former residents
Section 124 of the conference substitute
increases the maximum amount available to
former Presidents of the United States for
compensation payable to their staff employ-
ees from the present maximum of $50,000 to
$65.000.
The House bill has no comparable provi-
sion.
Trrts II
Federal legislative salaries
Title LI of the House bill and of the confer-
ence substitute both provide increases in
rates of compensation for dicers and em-
ployees of the legislative branch.
Legislative step salaries
Subsections (e) through (h) of section
202 of the conference substitute contain the
usual authority relating to Senate employ-
ees in the following respects. Subsection (e)
reserves to individual Senators the authority
to determine whether Increases provided by
the bill shall apply to members of their own
staffs. Subsection (f) provides increases for
employees of the Senate whose compensation
has been fixed by law at gross rates. These
increases will be comparable to the increases
granted under section 202,a) of the confer-
ence substitute. Subsection (g) increases
the gross compensation limitation for Senate
employees from $18,880 to $22945. Subsec-
tion lb) increases the limitation on the
gross rate per hour of employees in the Sen-
ate folding room.
Section 202(1) of the conference substi-
tute increases the gross rate of compensation
of the Postmaster of the Senate to $18.420
and the gross rate of the Assistant Postmas-
ter of the Senate to $14,570. This subsection
also excludes these two positions from the
longevity provisions of section 106 of thi
Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 196:
(76 Stat. 694: Public Law 87-730).
Section 203(g) provides a rate of conspen
sation of $27,500 per annum for the Score
tary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arras o
the Senate, and the Legislative Counsel o
the Senate.
Section 233(h) provides a rate of compen
sation of 515,000 per annum for the Chaolaii
of the Senste.
The House bill contained no similar provi
Mons relating to Senate employees.
Officirs of the legislative branch.
Section 203 of the House bill and seetioi
203 of the conference substitute both so tab
lists annual rates of compensation for cer
Lain officers of the legislative branch. A coon
parison of toe annual rates of basic compen
melon for these officers is set forth below:
Poet .,on title
ke,istant Com itroller General_
General Cour al of General
Atrounting office
T.ibrarian of I 't nc?ress
Pul,lie I'rinter _ _
Arehitect of liu ( 'apitol__ _
Deput y Pubic I- rin tcr
I )eput y Lihrar- a II of Congtessi
Assi,tant An bitect of the
Capitol... ..
2.1 .1ssi,tant Architect of the
Capitol
Hodge
bill
C onfe -ene
subst tete
$25,000 $15.51
28,000 :7,01
28,000 17,01
2,_8, 000 17,01
28.000 17,01
27 , OM 25,51
27, t100 25, It
27,000 25, 5C
20,0(8) 23,51
TTTLE no
Federal Executive Salaries
Title III of the House bill and title II
of the confsrence substitute both provid
for a Federa. Executive Salary Schedule ant
make necessary conforming changes in exist
ing law. The major differences are discusses
below.
Federal executive salary schedule
The House bill establishes six salary level.
for the Federal Executive Salary Schedule
The conference substitute establishes five
such levels. A comparison of the anrual
rates of basic compensation of such levels
In the House bill and in the conference sub-
stitute is set f orth below:
IInuse bill
Conference
subsiitt te
Level I I 5.32, 500
Level II 30,0(30
Level III._ 29,83)
Level IV 28,38)
Level V. 27,9)0
Level VI _ 26,0(8)
$35,000
30,000
28,500
27.000
26. 000
The House bill makes specific assignments
of executive positions to level I. level II,
level III, and positions held by members of
certain boards and commissions to level IV.
Also, the House bill authorizes the President
to assign posstions to level IV, level V. and
level VI.
Sections 303 ( a) through 303 ie) of the con-
ference substitute specify positions for all
live levels prescribed by the conference st b-
stitute.
A comparison showing the different assign-
ments by the conference substitute of cer-
tain positions specifically assigned by the
House bill is set forth below:
Specific position assignments to diff in nt levels
Il miss ConferethT
Administrator. Federal Aviation Agency
Secn butes of Air Force, Army, and Navy
.stolicitor General of the rolled States
Director of Selective Service (pment Ineunibent)
Meniberi, Connell of Economic Advisers
H.
(Presidential authority)
; (('residential authority)
IV.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP6.6.B_Q.0403R000500050001-9 17281
19t4. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Hou
Presidential authority
Section 303(1) of the conference substi-
tute grants authority to the President to
place offices and positions held by not to ex-
ceed 30 persons in levels IV and V of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule when he
deems such action necessary to reflect
changes in organization, management re-
sponsibilities, or workload. The subsection
also requires that, in the case of an office
to which appointment is made by the Presi-
dent by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, the President may use such
authority only at the time of the new ap-
pointment. Action by the President under
this subsection is required to be published
in the Federal Register except when it is de-
termined by the President that such publi-
cation would be contrary to the interest of
the national security. The authority will
not apply to any office or position the com-
pensation for which is fixed at a specific rate
by section 303 of the conference substitute
or by statute enacted subsequent to the date
of enactment of this legislation.
Section 303(g) authorizes the President to
place in levels IV and V offices and positions,
the duties and responsibilities of which he
deems appropriate for such levels, held by
not to exceed 30 persons. The authority un-
der this subsection relates to positions which
are in addition to positions listed in sub-
sections (d) and (e) of section 303 and
which are in addition to the positions acted
upon pursuant to subsection (f) of section
303. The authority under this subsection
shall not apply with respect to any office Or
position the compensation for which is fixed
at a specific rate by section 303 of the con-
ference substitute or by statute enacted sub-
sequent to the date of enactment of this
act.
Presidential staff
Section 304(b) of the conference substi-
tute adds the position of the Executive Sec-
retary of the National Aeronautics and Space
Council to the 15 positions for which the
House bill authorizes the President, under
section 105 of title 3, United States Code, to
fix rates of basic compensation at a rate not
to exceed the rate for level II of the Federal
Executive Salary Schedule.
Conforming changes in existing law
Section 305 and section 306 of both the
House bill and the conference substitute re-
peal or amend provisions of existing law
to bring existing law into conformity with
the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964.
The conference substitute omits one re-
pealer contained in the House bill (sec.
305(41) ) relating to the annual salaries for
not more than three positions of Deputy
Governor, Farm Credit Administration.
The conference substitute adds another
repealer not contained in the House bill
(sec. 305(41) ) relating to the rate of com-
pensation for the Special Assistant to the
Secretary (Health and Medical Affairs), De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Section 306 of the conference substitute
omits an amending change of the House bill
(sec. 306(h) ) relating to the compensation
of the U.S. representatives and alternates at
the sessions of the general council and at
sessions of the executive committee of the
International Refugee Organization.
Staff of Advisory Commission on Intergov-
ernmental Relations
Section 306(e) of the House bill, relating
to the maximum compensation payable to
the staff of the Advisory Commission on In-
tergovernmental Relations, increased the
present maximum of $20,000 per annum to
the rate for level VI of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule.
Section 306(e) of the conference substitute
increases such maximum to a rate not in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of
the General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949.
No. 149---19
Director, Division of Military Application,
Atomic Energy Commission
Section 306(1) (8) of the House bill, re-
lating to the maximum aggregate compen-
sation of the active member of the Armed
Forces serving as Director of the Division of
Military Application in the Atomic Energy
Commission, increases such maximum to the
"compensation for directors of other pro-
gram divisions." It was contemplated that
such compensation would be the rate for
03-18 unless the President were to assign
such other program director positions to
levels IV, V, or VI of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule as provided for under the
House bill.
Section 306(f) (8) of the conference sub-
stitute increases such maximum to the "com-
pensation established for this position pur-
suant to section 303 or section 309 of the
Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964." The
effect of the conference substitute is to limit
the maximum aggregate compensation to
the salaries of level IV or V of the Federal
Executive Salary Schedule if the President
assigns the position to either of such levels;
but if he does not, the maximum will not
exceed the rate for G3-18.
Officers of the District of Columbia
Section 306(1) of the House bill and sec-
tion 306(i) of the conference substitute both
relate to the compensation of officials of the
District of Columbia. The conference sub-
stitute provides rates $1,000 less in certain
cases than the rates provided in the House
bill. A comparison of the rates for those
officials for which the rates are different is
set forth below:
Position
Salary rates
House bill
Conference
substitute
President, District of Columbia Board of Commissioners
$27,
000
$26,
000
Other District of Columbia Commissioners
26,
600
25,
500
Chief judge, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
26,
000
26,
000
Other judges, District of Columbia Court of Appeals
25,
500
24,
500
Chief judge, District of Columbia court of general sessions
25,
000
24,
000
Other judges, District of Columbia court of general sessions
24,
500
23,
500
Judge, District of Columbia Tax Court
24,
500
23,
500
Limitations on salaries fixed by administra-
tive action
Section 308 of the House bill limits the
salary-fixing authority of the heads of ex-
ecutive departments and agencies by pro-
viding that hereafter they may not fix rates
In excess of the highest rate for grade GS-
18 of the General Schedule of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, The House bill exempted
from this limitation authorities contained
in the Central Intelligence Agency Act of
1949 (50 U.S.C. 403a), the Tennessee Valley
Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831b), sec-
tion 9 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(12 U.S.C. 1819), and section 5240, Revised
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the
Comptroller of the Currency).
Section 308 of the conference substitute
adds one additional authority to the ex-
emptions, which is section 11 of the Federal
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) .
Miscellaneous executive positions
Section 309 of the House bill requires the
placement in the appropriate grade of the
Classification Act of 1949 of any office or
position in the executive branch not placed
In a level of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule under section 303 of the House bill
but which is affected by any change in exist-
ing law under section 305 of the House bill.
Section 309 of the conference substitute
provides that each such office or position
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the
rate of a grade and step of the General Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949. In
addition, the conference substitute applies
this policy to other offices and positions in
the executive branch for which the annual
salary is established, at a figure of $18,500 or
more, pursuant to a special provision of law
enacted prior to the date of enactment of the
conference substitute. The conference sub-
stitute contains a further provision (not in
the House bill) to the effect that all actions
taken under section 309 of the conference
substitute shall be reported to the U.S. Civil
Service Commission and published in the
Federal Register, except when the President
determines that such report and publication
would be contrary to the interest of national
security.
TITLE Iv
Federal Judicial salaries
Sectign 402(a) of the House bill provides
increases in rates of compensation for cer-
tain specified employees of the judicial
branch of the Government. The increases
will be in amounts corresponding to the in-
creases under section 102 of the bill for
Classification Act employees.
Section 402(a) of the conference substi-
tute has the same coverage as the House
bill but includes an additional provision
which has the effect of authorizing the Di-
rector of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts to determine the amount of the in-
creases for employees appointed pursuant to
section 604(a) (5) of title 28, United States
Code, who hold "ungraded positions."
Graded positions are those under the judi-
ciary salary plan approved by the Judicial
Conference of the United States. The un-
graded positions are clerks of court, Register
of Wills of the District of Columbia, the
pretrial examiners in the District of Colum-
bia and in New York, and the assistant pre-
trial examiner in the District of Columbia.
Section 403 of the House bill and section
403 of the conference substitute both pro-
vide increases in the compensation of Fed-
eral judges, the Director and Deputy Direc-
tor of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts and the Commissioners of the Court
of Claims.
The conference substitute changes the
rates provided by the House bill for the
Justices of the Supreme Court, the Director
and Deputy Director of the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, and for the Com-
missioners of the Court of Claims as indi-
cated below:
Position
House bill
Conference
substitute
Chief Justice of the United States
$43, 000
$40, 000
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
42, 500
39, 500
Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
28,000
27,000
DeputyDirector, Administrative Office of the -U.S. Courts
27,050
26, 000
Commissioners, Court of Claims
27,000
26,000
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE AuguN 3
Time v
Salary relationships in Federal executive.
Judicial, congressional, and career salaries
(House bill)
Title V of the House bill provided for the
establishment and maintenance, on a per-
manent basis, of salary relationships with
respect to Federal executive. Judicial. con-
gressional, and career salaries. This title,
which consisted of section 501, contained, in
section 501(a), a statement of policy with
respect to the desirability of maintaining and
continuing, on a permanent_ basis. the salary
relationships established by the House bill
among and between the salary rates of (a)
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949 and the Postal Field Service
Schedule in title I of the House bill: (b)
Members of Congress and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives in title IT; (c) Fed-
eral executives in title III; and (d) Federal
Judges ill title IV.
In order to implement this policy. section
501(b) provided, in effect, that, whenever in
the future the salary rates of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949
shall have been increased by law, the salary
rates of officers and positions in the cate-
gories referred to above would be increased
automatically in accordance with a formula
designed to provide increases in such rates
proportionate to the General Schedule salary
rate increases.
The Senate amendment did not contain
comparable provisions.
The conference substitute omits these pro-
visions of title V of the House bill.
TITLE VI
Effective dates
Title VI of the House bill and title V of the
conference substitute both relate to the ef-
fective dates for the various provisions of
the bill.
Section 601 (al of the House bill provides
that, except as provided in subsections (b)
and (c), the increases in compensation would
become effective on the first day of the first
pay period which begins on or after the date
of enactment.
Section 801(b) provided that increases for
Members of Congress would become effective
at. noon, January 3, 1985.
Section 801(c) prohibits any rate of com-
pensation from being increased to an amount
per annum in excess of $22,000 until the first
day of the first pay period which begins on
or after January 1, 1965.
Section 501(a) of the conference substitute
provides as an effective date the first day of
the first pay period which begins on or after
July 1, 1964, except as provided in subsec-
tions (b) and (ci of the section. Because
the effective date of section 105, relating to
the classification of post offices, is later than
July 1. 1964, it will not disturb the classifica-
tion of post offices made on July 1, 1964. The
first general reclassification under the revi-
sion made by this legislation will occur on
July 1, 1985.
Section 501 (13 ) of the conference substi-
tute contains the same effective date. noon.
January 3, 1965, for Members of Congress as
contained in the House bill.
Section 501(c) of the conference substi-
tute provides that the rates for officers and
employees of the House of Representatives
and the U.S. Senate shall not be increased
above $22,000 per annum until the first day of
he first pay period which begins on or after
January 1, 1965. The limitation in the con-
ference substitute applies only to certain
rates in title IT of the bill and not to rates
in other titles of the bill as did the House
provision.
Section 501(d) r)f the conference substi-
tute provides that, for the purpose of deter-
mining the amount of Insurance for which
an officer or employee is eligible under the
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act
of 1054 (5 U.S.C. 2091-2103), all changes in
rates of compensation which result from the
enactment of the conference substitute shall
be held and construed to be effective as Of the
date of enactment.
Section 502 of the conference substitute
provides that, except for employees who died
or retired during the retroactive period, the
payment of retroactive compensation Will be
made only in the case of individuals in the
service of the United States (including serv-
ice in the Armed Forces of the United States)
or of the Municipal government of the Dis-
trict of Columbia on the date of enactment.
Retroactive payment also would be made for
services rendered during the retroactive pe-
riod in the case of employees who retired or
died during such period.
The conference substitute also provides
that such retroactive compensation shall not
be considered as basic compensation for the
purpose of the Civil Service Retirement Act
in the case of any such retired or deceased
officer or employee.
The House bill contained no provision sim-
ilar to section 502 of the conference substi-
tute.
Tom MURRAY.
JAMES H. MORRISON.
ROBERT J. CORBETT,
Managers on the Part of the Boyar
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
PROGRAM
t Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
Permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I take this
time to announce an addition to the pro-
gram of the House.
The Committee on House Administra-
tion, tomorrow, will call up House Reso-
lution 719 and House Resolution 800.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unaniznous consent, leave of ab-
sence was granted to:
Mr. THOMPSON of Louisiana (at the re-
quest of Mr. MORRISON/ , for an indefinite
period, on account of illness.
Mr. RoliF.RTS of Alabama (at the re-
quest of Mr. JENNINGS), for today, to-
morrow, and Wednesday, on account of
illness.
Mr. WAILHAUSER ( at the request of Mr.
HALLECK , for an indefinite period, on
account of illness.
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to
address the House, following the legis-
lative program and any special orders
heretofore entered, was granted to:
Mr. TiroMPsON of Texas, for 30 min-
utes. today; to revise and extend his re-
marks. and include extraneous matter.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana, for 1 hour,
today.
Mr. LAIRD. for 15 minutes. tomorrow.
August 4.
Mr HALPERN at the request of Mr.
SCHADEBERG I, for 10 minutes, today, and
to revise and extend his remarks and in-
chide extraneous matter.
Mr. SCHWENGEL (at the request of Mr.
SCHADEBERG) , for 30 minutes, today, and
to revise and extend his remarks and in-
clude extraneous matter.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
By unanimous consent, permission to
extend remarks in the Appendix of th e
RECORD, or to revise and extend remarks,
was granted to:
Mr. HAYS and to include extraneot s
matter.
Mr. PAT'MAN in three instances and to
Include extraneous matter.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina ill two
instances and to include extraneous
matter.
Mr. Gnoss.
Mr. WYMAN asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute .rid to revise and extend his re-
marks and to include extraneous matter
and that his remarks follow the remarks
of Mr. ALBERT.
Mr. HALL after passing over H.R. 380C,
Calendar No. 387 on the Consent Cal-
endar.
Mr. WHITENER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks in the
body of the RECORD following action on
the bill H.R. 1096,
Mr. KASTENMEIER immediately pre??
ceding the vote on the military pay raise
bill.
Mr. DOLE to extend his remarks fol..
lowing those of Mr. ASPINALL on H.R.
3071.
Mr. BETTS and to include extraneous
matter.
Mr. PHILBIN in eight instances.
Mr. GILL (at the request of Mr. MAT-
SUNAGA) to extend his remarks in the
body of the RECORD immediately prior tc
the passage of S. 1991.
Mr. DORN and to include extraneous
matter.
(The following Members (at the re-
quest of Mr. SCHADEBERG) and to include
extraneous matter:)
Mr. DERWINSKL
Mr. WESTLAND.
Mr. DEL CLAWSON.
Mr. YOUNGER.
Mr. MOORE in three instances.
Mr. ROUDEBUSH.
Mr. CHENOWETH.
Mr. WYMAN in three instances.
Mr. SCHWENGEL in two instances.
Mr. TOLLEFSON in two instances.
Mr. LINDSAY in five instances.
Mr. HOSMER.
Mr. BATES.
(The following Members (at the re-
nclude
extraneous matter:)
Mr. PEPPER.
Mr. RIVERS of South Carolina in two
instances.
Mr. ROGERS of Florida in eight in-
stances.
Mr. GONZALEZ.
Mr. PULToN of Tennessee.
Mr. Powen..
Mr. BURKHALTER,
Mr. RAINS itl two instances.
Mr. RIVERS of Alaska.
Mr. WHITENER in four instances.
Mrs. HANSEN.
Mr. MORRIS.
Mr. MASON.
quest of Mr. MATSUNAGA) and to i
SENATE BILLS REFERRED
Bills of the Senate of the following
titles were taken from the Speaker's
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 Approved For:mmaggoR 8R:E?:16kR-IV_P67113j):It4s0E3R000500050001-9
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appre-
ciate what the gentleman has said, but
I would like to support a carefully writ-
ten legislative standard. It seems to me
that the standard here is altogether too
general and leaves everything up to Mr.
McNamara. There is no need for this
looseness, particularly in view of the Sec-
retary's manifest attitude toward public
yards.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker. In my
opinion this is the death knell of the
Government-owned shipyards. I have
the Boston Navy Shipyard in my district.
I have seen it go down from 11.000 to
about 8,000. Here is a shipyard that is
Important. It is closest to the Atlantic
Ocean and closest to Europe. An
amendment of this type is indeed bad for
the morale of the entire yard.
I hope the House will vote no in favor
of the Federal shipyards.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker. I
rise to associate myself with the remarks
of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
CELLER1, and the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. RIVERS].
Mr. Speaker. I have always opposed the
so-called 65135 formula here under dis-
cussion, because it sets up an inflexible
situation to the detriment of our Navy.
The Senate amendment which we are
now being asked to accept sets up an even
more intolerable situation than that
which was provided under the original
House version. The Senate amendment
provides that "at least 35 percentum" of
the funds appropriated for the repair, al-
teration and conversion of naval vessels
shall be allocated to privately owned
shipyards. This means that the private
shipyards are guaranteed a minimum
allocation of 35 percent of all repair,
alteration and conversion jobs, while the
naval shipyards are without any guar-
antee. If we adopt the Senate amend-
ment, we would be making it legally pos-
sible for the Secretary of Defense to allo-
cate 100 percent of all repair, alteration
and conversion work to private shipyards.
It appears that the private shipyard
owners are no longer satisfied with 35
percent of the jobs, and its powerful
lobby is flexing its muscles for a complete
takeover. Concededly, private enterprise
ought to be given its fair share of Gov-
ernment contracts, and I am not opposed
to private enterprise. But where our
Navy is concerned, our primary consider-
ation should be directed toward what is
best for our own national defense and
security. Our Navy should not be saddled
with inflexibility of the Senate amend-
ment. Repair, alteration, or conversion
of its vessels should be allowed wherever
it can be done most efficiently and expe-
ditiously, for the Navy is undeniably an
emergency arm of our Nation which must
be kept in constant readiness, if it is to
he kept at all.
The incident only a few days ago in
the Gulf of Tonkin in which the destroyer
U.S.S. Maddox was the intended victim
of an unannounced sneak attack illus-
trates this truth with dramatic force.
The attack on the Maddox should serve
to remind us that warfare invariably
starts without any warning. Those of us
who were in Hawaii when Pearl Harbor
was bombed have not forgotten this. Let
us be reminded by the Maddox incident
that if it had not been for the efficient,
dedicated team of Federal workers at the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, our Navy
would never have made the amazing re-
covery in the short time that it did. If
our Navy is to be kept at all, it must be
maintained at a level where it can meet
any and all emergencies at any time.
This it cannot do without a dependable,
ever-ready crew of well trained, highly
experienced repairmen at a readily ac-
cessible shipyard. Maintenance of our
naval shipyards, such as the one at Pearl
Harbor, therefore, must be considered as
part and parcel of our Navy. To detract
from this proposition is to weaken our
Navy and endanger our own national
security. The Senate amendment tends
to do this and should be defeated.
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. OSTERTAG. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make the point that the
language in this conference report differs
in no substantial way from the language
already adopted by the House of Repre-
sentatives in the original House bill; is
that correct?
Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor-
rect. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. MmioN] .
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. CELLER)
there were?ayes 78, noes 84.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker
appointed as tellers Mr. MAHON and Mr.
RIVERS of South Carolina.
The House again divided, and the
tellers reported that there were?ayes
95, noes 101.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 186, nays 178, not voting 67,
as follows:
Roll No. 2011
YEAS-1813
Abele 13olton. Burke
Abernethy Frances P. Burleson
Anderson Bol ton, Burton, Utah
Andrews, Ala. Olivor P. Byrnes, Wis,
Andrews, Bonner Cahill
N. flak. Bow Casey
Arend/3 Bradernas Cederberg
Ashbreark Bray Chamberlain
Ayres Brock Chelf
Baker Bromwell Chenoweth
Becker Brooks Clancy
Beermann Broomfield Cobelan
Belcher Brotzman Collier
Bell Brown, Ohio Colmer
Bennett. Fla. Broyhill, N.C. Conte
Berry Broyhill, Va. Corbett
Betts Bruce Cramer
Cunningham
Denton
Derwinskl
Devine
Dole
Dowdy
Duncan
Dwyer
Edmondson
Fallon
Faacell
Feighan
Findley
Flynt
Fogarty
Ford
Foreman
Fountain
Frellnghuysen
Fulton, Pa.
Fuqua
Gary
Claim?
Gibbons
Glenn
Goodell
Goodling
Grabowski
Green, Oreg.
Griffin
Griffiths
Gross
Gurney
Hagen, Calif.
Hall
lialleek
Hansen
Harrison
Haraha
Harvey, Ind.
"Lechler
Hoeven
Horan
Hutchinson
Jarman
Jensen
Abbitt
Addabbo
Ashmore
Aspinall
Auchincloss
Baldwin
Barrett
Barry
Bates
Blatnik
Boland
Brown, Calif.
Burkhalter
Burton, Calif.
Byrne, Pa.
Cameron
Carey
Celier
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Cooley
Carman
Curtin
Daddario
Dague
Daniels
Davis, Oa.
Dawson
Delaney
Dent
Derounian
Donohue
Dorn
Downing
Dulski
Edwards
Elliott
Everett
Farhstein
Fino
Fisher
Flood
Fraser
Gallagher
Gathings
Gilbert
Gill
Gonzalez
Grant
Gray
Green, Pa.
Grover
Gubser
Johansen
Jon ELS
Kastenmeier
Keith
Kilgore
King. Calif.
Kirtvan
Knox
Kornegay
Kunkel
Kyl
Lair d
Lan gen
Lan a
Lips comb
Lon r. Md.
McC tory
McCulloch
McLoskey
MacGregor
Mahon
Manin, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
Mataras
Matthews
May
Mea.ler
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Minshall
Monagan
Moore
Mon Is
Morton
Moalier
Natcher
Nelsen
0?Konskl
Ostertag
Patnian
Pelly
Perkms
Pickle
Pillion
Poago
NAYS-178
Hagan. Ga.
Haley
Halpern
Hanna
Harding
Hardy
Harris
Hawkins
Hays
Hencilrson
Holifleld
Horton
Hosmer
Hudd lesion
Jennings
Joelson
Johnson, Calif. Robison
Johnson, Pa. Rodin?
Johnson, Wis. Rogers, Colo.
Jones. Ala. Rooney, N.Y.
Kartl, RooiaeY, Pa.
Kelly Roosevelt
Keogh Rosenthal
17313
Poff
Quie
Quillen
Reid, Ill.
Relfel
Rhodes, Ariz.
Rich
Roberts, Tex.
Rog,ers, Fla.
Rogers, Tex.
Roudebush
Roush
St Germain
St. Onge
Sehadeberg
Short
Sibal
Sickles
Sikes
Slier
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Snyder
Springer
Stafford
Steed
Stinson
Stubblefield
Taft
Talcott
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thomas
Thompson Tex.
Thomson, Wis.
Tuck
Udall
Unman
Un
Van Pelt
Westland
White
Whitten
Williams
Wilson, Ind,
Wright
Olson, Minn.
O'Neill
Osmers
Patten
Pepper
Philbin
Pike
Pitcher
Pirnie
Price
Pueinski
Reid, N.Y.
Reuss
Rhodes. Pa
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
King, N.Y.
Kluezynski
Leggett
Llbonati
Lindsay
Long, La.
McDa?le
McDowell
McFall
McIntire
MchiElan
Macdonald
Madden
Mal third
Marsh
Martin Mass.
Matsunaga
Mintsh
Montoya
Moorhead
Mor4an
Morrison
Morse
Moss
Multe7
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill
O'Hara, Mich
Olsen, Mont,
Rostenkowski
Roybal
Ryan, N.Y.
St. George
Saylor
Schenck
Schneebeli
Schwelker
Secre.st
Selden
Senn.r
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Va.
Staggers
Stephens
Stratton
Sullivan
Taylor
Thompson, N.J.
Tolleson
Trimble
Tupper
Tuten
Van Deerlin
Yank
Vinson
Waggonner
Watson
Watts
Weltner
Whalley
Wharton
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP66BODSF000500050001-9
17316 CONGRESSIONAL itEC;ORD August 4
Whitener
Wickersham
Widnall
Willis
Wilson,
Charles H.
Winstead
Wydler
Wyman.
Young
Younger
Zablocki
NOT VOTING-6'7
Adair Garmatz
Albert Harvey, Mich.
Alger Healey
Ashley Hebert
Avery Herlong
Baring Hoffman
Bass Holland
Battin Hull
Beckworth Ichord
Bennett, Mich. Jones, Mo,
Boggs Karsten
Bolling Kee
Buckley Kilburn
Curtis Landrum
Davis, Tenn. Lankford
Diggs Lennon
Dingell Lesinski
Ellsworth Lloyd
Evins Miller, N.Y.
Finnegan Nedzi
Forrester Nix
Friedel Norblad
Fulton, Tenn. Passman
Pool
Powell
Purcell
Rains
Randall
Riehlman
Roberts, Ala.
Rumsfeld
Ryan, Mich.
Schwengel
Scott
Sheppard
Shipley
Shriver
Skubitz
Staebler
Thompson, La.
Toll
Wallhauser
Weaver
Wilson, Bob
So the motion was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Shipley for, with Mr. Hebert against.
Mr. Garmatz for, with Mr. Toll against.
Mr. Lankford for, with Mr. Nix against.
Mr. Scott for, with Mr. Karsten against.
Mr. Beckworth for, with Mr. Buckley
against.
Mr. Friedel for, with Mr. Powell against.
Mr. Alger for, with Mr. Riehlman against.
Mr. Adair for, with Mr. Weaver against.
Mr. Ellsworth for, with Mr. Wallhauser
against.
Mr. Schwengel for, with Mrs. Kee against.
Mr. Shriver for, with Mr. Healey against.
Mr. Skubitz for, with Mr. Sheppard against.
Mr. Battin for, with Mr. Finnegan against.
Mr. Rumsfeld for, with Mr. Ashley against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Albert with Mr. Avery.
Mr. Hull with Mr. Kilburn.
Mr. Ichord with Mr. Bennett of Michigan.
Mr. Evins with Mr. Bob Wilson.
Mr. Roberts of Alabama with Mr. Norblad.
Mr. Rains with Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr. Har-
vey of Michigan.
Mr. Randall with Mr. Dingell.
Mr. Passman with Mr. Lesinski.
Mx. Lennon with Mr. Baring.
Mr. Holland with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Pool with Mr. Ryan of Michigan.
Mr. Boggs with Mr. Bass.
Mr. Forrester with Mr. Davis of Tennessee.
Mr. Herlong with Mr. Staebler.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Necizi.
Mr. Purcell with Mr. Landrum.
Mr. COOLEY changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
Mr. AYRES changed his vote from
"nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that Members speak-
ing on the conference report and the
motion just agreed to be permitted to ex-
tend their remarks thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules have until midnight tonight to
file certain privileged resolutions.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ala-
bama?
There was no objection.
TO AMEND THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930, FREE IMPORTATION OF
WILD ANIMALS AND WILD BIRDS
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent to take from the Speak-
er's desk the bill (H.R. 1839) to amend
the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide for the
free importation of wild animals and
wild birds which are intended for exhi-
bition in the United States, with a Sen-
ate amendment thereto, disagree to the
Senate amendment, and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
kansas?
Mr. MARTIN of Nebraska. Mr
Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is he
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACI' OF 1964
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R.
11049) to adjust the rates of basic com-
pensation of certain officers and employ-
ees in the Federal Government, and for
other purposes, and ask unanimous con-
sent that the statement of the managers
on the part of the House be read in lieu
of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of August 3,
1964.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CORBETT], and pending
that I yield myself such time as I may
require.
Mr. Speaker, HR. 11049, an act to
adjust the rates of basic compensation
of certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, passed the House on June 12, 1964,
and was amended in the other body.
The committee of conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses rec-
ommends that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate with an amendment which is a
substitute for both the House bill and
the Senate amendment.
The conference substitute fully effects
the purposes of the House bill. These
purposes are first, to comply partially
with the mandate, laid down by the Con-
gress in Public Law 87-793, that postal
and other Federal career employees shall
be paid salaries comparable to salaries
paid workers in private enterprise for
comparable levels of responsibility, skill,
and performance, and second, to partially
remedy the serious inadequacies in the
Federal executive, congressional, and
judicial salary structure. The confer-
ence report is unanimous and is signed
by all conferees on the part of the House
and on the part of the Senate. I hope
the conference report will be approved.
The conference substitute grants postal
and other career employees salary in-
creases as provided in the House bill, but
corrects an inequity with respect to the
salaries of employees in the middle salary
grades. It guarantees a minimum 3-
percent increase for grades GS-9 through
GS-12 of the Classification Act, whereas
increases in these grades were as low as
1.6 percent in the House bill. A similar
minimum will apply with respect to two
salary increases for other categories of
employees covered by the bill.
The conference substitute also pro-
vides a new salary scale for postmasters
in fourth-class post offices granting in-
creases for these postmasters which are
more in line with increases for other em-
ployees than provided by the House bill.
These postmasters will receive increases
ranging from 10 percent in the highest
group of offices to 15 percent in the lower
levels.
The conference substitute extends to
all levels of postal field service employees
annual step increases through the first
seven automatic salary steps, whereas
under present law only those postal em-
ployees in the lowest six salary levels
receive such annual increases. The
House bill would have continued the ex-
isting automatic step increase provi-
sions?that is, they would have been lim-
ited to the first six salary levels.
Other changes made by the confer-
ence substitute in the House bill include,
first, a requirement for Civil Service
Commission approval of any proposed
new appointment to a Classification Act
position at higher than the initial sal-
ary step; second, omission of the exemp-
tion from certain limitations of the Clas-
sification Act for supergrade positions
concerned with research and develop-
ment in the physical and natural sci-
ences and medicine; third, the fixing of
a maximum limitation of 249 hearing
examiner positions at grades 16 and 17
which are exempt from the existing ag-
gregate numerical limitation on all su-
pergrade position; and fourth, the inclu-
sion of a provision of the Senate amend-
ment increasing the allowance to former
Presidents for staff salaries by $15,000.
The conference substitute contains
the provisions of the House bill for ad-
justment of salary rates of House officers
and employees, and adds the provisions
of the Senate amendment providing sal-
ary adjustments for Senate officers and
employees.
The conference substitute provides a
salary for the Assistant Comptroller
General of the United States of $28,500,
the same as the salary for executive
salary level III in the Senate amendment
and the conference substitute. The
House bill provided a salary of $29,000
for such executive level III and for the
Assistant Comptroller General.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONA1 RECORD ? HOUSE 17317
Similarly, the conference substitute
provides salaries of $27,000?equal to the
salary rate for executive level IV for the
general counsel of the General Account-
ing Office, the Librarian of Congress, the
Public Printer, and the Architect of the
Capitol. The House bill provided salaries
of $28,000 equal to the executive salary
level IV of the House bill, for these
positions.
The salaries of the Deputy Public
Printer, the Deputy Librarian of Con-
gress, and the Assistant Architect of the
Capitol are fixed at $25,500 by the con-
ference substitute, representing a com-
promise between the House bill figure
of $27,000 and the Senate amendment
figure of $24,500. A related compromise
places the salary of the Second Assistant
Architect of the Capitol at $23,500 in the
conference substitute, in lieu of the
$26,000 in the House bill and the $22,500
in the Senate bill.
The conference substitute adopts the
five executive salary levels and the sal-
aries for such levels provided in the Sen-
ate amendment. The salary for Cabinet
officers?executive level I?is $35,000, or
$2,500 more than provided in the House
bill. The salary for executive level II
Is $30,000, as in both the House bill and
.the Senate amendment. The salaries for
executive levels III, IV, and V are
$28,500, $27,000, and $26,000, respectively,
compared to $29,000, $28,000, and $27,000
in the House bill.
The conference substitute makes
specific position assignments to all five
executive levels, as in the Senate amend-
ment, whereas the House bill made such
specific assignments only for the highest
three levels and authorized the Presi-
dent to place such positions as he might
deem proper in executive levels IV, V.
and VI?with level VI of the House bill
omitted from the conference substitute.
Since the Senate amendment made a
number of specific position assignments
to executive levels IV and V but did not
make such specific assignments for cer-
tain other positions which have been
recommended for executive levels, and in
view of the "open-end" authorization
in the House bill for the President to
place positions in the executive levels IV
and below, the conference substitute con-
tains a compromise between the House
bill and the Senate amendment provi-
sions in this respect by authorizing the
President to place positions held but not
to exceed 60 persons in executive levels
IV and V.
The conference substitute also makes
certain changes in the assignment of
positions to executive levels II, III, and
IV, for which differing specific assign-
ments among such levels were made in
the House bill and the Senate amend-
ment. These few positions are listed on
page 46 of the statement of managers.
The conference substitute adopts the
salary rates provided by the Senate
amendment for officers and judges of the
District of Columbia?which are $1,000
below the House bill salaries in each
case?except that it contains the House
bill salaries for the Superintendent and
the Deputy Superintendent of Schools,
the Fire Chief, and the Chief of Police.
The conference substitute provides a
salary of $40,000 for the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United
States and of $39,500 for the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court. This is
$3,000 less than the salaries provided in
the House bill, but $2,000 more than the
salaries provided by the Senate amend-
ment. The salaries of the Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, the Deputy Director, and
the Commissioners of the Court of
Claims are fixed at $27,000, $26,000,
and $26,000, respectively?or $1,000
below the House figures in each case.
As in the case of the legislative officers
mentioned earlier, these adjusted salary
rates are keyed to appropriate executive
salary rates in the conference substitute.
The conference substitute does not in-
clude title V contained in the House bill,
which would have provided for automatic
future adjustments of salary rates for
Members of Congress and Federal exec-
utives and judges in conformity with fu-
ture increases in Classification Act salary
rates.
The conference substitute makes all
salary increases provided therein effec-
tive on the first day of the first pay period
beginning on or after July 1, 1964, except
that the salary adjustments for Members
of Congress will take effect at noon on
January 3, 1965. However, as is neces-
sary and customary where retroactive
salary increases are granted, for the
purpose of fixing the amount of group
life insurance the new salary rates are
held to be effective as of date of enact-
ment. Similarly, the retroactive salary
increase will be paid generally only to
employees on the rolls on the date of
enactment, except that it will be paid
to anyone who retired during the retro-
active period for services actually ren-
dered after the effective date and up to
retirement date. The retroactive in-
crease will not be considered basic salary
for Retirement Act purposes in the case
of such retirees.
The effect of these special limitations
with respect to the retroactive part of the
salary increases will take place in every
instance at a point of time between the
effective date of July 1, 1964, as provided
by the Senate amendment, and the effec-
tive date of the first day of the first pay
period beginning on or after date of en-
actment as provided in the House bill.
There can be no question of their pro-
priety in the conference substitute as an
adjustment between the provisions of the
House bill and of the Senate amendment
relating to the time the new salaries shall
be effective.
Mr. Speaker, I have summarized all of
the differences of any considerable im-
portance between the House bill and the
conference substitute. I hope that the
conference substitute will be approved.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. JOHANSEN] .
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise
to urge defeat of the conference report
on H.R. 11049.
At the outset, I remind the House that
once this year we had the gumption to
defeat the Federal Employees Pay Act
of 1964.
On March 12, the/ House rejected the
earlier version of this bill by a substan-
tial 222-to-184 vote. We could do it
again today. We ought to do it.
I have just one observation to offer at
this juncture. I offer it not only for
such consideration as my colleagues are
willing to give it here and now, but also
for such consideration as the taxpayers
of America may wish to give our action
today when they go into the voting
booths on November 3.
I propose to speak briefly about inte-
gration?not the kind of integration that
has been the subject of national contro-
versy for the past decade, but inte-
grated inflation.
I respectfully point out that what we
are doing today represents one more step
in the chain reaction procedure whereby
we are tying the Federal salary and em-
ployee benefit policies and, indeed, the
entire Federal fiscal policy into the total
inflationary process in this country.
Wage and salary scales in private in-
dustry are tied into the cost-of-living
index?largely through the escalation
clauses of collective bargaining con-
tracts.
Through adoption of the ill-advised
comparability principle, we have tied the
Federal wage and salary scales into the
private industry wage and salary scale.
Through the Udall amendment, it was
proposed to tie in congressional salaries
through a scheme of automatic increases
with any increases made hereafter in
the Federal salary scale. I recognize
that this noxious provision has been de-
leted in conference, but I predict that
it will be back.
Furthermore, we ought not to forget
that the cost of Federal employee fringe
benefits is likewise tied in automatically
with the salary and wage increases.
This fact, which receives little, if any,
consideration when this House votes fur-
ther salary and wage increases for Fed-
eral employees, has become so significant
that it occasioned a timely comment the
other day by Mr. Joseph Young, who
writes "The Federal Spotlight" column
in the Washington Star. Mr. Young
pointed out that the cost of Government
employee fringe benefits has mounted to
23 percent of total payroll?and that is
additional to the Federal payroll.
Mr. Young further pointed out that
this 23 percent added cost of fringe
benefits amounts to some $3.5 billion in
additional annual costs, over and above
the $15 billion annual Federal payroll.
And Mr. Young further pointed out,
quite correctly, that "every time Govern-
ment salaries are increased, the value of
the employees' fringe benefits is raised
with a resultant increase in cost to the
Government."
If we adopt this conference report to-
day, we are repeating that process.
My point is that the net result of this
integrated inflation is a progressive loss
of control by the Congress and the Amer-
ican taxpayer over both the damaging
processes of inflation and over the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE August 4
mounting costs of Federal Government.
Let me observe in passing that there is
one all-important difference between the
economics of mass production in private
industry and the economics of burgeon-
ing Federal Government.
In private industry, mass production
can reduce unit costs. On the other
hand, there is no equivalent or corre-
sponding reduction in unit cost incident
to the massive expansion of the bu-
reaucracy.
Last week / voted against the social
security amendments on the grounds
that it further ties the social security
program into the inflationary cycle. An
opponent back home said my vote "just
doesn't make any sense."
I suppose by the same standards of
fiscal irresponsibility accepted by my op-
ponent, "it just doesn't make any sense"
to vote against this pay bill.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only
thing that does make any sense is a des-
peration effort to put the brake on fiscal
policies which make control of inflation
progressively difficult, if not impossible.
We have the opportunity today to take
a major step in this direction by reject-
ing this conference report.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. DANIELS).
(Mr. DANIELS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Speaker, the
amendment recommended in the confer-
ence report on H.R. 11049 will accom-
plish a complete overhaul of the sal-
aries in the executive branch. Also it
will help bring the salaries of other
Federal Government personnel up to
date. I would like to reiterate, if I may,
a few of the most important aspects of
this legislation.
In 1962, Congress made the commit-
ment to our classified and postal Federal
employees, numbering approximately 2
million, that their wages would be com-
parable to those in private enterprise.
We did this so that they would not be
penalized economically for their decision
to serve the Federal Government The
conference report before us today will
determine whether Congress intends to
abide by this commitment.
Before the comparability principle
was introduced, during the period from
1945 to 1960 a haphazard approach to
Federal salaries resulted in seven in-
creases which averaged 4.1 percent an-
nual increases for classified employees
and 4.9 percent annual increases for
postal employees.
The Members of Congress, the high
appointive offices in the executive
branch, and the Federal judiciary, col-
lectively and individually, have an im-
mense responsibility. The welfare and
very survival of every American rests on
the soundness of their decisions. In all
other areas of American life, those who
are held accountable for important and
far-reaching decisions are paid salaries
commensurate with their responsibil-
ities. It seems only fair that this should
also be the case in the Federal Govern-
ment.
Each member of the board of direc-
tors of most major corporations in the
United States are paid salaries upward
of $40,000 per year. Yet the members of
the board of directors of the Nation's
largest business, the Congress, receive
$22,500 per year. A sampling of 1,157
chins showed that the median salary for
the highest officer was $91,000 per year,
yet a Federal Cabinet officer who heads a
concern larger than most of the firms
In that study receives only $25,000 per
year and will receive $35,000 under this
proposal. Even officials of many of the
larger States receive more than that.
In these positions of great respon-
sibility, it is fallacious to assume that
economy will result from paying salaries
less than could be obtained elsewhere.
These are positions in which we must
have qualified administrators and deci-
sionmakers. Yet. many of the qualified
people appointed to these jobs find that
they simply cannot afford to keep them;
consequently, they resign. It is false
economy to maintain the compensation
of the most important and critical Gov-
ernment offices at such a level that only
the rich can afford them. One of the
objections raised earlier to this bill was
that it is not economical?the biggest
economy we can accomplish is to pay
salaries commensurate with responsibili-
ties and duties, so that highly qualified
People can afford to hold them.
The advantageous effects of this leg-
islation will be great, not only with re-
spect to the highest offices in all three
branches of the Government, but in the
lower grades and levels as well. The
salary structure that we are about to
adopt will respond better to the present-
day needs of the Government than the
system presently in effect, and It will
facilitate the recruitment of a high
caliber of personnel from top to bot-
tom.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11049 received ex-
tensive consideration by the Post Office
and Civil Service Committees of both the
House and the Senate. The few changes
made in the House bill by the conferees
were, on the whole, quite fair, and re-
sulted in several improvements. This
bill is much needed and long overdue.
I hope the Members of this great body
will join with me in voting for it again
today.
Mr. CORBkart. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Indiana Mr. Baayl.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, I must again
rise in protest to the passage of this un-
necessary and unjustified pay increase
for Members of Congress.
I say unnecessary and unjustified for
I sincerely believe it is a mistake to ap-
prove this legislation at this time, re-
gardless of the merit which some Mem-
bers may feel the legislation contains.
This legislation means that in the
course of the last 10 years the Congress
will have increased its salary by 140 per-
cent?from $12,500 in 1954 to $30,000 in
1965. We are all thankful that the cost
of living has not risen by proportionate
leaps and bounds. Had the expenses of
the average American increased to that
extent within that period we would be
undergoing severe economic problems.
It is for this reason that I believe we
should oppose the conference report for
this further pay increase. One of our
chief objectives should be to direct eco-
nomic forces so as to avoid inflation.
Inflation can destroy the value of the
dollar, and is especially damaging to re-
tired persons living on their savings,
pensions, and social security payments.
The ultimate effects of runaway infla-
tion would be hard to foretell, but we
know it could cause great damage to un-
told millions of Americans.
The House rejected this pay legisla-
tion on March 12, but, at the insistence
of President Johnson, it was revived.
As for the necessity of increases to var-
ious classes of Federal Government em-
ployees. such increases should have been
considered on their own, and not all tied
together with huge raises for the Con-
gress, the Cabinet, and the courts.
I spoke against this congressional in-
crease and voted against it when it was
before the House in March and June, and
I repeat my opposition at this time.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. ROOSEVELT).
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker. I in-
tend to vote for this conference report
but I cannot help but comment that it
seems unfortunate that the conferees did
not see lit to restore the Supreme Court
salary ratio to what it had been as passed
In the House bill. The compromise be-
tween the House and the Senate, it seems
to me, leaves nobody satisfied. I hope
that at some future date, and a date not
too far distant, the salary positions of the
Supreme Court Justices may achieve the
parity which I believe they require in our
form of government.
The rest of the bill, Mr. Speaker,
achieves two fundamental objectives:
First, it brings the great body of gov-
ernmental employees more in line with
the pay scales of those in private employ-
ment. Second, it makes it more possible
for the Executive to attract effective ca-
pable private citizens for important pub-
lic service. The public Is well served by
this legislation.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which as I
pointed out the other day, has been be-
fore us since May of 1963, has been
worked, reworked, debated, argued over,
discussed by all the newspapers and com-
mentators and eventually now we
reached the point where the conferees
met on this bill. We had an exceedingly
fine meeting with the managers on the
part of the Senate. We were able to com-
promise differences. We were able to
come out with language which we believe
Is just as fair as the boundaries of the
two bills would possibly permit.
Having done this, we recognize that in
every piece of salary legislation or any
reclassification act, there are areas or in-
dividuals that have not received an equi-
table increase 'or equitable treatment.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved ForRelea_se.2_005/Q5/18.? CLA.RDP6680H03R000500050001-9 17319
CONGRESSION AL ithancll riu-u
These things can only be corrected by
later legislation.
It is assumed on the basis of existing
law that it is required that Federal em-
ployees be kept at comparable salary
levels with people in private industry and
we will have an opportunity to correct
any inequities that may become evident.
It is also true with regard to a num-
ber of individuals who are members of
commissions arid boards and who are in
the executive offices that we had no lati-
tude within which to work and conse-
quently we gave that power in the han-
dling of some 60 positions to the Execu-
tive.
I believe, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that
we now, with the House having voted by
a clear majority for the revised bill, with
the Senate having voted it by a clear
majority, and with the conferees having
agreed unanimously that this conference
report can be upheld and that it can be
voted for. I think that when we have
done this, we will have taken a very long
and very proper step toward creating the
comparability that has become the guid-
ing policy regarding Federal salaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the confer-
ence report be voted up favorably. I ex-
press the hope that since this is an ad-
ministration bill strongly backed by the
President that it will soon be enacted
into law and that our employees will be-
gin to receive the benefits of this very
fine piece of legislation.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise hi
opposition to the conference report. It
Is completely beyond my comprehension
how the Members of Congress, through
another pay bill, can with any conscience,
add another half-billion dollars to the
huge debt and deficit of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill,
and to the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that I may extend my remarks follow-
ing the remarks of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL-
BERT) . Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
There was no objection.
Mr. CORBETT. May I ask the gentle-
man in return, if he opposed the military
pay raise bill yesterday which is the sec-
ond one brought in since October of 1963.
Mr. GROSS. No; I did not oppose the
military pay bill yesterday. I did not
oppose the bill that was passed a few
months ago.
If the gentleman will permit me to
make one other observation, the military
has lagged behind the civilian payroll for
a long time. I am sure the gentleman
will agree to that.
Mr. CORBETT. I certainly will agree
to that and I will agree further that the
gentleman from Iowa has made a very
sincere and lengthy opposition to this
bill.
For those who agree with him, I believe
the gentleman should be complimented
on his efforts. I hope he will return the
compliments to the committee and to
No. 150-4
the majority of the House and Senate,
who have worked just as hard and just
as sincerely for passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, the adop-
tion of this conference report and en-
actment of this legislation is apparently
a foregone conclusion.
That the bill will be signed by Presi-
dent Johnson is also a foregone conclu-
sion. Despite the fact that the same
Lyndon Johnson has called on private in-
dustry and labor to hold the line on
prices and wages, he will now, and with
the greatest of ease, sign this legislation
giving lavish pay increases of 33 percent
and more to members of Congress and
others in the executive and judicial
branches of Government.
As I have repeatedly stated, this bill
will add a minimum of $540 million to
the debt and deficit of the Federal Gov-
ernment and further fuel the fire of in-
flation that is steadily eroding the value
of the dollar.
It is entirely fitting, in view of Lyndon
Johnson's high pressure support for this
bill, that on tomorrow the House will
begin debate on the same Lyndon John-
son's politically inspired war on poverty
bill.
The premium in Washington continues
to be on extravagance in the operation of
the Federal Government and on double
talk.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Members
of the House will stand and be counted
on the final vote today on the biggest
single pay raise ever approved in the
history of this country.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. Cortiveue].
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I sup-
port the conference report, but I share
the concern of my colleague the gentle-
man from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT].
I believe it is a disservice to ourselves to
treat the Supreme Court in this manner.
We limit their salary increase to slightly
more than half of our own, to express the
disagreement of some Members with
some of their decisions. I sincerely hope
that the next Congress will right this
wrong.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. JoeisoN].
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish
to associate myself with the remarks of
the gentlemen from California [Mr.
ROOSEVELT and Mr. CORMAN]. When we
engage in an act of vengeance because
we do not agree with certain decisions
of the Supreme Court we are setting a
very, very dangerous precedent, because
in effect we are saying to the members
of the Court, "If you do not decide cases
the way we believe, we will engage in re-
prisals against you." I believe this is
dangerous and could boomerang. I re-
gret the action that was taken to accom-
plish that end.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. UDALL].
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
woman from Missouri.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Panama Canal, I
should like to ask the gentleman from
Arizona a question. I am quite con-
cerned about section 308, the limitation
on salaries lxed by administrative ac-
tion. Can the gentleman tell me
whether the Panama Canal Company
was inadvertently omitted from the ex-
emption on limitation?
Mr. UDALL. I believe my good friend
has probably spotted the reason for the
-provision to which she takes exception. I
talked to the conferees. Apparently, the
authority for the Panama Canal Com-
pany to fix rates of compensation was
not included in the exemptions listed
in section 308. There is an exemption
for the Central Intelligence Agency, the
TVA, and certain other agencies.
Since neither the bill passed by the
House nor the bill passed by the Senate
had any provision for the Panama Canal
Company, there was nothing to compro-
mise, and this oversight could not be cor-
rected even though located and desig-
nated.
I say to my friend that there is nothing
we can do at this late date. I believe the
leaders on both sides of the aisle in our
committee feel the Board of Directors of
the Panama Canal Company should have
this authority. If such legislation is
sponsored, I, for one, will support it.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. I hope so. There is
nothing we can do in respect to this bill?
Mr. UDALL. We were advised by legal
counsel, by the Parliamentarian, that
there was nothing to compromise.
Neither the House nor the Senate had
passed any provision of that kind. There
was nothing on which an agreement
could be worked out. The authority the
gentlewoman desires should be provided.
Most members of our committee, I be-
lieve, are in agreement. I believe this is
a subject for corrective legislation.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. I thank the gentle-
man for his explanation. I hope it will
be done.
Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. 'UDALL. I yield to the gentleman,
Mr. KEOGH. I wonder if the gentle-
man would explain to the House for the
RECORD how the oversight took place in
connection with the treatment of the
Executive Director of the Advisory Com-
mission on Intergovernmental Relations,
which I understand is a position which
has not been accorded the same treat-
ment given comparable positions.
Mr. 'UDALL. The conferees dealt with
literally dozens of these executive posi-
tions. I am told by the staff that this
was a matter of judgment and was a
compromise. I hope we can get a further
explanation for the distinguished gen-
tleman. There were a number of agency
heads and appointees who were not par-
ticularly happy with the way they came
out under this bill.
Mr. KEOGH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. 'UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17320 Approved For RetwORMINN3A:LCiterf93MBOCIM00500050001-9 - August 4
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I
make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
NATCHER). The Chair wili count.
[After counting.] One hundred-fifteen
Members are present, not a quorum.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speaker,
I move a call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Alger
Ashley
Auc.hincloss
Avery
Baring
Bass
Battin
Beckworth
Bennett, Mich.
Bolling
Buckley
Celler
Curtis
Davis, Tenn.
Diggs
Dingell
Evins
Finnegan
Fulton, Tenn.
Gill
Harvey, Mich.
Healey
Roll No. 2021
Hebert
Herlong
Hoffman
Hull
Ichord
Jones, Mo.
Karsten
Kee
Kilburn
Lankford
Leggett
Lennon
Lesinski
Lloyd
McCulloch
Miller, N.Y.
Moore
Moss
Redid
Norblad
Passman
Powell
Purcell
Randall
Roberts, Ala
Rodin?
Rogers, Colo
Rumsfeld
Ryan. Mich
St Germain
Schwengel
Scott
Sheppard
Shipley
Shriver
Skubitz
Thompson. La
Ton
Vinson
Wallhauser
Watson
Weaver
Widnall
Wilson, Bob
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
NATCHER ) . On this rolleall 364 Members
have answered to their names, a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
[Mr. UDALL addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker. I have no
further requests for time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield me 1 minute?
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if that Democrat leader to whom the
gentleman referred is the same leader of
those on the other side of the aisle who
has called upon the private business
fraternity to hold the line on wages and
prices.
Mr. UDALL. If the gentleman will
yield, I hope that everyone will be in
the mainstream. We can all be in the
mainstream and stand together on this.
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman
mean the Lyndon Johnson mainstream
that calls upon private industry to hold
the line on wages and prices while sup-
porting a lush salary grab for Members
of Congress and others?
Mr- UDALL. I was suggesting the
Johnson-Goldwater mainstream on Fed-
eral pay.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman does not
need to bring Mr. GOLDWATER into this
situation.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the conference
report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
NATCHER . The question is on the con-
ference report.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that
I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker pro tempore announced that the
"ayes" appeared to have it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
WATCHER) . The Chair will count. [Af-
ter counting.] Two hundred and sev-
enty-seven Members are present, a
quorum.
So the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid od
the table.
SECURITIES ACTS AMENDMENTS OF
1964
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by direc-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 801, and ask for its
Immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved. That upon the adoption of this
resolution, It shall be in order to move that,
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6793)
to amend the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. as amended, to extend disclosure re-
quirements to the issuers of additional pub-
licly traded securities, to provide for im-
proved qualification and disciplinary pro-
cedures for registered brokers and dealers,
and for other purposes. After general de-
bate, which shall be confined to the bill and
shall continue not to exceed two hours, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, the bill shall be read for amend-
ment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider the substitute amend-
ment recommended by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce now In the
bill, and such substitute for the purpose of
amendment shall be considered under the
five-minute rule as an original bill. At the
conclusion of such consideration the Com-
mittee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and any member may demand
a separate vote in the House on any of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole to the bill or committee substi-
tute, The previous question shall be con-
sidered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without inter-
vening motion except one motion to recom-
mit with or without instructions.
After the passage of H.R. 6793, the Com-
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
shall be discharged from the further con-
sideration of the bill. S. 1642; and it shall
then be in order in the House to move to
strike out all after the enacting clause of
said Senate bill and Insert in lieu thereof
the provisions contained in HR. 6703 as
passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-
tleman from New York [Mr. DELANEY
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. BROWN]; and pending that I yield
myself such [line as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides
for the consideration of H.R. 6793. This
Is a bill to amend the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as amended.
In 1961 the Congress directed the
Securities and Exchange Commission to
make a study of conditions on the var-
ious stock exchanges. After a 2-year
study they came up with certain recom-
mendations which are incorporated in
this proposal.
The purpose is to protect the investing
public. There are two main features.
One is to extend to investors in certain
over-the-counter securities the same pro-
tection now afforded to those in listed
securities by providing that the issuers
of certain securities now traded over the
counter shall be subject to the same re-
quirements that now apply to issuers of
securities listed on the main exchanges.
The entire bill has for its purpose she
protection of those who invest in seeu-
rities. I know of no opposition to the
rule. It is an open rule and provides
that it shall be in order, following the
passage of this bill, to consider the Sen-
ate bill, S. 1642, strike out all after the
enacting clause and insert the provisions
of the House-passed bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
the rule.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
I yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.,
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker,
as the gentleman from New York [Mr.
DELANEY] has explained, House Resolu-
tion 801 makes in order the considera-
tion of HR. 6793, a bill from the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce introduced for the purpose
of amending the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1924,
and for other purposes.
The rule provides 2 hours of general
debate, following which the amendment
adopted by the Committee on Intes-
state and Foreign Commerce shall be
considered as an original bill which %%7:11
be open for debate and amendment un-
der the 5-minute rule.
As the gentleman from New Yolk
[Mr. DELANEY] has explained, the bill
would put into effect a number of
changes and a number of new recom-
mendations concerning the activities and
the work of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. It will amend the Secur. -
tics Act to provide that the issuers of
certain securities now tritded over the
counter shall be subject to the same re-
quirements that now apply to the issuers
of securities listed on any stock ex-
change of record; and also to strengthen
the qualifications, standards, and dis-
ciplinary controls of those engaged i:s
the over-the-counter market business.
I think this bill is long overdue. It is
designed for the purpose of protecting
investors who purchase various stocks
and bonds, mostly stocks over the coun-
ter, in the same way that they are now
protected as to other issues purchased
that are listed on the regular stock ex-
changes that are so well known to moss
of us.
Certain classes of stocks are specifi-
cally exempted from these requirements.
As a whole the bill would strengthen the!
regulation of the over-the-counter brok-
ers and dealers, including qualifications
standards and disciplinary controls, bs
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17437
ified immediately by exempting Canada
to offset the Canadian crisis which cost
that country $225 million in 1 day. The
Japanese market, which received one of
the worst setbacks in its history has not
been able to recover from it. One wit-
ness who is an expert on business in
Japan testified that the threatened tax
inhibited Japan's growth during the past
year. Prosperity in other countries raises
the standard of living as well as prices.
Such increases result in more imports
from the United States and more com-
petitive prices, and thus are favorable
factors in our efforts to eliminate the
deficit. There is a very close correlation
between private investment abroad and
our exports.
This measure imposes rigidities on our
capital markets and capital flow that will
be of lasting and perhaps irreparable
harm. . Our foreign trade position can
only be weakened by these rigidities. It
would be much more desirable and satis-
factory to have flexibility in dealing with
exports of capital if it is determined that
some direct control is needed.
The bill would make it prohibitive to
make desirable portfolio changes thus
leading to deterioration in the quality
of American-owned foreign securities.
The very minimum that should be pro-
vided is that securities presently owned
by Americans could be exchanged or
switched for other foreign securities
without being subject to the tax. This
would have no effect on the balance of
payments as far as an outflow of capital
is concerned and if the changes resulted
in more desirable securities in American
portfolios, a favorable result would ac-
crue to the United States. But this pro-
posal was rejected by the Treasury.
This bill represents an attempt to con-
trol interest rates and credit through the
U.S. Treasury rather than through the
Fedeal Reserve Board, which has been
given the responsibility and authority of
regulating interest and credit. The
Treasury is far more subject to political
pressure than is the more independent
Federal Reserve.
This bill requires security firms, the
very ones that are harmed by it, to shoul-
der the additional burden of auditing all
sales made since July of 1963 as pro-
vided for in the retroactive bill. This
must be done manually at great cost.
The temporary nature of the measure
does not seem to justify all of the com-
plications and expenses that would re-
sult from its enactment, even if it were
successful in stemming the outflow of
capital.
Foreigners have expressed concern
that if the United States is resigned to
measures such as this, bringing our free
market to an end, It marks only the
beginning of further controls in the
future. I am inclined to agree that if
we once give up the freedom which we
now have in our financial markets, it will
never be returned, but that a gradual
management from Government admin-
istrative agencies will continue to en-
croach upon the free market.
It has been argued that if we do not
pass this measure, foreigners will feel
that the United States is not serious
about doing away with the balance-of-
payments deficit. I cannot agree with
such sentiment. We cannot impress
them with temporary stopgap measures.
If we are to preserve the confidence in
the dollar which is so necessary to avoid
call upon our gold, we must show our
determination to correct the causes of the
payment imbalance.
Even the Secretary of the Treasury
was forced to admit that the long-term
effect of this unwise legislation will be
adverse to our balance-of-payments posi-
tion. That is precisely why the tax im-
posed by the bill was described by ad-
ministration spokesmen as "temporary."
In my opinion, any possible short-term
benefits will be outweighed by both the
short-term and by the longrun harm
that the bill will cause.
For all of these reasons, I shall vote
against passage of the bill, as I voted
against its adoption in the Finance Com-
mittee, and hope that it will be defeated
by the Senate.
THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS REPORTS
Mr. MAGNUSON. Madam President,
Telecommunications Reports, which is
frequently referred to as the bible of the
nonbroadcast communications field, is
celebrating its 30th aniversary on Au-
gust 9.
This weekly news publication, edited
since the beginning by Roland C. Davies,
was started a few months after the for-
mation of the Federal Communica-
tions Commission in 1934.
It now is subscribed to by virtually
every organization in the United States
with an interest in common carrier com-
munications, as well as companies or
administrations in. every major nation
of the world.
On July 30, the FCC wrote to Mr.
Davies, congratulating him on his 30
years of service as editor and publisher,
and commending him for "reliable and
complete coverage of the telecommuni-
cations field."
I ask unanimous consent to have the
letter from FCC Chairman E. William
Henry printed in the RECORD at this
point.
There being no objection, the letter-
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
FEDERAL CONIMIINICATIONS COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 30, 1964.
Mr. ROLAND C. DAVIES,
Editor-Publisher, Telecommunications Re-
ports, National Press Building, Washing-
ton, D.C.
DEAR M. DAVIES: Telecommunications Re-
ports reaches its 30th anniversary on Au-
gust 9. This is an event which should not
pass without a note of recognition from the
Federal Communications Commission for
the important contribution made by Tele-
communications Reports in the dissemina-
tion of news and information relating to the
communications common carrier field and
other nonbroadcast communications.
In your weekly reporting of significant ac-
tivities, developments, and issues relating to
these fields, you have demonstrated con-
sistent standards of accuracy and complete-
ness. You have chronicled the actions taken
by the Federal Communications Commission,
State regulatory commissions, other Govern-
ment agencies, the Congress, and the com-
munications industry.
By such reliable and complete coverage of
the telecommunications field, your publica-
tion has provided the Commission and its
staff with a constant source of current in-
formation which has greatly facilitated the
performance of our regulatory responsibil-
ities.
As editor and publisher of Telecommunica-
tions Reports during its entire lifetime, you
deserve to take pride in the contributions
you have made to this important field, and
the Commission joins with me in extending
sincere congratulations. It is with regret
that we have heard of your recent illness and
we wish to extend our very best wishes for
your speedy recovery.
Yours sincerely,
E. WILLIAM HENRY,
Chairman.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Davies has
been ill recently, and we in this field, as
well as the committees of Congress in
the communications field, wish him a
speedy recovery. We join in the con-
gratulations to him by Chairman Henry
of the Federal Communications Com-
mission.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OlvriCER. The
clerk will cal: the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES SALAIY
REFORM ACT OF 1964?CONFER-
ENCE REPORT
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President,
I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 11049) to
adjust the rates of basic compensation of
certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses. I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of August 3, 1964, pp. 17267-
17279, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration
of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President, I
announce that the conference report was
signed by all the conferees. I commend
the conferees on the part of the Senate.
This was the most friendly conference
that I have ever attended. We had no
trouble reaching a conclusion in con-
nection with the conference report.
I can safely say that the House yielded
to the Senate in about 75 percent of the
cases. That is true all the way through
the conference report.
Madam President, I am very pleased to
report that the conferees readily reached
agreement on a compromise bill not sub-
stantially different from the Senate ver-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August .4
sion. On many points at issue, the Sen-
ate positions were accepted by the con-
ferees as representing either more recent
recommendations from the Bureau of
the Budget or a general consolidation of
thinking arising out of the debate on the
floor of the Senate when the bill was
passed. On other points, reasonable
compromises between Senate and House
versions were reached without major dis-
agreement.
The salary amounts set for executive
positions by the Senate bill were sus-
tained in conference, as was the estab-
lishment of five levels of executive com-
pensation with positions listed for each
level.
The compensation schedule for em-
ployees under the Classification Act as
it aiipeared in the Senate version, with
Increases up to 3 percent for the four
middle-management grades, was agreed
upon.
A compromise figure in the salaries
prescribed for Supreme Court Justices
was reached.
The Senate schedule of compensation
for postmasters of fourth-class post of-
fices was adopted and the conferees ap-
proved the Senate provision which ex-
tends to all levels of the postal field
service schedule annual step increases up
to step 7.
With regard to the maximum salary
figure for employees of the Congress, the
sense of the Senate as expressed in the
debate on this measure was to the effect
that each body should establish its own
top figure. The conferees agreed to this,
so that in the compromise bill separate
figures establish these congressional
maximums.
Salary scales for certain officers of the
legislative branch differed slightly in the
original Senate and House versions. A
compromise approximately splitting the
difference was agreed to in the confer-
ence substitute bill.
The Senate decision to strike the Udall
amendment, which provided that con-
gressional pay increases would auto-
matically go into effect in percentage
amounts related to pay increases for the
executive branch, was sustained.
The conferees accepted the amend-
ment of the Senate which struck out the
Udall amendment.
The Senate amendment making avail-
able additional funds to provide pay in-
creases for the staffs of former Presi-
dents was also approved in the confer-
ence bill.
The position level and corresponding
salary for some 14 executive positions
differed somewhat in the House and Sen-
ate versions. The relative importance of
each of these positions was carefully
considered in conference and reasonable
compromises were agreed to.
Since the enactment of the bill in the
Senate. the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee has received a number of
recommendations for alterations and ad-
ditions in the placement of certain ex-
ecutive positions in the executive salary
schedule. It was my view that these
changes, some of them proposed by Mem-
bers of the Senate, should be considered
in conference and agreed upon. Since
assuring some of my colleagues that such
would be the case, I had been told that
if these changes were considered and
agreed to in conference, they would be
subject in the House of Representatives
to a point of order, thus providing a
means by which final approval of this
Important measure would have been
delayed.
Aware of this fact at the final confer-
ence meeting, the conferees agreed not
to subject the compromise bill to such a
delay. In order to permit any needed
changes in the executive salary schedule,
the conferees agreed to insert language
authorizing the President to place an ad-
ditional 30 persons, for a total of 60, in
levels IV and V of the executive salary
schedules.
In my view and I believe in the view of
all six conferees, the conference bill is a
good bill which goes a long way toward
meeting the urgent salary needs of the
Federal Government.
Madam President, I move that the
Senate agree to the conference report.
Madam President, the distinguished
senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARL-
sort] called me and said that he expected
to be in the Chamber in a few minutes,
but that if he were not present, not to
hold up action on the conference report,
and that he would submit a statement
fully approving the report.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Madam Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Texas.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I compliment
the distinguished senior Senator from
South Carolina for his able chairman-
ship of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service and for the able manner
in which he steered the trill through the
committee and the Senate. Likewise. I
compliment him for his service as chair-
man of the Senate conferees in the joint
conference between the Senate and the
House. I also congratulate the con-
ferees of both the Senate and the House
upon the agreement they have reached.
In its present form, the bill resolves the
issues between the Senate and the House
in the most appropriate way that could
be done.
Within a matter of hours the Federal
employees pay bill of 1984 will be en-
acted. I regret that it has taken so long
to reach the end of the road with respect
to this important measure. Our dedi-
cated postal workers and Federal em-
ployees had every right to expect its en-
actment long ago. Nonetheless, they
have been most patient and understand-
ing of the problems that had to be over-
come before the measure could be finally
enacted into law. I appreciate their
patience and understanding.
First. I congratulate the conferees on
the part of both the Senate and House
on the agreement reached. The meas-
ure in its present form resolves the is-
sues involved in a most appropriate man-
ner. The bill, when finally enacted, will
remove many existing inequities and pro-
vide a more nearly adequate basis of
computation for the men and women
who faithfully perform their assigned
duties.
There is one note of particular interest
in the measure. There are some who
would downgrade the power of the Press.
I am not one of those who do this.
Many months ago one of Washington's
most. outstanding reporters dealing pri-
marily with Federal employee matters
pointed out how $10 million could be
saved annually without imposing an in-
equity on any employee. The writer to
whom I refer 13 John Cramer, a likeable
and very effective reporter for the Wash-
ington Daily News.
In a column addressed to the President
of the United States, Mr. Cramer sug-
gested that in eriting the pay bili, Con-
gress should amend the current law so as
to provide for the computation of rates
of pay in full cents by rounding off the
fractions to the nearest penny. This
seemingly simple idea had not been pre-
viously Proposed. According to the com-
putations by the General Accounting
Office and the Bureau of the Budget, the
adoption of this proposal will result in
a saving to the taxpayers of $10 million
annually. I am happy to say that this
proposal is embodied in the pay measure.
I congratulate Mr. Cramer for bringing
this proposal to the attention of Con-
gress, and I commend Congress for
adopting it.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Madam President,
I thank the distinguished Senator from
Texas for his remarks concerning me.
I thank every member of the Senate
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice for their hard work during the hear-
ings and for the help they have given
throughout the proceedings on this bill.
I have never seen a group of Democrats
and Republicans work together better
than we have worked on this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALLUIT. Madam President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Colorado will state it.
Mr. ALLOTT. Is it in order at this
time to move to reject the conference re-
port; and would such a motion take
precedence over the motion that is be-
fore the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report. A majoritY vote is required to
adopt the conference report.
Mr. ALLoTT. Do I correctly under-
stand that a motion to reject the confer-
ence report is in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote
against the motion to agree to the con-
ference report would serve the same pur-
pose.
Mr. ALLOTT. Madam President, I
wish to address myself to this subject for
a few minutes. I hope Senators will bear
with me. I do not intend to speak at
great length, but I believe a few things
ought to be said about the conference
report.
I am sure the conference was friend-
ly, because one of the most significant
things that the Senate did with respect
to the pay bill was not attended to as-
siduously by the conferees. That was the
item concerning salaries of the members
of the Supreme Court.
When the bill came from the Senate
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice, it provided for a salary of $43,000
for Justices of the Supreme Court and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
a salary of $43,500 for the Chief Justice
of the United States. By an amendment
that was offered by the senior Senator
from Colorado and agreed to by a vote'
of 46 to 40, those amounts were reduced
to $38,000 and $38,500, respectively.
From the temper of the Senate that night
and the remarks that took place at the
time, I feel certain that an amendment
not to increase the salaries of the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices at all
would have carried, and carried to the
same extent.
Since the time I offered that amend-
ment, I have read a number of editorials
and articles attributing all sorts of mo-
tives and reasons for that action. I sup-
pose that is what a person in public life
should expect.
We are all free to agree or disagree
with the decisions of the Supreme Court.
That has nothing to do with the situa-
tion. Fifty percent of the litigants in
every lawsuit are disappointed and will
continue to be disappointed. I was care-
ful at that time, and I am careful now,
not to base anything I say on any of
the decisions, wise or poor, divided or
unanimous, that the Supreme Court has
rendered in the past few years.
I said that night, and I say now, that
there is no justification for a $10,000 dif-
ferential between the salaries of the
members of the Supreme Court and
Members of Congress.
Members of the Supreme Court do not
have to maintain two homes, sometimes
three. They do not have to travel back
to their constituencies 10, 12, or even
20 times a year. They do not have con-
stituents to entertain in Washington.
They are not burdened with a hundred
other expenses that Members of the Sen-
ate and House must bear constantly.
Members of the Supreme Court do not
stand for election every 2 years, as in the
case of Members of the House, or every
6 years, as in the case of Members of the
Senate. When one decides to stand for
election to the Senate, he must burn all
his bridges behind him, including his
career. The voters of his State may, in
their own wise discretion, terminate the
relationship and chop it off in 1 short
day. Then the defeated candidate must
start his career all over again.
Furthermore, when a Supreme Court
Justice goes on the bench, he may re-
main on the bench during good behavior.
He may retire at full salary and receive
his full salary for the remainder of his
life.
Members of Congress contribute 7.5
percent of their salary toward their re-
tirement, which is more than many
members of other branches of the Gov-
ernment do. Our retirement is built up
gradually over a long period of years, to
make it significant.
No. 150-19
A member of the Supreme Court can
get this same benefit for his widow for
31/2 percent if he wishes to do so, but in
order to get his own retirement, he does
not have to put up 1 cent and he retires
at full salary.
There are other factors involved.
One Senator, and he is in the Chamber
at the present moment, recently wrote a
book in which he called this body the sap-
less branch.
Madam President, I do not regard my-
self as a sapless person, and I do not in-
tend to associate myself with any actions
which would indicate that I was.
The individual members of the Su-
preme Court do not bear any respon-
sibility such as that which is borne by a
Senator. There is no greater integrity
required in the Supreme Court than is
required. in the Senate?even though
some Senators seem to love the picture of
flagellating themselves before the public
week after week and month after month.
I shall not do so. I will not hold with
anyone who does.
There is another aspect of this issue,
and that is the amount of work that is
actually done.
The Supreme Court has not been out of
session for 2 or 3 weeks I believe it is?
perhaps it is 4 weeks. They return in
October. If the Senate is able to con-
clude its work this summer, some time in
August, each Member of the Senate
knows what he will do. He will go home
and he will work even harder during those
3 or 4 months?if that is possible?than
he has worked so far this year. If a
Senator is fortunate enough, he may be
able to squeeze a couple of weeks' vaca-
tion out of it. That is about all he will
get.
So, based on the amount of work re-
quired, based upon the degree of integ-
rity required, and based upon the ability
required, there is no basis for any differ-
entiation in salary between the Supreme
Court and Members of Congress. Let us
make that plain.
I do not believe that it requires a
greater degree of ability to sit on the
bench, a greater degree of integrity, on
a greater amount of work, than it takes
to be a Member of the Senate?if a
Member of the Senate is doing his work.
I am very much disappointed that
the chairman of the committee did not
sit down hard and say, "We will not
recede on this point," because we had a
vote in the Senate. I believe that the
chairman realized, as everyone else does,
that if those figures had been set lower,
out of an attitude of spite, they would
have stuck in the Senate that evening.
Madam President, I am sure no point
will be particularly served in my trying
to do anything against the conference
report other than what I have done; but
17439
I invite the attention of the Senate once
more to the factors which precipitated
the offering of my original amendment.
I believe that the importance and wis-
dom of these factors are present in the
Chamber today, Just as much as they
were the night the Senate voted on my
amendment.
I hope that the Senate is through with
its self-flagellation. I hope, for once,
that it will again stand up?as it did by
its vote that night?and say to the whole
world, "We believe the Senate to be a
coequal body, not only with the execu-
tive branch, but also with the Supreme
Court, which sits across the street from
us."
It is no valid argument to say, "They
have always received more money than
we have."
It is never too late to correct inequi-
ties or injustices.
It would be my hope that when Sena-
tors come up to this issue again, they
will somehow be able?either in this way
or in another way?to show the other
coequal branches of the Government that
the Senate is in fact an equal branch
of the Government, that we regard our-
selves as equal, that we believe in our
own integrity, that we believe in our own
abilities, and that we yield nothing in
these respects to the other branches of
the Government. ?
So, Madam President, on this partic-
ular matter, I shall vote against the
conference report, regardless of what
other Senators may do, because it is the
only way I can express my feelings about
the concession which has been made on
this pay raise bill.
Mr. MONRONEY. Madam President,
I deeply regret that the efforts made by
the committee to bring this bill to the
floor of the Senate today are not satis-
factory to my very dear friend, the Sena-
tor from Colorado, whom I regard with
great affection.
In my opinion, the committee did the
best it could in a matter on which it
knew there was strong feeling on the
part of the Senate.
The chairman of the Senate commit-
tee voted enthusiastically, I might say,
for the amendment of the distinguished
Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLorx].
We endeavored to maintain the Senator's
position. The Senator is well aware,
however, that these things are always a
matter of give and take. It is necessary
to compromise.
If the Senator would look at the fig-
ures, they are not quite as he quoted
them.
The bill came to the Senate reported
by the Senate committee at $43,000, not
$43,500 as the Senator from Colorado has
stated.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE August
Mr. ALLOTT. Madam President, vvill
the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a
question?
Mr. 3,10NRONEY. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. Is not the figure $43,500
for the Chief Justice?
Mr. MONRONEY. Forty-three thou-
sand dollars.
Mr. ALLOTT. For the Chief Justice.
Mr. MONRONEY. Forty-two thou-
sand five hundred dollars for the Asso-
ciate Justices of the Supreme Court ac-
cording to the figures we have from the
committee. This was compromised by a
reduction, let me say to the Senator from
Colorado, of $3,000 below the House fig-
ure. It came up to a figure of $40,000.
The existing salary is $35,500. This was
a reduction of $3,000 from the House
figure and reduced the increase to a far
smaller amount than that given to al-
most any part of the legislative or ex-
ecutive branches of Government.
Pour thousand five hundred dollars for
the justices of the Supreme Court, and
a similar figure of $4,500 for the Chief
Justice.
If the figure had been cut much lower,
we would run into a compression within
the salary scale where we would be pay-
ing judges of the circuit courts, judges
of the Court of Claims, judges of the
court of appeals, and judges of the Court
of Military Appeals, $33,000. This would
have approached too narrow a range for
judges sitting on the highest court in the
land.
Certainly, I am sure the Senator from
Colorado knows that the Supreme Court's
degree of popularity is never the same;
that it always goes up and down.
We are not legislating in this pay raise
bill because we approve of the decisions
of the Supreme Court currently un-
der discussion. Let me say that I do
not agree with many things the Supreme
Court does, and I am sure the Senator
from Colorado feels the same way.
But we are dealing with the highest
court in the land. We are dealing with
the highest Court in the greatest Nation
in the world, on the judgment of nine
men upon whom depends the final in-
terpretation of our Constitution.
I disagreed with President Roosevelt in
his Court-packing plan. I would disagree
with a plan which arbitrarily reduced
the salaries of the Supreme Court?and
I know of course that this is not the
intention of the Senator from Colorado?
because their decisions were not neces-
sarily satisfactory to me, or to him. I
would not do that. Neither would the
Senator from Colorado.
Certainly, many people across the Na-
tion have the feeling that this is the
reason their salaries were cut, because
the raise in salary to Supreme Court
Justices was so much less than that given
to all other members of the executive
branch, and to all other Members of
Congress.
Even now, let me say that while Sen-
ators and Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives are going to enjoy a $7,500
increase, the members of the Court will
be enjoying only a $4,500 increase. So
that the ratio between the two salaries,
which has been historically different, is
narrowing.
Certainly I feel that we did the best we
could. The matter is always open to
compromise. It has been for a long pe-
riod of time. I feel that the pay bill
should pass. I feel that it represents the
very best possible effort, to reach a solu-
tion in which the House could concur
and which the Members of the Senate,
after not being able to prevail with the
rate fixed by the Senate, felt would be
acceptable to the Senate and to the
House of Representatives.
Mr. LAUSCHR. Madam President. at
the very beginning I subscribe to the
words spoken by the Senator from Colo-
rado [Mr. Airorrl.
In my public service, I have been a
judge, a mayor, a Governor, and Sen-
ator. The simplest job that I had was
that of a judge. I did not have to worry
about bringing witnesses to court I did
not have to worry about searching the
law. I knew that the lawyers would
bring the evidence. I knew that they
would bring the witnesses. I knew that
they would supply me with briefs on the
questions of law that were involved in
the ease before me. All that I had to
possess was the pretense of Intelligence.
In my assignments as mayor. Governor,
and Senator, I have been burdened with
labor and worry far in excess of any-
thing that I ever experienced as a judge.
In the capacity which I now occupy, I
have to make decisions that deal with
the economy of every family in the Na-
tion. I have to make decisions that deal
with the security of the country.
am now subject to libel and slander.
When I was a judge, all that I said came
from the cathedral on high. No one
challenged me. As a judge in my State,
I had to contribute a part of my salary
to a retirement fund. As a Senator. I
have to contribute 7.5 percent of my
salary to a retirement fund. The Fed-
eral judges do not have to contribute a
single cent to the retirement fund.
They can go on the inactive list, I believe,
at the end of 10 years of service at the
age of 60, and 15 years of service at the
age of 55. They contribute not a single
penny to the fund. For the rest of their
lives, if they go on the inactive service
list under the present law, the district
court Judges receive $22,500 a year. The
circuit court judges, I believe, receive
$30,000 a year. I do not know what the
Supreme Court judges receive, but it is in
excess of what is received by a district or
circuit court judge.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Attorrl has stated that the position of
the Senate with respect to heaviness of
responsibility is equal to that of the
courts. I say that it exceeds it by far.
Those judges do not have to run. They
do not have to spend money to keep their
positions in an election. They have a
lifetime position.
Based upon my experience as a judge,
with full recognition of the dignity of the
position. I say that we have debased the
significance of the position of a legislator
and the significance of the position of an
executive officer in favor of men who in
the main have nothing but a facade.
There are other Members of this body
who became Fudges. I make the confes-
sion that I never realized how my intelli-
gence grew from the day that I was a
lawyer to the next day when I was a
judge. The moment I was called judge,
I became a man who was infallible. Bat
I was the same FRANK LAIISCHE, besA
with the same weaknesses. So much for
the judges and no more.
I believe that one of the travesties and
one of of the reasons for Congress to-
day wanting to pass a special interest
equalization law to fortify the weak-
nesses of our gold reserves and our bal-
ance of payments is the inordinate ex-
penditure of public moneys.
I am now asked to vote for the bill. I
opposed it when it came before the Sen-
ate several weeks ago. I did not feel
that the Senators should be entitled o
an increase of $10,000 from 1955, or
increase in salary of from $12,500 o
$22,500 a year. Now another increase is
proposed, an increase of $7,500, a raise
In salary from $22,500 to $30,000 a year.
When I voted against this increase of
pay for myself, I made the statemert,
"How will I ever be able to deny any in-
ordinate petitions for grants of taxpay-
ers' money?" When I made that state-
ment, I believed it. I wanted to keep
myself in the position where I could say
to petitioners, "I will not give to you
that which I would not give to myself."
I hold in my hand a letter which came
from Zanesville, Ohio. I shall not iden-
tify the writer of the letter, because I
do not have his consent to do so. He
has written urging that I support a
measure which would give to eve::y
World War I veteran a pension of $100
a month. If I should follow his advice,
as a World War I veteran I would be
given $100 a month. I am not entitled
to it. I do not need it. But the b.11
which is pending before the Congress
provides that every veteran of that war
shall receive $100 a month. The citizen
in Zanesville, Ohio, to whom I referred,
has written:
We ask you, Mr. Senator, do you really
think this ill fair and Just for the forgotten
soldier of 1917',
I was one of them.
Yes, the man enlisted in 1917 and re-
ceived the $1 per day to fight and, if
necessary, to die for the cause that he
thought right. I cannot help chuckling,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 17441
because I remember with what avidity
I went to the cashier's window to get my
30 brandnew dollars.
The writer said:
I ask you, Mr. Senator, can you face the
forgotten soldier, who is asking for a pen-
sion of $100 per month for the twilight years
of his life, which are not too many, as many
are 68 to 75 years old, while you are asking
for an increase of $7,500 a year to make
$30,000 a year for you to stay in Washington,
D.C.?
That citizen from Zanesville did not
know that I had voted against the meas-
ure. But his argument is sound. The
justice of his claim cannot be denied
when he writes, in effect, "If you give
yourself a 140-percent increase between
1955 and 1964, how can you deny me as
a veteran a pension of $100 a month?"
I can answer the letter. I shall do so
gently. The writer obviously does not
know that I voted against the bill. He
obviously does not know that I said I
would not take this increase in salary
because I did not believe I was entitled
to it. That was my position on the night
that the bill was passed, and that is my
position today.
I wish to deal with another phase of
the question. The administration is
asking us today to pass an interest equal-
ization tax bill so that the American dol-
lar will not flow out of the United States
into foreign countries. In effect, the bill
states, "We are in distress. Our gold
reserves are practically gone. If our
short-term foreign creditors make de-
mand for payment of our debts in gold,
we cannot meet the obligation."
I can understand why that plea is
being made. What is sought to be done
is probably better than nothing. I would
not be telling the truth unless I said that
the remedy which is before us is the weak
and the easy way out. No political dan-
ger of any kind whatsoever is involved.
There are means of putting ourselves
into a position in which the gold reserve
problem would be remedied. It might
require a bit of courage. We might be
required to ask the public to indulge in a
bit of economic austerity. But those re-
quests of self-denial would be far less in
weight and sacrifice than what might
come within the next half decade unless
we do something about it.
What can we do about it? We could
balance the budget, but hardly anyone
fights to balance the budget.
We are building into our governmental
expenditures operations that will be with
us until the sun dies. We are doing
everything we can to give opiates to the
economy. We are "beefing it up"
through the following program:
First. We are reducing taxes because
It will stimulate the national product.
Second. We have granted credits for
capital investments because that will
induce capital to invest.
Third. We have liberalized the depre-
ciation laws, which will stimulate the
economy.
Fourth. We have started to develop a
public works program Of the character
of 1933, in the form of supplemental
public works.
Fifth. We have been asked to adopt
a program for the relief of people in the
hills of Appalachia. That request has
already brought about a request from
Arkansas that we provide a similarly
basic principle of aid for Arkansas and
one for Minnesota. We have been asked
to adopt a program to fight "poverty."
That is a most appealing term, and one
that is hard to argue against.
We have been asked to maintain low
interest rates, subsidize local govern-
mental mass transportation systems, ex-
pand area redevelopment and the com-
munity facilities program.
The measure before the Senate deals
with the budget. It deals with placing
ourselves in a competitive position with
the manufacturers and the vendors of
the world who are competing with us.
The President recommended that sal-
ary increases be limited to the increased
productivity of labor. He asked labor
leaders not to demand increased wages
that would be in excess of the produc-
tivity of the workers. That formula
provided that the wage increase ought
not to be in excess of increased produc-
tivity, and in no event, in excess of 3.2
percent of the worker's salary.
Those were beautiful words. The Na-
tion applauded them. But what has been
the execution of those words? We have
granted salaries far in excess of what
the President's recommendation was.
Labor leaders everywhere are demanding
wages in excess of what productivity
justifies. While all this is happening,
our position in world markets and the
world economy is growing worse. It will
continue to grow worse because we are
weakening Our position to sell competi-
tively goods in the world markets.
I cannot approve of this measure be-
cause it is wrong.
When the bill was originally passed, I,
on this Senate floor, publicly announced
that I would not accept the increase. I
wrote a letter to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue asking him whether I
will have to pay a tax on the $30,000
salary even though I will want only
$22,500. I am awaiting his reply.
In conclusion, President Kennedy, the
man who gave his life for our country
said, "Do not ask what your country can
do for you, but, rather, ask what you
can do for your country."
The Congress of the United States,
which is made up of 435 Members, says
to the country, "Give each Member as
much as he can get. Let him have what
the traffic will bear."
How can a Member of Congress say
to the soldier from Zanesville, "I will not
vote for an increase for you, even though
I believe you are entitled to it," when he
is, extravagantly, sumptuously, and in-
considerately draining the Treasury and
asking for himself everything that the
country can give and thinking nothing
of what he can give to his country?
Mr. MILLER. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield.
Mr. MILLER. The distinguished Sen-
ator is speaking his conscience, reflect-
ing perhaps an attitude with respect to
the Senate as a whole. In my nearly
4 years as a Member of the Senate it
has been my personal observation that
the extravagant and deficit spending to
which this body has contributed has not
been due to the votes of the Senator
from Ohio. If anyone were entitled to
a salary increase because of his vigilance
in trying to keep trust with the people
and the people's hard-earned money, I
am sure the Senator from Ohio would be
included in that group of Senators,
which, unfortunately, is in the minority.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I appreciate very
much what the Senator from Iowa has
said.
In my experience as mayor and Gov-
ernor, I learned that those who are in
the administration of government will
guide themselves by the conduct of the
mayor or the conduct of the Governor.
If the Governor is crooked, if the mayor
is crooked, all under them will become
crooked. That crookedness cannot be
stopped from percolating down into the
lowest ranks.
With respect to the U.S. Congress, if
it is extravangant, if it has no regard
for balanced budgets and policies of fis-
cal and monetary soundness, the philoso-
phy trickles down through the entire cit-
izenship, leading to destruction.
Mr. MILLER. The same thing may
be said also with respect to the Chief
Executive of the country.
Mr. CARLSON. Madam President,
there are many problems in trying to
write a pay bill that affects the three
branches of the Federal Government and
all those associated with it. As a member
of the committee of conference that
signed the conference report, I feel that
we have brought to the Senate a very ex-
cellent report, considering the great
magnitude of these problems.
I give one warning, and that is that
when we pass the bill the cost of running
the Post Office Department will be in-
creased by several hundred million dol-
lars. A deficit will probably begin to as-
sume larger proportions. I think it will
be incumbent on this Congress, as we
begin to approach 1970, with 90 billion
pieces of mail, and 1980, with probably
125 billion pieces of mail, to begin a
study of modernization of the great post-
al system of ours, or it will be incum-
bent upon Congress to handle problems
that will cause real difficulties.
The present bill adds approximately
$229 million to the postal deficit. The
Postmaster General presently estimates
the deficit to be $77 million. Thus the
total deficit will exceed $300 million.
When the deficit rises to this degree, con-
siderations obviously turn to rate in-
creases to make up the difference.
When the pay-rate bill was passed in
1962, the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service of the Senate made this
statement in the report which accom-
panied the bill, H.R. 7927:
The committee unanimously agrees that, ,
before another adjustment in postal rates
takes place, the Congress should develop,
through its appropriate committees, more
exact data on mail classification, postal costs,
and processes having to do with greater use
of machines and mail handling.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
17442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The need for a refined cost ascertain-
ment system is well recognized. Even
the Post Office Department admits that
its present cost ascertainment system
has many deficiencies. Such a study of
cost ascertainment should take place at
the earliest possible time in the 89th
Congress.
On the subject of mechanization and
modernization, a comparable study
should take place. In response to a ques-
tion regarding the major mechanization
program, information was recently fur-
nished by the Post Office Depart'Went to
the Senate Subcommittee on Treasury-
Post Office Appropriations which indi-
cated that over an 8-year period. from
1957 to 1964, $125.098,000 had been ap-
propriated for major mechanization but
only $87,669.000 had been spent for that
program. The difference of $371/2 million
was spent by the Post Office Department
for purposes other than that for which
it was appropriated by the Congress.
Thus, apparently, this is a program
which does not lack funds so much as it
lacks direction and planning.
The type of study envisioned in the
report of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service in 1962 is essential to
provide that degree of direction and
planning necessary to place the Post Of-
flee Department in a position to effi-
ciently handle a mail volume grown to
staggering proportions.
I ask unanimous consent to have in-
cluded in the RECORD as a part of my re-
marks an excerpt from the cost ascer-
tainment report, 1963. an excerpt from
a survey of postal rates, 1964, and cer-
tain information from the Treasury and
Post Office appropriation hill for 1965.
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
EXCERPT PROM COST ASCERTAINMENT REPORT
1983
The system, a statistiml-accounting
process, does not take into account factors,
other than cost, which are generally to be
considered in adjustment of postal rates and
fees under the policies established by law In
title 39, United States Code, section 2301-08,
as amended. For example, the system does
not attempt to evaluate such service differ-
ences as (1) the value of priority or defer-
ment given to any one class of mall or serv-
ice, (2) relative values of the various services
to the public, and (3) the relative Intrinsic
values of the items handled. Such factors
are not properly within the scope of a cost
accounting system.
EXCERPT FROM SURVEY OF POSTAL RATES 1964
The Department's time-tested cost ascer-
tainment system apportions to each class of
mail a fair share of operating costs based on
sample observations of actual use of man-
power, transportation space, facilities, and
equipment In addition, each mail service
is assigned a pro rata share of overhead costs,
roughly In proportion to the more direct
costs that the services engender. Thus, these
cost allocations reflect measurements based
on physical characteristics such as weight,
size, length of haul, or number of aortings.
But the system does not purport to measure
the intangibles which make first Cl888, for
example, a far more valuable service than
third class.
Major mechanization
Fin thousands)
Fbcal year
1964
I
Program 1
$12, ca8
Obligations
$11,134
lora
14. 500
2?4
196')
4 10.000
5,354
1951_
35,147
10,567
191si
25.535
32, 583
1950_ _
20,415
15,795
ItaSS_
12.550
7.803
1957,
1,253
1,404
Total
1
125,065 87.541
l'rograin is the amount alloewled to he activity at
the time the appr.priation act is tv.swol. It may be a
different amount, from that originally re [nested in the
estimate to the (4,016f6.4.1, to.C4114P the appropriation is
loas than the amount requested or because of changed
deuaayls of the various programs. It Is the amount
I,to.en hi tin, middle eedutrin of tables In the following
year'i budget .6.11,1111144941.
Im 41 ed.
The ,?riginal request to f`,..ncr,-.1 was $27,ene, which
reprogramed as follows:
Original request
beductkm in total appropria-
ti In by Congress from total
roiliest _
'1 rangers to other appropria-
t ma to cover pay increases .
other approikriation transfers.
Thousands
$27 . 000
$7. MO
17. 373
3, 127
22.500
Devise,' 91466-491. - 4.500
The original request to Cong ss was $34,753, which
was reprogranted as follows.
Thousands
'trial request ., 534.753
Less:
Reduction In total appropria-
timi by Congress from kdal
request. . . $12.000
'I 'antlers to other appropria-
tions 5. OCO
Reprogramed to?
Federal buildings trn-
I,roveinant 7,121
ehleles and other equip-
ment 632 24,763
Ile V I19,1 program 10, as)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Madam President, I
will not ask for a yea-and-nay vote. I
have made my position clear on this mat-
ter. The Senate spoke on it several weeks
ago. I know my words will not change
what has been done.
Mr. 'THURMOND. Madam President.
I want the RECORD to show that I am
against the adoption of the conference
report, on the pay-increase bill.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I shall
vote "No" on the question of agreeing to
the conference report on the pay-raise
bill. I voted "Nay" on the rollcall vote
on the bill when it was passed by the Sen-
ate; and my reasoning remains the same:
It is that I cannot justify voting for this
bill?which eventually will cost nearly $1
billion a year?at a time when over 4
million people have no jobs at all, and
their families have no regular Income,
and when our budget has been unbal-
anced for 4 straight years, and will show
a large deficit this year and next. I sup-
August 4
port the position so ably stated by the
senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCH E I .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the conference
report,
The report was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
conference I eport was agreed to.
Mr. McNAMARA, Madam President,
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
PROJECTS APPROVED BY COMMIT-
TEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. MeNAMARA. Madam President,
in order that the Members of the Senate
and the House, particularly the Appr )-
priations Committees, and other inter-
ested parties. may be advised of projects
approved by the Committee on Public
Works, under the provisions of the Pub-
lic Buildings Act of 1959, and the Water-
shed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
information on this subject.
The first is a revised prospectus for
the proposed construction of 87 small
public building projects; 74 prospectuses
for new buildinga and acquisition of
land, and 8 for extension and/or Colt-
version of existing buildings; and 41 pro-
spectuses for the repair, improvement,
and alterations in existing buildings, ap-
proved April 4, 1963.
Approval of these buildings is based on
prospectuses submitted to the commi
tee by the Administrator of General
Services, in compliance with the prc--
visions of Public Law 249, 86th Congress.
The committee also held a public hear-
ing at which representatives of GSA ap-
peared, and discussed the public building
program. Its operation, and the need for
the recommended new buildings and a.-
terations to existing buildings.
In addition. the committee approved 1
project for proposed new construction
on May 13, 1963; 2 projects on June 13,
1963; and 2 alteration projects on Au-
gust 20, 1963.
The second is a list of 35 prospectuas
for new buildings; 1 previously approved
on April 3, 1963, revised prospectus for
change in location; and 28 alteratio
projects, approved April 30, 1963.
The third list is 3 revised prospectuses
for proposed construction; 1 alteratio
project; and 25 prospectuses for con-
struction of small public buildings for
use primarily by the Social Security Ad-
ministration, Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare, throughout th
United States, approved July 1, 1964.
The small watershed protection proj-
ects were approved under the provisions
of Public Law 566, 83d Congress, as
amended.
There being no objection, the tabula ?
tions were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
lands, managed for multiple use. Our econ-
omy and our population will continue to
grow and our standard of living will con-
tinue to climb. All of our resources, there-
fore, are going to feel the pressure of increas-
ing public demand, our forest resources
included.
Your forest lands can play a multiple
role in this future growth. We see here to-
day one evidence of that role. The timber
harvests from the forests of northern Maine
will be the raw material for tills mill?as
they are for your existing mills and will be
for the new mills now building elsewhere in
the State. This harvest provides jobs, pay-
rolls, taxes, a vast bounty to your people.
Almost 350 individual manufacturing enter-
prises in your State are forest based.
But these well-managed Industrial forests
serve other public purposes as well. They
are vast watersheds, collecting and storing
rain and melting snow, protecting the soil
from erosion and holding untold quantities
of water for release in the springs that feed
your rivers and lakes or in underground
streams that can be tapped by man. Water
is a precious resource.
Another role of the managed forest is in
providing shelter and food for wildlife. I
hope the day never comes when we are too
concerned with the material things of life
to lose our wonder and concern for the mar-
velous variety of animals, birds, and water
life that populate our forested areas. Mune
of these species find their most compatible
habitat in forests managed for successive
harvests of timber, where food and shelter
are plentiful?forests protected from the
great destroyer, fire.
Finally, and of increasing importance these
days, are the recreational opportunities of-
fered by the forests, the wooded mountains.
the lakes and rivers of your State. Again,
these opportunities are many and varied.
Hunting and fishing are a big business for
you. Hundreds of boys and girls are at this
moment enjoying the matchless experience
of camping in your woodlands and on the
shores of your lakes. All of our company
lands in your State are open to the public
except, of course, when fire conditions or
logging operations would present undue
hazards.
In recent years, there has been pressure for
the withdrawal from private ownership of
very substantial areas in northern Maine
along the Allagash Waterway. These lands
would be federalized as some kind of national
riverway. This proposal as stated would not
only remove these acres from economic use
but would effectively block off access to more
than a million additional acres of productive
forest land.
International Paper Co. has opposed this
suggestion. A federalized Allagash would
limit the growth of your forest-based indus-
tries. In this State, where the forest econ-
omy forms such an important segment, it
would have a drastic effect on your future
economic growth.
We feel that the people of Maine have ap-
proached this matter in a logical, reasonable
fashion. The appointment of an Allagash
River Authority by the 1963 State legisla-
ture, to study and report on what should be
done with the scenic Allagash area. Is a
sound approach to this question. Late in
June the authority issued a preliminary re-
port. They agree that the preservation of the
unique character of the area is of primary
importance. The industrial and private
owners in the area clearly adhere to this
view. After more than 100 years of con-
tinuous timber production, the Allagash
Waterway still provides one of the Nation's
unique, unspoiled wilderness areas. This
attests to the public-spirited policies under
which these lands have been managed.
It is in our interest and yours that this
waterway he maintained in the present wild.
free-flowing state.
The authority is preparing its specific rec-
ommendations for your next legislature.
Protective stripe will likely be established
along the waterway, either by purchase, gift,
easement or zoning.
Governor Reed, on this occasion I want to
assure you again that International Paper is
prepared to cooperate fully with the Aliagash
River Authority in their objective of preserv-
ing this unique scenic and recreational area.
We want people of your State and others to
continue to enjoy the hunting and fishing to
be found there. We want youngsters to en-
joy the white-water canoeing in Chase
Rapids, as they do every summer. Whatever
method your authority recommends to im-
plement it plans, we will continue, as we
have for years. to leave protective borders of
timber along the waterway. Our logging
roads will be open for public travel.
Through our policies of multiple use we will
continue the partnership between outdoors-
men and timhermen that has characterized
this State for years.
You have our pledge of cooperation, Gov-
ernor Reed. We mean it.
Now, let me say again how very much we
appreciate being able to greet so many of
our friends and neighbors on this occasion.
This is an auspicious start for the Androscog-
gin mill.
We are particularly pleased to be able to
welcome Governor and Mrs. Reed, the mem-
bers of Governor Reed's staff and so many
of your leading State and local elected and
appointed officials. You are going to be
proud of what we are building here-and we
are too.
And now it is my privilege to introduce
our honored speaker today. Governor Reed
is a man who has made his mark in your
State ever since his graduation from the
University of Maine in 1942. After return-
ing from distinguished service with the U.S.
Naval Reserve during the war, he joined
Walter M. Reed & Sons of Fort Fairfield,
one of the State's leading growers and ship-
pers of potatoes. As the years went on he
became increasingly active in public affairs,
first in the legislature in 1855. then in the
State senate from 1957 to 1959, with a term
as president of the senate. In 1959 he suc-
ceeded to the high office of Governor?an
office to which he was reelected in 1960 and
again In 1962. His influence has been felt
not only within Maine but throughout New
England and increasingly at the national
level, particularly in- his work with the na-
tional Governors' conference.
Ladies and gentlemen, It is an honor to
present to you the Honorable John H. Reed,
Governor of Maine.
STATEMENT MADE By INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.
JAY, Matrix, August 3, 1964.?International
Paper Co. today pledged full cooperation to
the Allagash River Authority in Be objec-
tive of preserving the Allagash area of north-
er', Maine.
The pledge was made by Lamar M. Fear-
ing, president of International Paper to Gov.
John H. Reed. as part of formal dedication
ceremonies at tile site of the company's new
$54 million Androscoggin pulp and paper mill
in Jay, Maine.
More than 3.500 attended the ceremonies
Including Representative Ctarroae MCINTIRE
and Representative STANLEY 'TUPPER. In addi-
tion to formal remarks by both Mr. Fearing
and Governor Reed, the program included
guided tours of the construction area and
numerous exhibits about the Industry.
Governor Reed bailed the new project,
crediting it with starting, "an economic chain
reaction, the importance of which will be
felt in Maine for generations to come."
A4121
"This is truly a great day," the Governor
said, "a day of tremendous importance to
International Paper and its directors and
also it is a great day in the economic life
of a State which has, for many generations,
properly regarded the pulp and paper indus-
try as its most important single industrial
enterprise."
In his remarks, Mr. Fearing noted that the
new mill will be the most modern, forward-
looking mill in the country when it starts in
late 1965. He credited its location in Maine
to the wonderful cooperation extended to
the company.
"There was no question in our minds," Mr.
Fearing said, "that the State of Maine offered
a business climate that welcomes new ven-
tures?new industrial undertakings. Our
decision to come here was heavily influenced
by this and tile mutual respect which we
have enjoyed for so long."
Mr. Fearing said that the new two-paper-
machine mill will be built around a gigantic
continuous digester?the newest develop-
ment in the pulp and paper industry.
Towering over 210 feet in the air, the digester
will be able to manufacture 500 tons of
high quality kraft pulp every day.
"We expect the quality of this pulp to be
so outstanding," Mr. Fearing said, "that we
plan to shut down tile present sulphite pulp
operations at our nearby Otis Mill and at
our Hudson River Mill in Corinth, N.Y. The
entire chemical pulp requirements for both
mills, as well as for the two Androscoggin
paper machines will be supplied from this
one continuous digester."
The Androscoggin Mill will manufacture
lightweight bleached paper, primarily light-
weight bond, carbonizing, gift wrap, and
other similar grades.
Referring to the discussions about the
future status of the Allagash, Mr. Fearing
said that International Paper opposes pres-
sure for the withdrawal from private owner-
ship of very substantial areas in northern
Maine along the Allagash waterway.
"A federalized Allagash would limit the
growth of your forest-based industries," he
said.
"We feel that the people of Maine have
approached this matter in a logical, reason-
able fashion. The appointment of an Al-
lagash River Authority by the 1963 legis-
lature, to study and report on what should
be done with the scenic Allagash area, is
a sound approach to this question."
Addressing himself directly to Governor
Reed. Mr. Fearing then said, "I want to
assure you again that International Paper
Is prepared to cooperate fully with the Alia-
gash River Authority in their objective of
preserving this unique and scenic recrea-
tional area.
"Whatever method your authority recom-
mends to implement its plans." he said, "we
will continue as we have for years to leave
protective borders of timber along the water-
way. Our logging roads will be open for
public travel. Through our policies of mul-
tiple use, we will continue the partnership
between outdoorsmen and timbermen that
has characterized this State for many years."
Concluding the formal program, Governor
Reed and Mr. Fearing unveiled a large bronze
plaque which will later be permanently set
at the entrance to the mill.
Attending the ceremonies were many em-
ployees and interested people from neigh-
boring towns as well as a large number of
State officials, State legislators, town officials,
and members of the clergy and professional
world.
International Paper officials in addition to
Mr. Fearing included: George H. Rand, John
L. Tower and Ralph W. Kittle, vice presi-
dents; R. C. Masterman, general manager
of the company's northern manufacturing
division, and Lawrence J. Kugelman, director
of woodlands.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A4122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX August 5
Photo of Maine Band Recalls Fourths
of the Nineties
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE
OF MAINE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 5, 1964
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Speaker, there
appeared in the Washington Star of July
3, a very interesting article about a dis-
tinguished former resident of Maine, Mr.
Harold Seiders, 90 years old, who is now
living here in Washington.
I know others would like to read this
refreshing story of this educator and mu-
sician.
The article follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Star,
July 3, 1964]
No PARADE Now: PHOTO OF MAINE BAND RE-
CALLS FOURTHS OF NINETIES
(By John Sherwood)
The photograph by the window is of a
serious group of whiskered young men in
gold-braided uniforms posing in front of a
Victorian bandstand newly built by one Ulys-
ses Wincapaw.
The time is just before an annual Inde-
pendence Day celebration in the little town
of Union, Maine. The Union Cornet Band
paraded all that day, gave an afternoon con-
cert of Sousa marches, and, after the fire-
works display that evening on the village
common, officially ended things with a quiet
"Good Night, Ladies."
That big day in the life of a little town in
the 1890's had' almost been forgotten by one
of the uniformed men who played tenor horn
in the band. But the other day the mail
brought that photograph from the only
other survivor of the band and everything
came back again except the music, just in
time for the Fourth.
Harold Seiders, 90, will observe the Fourth
of July sitting in a chair and looking out
the third-floor front window of Mrs. Nelson's
Nursing Home at 2021 Kalorama Road NW.
There will be no parades within his sight,
but the photograph is handy and there are
copies of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald
and Rockland (Maine) Courier Gazette
within reach.
The Union Cornet Band was but a brief
interlude in the old man's long life, but It
reminds him of swimming and fishing in
Seven Tree Pond, and all the other fresh-
water ponds of his youth-Crawford's Pond,
White Oak Pond, Sennebec Pond, and "big
Lake Sebago where the water is so clear you
can almost drink it."
Mr. Seiders' father had a vegetable farm
overlooking Seven Tree Pond, and the view
from the bedroom window of the young cor-
net player was all green and blue at this
time of the year. There was an electric ex-
citement in the air when the Fourth ap-
proached, and there were many plans to be
made and never enough time in which to
make them.
ERA HAS PASSED
Now that the era has passed, a simple
thing such as an old photograph is worth
a great deal to a man in a day when his
time is without value. From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
every day of the week for the last 4 years,
Mr. Seiders has known the outside world only
through his third-floor window and his
Maine newspapers.
What he sees from 2021 Kalorama road is
"traffic on Connecticut Avenue. Police cars,
fire engines, ambulances, and cars and more
ears-one after another, always coming and
going some place." And no Seven Tree Pond
in sight.
Now pensioned after working with the
Portland (Maine) school system for 30 years,
Mr. Seiders came to Washington in 1951 to
be near his children after his wife died.
A large clock knocks off the seconds with
a loud, tiny sound in the bedroom he shares
with another elderly man. His left elbow
on the windowsill and his right foot propped
on a pillow, the old bandsman smokes his
pipe and rereads the letters from his few
remaining friends in Maine.
MISSES SPRING WATER
He misses the fishing, he'll tell you, and
playing with the Union Cornet Band on In-
dependence Day was always the biggest event
of the year. But more than anything, he
misses "the drinking water up home. I
used to fill up on that spring water first
thing. It did taste good. Boy, I would love
a little taste of that now."
The routes that Saturday's bands will take
are fixed by now. But a look into a third-
floor window where a kindly old man waits
for a parade that will never come again makes
one wonder why celebrations couldn't be
just a little more flexible.
Government Employees Salary Reform
Act of 1964
SPEECH
OF
HON. MORRIS K. UDALL
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, August 4, 1964
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. UDALL].
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I might
state to our colleagues who have just
come into the Chamber that we are in
the process of considering a conference
report on something that might be of
Interest to them. It is called the Gov-
ernment Employees Salary Reform Act
of 1964. If you will bear with me for
just a very few minutes, I think we may
be able to write the final chapter on
this important legislation.
? I have studied the conference report.
I feel a little bit like the man who told
about his mother-in-law driving -his
brandnew uninsured Cadillac off a cliff.
They asked him how he felt, and he
said he had mixed emotions.
I have mixed emotions about the con-
ference report, but I am interested in
legislation, not conversation. I urge the
House to support the conference report
and to see that this bill is enacted into
law this week.
? There are some changes in the bill
that I think are especially good. The
important and able members of our con-
gressional and committee staffs are prop-
erly taken care of in this bill. I have
been asked by many Members, "What is
this going to do to the pay of my staff?"
I suppose before the day is over many of
you will be asked about that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-
sent to place in the RECORD at this point
a table in which you can find the present
pay of your staff people and go across
the columns and find the pay they will
receive after this bill is enacted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
out objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The table referred to is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE SALARY INCREASES
This is designed to provide percentage sal-
ary adjustments for legislative employees
comparable to those provided for employees
under the Classification Act. The increases
are provided in an amount equal to 31/2 per-
cent of the employee's gross rate plus 1 per-
cent of his gross rate for each whole mul-
tiple, or part of a multiple of $500 basic
compensation; or an amount equal to 5 per-
cent of such gross rate, whici.ever is greater.
With-
Multiple
Base
..
Present
gross
Conference
substitute
Percent
increase
New
gross
0
$5
$891
6.0
$935
0.1
60
1,020
5.0
1,071
500
2,057
5.0
2, 160
1
505
2,069
5.5
2,183
2
1,000
3,157
5.5
3,330
2
1,009
3, 166
6.5
3,372
2.4
1,200
3, 534
6.5
3,764
3
1, 500
4,652
6.5
4,318
3
1, 605
4,091
7.5
4,366
3. 6
1, 800
4, 655
7. 5
5,004
4
2,000
5,088
7. 5
5, 470
4
2,005
5,009
8. 5
5, 533
4. 8
2,400
6, 955
8. 5
6, 461
5
2, 500
6, 172
8. 5
6, 697
5
2,505
6, 183
9. 5
6, 770
t
3,000
3,060
7, 255
7, 266
9. 6
10. 5
7, 945
8, 029
7
3, 500
8,330
10. 5
9, 215
7
3, 505
8,350
11. 5
9,310
7. 2
3,600
8, 556
11. 5
9, 540
8
4,000
9,422
11. 5
10, 506
8
4,605
9,433
12. 5
30,613
9
4, 500
10, 506
12. 5
11,819
9
4, 505
10,517
13.5
11,037
0.6
4,800
11, 136
13. 5
12,640
10
6, 000
11, 550
13.5
13, 109
10
5,005
11, 500
14.5
13,237
11
5,100
12, 528
14. 5
14,345
11
5,105
12,538
15.5
14,481
12
0, 000
13, 409
15. 5
15, 556
12
6,005
13,478
16. 5
15, 702
13
6, 500
14, 409
16. 6
16, 780
13
8, 505
14, 418
17. 5
16,042
14
7,000
15, 349
17. 5
18, 035
14
7,005
15, 359
18. 5
18, 200
14.4
7,200
15, 725
18. 5
18,631
15
7, 500
16, 289
18. 5
19, 303
15
7,505
16, 299
19. 6
19, 477
10
8,000
17, 230
19. 6
20, 590
16
8,005
17, 239
20. 5
20, 773
17
8,500
18, 170
20. 5
21, 895
17
8,505
18, 179
21. 5
22, 088
17.7
8,880
18,884
21. 5
22, 945
18
9, 000
19, 110
21. 5
23, 219
18
9, 005
19, 120
22. 5
23, 422
18.9
9, 475
20,000
22. 5
24, 500
Another improvement in the bill is
the increased raises for middle grades of
GS-9, GS-10, and GS-11, the people who
were almost overlooked in the House bill.
I have heard since yesterday a number
of rumors about this bill. I have heard
some objections to the conference report.
The rumors I have heard are unfounded.
I think we ought to straighten these
things out so the people understand what
the bill does and does not do.
I have been told all Federal judges
will receive larger raises than the Mem-
bers of Congress and that the old rela-
tionship have been distorted.
Under the conference report, all the
Federal judges get exactly what they
get in the House bill except the Supreme
Court Judges get $2,500 less than in the
House bill. So that instead of the judges
being raised by the conference report,
one set of judges is lowered and the other
Federal judges remain the same as in
the House bill.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A4123
I was asked by someone if it were not
true that sub-Cabinet people are being
paid by the conference bill more than
Members of Congress. This is also not
true.
Cabinet members were raised $2,500
from the House bill.
The level II executives remain the same
as in the House bill and the other three
levels of executive pay were cut in con-
ference rather than being increased.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. CELLER. Naturally, being chair-
man of the Committee on the Judiciary,
I am interested in the salary of the
Judges. Do I understand the gentleman
to say that Judges of the Supreme Court
have their salaries reduced by $2,500?
If that is the case, may we know the
reason why there has been such a reduc-
tion?
Mr. UDALL. I will say to the chair-
man of the great Committee on the Ju-
diciary that there is no reduction of the
Supreme Court Judges' salaries. The
Supreme Court Judges are actually get-
ting an increase of $5,000. There is a
$2,500 reduction from the figure in the
House bill.
Mr. CELLER. In substance what will
Supreme Court Judges get now after the
bill is passed and what was their salary
before the bill is passed?
Mr. UDALL. They are getting at the
present time $35,000 with an additional
amount for the Chief Justice. If this
bill is passed, they will get $40,000. So
they are getting a very substantial raise.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. JOHANSEN. In other words, the
point is that the increase has been re-
duced?
Mr. UDALL. Precisely, I thank the
gentleman.
Just a couple of more observations and
then I shall conclude.
I think the Senate made a great mis-
take and I regret very much that the
House saw fit to delete the amendment
that we adopted which had such broad
support from my good friends on the left
and from my good friends on the right.
We are almost back now in congres-
sional, judicial and executive salaries to
where the commission in President Ei-
senhower's term said that we should
have been in 1954 and 1955. We cut and
whittled the increases for the executive,
for judges and for Members of Congress
down and we had adopted in the House
a far-reaching proposal which would
have moved the salaries along in the fu-
ture through the operation of automatic
and fair machinery. The Senate did not
pass this provision. It was deleted in
conference. I think it is a very great
mistake. I think it is machinery that
is needed.
Just, for example, 10 years ago the
Randall commission recommended that
the salaries of Members of Congress and
the executives in similar positions be
about $27,000. In 1955 this was com-
promised badly, and now we have cut
this down and down in compromises in
this bill to where we end up today barely
above the level we were told by the bi-
partisan commission we should have
been 10 years ago.
I think it is a serious mistake but, as
I say, I am interested in legislation. We
are late in the session, and therefore I
am going to urge the adoption of this
conference report.
Mr. CELLER, Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman en-
lighten us as to whether the members
of the parole board will have their sala-
ries increased by the passage of this bill?
Mr. 'UDALL. I am advised by the staff
that their salary is increased; yes.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman men-
tioned the Randall report of some time
ago. There was a pay bill passed in 1962.
The Randall report said, or RANDALL
himself said, that this pay bill or rather
the increase in pay would be taken care
of through greater productivity.
I have seen a lot of appropriation bills
go through the mill since that time, and
If any of this pay increase was taken care
of through Mr. RANDALL'S increased pro-
ductivity on the part of employees I have
failed to find it, because every appropria-
tion bill has carried money for increases
as a result of the 1962 act.
Mr. UDALL. I sharply disagree with
the gentleman. Ten percent of the cost
of this bill will be absorbed by the agen-
cies, under a mandatory provision. We
have heard dramatic testimony in our
committee about efficiency and about
savings in personnel. I do not attribute
it all to a direct increase of, say, 5 per-
cent in salary or anything of that kind,
but there have been remarkable produc-
tivity increases in the Federal Govern-
ment.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Of course, the state-
ment by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. RANDALL] did not involve the ab-
sorption of cost through attrition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
time of the gentleman from Arizona has
expired.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
5 minutes additional to the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. UDALL].
Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. RANDALL] said that
the increased efficiency would be such
that there would be no additional out-of-
pocket expense to ,the taxpayers.
Mr. UDALL. Let me conclude with
two observations.
I believe the House of Representatives
can be proud. We did the work on this
bill. We started it. The House had the
courage to do this in an election year.
It has never been done before, that I
know of, in an election year.
We did this because it was a good bill
and because it was good for efficiency of
the Federal Government and because it
had to be done.
This is the first time that Congress has
taken the whole Federal salary system
and, in one bill, attempted to make an
orderly, rational, interrelated structure.
If we pass this legislation this week we
can be proud.
Let me call attention to one more
thing. President Johnson, the leader for
those of us over here, has fought for this
bill. He helped us to resurrect it after
it was defeated.
I should like to say something my
friends on the other side of the aisle may
not have noted. Recently your chosen
leader, and presidential nominee, one of
my friends from Arizona voted for this
bill. We from Arizona try to vote the
way we see things?and when this bill
came before the Senate about 3 weeks
ago he supported it. He is a man who
has been in business and knows one can-
not get top executives on shoe clerk
salaries.
I say to my friends over here, "Follow
your leader." We will follow our leader.
We will both be going in the same
direction.
Let us pass this bill.
The Supreme Court's Unwise Decisions on
Apportionment
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ROBERT_T. MeLOSKEY
OF' ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 5, 1964
Mr. McLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, the
most recent decisions of the Supreme
Court regarding apportionment of State
legislative bodies have rocked this coun-
try. These decisions illustrate just how
far the Court has strayed from any rea-
sonable construction of its own rightful
place among our political institutions.
The recent and multiplying scourge of
judgemade law which has set about to
recklessly and antidemocratically reform
a nation in the Court's image must be
checked at once.
The improper decisions of the Court in
the apportionment cases demand, for the
sake of our whole system of government,
reversal. To accomplish this purpose, I
have introduced legislation which would
start the machinery for a constitutional
amendment. The amendment would
have the effect of overruling the Court's
unwise decisions on apportionment and
reestablishing some of the battered
-States rights in this area.
At this time, under unanimous consent,
I would like to include in the RECORD, a
copy of the statement which I submitted
to the House Judiciary Committee in
support of House Joint Resolution 1087:
STATEMENVOF REPRESENTATIVE MCLOSKEY
Mr. Chairman, the foundations of liberty
are once again under attack by the Supreme
Court. In the most recent decisions by that
branch it has been declared that State legis-
lative bodies, representing the people of the
States, are no longer able to determine their
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9-
A4124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A?, rpit 5
own apportionment systems. In these de-
cisions a giant stride away from the system
of guarded liberties, which the Constitution
established, has been made. House Joint
Resolution 1087, which would restore some
of those liberties the Court has threatened.
is the subject of my presentation here today.
House Joint Resolution 1087 would call
into operation the amending process of the
Constitution in order to provide that a State
legislature would have the constitutional
prerogative of apportioning one house of Its
State assembly on some basis other than
population. The amending process has not
been referred to very frequently with suc-
cess in the history of this country?a dozen
times in the past century and a half. An
amendment to the Constitution is a grave
action to be relied upon only with the utmost
care and after arduous consideration. It is
after such care and consideration that I have
introduced House Joint Resolution 1087.
The necessity of this proposal has been
demanded by certain decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court which wantonly fly in the
face of history and openly ignore the explicit
statements of the U.S. Constitution. The
Court. over the cogent and articulate warn-
ings of Justices Harlan. Clark. and Stewart.
has vindicated a special theory of political
representation as the only one acceptable un-
der the 14th amendment's equal protection
clause. By newly established Court con-
structed precedents, by typically nista)! Su-
preme Court logic, by completely ignoring
the history of our country, and by openly
ignoring the clear words of the Constitu-
tion, the Court has removed from the people
the sovereign power to establish their own
State representative assemblies on grounds
which are not explicitly p-ohibited by the
Federal Constitution. The recent rash of
political decisions handed down by the Su-
preme Court are clearly based on the per-
sonal political prejudices of the Justices
masquerading under such theories of judicial
review as "activism- and "developing con-
stitutionalism." The ways in which these
pernicious theories of judicial review en-
danger our system of government are many.
First, the Court has done Immediate wrong
to the States affected by their decision. By
robbing the States of their sovereign power
to apportion their own legislatures by politi-
cal process, the Supreme Court has taken
one of the most fundamental of legislative
prerogatives; and by so doing, has effectively
reduced State government to a hollow fa-
cade. The Federal judiciary has taken to It-
self the power to pass on the acceptability of
State apportionment, and could presumably
dictate the political climate of a State by
gerrymandering from the bench. In wrong-
ing the States by disallowing theories of
representative government acceptable for
centuries, the Court has also wronged the
people of the affected States by denying
them the right to decide their own criteria
for legislative apportionment. And clearly.
the Constitution does not deny the people
these rights. As Justice Harlan pointed out
in his dissent in Reynolds v. Sims. the only
section of the Constitution dealing directly
with State legislative apportionment recog-
nizes and accepts the possibility of imposed
inequities in the right to vote. Paragraph
2 of the 14th amendment which the majority
of the Court flatly ignored spells out the
remedy?and it is an optional remedy?for
a reduction by a State in the size of its quali-
fied electorate. The 15th amendment pro-
hibits a State from denying a citizen the
right to vote merely because of "race, color,
or previous condition of servitude." The
lath amendment adds to the list of reasons
why the right to vote may not be abridged.
a person's sex. The 24th amendment would
add to the list, the payment of a special tax.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the right to
vote guaranteed against abridgment or par-
tial abridgment on the basis of place of real-
dence. The Supreme Court of the United
States has no legitimate right to declare
that such a_prohibition exists when, in fact,
it clearly does not. If, when the 14th amend-
ment and the constituent equal protection
clause was ratified, geographic factors were
supposed to have been eliminated from con-
sideration In legislative apportionment, a
statement to that effect surely would have
been added to the prohibitions of the con-
temporary 15th amendment. And if, by
oversight, the people of the United States
omitted It there, surely they would have
included it in the later 19th amendment
which also altered suffrage or in the most
recent 24th amendment which once again
affected the franchise. The undeniable fact
of the matter is that the American people
have never overwhelmingly held to the "one-
man. one-vote" theory of representative gov-
ernment; the fact that the Supreme Court
thinks they should have, notwithstanding.
One wrong, then, that the apportionment
decisions accomplish is a deprivation of
State's rights. The Court. in the abused
name of personal rights, has denied the
rights of the States and vindicated, above all
else. Court's rights--the rights of the courts
to make any of their own private prejudices
and moral convictions the law of the land.
Yet, if in trampling States rights the Court
has gone beyond the wildest dreams of judi-
cial activists and beyond any reasoned un-
derstanding of the Constitution, the greatest
wrong which the Court has inflicted is
against the Constitution itself and the free
government it established.
The lingrent exercise of what Justice Har-
lan has dubbed the "amending power" of
he Supreme Court threatens, above all else,
our separation of powers. Now, In the 20th
century, when the need for the division of
powers, both horizontal and vertical, Is most
urgent. the Court is breaking down the walls.
Now, when power and authority are easily
and rapidly pyramided, when the advances
in the study of molding masses into con-
forn-inv are progressing steadily, an effec-
tive system of power diffusion is paramount.
We. who are aware of the truism that abso-
lute power corrupts absolutely, cannot sit
by and watch the Supreme Court destroy
the checks for liberty which our Constitu-
tion clearly set down. We must remember,
too, that the checks and balances in our
system do not always execute themselves,
especially when one branch develops a crav-
ing lust for control. The relationships of
the branches to each other is constantly
varying and In danger of reaching a state of
imbalance. When such an imbalance is evi-
dent., action is the responsibility of the
branch whose powers are being usurped.
The Court, time and again in the past 10
years. has assumed legislative powers and
ha a ignored State authority, and so the Con-
gress and the States must act.
The Court's action presents a danger to the
Constitution in still another way. The re-
cent decisions which use the Constitution
as a substitute for a legal code, and which
are based on the theory that every supposed
Ill which befalls the American people has
a solution in the Constitution, is a serious
danger to the Constitution.
The Constitution does not go to great
lengths to demand that Government achieve
certain ends thought by judges to constitute
justice. What a constitution in fact and in
theory does is to establish a government, de-
fine its powers and limits, and allow it to
determine its own ends and its own defini-
tions of justice. Judicial notions of social
and political justice cannot be allowed to
stand as the law of the land. If they were,
the dynamics of our free society, devoted to
republican principles and government by
representative elections would inevitably give
way to general abdication of responsibility
which is so characteristic of government by
lawsuit or dictate.
I would also remind my fellow Representa-
tives that capricious usurpation of power,
whether in the name of the majority. tne
minority, the rich, the poor, justice or a-
justice, is tyranny. Our real liberties are
protected by our unique system of checks
and balances which sacrifices quick action
and expediency for personal freedom. Oar
system is and must remain more important
than isolated and controversial policy re-
forms, and the Supreme Court is threatening
that system.
Last, but not least, among those whom
the Court has 'wronged in the apportionme
decisions is the Supreme Court itself. As
Justice Frankfurter was always quick to
point out. the Court cannot continue to
gallop through the political thicket wt:h
reckless abandon and expect not to get its
robes torn. Because the Court has no man-
date from the people, because it has no power
to lay or collect taxes, and because it has no
armies, it Is dependent for its legitimacy and
efficacy upon the good will of the peop:e.
From newspapers and from my own ee-
perience with the public. I can attest that
this good will is wearing quite thin. This
present Court is in danger of wrecking itself
as an effective political institution.
I recognize that an amendment to the
U.S. Constitution must be something more
than a means of scolding the Court. An
amendment to the Constitution must be de-
fensible on the grounds of what, in particn-
lar, it seeks to accomplish.
Above all else, the amendment envisioned
In House Joint Resolution 1087 would seek
merely to reestablish principles of represent-
ative government older than the Nation itself.
It has long been the practice of Americans to
take into account factors other than popi-
tattoo in the process of legislative appor-
tionment. As a matter of historical fact.
If State legislatures had been apportioned
strictly on the basis of population at the
time of the ratification of the Constitution,
the Constitution might never have been
ratified at all. In the late 18th century
there were also inequities in State legisla-
tive districts, but at the time, they favored
the city populations and acted to the detri-
ment of the western farmers in each of the
States. The political complexion of what
was then the West was antifederalists, if not
anarchistic. Had the principle of "one man,
one vote" been fully accepted under these
circumstances, the Constitution might never
have been ratified. A system of representa-
tion which produced the Constitution of tne
United States cannot be all bad.
The statements of Chief Justice Warren
that: "Legislators represent people, not trees
or acres (;) ? ? [Li egislators are electnd
by voters, not farina or cities or econorric
interests ? ? ?" is alarming. If there seems
to be one truism, above all others in Amer-
ican politics it is that interest groups are
an integral part of the political system.
From Madison's "Federalist No. 10" to
Beard's studies of American history to
the work of the Nye committee, the realistic
assumption in America has been that in-
terest groups do play an active part in
politics. What the Court has done is to
turn their backs on the true conditions and
tnerely Insure that the control of gover a-
ment shifts from some groups to different
groups. And I do not believe it is coinci-
dence that the groups destined to rule -ay
Court fiat are generally more sympathetic
to the same causes of reform the Court has
been serving.
The function of geographical representa-
tion has never been to represent trees or
pastures, but it has been to insure a fair
system of checks and balances in State gov-
ernments among very real and differing ia-
teresta. It is in this respect that the Court
has deprived many minority interests of
their checks -mon the actions of the n a-
merical majority.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 /)
The 6'
Federal
Diary
100,000 Face Loss
Of Retroactive Pay
Under New Raise
By Jerry Kluttz
A last-minute switch of sig-
nals will prevent retroactive
pay raises under the Morrison
bill for thousands of Federal
employes.
Those by-
passed are up-
wards of 100,-
000 non-classi-
fieds whose
salaries are
fixed by heads
of their agen-
cies. Senate-
House confer-
ees scrapped a
proposal,
sought by the White House
and tentatively approved ear-
lier by the conferees, to give
agency heads power to make
pay raises effective back to
the first pay period in July.
Conferees feared the provi-
sion would set off a parlia-
mentary hassle on the House
floor that would have delayed
Kluttz
Chart showing new pay
rates for Post Office em-
ployes. Page C2.
final congressional approval
of the pay raise bill. Legisla-
tive experts advised the con-
ferees that the provision
would be subject to attack as
neither the original House nor
Senate bill carried a similar
section.
A 1955 ruling by the Comp-
troller General holds that
agency heads have no author-
ity to make salary increases
for their employes effective
retroactively. The White
House sought to overcome this
decision in order to give non-
classifieds back-pay raises like
classitietibra94gToy.dRApa
groups flit 1.'ederial employes.
As matters now stand higher
salaries for non-classifieds will
be effective at the beginnings
of their first pay periods after
the bill is signed into law,
'which could be today.
L' Many here are among those
who face the loss of retro-
active pay. They are in the
? Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space
Agency, Atomic Energy Com-
mission, the Government
Printing Office and all jobs
under what is known as
Public Law 313.
Also, local employes of the
Army's National Guard, Se-
, lective Service and Tennessee
Valley Authority will. not get
a
ba pay as well as A scatter-
ing of employes On Capitol
Hill and in agencies such as
Agriculture, Interior, Defense,
etc.
Members of Congress are
aware of the injustice and the
Senate Post Office and Civil
Service Committee hopes to
attach the authority as a rider
to a non-controversial House-
approved bill and get it
enacted into law.
Incidentally, FBI employes
are under the Classification
Act and are not non-classifieds,
as I noted here the other day.
They are exempt from Civil
Service.
Conferees also failed to
continue the authority of the
Panama Canal Co. to fix pay
of its executives at rates
higher than Grade 18 which
is $24,500 in the Morrison bill.
Another rider is being drafted
to correct this problem..
Many Capitol Hill employes
are both confused and un-
happy over their pay boosts.
Congress has so many differ-
ent pay systems for its em-
ployes that no general rules
apply.
Classified employes or those
employes whose salaries fol-
low rates in the Classification
Act will get increases that av-
erage only 4.3 per cent. Those
paid through either the House
Disbursing Office or the fi-
nancial office of the Senate
will get raises that average 10
per cent. Folding room em-
ployes will get a I per cent
raise.
Higher salaries for employes
In the offices a g enitors
aren't automatic. Each Senator
will have 15 days after the bill,
e 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDIA38141M630068bC1050001-9
I 7)
Ait,v- o.
196.4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
for suggesting that there is some kind
of special virtue about war, that man
derives vigor from participation in war,
whereas peace has a tendency to corrupt
us with ease and somehow destroy the
real muscle of a man; and that the only
way we can really be men who can walk
upright is to participate in combat with
our fellow men.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have this editorial printed in the
RECORD at this time, because I believe
the editor does an excellent job of lay-
ing that silly case to rest, reminding us
again of the importance of what William
James called, a good many years ago,
the moral equivalent to war. I believe
that we are still engaged in a search
for the moral equivalent of war and
that is, really, in my judgment, the hope
and promise of most of the people who
make up the Council for a Livable World.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WAR HAS NO VIRTUES
(By Dwight Wm. Jensen)
There is a man of limited prudence and
judgment named Holmes Alexander who
writes columns that are printed by the Idaho-
Daily Statesman.
A few weeks ago he did a piece on the vir-
tues of war. He quotes a one-legged Medal
of Honor winner who was headmaster when
he went to school and who said war improves
the breed. Any war which Holmes Alexander
survives cannot be said to have improved
the breed.
Alexander refers to "bilious propaganda
about the idiocies of war and the cloying
virtues of everlasting peace." He speaks of
"the brine and bilge of contemporary peace-
mongering."
He sneers at writers who write about ways
to end all war, and he says it is "the nature
of man" to make war, and that "it is not to
be altered by any power less than our Maker."
A better mind than Holmes Alexander's?
and the 1960 census revealed that in Idaho
alone there are nearly 700,000 better minds
than Holmes Alexander's?Winston Church-
ill, who has some experience with war, said,
"War is little more than a catalog of mis-
takes and misfortunes."
So war can be eliminated only by our
Maker? You recall the cliche "God helps
those who help themselves." We remember
also the late President Kennedy's words that,
"On earth, God's work is ours."
But Holmes Alexander would probably not
care to quote Kennedy. The column we
question appeared in the Statesman the day
after that man's assassination and was a
mocking sort of reflection upon Kennedy's
search for peace.
Alexander is one of those great patriots
who does such things as criticize the Supreme
Court for its decision about Bible reading in
the public schools. If he had read the Bible,
in the public schools or elsewhere, he would
have come across some words by the Son of
our Maker:
"Blessed are the peacemakers."
Mr. CHURCH. I commend the Sena-
tor for the stand he has taken. I know
him to be a man of great and good
conscience?and of courage.
I close by restating I do not believe
that the United States?which budgets
80 percent of its national revenue to pro-
grams related to warfare, past, present,
or future, which spends more than half
its annual operating budget to maintain
No. 132 24
its Armed Forces, where a vast corporate
complex has a vested interest in arma-
ments, where hundreds of societies and
veterans' groups constantly side with the
military viewpoint?is a country which
has much to fear from a small associa-
tion of scientists, college professors, pro-
fessional people, and ordinary parents
who are alarmed about the fact that we
have raised a stockpile of weapons of
such nightmarish power, that, if ever
detonated, would be the equivalent of ex-
ploding a 20-ton bomb against the head
of every inhabitant on this planet.
These citizens, the target of attack
this afternoon, are merely trying to do
what they can to effect a disarmament
program, with enforcement controls and
mutual inspection procedures, which
might, one day, make it possible for the
human race to live free from fright, be-
yond the shadow of a reckoning coming
swift and final in the night.
I cannot believe that theirs is a per-
nicious influence, set upon the destruc-
tion of the United States of America. I
do not, of course, stand on the floor of
the Senate this afternoon to underwrite
everyhting that any of these advocates
may have said or may propose, because
I reserve the right to make my own
judgment,
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the same
right, also.
Mr. CHURCH. I know the SenatOr
from South Dakota does. I believe that
the position he takes is a sound and sen-
sible position. I commend him for it.
Once again he renders his country a
fine service, as he always has before,
from the moment he first became a Sen-
ator of the United States.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator
from Idaho for his invaluable contri-
bution.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Dakota yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Pennsylvania. .
Mr. CLARK. I thank the Senator
from South Dakota for yielding to me.
First, I should like to commend him,
as well as my dear friend the Senator
from Idaho for the fine comments they
have made in rebuttal to the quite ex-
traordinary statements made by a num-
ber of Senators earlier this afternoon.
I endorse everything that the Senator
from South Dakota and the Senator
from Idaho have said. I wish I could
have said it as eloquently and as con-
vincingly.
I should like to pay my respects, briefly,
to Mr. Holmes Alexander, who I note has
been in the gallery while this series of
speeches has been made.
I know him of old. His writings are
syndicated, for reasons which have al-
ways escaped me, in one of our great
metropolitan Pennsylvania newspapers.
I shall not deal in innuendo. I should
like, rather, to deal in provable facts.
As the Senator from South Dakota am-
ply demonstrated from the record a few
moments ago, Mr. Alexander is and has
been for years a rightwing radical whose
political philosophy, if adopted, would
clearly take us back to the jungle and
15209
remove many, if not all, of the benefits
of civilization.
Those are rather strong words, said
in part, perhaps, in lighter vein. But,
nonetheless, I firmly believe that Mr.
Alexander has for years represented a
philosophy on education exemplified by
the one room, little red schoolhouse
which has a rather supreme contempt
for intellectualism and for eggheads,
which would like to revert, in short, to
the happy days of the early 19th century,
turning its back on everything that has
happened in the world since that date.
I am amazed that any Senator would
take seriously these ridiculous and down-
right silly charges of Mr. Alexander
against the Council for a Livable World.
I am proud to have received in the
campaign of 1962, when I ran for re-
election, rather significant contributions
from members of the Council for a Liv-
able World, who were encouraged to
make contributions in my behalf by Mr.
Leo Szilard, now unhappily dead, but one
of the great scientists of the modern
world and one of the inventors?as the
Senator from South Dakota has said?of
the atomic bomb, a man who devoted the
declining years of his life, after he knew
that he had incurable cancer, to the
cause of peace and to the cause of a
livable world.
I often wonder why Mr. Alexander,
who follows that rightwing line of his,
does not attack the real advocates in this
country of general and complete dis-
armament under enforcible world law.
Why does he not attack Christian Her-
ter, who was Secretary of State, and the
first American of prominent office to ad-
vocate general and complete disarma-
ment under enforcible world law?
Why does he not attack our late be-
loved President John F. Kennedy, who
in three magnificent speeches, two of
them in the United Nations, and the
third at American University in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, laid it on the line that
the foreign policy of our country was to
advance the same cause which the Coun-
cil for a Livable World has been ad-
vancing, and for advancing which it has
come under attack by Mr. Alexander and
his rightwing cohorts.
Why does he not attack John McCloy?
Why does he not attack Arthur Dean?
Why does he not attack William Foster?
Indeed, why does he not attack Presi-
dent Lyndon Baines Johnson, who advo-
cates the same principles of foreign pol-
icy and disarmament which the Council
for a Livable World is proud to espouse,
to recommend, and to support?
What disturbs me is the attitude in
the Senate toward the cause of peace,
a just and enduring peace, negotiated
from strength. For I believe, to borrow
the words of the late President Kennedy,
"that we should never negotiate out of
fear, but we should never fear to ne-
gotiate."
We saw some rather ugly things in the
Senate during the debate on the test ban
treaty last year. The belligerence in
the Senate which was referred to by the
Senator from Idaho, is the same spirit
of belligerence which was attacked by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
last public address he made while still
President of the United States. I do not
like to see that spirit, of belligerence in
the Senate. I do not like to see that
archaic and obsolete attitude toward the
problems of the modern world. I would
hope, perhaps, that some mild change in
that climate might be created by the ac-
tion of the Senator from South Dakota
and the Senator from Idaho. who have
shown the courage to rise on the floor of
the Senate and state their own supreme
convictions and their strong support of
the policies of three Presidents of the
United States?Eisenhower. Kennedy,
Johnson?in support of a just and a
livable world.
I thank my friend from South Dakota
for yielding to me.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. I
thank the Senator from Pennsylvania
and the Senator from Idaho for their
moving, eloquent, and informed state-
ments here today. I was assured of my
position before I took the floor this
afternoon. But I am more assured of it
after listening to the persuasive elo-
quence of those two Senators who have
done so much in the cause of peace.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
did not hear all of the discussion on the
Republican side this afternoon, as I was
in and out of the Chamber. But I did
hear the names of certain Members on
this side mentioned. I am afrold that
the implications were such as to make it
difficult for them in their personal and
Political carers.
I am quite sure that was not the in-
tent. I wish to say publicly, as majority
leader of the Senate, that insofar as I
am concerned. I have no doubt about the
patriotism, integrity, and the devotion
of men like the Senator from South Da-
kota I Mr. MCGOVERN1, the Senator from
Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], and others. They
have performed capably, well, and in the
highest traditions of this body since they
first became Members of the Senate. So
as far as being for unilateral disarma-
ment is concerned, as one Senator
seemed to indicate. I do not know of a
Senator on either side who is in favor
of unilateral disarmament.
The Senator from South Dakota has a
distinguished war record as a bomber
pilot in World War II. He is the holder
of the Distinguished Flying Cross.
The distinguished Senator from Idaho
(Mr. CHURCH] served with distinction in
the China-Burma-India area. I do not
know of a Democratic or Republican
Senator whose integrity, patriotism, or
devotion to his country should be im-
pugned in any way, even by implication.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. if
the Senator from South Carolina is will-
ing. I would ask the Chair to make sure
that the Chamber is kept fairly clear
during this debate. The Senate will be
in session until a relatively late hour this
evening because of circumstances which
are apparent to all.
I thank the Senator from 4critth C r -
lina for yielding.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
ItEFORIVI ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government. and for other purposes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President. as
chairman of the Senate Post Office and
Civil Service Committee. I am proud to
report to the Senate the committee's
unanimous approval of H.R. 11049. with
amendment. the Federal Employees Sal-
ars, Act of 1964.
This leeislation is a broad and all-in-
clusive pay adjustment measure which,
in my view, will rank among the most
important actions of the Congress in re-
cent, years to strengthen the Federal
Government and increase its efficiency.
I particularly emphasize that the com-
mittee's report is a unanimous report.
Members of the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee oil both sides of the
aisle, working harmoniously and with
nonpartisan objectives, have together
studied and discussed H.R. 11049 title
by title. section by section, and, in some
cases, line by line. The work of the
members of the committee has been dili-
gent, conscientious, and devoted. They
have responded to word from the Presi-
dent of the United States that this meas-
ure is one of the most important in his
legislative program for the 88th Con-
gress, and their response, consisting of
hard work in long daily meetings, has
been made at a particular time in the
history of the Senate when many other
important demands were being made
upon their time and energies. I con-
gratulate the committee on the spirit in
which the members have undertaken to
improve HR. 11049 as passed by the
House of Representatives, and as chair-
man I thank them each individually for
their intelligent and effective coopera-
tion with the President and with me.
This bill, as reported, is directed to-
ward accomplishing four purposes which
will remedy a number of Inequities and
will establish pay relationships resulting
in greater efficiency in the Federal civil-
ian service and increased economy
throughout all Government operations.
The purposes of H.R. 11049 are:
First. Ti) reaffirm the commitment of
the Congress to the policy of adjusting
the civilian career salary systems in ac-
cordance with the principle of compara-
bility. This policy, one of the most rea-
sonable and far-reaching determinations
ever made by the Congress in the field of
Federal pay, was declared in the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1962, which clearly
states the sense of the Congress that?
Federal salary rates shall be comparable
with private enterprise salary rates for the
me levels of work.
Second. To establish a new, consistent,
and rational salary structure for posi-
1
tions of the highest level in the Federal
Government.
Third. To provide for the first time a
logical relationship between career sail,-
ries under the civilian statutory pay sys-
'terns and the salaries of top positions in
the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches.
Fourth. To adopt a salary structure
which will respond to the present-thy
needs of the Federal Government, to Use
end that reemitment and retention of
personnel of the very highest level--
from the bottom to the top?can be ac-
complished.
Perhaps the most widely discussed sec-
tion of H.R. 11049 is its provision for an
increase in the annual salaries of the
Members of he Congress from $22.5C0
to $30.000 a year. Increases in congres-
sional pay constitute a touchy and con-
troversial pronlem always. Ignoring th:s
problem will not make it go away.
The committee, recognizing the con-
stitutional injunction that the Senate
and House must establish the rate of pay
for its own Members, has tried to abide
by its responsibility. It is our judgmer t
that the compensation of Senator and
Congressmen ought to be increased by
$7,500 per annum. No one who serves in
the Congress can be unaware that our
duties and responsibilities have increased
substantially since 1955, when congres-
sional pay 'as raised from $15,000 a
year. We ale all thoroughly familiar
with the costs incurred in maintaining
two homes and with the necessity fcr
frequent trips to our home States, where
we can listen to the views of those who
sent us here. We all know that the days
of midsummer adjournment are prob-
ably gone forever, and that ours has be-
come more than a full-time job. In my
opinion, these facts of life must be
squarely faced and reckoned with, not
only for the benefit of present incum-
bents, but also for those who follow vs
in the Senate and the House.
I say again that the congressional in-
crease endorsed by the Senate Post Office
and Civil Service Committee is intended
for the office and not for the presert
Member. It reflects not only the finan-
cial realities of running and serving, but
also the prestige, dignity, and status cf
the Congress and its Members. I are
confident that when H.R. 11049 comes to
a vote, the Senate will face forthrightly
its difficult responsibility for establish-
ing equitable pay for its Members.
This action to adjust Federal compen-
sation up and down the line comes none
to soon. The Salary Reform Act of 1962
provides that the President shall report
annually to the Congress his recommen-
dations?based upon studies conducted
by the Bureau of Labor statistics?for
any Federal salary adjustments he deems
advisable. In accordance with the 1962
act, President Kennedy more than a year
ago recommended comparability pay in-
creases similar to those provided for ii
H.R. 11049: and suggestions for execu-
tive, legislative, and judicial pay have
been before the Congress since the report
last year of the President's advisory
panel on Federal salary systems, the
Randall report.
The fact that Congress did not act in
1963 to adjust Federal compensation has
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
resulted in many unfortunate inequities
and an alarming departure of Federal
pay from the comparability pay line.
The fact that the recommendations of
the Randall report have not been inter-
preted into Federal legislation until now
has resulted, furthermore, in serious dif-
ficulty for the President in obtaining and
keeping the services of men of high cali-
ber for the top-most executive positions
in the Government.
The President has told me on more
than one occasion that this is true.
The salary provisions for executive
pay have been scaled down from the
Randall recommendations, in recogni-
tion of the fact that in the upper levels
of the Federal service?both career and
executive?the Government can never
financially reward its top officials in
such a way as to compete with private
enterprise. In other words, while the
committee endorses?and trusts that the
Senate will continue to endorse?the
principle of comparability in all ranks
other than those at the top, we are aware
that those who serve their country in
positions of high rank in all three
branches of the Government must be
willing to accept far less than their
counterparts in the private economy.
This fact is recognized as part and
parcel of our national life. Neverthe-
less, it is my view that the sacrifice that
many of our leaders in the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches have
been asked to make are too great. The
Increases provided in this measure will
go a long way toward rectifying a situa-
tion which all recent Presidents, partic-
ularly Presidents Kennedy and Johnson,
have deplored and which they have time
and again asked the Congress to correct.
The report of the President's advisory
panel is most pertinent on this subject.
The panel makes these points:
It is not uncommon in the history of
our country to ask our citizens to give
up a high income to accept a lesser one
in a responsible Federal office. But the
sacrifice ought to be of a kind which
many capable men?not just a few?are
financially prepared to make. Further-
more, there are many able young men
who have had no time to accumulate
financial reserves. The country should
not be denied the services of these men
because of inadequate Federal pay
scales. The Nation cannot afford to de-
pend only upon rich men to run its
affairs.
One of the most reasonable and bene-
ficial provisions of title III, the Federal
Executive Salary Act of 1964, is the es-
tablishment of an orderly series of five
levels of executive compensation. Over
the years through the various executive
pay acts and organic legislation estab-
lishing new Federal agencies, some 19
different executive pay levels have
sprung up within the Federal service.
On occasion, the need for increased com-
pensation has been reflected in the sal-
aries paid the directors of newly created
agencies, while similar top officials of
older agencies have been overlooked.
The prominence of some agencies as op-
posed to the inconspicuousness of others
has also sometimes resulted in unjusti-
fiable executive salary differentials.
This bill for the first time brings to-
gether an orderly and rational system of
five levels, in which positions of equal
rank and responsibility receive equal
compensation. This arrangement is the
result of intensive study and close co-
operation between the committees of the
Senate and House on the one hand, and
the Bureau of the Budget on the other,
and the administrative agencies, also.
As passed by the House, H.R. 1104b
established six pay levels of executive
compensation. The top three levels?
levels 1, 2, and 3?are listed by position.
The lower three levels?levels 4, 5, and
6?would be filled under the House bill
through placement which the President
would be authorized to make in accord-
ance with standards spelled out in the
act.
The Senate committee, on the recom-
mendation of the Budget Bureau, has
eliminated level VI entirely. This level
was composed of a limited number of
executives who could be most appro-
priately placed, it was felt, in level 5 or,
for pay purposes, in the top grades of the
general schedule. This arrangement
also relieved the pay compression which
existed between the executive salary
schedule and the general schedule when
there were six executive levels.
The committee has further amended
the House bill to provide for statutory
listing of the positions in levels 4 and 5,
as opposed to granting placerrient au-
thority to the President. The committee
noted, however, that the president ought
to have additional authority with regard
to the executive schedule, so that he
may respond to changes in organization,
management responsibilities, or work
apportionment in the executive branch.
Accordingly, the bill as reported gives
authority to the President to add 20 ad-
ditional positions within levels 4 and 5.
Perhaps some of them would come
from the regular classification list below,
and some could be adjusted between
level 4 and level 5.
In general, the committee endorsed the
rationale of the executive salary schedule
established in the House bill. Certain
changes, however, were made. The com-
pensation of Cabinet members is in-
creased from $32,500 to $35,000, this
change taking into account the heavy
responsibilities of Cabinet officers and
the prestige which accompanies these
high positions and the necessary spend-
ing of money by Cabinet officials.
The $30,000 salary for the deputies of
Cabinet members has not been changed.
These are the second highest Adminis-
trators in the executive branch, in many
cases the directors of the daily opera-
tions of the Nation's departments and
agencies. Accordingly, they should be
adequately compensated, but at a rate
reflecting the differences between their
duties and those of Cabinet members.
The committee's action in endorsing
$30,000 a year for deputy department
heads and the same salary for Members
of the Congress follows the traditional
pay alinement in which Cabinet mem-
bers are the only group paid more than
Members of Congress.
The committee has reduced slightly
the salaries for executives in levels 3, 4,
15211
and 5; from $29,000 to $28,500 for level
3; from $28,000 to $27,000 for level 4;
and from $27,000 to $26,000 for level 5.
These are the changes in the bill as
reported from the House.
It is my view that the Senate schedule
more nearly reflects the responsibilities
of the three lower levels and their rela-
tionship to levels 2 and 1.
The Randall panel makes clear the
need for pay increases in judges, offi-
cers, and employees of the judiciary.
The committee accepted the salary
scales for Federal judges enacted by the
House, taking note of the fact that the
increases are in the neighborhood of
$7,500, the same amount of increase
which was approved for Members of
Congress. The committee changed the
annual salary of the Director of the Ad-
ministrative Office of the U.S. Courts
from $28,000 to $27,000 and the salary
of the Deputy Director from $27,000 to
$26,000, in recognition of the fact that
these salaries were alined with levels
4 and 5 of the executive salary schedule
established at $27,000 and $26,000. Ad-
ditionally, the committee reduced the
salary of commissioners of the court of
claims from $27,000 to $26,000.
In its discussions of compensation for
the judiciary, the committee took into
account the constitutional provision that
Federal judges are appointed for life
and that their salaries are discontinued
only in the event of death, resignation,
or impeachment. Thus, when Federal
judges become inactive?optionally
after 15 years at age 65 or after 10
years at age 70?they may, in effect,
retire on full salary. It was noted also
that many judges, upon reaching retire-
ment age, continue their duties on a
part-time basis while drawing full
compensation.
H.R. 11019 provides pay increases for
employees under the Classification Act
ranging from approximately 3 percent
in the lower grades, where comparabil-
ity has been achieved, through 22.2 per-
cent for grade 18, where the comparabil-
ity pay line and the Classification Act
pay line are still widely separated. It
will be recalled that grades 16, 17, and
18, which will receive substantial pay
increases under this bill, received no pay
increases in January 1964 as did all other
grades of the schedule.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question at this
point?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It has been said that
a large increase will be allowed to the
classes just mentioned by the Senator,
grades 16, 17, and 18, and that is- be-
cause the last time there was a pay raise
these classified workers were not in-
cluded. My question is whether the
large increase which is now being granted
is justified. What would have been the
percentage increase if it had been
granted when the last increase was made
and the increase that these people would
be entitled to now? In other words, does
the large increase now exceed what the
combined increase would be if it had
been granted 3 years ago and again now.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If you refer to
grades 16, 17, and 18 the answer is "Yes."
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
15212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. LAUSCHE. What is the percent-
age of the pay raise for this classifica-
tion?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The highest would
be approximately 22 percent for grade 18.
However, percentage increases in the
lower grades are much smaller.
Mr. LAUSCHE, 22 percent. That 22
percent compares to what in the low
classification?
Mr. JOHNSTON. GS-1 gets 3.1 per-
cent. This grade has had many in-
creases in the years past, when the
higher grades were not increased .
Mr. LAUSCHE. Class 1 would require
seven increases of 3 percent to bring it
up to the 22 percent that would be
granted to the highest. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In that class the
Government employs only 1,356 persons.
Those are the charwomen, custodial
laborers, and others in similar work
categories. Their pay compares favor-
ably with what they would get in private
enterprise for similar work. That was
all taken into consideration when the
percentage increase was determined.
Mr. LAUSCHE. When was the pay
raise granted that did not include the
high classified people?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Grades 16, 17. and
18 received no increase in January of
this year, when all other grades received
an increase previously enacted.
Mr. LAUSCHE. When did it happen
prior to that time? Was that about
1962?
Mr. JOHNSTON. October 1962.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Were the high grades
included in the 1962 pay raise?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If the low grade re-
ceived an increase of 3 or 4 percent in
January of this year. how can we justify
granting a 22-percent increase 5 or 6
months later to the high grade? I can-
not follow that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Because it is the
committee's view that these top officials
under the Classification Act deserve an
increase. The administration has ad-
vocated it. The Bureau of the Budget
has advocated it. That is what we are
here for.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it on the basis of
comparability in private industry that
this high 22 percent has been granted?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Even with the increase. grade 18 would
be below comparability. The Bureau of
the Budget, the Civil Service Commis-
sion and the President of the United
States have advocated attempting to at-
tain comparability. The House has al-
ready acted by a big majority. We are
here trying to do what we think is right
and just. That is what I am here to do.
Mr. LAUSCHE. In addition to the
increase of 22 percent, will the high
classified employees in the course of
time also become the beneficiaries of
Increased retirement pay on the basis of
the new schedule?
Mr. JOHNSTON. They will, but that
will be over a term of years. The retire-
ment system provides that the 5 high-
est years be taken into consideration. It
is the average for the 5 highest years.
A bill is pending in committee, on
which some hearings have already been
held. in connection with which the ad-
ministration is advocating that certain
changes be made in regard to the financ-
ing of the retirement system, to provide
that it will be fiscally sound. The Gov-
ernment sill have to pay more into the
fund for the reason that for over two-
thirds of the years of the existence of the
retirement fund the Government has not
been paying its full share. Another rea-
son is that many of the employees of the
Government are ex-servicemen. and they
did not have to contribute toward retire-
ment for the years of military service,
but they are credited toward retirement
for those years of service with the armed
services. The Civil Service Commission
has asked that we amend existing law to
reform the method of financing the re-
tirement fund. The committee is work-
ing on that bill
Mr. LAUSCHE. To get back to the
other point, the increase that would go
to Members of Congress, from $22,500 to
$30.000, would also provide a new re-
muneration to the Members of Congress
in the form of an increase in retirement
pay at the end of each year. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We will go into that
at a later time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I have been
working on an amendment that I hope
will appeal to the Senator. It would
provide, first, that a Member of Con-
gress, in order to obtain his increase,
must certify that he is of the opinion
that his services are worth that much
money; second, that he believes the in-
crease is necessary in order to provide
for the essential expenses of rendering
the services that are essential to his con-
stituents and for the living expenses for
himself and his dependents.
Does the Senator from South Caro-
lina really think it is necessary to pro-
vide a pay raise for persons who feel that
they might not want it. such as those
who do not have children in college and
do not incur expenses which might Jus-
tify an increase in pay?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is a good ques-
tion. I do not want, to amend the bill
along these lines; but I have thought at
times that anyone who thinks he does not
deserve the pay increase should be glad
to give it back to the Government. The
Government is there, waiting. That per-
son could give back the amount of his
increase. If he did not think he was
worth it. he could give it back.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I am aware
of the position of one Member of Con-
gress, who says that after he pays his
taxes, he donates to the church whatever
he has left.. I do not see any particular
point in giving a person a pay raise so
that he can give more money to his
church. In a way, that conflicts with the
doctrine of the separation of church and
state, if all we are doing is paying money
by way of a pay raise to enable the re-
cipient to Rive it to a church.
July
Mr. JOHNSTON. Members of th..
Senate and House will give back about
42 percent of the pay raise.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. In incom,?.
taxes?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In income taxes.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I would hope
that we could work that out. If any
Member of Congress really believes that
his services are not worth the amount or
the increase, he should not take it out 0.1
the Treasury; it ought to stay in the
Treasury. The people ought to have an
opportunity to elect some cutrate Rep-
resentatives, if they wish. One could
say in his platform. "I am not worth as
much as another fellow. I am not worth
that much salary"; and he could make
his case on the basis that he is not worth.
that much for his services.
I hope the Senator from South Caro-
lina will feel kindly toward my amend-
ment. I do not feel that we should force
on people money that they think is not
necessary. That would be wasteful.
With that qualification, I am willing to
vote for the Senator's bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Sen-
ator.
The substantial precentage increases
for the upper grades are, in my opinion,
warranted and deserved.
The committee acted to rectify what
it considered an inconsistency in the
House-approved general schedule, with
respect to the so-called middle grades.
Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 were reduced
from the President's recommendations
to rates which reflect salary increases of
less than 3 percent of present salary
rates. Taking into account the contri-
bution to the Federal service which is
made by this important middle-manage-
ment group, the committee increased the
compensation of these grades to a 3-
percent level. Similar increases were
given the middle grades in the Foreign
Service and the Department of Medicine
and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration.
The bill has been amended to pro-
vide for 1-year step increases through
step 7 for all levels of the PFS schedule.
Under the 1962 act, 1-year increases
through step 7 were limited to the first
six levels, with 2 years being required in
steps 6 and 7 for levels 7 and above.
This has resulted in pay inequities
caused by the longer service periods re-
quired?particularly in levels 7, 8, and
9?in steps 6 and 7 of the PFS schedule.
The result has been rapidly diminishing
salary differentials between level 7 on
the one hand and levels 5 and 6 on the
other, resulting from the fact that per-
sonnel in the lower levels advance more
rapidly through the steps of the schedule.
The committee amendment will
remedy these inequities and will ma-
terially benefit important groups of
personnel in the postal service?super-
visors, postmasters, inspectors, and
others?many of whom spend the greater
part of their postal careers in levels
7, 8, or 9.
The committee is in agreement with
the Post Office Department that post-
masters of fourth-class offices are, in
general, being inadequately compen-
sated under schedule II of the 1962 act.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
1964
_Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15213
The Department's proposal to substitute
a new schedule based upon PFS-5 and
the number of service hours required on
the part of the postmaster was carefully
studied. It was the committee's view,
however, that this proposed schedule,
providing increases averaging approxi-
mately 27 percent, overcompensated for
the deficiency. Accordingly, the act
has been amended to provide for a new
fourth-class office schedule, based upon
six levels of revenue units. The per-
centage increases vary in general within
the range of 10 to 15 percent, with in-
creases substantially higher than 15 per-
cent for postmasters of fourth-class of-
fices in the lower levels, where increases
are most urgently needed.
This modification of the Department's
original proposal represents an equitable
solution to the problem of marginal pay
for fourth-class postmasters with low re-
ceipts, and provides significant and de-
served salary increases for all other post-
masters of fourth-class offices. The
House-passed schedule would cost ap-
proximately $12.7 million, while that of
the Senate schedule would cost approxi-
mately $4.8 million.
We took this up with the Post Office
Department, too, and were informed
that this would be agreeable to them.
The last pay raise granted congres-
sional employees was an across-the-
board increase of 7 percent in 1962.
They received no schedule 2 increase,
which, Senators will recall, was the sec-
ond increment of the 1962 pay increase,
becoming effective for employees of the
executive branch in January 1964.
The committee has endorsed the pay-
increase formula for congressional em-
ployees as set forth in the House meas-
ure. It provides for graduated raises
ranging from 5 percent in the lower lev-
els to 211/2 percent in the upper. It is
my belief that this schedule recognizes
the principle of comparability and satis-
factorily alines the pay for our congres-
sional employees with that of officials of
their rank and responsibility in the ex-
ecutive branch.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. Do I correctly un-
derstand that in the previous pay bill,
the increase in salaries for congressional
workers was? percent?
Mr. JOHNSTON. It was 7 percent
across the board.
Mr. ELLENDER. That was in 1962,
was it not?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. Under that pay bill,
the top salary of an administrative as-
sistant to a Senator could be fixed at
$18,884.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That was for one
person in the office.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that;
but others would get similar raises.
In the bill which the Senator now
proposes to have enacted, the base pay
of $8,880 and a gross rate of $18,884
would result in a 211/2 percent increase
for administrative assistants and cause
their salaries to go up $22,945.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is more than
the salary Senators receive today.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true. We
propose to raise the salaries of Senators
in the bill, by 33 percent.
Mr. ELLENDER. How can they jus-
tify raising the salary, let us say, of the
Sergeant at Arms, who now receives
$21,500, to $27,500, an increase of $6,000?
How can that be justified? In addition,
the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, as
I understand, is provided with the use of
an automobile and a chauffeur.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is what the
Appropriations Committee lets him have.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand that;
but how can the committee justify that?
How can the Senator from South Caro-
lina go back home and tell his people
that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate
has been raised in salary from $21,500 to
$27,500, or an increase of $500 a month,
and is provided with an automobile and a
chauffeur to drive it?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Regarding the
chauffeur and the automobile, it must
be remembered that there are some oc-
casions when the Sergeant at Arms is
required to go out and advise Senators
that they are needed back in the
Chamber.
Mr. ELLENDER. There is a car pool
across the street which can be used for
that purpose.
The salary of the Secretary of the
Senate is to be raised from $21,500 to
$27,500 or the same increase as the Ser-
geant at Arms?$500 a month, or $6,000
per year. How can the committee justify
such an increase when an increase of 7
percent has already been given in 1962
and this increases the amount to 27.9
percent?
Mr. JOHNSTON. All this was based
upon grounds of comparability.
Mr. ELLENDER. Of what?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Along lines com-
parable to salaries paid on the outside.
Remember that this is for the whole of
the Federal Government. Go to New
York and see what the chief of police up
there is paid.
Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator
compare the Sergeant at Arms to the
chief of police of New York City?
Mr. JOHNSTON. This position must
be compared to that of those performing
jobs of a similar nature, yes. I do not
limit it to New York, of course.
Mr. ELLENDER. I notice that the
salary of the Architect of the Capitol
would be raised from $20,700 to $26,000,
or 26.1 percent.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. ELLENDER. Only 2 years ago,
we gave him an increase of 7 percent. I
am wondering how the committee could
present the Senate with a bill of this
kind. District judges will be paid $30,-
000, an increase of 331/3 percent. Judg-
ships are life .appointments which is a
valuable consideration in itself.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator will
notice that we have reduced many sal-
aries below those approved in the House
measure.
Mr. ELLENDER. Some of the what?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Some of those sal-
aries have been cut below approved by
the House.
Mr. ELLENDER. I am talking about
the Senate carrying out its responsibility.
I know what the House did. It did a bad
job. But I did not expect the commit-
tee to come before the Senate and try to
duplicate what the House did?more or
less, because that is just what the com-
mittee did.
Will the Senator from South Carolina
tell us, assuming that every Senator will
increase his force according to the tables
laid out in this bill, how much it will cost
a year; does the Senator know?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In this particular
bill, there will be a certain amount of
money which can be spent; and the Sen-
ator can spend as much of it as he
wishes, in accordance with the provisions
of the bill.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator knows
what happens, of course.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is what any
Senator would be able to do in his office.
Not a year has gone by that I have not
turned back money in my own office.
Mr. ELLENDER. The same applies to
me.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe that many
Senators have done so. However, each
Senator will be given a certain amount
of money to operate his office.
Mr. ELLENDER. Why give it? Why
arrange the scale so high that a Sena-
tor's administrative assistant will be
constantly dissatisfied from here on out
until he is paid the highest salary per-
mitted under, the bill? Some Senators
give the raises automatically and this
creates dissatisfaction among the assist-
ants of those who do not.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Because many Sen-
ators cannot get the people with the
abilities they need for their offices from
their own particular States without pay-
ing them salaries such as will be found
in this bill, and which are in relation to
their abilities. That is the reason we
put them in.
Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator
mean to say that it is hard to get an
assistant to help in his office?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from
Chicago and the Senator from New York
and other places--
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator does
not have to pay it, unless he wishes to
do so.
I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. It is true that the city
of New York has the same name as the
State of New York?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I am very proud to
come from the city of Chicago but I also
come from the great State of Illinois.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Illinois. The Sena-
tor is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I hope that "Illinois"
will be substituted for "Chicago."
Mr. JOHNSTON. Of course?Illinois.
Mr. ELLENDER. When I first came to
the Senate, as I recall, our little pages?
and I love them all?were given $5 a day
for the days they worked. In this bill,
their pay will be raised to more than
$5,000 a year. I hope they make that
much money when they get out of
college.
I believe that we have gone to an ex-
treme on this subject. I am hopeful
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005000500Q1-9
15214 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 1
that a good look will be taken at this
bill and that the Senate will make an
attempt to trim it down. because I be-
lieve it is absolutely wrong, particularly
when we consider that we just lowered
taxes and increased salaries in 1962.
Here we are, preparing to slap on the
backs of the American people an addi-
tional burden which will cost in excess of
half a billion dollars a year.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator will
notice in the bill that many of the
salaries in the Senate version arc below
those of the House.
Mr. ELLENDER. That does not make
it good for the Senate.
Mr. JOHNSTON. But we must keep
them somewhat in line. Does not the
Senator agree with that?
Mr. ELLENDER. Keep whom in line?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Salaries in the two
Houses. If we do not have similar pay
scales many people now working in the
Senate will wish to go over and work in
the House.
Mr. ELLENDER. I did not know there
was that much competition.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President. will
the Senator from South Carolina yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I address myself to
the distinguished Senator, the chairman
of the Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee [Mr. JOHNSTONE As the chair-
man of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, I notice that there have been
two changes made in the Senate bill as
against the House bill.
Let me emphasize that it Is not so
much the money involved as much as it
is the principle that concerns me. The
reason I bring it up now is that I am
hopeful the Senator will give some
thought to the colloquy we are going to
engage in, so that when I bring up my
amendment we can be in accord as to
what is meant.
I notice that the Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission has been
placed in level 2. The other four mem-
bers of the Commission have been placed
in level 4.
The House placed the chairman In
level 2, but it placed the other members
of the committee in level 3.
The Senate committee dropped it
down a further level.
The point I wish to make, and I be-
lieve it should be brought to the atten-
tion of the committee. is the fact that
in 1954 and again in I955?and I believe
I shall be substantiated in this by my
distinguished colleague from the State
of Tennessee?there was a serious ques-
tion which came UP in committee as to
what authority. Derogative, and respon-
sibility each of the five members should
have. In considering the 1954 amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act there
was a proposal that the chairman be
the principal officer of the Commission.
After much debate that was not ac-
cepted.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Eller-
f!:Y and the Conssress repudiated that
philosophy.
We wrote in the law specifically at. that
time:
Each member of the Commission, includ-
ing the Chairman shall have equal respon-
A:ditty and authority in all decisions and at-
tions of the Commission and shall have one
vote.
Then in 1955 so there would be no un-
certainty as to the intent, the Joint Com-
mittee recommended and the Congress
amended the law to read:
Eitch member of the Commission, includ-
ing the Chairman. shall have equal respon-
sibility and authority in all decisions and
actions of the committee, and shall have full
access to all information relating to the per-
formance of his duties or responsibilities, and
shall have one vote.
Mr. President (Mr. INOUYE in the
chair), the point I wish to make is that
this Commission spends more than $2.5
billion a year in keening up the nuclear
and thermonuclear posture of the Na-
tion. It is a very responsible Commis-
sion. There are some who believe, pos-
sibly, that if we had one administrator
as against the commission setup, as it
is in the Some Administration, perhaps
it might work more effectively, but I do
not believe we need to debate that ques-
tions this afternoon.
What I am intending to do and should
hope that this would be amenable to
the thinking of the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina, is to bring it back
to where the House had it.
I do not say that all members of the
Commission should be at level 2. I be-
lieve that the Chairman should be at
level 2, as the spokesman for the Com-
mission but I would hope the Senator
would revert back when I bring up my
amendment to the bill. As it was re-
ported by the House, other members of
the Commission would be put in level 3
instead of level 4.
I repeat, that it is not so much the
matter of the money as it is the matter
of the responsibility. If we are going
to put the Chairman two grades above
the other members of the Commission,
we shall be downgrading the prestige
and the responsibility of the other mem-
bers.
I do not believe that should be allowed
because I believe that would do the whole
program irreparable harm.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am glad to have
these remarks from the Senator from
Rhode Island, and shall be glad to look
into them.
Mr. PASTORE. That is the reason
why I bring up the question now. I hope
the Senator will take It up with his staff.
There is another point I should like to
make: and I hope he will consider this.
too.
I shall propose this amendment. And
I hope that here again his thinking will
be amenable to mine. Under the atomic
energy law, we specify three Assistant
General Managers. We say "no more
than three." And the AEC under this
statutory authority today has three As-
sistant General Managers. But the Ian-
allege of the bill, on page 127, line 5, is
"Assistant General Manager, Atomic
Energy Commission." That is in the
singular. The only trouble is that we
have three Assistant General Managers
today at the equal salary level of $20,000.
But the Senator provides for only one
Assistant General Manager. What shall
we do with the other two? We will have
to downgrade them as well as others to
the level of their division heads. We
must treat these three General Managers
alike.
I hope the staff will look into that and
make this correction as well.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I shall be glad to
look into that question. For the infor-
mation of the Senator, we left it up to the
Bureau of the Budget. The recom-
mendation came from them.
Mr. PASTORE. I do not know where
they get their notions. The Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy watches this
operation. It is not that we are trying
to grab anythin 1 for anyone on the com-
mittee. But it would throw the whole
organization out of kilter. We have
three Assistant General Managers op-
erating on an equal footing. It is pro-
posed to provide for only one. What
shall we do with the other two? Bury
them? '
The House made provision for it by
leaving it to the Executive to fill an
unspecified number of positions which
the AEC understands would leave these
three positions equal in level 5. In line
5. we could make "Manager" plural, and
put "three" in parentheses. That would
answer the question.
I shall make those two amendments.
I hope the staff will look into that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. We shall be happy
to look into it. We do not claim that the
bill is perfect in every sense. But we
did try to do as good a job as we could,
working with the departments, and with
the Bureau of the Budget, and with the
staff of the House.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield. I make no criticism
of the Senator. He and I have fought
shoulder to shoulder on some of these
measures. At one time. I had the
honor of serving on the committee. I
know how assiduously the Senator has
worked, and how vigorous he is in his
presentations to the committee.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate that.
I discovered when the Senator was on
the committee that he was one of the
most active members. He did an excel-
lent job there.
The committee amended the House bill
by imposing a ceiling of $22,945 on the
schedule for employees on Senators'
staffs and Senate committees. The
House version sets a limitation of $24,-
500 on employees of House committees.
The House bill further provides that
the effective date of all increases in
excess of $22.000 would be withheld until
the effective date of the increase for
Members of the Senate and House,
January 3, 1965. The Committee de-
cided that since, increases in excess of
$22.000, particularly in the Executive
salary schedule, are of vital and im-
mediate importance, it would be unwise
to postpone the date of their disburse-
ment. Accordingly, the bill is amended
to provide that amounts of salary in ex-
cess of $22,000 per annum shall be post-
poned until January 3, 1965, only in the
case of officers and employees of the
Senate and House.
When this measure was considered on
the floor of the House, Representative
UDALL introduced an amendment, which
was adopted, to provide that congres-
sional pay increases would automatically
go into effect in percentage amounts re-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
_Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15215
lated to pay increases enacted for em-
ployees and officers of the executive
branch. I believe that this provision is
a good try at solving a hard problem, but
it is my view that it would not accomp-
lish its apparent purpose. The commit-
tee was in agreement that this provision
should be deleted from the bill.
If the proposed arrangement pre-
vailed, the Congress would in effect be
acting to raise its own salaries whenever
it approved executive-branch pay in-
creases, and those who criticize Congress
whenever congressional pay is con-
sidered could once again raise their hue
and cry, and the problem would be at
hand once more.
I believe further that if congressional
and executive pay were tied together by
statute, the result might be a slowing
down of consideration of warranted pay
increases for employees of the executive
branch.
Mr. President, a question has been
raised with respect to the economic ef-
fects of this measure. I would remind
those who express this concern that the
comparability principle requires the
Federal Government as an employer to
follow the moves of the national econ-
omy?certainly not to lead it. The es-
tablished procedure is for review and
adjustment to determine whether salary
scales have lagged too far behind those
of the private economy as a whole, and
to bring them up to business levels, but
not above business levels, if a substan-
tial lag has developed.
Productivity in the Federal service has
been on the rise, just as it has in other
sectors of the economy. For example, in
the Division of Disbursement of the
Treasury, production increased 13 per-
cent from 1960 to 1962, but the man-
power utilized was actually reduced by
11 percent. In the Department of In-
surance of the Veterans' Administration,
manpower was reduced by 22 percent
between 1960 and 1962 as the result of a
23-percent increase in productivity.
It is my understanding that these re-
ductions in manpower were accomplished
through attrition and that the execu-
tive branch is continuously taking action
to assure that productivity increases con-
tinue to be the rule.
It has been stated that the average
weekly earnings of Federal employees are
approximately $22 higher than those of
employees of the States. This compari-
son, however, fails to take into account
the differences in the employment cate-
gories involved. The functions of State
governments differ markedly from those
of the Federal Government. The Fed-
eral payrall at the present time includes
thousands of some of the most highly
trained individuals in the country. No
State has a space program, for example;
no State has a department of defense.
Therefore, in my view it is erroneous to
attempt to find a meaningful relation-
ship between such entirely different
types of groups as Federal and State
employees.
Economy and efficiency in the Federal
service are dependent upon the quality
of Federal management, and the mainte-
nance of high-quality management can
be assured only by salary levels that will
permit competent managers to remain
in the service. A recent editorial in the
New York Times expressed the situation
in this way:
Those who oppose waste and extravagance
in Government spending argue that raising
the level of Federal salaries would be, un-
justified and inequitable. Yet the biggest
single cause of waste, in Government or in
private industry, is inefficient management.
The Nation has been fortunate that so many
skilled people have been willing to accept
the financial penalties involved in Govern-
ment service. But with the pay scales and
fringe benefits available to high caliber per-
sonnel in private industry constantly rising,
the Government will find it increasingly diffi-
cult to attract and keep executives with the
talent and the training required for formu-
lating and carrying out policy.
Mr. President, I now call to the atten-
tion of the Senate the cost of H.R. 11049,
as reported. I regret to advise by col-
leagues that there are typographical
errors in the chart displayed on page 4 of
the committee report, but I am happy to
point out that the erroneous figures over-
state rather than understate the cost of
the bill.
The total cost figure for this salary
bill?verified by the Bureau of the
Budget and the Civil Service Commis-
sion?is $556,836,341. The major reason
for the difference in this cost estimate is
that the net cost of title I should read
$536,036,341 rather than the $543 million
figure shown in the table. These esti-
mates include the cost of Government
contributions to the various fringe bene-
fit programs Federal employees enjoy.
This is less than $13 million in excess
of the amount included in the President's
budget for fiscal year 1965. I have been
advised that in line with the administra-
tion's policy this additional cost will be
absorbed by employment attrition and
efficient management of Federal agen-
cies.
Mr. President, I have a letter from the
Bureau of the Budget which I wish to
read at this time:
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C., June 29, 1964.
Hon. OWN D. JOHNSTON,
Chairman, Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service, U.S. Senate, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: As requested by you,
the Bureau of the Budget has examined the
cost estimates of HR. 11049, as reported to
the Senate. When table 4 is corrected to
take into account typographical errors in title
I figures, the situation is substantially as
follows:
Disregarding minor adjustments which
approximately cancel each other out, the
aggregate costs of the Senate bill have been
increased approximately $14 million over the
President's maximum budget figures of 3544
million for the cost of pay legislation. The
additional cost is attributable to the Senate
committee's action in raising the middle
grades of the Classification Act, Foreign Serv-
ice, and Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
schedules so that they will receive a 3-percent
increase. The Bureau supports thit amend-
ment in the interest of equity and closer com-
parability between Government positions
affected and the same level of work in private
enterprise.
We must point out, however, that the
President's budget allowance was a maximum
allowance. The fiscal year 1965 cost of the
bill must be held within that figure. Ac-
cordingly, it will be necessary through attri-
tion, nonfilling of vacancies, and other ac-
tions to increase the amount of absorption
required of the agencies so as to cover the
excess costs.
Subject to the foregoing understanding,
the costs of the Senate version of HR. 11049
are without objection.
Sincerely,
ELMER B. STAATS,
Acting Director.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that
Americans everywhere will support the
provisions of this measure as represnt-
ing equity and fairplay. I urge the
Senate's favorable consideration of H.R.
11049.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish
to address myself very briefly to the
pending bill. First, I commend the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
JOHNSTON] on the manner in which he
conducted long and thorough hearings
on the proposed legislation. I also corn-
mend the members of the staff for their
valuable assistance in writing the pend-
ing bill.
H.R. 11049 as it passed the House was
a bill of six titles. The very nature of
the proposed legislation required thor-
ough study.
I saw with a great deal of pride and
frankness that every member of the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee gave
long and sincere study to this legislation.
They were determined that if a bill were
to be reported, it should be reported after
each member of the committee had a
chance to study and discuss all titles of
the bill.
The Senate committee made some
changes in the House bill. We believe
they were changes which make for better
legislation and eliminate certain inequi-
ties.
The Senate bill gives a small increase
over the House bill in four middle grades
in the general schedule. This change
more nearly reaches comparability and
will affect grades 9, 10, 11, and 12. Many
of these employees are managers and
engineers. The percentage of increase
will run about 3 percent.
I believe an inequity was removed from
the postal field service by permitting an
annual step increase through step 7 from
level 7 up. Annual step increases were
permitted in previous bills for the first
six levels through step 7.
These are only two changes which it
seems to me are significant in that they
help the employees in the middle or
lower brackets.
Some salaries were reduced in the
executive pay schedule and a few were
raised a little.
It is very difficult in a bill like this to
establish a schedule entirely equitable
in all instances.
Mr. President, I want to assure all my
colleagues that a lot of study and effort
was put forth to bring out a bill that was
as nearly equitable as possible. It is
now up to the Senate to cast its decision.
I shall support the bill, H.R. 11049 as
reported by the Senate Post Office and
Civil Service Committee.
Mr. President, one of our colleagues,
a very valuable member of the Senate
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005000500Q1-9 -
-15216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ,1" Illy 1
ice, is unable to be present today. He
has left with me a statement in which
he strongly urges passage of the measure.
I have reference to the senior Senator
from Hawaii [Mr. FUNGI. I ask unani-
mous consent that his statement be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT EY SENATOR FONG
H.R. 11049, the measure presently before
this body is one which I fully support. As
a member of the Senate Post Office and Civil
Service Committee, I know from first experi-
ence the hard work and long hours the com-
mittee spent to bring to the floor of the
Senate as equitable a bill as was possible.
I commend the committee chairman. Sen-
ator Oust D. Joitsisron. and the minority
leader on the committee, Senator FRANK
CARLSON, for their effective leadership and
patience in hammering out a bill acceptable
to all members of the committee.
It is only fair and equitable that the
Congress pass the Federal Salary Act of
1964 at this time. In fact, it is overdue.
In the Federal Pay Reform Act of 1952 the
Congress wrote into law for the first time
what is commonly referred to as the com-
parability principle. This provision meant
that Federal salaries should be comparable
to those being paid for similar work in pri-
vate industry.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics was directed
to make annual review of private industry
salaries and report to the President its find-
ings and comparison of Federal salaries 'with
those prevailing in private industry.
H.R. 11049 is the first step since the com-
parability principle was written into law in
which Congress is asked to keep faith with
the provision it approved in 1962.
The committee held extensive hearings
over a period of approximately 8 months on
Federal pay. Upon completion of the hear-
ings the committee met in executive sessions
for over 2 months in an effort to write a fair.
equitable, and just salary act.
H.R. 11049 covers the full scope of Federal
salaries?from executive to clerks. It is a
comprehensive measure which, while bring-
ing most Federal salaries into comparability
with those in private industry, also corrects
certain inequities in the Federal pay struc-
ture.
The average salary increase for Federal em-
ployees under the Classification Act is ap-
proximately 4.2 percent and under the postal
held schedule 5.6 percent.
In the higher pay levels the committee ad-
mits that comparability cannot be followed.
or d in other levels the Federal pay scale con-
tinues to lag 2 or 3 years behind private in-
dustry pay. However, HR. 11049 is as equi-
table a bill as can now be written. It is a
good bill and will assist greatly in retaining
highly trained and qualified personnel in the
Federal service.
strongly urge the passage of this measure.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President. I have
wanted to vote in favor of the pending
bill to increase the pay of Federal em-
ployees. I have consistently supported
such measures in the past, and hope to
do so agairf in the future. If it were
possible to evaluate this bill on its own
merits alone, without regard to-any other
consideration, I would approve it and
vote for it.
But it is not possible, in my judgment,
to separate this bill from other action
that Congress has taken in this session.
Just a few months ago, we enacted the
largest income tax cut in history. This
was done to combat unemployment,
stimulate investment, and enhance the
rate of our economic growth. The tax
reduction, which had the effect of in-
creasing everybody's take-home pay, was
carefully designed to promote the growth
of production and employment, so that
Federal revenues, collected at a lower
rate from an expanding economic base,
might rise to balance the budget and
eliminate further deficit spending.
On the basis of the evidence already
in, we have reason to believe that the ob-
jective we sought, in enacting the tax
cut, is achievable, providing we hold the
line on Federal spending and avoid fur-
ther cuts in tax revenue. We pledged
ourselves to do both, when we cut the
income tax a few short months ago. I
believe we should keep that pledge today.
Last week, I kept the pledge by voting
against all reductions of Federal excise
taxes, even though I know these taxes
to be a nuisance and harassment to the
small businesses of my State. I have
asked the merchants of Idaho, who so
stronely desire the repeal of these excise
taxes, to wait until a balanced budget
is in sight. This year the deficit may
run to $9 billion: next year. if we hold
the line, it should be much reduced. In
these nrosperous times, we have to strive
to restore a balanced budget, for we can-
not continue indefinitely to sriand more
money than we take in.
I know that my stand against the re-
peal of the excise taxes. at the present
time, was not popular with the business-
men of Idaho, and I fully appreciate that
my vote against this bill will not be
popular with Government employees, in-
cluding the postal workers, who need the
PRY raise most, and who have been my
special friends.
But I cannot, in good conscience, ap-
ply one standard to some of the people
I represent, while applying a different
standard to others. With the Govern-
ment operating so much in the red, this
is not the proper time to vote, either
for further reduction in revenue, or for
further increases in pay.
I hope that all those affected may
understand that I take this position for
the purpose of upholding fiscal respon-
sibility. If we keep our pledge to hold
the line, the day will soon come when
Federal salaries can be adjusted, and
Federal excise taxes can be repealed,
without adding to the debt, or enlarging
its burden upon future generations.
Then is the time to do it.
T intend, of course, to apply to myself,
the same standard I am asking all the
people I represent to accept for them-
selves. Accordingly, I shall vote to strike
the proposed congressional pay raise
from the bill, and I shall vote against
the bill itself.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President. it is
with some reluctance that I shall vote
against this pending bill. My firm be-
lief in the principle of comparability be-
tween salaries paid civil servants and
those paid in private industry is evi-
denced by my previous votes on Federal
pay legislation.
I would be pleased to vote now for
salary increases for the lower and mid-
dle brackets of the classified service and
for postal workers. I cannot, however,
support this legislation primarily because
it contains large increases for the Mem-
bers of the Congress and, secondarily,
because of the unfairly generous treat-
ment of the higher grades in the classi-
fied service.
It is true, Mi. President, that congres-
sional salaries were last reviewed a dec-
ade ago and perhaps a case can be made
for some adjusiment.
During the period from 1945 to 1960
there were seven across-the-board raises
which averaegcl out annually 4.1 percent
for classified arid 4.9 percent for postal
employees. That is a total percentage
raise of 61.5 percent for the classified
employees and 73.5 percent for postal.
Considering only the period since 1955
when the last c pngressional increase was
made in Members' salaries, the percent-
age raise for postal and classified ag-
gregated 51 percent. But such reason-
ing completely overlooks the fact that
the people of this country, in the very
week that the Congress has been forced
to raise the legal limit of the national
debt, deserve better than to have that
Congress vote for ourselves a large sal-
ary increase. They deserve leadership
by example. This is the time for re-
straint, not for new and greater expend-
itures.
The cost of this bill would exceed half
a billion dollars. It tends to be infla-
tionary. Both in the interests of econ-
omy and in stemming the upward spiral
of living costs, it should be rejected.
This administration professes to be
economy minded, yet we are continually
confronted with new spending proposals,
each of which contains the elements for
expansion in future years. Instead of
approving such measures, now is the time
to reverse the trend. Yet the pressure
by the administration for more and more
such spending schemes continues un-
abated.
As the able Se nator from Virginia [Mr.
BYRD) pointed out in his recent letter to
President Johnson, despite claims by the
administration that stringent personnel
ceilings have bean imposed, the facts are
the Federal payroll is running at the rate
of $16 billion a veer, and going up; Fed-
eral employment is still approximately
2.5 million. This is well above the 2,352,-
000 jobs existing when President Eisen-
hower left office, after trimming 201,000
jobs from the payroll in his 8-year
administration.
The Johnson administration, despite
its economy claims, continues to push for
more and more employees. In his fiscal
1965 budget, the President asked for new
positions in 13 out of 24 major agencies.
The President must be willing to exer-
cise restraint in his own requests both for
spending and for new jobs. Then he will
have earned the right to ask the people
of America to reward those who make
this Government operate.
Justification for hieher salaries for the
Congress. the too grades in the classified
service, and for appointive positions is
based on the art ument that it is difficult
to attract and maintain competent men
and women in high Government posts
when industry and business pay much
better salaries.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15217
Mr. President, the motivation for Gov-
ernment service at these levels must be
based on more than dollars and cents. A
Cabinet officer undeniably is paid less
than a business executive with compa-
rable responsibilities. But, we could
never expect to pay the Secretary of
Labor, for example, what the giant un-
ions pay their presidents, or to match the
salary of the Secretary of Defense with
the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar sal-
ary of a huge manufacturing firm.
It is reported that Gov. LeRoy Collins
is leaving a $75,000 a year job as presi-
dent of the National Association of
Broadcasters to accept a Government
post paying less than a third of that.
These people come to Government posi-
tions because they are motivated by a
desire to serve, not because of the salary,
The same is true of the Members of the
Congress.
It is unfortunate, Mr. President, that
we are not allowed to consider a bill giv-
ing increases to those Government work-
ers who unquestionably deserve them.
On balance, however, the bad in this bill
outweighs the good; accordingly, I shall
vote against it.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, in
my opinion, we have a solemn obliga-
tion to act favorably on this very com-
mendable and very necessary pay bill.
When the Senate passed the Salary
Reform Act of 1962, only ;three Members
of this body voted against it. That
measure committed Congress to the very
sensible and reasonable proposition that
Federal employees and postal employees
should be relieved of the necessity of in-
cessantly petitioning Congress to keep
them abreast of the Nation's economic
parade. The act, as it was passed, in-
troduced into the Federal pay structure,
for the first time, a scientific and dig-
nified apparatus for adjusting Federal
salaries whenever they fell significantly
behind the accepted norm for similar jobs
in private industry.
The late President Kennedy, using the
apparatus we had approved, told us, on
April 29 of last year, that postal em-
ployees' pay and Federal employees' pay
had fallen considerably below accepted
standards in private industry. We were
morally committed to do something
about that situation; but today, 14
months later, we are getting our first op-
portunity to live up to our obligation.
It was for this reason, Mr. President,
that in committee I offered the amend-
ment which was agreed to, and which
will make this pay raise for the postal
employees and the classified employees
effective on July 1, 1964, instead of in the
first pay period following the enactment
of the legislation.
The fine people who man our postal
service and our classified service have
waited long enough for their compara-
bility pay raise. With each passing
month, they have been slipping behind
the economic parade. When we pass this
bill today?and I feel confident that we
shall?there will have to be a conference,
and then consideration by both Houses
of the agreement reached by the con-
No. 132-25
ferees. All this adds up to more and
more delay. In my opinion, it would be
unconscionable for us to ask the Federal
workers and the postal workers to take
a further financial beating, just because
in our legislative processes we have been
somewhat dilatory.
Mr. President, I doubt that there can
be any serious argument against the pay
raises which this bill provides for Federal
employees in the upper echelons of the
service. All responsible authorities, both
those in government and those in pri-
vate industry, agree that these positions
must be more attractively compensated.
The U.S. Government is the largest
and the most important business opera-
tion in the world. The government is
filled with positions calling for great in-
telligence, great judgment, great learn-
ing, and great moral courage. The de-
cisions such men must make, as all of
us know, often affect millions upon mil-
lions of human beings, both at home and
abroad. Their decisions involve enor-
mous sums of the taxpayers' money.
They could conceivably involve the peace
and security of the free world.
We simply cannot continue to com-
pensate such positions with a wage that
would be considered, in private industry,
inadequate for an office manager or an
assistant to a very junior vice president.
President Johnson has pointed out
that we must prevent our Federal pay
structure from becoming one that will
repel the talented and will attract only
the mediocre. We are perilously close
to that point now. I think it is'a miracle
that we have been able to attract and
retain the high caliber of men and wom-
en that we have today in the Govern-
ment. But already the signs are becom-
ing all too apparent that too many of the
best and most talented people in the
Government are finding the Federal
service a luxury in which?in fairness to
their families?they cannot continue to
indulge. We are losing topflight people
every day; and the only way we can stop
this expensive exodus of talent is to
make the positions more attractive than
they are now.
If our huge and complex Federal Gov-
ernment is ever dominated by second-
rate managers, we shall then be in se-
rious danger of becoming a second-rate
country.
We must repair the flaws in the pres-
ent pay structure, and we must plan
boldly for the future. This bill does
both.
It is a good bill. Under the able lead-
ership of our chairman, the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON], our
committee deliberated over its provisions
in depth and at length. When we ap-
proved it, we did so without a dissenting
voice or vote.
The bill deserves the same enthusiastic'
support from the Senate as a whole; and
I sincerely hope and trust that it will
receive it.
It is our moral duty to pass this bill;
and it is a matter of enlightened self-
interest to provide for a Federal pay
structure that will attract and retain the
best available talent in the land.
FREE ENTRY OF CERTAIN MASS
SPECTROMETERS
The PRESIDING OloriCER laid be-
fore the Senate a message from the
House of Representatives announcing its
disagreement to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill '(H.R. 4364) to provide
for the free entry of one mass spectrom-
eter for the use of Oregon State Uni-
versity and one mass spectrometer for
the use of Wayne State University, and
requesting a conference with the Senate
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses thereon.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. I move that
the Senate insist upon its amendment
and agree to the request of the House
for a conference, and that the Chair ap-
point the conferees on the part of the
Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. BYRD of
Virginia, Mr. LONG of Louisiana, Mr.
SMATHERS, Mr. WILLIAMS Of Delaware,
and Mr. CURTIS conferees on the part of
the Senate.
MEAT IMPORTS
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President,
I am pleased to announce that the Sen-
ate Finance Committee has just ap-
proved the Mansfield amendment, No.
465, to limit beet imports. The commit-
tee approved this amendment with a
modification offered by Senator CURTIS.
Under the amendment adopted, imports
of fresh, chilled, or frozen beef after 1964
will be limited to 674 million pounds an-
nually. This is generally the average
annual amount which was imported in
the 5-year period,ending with December
31, 1963. Restrictions were also placed
on importation of mutton, lamb, and cer-
tain prepared meats, on a pound basis.
The amendment provides for increases
in the stated quotas whenever the aver-
age price in the United States for that
meat equals or exceeds 90 percent of the
average parity price provided the semi-
annual production of cattle in this coun-
try exceeds 7,352 million pounds.
The amendment was adopted to H.R.
1839, a House-passed bill relating to the
importation of wild birds and wild
animals.
The bill will be reported to the Senate
tomorrow.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SAL-
ARY REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
shall call up my amendment. Before I
do so, I point out that I am very anxious
to obtain the yeas and nays on the
amendment. I talked with the majority
leader about it. At the present time it
appears that there are not enough Sen-
ators in the Chamber to order the yeas
and nays. So I ask unanimous consent
that there may be a quorum call with
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R0005000500.0-9 ?
15218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July
the understanding that I shall not lose
my right to the floor, for the purpose of
bringing a sufficient number of Senators
to the Chamber so that I may ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Wisconsin wish first to of-
fer his amendment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I
ask unanimous consent that my amend-
ment be called up and that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment I No. 1084)
is as follows:
Beginning with line 23 on page 108, strike
out over through line 8 on page 115.
Redesignate titles III and IV as II and III.
respectively; redesignate sections 301 to 310
as 201 to 210. respectively; and redesignate
sections 401 to 403 as 301 to 303. respectively.
Beginning with line 4 on page 106. strike
out over through line 2 on page 107 and In-
sert in lieu thereof the following:
"TITLE IV?EFFECTIVE DATE
-Ssc. 401. This Act and the increases In
compensation made by this Act shall become
effective on July 1, 1904."
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I be-
lieve there are enough Senators present
to have the yeas and nays ordered.
I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendments.
Mr. MILLER.. Mr. President. a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. MILLER. If the yeas and nays
are ordered on the amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin, will it be open
to amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will
be open to amendment, but not modifica-
tion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this
amendment is simple. It would delete
from the bill, title II, "Federal Legisla-
tive Salaries." It would eliminate that
part of the bill which provides pay in-
creases in salaries for Members of the
House and the Senate and employees of
the House and the Senate.
A congressional pay increase is un-
justified. When I say "unjustified." I
mean exactly that word. It has not been
justified in the hearings or in the Ran-
dall report.
During the hearings there was a little
discussion of congressional pay, but very
little, indeed. I challenge any Senator
to go through the hearings and find?the
only one I could find was by the distin-
guished minority leader, Senator DIRK-
sEN?a statement in favor of a congres-
sional pay increase. And even this elo-
quent statement is an undocumented
generalized approval. The Randall re-
port confines its justification to execu-
tive salaries.
I think a strong case was made, and a
persuasive case so far as I am concerned,
for an increase in salaries of executive
and judicial employees. The testimony
is voluminous and the comparability
criterion that was introduced Is most
convincing. The fact is that this Gov-
ernment cannot hire people to serve in
responsible and onerous jobs of our Fed-
eral Government if they are not paid on a
basis comparable to what they can earn
in private employment.
Since there last was a substantial in-
crease for members of the Cabinet and
judicial officials, there has been a great
increase in salaries all over the country.
but particularly in the highest salaries.
I feel very strongly that the need for
a pay increase in those categories has
been fully justified. It has been fully
documented. It would be false economy
If Congress should refuse to permit the
Federal Government to pay sufficient
salaries to enable the Government to hire
some of the best administrators in the
Nation to serve in responsible and im-
portant positions, in which persons could
exercise their judgment in securing effi-
ciency and economy.
But the same argument cannot be
made for Members of the House and the
Senate. This is a most difficult issue
to debate, because we are all involved.
It is difficult for us to argue against a
pay increase for Members of the House
and Senate.
I cannot think of anything that would
make one lose popularity among one's
colleagues more than to argue against a
pay raise for them. In fact. I am hav-
ing trouble with my wife on this issue.
I am sure that those who vote for my
amendment will find they may have
trouble with their wives, children, or
other members of their family who dis-
agree. So it is not easy to make this
argument. But the fact is that a pay
Increase is not necessary for Members
of the House and Senate.
A Member of the House or Senate
now receives $22,500 a year. That pay
Is three times as high as the income of
the average American family. Only 1
family out of 50 in the Nation receives
as much as $22.500 or more.
When one is paid this handsomely in
any line of work, really the only justifi-
cation to pay more is that we must pay
more if we are to get the people to do the
job. That is the justification for the in-
crease for Cabinet officers and judicial
officers. But the same justification can-
not be made for Members of the House
and Senate.
We all recognize the great expense in-
volved in running as a candidate for the
House or Senate. Why? Because there
is great competition for the job. Candi-
dates for the House and their supporters
are willing to contribute, typically,
$25.000 or $30,000, for a single campaign.
In many States candidates for the Sen-
ate will conduct campaigns that cost
$250.000 or $300,000, and some Senate
campaigns cost $1 million or more.
On the basis of competence and effi-
ciency, I should say that the services of
virtually all Members of the Senate could
be valued abstractly at $50,000 or $100,-
000, or even more. Most Members of this
body could make more on the outside
than we make here. We have chosen to
serve in this body because we like it, be-
cause the nonrnonetary rewards are far
greater than the monetary rewards.
There is no question of the satisfaction
that comes from serving in the Senate,
In being one's own boss. in not being an
administrator appointed by somebode
else, of being able to work in accordanca
with one's own conscience, of, in effect,
choosing mie'i own field, and devotin;
time and attention to it and meeting the
great challenges that face our country in
being a top American policymaker. That
Is the real compensation. Whether tha
salary were increased to $30.000, or
$50,000, or $1(0,000, the incentive to run
as a candidate for the Senate or the
House in my judgment, would not be sub.
stantially increased.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen
ator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I have a tabulation
in my hand showing the pay increases
that were granted generally to the Fed-
eral employee.; beginning in 1955. If
am incorrect in this statement, those
who are experts in the matter may chal-
lenge me.
In 1955 a 7.5-percent pay raise wa:;
granted to the general employees.
In 1958 a 10-percent increase was
granted.
In 1960 a 7.7 percent increase was
granted.
In 1962 a 5.5-percent increase was
granted, effective in 1962, with the pro-?
vision for a 4.4-percent increase effective
in 1964.
These figures show that since 1955 the
general employees have received, in the
aggregate, pay raises amounting to 35.1
percent.
I come now to the pay raises granted tc
Members of Congress.
In 1955 the pay was raised from $12,-.
500 to $22,500.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, wil:.
the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUSCHE. The salary was $12,-
500, with an allowance of $2,500 for ex-
penses, but the salary was $12,500, ac-
cording to the report submitted.
Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator wil:
yield for a correction, the LegislativE
Reorganization Act of 1946 establishe
a $15,000 salary for Members of the
Senate and House. At that time, in
1946, Members were enjoying a salary
of $10,000 plus a $2,500 allowance
When the Legislative Reorganizatior
Act was passed a $15,000 salary super-
seded the old salary, and that was the
salary until the time it was raised tc
$22,500 in 1955
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is, it was $12,-
500, with $2,500 for an allowance. What
does the Senator from Oklahoma say it
was then?
Mr. MONRONEY. Then it was $15,-
000 salary, and the expense allowance
ceased to exist.
Mr. LAUSCHE. In 1955 the salary
was $15,000. Then it was raised to $22,-
500. That is a 50-percent increase. It
is now proposed to raise it from $22.500
to $30,000. That is a 33'-percent pay
raise over 1955. If we take the $15,000
pay in 1955 and compare it with the
$30,000 in 1964, the pay raise is 100 per-
cent. How can we go back to the tax-
payers and voters and say that we have
granted, in the aggregate, a 35-percent
pay raise to the general employees, but
have granted to ourselves a 100-percent
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE 15219
pay raise? I should like to ask the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin how he can answer
conscientiously anyone who challenges
him on the basis that he gave a 100-per-
cent pay raise in 9 years to himself
and gave the little postal carrier and
the janitor and the washwoman 35 per-
cent in the aggregate?
Mr. PROXMIRE. In general, I agree
with the distinguished Senator from
Ohio. But I do think that on the basis
of the Randall report and on the basis
of the hearings, it is possible to justify
a substantial increase for members of
the Cabinet and some of the other lead-
ing administrators in our Government,
on the comparability basis. It is a mat-
ter of judgment, but I think the Randall
people were efficient. I think they were
honest. I think they were objective. I
believe that when they said that if we
wish to have the kind of people who
are competent to do important admin-
istrative and judicial work, it is neces-
sary to pay them approximately, they
were right. I accept that.
Some of the increases are very sub-
stantial. I reject the principle that it
is not possible to increase the salary of
a Cabinet officer, and the salary of the
other people in the Federal Government
with responsible jobs, without at the
same time increasing the salaries of the
Members of Congress by the same
amount. The jobs are entirely different.
There is no comparability.
No member of a State legislature gets
anything like the salary that we do.
It is true that when we get into the
area of administrative jobs, we find that
in California and in Illinois and in
Pennsylvania, for example, in some cases
90 or 100 people get more than $25,000
a year. They are administrators. Those
States have found that the only way
they can get competent people is to pay
them an additional sum.
For ourselves, I do not find any justi-
fication for the proposed increase.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I cannot find any
justification for the disparity that exists
between the aggregate pay raises that
were granted in 10 years to the general
employees, amounting to 35 percent,
while we are granting to ourselves an
Increase of 100 percent. We are in no
different category so far as want and
need are concerned.
Mr. PROXMIRE. On the basis of
want and need there is no question about
it. I feel strongly, and I have felt very
strongly for years, that the rank and file
Federal employees deserve better pay.
We can justify it on the basis of justice
and need, and that it is necessary to do
it in order to get people who fill com-
parable jobs outside the Government.
But the only way we can justify paying
more than $20,000 a year is that a pay
increase is necessary to pay that amount
to attract qualified officials. The argu-
ment can be made, on the basis of the
Randall report, that it is necessary to
pay the additional amount to get the
people who are competent to handle the
important sub-Cabinet and Cabinet jobs.
That argument cannot be made with
regard to Members of Congress.
If I run for reelection this fall I will
have a very strong opponent, and most
Members of Congress will also. All of us
are well aware of the fact that there is
plenty of competition when it comes to
these jobs we hold.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If the Senator lost
all of his staff members, does he think
there would be others available in Wis-
consin to work for him on the basis of
the pay that he is now paying his staff
members, without an increase?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe so.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I believe that is true
in my case, too. I believe every Mem-
ber of Congress has 10 applicants for
every job he has available in his office.
I should like to ask the Senator one more
question. In addition to this pay raise
of 100 percent in 10 years, I have before
me a tabulation of what my retirement
pay and the retirement pay of the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin will be. He has
served 6 years. At the end of 6 years
it is $281.25 a month. With the increase
in the salary from $22,500 to $30,000, the
retirement pay would be $406.25. That
is for that 6 years' service. At the end
of 12 years, on the basis of $30,000, my re-
tirement pay would be $30,000 times 21/2
Percent times 12 years, It would be
$6,000 a year. The point I am trying to
make is this: Is it not a fact that in
addition to the increase in pay, we would
eventually become the beneficiaries of a
liberal increase in our retirement pay?
Mr. PROXMIRE. There is no ques-
tion about that. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We would become the
beneficiaries of a liberal increase in re-
tirement pay without having to pay any-
thing into the retirement fund to sup-
port that increased pay.
Mr. PROXMIRE. There would be
some increase, but nothing in proportion
to what we would get out.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We would pay in
nothing on the basis of past service. We
would pay on the basis of future service.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, is it not a fact that
we pay in about 71/2 percent?
Mr. CARLSON. Yes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. But only on the fu-
ture salary. We do not pay it on the past
salary.
Mr. MORTON. The Senator has
found a different way of doing it. Ap-
parently he has a new way of doing it,
because I have been paying into the fund
for 18 years.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let us make this
point clear. A person who goes to work
for the Federal Government at $5,000
a year and pays in 21/2 percent on his
$5,000, and finally works himself up to
a $15,000 salary, has his retirement cal-
culated on the $15,000, on which he did
not, through his entire service, pay 21/2
percent, and not on the basis of the
$5,000.
Mr. MORTON. That does not apply
alone to Members of Congress. That
applies to the entire Federal pension
plan. It is figured on the basis of the
average of the top 5 years.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is why the Fed-
eral pension fund is in the red in the
sum of $39 billion.
Mr. MORTON. If that is so, let us re-
write the law.
Mr. MONRONEY. It is not $39 bil-
lion.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It is underfunded in
the sum of $39 billion,
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from Kansas, for
a clarification of this point.
Mr. CARLSON. I do not want to get
into an argument between the Senator
from Ohio and the Senator from Wis-
consin. However, readers of the RECORD
should have the facts stated accurately.
The Senator is really a little low in some
of his figures.
Since 1955 there have been six salary
increases for Federal employees, includ-
ing increases of 7.5 percent in 1955, 8.1
percent in 1956, 10 percent in 1958, 7.7
percent in 1960, 5.5 percent in 1962, and
4.1 percent that became effective on Jan-
uary 1, 1964. That aggregates more
than 51 percent.
The distinguished Senator from Ohio
[Mr. LAusenE] has mentioned congres-
sional increases in salary. The salary
in January 1955 was $22,500. There-
fore, a salary of $30,000 would not be a
100-percent increase; it would be an in-
crease of 33 percent.
Mr. LAUSCHE. No; I stated that
clearly. If it was $15,000 in 1955, and
would become $30,000 in 1964-
-Mr. CARLSON. It was $15,000 in
1946.
Mr. MONRONEY. The salary of
Members of Congress was changed in
Mardi 1955. It is necessary to compare
the salaries correctly by using the same
base period; for example, the increase in
1955. It will be found that about the
same amount of increase, about 35 per-
cent, has been given to all Federal work-
ers regularly throughout the 10-year
period.
Under the committee's proposal, Mem-
bers of Congress would receive an in-
crease of about 33 percent effective Jan-
uary 1, 1965. Members of Congress did
not receive an increase in 1956, 1957, 1958,
1959, or 1960. Their salaries were in-
creased in 1955. So let us keep the
figures straight. The percentage is ap-
proximately concomitant between the
starting figure in 1955 and the amounts
by which Federal workers in the civil
service have been raised during the in-
tervening period and what is now pro-
posed to be effective in 1965, a 33-percent
increase.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Do I correctly
understand that the Senator's amend-
ment is designed to correct all the in-
equities in the bill?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am sure there are
many inequities in the bill at which the
amendments of other Senators are
aimed. My amendment is aimed at the
title dealing with Federal legislative sal-
aries, title II.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Are we to assume
that if the Senator's amendment were
adopted, he would favor the bill?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not under-
stand the Senator's reasoning.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I shall favor the
bill whether my amendment is adopted
or not. I hope the amendment will be
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15220 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
adopted; but I shall vote for the bill
anyway, because I think it is so badly
needed to get and retain the kind of
efficient people needed in the Federal
Government. I am for the bill.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I disagree with the
Senator so far as he says it is necessary
to raise salaries in order to get efficient
Personnel for the Government. People
are running over themselves wanting to
get into the Government, just as they are
running over themselves trying to be
elected to Congress.
I do not disagree with the Senator in
the main; but if his amendment is
adopted and the bill is passed, he will be
voting a pay raise for his admiinstrative
assistant to a limit that is higher than
the Senator's own salary now.
Mr. PROXMIRE. No; that is not cor-
rect. I would delete all of title II, which
affects administrative assistants and all
ether Senate employees.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I though the Sen-
e tor said his amendment affected only
Senators and Representatives.
Mr. PROXMIRE. / was misunder-
stood. The amendment affects not only
Members of the Senate and House; it
would not permit an increase in pay for
congressional staff members and would
not permit increases in pay for Mem-
bers of the House and Senate.
The Senator from Arkansas makes a
good point. I think it is necessary to
keep salaries in line.
Mr. McCLELLAN. The salaries of
members of the Senate staff, under the
bill, would be higher than salaries Sen-
ators now receive.
Mr. PROXMIRE. But my amend-
ment would prevent that.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Would the Sena-
tor's .amendment apply to all Members
of Congress?
Mr. PROXMERE. It applies to the
salaries of Members of the Senate and
House and to all other legislative sal-
aries. All legislative salary increases
are deleted by my amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Under the Sena-
tor's amendment, would the members of
the staff, from the lowest to the highest
paid. receive no increase at all, whether
in the House or the Senate?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The answer is no.
No increase. Of course, there is the pos-
sibility that a Senator who now has ex-
tra clerk hire available might increase
lis staff members, but my amendment
would not by itself provide an increase
Pi salaries for employees of the legislative
branch.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Would the Sena-
tor's amendment allow the $7.500 in-
crease for Cabinet officers?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President. will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. PROUTY. As I understand. the
Senator's amendment would preclude
any increase in salaries for Members of
the House and Senate.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Members of the
Senate and House and the staff.
Mr. PROUTY. I am sympathetic to-
card the Senator's position with respect
to congressional salaries; but I believe
i-onie justification can be made for a rea-
sonable increase in staff salaries. So at
the proper time I shall offer a substitute
which would eliminate the provision for
an increase in congressional salaries; and
if that should be adopted. I shall offer
a second amendment, which would per-
mit an increase in staff salaries up to
$22,000. In other words, the staff would
not receive more than Members of Con-
gress receive.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. It would be $500
less.
Mr. PROUTY. That would be up to
the Senate to determine.
Mr. PROXMIRE. / believe the com-
mittee did its work carefully, as it has al-
ways done in the past, to try to bring the
salary payments, not only of the staff of
other ernolos-ees of the Senate, in proper
relationship to what Senators receive.
So we either must, cut out the whole thing
or, in effect, cut out nothing. Otherwise
there will be a large number of employees
of the Senate and of Senators who will
receive, under the amendment the Sen-
ator from Vermont proposes to offer,
more than Senators receive.
Mr. PROUTY. I wish to ask the Sen-
ator another question. A Senator does
not have to grant an increase to his staff
members if he does not wish to do so,
does he?
Mr. PROXMIRE. No; but there are
doorkeepers and others, who are not re-
sponsible to any one Senator, who would
be paid more than Senators are paid un-
der the Prouty amendment.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President. will
the Senator from Wisconsin yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE I yield.
Mr. TALMADGE. I compliment the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin
for offering his amendment. I have
been a Member of the Senate for a rela-
tively short time-7'. , years. In that
time. I have consistently supported and
voted for legislation designed to update
the pay scale and fringe benefits of our
Federal workers to insure them a stand-
ard of living equal to and commensurate
with their counterparts in private in-
dustry.
Specifically, since 1957. Congress has
passed three pay-increase bills which
have increased the pay of Federal em-
ployees by a total of 271. percent. These
Included a 10-percent increase in 1958,
a 7'l-percent Increase in 1960, and a 10-
percent increase in 1962, a part of which
took effect only on January 1 of this year.
We are now informed that the pay of
Federal workers is again lagging behind
that of those in private life who are doing
similar work and. therefore, are being
called upon to further increase these
salaries. In addition to classified and
postal employees, the bill includes in-
creases, some as high as 33 percent. for
Members of Congress and leading mem-
bers of the executive branch and the
judiciary, including members of the Su-
preme Court.
My inquiry has verified the fact that
the bill would increase the salaries of the
pages sitting in front of us to $5,004 a
year. I do not see how anyone can jus-
tify that.
The bill comes to us in revised form
after a previous bill, which provided even
larger increases for high officials in the
July 1
executive branch and Members of Ccn-
gress, was defeated in the House earlier
this year.
I support the principle of compare): il-
ity between Government and indus;xy
and of paying a salary which is sufficient
to attract qualified people to serve the
Federal Government. I believe that the
bill, in providing a one-third increase :or
Members of Congress, with similar in-
creases for the executive and judicial
branches, goes far beyond that point and,
in fact, is completely unreasonable in
this respect.
I point out that in addition to cur
salaries, the Government contributes
percent toward our retirement benefits,
which is a fringe benefit vested after
only 5 years of service. The able Senator
from Ohio [Mr. Lauscnsl, hi an earher
colloquy with the Senator from Wiscon-
sin, stated in detail how beneficial this is
to all Members of Congress. If the sal-
ary of $30,060 is retained in the bill as it
came to the Senate, 7 a, percent of that,
in addition, will be contributed by the
taxpayers of the country toward our ie-
tirement benefits, and it will be vested
after only 5 years of service.
Only last week, this body voted to in-
crease the national debt ceiling to an
all-time high of $324 billion.
In the past 34 years, we have balanced
the Federal budget only about six timas.
It has been unbalanced 28 times. ? Al-
though the exact figures will not be
available for some time yet, I am in-
formed that the fiscal year which ended
at midnight last night, will probably
show a defieit in excess of $8 billion,
800 million. It is estimated to be ap-
proximately $6,600 million for this fiscal
year.
In the face of this kind of national
financial picture, I cannot in good con-
science vote for a bill which, amoag
other things would increase my own sal-
ary by one-third, and in its present form
would cost the taxpayers over one-half
billion dollars annually.
I hope that the amendment which has
been offered by the Senator from Wa-
consin, to strike the exorbitant increases
for Members of Congress and to briag
into reasonable proportion the increaces
for other Federal officials, will be
adopted.
In the event that it is. I shall be glad
to support the bill.
In the event that it is not approved, I
cannot vote for it.
I thank the Senator from Wis.comin
for yielding to me.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sena-
tor from Georgia very much.
Before I yield to the Senator frcm
Kansas [Mr Cattes0N1, let me say that,
the point the Senator from Georpia
makes about the effect of this propoc al
on responsible fiscal policy is particularly
important. Not only have we the prob-
lem of the national debt, but only a few
months ago we voted the biggest tax
cut in the history of the Nation, a tax
cut which cer tainly will deepen the deficit
for this year. at least. There is no ques-
tion about that.
The tax cut not only benefited maay
Americans, but it also benefited Members
of Congress. It benefited Members of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15221
Congress far more handsomely than most
Americans.
My staff people have computed that a
typical Member of Congress, if he has no
outside income, received the benefit from
the tax cut of increased take-home pay
of $18 a week, or $900 a year, which is a
far greater increase than the overwhelm-
ing majority of the American people re-
ceived from the tax cut.
It will be remembered that when we
voted for the tax cut, it was made ex-
plicit that we would do everything we
could to cut down Federal spending.
How in the world can we honestly say we
are working to keep Federal spending
down if we vote ourselves a 331/3 increase
in salary?
There might be a time for this kind of
increase later, but not this year, not in a
year when we have already voted a heavy
tax cut, when we have deliberately
planned to unbalance the budget to the
extent that we have.
I am now glad to yield to the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON].
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish
to participate in this debate, because the
salaries of the very young men who serve
us on both sides of the aisle have been
mentioned. These boys receive $387.11 a
month. They serve during the sessions
of the Congress. They serve an entire
year at their present salary-12 months.
At $387.11 a month, the total for the year
is $4,655.40.
This bill would increase the salaries of
these young men, following the pattern
of other salaries, by $29 a month. It is
true that it would total a little over
$5,000?$5,004.60.
The record should be made clear that
these boys are serving by the month. If
the session lasts 12 months, that is the
salary they would get.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sena-
tor from New York.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I wish
to express my support for the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
There should be no question in the minds
of the American people and those of us
in this body on the justification of the
proposed pay raises for the postal work-
ers and the classified employees.
Whether based on merit, comparability,
or cost-of-living increases, Federal em-
ployees who are legally denied the oppor-
tunity to use the bargaining techniques
of their counterparts in private industry,
deserve fair and thorough consideration
at this bargaining table. We should be
directing our attention to this question
andAhis alone.
Inclusion of the congressional pay
raise in this bill is totally inappropriate.
Any such increase for Congress involves
entirely different considerations and
should be voted up or down on its own
merits. If there is no justification for an
increase at this time, then it certainly
should not ride through on the legislative
coattails of merited increases.
Entirely apart from the merits of
whether we are entitled to more money or
not, the fact is that there is virtually
nothing in the hearings record dealing
with the question of congressional, pay
raises. Whether the figure of a 331/3-per-
cent increase was picked out of thin air
and whether it may be justified or not
is unknown.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor-
rect. That is exactly what this congres-
sional raise is?legislative coattail riding.
Look at the hearings. There is virtu-
ally no justification for a congressional
increase. There is some justification for
an increase in the executive and judicial
departments. Many prominent organi-
zations and persons have appeared and
documented the case for executive and
judicial pay increases. However, there
is no justification for the increase for
Members of Congress. It has been ar-
gued that if we increase the salaries of
the executive and the judicial branches,
we should also increase the congres-
sional. Why? Why?
We increase the salaries of the execu-
tive and the judiciary, therefore we have
to do it if we are to get competent peo-
ple to do the job in those two branches of
our Government. That argument does
not apply to Congress.
Mr. KEATING. The Senator is cor-
rect. Let me add one comment. I
would prefer to have this amendment
apply only to Members of Congress. I
understand the problems to which the
Senator's amendment is directed. But,
in my judgment, the staff members as
employees of Congress are deserving of
increased compensation now. It would
be preferable to adopt the substitute pro-
posal of the Senator from Vermont,
which is limited to Members of Congress.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sena-
tor from New York. I am now glad to
yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am
strongly in favor of increasing the pay
for postal and classified personnel, and
also for the judiciary. But I shall sup-
port the amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin to eliminate legislative salary
increases. Nevertheless, I believe it
should be realized that the actual take-
home pay of a Senator or Representative
is very much less than commonly be-
lieved, after he meets the necessary po-
litical expenses of his office. I do not be-
lieve that any Senator who votes for an
increase in pay should be singled out by
the voters, or by anyone else, for con-
demnation. Nevertheless, for a number
of reasons, I am opposed to this increase
for Members of Congress. I shall vote
for the amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I am keenly aware of
the difficulties of living on our present
congressional salary after meeting the
necessary costs of such items as: First,
trips back home and travel inside the
State, plus, second, the cost of radio and
television reports, third, the entertain-
ment in Washington of constituents;
fourth, donations to charitable organiza-
tions and causes which are expected, and,
Indeed, almost demanded of public offi-
cials; and, fifth, contributions to party
funds and to the campaigns of other
candidates. After these deductions- to-
gether with income taxes and contribu-
tions to the retirement fund are sub-
tracted from the salary of $22,500, my
actual take-home pay in nonelection
years is almost never above $7,000 and
in election years even less.
All this is a strong argument for an
increase in congressional salaries and I
do not have the slightest criticism either
expressed or implied for those of my col-
leagues who so vote. But I cannot bring
myself to do so for the following rea-
sons:
First. We in Congress have some op-
portunity for legitimate outside earn-
ings. It is true that the work in Con-
gress is steadily increasing and is at
times almost crushing. But there are
still opportunities, on weekends, and
when Congress is not in session, to earn
additional modest amounts in law prac-
tice, business, writing, and lecturing.
Any danger of a consequent conflict of
interest with one's duties as a Congress-
man can largely, if not entirely, be
averted by requiring full disclosure of
outside income and ownership as Sen-
ator MORSE and I advocated many years
ago and as is now being urged by Sen-
ators CASE, NEUBERGER, CLARK, and KEAT-
ING.
Second. We should remember that
with all our 'financial difficulties we in
Congress are still in a.very favored eco-
nomic position. We should never forget
that at least 40 million Americans, or
slightly over 20 percent, are living in
poverty and that 90 percent of American
taxpayers have incomes under $10,000
a year. Probably less than 2 percent
have an income of $30,000 for which we
are now asked to vote. And yet we are
supposed to represent the great bulk of
the American people. The danger is
that if we provide a salary of $30,000 for
ourselves, then it will be easy for us to
think as $30,000 a year men customarily
do?and to forget what it feels like to live
as do the overwhelming majority of our
fellow Americans whose interests we
should have at heart.
Third. Finally, I resent esthetically
being put in a position where I must
vote on my own salary. No one with any
personal dignity likes to exercise the
power he possesses to vote himself an
increase. I am willing to vote for an
increase to others, and, indeed, I favor
the other portions of the pay bill, but I
would prefer that any increases in con-
gressional salaries should come primar-
ily from others, such as on the recom-
mendation of an impartial committee.
I know that in the present instance this
is almost impossible to effect and that
we are now compelled to decide on our
own condition. In Addition to the rea-
sons which I have stated, I would there-
fore have a certain squeemishness in
voting myself an increase, however
justified this might be on other grounds.
For these reasons I shall support the
motion to eliminate congressional salary
increases from the bill. But I wish to
add that in my judgment there should
be no condemnation of those Senators
who do vote for the increase and against
the amendment. For I know from ex-
perience just how difficult the problem
is for those without large private re-
sources and that this is particularly hard
for those with large families to support
and educate.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Wisconsin yield?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15222 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the
Senator from South Carolina, chairman
of the committee, who has been pa-
tiently waiting for a long time. I apolo-
gize to him.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I should like to
follow up what the Senator from Illi-
nois has just stated. When we put the
$7,000 on top of the present salary rate,
we find that we would receive only 58
percent of the increase. The rest of it
will be taken out for income taxes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. I may seem to be
arguing in part against myself, but, as
I stated, if we deduct the expenses of
trips back home, travel inside our States,
the cost of radio and television reports,
entertaining our Washington constit-
uents, donations to charitable organi-
zations, the cost of which is expected?
indeed, is almost demanded of public
officials?and legitimate and proper
contributions to party funds, and to the
campaigns of other candidates, there is
not much left. I believe that this does
make a strong case for an increase.
Nevertheless, I am opposed to the in-
crease. I am not given to self-flagella-
tion, but I am opposed to the increase,
the reasons for which I have explained.
Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say to the
Senator from Illinois that although he
is supporting my amendment, he has
made the strongest argument against it
that has been made yet.
Mr. DOUGLAS. There is much to be
said for such an increase since this is
a complicated question.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is, indeed, but
this extraordinarily judicious and judi-
cial cast of mind is typical of the senior
Senator from Illinois. It is typical of his
approach to all questions.
In reply, however, our TV, newsletter,
and other reporting to our constituents
is strictly voluntary. Certainly it is vol-
untary in the view of those against whom
we run. This reporting is a fine thing
in democracy. But it is construed by
many as self-serving. Some Senators do
not ever make a TV or newsletter report
to their constituents.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator is per-
haps the greatest traveler in the Senate.
I do not know any Senator who is more
energetic than he in getting back home
to see his constituents. I shall not in-
quire what his travel bill is, but it must
be very large judging from my own travel
bill which amounts to approximately
$3,000 a year. I think all these items
should be taken into consideration. But,
nevertheless, since we can have legiti-
mate outside occupations in which to
increase our income we Senators are still
in a very favorable economic condition in
comparison with other citizens of the
United States. It is humiliating to be
forced to increase one's own salary.
There is an esthetic objection which I
have to that.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, about
a half hour ago I was challenged rather
vigorously as to the correctness of my
statement with regard to when the pay
raises were put into effect.
Since that time. I have had copies of
the acts brought to me. I submit that
the acts will demonstrate without any
question that the salaries of Congress-
men in 1946-5'7 was $12,500. I have here
Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress,
chapter 753, 2d session. This law was
passed as the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946. That is the act which
the Senator from Oklahoma said pro-
vided for a salary of $22,500.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator from
Oklahoma said nothing of the kind. I
stated it provided a salary of $15,000.
Mr. LAUSCHE. All right. Let me read
what, it states:
Effective on the day on which the 80th
Congress convenes, the compensation of Sen-
ators. Representatives in Congress. Delegates
from the Territories. and the Resident Corn-
nils.sioner from Puerto Rico shall be at the
rate of $12,500 per year.
That is what I said. The language of
the act definitely establishes the correct-
ness of what I said. I further stated that
it. was in 1955 that the salaries were
raised from $12,500 to $22,500.
I have here Public Law 9 of the 84th
Congress, chapter 9, 1st session, House
Resolution 3828. The act was approved
by the President on March 2, 1955. This
provides:
The compensation of Senators. Represent-
atives in Congress, Delegates from the Terri-
tories, and the Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of $22,500
per annum.
A half hour ago I stated that the sal-
aries in 1946 were $12,500. They were
raised in 1955 to $22,500. They are now
intended to be raised to $30,000. These
laws speak for themselves.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that they be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SEC. 4. (it) Section 601(a) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946, as amend-
ed, Is amended to read as follows:
"(it) The compensation of Senators, Rep-
resentatives in Congress, Delegates from the
Territories, and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico shall be at the rate of
$22,500 per annum each; and the compensa-
tion of the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives shall be at the rate of 635,000 per
annum."
(b) Section 601(b) of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1946, as amended (rela-
tive to expense allowances of Members of
Congress), is hereby repealed.
(cc Section 104 of title 3 of the United
States Code (relating to the compensation of
the Vice President) is amended by striking
out "630,000" and substituting therefor
"135,000".
Sac. 5. The provisions of this Act shall take
effect on March 1, 1055.
TITLE. VI--COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT PAT
OF MEMBERS Or CONGRESS
Compensation of Members of Congress
Sac. 601. (a) Effective on the day on which
the Eightieth Congress convenes, the com-
pensation of Senators, Representatives in
Congress. Delegates from the Territories, and
the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
shall be at the rate of $13,500 per annum
each; and the compensation of the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the Vice
July
President of the United States shall he at the
rate of $20,000 per annum each.
(b) Effective on the day on which the
Eightieth Congress convenes there shall be
paid to each Senator, Representative in Con-
gress, Delegate from the Territories, Resi-
dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico, an
expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to
assist in defraying expenses relating to, or
resulting from the discharge of his official
duties, for which no tax liability shall incui,
or accounting be made; such sum to be paid
in equal monthly installments.
The sentence contained in the Legis-
lative Branch Appropriation Act, 1946, which
reads as follows: "There shall be paid to each
Representative and Delegate, and to the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Ricc,,
after January 2, 1945, an expense allowance
of $2,500 per annum to assist In defrayin;
expenses related to or resulting from the
discharge of his official duties, to be paid in
equal monthly installments.", is hereby re-
pealed, effective on the day on which the
Eightieth Congress convenes.
id) The sentence contained in the Legis-
lative Branch Appropriation Act, 1947, which
reads as follows: "There shall be paid to each
Senator after January 1, 1946, an expense
allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist in
defraying expenses related to or resulting
from the discharge of his official duties, t3
be paid In equal monthly installments.", is
hereby repealed. effective on the day on
Which the Eightieth Congress convenes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I repeat that from
$12,500 to $30,000 is a $17,500 increase
since 1945, or 140 percent.
If those who challenge me?and I sea
them on the floor?can find any written
law, and not their memory, I wish the:a
would find it and show it to me.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, be-
fore I yield further, in order that w
might have some order in this debate, I
would ask other Senators who ask me
to yield, to make their statements brief,
if they would, or wait until I yield the
floor. Then, if they want to carry cal
a debate, thty can carry it on them-
selves. The way this debate is being
conducted now, with this Senator farm-
ing out the floor, is not an orderly way
to proceed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Presiden
would the. Senator consider a time limi-
tation on a vote on the amendment?
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senatcr
from Ohio is willing.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. We will be here
late on this one amendment.
Mr. LAUSCHE. No. I object becatue
I found myself running out of time on
every occasion when an important vote
was up.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator from
Ohio would yield for a minute, I think
the Senator from Montana only mer.-
tioned a tinu limitation on my amenta
ment. Is that correct?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.
As far as I am concerned, it does not
make a bit of difference to me. I know
what I shall do. The Senators can speak
from now until doomsday. I shall still
vote the same way. We shall stay late
tonight. If the Senators do not want
to get on to a vote on the amendment,
it is no skin off my nose.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I will accept ar y
limitation that the majority leader wanas
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
'Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15223
to impose. Would the Senator from
Ohio be amenable?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I would be willing to
talk about it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Would the major-
ity leader propose a time limitation on
this one amendment alone?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
would like, on this one amendment, to
propose that we vote on this amendment
at 6 o'clock.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object, I have a substi-
tute to this amendment. I do not like to
delay it. It will not take me very long.
But I want to protect myself.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Excuse me.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, on
page 217 of the Senate hearings on the
Federal pay legislation, it is shown that
the pay scale of 1946 was $15,000, the
total compensation being $15,000. Ac-
cording to footnote 5, this includes a
$2,500 expense allowance which was tax
free until 1953, when it was made taxable
under the provision of the Revenue Act
of October 20, 1951.
This allowance was discontinued effec-
tive March 1, 1955, by the same legisla-
tion which increased the salary rate for
Members of Congress to $22,500. So, the
record is absolutely clear that the pay
that Members received was a total of
$15,000, $2,500 of which was tax free at
that time.
It was tax free at that time and it
was changed by the Revenue Act of 1951
and made subject to the normal income
tax. So we are talking about a salary
of $15,000 up to 1955, at which time it
was changed to $22,500.
Mr. PROXMIRE., Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
rise briefly in order that the record may
be corrected in connection with the
statements made by my distinguished
colleagues, from Wisconsin [Mr. Pitox-
Aura] and New York [Mr. KEATING ] , to
the effect that the hearings disclose no
compelling arguments for increases for
the Members of the Congress of the
United States.
I refer to May 18 of this year when
the distinguished minority leader, the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN],ap-
peared before our committee.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator will
permit an interruption, I should like to
say that the Senator from Wisconsin
specifically mentioned the junior Sena-
tor from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and said
that he did make an appearance on con-
gressional salary increases. As usual, it
was very effective and eloquent appear-
ance. But I said that that was the only
appearance in favor of the congressional
increase that I could find. And that ap-
pearance was not documented. So far
as I can find, no organization appeared
to document and support specifically the
proposed congressional pay increase.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Randall Com-
mission had done so. The Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] referred to that
study. I did not hear all of the Sen-
ator's prepared speech of today. I only
heard him say in his colloquy with the
Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING]
that there had been no argument ad-
vanced during the hearings for a con-
gressional pay increase. I heard that
only a few moments ago. I repeat a very
valid argument was made by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. DIRK5EN1 before our
committee. President Lyndon Johnson
has effectively and energetically advo-
cated an increase for Members of Con-
gress. Perhaps there are a few Senators
who voted to decrease their salaries while
they were Members of the Congress of
the United States. In 1933 I served with
the Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN],
as Members of the House. I voted to
decrease our salaries , to $8,500 a year.
So from time to time we have the oppor-
tunity and the responsibility to act. We
are charged by the Constitution of the
United States with setting our salaries.
It is a task we must meet by law.
I find no fault with any Senator who
disagrees with our committee in its bill.
However, I remind the Senate that the
Senator from Illinois advocated not the
$7,500 increase included in the recom-
mendation of the Senate Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service and as con-
tained in the measure. He recom-
mended an increase to $10,000. I think
that point should be included as a part
of the RECORD. I emphasize that I have
no disposition to argue with a colleague
on this subject. It is a challenge that,
very frankly, we should vote on. The
Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD]
has said, in essence, that in a few
minutes or a few hours we will vote as
we believe. I believe any Senator knows
whether he or she will vote for or against
an increase.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is per-
fectly right when he says that the com-
mittee did exercise discretion in not go-
ing as high not only as the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] recommended but
as high as the Randall Commission
recommended.
The President of the United States also
recommended a $10,000 increase for
Members of Congress. I am not saying
that the committee was particularly ex-
cessive, but I do say that neither in the
hearings nor in the report of the Ran-
dall Commission?and I have the report
beginning on page 12 of the hearings?
could I find any justification for the
proposed congressional increase except,
as the Senator from New York so well
said, it was a free ride on the increase
for the executive and the judicial
branches. There was no specific justi-
fication for the proposed congressional
pay increase.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Is it not true that
in the opinion of the Senator from Wis-
consin each and every Senator knows
exactly whether he or she will vote for
or against the proposed congressional
pay increase?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed. That
is why I was ready to vote on the ques-
tion some time ago and why I was ready
to agree to a request for a time limita-
tion on the debate as proposed by the
Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD ] .
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I believe the
proposed pay raise is justified, and I
shall vote for it.
I have in my hand my income tax
return, which Senators are free to look
at. The return has been checked by
representatives of the Federal Govern-
ment. I have been one of the guinea
pigs.
In my 1960 return I have itemized my
deductions. The Government looked
over the return. They disallowed about
$100 or $200, I believe, by the time they
got through examining the returns.
On the return I have listed such ex-
penses as my home office expenses; ad-
ditional telephone and telegraph; public
service broadcast, in connection with
which I paid for the film, although the
station ran it free of charge as a public
service; publication clipping service, so
that I could see what a low rating I
have been getting from the newspapers
in my State, and occasionally a compli-
mentary remark; photographs sent out
to someone who thought enough of me
as to wish a picture that they could
hang on the wall; petty cash for the
office staff, and that sort of thing; en-
tertaining constituents; dues to profes-
sional organizations; unreimbursed of-
fice expenses that I incurred.
All of those expenses add up to
$28,078. My salary was not exactly
$22,500 because I received some addi-
tional allowances, such as postage, on
which I made a little money. Some al-
lowance should be made for that. I
grossed $24,000 and my expenses were
$28,078. So the best I can make of it
is that I was $4,000 in the red.
Those figures demonstrate that I have
not allowed anything to send my daugh-
ter to college. No allowance has been
made to operate my home in Louisiana.
The figures did not allow for transpor-
tation back and forth from home to of-
fice and personal expenses. Nothing of
that sort is included.
What I have stated is what I can
deduct because I had the expenses that
go with being a U.S. Senator.
Last year I made out better. I think I
actually came out better by about
$3,000. But I am the lowest paid man
in my office. In other words, by the
time the expenses are considered, the
boy who runs errands betwen my office
and the Senate Chamber is paid twice
as much in terms of net income, as I am
paid.
Mr. President, I believe I should make
a few dollars out of the job. It is most
difficult for the Senator from Louisiana
to explain to his wife why he is serving
for a minus income. I am donating my
services because I love the country and
the job.
Some Members of Congress are bache-
lors and some have children who are
away, supporting their own families, and
are doing so adequately.
Mr. President, I am having prepared
an amendment which I shall offer, which
will provide that before a Member of
Congress receives the proposed pay raise,
he will sign a statement, first, that he is
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
of the opinion that his services justify
his receiving the Proposed Pay raise.
Second, that unless he receives the pay
raise, he will not be able to meet his es-
sential expenses of providing the services
that he is trying to provide for his State,
his constituents, and his Nation as a Sen-
ator. If he really did not believe that,
and if he could not subscribe to that
statement, he would not receive the in-
crease. For example, he may be like my
friend on the House side, whose name I
shall not mention, even though he makes
no secret of his attitude. According to
his own statement, he gives his entire
salary to the church. After he pays his
taxes, whatever he has left over he gives
to the church. He is working for God
and the country. If all we are doing is
acting upon a proposed pay increase in
order that Members of Congress may
donate more to the church, I could not go
along with the proposal because it would
violate the principle of separation of
church and state. [Laughter.
We should not pass a pay raise bill
which would merely put more money
into a church's till.
But if some Member of Congress has
need of the increase in order to provide
the service that is expected of him and
that he would like to provide for his
constitutents, then he should be able to
state that he is worth that amount of
money to the country for the services he
is rendering and that the expenses he
incurs actually justify his receiving the
increase. I would not require that a
man make money in his private en-
deavors in order to carry the expenses
of being a U.S. Senator. The salary
should be adequate so that one could
give up his law practice, if that were his
sole source of income, in order to serve
his country as a Senator. On that basis
I expect to vote for the bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. the
Senator from Louisiana has said that in
1960 his expenses were $28,000. Obvi-
ously the proposed $7,500 increase would
not be nearly enough. On that basis it
could be argued that if our salary were
$40,000 it would not be sufficient.
We are outgoing people. We love to
entertain our constituents, to serve our
constituents, and to report to our con-
stituents. We would find ways of spend-
ing that much and more. But this kind
ef spending is voluntary. It is usually
political. And it is frequently self-
: crying.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. My amend-
ment would make it possible for my
friend from Wisconsin to be a cutrate
renator. He could say. "If the people
ep there don't want me, they can vote
ir someone else, but I come cheaper."
i Laughter.]
Let us consider some Members who are
not really worth the money paid. They
ttend only about half the rollcalls.
r.hey would not need to certify that
I bey were worth the money. They could
then do their job at a lower figure.
They could say, "I have not done much.
3 have not been very constructive, but
1 iok at all the money you are saving
with me in Congress. It will not cost
you much to have me around." A man
could be a cutrate Member of Congress
under my amendment. [Laughter.]
I hope there will be some. I am satis-
fied that there are some Members of
Congress who are not worth that money.
On the other hand, the last two Presi-
dents of the United States have been
Members of the Senate. My guess is
that as Senators they worked as dili-
gently to discharge their duties to our
country as they did when they were
President. When President Lyndon B.
Johnson was sitting in the seat now oc-
cupied by the Senator from Montana
[Mr. MANSFIE1.131, he tried to serve his
country as weU RS he is now doing in
the White House, although now he re-
ceives in pay several times what he made
then as a Senator.
Mr. President, unless I miss my guess,
though it is the same man, he is worth
a great deal more money because it was
the decision of the people to put him
where he is.
Some of these people are being very in-
adequately paid, while other people are
being paid too much. I am going to
offer an amendment that will leave it
to the conscience of Members of Con-
gress as to whether they should get
such pay or not.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I shall be delighted
to vote for the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Louisiana. I am sure all 100
Senators will feel free to vote for It.
When it becomes law we can cheerfully
sign to the effect that our services
justify our salaries, and that our services
are essential to the Nation.
I said before that I thought the serv-
ices of Senators are worth $50,000 or
S100.000, but we know that we do not
have to increase the pay of Senators to
persuade them to serve here. There is
much competition, outstanding competi-
tion?too strong competition?for this
office. Therefore, there is no justification
for paying a salary increase of a
whopping one-third when a Congress-
man already makes more than what 98
percent of the people of America receive.
The Randall Commission made the
case for the executive department. It
did not make a case for Members of
Cone ress.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President. will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Per-
haps the amendment of the Senator from
Louisiana, instead of providing that a
Member should certify as to what he
thinks he is worth, should provide that
the people back home should say how
much they think he is worth.
Mt. PROXMIRE. That would be a
dangerous amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I want
to support the Senator from Wisconsin
in his pending amendment. I think a
pay raise for Members of Congress
should be decided on its own merits,
without being a coattail rider to this bill.
Some employees of the Government will
be getting less than a 1.6-percent in-
crease. I do not know why we should
hook on a 331/3-percent increase for
Members of Congress as a rider to this
July 1
bill. I think a pay raise for Members of
Congress should be considered as a com-
pletely separate bill. I would like to sup-
port portions of the pending bill.
There is nothing in the law which re-
quires a Member of Congress to spend
$8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to advertise
himself and to help get himself reelected
If Members of Congress want to be re-
elected they should pay for it out of their
own pockets, the same as our opponents
are required to do.
I am in favor of the cost-of-living in-
crease proposed in this bill for the postal
workers and other civil service workers
This amounts to a raise of from 2 to I
percent.
If the pay for Members of Congress is
Increased by 33 percent it also has a
mathematical effect of increasing the
retirement benefits by 61 percent for
each year for the next 5 years. Thie
should certainly be taken into considera-
tion when the retirement fund already
Is insolvent.
Certainly the proposal to raise salaries
of Members of Congress should be dealt,
with in a separate bill rather thar.
hooked onto this bill as a coattail rider.
In line with what the Senator from.
Ohio has said, there seems to be an argue
ment as to what the congressional sal-
aries were in prior years. In 1916
congressional salaries were $10,000, be-
ginning in 1947 the congressional salaries
were $12,500 plus $2,500 expense allow-.
ance, the lett( r item being tax free.
In 1953 I introduced the amendment
which made that $2,500 allowance taxa-.
ble. This made the whole $15,000 salary
taxable.
In 1954 there was another increase or
50 percent. to 122.500.
So, mathematically, Members of Con-
gress had a 50-percent increase in dol-
lar income in 1947 and another 50 per-
cent increase in 1954, and the presen;
proposal would be a 3313 percent on top
of that, which means that if the bill is
passed Members of Congress will be re -
ceiving a 300 percent increase over and
above what they were receiving in 1946.
Congressional retirements are increased
at an even larger percentage under these
bills.
I think these facts should be dealt with
and pointed out when an attempt is be-
ing made to hook an increase onto a pay
bill which increases the pay of the aver-
age Federal employees from 2 to 5 per-
cent. This proposal should be separated
and made on its own merits. If it can-
not be supported on its own merits it
should not pass.
I shall support the amendment of tle2
Senator from Wisconsin which would
strike from the bill all proposed increases
for the legislative branch. If this is
successful I will support the other provi-
sions of the bill. But if they are kept
tied together I shall not vote for the bit..
When Congress has balanced the
budget but six times in the past 35 years
I do not think we merit a raise of the
proportions suggested here.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Sen-
ator from Delaware. He is correct when
he says that this congressional salary
increase is strictly a coattail rider.
There is no question that if a congres-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sional pay raise were proposed by itself,
it might face quite a different fate than
what is now proposed.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may suggest
the absence of a quorum, without losing
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
[No. 457 Leg.]
Hruska Monroney
Inouye Morse
Johnston Morton
Jordan, Idaho Moss
Keating Mundt
Kuchel Nelson
Lausche Prouty
Long, La. Proxmire
Mansfield Randolph
McClellan Scott
McGovern Sparkman
McIntyre Thurmond
McNamara Walters
Williams, Del.
Aiken
Allott
Beall
Bennett
Burdick
Carlson
Church
Clark
Cotton
Douglas
Fulbright
Gore
Hart
Hickenlooper Mechem
Holland Miller
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
SON in the chair) . A quorum is not
present.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Sergeant at Arms be di-
rected to request the attendance of ab-
sent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion
of the Senator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser-
geant at Arms will execute the order of
the Senate.
After a little delay Mr. ANDERSON, Mr.
BARTLETT, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr.
BYRD of Virginia, Mr. BYRD of West Vir-
ginia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CASE, Mr. COOPER,
Mr. CURTIS, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. DODD, Mr.
DOMINICK, Mr., EASTLAND, Mr. ELLENDER,
Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. GRUENING, Mr.
HARTKE, Mr. HILL, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr.
JAVITS, Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina,
Mr. LONG of Missouri, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr.
MCCARTHY, Mr. MCGEE, M. METCALF,
Mr. MUSKIE, Mrs. NEUBERGER, Mr. PAS-
TORE, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr.
SIMPSON, Mrs. SMITH, Mr. STENNIS, Mr.
SYMINGTON, Mr. TALMADGE, Mr. TOWER,
Mr. WILLIAMS Of New Jersey, Mr. YOUNG
of North Dakota, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio
entered the Chamber and answered to
their names.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED-
MONDSON] , the Senator from North Caro-
lina [Mr. Email], the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator
from Rhode.Island [Mr. PELL], the Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. Raticorf],
the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATH-
ERS], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR-
BOROUGH], and the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. HAYDEN] are absent on official busi-
ness.
I further announce that the Senator
from California [Mr. ENGLE], the Sena-
tor from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]
are absent because of illness.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Delaware [Mr. Bocas] is
absent to attend the funeral of a relative.
No. 132-26
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Form],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON]
and the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily ab-
sent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is present.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment in the nature
of a substitute and ask that it be read
and given immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
In lieu of the language contained in the
pending amendment, insert the following:
"On page 114, strike out lines 17 to 24,
inclusive.
"Beginning with line 5 on page 166, strike
out over through line 2 on page 167 and in-
sert in lieu thereof the following:
"'SEC. 501. This act and the increases in
compensation by this Act shall become effec-
tive on July 1, 1054.'"
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, on my
amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I wish
to advise Senators that I intend to speak
briefly. If they will remain in the
Chamber, perhaps we can vote in the
near future.
The amendment would merely strike
from the bill the provisions permitting
increases in congressional salaries.
There is much logic in some of the argu-
ments to the effect that an increase in
congressional salaries is needed. I re-
member reading in the New York Times
magazine several months ago an article
by a Member of the other body who was
serving his first term in Congress.
Formerly he had been a professor in a
university. He said, if I recall the ar-
ticle correctly, that his university salary,
which was about half the amount of his
congressional salary, enabled him to get
along much more comfortably and to
save more at the end of the year than he
could possibly have saved as a Member
of Congress. There is much merit in
that argument.
Yet people throughout the country
have a feeling that the salaries which we
receive as Members of Congress are high
enough to enable us to live luxuriously.
They fail to realize and appreciate the
tremendous burden of expenses which
the average Member of Congress must
assume in his campaigns, his entertain-
ment of constituents, his travel, and in
many other ways?expenses which no
business or professional man is faced
with.
Despite these things, we cannot blink
the fact that we knew what the office
paid when we sought it. Nor can we
deny that millions of other Americans
are forced to live, day by day, on the
tiniest fraction of our own incomes.
The disabled worker, the unemployed
family man, retired folks living on
meager pensions?all of these know what
it means to tighten their belts and to go
without things they might like to have
or which they actually need.
At present, however, the Federal
budget is far out of balance. It is likely
to be out of balance for some time.
Should we not in such circumstances
15225
establish some list of priorities, some
catalogue of claims and rights, that
ought to take precedence over our own?
Let there be an increase in congres-
sional pay, but let it come on that day
when social security benefits, compensa-
tion for the disabled, and aid to the un-
employed are at adequate levels of
decency.
Let it come when our Federal financial
house is in order and when we have
taken care of first priorities first.
Many Members of the Senate and
House feel that they need and can justify
a pay increase; but who among us would
deny that there are others who need
help much more than we do?
The argument may be made that if
my amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute were adopted, it would make it pos-
sible for members of the legislative staffs
to receive greater compensation than is
paid to Members of Congress. However,
if my amendment in the nature of a
substitute is approved, I shall offer a
second amendment which would make
it impossible to increase staff salaries
beyond $22,000. Thus, staff would not
be entitled to more compensation than is
being paid to Members of Congress.
That is all I wish to say. I am ready
to vote at any time.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROUTY. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Do I correctly un-
derstand that the Senator's amendment
in its present form would limit all staff
Increases to the maximum of the salaries
paid to Members of the Senate and
House?
Mr. PROUTY. No; the second amend-
ment would do that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The first amend-
ment, however, would bar an increase
for Members of the Senate and House.
In other words, their salaries would re-
main at $22,500. It would permit the
compensation of the Librarian of Con-
gress, the Public Printer, and the Archi-
tect of the Capitol to go to $26,000; it
would permit the salary of the Deputy
Librarian of Congress to go to. $24,500;
and would permit the compensation of
the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant
at Arms of the Senate, arid the legisla-
tive counsel of the Senate to go to
$27,500?
Mr. PROUTY. The Senator is cor-
rect; but, as I have explained, I shall
offer a second amendment, in case my
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute is approved.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the amendment
of the Senator from Vermont were re-
jected, it would mean that the entire
legislative title of the bill, title 2, could
be eliminated, and no increases would
be provided for members of the legisla-
tive branch?
Mr. PROUTY. No, indeed.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the amendment
of the Senator from Vermont, which is
a substitute for the amendment of the
Senator from Wisconsin, does not pre-
vail, the Senate will have before it the
amendment of the Senator from Wis-
consin, which simply deletes title 2 and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050601-9
15226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
eliminates legislative increases. Is that
correct?
Mr. PROUTY. That is correct.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President. I think
we are putting the cart ahead of the
horse with respect to the amendment.
If we adopt the Prouty amendment in
the nature of a substitute, and if we then
defeat the second Prouty amendment, we
shall be in a rather ludicrous situation.
Furthermore. if we adopt the Prouty
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute and then adopt the second Prouty
amendment, or if we adopt the Prox-
mire amendment, consider the situation
that will confront us.
On page 115 of the bill, provision is
made for the salaries of Cabinet officers
at $35000.
On page 116, salaries of $39.000 are
provided for such persons as the Admin-
istrator of Veterans' Affairs. the Admin-
istrator of the Housing and Home Fi-
nance Agency, the Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers, and the
Director of the U.S. Information Agency.
On page 117, salaries of $28,500 are
provided for the Deputy Postmaster Gen-
eral and, among others, the Deputy Ad-
ministrator of Veterans' Affairs and the
Director of the Peace Corps.
Beginning on page 20, salaries of
$27.000 are provided for the Deputy Ad-
ministrator of General Services; six As-
sistant Administrators of the Agency for
International Development: four Re-
gional Assistant Administrators of the
Agency for International Development;
the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps;
Counselor of the Department of State;
Legal Adviser of the Department of
State: Governor of the Farm Credit Ad-
ministration; Inspector General, Foreign
Assistance; members of the Board of
Directors of the Tennessee Valley Au-
thority, and many others.
I note that, beginning on page 124,
salaries of $26,000 are provided for other
types of Federal appointees, such as the
Administrator of the Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation Service, De-
partment of Agriculture; the Adminis-
trator of the National Capital Trans-
portation Agency; four Deputy Admin-
istrators of the Small Business Admin-
istration; Associate Deputy Administra-
tor of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; Deputy Associ-
ate Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration; Chief For-
ester, Forest Service; Chief Postal In-
spector; Chief, Weather Bureau. Depart-
ment of Commerce; Commissioner of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior; Chief Commissioner, In-
dian Claims Commission; two Associate
Commissioners. Indian Claims Commis-
sion; and such other persons as Associate
Director for Volunteers, Peace Corps; As-
sociate Director for Program Develop-
ment and Operations, Peace Corps.
One would think there would be a few
volunteers in the Peace Corps head-
quarters.
Another such position is that of Fiscal
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
Hundreds of such people would be
drawing salaries considerably higher
than the salaries of Members of
Congress.
This is a very unfair, unwise, and
stupid move. Do not think that we shall
be fooling the folks by taking such a
step. I doubt whether any votes would
be gained by such a move as this.
If Senators do not want to ride in on
the coattails of the Post Office and Civil
Service employees, the thing to do is not
to provide salary increases for the judi-
ciary and executive branch, including
the hundreds of people to whom I have
been referring, and for all Members of
Congress. Then take up a separate bill.
Let those stand on their own merits. I
have not had the floor very long. Many
Senator will please face it and not sug-
gest a vote at this time because I am
perfectly capable of going for a long
time; but I am going to say something
on this subject, because I believe there
is much-
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
NELSON in the chair). The Senator will
suspend. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. MILLFR, I thank the Chair.
I believe there is a little bit of what
we might call, very politely, window
dressing in the Chamber, in discussing
this bill.
The Senator from Ohio pointed out a
certain position for Members of Con-
gress that has occurred in the past few
years. I wish that the Senator from
Ohio had given us a comparable list of
Increases in salaries of the various of-
ficials which I have read off, as well as
the Federal judiciary.
Let us treat everyone alike, instead
of singling out Members of Congress.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Examination of the
record will show that pay raises have
gone on in extravagant fashion with all
except the lower class of employees.
The proportion of the increase may not
be so great for commission members,
board members, judges, and others, as it
is for Senators.
Mr. MILLER. In many cases, it will
be found to be about the same. I believe
that the RECORD should show this.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I directed my re-
marks to the amendment of the Senator
from Wisconsin because it dealt only
with the legislative branch, but I believe
that my remarks are just as effective
against the judiciary, board members,
and others.
I read in the newspaper the other day
that an exhibitor of a foreign country at
the New York World's Fair had to pay
$150 to get a clogged sink loosened. '
If we keep passing this kind of pay
raise, how will we ever stop the inordi-
nate and extravagant demands that will
come in from all over the country?
If we begin to give ourselves this huge
pay raise, will anyone dare to open his
mouth against inflationary measures?
We recommend 3.2 percent as a gen-
eral pay increase, but we are going to
give ourselves 331/3 percent over the
$10,000 which we gave ourselves in 1955.
I agree with what the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. LONG] said 2 hours ago:
How can we do it?
uly 1
This haste for a vote, this slicuting to
vote, seems to me to be an irclicatien
that we wish to drop the curtain as
quickly as we can so that our voices wAl
not go out to the country on what we
are doing here.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President. w .11
the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. MILLER.. I am happy to yield
to the distinguished majority leader, the
Senator from Montana I Mr. MANSFIELD 1.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
find it a little difficult to understand why
we are so anxious to pick on ourselves
all the time, and so loath to say anything
about the executive branch downtown
which will get the large raise that is
contemplated in this bill. They have got
cars and chauffeurs.
How many Senators in the Chamber
have cars ard chauffeurs?
What kind of people are we?
Do we have a position of importance,
or do we not?
Do we have to fight for a job, or are we
appointed?
There are too many Senators who are
picking on Members of their own bo y,
finding fault with ourselves.
We are all for the "little guy." No one
wishes to do anything to hurt him. But,
now we have something directed agaiast
us. We are getting too much. We kr ew
what the salary would be when we ran
for office. Of course we did.
The responsibility for raising our ray,
or as the Senator from West Virginia
said, for lowering our pay, lies with us.
We have to make that choice. We have
to go back home and tell the people what
we did or did not do.
I wonder what kind of people we are.
Mr. JAWTS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from. Iowa yield?
Mr. MILLER. I am glad to yielc to
the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I rise
only because of what the majority leader
. has just said. I should like to sustain
him. I shall vote against these amend-
ments. I shall be happy to explain it
to my People.
With respect to an increase in salary,
as a Senator, I have always spent more
than I have received in salary. I p;:ob-
ably always will, due to the requiremmts
of this position.
As a Senator from New York, with the
manifold accompanying duties imposed,
many of which, the Senator from Illi-
nois [Mr. Donnas] has listed, I have in-
curred substantial expenditures for re-
search, living in Washington, and travel.
Mr. President, our job as U.S. Senators,
is to earn what we receive. We should
make no apology for it. We are en-
titled to a decent living. I have been
on many hoards of corporations. I was
a lawyer representing substantial busi-
nesses long before I was a Senator or
Representative. During those days, we
would be delighted to pay $30.000 or $35,-
000 a year to a good branch manager
of a bank, or to a vice president, or to the
manager of a modern industrial plant
provided that he did a good job.
The majority leader is absolutely
right, we should not be apologizing. We
should be determined to stand up in a
refreshing way, which the American
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15227
People will like, and respect. We should
say "yes," we are going to pass this pay
bill as it was reported by the Post Office
and Civil Service Committee because on
the scale of salaries paid modern busi-
ness executives, we are worth it.
I am 60 years old. I have been a suc-
cessful lawyer. I have earned three
times what I shall receive as a Senator
at $30,000 a year. I need apologize to
no one. There is no need for any other
Member of this body to do likewise.
What we should resolve is that we will
do a good job, and that we will do the
job which is fully worthy of the pay we
shall receive.
I am sure that the American people
will be refreshed by the fact that we will
face our responsibilities in that way.
A Senator is entitled to a decent and a
dignified living.
It is impossible to earn a decent and a
dignified living unless we do something
about a pay adjustment in light of mod-
ern conditions.
One other point; we have a major
role in the operation of the $100 billion
business of the running of the Federal
Government. Let no one forget that.
We and the other body are the "board of
directors" of that business. It is the
greatest business mankind has ever con-
jured up.
It seems to me that we should be able
to make ourselves worthy of this salary
increase to the American people.
We must not compare ourselves with
those earning $4,000 to $5,000 a year, as
the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. PROX-
MIRE] and the Senator from Vermont
[Mr. PROUTY] propose, and that we re-
duce our pay to that level. Of course
not. We demean ourselves in the eyes
of the country.
We need only compare ourselves with
those of commensurate responsibility.
I believe that $30,000 a year is a very
fair salary?very fair. I am fully pre-
pared to justify it to any fairminded
jury of Americans in my State?or in
any other State of the Union.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. MILLER. I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Illinois
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I be-
lieve that the whole case is misstated in
discussing congressional salaries.
We are not appropriating money or
authorizing it for EVERETT DIRKSEN or
for BARRY GOLDWATER Or for JACK JAVITS
or for WIN PROUTY. This authorizes the
money that shall be paid for the office
that we occupy.
If the people back home do not believe
we are worth it, it will not take them
very long to haul us back from Wash-
ington.
It is about time for us to recognize the
fact that this authorizes pay for an office
which is set up under the Constitution
of the United States.
Tragically enough, this is one of the
unsolved problems in the Constitution of
the United States, because it provides
that the remuneration of Senators and
Representatives shall be ascertained by
law.
What is the lawmaking body? Con-
gress is the lawmaking body.
We have no choice. We have authority
over the President's salary. We have au-
thority to fix the salaries of judges, ex-
cept that we cannot reduce them. We
have authority over the salaries in Gov-
ernment, and we have the vexing task of
fixing our own salaries.
It is about time for us to face the issue.
What is the Senate going to look like,
when the House of Representatives by a
majority of 87 has put this pay raise for
Representatives in the bill?and if I had
It to do, it would be larger?believe me.
But what is going to be the comparison?
It will be said, "They have some guts
In the House of Representatives, but the
Senate would not stand up to it."
I had something to do with this bill
twice before. The Senator from Okla-
homa [Mr. MONRONEY] Will remember
that in 1946 in the formulation of the
Reorganization Act, when he was vice
chairman of the committee, a pay raise
and a retirement system were provided.
Did we receive any backlash? Certainly
we did not. I offered a resolution in
1954 to set up the Segal Committee of
18 persons.
They made their report. And then
we had to discount their report. I am
sorry I ever let it happen without making
a protest. But timid people said, "Cut it
$2,500." And I let them talk me into it,
for which I am sorry. We have the same
thing now. It is said, "If we cut it just a
little, maybe you can take it." I did not
find that the electorate took any excep-
tion to it particularly. Then we raised
it. Now, I suppose, judging from the
remarks of my distinguished friend from
Ohio, we are far ahead of the game.
Will my friend from Iowa bear with me
a few minutes?
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. DIRKSEN. We started in 1789,
when Representatives and Senators re-
ceived $6 a day when they attended a ses-
sion. A farmer receives five times that
much today.
In 1815, 26 years later, an annual sal-
ary of $1,500 was finally set. We had to
wait 26 years to catch up. Think of it.
We do not see workers doing that when
collective bargaining is involved.
In 1817, the rate was placed at $8 a
day.
In 1855-38 years later?there was a
change in congressional salary. It then
became the munificent sum of $3,000 a
year.
In 1865, the last year of the war, it was
placed at $5,000.
Six years later, it was set at $7,500.
They never did catch up.
Then, in 1874, what was done? The
rate was reduced back to $5,000.
In 1907-31 years later?the salary of
Members of the House and Senate was
raised. Then, it went back to $7,500.
In 1925?they had to wait 18 years for
the next pay raise. The salary was set
at $10,000.
So there have been only four increases
since the Civil War?a period of 99 years.
Just think of it. When we talk about
reducing our salaries, or removing them
from the bill, we demean our own bodies.
I will not do it. If my people want to
drag me back home, they can do so. I
have defended these pay raises before.
And I intend to do so again.
The Senator from Ohio raised the
question about how this proposal com-
pared with the situation of employees in
Government. I have a statement from
the Budget Bureau. They took as a base
the postal clerks, and, taking grade 4,
carried through a comparison with con-
gressional salaries from 1935 to 1964.
That is a period of 29 years. And
what was the aggregate? The employees
received a total increase of 194 percent.
The Representatives and Senators re-
ceived a 170 percent increase. We never
did catch up. And it is about time for
us to catch up.
If we want to put it on a base of pro-
ductivity and take 3.2 percent as a pro-
ductive level from 1955 to 1964, even on
that basis, our pay ought to be $31,000.
In 1935, when I was in the House, our
pay was $10,000. How much income tax
did we pay? $188. So, after taxes we
had about $9,800 left.
The purchasing power of the dollar
then was 100 percent. So we can say
that out of our salary in 1935 dollars, we
had a purchasing power of $9,800.
What was it in 1955? We went up to
$22,500. Deductions for living expenses
were $3,000. The net salary was $19,500.
The income tax was?not $188?but
$3,954. After taxes, what did we have
left? $15,500. The purchasing power of
the dollar had dropped to 51.3 percent.
So, how much did we have left out of
$22,500 in terms of 1935 dollars? We
had $7,975 left?infinitely smaller by
nearly.$2,000 than we had in 1935.
In this bill, a salary of $30,000 is pro-
posed. There would be deductions of
$3,000 and a net salary of $27,000. The
income tax will be?not $188?but $5,532.
After taxes, what have we left out of
$30,000? $21,468.
The purchasing power of the dollar as
of now is 44.4 percent. The purchasing
power of our salary in 1935 dollars is
$9,532. We are $400 behind what we re-
ceived at $10,000 in 1935.
If one questions the figures, call up the
Deputy Director of the Budget, call up
the Director of the Civil Service Com-
mission. They will supply a copy of the
figures.
Any way we take it, this increase for
Members of Congress ought to be larger
than that which is provided for in the
bill. I am not going to modify it. But
I hope we shall not face this issue with
a degree of timidity and let the ballot-
box scare anyone. JOE EVINS, of Ten-
nessee, made a count of every House
Member who voted for the House in-
crease in salary in 1955. Not a Member
who voted for it who was defeated was
at the polls.
Is it not about time that we assert
our own prestige and take our place in
the sun of government?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. We do not hear the
executive branch mentioned the oppo-
nents take on their own branch. It will
not pay off at all.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me tell Barkley's
story and then I shall yield.
It will be remembered that when
Barkley went home, an old fellow told
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001 -9
15228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July /
him: "I voted for you. I am not going
to vote for you again." He said, "Why
not?" The fellow said, "I am not going
to vote for a stupid guy who voted not
to increase his salary when he was en-
titled to it."
Now I yield.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President. I have
the floor.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent. that the
Senator might yield to me for one brief
statement.
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator
from Illinois mentioned a comparison of
the situation in 1964 with that existing
back in 1935. The Senator did not men-
tion that in 1935 Congress stayed In ses-
sion for 5 months on an average in the
year. The Members of Congress had 7
months in which to practice law. Two-
thirds of the Members of the Senate
were lawyers. My father made a lot
more money as a lawyer than as a Sen-
ator. As a matter of fact, as I remember
it, my mother told him that he could
not afford the job. He replied: "Con-
gress is going to raise the pay." The
first thing they did was to cut the pay
when they got in.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I remember that. I
was on a couple of investigating com-
mittees, and from one end of the year to
the other, I was scarcely at home. This
is a 12-month job, any way we take it.
Go back home and see what happens.
Constituents Will make a beaten path to
the offices or to the homes of Senators,
or wherever they can find them, because
the world is full of business which is
somehow localized and centralized In
this body.
Every amendment that has been of-
fered?and there are 8 or 10 of
them?ought to be voted down by the
Senate, because they degrade this body.
We ought to have short shrift of it and
take some pride in the fact that we are
attaching a paycheck to a job and not
to the person who is in it. Let the peo-
ple decide whether he has earned it or
not. I am sorry. I thank my friend.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator need not
be sorry, because he has said as elo-
quently as any Senator why we should
vote against the pending amendment.
I repeat that an we have to do is to look
at the pages in the bill to which I refer-
red and look at the hundreds of Federal
employees who would be drawing more
pay than a Member of the U.S. Senate
if the Prouty amendment and the Prox-
mire amendment are adopted.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President. af-
ter careful thought, I have decided to
vote against the congressional pay raise.
I cannot in good conscience vote to in-
crease my salary at a time when many
of my constituents are financially
pinched. So I will support the amend-
ment to eliminate the Increase in con-
gressional salaries from the bill.
It is true that the cost of living in
official Washington is very high. It is
true that with five children to rear and
educate, I have some financial anxieties
with my present income. Each year, I
must reach heavily into my salarY, to
cover the cost of travel to and from my
State. Each year. I must devote a part
of my salary to postage, television films.
radio tapes, and the entertainment of
constituents, not covered by the office
allowance.
But I cannot bring myself to vote to
raise my pay, when thousands of farm-
ers, ranchers, cattle feeders, business-
men. and working people are under as
much or more financial pressure than I
am. If the congressional pay raise is
eliminated from the bill. I could then
vote to raise the salary of other Federal
workers and postal workers who are
hard pressed to make ends meet. If the
amendment to remove the congressional
pay raise fails. however, I will vote
against the entire Federal pay raise bill.
So far as I am concerned, I would
rather see Congress provide adequate al-
lowances for the operation of our offices,
including travel allowance. We would
not be in need of a salary increase if
we did not find it necessary to devote so
much of our salary to traveling back and
forth to our States and to financing such
costs as telephone calls, telegrams, and
other costs that may run to several thou-
sand dollars a year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr.
PROUTY] In the nature of a substitute.
On this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Erwin', the Senator from Washington
[Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. PELL the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Risic0FF1, the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERSI, the Sena-
tor from Texas [Mr. Yariscatononl, the
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMOND-
SON 1, and the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
HAYDEN], are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. BAYH I, and the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerr-
rasoyl , are absent because of illness.
On this vote, the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Rtsicoesi is paired
with the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATEERSI
If present and voting, the Senator
from Connecticut would vote "nay" and
the Senator from Florida would vote
"yea''.
I further announce that, if present
and voting. the Senator from Washing-
ton [Mr. Jacxsow], and the Senator
from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL1, would
each vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Delaware [Mr. Boacsi is
absent to attend the funeral of a relative.
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON],
and the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. SALT0NSTALL1 are necessarily ab-
sent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 25,
nays 60, as follows:
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Church
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Ellender
Fulbright
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Brewster
Byrd, W. V.
Carlson
Case
Clark
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Douglas
Eastland
Goldwater
Gore
Gruening
Bayh
Boggs
Edmondson
Engle
Ervin
[No. 458 Leg.]
YEAS-25
Hartke
Holland
Hruska
Keating
LauscOe
Mechem
Morton
Moss
Mundt
NAYS?GO
Hart
ILokenlooper
Hill
Humphrey
Inouye
Jay its
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Prouty
Robertson
Scott
Simpson
Symington
Thurmond
Williams, Del.
Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morse
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberi.ier
Pastore
Proxmire
Randolph
Russell
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Talmadge
Tower
Walters
Y.J.
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-15
Fong
Hayden
Jackson
Kmnedy
Pearson
Pell
Ribicoff
Saltonstall
Smathers
Yarborough
So Mr. PROUTY'S amendment in the
nature of a substitute was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment in the nature of a substitute
was rejected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the tab:e.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I should
like to have the attention of the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. PROXMIRE] and the
attention of the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] , for a moment,
because I need a little help and clarifica-
tion. There are some aspects of this
bill that disturb me very much, but, at
the same time, I think most of the in-
creases are justified.
Am I correct that, so far as the aivil
service workers are concerned, the in-
crease for them is at a much lower per-
centage?somewhere between 3 and 5
percent?as compared with the percant-
age of increase for Cabinet officers,
judges, and others in the GO-Cf fled
higher pay brackets?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true. 'Et is
higher.
Mr. MORSE. What is the difference?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The increase is
about 331/3 percent for Members of Con-
gress and of the Cabinet. Does the Sen-
ator want the figures all the way to
grade 1? The increase for that low
grade is 2 or 3 percent, because those
employees have received more frequent
Increases in the past.
Mr. MORSE. They have been receiv-
ing many increases, but the increases
give those in the lower brackets an an-
nual income of approximately how
much?
Mr. JOHNSTON. For the class.fied
employees, the grades go all the ivy
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
? ? Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15229
down to 1, and the increase there is very
low.
Mr. MORSE. Many of them are in
the salary bracket of $8,000 or $9,000, as
compared with $20,000 or $30,000 in the
upper brackets. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. MORSE. We must act on pro-
posed legislation as it comes off the cal-
endar. Sometimes the order in which it
is considered is not what we would pre-
fer. It is too bad that the Senate does
not have before it the legislative appro-
priation bill ahead of the bill it is now
considering. I have listened to some very
interesting debate this afternoon about
problems that confront Members of Con-
gress in regard to salaries and costs and
expenses of the job.
The so-called political expenes of the
job certainly should not be borne, directly
or indirectly, by the taxpayers. We
sought the job, and we should be ex-
pected to pay the so-called direct and in-
direct political expenses of the job. Yet
some of the speeches this afternoon sur-
prised me a little in that they seemed to
imply that we ought to give some con-
sideration to the fixing of salaries based
on what we have to pay for so-called
political expenses.
However, there is a type of expense
connected with the job that is based upon
a formula which is applied that works
many inequities within the Senate. I
refer to the allowances that are granted
for so-called office expenses, using as the
determining factor the population of a
State as compared with others, with not
too much weight given to geographical
distances, nor too much weight given to
the actual difference in the business done
as compared with other offices.
I do not want to engage in any per-
sonal discussion other than to say, for
example, that some of us who come from
States with relatively small populations
are greatly limited in the expense allow-
ance to our offices, but are put to much
heavier expenses than are other Sena-
tors, for a variety of reasons. I suppose
such a matter is determined to a great
extent by the discussion of Senators.
I shall be brief when I make this state-
ment, but for many years on the floor of
the Senate I have said that I think the
taxpayers are perfectly willing to pay for
the legitimate expenses of a Senator's
office in transacting Senate business.
I have not kept records on this matter,
except for the past 12 years.
I plow back into my desk, and have
for years, the equivalent of three hon-
orarium speeches to pay the extra cost
of transacting business in connection
with long-distance telephone calls, tel-
egrams, and airmail stamps, which run
to $800 to $900 out of my own pocket.
I mention it now only because I hope
that when the Senate considers the leg-
islative appropriation bill this year, the
Appropriations Committee will take a
long look at the formula. I have in-
sisted for years that if more money were
to be allowed for the expenses of a Sen-
ate office, it should be on an accountable
basis, and that accounting should be
published for the benefit of the public.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if
the Senator will yield, I invite his atten-
tion to the fact that the Senator from
Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] is present?
He happens to be chairman of the sub-
committee that handles the matter the
Senator from Oregon is discussing. I
merely wanted to call to the attention of
the Senator from Oklahoma what the
Senator from Oregon is discussing.
Mr. MORSE. It is important that we
take care of the actual official Senate
expenses of our offices rather than put
Senators in the position where they do
the business but pay for it out of their
own pockets. I do not think the tax-
payers expect that.
I wanted to make that point in this
discussion. It does not have a direct
bearing on the issue before us; it has an
indirect one.
I do not know why there is this
reticence to allow an accounted expense
allowance which actually covers the of-
ficial cost of operating the office of a
Senator in serving the people of a State
and of the Nation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I merely wish to
say that I agree 100 percent with the
Senator from Oregon. He is absolutely
correct. In fact, I go further and say
that a Senator from Hawaii or Alaska
or Washington or Oregon has an enor-
mous travel expense. The present al-
lowance is for only three trips home.
Under those circumstances it is very un-
just. The way to handle the situation is
not by way of a general salary increase
but, as the Senator has implied, by per-
mitting a Senator to be compensated for
all the legitimate expenses of his office.
I shall support such a proposal in any
way, shape, or form with regard to tele-
phone and telegraph expenses. I agree
that the taxpayers would understand
such a proposal.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator is correct. There is some confusion
between official duties and political in-
terests. I recognize that fact. How-
ever, following the course of action that
I follow in the Senate, if I did not go
home at least one weekend a month, I
would not have any political boards left
on my fences back home. One does not
go home one weekend a month free of ex-
pense.
I see my good friend the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] smiling. That is
why, through his good offices or the
good offices of the Senator's assistant in
Chicago, I will stop off in Chicago and
make a speech, which will cover the ex-
penses, or perhaps make a speech in San
Francisco or Seattle or somewhere else.
Let us face the realities when we get
to the legislative appropriation bill, and
see to it that we take a good, long look
at the problem.
That leads me to my next point. We
should make very clear that with respect
to expenditures for telephone calls and
telegrams and for air mail stamps, there
should be a public accounting once a
year.
My next point is that in due course?
not tonight?I shall offer an amendment
to the bill. I have several amendments,
but I shall offer one which will be the
old 1946-as-revised-from-time-to-time
Morse full public-disclosure bill. A Sen-
ator came to me a few minutes ago and
said:
One of the things that I like about your
public disclosure bill is that it does not limit
itself to Members of Congress, but covers
the judiciary and the Cabinet and other
officials in the high income bracket.
I shall press that amendment later.
Those are factors we ought to consider
in connection with the pending bill,
rather than speed the bill through very
quickly, as there is at present?and I
say this most respectfully and noncriti-
cally?pressure in the Senate.
I am always unhappy when I cannot
accommodate myself to certain pro-
posals. Some amendments ought to be
considered. I cannot accommodate my-
self to proposals that have been made
in the past hour for a unanimous-con-
sent agreement to fix a time, to limit de-
bate on amendments, and to limit debate
on the bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator
from Oregon for bringing to the atten-
tion of the Senate some of the matters
we have considered in committee in
recommending an increase in congres-
sional salaries.
If Senators will look at pages 116 and
117 of the bill, they will note that we
brought the compensation of Members
of the Senate and the House in line with
those of Under Secretaries of the execu-
tive departments. They have tradition-
ally been in that bracket. So far as addi-
tional expenses are concerned, we did not
consider the expenses that the Under
Secretaries have either. I do not believe
that the Members of the Senate and of
the House ought to be in a lower bracket
than the Under Secretaries of the execu-
tive departments.
There are about 19 who have the same
salaries as Members of the House and of
the Senate.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask that
It be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Iowa proposes to strike lines 2,
through 6 of the Proxmire amendment
No. 1084 and insert in lieu thereof the
following: "through line 3 on page 166";
on page 2, line 1, change "title IV" to
read "title II".
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, if I may
have the attention of the Members of the
Senate, very briefly, all the amendment
would do would be to transform the
Proxmire amendment, which eliminates
legislative salary increases into an
amendment which would eliminate sal-
ary increases for the legislative, judicial,
and executive branches of the Govern-
ment. It keeps intact the classified em-
ployees' salary increases.
It seems to me there ought to be a
choice offered to the Senate. The choice
the Proxmire amendment presently of-
fers is really no choice at all. If we were
to support the Proxmire amendment we
would be singling ourselves and our staff
members out for a discriminatory type
program as against the executive and
judicial sides of the Government.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
15230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
If my amendment is adopted. the
Proxmire amendment will be before us
to vote on. and we can decide whether
we wish to take care of only the classi-
fied employees or whether we wish to
take care of the employees of all
branches of the Government.
That is the choice we would have.
Mr. MANSPIELD. In other words,
everybody would be stricken out except
the voters.
Mr. MILLER. May I say to the ma-
jority leader that I have no intention of
doing anything like that with my amend-
ment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is what it
amounts to.
Mr. MILLER. To evaluate my amend-
ment in that fashion is very much to
oversimplify the problem.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It takes in mil-
lions and leaves out a few thousand.
Mr. MILLER. That oversimplifies the
point. The Proxmire amendment in its
present form singles out the legislative
branch. I do not think that is the choice
we ought to be offering the Senate. It
seems to me we ought to be given the
choice of taking care of the classified
employees and nobody else, or taking care
of the classified employees and not
singling out the legislative, judicial, and
executive branch.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I agree in that re-
spect. If we are to do anything with re-
spect to Congress, we had better do it to
the other branches of the Government,
too.
Mr. MILLER. The majority leader
now states my proposal exactly. I am
happy that he gets the Point.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President.
while the amendment can be excused on
the ground that, if we are going to strike
against Congress we should also strike
at those employees in the executive and
judicial branch of the Government who
are supposed to use their brainpower to
make plans in an atomic age for a future
that we hope America can have. I think
we would be killing the very thought be-
hind the kind of bill President Kennedy
and President Johnson, and most stu-
dents of government, have urged us to
pass. The crisis in the executive branch
of this great Government in the atomic
age, with a hundred billion dollar budget,
with a burgeoning population, automa-
tion, and all the various problems that
are on our doorstep, must be solved by
the best minds money can obtain.
Surely; we would save some money.
We weand save $20 million out of a cost
of $556 minion, by taking this step. We
would reduce the prospect of having the
best people that can be found in the
field to fill the jobs in the executive de-
partment. Yes, we will appeal to a lower
class of people to run for Congress. be-
cause they will know it will not be pos-
sible to manage and pay expenses and
Put anything aside to educate their chil-
dren. They will know there will be no
opportunity to hold their heads up in re-
spectability in carrying on the duties of
office, as we are expected to carry them
on by our constituents back home.
Four million one hundred thousand
dollars is the cost of congressional pay.
That is 0.7 percent of the total cost. We
will pay the legislative employees and
other officers $9,600,000. In this great
Government of ours, with more than 2
million employees trying to supply the
services, including the military and other
needs, only 536 Members of Congress plus
2 other officers are elected. That is the
total elective complement of our great
democracy: 435 Members of the House,
100 Members of the Senate, plus the Pres-
ident and Vice President. The rest are
all appointed.
Is it worth anything to preserve, to
attract, to try to bring into the elective
system men of competence? Perhaps
we do not need them; but I have never
found that a good salary, a salary that
would help a man to pay his expenses
and live in respectability, denied quali-
fied persons the opportunity to run for
office.
Why did the people support the Re-
organization Act of 1046? It was be-
cause they wanted Coziness to amount
to something. They wanted to have
competent persons working on our
staffs, not retired mail carriers acting RS
secretaries for the Committee on Bank-
ing and Currency, or an inexperienced
person from back home acting as the
secretary or chief staff member of the
most important committee of Congress,
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
No: they wanted good staffs, so they di-
rected Congress to pay to the staffs of
Members of Congress salaries equivalent
to those paid in private business. That
Is what we did. That is why Congress
has been measuring up to its respon-
sibility in trying to meet the challenge
or the new problems of today. We have
been able to have just as good members
of the staffs working and assisting us to
pass legislation as the executive offices
downtown have in administering it. Let
us not downgrade our staffs.
The majority leader and the minority
leader have described Congress as the
people's branch of the Government. We
will get what we pay for. Members of
Congress must have decent salaries if
they are to pay their own expenses in
entertaining friends at lunch. In trying
to maintain the Positions we are ex-
pected to maintain as Senators, both
here and at home, we must have a suit-
able standard of living. We try to pro-
vide for education, to maintain our
libraries, to have the things we need. I
think this Is worth bringing the pay of
Members of Congress up to parity.
Parity was not set for us by a committee
or by Congress or by members of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice of either House. /t was set after a
careful study and as a result of executive
leadership. It has been urged moon us
by both President Kennedy and Presi-
dent Johnson.
We have tried to establish parity with
the Federal judges. Our pay will come
out even with theirs at $30,000. We will
have parity with the under secretaries of
the departments at $30,000. If Senators
will look through the bill, they will see
that we have tried to establish parity of
service and qualifications.
We provide a higher salary for Cabinet
members; but historically Members of
Congress have been linked with the pay
July 1
of Federal judges, which have beeia less
than that paid to the Cabinet.
Let us not downgrade the branch of
the Government in which we servr?., be-
cause millions of people throughout the
world would be willing to give their right
arms to have a legislative body such as
ours?staffed with personnel such a:; that
which selves the Senate and the House.
I hope the Senate will defeat the Miller
amendment and the Proxmire amend-
ment and will then move on to pars the
pay bill, which has been so long in com-
ing to us.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Iowa
would agree with much of what the Sen-
ator from Oklahoma has said, but I can-
not quite understand why he made
the statement he has made against the
Miller amendment.
Mr. MONRONEY. I am agains; the
Proxmire amendment. I would be forced
to say that if we adopted the Proxmire
amendmeat, we would be doing ourselves
a disservice by downgrading ourselves far
below the current going rate. We have
praised the value of the staffs in th ex-
ecutive department.
I do not choose to vote for the amend-
ment of the Senator from Iowa, because
I am against the Proxmire amendment.
I favor the bill as it has been reported.
It is a good bill. It will serve the coun-
try well. I think the civil service em-
ployees are entitled to a pay increase. So
are the executives and other officials who
have not had a raise for 10 years, while
the other employees have had a 30- or
35-percent increase. The schedule works
out fairly.
I shall have to oppose the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa because I do
not believe in cutting out the very heart
of the bill.
Mr. MII.T.FR. Why not support the
Miller amendment to the Proxmire
amendment and then vote against the
Proxmire amendment as amended If
the Senator does not do that, he wil not
afford the Senate a decent choice on
which to vote. If the Proxmire amend-
ment carries, the Senator would be de-
meaning the legislative branch as against
the executive and judicial branches. If
the Senator votes for the Miller amend-
ment, he will not have to demean him-
self in that way.
Mr. MONRONEY. Then I would have
voted for an amendment that would de-
stroy at least a great portion of the bill,
the portion that would attract efficent,
effective executives. I shall not vote for
this amendment. If I am to be against
the Proxmire amendment, I must also be
against the amendment of the Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. MITJ.ER. The Senator from
Oklahoma would have plenty of op-
portunity to vote against the principle
he is talking about, once my amendment
and the Proxmire amendment were
adopted. I am trying to give the Sen-
ate a reasonably fair choice as to
whether it wants to provide a general
salary increase for executive, legislative,
and judicial officers, along with the clas-
sified civil service, or wants to let those
three groups stand by themselves in a
separate bill. That is a fair choice.
But under the Proxmire amendment,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15231
unless it is modified by my amendment,
the Senate will not have a fair choice.
Mr. MONRONEY. I should say that
the Senator's amendment, if adopted,
would put on record many Senators as
being against an excessive pay bill.
Therefore, they would be asked to vote
for the Proxmire amendment, because
the funds for the brainpower we are
hoping to attract to the legislative and
executive branches would have been
stricken from the bill.
Mr. MILLER. I intend to vote for the
Miller amendment as a modification of
the Proxmire amendment. I think I
could in clear conscience vote against
the Proxmire amendment as modified.
I think the Senator from Oklahoma
could vote for my amendment to give
the Senate an adequate choice, and then
turn around and vote against the Prox-
mire amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING aeviCER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, on
this amendment, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call te roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED-
MONDSON], the Senator from North Caro-
lina [Mr. ERvm] , the Senator from Ari-
zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator
from Minnesota [Mr. MCCARTHY], the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. FELL],
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
RnacoFF] , and the Senator from Texas
[Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. BAyn], the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE], and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH], the Senator from Connect-
icut [Mr. RIBICOFF], and the Senator
from Washington [Mr. JACKSON] would
each vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Delaware [Mr. BoGas] is
absent to attend the funeral of a relative.
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FoNc],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON],
and the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily
absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 21,
nays 64, as follows:
[No. 459 Leg.]
YEAS-21
Bennett
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Church
Cotton
Curtis
Dominick
Ellender
Jordan, Idaho
Lausche
McClellan
Mechem
Miller
Mundt
Robertson
Simpson
Smathers
Talmadge
Thurmond ,
Williams, Del.
Young, Ohio
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Beall
Bible
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Carlson
Case
Clark
Cooper
Dirksen
Dodd
Douglas
Eastland
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gore
Gruening
Hart
Bayh
Boggs
Edmondson
Engle
Ervin
NAYS-64
Hartke
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Kruska
Humphrey
Inouye
Javits
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Keating
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Monroney
NOT VOTING-15
Fong
Hayden
Jackson
Kennedy
McCarthy
Morse Aiken
Morton Anderson
Moss Bartlett
Muskie Beall
Nelson Bennett
Neuberger Bible
Pastore Brewster
Prouty Byrd, W. Va.
Proxmire Carlson
Randolph Case
Russell Clark
Scott Cooper
Smith Dirksen
Sparkman Dodd
Stennis Eastland
Symington Eulbright
Tower Goldwater
Walters Gruening
Williams, N.J. ?
Young, N. Dak.
Bayh
Boggs
Edmondson
Engle
Pearson Ervin
Pell
Ribicoff
Saltonstall
Yarborough
So Mr. MILLER'S amendment was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
PROXMIRE]. On this question the yeas
and nays have been ordered; and the
Clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED-
MONDSON], the Senator from North Caro-
lina [Mr. Emig], the Senator from Ari-
zona [Mr. HAYDEN], the Senator from
Washington [Mr. JAcicsoN], the Senator
from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] , the Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF],
the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL],
and the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR-
BoRouGH] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. BAYH], and the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]
are absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Rhode Is-
land [Mr. FELL], the Senator from Con-
necticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the
Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON]
would each vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator frbm Delaware [Mr. Boccs] is
absent to attend the funeral of a relative.
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. FONG],
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEARSON] ,
and the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SALTONSTALL] are necessarily ab-
sent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 32,
nays 53, as follows:
[No. 160 Leg.]
YEAS-32
Hartke Robertson
Holland Simpson
Hruska Smathers
Keating Stennis
Lausche Symington
McGovern Talmadge
Mechem Thurmond
Moss Williams, Del.
Mundt Young, N. Dale.
Prouty Young, Ohio
Proxmire
Allott
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Church
Cotton
Curtis
Dominick
Douglas
Ellender
Gore
NAYS-53
Hart
Hickenlooper
Hill
Humphrey
Inouye
Javits
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McIntyre
NOT VOTING-15
McNamara
Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Randolph
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Tower
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Fong
Hayden
Jackson
Kennedy
Pearson
Pell
Ribicoff
Russell
Saltonstall
Yarborough
So Mr. PROXMIRE'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I
announce that my colleague, the junior
Senator from Washington [Mr. JACK-
SON], is unavoidably detained on official
business. But if he had been present
he would have voted "nay" on the last
amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I call up my amendment.
The cosponsors to the amendment are
Mr. CURTIS, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. Thus-
MOND, and Mr. BENNETT.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] proposes
amendment No. 1078, reading as fol-
lows: At the appropriate place insert a
new section as follows:
Nothwithstanding any other provision of
this bill the effective date of any Increase
on any salary of $20,000 or over, shall be
the first day of the first month after the
close of a fiscal year with a balanced Fed-
eral budget.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO
TOMORROW AT 11 A.M.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it
stand in adjournment until 11 o'clock to-
morrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. There will be no
further votes tonight.
COMMITTEE MEETING DURING
SENATE SESSION TOMORROW
On request by Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the Committee on
Armed Services was authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate to-
morrow.
CONFERENCE ON ROLE OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE WAR ON
POVERTY
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the so-
called Economic Opportunity Act of 1964
or war on poverty legislation is before
the Committee on Labor and Public Wel-
fare. It will be considered next week
by the full committee. I shall have some
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R0005000501301-9-
15232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
amendments to the legislation at that
time. In the meantime. I should like to
call the attention of the Senate to the
fact that at my instance, there -was a
conference on the role of the Federal
Government in the war on poverty, called
at New York University on May 11, 1964.
The conferees were headed by cochair-
man Dr. Miguel A. de Capriles, dean of
the School of Law of New York Univer-
sity, and Dr. Alex Rosen, dean of the
School of Social Work of New York Uni-
versity. The conferees included some of
the most distinguished men and women
in the country, men and women from
great foundations, governmental agen-
cies, and universities interested in this
particular field.
Mr. President, my office has developed
a digest from the stenographic transcript
of the ideas and concepts which were
developed there. I believe that this in-
formation from so many experts is
worthy of the consideration of every
Senator both now and when we finally
come to consider this very important
measure. As it develops in a very inter-
esting way the lines of an editorial in
the New York Times of June 24, 1964,
headed "War On Poverty," I ask unani-
mous consent that in the body of the
RECORD there may appear the digest of
the conference to which I have referred.
followed by the editorial from the New
York Times of June 24.
There being no objection, the digest
and editorial were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
DIGEST OE CONFERENCE ON THE HOLE OE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ref THE WAR ON POV-
ERTY, NEW YORK I..INHTERsiTy, MONDAY.
MAY 11. 1964
CONFEREES
Senator JACOB K. Javers and staff, Mr, Al-
len Lesser.
Cochairmen of the conference: Dr. Miguel
A. deCapriles. dean, School of Law. New York
University: Dr. Alex Rosen, dean, School of
Social Work, New York University.
Others:
George Brager, Mobilization for Youth,
New York City.
Erse H. Poston, State division for youth.
Anne M. Montero, city commission on
human rights,
Benjamin H. Lyndon. dean, School of So-
cial Welfare, State University of New York,
Buffalo, N.Y.
James R. Dumpson, department of welfare.
New York City.
Clark Tibbitts, U.S. Department of Health,
Education. and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
John J. Hurley, Bureau of Family Services,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Father Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, D.J., Ford-
ham University, Bronx, N.Y.
Henry H. Foster, Jr., professor, School of
Law. New York University.
Winslow Carlton, group health insurance,
New York city.
John P. Walsh, U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C.
Ben Zimmerman, mayor's commission for
youth, Syracuse, N.Y.
Peter Kasius, State department of social
welfare.
Willard Heckel, dean, Rutgers School of
Law, New Brunswick, N.J.
Felician Foitman. New York State School
of International Labor Relations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Edward W. Foss, Department of Agricul-
tural Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca.
N.Y.
Marjorie Buckholz, Graduate School of So-
cial Work, New York University, New York
City.
Melvin Hermann, Mobilisation for Youth,
New York City.
Alexander Allen, Urban League of Greater
New York. New York City.
James E. McCarthy, Mobilization for
Youth, New York City.
John M. Martin, Fordham University,
Bronx, N.Y.
Edward Fettelberg, office of the president
of the council, New York City.
Elms L. Greenwood, National Council of
Churches. New York City.
Bernard Lander, professor, Hunter College,
New York City.
William F. Walsh, mayor, Syracuse, N.Y.
The conference directed its attention to
three major areas of the war on poverty?
youth, unemployed workers, and the aged?
and their relationship to the Economic Op-
portunity Act of 1964.
?patting the discussion, Senator Javrrs
hinds the points that the war on poverty
should be regarded as a long-term war which
requires bipartisan support, that it calls for
a selective approach rarther than a one-shot
omnibus attack, that it should be waged
Jointly with State and local governments.
and that it La more than a one-mart job
and should be guided by a board of strategy
with an executive director which would en-
list the cooperation of civic and community
leaders and organizations. He further em-
phasized that the unemployed should not be
lumped with the endemic poor, and that in
any comprehensive program there should be
provision for elose coordination with num-
erous existing Federal program.
Dr. Melvin Hermann, who heads the youth
and work program of Mobilization for Youth,
made a sharp distinction between youth un-
employment and youth poverty, stressing
that. they are different problems. Among the
former there are those who are unemployable,
those who are employable but have no jobs,
and those who are underemployed because
suitable jobs for their capabilities are not
available.
Reduction of the school dropout rate,
though highly desirable, Is no panacea for
youth unemployment. Dr. Hermann said,
adding that graduation from high school is
no guarantee of employability. Worth ex-
ploring, however, Is the possibility of extend-
ing school counseling and guidance services
for youth beyond 18 or 19 and until they are
placed in jobs. Related to employability is
the health of youth and Dr. Hermann said
that In I group of 100 youths under 21 in
his program about $0 percent had serious
medical problems. He emphatically ap-
proved continued heavy involvement of local
and State agencies in Federal program of vo-
cational education, and raised a number of
questions arising from training programs in
which allowances are paid, which directly
affect local welfare program considerations.
Turning to title I. part A, of the Economic
Opportunity Act, Dr. Hermann asked how
we can recruit and train the personnel need-
ed to man this and other projected programs
its light of the present extreme shortage of
professional personnel. He described as a
-frightening notion" the prospect of turn-
ing young recruits over to forest rangers for
training and teaching. He also asked how
we could insure that youth are selected and
guided into appropriate programs; who would
take the responsibility of directing youth
who already had experienced long periods of
failure, into programs where they could suc-
ceed.
Answering a question by Dean de Capriles
on the problem of providing jobs, Dr. Her-
mann warned that there was a danger of
placing too much emphasis on motivation
without assurance that lobs would be avail-
July .1
able for the youths who were being encour-
aged in this way. In the discussion tlut
followed, Commissioner Dumpson added thf,t
many youth were rejected for jobs because
they were Negroes or Puerto Ricans, and
Winslow Carlton said that the youth's ex-
perience of failure was often reinforced ty
the fact that his parents had the same ex-
perience, thus making this a problem of tie
whole community rather than of just one in-
dividual.
Peter Kasius of the New York State De-
partment of Social Welfare, commented en
the need to involve State and local agencies
intimately with the Federal programs 30
that there could be continuity after the
Federal authorization had ended. Senator
Javers said that the consent of the State
must be obtained in any relationship b?-
tween the Federal Government and local go-7-
ernments. Commissioner Dumpson cited the
risks in this limitation and suggested th it
where the State refuses to act, the Federal
Government then be given authority to pro-
ceed without its consent.
The discussion then touched on possibili-
ties of rehabiltating rejected draftees and
holding the draft examination at 18 years
of age rather 22 or older as at prese:it
in order to clear up health and training
problems. Professor Lander cited objectio as
to using the draft or the Department of De-
fense because it was not set up to become
an education.il institution. Both George
Brager, of the Mobilization for Youth, and
Dean Rosen questioned whether industry
would have jobs for these young.people after
they had been trained. Professor Lander
pointed out Hat in view of the development
of automation., education now had the me-
sponsibility of projecting its training pro-
gram for jobs of tomorrow rather than
those now available. In this connection in-
dustry would have to cooperate and come
up with some indication of its future needs.
Dr. Hermann said schooling had to be made
relevant?just to "upgrade the unemployed"
was not enouth: and Mrs. Anne Montero, of
the city commission on human rights, xi; g-
gested a national census or inventory of un-
filled jobs.
Winslow Carlton, of Group Health Insur-
ance, summarized the problem of poverty as
it applies to the aged. He said there was
practically nothing in the legislation for the
older citizens, and cited the general /Iced
in this group for more income, including an
inerease in sccial security benefits and old-
age assistance payments.
An income survey in 1962 for those over 65
showed a median income for nonmarred
persons of $1.130 per year, and $2.875 for
married coupes. Families headed by a per-
son of 65 or more made up one-third of all
the families counted as poor on toe basis of
the 1964 annual report of the Council of
Economic Advisers. In the OAA program
where the range of benefits was from $31 a
month in Mississippi to $111 in New Ycrk,
the problem was how to increase benefits in
the poorer St des.
Another prablem area defined by Mr. Carl-
ton concerned workers between 50 and 65,
and the diff.cultles they face when pl int
closings and other factors lead to their un-
employment. Not unrelated to the general
problem is tie fact that many in this group
have children under 18.
The relevance of a Federal program of
health care :nsurance for the aged in this
problem was also stressed by Mr. Carlton,
who touched on some of its economic con-
sequences on retired persons. Dean Ben-
jamin H. Lyndon suggested the possibilit:r of
developing a single package of assistance in-
corporating all current programs of aid to
the aging.
Senator Javrrs emphasized the essential
role of the local community in assuring suc-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15175
under certain circumstances, such as when
an impending election is imminent and a
State's election machinery is already in
progress, equitable considerations might
justify a court in withholding the granting
of immediately effective relief in a legislative
apportionment case, even though the existing
apportionment scheme was found invalid.
In awarding or withholding immediate relief,
a court is entitled to and should consider the
proximity of a forthcoming election and the
mechanics and complexities of State election
laws, and should act and rely upon general
equitable principles. With respect to the
timing of relief, a court can reasonably en-
deavor to avoid a disruption of the election
process which might result from requiring
precipitate changes that could make unrea-
sonably or embarrassing demands on a State
in adjusting to the requirements of the
court's decree."
The Court expressly approved the approach
of the court in Alabama, which it commend-
ed for having correctly recognized that legis-
lative reapportionment is primarily a matter
for legislative consideration and determina-
tion, and that judicial relief becomes appro-
priate only when a legislature fails to reap-
portion according to Federal constitutional
requisites in a timely fashion after having
had an adequate opportunity to do so. The
Court especially commended "the proper ju-
dicial restraint" shown by the Alabama court
in not jumping in too quickly.
In the New York case the Court simply left
It to the lower court to determine "whether,
because of the imminence of (the 1964) elec-
tion and in order to give the New York Leg-
islature an opportunity to fashion a consti-
tutionally valid legislative apportionment
plan, it would be desirable to permit the 1964
election of legislators to be conducted pursu-
ant to the existing provisions, or whether,
under the circumstances, the effectuation of
appellants' right to a properly weighted
voice in the election of State legislators
should not be delayed beyond the 1964 elec-
tion."
As noted above, in the Colorado case the
Court did treat the availability of initiative
and referendum as a reason for which a court
"might be justified in temporarily refraining
from the issuance of injunctive relief in an
apportionment case in order to allow for re-
sort to an available political remedy."
In the Colorado case, the actions had been
originally filed in March and July of 1962.
The three-judge court gave its opinion on
August 10, 1962, holding that, in view of the
immediate imminence of an election, no
change would be reqnired at that time. At
that same time two initiative proposals were
pending to deal with apportionment. The
Supreme Court held that "because of the im-
minence of the November 1962 election and
the fact that two initiated proposals relating
to legislative apportionment would be voted
on by the State's electorate at that election,
the district court properly stayed its hand
and permitted the 1962 election of legislators
to be conducted pursuant to the existing
statutory scheme."
The Court thereupon remanded the matter
for the district court to decide whether the
constitutionally required system under its
decision "can practicably be effectuated in
1964."
Conclusion as to timing: Taking the
opinions as a whole, we conclude first, that
our legislature must be given a fair chance
to deal with this problem; and second, that
in view of the imminence of the 1964 elec-
tion, that fair chance comes in 1965. Find-
ing the proper solution will take the very
best thought of which the legislature is
capable, and it is too soon to know what
that solution will be.
M. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We cannot possibly solve these problems
prior to the 1964 election. The candidates
are already in the field and we could not
conceivably get a fair and sound constitu-
tional amendment drafted and offered in
time for this year. In light of all the cir-
cumstances, we recommend against proposing
a special session at this time but rather rec-
ommend that we proceed affirmatively, as
suggested in the two next paragraphs, as
evidence of our complete good faith. For,.
tunately, article 21, section 1, of our con-
stitution permits us to amend our constitu-
tion by special election; and if it appears
necessary to have such
we can do so.
Grade
1
2
3
GS-1
$3, 386
$3, 500
$3, 615
GS-2
3, 680
3, 805
3, 930
OS-3
4,005
4, 140
4, 275
GS-4
4,480
4, 630
4, 780
GS-5
5,000
5, 166
5,330
05 -8
5,105
5, 690
3,871
GS-7
6,050
6, 250
6,430
08-8
6,630
6,850
7,070
(18-9
7, 220
7,463
7, 710
GS-10
7,900
8,170
8,440
GS-11
8, 650
8,945
9, 240
GS-12..
10,250
10,605
10,080
GS-13
12,075
12,496
12, 916
GS-14
14,170
14,650
16,150
GS-15
36,460
17,030
17,600
08-16
18,936
19, 690
20,245
GS-17
21,445
22, 195
22,845
GS-18
24, 300
2.. The present work on congressional re-
apportionment should be pressed to comple-
tion at full speed. At the earliest possible
date, this report should be published.
3. The president of the senate, the speaker
of the house, and the Governor should meet
immediately to establish a procedure to pre-
pare recommendations for a proper adjust-
ment to the decisions in the light of the
history and needs a our own State and our
own people. Tentatively, we recommend a
special joint commission. We can best
demonstrate that we do not need to have a
three-judge court do our thinking for us by
doing it for ourselves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is closed; and, without ob-
jection, the Chair lays before the Senae
the unfinished business.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes,
which had been reported from the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
with an amendment, to strike out all
after the enacting clause and insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Gov-
ernment Employees Salary Reform Act of
1964".
TITLE I-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS
Short title
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964".
Classification Act employees
SEC. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat.
843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b)), is amended to read
as follows:
an election in 1966, "(b) The compensation schedule for the
General Schedule shall be as follows:
Per annum rates and steps
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$3. 730
$3, 845
$3, 960
$4, 076
$4,180
$9, 305
$4, 420
4,055
4, 180
4, 305
4, 430
4,555
4, 680
4, 805
4,410
4,545
4,680
4,815
4,950
5,085
5, 220
4,030
5, OSO
5,230
3, 380
3, 530
5,680
5,810
5,495
6,660
5,825
5,900
6,133
6,320
6,485
6,050
6,245
6,430
6, 615
6,800
6,988
7, 170
6, 650
6,850
7,080
7,230
7,450
7, 660
7,850
7,200
7,310
7.730
7,950
8, 170
8,390
8, 610
7, 955
8,200
8,445
8,680
8,938
9,180
8,425
8,710
8,980
9,250
9, 520
9, 790
10,000
10,330
9, 535
9, 830
10, 125
10, 420
10, 715
11,010
13,305
11,315
11,670
12,025
12,380
12,735
13,090
13,445
13,335
13, 765
14, 175
14, 595
16,015
15, 435
15, 855
18,640
16,130
16,020
17,110
17,600
18,090
18,580
18,170
38,740
19,310
19,880
20,480
21,020
21,590
20,900
21,553
22, 210
22,805
23,520
24,175
23, 695
24,445
(b) Except as provided in subsection (d).
of section 604 of the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962, the rates of basic compensation
of officers and employees to whom the com-
pensation schedule set forth in subsection
(a) of this section applies shall be initially
adjusted as of the effective date of this sec-
tion, as follows:
(1) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at one ? of the
rates of a grade .in the General Schedule
of the Classification Act of 1949, as amend-
ed, he shall receive a rate of basic compensa-
tion at the corresponding rate in effect on
and after such date.
(2) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate be-
tween two rates of a grade in the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, he shall receive a rate of basic com-
pensation at the higher of the two cor-
responding rates in effect on and after such
date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate in ex-
cess of the maximum rate for his grade, he
shall receive (A) the maximum rate for his
grade in the new schedule, or (B) his existing
rate of basic compensation if such existing
rate is higher.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately
prior to the effective date of this section, is
receiving, pursuant to section 2(b) (4) of
the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act
of 1955, an existing aggregate rate of com-
pensation determined under section 203(b)
of the Act of September 1, 1954 (68 Stat.
1111), plus subsequent increases authorized
by law, he shall receive an aggregate rate of
compensation equal to the sum of his exist-
ing aggregate rate of compensation, on the
day preceding the effective date of this sec-
tion, plus the amount of increase made by
this section in the maximum rate of his
grade, until (1) he leaves his position, or (ii)
he is entitled to receive aggregate compensa-
tion at a higher rate by reason of the oper-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ation of this Act or any other provision of
law; but, when such position becomes va-
cant, the aggregate rate of compensation of
any subsequent appointee thereto shall be
fixed in accordance with applicable provisions
of law. Subject to clauses (1) and (11) of
the immediately preceding sentence of this
paragraph, the amount of the increase pro-
vided by this section shall be held and con-
sidered for the purpose of section 208(b)
of the Act of September 1, 1954, to con-
stitute a part of the extorting rate of com-
pensation of the employee.
(5) If the officer or employee is In a po-
sition in grade 16 or 17 of the Genera/ Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, to which be was promoted on or
after the first day of hie first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1264, and
if he holds such position, or another position
in the same grade, on the effective ,clate of
this section, his rate of basic compensation
shall be adjusted, as of such effective date,
to that rate of basic compensation to which
tie would have been entitled if the com-
pensation schedule in subsection (a) of this
section had been in effect on the date of his
promotion.
Sec. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1181), relating to
new appointments, Is amended to reed as
follows:
"Sec. 801. All new appointments shall be
made at the minimum rate of the appropriate
grade, except that in accordance with regula-
tions prescribed by the Commission which
provide for such considerations' as the candi-
date's existing salary, unusually high or
unique qualifications, or a special need of
the Government for his services, the head
of any department may. with the approval
of the Commission in each specific case, ap-
point individuals to positions in grade 13
and above of the General Schedule at such
rate or rates above the minimum rate of
the appropriate grade as the Commission may
authorize for this purpose.".
(b) Section 505(b) of the Classification
Act of 1249, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)),
relating to the limitation on numbers of
positions in grades 18. 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule of such Act, is amended by in-
serting "(I)" after the words "In addition
to", and by striking out "which may be
placed in such grades" and infesting In lieu
thereof ", and positions placed under this
Act pursuant to rection 209 of the Federal
Executive Salary Act of 1964. which may be
placed in such grades, and (11) two hundred
and forty examiner positions under section
11 of the Administrative Procedure Act (60
Stat. 244: 5 U.S.C. 1010) which may be placed
in grade 16 and nine such positions which
may be placed In grade 17".
(c) Section 604(d) (3) of the Federal Esn-
ployees Pay Act of 1945. as amended (5 U.S.C.
944(c) (3)), la amended to read as follows:
"(3) All rates shall be computed to the
nearest cent, counting one-half cent and
over as a whole cent.".
Postal fled service employees
SEC. 104. Section 1 of title 39, United
States Code, Is amended by striking out
the period at the end of such section and
inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and
the following:
" 'revenue unit' means that amount of rev-
enue of a post office from mall and special
service transactions which is equal to the
average sum of postal rates and fees received
by the Department during the fiscal year for
1,000 pieces of originating mall and special
service transactions determined In accord-
ance with [section 2831 of this title.".
SEC. 105. Section 702 of title 32, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"I 702. Classes of post offices
"(a) Effective at the beginning of each
fiscal year the Postmaster General shall di-
vide post offices Into four classes on the ban%
of the revenue Units of each office for the
second preceding fiscal year. He shall place
in the first class those poet offices having
950 or more revenue Unita. He shall place
in the second clam those post offices hav-
ing 190 or more revenue unite, but fewer
than 950 revenue units. He shall place In
the third class those post offices having
36 or more revenue units, but fewer than
100 revenue units. He shall place in the
fourth class those post offices having fewer
than 38 revenue units.
"(b) The Postmaster General shall exclude
from the revenue credited to a post office for
the purposes of this section money received
at that office for?
"(1) setting meters for patrons beyond the
area served by the office unless authorized
by the Department;
" 2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold In large or unusual quan-
tities to be used in mailing matter at other
offices; and
"(9) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold for mailing matter diverted
from other offices and mailing of matter so
diverted without /damps affixed.
"(c) Whenever unusual conditions pervall
at a poet office of the fourth class, the Post-
master General may advance such office to
the appropriate class based on his estimate
of the number of revenue units which the
office will have during the succeeding twelve
months. Any office so advanced need not be
relegated to a lower class before the end
of the second firmed year after the advance-
ment. At that time, the office shall be as-
signed to the appropriate class in accord-
ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this,
section."
Sec. 108. Section '704 of title 39, United
State Code, Is amended by deleting "of the
first, second, or third claw" appearing there-
in, and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than
one for which the postmaster furnishes
quarters, equipment, and fixtures on an
allowance basis)".
Sec. 107. Subsection (b) (1) of section 2102
of title 39, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
"(1) for poet offices at which the post-
master does not furnish quarters on an
allowance basic".
Sec. 108. (a) Section 3801 of title 30,
United States Code, is amended by insert-
ing a new subsection (c) following subsec-
tion (b) as follows:
"(c) The Postraaeter General shall deter-
mine and, effective at the beginning of the
first pay period in each calendar year, shall
adjust the rankings of all positions for which
the number of annual revenue units of a
post office or its class Is a relevant factor
of the ranking, using the revenue unite of
the preceding fiscal year and the class in
which the office will be placed at the begin-
ning of the next decal year. The Postmaster
General also may &One rankings of such
positions at other times of the year based
upon substantial changes in service condi-
tions.".
(b) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States
Code, Is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST.
OETICE CLERK (KP-4i": and
(B) Add the following new sentence to the
end of paragraph (I): 'Mils office has fewer
than 190 revenue units annually.".
(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER (KP-181":
(B) Delete "third class" in the first
sentence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $1.700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
"approximately 40 revenue unite annually".
(3) In subsection (b) of section 3517? I
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (Ks-so)";
July 1
(B) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $4,700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
"approximately 110 revenue units annually".
(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518?
(A) Change the catchline to read "Pour-
MASTER. (KP.-22)";
(B) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approd-
mately $8,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 140 revenue units annually"
(5) In subsection (b) of section 351G?
(A) Change the catchline to read "fi 8-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-24 ) "; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 083,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (le and insert in lieu thereof
"approximately 1,490 revenue units aa-
nually".
(13) In subtraction (c) of section 3519?
(A) Change the catchline to read "soar-
MASTER. (KP-245)";
(B) Delete "second class" in the first se.a-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approel-
mately $16,060" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and Insert In lieu thereof
"approximately 380 revenue units annually".
(7) In subsection (b) of section 3520?
(A) Change the catchline to read "rose-
MASTER. (KP-27 I ";
(B) Delete -first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $83,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and Insert in Lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 1,490 revenue unite annually".
(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521?
(A) Change the catchline to read "Posy-
MASTER. (KP-25)
(B) Delete "first class" appearing in tee
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $129,00C"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 3,0e0
revenue units annually".
(9) In subsection (b) of section 3522?
(A) Change the catchline to read "P061-
MASTER. (KP-3 r) ";
(B) Delete "first class' in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $314.000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 7,450
revenue units annually".
(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523--
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST.
MASTER. (KII-3 3 ) ";
(B) Delete "first class" appearing In ths
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete the second sentence of para-
graph (1) and insert In lieu thereof; "This
office has approximately 110 employees, ap-
proximately 14,350 revenue unite annually,
IS government-owned vehicle units, one
classified station and 42 carrier routes with-
in its jurisdiction.".
(11) In subsection (b) of section 3524?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER (KE'-35)"; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) anc.
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,00e
revenue units annually".
(12) In subsection (c) of section 3524?
(A) Change the catchline to read "Powe-
ll-ASTER. (KP-35 ) ";
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sentence
of paragraph (II; and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $1,000,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu tlicereof "approximately 23,700
revenue units annually".
(13) In subsection (a) of section 3525?
(A) Change the catchline to read. "ASSLST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-37) "; and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18.: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15177
(B) Delete "annual receipts of $8,460,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 200,000
revenue units annually".
(14) In subsection (b) of section 35207-,
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-OS)";
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,000
revenue units annually".
(15) In subsection (a) of section 3526-
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST.
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-39) "; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of $16,900,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 400,000
revenue units annually".
(16) In subsection (b) of section 3526-
(A) Change the catchline to read "posr-
MASTER. (14P-40)";
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(0) Delete "annual receipts of $4,470,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 106,000
revenue units annually".
(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527-
CO
. - - - _
n, CO ,1,0 00 0 0
0 Co c,
0 cn cit crt 0 0 0
Class 2
18,295-18,
930
$20, 200
$20, 835
$21, 470
$22, 105
Class 3 .
14,860
15,375
16, 405
10,020
17, 435
17, 950
Class 4
12,075
12, 495
13, 335
13, 755
14, 175
14, 595
Class 5
9, 945
10, 290
10,080
11, 325
11,070
12,015
Class 8
8, 295
8, 580
9, 150
9, 435
9, 720
10,005
Class 7
7,010
7, 245
7, 715
7,950
8, 185
8,420
Class 8
6,050
6, 250
6-650
6, 850
7,050
7, 260",
SEC. 120. Subsection (a) of section 416 of "(a) There shall be ten classes of Foreign The per annum salaries of such staff officers
such Act (22 U.S.C. 070(a)) is amended to Service staff officers and employees, referred and employees within each class shall be as
read as follows: to hereafter as staff officers and employees. follows:
"Class 1
$14,860
$15,375
$15, 890
$16,405
$16, 920
817,435
$17,960
$18,485
$18,980
$19, 495
Class 2
12,075
12,405
12,915
13,335
13,705
14,175
14,595
15, 015
15,435
15, 856
Class 3
9,945
10, 290
10, 635
10,980
11,325
11,670
12, 015
12,360
12,705
13,050
Class 4
8,295
8, 580
8,865
9, 150
9,435
9,720
10,005
10, 290
10,575
10, 860
Class 5
7,480
7,735
7, 990
8,245
8, 500
8,755
9, 010
9,265
9, 520
9, 776
Class 6
6, 765
6,980
7, 205
7,430
7,655
7,880
8, 105
8,300
8,155
8, 780
Class 7
6, 205
6,410
6, 615
6, 820
7,021
7,236
7, 4,35
7,040
7,845
8, 050
Class 8
5, 400
6, 675
5,860
6,045
0,230
6,415
8,800
6, 785
6, 970
7, 155
Class 9
5,010
6, 175
0,340
6, 505
5, 670
5,835
6,000
6, 165
6, 330
6, 405
Class 10
4,480
4, 630
4, 780
4,930
5, 080
5,230
5,380
5, 530
5,680
5, 630".
SEC. 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve
officers and Foreign Service staff officers and
employees who are entitled to receive basic
compensation immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of this section at one of the rates
provided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1946, shall receive basic com-
pensation, on and after such effective date,
at the rate of their class determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of State.
Agricultural stabilization and conservation
county committee employees
SEC. 122. The rates of compensation of per-
sons employed by the county committees
established pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) shall be increased
by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac-
ticable, to the increases provided by section
102 of this Act for corresponding rates of
compensation in the appropriate schedule or
scale of pay.
Miscellaneous provisions
SEC. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 ('76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
1173) is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
"(d) The rate of basic compensation, es-
tablished under this section, and received
by any officer or employee immediately prior
to the effective date of a statutory increase
in the compensation schedules of the salary
systems specified in subsection (a) shall be
initially adjusted on the effective date of
such new compensation schedules in accord-
ance with conversion rules and regulations
prescribed by the President or by such agency
or agencies as he may designate."
SEC. 124. Subsection (b) of the first section
of the Act entitled "An Act to provide retire-
ment, clerical assistants, and free mailing
privileges to former Presidents of the United
States, and for other purposes", approved
August 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 838; 3 U.S.C. note
fol. 102), is amended by striking out "$50,-
000" and inserting in lieu thereof "665,000".
Absorption of costs
Sm. 125. (a) The cost of not less than 10
per centum of the aggregate amount of the
increases in compensation provided by this
title for the fiscal-year 1965 shall be absorbed
by the departments, agencies, establishments,
and corporations in the executive branch;
and no amount beyond the additional sum
for such compensation increases proposed in
the budget for the fiscal year 1965 is author-
ized to be appropriated by any provision of
this Act. The total amount of such absorp-
tion shall be allocated by the Bureau of the
Budget among such departments, agencies,
establishments, and corporations in such
manner and to such extent as the Director
of the Bureau of the Budget deems appro-
priate in the light of their essential func-
tions.
(b) Pursuant to the objective of this sec-
tion, heads of the executive branch activities
concerned are directed to review with me-
ticulous care each vacancy resulting from
voluntary resignation, retirement, or death
and to determine whether the duties of the
position can be reassigned to other employees
or whether the position can be abolished
without seriously affecting the execution of
essential functions.
(c) Nothing contained in subsection (a)
of this section shall be held or considered
to require (1) the separation from the serv-
ice of any individual by reduction in force
or other personnel action or (2) the placing
of any individual in a leave-without-pay
status.
TITLE II-FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE SALARIES
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1964".
Sze. 202. (a) Each officer or employee in
or under the legislative branch of the Gov-
ernment whose rate of compensation is in-
creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees
Pay Act of 1946 shall be paid additional com-
pensation in an amount equal to the greater
of the following amounts, as applicable:
(1) an amount equal to 31/2 per centum of
his gross rate of compensation (basic com-
pensation plus additional compensation au-
thorized by law) in effect immediately prior
to the effective date of this section plus 1
per centum of such gross rate for each whole
multiple, or part of a multiple, of $500 basic
compensation; or
(2) an amount equal to 6 per centum of
such gross rate.
(b) The total annual compensation in ef-
fect immediately prior to the effective date
of this section of each officer or employee of
the House of Representatives, whose compen-
sation is disbursed by the Clerk of the House
of Representatives and is not increased by
reason of any other provision of this title,
shall be increased by an amount which is
equal to the amount of the increase provided
by subsection (a) of this section in that
gross rate which is nearest in amount to the
total annual compensation of such officer or
employee.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15180 Approved For Release-200/115/1.8_: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4-omititssIoNAL RECORD ? SENATE
(c) Each of the limitations on gross rate
per thousand and gross rate per hour per
person provided by applicable law on the ef-
fective date of this section with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the House of Representatives shall be in-
creased by 7 per centum. The amount of
each increase under this subsection shall be
computed to the nearest cent, counting one-
half cent and over ass whole cent.
(d) The additional compensation provided
by this section shall be considered a part of
basic compensation for the purposes of the
Civil Service Retirement Act (5 17.5.C. 2251
and the following) .
(e) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1846, as amended (2
U.S.C. 72a(e) ) is amended--
(1) by striking out "$8,880" where it first
appears in such subsection and inserting in
lieu thereof "the highest amount which, to-
gether with additional compensation author-
ized by law, will not exceed the maximum
rate authorized by the Classification Act of
1949, as amended."; and
(2) by striking out "$8,880" at the second
place where it appears in such subsection and
inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount
which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended".
(f) (1) This subsection is enacted as an
exercise of the rulemaking power of the House
of Representatives with full recognition of
the constitutional right of the House of Rep-
resentatives to change the rule amended by
this subsection at any time, in the same man-
ner, and to the same extent as in the case of
any other rule of the House of Representa-
tives.
(2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended?
(A) by striking out "$8,880" where It first
appears in such clause and inserting in lieu
thereof "the highest amount which, together
with additional compensation authorized by
law, will not exceed the maximum rate au-
thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended,"; and
(B) by striking out "$8,8130" at the second
place where it appears in such clause and in-
serting in lieu thereof "the highest amount
which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended."
(g) The basic compensation a each em-
ployee in the office of a Senator is hereby
adjusted, effective on the effective date pre-
scribed by section 501(a), to the lowest
multiple of $60 which will provide a gross
rate of compensation not less than the gross
rate such employee was receiving immedi-
ately prior thereto, except that the foregoing
provisions of this subsection shall not apply
in the case of any employee if on or before
the fifteenth day following the date of en-
actment of this Act, the Senator by whom
such employee is employed notifies the dis-
bursing office of the Senate In writing that he
does not wish such provisions to apply to
such employee. In any case in which, at the
expiration of the time within which a Sena-
tor may give notice under this subsection,
such Senator is deceased such notice shall be
deemed to have been given.
(h) Notwithstanding the provision re-
ferred to in subsection (I), the rates of gross
compensation of the Secretary for the Ma-
jority of the Senate, the Secretary for the
Minority of the Senate, the Official Reporters
of Debates of the Senate, the Parliamen-
tarian of the Senate, the Senior Counsel In
the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the
Senate, and the Chief Clerk of the Senate are
hereby increased by an amount which is
equal to the amount of the increase which
would be provided by subsection (a) of this
section in that gross rate determined without
regard to the provisions referred to in sub-
section (1) of this seoaion which is nearest
in amount to the total annual compensation
of such officer or employee.
(I) The paragraph imposing limitations
on basic and gross compensation of officers
and employees of the Senate appearing un-
der the heading "sneers" in the Legislative
Appropriation Act, 1956, as amended (74 Stat.
304; Public Law 86-568), is amended by
striking out "$18,880" and inserting in lieu
thereof "622,845".
(j) The limitation on gross rate per hour
per person pr.:Aided by applicable law on the
effective date of this section with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the Senate is hereby increased by 7 per
centum. The amount of such increase shall
be computed to the nearest cent, counting
one-half cent and over as a whole cent. The
provisions of subsection (a) of this section
shall not apply to employees whose com-
pensation is subject to such limitation. '
(k) The gross rate of compensation of the
Postmaster of the Senate shall be $18,420,
and the gross rate of compensation of the
Assistant Postmaster of the Senate shall be
$14,570. The provisions of section 106 of
the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act,
1863, shall not hereafter apply to employees
referred to in this subsection.
Sac. 203. (a) The compensation of the
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $30.000 per annum.
(b) The compensation of the Assistant
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $28.000 per annum.
(c) The compensation of the General
Counsel of the United States General Ac-
counting Office. the Librarian of Congress,
the Public Printer, and the Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $26.000 per
annum.
(d) The compensation of the Deputy
Librarian of Congress. the Deputy Public
Printer, and the Assistant Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $24.500 per
annum.
(eJ The compensation of the Second As-
sistant Architect of the Capitol shall be at
the rate of $22,500 per annum.
(f) The compensation of the Chaplain of
the House of Representatives shall be at the
rate of $12,500 per annum.
(g I The compensation of the Secretary of
the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Sen-
ate, and the Legisaltive Counsel of the Sen-
ate shall be at the rate of $27,500 per annum.
(h) The compensation of the Chaplain of
the Senate shall be at the rate of $15,000 per
annum.
Sec. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946. as amended (2
U.S.C. 31), is amended to read as follows:
"(a) The compensation of Senators. Rep-
resentatives in Congress. and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at
the rate of $30,000 per annum each; and the
compensation of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall be at the rate of $43,000
per annum."
Sac. 205. No officer or employee subject to
section 202(a) or 302(b) of this title shall
receive, by reason of any provision of this
title, an increase in gross rate of compensa-
tion (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by taw), or in total
annual compensation, which is in excess of
the amount of the increase in basic compen-
sation provided by the amendment made by
section 102(a) of title I of this Act for posi-
tions in grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
mar 111?TEDLIIAL EXECUTIVE SALARIES
Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964".
8E0.301 There is hereby established for
offices and positions to which section 303 of
this title applies a baste compensation sched-
ule, to be known as the "Federal Executive
Salary Schedule", which shall be divided into
live salary levels.
July 1
Sec. 303. (a) Level I of the Federal Execu-
tive Salary Schedule shall apply to the fol-
lowing offices and positions, for which the ao-
nual rate of basic compensation shall -ae
$35,000:
(1) Secretary of State.
(2) Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) Secretary of Defense.
(4) Attorney General.
(5) Postmaster General.
(6) Secretary of the Interior.
(7) Secretary of Agriculture.
(8) Secretary of Commerce.
(9) Secretary of Labor.
(10) Secretary or Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(b) Level U of the Federal Executive Salm y
Schedule shall apply to the following offices
and positions, for which the annual rate of
basic compensation shall be e30,000:
(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(2) Under Secretary of State.
(3) Administrator, Agency for Interna-
tional Development.
(4) Administrator of the National Aerc-
nautics and Space Administration.
(5) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
(6) Administrator of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
(7) Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency.
(8) Chairmar., Atomic Energy Commission.
(9) Chairman, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
(10) Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
(11) Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
(12) Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
(13) Director of the United States Arne:
Control and Disarmament Agency.
(14) Director of the United States Informs,
tion Agency.
(15) Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation. Department of Justice, so ions'
as the position is held by the present incum-
bent: Provided, That thereafter the position
shall be placed in level III.
(16) Director of Central Intelligence.
(17) Secretary of the Air Force.
(18) Secretary of the Army.
(19) Secretary of the Navy.
(c) Level III of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following of-
fices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $28,500:
(1) Deputy Attorney General,
(2) Solicitor General of the United States.
(3) Deputy Postmaster General.
(4) Under Secretary of Agriculture.
(5) Under Secretary of Commerce.
(6) Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportation.
(7) Under Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare.
(8) Under Secretary of the Interior.
(9) Under Secretary of Labor.
(10) Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs or Under Secretary of State for Eco-
nomic Affairs.
(11) Under Secretary of the Treasury.
(12) Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs.
(13 Administrator of General Services.
(14) Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
(15) Deputy Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs.
(16) Deputy Administrator, Agency for
International Development.
(17) Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board.
(18) Chairman of the United States Civil
Service Commission.
(19) Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission.
(20 Chairman, Board of Directors, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation,
(21) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board.
(22) Chairman, Federal Power Commis-
sion.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
(23) Chairman,
sion.
(21) Chairman,
Commission.
(25) Chairman,
Board.
(26) Chairman, Exchange
Commission.
(27) Chairman, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(28) Comptroller of the Currency.
(29) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
(30) Director of Defense Research and En-
gineering, Department of Defense.
(31) Deputy Administrator of the Nation-
al Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(32) Deputy Director of the Bureau of the
Budget.
(33) Deputy Director of Central Intelli-
gence.
(34) Director of the Office of Emergency
Planning.
(35) Director of the Peace Corps. .
(36) Director of Selective Service, so long
as the position is held by the present incum-
bent: Provided. That thereafter the position
shall be placed in Level IV.
(37) Chief Medical Director in the Depart-
metn of Medicine and Surgery of the Veter-
ans' Administration.
(38) Director of the National Science
Foundation.
(39) Deputy Administrator of the Hous-
ing and Home Finance Agency.
(40) President, Export-Import Bank of
Washington.
(d) Level IV of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $27,000:
(1) Administrator, Bureau of Security and
Consular Affairs, Department of State.
(2) Deputy Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency.
(3) Deputy Administrator of General
Services.
(4) Associate Administrator of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion.
(5) Assistant Administrators, Agency for
International Development (6).
(6) Regional Assistant Administrators,
Agency for International Development (4).
(7) Under Secretary of the Department of
the Air Force.
(8) Under Secretary of the Department of
the Army.
(9) Under Secretary of the Department of
the Navy.
(10) Deputy Under Secretaries of State
(2).
(11)
(3)?
(12) Assistant Secretaries of Commerce
(4).
(13) Assistant Secretaries of Defense (7).
(14) Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force
(3) ?
(15) Assistant Secretaries of the Army
(3) ?
(16) Assistant Secretaries of the Navy (3).
(17) Assistant Secretaries of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare (2).
(18) Assistant Secretaries of the Interior
(4).
(19) Assistant Attorneys General (8).
(20) Assistant Secretaries of Labor (4).
(21) Assistant Postmasters General (5).
(22) Assistant Secretaries of State (11).
(23) Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury
(4).
(24) Chairman of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
(25) Chairman of the National Mediation
Board.
(26) Chairman of the Railroad Retirement
Board.
(27) Chairman of the United States Tariff
Commission.
(28) Commissioner, Community Facilities
Administration.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE 15181
Federal Trade Commis-
Interstate
National Labor
Commerce
Relations
Securities and
Assistant Secretaries of Agriculture
(29) Commissioner, Federal Housing Ad-
ministration.
(30) Commissioner, Public Housing Ad-
ministration.
(81) Commissioner, Urban Renewal Ad-
ministration.
(32) Director of Civil Defense.
(33) Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
(34) Deputy Chief Medical Director in the
Department of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration.
(35) Deputy Director, Office of Emergency
Planning.
(36) Deputy Director, Office of Science and
Technology.
(37) Deputy Director of the Peace Corps.
(38) Deputy Director of the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
(39) Deputy Director of the United States
Information Agency,
(40) Associate Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, Department of Jus-
tice.
(41) Assistant Directors of the Bureau of
the Budget (3).
(42) General Counsel of the Department
of Agriculture.
(43) General Counsel of the Department
of Commerce.
(44) General Counsel of the Department
of Defense.
(45) General Counsel of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(46) Solicitor of the Department of the In-
terior.
(47) Solicitor of the Department of Labor.
(48) General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board.
(49) General Counsel of the Post Office
Department.
(50) Counselor of the Department of
State.
(51) Legal Adviser of the Department of
State.
(52) General Counsel of the Department
of the Treasury.
(53) First Vice President, Export-Import
Bank of Washington.
(54) General Manager of the Atomic
Energy Commission.
(55) Governor of the Farm Credit Ad-
ministration.
(56) Inspector General, Foreign Assist-
ance.
(57) Members, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion.
(58) Members, Civil Aeronautics Board.
(59) Members, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
(60) Members, Export-Import Bank of
Washington.
(61) Members, Federal Communications
Commission.
(62) Members, Board of Directors of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(63) Members, Federal Home Loan Bank
Board.
(64) Members, Federal Power Commission.
(65) Members, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
((36) Members, Federal Trade Commission.
(67) Members, Interstate Commerce Com-
mission.
(68) Members, National Labor Relations
Board.
(69) Members, Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(70) Members, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(71) Members, United States Civil Service
Commission.
(e) Level V of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $26,000:
(1) Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Department of Agriculture.
(2) Administrator, Agricultural Research
Service, Department of Agriculture.
(3) Administrator, Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service, Department
of Agriculture. ie
(4) Administrator, Farmers Home Admin-
istration.
(5) Administrator, Foreign Agricultural
Service, Department of Agriculture.
(6) Administrator, Rural Electrification
Administration, Department of Agriculture.
(7) Administrator, Soil Conservation Serv-
ice, Department of Agriculture.
(8) Administrator, Bonneville Power Ad-
ministration, Department of the Interior.
(9) Administrator of the 'National Cs pital
Transportation Agency.
(10) Administrator of the St. Lawr-nce
Seaway Development Corporation.
(11) Deputy Administrators of the 8, 'all
Business Administration (four) .
(12) Associate Administrator for Admin-
istration, Federal Aviation Agency.
(13) Associate Administrator for Develop-
ment, Federal Aviation Agency.
(14) Associate Administrator for Program,
Federal Aviation Agency.
(15) Associate Administrator for Advanced
Research and Technology, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
(16) Associate Administrator for Space
Science and Applications, National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration.
(17) Associate Administrator for Manned
Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
(18) Associate Deputy Administrator, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(19) Deputy Associate Administrator, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(20) Associate Deputy Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs.
(21) Archivist of the United States.
(22) Area Redevelopment Administrator,
Department of Commerce.
(23) Assistant Secretary of Administra-
tion, Department of Agriculture.
(24) Assistant Secretary for Administra-
tion, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(25) Assistant Secretary for Administra-
tion, Department of the Interior.
(26) Assistant Attorney General for Ad-
ministration.
(27) Assistant Secretary for Administra-
tion, Department of Labor.
(28) Assistant Secretary for Administra-
tion, Department of the Treasury.
(29) Assistant General Manager, Atomic
Energy Commission.
(30) Assistant and Scientific Adviser to
the Secretary of the Interior.
(31) Chairman of the Foreign Claims Set-
tlement Commission.
(32) Chairman of the Military Liaison
Committee to the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, Department of Defense.
(33) Chairman of the Renegotiation
Board.
(34) Chairman of the Subversive Activ-
ities Control Board.
(35) Chief Counsel for the Internal Reve-
nue Service, Department of the Treasury.
(36) Chief Forester, Forest Service, De-
partment of Agriculture.
(37) Chief Postal Inspector, Post Office
Department.
(38) Chief, Weather Bureau, Department
of Commerce.
(39) Commissioner of Customs, Depart-
ment of the Treasury.
(40) Commissioner, Federal Supply Serv-
ice, General Services Administration.
(41) Commissioner of Education, Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(42) Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife,
Department of the Interior,
(43) Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare.
(44) Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization, Department of Justice.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
(45) Commissioner of Indian Affairs, De-
partment of the Interior.
(46) Chief Commissioner, Indian Claims
Commission
(47) Associate Commissioners, Indian
Claims Commission (2)
(48) Commissioner of Patents, Depart-
ment of Commerce.
(49) Commissioner, Public Buildings Serv-
ice, General Services Administration.
(50) Commissioner of Reclamation, De-
partment of the Interior.
(51) Commissioner of Social Security, De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(52) Commissioner of Vocational Rehabili-
tation, Department of Health. Education, and
Welfare.
(53) Commissioner of Welfare. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.
(54) Director, Advanced Research Proj-
ects Agency, Department of Defense.
(55) Director of Agricultural Economics,
Department of Agriculture.
(56) Director. Bureau of the Genet's, De-
partment of Commerce.
(57) Director, Bureau of Mines, Depart-
ment of the Interior.
(58) Director, Bureau of Prisons, Depart-
ment of Justice.
(59) Director, Geological Survey, Depart-
ment of the Interior.
(60) Director, Office of Research and En-
gineering. Post Office Department.
(61) Director, National Bureau of Stand-
ards, Department of Commerce.
(62) Director of Regulation, Atomic Energy
Commission.
(63) Director of Science and Education.
Department of Agriculture.
(64) Deputy Under Secretary for Monetary
Affairs, Department of the Treetuary.
(65) Deputy Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, Department of the Treasury.
(66) Deputy Director, National Science
Foundation.
(67) Deputy Director, Policy and Plans,
United States Information Agency.
(68) Deputy General Counsel, Department
of Defense.
(69) Deputy General Manager, Atomic
Energy Commission.
(70) Associate Director, Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service.
(71) Associate Director for Volunteers,
Peace Corps.
(72) Associate Director for Program De-
velopment and Operations, Peace Corps.
(73) Assistants to the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department
of Justice (2).
(74) Assistant Directors, Office of Emer-
gency Planning (3).
(75) Assistant Directors, United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (4).
(76) Federal Highway Administrator, De-
partment of Commerce
(77) Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury.
(78) General Counsel of the Agency for
International Development.
(79) General Counsel of the Department
of the Air Force.
(80) General Counsel of the Department
of the Army.
(81) General Counsel of the Atomic Energy
Commission.
(82) 'General Counsel of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency.
(83) General Counsel of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
(84) General Counsel of the Department
of the Navy.
(85) General Counsel of the United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
(86) Governor of the Canal Zone.
(87) Manpower Administrator, Depart-
ment of Labor.
(88) Maritime Administrator, Department
of Commerce.
(89) Members, Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission.
(90) Members, Maritime Commission.
(91) Members, National Mediation Board.
(92) Members, Railroad Retirement Board.
(93) Members, Renegotiation Board.
(94) Members, Subversive Activities Con-
trol Board.
(95) Members. United States Tariff Com-
mission.
(96) President of the Federal National
Mortgage Association.
(97) Special Assistant to the Secretary for
Health and Medical Affairs, Department of
Health, Education. and Welfare.
) In addition to the offices and positions
listed in eubeections (d) and (e) of this
section, the President is authorized from
time to time to place offices and positions
held by not to exceed twenty persons In
levels IV and V of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule when he deems such action
necessary to reflect changes In organization,
management responsibilities, or workload in
any Federal department or agency. Any such
action with respect to an office to which ap-
pointment is made by the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate
shall be effective only at the time of a new
appointment to such office. Each action
taken under this subsection shall be pub-
lished In the Federal Register, except when
it is determined by the President that such
publication would be contrary to the in-
terest of the national security. No' action
shall be taken under this subsection with
respect to an office or position the compensa-
tion for which is fixed at a specific rate by
this title or by statute enacted subsequent
to the date of enactment of this Act.
Ser. 304. (a) Section 104 of title 3, United
States Code (relating to the compensation
of the Vice President), Is amended by strik-
ing out "$35,000" and Inserting in lieu
thereof "$43,000".
(b) Section 105 of title 3. United States
Code, Is amended to read as follows:
"? 105. Compensation of secretaries and exe-
cutive, administrative, and staff
assistants to President
"The President Is authorized to fix the
compensation of the six administrative as-
siatants authorized to be appointed under
section 106 of this title, of the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council,
of the Executive Secretary of the National
Aeronautics and Space Council. and of eight
other secretaries or Immediate staff assist-
ants in the White House Office at rates of
basic compensation not to exceed that of
level II of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule.".
Conforming changes in existing late
Ser. 305 The following provisions of law
are hereby repealed:
(1) The Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), establish-
ing rates of basic compensation for heads of
executive departments and other Federal
officials.
(2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Army.
(3) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary
of the Army at $20,000 a year.
(4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy.
(5) Section 5033(c) of title 10, United
States Code, providing the annual salary of
$20,000 a year for the Under Secretary of the
Navy.
(6) Section 304 of Public Law 8'7-651, ap-
proved September '7, 1962 (78 Stat. 526; 10
U.S.C. 5094, note), providing compensation
of $20,000 a year for Assistant Secretaries
of the Navy.
(7) Section 8012(g) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of
July 1
$22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Air
Force.
(8) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secre-
tary of the Mr Force at $20,000 a year.
(9) Section 137(c) of title 10, United
States Code. fixing the compensation of the
General Counsel of the Department of De-
fense at the rate prescribed by law for ambit-
ant secretaries of executive departments.
(10) (A) The last sentence of section 22 a.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend-
ed (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat, 612; 42 U.S.C. 2C32
(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of the
Chairman and members of such Commission,
which reads: "Each member, except the
Chairman, shall receive compensation at the
rate of $22,000 per annum; and the mem-
ber designated as Chairman shall receive
compensation at the rate of $22,500 ler
annum.".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tioon 27 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a)), relating to
the salary of the Chairman of the Military
Liaison Committee which reads: ", and w'ao
shall receive compensation at the rate pre-
scribed for an. Assistant Secretary of De-
fense".
(11) That part of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 8(1;
75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note)?
(A) In section 2(b),relating to the anneal
salary of the Director of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning, which reads: "and shall re-
ceive compensation at the rate now or here-
after prescribed by law for the heads of
executive departments";
(B) In section 2(c), relating to the annual
salary of the Deputy Director of such Office,
which reads: "shall receive compensation at
the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law
for the under secretaries referred to in sec-
tion 104 of the Federal Executive Pay Act of
1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203),"; and
(C) In section 2(d) relating to the annual
salaries of three Assistant Directors of such
Office, which reads: "shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate now or hereafter prescribed
by law for assistant secretaries of executive
departments."
(12) (A) That part of the second sentence
of section 202(a) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C.
2472(a)), relating to the annual salary of the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, which reads:
and shall receive compensation at the rate of
$22,500 per annum".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 202(b) of such Act (72 Stat. 429; ,12
U.S.C. 2472(b) ), relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Admin-
istration, which reads: ", shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $21,500 per annum ".
(13) (A) That part of section 201(1) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
(72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f)), relating to
the annual salary of a civilian executive sec-
retary in the National Aeronautics and Space
Council, which reads: "and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $20.000 a year".
(B) That part of section 204 of such Act
(72 Stat. 431, 432; 42 U.S.C. 2474(a) (1), and
(d) ) , relating to the annual salary of the
Chairman of the Civilian-Military Liaison
Committee, as follows:
In subsection (a) (1), that part which
reads: ", and shall receive compensation (.n
the manner provided in subsection (d) ) at
the rate of $20,000 per annum".
In the second sentence of subsection (d),
that part which reads: "fixed by subsection
(a) (1) ".
(14) (A) That part of the second sentenee
of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949
(63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a)) as amended,
relating to the rank and salary of the Coun-
selor and of the Legal Adviser of the Depart-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15183
ment of State, which reads: "and shall re-
ceive the same salary as".
(B) The last sentence Of sectiOn, 2(a) of
the Act of May 26, /949 (63 Stat. 111; 5
U.S.C. 151b(a) ) as amended, relating to the
rate of basic compensation of the Deputy
Under Secretaries of State, which reads:
"Unless otherwise provided for by law, the
rate of basic compensation of the Deputy
Under Secretaries of State shall be the same
as that of Assistant Secretaries of State.".
(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as
amended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ), re-
lating to the annual salary of the Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs or for
Economic Affairs, as designated by the Presi-
dent, which reads: "shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $22,000 a year and".
(15) The last sentence of section 210(a)
of title 38, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs, Veterans' Administration,
which reads: "He shall receive a salary of
$21,000 a year, payable monthly.".
(16) (A) The last sentence of section
201(a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) (2) ),
relating to the annual salaries of the Chair-
man and members of the Civil Aeronautics
Board, which reads: "Each member of the
Board shall receive a salary at the rate of
$20,000 per annum, except that the member
serving as Chairman shall receive a salary
at the rate of $20,500 per annum.".
(B) That part of the second sentence of
section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744;
49 U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual
salary of the Administrator of the Pederal
Aviation Agency, which reads: ", and who
shall receive compensation at the rate of
$22,500 per annum".
(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744;
49 U.S.C. 1342(a) ), relating to the annual
salary of the Deputy Administrator of such
Agency, which reads: "shall receive compen-
sation at the rate of $20,500 per annum,
and".
(17) (A) The last sentence of section 22
of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act
(75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2562), relating to the
annual salary of the Director of the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, which reads: "He shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $22,500 per annum.".
(B) The second sentence of section 23 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2563), re-
lating to the annual salary of the Deputy
Director of such Agency, which reads: "He
shall receive compensation at the rate of
$21,500 per annum.".
(C) The second sentence of section 24 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2564), re-
lating to the 'annual salaries of the four As-
sistant Directors of such Agency, which
reads: "They shall receive compensation at
the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1955
(69 Stat. 10; 5 U.S.C. 294, 293, 295a), relating
to the annual salaries of certain officials of
the Department of Justice, which reads:
"Sso. 3. (a) The compensation of the Dep-
uty Attorney General shall be at the rate
of $21,000 per annum.
"(b) The compensation of the Solicitor
General shall be at the rate of $20,500 per
annum.
"(c) The compensation of each Assistant
Attorney General, other than the Admin-
istrative Assistant Attorney General, shall be
at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(19) (A) The last sentence of section 102(c)
of Reorganization Plan Numbered '7 of 1961
(75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), re-
lating to the annual salaries of the Chair-
man and members of the Federal Maritime
Commission, which reads: "The Chairman of
the Commission shall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,500 per annum, and each of the
other ComMissioners shall receive a salary
at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(B) That part of section 201 of such re-
organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating t,o the annual salary
of the Maritime Administrator in the De-
partment of Commerce, which reads: "shall
receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per an-
(20) That part of the fourth sentence of
section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and 913; 15
U.S.C. 78d(a) ); relating to the annual sal-
aries of the Chairman and Commissioners of
the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which reads: "shall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,000 a year, except that the Chair-
man shall receive additional salary at the
rate of $500 a year and".
(21) Section 8 of the Food Additives
Amendments of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5
2205, note), fixing the annual salary of the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs at $20,000
per annum.
(22) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act (75
Stat. 48; 42 'U.S.C. 2502), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Area Redevelopment Ad-
ministrator in the Department of Com-
merce, which reads: "who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to that received by
Assistant Secretaries of Commerce".
(23) The last sentence of section 203(b)
(1) of the National' Security Act of 1947 (72
Stat. 520; 5 U.S.C. 171c(b) (1) ) relating to
the annual salary of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering in the Department
of Defense, which reads: "The compensation
of the Director is that prescribed by law for
the Seerctari,s of the military departme 'ts.".
(24) In section 303(a) of title 23, United
States Code,
(A) That part of the second sentence, re-
lating to the annual salary of the Federal
Highway Administrator in the Department of
Commerce, which reads: "shall receive basic
-compensation at the rate prescribed by law
for Assistant Secretaries of executive depart-
ments and"; and
(B) The last sentence, relating to the an-
nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway
Administrator in such department, which
reads: "The Deputy Federal Highway Ad-
ministrator shall receive basic compensation
at a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided
for the Federal Highway Administrator.".
(25) The last proviso in the paragraph
under the herdingT
"IMMIGRATION AND NA-
TURALIZATION SERVICE" and under the sub-
heading "SALARIES AND EXPENSES" in the De-
partment of Justice Appropriation Act, 1959
(72 Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206, note), relating
to the annual salary of the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
which reads: ": Provided further, That, here-
after, the compensation of the Commissioner
of the Immiffratio-, and Naturalization Serv-
ice shall be $20,000 per annum".
(26) The second paragraph of section 3
of title 35, United States Code, relating to the
annual salary of the Commissioner of Pat-
ents which reads: "The annual rate of com-
pensation of the Commissioner shall be
$20,000.".
(27) That part of section 4(a)of the Peace
Corps Act (75 Stat. 612; 22 U.S.C. 2503(a) ),
relating to the annual salaries of the Direc-
tor and of the Deputy Director of the Peace
Corps, which reads: ", whose compensation
shall be fixed by the President at a rate not
in excess of $20,000 per annum," and ", whose
compensation shall be fixed by the President
at a rate not in excess of $19,500 per annum;'.
(28) (A) Section 308 of title 39, United
States Code, fixing the annual rate of basic
compensation of, the position of Chief Postal
Inspector in the Post Office Department at
$19,000.
(B) That part of the table of contents of
chapter 3 of title 39, United States Code,
which reads as follows: "308. Chief Postal
Inspector.".
(29) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 4 of the International Travel Act of
1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating
to the annual salary of the Director of the
United States Travel Service in the Depart-
ment_ of Commerce, which reads: "who shall
be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per
annum,",
(30) Section 14(b) of the Federal Em-
ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat.
716; 5 U.S.C. 5013(b)), which fixes the com-
pensation of the Executive Director of the
United States Civil Service Commission at
$19,000 per annum.
(31) That part of the first sentence of
section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of
1951, as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C. App.
1217(c) ), relating to the annual salary of
the General Counsel of the Renegotiation
Board which reads:.", and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $19,000 per annum".
(32) (A) That part of ?the third sentence
in section 201(a) of the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 538; 10
U.S.C. 661(a) ), relating to the annual salary
of the Administrator of the National Capital
Transportation Agency, which reads: ", and
who shall receive compensation at a rate
equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended, plus $500 per an-
num".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538; 40
U.S.C. 601(b)), relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency,
which reads: ", and who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to the maximum
rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule
of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended".
(33) The last sentence of section 624(d)
(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(75 Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(d) (1)), as
amended, fixing the compensation of certain
officials in the Department of State, which
reads: "The Inspector General, Foreign As-
sistance, shall receive compensation at the
rate of $20,000 annually; the Deputy In-
spector. General, Foreign Assistance, shall
receive compensation at the rate of $20,000
annually, and each Assistant Inspector Gen-
eral, Foreign Assistance, shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $19,000 annually.".
(34) That part of section 202 of the Act
of July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 5 U.S.C. 623g),
relating to the annual salary of the Admin-
istrative Assistant Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, which reads: ", and
whose annual rate of basic compensation
shall be $19,000".
(35) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1963, under the heading
"DEPARTMENT OF THE IN fratIOR" and
under the Caption "BUREAU OF RECLAMATION"
and the subheading "ADMINISTRATIVE ram-I-
/MONS" (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 373a-1), re-
lating to the annual salary of the present in-
cumbent of the position of Commission of the
Bureau of Reclamation, which reads:
"After September 30, 1962, the position of
Commissioner of Reclamation shall have the
annual rate of compensation as provided for
positions listed in section 2205(a) of title 5,
United States Code, so long as held by the
present incumbent.".
(36) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1962, under the heading "DE-
PARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and under
the Caption "BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRA-
TION' and the subheading "CONSTRUCTION"
('75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1), relating to
the annual salary of the present incumbent
of the position of Administrator, Bonneville
Power Administration, which reads:
"After October 1, 1961, the position of
Administrator, Bonneville Power Administra-
tion, shall have the same annual rate' of
compensation as that provided for positions
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 1
listed in section 2205(b) of title 5, United
States Code, so long as held by the present
incumbent.".
(37) Section 205 of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1958) (71 Stat. 423; 5 U.S.C.
483-1 note. 2206 note), as amended, relating
to the salary of the present incumbent of
the position of Administrator of the South-
western Power Administration in the De-
partment of the Interior. and to the salary
of the Administrative Assistant Secretary of
such Department, which reads:
'SEC. 205. After August 31, 1957, the salary
of the Administrator of the Southwestern
Power Administration shall be the same as
the salary of the Administrator of the Bonne-
ville Power Administration, so long as held
by the present incumbent; and the salary of
the Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Department shall be the mime as the Solici-
tor of the Department of the Interior.".
(38) The proviso In the first paragraph un-
der the heading "FEDERAL BUREAU or Layman-
csarow" and under the subheading "SALARIES
and EXPENSES" in the Department of Justice
Appropriation Act. 1964 (77 Stat. 782; Public
Law 88-245). relating to the annual salary of
the present incumbent of the position of Di-
rector of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, which reads: ": Provided, That the
compensation of the Director of the Bureau
shall be $22.000 per annum so long as the
position is held by the present Incumbent"
and provisions to the same effect contained
in other appropriation Acts enacted prior to
the effective date of this section relating to
the annual salary of the present Incumbent
of the position of Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation.
(39) That part of section 7801(b) (2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended,
relating to the annual salary of the Assistant
General Counsel of the Treasury Department
Who shall be the Chief Counsel for the Inter-
nal Revenue Service, which reads: "and shall
receive basic compensation at the annual
rate of $19,000".
(40)(A) Sections 3018, 6014, and 8018 of
title 18, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the general counsels of the
military departments.
(B) The respective tables of contents of
chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 10, United
States Code, are amended by striking out
"3018. Compensation of General Counsel.";
"5014. Compensation of General Counsel";
and
"8018. Compensation of General Counsel.".
(41)(A) That part of section 2(a) of Re-
organization Plan Numbered 2 of 1982 (76
Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 119z-15. note), relating
to the compensation of the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology, which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $22,590 per annum".
(B) That part of section 2(b) of auch re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating to the compensation
of the Deputy Director of the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology, which reads: "and re-
ceive compensation at the rate of $20.500
per annum".
(C) That part of section 22(a) of such re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1255; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating to the compensation
of the Director of the National Science Foun-
dation, which reads: "shall receive cornpen-
aation at the rate of $21,000 per annum and".
(42) That part of section 624(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447;
22 U.S.C. 2384(a) ).relating to the compensa-
tion of twelve officers in the agency primarily
responsible for administering part I of such
Act, which reads: "of whom-
"(1) one shall have the rank of an Under
Secretary and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law
for any Under Secretary of an Executive De-
partment;
"(2) one shall have the rank of Deputy
Under Secretary and shall be compensated at
a rate not to exceed the rate authorized by
law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an
executive department; and
"(3) ten shell have the rank of Assistant
Secretaries and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law
for any Assistant Secretary of an executive
department.".
1431 That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 164(b) of the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act (66 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104(b)), re-
lating to the rank and compensation of the
Administrator, Bureau of Security and Con-
sular Affairs, which reads: "and compensa-
tion".
Sec. 306. (a) (1) Section 508 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"I 508. Salaries
"Subject to subsection (f) of section 303
of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1904,
the Attorney General shall fix the annual
salaries of United States attorneys, assist-
ant United States attorneys, and attorneys
appointed under section 603 of this title at
rates of compensation not In excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended.".
(2) Subject to section 303(f) of this Act,
each incumbent United States attorney and
assistant United States attorney shall be
paid compensation at a rate equal to that
of attorneys of comparable responsibility
and professional qualifications, as determined
by the Attorney General, whose compensation
is prescribed in the General Schedule of the
Classification Act of 1940, as amended.
( b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 23
U.S.C. 866), relating to the per annum sal-
aries of chiefs of mission, Is amended by
striking out the second sentence of that
section and inserting in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing: "The per annum salaries of chiefs
of mission within each class shall be at the
rate provided by law for the levels of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule as follows:
class 1, the rate for level II; class 2, the rate
for level III; class 3, the rate for level IV;
and class 4, the rate for level V.".
(c) That part of section 201(f) of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 438; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f)), fixing a
limit of $19.000 on the compensation of seven
persona in the National Aeronautics and
Space Council, ID amended by striking out
"compensated at the rate of not more than
$19,000 a year," and Inserting in lieu thereof
"compensated at not to exceed the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,".
(d) Clause (A) of section 203 (b) (2) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2) ), as
amended, Ls amended to read as follows: "(A)
to the extent the Administrator deems such
action necessary to the discharge of hie re-
sponsibilities, he may appoint not more than
four hundred and twenty-five of the scien-
tific, engineering, and administrative per-
sonnel of the Administration without re-
gard to such lawm, and may fix the compen-
sation of such personnel not in excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended, and".
(e) Section 6(f) of the Act of September
24, 1959 ('73 Stat. 708; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f)), re-
lating to the maximum compensation pay-
able to employees of the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relation/3, is
amended by striking out "at a rate in ex-
cess of $20.000 per annum" and by inserting
In lieu thereof "at a rate in excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General (Rhea-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended".
(1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is further amended as follows:
(1) In the last sentence of section 26 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(a) ) ,
relating to the annual salary of the General
Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert-
ing "and" immediately before "shall be re-
movable by the Commission" and (B) by
striking out that part which reads: ", and
shall receive compensation at a rate deter-
mined by the Commission, but not in ex-
cess of $22,000 per annum";
(2) In the last sentence of section 24 b.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(b) ), relating to
the annual salary of the Deputy General
Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert-
ing "and" immediately before "shall be re-
movable by the General Manager" and ,B)
by striking out that part which reads: ", and
shall receive compensation at a rate deter-
mined by the General Manager, but not in
excess of $20,500 per annum";
(3) In the last sentence of section 24 C.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c)), relating to
the annual salaries of the Assistant General
Managers (or their equivalents) of such
Commission, (A) by inserting "and" immedi-
ately before "shall be removable by the Gen-
eral Manager" and (B) by striking out that
part which reads: ", and shall receive cern-
pensation at a rate determined by the Gen-
eral Manager, but not in excess of $20,000
per annum";
(4) In the second sentence of section 25
a. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035
(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di-
rectors of program divisions of such Com-
mission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
in excess of $19,000 per annum";
(5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71
812; 42 U.S.C. 2035(b)), relating to the In-
nual salary of the General Counsel of such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
in excess of $19,500 per annum";
(6) In the first sentence of section 25 C.
(68 Stat. 925; '71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(c) ) ,
relating to the annual salary of the Director
of the Inspection Division in such Commis-
sion, by striking out that part which reads:
"and shall receive compensation at a rate
determined by the Commission, but not in
excess of 419.000 per annum";
(7) In the last sentence of section 25 d. (71
Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(d)), relating to the
annual salaries of certain executive manage-
ment positions in such Commission, (A) by
inserting "and" immediately before "shall be
removable by the General Manager" and I B)
by striking out that part which reads: ", and
shall receive compensation at a rate deter-
mined by the General Manager, but not in
excess of $19,000 per annum"; and
(8) In the second sentence of section 28
(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2038), relating to the
compensation of the active member of the
Armed Forces serving as Director of the D:vi-
Mon of Military Application in such Ccm-
mission, by stalking out that part which
reads "and the compensation prescribed in
section 25" and inserting in lieu thereof.
"and the compensation established for this
position pursuant to section 303 or section
309 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of
1964".
(g) Section 2 of the Act of July 30. 1e46,
as amended (60 Stat. 712; 70 Stat. 740; 22
U.S.C. 287n), relating to the conapensation of
the United States representatives and alter-
nates at sessions of the General Confere.ace
of the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization, is amended by
striking out "Such representatives and alter-
nates shall each be entitled to receive cam-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196,4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15185
pensation at such rates, not to exceed $15,-
000. per annum, as the President may deter-
mine," and inserting in lieu thereof "Such
representatives and alternates shall each be
entitled to receive compensation at such rates
provided for Foreign Service officers in the
schedule contained in section 412 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as
the President may determine,".
(h) The third sentence of section 2 of the
Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C. 402,
note), is amended to read as follows: "Ex-
cept as provided in subsection (f) of section
303 of the Federal Executive Salary Act of
1964, no officer or employee of the National
Security Agency shall be paid basic compen-
sation at a rate in excess of the highest rate
of basic compensation contained in such
General Schedule.".
(i) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of July
25, 1958 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs. 1-204a
and 1-204b), relating to the compensation of
the Commissioners of the District of Colum-
bia, are amended to read as follows:
"Scc. 2. Except as otherwise provided by
this section and section 3 of this Act-
"(1) the compensation of the Commis-
sioners of the District of Columbia shall be
at the rate of $25,500 each per annum; and
"(2) the Commissioner detailed from the
Corps of Engineers of the United States Army
shall receive an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he receives
as an officer of the United States Army, will
equal the compensation authorized by para-
graph (1) of this section.
"SEC. 3. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law-
"(1) the compensation of the President of
the Board of Commissioners of the District
of Columbia shall be at the rate of $26,000
per annum; and
"(2) if the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army is chosen President of the Board of
Commissioners, he shall receive, as President
of the Board, an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he re-
ceives as an officer of the United States Army,
will equal the compensation authorized by
paragraph (1) of this section.".
(2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief Judge and the associate Judges
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
is amended-
(A) by striking out "$19,000" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "$25,000"; and
(B) by striking out "$18,500" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "$24,500".
(3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief Judge and the associate judges
of the District of Columbia Court of Gen-
eral Sessions, is amended-
(A) by striking out "$18,000" and insert-
ing in lieu therof "$24,000"; and
"Class 10
Fire Chief.
Chief of Police."
is amended to read as follows:
"Class 10
Fire Chief.
Chief of Police."
(j) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of
title 10, 'United States Code, is amended by
striking out "; compensation".
(2) The table of contents of chapter 303
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by; compensa-
tion."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by.".
(3) The catchline of section 5031 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(4) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili-
ties; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili-
ties.".
(5) The catchline of section 5033 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(6) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: appoint-
ment; duties; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: appoint-
ment; duties.".
(7) The catchline of section 8012 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(8) The table of contents of chapter 803
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
duties; delegation by; compensa-
tion."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation by.".
No. 132 21
17,000 17,400 1 17,800 18,200
(B) by striking out "$17,500" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "$23,500".
(4) The first sentence of the second para-
graph of section 2 of the District of Colum-
bia Revenue Act of 1937, as amended (D.C.
Code, sec. 47-2402), relating to the compen-
sation of the person appointed to the Dis-
trict of Columbia Tax Court, is amended by
striking out 117,500" and inserting in lieu
thereof $23,500".
(5) That part of the salary schedule in
section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach-
ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (76 Stat.
1229; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501), relating to
the compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools, of the District of Columbia, which
reads:
"Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools $19, 000
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 16, 500"
is amended to read as follows:
"Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools $25, 000
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 21,000"
(6) That part of the salary schedule in
section 101 of the District of Columbia Police
and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
480), as amended (sec. 4-823, et seq., D.C.
Code, 1961 edition), relating to the compen-
sation of the Fire Chief and the Chief of
Police, which reads:
I 18,600 I 10,000 I
20,000 ! 20, 500 21,000 21, 500
I 22,000 22, 500
Changes in position titles
SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in
any law or reorganization plan to the-
Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Interior,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Labor,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury,
or
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare,
such reference shall be held and considered
to mean the-
Assistant Attorney General for Admin-
istration,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Admin-
istration,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Administration, or
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare for Administration,
respectively.
Limitation on salaries fixed by administra-
tive action
SEC. 308. Except as provided by this Act
and notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law, the head of any executive depart-
ment, independent establishment, or agency
in the executive branch who is authorized
to fix by administrative action the annual
rate of basic compensation for any position,
officer, or employee shall not fix such rate in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act of
1949, as amended. Nothing contained in this
section shall be construed to impair the
authorities provided in the Central Intelli-
gence Agency Act of 1919, as amended (50
U.S.C. 403a and following), in section 3 of
the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933
(16 U.S.C. 831b), in section 9 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), in
section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12
U.S.C. 248), or in section 5240 of the Re-
vised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the
Comptroller of the Currency) .
Positions placed under Classification Act of
1949
SEC. 309. Each office or position in the
executive branch specifically referred to in,
or covered by, any conforming change in law
made by section 305 of this Act, or any other
office or position in the executive branch
for which the annual salary is established
pursuant to special provision of law enacted
prior to July 1, 1964, at a figure of $18,500
or above, which is not placed in a level of the
Federal Executive Salary Schedule pursuant
to section 303 of this Act, shall receive pay
equivalent to a grade and step of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended. All actions taken under this
section shall be ' reported to the United
States Civil Service Commission and pub-
lished in the Federal Register, except when
it is determined by the President that such
report and publication would be contrary
to the interest of national security.
Saving provisions
SEC. 310. (a) Except as provided by this
Act, the changes in existing law made by
this Act shall not affect any office or posi-
tion existing immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of any such changes in existing
law, the compensation attached to such
office or position, and any incumbent there-
of, his appointment thereto, and his entitle-
ment to receive the compensation attached
thereto, until appropriate action is taken in
accordance with this Act or other law.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act, the rate of basic, gross, or total annual
compensation received by any officer or em-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 1
pioyee immediately prior to the effective
date of this section shall not be reduced
by reason of enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV-FEDERAL JUDICIAL SALARIES
SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1064".
SEC. 402. 1a) The rates of basic compensa-
tion of officers and employees in or under
the judicial branch of the Government
whose rates of compensation are fixed by or
pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a
of section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11
U.S.C. 102(a) (2)), section 3656 of title 18,
United States Code, the third sentence of
section 603, sections 672 to 675. Inclusive, or
section 1304(a) (5), of title 28, United States
Code, insofar as the latter section applies
to graded positions, are hereby increased by
amounts reflecting the respective applicable
Increases provided by title I of this Act In
corresponding rates of compensation for of-
ficers and employees subject to the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949, as amended. The rates
of basic compensation of officers and em-
ployees holding ungraded positions and
whose salaries are fixed pursuant to section
604(a) (5) may be increased by the amounts
reflecting the respective applicable increases
provided by title I of this Act In correspond-
ing rates of compensation for officers and
employees subject to the classification Act
of 1949, as amended.
(b) The limitations provided by applicable
law on the effective date of this section with
respect to the aggregate salaries payable to
secretaries and law clerks of circuit and dis-
trict judges are hereby increased by amounts
which reflect the respective applicable In-
creases provided by title I of this Act in
corresponding rates of compensation for
officers and employees subject to the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended.
(c) Section 753(e) of title 28, United
States Code (relating to the compensation of
court reporters for district courts). Is
amended by striking out the existing salary
limitation contained therein and inserting
a new limitation which reflects the respec-
tive applicable increases provided by title
I of this Act in corresponding rates of com-
pensation for officers and employees subject
to the Classification Act of 1949. as amended.
(d) Section 40a of the Bankruptcy Act
(11 U.S.C. 68(a) ), as amended, relating to
the compensation of full-time and part-time
referees in bankruptcy, is amended by strik-
ing out the existing compensation limita-
tions contained therein and inserting new
limitations of "$22,51:4r. and "$11,000",
respectively.
SEC. 403. (a) Section 5 of title 28, United
States Code, relating to the salaries of the
Chief Justice of the United States and of the
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of
the United States, is amended by striking
out "1135.500" and substituting therefor
"$43.000". and by striking out "$35,000" and
substituting therefor "$42.500".
(b) Section 44(d) of title 28, Uelted States
Code, relating to circuit judges, is amended
by striking out "$25,500" and substituting
therefor "833,000".
(c) Section 135 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to district judges. Is amended
by striking out "822500" and substituting
therefor "$30.000", and by striking out "$23,-
000" and substituting therefor "$30,500".
(d) Section 173 of title 28, United States
Code relating to judges of the Court of
Claims, is amended by striking out "$25.500"
and substituting therefor "$33,000".
( el Section 213 of title 28, United States
Code. relating to judges of the Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals, is amended by
striking out "$25,500" and substituting there-
for "833,000".
if) Section 252 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Customs
Court, is amended by striking out "$22.500"
and substituting therefor "1130.000".
(g) The first paragraph of section 803 of
title 28, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the Director and the Deputy
Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts. la amended to read as
follows:
"The Director shall receive a salary of
$27,000 a year. The Deputy Director shall
receive a salary of $26.000 a year."
(hi Subsection (b) of section 792 of title
28, United States Code, relating to the com-
pensation of commissioners of the Court of
Claims is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Each commissioner shell receive basic
compensation at the rate of $26,000 a year,
and also all necessary traveling expenses and
a per diem allowance as provided In the
navel Expense Act of 1940, as amended, while
traveling on official business and away from
Washington. District of Columbia."
(1) Section 7443(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 879), as amended,
relating to judges of the Tax Court of the
United States, is further amended by strik-
ing out "$22,500" and substituting therefor
-$30.000".
(I) Section 1367(a) (1) of title 10, United
S?ntes Code, relating to judges of the Court
of Military Appeals. le amended by striking
out "125.500" and substituting therefor
"S33,000".
TITLE 4-EFFECTIVE DATES
Sec. 501. (a) Except to the extent pro-
vided in subsections (b) and (c) of this sec-
tion, this Act and the increases in compen-
sation made by this Act shall become effec-
tive on July 1, 1964.
bi Section 204 of this Act, relating to in-
creases in compensation for Members of Con-
gress, shall become effective at noon on Jan-
uary 3. 1965.
ic Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act (but except as otherwise pro-
vided in subsection (b) of this section)?
(1) no rate of compensation which is
equal to or In excess of $22,000 per annum
shall be Increased in any amount, by reason
of section 202 of this Act, until the first day
of the first pay period which begins on or
after January 1. 1965: and
(21 no rate of compensation which is less
than $22,000 per annum shall be increased to
an amount per annum in excess of $22,000.
by reason of section 202 or 203(g) of this Act,
until the first day of the first pay period
which begins on or after January 1, 1965.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
the precedents of the Senate, the com-
mittee substitute for this bill is con-
sidered as original text for the purpose
of amendment, and is therefore subject
to amendment in two degrees. Amend-
ments to the House text or any amend-
ment thereto has precedence over the
committee substitute or any amendment
to it.
The vote on the substitute, whether
amended or not, will not come until after
all perfecting amendments, either to the
original bill or the substitute itself have
been disposed of.
The committee amendment, when
agreed to. is not subject to further
amendment.
OIL IMPORT PROGRAM
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the rule of ger-
maneness be waived for the duration of
my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, It is so ordered.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, last
Thursday afternoon, nearly a week ago,
the Secretary of the Interior announced
the Government's decision on the level
of oil imports under the mandatory oil
Import program for the last half of
1964.
This decision came after strong ap-
peals from dozens of U.S. Senators and
Members of the House of Representa-
tives, 20 Governors, and strong grassr)ots
support for a substantial reduction in the
level of crude oil imports.
What was the decision?
Instead of a substantial reduction, the
program announced increased oil im-
ports into the United States for the last
half of 1964 by more than 100,000 bar-
rels per day over the same period of last
year. This was done in spite of the De-
partment's conclusion in its Thursday
announcement that:
The Department also announced the pre-
liminary results of a review of the basic
economic position ccnfronting the domestic
producing industry. The tentative conclu-
sions from the study indicate that there has
been a gradual erasion in the crude price
structure throughout the United States, and
that despite moderate increases in crude pro-
duction, domestic producers are being .fon-
fronted with increasing difficulties.
Mr. President, I find this action in-
comprehensible in light of the seriously
depressed conditions now prevailing in
this vital domestic industry.
Why did 16 Senators, including myself,
and my colleague from Wyoming IMr.
Simpsoril join in a strong bipartisan ap-
peal to the President for a substantial
reduction in oil imports?
Why did dozens of other Senators and
Members of the House address individual
appeals to the President, the Secreiwy
of the Interior, and the Secretary of De-
fense, imploring them to greatly reduce
the levels of oil imports into this coun-
try?
Why did 20 State Governors send a
telegram to President Johnson declaring:
Governors of several oil States request your
assistance in the establishment of oil import
quotas which comply with the congressional
mandate aimed at insuring continued do-
mestic exploration and the developmer.t of
domestic supplies adequate to meet the needs
of our national security.
Why did the Independent Petrolaum
Association of America, representing 10,-
000 oil and gas producers, joined by more
than 30 State and local associations, pe-
tition the President and the Secretary
of the Interior for prompt relief from
this evergrowing tide of foreign oil?
Mr. President, I will tell you why.
This Nation is facing a steady deteri-
oration of one of the basic industries--an
Industry which in my mind is the most
important national security tool this Na-
tion has.
It is even more important, relatively
speaking, to my own State of Wymr.ing,
where it constitutes by far the largest
segment of our State's economy. Wyo-
ming ranks fifth among the oil-produc-
ing States.
We are witnessing the continual de-
cline of an industry which in the past
has been called upon to produce the
petroleum so vital to successfully prose-
cute wars, stand off and deter war
threats, help other friendly nations in
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15282 -
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
LEAD
Consumption of lead in the United States
has been increasing In recent years, with the
available supply being exceeded by nearly
40,000 short tons in both 1962 and 1963. The
total U.S. consumption of 1,154,300 short
tons in 1963 was the highest since 1957 when
consumption was 1,138,115 short tons.
The stockpile objective for lead was re-
duced by the Office of Emergency Planning
from 286,000 short tons to zero on June 17,
1963. As a consequence the inventory of
1,378,453 short tons of lead in excess of esti-
mated stockpile requirements. The com-
mittee was informed that the developing
lead shortage in the commercial market may
become serious during 1964. Consequently
the present circumstances seem more favor-
able for an orderly disposal of lead surpluses
than they have in recent years.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
The objective of this bill is similar to that
of S. 2933, introduced by the junior Senator
from West Virginia, [Mr. BYRD ] , and S. 2867,
which was introduced by the senior Senator
from West Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH] .
FISCAL DATA
The average acquisition cost of the lead
in the national stockpile was $0.1445 per
pound. Current market prices for lead, the
highest in several years, are about $0.13 per
pound.
Mr. MONRONEY. Would the Sena-
tor tell us how much lead and zinc is
involved?
Mr. SYMINGTON. There are 75,000
tons of zinc; and 50,000 tons of lead.
Mr. MONRONEY. Can the Senator
state whether the committee is satisfied
it will have no adverse effect on the
commodity?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me say to the
Senator from Oklahoma that those who
are most eager to have the disposals ap-
proved are the users of the materials.
There is a critical shortage.
Mr. MONRONEY. It would not ad-
versely affect the current market, in the
judgment of the Senator?
Mr. SYMINGTON. In the opinion of
the disposal experts of the General Serv-
ices Administration, and in the judgment
of the committee, it would not.
Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Sena-
tor. I know of his great interest in this
subject. His State is ap i ortant
producer of the mat a'',1
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (MR. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I should like to know
whether the pay increase would also ap-
ply to retired judges who are drawing
full pay for life.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, in-
active judges drawing full pay are not
specifically mentioned in this bill. But
under the law that is already on the
statute books, they would.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That means that a
judge who is retired would also get the
benefit of this pay increase?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is true.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time not be
charged against the time on either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield
briefly to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Montana is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand that
the next amendment will be one to be
offered by the Senator from Oregon.
I ask unanimous consent?and I hope
this meets with the approval of the Sen-
ate?that, from now on, there be a time
limitation, on each amendment, of one-
half an hour, with 15 minutes to be al-
lotted to the proponents and 15 minutes
to be allotted to the opponents, and with
the time to be controlled, respectively,
by the mover of the amendment and the
Senator from South Carolina, respec-
tively; and that 2 hours be available on
the question of the passage of the bill,
with the time to be controlled by the
majority leader and the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I thank the Sena-
tor from South Carolina for yielding to
me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time, and to whom? Do Senators
who are in charge of the time on the
Williams amendment yield back the re-
maining time under their control?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, how
much time remains available to each
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The
Senator from Delaware has 4 minutes
remaining; the Senator from South
Carolina has 6 minutes remaining.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Dela-
ware [Mr. WILLIAM s] .
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
either side yield time to the Senator
from Arkansas?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
wish to have only about 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time to the Senator from Arkan-
sas?
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, if I
cannot get any time now, I shall offer an
amendment of my own.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I shall try to get the time for
the Senator from Arkansas. I have
yielded almost all the time I have.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I do
not know on which side the Senator in-
tends to speak. I am willing to give him
1 minute of my time. I suggest that the
Senator from Delaware yield him 1 min-
ute.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, to re-
solve the issue, I yield 1 minute on the
bill to the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to make one
statement. One of the reasons why I
cannot support the bill is that the Gov-
ernment is operating at a continuous
deficit. Later I shall make a short
statement on the bill, but that is one of
the reasons why I cannot support the
bill. -
When the tax reduction bill was before
the Senate, I offered an amendment
which would link the reduction to
a balanced budget. In a sense, my posi-
tion now is comparable. The same prin-
ciple is involved as was involved in the
previous amendment.
I commend those who have offered
the amendment. I shall support it. I
do not believe?and I will repeat the
statement again in my remarks?that we
have any moral right to raise our salaries
and charge the cost to future genera-
tions. We should not increase the deficit
under which the Government is now
operating.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield 2
minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 minutes to
the minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Illinois is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I hope
that the amendment will not prevail.
Very simply, it provides that there shall
be no salary increase in the case of those
whose salary is now $20,000 or over, until
the Federal budget is balanced.
I sat through all the tax hearings held
by the Senate Committee on Finance.
Some of the best testimony we had was
from none other than Arthur Burns, the
economist and chairman of economic ad-
visers in the Eisenhower administration.
It was his opinion, contrary to that of
some others, including the Secretary of
the Treasury, that we could not see a
balanced budget until 1972. That is 8
years from now.
I should like to invite attention to what
is involved. It touches an amount equal
to one quarter of 1 percent of the money
that is carried in the bill. That is the
total sum. It is in the neighborhood of
about $16 million. If there is any virtue
in that kind of attitude on the bill, we
ought to start reducing every appropria-
tion by half if we are to make any prog-
ress in that direction. In my judgment,
at best the proposal is only a gesture;
therefore I trust that the amendment
will be rejected.
FARM PARITY DOWN?NO TIME TO RAISE
CONGRESSIONAL SALARIES
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I yield 2 minutes to the Sen-
ator from South Dakota.
Mr. MUNDT, Mr. President, I wonder
if the minority leader would yield me
an extra minute on the bill.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R0005000500t1-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
mediate consideration of the four
measures referred to?
There being no objection, the concur-
rent resolution (H. Con. Res. 300) au-
thorizing the disposal of approximately
98,000 long tons of pig tin from the na-
tional stockpile was considered and
agreed to.
The excerpts from the report (No.
1166) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are
as follows:
PURPOSE
This resolution would grant congressional
consent to the disposal of 98,000 long tons of
pig tin now held in the national stockpile.
TI N
A notice of a proposed disposal of 98,000
short tons of pig tin was published in the
Federal Register on March 27. 1964, 29 F.R.
3838, and the Congress was asked to approve
the disposal.
On July 26. 1963, the Director of the Office
of Emergency Planning established a revised
stockpile objective for tin at 200.000 long
tons. As of May 15, 1964, the quantity of
tin in inventory in excess of this objective,
after sales commitments, was 123,541 long
tons. Of this excess quantity 25,541 long
tons remained to be sold from a disposal
program of 50.000 long tons approved by
House Concurrent Resolution 4'73. which was
agreed to by the House on June 1, 1962, and
by the Senate on June 21. 1962. Hence the
quantity of tin in the national stockpile that
is excess to requirements and that has not
been previously approved for disposal Is ap-
proximately 98,000 long tons.
Consumption of tin within the United
States declined from 83,000 long tons in 1929
to about 55.000 long tons in 1963. Consump-
tion throughout the free world has shown a
steady increase in the last 5 years?from
136.000 long tons in 1958 to 158,500 long tons
In 1963. This free world consumption is esti-
mated to increase to 175,000 long tons an-
nually by 1968. Free world production of tin
has increased over that of 5 years ago, but
it has not kept pace with consumption. The
output has increased from 121.124 long tons
in 1968 to 146,700 long tons in 1963 and this
Is expected to increase to 158.200 long tons
by 1968. The estimate consequently is that
there will be a deficit of about 20,000 long
tons annually over the long term.
The disposal plan for tin contemplates that
the 25,541 long tons that are the remaining
unsold balance under House Concurrent
Resolution 473 of the 87th Congress will be
merged with the 98,000 long tons that are
the subject of this resolution. The total
excess will be (Reposed of over a period of
approximately 6 to 8 years. The General
Services Administration has announced that
It expects to dispose of approximately 20.000
long tons of tin during the first year of the
program and that the disposal plan will be
reviewed at least annually by the Adminis-
trator of General Services in consultation
with other Interested departments and
agencies.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
The objective of this resolution is similar
to Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, intro-
duced by the senior Senator from Missouri
(Mr. SYMINGTON ]
FISCAL DATA
The average acquisition coat of the pig tin
in the national stockpile was 41.0855 per
pound. The average return to the Govern-
ment from the disposal action authorized by
House Concurrent Resolution 473 of the 87th
Congress has been $1.26 per pound. The
current market prices for pig tin are in the
range of $1.50 to $1.56 per pound. The
General Services Administration estimates
that the price for pig tin will continue to
remain favorable for this disposal action.
DISPOSAL OF MOLYBDENUM FROM
THE NATIONAL STOCKPME
The bill (HR. 11235) to authorize the
disposal, without regard to the prescribed
6-month waiting period, of approximate-
ly 11 million pounds of molybdenum from
the national stockpile was considered,
ordered to a third reading, read the third
time, and passed.
The excerpts from the report (No.
1163) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are,
as follows:
PURPOSE
This bill would (I) grant congressional
approval for the disposal of 11 million pounds
of molybdenum now held in the national
stockpile, and (2) waive the 6-month waiting
period ordinarily required before disposals of
strategic and critical materials may be made
from the national stockpile.
MOLIRDENU M
Molybdenum is a basic industrial raw ma-
terial used chiefly In the manufacture of al-
loy. steels, and chemicals. An uninterrupted
supply of this material Is essential to the
economies of highly Industrialized nations.
The United States is the largest producer
and consumer of molybdenum In the world.
U.S. production was 66 million pounds In
1963. The only other significant supplies of
molybdenum available to the free world are
In Chile, which now produces about 5 million
pounds annually.
U.S. consumption of molybdenum has in-
creased from 24 million pounds In 1958 to 48
million pounds in 1963. Although produc-
tion in the United States exceeds domestic
consumption, the strong demand for molyb-
denum by other industrialized countries of
the free world has created pressure upon the
supplies of the U.S. producers.
The committee was Informed that U.S.
producers of molybdenum are taking steps
to meet increased demands from ample mo-
lybdenum ore reserves but that because of
the lag between consumer demand and pro-
duction a balance between demand and sup-
ply Is not immediately foreseeable and the
present shortage may continue for some
time. Thla gives the Government an oppor-
tunity to dispose of some excess molybdenum
and also to satisfy an urgent immediate need
for the material in our domestic Industry.
If this bill Is approved the General Serv-
ices Administration plans an initial gales
offering of 2 million pounds on a competi-
tive basis. Subsequent ofierings would be
made periodically, depending upon the eval-
uation of previous sales and of existing
market conditions. Disposals would be lim-
ited to domestic consumption.
The current stockpile objective for molyb-
denum is 68 million pounds. The inventory
in the national stockpile is slightly more
than 79 million pounds. This bill would per-
mit the disposal of all the molybdenum that
Is surplus to stockpile objectives.
FISCAL DATA
The average acquisition coat of molyb-
denum In the national stockpile was $1.06
per pound. Current market prices are ap-
proxlmately $1.55 per pound. Disposals un-
der House Concurrent Resolution 473 of the
87th Congress resulted in an average return
to the Government of 11.448 per pound.
BALE OF ZINC
The bill (H.R. 11004) to authorize the
sale, without regard to the 6-month
period prescribed, of zinc proposed to be
disposed of pursuant to the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act,
was considered, ordered to a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed.
15281
The excerpts from the report (No.
1165) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are.
as follows:
PURPOSE
This bill would (1) grant congressional
approval for the disposal of approximately
75.000 short tons of zinc now held in the
national stockpile. and (2) waive the 6-
month waiting period ordinarily required
before disposals of strategic and critical ma-
terials may be made from the national
stockpile.
7 INC
Zinc that would be disposed of under
this bill is excess to present mobilization
requirements of the Government. The cur-
rent stockpile objective for zinc is zero.
The Inventory of zinc in the national stock-
pile Is 1,580,643 short tons.
Within the last 2 years U.S. consumption
of zinc has reached near record levels-
1.013.831 short tons in 1962, and 1.081,354
short tons In 1963. The year of record con-
sumption was 1953. when 1,119,812 short
tons were used.
The consumption of zinc in the United
States is primarily by the automotive indus-
try, which uses the material in dye castings
and for galvanizing. Use of zinc in the
production of automobiles is increasing and
the present estimate is that zinc consump-
tion in 1964 will surpass the record year of
1955.
Domestic mine production of zinc ore is
Insufficient to meet our requirements. As
a result, the United States depends upon
foreign sources of supply for almost one-
half of the smelting ores needed here. The
U.S. consumption of zinc has exceeded do-
mestic production by about 100,000 short
tons a year for the past 2 years. Consumers
In the United States are experiencing diffi-
culties in securing needed supplies. The
excess zinc in the rational stockpile is more
than adequate to satisfy consumer needs
that the producing Industry is now unable to
fulfill. This condition affords the Govern-
ment an opportunity to dispose of surplus
zinc from the stockpile without an unfavor-
able impact upon the market and it also
meets an important industrial need.
LEGIBLAT EVE REFERENCE
The objective of this bill is similar to that
of El. 2768. which was introduced by the
junior Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG).
FISCAL DATA
The average acquisition cost of zinc in the
national stockpile was 60.1449 per pound.
Current market prices range from $0.1350 to
$0.1475 per pound. The General Services Ad-
ministration estimates that the price of zinc
will continue to remain favorable during
the period of the proposed disposal action.
SALE OF LEAD
The bill (H.R. 11257) to authorize the
sale, without regard to the 6-month
waiting period prescribed, of lead pro-
posed to be disposed of pursuant to the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock-
Piling Act was considered, ordered to a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed.
The excerpts from the report ,No.
1164) presented by Mr. SYMINGTON are,
as follows:
PURPOSE
This bill would (1) grant congressional ap-
proval for the disposal of 50,000 tons of lead
now held In the national stockpile, and (2)
waive the 6-month waiting period ordinarily
required before disposals of strategic and
critical materials may be made from the na-
tional stockpile.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 minute on
the bill to the Senator from South
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Dakota is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I shall
support the Williams amendment. It
seems to me that if nothing else can be
said about the proposed pay raise bill,
it can be recorded as the masterpiece of
bad timing of the 20th century.
A 33-percent increase in our salaries
has been proposed at a time when we
have recently increased, once again, the
national debt limit, at a time when we
have denied the people a reduction in
excise taxes which the Senate voted and
surrendered in conference and at a time
when the whole agricultural economy
of our country is in the doldrums. I do
not believe that anyone could have con-
ceived a worst time in which to propose
this kind of bill to propose increasing
congressional salaries.
However, with the amendment offered
by the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
WILLIAMS] it seems to me that we could
in good conscience support the pro-
posed legislation.
First. The amendment would not delay
for one single second increasing the sal-
ary of anyone in the Federal Govern-
ment who is receiving less than $20,000.
I am strongly in favor of the legitimate
pay increases suggested for these lower
income Federal employees.
Second. The proposal would afford an
inducement to the policymakers of our
country?who are the people in Congress
and in the executive department who are
getting over $20,000?to develop some
economic programs which will stimulate
our economy so that we can have a bal-
anced budget.
I see nothing in the record of expendi-
tures on the part of the policymakers
thus far that should give them a 33%-
percent increase in salary, because they
have consistently kept our country in
the red. Surely the policymakers in the
executive and legislative branches of
Government deserve no bonus in the
form of pay increases for a record of
that kind.
Mr. President, I point out what has
happened to the agricultural economy
as an example of our failures. This
morning in my office I received the re-
lease from the Department of Agricul-
ture for June on agricultural prices. The
release shows that parity for farmers in
this country has dropped to 74 percent.
That is the lowest since August 1939.
It represents another full point drop from
a month ago.
The proposal comes at a time when
those engaged in the beef industry in
this country are going broke because of
imports and poor prices, and at a time
when farmers generally are receiving
prices which are only 74 percent of par-
ity. It seems to me highly logical and
persuasive that we should defer the pro-
posed increase in salaries for ourselves,
for judges in retirement, and for policy-
makers who are earning over $20,000 a
year until such time as we have pro-
duced programs?and we have enacted
them?which will provide for a balanc-
ing of the budget.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
This New Frontier idea of voting our-
selves a 331/3-percent increase in salaries
out of borrowed money does not add up
as sound or right in anyone's arithmetic
book. We ought to consider the Wil-
liams proposal seriously and say to the
policymakers, "All right. Your policies
have failed. You have been consistently
putting this country into the red, in this
time of peace and prosperity. You have
submerged the agricultural economy to
74 percent of parity. Come forth with
something worthwhile. Come forward
with some economies. Come up with
some stimulus and incentive to indus-
try, business, and agriculture so we can
produce the money to balance the
budget. Then will be the time to in-
crease the salaries of those in the higher
salary brackets who hold the responsi-
bility for policymaking in our Govern-
ment. Perhaps the inducement of a pay
raise predicated on a better performance
record will help get the sensible solutions
our problems require."
Our present Federal policies, Mr.
President, are failing our American
farmers and ranchers very seriously.
This administration was elected on the
promise of "parity prices for agricul-
ture." Instead, import practices and
Department of Agriculture policies
forced through a Congress which this
administration dominates by a 2-to-1
majority have put parity prices so low
they are averaging from 8 to 10
percent lower than during the Eisen-
hower Republican years. Look at the
record. In June of 1960 under Eisen-
hower, parity stood at 78 percent; and
in June of 1961 was still 78 percent; in
June of 1962 it remained at 78 percent
with no progress toward the promised
goal of 100 percent 'parity prices for
farmers. By June of 1963 parity had
dropped in fact to '77 percent and in June
of this year?as of today?it has sagged
to 74 percent. Policymakers paid over
$20,000 or more per year surely deserve
no pay increase for that type of record
and neither do the Members of this Con-
gress.
I should add that during every other
June of the Eisenhower administration
parity ranged from 81 to 92 per-
cent, so we have had a total drop from
the first year of the Republican admin-
istration parity level of 92 percent for
farm prices in 1953 to 74 percent of par-
ity today?a total drop during these past
11 years of 18 percent. As a Senator
from a farm State I cannot in good con-
science vote for a pay-increase bill rais-
ing by some 33% percent the salaries of
policymakers now receiving over $20,000
per year in the face of such a sorry rec-
ord of performance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me 1 minute on the
bill to ask the Senator from South Da-
kota a question?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, re-
tired Supreme Court Judges are receiv-
ing $35,000 for life. They are inactive.
15283
We have also inactive judges of the cir-
cuit courts of appeals and the district
court of the United States. Does the
Senator know that everyone of those in-
active judges who are presently receiv-
ing, respectively, $35,000 a year, $25,500,
and $22,500 would have the benefit of the
proposed increase?
Mr. MUNDT. Yes, the Senator knows
that. In addition the Senator from
South Dakota knows something else. He
knows that the judges' plush lifetime
pension of full salaries is a noncontribn-
tory pension to which the judges con-
tribute not one single dime. It is paid
for entirely by the taxpayers. I do not
think that now is the time to reward
them with an increase in retirement
benefits paid for by borrowed money.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I yield 1 minute to the Sena-
tor from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, as a
cosponsor of the amendment, I wish to
speak briefly on it.
Yesterday many Senators who were
supporting the bill referred to the U.S.
Government as the largest corporation
in the world. They said that, therefore,
we ought to pay the executives com-
mensurate salaries and bring them up to
the levels proposed in the bill.
? I submit to the Senate that if we
actually had a corporation with a board
of directors which had consistently op-
erated that corporation in the red for
many years, and is now programing a
period of continuing activity to run it
in the red for the next 7 or 8 years, there
would be short shrift for the members
of the executive department who were
operating that corporation.
The amendment would provide an in-
centive for those who are operating the
so-called corporation?the Members of
the House, the Senate, and the executive
department downtown?to change the
operation from one which is in the red
to one which is in the black in order to
try to get some kind of balanced budget.
The PRESIDING ateriCER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? The question is on
the amendment of the Senator from
Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS]. The yeas and
nays have been ordered?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I will take the 1 minute re-
maining on my amendment.
I call attention to the fact that only
last week the Congress rejected the re-
peal of retail excise taxes on the theory
that we could not finance the deficit on
borrowed money. How can we tell the
people that we could not cut taxes be-
cause we cannot finance the deficit on
borrowed money but that we can in-
crease our own salaries by 33 1/3 percent
and do not mind doing it with borrowed
money?
We were told last week that $7 billion
of the $9 billion request for an increase
in the debt ceiling this year is to make
up the loss in revenues resulting from
the tax cut of last January. Here is
another $500 or $600 million increase in
salaries.
I am proposing, under the amendment,
to postpone the effective date of the in-
crease of salaries in excess of $20,000 un-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15284 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
til we can demonstrate to the American
people that we are worthy of it and can
earn it.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an editorial which
appeared in the Washington Daily News
of Tuesday, June 30, in which it was
pointed out that the Senate of the United
States cannot recover its prestige solely
by Increasing the salaries of its Members.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.
al follows:
PRESTIGV?DIGNITY 7?STATUS?
Senator OLIN Jonarerrosr, Democrat, of
South Carolina, and his colleagues of the
Senate Poet Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee have now formally recommended In
a written report that all Senators and Repre-
sentatives be paid an additional V.500 a
year.
Their bill, scheduled for Senate action this
week, also provides pay increases for all other
Federal employees, judges, congressional help,
and postmasters. It follows the pattern of
the one passed by the House and ups the
lawmakers' pay from 822,800 to $30,000 a year.
The Johnston report argues that the "In-
creasing cost of serving in Washington" Is
one reason for the pay increase, not men-
tioning that no Congressman ever was hog-
tied and made to take his job. He sought
it of his own free will, and was glad enough
to get it.
But when the report says that "also in-
volved (in the proposed pay increase) is the
prestige, dignity, and status of the Congress
and its Members," it is indulging In as ri-
diculous a bit of sophistry as we've ever seen
In a congressional report.
Senators should know money won't buy
prestige. If it's prestige they want, let
them write a law (and obey It) to end con-
gressional conflicts of interest and set up a
rigid and honest congressional code of ethics.
If it's dignity they want, more pay won't
assure it, but an end of nepotism might.
And If it's status they so greatly desire,
they should know that raiding the Treasury
in their own behalf won't achieve It. Let
them seek status by putting an end to
sponging on the Federal Treasury with lush
Government-paid junkets disguised as fact-
finding or Investigative trips, and let them
pass an honest clean elections law to assure
complete and instant disclosure of all cam-
paign contributions and expenditures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Delaware has
expired.
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Joitarsacisi] has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield back my time, and I ask for a
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has been yielded back.
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. ED-
MONDSON] is absent on official business.
I announce that the Senator from In-
diana [Mr. BAYR1, the Senator from
California I Mr. ENGLE1, and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SM1THERSI and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATHERS] and the Senator from Texas
[Mr. YARBOROUGH] Would each vote
"nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COT-
TON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
FOND], and the Senator from Massachu-
setts [Mr. SavroNsrata I are necessarily
absent.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] would
vote "nay."
The result was announced? yeas 26,
nays 65, as follows:
(No 481 Leg.(
Bennett
Boggs
Byrd, Va.
Church
Dominick
Ellender
Goldwater
Ifruska
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bart lett
Beall
Bible
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd. W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Clark
Cooper
Dirksen
Dodd
Douglas
Eastland
Ervin
Fulhright
flora
Gruelling
Bayh
Cotton
Edmondson
YEAS-28
Jorden. Idaho
Lau,che
McClellan
McGovern
Mechem
Miller
Mundt
Pearson
Proxmire
NAYS-85
Hart
Hartke
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Rill
Holland
Hum phrey
Inouye
Jackson
Jayne
Joh nston
Jordan, NC.
Keating
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McGee
McIntyre
McN Amara
Robertson
Russell
Simpson
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, Del,
Young, Obit)
Metcalf
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Moss
liuskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
Prouty
Randolph
Ribicoff
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Young, N. Dak.
NOT VOTING-9
Engle
Fong
Kennedy
Saltonistall
Smathers
Yarborough
So the amendment offered by Mr. Wrt-
LIMAS of Delaware, for himself and other
Senators, was rejected.
EltECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that the Sen-
ate proceed to the consideration of ex-
ecutive business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to the consideration of execu-
tive business.
By Mr. RUSSELL, from the Committee on
Armed Services, reported the following
nominations:
Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, U.S. Army, for ap-
pointment as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff;
Gen. Barksdale Hamlett, U.S. Army, to be
placed on the retired list In the grade of
general;
Lt. Gen. Harold Keith Johnson, U.S. Army,
for appointment as Chief of Staff, U.S. Army,
In the grade of general; and
Lt. Gen. Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr.,
Army of the United States (colonel, U.S.
Army), to be assigned to a position of impor-
tance and responsibility designated by the
President-, In the grade of general while so
serving.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate may
July 2
consider the nominations of certain
Army officers, whose nominations I have
just reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations will be stated.
IN THE U.S. ARMY
The legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Gen. Earle G. Wheeler, U.S. Army,
for appointment as Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Gen. Barksdale Hamlett, US.
Army, to be placed on the retired list in
the grade of general.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
The legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Lt. Gen, Harold Keith Johnscn,
U.S. Army, for appointment as Chief of
Staff, U.S. Army, in the grade of gen-
eral.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES
The legislative clerk read the nomina-
tion of Lt. Gen. Creighton Williams
Abrams, Jr., Army of the United States
(colonel, U.S. Army), to be assigned to
a position of importance and responsi-
bility designated by the President, in the
grade of general while so serving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nomination is confirmed.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the President
be immediately notified of the confirma-
tion of the nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the President will be notified
forthwith.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate re-
sume the consideration of legislative
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
There being no objection, the Senate
resumed the consideration legislativ.a
business.
Ne'
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
ARY REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust
the rates of basic compensation of cer-
tain officers and employees in the Fed-
eral Government, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1087.
The PRESIDING OVEICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to state
the amendment.
Mr. MORSE. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with, and that it be printed
in the RECORD at this point. I can Ex-
plain it very quickly.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15285
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, IS as follows:
TITLE VI
That each Member of the Senate and House
of Representatives (including each Delegate
and Resident Commissioner); each officer
and employee of the United States who (1)
receives a salary at a rate of $10,000 or more
per annum or (2) holds a position of grade
GS-15 or above, and each officer in the Armed
Forces of the rank of colonel, or its equiva-
lent, and above; and each member, chair-
man, or other officer of the national commit-
tee of a political party shall file annually
with the Comptroller General a report con-
taining a full and complete statement of?
( 1) the amount and resources of all in-
come and gifts (of $100 or more in money or
value, or in the case of multiple gifts from
one person, aggregating $100 or more in
money or value) received by him or any
person on his behalf during the preceding
calendar year;
(2) the value of each asset held by or en-
trusted to him or by or to him and any other
person and the amount of each liability
owed by him, or by him together with any
other person as of the close of the preceding
year; and
(3) the amount and source of all contri-
butions during the preceding calendar year
to any person who received anything of value
on his behalf or subject to his direction or
control or who, with his acquiescence, makes
payments for any liability or expense in-
curred by him.
SEC. 2. Each person required by the first
section to file reports shall, in addition, file
semiannually with the Comptroller General
a report containing a full and complete
statement of all dealings in securities or
commodities by him, or by any person acting
on his behalf or pursuant to his direction,
during the preceding six-month period.
Szo. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tion (b), the reports required by the first
section of this Act shall be filed not later
than March 31 of each year; and the reports
required by section 2 shall be filed not later
than July 31 of each year for the six-month
period ending June 30 of such year, and not
later than January 31 of each year for the
six-month period ending December 31 of the
preceding year.
(b) In the case of any person required to
file reports under this Act whose service ter-
minates prior to the date prescribed by sub-
section (a) as the date for filing any report,
such report shall be filed on the last day of
such person's service, or on such later date,
not more than three months after the termi-
nation of such service, as the Comptroller
General may prescribe.
SEC. 4. The reports required by this Act
shall be in such form and detail as the
Comptroller General may prescribe. The
Comptroller General may provide for the
grouping of items of income, sources of in-
come, assets, liabilities, and dealings in se-
curities or commodities, when separate itemi-
zation is not feasible or not necessary for an
accurate disclosure of a person's income, net
worth, or dealings in securities, and com-
modities.
SEC. 5. Any person who willfully fails to
file a report required by this Act or who will-
fully and knowingly files a false report shall
be fined $2,000 or imprisoned for not more
than five years, or both.
SEC. 6. (a) As used in this Act?
(1) the term "income" means gross in-
come as defined in section 22(a) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code.
(2) The term "security" means security as
defined in section. 2 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (U.S.C., title 15, sec.
77b).
No. 133----8
(3) The term "commodity" means com-
modity as defined in section 2 of the Com-
modity Exchange Act, as amended (TI.S.C.,
title 7, sec. 2) .
(4) the term "dealings in securities or
commodities" means any exquisition, hold-
ing, withholding, use, transfer, disposition,
or other transaction involving any security
or commodity.
(5) The term "person" includes an indi-
vidual, partnership, trust, estate, associa-
tion, corporation, or society.
(b) For the purposes of any report required
by this Act, a person shall be considered to
be a Member of the Senate or House of Rep-
resentatives, an officer or employee of the
United States and of the armed services as
described in the first section of this Act, or a
member, chairman, or other officer of the na-
tional committee of a political party, if he
served (with or without compensation) in
any such position during the period to be
covered by such report, not withstanding
that his service may have terminated prior
to December 31 of such calendar year.
SEC. 7. The Comptroller General shall have
authority to issue, reissue, and amend rules
and regulations governing the publication of
reports, or any part of them. He shall pre-
scribe fees to cover the cost of reproduction.
In formulating such rules and regulations,
he shall seek to maximize the availability
of reports for purposes of informing the pub-
lic and agencies and officials of the Federal
and local government, and to minimize use
of such records for private purposes.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this is the
Morse full disclosure bill offered as an
amendment to the pending bill. I first
introduced it in 1946. For many years I
could not even obtain a hearing on the
bill. However, last year hearings were
held on the bill, along with hearings on
other disclosure bills which had been in-
troduced from time to time in the inter-
vening years, particularly in recent years.
The essence of the bill covers these
points:
Anyone hi Federal employment receiv-
ing $10,000 or more a year shall be re-
quired to make a full disclosure once each
year in accordance with regulations
drawn and on forms supplied by the
Comptroller General on the matters
found at page 2 of the bill, starting at
line 3:
(1) the amount and resources of all in-
come and gifts (of $100 or more in money
or value, or in the case of multiple gifts
from one person, aggregating $100 or more
In money or value) received by him or any
person on his behalf during the preceding
calendar year;
(2) the value of each asset held by or
entrusted to him or by or to him and any
other person and the amount of each liability
owed by him, or by him together with any
other person as of the close of the preceding
year; and
(3) the amount and source of all con-
tributions during the preceding calendar
year to any person who received anything
of value on his behalf or subject to his
direction or control or who, with his ac-
quiescence, makes payments for any liability
or expense incurred by him.
The penalties are set out at the bottom
of page 3 as follows:
SEC. 5. Any person who willfully fails to
file a report required by this Act or who will-
fully and knowingly files a false report shall
be fined $2,000 or imprisoned for not more
than five years, or both.
Mr. President, Senators know the po-
sition I have taken on this matter. I
have told the majority leader that I shall
not consume much time on the amend-
ment. He has agreed to my having a
yea or nay vote on it. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Working for the Fed-
eral Government or receiving one's live-
lihood from the Federal Government is
not a matter of right, but a matter of
privilege and opportunity.
The American people are entitled to
know the sources of all income of offi-
cials of the Government so that they
can be the judges of what may be, if any,
the relationship between the sources of
Income and the course of action that Fed-
eral employees may take in any partic-
ular matter.
I first introduced the bill in 1946 when
I became disturbed by what was rec-
ognized at that time, namely, certain
Members of Congress taking advantage
of their position, and taking advantage
of certain privileged information that
they had, to profit thereby financially.
That danger always lurks, although I
am proud to tell the American people
that in my 20 years as a Member of the
Senate I have served with an overwhelm-
ing majority of honorable men and wom-
en who are dedicated public servants and
who are entitled to the trust of the
American people.
But I also know the importance of sur-
veillance. I know the importance of hav-
ing a procedure that will protect the hon-
orable and the honest. The full-dis-
closure bill, for which I have fought for
so many years, involves a matter of
right?the right of the American people
to know.
In essence, that is my case, I rest my
case. I reserve whatever time I may
have remaining, should I decide to yield
any of it.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. On page 2, line 3,
the text of my copy reads "amount and
resources."
Mr. MORSE. It should be "sources."
Mr. MONRONEY. Should it be
"sources"?
Mr. MORSE. "Sources." That is a
typographical error. It should be
"sources."
Mr. MONRONEY. I am glad to have
that correction, because that would in-
clude the identification of all income,
whether it be employment, private busi-
ness, farming, speechmaking, or any-
thing of that kind.
Mr. MORSE. That is correct; it is all
encompassing. The error in the amend-
ment is a printer's error; it is not my
error.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLARK. It is true that the Sena-
tor from Oregon was the first Member,
especially in this body, to propose a con-
flict-of-interest bill. There are a num-
ber of us who have come to the Senate
more recently who share in general, al-
though not in particular, his views.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050991-9
15286 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The Senator from Michigan [Mr.
Maul, the Senator from Oregon [Mrs.
NEUBERGER], the Senator from New Jer-
sey IMr. Casa], and I have had pending
for some time before the Committee on
Rules and Administration a somewhat
similar bill. It is perhaps a matter of
undue pride of authorship that we believe
our bill is a little more artistically
drawn. It has been revised a little more
frequently in light of modern conditions
and is perhaps a slightly better bill than
that of the senior Senator from Oregon.
Nevertheless, the provisions of the Sena-
tor's bill adequately raise the important
question of conflict of interest. I support
it fully.
I had intended to make a rather sub-
stantial speech in support of my amend-
ment, but I shall not do so because of
the unanimous consent agreement which
has curtailed our time. I ask the senior
Senator from Oregon for the privilege of
cosponsoring his amendment, and I shall
vote for it.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President. I have
always considered the Senator from
Pennsylvania a cosponsor with me in
spirit and intent. I am delighted to have
his name added to the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 minutes to the
Senator from Ohio; then I shall yield 1
minute to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Within a few
weeks after I took my oath in this Cham-
ber in 1959, I filed with the Secretary of
the Senate a complete statement of my
financial holdings at that time. Because
I was a member of the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, I sold certain
sugar stocks that I owned; and because
I was also a member of the Committee
on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
sold some Pan American World Airways
stock. which I suspected might conflict
with my service on that committee. I
made a complete disclosure of my fin-
anoial holdings at that time, so that the
citizens of Ohio, whose servant / am,
could judge from my votes and my work
as their Senator whether or not I was
motivated by any selfish purpases in cast-
ing any votes.
I compliment the senior Senator from
Oregon on the fact that he was a pioneer
In proposing conflict-of-Interest legisla-
tion.
I am somewhat proud of the fact that
I was the very first Senator to file a com-
plete statement of assets and financial
holdings.
Earlier this year and on other occa-
sions between January 1959, and the
present time, I have filed similar reports
with the Secretary of the Senate and
have made them public.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Ohio has ex-
pired.
Mr. MORSE. I yield 3 additional min-
utes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. This year I filed
with the Secretary of the Senate, in ad-
dition, certified copies of the income tax
returns filed last year and the year before
by Mrs. Young and me.
Mr. President. the pending pay raise
bill will cost taxpayers more than $584
million a year. Furthermore, as the
Federal bureaucracy grows, the price tag
for this increase will grow with it.
I cannot in good conscience support
the bill in its present form. At least
four separate legislative proposals were
arbitrarily lumped together in this bill
providing a pay increase for: postal em-
ployees, classified civil service employees,
all other members of the executive
branch of our Government; also the
Federal judiciary; also employees on the
staffs of Members of the Congress; and
finally Members of Congress.
I had hoped that a separate bill would
be introduced for letter carriers, postal
clerks, and in fact all postal employees
who I feel are the most deserving of an
increase in pay at this time. Legislative
proposals to accomplish this should be
debated and acted upon separate and
apart from the pending bill. Such a
legislative proposal, I believe, would pass
overwhelmingly. I would like to vote for
that part of this bill relating to letter
carriers and other postal workers in the
lower pay brackets. Frankly, I do not
believe that a valid argument has been
made for increasing the salaries of all
civil service employees. There may be?
and undoubtedly there are some?posi-
tions for which competent people can-
not be found because of the salaries
offered. For those position I suggest
that specific legislation be enacted to
correct the problem. I do not see why
American taxpayers should have to foot
the bill for king-size salary increases for
over a million civil service employees just
to lure a comparatively few highly skilled
people into Government service.
It is my observation that most Govern-
ment employees in Washington and else-
where are and have been well paid in
comparison with those doing the same
work in private industry. Furthermore,
those in the classified civil service have
job security, sick leave and fringe and
retirement benefits far superior to em-
ployees in private industry.
Mr. President, regarding the salary
increase for Members of the Congress, it
Is my view that we must set an example
by holding the line on wage costs. The
President has urged a maximum hold-
the-line raise of 3.2 percent in wages and
prices. This bill will give Representa-
tives arid Senators a 331/3-percent In.-
crease. Frankly, I do not believe that an
increase of this magnitude is warranted
at this time. I seriously doubt whether
there would be any additional candidates
for election to the Congress because of
the proposed pay raise. No doubt the
same men and women would be elected
or returned to the Congress. The fact
Is that very few men and women of high
achievement in private life would refuse
appointment or certain election to the
Senate of the United States, or practi-
cally certain election to the House of
Representatives.
Mr. President, I am glad to note that
the Senate Post Office and Civil Service
Committee deleted the so-called Udall
amendment to the bill as passed by the
House of Representatives. In my view
it would be unconscionable to tie the
salaries of Congressmen and top Federal
officials to future pay increases for Fed-
July 2
eral employees in general. I commend
our colleagues on the committee for vot-
ing unanimously to delete this provision
from the proposed legislation.
As for the staffs of Members of the
Congress, and of committees of the Con-
gress. I see no valid reason whatsoever
for a salary increase at this time. Sena-
tors and Representatives receive ample
allowances to hire personnel. These are
among the most sought after jobs in
Washington. As a matter of fact, every
summer we are besieged with requests
from young people attending our finest
colleges and universities who wish to
work without salary for the experience
of participating in governmental activ-
ities. I am sure that many of my col-
leagues at this time have interns, so-
called, on their staffs who are not
drawing pay. I say this merely to em-
phasize the fact that congressional staff
positions do not go begging because of
present salary levels.
Frankly, I have not heard any of my
colleagues express the opinion that they
are unable to obtain qualified personnel
for their staffs because of present salary
limitations. Nor have I heard the chair-
men of various committees of the Con-
gress complain that they are unable to
staff their committees because of salary
limitations. It should be remembered
that employees on senatorial staffs do
not have to maintain a residence in their
home State as well as one in Washing-
ton as Senators do. Frankly, I do not
believe that the great majority of our
assistants are overworked or underpaid.
Many of them?for the most part those
on committee staffs?seem to have plen-
ty of time to line the walls of the cham-
ber and watch proceedings out of curios-
ity when business is being conducted and
when Senators are working and voting
on legislation of great public interest.
Most receive liberal vacations, are not
limited by civil service sick-leave require-
ments, and at the same time are entitled
to all civil service fringe benefits. I seri-
ously question whether a pay increase is
required for congresisonal staff em-
ployees. Are any of them required to
spend money campaigning for the well-
paid positions they hold? Of course not.
Whenever there is a vacancy on the
Federal bench, many, sometimes hun-
dreds, of competent lawyers seek the ap-
pointment. There are at most but a
few hundred lawyers in our Nation, who,
if offered an appointment to the Fed-
eral bench, would not accept. Very few
lawyers would refuse appointment as U S.
judge at $22.500 a year but would agree
to accept were the salary to be increased
to $30,000. I would like to know the
name of one man in the Nation who
would refuse appointment to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the highest honor a law-
yer may receive, solely because this po-
sition pays $35,000 a year and not
$42,500.
There are Federal judges today in Ohio
and in most other States who have
reached retirement age and could have
retired years ago. Evidently, they Co
not feel that they are being underpaid
as many continue to serve actively well
beyond the retirement age of threescore
and ten. Furthermore, it would be dead
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15287
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
1964
wrong to increase the salaries paid to
those judges who have retired. This bill
would do that.
Mr. President, our Government can-
not afford to depend upon men and wom-
en born to great wealth or who have ac-
quired great wealth to run its affairs.
None of us wants that. On the other
hand, the Federal Government cannot
be absolutely competitive with private
industry.
Our Government's only source of in-
come for paying salaries is the taxpayer
who already is bearing a heavy burden.
The purpose of Government is service
whereas the purpose of industry is profit.
If the goal is to try to match the pay
scale of private industry, then we must
accept the fact that the proposed bill is
only the first installment. We should
realize that the Federal Government
should not match the salaries of private
industry. We shall always have to rely
to a marked degree on many citizens who
desire to serve their Government as a
public service.
Mr. President, in my judgment this
legislation proposes salary increases
which are overly generous and in some
instances outrageous. It appears to me
that there should be separate legislative
proposals for the different categories of
Federal employees involved. Then the
needs of each could be carefully studied
and a pay raise considered on the merits
of each.
This is not the time to indulge in self -
indulgence, to indiscriminately fatten
the already well-larded Federal payroll.
Our national economy simply cannot af-
ford the luxury of this bill at this time.
Therefore, after full and thorough con-
sideration, I cannot, hi good conscience,
vote for the pending bill.
This bill to which I object proposes
a raid on the Public Treasury. Long
ago it was written:
Enter ye the strait gate: for wide,is the
gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to
destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat; because strait is the gate, and nar-
row is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be who find it.
The gate to the Public Treasury is
wide, and broad is the way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Ohio has ex-
pired.
Mr. MORSE. I have many times
highly commended the Senator from
Ohio. I commend him again for his
leadership in the Senate in trying to
bring an end to conflict-of-interest prob-
lems.
Mr. President, I now yield 1 minute
to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be per-
mitted to join the distinguished Senator
from Oregon as a cosponsor of his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Thirteen years ago,
when I was chairman of the Committee
on Ethics in Government, this was the
recommendation our committee made.
I have tried to follow through with the
recommendations of that committee by
voluntarily submitting this year a de-
tailed statement of my holdings and in-
come from various sources.
Mr. MORSE. I have always been
greatly indebted to the Senator from Ill-
inois for the help that he has given and
for the leadership he has extended to
the Senate on this issue.
I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may join the
Senator from Oregon as a cosponsor of
his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. I am happy to have the
Senator from New Jersey as a cosponsor.
Mr. CASE. What the Senator from
Pennsylvania [Mr. CLaaxl said is, of
course, true. We have been less long in
the Senate than the Senator from Ore-
gon, but almost as long, in relation to
our service, as sponsors of, almost in-
dentical bills ourselves.
My own inspiration comes largely
from the work done by the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. Doom..As] some years ago in
connection with the committee which he
headed, and which looked into the matter
of making recommendations, the key of
which was disclosure.
It is clear from both old and modern
history in this body that the Senate will
not police itself, and there is no outside
body adequate to do it. It is necessary
to rely on the principle of disclosure. I
think it is essential that we adopt it as
quickly as possible.
I am happy to join the Senator from
Oregon in the offering of his amend-
ment.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield 2
minutes?
Mr. MORSE. I yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from New York.
Mr. KEATING. With the consent of
the distinguished Senator from Oregon,
I ask unanimous consent that I may be
joined as a cosponsor of his amendment.
I feel it is most important that we
adopt conflict-of-interest legislation
before voting any pay increase for
oursalves.
I fully support the amendment of the
Senator from Oregon and if it should not
succeed, I shall offer my amendment, No.
1092, thereafter, in an effort to at least
deal at this time with the problem of
outside income and investments for
Members of Congress and their staffs.
It is unfortunate that the congressional
pay raise provisions have been tied to
the proposed pay raises to our postal
workers and classified employees.
There is no question as to the merit of
these increases for the employees in the
postal and civil service. It would be
completely false economy to keep their
salaries at present levels. This Nation
is most fortunate in having the highest
caliber of employees in the classified
service and the postal system. We can-
not expect these talented and dedicated
employees to remain in Government
service at bargain basement wages.
Pay raises to postal workers and
classified employees will not, in my judg-
ment, be inflationary. They are an in-
vestment in Government efficiency and
morale which will pay rich dividends in
Improved public service.
Congress has an obligation to live up
to the promises of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962. We adopted what
I consider to be an eminently fair and
reasonable approach to the problem by
providing that Federal salaries would be
as comparable as possible with those paid
in private industry for the same type of
work.
We are now on the threshold of the
first test of this enlightened policy. It
is incumbent upon us to prove our good
faith to those who have worked for the
Federal Government in reliance upon
this promise. Postal workers and classi-
fied employees have not reneged on their
obligation to give an honest day's work
for a day's pay. We in turn must not
renege on our compensation promises of
1962 to give an honest day's pay in re-
turn.
Be it merit, comparability or cost of
living increases, these Federal employees
who are legally denied some of the means
of redress enjoyed by their counterparts
in private industry to secure wage in-
creases, deserve fair treatment at this
bargaining table. Despite other defects
in the Government Employees Salary
Reform Act of 1964, there can be no
withdrawal from our obligation to ap-
prove the reasonable salary increases to
the postal and classified employees. I
shall, therefore, support the bill.
We have already enacted broad con-
flict-of-interest legislation applicable to
employees in the postal and civil service.
What we want to do now is remove any
suggestion of a double standard by apply-
ing similar obligations to the legislative
branch. I commend the Senator from
Oregon fol. his efforts and am pleased to
join with him.
Mr. MORSE. I thank the Senator
from New York. I appreciate his sup-
port.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I wish to
ask a question of the Senator from
Oregon. After the Comptroller General
received the reports, what would be done
with them? Would they be reported
back to the Senate, or would they be
made public?
Mr. MORSE. They would be pub-
lished as a public document.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. MORSE. I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, may I
ask the Senator from Oregon a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
someone yield time to the Senator from
Iowa?
Mr. MORSE. I shall be happy to
answer the Senator's question.
Mr. MILLER. I invite the Senator's
attention to the limitations on dis-
closure in his amendment.
I am wondering whether the Senator's
amendment really would get the job
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
done. With respect to page 2, the first
subsection, what about cases: an indi-
vidual's spouse or his children, or his
brothers or sisters, or his parents, or a
trust over which he has control, of which
he is the beneficiary?
Mr. MORSE. I understand the prob-
lem; we have discussed it many times.
This is a good start. I am for going this
far now.
Mr. MILLER. I wonder if the Sena-
tor would agree to expand the coverage.
Mr. MORSE. Not at this time. We
will do that next year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Iowa has
expired.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. How much time
does the Senator from Montana wish?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Five minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Montana is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to this amendment,
not that I am not in accord with it, be-
cause I am. The fact is, the distin-
guished Senator from Oregon is the
"granddaddy" of all these bills, although
many others get credit for what he
started about 18 years ago. It was his
inspiration while I was a Member of the
House which caused me to introduce
similar legislation in that body. I be-
lieve that I have introduced bills of that
nature in the Senate as well.
I believe I made a public statement
that I have no outside interests; I am
not engaged hi dealing in any properties.
The only income I receive is on the basis
of my service in this body.
I point out to Senators that there is a
resolution now on the calendar, Senate
Resolution 337, reported by the Rules
Committee, which may not go so far as
some Senators wish, but I believe that I
am correct in stating that there will be
amendments to the resolution when it is
reported to the floor.
I assure Senators that Senate Resolu-
tion 337 will come up in the Senate, and
enough time can be taken to discuss the
subject so that all facets of it can be
explored.
I do not believe that this is an appro-
priate bill to which to attach this amend-
ment. I believe more in the way of dis-
cussion is needed, and will he forthcom-
ing. I would hope, therefore, that on
the basis of the promise made that the
resolution will come up?and it was go-
ing to come up, any way; it will be sub-
ject to amendments?the proposal will
not be accepted at this time.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. Does not the Senator
agree that the really substantial differ-
ence between the Morse amendment and
Senate Resolution 337, which was start-
ed as the result of the Bobby Baker in-
vestigation, is that the Morse amend-
ment deals not only with the Senate. but
also with the House, the executive arm
of the Government and the armed serv-
ices, requiring reporting by the Comp-
troller General. Therefore It is a comp-
rehensive disclosure amendment; where-
as, the Bobby Baker resolution?if I may
call it that?to which my friend the
Senator from Montana refers, Ls confined
strictly to the operations of the Senate,
and it would be difficult. indeed, by ap-
propriate amendment, to expand and
take care of the other body and the
executive arm.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Difficult, but not
impossible; and what the Senator has
said otherwise is correct.
But, I would hope that the Senate
would spend more time on this most im-
portant subject. I repeat, the "grand-
daddy" of all those who have introduced
amendments of this kind is the senior
Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE 1.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD I yield.
Mr. CASE. I wonder whether we
could inquire at this time whether Sen-
ate Resolution 337 is technically subject
to amendment by the provision of the
Morse amendment or similar legisla-
tion. It is a Senate resolution as op-
posed to a bill, which the Senator's
amendment really is.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest, on my
time, that the Senator make inquiry of
the Chair on that point.
Mr. CASE. May I inquire of the Par-
liamentarian, through the courtesy of the
majority leader, whether Senate Resolu-
tion 337, when it comes to the floor,
could be subject to amendment by of-
fering it either as an amendment or a
substitute to the provisions of the Morse
amendment now pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Parliamentarian informs the Chair that
legislative amendments would not be in
order on the resolution.
Mr. CASE. So, the Morse amendment
would not be in order as an amendment
to Senate Resolution 337?
The PRESIDING OreICER. It would
not.
Mr. CASE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That was brought
out by the Senator from Pennsylvania
in his colloquy earlier. But, amend-
ments would be in order?
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President. will
the Senator from Montana yield at that
point?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. Is is not a fact that
the report of the Rules Committee and
the bill they have reported, being a mere
resolution of the Senate, would not be
subject to amendment involving the
House. It would have to be changed to
a Senate resolution in order to effec-
tuate that, which would merely mean a
reintroduction of any amendment that
could offer an opportunity to both
Houses to work their will on legislation
specifically dealing with this most im-
portant subject.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is
correct. There is a good deal of merit
in this kind of resolution because of its
eenesis. It applies primarily only be-
cause of the incident which brought
about the inquiry and, therefore, it may
be a good place to start.
July 2
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from Montana
yield to rue for 2 minutes?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi-
dent, this amendment, and similar
amendments, to me, seem to be
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Montana has
expired. Who yields time to the Sen-
ator from Iowa?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I am
glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Serator
from South Carolina yield the time?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Iowa is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not wish
to take more than a couple of minuses.
I am against this resolution. I am
against all resolutions of this kind, be-
cause it is pretended that they are sur-
rounded by an atmosphere of alleged
righteousness. I do not believe they are.
I have seen many self-righteous dec-
larations of affluence, or lack of afflu-
ence, filed by persons involved in pub-
lic life. With the exception of one or
two, they are not detailed, they are not
Informative, and they do not disclose the
facts; yet, they fly under the banner of
disclosure.
I am completely disgusted with the
claim that some of these things have net
the test of disclosure, of affluence, of
property rights.
Mr. President, so far as I personally
am concerned, I probably am about the
least affluent Member of this body. 1 do
not own one share of stock. I do not own
any bonds, except a very few Government
bonds which I have managed to "scratch
out" once in a while. I have not been
able to accumulate any property which
amounts to anything in approximately
34 years of public life, except that my
house is paid for, and perhaps I have a
few dollars in the bank.
Probably one of the reasons why I
might be opposed to this amendment is
that I am ashamed to tell the truth that
in my lifetime I have not become more
affluent than I have. I have not done a
single thing to be ashamed of. If any
Senators wish to come and look at :ny
assets, they are welcome to come and
look at them.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. The Senator refers to
his disgust at some who have undertaken
to reveal their assets on the floor of the
Senate.
Let me ask this question, as one who
did: Did the Senator refer to me and to
the others who did so, and is he remain-
ing within the confines of rule XIX, sec-
tion 2?
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I did not ex-
press disgust with people. I expressed
disgust with the form of the alleged dis-
closure that occurred in a number of
cases in public life.
I said that I did not confine my re-
marks to this body, or to any other body.
There have been many occasions before
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE 15289
committees on which people have dis-
closed assets in a manner which I believe
does not meet the test of full disclosure.
My remarks were made in general.
Mr. CLARK.. I take it that the Sena-
tor does not refer to any Senator; there-
fore, I am happy to accept his apology.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator
may interpret my remarks any way he
wishes. I made my remarks generally
about people in public life. I have not
circumscribed it or limited it.
Again I say that so far as I am. per-
sonally concerned I probably could be
charged with being a little ashamed of
the fact that during my lifetime, which
has largely been spent in public office, I
have failed to accumulate any great
amount of this world's goods.
I will say, furthermore, that I have
never inherited a dollar in my life, so
whatever I do not have is because I do
not have it based on my own efforts.
In a way, this creates a special aura of
demagoguery. I do not think Senators
of the United State's, or any respectable
citizens in .the country should be forced
to engage in a full disclosure of all his
private affairs, business or otherwise.
The people of his State pass on those
things. They are the ones that judge the
propriety or lack of propriety in his
election. If any Member is guilty of
shortcomings, maladministration of his
office, or anything else, this body had the
right to kick him out. This body has
the right to police itself now.
We have gone through some hearings
which I think failed to go into many
things that should have been gone into.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But I think
this particular proposal and this series
of proposals do not merit support. They
are singling out special groups for spe-
cial odium.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
2 more minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. They are
singling out for special odium or special
consideration a certain group of people
who should deserve the consideration of
the respect given them by the voters of
their State when they were sent here.
If they have done wrong, let them be
punished in the orderly way. If they
violate the responsibility, the honor, and
the dignity of this great office, let the
Senate act on those particular occasions.
From my standpoint, I have no hesi-
tancy in saying that any Senator who
wants to come and look at what I have
is welcome to do it. And I will apologize
because of my lack of ability to estab-
lish, create, and accumulate affluence
during the period of my public life.
I have nothing to conceal. But it is
a matter of basic principle. I am not
going to vote to have every businessman
of this country disclose his assets, or all
of his reports on income tax, either. We
have had a policy along that line for a
long time. I do not think it is good
legislation. I think it is belittling legis-
lation.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The 'PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. MILLER. Is the amendment of
the Senator from Oregon open to amend-
ment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Sentaor from Oregon
Is open to amendment.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state it for the information of
the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Mr. MILLER
proposes an amendment to the Morse
amendment. On page 2, strike the semi-
colon in line 8 and insert the following:
", by his spouse, children and their
spouses, brothers and sisters, father and
mother, and any trust or fiduciary ar-
rangement under which any of said in-
dividuals is a beneficiary or over which
he or she exerts any control: Provided,
That if said Member, officer, or employee
is unable to file any information required
hereby with respect to any of the indi-
viduals or entities specified, other than
his spouse and minor children, because of
their refusal to provide such information,
he shall file a statement, under oath, set-
ting forth the name and relationship and
the fact of such refusal."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes.
Mr. MILLER. I yield myself such time
as I require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I suggest
to the Senator from Oregon that while
the amendment he proposes has the
semblance of merit to it, it does not go
far enough. I do not think that the gen-
eral public will be fooled one little bit.
We all know that if one wants to avoid
or evade some of the Purposes that are
set forth in the Senator's amendment,
that this can readily be done through
the vehicle of using one's spouse, one's
children, father, mother, brother, or sis-
ter, or a trust, or the establishment of a
fiduciary arrangement.
Let us do a job if we are going to do
a job. I do not think we ought to say,
"We will do it tomorrow, or next year."
If we are going to do it, now is the time.
I do not think we are going to raise the
stature of the Senate or of Congress one
bit by the adoption of an amendment
which goes only as far as the amendment
of the Senator from Oregon. But if we
are willing to couple with it various in-
dividuals who, as a matter of common
knowledge, are tied in with people who
want to cover up?then I think we can
get a job done that will cause the general
public to have confidence in the integrity
of those we are trying to cover by this
measure. If we do not do it, I think we
are going to be attempting to fool them.
And I do not think they are going to be
fooled, either.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oregon is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is not
necessary to have the amendment of the
Senator from Iowa in order to accom-
plish the purpose sought by the Senator
from Iowa. My amendment would re-
quire disclosure of income tax returns
of public officials and public employees
that fall within the category stated. If
we obtain that disclosure, that is all we
need.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
Yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ken-
tucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I agree
that- the Senator from Oregon is the
father of all resolutions requiring dis-
closure. I remember that in 1947 he was
advocating disclosure. Nonetheless, I
shall vote against this amendment.
I should like to give my reasons. I was
a member of the Committee on Rules
and Administration when we investigat-
ed the Baker matter for months. At the
end of our rather futile investigation,
we took up the question of disclosure
resolutions. One was voted out and is
now on the calendar.
Senator CLARK introduced a substitute
which, in my opinion, is a more effective
resolution that the one reported. I voted
for the Clark resolution. Senator MANS-
KELP has said that the committee reso-
lution will come before the Senate. We
shall have an opportunity to vote on it,
the Clark resolution, the Case resolution,
the Morse resolution, and others. There
can be a thorough discussion.
The reason I shall vote against the
pending amendment is, with all due
deference to my colleague, whom I ad-
mire for his leadership in the disclosure
field, is first, that it has no chance of
acceptance by the House.
We are trying to tell the House of
Representatives what its rules should be.
We know the conferees are not going
to accept this. The resolution applies to
every employee of the United States
making over $10,000 annually. I think
we should consider whether we want to
make every such employee in the United
States subject to this drastic procedure.
Let us clean our own house and pro-
vide a rule of disclosure for the Senate.
I will vote for it. My disclosure would
be about like Senator HICKEIVLOOPER'S.
Let us act here, and do something that
would apply to the Senate first, instead
of trying to apply a rule to all empolyees
in the United States.
By voting, a Senator can say that he
is in favor of disclosure. I will vote for
a disclosure resolution when I have a
chance to vote for one that would be
meaningful.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield to
me 1 minute?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Nevada Is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. CANNON. I concur in what the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. COOPER] has said. The Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration
has reported a resolution to the Senate,
and the resolution will be considered. In
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
general, with a few exceptions, I support
the terms of the amendment. I have
drafted and propose to introduce at a
later date a bill directed toward the very
end sought, with some minor changes,
In the amendment proposed by the Sena-
tor from Oregon. But there will be an
opportunity to consider the resolution
covering the Senate itself. If we were
to enact an amendment of the type pro-
posed, we would really sound the death
knell for the pay bill at this particular
time for many who are entitled to pay
consideration. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President--
The PRESIDING OloriCER. The
Senator from Iowa is recognised.
Mr. MILLER. I do not wish to pro-
long the discussion. I merely wish to re-
peat that if we really wish to do a job in
this connection, the Morse amendment
would not do it. It would not go far
enough. We know It does not go far
enough, and the people will know that, it
does not go far enough. Other cate-
gories of individuals who have close per-
sonal relationship with the Member of
Congress, the officer, or the employee,
must be covered. Make no mistake about
it. We shall not raise the prestige of our
body in the eyes of the American peo-
ple by limiting the coverage as the Morse
amendment would do.
The Senator from Oregon has said
that it is not necessary. We know It is
necessary. There are ample instances
In which people have covered up some
of their financial transactions by using
their spouses, their children, their par-
ents, their brothers or sisters, or have
entered into some fiduciary arrangement.
All my amendment would do is to make
sure that we do an adequate job of cover-
age. If the Senate does not think that
this is the time to deal with such a prob-
lem as this?and personally, I do not be-
lieve it is?Senators may vote against
the Morse amendment, as amended by
the pending amendment. But if Sena-
tors think they are going to fool the
American people by voting the amend-
ment down, and then voting for the
Morse amendment, I believe it will be a
very unfortunate and unhappy experi-
ence.
Mr. MANSIerea,D. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield to
me 1 minute?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to
the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OteroiCER. The
Senator from Montana is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. MANSIseKLD. To the best of my
knowledge. no Member of this body Is
trying to fool the American people_ I be-
lieve that we are sent here to exercise our
judgment in the best way we know how.
If anyone has the idea that because we
vote for or against a certain amendment
or an amendment to an amendment that
we are trying to fool the American peo-
ple, I wish he would disabuse his mind of
the idea, because that is a mark against
the Senate as an institution and against
Senators individually.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 2 minutes to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for
2 minutes.
Mr. MONRONEY. I appreciate what
the majority leader and the minority
leader have said. The bill deals with the
pay scales of approximately 1,732,000
Government employees. It has been be-
fore the Congress last year and this year.
It is up today for final passage.
I believe that we should have disclo-
sure. The work that has been done in
the investigating committees by the Sen-
ate Committee on Rules and Administra-
tion and by others will produce and give
us a genuine and proper disclosure bill
when the time comes, and we shall have
an opportunity to take up the question as
we should in a full day, 2 days, or 3 days,
if necessary, in an attempt to find proper
means and methods to have a very tight
disclosure system for the Senate, for the
House, or for both.
But I am now telling the Senate that,
knowing the House conferees as we do.
If the amendment is put in the bill as a
Senate amendment which would include
the House, we shall have very great trou-
ble saving the bill, because the historic
comity between the Houses of Congress
permits each House to be the judge of its
own rules.
The proposal in effect would be a rule
that the Senate would like to vote upon
itself for disclosure of whatever income
we may have. I think most of us are
for it. I certainly am. I am only
ashamed that it cannot be enough to
seem important, But the House would
resent it and probably break up the con-
ference if we included it in a rule that
we properly believe should be a part of
the operations of the Senate. We are
two individually distinct and independ-
ent bodies. Throughout history one
body has not tried to impose its opinions
or morals on the other body. We have
got into some very important fights, as
Senators well know, over such subjects
as the use of the frank. Each body
claimed it had the right to determine the
question for itself.
It is for that reason, at this late hour,
with 15 minutes on a side, that I say it
Is a poor time to rush into proposed leg-
islation of so great importance. U the
subject is brought up in the right way
as a bill, doing that one thing, it would
undoubtedly receive the unanimous or
nearly unanimous support of the Senate.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
should like to have 10 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield my remaining time to the Senator
from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OrseeCER, The
Senator from South Carolina has 8 min-
utes remaining.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes under the bill
The PRESIDING OleteiCER, The
Senator from Illinois is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. It seems to me that
we are living in an age of snoopers. We
are now proposing to enlarge the field in
this very body. I think it is time to
come to grips with the problem and to
assert our rights, because the fact that
one is in public service certainly does not
divest him of his rights as a citizen of the
July 2
United States. If it is desired to tack
up every income tax blank on every
courthouse door in the country and put
us all on a par, that is a different thing.
But it is proposed to require every Mem-
ber of this body file three reports a year.
First, a report with respect to such
things as resources and income woeld be
filed with the Comptroller. Section 2
would require the filing, semiannually
with the Comptroller, of a report con-
taining a full and complete statement of
all dealings in securities.
If a Senator should buy one share of
stock, he must make a return to the
Comptroller of the United States. If he
buys another share in the next 6 months,
he must make another report.
The amendment would make book-
keepers out of Senators, and they would
have scant time left to pursue their
duties as Members of the U.S. Senate.
My distinguished friend the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] began by say-
ing that he was somehow impressed with
the fact that the Members of this body
were honorable. I agree with him. But
the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Cass] rose to mention the
fact that although we were honorable
Members, we had to be policed.
Mr. President, I do not go in for such
policing operations. If I cannot go back
and justify my conduct with the people
back home, where candidates for office
are screened, I have no business being
here in the first place. We would cover
a large segment of the Government_ in-
cluding every Representative, every Sen-
ator, and every employee in this entire
governmental establishment who re-
ceives $10,000 or more. Everyone over
the rating of GS-15 would be within the
reporting requirement. Every Army of-
ficer over the grade of colonel would be
included, as well as all the generals.
That is what the Morse amendment
would do. The Senator from Oregon
shakes his head affirmatively.
Finally members of the national com-
mittees would be included. How they
got in I do not know. They are not of-
ficials of the Government.
The proposal has about it the old pro-
hibition aura. How did it start? There
is a large building over here that attests
what finally happened. There a ere
those who said, in the language of the
Book:
Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler.
We heard, "Alcohol is a curse. It must
be stopped. I am pure, holy, and unde-
filed. No alcohol has ever seeped
through my lips. But that is not enough.
Somehow, I have to save others end
make sure they are holy, purified, and
righteous, too." Everybody becomes a
crusader.
That crusade mounted to proportions
that finally put the 18th amendment into
the Constitution of the United States.
I is the one amendment that was con-
trary to the spirit of that document.
What does the Bill of Rights provide?
It provides that Congress shall make no
laws abridging freedoms, and so forth.
But when we got to the 18th amendment,
we said, not that the Congress shall not,
but that the people shall not. They shall
not manufacture. They shall not trars-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15291
port. They shall not import. They shall
not drink. We added the implementa-
tion of the Volstead Act. Then the
snoopers went over the country. What
an amazing thing.
My friend from Iowa spoke a moment
ago about the image of the Senate. I
remember a very distinguished rabbi,
whose name was Joshua Liebman. I re-
member when he offered the invocation
in the House of Representatives. He
wrote a book called "Peace of Mind."
Walking down LaSalle Street in Chicago
one time, I saw the book in the window,
and I picked up a copy. In the first
chapter there was the challenging state-
ment that "You cannot reconstruct so-
ciety on the basis of unreconstructed in-
dividuals."
The image of the U.S. Senate will take
care of itself. Just be sure that our
own images are correct and that they
are not under compulsion. What is an
image worth if it is under compulsion
of a law? No; the Senate image will be
all right if we guard our individual con-
duct.
To pass something such as is here
proposed is somewhat of a confession
that there must be some dishonor here,
although we start by saying that every
Member of this body is honorable.
For the life of me, I cannot under-
stand the logic that goes with it. I am
not going to vote to police another Mem-
ber of this body. Every Senator is free
to make a statement of his assets, liabili-
ties, and income, and put it into the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD. He can see that his
income tax return is published in the
RECORD, if he wants to do it. But why
should one have to do it? Why does an-
other person become my moral mentor
because I refuse to do it under that kind
of compulsion? Congress does not give
the Internal Revenue Service the right to
Publicize the return of anyone. Any in-
dividual Member of Congress can pub-
licize it, himself, and put it in the RECORD.
But that is not enough for some. They
say, "I am righteous, I am holy, I am
undefiled, I am pure in spirit, I am
honorable. But I must make my neigh-
bor in the same image, and I must com-
pel him to come up to the line."
Look out, for when we start moving
that way, we are going in a dangerous
direction.
Mr. President, there has been much
snoopery in this country. God willing,
it will never happen again.
Why do we point the finger of scorn
at countries behind the Iron Curtain?
Because the people in those countries are
afraid of the knock on the door at mid-
night. Because they are afraid of wire-
tapping. Because they are afraid of
snooping. Because they are afraid of
talking.
Committee after committee of Con-
gress has undertaken to run down espio-
nage and spying in our own country. It
is proposed now to get into the swim and
spirit of that, and to say, "We have to put
a mantle upon our fellow Members," as
if it were not enough to have individual
Members do it.
Let any man stand in his place; if he
wants to dolt, he is free to do it. There
is nothing in the law to inhibit him.
It is like the pay bill. I do not know
of anything to inhibit a Senator from in-
troducing a bill to give back a pay in-
crease. All he has to do is authorize the
Treasury to take it. Until it is done, It
cannot go back to the Treasury. The
Treasury does not have authority to take
any money except what goes anony-
mously into the conscience fund.
This is the worst thing the Senate
could do, and it would be a tortuous path
from here on out. It certainly will not
be consummated by my vote.
The Miller amendment, the Morse
amendment, the Keating amend-
ment, the Clark amendment?all of them
should be voted down by an overwhelm-
ing vote. Let us show the country that,
in our own image, we will do the honor-
able thing. Then, if the image of this
institution must be retrieved, it will be
done, and not before.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield myself 1 addi-
tional minute.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator take 2 minutes on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. From
whose side is the time to be taken?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield myself 1 more
minute.
Mr. President, I end where I started,
with the statement by that eloquent rabbi
who died at the age of 84, when he said,
"You do not reconstruct a society on the
basis of unreconstructed individuals."
That is where we start, and I am not
worrying about the image of the Senate.
Let each Member worry for himself, and
not undertake to exercise the power of
compulsion to have others report and re-
port and report, in order to retrieve an
Image, if one confesses that that image
is tarnished. I make no such confession.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
myself 1 more minute.
? I shall be proud to go back home and
stand on any platform and let any one
of the 101/2 million people, young or old,
in the State of Illinois ask me, "Do you
want now to tell us what you own, what
your resources are?" I shall say, "I will
tell you the day that every other taxpay-
ing citizen in the country makes an equal
disclosure. I am not a class B citizen."
Mr. President, I yield back whatever
time I have remaining.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 3 minutes on the bill?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I can-
not subscribe to either the Miller amend-
ment or the Morse amendment. If I
have to file an affidavit to prove that I
am honest, then I am practically morally
bankrupt. I have been in public life for
30 years. I am a lawyer. Ever since I
left the bench I have not had a
law office. I have nothing to hide. I
have not had any $100 plate dinners for
Inc. I refuse to receive contributions for
my campaign from individuals who do
business with government.
? I know within myself what the status
of my conscience is.
If this proposal is to be made, why not
propose that everybody's income tax re-
port should be available for examina-
tion? I think this is a situation that
cannot be justified. Why should I be
presumed to be dishonest? Why will not
my honesty be established until I file an
affidavit?
I wish to repeat that if I am in that
condition, I should abandon public office
and drop my head in shame.
I have never filed an affidavit. I did
make a disclosure of my assets when a
newspaper columnist charged me,
erroneously, about a matter. He subse-
quently withdrew and retracted his
charges.
I cannot vote for the proposal, not be-
cause I fear to disclose. I think I could
disclose with much greater ease and
propriety than many of those who are
supporting the proposaL
In my whole lifetime, except for that
one attack made here in Washington 4
years ago, my integrity has never been
challenged.
My life is my affidavit. My life is my
proof. The people know it. After 30
years of service, in 1962 the people of
Ohio elected me by 700,000 votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That was the highest
majority ever given a candidate. I did
not have to file any affidavit to prove my
honesty.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I oppose
the Morse amendment and all similar
amendments. They are not in the pub-
lic interest. As to Senators, I doubt if
there is any State in the Union in which
voters cannot ascertain for themselves
who is enqaged in the production of a
supported crap, who is engaged in man-
ufacturing, who has interests in bank-
ing, and so on.
The amendment affects a great many
other people. It affects every member
of the armed forces of the rank of colonel
and above. It affects the fine men and
women in Senators' offices, if they re-
ceive more than $10,000 a year.
What does it require them to do? It
requires them to file a report twice a
year. What must they show? They
must show how much money they owe.
That is what we would do to the people
who work for us. The amendment in-
cludes even the mothers of our armed
services people who are fighting in Viet-
nam. They would become criminals if
they did not file a report twich a year,
showing whether or not someone gave
them as much as $100, or the amount of
each liability owed by them.
How ridiculous can we become?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. Whom does it cover?
It covers the Armed Forces, and it covers
the people who work in our offices.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 1 more minute
to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I have
had something to do with certain inves-
tigations. It is my honest belief that
the amendment would not do one thing
to stop corruption. A small minority,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
whether elected or appointed to office,
are corrupt, follow secret and devious
means, and make false reports, conceal-
ing their assets. They use a third per-
son to hold their assets.
The amendment will not end or deter
corruption.
The amendment would be a blow at
the good people who work for the Gov-
ernment. It is harassment of the honest
and conscientious. It is unfair and un-
just.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator from Utah,
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it
seems to me that this amendment pro-
poses an ex post facto law. The Con-
stitution of the United States sets forth
the conditions under which a man may
be elected to the Senate. He must be
30 years of age, and on the day of his
election he must reside in the State. The
persons who have run for election to
the Senate under those conditions were
not required to make the kind of dis-
closure that the amendment would re-
quire. If the supporters of the disclo-
sure idea would like to offer a constitu-
tional amendment, setting forth the type
of disclosure Senators must make If they
are elected to the Senate, let the Senate,
the House, and the States of the Union
decide whether such disclosure is neces-
sary. Then I believe we would be ap-
proaching the problem properly.
People who take jobs in the executive
department know in advance whether
they will be required either to disclose
or divest, and that fact may influence
their decision to take the job.
My friend, the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. Moan], is a great constitutional
lawyer. I am surprised that he has not
realized that the constitutional amend-
ment processes are really the only sound
basis on which to approach this kind of
problem.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BENNKIT. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor from Utah could not be more wrong
as a matter of constitutional law than
the fallacious argument he has just
made.
Mr. BENNETT. I will leave it to my
colleagues in the Senate to decide that
question.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, how
much time have I remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The
Senator from Iowa has 9 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, all that
my amendment would do, so far as my
friend from Illinois and my friend from
Ohio are concerned, would be to put the
Morse amendment into shape so that if
perchance It were adopted we would not
have to hang our heads and admit that
we were not doing a job.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. With respect to my
friend from Nebraska, all that my
amendment would do would be to put
into the Morse amendment the third
parties to which he referred in his state-
ment. Covering the mother of an officer
and forgetting the third parties, so far as
I am concerned, is a once-over-lightly.
superficial approach. People would
know it to be so. What I am trying to
do with my amendment is to put the
Morse amendment into shape so that 11
it should be adopted, the Senator from
Illinois and the Senator from Ohio, who
would vote against the amendment any-
how, at least would realize that we had
not done a superficial job.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. Mil J,ER. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator's amend-
ment Is adopted and if the amendment
of the Senator from Oregon is adopted,
is it not true that the brothers and sis-
ters and mothers and fathers of every
colonel fighting in Vietnam will have to
file a report or be guilty of being a crim-
inal?
Mr. MILLER. If my amendment were
adopted I would hope that we would have
some further amendments to the Morse
amendment adopted.
Mr. CURTIS. I am not asking the
Senator about his hopes. Is that not
what would happen if the two amend-
ments were adopted?
Mr. MILLER. And nothing more; yes.
But that does not meet the actualities of
the situation.
Mr. CURTIS. I should like to ask the
Senator about one further situation.
Suppose a lady worked In this building
and her gross Income, which means be-
fore expenses and before deductions for
dependents, was $10,000. The adoption
of the Senator's amendment would re-
quire a financial statement to be filed
by her showing all gifts of $100 or more,
and it would require a showing on her
part of all of her debts, and a similar
report of her brothers and sisters and
her mother and her father. Is that
correct?
Mr. MILLER. No; that is not correct.
The Senator has not read my amend-
ment. It relates only to the first sub-
paragraph on page 2. What the Senator
is talking about is the second and, I be-
lieve, the third paragraphs on page 2.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator's amend-
ment applies to everyone covered by the
bill.
Mr. MILLER. It relates only to the
first subsection on page 2.
Mr. CURTIS. That would include the
people involved,
Mr. MTT,T,ER It does not include
debts at all. It includes income and
gifts.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator would re-
quire brothers and sisters and mothers
and fathers and everybody with a gross
income of $10,000 to file the report. Is
that correct?
Mr. MILLER. It would require an
official to file a statement. I should like
to clear this up for the Senator from
Nebraska by asking the clerk to read the
proviso clause of my amendment, be-
cause I wish him to understand that we
are not being unreasonable.
Will the clerk read beginning with the
proviso?
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Provided, That if said Member, officer. or
employee is unable to tile any information
required hereby with respect to any of the
July 2
Individuals or entities specified, other than
his spouse and minor children, because of
their refusal to provide such information,
he shall file a statement, under oath set-
ting forth the name and relationship and
the fact of such refusal.
Mr. MILLER. What is so unreason-
able about that?
Mr. CURTIS. It is very unreasonable.
It does not deter dishonesty. It harasses
the innocent. It does not touch the peo-
ple who proceed in a devious and secret
manner. That is where the corruption
comes.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Ne-
braska and the Senator from Iowa us-
ually see eye to eye on things of this type.
A few minutes ago, he criticized the fail-
ure to cover the very persons that my
amendment covers, the very persona he
thinks ought to be covered.
Mr. CURTIS. No: the Senator places
Impositions on relatives with respect to
filing reports when there is no evidence
whatever of dishonesty, even on the part
of the principals.
Mr. MILLER. I do not wish to labor
the point. The Senator from Nebraska,
the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from
Illinois, and other Senators know that
if one wants to be devious, the Morse
amendment will not handle the situation
at all. If my amendment were adopted,
It would be possible to touch base with
those people who are in such close and
intimate relationship with those indi-
viduals. This is the way to catch up
with the deviousness.
If Senators want to take the risk of
having the Morse amendment adopted,
an amendment, which, as I said, is su-
perficial, and is an empty gesture, they
can reject my amendment. They can
still vote for my amendment and then
vote against the Morse amendment, as
amended.
Mr. President, I move the adoption of
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator yield back the remainder of
his time?
Mr. MILLER. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Iowa to tne
amendment of the Senator from Oregon.
The amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The PRESIDING OlsaUCER. The
question now recurs on the amendment
of the Senator from Oregon. The Sena-
tor from Oregon has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, after
listening to this interesting argument, I
merely say that those who would he
covered are servants of the people. The
people are entitled to know the facts
about the subject covered by the
amendment.
I am more convinced than ever that it
Is In the public interest to proceed as I
propose.
I yield back the rest of my time.
The PRESIDING 0.EVICER. All time
has been yielded back. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Oregon. The yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
1964
ApOroved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15293
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Mc-
CARTnY] is absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. BAYH], the Senator
from California [Mr. ENGLE], and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SmATHERS] and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]
are necessarily absent.
On this vote, the Senator from Flor-
ida [Mr. SMATHERS] is paired with the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH].
If present and voting, the Senator from
Florida would vote "nay" and the Sen-
ator from Texas would vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
COTTON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Forro], and the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are neces-
sarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 25,
nays 66, as follows:
[No. 462 Leg.]
Case
Church
Clark
Douglas
Gore
Hart
Hartke
Jackson
Javits
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Cooper
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Eastland
Edmondson
Ellender
Bayh
Cotton
Engle
YEAS-25
Keating
Kuchel
Magnuson
McGee
McGovern
Morse
Moss
Nelson
Neuberger
NAYS-66
Ervin
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gruening
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Hruska
Humphrey
Inouye
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Mansfield
McClellan
McIntyre
McNerney%
Mechem
Pastore
Proxmire
Smith
Symington
Thurmond
Williams, N.J.
Young, Ohio
Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morton
Mundt
Muskie
Pearson
Pell
Prouty
Randolph
Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Scott
Simpson
Sparkman
Stennis
Talmadge
Tower
Walters
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
NOT VOTING-9
Fong Saltonstall
Kennedy Smathers
McCarthy Yarborough
So Mr. MORSE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I call up
my amendment No. 1089 and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rim-
COFF in the chair) . The amendment will
be stated for the information of the
Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 157,
in the table following line 21, strike out:
Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools $25, 000
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 21,000
No. 133-7
and insert in lieu thereof:
Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools $26, 000
Class 2: Deputy Superintendent 22,000
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Oregon is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. MORSE. This amendment seeks
to increase the salary of the Superin-
tendent of Schools of the District of
Columbia from $25,000 to $26,000, and
for the Deputy Superintendent from
$21,000 to $22,000. My amendment raises
the salary of these two officials to the
figure contained in the House-passed bill.
I have this amendment and another
one immediately following, which can be
disposed of quickly on the basis of the
understanding I have with the chairman
of the committee. The Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] tells me
that it will go to conference, anyway.
He desires the maximum flexibility in
conference and he is not opposed to it,
as I understand, but I do not seek to bind
the committee in conference.
He gives me the assurance that the
committee will be in conference, and the
amendment will receive very careful con-
sideration of the Senate conferees; but
I should like to have him make a brief
statement on the floor of the Senate as
to his position.
Mr. JOHNSTON. This amendment
will go to conference. The Senate figure
is $1,000 lower than that of the House.
The House gave $26,000 and the Senate
gave $25,000, so that will go to confer-
ence. Regarding the Deputy Superin-
tendent of Education, the House figure
Is $22,000 and the Senate figure is
$21,000, so that item will also go to con-
ference.
I appreciate the Senator's taking this
matter up at this time, to let us decide
that Matter in conference.
Mr. MORSE. On the basis of my con-
versation with the Senator from South
Carolina, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Oregon
is withdrawn.
Mr. MORSE. I ask unanimous con-
sent to insert in the RECORD a table
showing the amount and rank of salaries
currently paid to superintendents of
schools, 1962-63.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
AMOUNT AND RANK OP SALARIES CURRENTLY
PAID TO SUPERINTENDENTS OP SCHOOLS,
1962-83
Cities over 500,000 in population
1. Chicago $48, 500
2. New York 37,500
3. Los Angeles 35, 000
4. Detroit 33, 000
5. Dallas 33, 000
6. San Francisco 31, 000
7. Pittsburgh 30, 000
8. San Diego 29, 400
9. Philadelphia 27, 500
10. Houston 27, 500
Cities over 500,000 in population?Continued
11. Milwaukee $27, 000
12. Baltimore 25, 000
13. St. Louis 25,000
14. Boston 25,000
15. San Antonio 25, 000
16. Seattle 24, 000
17. Buffalo 24,000
18. Cincinnati 24, 000
19, Cleveland 23, 000
20. New Orleans 21, 000
21. Washington 19,000
Suburban systems
1. Montgomery County $23, 000
2. Arlington County 21, 500
3. Prince Georges County 21, 000
4. Alexandria 20, 000
5. Fairfax County 20,000
6. Washington 19, 000
7. Falls Church 12, 100
Prepared by Department of General Re-
search, Budget, and Legislation, Feb. 12, 1963.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I now
call up my amendment No. 1090 and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
INOUYE in the chair) . The amendment
will be stated for the information of the
Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 118,
after line 25, insert the following?
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
that the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 118, after line 25, insert the fol-
lowing:
"(26) Chairman, National Mediation
Board.
"(27) Chairman, Railroad Retirement
Board."
On page 119, renumber items (26) ;to (33)
as (28) to (35), respectively.
On page 119, between lines 12 and 13, in-
sert the following:
"(36) Director of the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service."
On page 119, renumber items (34) to (40)
as (37) to (43), respectively.
On page 121, strike out linea 12 and 13.
On page 121, renumber items (27) to (32)
as (25) to (30), respectively.
On page 122, strike out lines 1 and 2.
On pages 122, 123, and 124 renumber items
(34) to (68), inclusive, as items (31) to (65),
respectively.
On page 124, between lines 11 and 12, in-
sert the following:
"(66) Members, National Mediation Board.
"(67) Members, Railroad Retirement
Board."
On page 124, renumber items (69) to (71)
as (68) to (70), respectively.
On page 132, strike out lines 6 and 7.
On page 132, renumber items (93) to (97)
as (91) to (95), respectively.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this
amendment proposes to eliminate the
unwarranted distinctions in grade level
drawn by the bill between the agencies
of the Federal Government immediately
concerned with the administration of the
national labor policy. These agencies
have historically and traditionally been
equal rank with equal compensation and
under my amendment this parity of
treatment would be maintained.
Section 303(c) (25) of the bill recog-
nizes that the Chairman of -the National
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
Labor Relations Board performs a func-
tion equal in significance to that per-
formed by the chairmen of other com-
missions, such as the Civil Aeronautics
Board, Federal Communications Com-
mission, Federal Power Commission,
Federal Trade Commission, Interstate
Commerce Commission, and the Security
and Exchange Commission. The chair-
men of these agencies are placed on a
parity with the Deputy Attorney General
and the Solicitor General of the United
States and with the various Under Sec-
retaries of the Departments.
This is as it should be.
These key officials in the executive
branch of the Federal Government have
been placed in level III of the Federal
executive salary schedule and, if this
bill is enacted, will receive basic com-
pensation at $28,500 per year.
However, section 303(d) (25) of the
bill, for some purpose which is not al-
together clear to me, downgrades the
Chairman of the National Mediation
Board to the next lower level of the Fed-
eral executive salary schedule, carrying
an annual rate of basic compensation at
$27,000 per year, or $1,500 less than his
counterpart on the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Section 303(d) (26) of the bill provides
for the similar downgrading of the
Chairman of the Railroad Retirement
Board.
I now turn to section 303(d) (33) of
the bill and find that the Director of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service has been given the same treat-
ment. He, too, is considered to be some-
what inferior to the Chairman of the
National Labor Relations Board and has
been relegated to level 4 in the pay scale.
I have no quarrel with the judgment
of the committee in identifying the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as a grade
A agency and rewarding its Chairman
with the level 3 scale of compensation.
Throughout most of my professional life,
I have been intimately acquainted with
the nature of the work of this Board,
and I think that it is fair to say that I
understand its function as well as any
other Member of Congress. In my Judg-
ment, the Labor Board plays a most
significant role in the administration of
the national labor policy and through-
out the greater part of its 28-year history
has played this role well. I may say
that during the course of the past 3 or
4 years, it has played this role substan-
tially better than in the period immedi-
ately preceding that point of time. In-
deed, many of us are well acquainted
with Chairman of the Labor Board,
Frank McCullough, from his years of de-
voted and outstanding work in the Sen-
ate, and I can say without reservations
that Chairman McCullough's outstand-
ing service on the Board entitles hen to
every cent of the compensation proposed
by this bill. However, it is not my inten-
tion to personalize this aspect of the pay
bill, nor should it be. Our concern is
with the function and not with the in-
cumbent performing that function.
But the Chairman of the National La-
bor Relations Board plays only one of a
number of the roles performed by the
executive branch in the administration
of the national labor policy. Of no less
importance is the role played by the
Director of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
Indeed, in one sense, the Director of
the Mediation Service is positioned in
the very center of the system through
which the national labor policy is ad-
ministered. I need not remind you that
this policy for the past quarter century
has been the encouragement, promotion,
and preservation of a system of free and
voluntary collective bargaining. We rec-
ognized long ago that free collective bar-
gaining was an indispensable element of
an economic democracy. Reaffirmation
and rededication to this policy becomes
Increasingly important in this period of
our history, faced as we are by unparal-
leled tensions in the world about us.
Free collective bargaining means, of
course, the development of policies and
procedures to insure that labor and man-
agement remain free to arrive at volun-
tary solutions of their problems. The
development and Improvement of meth-
ods to enable the parties to work out
their differences and to arrive at volun-
tary agreements which are compatible
with the interests of the community as
it whole without work stoppages is a nec-
essary corollary to the basic national
policy of promoting and encouraging free
and voluntary collective bargaining.
It is at this central point in the ad-
ministration of the national labor policy
that the Mediation Service plays Its role.
It operates as the yeast, the catalyst, the
peacemaker, the directional finder, the
midwife?call It what you will?in as-
sisting the parties in defining the precise
points of their differences and in iden-
tifying the common ground upon which
reconciliation may be found.
This is the process by which the parties
are aided and encouraged to rely upon
reasoning and persuasion in arriving at
good faith resolutions of their disputes
and, at times, in dissipating the fog of
suspicion that may otherwise obscure the
field markers outlining the area upon
which agreement may be found.
Of course, in the nature of things, the
work of the Mediation Service must pro-
ceed quietly, anonymously, and without
publicity. But its contribution in the
17 years of its existence to the develop-
ment of rational and effective labor-
management relations policies, in pro-
motinq and preserving free collective
bargaining and in maintaining industrial
peace has been invaluable.
Let us examine its record. It receives
100.000 notices under section (8) (d) of
the National Labor Relations Act each
year covering all cases within the scope
of the act in which it is proposed to
modify collective bargaining agreements
on contract termination or otherwise.
Twenty thousand of these cases are
assigned to Federal mediators.
In 7,000 cases the mediator moves di-
rectly into the dispute. The period of
joint meetings may range from a single
meeting to as many as 80 or more in the
complex and difficult cases. On the aver-
age, four meetings are required in each
case.
The principal objective of the Media-
tion Service is to provide useful and
meaningful service to the parties in as-
sisting them to arrive at voluntary solu-
tions to the disputes without work stop-
pages. Thus, the maintenance of indus-
trial peace is in a very real sense, the
measure of the success of the Service.
If we look at the record, we will find that
during the past 4 or 5 years strikes ha-7e
been at an alltime low, ranging from
fourteen one-hundredths of 1 percent to
seventeen one-hundredths of 1 percent if
man-hours lost compared to total man-
hours work.
Most of us will agree, I am sure, that
we do not want the Federal Government
or the State government meddling or in-
tervening into labor relations. We know
that compulsory arbitration means the
ends of free collective bargaining. We
also know that the various forms of gov-
ernmental regulations of labor relations
short of arbitration inhibit and event-
ually undermine the freedom of choice in
this area which is so essential to the
preservation of our system of govern-
ment.
The key factor in the prevention of in-
roads and invasions by the Government
Into this precious institution of free col-
lective bra-El-tin-1.1g is the mediation func-
tion. The Federal Mediation and Con-
ciliation Sen ice performs this functicn
extraordinarily well and I challenge any-
one to deny that its contribution to
the maintenance of the national labor
policy is one iota less important than
that of the National Labor Relations
Board.
If the Chai.inian of the National Labor
Relations Board belongs in level III of
the Federal executive salary schedule, so
does the Direci.tir of the Federal Media,-
tion and Conciliation Service.
I should emphasize at this point in my
remarks that these officers are now rated
on the same scale of magnitude.
When the Federal Mediation and Con-
ciliation Service was created as a result
of the incorpiration of my bill into the
Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 the compensa -
tion of the Director was fixed at precisely
the same level as the compensation of the
Chairman of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
Some yeani later on July 31, 19513,
When these salaries were adjusted the
two offices continued to be recognized as
having equal magnitude. The Direc-
tor's salary, like the Chairman's salary,
was raised to 820,500.
And so it is today. These men are
treated in the same way under the
Classification Act.
There is not the slightest justification
for making a distinction between the im-
portance of these jobs at this time.
Indeed, if anything, it is more im-
portant than ever to underscore the es-
sential nature of the work of the Medi-
ation Service The administration has
recognized this and has made efforts to
raise the professional status of the Fed-
eral Mediation staff in order to permit
It to function more effectively. This pol-
icy of the administration was cited witii
approval by the President's Advisory
Committee on Labor-Management Pol-
icy in its report of a few years ago.
My amendment would maintain the
equal status which has traditionally and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
_Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
historically been accorded to these two
offices. Each should be established with-
in level III of the salary schedule as my
amendment proposes.
A third element in the execution of the
national labor policy is the National
Mediation Board which performs for the
railroad and airline industries precisely
the same function that the Federal Medi-
ation and Conciliation Service performs
for the rest of the economy.
In examining the pay bill, I find that
the chairman of the National Mediation
Board has been downgraded in the same
manner as has the Director of the Fed-
eral Mediation Service. The remarks
which I have made thus far, apply with
equal force to the National Mediation
Board.
The National Mediation Board has the
responsibility for the administration of
the Railway Labor Act. This Board over
a period of some, almost 30 years has
maintained a unique record for the pres-
ervatio nof the stability of labor man-
agement relations in this field. In addi-
tion the National Mediation Board has
the responsibility, under the state stat-
ute, for labor management relations
among carriers by air and their em-
ployees.
In this relatively new field of burgeon-
ing employment, now exceeding 500,000
employees, the Board's record over the
past 25 years has been equally success-
ful. The maintenance of the flow of
commerce along these vital arteries re-
quires the highest degree of responsibil-
ity and application by the members of
this Board. In addition its agents and
employees are in constant touch with the
leaders of labor and management in
these fields on almost a daily basis to
prevent a disruption in the flow of inter-
state commerce. The National Medi-
ation Board has the additional responsi-
bility of administering the affairs and
budget of the National Railroad Adjust-
ment Board in Chicago. This latter
agency faces the task of adjusting thou-
sands of minor disputes during the course
of each year. In all, the stability of the
employment relationship of over a mil-
lion and a quarter wage earners in the
United States are affected by the opera-
tions of the National Mediation Board.
Thus, my amendment proposes to re-
store the balance between these various
functions which has been recognized for
so long and which reflects the actual
facts. The Chairman of the National
Mediation Board, like the Chairman of
the National Labor Relations Board and
the Director of the Federal Mediation
Service should be placed in level 3.
Next, we come to the Railroad Retire-
ment Board.' Here again, for some rea-
son, the committee has downgraded the
chairman of this Board to the level 4
category. He, too, has historically and
traditionally been recognized as per-
forming a function, equal in status and,
worth to that of the other officials whom
I have described above.
The railroad retirement system pro-
vides important protection to railroad
employees, their dependents and sur-
vivors. The railroad unemployment in-
surance system provides nationwide un-
employment and sickness protection for
railroad employees.
The Railroad Retirement Board em-
ploys about 2,000 employees. During the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, the Rail-
road Retirement Board paid more than
$1,200 million in benefits to 1,200,000
beneficiaries under the two systems. The
total amount paid out by the Board
through fiscal 1963 is about $14 billion.
The Railroad Retirement Board has an
excellent record of performance in the
administration of the two systems, and I
feel very strongly that, considering the
importance, responsibility and size of the
systems the Board administers, the
downgrading of this agency which the
bill proposes is clearly unwarranted.
The Congress has always regarded the
railroad retirement and railroad unem-
ployment insurance systems, and their
administration, as of particular and pri-
mary concern to the employees and em-
ployers in the railroad industry and has
always attached great weight to any rec-
ommendation upon which representa-
tives of the employers and employees
have been in agreement.
I ask for unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at this point of my
remarks a joint letter signed by Earl
Leighty, chairman of the Railway Labor
Executives' Association and Gregory S.
Prince, executive vice president and gen-
eral counsel of the Association of Amer-
ican Railroads addressed to the Honor-
able Tom Murray, chairman of the
House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, describing the work of both the
Railroad Retirement Board and the Na-
tional Mediation Board and urging that
these agencies be maintained at their
present levels of parity with the National
Labor Relations Board in the Federal pay
system.
There being no objection, the letter was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
March 18, 1964.
Hon. Tom MURRAY,
Chairman, House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We, the Association
of American Railroads and the Railway La-
bor Executives' Association, are vitally in-
terested in the administration of all statutes
affecting our operations including our labor
relations handled by the National Mediation
Board and the railroad retirement system
and the railroad unemployment insurance
system handled by the Railroad Retirement
Board. These latter two systems are financed
by payroll taxes on the railroad industry
and the costs of administration including
salaries, are also paid from these payroll
taxes. Both of these latter systems are ad-
ministered by the Railroad Retirement Board,
a tripartite agency, one member of which is
selected upon the recommendation of the
railroads, one upon the recommendation of
labor organizations representing railroad em-
ployees and the chairman without recom-
mendation by either group. The National
Mediation Board, by statute, is a bipartisan
board, not more than two of the three mem-
bers shall be of the same political party.
We are concerned about the salary levels
provided for the three members of the Rail-
road Retirement Board and the threelnem-
bers of the National Mediation Board, in
H.R. 10444 and related bills which were filed
on March 16, 1964. Section 302 of title III
of these bills establishes a "Federal executive
15295
salary schedule" to be divided into six salary
levels. Level In of this schedule, which is
contained in section 303(c), includes the
chairmen of a number of Federal agencies
to which the Railroad Retirement Board and
the National Mediation Board compare very
favorably, either in importance, size, or re-
sponsibility, but the Chairmen of the Rail-
road Retirement Board and the National
Mediation Board are not included. Further,
while the language with respect to positions
in level IV "such other offices and positions
the duties and responsibilities of which [the
President] deems appropriate for this level"
would warrant placing the members of the
Railroad Retirement Board and the National
Mediation Board in this level, there is similar
language with respect to positions in levels
V and VI. In view of this we respectfully
recommend amendments to these bills which
*ould specifically include the Chairmen of
the Railroad Retirement Board and the Na-
tional Mediation Board in level III and the
other members of the Board in level IV.
The railroad retirement system which the
Board administers is the nationwide retire-
ment system for employees in the railroad
industry. It provides important protection
to railroad employees and their dependents
and survivors. Employees receive annuities
upon their retirement for age or disability.
Annuities are paid to their spouses and other
dependents and annuities or lump sums are
paid to the survivors of railroad employees.
The railroad unemployment insurance sys-
tem which the Board administers provides
nationwide unemployment insurance protec-
tion for railroad employees in the form of un-
employment, sickness, and maternity bene-
fits.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963,
the Railroad Retirement Board paid more
than $1,200 million in benefits to 1,200,000
beneficiaries under the two systems. The
total amount paid out by the Board through
fiscal 1963 is about $14 billion.
The Board employs about 2,000 employees.
Among the Government agencies included in
section 303(c) of the bill is one with about
the same number of employees and 11 with
considerably less than this number. In at
least 10 of the agencies included in section
303(c), the present salaries of the chairmen
and other members of the agencies are $20-
500 and $20,000, respectively, the same as of
the chairman and members of the Railroad
Retirement Board.
The Railroad Retirement Board has an ex-
cellent record of performance in the admin-
istration of the two systems, and we feel very
strongly that, considering the importance,
responsibility, and size of the systems the
Board administers, the failure to include spe-
cifically the chairman of the Railroad Re-
tirement Board in section 303(c) is unwar-
ranted. The same is true of the failure
clearly to include the members of the Rail-
road Retirement Board in level IV.
The Congress has always regarded the rail-
road retirement and railroad unemployment
insurance systems, and their administration,
as of particular and primary concern to the
employers and employees in the railroad in-
dustry and has always attached great weight
to any recommendation upon which repre-
sentatives of the employers and employees
have been in agreement. We have an espe-
cially notable record of having been in agree-
ment virtually at all times for more than
25 years on matters pertaining to the ad-
ministration of the two systems.
The National Mediation Board has the re-
sponsibility for the administration of the
Railway Labor Act. This Board, over a pe-
riod of some almost 30 years, has maintained
a unique record for the preservation of the
stability of labor management relations in
this field. In addition, the National Media-
tion Board has the responsibility, under the
same statute, for labor management rela-
tions among carriers by air and their em-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ployees. In this relatively new field of bur-
geoning employment, now exceeding 500.000
employees, the Board's record over the past
25 years has been equally successful. The
maintenance of the flow of commerce along
these vital arteries requires the highest
degree of responsibility and application by
the members of this Board. In addition its
agents and employees are In constant touch
with the leaders of labor and management In
these fields on almost a daily basin to prevent
a disruption in the flow of interstate com-
merce. The National Mediation Board has
the additional responsibility of administer-
ing the affairs and budget of the National
Railroad Adjustment Board in Chicago. This
latter agency faces the task of adjusting
thousands of minor disputes during the
course of each year. In all, the stability of
the employment relationship of over a mil-
lion and a quarter wage earners in the
United States are affected by the operations
of the National Mediation Board.
As representatives of those who, in effect.
pay the salaries of the three members of the
Railroad Retirement Board and who are
vitally concerned with the ability of the Na-
tional Mediation Board to effectively admin-
ister its program, we respectfully request
that section 303 of the bill BR. 10444 be
amended by inserting in subsection (c) after
line 13 on page 42 the following:
"(45) Chairman of the Railroad Retire-
ment Board.
"(46) Chairman of the National Mediation
Board."; and by inserting in subsection (e)
In line 2 on page 43 after the word "poet-
tions" the following:
"(including, but not limited to, members
of the Railroad Retirement Board and mem-
bers of the National Mediation Board)"
We shaU appreciate it if you will see that
our proposed amendments and the reasons
therefor are made available to and given
consideration by the committee.
Sincerely yours,
By GREGORY S. PRINCE.
Executive Vice President and General
Counsel, Association of American
Railroads.
By G. E. Larceny,
Chairman, Railway Labor Executives'
Association.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, my
amendment would remove this threat-
ened inequality and would restore the
Railroad Retirement Board to the high
level in Government in which it belongs.
Finally, I must point out that the re-
ported bill discriminates against the
members of the National Mediation
Board and the Railroad Retirement
Board in the same way in which it dis-
criminates against their chairmen. In
each case, the members have been down-
graded to level 5 of the Federal execu-
tive salary schedule whereas the mem-
bers of the National Labor Relations
Board have been placed in level 4. This
is precisely the same kind of down-
grading which the bill imposes on the
chairmen of these agencies and consti-
tutes, in my judgment, rank discrimina-
tion against the members of these im-
portant agencies. My amendment pro-
poses to repair this injustice.
In closing my remarks, I should like to
point out that the House bill, recogniz-
ing the realities of the role of these va-
rious agencies in the Federal Govern-
ment, accorded to each of them the same
rank and dignity which they have always
enjoyed.
There is not a shred of evidence to
justify that these agencies are no longer
entitled to the class A status which they
have so long merited. Each continues
to perform in its own way the same sig-
nificant and effective role in the admin-
istration of the national labor Polley.
The House bill, in recognition of these
facts, continue to classify the agencies
in the same way.
The chairman of the Senate committee
has assured me that this amendment
will go to conference and will receive
the very careful consideration of the
Senate conferees. I understand that the
chairman himself is not opposed to it,
but I should like to have it go to con-
ference without any binding commit-
ment upon the Senate conferees.
My respect for and confidence in the
conferees of the Senate is such that I am
perfectly willing to enter into that un-
derstanding. if it can be implemented?
and I ani sure it can be?under the able
leadership of the Senator from South
Carolina. though I should like to have
him make a brief statement of his posi-
tion.
Mr. JOHNSTON. What the Senator
has said is absolutely true. We have
discussed this subject, and the amend-
ment will go to conference. These
amounts were left to the President, it will
be recalled by members of the committee,
to put them In whatever class the Pres-
ident desired to put them into. That
being si. it will be a matter for the
conferees,
Mr. MORSE. With that understand-
ing, I ask unanimous consent to with-
draw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFeaCER. The
amendment of the Senator from Oregon
Is withdrawn.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PF.T.T, Mr. President, we have be-
fore us a vitally important bill, HR.
11049, the Federal Employees Salary Act
of 1964. It is important that those who
work for the Federal Government receive
compensation nearly the approximate
equivalent of that received by their coun-
terparts in responsibility in the business
world.
Recently, a number of top Govern-
ment officials regretably, have had to
leave their jobs because their salaries
were not adequate to meet their personal
needs. The loss of outstanding men and
women and the inability to attract top-
flight talent leave our Government in a
serious predicament. The ability to run
a government efficiently and well depends
In large part on the caliber of those who
fill responsible positions_ When we fail
to retain or to bring such persons into
the Federal service, all of us suffer the
consequences?and particularly the tax-
payers, who have every right to demand
that their tax dollars be used in the most
effective and efficient manner passible.
Some have criticized Congress for
raising the salaries of its Members. This
I consider unjustified and unwarranted
by the facts. While I personally am
fortunate enough not to need this raise,
the fact remains that a very large per-
centage of Senators and Congressmen
have as their sole source of income, their
salaries. They are faced with high, but
Inescapable, expenses, of which the pub-
lic is often unaware?the need to main-
July 2
tam n a residence in Washington and in
the home State, travel and entertain-
ment expenses, and certain office costs
that exceed the allotments granted
Members. To demand of Members of
Congress?and rightfully so--the VerY
highest standards, but then to deny them
an adequate salary, strikes me as some-
what hypocritical.
The arguments I have advanced apply
equally across the board, whether in
reference to a postal clerk or a judge on
the Supreme Court. Good men deserve
good treatment, and one of the ir..di-
cators is an adequate salary.
I am particularly pleased that the
Senate committee revised the scale of
wages for those in the middle grades
of the classified service. This is ex-
tremely important, for it is in these
grades that we bring in the bright young
men and young women who eventuelly
will occupy the top positions in Govern-
ment. We cannot attract them if we
are not walling to pay them adequate
salaries.
For instance, in my own State of
Rhode Island, nearly 12,500 civilians are
working for the Federal Government.
They are productive, and do an excellent
job. But, like everyone else, they are
affected by rises in the cost of living,
educational expenses, and the many
other responsibilities that confront the
average American family.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1093 and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana will be Etated for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 100, beginning with the word
"In" in line 4, strike out through line 14 and
Insert in lieu thereof the following: "at the
rats of 6 per centum of his gross compen-
sation (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by law)."
On page 109, beginning with the word "an"
In line 20. strike out through line 23 and
insert in Lieu thereof the following: "6 per
centum."
On page 112, beginning with the word "an"
in line 17, strike out through Une 23 a:ad
insert in lieu thereof the following: "6 per
centum."
On page 113, line 4, strike out "622,945"
and insert in lieu thereof "620,000".
On page 114, line 3, strike out "626,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$22,500".
On page 114, line 6, strike out "624.500"
and insert in lieu thereof "620,500".
On page 114, line 8, strike out "822.500"
and insert in Lieu thereof "$20,500".
On page 114, line 13, strike out "$27,50)"
and insert in lieu thereof "$22,500".
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. a-TJ.ENDEFL. Mr. President, the
purpose of this amendment is to reduce
the amount to be.paid to the legislative
employees of the Senate as provided in
the bill and have it raised to 6 percent.
As the Senator from South Carolir.a
stated yesterday, in 1962 we had an
across-the-board raise of salaries for
legislative employees of 7 percent.
Here we are 2 years later, arid under
the provisions of this bill, the salaries of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15297
Senate employees are? raised as much as $21,500, and he Would receive $22,500 un-
211/2 percent. . der this bill. I think it is ample.
What I seek to do is to put a maximum The legislative counsel would receive
of 6 percent on the salaries which, to- $22,500, an increase of 6 percent, from
gether with the 7 percent that Congress $21,500.
granted last year, will total a 13-percent The General Counsel of GAO now re-
increase since 1962. Under the bill that ceives $20,000. My amendment would
was enacted in 1962, with a base pay of provide for him $22,500.
$8,880, an administrative assistant re- Now the administrative assistants of
ceived $18,884. Under this bill, that same Senators would be increased from the
base pay would increase to a pay of total that they can now receive of $18,-
$22,945, a sum in excess of what Senators 880, to $20,000. Mr. President, I think
are now receiving. And the same rate that is ample.
practically goes on up to a base pay of, This 6-percent increase, together with
say, $6,005, where an increase of 161/2 the 7-percent increase that we allowed
percent, down to the 211/2 percent for the last year, is ample for those workers.
highest pay for the administrative of- Mr. President, I wish to place in the
ficer. =tEcoRD at this point two tables that in-
The amendment covers the salaries of dicate how much the legislative em-
the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant ployees are receiving now, and what they
at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, and will receive under this bill.
his administrative assistant. There being no objection, the table
Under the present law, the Sergeant was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
at Arms of the Senate receives $21,500. as follows:
If this bill were enacted, that same offl- U.S. Senate-Effective Oct. 15, 1962
cial would receive $27,500-an increaseBasic Gross
of $500 a month, or a percentage increase
per annum per annum
of 27.9 percent. $60 $1, 020. 72
In addition to that, the Sergeant at $120 1, 162. 11
Arms is furnished an automobile. He is $180 1,303.50
240 1,444.89
furnished a chauffeur. He will be bet- $ 1,586.28
ter off than a Senator, if the Senator re- $300 $360 1,727.67
ceives the increased amount that is now $420 1, 869. 06
provided for in the bill. If this bill were $480 2, 010. 44
enacted by the Senate, as presented by $640 2, 151. 84
the distinguished Senator ' from South $600 2,293.23
Carolina, the Sergeant at Arms would re- $660 2,434.61
ceive $27,500-only $2,500 less than a $720 2, 576. 01
2,717.39
Senator. gg
2,855.64
:
On yesterday, my good friend corn- $900 2,968.75
pared the work of the Sergeant at Arms $960 3, 081. 86
to that of the police chief of the city of $1,020 3,194.98
New York. Of course, this is not a valid 61,080 3, 308. 08
comparison. The Sergeant at Arms is a $1,140 3,421.20
nice fellow, but this job is more or less $1,200
$1,260 3, 534. 31
political. And to increase his salary 3, 638.01
overnight by $500 a month cannot be $1,320 3,711.69
$1,380 3,845.37
justified by anyone. $1,440 4, 052. 75 3, 949.07
The same thing holds true for the Sec- $1,500 -
tary of the Senate, who now receives $1,660 4, 167. 47
$21,500. The increase would raise his $1,620 4.285. 68
salary to $27,500, or an increase of 27.9 $1,680 4,403.88
4
$1,740 ,525.43
percent.
$1,800 4, 655. 47
We furnish the Secretary of the Sen- $1,860 4,785.46
ate with an automobile and a chauffeur. $1,920 4,915.49
I would say that the Secretary of the $1,980 5, 045. 53
Senate is getting more money than a $2,040 5, 178.54
Senator would if the bill were passed as $2,100 5, 305. 58
presently written, $2,160
$2,220 5, 435. 56
5, 565.59
The Architect of the Capitol now re- $2,280 5, 695. 63
ceives $20,700. If this bill were passed, $2,340 5, 825.84
we would grant him an increase to $2,400 5,955.67
$26,000, or an increase of 26.1 percent. $2,460 6, 085.68
Mr. President, that is unconscionable. $2,620 6,215.70$2,580 6, 345. 74
An administrative assistant would be $2,640 6,475.75
raised from $18,880 to $22,945, or a raise$ 6,605.79
of $4,065, or 21.5 percent of what he is $22:707600
6,735.82
now receiving. $2,820 6,865.81
My amendment is very simple. What $2,880 6,995.86
it would do is give an across-the-board = 7,125.87
? 7, 265. 90
increase, the same as we did in 1962. $3,060 7, 385. 93
That year, we gave an across-the-board $3,120 7,515.94
increase of 7 percent. My amendment $3,180 7,645.97
would give an additional 6 percent. The $3,240 7,775. 96
Secretary of the Senate is now receiving $3,300 '7, 906. 00
$21,500. Under this amendment, he $3,360 8, 036,03
would be increased to $22,500, the amount $3,420 8, 166.04
that the Senators now receive. $3,480 8, 296.07
$3,540 8, 428.08
.
? The Sergeant at Arms would receive $3,600 - 8, 556 11
the same increase. He now receives $3,660 8, 686. 14
U.S. Senate-Effective Oct. 15, 1962-Con,
Basic Gross
per annum per annum
$3,720 $8, 816. 15
$3,780 8,946. 19
$3,840 9, 076. 20
$3,900 9, 206. 22
$3,960 9, 336. 25
$4,020 9,466. 27
$4,080 9, 596. 30
$4,140 9,726. 31
$4,200
9, 856. 33
$4,260
9, 986. 36
$4,320
10, 116. 37
- $4,380
10. 246. 39
$4,140
10. 376. 42
$4,600
10, 506. 43
$4,560
10, 636. 46
$1,620
10, '764. 52
$4,680
10, 883. 64
$4,740
11, 012. 73
$1,800
11, 136. 85
$4,860
11, 260.97
$4,920
11, 386. 08
$4,980
11, 509. 18
$5,040
11, 633. 30
$5,100
11, 757. 41
$5,160
11, 881. 53
$5,220
12, 002. 36
$5,280
12, 115. 18
$5,310
12, 228.01
$5,400
12, 340. 85
$5,460
12, 453.66
$5,520
12, 566. 49
$5,580
12, 679.33
$5,640
12, 792. 16
$5,700
12, 901. 99
$5,760
13, 017. 82
$5,820
13, 130. 55
$5,1380
13, 243. 46
$5,940
13, 356. 29
$6,000
13,469. 14
$6,060
13, 581. 97
$6,120
13, 694. 79
$6,180
13, 807.62
$6,240
13, 920.44
$6,300
14, 033. 28
$6,360
14, 146. 10
$6,420
14, 239.93
$6,480
14, 371. 76
$6,540
14,484. 59
$6,600
14, 597. 42
$6,660
14,710. 25
$6,720
14, 823. 08
$6,780
14, 935. 89
$6,840
15;048. 73
$6,900
15, 181.57
$6,960
15, 274.41
$7,020
15, 387. 22
$7,080
-15,500.05
$7,140
15, 612. 88
$7,200
15, 725.71
$7,260
15, 838. 54
$7,320
15, 951. 37
$7,380
16, 064. 19
$7,440
16, 177. 01
$7,500
16, 289. 86
$7,560
16, 402.68
$7,620
16, 515.51
$7,1380
16, 628. 34
$7,740
16, 741. 16
$7,800
16, 854, 00
$7,860
16, 966.84
$7,920
17, 079. 65
$7,980
17, 192. 48
$8,000
17, 230. 10
$8,040
17, 305. 31
$8,100
17, 418. 16
$8,160
17, 683.97
$8,220
17,643. 80
$8,280
17, 756. 63
$8,340
17, 869. 44
$8,400
17,982. 29
-$8,460
18, 095. 12
88,520
18, 207. 94
$8,580
18, 320. '77
$8,640
18, 436.60
$8,700
18, 546. 43
$8,760
18, 659. 26
$8,820
18,772. 09
$8,880
18, 880.00
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
LEG/SLAT/17R SALARY INCIJSABY-S
This is designed to provide percentage
salary adjustments for legislative employees
comparable to those provided for employees
under the Classification Act.. The increases
are provided In an amount equal to 3% per-
cent of the employee's gross rate plus 1 per-
cent of his gross rate for each whole multiple,
or part of a multiple of $500 basic compen-
sation; or an amount equal to 6 percent of
such gross rate. whichever Is greater.
51 ultlple
0.1
Bean
85
BOO
Present
gross
8891
1,020
2,067
Proposed
amendment
Percent
increuse
New
groes
8.0
6.0
5.0
6935
1,071
2.160
545
2,069
5. 6
2, 183
1.000
3, 157
b. 5
3,100
9
1,005
3,166
8. 5
3, 372
2.4
3
1,200
1.600
3,684
4,062
6. 5
6.5
3. 764
4, 316
3
1,605
4.001
7. 5
4,3)15
3 6
1.800
4,688
7. 5
6.004
4
? 000
6.083
7. 3
8.470
4
2, 00.5
5, 099
8.
8.038
4.34
2. 400
6.966
8.45
6,4131
2.000
6,172
8.6
6,697
2.005
8, 183
9. 5
6,770
3.000
7. 258
IL 5
7.948
Ii
3.005
7,286
10.8
c/9
7
8,600
8,389
10.6
it 215
7
3.605
&360
11.5
9, 310
7.2
8.500
8.558
11.5
9.040
34
4, 000
9.422
11_ 5
10. 506
4. 005
O. 483
12. 5
10.013
ft
4.500
10.606
12. 5
11.1319
9
4,505
10.017
13. 5
11.031
fi
4,1300
11.1345
13.5
12.640
10 8.000
11.550
13.5
13. 109
Ill 8.00,5
11.580
14.5
13,237
11 6, 500
12, 528
14. 5
14,345
11 6, 5115
12.538
13. 5
14.431
12 6, 000
13. 469
15. 5
15.836
1,1 6.1105
13. 478
16. 5
1,5.702
13 6,5411)
14.409
1)3.5
16, 788
13 6,005
14, 418
17.
18.042
14 7, 000
1-5. 349
17.
18.038
14 7,005
15.359
131. 5
18.200
14.4 7.316)
18.723
114
16.63.5
15 7,84)0
16. 289
18. 6
16,303
1.5. 7,605
16.1299
la 5
19,477
16 8,0(6)
17. U)
19. 5
20.800
16 8.005
17.239
SILO
20, 773
'7. 8.100
18. 170
24 5
21.893
17 8.606
18, 179
21. b
22.04%
17.7 8,880
12,804
21. 22.045
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, as I
said, it ranges from 5 percent for the
employee getting $891 a year-and we
have got very few of those now-to those
receiving a 21.5-percent increase.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. What is the present-
day maximum pay allowable for admin-
istrative assistants?
Mr. ELLENDER. Eighteen thousand
eight hundred and eighty dollars.
Mr. LAUSCHE. What would the bill
do as it now stands?
Mr. ELLENDER. The bill as it now
stands would provide $22,945.
Mr. LAUSCHE. And what will the
amendment of the Senator from Loui-
siana provide?
Mr. ELLENDER. $20,000. I say that
we should use a little sanity on these
wage hikes.
I am very hopeful that the Senate will
vote for my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Loui-
siana. The yeas and nays have been
ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
could I ask the Senator from Louisiana
a question?
The PRESIDING 01,FICER. The
Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. MANSFIELD. All the employees'
salaries were not listed. Were they?
Mr PI JPNDEJt.. In what?
Mr. MANSFIELD In the Senate.
Mr ELLENDER. It covers all of the
legislative employees.
Mr. MANSFIELD It covers all of
the legislative employees, the Chaplain,
and so forth?
Mr Fr LENDER. Yes, even the little
pages here. As I said yesterday, when
I came to the Senate, the pages were
getting $5 a day. This bill Increases it
to $5,000 a year. I think this is uncon-
scionable.
We gave a cut this year on income
taxes. And with all of that, we are pro-
posing to raise these legislative em-
ployees, as I said, from 5 to 21 q percent.
That cannot be justified. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OloteiCalli. The
Senator from South Carolina is recog-
nized.
Mr. JOUNSTON. Mr. President, the
salaries referred to are in keeping with
the salaries that have been requested by
the administration for executive branch
employees and approved by the House.
If this amendment is agreed to, we will
find that the House employees and offices
will have substantial increases, and our
officers and employees will not have any
Increase but the 6 percent.
It Is in the higher brackets that we are
having trouble in securing the qualified
men, both downtown and here.
I do not think any Senator wishes to
pay an executive branch employee more
than our own employees in the Senate
are paid for a position of equivalent rank
and responsibility.
The Senator has spoken of the Ser-
geant at Arms. At the present time there
Is only $1,000 difference between the
salary of the Sergeant at Arms and the
salary of a Senator. When the bill
passes, there will be a difference of
$2,500. So the proposal is in keeping
with what we have done in the past. We
have tried to regulate salaries so that
Inconsistencies will not cause a great
deal of trouble. I hope that the Senate
will reject the amendment.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
have been unable to ascertain whether
the Comptroller General's rate would be
reduced by the amendment of the dis-
tinguished Senator. I know that the
Counsel would be reduced.
Mr. ELLENDER. Those included are
the Secretary of the Senate, the Ser-
geant at Arms, the Legislative Counsel,
the General Counsel of GAO, the Libra-
rian of Congress, the Public Printer,
the Architect of the Capitol, the Deputy
Librarian, the Deputy Public Printer,
and the Assistant Architect of the Capi-
tol.
Mr. MONRONEY. The head of the
GAO would not be included in the pro-
posed reductions?
Mr. ELLENDER.. No.
Mr. MONRONEY. He is on that list
of officers generally associated together.
Mr. ELLENDER. What I sought to do
was to include employees in the legisla-
July 2
tive branch of the Government. As the
Senator knows, the bill would increase
the salaries of all employees who are
members of the staffs of the milliors of
subcommittees and special committees
that we have.
Mr. MONRONEY. Not necessarily.
The Senator knows that only those em-
ployees whose salaries were increased by
their employer would receive the in-
crease.
Mr. FT 7 ENDER. Certainly, but the
Senator knows what would happen.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator from
Oklahoma has never used anywhere near
the maximum amount of salary allow-
ance. I ant sure that the Senator from
Louisiana las not.
Mr. FI LENDER. I have nor.
Mr. MONRONEY. I am sure that the
Senator fnmn South Carolina has hot.
The maximum is an amount which very
few employees ever attain. If a Senator
chooses to use his pay allowance in order
to keep his administrative assistant at
$22,945, which is the tiptop of the grade
of those fine young people who serve and
make a lifetime job of their service, then
he has a right to do so. As early as 1946
the top staff men of the Senate commit-
tees were so classified that they would be
able to attract the same quality of men.
We would prevent raids upon our staffs
of our good men. Otherwise they would
be 'attracted downtown at higher em-
ployment wages.
If we are going to pay more to those in
the top level of civil service-those in
grade 18 in the executive department
downtown, who have less hard work to
do than our own staff people-we should
at least raise the salaries of our cwn
staff people to $22.945 as well.
The ratio has been well kept. We have
tried to maintain the differences. There
has been a difference of $1,000 between
the salary of a Senator and the salary of
the Sergeant at Arms and that of he
Secretary of the Senate. Under the sill
the difference would be $2,500.
As to the Architect of the Capitol,
neither of us might agree that he is an
excellent architect, but the job-and
that is what we are trying to classify-
is a job that certainly demands a person
of capability. It demands someone a ho
would have that much earning capacity,
In order to be able to supervise the myr-
iad things that have to be done in tais
gigantic Capitol plant, including all the
buildings on Capitol Hill.
Mr. FLLFNDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator Yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator has
tried to compare the salaries of the Sec-
retary of the Senate and the Sergeant at
Arms with the salary of a Senator. The
Senator knows that in the last few years
those two officers have received increases
In pay whereas Senators have not. That
Is why the salaries are so close together.
Mr. MONRONEY. - I beg the Senator's
pardon. We have not Increased the sal-
aries of those employees.
Mr. EILENDER. In 1962 there was
a 7-percent across-the-board increase.
Mr. MONRONEY. If my memory
serves me correctly, the Sergeant at
Arms did not-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15299
Mr. ELLENDER. All employees re-
ceived an increase.
Mr. MONRONEY. They did not get
the full 7 percent. The limitation cut
them off.
Mr. ELLENDER. They did get an
increase in 1962.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator is
more correct than I am, because they did
receive an increase. But a differential
exists. We would now make the differ-
ential $2,500, which I believe is a proper
differential between the salaries of those
two officers and the salary of a Senator.
Mr. ELLENDER. Does the Senator
mean that a differential of $2,500 be-
tween the salaries of the Sergeant at
Arms and the Secretary of the Senate
and a Senator is proper?
Mr. MONRONEY. I believe the Sen-
ator will find that that has generally
been the range of the difference.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is that the way the
Senator evaluates it?
Mr. MONRONEY. The difference be-
tween the salaries of the Sergeant at
Arms and a Senator?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. The Secre-
tary of the Senate has an automobile,
and a chauffeur, and I believe this would
amount to, if he is given the $27,500
which is provided in the bill more than
a Senator's salary.
Mr. MONRONEY. Ths Senator knows
that the $2,500 differential is one that
represents the difference between the
two jobs. But those are the two prin-
cipal officers of the Senate. We need
efficient men in those offices. They
spend a great deal of money running the
housekeeping functions on our side of
the Capitol.
I believe the scale is proper and ought
to be maintained. I ask that the amend-
ment be rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Louisiana yield back
the remainder of his time?
Mr. ELT:PINDER. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Louisiana.
All time having expired, and the yeas
and nays, having been ordered, the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG], and
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERT-
SON] are absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. BAY11], and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] are
absence because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Ohio
[Mr. YOUNG] is paired with the Senator
from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS] . If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Ohio
would vote "yea," and the Senator from
Florida would vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
COTTON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Form], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
HausicAl, and the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL ] are neces-
sarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HausgA] would vote
"yea."
The result was announced?yeas 25,
nays 63, as follows:
[No. 463 Leg.1
Aiken
Allott
Burdick
Church
Cooper
Curtis
Dominick
=ender
Goldwater
Anderson
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Clark
Dirksen
Dodd
Douglas
Eastland
Edmondson
Ervin
Fulbright
Gruening
Hart
YEAS-25
Gore
Jordan, Idaho
Lausche
Mansfield
McClellan
McGovern
Miller
Morton
Moss
NAYS-63
Mundt
Simpson
Syrnington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dalt.
Hartke Metcalf
Hayden Monroney
Hickenlooper Morse
Hill Muskie
Holland Nelson
Humphrey Neuberger
gnouye Pastore
Jackson Pearson
Javits Pell
Johnston Prouty
Jordan, N.C. Proxmire
Keating Randolph
Kuchel Ribicoff
Long, Mo. Russell
Long, La. Scott
Magnuson Smith
McCarthy Sparkman
McGee Stennis
McIntyre Tower
McNamara Walters
Mechem Williams, N.J.
NOT VOTING-12
Bayh Fong Saltonstall
Byrd, Va. Hruska Smathers
Cotton Kennedy Yarborough
Engle Robertson Young, Ohio
So Mr. ELLENDER'S amendments (No.
1093) were rejected.
GOOD GOVERNMENT NEEDS GOOD MEN:
GOOD ming MUST BE PAID
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, the
House of Representatives has passed, and
the Senate Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service has favorably reported, with
amendments, the Government Employ-
ees Salary Reform Act of 1964, H.R.
11049. I now urge Senate passage.
Enactment of this bill would be a sig-
nificant step towarupdating and mak-
ing equitable the Federal pay scale.
Present levels of payment represent poor
economy in several respects. They do
not give Government workers fair and
reasonable pay. They make it increas-
ingly difficult to recruit and retain top-
flight men and women for Government
service. They undercut Congress' de-
clared principle that Government work-
ers shall be paid wages comparable to
those paid in analogous private positions.
Their failure to provide adequate incen-
tives or to attract a sufficient number of
capable workers undermines our efforts
to achieve efficiency and economy in
Government.
The pay adjustment bill would pro-
vide salary increases for some 1,700,000
Government employees, including over
7,500 Federal workers located in Alaska.
Over 1 million civil servants, includ-
ing 6,822 In Alaska, are presently cov-
ered by the Classification Act of 1949.
The Alaska figure includes 1,323 Army
employees, 1,158 with the Air Force, 1,105
with the Department of the Interior, and
1,434 with the FAA. The Classification
Act also covers 692 Alaskans working
with the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, 334 with the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 268 with the De-
partment of Commerce, 166 with the
Navy, and 145 with the Department of
the Treasury.
Salary increases granted by the pro-
posed bill to Classification Act employees
would be effective at all GS levels. They
would average 4.2 percent. Workers at
the GS-4 to GS-5 levels would receive
boosts of over 6 percent; GS-3 and GS-6
employees would be raised by more than
5 percent. GS-7 to GS-8 increases would
average around 4 percent, while those
in grades 9 through 12 would run approx-
imately 3 percent.
Another 600,000 of the Federal em-
ployees covered by the present bill are
now classified under the postal field serv-
ice, rural carrier, and fourth-class office
schedules. This involves 669 Alaskans,
including 144 postmasters of fourth-class
Post offices. Employees covered by the
postal field service schedule would re-
ceive an average salary increase of 5.6
Percent. The boost would be over 6 per-
cent for employees at PFS levels 1
through 4, 5.2 percent at PFS-5, 4 per-
cent at PFS-6, and approximately 3 per-
cent at PFS levels 7 through 11.
A new basis of computation would be
used in determining the salaries of post-
masters of fourth-class post offices.
The formula for "revenue units," upon
which salaries would be based, would
consider the amount of mail handled and
the service transactions carried out, as
well as the gross receipts. This promises
to establish a more realistic wage scale
for those postmasters, long underpaid, in
our small or seasonal offices.
Other sections of the pay adjustment
bill increase salaries in the Department
of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans'
Administration, in the Foreign Service,
and in county ASC offices. Increases are
also provided for legislative employees
and officers, Members of Congress, Fed-
eral executives, District of Columbia ex-
ecutives and officers, judicial employees,
and Federal judges.
The bill is thus a comprehensive one,
attempting to remedy inequities at vari-
ous wage levels. It acknowledges that
top Federal officials cannot expect sal-
aries absolutely commensurate with lu-
crative private positions; but it still
recognizes the need for appreciable in-
creases, in light of the many responsibili-
ties these officials must fulfill and the
hardships to which present salary scales
subject them.
At the same time, the bill attempts to
establish equitable rates down the line,
and to set up meaningful ratios between
the various grade levels. Thus, we are
attempting not only to provide for much-
needed increases, but also to establish
wage levels that will encourage maxi-
mum effort and will provide incentives
for continuance and advancement in the
Federal service.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
It Is all too easy, Mr. President, to
underestimate the services rendered by
Federal employees working throughout
the country?from the highest official
levels to the smallest post offices in our
Alaska villages. We also tend to under-
estimate the salaries which these public
servants deserve and need. These are
the people who must administer the
many Federal programs and services;
they are the people on whom, in large
measure, our domestic welfare and
our security and leadership in the world
arena are dependent. It is simply not
fair for these employees to be underpaid,
nor can the country afford it. It is false
economy to pay inadequate wages to
those upon whom Government efficiency
depends. We must attract and hold our
most capable citizens to public service.
If we are to do so, we must give them
adequate compensation and incentive.
Mr. President, I urge the passage of
H.R. 11049 as reported by the Senate
committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The bill
Is open to further amendment.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment.
The PRESIDING OlekiCER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Kentucky will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment as follows:
At the end of line 2, page 107, add the
following:
"rixt.is
"Any compensation, honorarium, or other
payment received by any Member of Con-
gress for any lecture, appearance, speech, or
article written over and above the actual ex-
penses involved shall be turned over to the
Treasury of the United States."
MESSAGE FROM ink, HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had agreed to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce
the constitutional right to vote, to confer
jurisdiction upon the district courts of
the United States to provide injunctive
relief against discrimination in public ac-
commodations, to authorize the Attor-
ney General to institute suits to protect
constitutional rights in public facilities
and public education, to extend the Com-
mission on Civil Rights, to Prevent dis-
crimination in federally assisted pro-
grams, to establish a Commission on
Equal Employment Opportunity, and for
other purposes.
CIVIL RIGHTS?ENROLLED BILL
SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (HR. 7152) to enforce the
constitutional right to vote, to confer
jurisdiction upon the district courts of
the United States to provide injunctive
relief against discrimination in public
accommodations, to authorize the Attor-
ney General to institute suits to protect
constitutional rights in public facilities
and public education, to extend the Com-
mission on Civil Rights, to prevent dis-
crimination in federally assisted pro-
grams, to establish a Commission on
Equal Employment Opportunity, and for
other purposes, and it was signed by the
President pro tempore.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kentucky yield to me for
one moment?
Mr. MORTON. I yield.
Mr. JAVI'TS. Mr. President, we have
just heard the historic announcement to
the Senate that the House has passed
finally the civil rights bill, the most
momentous piece of legislation, in my
judgment, which has come out of the
Senate since the declaration of war in
World War II.
I thank the Senator for the opportu-
nity at least to call it markedly to the
attention of the Senate.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORTON. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I merely wish the
Itscoao today to note that the act which
has just been passed by the House, to
which the Speaker has affixed his signa-
ture. the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is not
only one of the most important PleCes
of legislation of our time, but it has had
amazing bipartisan support. The vote
in the House was 289 to 126.
I salute the Members of the House and
commend Members of the Senate. I be-
lieve we have performed a no. iub c
service.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
G-wernment, and for other purposes.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
should like to inquire of the Senator
from Kentucky if his amendment would
apply to Members of the Senate while
Congress was in recess.
Mr. MORTON. Yes; it would apply.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It would apply the
year round?
Mr. MORTON. It would apply the
year round. We are on the payroll the
year round.
Mr. McCLFJ,LAN. In other words, we
should devote all our time to the busi-
ness here, and we could not devote any
of our time to making public speeches.
Is that what the Senator means?
Mr. MORTON. I have no objection
to making public speeches. ,
Mr. MeCLELLAN. But they should
be made free of charge. Is that it?
Mr. MORTON. Yes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORTON. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator
include in his amendment all income
from legal fees and fees collected as di-
rectors and also income from dividends?
Would he provide that all such sums
should be turned over to the Treasury
of the United States?
Mr. MORTON. If the Senator wishes
to offer such an amendment in his own
right, it might be considered. I do not
see why a person must be destitute of all
property to be able to serve in this body.
My point is this. I made speeches in
the 1930's, long before I became a Mere-
her of Congress': I was never paid for
those speeches. Now, merely because I
happen to be a Member of the Sena-;e,
people offer me r dollars to come and
make a speech. This is only because I
happen to be a U.S. Senator, on tae
public payroll. When I did it in tae
1930's, I was not on the public payrcll.
I therefore think that anything that is
offered to me in this connection because
I happen to be a U.S. Senator, while be-
ing paid by the taxpayers of the United
States, should be turned into the Treas-
ury of the United States. I feel that I
am an employee of the Government.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator
Include legal fees? Does he believe they
should be turned over to the Treasury?
I know of various lawyers whose in-
comes increased after they had become
U.S. Senators.
Mr. MORTON. I am not a lawyer,
and I am therefore not qualified to re-
spond to the Senator's question. When
I was an officer of the U.S. Government,
In the State Department, I was not per-
mitted to accept any sort of honorarium.
I was not even permitted to allow the
associations that asked me to speak be-
fore them to pay my expenses. Either
I paid the expenses myself, or the Gov-
ernment paid for them.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Would the Senator
amend his amendment so that all legal
fees should go to the Treasury?
Mr. MORTON. I should like to have
the Senator offer his own amendment.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator wants
to be fair. I am sure and make his
amendment apply equally.
Mr. MORTON. Yes. What is it that
the Senator wants me to do?
Mr. DOUGLAS. To include also legal
and directors' fees in his amendment.
Mr. MORTON. In other words, the
Senator wants to "louse up" my amend-
ment so that it cannot be adopted. Is
that it?
Mr. DOUGLAS. No. I am asking him
whether he would be willing to include
directors' fees and legal fees, and any
amount received from private business,
and also I think dividends from whis:ty
stocks.
Mr. McCLELLAN. And cigarettes.
Mr. DOUGLAS. And from cigarette
stocks, too.
Mr. PASTORE. And from writing
books.
Mr. MORTON. I understand that the
Senator wants to say that anything that
any Member receives, aside from his st.1-
ary as a Member of Congress, should be
reported and turned in to the Treasury.
Is that correct?
Mr. DOUGLAS. If we follow the
precedent of the Senator's amendment,
that is what we should do.
Mr. MORTON. In other words, he
would have us turn over our dividends
from whatever source they were re-
ceived?
Mr. DOUGLAS. Also especially from
whisky and cigarette stocks, because
those items, according to the doctors, are
very injurious to the human race.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15301
Mr. MORTON. Cigarette stocks have
been rather sick lately, I can tell the
Senator. I cannot accept the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Illinois.
I suggest that he offer it in his own time
as a separate amendment.
I yield to the Senator from New Jer-
sey such time as he may desire to take.
Mr. CASE. I believe there is a germ
of rightness in this amendment. How-
ever, logically the amendment should in-
clude not only income from speeches
and writings, but also earnings from any
source. If a person is a director of a
bank, undoubtedly it is because he is a
Member of the Senate. I see no reason
why a bank director's fees should not be
turned over to the Treasury. I would
not have the amendment apply to earn-
ings from securities or property owned
by the person. However, I believe any
other kind of earnings ought to be in-
cluded. I ask the Senator if he would
accept this serious suggestion to amend
his amendment accordingly.
Mr. MORTON. The Senator means
fees collected as a director of a bank.
Mr. CASE. I mean any earned income
as opposed to income from securities, for
example. Any fees a lawyer may earn
due to his being a Member of the Senate
should be included. I do not believe that
only one kind of earning should be in-
cluded. ?
Mr. MORTON. I cannot agree with
the Senator. Suppose I decide to do
some moonlighting by babysitting or
raking leaves. Should those earnings
be included?
Mr. CASE. I cannot imagine anyone
trusting the Senator from Kentucky with
a daughter of impressionable age.
Mr. MORTON. At 57 years of age, I
can.
Mr. CASE. Any earned income might
well be due to the fact that one holds
the position of Senator.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, may I
respectfully suggest that the amend-
ment be withdrawn?
Mr. MORTON. In an effort to be
helpful to my colleagues, and to get this
measure on the road, I will accede to the
suggestion of my distinguished leader.
But before I withdraw the amendment
I should like to respond briefly to the
remarks of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE. I withdraw my remarks.
Mr. MORTON. I am a director of a
bank. When I go to a directors' meet-
ing I am paid $35. I do not get to more
than two such directors' meetings a year,
because of the long sessions the majority
party has been holding in the Senate. I
happen to be a director because my
grandfather started a little bank, and
this ultimately developed into the bank
of which I am presently a director.
When I attend a meeting as a director
I am paid $35. I get to about two meet-
ings a year. I think my responsibility
is far greater than my compensation.
If something happens to the bank be-
cause I am not there, I can be sued for I
do not know how much.
Mr. PASTURE. It might be the very
best excuse the Senator could have if he
wished to resign from the directorship.
No. 133-8
The amendment would give him that ex-
cuse.
Mr. MORTON. I have tried to resign.
Every time I try the president comes to
me and say, "Please don't resign." So
I stay as a director.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator should
accept the amendment of the Senator
from New Jersey, because that would be
the best reason he could have for re-
signing.
Mr. MORTON. Very well, I will re-
sign from the bank, and I withdraw the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OrviCER. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I call up my amendment No.
1079, and ask the clerk to report it as
It has been modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be read.
The legislative clerk read the modified
amendment, as follows:
At the end of the bill add a new section
as follows:
"SEC. . (a) Section 2(a) of the Act en-
titled 'An Act to prohibit payment of an-
nuities to officers and employees of the
United States convicted of certain offenses,
and for other purposes, approved Septem-
ber 1, 1954, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2283(a) ) ,
is amended to read as follows:
"'(a) There shall not be paid to any per-
son who, on, or after September 26, 1961,
has refused or refuses, or knowingly and
willfully has failed or fails, to appear, testify,
or produce any book, paper, record, or other
document, relating to his service as an offi-
cer or employee of the Government or Mem-
bers of Congress in any proceeding before
a congressional committee, for any period
subsequent to September 26, 1961, or sub-
sequent to the date of such failure or re-
fusal of such person, whichever date is
later, any annuity or retired pay on the basis
of the service of such person (subject to the
exceptions contained in sections 10 (2) and
(3) of this Act) which is creditable toward
such annuity or retired pay.'
"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of
such section 2 (a), as amended no person
shall be required, by reason of the amend-
ment made by this section, to refund any
annuity or retired pay paid to such person
prior to the date of enactment of this Act."
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, the amendment as it has
been modified merely provides that any
public official or former public official
who since September 1961 has been re-
quested to appear before a congressional
committee to answer questions in line
with his official conduct, elected to take
the fifth amendment rather than answer
the questions would be allowed to receive
a refund of all of his contributions to
the retirement fund, plus interest, but
he would not be eligible for retirement
benefits. In 1954 Congress enacted a
similar law. On September 26, 1961, the
law was repealed, over my 'objection.
Recently there was an instance in
which a former public official took the
fifth amendment rather than answer
questions that were directed to him about
his conduct as a public official.
The amendment does not deal with the
right of an individual to take the fifth
amendment, but if one who is or has been
a public official took the fifth amend-
ment, rather than answer questions
which were properly asked concerning
his official duties, he would forfeit his
right to any further contributions so far
as the taxpayers were concerned.
He would have the right to withdraw
all of his own contributions, plus interest.
There is no question about that. He
would be entitled to them. But I do not
believe that the portion of his retirement
fund which would normally be paid by
the Federal Government?by the tax-
payers?should be allowed him. That
should be forfeited. That is all that my
amendment provides.
Congress enacted such a law in 1954,
`and it was in effect for 7 years. It was
repealed in 1961. This amendment
would reinstate the act as of the date of
repeal.
The amendment as originally printed
referred, as did the act of 1954, to tak-
ing the fifth amendment before courts.
I have stricken that provision upon the
suggestion of the Senator from Illinois.
The amendment now deals only with
employees or former employees of the
Federal Government who take the fifth
amendment, rather than testify before
a congressional committee.
I hope that the chairman of the com-
mittee will accept the amendment. If
he will not I ask for the yeas and nays
on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr, JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
wish to ask the Senator from Delaware
a question. How broad is the amend-
ment? Whom would it cover? What
kind of cases?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It would
cover any employee or former employee
of the Federal Government who was
called before a congressional committee
to answer questions concerning his of-
ficial activities as a public servant if he
took the filth amendment or had taken
It since the repeal of the act in 1961.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The fifth amend-
ment, which many persons have invoked,
Is a part of the Constitution. Would the
Senator's amendment be in violation of a
person's right under that amendment?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I did
not hear the Senator's question.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If an employee ap-
peared before a committee and refused
to answer some question because to do
so might incriminate him?which he
would have the right to do under the
fifth amendment?would his annuity be
taken away from him?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. If the
question were directed to the person's
conduct as a public official, yes. Why
should it not?
Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator's
amendment would penalize him and
might possibly cause him to disclose some
knowledge concerning national security.
He might be asked to disclose informa-
tion of that nature, and be penalized un-
justly for not doing so.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. No. The
amendment merely provides that if an
employee of the U.S. Government wished
to invoke the fifth amendment rather
than answer proper questions asked him
by a congressional committee concern-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ing his conduct as a public official, he
would merely forfeit any further right
to the contributions so far as the tax-
payers' part is concerned. Why should
he not forfeit it?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Would we not be
taking away from him the annuity on
which he had paid, and as to which the
Government had entered into a contract
with him, because he refused to answer
a question and invoked the fifth amend-
ment?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That
Is done in the armed services now. The
Senator voted for that. Every Member
of the Senate approved it.
Under existing law if one has served
in the armed services for 20 years and
has established his full eligibility for a
pension, and then reenlists, and in the
course of his reenlistment is dishonor-
ably discharged, an additional penalty
is imposed on him. He loses all the re-
tirement benefits for which he would
have been eligible had he not reenlisted.
That is the law.
What is wrong with providing the
same requirement with respect to civil
employees of the Government? Anyone
who is affected by the amendment can
return the next day and say, "I am wil-
ling to talk and answer the questions,"
and can reinstate himself. He would
have complete control with respect to
answering the questions.
I am not suggesting that the amend-
ment applies to questions about his out-
side activities; but certainly an official
of the U.S. Government should be re-
quired to answer before a congressional
committee questions that are asked of
him In connection with his official
activities. That is all I am proposing.
If a penalty is to be suffered he will Im-
pose it on himself. If he wishes to re-
move it he can advise the committee the
very next day that he is willing to answer.
Mr. JOHNSTON. But a question of
internal security might be involved in
his refusal to answer.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It
could be a question of personal security
as for as the law is concerned. So far
as the armed services are concerned if
a man goes off and gets drunk or cre-
ates an incident on the outside, com-
pletely nonrelated to the armed services,
he may receive a dishonorable discharge
and thus will forfeit his pension rights.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. McCIRT.T.AN. Would the amend-
ment apply to Members of Congress?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It would apply to
Members of the Senate?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes; to
any public official who refused to testify
before a committee and took the fifth
amendment on the ground that to re-
spond to questions of the committee
would incriminate him.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. I merely thought
that if such a provision were to be in-
cluded in the bill, it should apply Co
Members of Congress, as well as to mem-
bers of the staff and other employees.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Oh, yes.
It would apply to any officer or employee
of the Government. This question was
raised once before.
Mr. President, to avoid any misunder-
standing I ask unanimous consent that
I may modify my amendment on page
2, after the word "Government" in line
1, to include "or Members of Congress."
Then there will be no misunderstanding.
I am sure they are already covered, but
I ask unanimous consent that the words
"Members of Congress" be inserted at
that point because we want to be cer-
tain they are covered. I thought they
were covered, but I want to be certain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
the amendment is modified accordingly.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. ERVIN. The amendment is
clearly unconstitutional under the de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the
Slochower case. In that case, a profes-
sor of the College of the City of New
York was called before the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities and
interrogated concerning his official con-
duct as a teacher. He took the fifth
amendment. An ordinance of the city of
New York provided that whenever an
employee of the city of New York took
the fifth amendment when he was being
interrogated about his official conduct,
he was automatically discharged.
When that case was brought before
the Supreme Court of the United States,
the Court ruled that it was unconstitu-
tional to penalize a man for exercising
his constitutional right or constitutional
privilege not to incriminate himself.
That is exactly what the amendment
offered by the able and distinguished
Senator from Delaware would do. The
amendment is a flagrant, brazen viola-
tion of the Constitution, as interpreted
by the Supreme Court.
Mr. MUNDT. I invite the attention of
the Senator from North Carolina to the
fact that he is talking about a case in-
volving a teacher in a college in New
York appearing before a Government
committee. That is not a relevant case
to the argument, because we are talk-
ing about the right of the Government to
deal with its employees and to establish
criteria and rules and regulations con-
cerning employee benefits while working
for Uncle Sam.
It is about time that Congress did take
some action to be sure that those who
have important information that the
country needs will get it, because our
employees of the Government are not
Permitted to lurk behind the fifth amend-
ment and continue to enjoy all of the
benefits that they would have if they
were responsive to the needs of the
country and gave Congress the infor-
mation it requires.
We enacted the legislation one time
before. It was never ruled unconstitu-
tional by any court. Congress, in a mo-
ment of exuberance, or carelessness, or
something, repealed it without adequate
debate.
I am glad that we have this issue be-
fore us again and that we have a roll-
July 2
call vote ordered on it. I believe that
it is time Congress asserted itself, as to
whether it has the right to establish
criteria governing employment of those
working for it, and if Congress has that
right, it has every right in the world to
establish whether they will get employ-
ment benefits or retirement benefits.
I support the amendment and I hope it
will pass overwhelmingly on the rollcall
vote.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield me
30 seconds?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to yield to the
Senator from North Carolina for 30
seconds.
The PRESIDING 01010.11,-En. Witnout
objection, the Senator from North Caro-
lina is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. ERVIN. I would say to my good
friend, the Senator from South Da:tota
that I have been talking about a case
on all fours with the amendmen-, of
the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WIL-
LIAMS]. I was talking about a case in
which the Supreme Court held -hat
whenever the Government undertakes
to penalize a man for exercising rights
conferred upon him by the Constitution,
the action of the Government is un-
constitutional.
Mr. 'WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Delaware is recognized for
30 seconds.
Mr. WILL-TAMS of Delaware. I con-
cur in what the Senator from South
Dakota has pointed out, that there is
no comparison between these two cases.
The case mentioned involves an em-
ployee of the State of New York who
was directed to come before a commit-
tee of Congress.
In this instance, these are employees
of the U.S. Government, asked to come
before a committee of the Congress. We
are dealing here solely with Federal Gov-
ernment operations and nothing else.
As I stated before, we passed this legis-
lation In 1954. It stayed on the statute
books until 1961. It was not declared un-
constitutional?it was repealed by
Congress.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Delaware yield for a
question?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. KEATING. Is it not a fact that
under the Senator's amendment, if such
a person does take the fifth amendment,
he can and does get back the amounts
which he has paid in to date with what-
ever interest is allowed?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
Government pays a refund, yes.
Mr. KEATING. That is the important
distinction between this and the case
referred to by the Senator from North
Carolina. In that case the man was
fired without a refund; in other words,
he was penalized. In this case, he is
not penalized. He gets back what he
has paid in, with interest..
He simply does not thereafter reap fur-
ther benefits from the taxpayers of the
country.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
Senator is correct. He can reinstate this
on 24 hours' notice by offering to appear
before the committee. We have been
doing this for years with the armed serv-
ices. It is the law today. Each member
of the armed services has accumulated
retirement benefits eligible after 20
years. If he then elects to reenlist for
1 year or 5 years and during the
course of that reenlistment he is dishon-
orably discharged or receives a discharge
other than honorable he forfeits all of
his privileges and retirement benefits.
This is true even though he could have
retired prior to a second enlistment and
received such benefits. That is the law.
There is nothing unusual in this proce-
dure. It has never been declared uncon-
stitutional. It was on the statute books
for 7 years. Let us face it?this could
be called the Bobby Baker amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield me
another 30 seconds?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I am glad to yield
30 seconds to the Senator from North
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina is recog-
nized for 30 seconds.
Mr. ERVIN. This amendment is not
only unconstitutional on the grounds I
have mentioned, in that it constitutes
an attempt to penalize a man for the
exercise of his rights under the Constitu-
tion but it is also unconstitutional on
another ground. The amendment is
retroactive to September 1961 and pen-
alizes a man for an act already com-
mitted and therefore is in violation of
the provisions of the Constitution which
prohibits passage of ex post facto laws.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Delaware yield briefly
tome?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
intend to vote for the amendment offered
by the distinguished senior Senator from
Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS]. This amend-
ment simply provides that any Govern-
ment employee who claims the privilege
against self-incrimination pursuant to
the fifth amendment to the Constitution
would thereafter be deprived of any
retirement benefits due to him from a
Government retirement plan. The
amendment in no way prohibits a per-
son from invoking the provisions of the
fifth amendment.
The provisions of the pending amend-
ment differ from the situation which
existed and led to the Supreme Court
decision of Slochower against the Board
of Higher Education of New York City,
which was handed down in 1955. In that
case, the individual who claimed the
fifth amendment before a Senate com-
mittee was automatically discharged
from his job as professor at Brooklyn
College, in New York. A contractual
employment relationship existed be-
tween the city of New York and the
appellant Slochower, in that case. How-
ever, Mr. President, there is no contrac-
tual obligation on the part of Congress
to provide retirement benefits. Such
benefits are modified from time to time
. Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
and may be withdrawn by Congress at
will. Under these circumstances, it is
clear that Congress may provide for
denial of retirement benefits in individual
cases upon such grounds as it may deter-
mine valid. Under the provisions of the
pending amendment, if an individual
took refuge in the fifth amendment, he
could still retain his position, but he
would forfeit his retirement pay; and the
amount he had already put in would be
returned to him.
It is argued that the retroactive feature
of this amendment makes this proposal
an ex post facto law. In the 1798 case
of Calder against Bull, the Supreme
Court of the United States held that
the prohibition against ex post facto laws
contained in the Constitution applied
only to penal and criminal statutes.
This amendment does not make it a
crime to invoke the fifth amendment,
and, therefore, does not violate the pro-
hibition against ex post facto laws as
contained in the Constitution. It is es-
sential to the proper functioning of the
Government that it be able to secure
from its employees information concern-
ing the performance of their official
duties. Refusal by Government em-
ployees to disclose pertinent facts and
records concerning their official duties
constitutes a serious disservice to the
Government and the Nation. Employees
who do refuse to make such disclosures
should by no means be beneficiaries of
rewards, over and above their salaries.
They should be denied retirement bene-
fits. I strongly support adoption of the
Williams amendment.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield
tome?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Montana.
Mr. METCALF. Is it the understand-
ing of the Senator from Delaware that
this amendment is prospective, or would
it be retroactive and apply to a pension
which has already been earned?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
amendment is both. There is not a sin-
gle Senator who does not know what the
purpose of this amendment is. Let us
vote on it accordingly.
Mr. METCALF. Would it not be open
to the legal objection that if it were
retroactive and applied to pensions al-
ready earned, would it not?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
amendment provides in this last para-
graph that it would not require a refund
of any annuities which have been col-
lected prior to the enactment.
It does stops the benefits prospectively,
but it does not require retroactive pay-
ment back into the Government if a man
has retired prior thereto and has drawn
in excess of the amount to which he
would be entitled. Thus there is no
retroactive payment.
It does say that if he takes the fifth
amendment that from that time on, from
that day forward, he would not be elig-
ible to any further benefits of the tax-
payers' money. Congress passed such a
bill once; it repealed it in 1961. This
would reinstate it, and we all know what
the purpose of it is. Let us vote on it.
15303
Mr. METCALF. This would only ap-
ply to pensions previously earned after
the amendment is adopted?
Mn WILLIAMS of Delaware. It would
apply to all pension privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Delaware has
expired.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield to
me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania
3 minutes. It happens that he held
hearings on this particular matter in
1961.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 3 minutes.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I hope
very strongly that this amendment will
be soundly defeated. It is an old chest-
nut and goes back to the hysteria sur-
rounding the attack on Government
employees during the height of the Mc-
Carthy scare some 10 Tears ago when
Federal employees were quite literally in
fear of their lives or of their jobs or of
their pay. It was a time when the name
Alger Hiss was bruited about this Cham-
ber and everyone quivered with fear
when that name was mentioned, because
of the idea that if they did anything that
might conceivably support Alger Hiss?
who was, it is true, a traitor to his coun-
try?they would be damned by guilt by
association with the same unfortunate
public reputation.
On September 1, 1961, as chairman of
the Retirement Subcommittee, it was my
good fortune to report a bill dealing with
H.R. 6141, proposing to forfeit civilian
annuities and military retirement pay.
We made a most comprehensive study
of that particular bill and,we concluded
that it was not in the natronal interest,
that it was probably unconstitutional,
that it violated the civil liberties of em-
ployees of the United States and in the
end, I am happy to say, the report of that
committee was upheld by the Senate and
the so-called Hiss bill was not passed.
We are now dealing with the spiritual
. successor of that particular piece of legis:
lation.
The fifth amendment is enshrined as a
part of that Constitution. It is not a
particularly popular amendment but it
is an essential part of the civil liberties
of American citizens, determined by our
forefathers when they framed the Con-
stitution to be essential to that freedom
for which they had fought the war of the
Revolution.
This is an effort to whittle away at the
sacred right given to all Americans to
take their liberties, to speak their piece,
and to assert the right against discrim-
ination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Pennsylvania
has expired.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
Unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 1 additional minute.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 additional
minute to the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500650001,9
15304 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 1 additional minute.
Mr. CLARK. If they so felt, the ques-
tion as to whether they should forfeit
their annuities or not would not be de-
cided in advance of the fact.. This Is a
matter that we should leave on an ad
hoc basis as to the situation if it should
arise at some time. I think this is fun-
damentally an un-American amendment.
I hope it will be defeated.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kansas yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield the Senator
from New Jersey 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OteriCER, The
Senator from New Jersey is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. CASE. I think there is some
question as to whether this may or may
not be within the constitutional power
so far as it relates to service heretofore
rendered and rights already accrued. I
do not really have any doubt but that
this would not be separable, or that serv-
ice hereafter rendered and rights for
services hereafter rendered would be
constitutional.
The Senator from Pennsylvania said
that it goes back to Alger Him. I sug-
gest that it goes back to at least a. gen-
eration before that. I remember as a
young man in New York when Governor
Roosevelt required that public employees
who failed to waive immunity before
grand juries in regard to their official
acts would have to leave the public serv-
ice. And Jimmy Walker was one of
those. And this is how it happened.
It is a direct precedent, I think, for the
action which we seek to take here.
I do not think it really has anything
to do with punishing a person. I think
this has to do with the Senate's proper
efforts to police itself and its employees.
I wish that the Committee on Rules and
Administration had exhibited the kind
of energy and diligence in the matter still
before it?although It claims now to have
finished?that the Senator from. Dela-
ware [Mr. WILLIAMS] exhibited in re-
gard to giving us the tools with which to
do the job.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 2 minutes on the bill?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, we have
been looking backward. There is clear
evidence of an effort to confuse the na-
ture of the amendment by talking about
Alger Hiss and times long past.
I do not regard this amendment as
particularly concerning Alger Hiss, or
concerning this body. This 18 not what
this amendment is directed at. Let us
bring it out in the open.
This amendment is not directed
against those from whom we might seek
to recover retroactively nearly as much
as it is designed to cover a situation
which will no doubt happen in the fu-
ture?perhaps in the near future.
This amendment, if adopted, would re-
turn to Bobby Baker whatever invest-
ment he has paid in, with the interest
allowed by the Government on the re-
fund. It would make it impossible for
Bobby Baker to draw a pension in re-
ward for the disservice which he has ren-
dered to the Senate and to the people of
the United States.
If we want to go on record as saying
that Bobby Baker is to be rewarded, that
Bobby Baker is to be treated as if he had
not defied the Senate, and a Senate com-
mittee?one of their most trusted em-
ployees?if we want to say, "Let us shovel
out the Government money to Bobby
Baker," we should join the friends of
Bobby Baker. But I will not do it. I
will support the Williams amendment for
the reasons that I stated.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had agreed to the following con-
current resolutions. in which it re-
quested the concurrence of the Senate:
H. Con_Res. 321. Concurrent resolution es-
tablishing that when the House adjourns
on Thursday, July 2, 1964. it stand adjourned
until 12 o'clock noon on Monday. July 20,
1984:
W Con, Res. 322. Concurrent resolution au-
thorizing the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives and the President pro tempore of
the Senate to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions until July 20, 1984; and
H. Con Res. 323. Concurrent resolution re-
questing the President to return the en-
rolled bill (HR. 10053) to the House of
Representatives, and for other purposes.
HOUSE ADJOURNMENT FROM JULY 2
TO JULY 20. 1964?SENATE AD-
JOURNMENT FROM JULY 10 to
JULY 20, 1964
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Pending
business be laid aside temporarily, for
not to exceed 2 minutes, probably less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears no objec-
tion. It is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I ask that the res-
olution be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
concurrent resolution will be stated for
the information of the Senate.
The LEGLSLATFVE CLERK. House Con-
current Resolution 321:
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring). That when the
House adjourns on Thursday, July 2, 1964,
Lt stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on
Monday. July 20, 1984.
Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment which
I ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the end
of the resolution, it is proposed to add the
following resolving clause:
Resolved further, That when the Senate
adjourns on Friday, July 10, 1964, It stand
adjourned until 12 o'clock meridan, July 20.
1984.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, is the
resolution subject to amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The res-
olution is subject to amendment.
Mr. MUNDT. I do not want to pro-
long a controversy. But I have an
July 2
amendment to suggest if the majority
leader would be willing to accept it and
make it a part of the resolution. I sug-
gest adding the words, "also the U.S.
Senate."
Mr. MANSFIELD We are included,
beginning an the 10th.
Mr. MUNDT. The Senate is covered?
Mr. MANSFIFt.) Yes. That is what
I wanted to be sure of.
The amendment was agreed to.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con.
Res. 321) , as amended, was agreed to.
AUTHORITY TO SIGN ENROLLED
Brt:t AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
DURING ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I
send to the desk another resolution, to
make sure that we are not caught short-
handed this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the resolution for the in-
formation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. House Con-
current Resolution 322:
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That notwithstand-
ing any adjournment of the two Houses until
July 20, 1984, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tem-
pore of the Senate be, and they are hereby,
authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions duly passed by the two Howes
and found truly enrolled.
The PRESIDING 01.r ICER. Without
objection, the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 322) is agreed to.
REQUEST TO PRESIDENT FOR RE-
TURN OF ENROLLED BILL (H.R.
10053) TO THE HOUSE.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask the Chair to lay before the Senate
the next concurrent resolution coming
over from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will read the concurrent resolution.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. House Con-
current Resolution 323:
The President of the United States is re-
quested to return to the House of Repre-
sentatives the enrolled bill (HR. 10053) to
amend section 502 of the Merchant Marine
Act. 1936, relating to construction differential
subsidies. If and when said bill is returned
by the President, the action of the Presiding
Officers of the two Houses in signing the
bill shall be deemed rescinded; and the
Clerk of the House is authorized and di-
rected, in the reenrollment of said bill, to
make the following correction:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"That the proviso in the second sentence of
subsection (b) of section 502 of the Merchant
Marine Act. 1938, as amended (48 U.S.C. 1152
(b)), is amended by striking out 'June 30,
1984.' and inserting in lieu thereof 'June 30.
1985.'."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the:-e
objection?
Mr. HOLLAND. I object. It is im-
portant and excellent legislation. There
may be amendments. We do not have
anything in the RECORD on it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I withdraw the
resolution. We can go back on limited
time and attend to that later.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
AI*rove elease 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
ONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15305.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1961
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, my
judgment is that Congress can place a
condition upon employees. I believe if
some people believe that this will not
affect anyone retroactively, they will be
disappointed.
Mr. CARLSON. I yield 3 minutes to
the Sentor from Delaware.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, Congress has already retro-
actively taken away the retirement bene-
fits of Alger Hiss. The senior Senator
from Pennsylvania did not include a re-
peal of that proposal in his bill. He
exempted it from repeal in the bill in
1961. The provision of the 1954 act had
taken away the retirement benefits of
Alger Hiss retroactively. No man or
court has ruled against it. We have
done it once. We can do it again.
The only reason that the law was re-
pealed in 1961 was in my opinion for the
sole purpose of making eligible for re-
tirement benefits every crook and
scoundrel who has been convicted in
court for acceptance of bribes or em-
bezzlement of Government funds under
the exposures of the Internal Revenue
scandals.
That was the 1954 act, of which I was
a cosponsor. It was designed to deny
retirement benefits to all crooks and
scoundrels who had been found to have
accepted bribes in connection with their
official activities or who were convicted
of the embezzlement of Government
funds. Those people were reinstated on
Government retirement rolls by the 1961
legislation sponsored by the senior Sena-
tor from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK].
My amendment here today would rein-
state the provision of the 1954 act relat-
ing to the fifth amendment. Senators
know why it is being done; it is to prevent
Bobby Baker from collecting a Govern-
ment retirement pension of nearly $10,-
000 per year while taking the fifth
amendment before a congressional com-
mittee.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 2 minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President,
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair recognizes the Senator from Okla-
homa for 2 minutes.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the
purpose for repealing the act in 1961
was because the act covered every phase
of Government. Dozens of cases of letter
carriers that were caught in the arms
of the law without having been guilty
of any crime remotely connected with
the faithful performance of their duties
as Government employees came to the
attention of the committee.
The bill would not affect one man, as
the Senator would have us do. It would
provide for retroactive punishment. We
would not only enact a law covering a
case which had already occurred, but
also we would bring into a state of fear,
I believe, every one of our nearly 2 mil-
lion Government employees. They
would not be subject to normal prosecu-
tion or penalties. They would be subject
to a penalty assessed against them for
failure to divulge everything they knew
in response to a question asked by a
congressional committee. The amend-
ment does not even provide that the
committee must be a regular committee.
It could be an ad hoc committee. It
could be a subcommittee. There are
many such committees. But every Gov-
ernment employee would be subject to
the punishment of discharge from his
position.
If it were the decisien of the Senate
to pass a bill which would effect the
cessation of employment of such an em-
ployee, I would be wholly in favor of
Imposing such a penalty of the loss of
one's job. I should be perfectly willing
to see any law that applies to any one
of the 190 million people in this Nation
applied to Government employees. But
I hardly think that taking away a re-
tirement fund that a letter carrier or
someone working in a Government de-
partment has acquired through faithful
performance is proper legislation. Such
an employee has put his money up. He
was not putting it in a savings bank; he
was buying an insurance policy for his
retirement, and that policy was signed
by the Government of the United States
at the time he bought it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 1 additional
minute?
Mr, JOHNSTON. I yield the Senator
from Oklahoma 1 more minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. MONRONEY. It is now proposed
to attach to a pay bill that involves a
thousand different items, without 1
minute's hearings before any committee,
an amendment of the nature of the one
proposed.
I do not believe our committee would
be the proper committee to hear the
testimony, but the Senator did not even
appear before our committee to present
his amendment. In less than 30 min-
utes we are asked to pass on a question
that does not involve a job status that
an employee would have to forfeit. The
amendment would compel him to sacri-
fice the contract that he had and on
which he had been paying. Of course,
he would receive back his money with
interest.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 1 additional minute?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 more min-
ute to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. MONRONEY. Whom would we
punish? The full range of Federal law
to put him in jail is available if the
employee could be convicted before a
jury of his peers. Full action can be
taken on that question. But whom
would we damage by the amendment?
We would damage the wife or the chil-
dren who would be the beneficiaries of
the insurance policy that the employees
had bought in good faith.
I am not ready to vote for the amend-
ment of the Senator from Delaware be-
cause I do not believe it is in the Amer-
ican tradition.
I respect the statement of my friend
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Eavm], who is a great lawyer, that the
amendment would be unconstitutional.
I believe the thing to do is to pass the
bill, and permit the proper legislative
committee to conduct hearings on the
proposal. It should not be added, at this
late hour, as a rider to the bill, for it
would jeopardize the pension and retire-
ment funds that have been created over
the years.
The PRESIDING OrrICER. All time
has expired.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I
yield 1 minute to the Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] on the bill.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, there is
not a rural mail carrier who could be
brought under the bill unless that rural
mail carrier were called before a con-
gressional committee and refused to dis-
close before that committee some im-
portant information he had vital to the
hearing, in which case he should not be
entitled to the benefits of the pension
program.
By the adoption of the Williams
amendment, we can at least keep the bill
from being labeled as a bill for the relief
of Bobby Baker. That is what it adds
up to. That is the instant case. We
have taken care of his case. The ques-
tion is, should we perpetuate the benefits
of Government service for a man who
has refused to come before a congres-
sional committee or should we not? I
believe we should not. At the same
time, I think we should make clear to
other faithless employees of the Federal
Government that they will be expected
to testify when they are called upon.
I recommend adoption of the Williams
amendment.
The PRESIDING 0.to.toiCER. The
question is on agreeing to the modified
amendment of the Senator from Dela-
ware [Mr. Wmainws]. On this ques-
tion all time has expired, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TAL-
MADGE] is absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], and the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Florida [MT. SMATHERB] and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting. the Senator from Texas [Mr.
Yintsosoucu] and the Senator from
Florida [Mr. SMATTIERS] NVOUld each vote
"nay."
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9.
15306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr, KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COT-
row], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Forza], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
Iiansical, and the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. Sadiacaissaaa] are neces-
sarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. Hausaal and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]
would each vote "yea."
The result was announced--yeas 38,
nays 52, as follows:
No. 464 Leg.)
Aiken
Allott
Beall
Bennett
Boggs
Byrd. Va.
Carlson
Case
Church
Cooper
Curtis
Dirksen
Dominick
Anderson
Bartlett
Bible
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd. W. Va.
Cannon
Clark
Dodd
Edmondson
Falencler
Ervin
Eulbright
Gore
Ciruening
Hart
Hartke
Hayden
Balla
Cotton
Engle
Fong
YEAS-38
Douglaa
Eastland
Goldwater
Hickenlooper
Javlts
Jordan, Idaho
Keating
Kuchel
Lausche
McClellan
Mechem
Miller
Morton
NAYS-52
Hill
Holland
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Monroney
NOT VOTING-10
Mundt
Pastore
Pearson
Prouty
Scott
Simpson
Smith
Thurmond
Tower
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Young, N. flak.
Morse
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pell
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Walters
Young, Ohio
Hruska
Kennedy
Baltonstall
Eimathers
Talmadge
Yarborough
So Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware's amends
inent, as modified, was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, while
the majority leader is In the Chamber,
I should like to ask hint If he can clarify
for the Members of the Senate what the
schedule is likely to be starting with
Monday, and whether there will be any
yea and nay votes, or whether any major
items will come up for consideration be-
fore the recess on Friday, July 10.
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, the
distinguished minority leader and I have
discussed this matter, and we expect ap-
propriation and other bills of worthwhile
significance to come up next week. The
Senate is not remaining in session until
the 10th of July for the fun of it. We
intend to conduct business of the Senate.
We are very hopeful that there will be
legislation available Monday which will
be taken up, and very likely there will
be some legislation which may cause a
little controversy, and therefore raise the
possibility of quorum calls and votes.
Mr. KEATING. Mx. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD I yield.
Mr. KEATING. Does the Senator
from Montana include in that statement
the possibility of votes on Mo ?a ?
Mr. MANSFIELD Yes.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1091.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
Ohio will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment iNo. 1091), as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following
new section:
"Sze. 502. Section 1(e) of the Civil Service
Retirement Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2251
(Cl) is amended to read as follows:
" '(e) The term "average salary" shall
mean the annual rate resulting from aver-
aging over all periods of civilian service used
In the computation of an annuity under this
Act a Member's or an employee's rates of
basic salary in effect during such periods,
wl th elch rate weighted by the time it was in
effect'."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. Senators will
take their seats or retire to the cloak-
rooms.
Mr LAUSCHE. Mr. President, during
the discussion of the bill mention was
made of the adverse impact which the
Passage of the bill would have on the
retirement fund for public employees. It
is admitted that the impact would be in
the sum of $1,250 million. The figure is
completely separate and apart from the
$550 million cost o/ the bill by way of
increased salaries.
When the Public Employees Retire-
ment Mind was established, it was pred-
icated upon an actuarial structure which
was sound.
The amount of the contributions made,
respectively, by the Government and by
the employees, was adequate to sustain
the fund. However, since the establish-
ment of the fund, it has been increasing-
ly weakened by various things which
have been done by Congress. I have be-
fore me a report of the hearings before
the Subcommittee on Retirement of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice of the Senate. The hearing was con-
ducted on August 14, 1963, and, I believe,
on several days thereafter. At the hear-
ing, Mr. Macy. of the Civil Service Com-
mission, testified. He stated that as of
the beginning of the fiscal year 1965?
that would be the first of July of this
year, yesterday?the obligations of the
fund would be $49 billion, the money
available would be $14 billion, and the
unfounded liability would be $35 billion..
May we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
July 2
Mr. LAUSCHE. For the benefit of
those who are listening, I should :ike to
have order.
Mr. RUSSELL. Would the bill in-
crease the contributions to the fur d?
Mr. LAUSCHE. It would not, but it
changes the base upon which the retire-
ment pay is to be calculated.
Mr. RUSSELL. In other words, it in-
creases the amount to be paid out, but
does not do anything to replenish the
fund. Is that correct?
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. The bill would
increase the amount that would be paid
out, but ;t would do nothing to fi:aance
the increase in the obligation.
Mr. RUSSELL. That is where the bil-
lion and some odd dollars that the Sena-
tor has referred to is involved.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes.
The adoption of the increased pay
would impose an added obligation on the
fund of $1,250 million. No increased
contributions are provided with which to
finance the increased obligations.
Mr. Macy testified that there are sev-
eral reasons why the fund has become
actuarially unsound. He said:
The second factor has been periodic liber-
alizations which have been made by Con-
gress withcUt payment to cover-past service
liability. These liberalizations are of four
different types: Annuity increases for those
already retired, such as those enactet_ last
year. Pay increases for active employment,
such as those enacted last year. These pay
Increases have a future liability impact upon
the annuity rate and the annuity fund.
It is thus clear, Mr. President, that as
we increase the annuities, and as we in-
crease the pay, and as we bring cther
persons within the coverage, we increase
the burden of the obligations that are
put on the fund.
The consequence of these liberaliza-
tions, in part, and the failure of the Gov-
ernment to pay its share on a pay-as-
you-go basis, have created this shoes:Mg
situation: $49 billion of obligations, $14
billion of money available to pay taose
obligations, and $35 billion of unfunded
liabilities.
With the passage of the bill the obli-
gations would be increased by $1,250 mil-
lion, without any financing of the obli-
gation, as indicated by the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL ].
Senators might ask me what I propose
to do. Wien the retirement fund was
originally established, the actuarial cal-
culation was sound. The formula for
establishina the base was that we s.aall
take the average salary of the employee
through his whole career. Later that
formula was changed, and the forrrula
that was adopted provided that we wculd
take the 5 years of the highest salary in
fixing the base. With that formula of 5
highest years, any one of us, at the end
of 5 years, would have our lifetime an-
nuity established on the basis of 5 years
at $30,000 without any regard of the for-
mer years that we served either at $22,500
or at $12,500.
I have made a calculation. Let us as-
sume that I have served 12 years at
$22,500 a year. My annuity pay woild
be $6,750 a year or $562.50 a month.
That is on 12 years of service with a sal-
ary of $22,500.
If we raise the salaries to $30,000. and
I have served 12 years, 7 of which was at
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 15307
$22,500 and 5 at $30,Q00, my retirement
pay would be $9,000 a year, or $733 a
month, that being $61 a month more.
Under my formula, we would take the
average pay received through the 12
years, 7 years at $22,500, and 5 years at
$30,000, added together, and then estab-
lishing what the average wage would be
over the 12 years.
Under my formula, the pension would
be $7,187 a year.
To recapitulate, under the existing
formula, with a $22,500 a year salary, the
Pension is $562.50 a month. Under the
bill if it is passed, without my amend-
ment, it would be $733 a month. If my
amendment were adopted, it would be
$718 a month.
All I ask is that we should not count
the 5 highest years, but the average of
all the years of employment.
My amendment applies not only to
Senators, but also to every employee of
the Government. To illustrate further,
let us consider the civil service employee
who has served 20 years?the first 10
years at $5,000, the next 5 years at $8,000,
and the last 5 years at $15,000. His re-
tirement pay under present law is cal-
culated on the $15,000 a year salary,
without regard for his service of 5 years
at $5,000 and 5 years at $8,000.
In addition, when he began at $5,000,
he paid a premium on the basis of $5,000.
In the next 5 years, at a salary of $8,000,
the premium was based on the $8,000.
In the last 5 years, when he was earn-
ing $15,000, the premium was on the
basis of $15,000. So it can readily be
seen that the amount of the contribution
made is not adequate to sustain the fund.
I feel very keenly about this. I do so
because I think it can be clearly demon-
strated that the fund must go into bank-
ruptcy eventually, unless Congress does
something to remedy the wrong. I read
further from Mr. Macy's statement:
As I have already indicated, in 1965, the
fund would be $14 billion; the unfunded
liability, $35 billion. In 7 years the fund
would be $17 billion; the unfunded liability,
$41 billion. In 1975, the fund would be $16
billion. In other words, it would have fallen
off in that period, and the unfunded liability
would have grown to $49 billion from the
present level of $35 billion.
Mr. Macy goes on to state that by
1990 the fund would be broke. My ques-
tion is: Can we tolerate that situation?
We cannot. We should approach the
problem on a realistic, sound economic
basis.
It is true that we would expect that
the Government eventually would pay
the $35 billion due now and probably
the $49 billion that would be due at a
later date; but if and when it does, those
amounts will have to be paid out of
the taxpayers' money.
Mr. President, how much time have I
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Ohio has 1 minute re-
maining.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the
Senator's amendment would provide that
a person who has been with the Govern-
ment 25 or 30 years, who started at
$1,500 a year, and who is now receiving
$15,000, would have to go back and in-
elude the years during whieh he was
paid $1,500 and reach a general average
of all the years. Is that correct?
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is correct.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Under the retire-
ment system, it has always been the
practice that when a person was em-
ployed he had to sign for retirement
benefits. When he did so, he knew how
much he would have to pay into the
fund, and he also knew how much the
Government would pay in to match his
contribution. He signed up in the sys-
tem with the understanding that his
retirement would be based on the aver-
age of the 5 highest years' salary. That
would be the basis of the computation
of his retirement annuity. Is not that
true?
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is true; but the
Senator's statement demonstrates the
fallacy of the law as it is now written.
The Senator admits that the retire-
ment pay of the person who signed up
when he was earning $1,500 a year and
subsequently received $15,000 annually
for his last 5 years would be predicated
on the 5 years at $15,000, completely for-
getting that for the previous years he
was earning $1,500.
Mr. JOHNSTON. With one proviso:
Provided he had been drawing $15,000
annually for 5 years.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is correct; but
I ask the Senator from South Carolina:
What will become of the fund under the
formula which he is urging? It is now
growing constantly bigger. If the Sena-
tor says it is not, then I shall read to
him what Mr. Macy said about the sub-
ject.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Annually the fund
has been growing. It now has approxi-
mately $14.5 billion. Last year it was
$13 billion. We were told years ago what
would happen.
The Civil Service Commission takes
into consideration all employees and as-
sumes that they will all remain with the
Government for the full term. But all
employees do not do that. At present,
the turnover of Government employees is
at the rate of 18 percent each year.
When they leave the Government, what
do they receive? They receive only the
amount of money they contributed. The
Federal contribution remains with the
fund.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the Senator
from South Carolina claim that the
fund, on the present basis of operation,
will not be bankrupt, according to the
words of Mr. Macy, in 1990?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. Macy appeared
before our committee. The committee
has before it a bill to reform the financ-
ing of the retirement system that it will
report to the Senate. It will be found
that when the Government contributes
to the fund, the contribution begins to
draw interest. The Government borrows
from the $14.5 billion in the fund and
pays 3 percent interest, the lowest it pays
anywhere in America.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I can only say that I
am shocked and cannot believe that a
sound argument can be made to justify
the horrible condition that exists in the
retirement fund. No words can refute
the facts. No words can refute what
every actuary will say about the present
status of the fund.
If 2 years from now we again increase
salaries, we shall further weaken the
fund, unless we adopt a formula to pro-
vide for the base of annuities being es-
tablished on the average salary received
throughout the years.
I know I have used up my time. I
have nothing further to say on the sub-
ject. I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the
only reason why the fund is not sound
now is that the Government has failed
to pay into it its proper share over the
years. If 20, 25, or 30 years ago the Gov-
ernment had made its obligated contri-
butions, the fund would be in sounder
condition today.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. The question may be
Irrelevant and immaterial; it may also
be slightly unethical. But would not the
result of the amendment of the Senator
from Ohio be to reduce the pension of
every Member of this body?
Mr. LAUSCHE. No, it would not. It
would not reduce the pension. It would
allow the beneficiaries to receive the
benefit of an increased pension without
having in the past paid in a share of the
premium adequate to sustain the fund.
My proposal would be absolutely just.
It would be based on the average salary
over the whole career of a Senator or of
an employee of the Senate.
Mr. CLARK. I did not ask the Sena-
tor from Ohio; I asked the Senator from
South Carolina.
Mr. JOHNSTON. There are Members
of this body who have served 28 or 30
years, when Members' salaries were lower
their annuities at retirement age would
be reduced substantially by this amend-
ment. They would have to do this down
through the years in order to get the
$12,000.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I notice that the Sen-
ator from Pennsylvania asked questions
only of those who will answer according
to his wishes, but that comment might
not be agreed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN in the chair). Does the Sena-
tor from South Carolina yield back the
remainder of his time?
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
There have been three versions of the
amendment. The first one that came
in would have made Members of the
Senate exclusive victims of a rather deep
cut in their retirement benefits, leaving
out the legislative employees and leaving
out the Government workers. This
amendment was tabled on the opening of
debate on the bill. Today, we have a new
amendment which applies to the system-
wide governmental retirement system.
Frankly, I know of no established retire-
ment system by industry, or others,
which does not relate retirement pay
for years of service which the worker
has accumulated under a retirement sys-
tem to the salary at the time he retires.
To do otherwise would be to bring Mem-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
hers of the Senate back to the level of
the $7,500 salary, for perhaps a fourth
of their service, $10,000 for another
fourth, and then perhaps up to $22,500.
Today Members' salaries on which they
pay 71/2 percent retirement benefits is
$22,500, contrary to the impression left
by my distinguished friend, the Sena-
tor from Ohio, which I am sure he did
not intend to create.
We pay the 71/2 percent not on the
$22.500, when the salary goes up, but on
the $30,000. Those in the other grades
would pay on their higher salaries.
When we took this up in 1956, in order
to be sure that we were not going to put
in a lesser amount or too small an
amount, we obtained an estimate from
the Civil Service Commission as to the
proper rate, and took the 5-year average.
We were told we had to raise it from 6
to 71/2 percent?which we did.
The distinguished Senator from Ohio
will find that on November 1, 1956, in
order to meet the 5-year average, we
raised the assessments to 71/2 percent.
By the same token, on Government
employees, as their salaries have gone
up, the percent has increased from the
original rate of 21/2 percent per year
which was in effect on August 1. 1920. to
31/2 percent which became effective on
July 1, 1926, to 5 percent which became
effective on July 1, 1942, to 6 percent
which became effective on July 1, 1948,
and to 61/2 percent which became effec-
tive November 1, 1956.
I have heard it explained time and
time again, that the purpose is to let the
employee pay half the retirement, in
much the same established custom as
social security, which was modeled after
this program.
The annual payment to the Commis-
sion, as civil service retirement, has done
better than that, because the employee
has paid more than his half. Although
there is a deficit in the systemwide re-
serves on the entire civil service system,
it is because the Government?in order
to reach such political accommodations
as "totaling" budgets in certain years?
failed to put up, during those years. the
portion that the Civil Service Commis-
sion intended, planned, and had under
program. Those funds should have been
invested. So it has been the Govern-
ment. and not the employees, that has
been shortchanging the fund. The em-
ployees have maintained their contribu-
tions and have increased their contri-
butions.
To go back now and assent to pulling
these men down to a 1920, a 1915, or a
1930 salary base, perhaps one-third of
their employable time, and roll them
back, rather than meet the salary which
today?with inflation and the cost of
living?the increase requires, would
mean that 1.7 million civil service work-
ers would go back, back, back, and would
have their benefits greatly reduced.
I am surprised that the Senator, who
has always been a friend of the Govern-
ment worker, would do this to all Fed-
eral employees. If it was the original
plan to do this to Senators and Repre-
sentatives, we could perhaps stand it. It
would be unfair?but we could stand it.
But I do not believe it is the purpose to
lower salaries back to the cost of living
standard before World War II. which
was low. But now, to roll them back and
figure it in their base, means that the
Government has not kept faith by
putting its share of the money into the
retirement fund.
I believe that this is an unwise
amendment which would cause a great
deal of distress among Government em-
ployees who have calculated for years
on the basis of this high, 5-year average.
Now the Senator from Ohio comes in
and with one swoop. in 1 day, reverses
what he had on the table.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I am not reversing It
at all. I have gone the full limit to be
fair with all.
I might answer the Senator from Okla-
homa by saying that I am the friend of
the worker because I wish this fund to be
kept sound. Those who are opposing
my proposal are urging a course of
action which would bankrupt the fund
and eventually- deprive every worker.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator well
knows, or should know, that every year
the Appropriations Committee is putting
back more of the money of the Federal
contribution.
Did the Senator from Ohio believe
that the old base for the retirement sys-
tem of Federal employees was going to
be the employes contribution?
Mr. LAUSCI-IE. Never. The initial
objective was to have it equally big.
Mr. MONRONEY. But the Govern-
ment has not carried out its contract.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It certainly has not
paid into the fund.
Mr. MONRONEY. That Is correct?
that is why the fund is in the red.
Mr. LAUSCHE. But today we are go-
ing to put upon the Government a new
obligation of $1,250 million, for which
there has been no payment into the
fund.
Mr. MONRONEY. I do not believe
that is going to freeze permanently all
salaries in the system. I believe that
there will always be a variation. When
the worker increases his percentage to
71/2 percent, that is about as high PS any
contributing employee can possibly go.
Government workers are now Paying 61/2
percent. They are carrying their part
of the load. If the congressional retire-
ment to which the Senator has referred
had been kept on a separate bookkeeping
system, the Senator would find that since
1946 the fund collected more from the
Members than was paid out.
The annual contribution of Members
Is $1,750,000. This does not include serv-
ice credit, deposits, or voluntary contri-
butions. Annuities paid out annually
are $1,233,333. leaving an annual surplus
on a cash basis of $916,000.
This is the way our congressional re-
tirement system has worked. We do not
like to retire early. No Member likes to
retire at the earliest possible date in the
Senate. nor in the House. So. we find
that, there are dozens of Members who
serve long past the retirement-fund age,
and continue to pay into the fund; and
when they retire they draw back very
much more than what they have been
able to put in, without regard to the
inierest rate.
This amendment, I believe, would work
great hardship on our Government em-
ployees. It has not been carefully
thought out.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the dis-
tinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
rise in support of the position so effec-
tively advocated by the Senator from
Oklahoma in opposition to the amend-
ment proposed by the Senator from
Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE].
The Federal employee is in no way re-
sponsible for the financial difficulties of
the civil service retirement and dis-
ability fund. Indeed, it is the Federal
Government which has created the defi-
cit in this fund. The employee, since the
act of orivin in 1920, has contributed
between 21,, percent, in the beginning, to
61,c2 percent of his gross salary to the
retirement fund. It has been the Gov-
ernment which has failed again and
again to contribute adequate funds. The
Government made a promise and it has
failed to live up to that promise. Do we
therefore enalize the loyal Federal em-
ployee for Congress failure in breach of
contract? I believe not, and I feel that
the Members of the Senate will oaer-
whelmingly defeat the pending
amendment.
Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio
speaks of Members of this Chamber who
make $22,500 a year. I speak in belaalf
of 378,000 loyal workers in the Post Of-
fice Department who carry our mail and
who earn a salary of slightly more than
$5,000 a year.
I might be willing to accept the SE na-
tor 's suggestion if the only persons in-
volved were the Senator from Ohio and
myself. We have, however, promised
the Federal employees, the overwhelm-
ing majority of whom are in the lower
grades of the Classification Act and the
postal schedule, and it Is these people
we would hurt. It is these citizens who
have earned a retirement based on "high
5" average and multiplied by their years
of service.
I can never support a proposal to tell
a clerk or stenographer or a letter car-
rier that after 25 or 30 or 40 years of
toil, we will not pay that employee what
we promised more than 40 years ago that
we would pay.
Mr. MONRONEY. The argument of
the Senato: from West Virginia is valid.
His conviction in this matter is
appreciated.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President I
should like to address a question,
through the Senator from Oklahoma, to
the Senator from Ohio. Does this apply
to those presently on the rolls?
Mr. MONRONEY. I do not believe
the amendment is clear.
Mr. MORTON. To those presently on
the retirement rolls.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator has
not provided for reducing those already
on pension. It does not say.
Mr. MORTON. The point I wish to
make is that a lady retired from my
office after 17 years. She is retired row,
and her pension is set, based on her
highest 5 years of service. I have an-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15309
other employee who expects to retire,
perhaps 3 years from now. Will those
two employees be treated differently?
Mr. LAUSCHE. As to the one retired,
her pay is fixed. It would not affect her
at all.
Mr. MORTON. The first one was the
beneficiary of the 5 highest years.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes?over 5 years.
Mr. MORTON. She received re-
tirement based on the highest 5 years.
Should I treat someone differently from
one who has worked for me and my
predecessor, who has been on Capitol Hill
since 1930, and give preferential treat-
ment to someone who has worked for
me, say, 15 years?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has now expired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let the Chair put the
question.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
yield time on the bill to the Senator from
Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE, Let me read what
Macy said:
We find that in 7 years by 1972, the outgo
in the form of benefit payments under the
retirement act will exceed the income. From
that date on, this unfavorable situation con-
tinues to add to the fund balance so that
in 25 years, by 1990, the retirement fund
balance is zero.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this appears
to be many years ahead, but we feel as the
responsible administrators of this fund that
we must look that far ahead.
We are going to continue on the way
we are going, and run into this situa-
tion. Or we are going to meet the prob-
lem head on now.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. President, if the
Senator from Oklahoma will yield fur-
ther, let me point out that provided Sen-
ators stand up and appropriate what
they are supposed to appropriate to this
fund, that contingency will not come
about. What disturbs me is that some-
one who retired last year who worked
for me or for some other Senator, or
anyone on Capitol Hill, would be treated
in one way under the amendment of the
Senator, and persons who plan to retire
in 2 or 3 or 4 years from now, or next
year, will be treated in an entirely dif-
ferent way.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Unless we find a
remedy, the employee of the Senator
who retires after working for 30 years
will be in trouble. This employee of the
Senator who retires, if she lives for 30
years, will be in trouble. But I do not
suppose she will live that long.
Mr. MORTON. That is not because
she worked for me.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the
Senator brought up a very important
point. It would not be so effective as to
Members of Congress. But, historically
the Government employees off Capitol
Hill have enjoyed the advantage of hav-
ing the highest 5-year count for their
retirement benefits. Suddenly, the
Lausche amendment provides that peo-
ple who retire subsequently will be sub-
ject to a different retirement pay. Those
who come along after the passage of this
amendment would be cut back to the
Senator's example. of the $5,000 a year
No. 133-9
clerk and the $2,000 a year clerk for 5
years. That would affect the average.
Perhaps the person would be receiving
a salary of $10,000 or $15,000 a year when
he retired, but he would be entitled to
only a third of the pay in the last 5 years
that can be credited to his retirement.
I think it is a very cruel system to put
into effect. It is very unwise. It is self-
defeating.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the
retirement system at best does not pro-
vide too large an annuity or pension to
the pensioner. The pensioners on Gov-
ernment pensions, today, have a very dif-
ficult time, in many instances, meeting
their expenses. It is very difficult for a
person who is nearing $8,000, $7,000,
$10,000, or $6,000 a year?a family per-
son, even if a second person in the fam-
ily works?to save up anything, except
to possibly pay for a home to put Federal
employees on two standards, one group
whose retirement is based on the average
of the last 5 years' earnings, and the
other group on a different average would,
I say most respectfully, not be proper.
I have not had the experience that the
Senator from Ohio has in this matter.
But I served on the teachers' retirement
fund in my city, the municipal em-
ployees' retirement fund and the po-
lice and firemen's retirement fund.
The only answer is to appropriate the
money that we are obliged to appropriate.
What we did in most instances, and
what Congress has done; namely, to
take out a certain percentage of the
worker's pay. Then Congress "ta;kes it
on the lam" and does not put up the
money. If we do that, of course, the
problem will not be solved. The only
way to solve it is to have Congress per-
form its duty and provide its share of
the funds.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
point out that the amount of raise that
the workers will receive, with the 61/2
percent that they will be paying in addi-
tion, will bring in something like $32 or
$33 additional to the fund. It will stay
In there for many years at 4 percent in-
terest to help pay for this program. But
the Government must put up its share,
and be fair. To use the Government's
failure as an excuse to tear down the
amount that the workers will receive in
20 or 30 years, expecting and believing
that they would receive it, I think, is a
cruel system.
Mr. LAUSCHE. May I have 2 min-
utes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from
Ohio has pointed out that many an-
nuitants are not in a position to maintain
themselves the way they expected when
they went on retirement.
I point out that many Members of the
Senate are responsible for the plight of
the retirees when they raise salaries 32
percent ,for the Members of the Senate,
for judges, for board members, for board
chairmen. We will take more and more
bread out of the mouths of the annui-
tants.
Mr. CARLSON. /ifr. President, I yield
myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I as-
sociate myself with the remarks just
made by the distinguished Senator from
Oklahoma [Mr. MONXONEY]. If we want
to penalize Federal employees who have
served for years in this body, who have
served in the Government for years, we
should adopt the Lausche amendment.
If a Member of Congress is elected to
Congress after 1956, in 6 years he can
retire at full benefit, at the highest pay.
But a Member who has served for many
years, if we adopt the Lausche, amend-
ment, would receive much less in retire-
ment. The same system would prevail
in our Government.
I do not believe the Senate will adopt
the amendment. I admit that Congress
has been negligent in preserving this
fund. It is our fault.
I have a statement, and instead of
reading it, I would like to have it made a
part of my remarks at this point.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Annuity benefits under that system are
based on years of service and the highest
5-year average salary. Annuities do not re-
flect the full effect of pay increases until
such increases have been in effect 5 years.
However, only about 10 percent of present
employees will retire within the next 5 years,
so it is apparent that a general increase in
pay results in a material increase in the
liabilities of the civil service retirement
system. The Foreign Service retirement
system is also affected, since the pending
legislation proposes salary increases for
members of that system.
In its budget submission for fiscal year
1965, the Civil Service Commission estimated
the unfunded liability of the civil service
retirement system at about $33% billion
as of June 30, 1964. The Commission
estimates that pending pay legislation,
if enacted, would increase this liabil-
ity by $11/4 billion, raising it to $35 billion.
I would like to emphasize that the in-
crease of $11/4 billion is a onetime figure.
It is not an annual amount, but is, in effect,
an estimate of the present value of all future
increases in benefits based on service per-
formed prior to the pay increase. The cost
of greater benefits for future service would
be met by contributions of employees and
their employing agencies, based on the
higher salaries.
One of the salient features of the civil
service retirement system is the relation-
ship of promised benefits to current pay
levels. This is essential if the system is to
fulfill its role in the personnel program of
the Government. Justified pay increases
carry with them justified increases in retire-
ment benefits. The cost involved is a nec-
essary and valid cost of operating the
Government.
The effect on the civil service retirement
system of the pending pay legislation under-
scores the need for early consideration of
methods to improve the financing of the
System. In May 1963, the Commission sub-
mitted to Congress a proposal which would
accomplish this objective by gradually in-
creasing the contributions made by employ-
ing agencies until the growth of the un-
funded liability had been arrested.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13310 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
I support proposed pay increases for
,aficers and employees of the Federal Govern-
ment because I am fully convinced of their
justification and their need. I recognize
their effect in necessarily increasing retire-
ment liabilities, and I urge that this issue
be squarly met by early adoption of a plan
to improve the financing of the civil service
retirement system.
Mr. CARLSON. I sincerely hope that
the Senate will not be carried away and
support the Lausehe amendment. I also
hope that we, as Members of the Senate,
assume our responsibility and adopt the
recommendation of the Civil Service
Commission, submitted in the report to
Congress.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON, I yield.
Mr. KEATING. Does the amendment
of the Civil Service Retirement Act em-
bodied in the Lausche amendment, apply
to all Federal employees, or only legis-
lative?
Mr. CARLSON. It applies to every-
one. postal workers, and everyone else.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. I am not on the par-
ticular sulxommitee of which we are
speaking, but I am on the Subcommittee
on Independent Offices, of the Appro-
priations Committee.
I would urge that Senators do not
support this amendment. There is much
that is available to Congress and the
Members of the Senate. When that bill
comes up, we can support putting an
amount in that bill which will contribute
to the fund and make it entire, and make
it sound. That is the only logical way
to go about it.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, the
problem has been caused by the Con-
gress of the United States, and by the
administration when they failed to pay
into the funds?not 1 year, but for many
years, they refused to pay money into
the fund to match that which was paid
in by the employees.
That of course reduced the amount in
the fund. That went on for many years.
The House and the Senate during the war
said that any soldier boy who went into
the service would be given credit when
he came out of the service on his civil
service retirement without paying any-
thing in, even if he were in for 3, 4, or 5
years. And the Government did not pay
anything for them, either. One can see
that builds a big deficiency in that field.
We have a bill at the present time, and
we arc making a study of it in the com-
mittee. It is recommended by the ad-
ministration, and by the Civil Service
Commission. It is expected to take care
of the situation that we find ourselves
in, as far as that is concerned. But the
amendment which is pending before us
at the present time is not equitable. It
treats the people who have been in serv-
ice many, many years unfairly. I hope
it is voted down. I wish to submit this
.Aatement with respect to the bill, and I
nsk unanimous consent to have it print-
ed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
I MoORD. as follows:
Federal salary legislation has a direct effect
upon the financial condition of the civil
service retirement fund. Retirement an-
nuities of Federal employees are computed on
the basis of the employee's average salary
over 5 years of employment at the highest
salary he earns during his career. We call
this the "high five" average. Naturally. In-
creasing salaries automatically increases the
"high five" average. In crediting the em-
ployee for past service at the time Of retire-
ment. the system gives the employee a bene-
fit a certain portion of which he has not paid
for.
As the Senate may know, the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee is presently con-
sidering legislation to improve permanently
the financial condition of the fund. I am
hopeful that favorable action will be taken
on this legislation during this session of
Congress. The deficit of the fund is caused
by the tiovernment's failure to contribute
adequate funds in the past. Until the Re-
tirement Act of 1956, a systematic method
of agency contribution did not exist. The
result has been a continuously growing un-
funded liability.
This pay bill will add to that liability, but
at the same time additional money will come
into the fund because of the systematic con-
tribution by both the agencies and the em-
ployees at the new, higher salary rates.
When the Senate has an opportunity to act
upon S. 1582, the funding legislation, a per-
manent method for improving the financial
condition of the fund will be established.
The PRESIDING 01..FICER. All time
on the amendment has expired. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. FULBRIGHT (when his name was
called). On this vote, I have a pair with
the senior Senator front Louisiana [Mr.
ELLEN DER 1. If he were present and vot-
ing he would vote "yea." If I were at
liberty to vote, I would vote "nay."
Therefore I withhold my vote.
The rolicall was concluded.
Mr. HUNIPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. BYRD],
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLEN-
DER), the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART and the Senator from Georgia
Mr. TALmnocr I are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California (Mr. ENCLEJ, the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. Broad, and the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]
are absent because of illness.
I further announce that. the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] and the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH 1 and the Senator from Flor-
ida I Mr. SMATHERSI would each vote
-nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Car-
tot,' I. the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
FONG!, the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
IlausKA I, and the Senator from Massa-
chusetts IM.r. SkLTONSTALL1 are neces-
Sadly absent.
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. GOLD-
WATER I is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. FIaustcA] and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SAL-
TONSTALL I would each vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 6,
nays 79, as follows:
,No. 465 Leg
Douglas
Gore
Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Bartlett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Church
Clark
Cooper
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Ea8tiand
Edmondson
Ervin
Gruening
Henke
Hayden
YEAS-6
Lausche Waltsrs
Russell Williams, Del.
NAYS-79
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Jay its
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Keating
Kuchet
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Mechem
Metcalf
Miller
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Moss
Mundt
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
RanColph
Ribicoff
Robertson
Scott
Simpson
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Thurmond
Tower
N.
Young, N. ask.
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-15
Bayh Fong Kennedy
Fulbright Sal tarlatan
CoBytrojo,nVa.
Goldwater Smathers
Talmadge
liruska Yarborough
nirieder Hart
So Mr. LAUSCHE'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was rejected.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the ta:ale.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MUNDT. I have an amendment
which I send to the desk and ask to have
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment offered by the Senator from
South Dakota will be stated.
The legislative clerk read the amend-
ment, as follows:
On page 110, beginning with line 12, strike
out through line 20 on page 111, as follows:
"(e) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1946, as amended (2
U.S.C. 72a( e ), is amended?
"(1) by striking out '$8,880' where it first
appears in such subsection and inserting in
lieu thereof 'the highest amount which, to-
gether with additional compensation au-
thorized by law, will not exceect the maxi-
mum rate authorized by the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended,'; and
"1,2) by striking out 18,880' at the second
place where it appears in such subsection
and inserting in lieu thereof 'the highest
amount which, together with additional
compensation authorized, by law, will not
exceed the maximum rate authorized bs the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended'.
"(f) (1) `this subsection is enacted as an
exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Rvresentatives with full recogni-
tion of the constitutional right of the House
of Representatives to change the rule amend-
ed by this subsection at any time, in the
same manner, and to the same extent as in
the case of any other rule of the House of
Representatives.
"(2) Clause 281c of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended?
(A) by striking out '$8,880' where it first
appears in such clause and inserting in lieu
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964,
? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD , SENATE 15311
thereof the highest amount whieh, together
with additional compensation authorized by
law, will not exceed the maximum rate au-
thorized by the Classification Act of 1919,
as amended,'; and
"(B) by striking out '$8,880' at the second
place where it appears in such clause and
inserting in lieu thereof 'the highest amount
which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended."
Redesignate subsections (g) to (k) as (e)
to (i), inclusive.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, if I may
have the attention of Members of the
Senate and of the committee, I hope
Senators may reach an agreement on
this amendment without necessitating a
rollcall. I speak as one who served for
many years as a member of the Legisla-
tive Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations, where, largely under the
guidance, recently of the Senator from
Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], but before
that of Senator Styles Bridges and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SAL-
TONSTALL], we worked for a long time in
an effort to try to bring about an equita-
ble relationship between the salaries
paid employees of the House and those
paid employees of the Senate.
Great progress has been made. Many
sources of irritation have been elim-
inated.
For some strange reason, the bill now
before the Senate raises those same
sources of aggravation and irritation
again, because, as will be noticed on page
17 of the committee report, in dealing
with employees of the House of Repre-
sentatives, a new maximum rate is estab-
lished of $24,500. On the next page, deal-
ing with the identical employees in the
Senate, the new maximum rate is estab-
lished of $22,945.
I am not arguing particularly whether
the greater or the lesser amount is the
logical one,_but it will create nothing but
unhappiness to have one rate established
for House staff members and another
rate for Senate staff members.
Personally, I am inclined to believe
that the lower of the two rates would be
the better decision in this instance, be-
cause it would keep them, percentage-
wise, in conformity with the increase of
pay of Government employees generally;
but whether the higher or the lower rate
is fixed, it should be the same for both
Houses.
My amendment would have the impact
of cutting back the maximum House in-
crease to the extent of the increase for
Senate employees, and would put the
matter in conference. The conference
could either accept the Senate version or
the House version, or a figure in between.
The two certainly should be the same, to
eliminate irritation and aggravation.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. As the Senator
well knows, having served on the Appro-
priations Subcommittee, the bills come
over to the Senate without any figures
for the Senate, after the House figures
are fixed. The same is true in this bill.
The bill came over with figures for the
House employees which the House chose
u put into the bill.
The committee went over the figures
and came to the conclusion that the
$24,500 top limitation provided for the
House employees was too much. We felt
It would be much better to have the lower
figure.
Mr. MUNDT. And which the Senate
has provided for Senate employees.
Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct.
However, we are not in a position to tell
the House what it should do. We would
only aggravate the Members of the House
if the Senate told them what they should
pay their top clerks or committee staff
members. It so happens that their chief
secretaries, who correspond to adminis-
trative assistants on the Senate side, re-
ceive lower pay. So there will always be
that difference.
As a matter of comity, it would be well
for the Senate not to try to tell the House
what it should pay its employees. I hope,
it will take the cue from the Senate and
adjust the figure downward.
Mr. MUNDT. There is quite a differ-
ence between adjudicating what the leg-
islative subcommittee does, in which the
Senate ought not to undertake to adjust
What the House has done or try to inter-
fere with the House functions, and fixing
the rates under a law at two different
levels, because the latter method would
create an irritating and aggravating situ-
ation.
If my amendment were adopted, the
Senate and the House conferees could
arrive at either of the two figures or a
figure in between.
To adopt the House language would
not put the matter in conference without
my amendment. There would be noth-
ing to discuss. In effect, the pay scale
for the House employees would be fixed
at a different scale than for the Senate
employees.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MUNDT. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. There is much to be
said for what the Senator from South
Dakota has said as well as for what the
Senator from Oklahoma has said. Tra-
ditionally the House has set the salaries
of its own employees and the Senate has
not interfered with it. But here the
House has sent the Senate a bill in
which the Senate has chosen to cut the
top Senate salaries without the House
having cut the top House salaries.
I see no great disturbance if the House
salaries were cut down to the level of the
Senate salaries. If there were an in-
sistence on that level, the conferees
could agree to it, or could come to an-
other agreement. I see no great dis-
turbance inasmuch as the Senate has
taken unto itself to provide cuts for
comparable positions.
Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate what the
Senator has said. May I say to my
peacefully inclined friends in the Senate
that there is no way to stop the dis-
turbance, because this matter will come
back to plague us. If we let it remain
as is, it is going to cause all sorts of
irritation. I think we should face the
Issue now, accept the amendment, take
it to conference, and work out something
that is not inimical to all concerned,
rather than not act and let the matter
come back to plague us and create em-
barrassment and irritation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr: President, I
shall be glad to take this amendment to
conference, but, having been in many
conferences, I point out that the House
Members are very touchy and sensitive.
Senators know that. I cannot promise
what the result will be, but I shall be
glad to take it to conference.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, in
light of the action taken by the Senator
from South Carolina, I have nothing to
add. I think this difference should be
in conference in some way. The differ-
ence should not exist. It is my hope
that something can be arrived at, either
at the higher or lower figure, or some-
thing in between, which will make the
two scales comparable.
Mr. JOHNSTON. There should not be
any difference between the two kinds of
positions.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate very much the service the Sena-
tor from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] has
performed in raising the question, and
the Senator from South Carolina in
accepting the amendment. I hope heed
will be taken of what the Senator from
Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] has said.
We hope the House will take the cue.
However, nothing could be done about it
at this time, unless, as the Senator from
South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] has pointed
out, an opportunity were given to do
something about it by amending the pro-
vision in some way so that the matter can
be considered further in conference. I
think it is fair that it be done. I am
grateful to both Senators for having
made this possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do
Senators yield back the remainder of
their time?
Mr. MUNDT. I appreciate the action
of the Senator from South Carolina. I
believe it was a wise decision to bring the
matter to a head. As the author of the
amendment I express the hope that the
conferees on the part of the Senate will
be able to induce the House to accept this
pro rata increase, so that we can con-
tinue the matter on an equitable basis.
I hope the conferees will not discontinue
their negotiations until such time as
there has been an equalization and a
parity of relationship established be-
tween salaries of employees of both
bodies.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I had
prepared a statement on this subject. I
ask unanimous consent that it may be
printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR CARLSON
There is one other point I would like to
mention. That is the variation between pay
for House committee staff members and the
Senate committee staff members.
A House committee, under the current law
has only one base pay for House committee
employees. That base pay is $8,880, and is
not mandatory.
The language in the new House bill, H.R.
11049, lifted that base and permits the chair-
man of a House committee to set committee
salaries not to exceed a gross of $24,500.
In the Senate, under the current law, the
base pay is for one committee employee at
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
$8.880. two committee employees at $8,460,
three committee employees at $8,040.
The top base pay in a Senator's office for
his staff is the same as the top base pay on
a Senate committee, $8,1380?also, the other
employees in a Senator's office are set up on
a base pay schedule.
in reporting H.R. 11049, the Senate com-
mittee used the same formula for pay In-
creases as did the House committee. But,
since the House committee had only a base
of $8.880, under previous legislation. the
House language of the bill lifted that pay
and permits a committee chairman to pay a
gross salary not to exceed $24,500 for commit-
tee staff employees. Where a base pay struc-
ture is used, that gross salary would require
a base pay of about $9,475.
Since the Senate employees are paid on a
base salary, the entire Senate pay structure
would have needed to be revised.
The Senate committee, therefore, chase to
use the House formula but, did not change
the base pay schedule?this means that the
top employee on a House committee might
draw more gross pay than the top employee
on a Senate committee, or a top employee In
a Senator's office. That is because the base
pay?the top?of $8,880, under the formula
used gives a gross salary of $22,945.
I would not want to infringe upon the
privilege of the House to set up its own pay
structure. However, it does seem to me that
these pay structures should be brought closer
together even if the Senate pay structure of
base pay were necessarily revised
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
for debate has been yielded back or has
expired. The question is on agreeing to
the amendment offered by the Senator
from South Dakota.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Amicyrr. Mr. President. I send
an amendment to the desk and ask that
it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will read the amendment.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 164, line
10, it is proposed to strike out "$43,000,"
and insert in lieu thereof "$38.000"; on
line 11. it is proposed to strike out
"$42,500," and insert in lieu thereof
"$37,500."
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, for the
benefit of Senators, I am prepared to
make a reasonably short statement.
with the hope that the Senate can vote
on the amendment shortly. There is
nothing complicated about the amend-
ment. It is merely an attempt to bring
into some semblance of equity a situa-
tion of inequity which has existed for
some time; namely, the inequity between
the salaries of members of the Supreme
Court and the salaries of the Members
of Congress and members of the Cab-
inet.
As we all know, at the present time
the salary of Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court is $35,000 and of the
Chief Justice $35,500. Both the Sen-
ate committee and the House commit-
tee have proposed to raise these salaries
to $42,500 for Associate Justices and to
$43,000 for the Chief Justice. The
next highest judicial salaries are for the
Court of Appeals, which are boosted to
$33,000.
This body has resorted to more self-
flagellation in the last few days than I
have heard in a long time. I am not
proud of the things which have hap-
pened in the past few months, and
which have brought so much discredit
upon this body. I do not believe that
Members of the Senate have brought
that discredit upon themselves. There-
fore, I shall not discredit myself or Mem-
bers of the Senate with respect to the
service we render, and demean ourselves
with respect to the Supreme Court.
Neither do I offer the amendment in the
spirit of criticism of the decisions of the
Supreme Court.
I have always thought. and I think
now, that the difference between the
822,500 and the $35,000 salary is out of
all proportion to the services rendered,
the intelligence required, the skill re-
quired, and the responsibility that Mem-
bers of Congress must assume every day
and that the members of the Supreme
Court must assume.
I do not concede that they bear a
greater responsibility. I do not concede
that it requires a higher sense of integ-
rity. I do not concede that they have
to work harder. None of these things
is true.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, may we
have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. ALLOTT. What I propose is an
increase of $2.500 for the Justices of the
Supreme Court, which would still leave
them a salary $7,500 higher than a
Member of Congress receives.
There is a reluctance upon the part
of Senators to disauss where they actu-
ally come out in their salary. I point
out two or three things. First, there is
not a Member of the Senate who makes
as much as his administrative assistant.
If there is, I should like to have him
stand and tell me that he does. We are
involved in trips home, political respon-
sibility, entertainment of constituents,
and a thousand other items. We are
constantly pressed to make donations to
this and contributions to that. It be-
corneae very great burden.
The Supreme Court is exempt from
most of these things. The Justices do
not have to maintain two homes. They
do not have to make trips back home.
They sit here in a home of their own,
and they do not bear the expenses that
we must bear every day.
It would appear now that our salary
has been raised to $30.000. However. I
will wager that there is not a Member of
the Senate who will have 50 percent of
that left for himself to live on, when
everything is toted up.
That is not the case with members
of the Supreme Court. They are here
for life. Seven and a half percent of our
salary goes into the retirement fund, and
we earn it. We get what we have earned
of that 71.a percent at the time the good
people of our State decide to retire us or
we retire ourselves.
With the Supreme Court it is different
altogether. They have life tenure, and
their salaries continue completely un-
til they die. They contribute not 1 cent
to a pension fund.
Therefore, the compensation of the
members of the Supreme Court is far
above that of a Senator, even if the sal-
ary of the Senator is fixed at $30,000.
I have not sought to slap them in the
face, or an thing of that sort. I am try-
ing to bring some semblance of equity
into the situation between the salta7ies,
to reflect in the minds of the peopla of
this country, to some extent, the resaon-
sibilities which we bear. We have an
opportunity to indicate how Senasors
feel about the importance of their jabs.
Apparently we have fixed the salaries of
Senators. I think we should fix the sala-
ries of the Supreme Court Justices in the
same way.
Does the Senator from Rhode Island
wish some time?
Mr. PASTORE. No. I merely held
up my two fingers. It was not a sign of
victory but to show that we must main-
tain two homes.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to the Senator from Meas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from Colorado for offering
his amendment. which I think should be
adopted. It should be remembered that
the Congress is a coordinate branch in
our tripartite system of government with
the Supreme Court of the United States.
It should be further noted that Members
of Congress are responsible to the people
they serve. They are elected by those
people, and are accountable to them.
The Supreme Court is not. It should be
further noted that since the Supreme
Court seems to reason it should legislate
and amend the Constitution, perhaps
members of the Supreme Court should
receive a salary no higher than that re-
ceived by the legislators.
Mr. ALLorr. I ask for the yeas and
nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
oppose the amendment. It is, of course,
difficult to try to appraise the proper
salaries for all the members of the exec-
utive depaa tment or all the members of
the Supreme Court, and the other parts
of the judiciary. The committee spent
much time trying to determine what it
believed was fair and equitable in the
light of the responsibilities, the impor-
tance, and the constitutional duties of
the three branches of the Government.
We are likely to err in many ways; but
I hardly feel that this is the time to
downgrade the Supreme Court by bring-
ing the salaries which are proposed in
the bill?$.12,500 for the members and
$43,000 for the Chief Justice?below that
level. What is proposed in the bill is a
simple addition of a $7.500 stepup, such
as Congress is about to vote itself to the
$30,000 figure.
I think the most controlling point that
led to the $30,000 figure is that the sala-
ries of Members of Congress is abous on
a level with those of U.S. district judges.
Our salaries have traditionally been
compared with the salaries of district
judges.
As the Senator from Colorado has said,
the salaries of district judges will become
$30,000, as will the congressional sala-
ries. The salaries of circuit judges will
be $33,000. These increases are stepups
toward the salaries of members of the
Supreme Court, which is the highest
court of all.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved Fe6iltfimR5A5/Ak8NRD Tem 3R000500050001-9
The Supreme Court is composed of
only nine members. The increase does
not involve a great impact on the budget.
I feel that with the great volume of work
and the very important function of the
Supreme Court, whether we always agree
with their opinions or not, the members
of the Court are entitled to the salary
proposed in the bill?$42,500 for the
members and $43,000 for the Chief Jus-
tice.
As we have said countless times, we
are not applying the salary to the man.
The salary goes with the position. We
hope that by paying an adequate salary,
we will continue to draw the very best
persons to all branches of the Govern-
ment?the executive, the legislative, and
the judicial.
I believe that the alinement of sala-
ries of judges, as we have provided in
the bill, is right and proper. I would
dislike to see those salaries changed at
this time without any further justifica-
tion than has been made.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I shall
be brief and shall yield back the re-
mainder of my time when I have con-
cluded.
I appreciate the remarks of the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma. I know they are
made in all good faith.
The Supreme Court is now in recess
and will be in recess until October. That
tells a good story in itself.
So far as concerns the ability that is
required for positions on the Supreme
Court, I can think of at least two dozen
Members of the Senate who, I am sure,
would grace the Supreme Court and
would even add luster to it. So, while it
may be invidious to compare abilities, I
say that there are Members of the Sen-
ate who could and would be a credit to
the Supreme Court.
I cannot understand the argument
that the salaries of Supreme Court Jus-
tices should be raised $10,000 over the
salaries of members of the courts of ap-
peals. That is unreasonable. Let Sena-
tors try to reason it out with their con-
stituents when they return home. Let
them try to reason with their constitu-
ents the payment of $43,000 a year to Su-
preme Court Justices, when all they have
to do is stay in Washington the entire
year round, and take a vacation every
summer.
Three branches of our Government are
established by the Constitution. One is
the executive, at the other end of the
avenue. Another is this body. The third
branch is the judiciary. The Lord will-
ing, not one of those branches will ever
dominate this Government. They are
coequal. There is nothing that indi-
cates that the Supreme Court is of
greater importance or is worth more
than the Members of this branch of the
Government or the members of the ex-
ecutive branch. We need to remember
that they are equal, and that if we pro-
vide salaries of $37,500 for the Justices
and $38,000 for the Chief Justice, we
shall be more than evidencing our gen-
erosity and more than evidencing the
fact that we are a coequal branch of the
Government.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I urge the
adoption of the amendment offered by
the Senator from Colorado. Congress
puts itself on a lower plane than it ought
to be on when it makes so great a differ-
ence between the salaries of Senators and
Representatives and the salaries of
members of the Supreme Court. The
members of the Supreme Court have a
vacation of about 3 months a year. If a
Senator has a vacation, I have never
found out when it comes.
I have served as a member of an ap-
pellate court. I appreciate the impor-
tance of the work of such courts. But
Members of the Senate and House have
to work all the time. They have cam-
paign expenses. The members of the
Supreme Court never run for office; they
hold their offices for life. Automobiles
are furnished them at the expense of the
Government. They pay nothing toward
their retirement; and they can retire at
full pay at the age of 70. It is my under-
standing that they pay nothing toward
the retirement benefits for their wives.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. The members of
the Supreme Court do pay for the re-
tirement benefits of their wives, but not
for themselves.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from
Oklahoma. While they make contribu-
tions for the retirement benefits of their
wives, they make none for themselves.
They can retire at full pay at age 70
without making a single contribution
toward their own retirement. Congress ?
places itself on a plane lower than it
should be when it makes such great dis-
crepancies between the emoluments of
its Members and those of members of the
Supreme Court. It is likewise unwise. to
make such differentials between the pay
of members of the courts of appeals and
the district courts and the pay of the
members of the highest court of the land.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oklahoma yield me 3
minutes?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished Senator from Missouri.
GEN. WILLIAM F. McKEE
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
last Tuesday the able Senator from
Washington [Mr. JACKSON] paid tribute
to a distinguished American, Gen. Wil-
liam Fulton McKee, Vice Chief of Staff
of the Air Force, who will retire July 31,
1964.
I was not here at that time, and want
to take this occasion to add a word of
appreciation for the many years Gen-
eral McKee devoted to the service of his
country. Beginning with graduations
from West Point and the Coast Artillery
School, the general's 35-year career is
marked by an outstanding degree of
competence, integrity, and loyalty.
During my days with the Air Force,
General McKee was of invaluable assist-
ance. His ability to analyze and solve
problems and to work out solutions
15313
which saved the Government money,
with fewer man-hours, impressed us time
and time again.
The country has been fortunate to be
the beneficiary of this man's many
talents. It is a privilege to take this op-
portunity to express deep appreciation
for all he has done for his country, and
to wish him and his gracious wife the
best of everything in his retirement.
LOUIS B. McGEE
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, a
few days ago the people of Missouri lost
one of their outstanding citizens?Louis
B. McGee.
Louis McGee probably had as many
friends as anyone in my State. This
was because of his warm and delightful
personality; and also because of the
effective manner in which he worked for
the betterment of the people of his com-
munity, his State, and the Nation.
I ask unanimous consent that there be
printed at this point in the RECORD an
article and an editorial published in the
Kansas City Times, the latter entitled
"Louis B. McGee."
There being no objection, the article
and editorial were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Kansas City (Mo.) Times, June
15, 1964]
Loins B. MCGEE, 62, IS DEAD IN ARIZONA?
INSURANCE MAN AND DEMOCRATIC LEADER AP-
PARENTLY HAD HEART ATTACK?ACTIVE IN
MANY FIELDS?HE WAS KNOWN AS A PARTY
FUNDRAISER AND BOOSTER OF FOCKHURST
COLLEGE
Louis B. McGee, insurance executive and
civic and Democratic poliitcal leader, died
yesterday in Scottsdale, Ariz. He was 62.
He apparently suffered a heart attack dur-
ing the morning while resting in his room
at the Mountain Shadows resort.
When Mr. MeGee did not appear for a
luncheon date with Frederick G. Betts, a
former Kansas Citian, Betts went to McGee's
room and found the body on the bed.
A HEART VICTIM
Mr. McGee had been in Arizona about 6
weeks. He had been afflicted with arthritis
in recent years and had suffered heart
attacks previously.
Mr. McGee was a partner in the firm of
Thomas McGee & Sons and was treasurer
and a director of the Old American Insurance
Co.
He was born in San Francisco in 1902. His
father, Thomas McGee, established the in-
surance firm in Kansas City in 1910. Thomas
McGee died in 1953.
As a business leader in Kansas City, Louis
McGee served in many civic organizations,
served the Catholic Church in various ca-
pacities and was a nationally active member
of the Democratic Party.
Of his service to the city, Former Mayor
H. Roe Bartle said last night:
"Kansas City and the State of Missouri
have lost a real participating citizen of the
highest order. Louis McGee always had
a progressive spirit and a willingness to work
for the 'city in many, many activities. He
was an effective leader who did not want
credit for the work he did."
CITED AS A BUILDER
"He was a strengthening force in our pro-
gram of international relations and trade
with Latin America. Kansas City has lost
one of its real builders."
An alumnus of Rockhurst College, McGee
was presented the institution's pro meritis
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B0,04M00050005000.1-9
15314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD July 2
award In 1960. Be VMS cited as ''a rare
man who can organize as well as execute.
He has given time and again of his energy
and experience for worthy projects."
Mr. McGee served as chairman of the
Rockhurst board of regents from 1957 to
1959 and later was chairman of the corn-
inunity relations committee of the hoard.
CITED AS A GIVER
He was a past president of the Council of
Catholic Men, a member of the advisory
board of St. Mary's Hospital, and a con-
tributor to numerous charities and organizi-
ions,
In the Democratic Party he served as a
fund raiser and promotional worker for party
events. He was active in the Adial Steven-
son presidential campaigns and was a friend
of Stevenson, On the county level he worked
with all factions of the party.
Mr. McGee was a bachelor who each year
was host for a reunion of the McGee family.
At an Easter reunion this year 158 members
of the clan gathered at the Old American
Building at Volker Boulevard and Oak Street.
In World War II he served in the Coast
Guard from 1942 to 1945.
He was a Knight of St. Gregory, ap-
pointed in 1948 by Pope Pius XII.
A HOSPITAL DIRECTOR
He served as finance officer of the depart-
ment of Missouri of the American Legion
from 1945 to 1949, was a member of the
downtown committee of the chamber of
commerce, of the White House Committee on
Education Beyond the High School Level, was
a past president of the Armed Forces Council,
and a director of the XRDSRS City General
Hospital and Medical Center.
lie was vice president of the Kansas City
Commission for International Relations and
Trade, a member of the board of governors
of the American Royal, the committee for
study of higher education of the State of
Missouri, the capital improvements com-
mission of Jackson County, the Kansas City
Club, and the Carriage Club.
Mr. McGee lived at 5049 'Wormil Road.
Surviving are two brothers, Joseph J. Mc-
Gee. Sr., 5405 Wornall, and Prank McGee, 635
West Meyer Boulevard, and three sisters, Mrs.
Catherine M. Soden, 6848 Cherry; Mrs.
Jerome J. Burke, 433 West 69th; and Mrs.
John R. Lillis, 4645 Rockhill Road, and 21
nieces and nephews.
I From the Kansas City (Mo.) Times, June 16,
1964]
Lours B. McCies
To walk with Louis B. McGee through a
hotel lobby in downtown Kansas City was a
heartwarming experience. It also involved
slow progress because Louis McGee, the
friendliest of men, knew so many people. He
had to pause and chat with everyone he
recognized. Always he had a quip or a story.
For strangers there would be a big smile. .
But his affable manner was only one part
of Louis McGee's makeup. He was a con-
structive, effective civic leader. "Let's get it
done" and "Why wait?" were his usual quick
responses when someone spoke of problems
obstructing a goal. Being imaginative and
progressive, Louis McGee usually could see
a way to overcome the problems. Ile could
persuade people to work together and like it.
Kansas City business knew Louis McGee as
a partner in the large McGee insurance inter-
ests founded by his father, the late Thomas
McGee, Louis McGee was the company's
public contact man and there was none
more astute. But he spent as much or more
time on widely ranging civic interests as he
did on his business career. Louis McGee
developed a great zest for politics. His keen
mind became a factor in the strategy and
financing of the Democratic Party.
Mr. McGee was an outstanding lay leader
of the Catholic Church. Rockhurst College
was a special interest. He served that Jesuit
institution as chairman of the board of re-
gents and as the driving force in numerous
college projects. A bachelor, Louis McGee
was devoted to the numerous clan McGee and
'delighted in the family reunions he per-
sonally organized,
Louis B. McGee spent the last third of his
62 years in physical suffering. But he was
never known to complain. Prolonged illness
never made a dent in his courage or his
energy. Louis McGee, tine and generous-
spirited citizen that he was, accomplished a
great deal for Kansas City.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
when the editorial says "Louis McGee,
fine and generous-spirited citizen that
he was, accomplished a great deal for
Kansas City," that is only too true.
Louis McGee was the kind of citizen
who can never be replaced?his personal
charm, his gracious manner, his con-
sistent effectiveness when it came to
carrying out constructive community
plans and programs.
In that connection, I ask unanimous
consent also that a memorial broadcast
from Station KCMO in Kansas City be
printed at this point In the RECORD.
There being no objection, the memo-
rial broadcast was ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
Louis B. McGEE
Missouri and Kansas City will be a long
,Ime recovering from the loss of Citizen
Louis B. McGee. lie was a natural. Every-
.hing held unusual interest to the person-
able insurance executive, and it was his ex-
ceptional interest in the world around him
that must have led McGee into the multitude
of State and community activities where his
image became a permanent impression. Few
men have such a rare ability to give out-
standing service to so wide a variety of ac-
tivities. Louis McGee was equally effective
in veterans affairs RR in top-level business ac-
tivities or within his church. Although he
held no public office, he was the kind of man
whoee interest in people could easily have
been a dominant force in government. In-
stead of seeking office, McGee turned his tre-
mendous organizational ability to the polit-
ical party of his choice. Many a candidate
can see the McGee touch in whatever success
emerged from the campaign; Senators, Gov-
ernors. and even Presidents sought, out McGee
for the kind of practical assistance that was
touched with genius at times.
There are those who recall Louis McGee's
straight-forward approach to problems, how
on many occasions a deadlocked meeting was
put back on the track with the down-to-
earth advice from the affable insurance man.
We can't vouch for the absolute quotation
attributed to McGee about his friendliness
yet we suspect it is tree that he remarked,
"With a clan as big as the MeGees, you have
to know how to get along with everyone." He
showed every indication of the truth of this
statement. To know Louis McGee was in-
deed a valued experience. It was difficult
not to know him if one had the chance to
meet up with him. Perhaps this personal
magnetism spilled over into his community
and State associations. Not an opportunity
was lost by this man to show enthusiasm
for his home grounds wherever he went
whether to Washington or to foreign lands.
Kansas City and Missouri need many more
Louis B. McGees,
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
beyond all else, Louis McGee was loyal:
loyal to his friends, loyal to his church,
loyal to his country. We who were de-
voted to him shall sorely miss him.
Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Oklahoma yield
me 39 seconds?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. LONG of Missouri. I wish to aa-
sociate myself with the remarks made by
the senior Senator from Missouri about
Mr. McGee, who was a good friend of
mine and was one of the outstandirg
citizens of Kansas City.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank my able
colleague. I ' now he was devoted to Mr.
McGee M McGee was also devoted
to hi-
GOVER ENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING ?Valet:it. Is the
remaining time yielded back?
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield back the r?.-
mainder of my time.
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield back the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OteraCER. All
time has been yielded back. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Colorado. The yeas
and nays have been ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Byaa],
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLEN-
DER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART], the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
HAYDEN], and the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. TALMADGE] are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. BAYH I, the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], and the
Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Sena:or
from Texas IMr. YARBOROUGH], and the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SmaTusits]
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that ihe
Senator froin New Hampshire [Mr. COT-
TON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Parra], the Senator from Nebraska I Mr.
HRUSKA] ar.d the Senator from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are neces-
sarily absent.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] would
vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 46,
nays 40, as follows:
IN?. 466 Leg.]
Aiken
Aliott
Anderson
Bennett
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Church
Curtis
Dodd
Dominick
Eastland
Ervin
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gore
Gruening
YEAS 46
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Lausche
Long, La.
Mansfield
McClellan
McGovern
Mechem
Miller
Mundt
Pearson
Prouty
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Randolph
Robertson
Russell
Simpson
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Thurmond
Tower
Walters
Williams, Del.
Young, N. flak.
Young, Ohio
1964
Bartlett
Beall
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Carlson
Case
Clark
Cooper
Dirksen
Douglas
Edmondson
Hartke
Bayh
Byrd, Va.
Cotton
Ellender
Engle
- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
NAYS-40
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
&wits
Keating
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Magnuson
McCarthy
McGee
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Monroney
NOT VOTING-14
Morse
Morton
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Scott
Williams, N.J.
Fong
Hart
Hayden
Hruska
Kennedy
Saltonstall
Smathers
Talmadge
Yarborough
So Mr. ALLOTT'S amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I move
to lay the motion to reconsider on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I call
up my amendment No. 1092.
I ask unanimous consent that the
reading be dispensed with.
The amendment offered by the Senator
from New York [Mr. KEATING] reads as
follows:
On page 167, line 2, insert the following:
"TITLE VI?DISCLOSURE OF OUTSIDE ASSETS AND
EARNINGS
"SEC. 601. On April 15, 1965, and annually
thereafter, every Member, officer, and em-
ployee of Congress, whose gross congressional
compensation is $10,000 or more, shall file
with the Comptroller General in accordance
with such regulations as shall be prescribed
by the Comptroller General: (1) a statement
of any financial interest having a value of
$5,000 or more in any activity subject to the
jurisdiction of a regulatory agency; (2) a
statement of the amount and source of all
compensation and income which he has
received from outside sources in excess of
$100. Such statements filed with the Comp-
troller General shall be held as public records
and shall be available for public access there-
to at any time during the regular business
hours of the office of the Comptroller General.
"SEG. 602. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, no increase in compen-
sation for any Member, officer, or employee
of Congress provided in this Act shall be
paid after April 15 of each year until such
Member, officer, or employee has filed the
statements required by section 601 of this
Act."
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Presiednt, I yield
myself 5 minutes. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may
we know what the amendment is? We do
not know what it is.
Mr. KEATING. I shall be glad to ex-
plain it. Have the yeas and nays been
ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the Senator
explain what the amendment is?
Mr. KEATING. I planned to be very
brief, but I can be longer if the majority
leader insists on it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. We do not know
what the yeas and nays are for.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, it
might be called a little Morse amend-
ment. I shall point out the difference be-
tween this and the Morse amendment.
The principal difference is that the
Morse amendment was a full disclosure
amendment. I supported the Morse
amendment. I regret that it did not pass.
But this is only a partial disclosure
amendment.
This amendment adds a conflict of in-
terest title to the bill. It requires all
Members, officers, and employees of Con-
gress whose compensation is $10,000 or
more to annually file statements of all
financial interests of $5,000 or more in
activities subject to Federal regulation
and a statement of the amount and
source of all outside income in excess of
$100. This should be a minimum pre-
requisite to any action on a congressional
salary increase.
One of the reasons the prestige of Con-
gress has fallen in the eyes of the public
Is our refusal to come to grips with the
problem of conflict of interest. Year in
and year out proposals are introduced,
but no action is taken. Once again in
this session we have had a number of bills
introduced, and yet there is no assur-
ance that this Congress will adopt
such legislation despite the public's wide
support for a legislative code of ethics.
I know that most Members of Congress
are conscientious, dedicated public serv-
ants. But a few bad cases can cause im-
mense damage to the whole institution.
My objective is to build up, not weaken,
public confidence in the legislative
branch, and I am convinced that this can
best be done if Congress demonstrates a
willingness to set its own house in order.
Nothing weakens confidence in Gov-
ernment as much as the appearance of
favoritism, inside dealings, and the use
of public office for personal economic ad-
vantage. The public suspicion of the
existence of misuse of office because of
our failure to adopt conflict-of-interest
legislation weakens confidence as much
as actual misdeeds.
It has never been more important then
It is today?when we are engaged in a
life and death struggle with tyranny?
to maintain confidence in our Govern-
ment and to strengthen the moral fiber
of our Nation. Even though the abuses
are infrequent, the danger from low
ethical standards in any branch of gov-
ernment has never been more serious.
Conflict-of-interest legislation is de-
signed to encourage confidence in the
operation of government. Obviously,
there is as much need for promoting
such confidence in the workings of Con-
gress as in any other branch of govern-
ment.
Congress has been willing to impose
standards of ethics on the members of
the executive branch. It is important
that we repudiate the impression that
we are following a double standard by
now adopting legislation applicable to
ourselves and our employees. It is the
most effective step we can take to restore
lagging public confidence.
Members of Congress are the only
group in the present bill who are not re-
quired to be full-time employees. What-
15315
ever may have been the situation origi-
nally, anyone who accepts service in Con-
gress or as an employee of Congress
should do so with an awareness that
It probably will be a full-time commit-
ment.
This amendment is directed toward
the accomplishment of two purposes. It
Is an acknowledgement that service as a
Member, officer, or employee of Congress
Is virtually a full-time job. The dis-
closure provisions will make it apparent
whether we are giving it full-time serv-
ice or, if not, to what extent. Secondly,
by requiring disclosure of assets and out-
side income by those who receive more
than $10,000 a year we are closing a con-
flict gap. It will be readily apparent
whether one is taking advantage of a
public trust to benefit himself. Of all
the proposals which have been made,
this one appears most closely related to
determining whether Members of Con-
gress are giving the kind of time and
attention to their duties which would
merit a raise in pay.
The other primary difference between
the Morse amendment and this one?
and I am shortening this as f know it is
the desire of Senators to get on with the
work?the other primary difference is
that this one is self-executing. In order
to obtain the increase in pay, it is neces-
sary to file the required statement. Un-
der the Morse amendment, there were
penal provisions. A fine and imprison-
ment were provided for failure to file, or
for filing a false statement. There is
no such provision here.
However, it does provide that in order
to get the increase, one must file with
the Comptroller General in accordance
with such regulations as he may pre-
scribe.
I could go into more detail if necessary.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 2 minutes?
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I yield
2 minutes to my colleague from New
York [Mr. JAvirs].
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, this
amendment seeks what we have been
trying to have enacted for a long time.
It merely requires what many of us vol-
untarily do already; namely, file a record
of our investments and the principal
source of our income. It leaves it to the
public to decide whether there are con-
flicts of interest for which we should be
taken to task.
It is the simplest and most proper way
to deal with the many ethical questions.
Many persons have worked on this prob-
lem. I am personally grateful to the
Senator from New York [Mr. KEATING]
for having an opportunity to join with
him in it.
I think it is very worthy of approval
by the Senate. It is self-operative. It
commends itself very highly by all
standards, as the proper way in which a
Senator should account to his con-
stituents.
Mr. KEATING. I yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R00050005000-1-9
15316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
Mr. PASTORE. Does one have to file
with the Comptroller General whether
he does or does not?
Mr. KEATING. It requires filing only
if one is to receive it.
Mr. PASTORE. How does that work
out so that one can get his raise? One
has to file that he does. Does he not
have to file that he does not? Other-
wise, how does one get his raise?
Mr. KEATING. This amendment pro-
vides that one must file a statement of
any financial interest in one of these
activities, and a statement of the
amount and source of income received
from outside sources. That part is the
same as in the Morse amendment. A
statement to the disburser's office that
one held no such holdings and received
no such outside income would probably
be sufficient. One would not be re-
quired to file such a statement, but there
would be nothing to prevent one from
filing it.
Mr. PASTORE. I do not mean to be
critical. But I think there is an awk-
wardness in the statement that ought to
be clarified. I think if before one can
receive the increase, he has to file a
statement, he should have to file a
statement to the effect that he does not
have such interest. Otherwise, I do not
see how it would work out. The Senator
is making it conditioned upon his getting
the increase in salary.
And yet it would provide that only
those who have an interest must file. If
that is so. how would the Comptroller
know? How would the disbursing office
know, unless we were to say so in the
amendment?
Mr. KEATING. I think I shall have
to explain the amendment in greater de-
tail to the Senator.
The amendment would provide, in the
first section. that on April 15, 1965, and
annually thereafter, every Member, offi-
cer, and employee of Congress whose
gross congressional compensation is
$10,000 or more shall file the two required
statements with the Comptroller Gen-
eral; and in the next section it is pro-
vided that no increase in compensation
for any such Member, officer, or employee
shall be paid after April 15, of each year,
until the Member has filed the state-
ments required by the first section.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator elaborate on what is meant by
filing a statement of the amount and
source of all compensation and income
which he has received from outside
sources in excess of $100?
Mr. KEATING. I do not know how
to make it more explicit.
Mr. CURTIS. It would include every-
thing?
Mr. KEATING. It would include
everything.
Mr. CURTIS. Wages?
Mr. KEATING. Wages.
Mr. CURTIS. Dividends?
Mr. KEATING. Dividends.
Mr. CURTIS. Interest?
Mr. KEATING. Interest.
Mr. CURTIS. That is all included?
Mr. KEATING. That is correct. In
that regard, it is like the Morse amend-
ment.
Mr. CURTIS. Would this be a public
record?
Mr. KEATING. It is provided in the
next sentence that such a statement shall
be held as a public record and be avail-
able for access to the public.
Mr. GOLDWATER. How would the
States that have community property
laws be affected in that situation? Would
not one have to report his wife's income,
too?
Mr. KEATING. I suppose if one had
any financial interest in an activity that
was subject to a regulatory agency,
whether one had it individually, or as
a part of the community property, one
would have to report it. Although, it
does provide that he shall file a state-
ment with the Comptroller General in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Comptroller General.
would assume also that he would be
able to eliminate community property, if
he saw fit.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Would it be
proper, in your opinion, to eliminate the
community property?
Mr. KEATING. I think a person who
has any financial interest in an activity
subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory
arency, no matter how he acquired that
interest, should file such a statement.
Mr. GOLDWATER. That is one of the
questions in my mind about the entire
reporting argument. Does not the Sen-
ator think that in any reporting legisla-
tion that is passed, it should be required
that income of the whole family, the wife,
father, mother, brothers, and sisters
should be reported? In my family, my
wife has an income outside of what I can
provide. The same applies to my moth-
er. If we are to be suspect of devious
thinking in this body, I think we can
consider our families.
Mr. KEATING. First, I do not believe
any Member of this body is to be suspect
of devious thinking. However, we have
already debated an amendment like the
one to which the Senator refers. I sup-
ported that amendment. I agree with
the Senator in that regard. But the
amendment was not adopted.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time,
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KEATING. I yield.
Mr. MUNDT. I wonder if what the
Senator has proposed would not have the
practical effect of requiring every Sen-
n tor to apply in writing to become eligible
for the pay increase, in which case he
would have stolen a leaf out of a chapter
of the Senate Building Commission,
which provided the rugs for the private
offices of Senators. We required each
Senator to apply for a rug. Some Sen-
ators got them, some did not. If that is
what the Senator is asking, it should be
made clear. The Senator is asking each
Senator to say "I qualify for the pay in-
crease. I wish to put in my application."
Mr. KEATING. The amendment does
not have anything to do with rugs.
Mr. MUNDT. It has to do with the
proposal pay increase.
Mr. KEATING. The amendment
provides that a Senator will get the in-
crease if he files the required statement
with the Comptroller General. It is very
simple. Admittedly it does not go as far
as the distinguished Senator from
Oregon [Mr. Moasa] sought to go in his
amendment, uhich I was happy to sup-
port. But it would be a first step in lay-
ing the cards on the table as to holdings
of Members of Congress.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KEATING. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. I know what the Sen-
ator has in m nd, but I am thinking of
the Federal Trade Commission.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, we
cannot hear a word that is being said.
The PRESIDING Olee'ICER. Thr
Senate will be in order. The Senator
may proceed.
Mr. ALLOTT. What the Senator had
in mind is that people who have in-
come from activities such as electric
companies, power companies, and
things like that that go over State
lines would be required to report
it. But there is almost no busie
ness in our country today that is exempo
from the jurisdiction of the Federal
Trade Commis,sion. So in the manlier
in which the amendment is written, the
Senator's amendment would place in that
category even grocery stores and supply
houses within a State.
Mr. KEATING. No; that is the
reason for the provision in the amend-
ment that the activity shall be subject
to regulations prescribed by the Comp-
troller General. In other words, the
Comptroller General would determ ins
what was covered by the phrase "regu-
latory agency." I agree with the Senator
that to a degree any corporation in al-
most any line of business could be said
to be subject to some regulatory agency.
As good an illustration as any is the
one that the Senator has stated?the
Federal Trade Commission. Although
the determination would be left to the
Comptroller General to make the final
decision, it is not my intention, and I
wish to state this as a part of the legis-
lative history, that it apply to interests
In all types of business activity. Specif -
ically, it should apply to, in my judg-
ment, holdinIs in radio and television
companies and holdings in companies
under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Power Commission and the ICC, such as
Interstate pipeline companies, railroads,
motor carriers, water carriers, freight
forwarders, and so forth. There is to
reason why those covered by the amend-
ment could not hold such interests, but
if they do hold them, it seems to me that
they should be a matter of public recori.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yiei.d
myself 3 minutes under the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Illinois is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. If anything, the
amendment of the Senator from New
York is worse than the Morse proposal.
If a Senator had income or compensa-
tion from outside sources amounting to
$100, he would be required to report
everything he receives.
If a Senator owned some stock in a
company under regulation by a Federal
agency, he would come under the pur-
view of the amendment. A Senator
could own shares in General Motors and
escape the provisions of the amendment.
He could not own an interest in a power
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE 15317
company and escape. He could own 100
shares of Caterpillar Corp. and be out-
side the purview of the amendment, but
If he should own 100 shares of Columbia
Gas, he would be on the inside.
Mr. President, the amendment makes
less sense to me than the Morse amend-
ment. In addition, the amount at which
a Senator would report would be reduced
to $100.
We have heard that the amendment
contains no penalty clause. Certainly
not. It would be self-enforcing. If loss
of a $7,500 pay increase is not a penalty,
I give up. That is true particularly if
one has a conviction as to whether the
proposed procedure is the way to go about
policing the world's greatest deliberative
body.
Mr. President, the amendment ought
to be roundly defeated.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Carolina is recog-
nized for 1 minute.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I agree with the
minority leader. If anything, the
amendment is worse than the Morse
amendment. I hope the Senate will vote
it down as it voted down that amend-
ment and another amendment.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield 3 minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Wyoming is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in this
world of modern merchandising the old
adage that you get what you pay for
still applies. And it applies equally well
to the process of government. There is
no doubt in my mind that the civil serv-
ants of the United States of America,
much maligned by both innocent and
vicious jest and held up to undeserved
ridicule, are performing valuable and
efficient service for the people of our
Nation.
The legislation we are considering to-
day would raise the pay of these civil
servants. I support this increase in sal-
ary for several reasons. In the first
place, I do not believe that Government
service should be a form of economic
second-class citizenship. Those who
work for the Government should be paid
on a scale comparable to similar jobs in
private industry. This is not simply
equitable treatment but is the only pol-
icy by which we can attract and keep the
best qualified and most dedicated people.
There are millions of Americans
whose dedication is such that they are
quite willing to make sacrifices, both
economic and personal, in order to serve
their Nation. And in many instances
we have called upon them to make those
sacrifices. But now, in the midst of an
onrushing prosperity with all economic
indicators setting new records as a mat-
ter of course, it is an inequitable and
penurious government that will not pro-
vide adequate salaries for those it em-
ploys.
The results of existing niggardly Pay
rates are now being felt throughout the
ranks of Government, and especially in
No. 133-10
the higher management levels, as many
men find that, in consideration of the
needs of their families, they must take
higher paying jobs outside of Govern-
ment. Mr. President, it is a poor form
of economy indeed to replace efficient
and effective workers with less efficient
personnel because we are unwilling to
pay a decent wage.
It is a curious thing that many of
those who are the most vitriolic in their
criticisms of the Federal Government
and of those who work for it and who
complain the most about the type of
service provided by the Government are
the same people who are opposed to any
increase in Federal salaries. Many of
these people have found that the Gov-
ernment which they so detest has pro-
vided an economic climate which has
enabled them to make a very comfort-
able living for themselves and for their
families. These people often are in-
timately acquainted with the tenets of
employment in the business world and
are prepared to pay top prices for the
talent they need to make their enter-
prise a success. This is what is called
good business. But when the Govern-
ment attempts the same thing, it is?in
their minds?boondoggling and bu-
reaucracy. Well, to paraphrase an old
quotation, what is good business for busi-
ness is good business for the Govern-
ment.
One of the most controversial aspects
of this legislation is that which concerns
proposed salary increases for Members of
the Congress. I realize full well, Mr.
President, that too many people think
our salaries are already too high. The
hidden costs of congressional service are
not apparent to many people, but I have
yet to talk to a Senator or Congressman
who is able to salt away any appreciable
amount of his salary for those proverbial
rainy days. The pinch is especially felt
by those of us from the West who find
that 'the jet airplane is the one way of
providing the best service and establish-
ing the best and closest relationships
with our constituents but is also a rather
expensive means of commuting. I be-
lieve that this salary increase is com-
pletely in line with the increasing cost
of living and is commensurate with the
duties and obligations of the office we
hold.
But, in accepting the necessity for this
salary increase, I believe we must also
accept the reality of space-age govern-
ment. And that is the reality that gov-
erning the most powerful and richest
nation in this complex time is a full-time
occupation. We have in recent years
discovered that our adjournment dates
regularly approach the winter solstice,
but we cling to the idea that this is an
abnormal situation. Mr. President, I
believe that we must finally accept the
fact that the Senate is a full-time, year-
round job. And that the sooner we
learn to live with that fact, the sooner
will we be hi a position to develop more
orderly legislative processes.
Mr. President, I believe that among
the obligations held by a Member of the
Congress is the obligation to afford his
constituents the knowledge that he is
serving them without conflicts of inter-
est and in the best interests of the State
and Nation. Those who receive their
employment in the higher echelons of
Government with our "advice and con-
sent" are required by us to be free of
conflict of interest. It is only just that
we are equally free from such conflicts.
Mr. President, I have already outlined
my contention that a congressional pay
raise is not undeserved. But if we are
going to take the action of increasing our
own pay, I think it behooves us?at the
same time?to indicate that we are
keenly aware of our responsibility to
avoid even the suspicion of conflict of
interest. In order that we approach this
pay increase in good conscience, I would
hope that each of us would reveal pub-
licly his outside financial holdings and
other sources of income.
I do not believe for one moment that
? such an action would embarrass any
Senator. I know that some of my col-
leagues have had distinguished careers
In other fields and can be justifiably
proud of their success and equally reluc-
tant to reveal its details to the public.
However, we are not in the position of
a private individual. We have accepted
a public trust and, to hold to that trust,
we must take positive action to demon-
strate that we honor that commitment.
A disclosure of our financial holdings is
such a positive action.
Mr. President, in light of these beliefs,
I made, on April 3, 1963, a full disclosure
of my financial situation. And I note
that a number of other Senators have
done the same-both before and since
my statement. One of these Senators,
the junior Senator from New York [Mr.
KEATING] is offering an amendment to
the bill now under discussion to make
the pay increase for Members of Con-
gress conditional upon their making
public their outside interests and income.
Mr. President, I consider this to be an
equitable and meritorious amendment,
and I shall support it.
The legislation we are considering to-
day will do much to provide more equi-
table compensation for those who would
serve their country by carrying out the
functions of Government. We cannot
afford to have a second-best Govern-
ment, and we cannot afford to have sec-
ond-rate Government employees. By
assuring adequate salaries, we can assure
that we will have the best minds to
assist us in meeting the challenge of the
space age. To fail to do this in the name
of economy would be a sad case of being
"penny wise and pound foolish" and
would be an error which would cause us
great harm in coming years. We must
provide an investment in quality per-
sonnel that will bring us returns in good
Government for many years to come.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield 1 minute?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Montana is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The pending
amendment is truly a junior Morse
amendment. There was much more to
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
the Morse amendment than there is to
the pending amendment.
As stated earlier, a resolution on the
subject has been reported by the Corn-
inittee on Rules and Administration.
That resolution will be brought before
the Senate, and would have been brought
up whether or not the proposal was be-
fore us at the present time. At that
time there will be opportunity enough for
discussion, instead of spending only a
few minutes on it during the considera-
tion of the pending bill, a bill in which
it really has no place.
I hope that the Senate will reject the
amendment and that the arguments
that have been made will be brought up
when the resolution which has been re-
ported by the Committee on Rules and
Administration comes before the Senate
for consideration.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I
yield myself one-half minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New York is recognized for
one-half minute.
Mr. KEATING. The essential differ-
ence between my amendment and the
resolution which is now at the desk is
that the resolution would apply only to
the Members of this body. The amend-
ment would write that provision into law
for all Members of Congress. I believe
conflict-of-interest rules are the kind of
thing that should be treated by a
statute and have the force and effect of
law. They are, in my judgment, inap-
propriate to be treated simply by a
Senate resolution. When the Senate
resolution is brought up. however, it
could be strengthened in such a way as
to be meaningful.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Kansas [Mr. Caaesoial, who is the rank-
ing member of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, the
indications are that we shall not reach
a final vote on the bill before I must
leave in order to keep a prior commit-
ment. I wish the RECORD to show that
if present and voting, I would vote for
the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
1 minute to the distinguished Senator
from Iowa.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, earlier
today I offered an amendment to the
Morse amendment. I had prepared an
amendment which I had intended to
offer to the Keating amendment, but in
view of the rejection of my amendment
to the Morse amendment by the Senate,
I shall not offer the one I have prepared,
but I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the RECORD at this point in
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment intended to be proposed
by Mr. MILLER to the amendment by Mr.
KEATING. NO. 1092. is as follows:
On page 1, line 10, insert after the word
"agency" the following: "and owned within
the immediately preceding twelve months by
such Member, officer, and employee. his or
her spouse, children and their* spoUses,
brothers and sisters, father and mother, and
any trust or fiduciary arrangement under
which any of the said individuals is a bene-
ficiary or over which he or she exerts any
control",
On page 2, strike lines 1 and all of line 2
through the period and insert In lieu thereof
the following: "amount and specific source
of each item of compensation and income
In excess of $100 received during the im-
mediately preceding calendar year by such
Member, officer, and employee, his or her
spouse, children and their spouses, brothers
and sisters, father and mother, and any trust
or fiduciary arrangement under which any of
said individuals is a beneficiary or over which
he or she exerts any control."
On page 2, line 12, strike the period and
insert in lieu thereof the following: ": Pro-
vided. That if said Member, officer, or em-
ployee is unable to file any statement per-
taining to the financial interest, compensa-
tion and income of any of the individuals
or entities listed in section 601 other than his
or her spouse and minor children because
of their refusal to provide such information,
said Increase in compensation shall neverthe-
less become effective upon the filing of a
statement, under oath, by said Member, of-
neer, or employee that his or her failure to
comply with all of the requirements of section
601 is due to such refusal."
Mr. MILLER. What I had to say
about the Morse amendment is equally
applicable to the pending amendment.
The proposal will not get, the job done.
It wUl not satisfy the public if the pub-
lic wants disclosure. The disclosure of
what a Member, an officer, or employee's
contacts are with federally regulated
agencies, or his own income, will not sat-
isfy the problems that the Senator from
Arizona pointed out. If we wish to have
disclosure that will-satisfy the situation,
we shall have to bring in the spouse, the
brothers and sisters, the father and
mother, and any trust or fiduciary ar-
rangement, not to mention the children.
The amendment fails to do that. If
some Senator wishes to offer an amend-
ment to perfect the pending amendment,
I shall be happy to support it. Senators
have spoken on my previous amendment,
and I shall not push them on the ques-
tion at the present time. In view of that,
I shall have to vote against the Keating
amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the
i3enator yield a half minute to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield a half min-
ute to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Do I correctly under-
stand that the Senator from Iowa will
not offer his amendment?
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
Mr. DODD. I believe that is regret-
table. I am sorry that the Senator did
not press for a yea-and-nay vote on his
amendment earlier, when the Morse dis-
closure amendment was being discussed.
I believe his amendment goes to the
heart of the problem. We are not fool-
ing ourselves or anyone else by howling
down with a voice vote the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa, as was done
earlier this afternoon. Everyone knows
of devices in which a wife's name is used,
or a child's name, a sister's name, a
brother's name, or when a trust is estab-
lished.
I agree with the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DIRKSEN I , the distinguished minor-
ity leader, and the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. MILLER I, who have spoken against
these disclosure amendments. If we are
going to be honest, we should include
the amendment of the Senator holy'
Iowa, too. It is regrettable that the
amendment was not offered so we could
have a rollcall vote on it this time. I
want the Senate to know that I will oiler
an amendment similar to the Senator's
at a later date, when we are discussing
the Rules Committee resolution.
I am voting against the Keating
amendment. as I did against the Morse
amendment, not because I am against
disclosure but because I want to wait un-
til the Rules Committee resolution is
taken up.
This is the proper way to take up an
important niatter on the floor of the Sen-
ate, not as an amendment to a bill con-
cerned with an entirely different subject,
considered under a one-half hour time
limitation.
The distinguished majority leader [Mr.
MANSFIELD] has given assurances that we
will have an opportunity to discuss eats
soon and I think we should wait until
then to decide the issue.
The PRESIDING OFICER. Does the
Senator from South Carolina yield back
his time?
Mr. t1OHNSTON. I yield back my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
on the amendment has been yielded
back. The yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
ELLENDER], the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. HART), the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. HAYDEN I, and the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
California IMr. ENGLE], the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], and
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYIEll
are absent because of illness.
further announce that the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] and the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SmiternEas]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting. the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATHERS] Would vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Cor-
Tori], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Forge], the Senator from Nebraska EMT.
HRUSKA 1, and the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Doannicic] is detained on official busi-
ness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. Hausica] and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
SALTONSTALL] Would each vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Hawaii
[Mr. Form] is paired with the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Dommexl. If
present and voting, the Senator from
Hawaii would vote "yea," and the Senator
from Colorado would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 2.5,
nays 61, as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Burdick
Case
Church
Clark
Cooper
Douglas
Gore
Hartke
Jackson
' Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15319
[No. 467 Leg.]
YEAS-25
Javits Pastore
Keating Proxmire
Kuchel Scat
Magnuson Symington
McGee Thurmond
McGovern Williams, N.J.
Morse Young, Ohio
Moss
Nelson
NAYS-G1
Aiken Gruening Morton
Allott Hickenlooper Mundt
Anderson Hill Muskie
Bartlett Holland Neuberger
Beall Humphrey Pearson
Bennett Inouye Pell
Bible Johnston Prouty
Boggs Jordan, N.C. Randolph
Brewster Jordan, Idaho Ribicoff
Byrd, Va. Lausche Robertson
Byrd, W. Va. Long, Mo. Russell
Cannon Long, La. Simpson
Carlson Mansfield Smith
Curtis McCarthy Sparkman
Dirksen McClellan Stennis
Dodd McIntyre Tower
Eastland McNamara Walters
Edmondson Mechem Williams, Del.
Ervin Metcalf Young, N. Dak.
Fulbright Miller
Goldwater Monroney
NOT VOTING-14
Bayh Fong Saltonstall
Cotton Hart Smathers
Dominick Hayden Talmadge
Ellender Hruska Yarborough
Engle Kennedy
So Mr. KEATING'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. MONRONEY. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
have an amendment, which has been
agreed to by the committee. It deals
With the inclusion of the Deputy Inspec-
tor General, Foreign Assistance, in level
4 of the Federal executive salary
schedule.
The bill had passed through the House
and had not yet reached us before we
had marked up the bill. Consequently
no provision was made for the salary of
Deputy Inspector General position, which
had been created.
The PRESIDING 01.101.CER. The
amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. On page 123, be-
tween lines 19 and 20, it is proposed to
insert the following:
(67) Deputy Inspector General, Foreign
Assistance.
On pages 123 and 124, it is proposed to
renumber (57) to (71) as (58) to (72),
respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question- is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to state
the amendment.
Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the reading of the amendment?
be dispensed with, and that it be printed
in the RECORD at this point.
The PRESIDING 01, riCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, ordered to be print-
ed in the RECORD, is as follows:
On page 113, line 20, strike "$30,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,500", and in line
23 strike "$28,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$25,500".
On page 114, line 3, strike "$26,000" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$23,500"; in line 6
strike "$24,500" and insert in lieu thereof
"$22,000"; in line 8 strike "$22,500" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "$20,000"; in line 13
strike "$27,600" and insert in lieu thereof
"$25,000"; in line 22 strike "$30,000" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "$27,500"; and in line 24
strike "$43,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$40,000".
On page 115, line 20, strike "$35,000" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
On page 116, line 8, strike "$30,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,500".
On page 117, line 15, strike "$28,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$26,000".
On page 120, line 2, strike "$27,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$24,500".
On page 124, line 20, strike "$26,000" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$23,500".
On page 155, line 20, strike "$25,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$24,000".
On page 156, line 7, strike "$26,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$25,000"; in line 22,
strike "$25,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$24,000"; and in line 24, strike "$24,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$23,500".
On page 157, line 6, strike "$24,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$23,000"; in line 8,
strike "$23,500" and insert in lieu thereof
"$22,500"; and in line 14, strike "$23,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$22,500".
On page 164, line 4, strike "$22,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$20,000"; in line 14,
strike "$33,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$30,500"; in line 17, strike "$30,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,600"; in line 18,
strike "$30,500" and insert in lieu thereof
"$28,000"; in line 21, strike "$33,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,500"; and in line
25, strike "$33,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$30,500".
On page 165, line 3, strike "$30,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,500"; in line 9,
strike "$27,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"$25,000"; in line 10, strike "$26,000" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "$24,500"; in line 16, strike
"$26,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$24,000";
and in line 24, strike "$39,000" and insert in
lieu thereof "$27,500". -
On page 166, line 3, strike "$33,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,500".
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I shall
be brief in explaining the amendment.
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator
raise his voice so we can hear him?
Mr. MILLER. I shall as soon as the
Chamber has quieted down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, what
the amendment does is as follows: In
section 203 on pages 113 and 114, the
increases are cut back by $2,500. In
section 204, on page 114, the salary of
the Members of Congress are increased
by $5,000 instead of $7,500. The
Speaker's pay is increased by $5,000, in-
stead of $8,000.
In section 303, on page 115, the salaries
of Cabinet members are increased by
$5,000, instead of $10,000.
The rest of the salaries in the execu-
tive and judiciary and the District of
Columbia are cut by $2,500. In effect,
that means an increase of $5,000 instead
of $7,500, with the exception of the
President of the District of Columbia
Commissioners, who would have an
extra $500.
The Allott amendment is preserved
in my amendment. That is all the
amendment does.
It seems to me that an opportunity
ought to be given to the Senate to reflect
whether it wishes to establish a pattern
of a $10,000 increase for Cabinet mem-
bers and a pattern of $7,500 for most
of the other people involved, instead of
$5,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Iowa [put-
ting the question].
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the commit-
tee amendment, as amended.
The committee amendment, as
amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
committee amendment and the third
reading of the bill.
The committee amendment was or-
dered to be engrossed and the bill to
be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on the passage of
the bill.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
1 minute on the bill to the distinguished
Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall,
of course, support the bill. It is long
overdue justice to Federal employees.
THE CONTINUING FEDERAL RE-
SPONSIBILITY IN MISSISSIPPI
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Fed-
eral Government has actively searched
since June 21 for the 3 missing men
in Mississippi, yesterday stepping up to
400 the number of U.S. service person-
nel aiding the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation in the search. In my judgment,
this search should be continued until
some clue to their fate has been dis-
covered, even if it takes all summer to do
it.
This is the least we can do to keep
faith with the Federal guarantee to every
citizen of freedom to travel and exercise
other constitutional rights in every State
of the United States. I note with great
interest a report in yesterday's New York
Times to the effect that, during the
search, intimidation and harassment of
civil rights workers in Mississippi have
been materially reduced. The report goes
on to state, however, that it is expected
by those in the area that, once the
bearchers leave, the reign of terror
against the youthful civil rights workers
will resume.
How can a recurrence of this event
be prevented during the long hot summer
of civil rights activities and racial dis-
cord, which has undoubtedly only just
begun in Mississippi?
Now that the Federal Government has
made the commitment, after the fact, to
resolve the awful tragedy of these tnree
missing men, it would be doubly tragic
if the Government of the United States
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
15320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July 2
did not protect the remaining students
against further recurrences. Continuing
the search is one way to help this. An-
other way is for the President to an-
nounce, contemporaneously with the
signing into law of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, that the enjoyment in Mississippi
of rights of American citizens will be
safeguarded with the full authority of
the United States.
Citizens who travel from State to State
for lawful purposes, such as these stu-
dents who seek to educate Negroes to
exercise their constitutional right to vote,
deserve the protection of the U.S. Gov-
ernment. Nor should the Government
insist that death or serious injury befall
them before it extends its protection.
I note also that yesterday 29 profes-
sors of law in 6 universities expressed
public disagreement with Attorney Gen-
eral Kennedy's flat assertion that the
Federal Government lacked the power to
take effective action in Mississippi.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD the statement of
the 29 law professors.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STA TEM ENT
It has been reported In the press that the
Attorney General has stated that the Fed-
eral Government lacks power to take pre-
ventive police action in Mississippi to secure
the safety of persons who have come into
that State to aid its colored residents in the
effective exercise of their rights as citizens
of the United States. The undersigned stu-
dents of public law are troubled by the
misleading simplicity of this reported pro-
nouncement. and believing that the Federal
power to take protective action In the cir-
cumstances that now prevail in Mississippi is
clear, are moved to make this statement.
Under section 332 of title 10 of the United
States Code the President is authorized to
use the State militia and the Armed Forces
of the United States "whenever he considers
that unlawful obstruction, combinations, or
assemblages ? ? ? make it impracticable to
enforce the laws of the United States ? ?
by the ordinary course of judicial proceed-
ings." Should the President be persuaded
that judicial processes are not able to secure
the rights of Negro voters In Mississippi or
should he consider that those processes are
not effectively safeguarding the rights of
other Americans as they are defined in
existing civil rights acts (e.g., sec. 1981 and
1983 of title 42) the quoted section would
clearly authorize him to use armed forces to
secure the rights referred to.
Of course the Attorney General knows
this, for It was under section 332 that Presi-
dent Kennedy took military action at the
University of Mississippi in 1982. Quite prob-
ably two considerations are factors in the
Attorney General's determination that sec-
tion 332 has no immediate relevance. He
and the President may be convinced that the
time has not yet come to send military_ forces
into Mississippi?that other processes should
be exhausted before that most drastic of all
remedies is pursued. If that judgment is a
crucial element in the decision one wishes
that it had been reported, for it would have
made it clear that it is not lack of presi-
dential power to act but the absence of a
conviction that action is now called for that
explains nonaction. Furthermore. the At-
torney General may. with some justification.
feel that when military action is taken
under section 332 it Is not fairly to be
described as police action?the type of action
which he has denied the Federal Government
is empowered to take. These considerations
which may explain the Attorney General's
rejection of the current relevance of section
1332, seem far less applicable to the provisions
of section 333 of title 10.
Under the terms of that section the scope
of the Presidential power to take protective
and preventive action Is not confined to the
use of the militia or Armed Forces. Though
section 333 mentions specifically the power
to use those forces It also empowers him "by
en',' other means (to) take such action as
lie considers necessary to suppress, in a
ntate, any insurrection, domestic violence.
enlawful combination, or conspiracy, If it
4 1) so hinders the execution of the laws of
that State. and of the United States within
t he State. that any part or class of its people
is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or
protection named in the Constitution and
secured by law, and the constituted author-
ities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or Immunity,
or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or
obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of jus-
tice under those laws."
Surely there is reason to believe that
,.iolence and combination are now SO hinder-
ing the execution of the laws of Mississippi
end of the United States as to deny to the
Negroes of Mississippi rights secured by the
constitution and laws of the United States.
Whether the deplorable circumstances are
such as to make the provisions in subsection
1 of the quoted section now operative is
not important, for there can be no question
hut that the provisions of subsection (2) fit
the present circumstances precisely. Vio-
lence. combination, and conspiracy in Mis-
Assippi are unquestionably obstructing the
execution of the civil rights laws of the
United States ?the provisions, that is, of
sections 1981 and 1983 of title 42 and the
provisions of the seta of 1957 and 1960 with
respect to voting rights.
Doubtless some creditable considerations
of expedience could be cited to support a
decision against now taking vigorous Presi-
dential action under section 333 in Missis-
sippi. Surely, however, the Attorney Gen-
orals position would be less misleading and,
,herefore, less perilous If he would acknowl-
edge that the President today has power to
act but believes that police action under see-
-ion 333 of title 10 Is Inadvisable.
In the year 1879 It was argued in the
Supreme Court of the United States that
when Federal marinate sought to enforce the
electoral laws of the United States their con-
duct infringed the prerogatives of the
States--that the Nation, in other words,
could not, through the authority of its
Agents, take police action within the borders
any State. "It is argued," said Mr. Justice
Bradley, "that the preservation of peace and
good order In society is not within the pow-
ers confided to the Government of the
United States, but belongs exclusively to
the States. Here again we are met with the
theory that the Government of the United
States does not rest upon the soil and terri-
tory of the country. We think that this
theory is founded upon an entire miscon-
ception of the nature and powers of that
Government. We hold it to be an incon-
trovertible principle, that the Government
of the United States may, by means of phys-
ical force, exercised through its official
agents, execute on every foot of American
soil the powers and functions that belong to
it. This necessarily involves the power to
command obedience to its laws, and hence
the power to keep the peace to that extent."
Ex pane Slebold. 100 U.S. 371, 894-395.)
Unless the Attorney General disregards or
somehow emasculates this pronouncement
of the Supreme Court he cannot rest his
case for Executive Inaction onthe facile pro-
nouncement that the Federal Government
and the President of the United States are
not empowered to take police action In
Mississippi. I: is at once disappointing sad
Ironic that the Department of Justice, whish
has been bold beyond precedent in success-
fully urging the Supreme Court that the
judiciary possesses the broadest powers to en-
force the constitutional assurances of equal-
ity, should now discover non-existent bzr-
riors to executive action.
SIG NEES OF STATEMENT
Columbia University Law School: Martin
E. Frankel, Arthur W. Murphy. Maur:ce
Rosenberg, Michael I. Sovern.
Harvard Law School: Paul Bator, Vern
Countryman, Charles Fried, Mark Dew.
Howe, Louis Loss, John Mansfield, Herry
Steiner, Arthur E. Sutherland.
New York University Law School: Char:es
E. Ares, Norman Dorsen, Henry Foster, Jr.,
Robert B. McKay, Gerhard 0. W. Mueller.
University of Pennsylvania Law School:
Caleb Foote, Jefferson B. Fordham (reserva-
tions as to phrasing), Alexander H. Frey,
Noyes Leech, Clarence Morris, Louis B.
Schwartz (reservations as to phrasing),
Bernard Wolfrnan.
Yale Law tn,, oo
oris I. Bittker, Char:es
L. Black, J e I. Emerson, Louis H.
Pollak.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill II-1.R. 11049) to adjust tae
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government. and for other purposes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield 10 minutes on the bill to the Sen-
ator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President,
during the course of the debate on the
bill, many amendments were offered. I
voted either for or against them?that
Is most of them, because I anticipated
that the measure would be enacted into
law. I recognize that the issues we are
dealing with and the principles that a-re
Involved in the proposed legislation ad-
dress themselves primarily to the d:.s-
cretion, the good judgment, and the con-
science of (itch individual Member of
Congress.
I have weighed carefully all of the
considerations involved, and I have con-
cluded that I cannot vote for the enact-
ment of the bill. I feel it my duty, there-
fore, to state for the RECORD my reasons
for opposing it. I state them primarily
for the RECORD, without any thought that
I can influence the vote of any otter
Member. I do not seek to do so, be-
cause I expect each Member to vote his
own judgment and his own conviction.
Mr. President, I must reluctantly vote
against the bill. First, because it covers
some employees whose salaries should be
increased?postal employees and others.
I vote against it reluctantly because by
doing so I vote against my own financial
interest, against my own profit, and
against a gain to myself, to the extent
of $7.500 a year increase in my sala.fy,
and after taxes, possibly to the extent
of about $350 a month additional in-
come.
Also, Mr. President, I am voting against
my own interest because if the bill were
enacted it would probably enhance my
retirement pay by about $150 to $200 a
month. The proposal is attractive and
it is appealing, and is just as tempting
to me, I am sure, as it is to any other
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 15321
Member of the Senate. Therefore I
should like to support it. In voting
against it, I wish the RECORD to show
that I am hurting myself financially
more, denying myself more, inflicting a
greater financial loss on myself than I
am denying to any constitutent of mine
who is covered by the bill.
I cannot vote for it because we have
a national debt, or will soon have one,
of about $324 billion-the new debt
limit. The Federal debt is rapidly in-
creasing. I must ask myself, if I vote
for it, where are we going to get the
money with which to pay the additional
$500 million annual cost of Government
that it will incur.
We cannot get it from the Federal
Treasury. It is not there to get.
We do not have the money. We must
borrow it. That is the only way we can
get the money. We must borrow it at
interest. We cannot borrow it free of
interest.
Therefore, we are increasing the deficit
that will occur hereafter each year by
about $500 million when we vote for the
bill. The deficit in the past 4 years has
aggregated about $26.4 billion, or about
$6.5 billion annually.
Is a balanced budget in sight? The
answer is "No." I believe there is a slight
suggestion, or a vague suggestion, from
the Secretary of the Treasury that we
may be able to balance the budget in
1967. But I take that prophecy with a
large grain of salt. I heard the minority
leader today quote a distinguished
authority on his side of the aisle who
indicated that it will not be balanced
until 1972.
I do not believe it will be balanced
again at any time in the foreseeable fu-
ture. There is nothing to indicate that it
will be,
We are not now on the right track to
balance it on either of those dates, or at
any future date because we are con-
tinuously increasing the cost of Govern-
ment.
Last year we reduced taxes by $11 bil-
lion. Last week the Senate voted fur-
ther to reduce taxes by about $600 mil-
lion. The House did not go along with
that reduction. Therefore we will not
immediately sustain that loss.
However, we are increasing the cost of
Government continuously.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at this point tables
which show that this Congress, the 88th
Congress, has already enacted legisla-
tion, which will increase the cost of Gov-
ernment by $7,216 million the first year
following its enactment. Over the first
5-year period following its enactment the
cost will be $26,706 million annually.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ESTIMATED COST OF MAJOR LAWS ENACTED DURING THE 88TH CONG. AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
AWAITING ACTION
Summary statement of total estimated cost of major laws passed and of others sponsored by the administration that are
still awaiting action
1st-year cost
5-year cost
Public laws:
Nondefense programs already public law will cost
$2, 547,000, 000
$3, 502, 000, 000
Additional defense spending now public law will cost
3, 243, 000, 000
16, 215, 000, 000
Space tecimology increase over fiscal 1963 for fiscal 1964
1, 426, 000, 000
7,230, 004 000
Subtotal of spending already public law
7, 216, 000, 000
27, 037, 000, 000
Awaiting Senate or House action:
Administration nondefense proposals awaiting action will cost
7, 186, 000,000
24,346, 000,000
Space technology increase for fiscal 1065 over fiscal 1964
500, 000, 000
2, 360, 000, 000
Defense increases largely offset by decreases
Subtotal of nondefonse and defense and spending programs awaiting action
7, 776,000, 000
26, 706, 000, 000
Grand total of both defense and nondefense spending proposals, both public law and awaiting action
14,902, 000, 000
53,743, 000, 000
NOTE.-Theso estimates are reasonably accurate, although they are not, of course, exact.
Nondefense spending increases
COST OF MAJOR BI LLS PASSED AND WHICH ARE NOW PUBLIC LAWS
Public law number and objective
1st-year cost
fi-year cost
I. Public Law 88-25, area redevelopment program, added funds
$450, 000, 000
8450, 000, 000
2. Public Law 88-101, increase in resources of Export-Import Bank
2, 000,000, 000
2, 000,000, 000
3. Public Law 88-129, health program, medical facilities and personnel
34,000, 000
750, 000, 000
4. Public Law 88-136, immunization program for children
13, 000, 000
63, 000, 000
5. Public Law 88-166, mental health and retardation and maternal health
50, 000, 000
1320, 000,000
Total nondefense spending programs now public law
2, 547, OW, 000
3, 502, 000, 000
COST OF PROPOSALS SUPPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION THAT ARE STILL BEFORE CONGRESS
Bill description and number
1st-year cost
5-year cost
Present status of proposal
1. Food for Peace, increase in program (S. 2687)
2. Urban mass transit (S. 6)
3. Federal employees salary adjustment (MR, 11049)
4. Area redevelopment (S. 1163)
5. Housing and urban renewal 2 (H.R. 9751, S. 2468) _
0. Fallout shelter (H.R. 8200; S. 844)
7. Food stamp extension of pilot program (JIB. 10222)
8. Aid for Appalachia (H.R. 11065; S. 2782)
9. Conservation funds (H.R. 3846; S. 850)
10. Medical care for aged Under social security (MR. 3920; S. 880)
11. Poverty program (II.R. 11377; S. 2642)
12. Education omnibus program-Federal aid (11.11. 3000; 6.580)
13. Extension and increase in 1-1111-Burton (H.R. 10041)
Totalnondefense spending pending
$500, 000, 000
100, 000, 000
533, 000, 000
455, 000, 000
1, 631, 000, 000
300, 000,000
25, 000,000
252, 000,000
60, 000, OW
1, 100, 000,000
962, 500, 000
1, 214 000, 000
52, 500,000
$500,000, 000
375, 000, 000
2, 660, OGO, 000
455, 000, 000
1,631, 000, 000
300, 000, 000
400, 000. 000
3,000, 000,000
300, 000,000
5, 500, 000,000
8 2, 887, 500,000
6, 075, 000, 000
262, 500, 000
Passed Senate Apr. 4, 1963.
Passed House June 25, 1064.
Passed House June 11, 1964.
Passed Senate Juno 26, 1963
(House Rules Committee).
In hearings.
Passed House Sept. 17, 1963.
Conference June 30, 1964,
In hearings.
H. Rept. 900, Nov. 14, 1963.
Hearings in House.
H. Rept., June 3, 1904.
Passed House May 25,1964.
7, 186, 000, 000
24, 346, 000, 000
14-year program.
2 Supposedly a 1-shot program.
3 3-year program.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For RmgreagfisKIA: iltAlitFr':$6_6131:n4427400500050001-9
15322
Mr. McCLELLAN. Now I am happy to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia.
Mr. RUSSETS., Mr. President, the
Senator from Arkansas referred to meas-
ures that would further imbalance the
budget. I noticed he did not refer to
the fact that the Budget also suggests
pay increases for the members of the
armed services amounting to between
$250 million and $300 million a year.
The armed services do not have
unions. They do not have legislative
representatives in Washington. They
are unable to lobby among Members of
Congress. Therefore, they always await
action on the increases in pay for ci-
vilian employees.
I must, also say that the members of
the Armed Forces do not work a 40-hour
week. Some of them are being killed in
Vietnam now?and I am confident that
some of them do not know exactly why.
But they render great services in pro-
tecting this country.
When the bill is passed?as I am con-
fident it will be--I shall regard it as
my duty to hold hearings to at least
equalize the position of the members of
the armed services with that of civilian
employees, who have a safe assignment
at home, a 40-hour week, and substan-
tial increases in pay, but are not required
to places their lives in jeopardy by de-
fending their country.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Sena-
tor from Georgia. The bill does invite
further increases in the cost of govern-
ment. Not only that; it invites a break
in the hold-the-line policy in industry
with respect to wages and profits. Ne-
gotiations are now underway in one of
our vital industries?the automobile in-
dustry?for a large increase in wages.
That will also mean an increase in prices
of new automobiles. They propose to
go beyond the yardstick that the Presi-
dent has suggested is necessary to hold
the line in order to prevent inflation.
If we pass this bill and add another
$500 million to the cost of government
by raising our salaries by 33 Va percent.
and grant the other salary raises it pro-
vides. then where is that yardstick
which the President established at about
3 percent as being all that could be justi-
fied? We shall be inviting everyone to
say that he shall have to have higher
wages and salaries?more money. The
primary responsibility rests upon Con-
gress to set an example and not break
the barrier, a barrier which, if broken.
can lead to great inflationary pressures?
and thus to a dangerous inflationary
spiral.
Mr. RUSSF.T,T. Does the Senator
from Arkansas believe that it would be
fair to grant these increases but deny
an even more modest increase to the
members of the armed services?
Mr. McCLELLAN. No; if we grant
this increase, I think the wage earner is
entitled to come in through bargaining
channels and say, "We are entitled to
more. What will the barrier mean if
we break it? What does the guideline
mean if Congress itself is not going to
respect it. If the administration itself
is not going to observe it, why should we
single out labor and business, and
try to say that they should not have
similar increases?
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I am happy to
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, it is diffi-
cult for one to face objectively the issue
of a pay increase for the many employees
of the Government in an election year.
It seems that this question is before us
in almost every election year.
Difficult as it is, I shall vote against
the bill for several reasons. First, the
bill contains many unjustified benefits,
including an increase in excess of $600
a month in the compensation of already
inactive Federal judges, an increase in
she salary of the Sergeant at Arms of
tale Senate from $21,500 to $27,500, an
increase in the salary of-Senate pages to
approximately $5.000, and a substantial
increase in the pay of rural carriers,
whose short hours already snake that
position among the most sought after in
the country.
Moreover, as the Senator has said, with
the tax cut, it will be necessary to bor-
row every dollar to pay this more than
$500 million increase in the Federal
budget.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Sen-
ator from Tennessee. There are two
other points I wish to make. In the
first place, the argument has been made
that this Government is the biggest cor-
poration or business in the world and
that we, the Members of Congress, are
its directors. That we ought to have
compensation that is somewhat compa-
rable to that of the directors of large cor-
porations in private enterprise. I am
not arguing against that. I have re-
ceived?as I am sure other Senators
have?many letters saying that Senators
and Representatives are not worth that
much. I do not agree with that at all.
That is not the reason why I oppose the
bill. Any Member of Congress who is
competent and capable of meeting the
responsibilities and fulfilling the duties
of a United States Senator, and who is
worthy of serving in either body of Con-
gress, is worth $30,000 a year. and pos-
sibly more, as compared with the level
of our economy and what is paid in busi-
ness and industry. That Is not the rea-
son for my opposition to this bill. But
if we want to think in terms of private
corporations, let me ask this question:
What board of directors of a private cor-
poration would vote themselves a 333/3-
percent $7,500) increase in salary with
a record of deficits year after year after
year. such as has occurred in the oper-
ation of the Federal Government under
the direction of the Congress? Such a
board of a corporation would not last at
all. The corporation would soon go
bankrupt, and the directors 'would be
fired by the stockholders. So a sound
argument for this bill cannot be put on
that premise. It cannot be made to
stand.
I wish to make one final observation.
Sacrifice, if there is to be any, should
begin with us. If we sincerely desire to
pursue sound fiscal policies and bal-
ance the budget; if we mean to best
serve our country; we should be willing
July 2
to make some sacrifice. We are doing it
on our present salary; I do not think
there is any question about that. I
think sacrifice is involved here. But I
think the times call for it. They ce-
mand sacrifice on our part. We in this
body should set the example. We ride
herd on administrative agencies to econ-
omize so that we might not go into &1st
so much, so fast, and so deep. So, we
should exercise due restraint ourselvss.
If we pass the bill, we will not be ask-
ing, "What can I do for my country?"
We will be asking, "What can my coun-
try do for me?" We shall be writing a
ticket that will be reversing what the
great President Kennedy said in his
Inaugural address. We shall be rephras-
ing and in practice reversing his famous
remark?admonition.
I cannot go along with the b.11. That
is the way I feel about it. I do not be-
lieve that I am morally justified in vst-
ing a pay increase for myself under
these circumstances and charging that
Increase into the national debt for some
future generation to pay. No, I do not
think they will pay it if we do pass tae
bill; but it will be an added burden on
the next generation. I do not believe
that we of this generation should
charge that character of expense to tie
next generation.
I therefore cannot vote for the bill. I
shall be compelled to vote against it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in tae
RECORD an editorial entitled "Caution
Light," published in the Washington
Evening Star of July 1, 1964.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CAUTION LIGHT
This is D-day for the beginning of a test
which will make or break President John-
son's effort to hold the line against inflation.
With the opening of contract talks be-
tween the Urtted Automobile Workers and
the big three in the automobile industry,
the issue Is clearly drawn.
Mr. Johnson is committed to a guideline
which would hold wage increases within the
limits of higher productivity?generally 3.2
percent. But George Meany, president of
the AFL-CIO, Is openly defiant. If we think
a higher wage rise is Justified, he has said.
we "will not be stymied by guidelines."
Walter Reuther, UAW head, is calling for
a 4.9 Increase for his union members, along
with other substantial boosts in benefits.
And the AFL-CIO executive council has for-
mally proclaimed that "neither wage r.or
price restraints are tolerable in a free so-
ciety except in the gravest national emer-
gency and then only when coupled with
restraints upon excess profits."
What will emerge from all this remains
to be seen. But it could be of crucial im-
portance.
President Johnson says he has set up an
early warning system and that he will draw
public attention to any excesses by unicns
or management. To us, this sounds as
though he is thinking in terms of a slap
on the wrist. Henry Ford 11 is taking a
tougher line. He told a business audience last
month that willingness on the part of the
public, Government, and management to f.c-
cept a strike if necessary, is part of the
price we must pay for the preservation of
free and responsible collective bargaining?
whether that willingness is ever put to the
test or not.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
,
"Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-BDP661800413R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENA1 15323
Well, we'll see. The industry has been
prospering, and it may take a strike rather
than see the guideline broken. But It is
doubtful that either the union or the in-
dustry is really thinking seriously in strike
terms.
The big threat is an excessive wage in-
crease followed by a price increase. Doubt-
less big labor and big business would sur-
vive. But the little fellows, especially those
living on more or less fixed incomes, will
face ruin if the monster of inflation is turned
loose again in this country.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
have only one more request for time. I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Ore-
gon; then I shall yield back the remain-
der of my time.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I have de-
cided to vote for the bill. I wish to say
to the distinguished Senator from
Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL] that I shall sup-
port a substantial increase in pay for
the members of the armed Services, at
least those in the lower and medium pay
brackets. In no case will I support a
percentage figure for members of the
armed services less than the lowest per-
centage increase provided in this bill.
So long as we cannot do away with the
excise taxes, we need to stimulate the
economy for the purchases of civilian
goods. We should repeal the excise tax
and I shall do all that I can to achieve
that objective.
Also, before Congress adjourns, I shall
offer legislation by way of a rider on the
floor of the Senate that will increase so-
cial security payments by at least 10 per-
cent more than the largest percentage in-
crease in pay provided in this bill, and
probably more.
But so long as Congress can continue to
waste money on the foreign aid bill, at
least half of the money that the Foreign
Relations Committee authorized this
afternoon, and throw that money down
the ratholes around the world, not only
without justification but also to the long-
time detriment of the United States, I am
not going to be too concerned about pass-
ing a pay bill that will enter into the eco-
nomic stream of American life.
I am a strong believer in taking care of
our problems at home before we waste
our money abroad. Because we have
been following this unsound course of ac-
tion in regard to not decreasing excise
taxes, not increasing social security ben-
efits, and not giving a fair deal to those
members in our armed services, I have
decided to vote for the bill in the hope
that in the long run the increase in pay
may result in making the Government
service more enlightened within those
who have been following the mistaken
policy which now characterizes the leg-
islative process.
So, Mr. President, I shall vote for
the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
am opposed to HR. 11049, the Pay Raise
Act of 1964, in the form in which it is
now before the Senate. My newsletter
of June 22, 1964, to my constituents out-
lines my reasons for opposing the bill.
I ask unanimous consent that this news-
letter, entitled "On Increasing Pay," be
printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at
the conclusion of these remarks.
There being no objection, the news-
letter was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ON INCREASING PAY
(By Senator STROM THURMOND)
The Senate will be soon called on to
vote on a pay increase for all Federal Gov-
ernment employees. The bill would cost an
additional $534 million per year. It covers
all Government employees, including mem-
bers of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and
executive branch officials up to and includ-
ing the Vice President. For most Govern-
ment employees, this would be the third pay
Increase in 21 months, the first having gone
Into effect in October 1962, the second in
January 1964, and this one would be effective
on being signed into law, except for Members
of Congress who would wait until January.
In the past I have voted for most Gov-
ernment pay increases. I want to see Fed-
eral workers adequately paid. In fact, I
would be willing to support a cost-of-living
increase this year. However, this legisla-
tion goes far beyond providing a cost-of-liv-
ing increase for the higher level jobs. Mem-
bers of Congress would, for instance, re-
ceive an increase of 331/3 percent or even more
if the Senate pushes the congressional boost
from $22,500 to $32,500.
It is my conviction that individuals offer-
ing for elective office should not be looking
for financial gain. Public office is a public
trust, and the chief aim of those in public
office should be service to the public.
One of the reasons the congressional in-
crease is being pushed is so that high-level
employees can be raised. Many of them are
now almost on a pay par with the Congress.
There is a general understanding that they
will not be paid as much or more than the
Members of Congress, thus the invitation for
the Congress to raise its own pay.
The spread in pay increases for Govern-
ment employees would range from 3
to 331/3 percent. The lower percentage fig-
ures would be made applicable to the lower
pay grades where the increases are most
needed. Many top-level administrative jobs
would be boosted by as much as $4,500 per
year. This is more than many people in
America make each year. This hike for the
upper levels is sought to be justified on the
plea that good employees are leaving Gov-
ernment because they cannot live off $20,000
per year. One of those who recently left
Government for greener pastures was Walter
Heller, former Chairman of the President's
Board of Economic Advisers. He is the man
who tried to sell the country on the false
economic theory that deficit spending is not
only necessary for our country, but is ac-
tually better for us in time of war and peace.
Recently President Johnson announced
that "Be (Heller) has gone $16,000 into debt
because of Government service and has_been
forcd to leave." Heller could not survive in
Washington for a few years off $20,500 per
year and the very type of deficit spending
which he charted for our Government. In-
stead of being an argument for this bill, the
Heller story constitutes one of the most
essential reasons for voting against the bill,
especially if more of these impractical
apostles of big spending follow his example
and get out. Several have already done so.
One of the principal reasons this bill in
its present form should be defeated is simply
because the U.S. Treasury cannot afford to
add another $500 million annually to our
deficits. The Congress is being asked now to
raise the debt limit to $324 billion, and the
deficit for this fiscal year is estimated to be
$8.8 billion.
Both psychologically and as a practical
matter, this gigantic pay boost would set the
stage for an inflationary spiral through in-
creased wage and price demands-in industry
at a time when the President has called
for restraint and responsibility in wage and
price demands.
Even if the President is unwilling to heed
his own advice, the Congress should be will-
ing to set the example of restraint and re-
sponsibility for the Nation, especially with
regard to its own proposed pay increase of
$7,500 or $10,000 per year.
No company of stockholders would per-
mit its board of directors to spend billions
more than the company's income in 29 of the
last 35 years and then vote itself a pay raise
of 331/3 percent or more to add to the com-
pany's growing indebtedness. The stock-
holders of our government, the taxpaying
public, should take this same attitude. The
public should demand that big spending in
government be stopped and that the Con-
gress set the example for "restraint and re-
sponsibility" in spending and all spheres of
government activities.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, the
defeat of the Proxmire motion to elimi-
nate congressional salaries from the pay
increase bill places me, as it does many
others, in a cruel dilemma as regards the
proper vote which I should cast on the
question of passage of the bill.
I believe in increasing the pay in the
postal service, the pay for the judiciary,
and the pay for those in the classified
civil service. I accept an increase in the
pay of the top administrators as prob-
ably necessary in the society in which
we live; although I hope the joy and
honor of public service, rather than ma-
terial emoluments, may be the main
motivation for them, as indeed it should
be for all others.
I recognize that the public administra-
tors do not have the opportunity for
legitimate outside earnings which we in
Congress possess. I also know that they
and their families predominantly live
and move in the social circles of the so-
called "managerial elite," where the
prestige of the family depends in large
part upon the salary which the head of
the household receives. These are the
realities; and, as a realist, I accept them.
An increase in the salaries of these men
and women is probably necessary if we
are to retain them in public service,
although I hope?somewhat wistfully?
that money will not be the main incen-
tive for their work.
I am, therefore, in favor of all parts
of the present bill except that which pro-
vides for an increase in congressional
salaries. Some of us have failed in our
efforts to eliminate this feature; and we
are now confronted with the question of
how we should vote on the bill as it now
stands. I believe that three lines of ac-
tion are open to me and to others in the
same position.
First. We can vote for the bill, in order
to show our support for the salary in-
creases for the million and three-
quarter others, and can swallow our
scruples at voting for an increase for
ourselves.
Second. We can vote against the bill,
in order to emphasize our opposition to
the congressional pay increase. But this
would help to deprive the army of Fed-
eral workers of salary increases which
are justly theirs.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved ForRel.e,a_s_e/,00)5D5/18 : CIA-RQP661300403R000500050001-9
15324 CONURESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July
Third. We can ask to be excused from
voting, because of a conflict of interest.
In ordinary situations, where such con-
flicts of interest are confined to a few
Members, this might well be the proper
thing to do. But in connection with a
matter such as this, in which the inter-
ests of all Members are involved, such
a course could not beruniversalized, since
then the entire Congress would be im-
mobilized. The granting of such im-
munity from voting by the Senate could
therefore only be an act of indulgence to
the specific individuals, and could not be
universalized.
None of these alternatives is perfect.
Each and every one has vital flaws. I
have no certainty that my own final de-
cision is correct; but I have reluctantly
decided to vote for the bill, in order not
to deprive a million and three-quarters
others of the salary increases which I be-
lieve are necessary and desirable. If I
am criticized, on the ground that this
does bring with it an increase in my own
pay, I can only say that I supported and
voted for the amendment to strip from
the act any special benefits for myself.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, in
1962 the U.S. Congress passed the Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act, and went on
record in favor of comparability between
pay for Government employees and pay
for private-enterprise employees at the
same levels. Once taken, even such a
fundamental change has a way of look-
ing inevitable. It, now seems to us only
proper that the Government should be
prepared to compete for able employees,
and that these employees should not
be stigmatized with consistently lower
salaries than those of their counter-
parts in private industry.
The policy' was accepted by Congress
for valid and compelling reasons. The
bill we are now considering is the first
effort to apply in a thorough and com-
prehensive fashion the announced
policy. Its details have been hammered
out during months of work by the re-
spective Post Office and Civil Service
Committees of the House and Senate
and during debate on the floor of the
House. The Senate committee has
made several significant improvements
over the House version of the bill, in-
cluding an increase in the salary of
middle-management career employees.
The bill does not merely reflect the
sentiment in favor of salary increases,
although this sentiment is apparent and
strong. The pay increases for career em-
ployees have been taken out of the realm
of whim and pressure politics, and
have been placed on a sound statistical
basis. Our duty is to verify the facts
and figures presented and to determine
whether the bill under consideration does
indeed apply fairly the comparability
principle, and whether we can afford to
make good our commitment.
I believe we cannot afford to ignore it.
We must offer Federal employees a
guarantee of financial security and an
incentive to remain with the Government
and to increase their skills. The career
employees of the Federal Government
are a great force for stability and con-
tinuity. They watch elected and ap-
pointed officials come and go. and they
faithfully serve each new administra-
tion. They are the capacious hold of
the ship of government, and their ex-
pertise and experience are the machinery
which keep that ship afloat, in whatever
direction the helm is turned.
The news in this bill is its reappraisal
of executive, judicial, and legislative sal-
aries. These provisions are largely based
on study and recommendations by the
Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Sys-
tems. This panel was charged with the
task of bringing order out of a chaotic
salary structure, fraught with contradic-
tions and inadequate to the task of at-
tracting and keeping the high-quality
executives our Nation needs and de-
serves. The Randall report has carried
out its mandate to recommend appropri-
ate levels of salaries, and to establish
proper relationships between the salaries
of executives, career employees, MeMbers
of Congress, and the judiciary. The
panel did an outstanding job; and its
recommendations, in modified form, are
reflected in the present bill.
This bill is controversial. But at the
moment we are not engaged in a popu-
larity contest. We are seeking a reason-
able and effective solution of a problem
that long has plagued the Government.
Mr. President, the 88th Congress has
been neither timid nor indolent in facing
Its tasks and responsibilities. We have
frankly settled a legislative issue that
has bedeviled Congress for decades, by
passing a Civil Rights Act based firmly
on the principle of equal rights under the
Constitution for every American citizen.
The bill now before us is not so sweep-
ing in its scope or so morally impera-
tive; but it has deep significance for the
future, and deep practical importance
for the present. It embraces the ques-
tion of whether we shall demand and
reward excellence in the men and women
who hold high positions of trust in our
Government. It confronts the problem
of keeping these posts open to talent
from all income strata, and not making
them, by default, the private preserve of
the wealthy.
Of course, those of us charged with
upholding the dignity and the quality of
these top positions are the temporary
beneficiaries of our own action. This
rsponsibility cannot be made impersonal.
We are men and women much like our
successors, and most of us welcome a
boost in salary which will allow us to
meet from our salaries the unusual ex-
penses of our office.
I do not think Congress has shown
undue liberality in its own behalf. It has
been almost a decade since we have con-
sidered a raise in our salaries. In that
decade, we have involuntarily acquired
the expensive habit of commuting.
There was a time when political pulses
could be felt and political fences mended
during a long and leisurely summer and
fall at home; but those days are irrev-
ocably departed, and the precedent of
a long session is well established.
Times have changed dramatically; and
It is appropriate that we modernize a pay
structure which not only has kept con-
gressional salaries unrealistically low, but
also has depressed the entire pay scale
of Government officers, which tradition-
ally is governed by congressional pay.
The bill before us recognizes the enor-
mous recent expansion in recent decade;
of the responsibility in top levels of Gov -
eminent. No other comparable period
has witnessed such a multiplication of
the demands upon Federal officers. Not
only have these years brought a vast in-
crease in population, and sweeping
changes in our domestic economy and
social structure; they have also con -
firmed our inescapable obligation to
active participation in international and
interspatial affairs. Our top Govern-
ment officers are not only leaders of the
richest and most powerful Nation on
earth; they also exercise unparalleled
influence in world affairs. No valid com-
parisons can -De drawn between the re -
sponsibilities of these men and those who
hold positions in private industry; and
this bill rightly makes no attempt to
establish strict comparability.
Public service has traditionally, and
proudly, been associated with certain
material sacrifices. But the compensa-
tion must be sufficient to encourage men
and women of ability and dedication to
seek Federal service, knowing they can
meet the financial obligations of their
office and their responsibilities to their
families. If this standard is met, we
may confiderely expect that the honor,
the challenge. and the opportunity for
Government service will continue to pro-
vide the intangibles that outweigh the
inevitable disparity which will persist
between governmental salaries and in-
dustrial salaries.
Finally, the point should be made, and
reiterated, that a rational and realistic
pay structure is not nearly so costly as
incompetence, apathy, and chronic turn-
over. Competence and high morale are
essential ingredients for true economy.
As our President?an indisputably
frugal man--well understands, good.
Government depends on good people.
The U.S. Government is not a machine
which operates only on abstract princi-
ples. It is an organization of men and
women. The availability and willing-
ness to serve of outstanding and con-
scientious men and women determine to
a large degree the effectiveness and ac-
complishments of our Government. We
have a President who knows how to use
a first-class organization; let us make
sure that is what he has.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I shall
vote against the pay increase bill. I
would have supported the salary in-
creases for the classified civil service em-
ployees, mans of whom in the lower in-
come brackets are finding it difficult to
support their families and educate their
children in a manner befitting our Fed-
eral employees. Plentiful statistics on
the Federal employment situation reflect
a serious problem of turnover in jobs, and
show that nwnerous employees leave the
service, for igher paying jobs in pri-
vate industry. This turnover problem !s
costly to the taxpayers, and is even more
costly than will be the cost of additional
compensation in order to put these em-
ployees on a oasis comparable with pri-
vate industry.
But unfortunately the leadership of
the House and Senate decided, over the
opposition of Government employee 3'
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15325
representatives, to tack on very large sal-
ary increases for hundreds of presiden-
tial appointees, members of the judiciary,
and Members of Congress?apparently
with the idea that such increases could
not stand on their own merits in a sep-
arate bill. If, indeed, they are justifiable,
vhy were they not placed in a separate
Dill? But they were not.
It would not have been so bad if these
increases for others in the high-income
brackets had not been so great. I believe
that a $10,000 a year increase for the
members of the Cabinet is excessive. I
believe that a $7,500 a year increase for
Members of Congress is somewhat exces-
sive, particularly in the face of rejection
by a majority of the Members of the Sen-
ate of the amendment, offered by the
Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS],
which would have prevented the Execu-
tive appointee and legislative increases
from going into effect until after comple-
tion of a year in which we had a bal-
anced budget. The adoption of such an
amendment would have had a salutary
influence on members of the executive
branch and Members of Congress toward
keeping faith with the purchasing power
of the peoples' hard-earned money,
which is steadily being eroded by the in-
flation which multibillion dollar deficit
spending is causing.
I believe that a majority of the tax-
payers would have supported a modest
increase in salary for these presidential
appointees, judges, and Members of Con-
gress. Such an increase runs to the of -
fice?not to the individuals who occupy
the office today, and may be gone to-
morrow. My amendment to provide for
increases of $5,000 for these various posi-
tions was rejected by a majority of my
colleagues. Such being the case, they
must bear the responsibility for the pas-
sage of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the bill has now been yielded back.
The bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass? On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. FULBRIGHT (when his name
was called). On this vote I have a pair
with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
ELLENDER]. If he were present and vot-
ing, he would vote "nay." If I were at
liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I
withhold my vote.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho (when his name
was called) . On this vote I have a pair
with the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
FONG]. If he were present and voting,
he would vote "yea"; if I were at liberty
to vote, I would vote "nay." I with-
hold my vote.
Mr. WALTERS (when his name was
called). Mr. President, on this vote I
have a pair with the Senator from Colo-
rado [Mr. Dommicx] . If he were pres,-
ent and voting, he would vote "nay"; if
I were at liberty to vote, I would vote
"yea." I withhold my vote.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware (when his
name was called). Mr. President, on
this vote I have a pair with the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON]. If he were
No. 133-11
present and voting, he would vote "yea."
If I were at liberty to vote, I. would vote
"nay!' I withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. CHURCH (after having voted in
the negative). Mr. President, on this
vote I have a pair with the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH]. If he were
present and voting, he would vote "yea."
If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote
"nay." I withdraw my vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD (after having voted
in the affirmative). Mr. President, on
this vote I have a pair with the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HausicA]. If he
were present and voting, he would vote
"nay"; if I were at liberty to vote, I
would vote "yea." I withdraw my vote.
Mr. PEARSON (after having voted in
the negative). Mr. President, on this
vote I have a pair with the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. If he
were present and voting, he would vote
"yea"; if I were at liberty to vote. I
would vote "nay." I withdraw my vote.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLEN-
DER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
HART] , and the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. TALMADGE] are absent on official
business.
I also announce that the Senator
from California [Mr. ENGLE] , the Sen-
ator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH] , and the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY] are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] and the
Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS]
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATHERS] would vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COT-
TON], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
FONG], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
HausicA] , and the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Dommicx] and the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. CARLSON] are detained on official
business.
On this vote, the Senator from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] IS paired
with the Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. CorroN]. If present and voting,
the Senator from Massachusetts would
vote "yea" and the Senator from New
Hampshire would vote "nay".
The respective pairs of the Senator
from Hawaii [Mr. FoNo] , the Senator
from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] , the Senator
from Colorado [Mr. Dommcfc], and
that of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
HRUSKA] have been previously an-
nounced.
The result was announced?yeas 58,
nays 21, as follows:
[No. 468 Leg.]
YEAS-58
Aiken Burdick Edmondson
Allott Byrd, W. Va. Ervin
Anderson Cannon Goldwater
Bartlett Case Gruening
Beall Clark Hartke
Bible Dirksen Hayden
Boggs Dodd Hill
Brewster Douglas Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Keating
Kuchel
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
McCarthy
McGee
Bennett
Byrd, Va.
Cooper
Curtis
EAstland
Gore
Hickenlooper
Bayh
Carlson
Church
Cotton
Dominick
Ellender
Engle
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Moss
1VIuskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
NAYS-21
Holland
Lausche
McClellan
McGovern
Mechem
Miller
Mundt
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Symington
Williams, N.J.
Young, N. Dak.
Robertson
Russell
Simpson
Stennis
Thurmond
Tower
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-21
Fong
Fulbright
Hart
Hruska
Jordan, Idaho
Kennedy
Mansfield
Pearson
Saltonstall
Smathers
Talmadge
Walters
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
So the bill (H.R. 11049) was passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I,
move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate insist on its. amend-
ment to H.R. 11049, and ask for a con-
ference with the House, and that the
Chair be authorized to appoint the con-
ferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The Chair
appoints the following conferees: Mr.
JOHNSTON, Mr. MONRONEY, and Mr.
CARLSOX.
?Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I do
not have to run for election, if ever,
until the year 1968. I have had no in-
hibition with respect to the votes which
I have cast. They have been motivated
solely for the purpose of serving the
people of the country.
In my opinion, what has happened on
the floor of the Senate today and yes-
terday is inimical to the security of the
country.
Under the bill which has been passed,
I shall be entitled to a raise in my salary
of $7,500. If other Senators are en-
titled to it, I believe that lam.
I am conscientiously of the opinion
that I have tried to preserve the security
of my country. I have subordinated my
interest in every instance where I thought
that subordination was necessary.
I now announce that although others
have done far more harm to my country
than I have?and on that basis I am far
more entitled to the $7,500 pay increase?
I will not accept it. I will inform the
paying officer that, in my judgment,
what has been done is erroneous. It is
not in the interest of the country. It is
a theft upon savings of annuitants and
pensioners. And therefore, I will not
take this increased payment.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66130040313000500050601-9
15326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE July
reading clerks, informed the Senate that,
pursuant to the provisions of House Con-
current Resolution 179, 88th Congress,
the Speaker had appointed Mr. FALLON,
of Maryland. and Mr. CRAMER, Of Florida.
as members on the part of the House of
the special committee to convey to the
members of the American Association of
State Highway Officials an expression of
appreciation by the Congress of the
praiseworthy accomplishments under
their leadership.
The message announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagree-
ing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the House to the bill (S.
2) to establish water resources research
centers at land-grant colleges and State
universities, to stimulate water research
at other colleges, universities, and cen-
ters of competence, and to promote a
more adequate national program of wa-
ter research.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6455) to
amend subsection (b) of section 512 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 deal-
ing with unrelated business taxable in-
come).
The message further announced that
the House had agreed to the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
8590) to incorporate the Aviation Hall
of Fame.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 10456) to authorize appropriations
to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for research and devel-
opment, construction of facilities, and
administrative operations, and for other
Purposes.
The message further announced that
the House had agreed to the amendment
of the Senate to the concurrent reso-
lution (H. Con. Res. 321) establishing
that when the House adjourns on Thurs-
day. July 2. 1964, it stand adjourned un-
til 12 o'clock noon on Monday. July 20,
1964.
REQUEST OF PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RETURN TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-
TIVES ENROLLED BILL (H.R. 10053)
TO AMEND SECTION 502 OF THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936
Mr, MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
send to the desk a concurrent resolution
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the concurrent resolu-
tion.
The legislative clerk read the concur-
rent resolution (H. Con. Res. 3231, as
follows:
'rhe President of the United States is re-
quested to return to the House of Repre-
sentatives the enrolled bill (H.R. 10053) to
amend section 502 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1938. relating to construction differ-
ential subsidies. If and when said bill is
returned by the President, the action of the
Presiding Officers of the two Flouses in sign-
log the bill shall be deemed rescinded; and
the Clerk of the House is authorized and
directed, In the recnrollment of said bill, to
melte the following correction:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "That
the proviso in the second sentence of sub-
section (b) of section Sol of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1938, as amended (48 U.B.C.
1152(b)). is amended by striking out 'June
30, 1084' and inserting In lieu thereof 'June
30, 1905.'."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana?
There being no objection, the concur-
rent resolution was considered and
agreed to.
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
CENTERS?CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the
House to the bill 45. 2) to establish water
resources research centers at land-grant
colleges and State universities, to stimu-
late water research at other colleges, uni-
versities, and centers of competence, and
to promote a more adequate national
program of water research. I ask un-
animous consent for the present con-
sideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
Tile legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of June 30, 1964, pp. 14997-
14998, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD a colloquy on the confer-
ence report on S. 2.
There being no objection, the colloquy
was ordered to be printed in the REcoan,
as follows:
COLLOQUY ON S. 2 CONFERENCE REPORT
Question. I have a question or two about
the changes in S. 2 as agreed upon in con-
ference. in section 100(b) it is provided
that a Water Resources Research Institute
may arrange for research by a component or
components of the college or university with
which it is affiliated.
This language indicates that the institute
Is intended to be collegewide or university-
wide and not attached to a single component,
or school. like the engineering school or the
agricultural section, of the college or uni-
versity.
Answer. That is correct. Water involves
nearly all disciplines in the field of knowl-
edge and all should be available to a water
resources research center. The original Sen-
ate bill said the institutes should be college-
wide or universitywIde. In conference we
agreed the words were not necessary since the
Institute is clearly to be a part of the whole
college or university, not a part of a single
department within it.
Question. The second part of my question
involving this same subsection. The bill en-
courages the colleges and universities in two
or more states to unite in a single center.
Elsewhere it encourages the college or uni-
versity selected for the center or institute to
seek cooperation of other educational insti-
tutions in the State. Where two or mo:*e
schools are working together in a single in-
stitute, would it not be proper to allow for
research jobs, to be done in a component or
components of more than one of the col-
leges or universities?components of any of
the colleges or universities with which the in-
stitute is affiliated? The bill uses the singu-#"
lar "college or university" instead of the
plural.
Answer. That is correct, and we also dis-
cussed that a little in conference. We de-
cided use of the plural is not necessary. in
title I of volume 1, section 1 of the United
States Code the first sentence, which is ia-
struction on how to read and interpret law,
II says: "In determining the meaning of any
act of Congress, unless the context indicates
otherwise?words importing the singular ii-
elude and apply to several persons, parties or
things." I am sure the singular "college or
university" in question can properly be re id
to mean the plural, as well, under this rule.
Question. The House has deleted, and you
have accepted the deletion, of language
which would have permitted the use of sec-
tion 100(a) funds for construction ad
equipment of structures. Does this mein
that none of the research funds would be
available to construct a model of a floodgate,
'or that building a wavemaker to study bank
erosion would not be permissible, or that
you couldn't buy thermometers to take the
temperature of water, or vessels to contz.in
the water, out of such funds?
Answer. It was not intended to prevent
doing the necessary construction of models
or things neoessary to a specific research
project. The deletion was aimed at using,
the $75,000 to $100,000 annual grant to pay
installments on a permanent campus bued-
ing?structures like that. The agricultural
experiment program permits supplies, instru-
ments and things necessary to a specific re-
search project to come out of the matching
funds?but not permanent buildings or
structures that ought to be financed from
the university building fund. I do not be-
lieve that, following the precedent of ,the
long established agricultural research pro-
gram under the Hatch Act of 1877--now over
75 years old, there will be any difficulty with
the language.
The House committee and the Senate
committee want this Federal aid money to
buy research--not buildings. All the leg,ti-
mate expenses of research projects can be
met with the matched State and Federal
funds. We did unsuccesfully attempt to
permit provision for employee retirement
contributions out of section 100n a) grants.
The House felt that since the employees
would be employees of the college or univer-
sity, it should handle provision for their re-
tirement. While I prefer the authorization
In the Senate bill, which parallels agricul-
tural research arrangements, I do not believe
this will impede the program. It it does, we
can reconsider the matter later.
Question. Section 101(a) of S. 2 pro-
vides for matching grants in support of re-
search projects, and it uses the phrase "to
match, on a dollar-for-dollar basis". Is this
language intended to exclude from the uni-
versities' matching, a fair value of the son,-
ices, facilities, or other contributions a uni-
versity may make toward carrying on the
research?
Answer. N,3L at all. When a university
contributes such costs they are recogn,zed
as part of its matching in agricultural re-
search and will be in this program.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate agree to the con-
ference report.
The report was agreed to.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to have a portion
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
part of that budget went toward paying
people not to farm, I am not so sure that
we can prove we've made progress in the past
100 years. If so, it is the kind of progress
that a commonsense President like Abraham
Lincoln might have difficulty understanding.
Our Agriculture Department bureaucracy,
like a number of other Government agencies,
is massive and powerful in the Washington
scheme of things. We have the greatest agri-
cultural plant in the world?one that Nikita
Khrushchev, with his controlled farm econ-
omy, can only envy. Yet the master planners
in Washington are intent on a total bureau-
cratic takeover of the American farmer?and
a total usurpation of congressional powers in
the area of farm policy.
So it is that the Kennedy administration
in recent years proposed an omnibus farm
program that would have clamped rigid and
absolute controls on our American farmers?
making them subject to jail sentence and fine
if they did not conform to the bureaucratic
master plan. The same legislation went so
far as to try completely to eliminate congres-
sional powers over farm policy. Under these
Kennedy administrations proposals?fortu-
nately defeated by a firm congressional
stand?the Secretary of Agriculture would
have written farm legislation and Congress
would have had only the power to veto those
laws. In other words, there would have been
a complete reversal in the constitutional roles
set out for the executive and legislative
branches.
As I say, Congress stood firm against these
farfetched plans?but regrettably, the bu-
reaucrats have won more than their share
of Washington battles in the area of domes-
tic policy, as well as fiscal and foreign policy.
So much for my report on the danger to
the checks and balances under the Consti-
tution.
Let me in closing remind you that ours
was to be a limited government, limited by
the guarantees of freedom contained in the
Bill of Rights?limited by its very structure
as a system of checks and balances.
The Constitution, happily, endures. We
still enjoy much of the freedoms guaran-
teed in the Bill of Rights?freedom of speech
and of assembly; freedom of the press; free-
dom of religion; due process of law, the right
to keep and bear arms, the right against un-
reasonable search and seizure, the right of
trial by jury, etc.
I suggest that these rights will survive?
and they will only if enough Americans un-
derstand, if enough Americans are taught to
understand, the importance of the delicate
balances and marvelous system written into
our Constitution.
A free society, a free people, free enter-
prise?where there is protection against un-
due power and big government?freedom in
the marketplace, such as under quality sta-
bilization, must be maintained.
The greatness of this country depends on
initiative, integrity, and decision of the indi-
vidual, with an opportunity to compete and
a chance to make a profit.
That kind of opportunity today has some
champions.
I am proud to count myself as one of them.
With public support we will succeed.
consideration the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust
the rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I offer is very simple. It
makes the effective date of this bill Jan-
uary 1,1965.
Apparently, the bill as it now is written
provides for salary increases for Con-
gressmen beginning in January for po-
litical reasons. It gives everybody else
a pay raise now. Thdt does not seem
to make much sense. A pay raise, if
justifiable for some, should be equally
justifiable for everyone at the same time.
I think my amendment makes the bill
a little more palatable because it puts
everyone on an equal footing.
?More importantly, Mr. Chairman, my
amendment would help our country dur-
ing a difficult financial period. We have
an unbalanced budget. We are going to
be asked to raise the national debt limit
within a few days. We are going to be
asked to maintain the present high and
unpopular excise taxes. All of these
things appear to me to put a pay raise
now in a difficult light. I am proposing
that we simply put off adding one-half
billion dollars a year to the cost of gov-
ernment for a few months and by doing
so, join hands to help our country im-
prove its financial status. We cannot
disregard our. responsibility in these
matters.
Under the amendment the effective
date for a pay raise for all Government
?,....e_niployees would be next January.
aModernization of Federal,S lary Sy
SPEECH
OF
HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES
OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 11, 1964
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
Dr. Roy's Able Statement
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 21, 1964
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks and include therein an ar-
ticle by the distinguished superintendent
of the Millis public schools, Millis, Ma/s.,
in my district, Dr. George C. Roy, distin-
guished educator, outlining, and admir-
ably analyzing HR. 10933, introduced by
me in the House.
This bill would amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 and authorize and
facilitate the deduction by teachers from
gross income of the expenses of educa-
tion?which would include certain
travel?undertaken by them, and pro-
vide a uniform method of proving en-
titlement to such deductions.
I am greatly impressed with Dr. Roy's
excellent summary of this important leg-
islation. It is exceedingly well done and,
in my opinion, makes a strong argument
for the bill.
I express the hope that the House
Ways and Means Committee will con-
sider this bill at an early date, because
I think it has great merit and will be very
helpful to many members of our great
teaching profession who are engaged in
such vital work.
A3187
Dr. Roy's splendid summary is con-
tained in a recent legislative bulletin of
the Massachusetts Teachers Association
and since the article was deemed to be
of great importance it was printed in a
special edition of this bulletin so that it
would be available to the members.
The article follows:
MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS ASSOCIAT/ON LEGIS-
LATIVE BULLETIN ON H.R. 10933
On April 6, 1964, the Honorable PHILIP J,
PHILBIN, a Member of Congress representing
the Third Congressional District of Massa-
chusetts, filed H.R. 10933 in the 2d session
of the 88th Congress.
WHAT IS THE NATURE AND CONTENT OF H.R.
10933?
The purpose of H.R. 10933 is to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and it would
authorize and facilitate the deduction from
gross income by teachers of the expenses of
education (which would include certain
travel) undertaken by them and further it
would provide a uniform method of proving
entitlement to such deductions.
The bill provides that a statement from
an authorized school official would be ac-
ceptable as proof (in the absence of clear
proof to the contrary) that such education
was appropriate for maintaining or improv-
ing skills of a teacher, or to meet the ex-
press requirement of his employer.
For purposes of clarification this proposal
defines a teacher and lists aspects of edu-
cational needs to meet the proposal. These
include:
1. Professional requirements by school
committees.
2. Relationship of course, travel, or ac-
tivity to teacher's assignment.
3. Relationship of improvement of skills
to individual's position.
4. Recognition of course, travel, activity
by college or university, and it excludes any
course, travel, or other activity if not di-
rectly related to position.
5. Provisions so that all educational ex-
penses shall be deductible in the same man-
ner as travel, meals, and lodging is now
deductible; i.e., from gross income.
6. The amendment which would become
effective by this act, were it to become law,
would apply only with respect to taxable
years ending after the date of the enactment
of this act.
DEFINITIONS
(a) This bill methodically defines a teach-
er as an individual employed by a school as
a classroom teacher, or as a supervisor, ad-
ministrator, or adviser, or in any other pro-
fessional capacity related to the instructional
program inclusive of guidance counselors
and librarians.
(b) The term education comprises any
course, travel, or any educational activity
which:
1. Is a requirement by the teacher's em-
ployer (school committee) to meet the spe-
cific requirements of his emplyoment, or
2. Is within the area of employment (in-
cluding the subject area, grade level, or
other area) in which the teacher performs
his duties as such or is directly related to-
such area, or
3. Is directly related to the improvement
of the teaching, administrative, or other
skills of the teacher, including but not lim-
ited to courses in eduaction, psychology, so-
ciology, anthropology, English, the language
of the student involved where English is a
second language, guidance, administration,
library, science and audio-visual techniques,
Or
4. Is allowed by the institution of higher
learning at or by which it is offered or made
available as a credit toward an advanced
degree in the area in which the teacher is
employed.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A3188 ? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX June 12, 1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
This definition does not include any
course, travel, or other activity if it is under-
taken primarily for the purpose of qualifying
for a type of employment which is different
from that in which the teacher is engaged
at the time It is undertaken.
In the opinion of some to keep pace with
space is merely a problem of technology. We
RS educators are asked to prepare more in-
dividuals to meet the challenges of the times.
To do so means, in part, that we must do
more studying, pursue more courses, visit.
travel, participate in studies and research
in order that we be prepared to instruct
and direct our youth to meet the problem
of the age of space, an age of change which
has echoed throuehout life in America.
Professional travel should definitely be
recognized. The writer knows of one case
where an individual has made two trips
abroad to strengthen his background and to
allow him to acquire firsthand information
about his area of interest, art. This Individ-
ual has taken more than 1,000 slides on his
tours. Much of his experience has been
basic in establishing a specific course in art
appreciation. The individual Is planning
to return to Europe again this summer.
We believe that this definitely should be con-
sidered professional improvement and be tax
deductible. As we understand the proposed
bill, it would be tax deductible.
This particular bill can be considered a
must for the profession. May I suggest you
write to the Honorable Pinup PHILHIN and
thank him for filing H.R. 10933. Each of us
should write to our Senators, the Honorable
LF:VERETT SALTONSTALL and the Honorable
EDWARD KENNEDY. and to our Congressmen
for the support of this bill.
Recently William Herbert. your present Re-
sistant executive secretary and member of
the National Education Association Legisla-
tive Commission. and I visited Washington
on official business. We found the Massa-
chusetts Members of the Senate and Con-
gress most congenial. They are interested
to know how their constituents are thinking
about various bills. Check with them per-
sonally. Mention H.R. 10933.
LAWS AND RULES FOR PUBLICATION OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
CODE OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
TITLE 44, SECTION 181. CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD; ARRANGEMENT, STYLE, CONTENTS,
AND irremers.?The Joint Committee on
Printing shall have control of the ar-
rangement and style of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD, and while providing that
It shall be substantially a verbatim re-
port of proceedings shall take all needed
action for the reduction of unnecessary
bulk, and shall provide for the publica-
tion of an index of the CONGRESSIONAL
Itecoae semimonthly during the sessions
of Congress and at the close thereof.
(Jan. 12, 1895. c. 23. ? 13, 28 Stat. 603.)
TITLE 44, SECTION 182b. SAME: ILLUS-
TRATIONS, MAPS. DIAGRAMS.?NO maps. dia-
grams. or illustrations may be inserted in
the RECORD without the approval of the
Joint Committee on Printing. (June 20,
1936. C. 630. 8 2, 49 Stat. 1548.)
Pursuant to the foregoing statute and in
order to provide for the prompt publication
and delivery of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the
Joint Committee on Printing has adopted the
following rules, to which the attention of
Senators, Representatives, and Delegates is
respectfully invited:
1. Arrangement of the daily Record.?The
Public Printer shall arrange the contents of
the daily RECORD as follows: The Senate pro-
ceedings shall alternate with the House pro-
ceedings in order of placement in consecu-
tive issues insofar as such an arrangement is
feasible, and the Appendix and Daily Digest
shall follow: Provided, That the makeup of
the RECORD shall proceed without regard to
alternation whenever the Public Printer
deems it necessary in order to meet produc-
tion and delivery schedules.
2. Type and style.?The Public Printer shall
print the report of the proceedings and de-
bates of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, as furnished by the Official Reporters of
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. In 71/2-point type;
and all matter included in the remarks or
speeches of Members of Congress, other than
their own words, and all reports, documents,
and other matter authorized to be inserted
in the RECORD shall be printed in 8 -point
type; and all rolicalle shall be printed in
6-point type. No italic or black type nor
words in capitals or small capitals shall be
used for emphasis or prominence; nor will
unusual indentions be permitted. These re-
sit lctions do not apply to the printing of or
quotations from historical, official, or legal
documents or papers of which a literal repro-
duction is necessary.
.1. Return of manuscript.?When manu-
script is submitted to Members for revision it
shauld be returned to the Government Print-
ing Office not later than 9 o'clock p. m. in
order to insure publication in the RECORD is-
sued on the following morning; and if all of
sa:d manuscript is not furnished at the time
specified. the Public Printer is authorized to
withhold It from the RECORD for 1 day. In no
case will a speech be printed in the RECORD of
the day of its delivery if the manuscript is
furnished later than 12 o'clock midnight.
1. Tabular matter.?The manuscript of
speeches containing tabular statements to be
poblhhed in the Rzeoen shall be In the hands
of the Public Printer not later than '7 o'clock
p. m.. to insure publication the following
ire uning.
5. Proof furnished.?Proofs of "leave to
print" and advance speeches will not be fur-
nished the day the manuscript is received but
will be submitted the following day, whenever
pes.sible to do so without causing delay in the
publication of the regular proceedings of
C Tigress. Advance speeches shall be set in
the Recoae style of type, and not more than
Six sets of proofs may be furnished to Mem-
bers without charge.
6. Notation of withheld remarks.?If Mann-
sc:-Ipt or proofs have not been returned in
time fur publication in the proceedings, the
Poblie Printer will insert the words "Mr.
- - - addressed the Senate (House or Com-
mittee). His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Appendix," and proceed with the
printing of the RF.CORD.
7. Thirty-day limit?The Public Printer
shall not publish in the CONGRESSIONAL
Recomi any speech or extension of remarks
which has been withheld for a period ex-
ceeding 30 calendar days from the date when
it:; printing was authorized: Provided, That
al the expiration of each session of Congress
the time limit herein fixed_ shall be 10 days,
unless otherwise ordered by the committee.
8. Corrections?The permanent RECORD is
made up for printing and binding 30 days
alter each daily publication is issued; there-
fore all corrections must be sent to the Public
Printer within that time: Provided, That
upon the final adjournment of each session
re Congress the time limit shall be 10 days,
unless otherwise ordered by the committee:
P:orided iurther, That no Member of Con-
gress shall be untitled to make more than
one revision. Any revision shall consist only
of corrections of the original copy and shall
not include deletions of correct material,
mibetitutions for correct material, or addi-
Liens of new subject matter.
9. The Public Printer shall not publish in
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the full report or
print of ally committee or subcommittee
when said report or print has been previously
printed. This rule shall not be construed t
apply to conference reports.
10(a). Appendix to daily Record.?Wher.
either House has granted leave to print U)
a speech not delivered in either House, (2) a.
newspaper or magazine article, or (3) ana
other matter n)t germane to the proceed-
ings, the same shall be published in the Ap-
pendix. This rule shall not apply to quota?
tions which form part of a speech of a Mem-
ber, or to an authorized extension of his own
remarks: Provided, That no address, speech
or article delivered or released subsequentla
to the sine die adjournment of a session of
Congress may be printed in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD,
10(b). Makeup of the Appendix.?The Ap-
pendix to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD shall be
made up by successively taking first an ex-
tension from the copy submitted by the offi-
cial reporters of one House and then an ex-
tension from the copy of the other House, so
that Senate and House extensions appear al-
ternately as far as possible throughout the
Appendix. The sequence for each House
shall follow as closely as possible the order
or arrangement in which the copy comes
from the officia, reporters of the respective
Houses.
The official reporters of each House shaL
designate and distinctly mark the lead item
among their extensions. When both Houses
are in session and submit extensions, the
lead item shall be changed from one House
to the other in alternate issues, with the in-
dicated lead item of the other House appear-
ing in second place. When only one House
is in session, the lead item shall be an ex-
tension submitted by a Member of the HOME,
in session.
This rule shall not apply to extensions
Withheld becau w of volume or equipment
limitations, wh.ch shall be printed immee
diately following the lead items as indicated:
by the official reporters in the next issue
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, nor to RECORDS
printed after the sine die adjournment of the
Congress.
11. Estimate of cost.?No extraneous matter
In excess of tw pages in any one instance
may be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
by a Member under leave to print or to ex--
tend his remarks unless the manuscript le
accompanied by an estimate in writing from
the Public Printer of the probable cost o!
publishing the .aime, which estimate of cos-:
must be announced by the Member when
such leave is requested; but this rule shall
not apply to excerpts from letters, tele ?
grams, or article's presented in connection
with a speech delivered in the course of de-
bate or to communications from State legis ?
latures, addresses or articles by the President
and the members of his Cabinet, the Vice
President, or a Member of Congress. For the
purposes of till; regulation, any one article
printed in two or more parts, with or with-
out individual headings, shall be considered
as R single extension and the two-page rule
shall apply. The Public Printer or the Official
Reporters of the- House or Senate shall return
to the Member of the respective House any
matter submitted for the CONGRESSIONA::,
RECORD which is in contravention of this
paragraph.
12. Official Reporters.?The Official Report -
ers of each House shall indicate on the manu-
script and prepare headings for all matter to
be printed in the Appendix, and shall make
suitable reference thereto at the proper place
In the proceedings.
PRINTING OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
EXTRACTS
It shall be lawful for the Public Printer
to print and deliver upon the order of any
Senator. Representative, or Delegate, extract.;
from the CONG1LESSIONAL RECORD, the person
ordering the seine paying the cost thereof
(U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 185, p. 1942).
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
GOVERNMENAMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
(Mr. MORTON (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was given permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD,
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. MORTON. Mr. Speaker, I had
expected to vote for H.R. 11049 to adjust
basic compensation of many Federal em-
ployees and officers of the Government
as well as the members of the legislative
branch. Having studied the bill and the
committee report, I felt there was ade-
quate justification to make at this time
an adjustment in compensation for the
many dedicated employees of the Gov-
ernment and for Members of Congress
who obviously are having a difficult time
making ends meet.
I understand the management require-
ments for keeping Government compen-
sation, wherever practical, in line with
compensation for equal work and for
equal responsibility throughout the com-
mercial sector of our economy. I be-
lieve this cannot be done by any auto-
matic device or formula. I believe it
has to be done as a management decision
and must be undertaken as a basic re-
sponsibility of the Congress.
When the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL]
was adopted, it then became the intent of
the Congress to automatically couple
congressional compensation and the
compensation of literally thousands of
Federal employees to that of the com-
mercial sector of the economy. Having
served for many years on the salary and
compensation committees of corporations
in which the economic lives of more than
25,000 families have been involved, I con-
clude by experience that arbitrary form-
ulas for adjusting compensation related
to any specific indices or economic fac-
tors can be very risky business from a
management point of view.
In many specific cases, industry com-
pensation level for supervisory, inter-
mediate executive, and higher executive
responsibilities are correlated to Govern-
ment rates of pay and determined on a
comparability factor involving the vari-
ous salaries which we here in this act are
trying to correlate to industry. There-
fore, it is very likely that the proposed
policy for determining compensation in
the Government will have an inflation-
ary and upward spiraling effect on the
compensation in industry and vice versa.
It was only a few short weeks ago when
the President of the United States in a
plea to both labor and management
asked for stabilization of price and
salary. It seems to me that the phi-
losophy of this bill as changed by the
Udall amendment is in direct conflict
with the spirit of the President's desire.
Therefore, in an effort to hold the line
.against inflation, I voted against the bill.
roved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13535
WASTE WON'T HELP WIN WAR
ON POVERTY
(Mr. TALCOTT (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD, and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, almost
everyone who becomes slightly or deeply
involved with the Area Redevelopment
Administration decides that the whole
program should be thoroughly investi-
gated by a committee of Congress before
any more funds are appropriated for its
use.
If we waste money intended for the
Poor, many of the needy who are en-
titled to, and deserving of, assistance will
be neglected.
The sooner a full-scale investigation
of ARA is instituted the better.
The following editorial from the
Register-Guard of Eugene, Oreg., of
June 2, 1964, indicates the view of many
thoughtful citizens who are concerned
about the Federal programs designed to
fight real poverty.
WASTE WON'T HELP WIN WAR ON POVERTY
In reality, war against poverty has been
underway in this Nation for three decades
and more. And there has been little die-
agreement about the moral basis for this
crusade.
There has been, however, and there con-
tinues to be, considerable disagreement
about tactics employed by the Federal Gov-
ernment in its efforts to spearhead a national
antipoverty offensive.
While he was President, John F. Kennedy
did a superb job of dramatizing the im-
portance of the battle. And, since he has
been President, Lyndon B. Johnson has used
both his own practical political know-how
and emotions stirred by President Kennedy's
assassination to promote this as an all-out
struggle.
There remain, however, dedicated critics
of, not what the war on poverty should ac-
complish, but of how it is being waged.
Establishment of a Youth Conservation
Corps, for instance, has had foes who believe
It would not strike effectively at root causes
of unemployment. And some Federal anti-
poverty programs already in progress have
been judged ineffective, or, worse, as liabili-
ties in the overall campaign.
The low-cost Federal lending program of
the Area Redevelopment Administration was
blasted in exactly this fashion when Reader's
Digest published a May lead article queru-
lously titled, "Is This the Way to Fight the
War Against Poverty?"
And this obviously stung the ARA news-
papers across the country have now been
furnished booklets rebutting the magazine's
allegations. And each has been informed
that Reader's Digest has been asked to pub-
lish ARA's "side" of the controversy.
In essence, ARA's circular denies that it
has exceeded its intended purpose, or that
it has issued ill-advised loans to help indus-
tries, or, that its operations have not been
effective in creating net increases in jobs
available where jobs are critically needed.
Extensive investigation would be required
to determine a winner in the argument be-
tween Reader's Digest and the ARA. How-
ever, it is a matter of record that ARA last
year failed to convince Congress that it
should be more liberally supplied with funds
to loan applicants in "poverty pockets" about
the Nation. And, even in its response to
the Reader's Digest article, ARA does not
deny that it would consider issuing loans in
one-third of all U.S. counties.
In our own part of the country, ARA-sup-
ported projects have been consistently
opposed for 2 years by Western Timber In-
dustry, a trade newspaper published in Port-
land. A recent issue carried a lengthy, heav-
ily documented "condensation" of a talk
presented by WTI Editor Vernon S. White
at the annual session of the Northwest Wood
Products Clinic.
Here, again, it would be no easy task to
make an accurate assessment of allegations
that the ARA is oeprating "to spend money
at a maximum rate of speed so as to justify
to Congress the appropriation of still more
funds * * * and to line up the votes to keep
in office a President and Congress friendly
to it."
But one fact does stand out in all of this.
The ARA was originally established as an
emergency apparatus to be employed only
for 4 years. That term will be ending in
1965. Before ARA is given a permanent or
a semipermanent role in the war on poverty,
its policies and their net results should be
carefully scrutinized. And the same pro-
cedure should be followed with regard to
other Federal agencies being mustered into
this fight. Federal funds are needed to help
combat persistent poverty in some parts of
the Nation. But Congress, proceeding with
antipoverty legislation, should take care to
invest taxes where they will really benefit
the Nation's poor.
THE NEED FOR MASS TRANSPOR-
TATION LEGISLATION
(Mr. WIDNALL (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was given permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD,
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. WIDNALL. Mr. Speaker, the rea-
sons and need for the mass transporta-
tion bill has nowhere been more clearly
spelled out than in an article by Wolf
Von Eckardt appearing in the Washing-
ton Post of Sunday, June 14, 1964. As
Mr. Von Eckardt puts it:
Transportation means life. People and
goods must be able to get around quickly,
efficiently, and conveniently if our cities are
to survive. It is as simple as that.
The present strangulation of our met-
ropolitan centers, large and small, can-
not be allowed to continue. Although
the major portion of the burden must be
borne by the localities and States them-
selves, there is a legitimate role for the
Federal Government to take. A signifi-
cant step in the fulfillment of that role
would be the passage of the mass trans-
portation bill, authorizing Federal aid
amounting to $500 million over a 3-year
period.
I believe that on both sides of the aisle
there is now sufficient realization of the
justification for this bill to obtain a fa-
vorable vote in the House. It passed the
other body, more than a year ago, and
I urge the House leadership to place this
legislation on its priority list for imme-
diate action.
The article by Mr. Von Eckardt fol-
lows:
HOLTSE CAN START TRAFFIC MOVING AGAIN
(By Wolf Von Eckardt)
The House of Representatives willing, the
next few days could see a decisive turning
point in the plight of the American city?
passage of the long delayed Mass Transporta-
tion Act.
Transportation means life. People and
goods must be able to get around quickly,
efficiently, and conveniently if our cities are
to survive. It is as simple as that.
The mass transportation bill (H.R. 3881),
which passed the Senate more than a year
ago, would make $500 million in Federal
funds available to help cities plan and build
new railroad communter and mass transit
services and improve existing facilities. It
would provide money for public transporta-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 16
tion research and development and trans-
portation planning.
It would not, as some people seem to fear.
repeal the automobile or reduce sensible
highway construction. Automobiles and
trucks perform an essential !Unction, even
in the very heart of the city, that no other
form of transportation can take away from
them. We must therefore continue to try
and adjust out cities to the motor age. And
no highway engineer, road contractor or
other highway builder need fear that he will
lose his Job or income.
But the highway builders cannot possibly
do the whole Job. The automobile is, of
course, among the greatest blessings of our
Lime. It gets more people around to more
places than their grandparents ever dreamed
of. It accounts largely for our high stand-
ard of living.
Now we must translate this high standard
of living into a high standard of life.
This, for the 8 out of 10 Americans
who now live in metropolitan Luella, means
urban life. And the quality, serenity, safety,
health and welfare of our urban environ-
ment is threatened by the uncontrolled pro-
liferation of the automobile and our almost
exclusive reliance on it as a means of mov-
ing about.
Its insatiable demand for more highways
and freeways and loops and parking spaces
ruthlessly displaces people and buildings.
It pollutes our air. Its traffic jams choke
commerce and steal time away from leisure.
People and stores are forced out into the
open countryside, covering it with endless
urban sprawl_
All this Is fiercely expensive, taking an
increasingly larger share of our national in-
come. The total State and Federal expendi-
ture for highways has increased about 123
percent between 1950 and 1960. The total
national Income in the same period in-
creased only 50 percent.
Many people assume that automobile
transportation pays for itself. They say that
gasoline taxes, tons, and fees paid by car
and truck owners bring in the money needed
for building, maintaining, and policing high-
ways. But this is an error.
The money collected from highway users
by the States pays just about what the
States themselves spend on their highways.
But these State expenditures are heavily
augmented?up to 90 percent--by the Fed-
eral Government from taxes paid by all of
us, whether we use highways or not.
It is therefore only reasonable that Federal
tax money also be used to augment high-
ways with mass transit. In fact, It is much
less expensive.
To build a commuter railway capable of
carrying 80,000 passengers from a New York
suburb to the city, it has recently been esti-
mated, would cost $283 million. To carry the
same number of people on new highways
would cost $4,752 million?a ratio of 1 to 16.
If the commuter rail service in New York,
Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and Philadelphia
were to break down, It would cost $31 bil-
lion to build the highways needed to move
the resulting increase in automobile traffic.
Where, furthermore, would these cities put
the additional cars? And what would be left
of the cities if they were slashed by still
more highways?
Bringing existing commuter rail service up
to date and building new rapid transit sys-
tems in the cities that desperately need
them?and Washington is one of them?can
therefore no longer be delayed.
Many people, it is true, sneer at the idea
of straphanging, no matter how tiresome it
is to push their cars through traffic. They
mentally associate rapid transit riding with
the crowded, grimy subways of New York.
They forget that most of these subways are
half a century old.
The trouble is that the rapid transit manu-
facturers and advocates have woefully failed
to whet our appetites for their product. The
sketches of visionary subway trains and sta-
tions their engineers concoct are less than
Few people are therefore able to imagine
the potential comfort and efficiency of riding
to and from work in a truly modern train:
Your wife drives you to the nearby suburban
station. You kiss her good-bye and enter a
glistening clean, noiseless, air-conditioned
tram. On your way to your seat you pick up
a cup or coffee and the newspaper. Before
you've even finished the funnies you have ar-
rived. There's a short, bracing walk to your
office and you start the day fresh and re-
laxed. At the end of the day you are home
even before you have figured out what to do
with the time you have saved.
New buildings and communities, further-
more, would tend to cluster around the new
rapid transit stops. There would be urban
concentration instead of urban sprawl and
thus hope to save both the city and the open
countryside.
President Johnson. for all these reasons,
wants the MASS transportation bill enacted.
At latest count 40 Republican House Mem-
bers are supporting it.
The House leadership now must break the
legislative traffic Jam in which the bill is
caught if there is to be hope that we can
break the traffic jams in our cities. They are
a good part of the reason why an Englishman
recently referred to our urban environment
as "the mess that is manmade America."
EXTENSION OF THE JUVENILE DE-
LINQUENCY AND YOUTH OF-
FENSES CONTROL ACT OF 1961
'Mr. BARRY (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the REC-
Oen, and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Speaker, a modern
society brings with it many good and
wonderful things; it brings better health,
.better living standards, more leisure.
more culture?to more people. These
are the fruits of progress. But there
are weeds in the garden of the modern
society--elements which are not so good
and so wonderful.
Juvenile delinquency has been a re-
current problem and has spread, weed-
like, at a rate which justifiably alarms us.
We have watched it sprout especially in
the last decade and we have tried to find
the best way to stem Its prolific growth.
Most of these remedies have a great
deal of merit. They attack the problem
with understanding and deligence. But
they have had distinct limitations.
Either they have served too few young
people to make appreciable gains against
delinquency or they have concentrated
on only one or two of the elements of a
social illness which, we have discovered,
has many facets.
There is one statement that can un-
disputedly be made about this problem
whose solution evades us. Its causes are
so manifold and complex?slum housing,
ill health, family disintegration, racial
discrimination, lack of recreational fa-
cilities, inadequate education, unem-
ployment?that an overriding sense of
hopelessness often deters action. Most
juvenile delinquents have more than one
of these problems and most of the pro-
posed remedies have been too narrow in
scope.
Today the House is considering H.R.
9876, a bill to extend for 2 years the Ju-
venile Delinruency and Youth Offenses
Control Act of 1961. This bill has many
merits, not the least of which is its recog-
nition of the multifaceted nature of the
juvenile delinquency problem.
About htilf of the funds authorised
under H.R. 9876 are earmarked for dem-
onstration projects?projects which, in
3 years of operation of the Juvenile De-
linquency Act, are pointing to new solu-
tions to our problems. These projects
are based on careful planning--a
lengthy and involved procedure wh..ch
has drawn fire from critics of the till.
But insistence on thorough planning has
made these programs blueprints for fu-
ture action.
The object of demonstration projects
under the Juvenile Delinquency Act is to
attack all sources of delinquency by us-
ing the talents and services of all ele-
ments of the community?public and
private, individual and collective. If
these well-planned, well coordinated,
fully comprehensive programs can make
inroads against delinquency in their
communities?and I think that the ex-
perience of the past 3 years have
shown they can?then we have found a
model for positive community action for
the future. The other major section of
the bill is a training program for youth
personnel?teachers, policemen, parole
officers, welfare workers, and the like.
These training programs have been set
up to work in coordination with the
demonstration projects and are bated
on the premise that action programs van
be no more effective than the persons
who carry them out.
The cost of this program is small com-
pared to the good it can accomplish. We
have evidence that considerable progress
has been made in the operating demon-
stration projects and that we cannot
discontinue this program while the task
is still Incomplete. I do not wish to be
unrealistic and imply that demonstra-
tion projects in a score of cities will rid
us permanently of juvenile delinquer.cy.
Instead we must consider the funds we
Invest as "seed money"?money to stim-
ulate other action projects on the ccm-
munity level in other cities.
In my State of New York, we have
serious delinquency problems?since de-
linquency is greatest in our largest cities
and New York State is the home of the
largest. Up to this point, we have b?,en
unsuccessful in decreasing delinquency.
Youth crime has risen precipitously in
the past 14 years, a rise which has far
outstripped the juvenile population
growth. Let us continue a program
which. in 1 short years of operation,
has offered progress toward the solu-
tions. We do not intend that this
gro-
gram be extended indefinitely. The Idc-
tory over youth crime must be fought
within the community with community
people leading the way. This program
will blaze the trail for local community
Initiative.
JUVENTT.E
DELINQUENCY CONTROL
ACT
(at the request of Mr.
given permission to ex-
remarks at this point in the
(Mr. QUM
MATHIAS) was
tend his
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
overvalued currency. And what is happen-
ing in India is typical of what is happening
in other underdeveloped countries into which
we have been pouring taxpayers' dollars.
When, if ever, are we going to use foreign
aid to encourage sound currencies, balanced
budgets, private property, free enterprise,
and increased productivity?
John F. Kennedy Resolution Adopted by
the United Steelworkers of America,
District 20
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. FRANK M. CLARK
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 16, 1964
Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, on June 5,
I had the privilege of speaking to dele-
gates of the 21st District 20 Conference
of the United Steelworkers of America
at Aliquippa, Pa., in my congressional
district.
The 21st District 20 Conference was
dedicated by unanimous vote of every
delegate present in the local union No.
1211 auditorium during the morning of
June 5 to the memory of John F. Ken-
nedy, our beloved President.
Mr. Speaker, a special resolution was
adopted in memoriam of President Ken-
nedy and I ask unanimous consent to
have same printed in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD:
JOHN F. KENNEDY?IN MEMORIAM
On November 22, 1963, an assassin's bullets
stunned the Nation and wiped the smile from
the lips of the entire civilized world. In a
moment of brutality the life of John F. Ken-
nedy was ended and the Nation stood
shocked and suffering under a great sense of
national shame.
The people of the world lost a courageous
leader in the struggle for peace. Humanity
lost a dedicated advocate of human rights,
human dignity, and social justice whose fear-
less battle against bigotry and hatred had
earned for him a respect throughout the
world which few men realize in their life-
time.
At the moment when our grief and shame
over this criminal act was the greatest we
came to realize the love and affection that
a strife torn world had for this American
and knew that our loss was shared by mil-
lions of men and women throughout the
world.
We, in the United Steelworkers of America,
lost a friend who had so endeared himself to
us that he was accorded honorary member-
ship in our union. We came to love and re-
spect him because he shared his dreams and
hopes with us and made a place for us in his
heart and in his deeds.
He understood our problems and needs
more than any one man in recent history.
We took him into our hearts because he
understood our laughter and our tears.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a man of
intellect, educated far beyond the realm of
steelworkers. His ideals were high. He was
a man of principle and dedication. But
somehow he remained common enough to be
loved by the common man.
He was loved and respected because his
ideals and principles grew from his own
great love for people and for all humanity.
Even in death the principles for which he
lived, the programs and goals he so courage-
ously developed and sought, may yet be-
come a living tribute to this great man.
We can give life to John Fitzgerald Ken-
nedy by following the course he charted.
We can give meaning to his death by
pledging ourselves, individually and collec-
tively, to the battle against bigotry and
hatred wherever it exists.
We, the steelworkers of district 20, deem it
fitting and proper that we dedicate this 21st
district conference to the memory of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of
the United States of America, and in so do-
ing, pledge ourselves to continue the fight
against poverty and hunger, bigotry, hatred,
and war to which in life he had so courage-
ously dedicated himself.
Respectfully sumbitted.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
MORROS E. BRUMMITT,
President.
MICHAEL J. ZAHORSKY,
Recording Secretary.
Seal.
Date: May 22, 1964.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. W. E. (BILL) BROCK
OF TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 16, 1964
Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday
was the 30th anniversary of the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Dur-
ing the summer and autumn months mil-
lions of Americans will be traveling
throughout the country seeing its won-
ders first hand. One of the truly great
scenic attractions are the Great Smokies
in the southern Appalachians of Tennes-
see-North Carolina. The Smokies are
the most visited of all our national parks.
Over 5 million tourists each year enjoy
Its camping grounds, streams, museums,
lodges, and restaurants. There are over
650 miles of trails for hiking and horse-
back riding. The flora and fauna in the
507,654 acres are among the most beau-
tiful in the world. There have been
identified 1,300 kinds of flowering plants,
200 different kinds of. birds, 50 species
of animals and rainbow and brook trout
swim in over 600 miles of streams.
So during this 30th birthday year of
the Great Smokies I would like to urge
my colleagues and all Americans to va-
cation in the Appalachian Mountains
and enjoy one of the most beautiful spots
in the whole world.
Under unanimous consent I place an
article from the June 14, 1964, Washing-
ton Post on the Smoky Mountains
in the Appendix of the RECORD:
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GREAT SMOKY, OLDEST NA-
TIONAL PARK IN THE EAST
Great Smoky, host to more than 5 million
travelers each year, marks the 30th anni-
versary of its formal establishment as a
national park on Monday.
The birthday coincides with the peak of
early summer blossomtime in the southern
Appalachians and the beginning of the top
travel months for the mountain vacation-
lands.
The park today looks much as it did when
the pioneers began their westward trek
across the southern Appalachians although
A3235
it is the most visted national park in the
country and the first to be located in the
east.
Just a short walk from any motor road
in the park is wilderness. Its 507,654 for-
ested acres (half in North Carolina, half in
Tennessee) contain almost as many different
hardwoods as there are in all of Europe.
Because of the altitude, vegetation is more
that of Canada than Carolina and there is
the most extensive stand of virgin red spruce
in eastern America.
Black bears are the largest of the more
than 50 species of animals native to the park
area. Some 1,300 kinds of flowering plants
have been identified in the Great Smokies.
Showiest are the crimson-red rhododendron,
mountain laurel and flame azaleas which
bloom from early to late June.
Over 200 different kinds of birds make the
park their seasonal or year round habitat.
Some 600 miles of streams abound in rain-
bow, brook and brown trout. Fishing season
in the park is May 16 to August 31, with some
special areas set aside for junior anglers.
The Great Smokies Divide, one of the oldest
uplands on earth, zigzags for 71 miles
through the park from northeast to south-
west. For 36 miles along its main crest the
range maintains an altitude in excess of 5,000
feet. Sixteen of its peaks rise to more than
6,000 feet. The deep blue haze rising from
the valleys gives these mountains the name of
"Great Smoky."
Expansion and improvement of park facil-
ities has been accelerated within the past
few years through the "Mission 66" program
of the National Park Service. Within the
park are some '75 miles of paved high-
standard roads and equal mileage of im-
proved secondary roads.
U.S. 441, crossing Newfound Gap on the
North Carolina-Tennessee line at 5,053 feet,
is the main traffic artery through the park.
Soaring even higher is the 11-mile park
road to the overlook near the top of Cling-
man's Dome, highest peak (6,642 feet) in
the Great Smokies. In 1959, the National
Park Service completed an observation tower
at the highest point on the Dome.
There are 650 miles of trails for hiking
and horseback riding in the park. They
range from short self-guided trails in areas
of special interest to 71 miles of the famed
Appalachian Trail running from Maine to
Georgia.
There are six developed campgrounds for
family tents and travel trailers, and an
equal number of "primitive campgrounds"
in more remote areas. There are camp-
ground stores and riding stables operated by
concessioners. Museums and, restorations
relate the history of the area's early settlers,
and the park interpretive program features
conducted nature walks and illustrated lec-
tures to help visitors understand the Great
Smokies' flora, fauna, and geology.
Other than campsites and the conces-
sioner-operated LeConte Lodge, there are no
overnight accommodations in the park, but
within a few minutes drive of the main
entrances are a wide variety of privately
developed motor lodges, inns, amusement
areas, restaurants, and shopping centers.
In 1962 Great Smoky became the first na-
tional park to welcome 5 million visitors
within a single year. As its popularity has
increased, the surrounding "Land of the
Sky" has been steadily developed for tour-
ism. Residents of the adjacent areas?in-
cluding the Cherokee Indians?have ex-
panded their tourist facilities. State and
Federal highways have been improved.
Promotion of the area has been stepped up.
Construction has proceeded on the Blue
Ridge Parkway, begun in the 1930's by the
National Park Service to provide a vacation
route between Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia and Great Smoky. The parkway met
the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
on June 25, 1959, when its southermost link
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A3236 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX June 16
?13 miles between Soco Gap on U.S. 19, and
U.S. 441 near Cherokee and the North Caro-
lina entrance to the park?was opened. Over
'WO miles of the 469-mile parkway motor road
are open for travel this year.
(An informative booklet on Great Smoky
Mountains National Park is sold by the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington 25. It costa
15 cents.)
Report of Panamanian Outbreak Inquiry:
Who'll Hear the Verdict?
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 16, 1964
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, in an ad-
dress to the House on June 11, 1964, my
distinguished colleague, the gentle-
woman from Missouri [Mrs. SULLIVAN I.
quoted the report of the investigating
committee of the International Com-
mission of Jurists of Geneva. Switzer-
land, on the Panamanian mob assaults
of January 1964 in the Canal Zone. Be-
cause of its importance as an antidote
for the flood of mendacious news stories
that flooded the mass news media in the
United States following the Red-led
riots, I urge that the report quoted in
Representative SULLIVAN'S address be
read by every Member of the Congress
and every official in the executive branch
who is concerned with Panama Canal
policy matters.
Among the first thoughtful and objec-
tive reactions to the report was an edi-
torial in the Washington Daily News,
which appeals to other major organs of
publicity to undo the harm done our
country by "cynical, lying propaganda
and fuzzy-headed sentimentality" that
featured most reporting on the bloody
Panamanian violence of last January
against the Canal Zone.
The indicated editorial follows:
WHO'LL HEAR THE VERDICT?
The United States stands today found not
guilty of Panama's accusation that it bad
violated human rights, as described in arti-
cles 3. 5, and 20 of the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights of the United Nations.
'This verdict of innocent comes from the
very international organization which Pana-
ma's own bar association Invited to hear the
charges and examine the evidence.
The exoneration will not surprise readers
of the Washington Daily News and the other
Scripps-Howard newspapers which told the
facts from the very beginning of last Janu-
ary's bloody riots.
It will, however, give a new slant to thou-
sands and thousands of citizens who read the
bad reporting and biased comment published
elsewhere in the United States, in Latin
America, In Europe. and particularly in Pan-
ama itself, where the violence of last Janu-
ary was chronicled with a dishonesty seldom
equaled even in a press noted for its habitual
and deliberate inattention to fact.
So the important thing today Is not that
this exoneration now rests in the official
Me; the important thing is whether It will
he allowed to undo?as far as Is belatedly
possible?the worldwide harm that cynical,
lying propaganda and fuzzy-headed senti-
mentality combined to do.
Will citizens who were told that the United
States had committed a bloody and brutal
aggression now get a chance to read the true
story which the International Commission
of Jurists put In its report?
Will they get a chance to learn that the
commission found:
That Panama's authorities refrained from
even trying to curb the attacking Panaman-
ian rioters and snipers?
That the Panamanian National Guard was
eenberately kept away from trouble spots for
3 days?
That Panamanian radio, television, and
newspapers?owned by Panama's ruling fam-
ilies. Including those which ran the Govern-
ment then and now?"Incited and misin-
formed" the people? This is a particularly
:ulster finding.
That although the United States at times
during the fighting "may" have used force
? somewhat in excess of what was absolutely
necessary," that force was needed and that
'.vas right for the United States to exercise
t?
That the Panamanian rioters fired twice
as many rounds at the defenders as were
lired by the Canal Zone forces?
That, contradicting the then President
('blurt, who said the riots were "spontane-
ous." there WAS "deliberate and extensive"
ase of bombs, Molotov cocktails, and so on,
which indicated "premeditation and plan-
Marco A. Robles, Panama's new President-
elect, was until 1963 outgoing President
Chiari's Minister of Government. He tried
*.o disassociate himself from the corruption
and inefficiency of the Chiari regime, but
he plain fact is. that after the January riots
he embraced the Government's position.
He could help greatly to clear the atmos-
phere and keep It calm if, now that be has
been elected President, he would use his
position and prestige to put the record
Araight for Panama's citizens.
He can do it if he will, end we know of
nothing that would do more to create the
climate of confidence and trust that both
sides need if new arrangements are to be
made over the Panama Canal's operation
and finances.
What's Happened?
EXTENSION OF REMARKS /4(
OT
HON. H. R. GROSS giti,
OF IOWA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 16, 1964
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, with pas-
sage by the House of the salary grab bill,
the Mason City, Iowa, Globe-Gazette--
in an editorial in its June 13 issue?prop-
erly inquires as to what has happened to
President Johnson's celebrated guide-
posts for wage settlements in 1964.
Repeatedly, Johnson has called upon
business and labor leaders to exercise
"restraint, and responsibility" to the end
that, prices and wages will remain stable
and prevent another spiral of inflation.
The administration has suggested that
wage hikes be held to 3.2 percent. How-
ever, as the Globe-Gazette editorial sug-
gests, how can Walter Reuther and com-
pany be expected to react favorably to
this suggestion when Members of Con-
gress?with the backing of the White
House?vote themselves a salary increase
of 33 percent?
If this latest raid on the Treasury is
finally adopted, it will give Members of
Congress a salary increase of between
130 and 140 percent since 1955.
Following is the excellent editorial
from the Mason City newspaper:
LET'S GET THE FACTS
Well, now, what's happened to the John-
son administration's celebrated guideposts
for wage settlements in 1964?
Thi; policy suggests that labor and man-
agement act responsibly in contract negotii-
tions, holding my wage hikes to 3.2 percer t.
That must pply to "the other people."
The House has passed a Government pay
raise bill by a vote of 243 to 157. Pushing
all the way was President Johnson and com-
pany.
The bill boosts salaries of Members of Con-
gress by 33 percent?up $7,500 to $30,0e.O.
Similar increases would be handed around
to other major Government officials.
In addition, it would grant increases rang-
ing from 5 to 22.5 percent for employees of
the legislath e branch. Lesser amounts
would be granted to 1.7 million civil service
employees. Typical would be a $310 increase
for secretaries.
This is the second go-around for a Federal
pay raise bill.
Insistence on a rollcall vote by Iowa Rep-
resentative H. R. GROSS, Republican, of Wa-
terloo, on an earlier bill brought about .ts
defeat.
Since, new information has been offered.
The Office of Business Economics says that
the average yearly earnings of each fullthrie
employee in private business rose from $4,238
in 1957 to $5,014 in 1962 or 18 percent.
Average pay of Federal civilian workers.
computed on the same basis, went up 31
percent from $4,971 to $6,506, while pay of
State-local employees increased 27 percent
from $3,958 to $5,014.
In the same period, the consumer's pr.ce
Index went up less than 8 percent.
Commenting on this information the Tax
Foundation, Inc., a private organization,
noted that 13.5. employees "generally have
had six salary increases in the years 1955-61."
It also noted that the 2.5 million fullti ale
Federal worker receives an average of $559
a month compared to the $457 average ror
some 6.3 million fulltime State-local em-
ployees.
These are blanket figures. Some areas in
private employment have fared better teen
in public employment and vice-versa.
There undoubtedly are areas in wh.ch
dome Federal employees deserve larger in-
creases than in others.
But Senators need all the facts bef are
shoving through the new wage proposal that
will cost an eitimated $533 million annually.
Meanwhile, back in the labor halls. Walter
Reuther and company must be geefully fling
any information on the "3.2 policy" in The
nearest wastebasket.
Extend Insured Housing Loan Progrim
for Elderly
SPEECH
OF
HON. JAMES HARVEY
OF MICHIGAN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
, June 15, 1964
Mr. HARVEY of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Sper,ker, the gentleman from
Texas has well summed up the action of
our committee on this bill. It was re-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 14049
RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Whereas the mushroom growing and
canning industry is one of the foundation
stones of Pennsylvania's agricultural econ-
omy, gainfully employing thousands of
workers who produce a useful and unique
product consumed throughout the Nation;
and
Whereas the continued existence of this
great Pennsylvania industry as a viable force
in our economy is now in dire jeopardy due
to a torrential flood of low-priced imports
from a single cheap labor country, which have
mounted to nearly 50 percent of domestic
production in less than 3 years; resulting in
wholesale bankruptcies and hardship to
Pennsylvania farmers and canners; and
Whereas every factor indicates even greater
future onslaughts which will surely sound
the death knell of a great American indus-
try located primarily in the State of Pennsyl-
vania: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Senate of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania requests his excel-
lency, William W. Scranton, Governor of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to intercede
on behalf of the people of this Common-
wealth and the mushroom industry with the
President of the United States and the U.S.
Tariff Commission to impose tariffs on the
Import of mushrooms of a sufficient amount
to make them competitive with the domestic
mushroom industry; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania memorialize Con-
gress to take whatever steps may be necessary
to protect the weakening and declining do-
mestic mushroom industry, and restore the
same to a competitive market; and be it
further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution
be transmitted to Gov. William W. Scranton;
President Lyndon B. Johnson; U.S. Tariff
Commission; the presiding officer of each
House of Congress of the United States;
and to each Senator and Member of the
House of Representatives from Pennsylvania
In the Congress of the United States.
Attest:
MARK GRUELL, Jr.,
Secretary, Senate of Pennsylvania.
INVESTIGATION OF ROBERT G.
BAKER BY COMMITTEE ON
RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, the Bobby
Baker case is not yet closed. Consid-
erable monkey business is going on, la
which I shall have a report late
SALARY INCREASE BILL A; PASSED
IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-
TIVES SHOULD BE DEFEATED
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
the House of Representatives recently
passed a pay increase bill applicable to
all three branches of the Federal Gov-
ernment, which, if enacted into law, will
be an unconscionable raid on the pub-
lic Treasury. The legislative proposal
will cost American taxpayers more than
one-half billion dollars a year. This
would be only the beginning. History
teaches we may be assured that within
the next 2 years another pay increase
bill will be introduced in the Congress.
Also, as the Federal bureaucracy grows,
the price tag for this increase will grow
with it.
I cannot in good conscience support
the proposed pay increase bill in its pres-
ent form. I will vote against it. It is
No. 125-3
my feeling that at least four separate
legislative proposals were arbitrarily
lumped together in one bill providing a
pay increase for: First, postal employees,
classified civil service employees, and all
other members of the executive branch;
second, the Federal judiciary., third, em-
ployees on the staffs of Members of the
House of Representatives and of the
Senate; and fourth, Members of Con-
gress.
- As for the so-called overworked staff
assistants, they always seem to have
plenty of time to line the walls of. the
Chamber in the afternoon and evening
when busi,ness is being conducted here
and when Senators are working. These
staff members are listening out of curio-
sity. They would receive an increase
under the bill.
Of these four general groups, it is my
judgment that postal employees, includ-
ing letter carriers, are the most deserv-
ing of a further increase in pay at this
time. As for classified civil service em-
ployees, I do not believe that it is neces-
sary to raise the salaries of all Federal
employees in order to lure competent
people for the 1,000 or 2,000 positions
for which increased salaries are justi-
fied. If there are certain Federal posi-
tions for which there is proof that a
higher salary level is needed to attract
competent people, then let these jobs be
named specifically and let specific leg-
islation be enacted to correct the prob-
lem.
It is my observation that most Gov-
ernment employees in Washington and
elsewhere are and have been well paid in
comparison with those doing the same
work in private industry. Furthermore,
those who are in the classified civil serv-
ice have job security and fringe and re-
tirement benefits far superior to any
employees in private industry.
Mr. President, those most deserving of
a pay raise are postal workers, including
letter carriers, clerks, and supervisors
and perhaps some civil service employees
whose services really merit increased
compensation. A. legislative proposal to
accomplish this should be debated and
enacted upon separate and apart from
the present bill. I had hoped to have an
opportunity to vote on a bill which would
include a pay raise for postal employees
and certain civil service employees.
Such legislation, I believe, would pass
overwhelmingly.
As for congressional salaries, it is my
view that the Congress must set an ex-
ample by holding the line on wage costs.
The proposed $7,500 increase for Repre-
sentatives and Senators is a 33%-percent
increase at a time when the President
has urged a maximum hold-the-line
raise of 3.2 percent in wages and prices.
I seriously question whether there would
be any additional candidates for elec-
tion to the Congress because of the pro-
posed pay raise. No doubt the same
men and women would be elected or re-
turned to the Congress. The fact is that
very few men and women of high
achievement in private life would at the
present time refuse appointment or cer-
taM election to the Senate of the United
States or the House of Representatives.
The bill passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives contains a device for automatic
pay increases for Members of Congress.
It provides for automatic adjustment of
salaries of Members of Congress, Cabi-
net members, and top Government offi-
cials whenever pay increases are given
to all Government employees in the fu-
ture. This is laden with serious conse-
quences. It would relieve Members of
Congress of the necessity of proving that
they are entitled to future increases. It
would severely damage the prestige which
the Congress holds and should hold in
the estimation of Americans. It might
tempt subsequent Congresses to grant
employees raises indiscriminately. It is
interesting to note that no provision is
made for lowering the salaries of the
Members of Congress when the cost-of-
living index goes down. This is an inter-
esting type of sliding scale; it only slides
up.
Regarding Federal judges, it is well
known that whenever there is a vacancy
on the Federal bench, many, sometimes
hundreds, of competent lawyers seek the
appointment. There are at most but a
few hundred lawyers in our Nation, who,
if offered an appointment to the Federal
bench, would not accept. Although there
may be some, it is extremely doubtful
that a lawyer would refuse appointment
as U.S. judge at $22,500 a year and agree
to accept were the salary to be increased
to $30,000. I would like to know the
name of one man in the Nation who
would refuse appointment to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the highest honor a law-
yer may receive, solely because this posi-
tion pays $35,000 a year and not $42,500.
It should be remembered that in ad-
dition to the prestige and other emolu-
ments that accrue to a member of the
Federal bench, these judges enjoy their
salaries as long as they live whether
they continue to serve actively or
whether they retire following 10 years of
service having attained the age of 70.
Furthermore, following 10 years' service
as Federal judge, in event of permanent
disability may be retired at full salary.
Talk about job security, they have it for
life with all the trimmings.
There are Federal judges today in
Ohio and in most other States who have
reached retirement age and could have
retired years ago. Evidently, they do
not feel that they are being underpaid as
many continue to serve actively well be-
yond the retirement age of 3 score and
10.
We constantly hear that the Federal
Government must be competitive with
private industry. Private industry bases
its pay scale on profits. Where profits
are great, salaries in many instances are
supercolossal. I make no complaint
about this. However, no such factor
governs the Federal Government's pay-
roll. Our Government's only source of
income for paying salaries is the tax-
payer who already is bearing a heavy
burden.
The purpose of Government is service
whereas the purpose of industry is profit.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved Fort se 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
14050 ON6RESSIUNAL RECORD ? SENATE June 2!
If the goal is to try to match the pay
scale of private industry, then we must
a -zept the fact that the i7oposed bill is
only the first installment. Further re-
quests will make the present legislative
proposal look miserly. We should realize
that the Federal Government should not
match the salaries of private industry,
We shall always have to rely to a marked
degree on many citizens to serve their
government as their lives work. That is
as it should be.
It is fair to say that citizens generally
wish public officials to be paid adequate-
ly. It would be foreign to our American
way of life were Congressmen, for ex-
ample, to be denied adequate compensa-
tion. It would be unfortunate were only
men and women bor to great wealth, or
vflo had acquired great wealth, able to
afford to occupy public office, elective, or
appointive. No one wants that. On the
other hand in my judgment the House of
Representatives has come forth with
overly generous and, in fact, outrageously
high salary recommendations. It ap-
pears to me that there should be sepa-
rate legislative proposals for the differ-
ent categories of Federal employees in-
volved.
Having studied the present proposal, it
Is my Judgment that this is not the time
to indulge in self-indulgence. This is not
the time to indiscriminately fatten the
already well-larded Federal payroll. Our
national economy simply cannot afford
the luxury of this bill at this time.
Therefore, after full and thorough
consideration, I cannot, I repeat, in good
conscience vote for the bill as passed by
the House of Representatives.
Mr. President, on June 13, 1964, there
appeared in the Plain Dealer, one of the
great newspapers of the Nation, an ex-
cellent editorial entitled "House Builds
In Pay Raises." I commend this to my
colleagues and ask unanimous consent
that it be printed at this place in the
RECORD as part of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the Ittcoaa,
as follows:
fFrom the Plain Dealer. June 13, 19841
HOUSE BUILDS IN PAT RAISES
The device for automatic pay raises for
Congressmen should be soundly defeated in
the U.S. Senate.
The latest House wrinkle, whereby elected
and appointed officials from the Vice Presi-
dent down would get a proportionate in-
crease every time Congress voted a pay boost
for classified Federal Government workers,
Is reprehensible.
Congressmen, under the House-approved
pay boost measure, would not have to make
a public or convincing plea for more money.
The bill could tempt subsequent Congresses
to grant employee pay raises, in effect vot-
ing itself bigger paychecks, too.
It would severely damage the Image of
Congress in the eyes of the taxpayer.
In approving a salary boost for Federal
employees that included a large increase for
an legislators, the House continues to ride
on the coattails of Federal Government per-
sonnel clearly deserving greater financial
reward.
The Plain Dealer repeats its stand. Many
of the most competent people in the Nation
cannot afford to stay in Government because
of salaries not commensurate with services
rendered or the expense involved. The re-
sponsibility assumed by Cabinet members,
for example. Is far greater than the current
$25,000 salary,
But a wage increase for top Government
personnel and other Federal employees
should be a separate measure, apart from
a raise, however valid, for Members of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
The House-approved measure would raise
Congressmen's salaries by $1,500, from $22,-
500 to $30,000 per year. In March the House,
by rollcall vote, defeated a proposal which
would increase such salaries by $10,000. That
measure did not contain the automatic raise
amendment
Among northeastern Ohioans in the House,
only CHARLES A. VANIX, Democrat. of Cleve-
land, voted for this week's bill. Ohio's
Senator FRANK J. LAUSCHE has been quick to
point out that $7,500 would be a 33-percent
salary increase at a time when President
Johnson has urged a maximum hold-the-line
raise of 3.2 percent In wages and prices. Be
also has recalled that when Congress voted
Itself a raise in 1954, it was from 312.500 to
$22,500. a whopping 80 percent. Under the
House-passed pay hike bill, Congressmen
would benefit from a 113-percent Increase
in 10 years.
The case for the increase in pay for most
Government workers, from Cabinet members
to postal employees, Is strong.
The Senate should approve this without
question. If it decides to go along with the
raise for Congressmen, It at least should
knock out the built-In raise provision.
COMMENDATION OF LEADERSHIP
AND STAFF ON HANDLING OF
CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, in the clos-
ing hours of the debate on the civil rights,
a great deal was said about the contribu-
tion that had been made by the majority
leader, the minority leader, the majority
whip, and the minority whip. I concur
in all that was said about the devoted
and perceptive work done by these Sen-
ators. They deserve every word of praise
that has been given to them. May I add
Just a footnote. I would like to say
something about the work that was done
by the devoted staff who worked so tire-
lessly and yet so effectively on the civil
rights bill. The bipartisan Civil Rights
Newsletter that came to us daily brings
this to my mind. These staff people not
only knew the provisions of the bill down
to the most minute detail, but they were
in constant communication with all seg-
ments of the Senate at all times and
provided the background and informa-
tion that were needed by the Senators
who were carrying the debate on the floor
of the Senate. No one who has func-
tioned as an executive of any type, and
particularly a Senator, could fill ade-
quately his position if he did not have
devoted and able staff. In the biparti-
san staff the Senate leadership had the
best of help. I pay my tribute to these
people.
INVESTIGATION OF PARTISAN PO-
LITICAL FUNDRAISING IN 113.6
CIVIL SERVICE?RESOLUTION
CARRIED OVER
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that Senate Reso-
lution 332, requesting the Attorney Gen-
eral to investigate partisan political
fundraising in the civil service, which
appears on page 12 of the Calendar of
Business for today, not be laid before the
Senate today under the rule, but that
be carried over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delawaie. Mr.
President, reserving the right to object.
the resolution, as I understand, will go
over but will retain the same status when
it is laid before the Senate follov.ing the
next adjournment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I shall
not object, because I realize that in the
excitement and press of business las:,
week, notice was not given that the reso-
lution would come before the Senate
today. Several Senators who are inter-
ested in the resolution are not present
today. I shall not object to the resolu-
tion going over.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I appreciate the
statement of the distinguished Senator
from Delaware, because it clarifies the
situation. The consideration of the
resolution deserves a little notice ahead
of time,
INCREASING PARTICIPATION BY
COUNTIES IN REVENUES FROM
THE NATIONAL WILDLiFE REFUGE
SYSTEM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
move that the Senate proceed to the con-.
sideration of Calendar No. 1039, S. 1363,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be stated by title.
The LEGISLITIVE CLERK. A bill (S.
1363) to increase the participation by
counties in revenues from the national
wildlife refuge system by amending the
act of June 15, 1935, relating to such
participation, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OrreaCER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which has been reported from the Com-
mittee on Commerce with an amendment.
On page 2, after line 23, to strike out:
(c) The Secretary, at the end of each
fiscal year, shall pay, out of the net receipts
in the fund (after payment of necessary ex-
penses) for such fiscal year, to those counties
In which the aforesaid areas of the system
are situated, which funds shall be expended
solely for the benefit of the public schools
and roads in those counties, as follows:
(1) an amount equal to 25 per centum
of the net receipts collected by the Secretari
under subsection (a) of this section from the
reserved public lands in those areas of the
System within each county: Provided, That
When any such area is situated In more than
one county the distributive share to each
county from the aforesaid receipts shall be
proportional to its acreage of such public
lands therein; and
(2) an amount equal to three-fourths cf
1 per centum of the cost of those areas cf
the System In each county acquired in fee
by the United States, exclusive of any im-
provements to such areas made subsequent
to Federal acquisition, such cost to be ad-
justed to represent current values as deter-
mined by the Secretary for the first full fiscs.1
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
ApprovedeatiltsveN0finittog16-RDROM1403R000500050001-9 13883
lution control, which is closely connected
to soil and water conservation; with
"Wildlife and Conservation;" with "Soil
Loss?The Long-Range View;" and with
"Soil Conservation Practices." The one
article points up the very close connec-
tion between conservation practices and
the development and maintenance of
wildlife populations:
POLLUTION CONTROL
The primary causes of stream pollution in
Iowa streams are:
1. Untreated or improperly treated sewage
from urban areas;
2. Industrial wastes; and
3. Siltation caused by movement of silt
from eroding lands.
In the past 10 years much has been accom-
plished in the control of pollution, from in-
dustrial plants and municipal sewage from
urban areas. A number of industries, along
with local, State, and Federal agencies, are
conducting research for ways to reclaim
waste and purify the water used. There are
still many problems.
Greater emphasis is required in many
areas of research in order to permit more
rapid and effective control measures. Some
of the problems urgently needing special at-
tention are:
The impact on public health of increased
bacterial, virus, and chemical pollution, and
the ability of present processes to cope with
increased volumes and new types of pollu-
tion.
A redefinition of the natural purification
phenomena of streams in the light of the
new composition of wastes, Including chem-
ical loadings.
The development of more economical waste
treatment methodo cuccess in this area
would save millions of dollars of treatment
plant construction cost.
Adjustment of laboratory techniques for
measuring pollution levels in streams and
for determining efficiency of water treatment.
T' -.e effect of impoundments on pollution
behavior in streams.
Silt from eroded land is one of the seri-
ous pollution problems. Soil and water con-
servation land-treatment measures (includ-
ing the use of vegetation and contour farm-
ing) on upland areas, combined with a
structural program of soil stabilization and
water and erosion-control structures, is a
most important solution to this problem, all
across the Nation as well as in Iowa. Each
year much progress is made in this soil and
water conservation program. Much more
needs to be done, however. Considerable re-
search is underway to determine the rates
and amounts of sedimentation within water-
shed areas with the use of various types and
combinations of land treatment use and
structural measures.
In recent years there has been concern
expressed that some chemicals used as in-
secticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertil-
izers washed from the land into streams and
underground water supplies may contribute
to polluting such supplies. Research and
investigation to determine the extent of this
type of pollution is underway.
WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION
A majority of Iowa farmers, through their
interest and work in soil and water conserva-
tion, are making a major contribution to the
habitat development of such forms of wild-
life as pheasant, ducks, squirrels, and deer.
Today, more than 54,000 farmer-district
cooperators in the State have complete soil
and water conservation plans, many of which
contribute directly to the enhancement of
land for the propagation, development, and
maintenance of wildlife populations.
Conservation cropping systems, contour
farming, terracing, and striperopping are
conservation practices which provide bene-
fits to wildlife populations. Practices which
are of most direct benefit to wildlife are as
follows:
Field border plantings: grassy headlands
around crop fields left unmowed until after
oats harvest time. This allows time for
young birds to hatch and leave the nest.
Iowa farmers have installed more than 89
million feet of such borders.
Hedgerow planting: Oftentimes a row of
trees and shrubs?for example, honeysuckle?
planted on the border of a field or across it.
It frequently occurs as one or two rows of
shrubs planted around a windbreak. More
than 9I/2 million feet of these plantings have
been made.
Windbreaks: Trees and shrubs planted
around farmstead and feedlot provide food
and cover for wildlife. , More than 1,000 acres
are so enclosed in Iowa.
Wildlife habitat development: Improve-
ments for wildlife to include food, shelter,
water, nesting cover, and other desirable fea-
tures in a designated area. There are now
65,000 acres so developed.
Farm conservation ponds: Water im-
poundments for livestock and other uses.
Water and surrounding areas always attract
wildlife. About 25,000 ponds have been built
and 18,000 of them stocked with fish.
Grassed waterways and outlets: Shaped
shallow channels used to remove surface
water runoff from the farm without erosion
damage. The amount of cover for wildlife
depends on the management of the grass in
the channel. There are about 140,000 acres
of such waterways on farms of district co-
operators.
In addition to the value of separate prac-
tices, these practices in combination as
found on land with conservation plans have
a cumulative effect. Rotation cropping pro-
vides more variety and creates more edges.
More species of wildlife are attracted.
In Iowa and nationally, progress of water-
shed projects under the Watershed Protec-
tion and Flood Prevention Act is increasing
the acreage of good wildlife habitat.
SOIL LOS?THE LONG-RANGE VIEW
Iowa's rich soils produce one-tenth of the
Nation's total food supply. Much of Iowa
soil is formed from material deposited, thou-
sands of years ago, by 'the wind. This ma-
terial is called loess. The loess soils are
highly productive, deep, and easily eroded.
Other Iowa soils will erode, too, when not
protected by adequate conservation measures.
More than nine-tenths of Iowa land is in
farms. And more than three-fourths of the
farmland is used to grow crops?half of
which are rowcrops that expose the soil to
erosion unless conservation practices are
carefully followed. Only about one-fifth of
the farmland is in pasture and woods. And
there is about 4 percent "other" farmland
In farmsteads, lanes, roads, and some wild-
life areas and idle land.
Iowa's highly productive soil is in demand
and land prices are high. About one-half
of Iowa's farmland is operated by tenants.
This means intense cropping of large acre-
ages, much under tillage that encourages
erosion.
Some farm owners and operators, espe-
cially those with deep soils, are not aware
of erosion losses. Some farmers discount
the loss of up to 20 tons of soil per acre
per year. Yet a 5-ton loss is considered the
maximum if continuing good yields are to
come.
Nevertheless, a well-developed soil and
water conservation program is expanding in
the State. All Iowa counties are now soil
conservation districts. More than 40 per-
cent of Iowa farmland is under cooperative
agreement with districts, with the farmers
applying conservation plans worked out with
the help of the Soil Conservation Service.
But much still remains to be done:
Treatment for erosion is the outstanding
conservation requirement on Iowa's crop-
land with over 50 percent having this prob-
lem. Over '71 percent of the area on which
erosion is the dominant problem is in need
of treatment and feasible to treat.
Almost 11 percent of the cropland in Iowa
is class I land with no problems that limit
use.
The major treatment needed on pasture is
the improvement and/or reestablishment of
vegetative cover. Much of the pasture also
needs some protection of vegetative cover
from the hazard of overgrazing use, erosion,
rodents, and encroachment of weeds.
Treatment needs on Iowa's woodlands in-
volve establishment, reinforcement, and im-
provement of timber stands and protection
against animals, insects, diseases, and fire.
Other land in the Iowa inventory includes
mainly farmsteads and wildlife areas. Nearly
two-thirds of this land needs protection
against erosion and about one-fourth needs
treatment to control excess water.
Another important part of the soil and
water conservation program in the State re-
volves around the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture's upstream watershed protection and
flood prevention activities (Public Law 566-
1054), administered by the Soil Conservation
Service.
Iowa divides naturally into 206 small water-
sheds that fit the watershed-size definition
under Public Law 566. Of that number 201
watersheds need upstream watershed proj-
ect action. And the people are acting. Ap-
plications from local sponsors in 57 of these
watersheds have been approved through Jan-
uary 1, 1964, by the Iowa State Soil Conser-
vation Committee, and planning is underway
in 31 and 22 are in the operations stage.
In addition, the 4,500 square-mile Little
Sioux flood prevention project, authorized by
the 76th Congress (Public Law 534) and put
into operation in 1946?with its many struc-
tures, diversions, dikes, grass waterways, ter-
races, etc.?serves as an example of what can
be expected from conservation work in other
watersheds. Its most recent test occurred
in June 1963, when 11 inches of rain fell in
60 hours but no flood hurt the town of An-
thon.
Another development during the past 2
years, involving only a small acreage so far
but with a great potential as a way to con-
serve soil and water on Iowa land, is the
shift of Iowa farmland to recreation. Va-
cation farms, picnic sites, golf courses, fish-
ing and camping facilities, and hunting and
shooting preserves are the sort of recreation
attractions being provided. This trend will
help, especially, in the conservation of rough
or badly eroded land, and in preserving other
land for future needs es cropland.
SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
S011 and water conservation practices in
Iowa as throughout the Nation are designed
to fit the conservation needs farm by farm,
county by county, area by area. Some prac-
tices can be carried out on an individual
farm by its owner. Others require a group
attack. When conservation problems are es-
pecially complex or costly, they are some-
times best corrected through a watershed
project. Watershed projects are often used
to meet a combination of farm and urban
needs for such things as water supplies, wa-
ter control, and recreational opportunities.
Conservation practices are used to sup-
plement and support good cropping systems
on individual farms. Practices are tied into
the overall farm conservation plans. With-
out conservation land treatment, many in-
dividual practices would not be effective.
The most common on-farm practices used
in Iowa can be divided into two kinds?
vegetative practices and mechanical or struc-
tural practices.
The following are the principal vegetative
practices, their description, and approximate
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13881 Approved ForReltqwgitgggifttiAclipliOff8-15gR0500050001-9
June 18
acreages or amounts that have been applied
To date as part of Iowa district cooperators'
:mil and water conservation plans:
.--triperopping: The growing of field crops
in approximately parallel strips to slow water
runoff and increase soil absorption, also re-
ducing erosion. In sloping fields, strips are
laid out to fit the contour of the land. More
than 343.000 acres are being striperopped reg-
ularly.
Conservation Cropping systems: Growing
crops in an orderly sequence to provide ero-
sion control, water conservation, and some
measure of protection from weather and In-
sect hazards along with economical produc-
tion. The current total is about six and a
half million acres.
(Irassed waterways and outlets: Mechan-
ically shaped channels seeded to grass and
used as part of the water disposal system
on the farm. Width, depth, and vegetation
are designed for both water carrying capac-
ity and control of erosion in the channel.
There are 139,780 acres of such waterways.
'rree planting: The planting of trees, us-
ually on steeper slopes, for erosion control
and timber production. The current total
is 14,800 acres.
Farmstead windbreaks: Enclosure of the
farmstead area with trees and shrubs.
More than 1.000 acres are thus enclosed.
Wildlife habitat developments: Improve-
ments for wildlife to include food, shelter.
water, nesting cover, and other desirable
features in a designated area. There are
now 65,000 acres so developed.
Pasture planting: Established long-term
stands of pasture legumes and grasses on
land converted to pasture or hayland from
other uses. There are more than 20,000
acres.
Pasture renovation: Reestablishment of
improved mixtures of grasses and legumes on
existing hayland or pasture. This adds up
to more than 300,000 acres.
The principal mechanical or structural
practices in Iowa include:
Contour farming: Performing tillage and
other regular field operations on the con-
tour across the natural slope of the land.
About 3.500,000 acres of Iowa cropland are
being contoured when in grain crops.
Terraces: Constructed berms-and channels
in the approximate contour of the land used
to slow water down and Increase the insoak
before conducting it safely from the land to
a stable outlet. There are several types of
terraces, but all of them have the effect of
breaking long slopes Into shorter ones. The
increased use of parallel terraces has been
one of the major recent conservation devel-
opments in Iowa. Parallel terraces went
from 1.084,000 feet in 1962 to 1.752.400 feet
in 196.3. The total of all terraces established
to date is 237.615.670. Terraces are a crop-
land practice.
Diversions! Similar to terraces, but de-
signed to divert water off the land below.
Mize, grade, and use of grassed or ungrassed
channel depends on the situation. Diver-
sions are not limited to cropland. The pres-
ent Iowa total is 18.440,000 feet.
Farm ponds: Constructed reservoirs for
water impoundment. The number is 24.855,
'rile drains: Lines of field tile laid in the
ground to remove excess water so that plants
will grow better. The total to date is 876.-
1)5.700 feet.
Grade stabilization structures: Concrete,
:it:eel. and earthen Installations of various
ypes used at strategic or critical points to
stabilize water runoff channels. More than
3.000 have been established.
Vloodwater retarding structures: Con-
crete, steel, and earthen installations of vari-
ous types used to impound water temporar-
ily and release it at a measured rate. The
number to date Is 318.
NdTx.?Floodwater retarding structures are
particularly useful in group watershed proj-
ects. Often structures are designed both for
grade stabilization and floodwater detention.
The Soil Conservation Service is now work-
ing with 82 community-type watershed
groups in Iowa.
SABBATICAL LEAVE FOR FOREIGN
SERVICE PERSONNEL
(Mr. SCHWENGEL (at the request of
Mr. MATHIAS) WIIS granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, last
month I appeared before the House For-
eign Affairs Committee to propose a sab-
batical leave program for Foreign Service
officers. Today I have introduced a bill
which would implement the proposal I
made to the House Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee on May 4, 1964.
The legislation I have introduced
would amend the Foreign Service Act of
1946 by permitting the Secretary of State
to assign or detail officers or employees
of the Foreign Service to educational in-
stitutions, trade, labor, agricultural, or
other organizations.
I make this proposal because I feel
strongly that there is a great need for
more direct communication between the
Foreign Service people and the Amer-
ican people at the grassroots concerning
the objectives of our Government in the
field of foreign affairs.
The sabbatical leave program that is
envisaged in this bill would provide for
a closer association between the people
who represent our country on the foreign
front and the people back home.
The strength of any nation's foreign
policy lies in broad national understand-
ing and support of that policy. I believe
that if the legislation I introduce today
Is enacted, it will contribute immeasura-
bly to a better understanding on the part
of the American people of our involve-
ment in foreign affairs.
But above and beyond the benefits to
the American people, the Foreign Service
personnel themselves would be helped
immensely by a sabbatical leave program.
By going out to the grassroots, these
people would get a feel of what the Amer-
ican people are thinking by talking to
PTA groups; to civic organizations such
as the Lions Club, chamber of commerce,
and others; and to farm organization
meetings. After talking to these groups
our Foreign Service people would be bet-
ter prepared to represent this country
on the foreign front.
I can envisage such personnel being
assigned to a college in the first district
such as Iowa Wesleyan or Parsons where
they could teach some college courses
according to their qualifications and
where they could meet and talk to college
students.
You will notice that my bill provides
that institutions or organizations which
utilize Foreign Service personnel in the
manner described will help pay for the
program through contribution to salary
and travel expense. This would reduce
the cost of the program.
The cost of the program will be worth
every cent to the American people who
will become better acquainted with our
foreign affairs and to our Foreign Serv-
ice officers who will be better prepared to
represent us.
I sincerely hope that the Foreign Af-
fairs Committee of this House will give
prompt and serious consideration a mysT
bill. t.
s
CONGEESSIONAL PAY RAISE
(Mr. CURTIS (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. I,ev-
erett Chapin, associate editor of the
Denver Post has carefully and incisively
analyzed the question of congressional
pay raises. His remarks are pertirent
and timely, and I recommend his ob-
servations to my colleagues:
'rums IS FRUGALITY?
(By Leverett (Jhapin)
Since 1955, when Congress gave itsell its
last pay raise, the cost of living has gone up
15.4 percent so the House of Representatives
thinks it would be nice to raise the pa f of
Congressmen and Senators 33.33 percent, to
$30,000 a year, plus uncounted fringe bene-
fits which Members don't like to talk abaut.
A proposal to that effect went sailing
through the House on Thursday and if House
Members, an of whom must face the elec-
torate this fall, are willing to run the risk
of looking grabby, there can be but little
doubt that Senators, only one-third of whom
are up for reelection this year, will follow
suit.
President Johnson is credited with en-
couraging House Members who wanted more
money, but were embarrassed to vote for such
a gluttonous bite, to set aside their reluct-
ance.
How the 33.33 percent pay raise will fit
into the Johnson frugality-in-Government
program, which was announced leas than 2
months ago, has not been explained.
The time between congressional pay raises
Is becoming so short one is inclined to wonder
whether House and Senate Members were
listening when the late President Kennedy
told us all, "Ask not what your country can
do for you, Out what you can do for your
country."
Congress once showed commendable re-
straint by not upping its own pay oftcner
than every 20 or 40 years. For example,
when Congrcas in 18(16 increased its pay to
$5.000 per Member per year, with relatively
few fringe benefits except for free snuff for
Senators, that scale remained in effect for
41 years.
The increase voted in 1907, to $7,500, re-
mained unchanged for 22 years. The $10.000
pay, voted in 1925, lasted for 20 years until,
In 1945-46 the amount was boosted to $15..)00.
The next increase, from $15,000 to $22,500,
came in 1953 after only 9 years and now,
9 years later again, the new pay raise--to
$30.000?is well along toward enactment.
The worst feature of this latest raise is
that It contains a provision which will give
increases almost automatically to Congress-
men and Senators in the future.
This will he accomplished by tying con-
gressional pay to upper bracket civil service
pay. Whenever these civil servants get rrore
money, and they are constantly lobbying for
that purpose. House and Senate Members
will get more pay, too.
As raises become more frequent under this
system, Congress can take the self-righteous
attitude that it had to give increases to civil
servants to keep good men in government
and the fact that it gave itself a raise at the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964.
Approved WeinggiM5M6R-13111.2.111W1403R000500050001-9 13885
same time was merely incidental, hardly
worth noticing, really of no importance.
It is gratifying to know that two Colorado
Congressmen J. EDGAR CHENOWETH and DON
BsorzmAx, voted against the pay raise bill
on Thursday. Representatives WAYNE ASPI-
NALL and BYRON G. Roczas presumably will
have explanations of their votes in favor of
the increase when they return to seek
reelection.
WILL THE EDSEL FLY?
(Mr. BROCK (at the request of Mr.
MATHIAS) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BROCK. Mr. Speaker, further
study of the Pentagon's "public affairs
plan" reveals an effort to feed the Amer-
ican public another one of Secretary Mc-
Namara's gross distortions of the TFX
record.
A Pentagon memorandum of March 5,
1964?inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD by the gentleman from Wiscon-
sin [Mr. LAIRD] on April 21, 1964?con-
taining this news management scheme
requires that in preparing information
for release concerning the development
of the TFX?F-111 tactical fighter?the
Departments of the Air Force and Navy
and their contractors adhere to the fol-
lowing guideline:
The aircraft will be described in such a
manner as to make it clear that the ad-
vanced fighter will meet the requirements of
the Air Force's tactical air mission, the Navy's
carrier-based fighter mission, and the fighter
mission of the Marine Corps.
This directive refers to the "statement
by Secretary of Defense Robert S. Mc-
Namara to the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations of the Committee on
Government Operations, U.S. Senate"
dated March 13, 1963. In light of the
McClellan Investigations Committee
hearings it becomes evident that this is
an effort to perpetuate another one of
the gross distortions that Secretary Mc-
Namara made of the original TFX award
record. This specific distortion was an
obvious attempt to mislead Congress and
the public into believing that there was
"little to choose between" the General
Dynamics and Boeing TFX proposals
and that both would fulfill military
needs.
Secretary McNamara made the state-
ment on March 13, 1963, to the McClel-
lan Investigations Committee:
The report itself did not express a prefer-
ence for either proposal, and indicated there-
was little to choose between the proposals.
Both proposals were certified by General Le-
May and Admiral Anderson to meet military
requirements (p. 375).
At the risk of repetition, I want to read
to you again the general conclusions of the
evaluation group which were restated verba-
tim by the Air Council, with concurrence of
Admiral Anderson, Chief of Naval Opera-
tions, and General LeMay, Chief of Staff of
the Air Force:
The fourth evaluation report did not
choose between the contractors. When I
redewed, the report, I could see why. The
qu,stion was a very close one (pp. 380, 381).
lut McNamara failed to read to the
committee the actual conclusions of the
Air Force Council's report which were'
the recommendations for Boeing, page
1754. Nor did he read the important
last paragraph which follows:
(h) There is a clear and substantial ad-
vantage in the Boeing proposal over the Gen-
eral Dynamics proposal which is magnified
by the environment found under the austere
conditions usually inherent in limited war
actions (p. 761).
He failed to read to the committee the
actual recommendations of the Fourth
Source Selection Board which states:
3. The Board unanimously recommend
that X (Boeing) be selected as a source.
Some considerations bearing on this decision
are: (a) Superiority in all major aspects of
operational capability, (b) lower quoted cost,
(c) positive ground deceleration mechanism,
(d) greater weapons selectivity and carrying
ability, (e) less risk of foreign object damage
and missile exhaust degradation of engine
performance (p. 1164).
McNamara's distortion that both pro-
posals would meet military requirements
is based on the questionable assumption
that the downgrade requirements which
were met will be sufficient for future
military needs, pages 723, 779, '780, 1393.
The original Navy requirements were not
met, page 328.
The Director of the Evaluation Di-
vision, Bureau of Naval Weapons, George
Spangenberg, testified in reference to
meeting Navy requirements that "Boeing
comes closer to the original and to the
revised and to all others," page 335. The
then Chief of Naval Operations, Adm.
George Anderson in explaining to the
committee his reasons for recommend-
ing that the superior Boeing proposal be
chosen stated that the downgrading of
Navy requirements "magnified the im-
port of small differences between the two
designs in critical areas" and that "an
edge of advantage is of greatest im-
portance" in wartime, pages 78, 775. He
further indicated that the weight and
size of the TFX would restrict its use
to the large carriers, page 779. Recent
testimony before another congressional
committee and George C. Wilson's
recent article in Aviation Week indicate
that the General Dynamics plans now
may be too heavy for the Navy to use.
The American public is entitled to the
truth behind the TFX affair. If we are
going to spend $7 billion of the taxpayer's
money to produce a "Flying Edsel," the
American people have a right to know
about it. In truth, we need to know, will
the Edsel fly? Since Secretary Mc-
Namara's officialdom sees fit to give only
half truth and distortion, I hope the Mc-
Clellan committee will resume its investi-
gations of the TFX contract award.
THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION
(Mr. DEROUNIAN (at the request of
Mr. MATHIAS) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. DEROUNIAN. Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to insert herewith for the edifi-
cation of the House the commencement
address of our colleague, the Honorable
John W. Wydler, given at Nassau Com-
munity College on Thursday, June '11,
1964:
On May 15, 1960, the then Nassau County
executive, A. Holly Patterson, dedicated Nas-
sau Community College with a call for "aca-
demic excellence."
. This week I celebrated my birthday. Since
it was my 40th birthday, the word "cele-
brated" may be inappropriate, for I reached
that magic number in life which is con-
sidered middle aged.
I mention this because it illustrates that
Nassau Community College has also in these
last 4 years passed through its infancy, and
its youth?and truly come of age.
It has rallied to meet the challenge of Mr.
Patterson and has attained "academic ex-
cellence."
I am proud to be the Congressman from
the Fourth Congressional District of New
York?and among the proudest possessions
of our district is the faculty and student
body of this Community College.
I am also particularly happy to be here
this evening to share with you the rich
experience of a graduation?because I missed
so many of my own. Because of the war
I left for college to attend an accelerated
course at Brown University before my grad-
uation ceremonies at high school. I left
Brown after 21/2 years to go to Harvard Law
School, and so had no graduation ceremony
from college. And I left Harvard Law School
to attend a bar review course and could not
attend my graduation ceremony there.
Tonight, at long last, I have the pleasure
of finally going to a graduation ceremony.
And I thank you all for it.
My message tonight will be short and
direct. It concerns the Federal Government
and the future of education. But more than
that, it concerns the status of our American
way of life in 1964.
. Nothing can reveal more about the way
people live and think than the educational
system they maintain.
The American system of higher education
today offers educational opportunities to a
larger fraction of the Nation's young people
than any other system in the world. At its
best it offers a quality of educational oppor-
tunity unsurpassed in the world. Our col-
leges and universities, through their teaching
and research programs, have become the
greatest intellectual, cultural, and economic
assets of the Nation.
This last statement is not mine--it was
adopted by the Association of American Uni-
versities in 1964?and this group is more
noted for self-criticism than self-praise.
I fully support that statement. It means
our administrators and faculty have been
doing a good, sound job in offering higher
educational opportunities to our young peo-
ple. It means our young people have utilized
them wisely. I congratulate you both.
This might be a good point to end my
speech, but I must take a look at some ways
to make our system better. That requires,
first, that we ask the right questions, and
second, that we get the right answers, These
are equally hard to do.
Question. What is the Federal Govern-
ment's role in higher education?
The answer is that it should make public
funds available to help colleges provide
higher educational needs insofar as it can do
so without interfering in the legitimate aims
of that education. This is not easy, and is a
narrow line indeed. No Federal funds are
given without some Federal controls. The
nature and extent of these controls are
always being balanced.
We did act in the last Congress to make
available funds for the construction of
needed buildings on U.S. college campuses.
The Federal Government also has scholar-
ship and student loan programs. These are
well known and useful programs that have
been an unqualified success.
There is one part of the Federal program
that is little understood by the public in
general. It is heading, in my opinion, toward
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13886 Approved For Remmvp?wAsA:LcieEN-4w@gqiermo0500050001-9
June 18
real trouble in the near future unless it is
reexamined, explained and sold to the public.
These are the programs whereby the Fed-
eral Government is granting money to
colleges to conduct research--specific and
general?applied and basic.
As a member of the Science and Astro-
nautics Committee in the House of Repre-
sentatives, I have seen these programs at
work and I believe they must be examined
right away by Congress to insure that they
will not come into public disfavor and lose
general acceptance.
I differentiate between the research pro-
grams conducted by the National Aeronautics
iind Space Administration which lets re-
search contracts to achieve specific results in
attaining the conquest of space. Public ac-
ceptance or rejection of these projects are
part and parcel of our national space pro-
grams and objectives.
The other type of research is that con-
ducted by the National Science Foundation--
also under the purview of our committee,
but, in reality, uncontrolled. This agency
spends hundreds of millions of dollars each
year for basic type research?much of It of
a "way-out" variety.
For example, Federal funds have been
granted as follows:
I. For an analysis of nest building in
Weaverbirds. $20,000.
2. For an investigation of the mating calla
of Central American bufo (toad frogs),
a21.200.
3. For the study of respiratory mechanisms
in cultivated mushrooms, $8.000.
4. Ti) study the distribution of turtles in
Central America, $23,400.
5. For a study of the social behavior in
population dynamics of the marmot. $15.000.
These are extreme examples?but there are
many more. If questioned, the agency
merely explains that great results often flow
from basic research. Many Congressmen
shrugged it off, not having the scientific
background to question the grants. And
these are grants?not contracts. The giving
of Federal funds is final and irrevocable.
What guarantee does the Government
have that these grants are wise?with a
reasonable chance of being fruitful? I know
of none. I believe it is time to ask some
questions and get some answers. I would
like to know what results have been achieved
by these programs to date. I would like to
explore the possibility of making them joint
projects with the sponsoring universities. I
would be greatly reassured to know a uni-
versity head was willing to invest at least
some of his hard-earned and valuable funds
la further the project. Cost sharing may be
she best guarantee of responsibility.
I think it's time to have full-dress hearings
on this matter?time to study and review it.
'rime to explore the possibilities of new
guidelines and replacing grants with con-
tracts that call for results. At the same time
we should review administrative require-
ments and find ways to reduce paperwork
and redtape imposed on colleges by these
programs.
At a time when there are so many demands
on our national treasure?we must guard it
os)lously.
And I'm saying this tonight because it
eoncerns you graduates as future citizens
Who will be contributing your wealth to the
national treasure.
Now, I have talked a great deal about ask-
ing questions and getting answers. This is
something you will be doing the rest of your
lives. You will find out there are a lot more
questions than answers. But you will be liv-
ing in an age when we have more answers,
and the right answers, than ever before.
You already have a big start down the mad
o success. You were blessed by God with
!toori minds and have had a chance to de-
:''lop them at this college. The union of
-college graduates is constantly getting more
and more pay for its members?and It a great
union with no dues and lifelong membership.
Only last night I heard the Secretary of
Labor state that graduates of community
colleges had more job opportunities than
graduates of 4-year colleges.
At this point In your lives it appears that
everything is going your way. Just remem-
ber that your education is not something for
nothing. Tonight you will receive your re-
ward for past effort and excellence, but to-
morrow and every day thereafter the price
you pay for it will be your citizen respon-
sibility. That lies immediately ahead.
You are the products and beneficiaries of
the great university of the State of New
York. By 1970, it is estimated that half of
all freshmen in New York will be enrolled
in community colleges. There are more
growing pains ahead, and you will be part of
the public on whom rests the responsibility
for meeting them. The competition and
proper relationships of 2- and 4-year col-
leges, as well its public and private colleges,
raises questions to which all of us here to-
night must help to find the answers.
In my opinion. the State of New York
has one more major job to complete before
It can be truly convinced that It has the
best State university in the country. I'm
talking about the establishment of the New
York Institute of Technology?similar to
MIT and Cal Tech but second to none of
them. It would be geared specifically to the
space sciences. Today, the existence of such
competence Is necessary for the proper de-
velopment of business and industry. The
creation of such a center is so important to
our future development, not only in edu-
cation but in the competition for business
development. that I believe the priority for
the project must be raised. The wheels
should be made to turn this year, and I be-
lieve we should bring it to Long Island to
hack up and complement our industrial
competence. This calls for a team effort,
as, there is no partisanship in progress.
In closing tonight, I will mention some
01 the "shock" addresses made by speakers
at graduation ceremonies. The officials of
Columbia University seem to have a special
proclivity for this type of shock treatment.
Last December, Jacques Barzun, dean of
faculties there, said "the liberal arts tradi-
tion is dead or dying." Of course, this wits
good for some anguished outcrys from educa-
tors across the land. The statement is credi-
ble only because there are those who ques-
tion the value of anything that has no direct,
practical application.
Not to be outdone. just this month Dr.
Grayson Kirk, the president, stated flatly
that "the American dream was over." He
went on to conclude that "many of the
cherished beliefs of our national youth no
longer seem to fit the condition of life in our
time "
Novs I don't want to accuse Dr. Kirk of
being an intellectual beatnik, but I think
his slightly jaded attitude is dead wrong.
He never defined the "American dream."
but to me it was?and is?the desire to live
better?both materially and in freedom. It
is particularly distinguished, moreover, by
the spirit of adventure, the zest, the enthusi-
asm to do something about it. The Ameri-
can dream is philosophy in action?and it is
not dead.
We have great challenge). ahead. In space,
we can roll bock the myateries of infinity.
On earth, we can first unleash and then
harness the power of the atom for the better-
ment of mankind. If automation is a threat
it is also an exciting idea with possibilities
for the better life. If the population ex-
plosion is a problem it is one that can be
met by enthusiastic action proven still possi-
ble in America by all our dedicated Peace
Corps men and women around the world.
I'm shocked at Dr. Kirk for so misinter-
preting the cut of the American character.
Unable to find ready answers to some ques-
tions?there are those who change the ques-
tions.
For example, for years our most pointed
national question was "How could we win the
struggle with communism?" This has proved
a very difficult question, and recently I've
heard the question changed to "How can we
live in peace with communiism?" We should
not delude ourselves that by changing ques-
tions we have found answers.
Dr. Kirk now seems to want to change the
question of "How can we make the Ameri-
can dream come true?" to "How can we
dream in an atomic bomb age?"
I hope you will go on dreaming our na-
tional dream. We have realized much of it
already. I also hope you will put that dream
Into action by a generous application of
zest, enthusiasm, and the spirit of adventure.
Ask the right questicns and seek?eternally
seek?the right answers.
A MANDATE TO INVESTIGATE
(PART Jr:
[Mr. CRAMER (at the request of
Mr. MATHIAS) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
)r. CRAMER.. Mr. Speaker, there
?t,ce.asr
discussion on the floor of the House
Monday concerning the need for the
House to act in order to clear up certain
questions concerning this body.
It was suggested that, as a result of the
Bobby Baker hearir gs before the Senate
Rules Committee, certain information
has become public knowledge which re-
flected upon the activities of a former
official of the House of Representatives.
The question was. raised whether the
official. William N. McLeod, Jr., for-
mer chief clerk of the House District
Committee, was ably serving this body
in view of his associations with other
interests in the District of Columbia.
Specifically, there were these areas
which in the opinion of many need fur-
ther investigation:
First. The payment of $1,500 to Mc-
Leod by Silver Spr lig insurance agent,
Don B. Reynolds. This payment re-
portedly was for McLeod's help in ob-
taining authorization for the construc-
tion of the District Cf Columbia Stadium.
Second. The payment of $1,000 to
Mr. McLeod by the Metropolitan Police
Relief Association in appreciation of
services he performed while an employee
of this body.
Third. McLeod's association with
the pawnbrokers in the District of Col-
umbia.
Fourth. McLeod's association with
liquor distributors in the District of
Columbia.
Fifth. The reason for the retainer
which was reportedly paid McLeod for
some period of time by a South Caro-
lina insurance company.
Sixth. The report that McLeod re-
ceived an expensive color television set
from a Washington gambling figure.
Questions were also raised concern-
ing the activities of Mr. Nathaniel W.
Barber, an official of Household Finance
Corp. here in Washington, especially
since McLeod now has offices in the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? DAILY DIGEST P509
Commerce Commission; and Najteb E. Halaby, Ad-
ministrator, Federal Aviation Agency, and Eugene G.
Fubini, Deputy Director of Defense Research and Engi-
neering, DOD, both on items for the FAA.
Hearings continue on Tuesday, June 30.
APPROPRIATIONS?LABOR-HEW
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee con-
tinued its hearings on H.R. 10809, fiscal 1965 appro-
priations for the Departments of Labor and Health,
Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, receiving
testimony from Senator Hart, on funds for the Midwest
Water Pollution Control Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Mich.;
and from several public witnesses, on various items in
the bill.
Hearings continue on Tuesday, June 30, when other
public witnesses will be heard.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Committee on Armed Services: Committee, in executive
session, ordered favorably reported without amendment
H.R. 10314, extending for 4 years three civil defense
authorities which would otherwise expire on June 30,
1964; and with amendment H.R. 2664, exempting from
induction a sole-surviving son of a family whose father
died as a result of military service. Committee also
approved the nominations of Solis Horwitz, of Penn-
sylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; Daniel
M. Luevano, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of
the Army; Dr. Robert Warren Morse, of Rhode Island,
to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy; Leonard Marks,
Jr., of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force; and John T. McNaughton, of Massachu-
setts, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Interna-
tional 'Affairs; and 2,817 nominations in the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
Prior to this action, committee held hearings on
H.R. 10314, with testimony from William P. Durkee,
Director, Civil Defense, Department of the Army.
Messrs. Horwitz, Luevano, and Marks, and Dr. Morse
were present to testify and answer questions on their
own behalf.
SOUTH VIETNAM
Committee on Armed Services: The Preparedness In-
vestigating Subcommittee met in executive session to
receive testimony from Air Vorce officials relative to the
situation in South Vietnam.
D.C. MATTERS
Committee on the District of Columbia: Committee, in
executive session, ordered favorably reported H.J. Res.
888, relating to the granting of certain permits to Im-
perial Shrine Convention, 1965, Inc.; H.R. 8313, pro-
viding for thefl conversion of D.C. credit unions into
Federal credit unions; and H.R. 6413, establishing
standard weights and measures for the District of
Columbia.
Committee also approved the nomination of James A.
Washington, Jr., to be a member of the D.C. Public
Utilities Commission.
Prior to this action, hearings were held on the above-
listed nomination, with testimony from Joseph Rauh
and William D. Thompson, both D.C. attorneys; and
Irving Schlaifer, a D.C. citizen. The nominee was pres-
ent to testify and answer questions on his own behalf.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
Committee on Finance: Committee, in executive session,
ordered favorably reported H.R. 6777, providing for
waiver of premiumsior certain veterans holding national
service life insurance policies who are totally disabled
before age 65; H.R. 6920, raising age limit to 65 for
total disability income provision on national service life
insurance policies; H.R. 2434, permitting payment of
special pension to holders of Congressional Medal of
Honor awarded this medal for actions not involving
conflict with an enemy (amended) ; H.R. 3941, to elim-
inate the offset against burial allowances paid by the VA
for amounts paid by burial associations; and H.R. 6455,
providing an exemption from the tax on unrelated busi-
ness taxable income in case of labor unions and agricul-
tural organizations where certain conditions are met.
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATIONS
Committee on Foreign Relations: Committee continued
its executive consideration of H.R. 11380, fiscal 1965
authorizations for the foreign aid program, but did not
conclude action thereon, and will meet again tomorrow.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Committee on Government Operations: Subcommittee
on National Security Staffing and Operations held exec-
utive hearings to hear Col. George A. Lincoln, professor
of social sciences, U.S. Military Academy, West Point,
testify with regard to current changes in the military
profession.
Subcommittee recessed subject to call.
POVERTY
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Select Sub-
committee on Poverty concluded its current series of
hearings on S. 2642, providing for the mobilization of
human and financial resources of the Nation to combat
poverty in the U.S., after receiving testimony from Rep-
resentative Frelinghuysen; and Dr. Grant Venn, super-
intendent of Wood County Schools, Parkersburg,
W. Va.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL SERVICES
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare: Subcommit-
tee on Federal Employees' Compensation held hearings
on S. 1710 and S. 2078, permitting injured Federal em-
ployees to receive services from physicians and qualified
chiropractors, receiving testimony from Senators Bur-
dick and Magnuson, the latter of whom submitted a
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
D510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? DAILY DIGEST June 25
statement; Grady V. Lake and Joseph P. Adams, both
of the International Chiropractors Association; Paul
Badger, an attorney of Washington, D.C.; James E.
Bunker and Dr. Benjamin Goldstein, both of the
American Chiropractic Association; Dewey Anderson,
? Public Affairs Institute; Jerome J. Keating, National
-,kL,Association of Letter Carriers; and John O'Connor,
United Federation of Postal Clerks. Several written
statements were submitted for inclusion in the record.
Hearings were adjourned subject to call.
ei- \ FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY
1
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Committee,
in executive session, ordered favorably reported with
amendments H.R. 11049, Federal Employees Salary Act
of 1964, after which it issued the following statement:
The committee raised the increases in grades 9, 10, is, and 12
to an even 3 percent. The House provision for increasing the
compensation of postmasters at fourth-class offices was modified
to reduce costs while at the same time granting liberal increases.
Annual step increases for the first seven steps have been extended
to all levels of the Postal Field Service.
The salary increase for Members of Congress as provided in
the House bill was adopted. The committee amended the execti-
Chamber Action
live salary schedule to provide for five lc vels of executive com-
pensation. The offices and positions in all five levels are specified
in the bill as amended by the Senate committee. The rates for
the five levels are: $35,000; $30,000; $28,500; $27,000; and
$26,000.
In addition, the President has been given the authority to place
20 other officers at either level 4 or level 5.
The House provisions for judicial salary increases were ap-
proved with minor changes, not affecting Federal judges. The
committee deleted title 5, the Udall amendment, from the Senate
version of the bill. The effective date of the bill has been set for
July 1, 1964.
The committee amended the House bill to provide for in-
creases in the allowances for the staffs of former Presidents of
the United States.
AIR POLLUTION
Committee on Public Works: Special Subcommittee on
Air and Water Pollution continued its hearings to ob-
tain supplemental information relative to abatement
of air pollution, receiving testimony from R. E. Suther-
land, Universal Oil Products Co.; F. E. Ivey, W. R.
Grace & Co.; James B. Smith, American Cyanamid; and
E. C. Lentz, Walker Manufacturing Co.
Hearings continue on Tuesday, June 30.
House of Representatives
Bills Introduced: 72 public bills, H.R. 11741-11812;
5 private bills, H.R. 11813-11817; and 24 resolutions,
H.J. Res. 1056-1077, and H. Res. 791 and 792, were
introduced. Pages 14460, 14553-14555
Bills Reported: Reports were filed as follows:
H.R. 7073, to amend the Consolidated Farmers Home
Administration Act of 1961 in order to increase the
limitation on the amount of loans which may be in-
sured under such act (H. Rept. 1517); and
H.R. 11812, making appropriations for foreign aid
and related agencies for fiscal year 1965 (H. Rept. 1518).
Page 14553
NASA Authorization: The House disagreed to Sen-
ate amendments to H.R. 10456, to authorize appropria-
tions to the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration for research and development, construction of
facilities, and administrative operations; agreed to a
conference requested by the Senate; and appointed as
conferees Representatives Miller of California, Teague
of Texas, Karth, Heehler, Martin of Massachusetts,
Fulton of Pennsylvania, and Chenoweth. Pag? 14457
Fisheries: Passed, by a voice vote, H.R. 6007, to permit
the vessel SC-1473 to engage in the fisheries.
Page 14457
Interior Appropriations: House disagreed to Senate
amendments to H.R. 10433, making appropriations for
the Department of the Interior and related agencies for
fiscal year 1965; agreed to a conference requested by the
Senate; and appointed as conferees Representatives Kir-
wan, Denton, Mahon, Harrison, and Reifel. Page 14458
Grand Prairie, Tex.?Airport: H.R. 8462, relating to
transfer of land and development of adequate airport
facilities at Grand Prairie, Tex., was cleared for Presi-
dential action by House agreement to Senate amend-
ments thereto. Pages 14458-14460
Continuing Appropriations: By a voice vote the
House adopted H.J. Res. 1056, making continuing ap-
propriations for fiscal year 1965 through August 31.
The resolution provides funds for continuing those
functions of the Government for which annual appro-
priation bills will not have been enac:ed prior to July 1.
Pages 14460-14462
Mass Transit: By a record vote of 212 yeas to 189 nays
the House passed H.R. 3881, to authorize the Housing
and Home Finance Administrator to provide additional
assistance for the development of comprehensive and
coordinated mass transportation systems in metropoli-
tan and other urban areas, after adopting a committee
substitute amendment that provided new text for the
bill.
Rejected, by a record vote of 590 yeas to 215 nays, a
recommittal motion designed to defer action on the
legislation pending conclusion and evaluation of certain
engineering studies and plans.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 14791
who in many instances are burdened with
heavy expenses, or losses incurred in
moving from land which was acquired by
the Federal Government, for which under
existing law they do not now receive ade-
quate compensation.
A special subcommittee was appointed
by the chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations, on February 18,
1964, consisting of myself as chairman
and Senators MCINTYRE, RIBICOFF, MIL-
LER, and PEARSON, to consider S. 1509, S.
1232, and H.R. 6237, bills introduced at
the request of the Administrator of Gen-
eral Services, as part of the GSA legisla-
tive program for 1964.
This bill provides that reimbursement
shall be in addition to, but not in duplica-
tion of, other payments authorized by
law. The total reimbursement for mov-
ing household effects, business establish-
ments, livestock and farm equipment, or
other possessions shall not exceed 25 per-
cent of the fair market value of the
property as determined by the head of
the agency. Such moving expenses,
losses or damages directly resulting from
moving to a new location must be sup-
ported by an itemized statement sub-
mitted to the head of the agency con-
cerned within 1 year from (a) the date
the interest is to be vacated under an
agreement with the Government, or (b)
the date the parcel is actually vacated,
whichever first occurs.
As set forth in the report on S. 1509,
representatives of the GSA assured the
committee that the 25-percent limitation
placed on this bill was a ceiling only, and
that this provision is identical to the
provisions of existing law under which
the Departments of Defense and Interior,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration have been operating for several
years.
Similar legislation was reported by the
committee in the 86th Congress and the
committee gave further extended con-
sideration to a similar proposal in the'
87th Congress. The committee has been
assured that the proposed legislation is
desirable and in the public interest since
it will permit the establishment of a
uniform Governmentwide policy for the
payment of actual expenses and losses
incurred, within the limits prescribed, by
individuals who are forced to vacate their
homes or from land acquired by the Gov-
ernment regardless of the agency in-
volved in the negotiations.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The report will be received and
printed, and the bill be placed on the
calendar.
BILLS INTRODUCED
Bills were introduced, read the first
time, and by unanimous consent, the
second time, and referred as follows:
By Mr. EASTLAND:
S. 2959. A bill for the relief of Maj. Rob-
ert 0. Smith, U.S. Air Force; to the Commit-
tee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NELSON (for himself and Mr.
McGovErm) ;
S.2960. A bill providing for the formula-
tion of an effective program for fulfilling our
No. 130-6
military manpower requirements on a vol-
untary basis in order that mandatory service
in the Armed Forces may be terminated not
later than June 30, 1967; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
(See the remarks of Mr. NELSON when he
Introduced the Above bill, which appear un-
der a separate heading.)
RESOLUTIONS
TO PRINT AN ADDENDUM AS PART
2 OF SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 69,
88TH CONGRESS, ON "WORLD
COMMUNISM?A SELECTED AN-
NOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY"
Mr. EASTLAND submitted the follow-
ing resolution (S. Res. 336) ; which was
referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
Resolved, That there be printed as part
2 of Senate?Document No. 69, 88th Congress,
entitled "World Communism?A Selected
Annotated Bibliography," an addendum to
that document prepared by the Legislative
Reference Service, Library of Congress, at the
request of the Internal Security Subcom-
mittee of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; and that there be printed five
thousand three hundred (5,300) additional
copies of part 2 of such document for the
use of that committee.
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTER-
ESTS AND ENUMERATION OF CER-
TAIN PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina, from
the Committee on Rules and Adminis-
tration, reported an original resolution
(S. Res. 337) relative to disclosure of
financial interests and definition of pro-
hibited activities of Senate personnel,
which was placed on the calendar.
(See the above resolution printed in
full when reported by Mr. JORDAN of
North Carolina, which apjlears under a
separa eading.)
ADJUSTMENT OF RATES OF BASIC
COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF-
FICERS AND EMPLOYEES?
AMENDMENT (AMENDMENT NO.
1079)
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware sub-
mitted an amendment, intended to be
proposed by him, to the bill (H.R. 11049)
to adjust the rates of basic compensation
of certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, which was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed.
AMENDMENT OF ALASKA OMNIBUS
ACT?AMENDMENT (AMENDMENT
NO. 1080)
Mr. GRUENING submitted an amend-
ment, intended to be proposed by him, to
the bill (S. 2881) to amend the Alaska
Omnibus Act to provide assistance to the
State of Alaska for the reconstruction of
areas damaged by the earthquake of
March 1964, and subsequent seismic
waves, and for other purposes, which was
ordered to lie on the table and to be
printed.
. (See reference to the above amend-
ment when submitted by Mr. GRUENING,
which appears under a separate head-
ing.)
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE AP-
PENDIX
On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix,
as follows:
By Mr. SALTONSTALL:
Address entitled "Residual Fuel Oil Im-
ports: A Consumer's Eye View," delivered by
Charles W. Colson, counsel for the New Eng-
land Council, to the Rocky Mountain Petro-
leum Institute, at Boulder, Colo., on June
18, 1964, which will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.
By Mr. YARBOROUGH:
Article entitled "Civil Defense Station in
Texas Houses Nuclear Attack Center for
Arkansas," by Preston McGraw, of United
Press International, describing some of the
outstanding work of the Civil Defense Di-
rector Bill Parker, of region 5 of the Office
of Civil Defense, in the Denton, Tex., Fed-
eral Center.
By Mr. MORTON:
Letter from Richard J. Henchey, Jr., of
Louisville, Ky., commending Representative
GENE SNYDER, of Kentucky, for helping re-
duce Government expenditures.
CALIFORNIA INTERTIE AND LIBBY
DAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
recent announcement of the plan for the
California intertie by the Department of
the Interior will help implement the
Canadian treaty, and therefore will help
assure early construction of Libby Dam,
In northwestern Montana. My colleague,
Senator LEE METCALF and I are hopeful
that construction on this project can be
started in the very near future.
Secretary of the Interior Udall recom-
mended construction of four big electri-
cal interconnections to sell surplus
Northwest kilowatts in California, Ari-
zona, and Nevada, and to exchange off-
peak power between the Pacific North-
west and Pacific Southwest. Part of
the plan calls for sale in California of
Canadian treaty power which otherwise
would be surplus to the Northwest for
the first 5 to 10 years.
Canada has agreed to ratify the Co-
lumbia River treaty only if Canada's
share of treaty power can be sold in the
United States for 30 years for a lump
sum of $254.4 million paid in advance by
October 1, 1964. Libby Dam, which
backs water 42 miles into Canada, can
be built only if the treaty is approved
by Canada.
A nonprofit corporation is now being
formed by Northwest private and public
utilities to buy Canada's share, sell rev-
enue bonds to finance the prepayment
to Canada, and resell Canada's share to
produce revenues with which to repay
the revenue bonds.
One of the more difficult problems of
completing these arrangements is the
fact that much of Canada's share of
treaty power?which is more costly than
the average cost of Bonneville Power
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
11792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Administration power?would be surplus
to the needs of the Pacific Northwest for
at least the first 5 years after treaty
power comes on the line.
California utilities, public and private,
however, have made firm offers to pur-
chase at the established price large quan-
tities of Canada's share of treaty power
in these early years, and longer, if inter-
tie facilities are built so treaty power can
be transmitted outside the Northwest.
Assurance of a California market for
surplus treaty power would greatly facil-
itate the completion of arrangements to
prepay Canada for its share of treaty
power and to hasten the day when Libby
Dam is built.
Senator METCALF and I feel that the
proposed intertie also would help Mon-
tana's industrial development and eco-
nomic growth by helping keep the price
of BPA power low. BPA expects to in-
crease its net revenues by an average of
$11 or $12 million per year for 50 years
as a result of the intertie, and without
intertie revenues would have to increase
rates by that much more than with the
intertie. I understand that total bene-
fits to the Northwest resulting from the
intertie are estimated at $1 billion over
the next 50 years.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President. let me
say to both Senators from Montana that
we have got to find a way to work out
the intertie arrangement, because I be-
lieve Canada has been exceedingly rea-
sonable and fair in her negotiations with
the United States in connection with the
use of Columbia River water.
The real problem, however, is the ques-
tion whether public preference custom-
ers will be protected in any intertie ar-
rangement. I am going to do everything
I can to cooperate in working out an
intertie agreement; but the problem
which confronts us in this whole intertie
situation Is whether, at the time when
we approve an intertie, we shall have
some idea as to what we are going to
agree subsequently, when it comes to
making wheeling contracts with the pri-
vate utilities. Unfortunately, the pri-
vate utilities do not have a very good
record in regard to putting the public
interest first.
I shall speak on this subject at some
length before the adjournment of Con-
gress. It bears upon the speech I made
at St. Petersburg, Fla., 'some weeks ago,
on the whole problem of public power
preference protection, and the desirabil-
ity of having the private utilities and
the public projects work together on a
cooperative basis.
As both the Senators from Montana
know, In my 20 years in the Senate. I
have been a strong advocate of the pool-
ing arrangement; and I can see a wheel-
ing arrangement as part of a pooling ar-
rangement. But we are confronted with
a legislative problem when we sanction
an intertie arrangement, and leave for
future negotiation with the private utili-
ties the working out of the agreements
In regard to the wheeling of the power.
Let me say to the Secretary of the In-
terior that I shall scrutinize any inter-
tie proposal from this standpoint: What
assurance shall we have that the Pri-
vate utilities will give us fair agreements
for the wheeling, over their transmis-
sion lines, of the power that is generated
at dams owned by the American people?
Once again I point, out that if we let
the private utilities control the trans-
mission of the power, we turn the dams
over to them, and we might just as well
give them power at the bus bar. But I
shall never support, that, because it is
not in the public interest.
If the private utilities wish to come
fora rd with an intertie agreement,?
and among the private utilities I think
there are some industrial statesmen who
would like to change the pattern of the
conduct of the private utilities in years
gone by?I am willing to work with them;
but I do believe that we should get this
matter settled before we approve an in-
tertie agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator from Oregon has ex-
pired.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DODD
in the chair). Without objection, It is
so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. I sincerely hope the
Secretary of the Interior and the Presi-
dent of the United States will see to it
that the public interest is protected in
this respect, before we enter into an in-
tertie arrangement, and then leave to
future negotiation chance the arrange-
ment in regard to wheeling the power;
because if the public preference groups
cannot get the power on a fair-deal basis,
we shall have cheated them; and I do
not propose to be a party to cheating.
Mr. METCALF, Mr. President, of
course I join my senior colleague in con-
gratulating the Secretary of the Interior
for arriving at this agreement, so that
we can go forward with the construction
of Libby Dam and the dams in Canada.
and can carry out our agreement with
Canada to market the power that is gen-
erated in the Northwest region.
I absolutely agree with the Senator
from Oregon. In the Northwest, we have
had a happy arrangement with the
Northwest power pool and the Bonneville
Power Administration. Private power,
mulleins.' power, and Federal public
power have been working together in
marketing their power and working for
the benefit of the region to bring the
power rates down, and thereby to bring
new industries into the region.
I see no reason why the same program
cannot continue in connection with the
generation and transmission of power.
If the power generated at publicly owned
darns or through cooperative regional
management is to move over transmis-
sion lines owned by private utilities, the
result is the same, as has been said, as
if the private utilities owned the power
at the bus bar. To this, I am unalter-
ably opposed.
But if we can work out an arrange-
ment whereby the Federal Government
owns the power, and, under long-term
contracts, whereby the wheeling and the
transmission lines are pooled, we can en-
joy the same happy relationship that has
been worked out in the Pacific North-
west, so that the private utility states-
men?and, as has been said, there are
some?will, in cooperation with Fed-
June 29
eral public power and municipal power?
such as that at the city of Los Angeles,
aid in the pooling of these vast resources
for the benefit of the people of America
and for the benefit of their separate re-
gions.
It will be the responsibility of the Sec-
retary of the Interior to carefully scru-
tinize these contracts, to be sure the
Bonneville Power Administration and
the Northwest power policy, and the
public interest are adequately pro-
tected. It goes without saying that the
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and the other
private power companies will also care-
fully scrutinize the contracts, to see that
their interests are protected.
The present fine program in the North-
west?a program worked out with the
aid of private utility statesmen?should
be a pattern for similar programs in
other regions of the country, so that,
through cooperation between the various
power sources, the highest development
of the resources of the region can be
achieved.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, my rec-
ollection is that the specific proposal
made my the Secretary of the Interior
for an intertie has only recently been
sent to Congress, and thus only recently
been susceptible to public information
and scrutiny.
Speaking for myself, I am quite un-
aware of its contents, other than in a
rather general or nebulous way. Those
who are at all acquainted with the pro-
posal in California have both warmly
endorsed and bitterly condemned the
intertie proposal of the Secretary. I
have said earlier, to the people of Cali-
fornia, and I repeat now to the Senate,
that Congress has a duty fully, carefully,
and completely to scrutinize the pro-
posal and then to determine where the
public interest lies. That is what I pro-
pose to have done.
As I understand the mechanics of the
process, the recommendation of the Sec-
retary of the Interior will come before
the Appropriations Committee of the
Senate this week. It may likewise come
before the Appropriaaions Committee of
the House.
I venture to suggest that there may
very well be a sufficiently serious policy
question involved to require the Interior
Committees of the House and the Senate
likewise to participate in the hearings,
and to scrutinize the proposal which has
been made.
Mr. President, it appears to me that
the public interest would best be served
by having hearings before both commit-
tees in each House, rather than merely
before the Appropriations Committees in
the two Houses.
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DIRKSEN
FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE
PASSAGE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
BILL
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, Sen-
ator DIRKSEN'S contribution to the pas-
sage of the civil rights bill is well known,
but less well known is the reasoning and
deep conviction which motivated his
efforts. An editorial entitled "The Saga
of Senator DIRKSEN," published in the
Christian Science Monitor, on June 24,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
-:aL; 'NAL
LEGISLATIVI COU
Lay - June 004
I. Aat with Mr. William G.' edge, Staff
or, Senate Post Office arid Civil Service Cok.araittee, concerning
roactive effect of the I July date in the pay increase legialatiors.
ledge indicated that after reflection over the weekend he agrees
li be necessary for the Cortanittee to take an amendment on the
he Senate to insert the appropriate language to allow retroactive
of the pay increase by those at4,encies which have administrative
athority to establiash pay levels.
t r in the day I talked t Mr. C*arles Johnson, Staff Director
ast .Csflice and Civil Service Caralmittee, who advised that if the
attempted awendiazent on the floor of the Senate which I had discussed
41
rlier in the day with Mr. Gulledge did nat prove feasible for any reason
he will raise the question in conference from the House side to provide
*rain) of the necessary Language in conference. I thanked Mr. Johnson
had earlier thanked Mr, Gulledge for his consideration and advised
that we would forward a letter to the Chairman of the House Ccalasaittee
r.aquesting action in conference 'should the amendment fail on the floor
ot the Senate.
Met with . J. Archibald. Mos
JAAL)co:-..i?olittee on ign Cperations and Ckwernrenilnforation, who
reaiiiroaed that he will keep this office advised as the report is written.
it appears at present that the report will be extremely critical of the use
the oolygraph as an instrtnytent that has riot been established froa.
scientific study and has not had statistical validation of its use. Ar.
Archibald further indicated that we will receive a copy of the report for
review prior to its transmission to the parent Coalnlittee.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 14663
REPORT ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC
WORKS ACCELERATION ACT
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on assistance under the Public
Works Acceleration Act to areas no longer
burdened by substantial unemployment,
Area Redevelopment Administration, Depart-
ment of Commerce, dated June 1964 (with an
accompanying report); to the Committee on
Government Operations.
REPORT ON INEFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND
CONTROL OF TRAVEL ADVANCES AND PURCHASE
OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant
to law, a report on ineffective administration
and control of travel advances and purchase
of transportation, Department of Labor,
dated June 1964 (with an accompanying
report); to the Committee on Government
Operations.
REPORT ON UNNECESSARY COSTS TO THE GOV-
ERNMENT THROUGH THE LEASING OF CERTAIN
ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant
to law, a report on unnecessary costs to
the Government through the leasing of elec-
tronic data processing systems by the operat-
ing contractor, Aro, Inc., Arnold Engineer-
ing Development Center, Arnold Air Force
Station, Tenn., Department of the Air Force,
dated June 1964 (with an accompanying re-
port); to the Committee on Government
Operations.
REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS IN APPRAISAL OF
LANDS ON THE THIRD DIVISION OF THE
RIVERTON PROJECT, WYOMING
A letter from the Assistant Secretary of
the Interior, reporting, pursuant to law, on
negotiations in the appraisal of lands on
the third division of the Riverton project,
Wyoming (with an accompanying paper); to
the Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs.
PLANS FOR WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT IN
GEORGIA, KANSAS, MAINE, AND OHIO
A letter from the Director, Bureau of the
Budget, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting, pursuant to law, plans for
works of improvement on the Hiawassee
River, Georgia, Muddy Creek, Kansas, Presque
Isle Stream, Maine, and West Fork luck
Creek, Ohio (with accompanying pgpers);
to the Committee on Public Work .
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, with an
amendment:
(4--- H.R. 11049. An act to adjust the rates of
basic compensation of certain officers and
employees in the Federal Government, and
1/44,2E other purposes (Rept. No. 1121).
By Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with amend-
ments:
S. 1186. A bill to amend the act authorizing
the Crooked River Federal reclamation proj-
ect to provide for the irrigation of additional
lands (Rept. No. 1122 ) .
By Mr. BYRD of Virginia, from the Com-
mittee on Finance, with an amendment:
HR. 2434. An act to amend section 560 of
title 38, United States Code, to permit the
payment of special pension to holders of the
Congressional Medal of Honor awarded such
medal for actions not involving conflict with
with an enemy, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 1123).
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMIT-
TEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WEL-
FARE?REPORT OF A COMMITTEE
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, reported an
original resolution (S. Res. 334) ; which,
under the rule, was referred to the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration, as
follows:
Resolved, That the Committee on Labor
and Public Welfare is hereby authorized to
expend from the contingent fund of the
Senate, during the Eighty-eighth Congress,
85,000 in addition to the amount, and for the
same purpose, specified in section 134(a) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act approved
August 2, 1946.
BILLS INTRODUCED
Bills were introduced, read the first
time, and, by unanimous consent, the
second time, and referred as follows:
By Mr. BOGGS:
S. 2953. A bill for the relief of Dr. Chong
Hyok Un; to the Committee on the Judici-
ary.
By Mr. SALTONSTALL;
S. 2954. A bill for the relief of Jordan V.
Peyev; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MCCARTHY: '
S. 2955. A bill to amend section 4216 (re-
lating to the definition of price) of the In-
ternal Revenue Code of 1954; to the Com-
mittee on Finance.
(See the remarks of Mr. MCCARTHY when
he introduced the above bill, which appear
under a separate heading.)
By Mr. McCARTHY (for himself and
Mr. HUMPHREY) :
S. 2956. A bill to amend title 28 of the
United States Code, so as to provide for the
appointment of one additional district judge
for the district of Minnesota; to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 2957. A bill to provide for the convey-
ance of certain mineral rights to Joseph C.
Sandberg and Anna Marie Sandberg; to the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
By Mr. NELSON:
S. 2958. A bill to conserve the human and
natural resources of the Nation; to the Com-
mittee on Labor and Publi0- Welfare.
(See the remarks of Mr. NELSON when he
introduced the above bill, which appear un-
der a separate heading.)
RESOLUTIONS
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMIT-
TEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WEL-
FARE
Mr. HILL, from the Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare, reported an
original resolution (S. Res. 334) pro-
viding additional funds for the Commit-
tee on Labor and Public Welfare, which,
under the rule, was referred to the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration.
(See the above resolution printed in
full when reported by Mr. HILL, which
appears under a separate heading.)
TO PRINT AS A SENATE DOCUMENT
WITH ADDITIONAL COPIES A RE-
PORT ENTITLED "MINERALS AND
WATER RESOURCES IN NEVADA"
Mr. CANNON submitted the following
resolution (S. Res. 335) ; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
Resolved, That the report entitled "Mineral
and Water Resources in Nevada", prepared
by the United States Geological Survey and
the Nevada Bureau of Mines, shall be printed
as a Senate document. There shall be print-
ed 6,000 additional copies of such Senate
document which shall be for the use of the
Members of the Senate from the State of
Nevada.
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 4126 oy
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I in-
troduce, for appropriate reference, a bill
dealing with the amendment of section
4216 of the Internal Revenue Code. I
ask unanimous consent that the bill, to-
gether with an explanation of the pur-
pose of the bill, be printed in the RECORD.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The bill will be received and ap-
propriately referred; and, without ob-
jection, the bill and explanation will be
printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2955) to amend section
4216. (relating to the definition of price)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
introduced by Mr. MCCARTHY, was re-
ceived, read twice by its title, referred to
the Committee on Finance, and ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United ,States of
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 4216(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 (relating to the determination of
"constructive sale price") is amended to
read as follows:
"(b) CONSTRUCTIVE SALE PRICE.?
"(1) IN GENERAL.?If an article is?
"(A) sold at retail,
"(B) sold on consignment, or
"(C) sold (otherwise than through an
arm's length transaction) at less than the
fair market price,
the tax under this chapter shall (if based
on the price for which the article is sold)
be computed on the price for which such
articles are sold, in the ordinary course of
trade, by manufacturers or producers there-
of, as determined by the Secretary or his
delegate. In the case of an article sold at
retail, the computation under the preceding
sentence shall be on whichever of the fol-
lowing prices. is the lower: (I) the price for
which such article is sold, or (ii) the lowest
price for which such articles are sold to
wholesale distributors, in the ordinary
course of trade, by manufacturers or pro-
ducers thereof, as determined by the Secre-
tary or his delegate. This paragraph shall
not apply if paragraph (2) applies.
"(2) SPECIAL RULE.?If an article is sold at
retail, to a retailer, or to a special dealer (as
defined in paragraph (3) ) , and if?
"(A) the manufacturer, producer, or im-
porter of such article regularly sells such
articles at retail, to retailers, or to special
dealers, as the case may be,
"(B) the manufacturer, producer, or im-
porter of such article sells such articles to
one or more wholesale distributors (other
than special dealers) in arm's length trans-
actions and he establishes that his prices
in such cases are determined without regard
to any tax benefit under this paragraph,
"(C) in the case of articles upon which tax
is imposed under section 4061(a) (relating
to automobiles, trucks, etc.), 4191 (relating
to business machines), or 4211 (relating to
matches), the normal method of sales for
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
14664 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
such articles within the Industry is not to
sell such articles at retail or to retailers, or
combinations, thereof, and
"ID) the transaction is an arm's length
transaction, the tax under this chapter shall
(if based on the price for which the article is
sold) be computed on whichever of the fol-
lowing prices is the lower: (I) the price for
which such article is said, or (11) the lowest
price for such articles are sold by such man-
ufacturer. producer, or importer to wholesale
distributors (other than special dealers).
'-(3) SPECIAL DEALER.?For purposes of
paragraph (2). the term "special dealer"
means a distributor of articles taxable under
section 4121 who does not maintain a sales
force to resell the article whose constructive
price is established under paragraph (21 but
relies on salesmen of the manufacturer, pro-
ducer, or importer of the article for resale of
the article to retailers."
SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Act
shall take effect on the first day of the first
calendar quarter which begins more than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
The explanation presented by Mr.
MCCARTHY is as follows:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OP AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 4216(b) OP THE INTERNAL REV-
ENUE CODE or 1954
The purpose of the proposed amendment
is to further the congressional objective of
equalizing the excise tax imposed upon
similar articles sold at different levels of
distribution by competing manufacturers so
as to equalize the tax burden of the ultimate
consumer regardless of the mode of distri-
bution.
me manufacturers excise tax is imnosed
upon the manufacture and sale of certain
articles named in chapter 32 of the code.
Where sales are made by the manufacturer
In what is considered the normal method of
distribution--that is, sales to independent
wholesale distributors?the tax, In most
cases, is imposed upon the price far which
articles are sold. However, there are in-
stances in which it is necessary to construct
a price because the sale Is made outside the
normal method of distribution; for example.
sales to retailers, sales at retail to the ulti-
mate consumer, and sales at less than fair
market value to a wholly owned selling sub-
sidiary of the manufacturer. For that mat-
ter, the tax is also imposed where the manu-
facturer uses the article rather than selling
it. In this case also, of course, it is neces-
sary to construct a price since no Price has
actually been paid.
This equalization would be accomplished
in the case of sales made by a manufacturer
directly to retailers or to consumers by pro-
viding for a constructive sale price that is
comparable to the constructive sale price
used by a manufacturer in the case of sales
made to a wholly owned sales subsidiary.
This constructive price would also be com-
parable to the tax base used by the manu-
facturer where a taxable use Is made of the
art sale.
The manufacturer's lowest price to inde-
pendent wholesale distributors has histori-
cally been the base used as a constructive
price in the case of the tax inipcacd upon
the use of an article by the manufacturer.
himself, and, also. in the case of sales by
the manufacturer to a wholly owned selling
subsidiary. This amendment would accord
the same treatment 1,0 the manufacturer
who sells to retailers or at retail to the
ultimate consumer.
It has no purpose other than to achieve
this obviously desired goal of uniformity
and equality of treatment.
HUMAN ANT) RESOURCE CONSERVA-
TION ACT OF 1964
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President. I in-
troduce a bill to conserve the human
and natural resources of the Nation.
Today America faces twin crises: through
sheer failure to act we are wasting ir-
replaceable natural resources at an ever-
increasing rate: at the same time there
are millions of men who want to work
but who cannot find jobs who are wast-
ing their lives in poverty.
I propose we face both crises boldly
and that we begin a substantial program
to put men to work to conserve our nat-
ural resources. Such a program will at
the same time conserve the human re-
sources of the Nation.
America must begin at once to make a
massive investment at the local, State
and national level to save our natural
resources from destruction. If we fail to
act in the few years we have left, we
could destroy not only the resources
which provide much of the beauty and
recreation in our life but our most im-
portant, lifegiving resources as well?
the water we drink and the air we
breathe.
Much of our priceless heritage is al-
ready lost. The 200 billion board feet
of pine in northern Wisconsin, which
could have made this area rich for-
ever, is gone, and heartbreak and finan-
cial problems have lingered ever since.
A substantial percentage of the rivers
of the east are also hopelessly polluted,
and the dull gray tide of pollution is
slowly spreading over the surface waters
of America.
The coastlines of America, the greatest
recreational and scenic resource that
America has, have been largely ruined
by the most vulgar types of commercial
exploitation or walled off on private
ownership that allows public access to
only 2 percent of the coastlines. Much
of the true wilderness?our last real link
with the world which God created?has
been destroyed.
Meny of our most beautiful highways
have become ugly slums of garish signs
and shoddy development.
These resources?gone and never to be
replaced?were lost because our opti-
mistic young country believed in what
Secretary of the Interior Udall has called
"the myth of superabundance." It
ehocked America to learn that it could
run out of timber and land and minerals
and scenic vistas and a lot of other
things.
Today we face a genuine crisis. To
retreat any further threatens America
with the kind of resource destruction
which turned a green forest into the
Sahara Desert, and which made it vir-
tually impossible for China and India
to sustain the lives of all their citizens.
Look at sonic of the chilling facts:
First. Our population is expected to
double by the year 2000?which is only
38 years away.
Second. We are presently using water
at the rate of 355 billion gallons a day,
and encountering serious water short-
ages in many parts of the Nation. By
1980, experts tell us we win need 600 bil-
lion gallons a day?almost twice our pres-
ent water supply in a scant 17 years.
And by the year 2000 we will need almost
tio0 billion gallons. Meanwhile, the re-
lentless spread of pollution makes more
n rid more water unsuitable for use each
day.
Third. Automobiles are creating a
June 26
nationwide traffic jam which is blight-
ing the landscape of America and chew-
ing up much of the valuable land?land
which can never again be used for farms
or forests or parks er homesites. The
American Automobile Association esti-
mates that our present 68 million pas-
senger cars will increase to 95 million by
1976.
Fourth. The increase in population, in
the number of cars and in leisure time is
causing a geometric increase in demand
on all parks and recreational space. Yet
we are making no cemparable increase
in the amount of space available.
Fifth. Resources for the Future, an
outstanding research organization, esti-
mates that there will be 10 times the de-
mand for outdoor recreation in the year
2000 that there was in 1950. The bipar-
tisan report of the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission estimates
that at the very least the overall demand
for outdoor recreation will treble.
Sixth. Marion Clawson, the expert
who made the study for Resources for the
Future, estimates that the present 750,000
acres of city and county parks should be
doubled right now, just to meet present
demand. By the year 2000, we will need
5 million acres, Clawson estimates. The
greatest demand of all?for a major in-
crease in national park lands?simply
cannot be met because there is no longer
that much additional outstanding land
available. The result will simply be more
overcrowding?and the more unique, the
more desirable an area it is, the more it
will be crowded and overused.
The conservation crisis can be briefly
summarized: our natural heritage of
water, timber, and outdoor recreation
space is disappearing. It is disappear-
ing at the Federal, State, municipal,
county, and private level.
Even as we begin to realize the dimen-
sions of this crisis at all levels of en-
deavor, we are becoming more and more
aware of the crisis of poverty in America.
The President has shown that at least a
fifth of our Nation lies in unacceptable
conditions: .
First. During 1962 there were 9.3 mil-
lion families?or 35 million individuals--
with family incomes of less than $3,000.
Second. Three million six hundred
thousand of these families were headed
by individuals who did not work at any
time during the Yea/.
Third. Of the remaining 5.7 million
families, the heads of 1.5 million worked
at part-time jobs only and 1.8 million
work at full-time jobs for less than 50
weeks.
Fourth. Only 2.4 m:llion of the family
heads of these families worked full time.
There were 6 million people in families
with income below $3,000 who were de-
pendent on family heads unemployed for
5 weeks or more.
These are some dimensions of the
poverty crisis. Many members of these
families are either too ill or too old to
work. But many are not; unemploy-
ment or underemployment is a most un-
necessary and unacceptable facet of
American poverty. There is work to do
In this country. Nevertheless, we find
men without jobs throughout the
Nation.
Unemployment is particularly severe
in some regions of the country. In Ap-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
App
r Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 14669
ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES?
AMENDMENT (AMENDMENT NO.
1078)
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware sub-.,
mitted an amendment, intended to be
proposed by him, to the bill (H.R. 11049)
to adjust the rates of basic compensation
of certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses, which was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed.
RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON
NOMINATION OF EDMUND PORT
TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE,
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on
behalf of the Committee on the Judici-
ary, I desire to give notice that the hear-
ing scheduled for Monday, June 29, 1964,
on the nomination of Edmund Port, of
New York, to be U.S. district judge,
northern district of New York, vice
Stephen W. Brennan, retired, has been
rescheduled for Tuesday, June 30, 1964,
at 10 a.m., in room 2228 New Senate
Office Building.
At the indicated time and place per-
sons interested in the hearing may make
such representations as may be perti-
nent.
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE
APPENDIX
On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix, as
follows:
By Mr, CHURCH:
Statement by him on the Basque people
of Idaho.
By Mr, BOGGS:
Article entitled "Pierre S. Dupont High
School, Wilmington, Del., Wins National
Bellamy Award," by Mrs. Mina P. Thompson,
published in the monthly news bulletin of
the Wilmington public schools,
By Mr. PROUTY:
Article on need to expand small business
to counteract increasing unemployment,
written by C. Wilson Harder, and published
in the Tune 18, 1964, issue of Roll Call.
By Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota:
News release by Ukrainian Congress Com-
mittee of America on unveiling of statue of
Taras Shevchenko.
SENATOR McCLELLAN'S ADDRESS
AT DEDICATION OF NEW CHAN-
CERY OF UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IN MEXICO CITY
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, it was
my pleasure to have been a member of
the small delegation for the dedication
of our newly completed Chancery of the
United States of America in Mexico City.
The dedication was held on Saturday,
June 20, and the principal speaker for
the occasion was the distinguished Sena-
tor from Arkansas, JOHN L. MCCLELLAN.
Since Senator MCCLELLAN is chairman of
the Subcommittee on Appropriations for
the Department of State, it was most ap-
propriate for him to dedicate this build-
ing. Other distinguished Members of the
Senate comprising the delegation were
Senators E. L. BARTLETT, of Alaska, and
B. EVERETT JORDAN, Of North Carolina.
I am happy to report that this new
_chancery is a most impressive building
and has been widely accepted by the
Mexican people as well as by those
Americans who have had the opportunity
to see it. It is a permanent symbol of
the affection between the United States
of America and our host neighbors to the
south, the United Mexican States.
I should like to insert in its entirety in
the RECORD the brief speech delivered by
Senator MCCLELLAN. I should also like
to express my own appreciation and that
of the Congress to those who gave of
their energy and technical ability to plan
and construct this building.
I refer particularly to Southwestern
Architects-Engineers, of Texas, headed
by Mr. Max Brooks and Mr. L. W. Pitts,
and to the Constructora Marhnos,
headed by Messrs. Nicholas and Mariano
Mariscal, who were prime contractors for
the building. Included also are the arti-
sans and all the workers who made erec-
tion of this building possible. Ambas-
sador Fulton A. Freeman and his entire
Embassy staff of Americans and Mexi-
cans are to be congratulated for the
energy and devotion they displayed to
make the dedication ceremony a great
success. Similar mention should be
made of the other members of the delega-
tion, including Messrs. Merrick and Gon-
zalez of our own staff, and the official
State Department delegation headed by
Assistant Secretary Dwight J. Porter and
Deputy Assistant Secretaries James R.
Johnstone and Verne B. Lewis, who ac-
companied Senator MCCLELLAN and the
other Senators and who contributed to-
ward the success of the official opening
of the American chancery.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD the
address delivered by the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN].
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ADDRESS OF SENATOR JOHN L. MCCLELLAN
AT THE DEDICATION OF THE CHANCERY OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEXICO
CITY, JUNE 20, 1964
Mr. Master of Ceremonies, my first visit to
Mexico was some 21/2 years ago. That visit
proved to be most instructive and beneficial
in gaining a better understanding of the
Mexican Government and the aspirations of
the Mexican people. It was a real joy and
privilege to be here then, and I am highly
pleased and happy to be here again today.
It is a great pleasure, indeed, to welcome
you to this ceremony. We are honored to
have you present at the dedication of this,
our new American Embassy. With keen
anticipation and intense satisfaction, we
have long looked forward to this most de-
lightful and gratifying occasion.
Citizens of the United States and Mexico,
working together, have constructed this
building. Together they have made engi-
neering history. We are all mindful of the
challenge that Mexico City presents to archi-
tects and engineers. The foundation of this
building rests on mud and water, 30 feet
deep, but it is as secure as Torre Latinoamer-
icana, which, as you know, has weathered
earthquakes since it was built without los-
ing so much as a windowpane.
We are proud of this building, proud of its
marble-faced beauty which reflects the gran-
deur of this city, proud of its design which
so artfully blends Mexican and North Amer-
ican cultures, and proud that it represents
the achievements of Mexico, achievements
as old as the pyramid of Cuicuilco, not far
from here, and as new as the modern prog-
ress that is present all about us.
This is a pride that we of the United
States share with you. It was only with the
help of Mexicans that this Embassy now
stands, or I might more aptly say floats, on
the subsoil of Mexico City. The founda-
tion for the building was ingeniously devised
by Dr. Leonardo Zeevaert, as you well know,
an outstanding Mexican structural engineer.
It was Dr. Zeevaert who adapted the splen-
did architectural plans of Max Brooks and
Skeets Pitts, associates of the Southwest
Architects & Engineers firm of Houston, Tex.,
to the subsoil and seismic conditions of
Mexico City.
The joint ingenuity of Mexicans and
Americans met this challenge. There were
setbacks, but the work went on, and the
task was finished. I am sure the Construe-
tora Marhnos of Mexico City must be proud
of its accomplishment.
Let us draw inspiration today, then, not
from the grandeur of this building alone,
but from the fact that it was built here
despite the natural obstacles that stood in
the way. Let us draw inspiration from the
fact that here a challenge was boldly met, so
that we can turn our eyes to the greater
challenges that face us in this hemisphere
and which are being met by the Organiza-
tion of American States and the Alliance
for Progress. Let us continue to meet these
challenges with the same spirit, determina-
tion, and mutual cooperation that made the
construction of this Embassy possible.
Let this Embassy, therefore, be dedicated
to the true spirit of the Alliance for Prog-
ress, for we must remember that the Al-
liance for Progress will be successful only if
it is kept a venture of lasting partnership.
Mexico and the United States have long
demonstrated that we can be partners in
progress. We have long demonstrated how
countries should work and live together in
peace.
The resources of the United States can
provide help, perhaps that margin of help
which will make the difference between suc-
cess and failure. But the United States,
itself, cannot do the whole job, nor even the
major part of it. Progress is and must be
of mutual concern; it must be a joint effort,
just as was the construction of this build-
ing.
Mexico has already shown the way for our
sister republics in this great hemisphere.
As President Kennedy recognized in the joint
communique issued at the end of his visit
to Mexico in 1962--"the fundamental goal
of the Mexican Revolution is the same as
that of the Alliance for Progress?social
justice and economic progress within the
framework of individual freedom and politi-
cal liberty."
You have shown what a country can do
when it really sets its mind to the task of
raising the standards of living of its people.
You have opened the doors of your uni-
versities to hundreds of Latin Americana
who seek to learn new techniques and to
perfect old ones. In addition, our two coun-
tries have developed a joint program in which
the United States provided transportation
and Mexico the training for some 300 Latin
Americans last year under the Alliance for
Progress. Our universities are working with
yours in research and study programs which
are of mutual benefit.
Today, education is the largest single item
in your budget. Surely you have set an ex-
ample for all in this hemisphere to follow
by adding a new schoolroom every 2 hours
in your continuing campaign to wipe out il-
literacy.
Your gross national procLuct has increased
almost five times since 1930. Your per capita
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
14670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 26
Income has more than doubled. You have
distributed over 100 million acres of land.
Your research in basic food crops has not
only materially increased your own produc-
tion but has helped to provide a better life
for people in other countries. Your Gov-
ernment is making a continuing effort to
achieve a technological revolution in agri-
culture. It has provided not only land but
also credit, technical knowledge, and other
needed assistance to the farmer.
Last year Mexico modified its banking laws
and took other steps to launch a major
attack on housing problems. Mexico re-
quested the Inter-American Bank and the
Agency for International Development to co-
operate under the Alliance for Progress.
We joined forces in a program that will cost
almost a billion pesos. With this program,
Mexico should, in a few years, reduce its
housing shortage to manageable proportions.
You have achieved what our Secretary of
State has called the "miracle of Mexico," and
it gives us, and it should give all Latin
America, confidence that the goals of the
Alliance for Progress are attainable if each
member countey will only meet its commit-
ments and responsibilities.
There are many reasons for your success,
and there is much that other members of
the Alliance for Progress can learn from
Mexico's experience.
Mexico has set its own national objectives
and sought to achieve them with its own
resources. Your efforts have shown that if
the Alliance is to be a success, each country
must carry the heaviest part of its oven
burden.
One of the chief criticisms of the Alliance
for Progress is that some Latin American
countries have not fully accepted the re-
sponsibility for their own economic and
social welfare. Instead, they have relied too
heavily on others to provide the resources
that create the essential conditions for de-
velopment. This criticism, however, cannot
be directed to Mexico.
Mexico has already proved its self-confi-
dence and determination. But, undoubtedly.
much remains to be done. You in Mexico
realize this, and so do we, as we endeavor
to face up to our own problems in the
United States.
As President Johnson said in Los Angeles,
Calif.. a few months ago, "So long as there
remains a man without a job, a family with-
out a roof, a child without a school, we have
much to do. Our permanent revolution is
dedicated to broadening for all Americans.
the material and the spiritual benefits of the
democratic heritage."
Democratic institutions should be
strengthened, private enterprise should be
fostered and allowed to operate without un-
due and unnecessary restrictions. Educa-
tional systems must be further developed
and expanded.
The spirit of friendship and cooperation
that unites our peoples makes It possible for
us to do this.
In this Embassy, Mexicans and Americans
will work together in_cooperation and under-
standing. Here U.S. officials who handle eco-
nomic, cultural, and political matters will
meet with their Mexican associates on proj-
ects of mutual interest and joint concern.
Here we will receive citizens of Mexico who
contemplate visiting the United States, as
well as our own citizens who have business to
transact with the Mexican Government and
the Mexican people.
The official home that we have constructed
and dedicate here today is a striking symbol
of what can be clone by our two countries in
joint ventures and in mutual cooperation and
friendship.
:iome people may be greatly disappointed,
because the Alliance for Progress has not
achieved the new millenium In 2 short years.
No doubt many obstacles and delays in this
program will be encountered. But these
should not be a cause for despair. They
should simply stimulate and. Inspire us IO a
firmer resolve to get on with the tasks of eco-
nomic and social development. For, as Presi-
dent Johnson remarked at the Mexican Em-
bassy' in May of last year:
"From the unity achieved through the Or-
ganization of American States through the
new sense of common purpose arising from
the Alliance for Progress?we can believe now
that a new day is dawning in the New World.
It is a day of unity, a day of cooperation, a
day of joint efforts and mutual purpose dedi-
cated to freedom, to social Justice, and to
universal peace."
"In the fulfillment of this new day." the
President said, "we of the United States rec-
ognize and believe that the relations between
our country and our great next door neigh-
bor, the Republic of Mexico, will always be
vital and decisive to the destiny of the hemi-
sphere and of the world." Viva Mexico, el
buen vecino.
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on
yesterday, June 25, 1964, prior to the vote
on the last amendment of the day's ses-
sion offered by Senator LAUSCRE, I made
an observation on the floor of the Senate.
The transcript of my observation is so
badly garbled in the RECORD, on page
14650. as to be incomprehensible. I am
quoted as saying:
Excise taxes are not of particular Interest
to the people of my State. In Wyoming we
believe that our best product Is our people.
Our people believe that if the Government
exercises frugality in its operations, there
will be no need for excise taxes. But I shall
not vote for the amendment of the Senator
from Ohio
Mr. President, this Is entirely out of
context. The record will disclose that
I have voted "aye" on every attempt to
eliminate the excise taxes which are an
unwarranted burden upon our people and
all people of the United States.
What I did say was the following:
We have no great manufacturing corn-
pmies in Wyoming but we are interested in
excise taxes, In Wyoming we believe that
our best product is our people. Our people
have the old-fashioned belief that the Gov-
ernment should excise frugality in its ex-
penditures and operations and then there
would be no need for the continuation of
these ridiculous excise taxes. I have voted
for the elimination of all of them, but / shall
not vote for the amendment offered on the
postulate presented by the Senator from
Ohio.
Mr. President. I ask that the RECORD
be corrected to show the exact thrust of
my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The correction will be made, as
indicated.
GOVERNOR HA IELD: "NO" TO
FARM LABOR FREEDOMS
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may pro-
ceed for 1 minute longer than the usual
3 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
porn. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President,
the Oregon State Committee on Children
and Youth is sponsoring the Oregon
Youth Harvest Corps which is being cre-
ated to help harvest crops in Oregon this
summer. The Youth Harvest Corps will
be a clearinghouse to make work avail-
able to young people and to provide fruit
and vegetable growers with a supply of
harvesters.
Teams of teenage boys and girls will
be transported, under adult supervision,
to farms where workers are needed.
Growers provide suitable housing and
recreation while the teams prepare their
own meals and do their own housekeep-
ing. The Governor of Oregon, Mark 0.
Hatfield, has enthusiastically endorsed
this program. .
But it was with regret and even amaze-
ment that I noted Governor Hatfield's
advocacy of an extension of Public Law
78, allowing the continued importation
of Mexican braceros into this country.
This law, which was enacted in an emer-
gency period following World War II,
has been thoroughly scrutinized by both
Houses of Congress and considered un-
necessary. The U.S. Labor Department
has supported its repeal. It is uncon-
scionable that Oregonians so enlightened
In social problems should desire the con-
tinuance of a program that prevents nor-
mal economic forces from working in the
agricultural labor market and which per-
mits trafficking in human beings as if
they were commodities to be bought and
sold in a fluctuating market.
The human equation of the migrant
and bracero program has been poignant-
ly described in a Senate report of 1960:
The migrant and his family are lonely
wanderers on the face of our land. They
are living testimonials to the poverty and
neglect that is possible even in our healthy
and dynamic democracy that prides itself on
its protection and concern for the individual.
Behind the screen of statistics, showing mi-
grant laborers toiling for as little as 50 cents
an hour, and working only 131 days a year,
we see families crowded into shelters that
are more like coops for animals, with chil-
dren undernourished and in poor health, 2
or 3 years behind in school, with little chance
to fully develop their talents and become
useful to themselves and their country. This
is the ugliest kind of human waste. The
plight of the migrant families is a charge on
the conscience of all of us.
The agricultural editor of the Port-
land Oregonian, reporting the activities
of the Governor's symposium on agri-
cultural labor, wrote that those attend-
ing the symposium of the Governor
adopted a resolution asking for contin-
ued importation of Mexican braceros,
and this resolution was some weeks later
forwarded to me by the Governor. I
ask unanimous consent to have printed
at this point in the RECORD the articles,
the resolution, and the covering letter
from the Governor.
There being no objection, the articles.
resolution, and the covering letter were
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
[From the Portland (Oreg.) Oregonian,
May 14, 10041
HATFIELD GIVES HELP TO BRACERO MEASURE
(By Joe Banco)
Gov. Mark 0. Hatfield Wednesday called
for the formation of a statewide commit-
tee to cope with what may be a serious farm
labor shortage. At the :wile time, the Gov-
ernor endorsed a move to seek the extension
of the controversial Mexican farm labor law
which expires December 31.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved Fzeig.R.Vilg9N1ii8511BDPVIERVIVR000500050001-9
prove th; economic and social conditions of
tt;e tribal membership.
The proposed legislation will allow pro-
gram flexibility looking toward permanent
economic growth and development of the
reservation. We concur with the principles
of the tribe's program and recommend that
the judgment funds be made available to
the tribe for more detailed planning as pro-
posed in the enclosed bill.
The Bureau of the Budget has advised us
that there is no objection to the submission
of this proposed legislation to the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
D. OTIS BEASLEY,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT AP-
PROPRIATION BILL, 1965?AMEND-
MENT (AMENDMENT NO. 1082)
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
submit an amendment, intended to be
proposed by me, to the bill (H.R. 11202)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965,
and for other purposes, and ask that it
be printed and appropriately referred.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the RECORD a letter from R. V. Segars,
addressed to me, and requesting the pro-
posed amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
Pore. The amendment will be received,
printed, and appropriately referred; and,
without objection, the letter and pro-
posed amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
The amendment was referred to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The letter and amendment presented
by Mr. JOHNSTON are as follows:
WOODROW, S.C., June 24, 1964.
Senator OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
New Senate office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: It VMS good to
talk to you over the telephone the other
night. All of us in South Carolina are proud
of you for the way you fought the civil rights
bill and I know that you were disappointed
to see it pass.
We missed you at our reception but we
certainly understood your not being there
and we appreciated very much your sending
Tom and Bob. It was a pleasure to have
them both.
I called your office earlier this week and in
your absence talked to Tom Chadwick about
a problem that the cotton farmers are facing.
The Department of Agriculture has added
another factor called micronaire reading in
addition to the classification of grade and
staple for establishing the value of cotton in
the loan. It is their intention to charge the
farmers 6 cents per bale for this service. We
feel that the Government should not place
any more expense on the farmer and I am
sure you agree.
Briefly this cost could be removed from
the farmers by obtaining an amendment to
H.R. 11202 now pending before the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, to provide an
Increase in funds and authorize usage of
them to provide micronaire readings with-
out charge to farmers, in the section of the
bill having to do with Agricultural Marketing
Service. The suggested language of such an
amendment is attached hereto.
Senators from other cotton States are
being contacted by their constituents along
these same lines.
We would certainly appreciate your help
on this matter and we hope that the cotton
farmers can be spared any more loss of in-
come.
With kindest personal regards.
Yours very truly,
RAY V. SEGARS, Jr.
ENCLOSURE TO SENATOR OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
JUNE 24, 1904
"On page 14, line 12 (of H.R. 11202 as
printed and before the committee) delete
130,389,000' and insert in lieu thereof:
'$39,989,000: Provided, That on and after
July 1, 1964, appropriations available for
classing or grading cotton without charge
to producers thereof shall be available for
providing micronaire readings on cotton
without charge to producers thereof; and
hereafter there may be transferred to any
such appropriation such sums from nonad-
ministrative funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation as may be necessary for provid-
ing such micronaire readings in addition to
other funds available for this purpose, such
transfer, except for the cost of micronaire
readings on cotton in which producers have
obtained Commodity Credit Corporation
price support, to be reimbursed from subse-
quent a ropriations the efor ' "
DJUSTMENT OF PATES OF BASIC
COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF-
FICERS AND EMPLOYEES?
AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENT NO.
1081)
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment to the pay
raise bill, H.R. 11049. This amendment
deals with the pension on retirement pay
that Members of Congress receive.
Under existing law, the annual pay-
ment is predicated upon the average
salaries of the 5 highest years of pay.
My amendment would change that re-
quirement that the base be the 5 high-
est years, and would make the base the
average pay of Members of Congress
through the years which they have
served.
Mr. President, I send the amendment
to the desk and ask that it be printed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The amendment will be received,
printed, and will lie on the table.
Mr. CLARK. On behalf of Senators
HART, CASE, NEUBERGER, and myself, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask
that it be printed. We intend to offer
this amendment to the amendment pro-
posed by the Senator from New York
[Mr. KEATING] to H.R. 11049, an act to
adjust and raise the basic compensation
of Federal officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The amendment will be received,
printed, and lie on the table.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the
amendment may be printed in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD at this point in my
remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
The amendment (No. 1083) is as fol-
lows:
At the end of the bill insert the following
new title;
14885
"TITLE VI?INTEGRITY IN GOVERNMENT
"Sso. 601. (a) Each Member of the Senate
and the House of Representatives (includ-
ing the Resident Commissioner), each civil
or military officer and each employee of the
executive or legislative branch of the Gov-
ernment of the United States or any de-
partment or agency thereof who is compen-
sated at a rate in excess of $15,000 per an-
num shall file annually, and each individual
who is a candidate of a political party in a
general election for the office of Senator
or Representative, or Resident Commissioner
in the House of Representatives but who, at
the time he becomes a candidate does not
occupy any such office, shall file within one
month after he becomes a candidate for such
office, with the Comptroller General a report
containing a full and complete statement
of?
"(1) the amount and source of each item
of income, each item of reimbursement for
any expenditure, and each gift or aggregate
of gifts from one source (other than gifts
from any relative or his spouse) re-
ceived by him or by him and his spouse
jointly during the preceding calendar
year which exceeds $100 in amount or
value; including any fee or other honorar-
ium received by him for or in connection
with the preparation or delivery of any
speech or address, attendance at any conven-
tion or other assembly of individuals, or
the preparation of any article or other com-
position for publication, and the monetary
value of subsistence, entertainment, travel,
and other facilities received by him in kind;
"(2) the value of each asset held by him,
or by him and his spouse jointly, and the
amount of each liability owned by him, or
by him and his spouse jointly, as.of the close
of the preceding calendar year;
"(3) all dealings in securities or commod-
ities by him, or by him and his spouse
jointly, or by any person acting on his behalf
or pursuant to his direction during the pre-
ceding calendar year; and
"(4) all purchases and sales of real prop-
erty or any interest therein by him, or by
him and his spouse jointly, or by any per-
son acting on his behalf or pursuant to his
direction, during the preceding calendar
year.
"(b) Except as hereinbefore provided, re-
ports required by this section (other than
reports so required by candidates of political
parties) shall be filed not later than April
30 of each year. In the case of any person
who ceases, prior to such date in any year,
to occupy the office or position the occu-
pancy Of which imposes upon him the re-
porting requirements contained in subsec-
tion (a) shall file such report on the last
day he occupies such office or position, or on
such later date, not more than .three months
after such last day, as the Comptroller Gen-
eral may prescribe.
"(c) Reports required by this section shall
be in such form and detail as the Comp-
troller General may prescribe. The Comp-
troller General may provide for the grouping
of items of income, sources of income, assets,
liabilities, dealings in securities or commod-
ities, and purchases and sales of real prop-
erty, when separate itemization is not feas-
ible or is not necessary for an accurate dis-
closure of the income, net worth, dealing in
securities and commodities, or purchases
and sales of real property of any individual.
"(d) Each report required by this section
shall be made under penalty for perjury.
Any person who willfully fails to file a re-
port required by this section, or who know-
ingly and willfully files a false report under
this section, shall be fined $2,000 or impris-
oned for not more than five years, or both.
"(e) All reports filed under this section
shall be maintained by the Comptroller Gen-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
14886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 30
cra1 as public records which, under such
reasonable regulations as he shall prescribe,
shall be available for inspection by members
of the public.
"if) For the purposes of any report re-
quired by this section, a individual shall be
considered to have been a Member of the
Senate or House of Representatives, a Resi-
dent Commissioner, or an officer or employee
of the executive or legislative branch of the
Government of the United States or any de-
partment or agency thereof, during any
calendar year if he served In any such posi-
tion for more than six months during such
calendar year.
"(g) As used in this section?
"(1) The term 'Income' means gross in-
come as defined In section 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954.
"(2) The term 'security' means security as
defined in section 2 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (15 U.S.C. 77b ) .
"(3) The term 'commodity' means com-
modity as defined In section 2 of the Com-
modity tchange Act, as amended (7 USC.
2).
"(4) The term 'dealings in securities or
commodities' means any acquisition, holding,
withholding, use, transfer, disposition, or
other transaction involving any security or
commodity.
"Sec. 602. Section 5 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1004) is amended by
inserting at the end thereof the following
new subsection:
"'(c) Communications to agency: All writ-
ten communications and memoranda stating
the circumstances, source, and substance of
all oral communications made to the agency,
or any officer or employee thereof, with re-
spect to such case by any person who Is not
an officer or employee of the agency shall be
made a part of the public record of such case.
This subsection shall not apply to communi-
cations to any officer, emnloyee, or agent of
the agency engaged in the performance of
Investigative or prosecuting functions for the
agency with respect to such case.'
"Sec. 603. (a) (1) There Is hereby author-
ized to be established a Commission to be
known as the 'Commission on Legislative
Standards' (hereinafter referred to as the
'Commission') which shall be composed of
four members to be appointed by the Presi-
dent pro tempore of the Senate and four
members to be appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
"(2) The members shall be citizens of the
United States (A) who are interested in good
government and who by reason of profes-
sional training and experience are peculiarly
qualified to carry out the duties of the Com-
mission, and (B) who hold no elective or
party office or position.
"(3) The Commission shall select a Chair-
man and a Vice Chairman from among its
members and shall establish rules for its
procedure.
"(4) Any vacancy In the Commission shall
not affect its powers, but shall be filled In
the same manner In which the original ap-
pointment was made.
"(5) The members of the Commission shall
each receive $50 per diem when engaged in
the actual performance of duties vested In
the Commission, plus reimbursement for
travel, subsistence, and other necessary ex-
penses incurred by them in the performance
of such duties.
"(b) Five members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum.
"(c) (1) The Commission shall have power
to appoint and fix the compensation of such
personnel as it deems advisable, without
regard to the provisions of the civil service
laws and the Classification Act of MO. as
amended.
"(2) The Commission is authorized with-
out regard to any other provision of law to
reimburse employees, experts, and consult-
ants for travel, subsistence, and other neces-
sary expenses incurred by them in the per-
formanee of their official duties and to make
reasonable advances to such persons for such
Purposes.
"(d) The Commission shall conduct a
thorough study of problems of conflicts of
Interest and of relations with executive and
Other agencies which confront Members of
Congress with a view to devising and recom-
mending measures and procedures to deal
with such problems,
"(e) (1) The Commission or any duly au-
thorized subcommittee thereof may, for the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of
this section, hold such hearings and sit and
act at such times and places, administer such
oaths, and require by subpena or otherwise
the attendance and testimony of such wit-
nesses and the production of such books.
records, correspondence, memorandums,
papers, and documents as toe Commission
or such subcommittee may deem advisable.
Subpentus may be issued under the signature
of the Chairman of the Commission, or the
chairman of any such subcommittee (with
the approval of a majority of the members
thereof, t , and may be served by any person
designated by the Chairman of the Commis-
sion or the chairman of any such subcom-
mittee. The provisions of sections 102 to
104, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes
(U.S.C.. title 2, secs. 192-194), shall apply
In the case of any failure of any witness to
comply with any subpena or to testify when
summoned under authority of this subsec-
tion.
"(2) The Commission may authorize the
Chairman to make the expenditures herein
authorized and such other expenditures as
the Commission may deem advisable. When
the Commission ceases its activities it shall
submit to the Appropriations Committees
of the Senate and the House of Representa-
tives a statement of its fiscal transactions
properly audited by the Comptroller General
of the United States.
"(3) The Commission is authorized to se-
cure from any department, agency, inde-
pendent instrumentality of the Government
or congressional committee any information
it deems necessary to carry out its functions
under this section; and each such depart-
ment, agency, and instrumentality is author-
ized and directed to furnish such information
to the Commission, upon request made by
the Chairman of the Commission.
"(f) The Commission shall submit a final
report of its activities and the results of
its studies and investigations, together with
such legislative recommendations as. it may
deem advisable, to the Congress not later
than January 30, 1965, at which time the
Commission shall cease to exist.
"(g) There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the provisions of this section."
Mr. CLARK. This is the Case-Clark-
Neuberger bill, S. 1261, rewritten as an
amendment to the pay bill. It requires
disclosure by Senators and all members
of the executive branch, employees and
officers of the Senate and of the House.
and Members of the Congress, of their
assets, securities, and real property
transactions. It requires ex parte com-
munications to regulatory agencies to be
made a part of the public record. And
it sets up a committee on legislative
standards, consisting of four Members
of the Senate and four Members of the
House, to conduct a study of legislative
conflicts of interest of employees of the
legislative and executive branches.
...MENDNIENT NO. 1084
Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. President, I
submit an amendment to H.R. 1945. the
Federal pay bill. The amendment elim-
inates the proposed $7,500 annual pay
increase for Members of' Congress. I a-slr
that my amendment be printed.
The congressional pay increase is un-
justified, unnecessary, and because it
represents a dramatic example to the rest
of the country, it could be seriously
Inflationary.
Members of Congress at their present
$22,500 pay level already receive more
than three times the income of the aver-
age American family.
According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, the average income of- the
American family is $7,200. Only about
2 percent of American families receive
this.
When people are paid this handsomely
in any line of work, the only convincing
argument that even more should be paid
is clear proof that withput additional pay
candidates simply cannot be recruited
to do the job.
But in the case of Congress, seats are
now more hotly contested than ever. It
has become commonplace for candidates
for the House of Representatives and
their supporters to spend $30,000 or more
in a single race.
Senate campaigns in the past few years
typically cost $250,000 and up to more
than a million dollars for a lone
candidate.
When candidates and their supporters
are willing to spend this kind of money,
how in the world can we say a lush 33 Y3 -
percent increase in salary is needed to
secure people willing to serve as
Congressmen?
No one has seriously argued that in-
creased pay for Members of Congress
will increase the competence or integrity
of those who serve in the Congress.
Can this huge increase be justified on
moral grounds? Are the trials and trib-
ulations of congressional office so cruel
that Members deserve this pay increase
as solace? The answer is a loud "No."
A seat in the House or Senate is the
best job in the world. If we could af-
ford it, most of us would pay to hold
this job. It is challenging, exciting, and
gives a marvelous opportunity open to
a very tiny minority of Americans for
serving country and conscience.
Very few Members are in the Congress
for the money. And no one should be.
We can get along on the $22,500.
Congress has given itself as well as the
rest of the country a tax cut this year.
If the Member of Congress has other in-
come. the tax saving will be even more.
For the typical Member of Congress this
will mean an $800 increase in take-home
pay, even if he has no other income.
That should be enough.
Implied in the tax cut at the time
of its passage was that Congress would
keep Federal spending down. How in
the world can Condress even pretend to
do this, unless it starts with itself.
Can anyone seriously believe in econ-
omy if he votes himself a huge one-third
increase in salary on top of a salary al-
ready three times the size of the income
enjoyed by the average American fam-
ily and higher than the family income
enjoyed by all but 2 percent of American
families?
On the other hand, the President has
made a persuasive case for increasing
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved FcEdgertftRIASti9a1wEeiRwa6?ER9ofro00500050001-9
the pay of executive and judicial Govern-
ment employees.
Cabinet officers, the judiciary, the en-
tire Federal establishment must receive
pay reasonably competitive with private
enterprise or the Government simply
cannot hire the competence it must have
to do an efficient job.
This part of the pay bill is needed and
justified. I warmly favor the pay in-
crease for Federal employees, other than
Members of the Congress. I stress and
repeat I do favor the pay increase for
the executive branch and the judiciary.
I will do my best to get a roll call for
this amendment to cut out the congres-
sional pay increase.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The amendment will be received,
printed, and lie on the table.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it not a fact that
in 1955 Congress increased the salaries
of Members of Congress from $12,500 to
$22,500, an increase of 80 percent?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is ab-
solutely correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. In 1955 the salaries
were $12,500. If the increase is granted,
in 1965 they will be lifted to $30,000.
That means that in 9 years we will have
increased our salaries by 140 percent. Is
that correct?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor-
rect. I believe his figures are accurate.
It is true, of course, that there was an
expense allowance of $2,500, which some
people felt was the equivalent of salary.
But the increase was astronomical, and
at least 100 percent under any kind of
computation.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it not also true that
if we increase our salaries to $30,000, we
will also be making ourselves a rich grant
by way of increased retirement pay for
each succeeding year that we serve in
the capacity of Members of Congress?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is cor-
rect. It is certainly an additional ad-
vantage, because the increased contribu-
tion that we make will be matched by the
Government.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I submitted an
amendment this morning which will
modify the present retirement law so as
to make the retirement pay dependent
upon the average pay of all the years
which a Member of Congress serves in
Congress, instead of the five highest
years. Under the proposal in the pay
increase bill, at the end of 5 years I
would be entitled to a pension based on
a salary of $30,000, instead of on a salary
of $22,500, In my opinion that is a very
lucrative emolument, to which I am not
entitled.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator makes
-
a good point.
AMENDMENT NO. 1087
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk to H.R. 11049.
I ask that it may be received and printed
and lie on the table, and also that it
may be printed in the RECORD.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The amendment will be received
and printed and will lie on the table;
and, without objection, the amendment
will be printed in the RECORD.
The amendment, submitted by Mr.
MORSE, is as follows:
On page 167, at the end of line 2, insert a
new title, as follows:
"TITLE VI
"That each Member of the Senate and
House of Representatives (including each
Delegate and Resident Commissioner); each
officer and employee of the United States
who (1) receives a salary at a rate of $10,000
or more per annum or (2) holds a position of
grade 05-15 or above, and each officer in
the Armed Forces of the rank of colonel, or
its equivalent, and above; and each mem-
ber, chairman, or other officer of the na-
tional committee of a political party shall
file annually with the Comptroller General
a report containing a full and complete
statement of?
"(1) the amount and resources of all in-
come and gifts (of $100 or more in money
or value, or in the case of multiple gifts from
one person, aggregating $100 or more in
money or value) received by him or any
person on his behalf during the preceding
calendar year;
" (2) the value of each asset held by or
entrusted to him or by or to him and any
other person and the amount of each lia-
bility owed by him, or by him together with
any other person as to the close of the
preceding year; and
" (3) the amount and source of all con-
tributions during the preceding calendar
year to any person who received anything of
value on his behalf or subject to his direc-
tion or control or who, with his acquiescence,
makes payments for any liability or expense
incurred by him.
"SEC. 2. Each person required by the first
section to file reports shall, in addition, file
semiannually with the Comptroller General
a report containing a full and complete state-
ment of all dealings in. securities or com-
modities by him, or by any person acting
on his behalf or pursuant to his direction,
during the preceding six-month period.
"Sm. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsec-
tion (b), the reports required by the first
section of this Act shall be filed not later
than March 31 of each year; and the reports
required by section 2 shall be filed not later
than July 31 of each year for the six-month
period ending June 30 of such year, and not
later than January 31 of each year for the
six-month period ending December 31 of the
preceding year.
"(b) In the case of any person required
to file reports under this Act whose service
terminates prior to the date prescribed by
subsection (a) as the date for filing any
report, such report shall be filed on the last
day of such person's service, or on such later
date, not more than three months after the
termination of such service, as the Comp-
troller General may prescribe.
"Sze. 4. The reports required by this Act
shall be in such form and detail as the Comp-
troller General may prescribe. The Comp-
troller General may provide for the grouping
of items of income, sources of income, assets,
liabilities, and dealings in securities or com-
modities, when separate itemization is not
feasible or not necessary for an accurate dis-
closure of a person's income, net worth,
or dealings in securities, and commodities.
"Sm. 5. Any person who willfully fails to
file a report required by this Act or who will-
fully and knowingly files a false report shall
be fined $2,000 or imprisoned for not more
than five years, or both.
"Suc. 6. (a) As used in this Act?
"(1) The term 'income' means gross in-
come as defined in section 22(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code.
14887
"(2) The term 'security' means security
as defined in section 2 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (U.S.C., title 15, sec.
77b).
"(3) The term 'commodity' means com-
modity as defined in section 2 of the Com-
modity Exchange Act, as amended (U.S.C.,
title 7, sec. 2).
"(4) The term 'dealings in securities or
commodities' means any acquisition, hold-
ing, withholding, use, transfer, disposition,
or other transaction involving any security or
commodity.
" (5) The term 'person' includes an indi-
vidual, partnership, trust, estate, association,
corporation, or society.
"(b) For the purposes of any report re-
quired by this Act, a person shall be con-
sidered to be a Member of the Senate or
House of Representatives, an officer or em-
ployee of the United States and of the
armed services as described in the first sec-
tion of this Act, or a member, chairman, or
other officer of the national committee of a
political party, if he served (with or with-
out compensation) in any such position
during the period to be covered by such re-
port, notwithstanding that his service may
have terminated prior to December 31 of
such calendar year.
"Sm. 7. The Comptroller General shall
have authority to issue, reissue, and amend
rules and regulations governing the publi-
cation of reports, or any part of them. He
shall prescribe fees to cover the cost of
reproduction. In formulating such rules
and regulations, he shall seek to maximize
the availability of reports for purposes of
informing the public and agencies and
officials of the Federal and local governments,
and to minimize use of such records for
private purposes."
AMENDMENT NO. 1088
Mr. KEATING (for himself and Mr.
JAvrrs) submitted an amendment, in-
tended to be proposed by them, jointly,
to House bill 11049, the Federal em-
ployees pay bill, which was ordered to
lie on the table and to be printed.
FREE IMPORTATION OF WILD ANI-
MALS AND WILD BIRDS?AMEND-
MENT (AMENDMENT NO. 1085)
Mr. CURTIS submitted an amend-
ment, intended to be proposed by him, to
the amendment (No. 465) intended to be
proposed by Mr. MANSFIELD (for himself
and other Senators) to the bill (H.R.
1839) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930
to provide for the free importation of
wild animals and wild birds which are
intended for exhibition in the United
States, which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Finance and ordered to be
printed.
AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN CRITI-
CAL MATERIALS DURING A WAR
OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY?
AMENDMENT (AMENDMENT NO.
1086)
Mr. METCALF submitted an amend-
ment, intended to be proposed by him, to
the bill (S. 2272) to insure the avail-
ability of certain critical materials dur-
ing a war or national emergency by
providing for a reserve of such materials,
and for other purposes, which was re-
ferred to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices and ordered to be printed.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005000001-9
14
pproved FoliNfektRIMilkeof191?-?-WWW000500050001-9 June 30
ADJUSTMENT OF RATES OF BASIC
COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN OF-
FICERS AND EMPLOYEES?ADDI-
TIONAL COSPONSOR OF AMEND-
MENTS
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yester-
day I submitted two amendments to the
bill HR. 11049, the Federal pay bill. I
ask unanimous consent that the name of
the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Lauscms]
appear as a cosponsor of the amend-
ments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so or-
dered.
ASSISTANCE TO ELDERLY PER-
SONS?ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR
OF BILL
Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. President. at Its
next printing, I ask unanimous consent
that the name of the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Moss] be added as cosponsor of S.
2000, the bill to provide assistance in the
development of new or improved pro-
grams to help older persons through
grants to the States for community plan-
ning and services for training, through
research, development, or training proj-
ect grants, and to establish within the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare an operating agency to be desig-
nated as the "Administration of Aging."
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had agreed to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (HR. 2664) to
amend section 6(o) of the Universal
Military Training and Service Act to
provide an exemption from induction for
the sole surviving son of a family whose
father died as a result of military service.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (HR. 10053) to
amend section 502 of the Merchant Ma-
rine Act, 1936, relating to construction
differential subsidies.
The message further announced that
the House had agreed to the report of
the committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11376) to provide a 1-year exten-
sion of certain excise tax rates.
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills, and they were
signed by the Acting President pro tern-
Pore:
H.R. 9876. An act to amend the Juvenile
Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act
of 1961 by extending its provisions for 2
additional years and providing for a special
project and study;
HR. 10053. An act to amend section 502 of
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936. relating to
construction differential subsidies; and
H R.10814. An act to further amend the has been served effectively and economi-
Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, cally by this agency. _
to extend the expiration date of certain au- In 1861, our Government ministered
thorities. thereunder, and for other purposes. to the political, economic, and social
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CI.F.s, ETC., PRINTED IN I'RE AP-
PENDIX
On request, and by unanimous consent,
addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were
ordered to be printed in the Appendix, as
follows:
Hy Mr. HARTHE:
Editorial tribute to the Cummins Engine
Co., of Columbus. Ind., for its community
consciousness and civic concern. published In
the Columbus (Ind.) Evening Republican of
June 23. 1964.
Editorial entitled "Fighting Dropout Prob-
lem." published in the Marion (Ind.) Leader-
Tribune of June 10, 1964.
Editorial on Cyprus and the United Na-
tions. published in the Rushville (Ind.) Daily
Telegram of June 23, 1964.
Editorial entitled "Indiana: Land of Rea-
sonable Taxes," published in the Sellersburg
(Ind.) News of June 10, 1964.
By Mr. MUNDT:
Article entitled "Difficulties of a Small
State in the Federal System and Suggestions
for Dealing With Them," written by Robert
E. :invite, Governor of Idaho, and published
In the spring 1964, issue of State Govern-
ment.
By Mr. McCI.r1 LAN:
Resolution in opposition to the Civil
Rights Act, adopted by the Searcy, Ark.,
Civ itan Club.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
CONTINUES RECORD OF EFFEC-
TIVE SERVICE?PUBLIC PRINTER
HARRISON PROPOSES RELOCA-
TION AND CONSOLIDATION
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, 104
years ago last Tuesday, President
Buchanan signed an act establishing a
Government Printing Office. Almost ob-
scured by the momentous events taking
place in early March of 1861 as prolog
to the Civil War, the U.S. Government
Printing Office opened its doors for busi-
ness. It has served the legislative, execu-
tive, and judicial branches of the Gov-
ernment continuously since that time.
History and circumstances have demon-
strated what a remarkably sound piece
of business this was for our Republic.
In the first 6 months of its operation,
the Government Printing Office recov-
ered its entire purchase cost of $135,000.
Prior to 1873, the proceedings and de-
bates of the Congress were reported in
abbreviated form in newspapers, printed
by private firms, or contracted for from
printers elected by the House and Senate
who were, more often than not, different
printers for each body. At the conclu-
sion of each session, the Congress was
regularly petitioned for redress of losses
Incurred in reproducing these proceed-
ings. Finally, due to irregularities, de-
lays, and excessive costs, this highly im-
portant segment of public printing was
placed under the Congressional Printer,
and the first CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ap-
peared on March 5, 1873. Since that
date, the Congress of the United States
needs of 32 million Americans. Today,
we respond to the vastly expanded re-
quirements of a population approaching
200 million. The Government Printing
Office has met the challenge of a nation's
government on the mcve. This agency
now employs more than 7,000 persons
and occupies a four-building complex a
few short blocks from this Chamber. It
leases paper-storage facilities in Fran-
conia. Va., as well as document-storage
warehouses in both Washington, D.C.,
and Maryland. In the past fiscal year,
the Government Printing Office pro-
duced over a billion copies of publica-
tions of all classes. This total includes
over 8 million copies of the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD and 3.8 million copies of
the Federal Register. In addition,
nearly 2!i billion postal cards were
printed in fiscal 1963.
Its Division of Public Documents
mailed out 181 million publications, and
returned nearly $6 million to the U.S.
Treasury from the sale of these publica-
tions. The Government Printing Of-
fice's dollar volume now exceeds $127
million annually. It includes central-
office printing, field-service printing,
blank paper supply to Government de-
partments, as well as purchases of print-
ing from commercial contractors. Pur-
chases of printing from commercial
contractors accounted for 47 percent of
the printing and binding volume for
1963.
This agency is rather unique, since it
operates similarly to conventional com-
mercial enterprises: With a working
capital used as a revolving fund. For
example, when an agency orders print-
ing from the Government Printing Of-
fice, the job is done and the publication
delivered, together with a bill for the
work. During the interval between pro-
duction and collection, the Printing Of-
fice pays its help and purchases paper
and supplies, using its revolving fund
When the agency pays its bill, the Gov-
ernment Printing Office reconstitutes its
working capital on deposit with the U.S.
Treasury. Capital purchases and re-
placement of obsolete equipment must
be made from a small percentage of re-
tained earnings to keep pace with
rapidly changing technology which is so
characteristic of the printing industry.
Realistic and competitive price struc-
tures are testimony as to how well the
Government Printing establishment is
doing its task. In recent months, Public
Printer James L. Harrison, the most
capable administrator of this important
office, has submitted a proposal to the
Congress for vacating the present four-
building complex and distant warehous-
ing facilities. Mr. Harrison envisions the
relocating and consolidating of Govern-
ment Printing Office operations at a
building especially designed to meet its
production and storage needs. Substan-
tially lower operating costs are forecast
if the Public Printer's plan is approved,
with savings conservatively estimated at
nearly $3 million annually. Moreover,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
d64
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
92d birthday, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court said:
His devotion to the law, his contributions
to the education of members of both bench
and bar, and his great contributions to the
jurisprudence of our country have not been
excelled in our history.
As a representative of the people of
Dean Pound's native State, to whom he
always remained close, I express our pro-
found sense of loss. At the same time,
we must be grateful that much of his
wisdom is preserved for us all not only
in his extensive writings but in the en-
during and viable impression on the law,
the bar, and the American philosophy
which he leaves as his most impressive
monument.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD, an
article from this morning's Washington
Post reporting Dean Pound's death.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NOTED LAW DEAN ROSCOE DEAN Pomo Is
DEAD AT 93
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., July 1.?Roscoe Pound,
93, former dean of the Harvard Law School
and known as the grand old man of the
law to generations of lawyers, died tonight
in the Harvard infirmary.
Although in poor health in recent months,
the legendary legal scholar, until recently,
strolled from his infirmary quarters to his
office in Langdell Hall at Harvard.
In 1961, an association of lawyers in Spain
voted him "worldwide patriarch of com-
parative law." And Mr. Pound's associates
in the legal profession called him the man
whom lawyers recognize as the greatest stu-
dent of common law of all time.
On his 92d birthday?October 27, 1962?
Chief Justice Earl Warren said of Mr.
Pound: "His devotion to the law, his con-
tributions to the education of members of
both bench and bar, and his great contri-
butions to the jurisprudence of our country
have not been excelled in our history."
TWENTY HONORARY DEGREES
Dean Pound held some 20 honorary de-
grees from universities in this country and
abroad. In 1940, he was awarded the golden
medal of the American Bar Association for
"conspicuous service to the cause of Ameri-
can jurisprudence."
Born in Lincoln, Nebr., he was the son of
Stephen B. Pound, who eventually became
a lawyer and a judge. His mother, Laura
Biddlecombe Pound, a native of New York,
was Mr. Pound's first teacher.
At the University of Nebraska, he ma-
jored in botany and did graduate work in
plant geography, ecology, and parasitic fungi,
earning a BA., an MA., and a Ph. D. in the
field. He was the first director of the Bo-
tanical Survey of Nebraska.
Although he attained far greater promi-
nence in the law, Dean Pound never received
a bachelor of laws degree. Admitted to the
Nebraska bar in 1890 after a year's law study
at Harvard, he practiced for a time in Lin-
coln, served as commissioner of appeals in
the Supreme Court of Nebraska, taught juris-
prudence and Roman law at the University
of Nebraska, and became dean there in 1903.
After further stints of teaching at North-
western University and at the University of
Chicago, he returned to Harvard in 1910 as
Story professor of law. Six years later, still
one a the newest members of the Harvard
faculty, he was appointed dean.
NOTABLES ON FACULTY
On his faculty over the years were, such
men as Edward 11, Warren, James M. Landis,
and Felix Frankfurter. The number of stu-
dents rose from 791 to a peak of 1,440 in 1925.
Among them were Thomas Corcoran, David E.
Lilienthal, and Dean Acheson.
Witty, a great storyteller, and a powerful,
yet matter-of-fact, speaker who never lost
his Nebraska accent, Pound was one of Har-
vard's most popular lecturers.
In his teaching, he followed the traditional
case method, adding others of his own out
of his philosophies of sociological jurispru-
dence. He often turned to illustrations from
actual practice, and he treated the ideas of
his students seriously.
When he resigned as dean in 1936, Mr.
Pound became Harvard's first roving pro-
fessor, entitled to teach in any faculty of
the university he wished.
During the New Deal and afterward, Dean
Pound assailed what he called administra-
tive absolutism, contending that the new
administrative agencies were seeking exemp-
tion from judicial scrutiny.
His critics recalled that in the celebrated
speech of 1906 he had condemned the "spec-
tacle of law paralyzing administration." He
continued to attack the agencies even after
a conservative Congress had enacted the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act to rectify the very
shortcomings of which he had complained.
HIS LEARNING IS VAST
Dean Pound was renowned for his ency-
clopedic mind and his vast learning. At 76,
already a master of French, German, Italian,
Spanish, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,
he took up Chinese for a trip to China.
A prolific author, he was revising two arti-
cles on labor unions and the law when he
flew west to be honored by the American
Judicature Society, of which he was the only
surviving founder.
Heavy framed, standing 5 feet 10 and
weighing 200 pounds in his prime, Dean
Pound was long possessed of great physical
stamina. According to one story, he could
still run a mile in less than 5 minutes at
the age of 50
He was variously chairman of the section
of legal education of the American Bar As-
sociation, president of the Association of
American Law Schools, as a member of the
standing advisory committee for the juristic
section of the International Institute of In-
tellectual Cooperation (a League of Nations
instrument), and a member of the cele-
brated Wickersham Commission, whose re-
port to President Hoover in 1931 on the
prohibition question caused a national furor.
Mr. Pound sided with the majority in
urging a further trial of prohibition but in
the individual reports, which the several
members of the Commission appended, de-
clared his belief that the more important
gains, such as the closing of the saloons
and the establishment of Federal control over
the liquor business, ought to be safeguarded
by a revision of the 18th amendment to per-
mit adaptation to local conditions where
it was demonstrably futile to expect total
abstinence.
Dean Pound, who was twice a widower,
met his second wife as a member of the
Wickersham Commission.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is
there further morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business. If it,
ing business is closed.
15275
The PRESIDING 01.1.10ER. Is there
objection? Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The
pending question is on the amendment
of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WIL-
LIAMS].
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NEL-
SON in the chair). Without objection, it
Is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Preisident, for
the third time, I reiterate that the Sen-
ate is now operating under the Pastore
germaneness rule, and for the next 3
hours, at least, I hope Senators will con-
fine themselves to the pay bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
yield for 2 minutes to the Senator from
Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], with the un-
derstanding that I shall not lose the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, in
1932 the Democratic Party adopted what,
in my opinion, was the best party plat-
form since I have been active in politics.
That platform stated:
We believe that a party platform is a cove-
nant with the people to be faithfully kept
by the party when entrusted with power.
In 1932 I was elected to the House of
Representatives on that platform, and I
have never left it, although the party left
it a long time ago.
The statesmanship of my predecessor,
Carter Glass, can be observed in such
planks as these in the 1932 platform:
We favor maintenance of the national
credit by a Federal budget annually bal-
anced on the basis of accurate executive esti-
mates within revenues, raised by a system
of taxation levied on the principle of ability
to pay. * * * We advocate the removal of
government from all fields of private enter-
prise except where necessary to develop pub-
lic works and natural resources in the com-
mon interest.
And this is what those of us who were
elected on that platform promised to do
to their own pay:
We advocate an immediate and drastic re-
duction of governmental expenditures by
abolishing useless commissions and offices,
consolidating departments an bureaus, and
eliminating extravagance to accomplish a
saving of not less than 25 percent in the
o t of the Federal Government.
Promising the splendid voters of the
Seventh Congressional District to carry
out that platform, one of my first official
votes was to vote to cut my own pay
from $10,000 to $7,500.
As I have indicated, it did not take
the Democratic New Dealers very long
to leave the 1932 program. And what
has been the result? We now have a
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
ask unanimous consent that the unfin-
ished business be laid before the Senate
and made the pending business.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15276 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
debt created by reckless spending of over
$300 billion, the annual interest on which
is nearly three times the total cost of
government when I entered the House
31 years ago.
Instead of abolishing useless commis-
sions and reducing Government employ-
ees, we have created a plethora of com-
missions and we have more than doubled
the number of Federal employees. And
in recent years, Congress votes in every
election year, and sometimes in between,
to raise the pay of those employees. The
amount involved has become so large
that every time Congress raises the pay
of Federal employees by 1 percent it
costs the taxpayers $100 million.
Throughout my service in the Con-
gress. I have consistently advocated and
consistently voted for the economy prin-
ciples enunciated in the platform on
which I was first elected. Never during
those 31 years have I ever voted to raise
my own pay, and I do not intend to vote
for H.R. 11049 which raises the pay of
all Members of the Congress by $7,500
per year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have published in the REcORD at
this time our party platform of 1932,
with the hope that its sound provisions
will be considered by those who write
the platform in Atlantic City next
August.
There being no objection, the party
platform was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, BS follows:
DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM FOR 1932
In this time of unprecedented economic
and social distress the Democratic Party de-
clares its conviction that the chief causes of
this condition were the disastrous policies
pursued by our Government since the World
War, of economic !sedation, fostering the
merger of competitive businesses into mo-
nopolies and encouraging the indefensible
expansion and contraction of credit for pri-
vate profit at the expense of the public.
Those who were responsible for these poli-
cies have abandoned the ideals on which the
war was won and thrown away the fruits of
victory, thus rejecting the greatest oppor-
tunity in history to bring peace, prosperity,
and happiness to our people and to the
world.
They have ruined our foreign trade; de-
stroyed the values of our commodities and
products, crippled our banking system,
robbed millions of our people of their life
savings, and thrown millions more out of
work, produced widespread poverty and
brought the Government to a state of finan-
cial distress unprecedented in time of peace.
The only hope for improving present con-
ditions. restoring employment, affording per-
manent relief to the people, and bringing
the Nation back to the proud position of do-
mestic happiness and of financial. Industrial,
agricultural and commercial leadership in
the world lies In a drastic change in eco-
nomic governmental policies.
We believe that a party platform is a
covenant with the people to have [sic] faith-
fully kept by the party when entrusted with
power, and that the people are entitled to
know in plain words the terms of the con-
tract to which they are asked to subscribe.
We hereby declare this to be the platform
of the Democratic Party:
The Democratic Party solemnly promises
by appropriate action to put into effect the
principles, policies, and reforms herein ad-
vocated, and to eradicate the policies, meth-
ods, and practices herein condemned. We
advocate an immediate and drastic reduc-
tion of governmental expenditures by
abolishing useless commissions and offices,
consolidating departments and bureaus, and
eliminating extravagance to accomplish a
saving of not lees than 25 percent in the cost
of the Federal Government, And we call
upon the Democratic Party in the States to
make a zealous effort to achieve a propor-
tionate result.
We favor maintenance of the national
credit by a Federal budget annually bal-
anced on the basis of accurate executive
estimates within revenues, raised by a sys-
tem of taxation levied on the principle of
ability to pay.
We advocate a sound currency to be pre-
served at all hazards and an international
monetary conference called on the invita-
tion of our Government to consider the re-
habilitation of silver and related questions.
We advocate a competitive tariff for reve-
nue with a factfinding tariff commission
free from executive interference, reciprocal
tariff agreements with other nations, and an
international economic conference designed
to restore international trade and facilitate
exchange.
We advocate the extension of Federal cred-
it to the States to provide unemployment re-
lief wherever the diminishing resources of
the States makes it impossible for them to
provide for the needy; expansion of the Fed-
eral program of necessary and useful con-
struction effected [sic] with a public interest.
such as adequate flood control and water-
ways.
We advocate the spread of employment by
R substantial reduction in the hours of labor,
the encouragement of the shorter week by
applying that principle in government serv-
ice; we advocate advance planning of pub-
lic works.
We advocate unemployment and old-age
insurance under State laws.
We favor the restoration of agriculture,
the nation's basic industry; better financing
of farm mortgages through recognized farm
bank agencies at low rates of interest on an
amortization plan, giving preference to
credits for the redemption of farms and
homes sold under foreclosure.
Extension and development of the Farm
Cooperative movement and effective control
of crop surpluses so that our farmers may
have the full benefit of the domestic mar-
ks t.
The enactment of every constitutional
measure that will aid the farmers to re-
ceive for their basic farm commodities prices
in excess of cost.
We advocate a Navy and an Army ade-
quate for national defense, based on a survey
of all facts affecting the existing establish-
ments. that the people In time of peace may
not be burdened by an expenditure fast ap-
proaching a billion dollars annually.
We advocate strengthening and impartial
enforcement of the antitrust laws, to pre-
vent monopoly and unfair trade practices,
and revision thereof for the better protection
of labor and the small producer and dis-
tributor.
The conservation, development, and use of
the Nation's waterpower in the public
interest.
The removal of government from all fields
of private enterprise except where necessary
to develop public works and natural re-
sources In the common interest.
We advocate protection of the investing
public by requiring to be tiled with the
Government and carried In advertisements
of all offerings of foreign and domestic
stocks and bonds true information as to
bonuses, commlesione, principal invested,
and Interests of the sellers.
Regulation to the full extent of Federal
power, of (a) holding companies which sell
securities in interstate commerce; (b) rates
of utilities companies operating across State
- July 2
lines; (c) exchange In securities and com-
modities.
We advocate quicker methods of realizing
on assets for the relief of depositors of sus-
pended banks, and a more rigid supervision
of national banks for the protection of de-
positors and the prevention of the use of
their moneys in speeulation to the detri-
ment of local credits.
The severance of affiliated security compa-
nies from, and the divorce of the investment
banking business frcm, commercial banks,
and further restriction of Federal Reserve
banks in permitting the use of Federal Re-
serve facilities for speculative purposes.
We advocate the full measure of justice
and generosity for all war veterans who have
suffered disability or disease caused by or
resulting from actual service in time of war
and for their dependents.
We advocate a firm foreign policy. includ-
ing peace with all the world and the settle-
ment of international disputes by arbitra-
tion: no interference In the Internal affairs
of other nations; and sanctity of treaties
and the maintenance of good faith and of
good will in financial obligations; adherence
to the World Court with appending reserva-
tions; the Pact of Paris abolishing war as
an Instrument of national policy, to be made
effective by provisions for consultation and
Conference in case of threatened violations
of treaties.
International agreements for reduction of
armaments and cooperation with nations of
the Western Hemisphere to maintain the
spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.
We oppose cancellation of the debts owing
to the United States by foreign nations.
Independence for the Philippines; ulti-
mate statehood for Puerto Rico.
The employment of American citizens in
the operation of the Panama Canal.
Simplification of legal procedure and re-
organization of the judicial system to make
the attainment of jus^;ice speedy, certain, and
at leas cost.
Continuous publicity of political contribu-
tions and expenditures; strengthening of the
Corrupt Practices Act and severe penalties for
misappropriation of campaign funds.
We advocate the repeal of the 18th amend-
ment. To effect such repeal we demand that
the Congress immediately propose a constitu-
tional amendment to truly represent [sic]
the conventions in the States called to act
solely on that proposal; we urge the enact-
ment of such measures by the several States
as will actually promote temperance, effec-
tively prevent the return of the saloon, and
bring the liquor traffic into the open under
complete supervision and control by the
States.
We demand that tae Federal Government
effectively exercise its power to enable the
States to protect themselves against importa-
tion of intoxicating liquors in violation of
their laws.
Pending repeal, we favor immediate modi-
fication of the Voistead Act; to legalize the
manufacture and sale of beer and other bev-
erages of such alcoholic content as is per-
missible under the Cmstitution and to pro-
vide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.
We condemn the improper and excessive
use of money in political activities.
We condemn paid lobbies of special in-
terests to influence Members of Congress
and other public servants by personal con-
tact.
We condemn action and utterances of high
public officials designed to influence stock ex-
change prices.
We condemn the open and covert resist-
ance of administrative officials to every effort
made by congressional committees to curtail
the extravagant expenditures of the Govern-
ment and to revoke improvident subsidies
granted to favorite Interests.
We condemn the extravagance of the Farm
Board, its disastrous action which made the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4 ?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R0005
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Government a speculator in farm products,
and the unsound policy of restricting agri-
cultural products to the demands of do-
mestic markets.
We condemn the usurpation of power by
the State Department in assuming to pass
upon foreign securities offered by interna-
tional bankers as a result of which billions
of dollars in questionable bonds have been
sold to the public upon the implied approval
of the Federal Government.'
And in conclusion, to accomplish these
purposes and to recover economic liberty, we
pledge the nominees of this convention the
best efforts of a great party whose founder
announced the doctrine which guides us now
in the hour of our country's need: equal
rights to all; special privilege to none.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, two
questions were submitted to me by my
colleague from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND]. I ask unanimous consent
to place in the RECORD the questions he
asked, with my answers to those ques-
tions.
There being no objection, the questions
and answers were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
Question. At the present time, I believe
that the salary of the Chief Benefits Director
of the Veterans' Administration is $20,000,
the same salary as is now received by many
listed in the bill to be under level 4 of the new
pay schedule, including, for instance, the
Commissioner of Community Facilities Ad-
ministration. Could the Senator tell me
whether the Chief Benefits Director of the
Veterans' Administration is listed in either
level 4 or 5 of the new bill?
Answer. No, the Chief Benefits Director of
the Veterans' Administration is not listed in
level 4 or 5 of the executive salary schedule,
Under H.R. 11049, this position will continue
to be a GS-18 position.
Question. What effect will the failure to
include the Chief Benefits Director of the
Veterans' Administration, in either level 4
or 5 of the new pay schedule, have on field
positions of the Veterans' Administration?
Answer. It will have no effect. The Chief
Benefits Director is rated at grade 18 and the
67 regional field managers are set at grades
15 and 16. Grades 15, 16, 17, and 18 all
receive substantial increases under H.R.
11049.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we
are ready to vote.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield for a ques-
tion. Does the Senator wish me to yield
for a question?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am about to ask
unanimous consent to have certain bills
considered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield for that pur-
pose to the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will call attention to the fact that
'Inadvertently omitted from the reading
of the platform, and later Included, was the
following statement: "We condemn the
Hawley-Smoot tariff law, the prohibitive rates
of which have resulted in retaliatory action
by more than 40 countries, created interna-
tional economic hostilities, destroyed inter-
national trade, driven our factories into for-
eign countries, robbed the American farmer
of his foreign markets, and increased the cost
of production."
No. 133-5
the majority leader, 3 minutes ago, called
attention to the germaneness rule and
requested that Senators confine them-
selves to remarks concerning the bill.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I appreciate that,
but I would hope the distinguished Sena-
tor would let me call up four bills that
are important to industry. They will
take very little time.
The PRESIDING 010.1010ER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR DIS-
POSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIALS
FROM NATIONAL STOCKPILE
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
from the Committee on Armed Services
I report House Concurrent Resolution
300, H.R. 11235, H.R. 11004, and HR.
11257, and I ask unanimous consent for
their immediate consideration. These
measures, which relate to the disposal of
surplus pig tin, molybdenum, zinc, and
lead from the national stockpile, were
unanimously approved by the Subcom-
mittee on the National Stockpile and by
the Committee on Armed Services,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? Hearing none, the clerk will
state the bills by title.
Is the Senator from Missouri asking
for their immediate consideration?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes; I ask for
their immediate consideration. In ex-
planation, let me say that industry is
very anxious to receive this material.
It is all heavily in excess of stockpile re-
quirements. The administration is anx-
ious to sell it. The measures have been
passed by the House. They have been
approved unanimously by the subcom-
mittee and by the full committee. We are
receiving calls from steel companies and
others every day now, urging that the
measures be passed, because there is a
critical shortage in industry.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I have no objection to these
bills, but I wonder if the Senator will
withhold his request? We are trying to
locate members of the committee. I do
not think there will be any objection.
I personally have no objection.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I will say to my
good friend from Delaware that I would
not think of asking for immediate con-
sideration if they had not been approved
unanimously by the subcommittee, in-
cluding all members on the other side
of the aisle, and by the full committee,
where the ranking Republican member
of the appropriate subcommittee was
present at the meeting this morning.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I am
sure it was approved. I did not know
whether some Senators wanted to make
statements in connection with the bills.
That is the real reason I make the re-
quest. We are trying to get in touch
with them. I am sure there will be no
objection. I have none. If the Senator
will withhold his request?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I withhold the re-
quest.
I thank the Senator from South Caro-
lina for yielding to me.
15277
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SALARY
REFORM ACT OF 1964
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, we
are ready to vote on the bill, if there are
no further amendments to be offered.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, I have an amendment that I hope
the chairman will take. I send it to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator from Dela-
ware is the pending amendment. The
Clerk will state that amendment.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I did not
realize that there was an amendment
pending.
The Chief Clerk read the amendment,
as follows:
At the appropriate place insert a new sec-
tion as follows:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this bill, the effective date of any increase on
any salary of $20,000 or over shall be the
first day of the first month after the close
of a fiscal year with a balanced Federal
budget."
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I cannot conceive of there be-
ing any objection to the amendment.
It merely provides for the temporary
postponement of the effective date of the
salary increases of those who now are
paid $20,000 a year until such time as we
balance the budget.
If the administration was really se-
rious when it said that it would balance
the budget this is a way to help to ac-
complish that end. We were told earlier
this year that the $11 billion tax cut
would stimulate the economy. We were
told that the purpose of the tax cut was
to stimulate the economy to the extent
that it would bring more money into
the Treasury than if we did not pass a
tax cut.
There have been several increased
spending bills. The administration also
said these would stimulate the economy.
We were told that by increasing our
spending and by cutting taxes at the
same time we would stimulate the econ-
omy and thereby increase the revenue of
the Government so that we could bal-
ance the budget and pay off our debt.
Personally I have never agreed with
the philosophy that we could make our-
selves rich by taxing less and spending
more while financing ourselves with bor-
rowed money.
I do not believe our Government can
spend itself into prosperity on borrowed
money any more than a drunkard can
drink himself sober.
However, for the moment, I am not
quarreling with that newfangled theory
on the frontier. If the people on the
frontier believe it we should give them
an opportunity to express that belief by
supporting this amendment. The
amendment would apply only to those
who receive $20,000 or more a year. It
would postpone that increase for that
brief period according to their own state-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15278 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ments or until such time as all those
spending the money can curtail their
spending and balance the budget.
Unless the chairman is willing to ac-
cept the amendment I shall ask for the
yeas and nays on the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I
cannot accept the amendment. I am sure
the Senator realizes that I cannot accept
it, because my acceptance would indicate
my approval of an arrangement by which
no one in the Federal Government under
this bill could have his salary increased
above $20,000. It would involve hun-
dreds of people in the executive branch,
all the heads of departments, and all the
top executives, and it would involve all
employees in the career service who
would receive more than $20,000. It
would throw the whole civil service es-
tablishment out of gear. It would knock
two or three gears out of the machinery.
It would not work. The Senator must
realize that if the amendment is adopted
there would be perhaps 300 or 400 high-
ranking Federal executives who would be
adversely affected.
We have studied this bill very care-
fully and closely, in trying to determine
equitable salary scales.
Very shortly there will be coming be-
fore us a bill involving not a few million
dollars, but a few billion dollars. If the
Senator wishes to balance the budget, he
can wait until the foreign aid bill comes
before us. and he can go to work on that
bill.
We already have $6 or $7 billion
in the pipeline for foreign aid. He can
take some of that money he wishes to
save out of the foreign aid. He can bal-
ance the budget in that way, if he wishes
to do it.
Furthermore, the amendment would
result in the stacking of hundreds of em-
ployees at the same salary level. Are we
going to say to the civil service em-
ployees, "We are not doing our duty in
balancing the budget, and because we are
not doing our duty, you shall not have
the increase that YOU are entitled to"?
I do not believe the Senator from Dela-
ware wants to do that. I say to the Sen-
ator that if other Senators had followed
me in regard to foreign aid, we could
balance the budget today.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I have supported cuts in for-
eign aid and shall be supporting them
again this year. I agree with the Sen-
ator from South Carolina that a great
deal of money is wasted in that program;
however, there has been a great deal of
wasting of money on domestic programs,
too. I am not pointing the finger entirely
at foreign aid because those who are the
beneficiaries of that program do not vote
in this country. We waste a great deal
of money on many domestic programs
which affect the State of the Senator
from South Carolina and my own State.
We must recognize the fact that we
must cut the entire budget.
Furthermore, Mr. President, the ave-
rage civil service employee, for whom the
Senator expresses so much sympathy,
would not be affected by the amendment.
The amendment would affect only those
who are in the top supervisory status
whose salaries are already in excess of
$20,000.
I agree that It would result in the
stacking up of a great many people.
However, let us think of the incentive
those people would have who are in a
supervisory capacity in the Congress, in
the Cabinet, or at the bead of an agency.
They would have an incentive to elimi-
nate ineMciency in their departments.
They would have an incentive to stop
the wasting of the taxpayers money. If
they had that incentive and if they co-
operated in reducing expenses of the
Government, what would they get? They
would have their salaries increased that
much sooner.
In private industry the Incentive Plan
is used a great deal.
I would not mind labeling this plan
as the Johnston incentive plan Er the
Chairman wants the honor. I have no
pride of authorship, even though I am
proud of offering this plan. It could be
called either the Senator Johnston in-
centive plan or the President Johnson
Incentive plan.
President Johnson said that he would
balance the budget. If that is so, why
would he complain about waiting a brief
time before putting these increases into
effect? If he is only talking for political
propaganda purposes to the American
taxpayer, which I really think he is do-
ing, and if he has no intention of bal-
ancing the budget Senators should re-
ject the amendment and say that if it
were accepted these people would never
get a salary increase.
I am not accusing the President of bad
faith, even though he has asked for an
appropriation which is $51/2 billion more
than President, Kennedy received in the
preceding year.
He talks loud about economy, but ac-
tually he is proving to be the most ex-
travagant President ever to occupy the
White House.
We will cut these appropriations if
our salary increase as well as the salary
increase for top executives in the Gov-
ernment were contingent upon our bal-
ancing the budget I venture to say that
we would find a great deal of enthusiasm
in Congress, in the Cabinet, and
throughout the executive branch to trim
down expenses, especially if we all felt
that our own pocketbooks were affected.
Certainly there is no justification for
Increasing our salaries by 331/s percent
and telling the American people that for
an indefinite period in the future we
intend to borrow the money with which
to pay for our salary increases.
If that were done by a corporation in
private industry that corporation would
soon have a new board of directors. I
am not too sure that there will not be a
new board of directors in Government.
too. The taxpayers may change it in
November.
So long as the Senator from South
Carolina cannot accept this most sen-
sible amendment I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the
request sufficiently seconded?
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President., I
ask unanimous consent that there be 30
minutes of debate allowed on the amend-
ment, with 15 minutes controlled by the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Wir..trams]
- July 2
and 15 minutes by the Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
It is so ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if the
amendment were adopted we would find
that employees in the GS-16, GS-17, and
GS-18 grades would all be compressed in
one place at $20,000. The same thing
would apply to heads of departments and
others in positions of responsibility, earn-
ing more than $20,000; they also would
be stacked together at the $20.000 level.
Anyone who understands the structure
of the Federal service will realize that
this would be a bad situation, because it
would wreck the salary systems set forth
in this bill.
Why penalize the employees, the peo-
ple who would be affected by the amend-
ment? The Senator from Delaware
would provide that only when the budget
had been balanced would many of these
receive their pay increases. Does he ex-
pect the employees to balance the
budget? Whose job is it to balance the
budget? Have the civil service em-
ployees as a body responsibility to do
that? No. It is the job of Congress to
balance the budget. Yet it is proposed
by the amendment to shoulder them
with the responsibility for something
that Congress should be doing.
As I see it, the amendment has no
merit whatsoever at the present time. If
It is desired to balance the budget, let it
be done when the big appropriation bills
come from the Committee on Appropri-
ations.
We cannot expect to balance the
budget if we continue to give away bil-
lions of dollars in foreign aid and spend
billions of dollars for defense. But is
there anyone who does not want us to
defend our country? I do not believe so.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Perhaps the
Senator from South Carolina recalls that
a similar amendment was offered by the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. McCtsLtax]
to the tax-reduction bill. The amend-
ment provided that the tax cut should
not become effective until after the
budget had been balanced.
The Senator knows that this is the
kind of amendment that is repeatedly
offered to bills that might cost the Gov-
ernment some money. Such amend-
ments always provide that the programs
are not to become effective until after the
budget has been balanced.
This issue involves a simple matter of
priority. If Senators desire to provide a
pay raise for Government employees,
they should vote against the amendment.
If they do not want the Government em-
ployees to receive a pay raise, they
should vote for the amendment.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Oklahoma as much time as he
may desire.
Mr. MONRONEY. If there is any
logic to the proposal of the distinguished
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 ?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 15279
Senator from Delaware, it would be to
save enough money by not passing the
pay raise bill to contribute to a balanced
budget. That is one way in which to
read the amendment. But I do not be-
lieve that any of us are waiting to be
ransomed in order to effect reductions or
economies in the public debt, veterans'
benefits, the farm program, or anything
else. We will use a sharp ax whenever
we can, but we do not intend to accept a
bribe by denying Federal employees pay
raises in order to save money; by saving
the money the Senator from Delaware
intends to cut out of the pay bill.
We all desire a balanced budget; but
we cannot deny justifiable pay raises un-
til the budget has been balanced.
The bill provides for a net cost in pay
increases of $556,836,341. The benefits
would flow to 1,732,602 employees.
Among the employees who would be
affected by the Senator's amendment
would be the small cadre of executives-
377?that the President has asked for,
whose salaries would be raised by the bill
to the new executive pay levels at a cost
of about $2,800,000.
At the very most, the cost of the raises
for classified workers in the civil service
brackets and for postal workers would be
In the neighborhood of $555 million.
Less than $4 million of that cost would
be saved by the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Delaware.
While judges have little or nothing
whatever to do with the economy or with
effecting cuts in the budget, the amend-
ment would withdraw the much needed
pay raise for district judges, circuit
judges, other judges 'a the Federal
courts, and the members of their staffs.
Again, there would be a saving of $4,900,-
000, roughly, out of $556 million.
When we come to Members of Con-
gress and the staffs, who would receive
salaries in excess of $20,000, there would
be a saving of $4,500,000.
Therefore, the amendment, in full ef-
fect, would postpone for several years the
much needed raises and, at the same
time, would deny the right of the Ex-
ecutive to choose and the employ of per-
sonnel of great ability in the executive
department to work for all the economy
possible in Government. There would
be a saving, roughly, of only $16,200,000.
Deducting that from the total cost of the
bill, $556 million, would still leave as
the cost of the bill approximately
$640,600,000.
I disagree with the Senator from Dela-
ware about the wisdom of denying a pay
increase. If the Senator is serious about
desiring to balance the budget, all he
need do is to vote "nay" on the pay bill,
and he will vote to effectuate a total
saving to the Government of $556 mil-
lion. If it is desired to effect a saving,
that is the way to do it, rather than to
suggest that by withholding $16 million
of salaries, there will be a balanced
budget.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Delaware yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield
5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I con-
template supporting the amendment of
the Senator from Delaware. I shall do
so principally on the basis that it is some
evidence of a sentiment in the Senate
that we ought to start thinking about
balancing the budget.
It is true that if the bill is passed, the
savings will not be of great consequence.
But the savings will, at least, convey a
message to the people of the United
States that there are some Members of
Congress who are convinced that we can-
not proceed interminably with unbal-
anced budgets.
We talk about unbalanced budgets. In
the Foreign Service retirement fund, 30-
percent contributions of the workers'
salaries will be required to keep that
fund solvent. At present, the employees
are contributing 6% percent. If the
fund is to be kept solvent, there will
have to be a contribution by the Gov-
ernment of 231/2 percent of the amount
of the salary.
The obligations of the retirement fund
for civil service employees are $49 bil-
lion. There is $14 billion in the fund.
Unfunded is $35 billion. That unfunded
obligation is owed by the Federal Gov-
ernment.
But what are we doing about it? With
$35 billion unfunded, every time Con-
gress raises salaries, it also raises, even-
tually, the obligation of the Government
in the retirement operation. When this
pay raise bill is passed, there will be a
new obligation of $1,300 million upon
the retirement fund. That will be an
obligation that has not been funded at
all. The taxpayers will have to meet
that obligation.
The beneficiaries, each year for 5 years,
will be entitled to 6 percent more of re-
tirement pay, as stated by the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] yester-
day. My question is: Can we be ration-
alizing if we believe that this kind of
activity can continue? My answer to
that question is that we cannot be. It
is against the law of nature. Nature
will not tolerate it. The time will come
when there will be an accounting; and
the worse we make the condition the
more painful the accounting will be.
I repeat that the amount of money
which would be saved by the amendment
of the Senator from Delaware would be
Inconsequential, but his proposal is of
great importance because at least it
would send out word to the country that
there are some in Congress who are be-
ginning to worry about where the coun-
try is heading.
In my judgment, we are running down-
hill madly
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, on
whose time is the Senator from Ohio
speaking?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I am speaking on the
time of the Senator from Delaware [Mr.
WILLIAMS] .
Mr. JOHNSTON. Good.
Mr. LAUSCHE. We are running
downhill madly, with the brakes loose.
I wish to give an example of where
we are heading. The exhibitors of for-
eign countries at the New York World's
Fair are in need of service for their pa-
vilions, and I wish to read what is hap-
pening to the reputation of the United
States which is being damaged by?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Ohio has ex-
pired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 3 additional minutes, if the Senator
from Delaware will permit me.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I am
happy to yield 3 minutes to the Senator
from Ohio.
Mr. President, how much time have I
left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Delaware has 10 minutes
remaining. How much time does the
Senator from Delaware yield to the Sen-
ator from Ohio?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Ohio is recognized for 3
additional minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I read:
The reputation of the United States is
being damaged by a shakedown of coun-
tries which accepted invitations to partici-
pate in the fair. The principal subcon-
tractor on the fairgrounds is charging ex-
hibitors $17 an hour for plumbers, $11 for
carpenters, $10 for painters, and $8 for un-
skilled laborers.
At one such pavilion, the operator was
charged $150 for work on a stopped sink,
and then he reported the job was botched.
Keep on with this policy and we shall
be adding fuel to what is happening
throughout the country on the inordinate
demands being made upon those people
who wish to buy goods and services.
I thank the Senator from Delaware
for ?allowing me to have the floor for
these 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Delaware is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I dis-
agree completely that the savings under
the amendment can be measured by the
dollar amounts involved. There may be
only approximately $30 million of real
reduction under this amendment, but
this will be an incentive on the part of
Members of Congress who vote for these
appropriations and on the part of the
executive branch and the heads of these
agencies, who recommend the appropria-
tion or approve the expenditures, to cut
down expenses and appropriations and
eliminate some of the unnecessary waste
and extravagance which we all know
does go on in the Government and which
every Member of Congress will admit
goes on in the Government.
Certainly if we have the top officials of
the Government placed in the position
that they cannot get their salary in-
creases until they have demonstrated
that they are worthy of them, this would
be a greater incentive on them.
It is true that there will be some
stacked up at the top, but In order to
get them unstacked let us balance the
budget. If anyone believes that we are
really going to balance the budget then
the postponement is only for a tempo-
rary period of time.
There are those who have been telling
the taxpayers that they are going to
balance the budget, and they should sup-
port the amendment. If they do not
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
15280 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ? July 2
believe what they are saying they should
vote against the amendment and admit
to the taxpayers that they are speaking
for political purposes only. I do not be-
lieve we will ever balance the budget
under the present administration
polictes.
I am not unmindful that since 1930
we have never balanced the budget but
6 of those 34 years-28 of those years we
have lived beyond our income.
I am also not unmindful of the fact
that since 1900, with the exception of 3
years, the Democratic Party has never
operated the Government with a bal-
anced budget.
I have no faith whatever in the promise
of this administration to balance the
budget, particularly under this new-
fangled theory that we can cut taxes
and increase spending, all at the same
time, and end up in a couple of years
with enough money to make it possible to
balance the budget. We cannot do it in
private business, we cannot do it in pri-
vate families, and we cannot do it in the
Government.
Let them tell the taxpayers what is
meant. Let them tell them the truth.
This amendment is merely to separate
the truth of the matter. Do we really be-
lieve we are going to balance the budget?
If we do then vote for the amendment
and go home and say that we shall have
a salary increase in a very short period of
time. But if we do not believe it then go
ahead and vote against IL
Certainly this amendment can be justi-
fied. Certainly no Member of Congress
can go home to his constituents and
justify having voted for a 33 Y3-percent
salary increase when he tells them that
that increase is being financed solely out
of borrowed money.
Mr. maLhat. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Delaware yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Out of
the 3 minutes I have left. I yield to the
Senator from Iowa.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, first let
me say to my good friend, the Senator
from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS I, that
there is much merit in his amendment.
I should like to inquire of him when he
refers to the Federal budget, dots he
mean the administrative budget? I be-
lieve the legislative history should show
that.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
Senator is correct. As certified by the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. MILLER. Second. suppose that
there is a Federal balanced budget, let
us say, for the next fiscal year. and the
salary went into effect the following
fiscal year and there was an unbalanced
budget, would the salaries still stay in
effect?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The
salaries would stay in effect under the
amendment, but if we can ever get this
Government's spending controlled per-
haps we can hold it. I am concerned
over the fact that there is no evidence
that in the near future we shall be able
to control spending in the Government.
We had the Director of the Budget
before our committee, who bragged of
the fact that deficits did not just hap-
pen, he said that they were planned
that way.
In other words, they brag and say that
there is virtue In a "planned deficit." I
am concerned about this new idea on the
Potomac frontier that there is virtue in
spending more than we have and that
the Director of the Budget claims that
he plans these deficits because they
thought they would stimulate the econ-
omy. We were told that they have no
prospects of balancing the budget until
1968. which by the way happens to be
another presidential campaign year. I
suppose they will then be promising to
balance the budget.
The American taxpayer is getting
tired of living on these promises.
If the administration means what it
says, let us vote for this amendment and
say that these salary increases for Con-
gress and top executives will not go into
effect until we actually bring about what
has been promised?a balanced budget.
Mr. President, how much time have I
left?
The PRESIDING OPFICER. The
Senator from Delaware has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MILLER. Mr, President, will the
Senator from Delaware yield for 1 min-
ute?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I will be
glad to yield to the Senator from Iowa
for a question.
The PRESIDING Ort'ICER. How
much time does the Senator from Dela-
ware yield to the Senator from Iowa?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have
5 minutes left?I yield 1 minute to the
Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING 01.1.10ER. The
Senator from Iowa is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator
from Delaware.
The significance of this is not so much
in balancing the budget as in its impact
on inflation. It does not necessarily fol-
low that because we have a deficit of a
billion dollars that we have inflation of
a billion dollars. But, in the present
structure of the economy, and under the
present monetary policy of the admin-
istration. it works out that way.
For example, during 1961, 1962, and
1963, while we were going $20 billion
deeper into debt, we had $21 billion of in-
flation.
This, I believe, is the significance of
the amendment of the Senator from Del-
aware. It is designed to stop this con-
tinued inflation, which some so-called
economists are trying to discount, but,
nevertheless, is hurting many people in
the United States.
I commend the Senator from Delaware
on his amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Before
the rest of my time expires I point out
again that this amendment does not af-
fect the average civil service employee
one iota, nor does It affect the Postal
workers, and so forth. This amendment
affects only those top officials of the Gov-
ernment whose salaries are in excess of
$20.000 and who are directly responsible
for whatever excess spending goes on in
the Government.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder
of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 2 minutes
to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
respectfully suggest that if the senior
Senator from Delaware wants economy,
If he wants to go a half billion toward
balancing the budget, he should take a
direct, affirmative course and vote
against this bill, which he has every
right to do. I do not intend to do it.
The bill provides only $16.2 million for
those, roughly, falling in the $20,000 and
above class.
The very men whose responsibility and
training are needed and who must be
procured by the Bureau of the Budget,
are needed to effect the economy?not
the meat-ax kind of economy, but the
general economy. They cannot be hired
at $20,000. We cannot get a comp-
troller or a good finance man. We can-
not pull this type of man into the Gov-
ernment service at $20,000 a year?the
men who can effectuate the kind of
economy we seek in order to balance the
budget.
We have to bring in more talent, more
young men, more people of ability, CPA's,
and auditors to reach down deep into
the departments and effectuate econ-
omies, consolidation, and deletion of
various programs if we expect to come
within the terms of a balanced budget.
And cutting $16.2 nallion out of this bill
will not do it.
If we want to make a substantial start,
then the Senator should?and I expect
he will?vote against the entire pay bill.
But I call attention to the fact that those
receiving above $20,000 a year, who would
be affected by his amendment, are large-
ly judges, and high-level civil service
and postal employees. They have not
had a pay raise in the past 4 or 5 years.
Pay raises have gone to those who receive
below $20,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The
time fo the Senator from Oklahoma has
expired.
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR DIS-
POSAL OF CERTAIN MATERIALS
FROM NATIONAL STOCKPILE
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield 30 seconds?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield 30 seconds to
the Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OlerICER. The
Senator from Missouri is recognized for
30 seconds.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
earlier today, I reported four measures
to authorize the disposal of four ma-
terials held in the national stockpile. I
ask unanimous consent for the present
consideration of these four measures.
I also request that appropriate excerpts
from the committee reports be printed
in the RECORD in connection with the
consideration of these measures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
DISPOSAL OF PIG TIN
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request for the im-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
House of Representotives
The House met at 11 o'clock a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Bras-
kamp, D.D., offered the following prayer:
I Corinthians 2: 5: That your faith
should not stand in the wisdom of men,
but in the power of God.
Infinite and eternal God, in this new
day may our hearts go out to Thee in
a longing to be blessed with a vital and
vivid experience of Thy presence and
power.
May our fellowship with Thee be more
intimate, more personal and satisfying,
delivering us from all feelings of fear
and frustration, of doubt and despair.
Grant that the thoughts of our minds
and the meditations of our hearts may
move out toward the far horizons of faith
and hope.
We pray that the world with its ap-
parent moral and spiritual apathy and
indifference may realize that there is no
escape from all miseries and disappoint-
ments until Thy spirit is enthroned in
the life of man.
Inspire us to think and plan in terms
of humanity and with a vision of the
love of God for all mankind.
Hear us in Christ's name. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
CIVIL RIGHTS
(Mr. SELDEN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BELDEN. Mr. Speaker, what ex-
tremist civil rights leaders have threat-
ened would be a summer of racial vio-
lence and tension obviously has begun in
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
The demonstrations of recent days
furnish additional warning to the coun-
try, if any were needed, that civil rights
extremists pose a growing threat to every
American community.
Let me say again, as I have said in the
past, that those who believe that passage
of the so-called civil rights legislation
will appease the mobs in the streets of
Tuscaloosa or Chicago or New York are
badly mistaken. In fact, passage of
such legislation will inevitably lead to
even greater demands and excesses on
the part of irresponsible leaders of the
civil rights movement, whose only aim is
the extension of their own personal
power.
Faced with this latest challenge to law
and order, the law enforcement officials
of Tuscaloosa again have handled an
extremely difficult task in a way that
does credit to their community and the
entire State of Alabama.
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 196
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY AISE
BILL
(Mr. ROUSH asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend- his
remarks.)
Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Speaker, I regret
that the Federal employees pay raise
bill has come to the floor on such short
notice. Taking into aCcount the previ-
ously announced schedule I have made
commitments which cannot now be
broken. This makes it impossible for
me to be here for the final vote on this
bill. I want to announce, however, that
because of the changes which have been
made in the bill since it was last con-
sidered it has been my intention to
support it. If we are to expect the high-
est type service and performance from
our Federal employees then we must be
ready to pay salaries which are in line
with those in the private sector of our,
economy. I have great respect for the
postal workers and the other Federal em-
ployees. I have every confidence that
these fine people will honor the faith we
are reposing in them and Will live up to
the high standards of performance and
conduct which has been a part of the his-
tory of Federal service. I am confident
that this pay increase will result in a
more efficient operation of our Govern-
ment. I am not in full sympathy with
that portion of the bill which deals with
increasing congressional salaries; how-
ever, it involves less than 1 percent of
the total increase. The lowering of the
amount from that previously considered
and making the effective date in Jan-
uary of 1965 makes it somewhat more
acceptable.
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.
The Clerk called the roll, and the for-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
[Roll No. 1541
Abele Diggs Long, La.
Ashmore Dorn Long, Md.
Auchincloss Dowdy McIntire ,
Baring Evins May
Bass Forrester Miller, N.Y.
Battin Frelinghuysett Gainers
Bolling Fulton, Tenn. Pepper
Bolton, Gray Powell
Oliver P. Green, Oreg. Rains
Bromwell Gurney Roberts, Ala.
Bruce Healey Sheppard
Buckley Jones, Ala. Shipley
Burton, Utah Karth Thompson, La.
Celler Kee Toll
Clark Kilgore Winstead"
Clausen, Knox Wright
Don H. Lloyd
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 381
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were
with.
INCREASE IN GOVERNM T
SALARIES
(Mr. BERRY asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, the House
is about to take the most stupid step it
has taken in many years. How, just
how, can we take action in May to legis-
late the price of wheat down from $2 to
$1.72 and then in June legislate our own
salary up from $22,500 to $30,000?
JOURNALISTIC RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday
an Associated Press story filed by Stan-
ley Meisler crossed over into the area of
journalistic irresponsibility.
In reporting an adverse Navy report
on my bill, House Congressional Resolu-
tion 206, to express the thanks of the
American people to Drs. Ross Gunn and
Philip Abelson for their pait in develop-
ing nuclear propulsion for submarines,
Mr. Meisler quoted me as saying the fol-
lowing about Adm. H. G. Rickover:
"I admire the old so-and-so."
Mr. Speaker, this is not the truth and
I herewith demand a retraction from
Associated Press.
The reporter did not talk with me
prior to using this quotation. In fact, I
have not talked with him in several
months. When he did last talk with
me, I referred to Admiral gickover ' in
a completely respectful manner. At no
time did I refer to the admiral as an
"old so-and-so."
But my greatest concern over the un-
fortunate Associated Press article is not
that I have been misquoted. I am more
concerned that a wrong impression of
two fine scientists, Drs. Gunn and
.Abelson, may have been left in the minds
of millions of readers.
For the record I want it known that
when I introduced my resolution, I had
never met, talked with, nor corresponded
with Dr. Gunn or Dr. Abelson. I still
have not had any contact with Dr.
Abelson and have met Dr. Gunn only
briefly. At no time has either of the
two men asked me to do anything for
him, nor encouraged passage of my reso-
lution. They have not asked for thanks.
Rather I have determined that they de-
serve thanks.
The Navy report begs the question and
is not accurate. In due time and in my
own manner, I shall prove this point.
13035
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13036
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 -
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 11
In the meantime. it should be re-
membered that Admiral Rickover is not
at issue. He has been justifiably com-
mended for the important role he has
played in developing the nuclear sub-
marine and I have 'joined in that com-
mendation. Certainly the statement of
historical facts which occurred before
Captain Rickover joined the nuclear pro-
pulsion program cannot and should not
minimize what Captain Rickover did
after 1946.
It is unfortunate that an unethical re-
porter in his desire to write sensationally
at the expense of honesty has tried to
ascribe an ulterior motivation to my
resolution and has brought Admiral
Rickover into the controversy. It Is un-
fortunate that this reporter's question-
able ethics may have caused embarrass-
ment to two great scientists who ltve
done so much for their country.
MODERNIZATION OF FED
SALARY SYSTEMS
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, by rec-
tion of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 733 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
11049.) to adjust the rates of basic compen-
sation of certain officers and employees in
the Federal Government. and for other pur-,
poses. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not
to exceed four hours, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, the bill shall be read
for amendment under the five-minute rule
by titles instead of by sections. At the con-
clusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and re-
port the bill to the House with such amend-
ments as may have been adopted, and the
previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker. I yield 30
minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Sr. GEORGE]. and pending
that I yield myself such time as I may
require.
/Mr. YOUNG asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker. House
Resolution 733 provides for considera-
tion of H.R. 11049, a bill to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The resolution provides an open rule
with 4 hours of general debate and fur-
ther provides that the bill shall be read
for amendment under the 5-minute rule
by titles instead of by sections.
The purpose of HR. 11049 is that
postal and other Federal career employ-
ees shall be paid salaries comparable to
calories paid workers in private enter-
prise for comparable levels of responsi-
bility, skill, and performance, and to
partially remedy the serious inadequacies
in the Federal executive, congressional,
and judicial salary structure.
Enactment of this legislation is im-
perative if the Congress is to abide by
Its obligation resulting from the enact-
ment of Public Law 87-793. HR. 11049
will fulfill that obligation and, in addi-
tion, establish reasonable, Just, and
meaningful relationships between postal
and other career salary levels and the
rates of compensation for positions of
the highest executive, legislative, and Ju-
dicial responsibility. The salaries at-
tached to such legislative, executive, and
Judicial positions also are properly re-
lated in level as among all three branches
of our Government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 733.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
SUMP.
(Mrs. ST. GEORGE asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
her remarks./
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker,
House Resolution 733 makes in order the
consideration of HR. 11049, the Federal
Salary Act of 1964.
Mr. Speaker, we had before us a short
time ago in this present year a bill very
similar to this which was defeated by a
majority of 38 votes, which is quite a
good majority.
Apparently there is a new technique
in the Congress of the United States, and
that is that if a bill that is desired by the
administration or by certain powers that
be does not pass the House it is brought
back in a modified form, a little work is
done on the outside, maybe some on the
inside, and then the bill is passed.
We have been reliably informed that
this bill will pass by a majority of 20
votes, which will necessitate quite a little
changeover, which I have no doubt will
be adequately taken care of.
There is great difference of opinion in
some quarters.
There are those who do not think this
bill is any better than the last one. In
fact, there are some people, among oth-
ers, some of the Federal employees and
their representatives who do not even
think this bill is as good as the last bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker.
will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I have asked
the gentlewoman to yield because I know
she is exceptionally well informed on
- this measure. She is a member of the
legislative committee that handles this
bill as well as a member of the Committee
on Rules. I have asked the gentlewoman
to yield for the purpose of reminding the
House, as the gentlewoman knows, that
Just within the last few days the Com-
mittee on Rules has reported to the
floor for action next week two other bills
as well as this measure. Next Wednes-
day we will have before us a bill to ex-
tend for another year the Korean war
emergency excise taxes as well as other
excise taxes althoueh the Korean war
has been over for 11 years, We will also
have on Thursday of next week, as I un-
derstand the legislative schedule, a bill
to increase the national debt limit to an
alltime high of $324 billion, so that we
can borrow more money for deficit fi-
nancing. Those two bills will come tip
after we are asked to vote on this par-
ticular measure which, of course, will
carry a cost tag estimated at $535 million
per year.
I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding
because I believe the House should have
in mind before it considers this bill what
the Members must pass upon next week
in the way of legislation.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gen-
tleman from Ohio for his contribution.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from
a letter which many of you have received
on this subject from one of the organi-
zations of the Federal employees in
which it is stated:
H.R. 11049 is a monstrous distortion of
the comparability policy and an unjustified
departure from the rule prescribed by the
Congress for implementing that policy.
Then they proceed to say that in this
particular this bill is not as good as the
bill that was defeated on the floor of
the House.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the House is not in
order. I would like to hear what the
gentlewoman is saying.
The SPEAKER. The point of order
is well taken, The House will be in or-
der.
The gentlewoman from New York will
proceed.
Mrs, ST. GEORGE. I do not blame
the House for not listening, Mr. Speak-
er, because after all this is pretty well
warmed over. They have ,all heard the
arguments before and they are going
to hear them again for 4 hours and they
probably all know pretty well how they
are going to vote now.
That is one of the unfortunate things
about our system.
I would like to read you some words
which appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD which some of you may have
heard, which were delivered by a very
distinguished Member of this House, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
BYRNES], at the time we had our great
tax bill in which we remitted $111,, bil-
lion in taxes.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
BYRNES] had this to say at the end of his
remarks, and I think it is good to remem-
ber those words now before we go out and
vote more money on this particular occa-
sion.
But let me conclude with this caution.
In the face of a tax cut of $11.5 billion,
on top of a deficit of some $10 billion for
fiscal 1964, our risk is great. A minimal
dose of inflation will offset billions in tax
reduction. Our action today will be a
cruel hoax on our retired citizens living
on fixed incomes, on those who are
buying life insurance, or Government
bonds?including those of our States and
municipalities. We rob all of these
through inflation.
Our action today can bring about dev-
astating inflation if we fail to use corn-
monsense in our monetary policy?if
business and labor fail to exercise an
Inflexible control over prices and wages.
and if the Congress and the President do
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved FOr Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13037
not live up to their pledges of economy
in Government.
If we pass this bill and then forget
about the need to hold the line on spend-
ing, we will be inviting disaster. In vot-
ing for this bill, I hope each and every
one of us binds himself to that provision
that still remains in the bill as section
1?to a firm commitment against unnec-
essary spending.
So', after that and after hearing and
applauding these remarks, we voted for
the tax cut. We have come in ever since
and we have added appropriations. We
come in here today to do the same thing.
Much has been made of the congres-
sional salaries. Of course, the congres-
sional salaries are the most unimportant
part of this bill. Their only import is
that they are some sort of "political
dynamite." In this bill it has been ar-
ranged that they will not take effect until
1965.
Mr. Speaker, it might have been far
better if this bill had been laid over and
taken up in the first weeks of 1965, to be
passed then.
As for comparability, I have always
felt that it was nonexistent to a great
extent. On the other hand, the escala-
tor clause, which I have always advo-
cated, is now to a great extent in effect.
I understand that an amendment will
be offered to this bill to put that into
effect for the congressional and execu-
tive salaries as well.
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
amendment, and I hope that when it is
offered the House will subscribe fully to
it. There is no reason why what is
sauce for the goose should not be sauce
for the gander. It is quite an obvious
thing that it is an embarrassment to
Members of this House and to Members
of the other body to vote on their own
salaries, whether up or down.
To return to the premise that when a
bill has been defeated?and soundly de-
feated, if I may say so?it can be
brought back with a few little changes?
$2,500 taken off the congressional sal-
ary?I do not believe that- will make too
much of a difference. Certainly it will
make up difference to the people who
oppose the bill, and certainly it will make
very little difference to the people who
are to receive it.
I feel, considering what happened to
the old bill, now scrapped, H.R. 8986,
that what applied then applies today and
there is really no reason why the House
should give this new bill a rule; although
I am sure you will do it, I still believe
that the rule should be defeated and that
the House should go on to other busi-
ness, to new business of increasing im-
portance.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CURTIS. I certainly commend
the gentlewoman for her expressions
and advice to the House to not adopt
this rule. I would like to ask a question
of the chairman of the committee.
On page 127 of the committee report
are the minority views on HR. 11049, in
which there is stated, under the title
"Highhanded Committee Procedure?
No Hearings Held," the subtopic "Legis-
lation Too Important for No Hearings." I
should like to know whether or not this
is an accurate statement of the proce-
dures; whether the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service held hearings in
regard to this legislation.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Tennessee.
Mr. MURRAY. That is erroneous.
Hearings were held on the bill; extensive
hearings.
Mr. CURTIS. The statement here is:
The last public hearing at which any per-
son testified before the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee on the subject of salary
legislation was on October 15, 1963.
Is that a true statement?
Mr. MURRAY. If the gentleman will
yield, that is correct.
M. CURTIS. All right. Let me go
to the previous statement:
H.R. 11049 was introduced in the House on
April 28, 1964. Copies of the bill were made
available to the members of the committee
the following afternoon, April 29. It was
then made tlle order of business at an ex-
ecutive session of the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee scheduled for 10 a.m. the
next morning, April 30. When the commit-
tee finally convened at 10:35 a.m., a motion
was immediately made to consider the bill
and to dispose of it and all amendments
thereto by 11:20 am. After brief and re-
stricted debate the motion was voted up and
there then remained approximately 30
minutes for the offering of amendments and
for what should have been a full and com-
plete discussion of a measure that in its 5
titles and 78 pages changes the salary rates
for almost 2 million Federal employees. In
ordering the bill reported, it took a rollcall
vote, which prevailed by only a one-vote
margin, to adopt an amendment giving those
opposed to the bill sufficient time to express
their views to the House in this minority
report.
Is this a correct statement?
Mr. MURRAY. I do not think so.
Mr. CURTIS. What error was there?
Was this bill considered by the Post Of-
fice and Civil Service Committee without
any discussion, without any reading of
it, and without any debate, which is the
allegation here?
Mr. MURRAY. Why, certainly not.
They had ample hearings on the bill.
Mr. CURTIS. You have already ad-
mitted your definition of "ample." If the
gentlewoman will yield further, what I
want to point out is I think this is a dis-
grace to the House of Representatives to
consider a measure of this importance
with this kind of preparation. We who
are not on this committee have a right
to be able to count on the committee to
which this legislation has been referred
to have conducted adequate hearings
which will be available and to have ade-
quate reports. This matter cannot be
considered with any intelligence on the
floor of the House in the light of the
incomplete homework that has been done
in this area. If the Congress and this
House is simply to exist as a forum for
pressures to be applied that have no
relation to study and are simply pres-
sures that are generated outside the Con-
gress, we might just well be a house of
delegates simply to conduct public opin-
ion polls instead of a deliberative body.
I suggest to my colleagues that this is the
essence of representative government
that is thwarted by these kinds of pro-
cedures._ I would not care whether one
was for or against this bill or other leg-
islation, but if this House, under this
kind of leadership, continues in this
fashion, gentlemen, I can tell you that
representative government has gone from
this country. I see there is some laugh-
ter over there on the Democratic side,
but think well of what is being done here
and what has been done previously in
this House this year. We are very, very
close to exactly What I have described?
a major decline of representative govern-
ment. I would suggest that we do vote
this rule down and that the committee
conduct the proper kind of studies and
hearings so that the House can view this
matter with some intelligence.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa, a member of the com-
mittee.
Mr. GROSS. In response to the ques-
tion asked by the gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. Comas] I wish to state cate-
gorically that not one single witness ap-
peared before the committee either for or
against H.R. 11049. The minority asked
that at a minimum the chairman of the
Civil Service Commission and a repre-
sentative of the Bureau of the Budget be
called before the committee. We were
denied any witnesses at all on this pend-
ing bill,
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. -UDALL. I think this colloquy
may have left a misleading impression.
The authors of the minority views have
chosen their words rather carefully, and
what they have said here is probably
true technically, but the subject of this
very bill occupied this committee's time
for nearly a full year. The committee
took volumes of testimony on this bill.
We have heard it and debated at and the
whole House held hearings, in effect, with
2 days of debate back in March.
There is nothing unprecedented about
bringing out a clean bill in a situation
where a clean bill is indicated. This is
not technically and. strictly a situation
where a clean bill is indicated, but clean
bills have been voted out with 5 minutes
of debate. This bill came out by a vote
of 14 to 3. And it had bipartisan support
in the committee. If these outrageous,
unprecedented procedures had been used,
I am sure the vote would have been dif-
ferent. The gentleman from Iowa, the
gentleman from Michigan, and others
who have opposed all legislation of this
kind?our committee could hear testi-
mony until the day of resurrection, and
there still would not be enough consid-
eration to satisfy them.
This bill was fairly and adequately
considered for over a year. It is almost
Identically the same bill that we debated
for 2 days in March. I cannot see that
there is much substance to charges of
this kind.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman for his contribu-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13038
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June LI
Lion. But I would like to remind him that
the bill he is telling us about, and the
year of hearings that it had, was a bill
that was defeated on the floor of this
House by a majority of 38 votes.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the
eentlewoinan yield?
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I
should like to add the further observa-
tion that what we are voting on here to-
day is not the broad subject. We are
voting on Specific substance as written
into this bill. As the gentleman from
Iowa iMr. Claossi has said, and as I be-
lieve the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Cuarisl has said, there are those who
find provisions in this bill that are emi-
nently unsatisfactory, persons who rep-
resent the employee unions themselves.
and they are convinced that this is not
the same old subject matter. This is
different substance.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the distinguished Speaker of
the House. the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. MCCORMACK 1.
(Mr. McCORMACK asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the
bill before us covers all Federal employ-
ees; postal employees, and other classi-
fied employees. It also provides increases
for judges and other persons in the ex-
ecutive branch. There is a provision that
the congressional Increase of$7,500 is to
become effective in January Of next
year.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Con-
gress, the salary of a Member was $10,-
000. Throughout the years I frequently
took the floor urging that the Members
recognize the problems that confront
them and that they bring about a justifi-
able increase in salary for Members of
the Congress of the United States.
Some years ago I offered an amend-
ment to increase the salaries of Mem-
bers to $22,500, long before the present
level of salaries was reached. It was
then subject to a point of order and a
Member, exercising his rights under the
rules, made the point of order. If the
point of order had not been made it
would have been before the House. In
any event, I offered the amendment.
The last salary increases received by
Members of Congress was in 1956. Since
that time salary increases for postal
employees have been approximately 41
percent and for other employees about 40
percent. Those increases were justified
and we gave them to them.
Mr. Speaker, I doubt if there is any
Member who feels, or very few Members
who feel in their own mind, no matter
how they are going to vote on this bill,
but what Members of Congress are justi-
fied in an increase and to the increase
specified in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the problems now exist-
ent are more far reaching than ever be-
fore. We know what the cost of cam-
paigning is. Every one of us realizes the
tremendous expenses involved in connec-
tion with campaigning. This has a rela-
tionship to salaries, although it is not an
argument. which I am making in rela-
tion to that question, because we are
justified in the increase provided for in
this bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, the thing that
worries me is whether or not someday?
and it is not in the remote future?that
holding public office, particularly major
office, is going to be confined to those
of wealth. I believe a body like this
should be representative of the people.
I do not believe that those of sufficient
wealth to hold public office should be
excluded, but I regret to see the day
when a situation exists In connection
with the Congress of the United States
or in connection with the elections
which are held for Governor and to the
U.S. Senate and other major offices,
where only those holding and possessed
of unusual wealth can undertake the bur-
dens of conducting a campaign. That
would be a sad day for our country for
any particular segment of our society,
because of unusual circumatances, to be
able to dominate the legislative processes
of our Government.
So, Mr. Speaker, I take the floor, talk-
ing impersonally, but with strong con-
viction to my colleagues, that the Amer-
ican people in the main recognize that
Members of Congress are entitled to an
Increase in salary. The great majority
of the American people realize that the
last Increase was some time ago. When
they realize that the last increase was
In 1956, and it has been 8 years since
there has been an increase, and at the
same time being aware of the increase
in the cost of living and the other prob-
lems confronting Members of the Con-
gress of the United States and their
families, they will realize that they are
entitled to the increase provided for in
this bill, which increase will take effect
in January of next year.
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence
that, the people of the congressional dis-
trict which it is my honor to represent
overwhelmingly recognize the justifica-
tion for the provisions contained in this
bill in connection with the Members of
Congress and also the judges of our
Federal courts.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who
believes that judges' salaries should hot
be tied up with those salaries which are
paid to the Members of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
MILLER of California). The time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts has ex-
pired.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
additional minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. McCORMACK. However, we rec-
ognize that historically these salaries are
tied to the salary structure of the Con-
gress of the United States and they can-
not be separated.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who
feels, because we do not want to increase
our own salaries, that we should not in-
crease the salaries of others where a case
is made out. But, again, I recognize the
historical factors and that one cannot
be separated from the other. Every one
of us in our own mind admits that we are
entitled to an increase in salary and that
the judges are entitled to an increase in
salary and that those occupying re-
sponsible positions in the executive
branch of Government are entitled to a
salary increase.
Mr. Speaker, also included in this bill
is a salary increase for all Federal em-
ployees.
I take the floor at this time simply to
place myself in the position of favoring
the bill and urging that the rule be
adopted and that the bill do pass.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
MODERNIZATION OF FEDERAL
SALARY SYSTEMS
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolNe itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11049) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMIL ikae. 05' THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill HR. 11049 with Mr.
HOLIFIELD in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I might require.
Mr. Chairman, the committee bill,
H.R. 11049, is almost unique in the his-
tory of your Post Office and Civil Service
Committee in that it has the strong
support of the President of the United
States, all major organizations of postal
and other Federal employees, great pro-
fessional and business groups such as the
American Bar Association and the
American Bankers Association, and out-
standing leaders in al' fields of Govern-
ment. industry, and research. The bill
was reported from tte Post "Office and
Civil Service Committee without amend-
ment by a nearly five to one majority.
The purposes of this legislation are
identical to those of our earlier salary
bill, H.R. 8986, but this new bill is far
less costly because it includes major
economy provisions which were approved
by the House during its consideration of
H.R. 8986. The chief cost reductions are
achieved in title I of HR. 11049, which
is substantially identical to the amend-
ment I offered, and the House approved,
to title I of the earlier bill.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
1964, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
H.R. 8986 as reported would have cost
$668 million. This bill (H.R. 11049) will
cost $533 million or a saving of $135
million.
Title I of H.R. 11049 makes only three
substantive changes in the language ap-
proved by the House when title I of the
earlier bill was considered. One author-
izes the Postmaster General, in certain
cases where a postal employee who is
senior in total postal service to another
postal employee who is receiving a higher
salary, to advance the senior employee
in salary. Another corrects the present
excessive gap between the top salary
steps of PFS levels 6 and 8 by adding a
?new salary step 11 in PFS level 7. The
third eliminates all fractions of a cent
in the results of payroll calculations.
These changes are improvements which,
taken together, yield a net saving of $12
million.
The most significant improvement in
this bill, as compared with H.R. 8986, is
a 25-percent reduction?froM $10,000
down to $7,500?in the salary increases
provided for Members of Congress, Fed-
eral judges, Cabinet officers, and im-
mediate sub-Cabinet officers. These in-
creases also will be postponed to January
of 1965, whereas they would have been
retroactive to January of 1964 under the
earlier bill.
The total annual cost of the salary
adjustments provided by H.R. 11049 will
be $533 million, an amount which is $11
million less than the President's budget
figure of $544 million. The President has
sent me word that he considers this bill
one of the three most urgently needed
legislative measures that he has recom-
mended to the 88th Congress, and has
strongly emphasized his personal sup-
port of its prompt enactment. I earn-
estly hope that this important bill will
receive the approval of the membership
of the House.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I desire
to commend the distinguished chairman
of the great Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service. I had the honor of
serving on his committee when I first
came to Congress. The distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee has always
been a very conscientious legislator giv-
ing consideration to the problems of
Federal employees and of the taxpayers
of the country. He is a great American,
and I am happy that he is opening the
debate on this bill. I commend the gen-
tleman, and I commend the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] , for his
untiring efforts, and I commend all the
members of the Committee an Post Office
and Civil Service for bringing this bill
to the House.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. ALBERT. I want to join the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Tennessee
and the Speaker of the House in urging
again, as I urged when the salary bill
was before the House previously, that
the House unite in adopting this
measure.
The gentleman's reference to the
President of the United States brings
to my mind the fact that the President
has said repeatedly that getting and
holding the type of men in responsible
executive positions that he needs in this
critical period and that any other Presi-
dent would need requires that this meas-
ure be adopted. The bill is budgeted and
within the President's program.
I urge that the bill be passed without
any crippling amendments.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the gentle-
man for his very kind remarks.
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. BECKER].
Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, the last
time this bill came up I voted whole-
heartedly in support of the legislation.
I do want to agree with my colleague and
good friend from Missouri [Mr. Coax's]
when he said this is a deterioration of
the process of representative govern-
ment, when a bill is defeated and then
later comes up in the same session to be
voted on again. I think the timing of
the bill last time might have been poorly
arranged.
Nevertheless, I want to make this
point. I have been in Congress for 12
years. The last time we had a pay in-
crease, 1956, I supported not a $7,500 in-
crease but a $10,000 or $12,000 increase.
I think the American people, as I have
explained to them in my own district,
understand the expenses of Members
of Congress. I cannot understand how
our Members can exist and carry on their
functions, maintain two homes, travel
back and forth, and make all the multi-
tudinous contributions expected of men
in public office, unless they have a pri-
vate business, as I happen to have had
and maintained for the past 35 years.
I say to you, my colleagues, that irre-
spective of the material benefits to our
public employees it is about time the
Members of the House vote the courage
of their convictions and say to their con-
stituents, "This is a matter that is vitally
necessary if you expect us to carry on
the job with a clear conscience, knowing
that we can pay our expenses as we go,
knowing that every 2 years we will have
to run for election, knowing that we
must travel back and forth to the pri-
maries and elections and travel back and
forth to our districts to see our constitu-
ents, which is a vital part of our legis-
lative duties."
I hope that today the Members of the
House of Representatives will stand up
and vote for this bill, that they will vote'
for their own pay increases. I am only
sorry that they did not leave the $10,000
increase in the bill but reduced it to
$7,500, because this is going to make
little difference in the public mind.
I am sorry, too, we have not had the
benefit of the news media through the
years and today to let the American peo-
ple know just what are the expenses of a
Member of Congress. If the American
people knew the expenses of a Member
of Congress they would be amazed.
13039
There is not a Member of the House
that I know of that can save a single
dime out of his salary.
Let us remember this, that Members of
Congress have to pay a large sum into
their retirement funds. Many will not
live, many will not be reelected, to bene-
fit by that retirement payment. But
our Judiciary do not pay a dollar into
the retirement fund, they get their full
salary while they live, and they do not
have to be reelected and they do not
have to maintain two homes.
So I say again to the Members of this
House that I am going to be very happy
to cast my vote for this bill, more par-
ticularly for the benefit of my colleagues
in the House of Representatives, and I
hope the bill will be passed. It will not
benefit me as I am retiring as you know.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisi-
ana [Mr. MORRISON].
Mr. MORRLSON. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, I would like
at the very beginning to clear up one
thing that may not be clear in the minds
of Members as to the amount of time
spent in hearings and consideration of
this legislation. I have been in the
Congress for 22 years. I have been on
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service from the day that that com-
mittee was created under the Reorgani-
zation Act. There has been no bill or
no important legislation before our
committee since its inception that was
more thoroughly debated, more thor-
oughly gone into, with all witnesses for
and against having an opportunity to
testify. No witness who wanted to ap-
pear before our committee on this legis-
lation was refused an opportunity to be
heard and we heard witnesses week in
and week out. We heard over 50 wit-
nesses?some for and some against. No
legislation that our committee has ever
considered was more fully gone into
than this particular legislation. I
realize that the hearings did not suit
those perhaps who were and are op-
posed to this legislation, but when you
consider that our committee voted this
bill out by a vote of 14-to-3, and when
you consider that the matter was thor-
oughly taken up and discussed on every
point and every subject for 2 days be-
fore the whole House and I think that
any further discussion of it in our com-
mittee would certainly have been a waste
of time and would have accomplished
no useful purpose.
I want to commend the distinguished
chairman of our committee for his dedi-
cation, tolerance, and patience in
granting everybody time to be heard and
in granting all witnesses ample oppor-
tunity to give their views on this legis-
lation. I think the time has come when
you will soon vote whether you are for
the bill or against it.
This bill does not differ too much
from the bill which was recently taken
up here before the House in March. The
amount of $10,000 for executives' con-
gressional and judicial salaries have
been reduced to $7,500. The date that
it will go into effect is January 1, 1965.
No Member of the Congress is neces-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13040 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
sarily voting himself a pay raise because
before he gets his pay raise, he will have
to get elected to the Congress come next
November and that applies also for
Members of the other body, as well.
In the previous bill the classified and
postal pay increases went into effect
retroactively last January. That has
been changed so that the classified and
postal pay increases go into effect on the
first pay day after the enactment of this
legislation.
With a few other minor changes, that
is just about the difference between the
bill which was thoroughly discussed on
the floor and the bill which is before us
today.
I certainly urge each and every mem-
ber of this Committee to consider the
facts. Whereas we as Members of
Congress have not had a pay raise since
1956, postal employees and classified em-
ployees have had something like 4 or 5
salary increases, of about 40 percent.
Members, I am sure, realize that it may
be 10 years or even 15 years before an-
other congressional pay raise will ever
come before this House for consideration
again.
Mr. Chairman, the President of the
United States in his letter of March 17,
1964, to the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives, the Honorable Jona. W. Mc-
CORMACK, and in many public statements
since that time, urged in the strongest
possible language the favorable consid-
eration of legislation to increase pay
levels of Government employees and
officers.
The President stated in his letter of
March 17 that every cent of the $533
million annual cost of the pay increases
is included in the budget for fiscal year
1964. The President's letter is quoted in
full on page 2 of our committee report
and I urge each Member here today to
reread that letter. I am sure most of
us will agree with the urgency attending
the consideration of this legislation. I
am in favor of all possible economy in
Government and likewise.
I support this determined drive for
economy in the Government. In order
to reach this goal of economy first-class
managers are needed who can tighten or-
ganizations, simplify procedures, trim
waste, and inspire maximum effort.
There is no question in my mind that
it is false economy to offer salaries that
will attract the mediocre and repel the
talented. This false economy applies
whether the low salaries are in the top
executive levels or in the lower levels of
our dedicated postal and other career
employees.
Private industry, universities, and most
local governments already have learned
this lesson of false economy. It is now
time for the Federal Government to rec-
ognize such policy of false economy and
take corrective action as recommended
in this legislation.
Salary adjustments for postal and
other career employees under the com-
parability policy established by the Con-
gress in the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962, Public Law 87-793, depend en-
tirely on a just and equitable alinement
of salaries for the top executives and for
Members of Congress as urged by the
Randall report as well as provided for
in the Committee bill. Unless the com-
pression on the top-level rates Is re-
moved, we cannot expect to be able to
follow the principle of comparability for
career employees.
This legislation Is designed in the light
of action taken by the House of Repre-
sentatives In its consideration of H.R.
8986 last March. It is based on the con-
viction of the overwhelming majority of
our committee that the Members of the
House will consider favorably and ap-
prove legislation providing fair and equi-
table increases for officers and employees
of the Federal Government and for
Members of Congress.
The purposes and the principles of this
lerislation are identical to those of our
earlier committee bill. H.R. 8988. There
are differences, however, in some impor-
tant, technical aspects.
The amount of the increases is $7.500
Instead of $10.000 for Members of Con-
gress, Federal judges, and Cabinet and
Immediate sub-Cabinet officers. These
increases will become effective in Jan-
uary 1965.
No salary rate for any officer or em-
ployee will be Increased to a rate above
$22,000 until January 1965.
The salary rates for officers of the
House of Representatives are increased
by amounts similar to increases for Clas-
sified Act employees. There are no spe-
cial-rates for these officers.
The rates of compensation of the
members of regulatory boards and com-
missions are specifically fixed and are not
subject to Presidential salary fixing
authority.
The total annual cost of H.R. 11049 is
approximately $533 million and is sub-
stantially below the cost of H.R. 8986
and below the amount of $544 million
already included in the budget for fiscal
year 1965.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 11049 represents
the first annual review of Government
pay levels under the Federal Salary Re-
form Act of 1962. The 1962 act estab-
liahed a modern salary policy of com-
parability based on the principle that
Federal career salaries should be com-
parable to the salaries paid workers in
private enterprise foe.substantially equal
levels of responsibility.
Title I of H.R. 11049 provides the first
of the comparable salary increases for
postai and other career employees as
contemplated by the 1962 act.
I would like to emphasize that the
comparability principle applies to career
levels only. It does not apply and never
was intended to apply to the executive
or management levels above GS-15.
Title I of this legislation represents a
major -step forward in providing salary
rates for the four major statutory ca-
reer salary systems reasonably compa-
rable to the rate for substantially equal
responsibilities in private enterprise.
We recognize that current comparabil-
ity is not obtained in the middle and
higher career levels.
Full comparability at this time would
skyrocket the annual cost of this bill to
$900 million, far beyond the $544 mil-
lion currently budgeted for the fiscal
year 1965. The $533 cost of our bill was
June 11
geared to stay well below the current
budget figures.
Title I of the guarantees a mini-
mum 3 percent salary increase for the
postal and other career Federal em-
ployees in the lower grades. The maxi-
mum dollar increase will be $4,500 in the
highest grade and levels. The average
increase for the 375,000 letter carriers
and postal clerks is $340 each or an in-
crease of approximately 6.7 percent.
Similar increases Ere provided for em-
ployees in other services who are in re-
lated grades or levels. Agricultural sta-
bilization and conservation county com-
mittee employees v,ill receive salary in-
creases equal to those granted Classifi-
cation Act employees in comparable
grades and levels of responsibility.
Title I of the bill also includes the
very important reformations recom-
mended by the Postmaster General in
the system of fixing salaries of postmas-
ters. Postmasters at fourth-class of-
fices will have their pay fixed in pro-
portion to the annual salary rates of
PFS level 5 in accordance with the rela-
tionship of their hours of duty to full
time service. The bill will discard the
archaic system of measuring salaries of
postmasters in terms of the dollars of
revenue received in their post offices.
That system is completely outmoded and
will be replaced under this bill by a new,
realistic, and effective system which bal-
ances and gives proper weight to all
factors entering into the conduct of post
offices and the levels of duties and re-
sponsibilities of the postmasters.
Titles II, III, and TV of the bill in-
clude increases in the statutory salary
levels for Members of Congress, Cabinet,
and sub-Cabinet officers, Federal judges,
and other officials in the legislative and
Judicial branches of the Government.
Titles II and IV also include salary
adjustments for other legislative and
Judicial employees which are comparable
in amount to the increases provided by
title / for Classification Act employees.
This conforms to the historic policy of
our committee and of the House in ad-
justing rates of compensation for judicial
and legislative employees, followed in
1955, 1958, 1960, and 1962.
Less than 1,500 offices and positions
are concerned in the congressional, ex-
ecutive, and judicial salary provisions at
the aggregate cost of only $12 million,
slightly over 2 percent of the total cost
of the bill. As I have indicated, the pro-
posed salary increases for these highly
responsible officers are the key to a
sound, rational, and effective salary sys-
tem, as well as the key to a sound, eco-
nomical and efficient operation of our
Government. Without the long-overdue
salary modernization provided in this
bill, management in the Government will
be at a severe disadvantage in respond-
ing to the critical requirements of our na-
tional defense and other major public
programs.
The reliance of postal and other career
Federal employees on the Congress for
fair salary treatment depends heavily in
the final analysis on the levels of execu-
tive, judicial, and congressional salaries.
The points I have noted are those
which I believe to be of paramount im-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13041
?
portance and concern so that the mem-
bership of the House will be fully in-
formed as to the principles of our com-
mittee bill and of the necessity for its
early enactment. I earnestly hope that
this worthy legislation will receive ap-
proval of the House of Representatives
here today. I urge favorable considera-
tion of this bill.
(Mr. MORRISON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL] a former mem-
ber of the committee.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, nearly 2 million American
citizens who have chosen to serve their
Government look to us this afternoon to
fulfill the promise and commitment we
made to them in 1962 that, by so serving
their Government, they should not be
required to suffer economic discrimina-
tion. H.R. 11049 should be approved
promptly. It has been delayed much
too long.
The salary-fixing authority which is
lodged here in the Congress is not al-
ways the most pleasant for us to dis-
charge. For reasons that I have never
been able to fully comprehend it seems
that every time we legislate in the field
of Federal salaries, or for that matter in
the field of any beneficial employee leg-
islation, we must continually travel down
the thorny path of endless controversy.
Two years ago we thought we had
found a solution to this recurring prob-
lem. We adopted here in this Chamber
the very sound and enlightened policy
that salaries paid to our Federal em-
ployees should be as comparable as pos-
sible to the salaries paid to employees in
private industry for the same types of
work. We discarded completely the old
concept of adjusting Federal salaries
pretty much in an amount correspond-
ing to the degree of pressure exerted or
on the basis of what the traffic would
bear at the moment. Instead, we cre-
ated the means and the machinery to
adjust salaries in the future in an at-
mosphere of responsible deliberation and
on a sound and orderly basis.
It is most regrettable, in my opinion,
that on this first test of whether we will
honor the promise and principle of com-
parability, we have not been able to do
so without again getting bogged down in
controversy. The principle of compar-
ability is eminently fair and a most rea-
sonable and rational approach to the
salary-fixing problem. We should recog-
nize that we now have a really workable
system for assuring that our employees
receive compensation commensurate with
their duties and in accord with prevail-
ing wage rates. The system does work
and our principal responsibility now is
to permit it tQwork.
I realize that this first test of the new
system has been clouded by the polit-
ically sensitive problem of adjusting our
own salaries. However, this too is a
problem that we have to face head on.
We must resolve it now, and when we do,
I am hopeful and confident that future
salary adjustments on the basis of corn-
, No.117-12
parability for our career employees will
come about almost routinely.
I am sure that many of my colleagues
would much prefer that they were not
faced here ;today with a proposal that
includes increases in their own salaries.
Nevertheless, I must repeat that unless
we change the law, our own salaries will
not be raised unless we vote to do so.
And it is vitally important that we do.
The provisions of this bill which call
for upward adjustments in salaries for
Members of Congress, Federal executives,
and Federal judges are relatively insig-
nificant, both as to the number and cost.
Only 1,399 employees are involved in
these provisions at a cost of $11.8 mil-
lion, which is only 2.2 percent of the
total cost of the measure. Nevertheless,
in many respects these provisions are the
most essential parts of this legislation.
We have got to adjust upward our own
salaries and the salaries of Federal ex-
ecutives and judges for two compelling
reasons.
First, and maybe least important, is
the fact that they are needed and long
overdue. The last pay increase for
these officials was in 1955, during which
period the salary rates for career em-
ployees have been increased an aggre-
gate of 51 percent. The present salary
rates for these officials are, by any set
of standards, completely inadequate to
their responsibilities and duties. I will
not repeat the examples that you are
probably now familiar with of the num-
ber of State and local officials, founda-
tion officers, college presidents, corpora-
tion officials, and so on, throughout the
country who are receiving appreciably
much more in pay than are Cabinet offi-
cers and Members of Congress. Suffice
it to say that any comparison of Federal
executive salary schedules with private
industry executive salary schedules
borders on the absurd.
Second, and most probably most im-
portant, pay increases must be granted
to Members of Congress and other Fed-
eral officials now, as part of this bill, if
we are to maintain the proper and neces-
sary distinctions and relationships be-
tween their rates of pay and those which
career employees are receiving.
There now exists in the top grades of
the statutory salary systems a compres-
sion that can only be relieved by lifting
the ceiling which Federal executive pay
and congressional pay impose on these
salaries. For example, in the so-called
supergrades, GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18,
under the rates now in effect, a large
number of these employees are receiving
salaries less than subordinate employees
in grades 14 and 15. Specifically, every
employee in step 2 and above in grade 15
makes more money than an employee in
step 1 of grade 16. An employee in step
8 of grade 15 makes more money than
every employee in every step of grade
16 and more than every employee up
through step 3 of grade 17. We now have
the ridiculous situation existing where
the managers of Veterans' Administra-
tion hospitals, for instance, 4i,re making
less money than many of the doctors on
their staffs.
It is simply not possible from a tech-
nical and mechanical point of view to do
the proper job of adjusting Federal ca-
reer salaries In the future, on the basis
of comparability, while maintaining pay
distinctions in keeping with degrees of
responsibility and work levels, without at
this time modernizing the existing inade-
quate salary structures for Members of
Congress, Cabinet officers, and Federal
judges.
Mr. Chairman, I am as sensitive as
any Member to the fact that our economy
is not as healthy as it should be and that
we must put a halt to mounting govern-
mental expenditures. I am proud of my
own past record of voting to achieve
economy and some semblance of -fiscal
responsibility in the operation of our
Federal Government. However, I cannot
subscribe to the theory that economy can
be achieved in Government at the ex-
pense of paying substandard salaries to
the officers and employees upon whom
we must depend for economical manage-
ment. I agree with Presidont Johnson
that in order to achieve economy in Gov-
ernment we need first-class managers?
"who can tighten organizations, simplify
procedures, trim waste, and inspire
maximum effort." And I further agree
that economy cannot be achieved by
offering salaries that attract the medi-
ocre and repel the talented.
If one argues that higher salaries au-
tomatically result in higher costs, one
must logically conclude that all private
enterprise costs are excessive because of
the much higher salary levels to be found
In private enterprise. But we all know
that this is not true. Private businesses
pay at high salary levels in order to ob-
tain the highest possible level of com-
petence. The higher salary averages in
private industry today are the absolute
proof that these are the salary levels at
which American business leaders believe
they can best fulfill their basic goals of
profit and product. I can certainly as-
sure you that few, if any, private com-
panies would be so foolish as to advocate
adopting our present Federal salary
levels in the name of economy.
If a company engaged in business for
profit can realize a profit while paying
salaries appreciably higher than the Fed-
eral Government pays, it is completely
illogical to assume that this richest and
most powerful Government in the world
cannot afford to begin paying its own
employees salaries more comparable to
those paid by profitmaking companies.
Let us be realistic and practical in our
economizing. Let us stop, before they
even get started, a few of these new
spending proposals of questionable- merit.
In the spending of our public funds let us
establish some type of priority so that no
spending program shall have precedence
over our need to secure and retain in the
Government service the best qualified
people that can be found in our country.
We will be a richer and stronger Nation
for doing so.
.Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5"minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. DANIELS].
(Mr. DANIELS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend this
remarks.)
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-R1DP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13042 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 11
Mr. DANI57.9 Mr. Chairman. I
wholeheartedly join my colleagues in
urging prompt and favorable considera-
tion of H.R. 11049.
I would like to emphasize that this
bill is before you at this time for only
one reason?it is the fulfillment of the
commitment of Congress, made to Fed-
eral employees in the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962, that their salaries
should be a comparable as possible to
the salaries paid to employees in private
industry for the same levels of work
and responsibility.
For 95 percent of the Federal em-
ployees covered in this bill?the so-called
rank-and-file career employees covered
by the Classification Act and in the
Postal Field Service?average percent-
age salary increases of 4.3 percent and
5.6 percent, respectively, are provided.
Up to date 1963 comparability is
achieved in the bill for em'ployees in the
lower grades and it is not quite achieved
for the employees in - the middle and
upper grades. Comparability in the
higher grades has been deliberately de-
layed in order to keep the total cost of
this measure under the President's
budget recommendations.
Upward salary adjustments are also
provided in this mea-.sure for Members
of Congress, Federal executives. and
Federal judges for two very simple rea-
sons:
First, they are needed and long over-
due. The last pay raise for these officials
was in 1955. during which period the
salary rates for career employees have
been adjusted upward an aggregate of
51 percent.
Second. The salaries of Members and
Federal officials must be adjusted up-
ward in order to maintain the proper
and necessary distinctions between their
rates of pay and those which career em-
ployees are receiving.
Mr. Chairman, the argument heard
most against this bill is its cost. It ap-
pears for some reason that the red flag
of cost is consistently waved in the path
of any measure that comes before the
Congress that is designed to increase the
pay or otherwise make the working con-
ditions of our employees just a little more
attractive. It seems that we can always
find funds in the vast resources of the
Federal Treasury to subsidize the wheat
growers, the feed grain farmers, the cot-
ton industry, and just about anyone who
wants to get in line. There is, indeed,
something wrong about a situation
whereby the Congress can consistently
vote vast sums of money for all these
subsidies and for all types of new spend-
ing programs, yet the loudest cries of cost
seem to be raised over a bill which seeks
only to pay a decent wage to the employ-
ees charged with administering of these
subsidies and new programs.
The $533 million cost of H.R. 11649 is
$135 million less than the cost of the
earlier pay bill. H.R. 8986. as it was re-
ported from our committee. It is sq
million less than the President has budg-
eted for fiscal year 1965. And. inci-
dentally, Mr. Chairman, from my re-
search into the subject.. I am unable to
find any record at all of a situation exist-
ing before as we now have of the money
actually being budgeted and available
prior to the enactment of a Fedetal em-
ployees' salary bill.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the
cost of this bill. regardless of what it
might be, must be considered In light of
the fact that the Government has an ob-
ligation to pay its employees wages com-
parable to those being paid by private
companies. The fact that the Govern-
ment spends more than it takes in in
revenue does not, relieve it from this obli-
gation, no more than a private company,
that may be operating at a loss, is re-
lieved from its obligation of paying its
employees prevailing wage rates. There
are not many bilis that come before this
Congress, the cost of which are as fully
justified as are the costs of this meas-
ure. The costs involved in H.R. 11049
are an investment in human beings?
an investment designed to enable the
Federal Government to recruit and re-
tain the highest quality in personnel and
to enable it to operate more efficiently
and economically.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely urge your
favorable consideration of H.R. 11049.
Mr. CORI3L-i-r. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Gaossl.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.,
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman. I should
like to put in proper perspective the lack
of proper committee consideration of
this pending bill. Let me at the outset
point out that on Thursday, April 9,
1964, the full Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice Committee met in executive session
and a motion was made and seconded to
take up H.R. 10700 and other related
salary bills and to meet every Thursday
until the committee had disposed of the
After adopting that motion, the com-
mittee proceeded to consideration of
other matters. There was no discus-
sion of the revised provisions of that
pay bill. H.R. 10700. Seven days later,
on Thursday. April 16. an open hearing
was held and there was discussion of
H.R. 319 to protect postal patrons from
obscene mail. There was no discussion
of pay legislation. Seven days later, on
Thursday. April 23. the committee con-
sidered three bills and again there was
no discussion of pay legislation.
On Thursday, April 30, again 7 days
later, the committee convened at 10:35
a.m. and a motion was made and adopted
to consider H.R. 11049 with all debate
to end at 11:20 a.m. That motion was
adopted and H.R. 11049 favorably re-
ported, without amendment, and then of
course sent to the Rules Committee.
There has been not, one word of hear-
ings or testimony on the pending bill.
H.R. 11049. The proponents of this
measure can slice their explanations
thick or thin and the end result will be
the same.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the enact-
ment of H.R. 11049 just as vigorously
and completely as I opposed the earlier
pay increase bill. H.R. 8986, which was
defeated by a rolicall vote of 222 to 184.
and I trust a sufficient number of the
Members of the House will again stand
to be counted when the demand is made
for the rollcall vote.
I would hope that the leadership on
both sides of the aisle would, on this
occasion, lend their full support to a
rollcall on final passage.
This new bill is virtually identical to
the earlier version. There is nothing to
warrant a June reversal of the wise and
responsible action of last March. As a
matter of cold, hard fact the Nation has
plunged still further in debt since that
time.
Passage of this bill at this time in
the face of overwhelming evidence that it
is inimical to the national welfare, and
opposed by most American citizens, would
be an act of "midsummer madness."
We must again today pursue a reason-
able course of action and we must, in
good conscience, reject HR,. 11049 just as
decisively as we rejected the previous
salary grab.
I have heard of no taxpayer mass meet-
ings?no demonstrations in the streets
of any city, village or hamlet, North,
East, West. or South?importuning Con-
gress to schedule a repeat performance
of this extravaganza.
Let me review briefly a few of the
weird and improbable backdrops before
which you are again being asked to vote
yourself a pay raise, or, as one colleague
appropriately expressed it, "again having
our feet put to the fire."
It is proposed here today that we raise
our own salaries shortly after we have
reduced the revenues of the Federal Gov-
ernment by $11.5 billion in individual
and corporate income taxes and while
the stage is being readied for a vote next
week to increase the ceiling on the na-
tional debt to $324 billion.
In the midst of an alleged economy
drive, you are being asked to add an ad-
ditional one-half billion dollars annually
to governmental payroll costs that must
be paid for from borrowed money.
During a period when President John-
son has been urging business and labor
leaders to exercise "restraint and re-
sponsibility" so that prices and wages
will remain stable, it is actually being
proposed that we today start an upward
spiral of wages and prices.
We are being asked to grant salary
increases effective immediately to Fed-
eral employees who have already had
their salaries increased automatically as
recently as last January 1.
We are being asked here today, within
5 months after one salary increase, to
grant what will be the third salary in-
crease in 19 months for these same em-
ployees with a total price tag that adds
over $1.5 billion annually?an increase
of 11 percent?to total Federal payroll
costs in the 19 months' period.
In the name of comparability, we are
being asked to enact a measure that
admittedly does not achieve compara-
bility.
On the claim of urgent need we are
being pressured to vote today to increase
our own salaries and the salaries of Fed-
eral executives and judges by 33I, per-
cent, yet these increases would not take
effect until next year.
We are asked to make the vast re-
sources of the Federal Treasury avail-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13043
able for the payment salaries to officials
of the District of Columbia government
much higher than our own cities and
States can afford-to pay to their of-
ficials.
As strange and as weird as anything
else, we are being asked to vote today on
a bill on which no hearings were ever
held by the responsible committee of the
House; upon a bill that was favorably
reported by that committee only 2 days
after being introduced, with only 30
minutes' time allowed for the offering of
amendments and for what should have
been a full and complete discussion of A.
measure that contains five titles, 78
pages, and which proposes to change the
salary raterfor almost 2 million Federal
employees.
And, just as fantastic, even though a
rule was granted on this bill 3 weeks ago,
we have only now come to the moment
of truth by a last minute scheduling of
this performance which we are told could
not be scheduled earlier in the regular
manner because time was needed to see
if the same show would "go on the road"
in the other Chamber.
Certainly, in view of these improbable
and even preposterous settings, the spec-
tacle we are projecting to the American
people is a sad one, and I implore Mem-
bers of the House to consider their de-
cision most carefully.
Mr. Chairman, I am firmly convinced
that this bill is again ill timed, unwar-
ranted, expensive, and contrary to sound
reasoning and responsibility. My own
views in detail on the measure and those
of some of my colleagues on the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee are
expressed on page 127 of the commit-
tee's report. These reports are available
here and I earnestly hope that the Mem-
bers will carefully read these minority
views before they decide how they will
cast their votes. There are other com-
pelling reasons why this legislation
should be defeated.
One of the greatest dangers we now
face in this Nation?one that has the
potential for destroying us?is the pres-
sures that may be unleashed for a re-
newal of the price-wage spiral and a
vicious inflationary cycle. The Presi-
dent claims to recognize this danger.
In his Economic Report to the Con-
gress in January of 1964, the President
called particular attention to the urgent
necessity for avoiding inflationary wage
Increases. He said that he would keep
close watch on price'and wage develop-
ments and that he would not hesitate to,
and I quote, "draw public attention to
major actions by either business or labor
that flout the public interest," unquote.
In inflationary price-wage praetices.
In Atlantic City on March 23 the Presi-
dent had this to say:?
We must not choke off our needed and
speedy economic expansion by a revival of
the price-wage spiraling. Avoiding that spi-
ral is the responsibility of business, and it is
also the responsibility of labor.
I submit to the Members of this House
that this business is also the responsi-
bility of the Congress, and in view of the
apparent inconsistent attitude and the
impotence of the administration this re-
sponsibility for maintaining stability on
wages and prices will only be fully dis-
charged if the Congress now assumes the
badly needed leadership.
The Congress must now set an example
for the private sector of our economy by
holding the line on wage costs. Congress
must reject the. concept that precipitous
and unwarranted pay increases can be
granted without unleashing ruinous in-
flation. The economy simply cannot af-
ford the luxury of this bill at this time.
Even the loosest standard of fiscal
decency is flaunted by the spectacle of a
Member of Congress voting to reduce
Government income by $11.5 billion, vot-
ing himself a sizable pay raise, and then
voting to raise the national debt limit so
that the money can be borrowed to meet
his own increased payroll.
Congress is often described as a board
of directors and the voters and taxpayers
as stockholders of the corporation. It is
not necessary to draw on the imagination
to know what the stockholders of a pri-
vate corporation would do, if, with the
corporation deeply in debt, the directors
voted themselves lavish salary increases.
At the first annual meeting, preferably on
a cold day in November, the directors
would be given one-way tickets to that
land where the woodbine twineth and
the whangdoodle whangeth.
And let me say at this point I find it
incredible that President Johnson, who
has been gallivanting over the country
exploring "pockets of poverty," would
use the power and pressure of his office to
demand that Congress vote itself a $7,500,
perhaps a $10,000, a year salary increase.
This is the same President Johnson
who, in taking over the office of Chief Ex-
ecutive, said he would always respect the
Independence and integrity of Congress.
Yet in recent days his henchmen have
been prowling the corridors on Capitol
Hill and keeping the telephones hot in
behalf of this bill. Is it possible that
Capitol Hill has been secretly designated
as a "pocket of poverty"?
There is also another serious and dis-
turbing aspect to this legislation which
has not received sufficient attention but
of itself, it is certainly sufficient cause for
the rejection of this bill. It is the dan-
gerous threat that enactment of this bill
will have upon the civil service em-
ployees' retirement fund.
This fund, which is the hope and fu-
ture of the people who work for the Fed-
eral Government, currently shows an
actuarial deficit estimated at $34 billion
and the fund is going further in the red
at a rate of $1.5 billion each year solely
on the basis of the Government's failure
to pay interest on the deficit.
It is estimated that unless action Is
taken to correct the situation, the fund
will be completely wiped out by the year
1989 and for each year thereafter we will
have to directly appropriate between $2
and $3 billion to provide the retirement
benefits to our people that we have com-
mitted ourselves to.
The two pay increases that were pro-
vided for in Public Law 793 of the 87th
Congress in themselves increased the
deficiency in the civil service retirement
fund by $3 billion. And the Civil Service
Commission now estimates that enact-
ment of HR. 11049 will add another
$1.25 billion to this deficiency. This bill,
by blithely providing for salary in-
creases, ranging up to 331/3 percent for
Federal employees, ignores completely
the fact that by so doing it jeopardizes
the economic future of these employees.
There eventually must be a day of reck-
oning?a day when we will have to face
up to the fringe effects of these salary
enactments?and when that day comes,
it will not be a pleasant one for the Con-
gress or for the American taxpayer.
I have here a letter which I received
and which I understand was sent to
every member of the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee from Vaux
Owen, president of the National Federa-
tion of Federal Employees. This is one
of the largest of the national unions of
Federal employees; it is most effective
and was foundal in 1917. Its member-
ship is exclusively confined to those who
work for the Federal Government and
the members of this union are intended
to be among the beneficiaries of this leg-
islation. You would assume that thy
would have a selfish and a most active
Interest in Its prompt enactment.
However, in this letter the president
of the union deplores the fact that no
hearings were held on H.R. 11049 and
that he had no opportunity to testify
before the committee. He has seen fit to
send to me and, I presume, to the other
members of the committee a copy of the
statement which he would have made on
the legislation if hearings had been held,
and in his letter he characterizes H.R.
11049 as "a monstrous distortion of the
comparability principle and an unjusti-
fied departure from the rule prescribed
by the Congress for implementing that
policy."
I have read Mr. Owens' statement, as
he has asked me to, and I assure you
that he raises a number of disturbing
questions with respect to H.R. 11049 that
probably will never be answered nor re-
solved. It is certainly no credit to this
bill that it was permitted to come before
the House under a gag procedure that
deprived the Members of this body the
committee consideration that is essential
to legislating responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, since the majority of
employees covered in this bill have al-
ready received a salary increase last
January, since salary increases proposed
for most of the other employees will not
take effect until next year, and since
too many vital questions have been raised
and unanswered by legislation of this
magnitude, I sincerely urge that this bill
be rejected.
I am certain that if we reject this bill
today; if we, by example, show business
and labor that we mean it when we say
"hold the line on wages -and prices"; if
we here take the leadership in giving our
ailing economy a massive dose of "re-
straint and responsibility," our action
will meet with the full approval of the
people we here serve.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Mon-
tana [Mr. OLSEN].
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13044 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 1
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is well pointed out time
and again in the discussions on this
legislation that Congress has the sole
responsibility in the area of salaries.
This is where the buck stops; right
here on the question of salaries. There-
fore, it follows that we are largely re-
sponsible for the effectiveness and the
ability of our Government itself to
function well and to perform for the
people of these United States.
In the words of our President Johnson,
he says:
Every cent for these increases Is already
Included in my budget for fiscal year 1985.
The smallest budget In proportion to our
national output since 1951.
In that letter from which I quoted, the
President of the United States says for
him as leader of the country to get one
dollar's worth of performance for every
dollar spent, he needs this pay bill.
Now what is the problem? The prob-
lem is that we compete with private in-
dustry, with public institutions. with the
whole economy of the country in getting
the kind of talent that is necessary to
operate this biggest industry, this big-
gest part of our whole system, our Fed-
eral Government.
To do that our Government must re-
cruit 400,000 "new faces" every year.
Even though in the Government the
employment has reduced some 9 percent
in the years 1946 to 1963, despite the
reduction in the number of employees
there is a turnover in employment in the
Federal Government of 400,000 people
per year.
We must attract leadership in such
fields as space flight and all the new
sciences of space. We must attract the
best kind of talent in agriculture, as well,
and in every field of endeavor in this
country. We must have the best Mild of
talent in the Federal Government be-
cause, whether a department of the
Federal Government is functioning as a
leader in arty particular field or not, the
Government is participating in every
field with talent of the country, and cer-
tainly the talent of the Government must
be equal to the leadership of any other
part of our economy. ?
In regard to improving crops in agri-
culture and improving livestock in the
field of agriculture, the Federal Govern-
ment has furnished a substantial part of
the leadership. Congress has appropri-
ated the money to attract this leadership.
In that field there is a great deal of
activity in the private economy, and the
private economy is competing with the
Government and the Government com-
peting with the private economy in the
attracting of this talent.
The Federal Government as an em-
ployer must, be competitive in?the word
Is now?the mainstream of our economy.
Attracting needed talent is necessary.
One of the really tragic examples of
our failure to do this is our friend Mr.
Walter Williams, who was the leader in
the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, in charge of the pro-
gram for space flights. The top salary
the Government could pay Mr. Wil-
liams was $20,000 a year, under law. He
has resigned. We know that he went
to employment in private industry at a
salary at least twice the $20,000 offered
by the Government. By a coincidence,
he will be working for an industry
which in turn is employed by the Fed-
eral Government in this great program.
There are numerous other examples
of lawyers, economists, engineers, and
scientists who leave Federal employment
and go to private industry at salaries
twice as great as those offered in Govern-
ment.
Also, in the Post Office Department,
we are finding that outstanding letter
carriers and outstanding postal clerks,
who should become the leadership in
the Post Office Department?perhaps
late this year. and certainly in the com-
ing years?are leaving ,Federal employ-
ment. We will be looking for leadership
In that Department and we will not have
it, because we are not hanging on to the
people in the Post Office Department
who should become the leaders.
To solve this problem, in 1962 the
Congress adopted the principle of com-
parability by passage of the pay bill that
year. The principle of comparability
Is operated by requesting the Bureau of
Labor Statistics to report the comparable
pay in private industry for those same
talents as are hired in the Federal Gov-
ernment. We are informed by report on
the amount of money paid per hour for
talents in industry comparable to those
hired in the Government. We are also
advised of the percentage of increase
experienced by the employee in industry.
We are advised that the percentage of
increase has been about 3 percent a year.
In the general classification of em-
ployees in the general services and in
the Post Office Department, up to about
the pay of $6,000 a year, we have ex-
perienced a timelag of 1 to 2 years in
meeting competition or in maintaining
comparable pay in the Federal Govern-
ment with that of private industry. In
the higher grades, we have had longer
periods of timelag, and in the highest
grades, that of $20,000 a year or more,
there has been no increase since 1955.
The fact of the matter is that the sal-
ary paid Congressmen?$22,500 a year?
is a ceiling on all the higher grades?in-
deed, it is a ceiling on the scientists, the
lawyers, the economists, the engineers,
and specialists of all kinds. Yes, the
Congressman's salary is even a ceiling
on all the Cabinet and all of the Judi-
ciary. In that regard, let me say that it
Is fair to generalize that the lobbyist
representing industry at the Congress,
the lawyer representing his client in the
courts, and the businessman represent-
ing his business in the executive branch
of the Government are all being paid
several times more than the salary of the
Congressman, the jurist, or the executive
Federal employee.
We have labored hard to bring to you
the report that was filed supporting this
bill. We heard 45 witnesses in 10 full
days of hearings. Not a single witness
appeared against the bill. It is supported
by tile American Bar Association, by
engineering societies, by the scientists,
by businessmen: and leading newspapers
all over the country are calling for Con-
gress to pass this bill es an act support-
ing responsible government. Yes, the
act is timely. It is even late. It is tardy.
It is not inflationary. It is not inflation-
ary because the employees, the leadership
of the Federal Government are all pro-
ductive. Their productivity is compara-
ble to the best in our country. They are
lagging behind the pay of private indus-
try, and in that lag, the salaries of Fed-
eral employees and leadership are actu-
ally deflationary. By our figures from
the printed hearings on this bill, the
itates, the counties, the universities, the
public institutions, and private industry
have a host of examples of salaries far
higher than any in the Federal Govern-
ment; particularly private baLlustry dis-
closes the board of directors of even
small corporations--yes, small corpora-
tions of my own State of Montana, being
paid far higher salaries than are paid
our judges, our executive officers, and our
Congress. We must lift this ceiling on
salaries in the Federal Establishment to
help our President attract the kind of
talent necessary to continue the effec-
tiveness necessary to the proper per-
formance of our Government for our
people.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I shall
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. WaLLHAUSER], a member of the
committee, but first I yield myself 1
minute.
I point out, in advance of the gentle-
man's remarks, that he has been one of
the finest, most dedicated, and distin-
guished members of our committee. He
will be a hard man to replace next year.
We can be certain that what he will have
to tell us today will be spoken with sin-
cerity and could not possibly be-attrib-
uted to any advantage to himself.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORIThri-i. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman from
New Jersey and I have not seen eye to eye
on every issue. We probably will not on
this issue today. However, I join with
my good friend the distinguished minor-
ity leader of the committee in expressing
my regret that the gentleman is leaving
the Congress and leaving the committee.
and wish him well.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arizona.
Mr. TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to
seize this opportunity to join in a tribute
to a great public servant. The gentle-
man from New Jersey is one of the finest
men who ever served in Congress, as far
as my own experience is concerned. I
think I speak for all the Democratic
members of the committee in paying
tribute to the distinguished Member.
He is a real gentleman. He is conscien-
tious and works hard. I think it is a
great loss to the Congress and the coun-
try that he is retiring from this body.
Mr. PIRNTE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. PIRNIE. I, too, would like to join
in this tribute. My colleague from New
Jersey came to the House at the same
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13045
time as did I. I have found him to be a
gentleman in every sense of the word and
truly dedicated to his task here. His
effort today merely reflects his deep in-
terest in his country and his unselfish
approach to his responsibilities. I, too,
regret he is to retire at the end of the
session so that the Nation will not have
the benefit of his counsel and his help
in this Chamber in the days ahead.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I be-
lieve, in view of the facts that have just
been brought out, we had better yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey if he is able to speak.
(Mr. WALLHAUSER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
first of all I would like to express my
appreciation ? for the kind words that
have been spoken, and I hope I am still
able to say something about the bill after
this wonderful experience.
I would like to start off by saying that,
of course, I support H.R. 11049 com-
pletely. Then I would like to say it has
been a rare privilege and a great honor
for me to have served on this great com-
mittee. I especially want to thank the
chairman and the ranking minority
member for their fair and just treatment
at all times. I guess I will have to admit
publicly, much as I hate to, that every
member of the committee has more in-
telligence than I have and more ability
to understand legislation than I have.
Yet I think I was able to understand
H.R. 11049 after we had considered the
previous legislation at great length in
days and days and days of hearings and
after full explanation. So I feel that
every member of this committee, and I
think every Member of this House, surely
must understand what is before us today.
A previous speaker has mentioned that
this legislation is virtually identical with
the previous legislation, and it is. There
are, of course, some differences in arith-
metic, but they are not too serious and
not too hard for us to understand what
they are.
If we look upon our duty today, I think
it is a very simple one, but we have a
very heavy responsibility. I believe that
we are in the same position as directors
of a corporation who have to approve, or
disapprove, or alter, the recommenda-
tions of the Executive. That is what we
are doing today. We are passing upon
the judgment of the executive depart-
ment and we are altering it. We are
altering it in this legislation.
Now I would like to go back to the
Salary Reform Act of 1962 and point out
two major accomplishments which were
made in that legislation. First of all, we
raised, in two steps, up to the 1961 com-
parability the pay and salaries of classi-
fied and postal workers. It did not reach
1962 comparability. Also it gave us the
mechanics and specified by law as to
what we are to do in the future to im-
plement this legislation. Now that
Public Law 87-793 is on the books it is
our obligation to live up to the obligation
that we assumed and vote according to
the mandate given to us by that law.
I would like to point this out also:
Federal employees are not allowed to
strike against the Federal Government.
Therefore, they must meet us at the
bargaining table. This House of Repre-
sentatives is the bargaining table at
which labor and management are meet-
ing today. We have to be fair in this
situation. We have to understand their
problems, and I think we must, with
good judgment, and recognizing the tax-
payers' interest, meet their reasonable
demands, as reasonable men and women
should.
Title I takes care to some degree the
salary problems of 1.7 million very loyal
employees.
For 'example, there are 375,000 postal
employees who will receive only a mini-
mum of, I think it is, $375 per annum
increase. And yet if we look back over
the last 15 years we will find that the
classified employees have received 4.1-
percent average increase and the postal
workers 4.9-percent increase. This bill
only calls for a 3-percent increase for
them.
Mr. Chairman, if you will now look at
the other side of the coin you will find
that perhaps in the future years we will
be giving lesser increases than we have
in past years. That is a future proba-
bility.
Titles II, III, and IV take care of the
legislative, executive, and judicial sal-
ary increases. There are only about
1,500 positions with $12 million per an-
num involved. It is not a very large
sum as compared with the total amount
in the bill of $533 million.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take
just a-moment to call your attention to
the Randall report which has not been
mentioned here today. The report of
the Advisory Panel on Federal Salary
Reforms was issued on June 12, 10,63.
There were 10 very distinguished mem-
bers of this Commission: Clarence R.
Randall; John J. Corson, professor at
Princeton; Marion B. Folsom, Eastman
Kodak Co. and a former Cabinet officer;
Theodore TJ. Houser, former top execu-
tive, Sears & Roebuck; Robert R. Lovett,
Brown Bros., Harriman, former Secre-
tary of the Army; George Meany, AFL-
CIO; Don K. Price, Graduate School of
Public Administration, Harvard; Robert
Ramspeck, former Member of Congress
from Georgia; Stanley F. Reed, Associ-
ate Justice, retired, Supreme Court;
Sydney Stein, Jr., Stein, Roe & Farnham,
lawyer.
Mr. Chairman, they came in with
these recommendations: that the
Speaker and the Vice President should
receive $60,000 a year; that Members of
Congress should receive $35,000; Cabinet
officers, $50,000; the Chief Justice, $60,-
500; and Associate Justices, $60,000;
judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals,
$45,000; and district court judges,
$35,000.
Our legislation does not reach these
figures by a good, long shot.
Mr. Chairman, these people had very
good research facilities. They did a
magnificent job. Their report was based
on a sound foundation of facts plus ex-
cellent judgment by men who have been
through various aspects of our economy
and know the answers.
Of course, anyone seeking Federal em-
ployment recognizes that the element of
prestige is important and desirable and
the desire for public service is com-
mendable. But we have to recognize that
those Federal employees in the executive
department are not allowed to have other
gainful employment. They are limited
to their Government compensation.
I claim that in order to attract, and
finally to hold, competent employees, we
have to pay salaries commensurate with
their responsibilities and salaries com-
parable to those paid in private enter-
prise.
The figures will show?andthis is only
a partial list?that more than 1,000 gov-
ernmental employees throughout the
country, outside of the Federal Govern-
ment?mayors, Governors, superintend-
ents of schools, and so forth?receive
more than $25,000 a year.
' You have heard a lot about the subject
of inflation. This is not a problem in
this case because inflation only occurs,
or can occur, when a disproportionate
and a relatively sharp and sudden in-
crease in the quantity of money or
credit, or both, relative to goods avail-
able for purchase, occurs. There is no
sudden or disproportionate increase here
because this amount is budgeted and the
Government, of course, will receive back
large amounts in taxes. So that it will
not all be outgo.
We have also heard a rot about un-
funded liability. Of course, this is a
problem. But it is only a real problem
if everyone were to retire at once, so far
as the deficiency is concerned. And
there is a bill now before our committee
which would, if enacted, make the fund
self-supporting. Funds can be appropri-
ated or the Government could make in-
terest payments to take care of this
problem.
We also hear about the increase in the
debt ceiling bill which will be called up
next week.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the
attention of the members of the commit-
tee to these facts. The total amount of
this bill is in the budget. Sc, we are not
raising the ceiling because of this bill.
Also, that Federal employment has gone
down sharply in the last year. If the
levels that were forecast in the 1964
budget were held to we would now have
73,000 more employees than we now have.
Further, I would say this: If you want
to keep from raising the debt ceiling,
stop appropriating money for new pro-
grams. Do not take it away from peo-
ple, because you cannot run a business
without good people. This, I believe, is
fundamental and elementary.
Mr. Chairman, as far as this legisla-
tion is concerned the president of a con-
cern in the private sector of our economy
knows that if his competitor is paying
certain salaries higher than he is, he has
to meet those salaries or go out of busi-
ness, or obtain inferior help.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by
saying this?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. 1W. Chairman,
we are the directors of the largest and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13046 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
the most important corporation in the
world. We have a heavy responsibility.
Our duties are full time. Everyone of the
Members of this House, except the Mem-
ber in the well, is a capable individual.
You can be replaced by the stockholders
of your corporation, if they so desire, be-
cause you have to run for election every
2 years. The directors of a corporation
have every right in the world to raise
their fees and to raise the salaries of
their employees, and that is what you are
being asked to do. You are not being
asked to do anything unusual or repre-
hensible. You are only being asked to be
fair to those employees who cannot by
any other means receive increases. I
submit that you and I will not be living
up to our full responsibility and in fact
we will be actually shirking our duty if
we do not pass H.R. 11049. I sincerely
hope that we will.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman. I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. PooLl.
(Mr. POOL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, there is
absolutely no reason why we should not
approve this legislation today. Every
feature which some Members found ob-
jectionable in the first pay bill has been
removed or altered to a point where ob-
jections are really no longer valid. The
salary increases for Members of Con-
gress. Federal judges. Cabinet officers,
and sub-Cabinet officers have been
dropped from $10,000 a year to $7.500
a year. They are also being deferred
until January 1965. This means that
no Member of this body can with any
justification be accused of voting to give
himself a pay increase. He will be vot-
ing to give the office an increase, and
this is quite a different matter.
Mr. Chairman, a candidate for Con-
gress may make political oblections
against pay raises on an individual
basis, but he surely can have no valid
objections against raising the prestige
and the recompense for the job itself.
Mr. Chairman, I have just returned
from Texas and I have talked to people
in all of the counties practically
throughout the State. In the district
which it is my honor to represent, I
represent the largest constituency of
any Member here in the House of Rep-
resentatites. Everyone to whom
talked said this about the pay raise:
They wondered why the Federal Gov-
ernment could not pay the Federal
judges, the Members of Congress. and
the Cabinet officers decent wages and
get better people to serve in these posi-
tions. They felt that this was just
good commonsense, as all businesses
in the United States follow this prin-
ciple. You only get what you pay for.
We will get better work and better peo-
ple if we pay a decent salary.
Mr. Chairman, the testimony before
the Committee on the Post Office and
Civil Service of which I am a member
showed that comparable wages were
lower in the Federal service than they
are in industry.
Therefore I voted for the bill before
in the House, and I intend to support this
bill here today. If we are going to get
qualified personnel to work for the Gov-
ernment we must pay salaries conrpar-
able to those paid by industry.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Michi-
gan, a member of the committee.
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the bill, H.R. 11049.
Mr. Chairman, the Johnson adminis-
tration has three antipoverty packages it
insists that Congress approve this ses-
sion. We take up the first of these today.
Especially, since this is the second at-
tempt this year to provide relief from
poverty for Members of Congress and top
salary executive and judicial personnel,
it occurs to me that we should view this
bill in relation to the other two pending
antipoverty proposals.
It is my understanding that the second
of these measures is slated for considera-
tion in the House next week. It is com-
monly and technically referred to as the
debt ceiling increase bill.
This debt limit legislation is directed
to a bona fide hardship case. With a
present national debt of $308.7 billion,
with an $8.8 billion deficit for the fiscal
year ending the 30th of this month, and
with an estimated deficit of $5.8 billion
for the next fiscal year. it is obvious that
Uncle Sam himself has his own poverty
problem. Presumably, the Congress will
again come to his rescue by raising the
national debt limit to $324 billion?the
sixth such increase, if memory serves me
right, in less than 4 years.
Incidentally, let me say that if the
pending half-billion-dollar pay raise is
voted into law, it will be a half-billion-
dollar contribution to the fiscal 1965 defi-
cit and an equal contribution to the argu-
ment we will hear next week as to the
necessity for raising the debt ceiling.
The claim that this half-billion-dollar
item is covered in the President's budget
is neither here nor there. The hard fact
remains that we are voting to spend
money we do not have if we pass this
bin today, and It will be nonetheless true
if we pass the bill without a record vote.
The administration's third antipoverty
program, of course, is the one designed
for the poorer poor people. That is the
one counted on by the administration
to garner the real harvest of votes next
November. That is the one designed to
help the voters forget what we may do
here today. That is the one designed to
help them forget that, under the admin-
istration and House leadership's order of
priorities, we took care of the im-
poverished Congressmen and bureau-
crats first.
To be sure, under this bill, if enacted
into law, we will grant some justifiable
and justified pay raises. I can't con-
ceive of Federal pay increases aggregat-
ing over $1.5 billion in 20 months with-
out some meritorious benefits accruing
therefrom. I wish it were possible for
me to vote for those warranted pay
raises. But the sort of something-for-
everybody package we have here today
makes it impossible for me to do so in
good conscience.
June 11
There are a number of observations
which I should like to make in my limited
time both about she bill and about the
general situation in which we find our-
selves.
Let me, first of all, offer a word of cau-
tion to my colleagues.
Any Member of this House who thinks
that the curse of adverse editorial and
public comment about raising our own
pay has now been removed had better
think again.
It is true that this bill cuts $2,500 off
the proposed pay raise for Members of
Congress, Cabinet officers, and other top
executive and judicial personnel. But
we are still providing these top level Fed-
eral employees?Including ourselves?
with a 33!.-percent pay raise. We are
doing it a week before we again raise the
debt ceiling?in itself an interesting
commentary on the quality of the fiscal
stewardship of thi& administration and a
majority of this Congress.
I see no evidence that there is any less
reluctance on the part of a majority of
my colleagues so far as a roll call vote
is concerned. This in itself is proof of a
self-conscious embarrassment over what
Is proposed to be done.
But a new feature is added to our sec-
ond consideration of this pay bill in less
than 3 months. My good friend and col-
league, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
UDALL! yesterday sent all of us a letter
In which he apologized for the fact that
the proposed increases for Members of
Congress and other top level executive
and judicial personnel "are inadequate,"
but he did not stop with that. He an-
nounced his intention to offer an-amend-
ment which would provide:
That whenever classified or postal salaries
are Increased hereafter, such legislation will
automatically increase executive, congres-
sional and judicial sa:aries.
I will not discuss his formula for such
automatic increases at this point.
In this same communication, the gen-
tleman from Arizona stated that:
Congress has already established machinery
for regular annual adjustments in the clas-
sified and postal salary system.
These two statements considered to-
gether add up to one simple, bald, brazen
proposed?the proposal to give Members
of Congress a permanent personal vested
interest in annual pay raises for Federal
personnel. It is a proposal that Congress
adopt a policy in perpetuity of annual
automatic pay adjustments?a euphem-
ism for pay increases?for Members of
Congress and other top Federal officials.
This is an antipoverty program with a
vengeance.
I have read, with great interest, the
compilation of editorial comments on our
March 12 action which was placed in the
RECORD by my good friend, the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISONJ and
which he thoughtfully circulated among
Members of this House. I note that one
of these editorials, from the Milwaukee
Journal, bore the title, "Sneaky, then
Cowardly." I suggest that this will stand
RS high praise of the Congress in com-
parison to what will be said editorially if
we adopt the Udall proposal for automa-
tic pay raises for Members of Congress
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13047
and then pass that bill without a rolicall
vote.
No wonder there are serious misgivings
about having a record vote on this leg-
islation. Just how much punishment
do some of my colleagues think ,the
American taxpayers are willing to take?
Turning to another aspect of this mat-
ter, I should like to comment briefly on
one or two statements made by the Presi-
dent of the United States in his letter
of March 17 to the Speaker of the House
urging the House to reconsider and ap-
prove pay raise legislation. In some
respects, this is the most amazing mes-
sage ever addressed to this House by a
President.
In times past, I have been severely
critical of a statement made by Mr. Clar-
ence B. Randall, then Chairman of the
President's Federal Salary Policy Com-
mittee. In this statement, Mr. Ran-
dall said:
I am firmly convinced that higher Fed-
eral salaries would attract a level of com-
petence that would so improve government
operations that there would be no out-of-
pocket costs at all.
Heretofore, I had thought this was the
ultimate in hyperbole. I was wrong.
In his March 17 message, the President
said:
The dollars paid to attract brains and
ability to the Federal service will come back
to the American people many times over in
more economical and effective government.
I am intrigued also by another inter-
esting display of logic in the President's
message.
In listing the alleged adverse effects of
nonenactment of the pay raise, the
President cited the following as one de-
plorable consequence. Such failure, he
said, would:
Jeopardize increases in military pay, which
I have recommended to keep Armed Forces
pay generally in line with nonmilitary 141-
aries.
Now, if I understand the argument
advanced by the President, it is to the
effect that we must raise nonmilitary sal-
aries of civilian Federal employees in
order to make it possible for the ad-
ministration to secure increases in mili-
tary pay which will keep that pay in line
with the nonmilitary pay. I would not
presume to guess who drafted that mas-
terpiece of illogic for the President of
the United States. But there it is.
In terms of the old familiar phrase,
the way to "keep up with the Joneses"
is to see to it that the Joneses step up
their own standard of living and spend-
ing. Antipoverty?it is wonderful.
My final comment at this point in the
debate regarding this revised Federal
pay bill goes to the matter of the much-
discussed "comparability principle."
Let me preface this comment by re-
minding the House, as some of my col-
leagues have already done, and as the
minority views which I signed, emphasize,
this revised bill was voted out of com-
mittee without so much as 5 minutes
of hearings. Even the scheduled appear-
ance of the Director of the Budget and
the Chairman of the Civil Service Com-
mission before an executive session of
the committee was vetoed by the White
House?an act of almost unprecedented
executive ruthlessness. This amounts to
telling this House that it must pass this
bill, not on its merits, but on the Presi-
dent's insistence. I am reminded of the
popular song, "What Lola Wants, Lola
Gets." We shall see.. And we shall also
?see how the American people react to
these tactics.
The fact is that this bill reduces the
price tag of this proposed pay raise from
$668,500,000 to $533,200,000.
The committee report on H.R. 8986?
the pay bill defeated last March?made
a big point over the fact that it involved
an annual cost of $381 million less than
the first proposal taken up by the com-
mittee for action last fall. Presumably,
this first proposal was based on the prin-
ciple of comparability. During the de-
bate last March, I observed that com-
parability must indeed be a most elastic
principle if this much of a reduction
could be made without impairing that all-
important principle. Today's bill has
a price tag of $135 million below the
March bill.
Thus, we find that in a period of less
than 9 months, the proposed cost of a
pay bill supposedly based on the highly
scientific concept of comparability has
been reduced more than one-half billion
dollars?and we are supposed to believe
that the principle of comparability was
adhered to in each of these three pro-
posals and that it today stands unim-
paired in this half-billion-dollar-cheaper
pay raise proposal. Who, I might ask,
is kidding whom?
I will say this. One of the gentlemen
who is not being deceived is Mr. Vaux
Owen, president of the National Federa-
tion of Federal Employees.
Mr. Owen wrote me under date of June
4, as I presume he did other members of
the committee. He pointed out that the
original committee hearings last year
were held on H.R. 7552, a bill which the
administration strongly supported. In
Mr. Owen's judgment, "the principle of
comparability was fairly and reasonably
adhered to" in this bill.
Commenting on the bill H.R. 11049,
which we are considering today, Mr.
Owen said:
This is a monstrous distortion of the com-
parability policy and an unjustified depar-
ture from the rule prescribed by the Congress
for implementing that policy.
The simple truth, of course, is that it is
farcical to talk about the comparability
principle in connection with this bill or
In connection with the legislative proce-
dure which the committee has followed
since last fall.
The governing principle in today's pro-
posal is not comparability but accept-
ability. We are back operating under
the rules' of whatever the traffic will
bear. Comparability which gives or
takes to the tune of half a billion dollars
isn't comparability. It is expediency.
Recently, I introduced a bill to repeal
the provisions of the Federal Salary Re-
form Act of 19'62, providing pay compa-
rability between employees of the Fed-
eral Government and employees in pri-
vate industry.
I did so after published reports of April
22 that there is talk of classified and
postal employees "appealing to the courts
to force Congress to follow through on
the 1962 law that extended the compara-
bility principle to their salaries."
I opposed adoption of this compara-
bility provision when the legislation was
originally before this House.
I then believed the principle was un-
sound. The provisions of this bill fur-
ther confirm that belief.
I now also believe this provision is dan-
gerous and that it invites judicial action
designed to force the Congress to live up
to its vague and ill-defined -commitment.
As a matter of sound fiscal policy, I
believe H.R. 11049?which superimposes
a half billion dollar pay raise on the pre-
vious $1 billion pay raise?should be de-
feated.
As a matter of sound legislative policy
involving perpetuation of the farce and
hoax of comparability, I believe the bill
should be defeated.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. HENDERSON] .
(Mr. HENDERSON asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 11049. As chair-
man of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee's Subcommittee on Manpower
Utilization, I have been increasingly im-
pressed by the information developed by
our subcommittee that the Government
needs the best management that can be
obtained to afford the world's largest and
most complex business with the most able
talent. This, in turn, insures the most
efficient and economical use of our tax-
payers' money.
I believe that unless principles of com-
parability of pay which were adopted by
this House in October 1962, and now
public law, are put into effect we are go-
ing to lose more and more of the top
managers in the departments and agen-
cies of our Government. I feel that an
important key to the capability of our
Government' to meet the responsibility
for our people lies in top management-
and we need adjustments now in salaries
for these responsible jobs.
Within recent days the Manpower Uti-
lization Subcommittee in public hearings
has developed the fact that one of the
critical management areas in the Gov-
ernment today is in the recruitment and
retention of good top people. In fact,
our subcommittee has found numerous
instances where departments and agen-
cies have had to resort to the use of em-
ployees furnished by private corporations
at a much greater total cost to the Gov-
ernment, due to problems of recruiting
Government personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I also strongly support
an amendment which has been proposed
by our able colleague, Hon. MORRIS
UDALL of Arizona, who is also a member
of the Manpower Utilization Subcommit-
tee. The amendment of the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. UDALL] which will tie
the salaries of the Congressmen to the
pay of the top level in the Classification
Act series; namely, GS-18, will relieve the
pressure in adjusting pay between the
career employees and the Congress.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13048
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. Chairman, I would like to cite
briefly to the Members the provisions of
our report starting on page 8 entitled
"Classification Act Grade Inflation."
It is rather lengthy, but I would like
to read just a brief portion of It as fol-
lows:
The implementation by this legislation of
the principle of comparability established by
the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962. Pub-
lic Law 87-793. Is intended by the committee
to bring to an end the unjustified inflation-
ary trend in the grade structure of positions
under the Classification Act of 1949.
In other words, we point out that the
passage of this bill is intended by the
committee to bring to an end the unjus-
tified inflationary trend in the grade
structure of positions under the Classi-
fied Act of 1949.
Then we conclude on page 10 as fol-
lows:
The committee believes that the neces-
sary tools of personnel management. in terms
of adequate salaries, have now been pro-
vided by the Federal Salary Reform Act of
1962 and by this bill, the Government Em-
ployees Salary Reform Act of 1964. It la
expected that the principles of position
classification and reclassification set forth
In the Classification Act of 1949 will be
strictly adhered to. The committee consid-
ers this a reaffirmation of congressional pol-
icy and, therefore. Insists that management
respect the grade structures which have been
approved for particular positions. The com-
mittee will also expect the U.S. Civil Service
Commission to exercise great care in the re-
view and development of grade standards
under the Classification Act.
This, Mr. Chairman, highlights what
has been going on in the absence of ap-
propriate rates of compensation. Man-
agement has found it necessary to raise
the grades and thus increase the com-
pensations in order to retain employees
and to give salary increases.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there is another
item in H.R. 11049, which I feel is a defi-
nite improvement over H.R. 8986. I have
in mind an amendment which I proposed
in the Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee and which was adopted by the
committee and is now incorporated in
HR. 11049. This eliminates all frac-
tions over a cent in the results of pay-
roll calculations. It is my understand-
ing that this item alone will save in the
neighborhood of $10 to $12 million as
compared to the bill which was voted on
by the House in March.
Mr. Chairman, in order that we can
continue to improve employee productiv-
ity in our Government, I believe that
HR. 11049 would be voted on favorably
today by the House.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. I am delighted to
yield to the gentleman from New York,
a member of the committee.
Mr. DULSKI. I compliment the gen-
tleman for the fine statement he has
made, and I commend him for the work
of the Manpower 'Utilization Subcom-
mittee, on which I had the privilege to
serve under Judge Davis,
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given Per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DUISKI. Mr. Chairman, we can
well understand the need for expeditious
consideration now of the entire issue of
Federal salary legislation if Congress is
to keep _faith with our dedicated postal
and other career employees.
These employees have a right to ex-
pect our favorable consideration here to-
day as a major step forward to reach
some degree of comparability in our em-
ployee rates of compensation with the
rates paid for comparable rates In pri-
vate industry. 'This comparability is re-
quired by the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962. and will be accomplished by
H.R. 11049.
As my colleagues have pointed out
here today, President Johnson on numer-
ous occasions and in a letter to Speaker
MCCORMACK on March 17, has called to
our attention tile urgent need for ad-
justment in rates of pay for all officers
and employees including the top execu-
tive officials who arc responsible for the
operation of our Government.
Our employees in the lower levels now
are far behind in rates of compensation
as compared with an employee in private
Industry. They need the increases pro-
posed in H.R. 11049 just to meet the
ordinary everyday living expenses.
The most significant improvement in
this bill, as compared with H.R. 8986,
Es a 25-percent reduction?from $10,000
down to, $7.500?in the salary increase:
provided for Members of Congress, Fed-
eral judges, Cabinet officers, and imme-
diate sub-Cabinet officers. These in-
creases also will be postponed to January
of 1965, whereas they would have been
retroactive to January of 1964 under the
earlier bill.
The total annual cost of the salary ad-
justments provided by H.R. 11049 will
be $533 million, an amount which is $11
million less than the President's budget
figure of $544 million. The President
considers this bill one of the three most
urgently needed legislative measures that
lie has recommended to the 88th Con-
gress, and has strongly emphasized his
personal support of its prompt enact-
ment. I earnestly hope that this impor-
tant bill will receive the approval of the
membership of the House.
Mr. CORBk:Pf. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUN-
NINGHAM].
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I stated before when this bill was first
presented to the House that I was op-
posed to placing Postal and Classification
Act employees in a package which also
included legislative, executive and judi-
cial salary increases. I stated then and
I repeat now that I have always sup-
ported pay increases for our postal and
classified employees and I would sup-
port increases for them now if the other
three groups were divorced from the
legislation. We held extensive hearings
in the committee on the pay proposals
for postal workers and regular civil serv-
ice employees but there were no hearings
held on the legislative, executive and
judicial salary proposals. Evidently
these latter sections were written in some
other place than the House of Repre-
sentatives. Salary legislation coming
June 11
from the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee should be confined to postal
employees and members of the civil serv-
ice system, Pay proposals affecting Con-
gressmen, agency heads, Cabinet officers
and judges should be considered by other
committees as they have been in the past
but such hearings were never held.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do support
title I of this bill but I do not support
the other sections. If they are not sepa-
rated from title I then I shall reluctantly
be forced to vote against the entire bill.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
QUILLEN].
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUTMEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the section of HR. 11049
which increases tY.e pay of the Members
of Congress to $30,000.
As for myself, I knew what the pay
was when I ran for election, and I can-
not break faith with the people who
elected me to this office.
I am very much in favor of the raises
for postal employees and other employees
In the Federal Government, They de-
serve this increase.
The congressional pay increase should
be eliminated; and, if it is not, then I
must vote against the bill.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, we
shall have only one more speaker on
this side.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
Mr. THOMAS].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I doubt
I! I can add anything to what has al-
ready been said, but my point in speak-
ing is to associate myself with the able
and distinguished committee, on both
sides of the aisle. I compliment the
committee. You have worked long, you
have worked hard, and you have brought
out a well-balanced, good bill.
I also compliment the Committee for
the fine, orderly, high-grade debate you
have had. It has been of the highest
order.
I shall address my remarks to two
points in regard to the bill. It is well
rounded. It will cost some money. It
will cost in the neighborhood of $532 mil-
lion. It covers the executive branch,
the judicial branch, and the Members of
the Congress. About the smallest item
of cost is for the Members of Congress.
Did you know that? It is about $4 mil-
lion. The cost fo:.. the judiciary is about
another $4 million. The cost for the
executive branch will be slightly more
than $500 million.
Do my colleagues realize that this is
the biggest business on earth? I refer
now to the executive branch of this Gov-
ernment. It is the biggest business on
earth.
Do you realize--I feel certain most of
you do?that this Government is run by
a small number of employees, elected
Individuals, and appointed individuals?
The executive branch of the Govern-
ment is run by between 3,500 and 4,000
employees. No more. The President, the
Cabinet officers, the sublevel officers, the
agency officers, the commissioners, those
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For -9 13049
CONutth oW--139f8
in supergrades of 16, 17, and 18, and a
few in excepted positions, are the people
who run the executive branch of our
Government.
Do you know what the bill will cost for
those? About $15 million a year.
The biggest economy you can make is
to pay salaries which are commensurate
with responsibilities and with duties.
Look at the independent agency heads
and Cabinet officers who are working for
$25,000, or even $21,000. Most of them
came from industry, where they were
making two or three or four times as
much.
I believe we can save by cutting down
procurement, and perhaps, in the mili-
tary, by putting in trained civilians
rather than military men who were not
trained in economics to do the job.
You can save that and 10 or 15 or 20
or maybe 100 times what it will cost you
in 1 year for this special group.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I will be delighted to
yield to my friend from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Only a short time ago
the gentleman's Subcommittee on Ap-
propriations carried on some discussion
of the huge deficit in the Federal em-
ployees' retirement fund.
Mr. THOMAS. Come on. Get down
to what you have to say. I only have 5
minutes.
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman
know what this bill will contribute to
the deficit and unsoundness of our
budget position and the retirement fund?
Mr. THOMAS. I do not think it will
create any deficit, but it will create a
surplus if it is managed right and if you
get good people running your Govern-
ment who spend $75 billion of your
money. You will get better people that
way, and I think it will save you money.
It will pay for itself many, many, many
times a year.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. THOMAS, I will be delighted to.
Mr. GROSS. It is the figures con-
tained in the hearings by the gentleman's
committee that I used to show that the
Federal employees retirement fund is
now $34 billion in the red.
Mr. THOMAS. What are you talking
about? The civil service retirement
fund? Of course it is.
Mr. GROSS. And this bill will make
a very substantial contribution to the
staggering deficit in the retirement fund.
Mr. THOMAS. To give you an exact
answer, if you are trying to figure out
what it will cost the retirement fund,
over a period of 31 or 32 years, the life-
time of a Federal employee, it will cost
you in the neighborhood of a billion dol-
lars.
Mr. Chairman, let me say something
about the membership. This bill is not
going to help me or many of the Mem-
bers I am now looking at who are my
age. My children are just about out of
college. They were born late. What
about these young Members, with two or
three or four children coming along?
They must go to college. They cannot
No. 117---13
do it. Now, just be perfectly honest
about it. They cannot do it on what
they are getting now. I am speaking for
you, not myself. I am not going to be
here too long. It is not going to improve
the Government service to pay me more
than I am getting. Let us be frank about
that. But when I leave I think you are
going to get a better fellow than I am.
Gentlemen, do the right thing by your-
selves and your country. If you do, you
will vote for this bill. There is nothing
to be ashamed about in this bill. I have
seen three or four pay raises in my day
here, and I have not seen a single Mem-
ber who voted for those pay raises pen-
alized one iota.
I heartily recommend this bill to you
in all of its aspects and forgive me for
taking your time.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Coarrs].
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, of
course, what I am going to say here is
obviously just a matter of making the
RECORD, because with the preparation
that this House has been given by the
committee, we are not in the position of
debating the crucial issues that this bill
presents to our country. President
Johnson in his economic message to the
Congress and to the Nation this year
pointed out that there were inflationary
forces loose which would be furthered
this year, but these forces could be con-
tained. In his message and in subse-
quent speeches he has addressed himself
to the labor leaders and the manage-
ment of this country to hold what has
been called the wage-price guidelines,
saying that this is not the time for wage
and price increases even though there
are many areas in the private sector
and certainly in the governmental sector
where there need to be adjustments of
our wage scales.
Because I have been critical of this
committee in my remarks during the de-
bate on the rule, let me offer some ele-
ment of praise?and it is deserved?for
some of the studies that the committee
has been making in this field of Federal
employment practices. I have been fol-
lowing them.
There is the matter of comparability,
a very necessary and important princi-
ple, job reclassifications, and so forth.
Certainly a great deal needs to be done
in this area, in my judgment. We do
need to do something at the proper time
to uplift salaries, particularly at the
higher levels.
Most of this debate, as Members can
tell, is directed toward what is only 1
percent of the bill, the salary increase for
Congressmen. That is not the real con-
cern that I am expressing here. The
concern that I am expressing here is
that which the President of the United
Stat& has expressed to management and
labor in this country. And the biggest
employer in the United States, of course,
is the Federal Government.
Are we going to have our deeds so far
removed from our words, that the Presi-
dent of the United States can talk out of
one side of his mouth to the private sec-
tor of the economy, and to this Congress,
in regard to Federal employees, out of
the other side? If this committee had
done the job that I expected it to do in
regard to this specific bill?not the gen-
eral principles of employment practices
on which the committee has done good
work?it would have related this to pro-
ductivity increases and to our fiscal sit-
uation in 1964 as far as deficit financing
is concerned. The committee would have
tried to see whether at this time the Fed-
eral Government can set this kind of ex-
ample-even though it is true, and I reit-
erate, that wage scales should move up
in the Federal Government, and we have
got to do a great deal of work there. We
are not following the President's wage
price guidelines.
We have a very serious situation in
the matter of the balance of payments.
All we have been doing is buying time,
and the President has said this.
The Committee on Ways and Means
has just finished going over the picture
of what we might recommend in the mat-
ter of increasing social security bene-
fits. Why? Because since 1958 the cost
of living has gone up through creeping
inflation around 8 percent. This would
be $1 billion added to the cost of Gov-
ernment. We have these inflationary
forces at play. When you increase the
cost-of-living index one point, you take
$4 billion out of the purchasing power of
this country.
These are the things, if you want to
appeal to patriotism, that 'we should be
discussing. But there is no material in
the committee report for this House to
consider, because there were no hearings
and there was no discussion on this point.
Finally, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I
should like to refer to the congressional
salaries. The issue, as I tried to point
out in the debate on the previous bill is
not whether full-time Congressmen
should get more money if we are going
to have the kind of men we want in Con-
gress, because with that I agree. The
issue, though, is over representative gov-
ernment itself. It is the kind of repre-
sentative government we are to have.
Are Congressmen to be full time? I sug-
? gest that you would not have good repre-
sentative government on that theory, and
I suggest under the theory of this Con-
stitution Congressmen are supposed to be
part time. They are supposed to live in
their communities in order to properly
represent their communities. What we
need to do is to start to obey the law
which says that the Congress shall ad-
journ by July 31 each year. And we can
get our work done if we will eliminate
this Tuesday-to-Thursday operation.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. FULTON] .
(Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I am very glad to say that I
,strongly favor H.R. 11049, the so-called
Morrison pay increase bill for Federal
employees and postal workers. I believe
It is a good bill and that it should be
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13050 Approved For ReletamURINA:RW31.,?i00909n500050001-9
promptly passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives.
Mr. Chairman, in 1962, the US. Con-
gress through the enactment of the Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act made a promise
to our Federal employees and our postal
workers that we in Congress would keep
the Federal pay scales at a relatively
comparable level with private industry.
This is necessary for basic justice and
fairness.
Mr. Chairman, that policy of compara-
bility has been adopted as an overall
policy for the United States. This policy
action was with the approval of the large
majority of the Congress of the United
States. The question, then, is at this
particular point will the Congress live up
to this promise? Will Congress continue
the policy of comparability of Federal
pay scales with private industry which
after much debate and many hearings
and research has been adopted as a basic
policy? My answer is a definite "Yes."
My own recommendation is that the
U.S. Congress do live up to its promise to
these Federal employees and postal work-
ers first, and that, second, the Congress
specifically by this bill continue the policy
of comparability. That means I favor
passage of the bill H.R. 11049 because I
believe that it has been prepared by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRI-
SON] and the House Post Office and Civil
Service Committee on the basis of those
principles. Pay raises for Congress
should only be comparable to the pay
raises provided for other Federal em-
ployees. We should not treat Congress
any differently nor any better than any
other Federal employee.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Congress
should keep the policy of an honest day's
work for an honest day's pay, and a full
day's work for a full day's pay. Cott-
gress sometimes forgets that not only the
full day's work is required of oar Fed-
eral employees, but also the full day's pay
to compensate for the work performed.
This bill is not legislation that is in-
flationary. So, / disagree with my dis-
tinguished friend the gentleman from
Missouri who feels that bill represents an
inflationary step and that proper study
has not been made of this factor.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I state that
this bill is not inflationary is because the
major part of the pay increase goes
to people now whom everybody feels are
underpaid and who are actually eco-
nomically marginal when considered in
light of the President's figures in the
proposed poverty program.
How can these good people who are
Government employees find themselves
falling back in the economic system and
falling back further than others so that
their families are deprived of the basic
necessities and educational opportunities
for their children? My own feeling is
that Congress should now see to it that
these families do have the necessary cost-
of-living increase. They are entitled to
the increase not only on the basis of the
promise of the Congress in the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1962, but they are
also entitled to the increase on the basis
that the cost of living has gone up with
respect to every major factor of the cost
of living index in the United States.
These people and their families have
been left behind in the Nation's economic
progress to such an extent that there is
a gap for Federal employees and postal
workers, and they are substantially be-
hind the cost-of-living Increase, and will
be comparable to private Industry pay
scales of 1962 even when this current
pay increase is added.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the diffi-
culty with the argument of the gentle-
man from Missouri, whose research and
study I value highly, Is that his position
reflects his Idea that this will be mov-
ing the Federal and postal employees
out into the forefront, of salary increases
so that they will be leading the van
rather than following.
Mr. Chairman, corning from the in-
dustrial area of Pittsburgh and having
knowledge of industrial and private en-
terprise pay scales with that knowledge
and experience in mind. I would say to
the members that as far as the indus-
trial and production workers are con-
cerned or agricultural processing work-
ers or the retail workers are concerned,
that the Federal employees for the work
they do. for the intelligence required, for
the dedication to their work, are really
behind, not equal nor ahead of the gen-
eral wage levels and pay scales in the
U.S. economy at this time.
Congress should give special consid-
eration to our U.S. Government em-
ployees and postal workers as they are
the particular responsibility of the U.S.
Congress. These employees do not have
industrial collective bargaining powers.
They are under no collective bargaining
laws, they have no right to strike nor to
engage in slow-downs, nor no right to
picket. They have no rights to bargain
for wage rates, hours, conditions of em-
ployment, nor fringe benefits that gen-
erally go along with industrial collective
bargaining procedures in private indus-
try.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. I yield
to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CURTIS. I think the gentleman
is making a pertinent argument, but that
is part of the material I suggest that the
committee might look into as to whether
or not in this time when the President
has urged wage-price guidelines an ex:
ception should be made for Federal em-
ployees. I may say to the gentleman
from Pittsburgh that we have the auto
workers coming up for wage increases,
we have the steelworkers and other
coming up for new contracts. In fact,
we have about 100 major labor-manage-
ment contracts coming up this summer
and fall. All of these groups are claim-
ing they should have an exception made,
but we do not even attempt to make the
case in committee for an exception on
behalf of the Federal employees. 'Hon-
estly. I do not think a distinction can
be made that would stand up, as be-
tween the Federal Government em-
ployees and all of the wage earners we
have in the private sector who want a
wage increase.
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. The
gentleman and I are not far apart in our
reasoning, but we start with different
lane 11
premises. I start with the premise that
the U.S. Government employees, includ-
ing the postal workers, are behind the
other comparable workers in private in-
dustry. I think it can be very adequately
demonstrated that the Bureau of Labor
Statistics on the cost of living have in-
dicated a present increase for the Fed-
eral employees and postal workers just
to bring their pay scales up to what the
cost of living is indicated for 1962,2 years
ago.
I would disagree with the gentleman
in certain other respects. I come from
an industrial area. I do not want the
salaries and wages leveled off and kept
at a permanent level forever. I am a
progressive Republican. I want the sal-
aries and wages to increase as our U.S.
economy grows. I want the people in
Government and the private economy to
know if they do hard work and get good
production a good future is ahead, and it
is bright and cheerful.
The other type of aproach is, the pres-
ent situation is good enough the way it
is, just let it ride along, then we will
correct minor injustices. But that does
not lead to the future when we have a
climbing gross national product that is
going up substantially each year through
increased , production and efficiency by
the working people of this country. Our
U.S. gross national product is now above
$600 billion.
I believe within the U.S. economy there
is room that can be predicted for expan-
sion so that we can raise in this bill
above mere subsistence levels, the sala-
ries and pay of these people who are con-
tributing substant:ally to the U.S. econ-
omy. It is not a matter where we are giv-
ing people incentives and subsidies when
they do not produce, as it is not an eco-
nomic advantage to have the Govern-
ment money distributed from the U.S.
Treasury to these groups. These U.S.
Government workers are producing
groups, and this pay raise is justly due,
and it is no handout.
I strongly recommend the passage of
this bill, and hope that my colleagues
this afternoon will vote its Passage with
a resounding majority.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further requests for time.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. UDALL 1.
(Mr. UDALL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. 'UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I under-
stand there are no further requests for
time on our side, so we can get on with
the reading of the bill for amendment in
just a moment, but before that I should
like to make a few observations.
There has been talk here about infla-
tion, deficit spending, and debt increase.
I have a table here prepared by the Bu-
reau of the Budget and the Civil Service
Commission, and I would say that the
rates paid in private industry are con-
siderably above what the classified and
other employees are making. The hard
fact of the matter is that even with the
rates provided in this bill in all but two
of the smallest categories of the bill the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved FoEMEsmonitiM)P9y182tyR000500050001-9
1964 13051
Federal employees will be well under
comparability with private industry.
I would say to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cuaris] that if we were
beginning to pay Federal employees 110
percent of what the same skill is paid
in private industry there might be some
ground for concern, but the, truth of the
matter is that this bill falls short in most
grades, and in nearly all of the grades
with the overwhelming number of em-
ployees, of comparability with private
industry.
This is not just an ordinary salary bill.
I know that the oldtime Members of
this House have been frustrated and
confused in dealing with salary legisla-
tion over the years. This is a different
kind of bill. It is one of the most im-
portant bills for good management in
the Federal Government I think We have
ever had. The reason is that as far as I
can determine this is the first time in 100
years the Congress has sat down with all
the Federal employees and said, We are
going to construct a logical, orderly
salary system from the janitor down in
GS-1 to the President of the United
States, and each position is going to be
fixed and have its salary fixed with rela-
tionship to the responsibility of that
position to other positions. We are go-
ing to have an orderly, interrelated,
properly proportioned salary system."
This is a very important goal.
Let me tell you how ridiculous this
system is today. In the past, one com-
mittee would fix the pay for a certain
group of employees and another commit-
tee would fix the pay of certain Federal
executives. Judges and Congressmen
were handled by one committee. Other
Federal officials would be handled by still
other committees. We have reached the
absurd point today where we have a
ceiling, the pay of Congress, of $22,500,
and we have a floor, which is the career
employees, that are now getting about
$20,000. Congress will not stand still,
and very properly, I think, for having
agency heads or other Federal managers,
the key people that make this Govern-
ment run, being paid more than the
Members of Congress. So today we have
jammed in between $20,000 and $22,500
all the 13 levels of responsibility. In any
comparable industrial concern those
levels of responsibility would range in
salary from $30,000 to $200,000 or
$300,000, and we jam them in this one
range.
Let me give you a specific example.
The man who administers the $5 billion
budget of the Veterans' Administration,
which is one part of his job, is adminis-
tering 151 veterans hospitals. We pay
him $21,000. The man who administers
one of those hospitals gets about $300 or
$400 less, and the man who runs a wing
in one of those hospitals gets a few dol-
lars less than that. We do not have
proportionate levels of responsibility.
Pay is not comparable with responsibility.
I think this is a ridiculous situation.
Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield briefly.
Mr. KUNKEL. That same situation
occurs also in veterans' hospitals, where
the head administrator and his assist-
ant administrator get less than some of
the doctors that work in the hospital
under them, not only less but substan-
tially less. That makes for a very bad
situation in addition to the money. This
is particularly true of the Veterans' Ad-
ministration. I am thinking that they
could very easily step out of the hospital
and make far more in private practice.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman is right.
I thank him for his contribution. I
hope he will support the bill, because the
bill will correct that situation.
Let me close on one thing that I have
found to be in effect today. I got on a jet
plane the other night and on the plane
came the chairman of one of the most
important committees of this House. He
is a man who has been here over two or
three decades. He has a fund of knowl-
edge and expertise that could not be du-
plicated for any amount of money. He is
an important man, whose decisions af-
fect the security and the lives of every-
body in this country. We pay this man
$22,500. And as the Senator from Illi- ?
nois put in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a
couple of weeks ago; he is an accountant
and an economist; he kept track all year
and when he got through he would net
$7,000 after he paid for his transporta-
tion and taxes. This is the kind of sal-
ary we pay a man in this important posi-
tion. So I got to thinking about the
chairman of this committee?he is not
here and I will not mention his name?
I found out that the pilot of the airplane
makes more than he does and has a much
easier time, with only one home to main-
tain. There were two generals or two
major generals on the airplane who have
very minor responsibilities. This chair-
man has problems 500 times as impor-
tant as they have and they are making
more money than he does.
I had an assistant vice president of a
little manufacturing company in the seat
next to me and we got to discussing that.
He makes more than the chairman
makes.
The Chief of Naval Operations, just
one of the admirals and generals who
help to run our Military Establishment,
is paid $32,000 plus.
We have gotten ourselves into a ridicu-
lous situation. The pay of the Congress
has been raised four times in the last
100 years since 1866. We got ourselves
in a box through our own fault, through
neglecting Executive pay, congressional
pay, and judicial pay.
I am going to offer an amendment
when we reach the amending stage
which I think will prevent the Congress
from ever again finding itself in the
situation that we find ourselves in today.
This is a good bill. It is carefully
drawn and carefully thought out and I
hope it will be approved overwhelmingly
by the House today.
Mr. Chairman, when we took up the
Federal pay bill last March, the point
was made that adjustments were des-
perately needed if we wanted to retain
first-rate, capable people in the policy-
making jobs at the top of our Federal
Establishment. The argument was
made that managerial talent does not
come cheaply, and that we cannot ex-
pect to run our Federal agencies effi-
ciently if we cannot get the best people
possible to guide them.
Well, this warning has already borne
fruit in the weeks that have passed since
we rejected that pay bill. Once word
was out that we were not going te do
anything about the grossly inadequate
pay for the top positions in our Federal
Government the resignations started
coming in. I do not know how many
there have been, but there have been
quite a few. Here are some examples:
Mortimer. Caplin has done an out-
standing job as our Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. We may not like to
have our taxes collected, but it is a job
that has to be done, and Mr. Caplin has
done extremely well in administering this
vital agency. Last month he announced
his resignation. He cited personal rea-
sons, but I am certain that high on his
list of reasons was the totally inadequate
pay he was receiving, $21,000, while su-
pervising the collection of approximately
a hundred billion dollars a year to operate
our Federal Government. A single er-
ror on his part could cost the American
people many times his entire salary, but
we said 3 months ago that he should not
get a raise.
Walter Heller, Chairman of the Coun-
cil of Economic Advisers, has announced
his resignation since we rejected the last
pay bill. There is no doubt that his fi-
nancial needs were a major factor. And
we ought to reflect on the fact that he
will be making considerably more money
as a college professor than he made as
this Nation's top economic adviser. This
is ridiculous and testimony to the short-
sightedness of the Federal Government
in dealing with its own key personnel.
Henry Fowler, our Under Secretary of
the Treasury, waited only a short time
after we rejected that pay bill to an-
nounce his resignation. Undoubtedly
the low level of executive compensation
in the Federal Government was a factor
in this decision. Surely there are few
more important jobs needing top brains
and top know-how than that of Under
Secretary of the Treasury. Now we have
to try to find another highly qualified
man to go to work for $21,000 a year. It
is not going to be easy.
James K. Carr has served the Govern-
ment well as Under Secretary of In-
terior. A few days ago he announced
his resignation to accept a job as man-
ager of a west coast utility. It is sad but
true that the Federal Government can-
not compete with most of the public and
private utilities in the country when it
comes to compensation.
And there have been other resigna-
tions. For example, let us look at our
own Library of Congress. This is not just
an adjunct to the House and Senate, a
little repository of odds and ends. It is
the world's largest library, the corner-
stone of our library system in the United
States. You cannot run an institution
like this with the brains and talent you
might pick up on the street. You need
very special people with very special
qualifications.
We have a man like this in Rutherford
D. Rogers, our Deputy Librarian. But we
will not have him long, because he an-
nounced his resignation less than 30 days
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13052 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
after we rejected our last pay bill. I
happen to know that he liked his job
and would have liked to remain on. But
when we turned down an increase for
him he decided to take a job for the State
of California, at a sizable increase in
pay with considerably less responsibility.
If the State of California. the State of
Minnesota and other smaller units of
government can lure away our top men
with higher pay, there is something
wrong with our system of compensation
in the Federal service. There simply is
no reason why the Federal Government
cannot at least match the pay of State
and local governments for equal jobs.
When the Federal jobs involve greater
responsibility, as they often do. surely
they should command salaries in ex-
cess of those paid by State and local
governments. We are not doing that
today.
Passage of this bill today will not, elimi-
nate all inequities, but it will make the
Federal Government somewhat more
competitive in seeking the most capable
People for our most important policy-
making jobs. Failure to do this would
simply mean a continuing raid on the
best brains we have in the Federal serv-
ice today. I do not think we can afford
to lose these people at the rate they are
departing today.
Mr. Chairman, this is no time for our
Nation to be losing its top managers. I
say this advisedly because the record of
the past 3 years shows a pattern of in-
creasing efficiency and cost reduction.
The efforts of the late President Ken-
nedy and of President Johnson are be-
ginning to pay dividends in savings to
the taxpayers. These savings are being
realized through sharper and better
management of civilian employment in
the executive branch of our Government.
Let me give some examples.
When the 1964 budget was submitted
to the Congress in January, 1963, it was
estimated that employment at mid-year
would amount to 2,538,400. As it turned
out, employment on June 30 was 2.490,-
300. That was 48,100 workers less than
had been anticipated, a clear result of
the vigorous efforts of the President and
his executive agency heads to hold em-
ployment down.
The picture this year is even more
significant. When the 1965 budget was
submitted, it was estimated that employ-
ment on June 30, 1964, would be 2,578,500.
During the review of the new budget the
Bureau of the Budget conducted a very
searching examination of agency em-
ployment estimates. The result was that
the estimate for midyear was reduced
by 58,100 in the submission of the budget.
This was a big and important saving.
Subsequent to the submission of the
budget this year the President had two
reviews made of employment plans of the
agencies. The result was that 15,200 ad-
ditional positions were eliminated from
the anticipated midyear employment.
Therefore, instead of employment reach-
ing a total of 2,512,400, it is now expected
that employment will not exceed 2,-
497,200. President Johnson has made
this a ceiling and has told agency heads
not to exceed this number. Now you
cannot make reductions like this without
good management, and we are making
such reductions.
When the President finished his review
of agency efforts to reduce employment
totals earlier this year, he proposed to
the Congress a series of amendments to
the 1965 budget. Included in these
amendments were reductions of more
than $26 million directly attributable to
employment cutbacks. And here is
where the taxpayers benefit from the
managerial skill anti know-how of our
agency heads.
When one considers that from the time
of the 1964 budget message to the present
there has been a total reduction of 73,300
employees from the level previously an-
ticipated as needed, the significance of
these results becomes impressive.
Employment for fiscal 1964 was esti-
mated to be about 22,100 over 1963. As
of the end of April the increase had
amounted to only 1,800 in regular em-
ployment. Recognizing that 15,000 of
the anticipated Increase has been elim-
inated, the executive branch Is still well
below its planned employment level.
We can be pleased with these accom-
plishments, and they are testimony to
the value of having first-rate people run-
ning our executive agencies. I do not
think we want to turn these matters
over to less capable people
Mr. Chairman, there is one final mat-
ter I want to discuss today because It has
been a cause of concern to many of our
colleagues I refer to the opposition fre-
quently expressed by the Scripps-Howard
newspapers to congressional pay in-
creases. Many of the Nation's leading
newspapers have supported this legisla-
tion as necessary and vital, but the news-
papers of the Scripps-Howard chain have
regularly downgraded and insulted the
Congress of the United States as a sec-
ond-class body undeserving of the com-
pensation accorded thousands of officials
In State and local government, and tens
of thousands of executives in private in-
dustry.
I think this is unfortunate because I
think that the Scripps-Howard newspa-
pers are basically fair and honest. I
think, for example, that they have served
the public well in the stand they have
taken in support of conservation. But I
deplore the petty, ill-informed and carp-
ing criticism they have made of Federal
salary legislation, and particularly of
needed increases in the pay of Members
of Congress.
Mr. Chairman. I am particularly of-
fended by the position of the Scripps-
Howard newspapers when I learn, as I
did today, that they pay their own ex-
ecutives salaries far in excess of the top
decisionmakers of our Federal Govern-
ment.
They object to paying the chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, a man
with enormous responsibilities, anything
over $22,500 a year, but they pay the
president and publisher of the Cincin-
nati Enquirer. Mr. Roger H. Ferger, a
salary of $75,000 a year plus retirement
rights amounting to another $39,743.
That is a total of $114,743 for the pub-
lisher of one newspaper in Cincinnati
June 11
compared to S22,500 for the chairman
of a committee overseeing a budget in
excess of $50 billion a year.
But that is only the beginning. There
are many more examples. For instance,
Scripps-Howard pays the executive vice
president and secretary of that same
newspaper a total compensation of near-
ly $85,000. And yet the Cincinnati En-
quirer, along with other Scripps-Howard
newspapers, objects to paying more than
$22,500 to the chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, a man whose tre-
mendous knowledge and ability guide the
tax policies of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Scripps-
Howard newspapers have taken a wrong
stand on Federal sa'ary legislation. I
suspect they have not made the kind of
study of the facts that should precede
such expressions of opinion, so widely
disseminated. Actually, I think these
newspapers are doing a good job, in many
cases an excellent job in reporting the
news and commenting on it. But I be-
lieve they are wholly wrong in the stand
they have taken, and I believe they are
guilty of sheer hypocrisy in opposing in-
creases in salaries for Members of Con-
gress on the grounds that they either
do not deserve them or can easily be re-
placed.
I know some outstanding reporterh
who work for the Scripps-Howard or-
ganization. I get the impression they are
not too highly paid. In fact, if the argu-
ment is valid that pay should not be
increased when replacements are wait-
ing at present salary levels, I would sug-
gest that Scripps-Howard not raise any
of its executives another dollar. In-
stead, I would suggest that they promote
some of these exceptional reporters they
have working in their newsrooms, and
let them step into some of these man-
agement positions. I do not doubt that
they might even be willing to take a
job as executive vice president or secre-
tary for a few dollars less than Scripps-
Howard is paying today. If the manage-
ment's logic is right for Members of
Congress, then surely it would be right
for their own organization.
Mr. Chairman, when we vote today, I
hope we will ignore such inconsistent
counsel as we have been given so gratui-
tously by the newspapers of the Scripps-
Howard chain.
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I am
satisfied that the Federal salary bill has
now been revised, lowered in cost, and
Improved sufficiently so that I can give
It my full support. The earlier bill that
was sent back to committee by a heavy
vote weeks ago deserved to be sent back
for revision.
The annual cost of this new bill is over
$20 million less. The unjustified and
exhorbitant increases for political staff
people in the House that were in the
earlier bill have been trimmed down to
proper proportions. Salary increases for
Congressmen and Federal judges have
been reduced from $10,000 to $7,500, and
made effective next year in the new Con-
gress instead of immediately. Salary
adjustments for career Federal em-
ployees are not made retroactive but will
become effective after passage of this
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-Rffl
DEfi403R0005000500019 -
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? IR) 13053
legislation into law. Otherwise, the new
bill makes necessary but scaled down
adjustments to the executive, judicial,
and legislative branches. Iricreasingly
I fear the day that only rich men can go
into public service. In recent years sev-
eral highly qualified lawyers in New York
City have refused to serve on the Federal
court because they could not live on the
salary, which is the same as congres-
sional salaries, $22,500.
I know of two men, very highly quali-
fied for elective office, who refused to
run for local office in New York City
when many good citizens wanted them
to run, because they could not afford it.
It is common knowledge that increasing-
ly, men of great wealth have turned to
politics, in part, because of the vacuum
left by others who could not afford it.
Similarly, men in the sub-Cabinet eche-
lons of the executive branch have
dropped out because they have not been
able to afford it. Most importantly, Fed-
eral employees in places like the city of
New York connot exist. Those with chil-
dren are squeezed to death. They and
their wives must take weekend and other
supplemental jobs. The pay is a living
wage in parts of the South and West, but
not in Manhattan.
The bill has been vastly improved, and
it should now be enacted.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Chairman, under
Public Law 220 of the 83d Congress, a 17-
member Commission was appointed to
consider the adequacy of salaries being
paid to the Members of the Congress and
the judiciary. This Commission was
composed of six representatives of agri-
culture, six representatives of labor, and
five representatives of business and the
professions. They were assisted by three
Members of the House, three Members
of the Senate, and three from the judi-
ciary.
This Commission, Mr. Chairman, con-
ducted extensive hearings, and made a
very comprehensive study of the subject
assigned to it under Public Law 220 of
the 83d Congress. Its report, recom-
mending substantial increases, was pre-
sented to the Congress early in 1954.
Many newspaper editors, writers, and '
columnists along with many labor, civic,
and professional organizations and lead-
ers urged adoption of this report. After
full and careful consideration by the
appropriate committee, H.R. 3828 was
proposed to carry out the recommenda-
tions of the aforeMentioned Commission.
This measure was debated fully on the
floor of the House on February 16, 1955,
and was approved on a rollcall vote 283
to 118.
Mr. Chairman, I voted against H.R.
3828 as shown on pages 1588 and 1589
of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for Febru-
ary 16, 1955, and stated:
I regard the handling of public funds as
a sacred trust. I did not seek the high office
I now have the honor to occupy for the
purpose of making a big salary, but rather
for the opportunity of being of public serv-
ice. Due to the continuing need for large
Defense appropriations, our Federal budget
is not yet balanced. Also there is great need
for increased compensation of our postal em-
ployees, civil service employees, and members
of our Armed Forces. I wish there had been
two bills so that salaries of Members of the
Congress and the judiciary could have been
considered separately (from those of the
postal, civil service employees, and members
of the Armed Forces). Since, however, both
were included, I felt compelled to vote against
this bill at this time.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, and
again after many months of careful con-
sideration by the House Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service, this com-
mittee recommended another measure,
RR. 8986, and it was fully debated on
the floor of this House for 2 days. The
basic purpose of this proposed measure
was to comply with the action of the 87th
Congress in approving the principle that
postal employees and civil service em-
ployees shall be paid salaries comparable
to those paid workers in private enter-
prise for comparable levels of responsi-
bilities, skills, and performance.
Mr. Chairman, I am personally in full
accord and sympathy with these basic
principles. Such a policy encourages
Federal employees to make a career of
Government work and responsibilities
and thus greatly reduces the cost of
training new employees to replace Fed-
eral employees who seek employment in
private enterprise where wages are
higher.
Other sections of HR. 8986, however,
would have substantially increased the
salaries paid to members of the Federal
judiciary; executives and their assistants
in departments, boards, agencies, and
commissions of the executive branch;
and Members of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, many Members of the
House, and I am one of them, believe
there is no shortage of capable and will-
ing personnel to fill positions of respon-
sibility in the judicial and executive
branches of the Federal Government.
Members of the House, individually and
collectively, know that there is never any
shortage of candidates in both political
parties who vigorously seek election to
this great body and who seek to defeat
present Members of the House. I am
sure these candidates are not motivated
solely by the present salaries paid to
Members of the House and the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to postal
employees and civil service employees,
many of them have urged me to support
this legislation not only because it would
give them a much needed and proper in-
crease in their own income but they also
expressed their completely sincere opin-
ions that they felt equally deeply as to
the need and justification for substan-
tially increased salaries for Members of
the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, while I deeply appre-
ciated this sincere expression of their in-
terest in me personally, as a Member of
the Congress, I found it necessary to
point out and recall to their attention,
that Federal expenditures for fiscal year
1956 when the previous congressional
salaries were in effect, that Federal ex-
penditures were then $69.5 billion?that
the Federal budget was not only in bal-
ance but that there was an actual sur-
plus of $6.8 billion, and that the total
national debt was then $272.7 billion.
Mr. Chairman, the current 1964 fiscal
year expenditures are now estimated to
be $119.1 billion, nearly $50 billion higher
than in fiscal year 1956. Also that the
national debt is expected to ,reach $312
or more billion in this current month of
June 1964. The Congess will be called
upon within the next few days to vote
on the extension of "wartime" excise
taxes for another 2-year period and the
Congress will also be called upon to ap-
prove still another and higher national
debt limitation in spite of the fact that
much has been said about the very high
economy our Nation is now enjoying.
The Congress is also being constantly
urged to approve greatly expanded
existing Federal programs and a number
of entirely new ones the total cost of
which cannot be estimated with any
degree of accuracy. Thus the Congress
is being constantly urged to increase
Federal spending and at the same time
urged to reduce taxes. Just how this
sort of action can be reconciled as being
fiscally responsible, prudent, and proper
is not at all clear to many of us.
Mr. Chairman, we are now here today
? considering a new bill, HR. 11049, which
seeks to do the same things as proposed
in H.R. 8986, which I voted against just
recently on a rollcall vote and which was
defeated?yeas, 184; and nays, 222.
There have been some few changes made
in this new proposal and yet it is sub-
stantially the same and is, of cause, for
the same purpose.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would like
very much to vote in favor of a measure
to provide for much needed pay increases
for our postal workers and our civil serv-
ice employees. Since, however, it is in-
sisted that all these other categories of
judicial, executive, and congressional
salaries are also still included, I find my-
self in the position of having to vote "no"
again.
It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that
there will be a record rollcall vote on
HR. 11049 so that I will have an oppor-
tunity to be publicly recorded on this
measure. If, however, due to any parlia-
mentary procedure, a record rollcall vote
is not obtained, I have made these re-
marks today for the RECORD so that my
personal position will be clearly under-
stood by everyone and anyone who de-
sires to know.
Mr. Chairman, if this measure is de-
feated today, it is my earnest hope that
the administration will bring out a bill
promptly to provide for appropriate in-
creases in the wages of postal employees
and civil service employees.
Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, I am
basically in agreement with the pro-
visions of H.R. 11049 which pertain to
postal and Federal classified employees.
lam opposed, however, to the provision
of the bill authorizing a $7,500 salary in-
crease for Members of Congress.
This was my position when the pay bill
was voted on earlier this year. I voted
against the increase under the motion to
recommit, which would have increased
the salary of Members of Congress by
$7,500, and I also voted against passage
of the bill, which would have authorized
the full $10,000 increase.
I am completely in accord with the
principle of comparability which was
pledged in the pay raise legislation en-
acted in October of 1962. Unquestion-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13054 Approved For Relmek05/051,16 ; Itt7RDP661300403R000500050001-9
ithableMeAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 11
ably, Federal salary rates should be com-
parable to private enterprise salary rates
for the same level of work If the Gov-
eminent is to recruit and retain well-
qualified personnel. This is an eminently
fair policy and it should be imple-
mented.
But I would also like to see imple-
mented some of the spending restraints
and budget cuts that have been promised.
It would hardly seem we are exerting a
stringent discipline over Government
spending if we approve the sizable in-
crease in our salaries proposed by this
bill.
I hope the pay raise proposed for Mem-
bers of Congress will be eliminated from
the bill so that I can support the in-
creases for postal and classified em-
ployees. If this provision is not removed,
I will have to vote against passage of the
bill.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, En
March when the pay raise bill was up
before the House I voted against that
measure. I did so because I felt then
that the raises for Congressmen and
other Federal executives were excessive
and also because I felt Congress needed
to earn a pay raise. My feelings in re-
ga.rd to Congress earning a pay raise have
not chapged. While the bill has been
modified, raises reduced, delayed, I still
firmly believe that Congress has not
really earned a pay raise. I regret very
much that congressional pay raises even
though they are not effective until Jan-
uary 1965 are tied to this bill. I would
rather that subject be dealt with sepa-
rately. But this is not the case.
I have favored and continue to advo-
cate pay raises for postal employees and
other civil service workers; especially
those in the lower grades. I also sup-
port raises for congressional employees,
who we all lanow are deserving of such
consideration. All of these raises, of
course, are necessary because Congress
has failed in its responsibility to control
the Inflationary forces.
I realize the problem of acquiring and
retaining qualified people in many of the
executive agencies. This is regrettable
because we need top-caliber people in
those jobs. I would support raises for
those jobs. I do not believe one should
have to sacrifice financially to serve his
Government.
I am happy to see that some of the
other pay raises to House employees have
been modified. These it seems to me
had also been excessive.
I have studied H.R. 11049, the com-
mittee report and the minority views very
carefully. I have some reservations
about the advisability of the bill in its
present form. It will cost a great deal
of money, and yet we are in an austerity
campaign, and so on. But I have come
to the conclusion that this bill should
peas.
I do not believe postal employees
should be penalized because congres-
sional pay raises are in the bill. I had
hoped that after H.R. 8986 was defeated
we would get an opportunity to vote on
a bill that would include pay raises for
just postal and civil service employees.
Such legislation, I believe, would pass
overwhelmingly. The modification of
other pay raises, the elimination of
others, and the general improvement of
the bill are the other factors which now
allow me to support the bill.
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, it was
just 3 months ago when we last con-
eidered a similar bill with these sweep-
ing Federal pay raises. I opposed the
bill at that time and I oppose it again
now. It is simply poor business to raise
anybody's salary when you do not have
the money to pay for it. And I cannot
condone charging up bills for our chil-
dren and grandchildren to pay.
Actually there Is little difference be-
tween the current bill and the one the
House defeated in March. Reducing the
proposed salary Increases for Members
of Congress from $10e00 to $7,500 a year
has not made this bill any more palat-
able. As I have maintained all along.
there should be no consideration of
Federal pay boosts until the Congress has
shown some indication of living within
this Nation's means.
And we have shown no such inclina-
tion. In fact. with 10 of the 12 major ap-
propriations bills already passed, we are
appropriating at a greater rate than a
year ago, and we are about to raise the
so-called temporary debt limit by an-
other $9 billion, a clear admission that
this Government plans to run In the red
for at least another year.
Let this Congress go on record in favor
of fiscal responsibility. Let us show the
American taxpayer that we can live eco-
nomy as well as talk about it. Let us
balance that budget. Let us put a per-
manent ceiling on the national debt limit,
then stick to It. Then perhaps we can
discuss salary increases. But not before.
Mr. Chairman, I personally resent the
way this bill has been presented. It is
obvious that a great deal of daily nose
counting has taken place, with propo-
nents waiting until the moment when
they are most assured of success. This is
pure chicanery. Such a bill, calling for
the expenditure of borrowed money,
should o be brought up for action with
plenty of notice and proper committee
hearings so that adequate debate can
take place. It is another case of ram-
ming legislation through, regardlesa of
the effect it has on the American tax-
payer.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
for the second time this year. we are con-
sidering a bill to adjust salaries. The
bill proposes a Commission headed by
Clarence Randall, former president of
Inland Steel Co.. who also was assigned
similar responsibilities by President Ei-
senhower. That conualsslon recom-
mended certain salary schedules as be-
ing comparable for Federal employees
to the salaries received by non-Govern-
ment employees. This bill would bring
most employees up to the income non-
Government employees received 2 years
ago and would make congressional, judi-
cial, and top executive salaries to a level
of about two-thirds what non-Govern-
ment employers pay for comparable serv-
ices. In addition to that, the average
Senator and Congressman who is doing
his job has about $8,000 per year in non-
reimbursed necessary expenses,
More than 20 employees of the State
of Iowa and several school and city em-
ployees in Iowa receive more than U.S.
Senators, Congresemen, Federal judges
and top U.S. executives. Salaries of
more than 1,000 city employees receive
more salary than top Federal officials.
The Federal Government of the leading
Nation of the world cannot be satisfied
with mediocre, second-rate people who
cannot get a better job elsewhere, nor
can we afford a Congress where all Mem-
bers have either great outside interests
or are beholden to a special interest.
We need a Congress which represents
a cross-section of America.
Federal salaries are now 2.7 percent
of our national income and this is a less-
er percentage than they were 10 years
ago. Most businesses are now paying a
larger percentage of their income in sal-
aries and this proves that efficiency, as
compared to salaries for Federal em-
ployees, has been comparably good.
While adjusting salaries, we do have a
right to expect good enough productiv-
ity so that the cost of Government per
unit of goods and services continues to
reduce.
As I stated when similar legislation
was under consideration last March,
I thought the increase Mr some should
have been less and that the increase for
Congressmen and Senators should be
delayed until next January. Both
conditions are met in the bill now under
consideration.
I also would still like to see an anti-
nepotism bill pass and will continue to
press for one. It is interesting to note
that many opponents of this legislation
finance part of their family expenses by
putting members of their families on
their payroll or do rot maintain a home
in their home State.
The Des Moines Register on May 6,
1964 carried an editorial which I believe
stated the opinion of most Iowans. At
least it is in accordance with some sur-
veys that have been made. It is as fol-
lows:
FEDERAL SALARIES Too Low
The Federal pay raise bill, beaten last
March in the House by a 222-184 margin,
may have a new lease on life as a result of
approval by the House Civil Service Com-
mittee last week of a modified version of the
measure.
The original bill called for raises for 1.7
million Federal Government employees at an
annual cost of $545 million. The biggest
hikes?of $10,000 a year?were for Federal
judges, Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and
Members of Congress. The revised version
calls for trimming the top raises to $7,500.
cutting the total cost of $533 million and
delaying the biggest increases until next
January.
The bill ran into t2ouble in the House
primarily because of opposition to increasing
congressional pay. Congressmen were un-
derstandably edgy about going on record in
favor of giving themselves a raise in an elec-
tion year. The new version would permit
an election to intervene before a Represent-
ative could qualify for the increase.
We hope the congressional pay part of
the new bill will not be allowed to obscure
the need for action to upgrade Federal sal-
aries. particularly at the higher levels. The
top pay of department heads---$25,000?is
ridiculously low for the caliber of people
needed to man such Cabinet positions as
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Sec-
retary of Labor. etc. This salary determines
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 13055
in turn the pay of assistant secretaries,
deputy secretaries, and under secretaries,
whose pay Can be no more than $19,000 to
$21,000.
President Johnson recently, described the
plight of Dr. Walter Heller, his chief eco-
nomic adviser, who is leaving Government
work after 3 years in Washington. Dr. Heller,
who has an ailing wife and three children in
college, is leaving chiefly because he can earn
twice his present $20,500 salary outside Gov-
ernment.
The New York Times recently cited the
case of an assistant director of the budget
who describes his 3 years in Washington,
dealing with such costly issues as the size of
the foreign aid program and whether to con-
struct a supersonic transport, as the most
exciting adventure imaginable." The official,
who left a $30,000 post to accept his $20,000
Washington assignment, was forced to with-
draw $8,000 from savings and borrow from
life insurance and the Government's credit
union to support his family of five children
and pay nonreimbursable expenses connected
with his job. His new position, with a pri-
vate California firm, will pay $40,000 a year.
Private business long ago realized the
necessity for paying top salaries to attract
and keep able people. State and local gov-
ernments are increasingly paying officials
more than the Federal Government is able
to pay even its Cabinet members. The Fed-
eral pay raise bill will help redress the bal-
ance and is long overdue for adoption.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I welcome this opportunity to speak
out on this proposed salary increase for
Government employees. I would like to
do it in person, but I regret that the dis-
astrous flood in Montana, which has
taken many lives and caused uncounted
millions in property damage, has called
members of the Public Works Subcom-
mittee on Flood Control to that stricken
State for an immediate survey.
Regarding the pay bill, I must say that
I cannot, in good conscience, support it
because it still included the increase in
salary for Members of Congress while the
budget remains unbalanced. The fact
that we have to borrow money to grant
such a pay raise just does not make fiscal
sense to me.
I do believe, however, in the theory of
comparability of pay between public and
private employees. It is regrettable that
we could not act upon this portion of the
bill separately so that those public em-
ployees whose pay is nO comparable to
similar jobs in private industry could be
brought into conformity.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, my-prin-
cipal reason for opposing this bill is that
I sincerely believe that the time has come
when those of us associated with the Fed-
eral Government must set the example.
Over the years I have watched exces-
sive Federal spending become the prin-
cipal cause for inflation which destroys
the purchasing power of employees in the
lower income brackets. Social security,
old-age benefits, savings accounts, stocks
and dividends for the elderly are being
whittled away by wild Federal spending
and inflation.
If we hold the line against Federal
spending in Washington, we could give
every American two raises. First his
money would buy more, and second we
could give him further tax reductions.
Federal spending and Federal salary in-
creases when contributing to inflation
and cheap money will destroy the very
objective we seek.
Our postal employees are doing a
magnificent job and deserve with many
others an increase, particularly in the
lower brackets; but, Mr. Speaker, the bad
features of this bill outweigh the good.
Frankly, I think we should have the cour-
age to vote up or down any proposal for
our own salary increase and vote up or
down the Supreme Court salaries and not
tie them on to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would gladly vote for
the modest increase provided for the
postal employees and other Federal em-
ployees in the lower income brackets, but
I think it is wrong to tie our own $7,500
increase and the $7,500 for each mem-
ber of the Supreme Court to this bill:
Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for a bill
which would provide a $7,500 increase
for each Member of the Congress and
the Supreme Court while giving a postal
employee making $4,000 a $250-a-year
raise.
Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Chairman, some
months ago I felt a bit uncomfortable
about voting myself a pay increase dur-
ing my first term in Congress even
though almost 90,000 hardworking Gov-
ernment constituents of mine in Mary-
land would have benefited directly by the
bill and' all Marylanders interested in
economy and efficiency in Government
would clearly benefit indirectly.
Today, when given the opportunity, I
intend to vote again for the pay increase
and hope to be back here next year to
collect it. I have lost some of my politi-
cal timidity on this issue because, in my
view, the Congress cannot ignore its re-
sponsibility to raise congressional sal-
aries along with Federal salaries.
I would like to suggest three basic
reasons why this is true.
First, although I am a freshman, many
of my colleagues are not, and it has been
my experience in dealing with them that
the overwhelming majority of the Mem-
bers of the House have earned this in-
crease not only on the basis of ability but
In terms of time, sweat, and grief. Let
me elaborate?time is something that a
Congressman never has enough of for
the demands on his time are unceasing.
Sweat is something the Congressman has
plenty of for he must work incessantly to
maintain his position of political leader-
ship and comprehend the nature of the
complex decisions on national policies he
must make every day. Grief is some-
thing that Congressmen seldom have
shed for them, but symbolizes a part of
the inherent nature of political life
wherein a man's judgment is always
open to criticism, a man's motives are
always open to distortion, and his per-
sonal relationships are frequently shat-
tered by the ambitious.
Second, some people have said that by
raising congressional salaries, I will be
jeopardizing my own job because every-
body and his brother, so to speak, will
want to run for Congress. Well, that is
alright with me because I think that on
election day the American people de-
serve a free choice among the best and
I say "let the best man win" and the
country will be the winner in the process.
There is nothing wrong with paying a
salafy to Members of Congress that will
attract more individuals to the political
arena. This is not to imply that my
present colleagues are not serving their
constituents well, but it is rather to en-
courage more competition for the jobs
that some people have neglected because
of the financial -remuneration involved.
Third, the pay raise for Congressmen
Is necessary because it is closely linked
with the salary ceilings that are now
set on many of the top jobs in our Fed-
eral Establishment. I am sure Members
who have been here longer than I have
seen literally thousands of top-flight
civil servants come and go in Washing-
ton, primarily because of a serious de-
terioration in their personal financial
position. Federal expenditures are equal
to about one-sixth of our Nation's total
product and it is important that the
Federal Government seek and retain a
proper share of the best men and the
best minds in this country.
Recently Senator Doirams gave us a
striking example of what the "take
home" pay of a Congressman really
amounts to. I supported the disclosure
amendment today, not because of a feel-
ing that it will alter the basic integrity
of those who come to Congress, but
rather because the general public needs
to know that we are not here in Wash-
ington getting rich at their expense.
Also regarding the "poverty war,"
while Congressmen are certainly not im-
poverished, I do not think that it is in-
consistent for a Congressman to express
his, concern for the poor in America by
enacting programs to benefit them while
raising his own salary. The history of
this country is replete with the stories
of those who have continued to care for
their fellow men regardless of the im-
provement in their own financial posi-
tion?men like Carnegie, Ford, and Rus-
sell Sage who began as a grocery clerk.
In summary, I am ready to stand up
and be counted for higher congressional
salaries along with higher Federal
salaries because, in the final analysis, it
will mean better government.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman,.
this pay bill before us deliberately defies
the true needs of Federal employees for
equitable adjustment of salaries.
Representing as I do a district in a
metropolitan area with one of the highest
cost-of-living indexes in the country, I
must point out to the House that a Fed-
eral employee in my area who receives an
across-the-board pay increase identical
to that of his counterpart in other sec-
tions of the country is being discrim-
inated against.
Why should a postal carrier or clerk
or classified employee in any agency of
the Federal Government working in the
Chicago area be limited to an identical
salary of a similar employee in sections
of the country where the cost of living
is one-third less?
The Chicago post office was recently
Investigated as a result of a monstrous
snafu in the delivery of Christmas mail
and one of the underlying causes in the
breakdown in the operations of the
Chicago post, office was the fact that
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13056 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June 11
many of the new employees do not meet
the tradition and the sound standards of
postal employment. In contrast, in many
areas of the country where lower pay
scales and lower cost of living are in
effect, a Federal Government position
finds many applicants seeking the post.
Until we recognize the need to increase
salaries of Federal employees in metro-
politan areas to adjust to the cost of liv-
ing, a pay bill of this nature will remain
inadequate.
I hope the Members will ponder on
these points which I have briefly empha-
sized. It is my further hope that, next
year when the House Post Office and
Civil Service Committee organizes, the
first order of business will be to study
a new pay plan to increase the salaries of
employees in high cast-of-living areas
such as the Chicago metropolitan region.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, as in the
case of the last pay bill, I cannot support
this bill. My position is simple; we
must not borrow to give salary increases.
First, we must have the money on hand
and then we can increase pay.
So the merits of a pay boost do not
enter in as an argument for the bill at
this time.
I want to commend the four members
of the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service for their minority views,
and I adopt them as my own.
Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of HR. 11049.
The late, great President John F. Ken-
nedy said a few years ago:
Let every man and women who works in
any area of our National Government, In any
branch at any level, be able to say with
pride and with honor in future years, "I
served the U.S. Government In that hour
of our Nation's need."
Because President Johnson has given
a Federal pay raise the highest priority
on his list of legislative musts, I know
that that is the way President Johnson
feels about Government service.
That is the way I feel about public
service.
Yet, many of us are under attack be-
cause we are employees of the Federal
Government.
I have read the stories of the wrongs
done by the Members of Congress or the
employees of Congress which have in-
ferred that all of Congress is wrong; and
yet I say to you that I am proud to he a
Member of a legislative body which, al-
though it has been criticized, has for the
175 years of its existence served this
country well.
We are all familiar with the stories
which complain of the bloated bureauc-
racy, the ever-increasing cost, size, and
debt of Government.
As a member of the Government Op-
erations Committee of the Congress.
charged with overseeing economy and
efficiency in all levels of Government,
I did some checking and came up with
some facts that do indeed appear to be
shocking?expenditures by State and
local govertunents have increased nearly
375 percent since World War II; Federal
expeditures, 69 percent.
The failure to dispel many myths, the
failure to get the true story across?these
are among the reasons for the difficulty
we have had with the Federal pay raise
legislation.
As compared to the Federal Govern-
ment, State and local governments are
bigger and are growing faster, not only
in total terms, but also in terms of in-
dividual salaries.
The chief of police of the city of Chi-
cago receives 350,000 a year and yet
J. Edgar Hoover, who has just completed
his 40th year as head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, receives $20,000.
At the present time, a member of the
Cabinet who, as Secretary, heads one of
the departments which are so Important
to our national welfare and safety, re-
ceives $25,000 a year. Contrast this with
the fact that my own State of Pennsyl-
vania has 185 Government. positions
which pay more than $25,000 a year and
our neighbor the State of New York, has
432 such government positions.
A recent editorial in the New York
Times said:
Those who oppose waste and extravagance
In Government spending argue that raising
the level of Federal salfules would be unjus-
tified and unequitable. Yet, the biggest sin-
gle cause of waste in Government and private
Industry Is Inefficient management.
General Motors Corp. is often pointed
out as one of the most efficient of big
business corporations. We should all be
happy that General Motors recently an-
nounced the largest net earnings in its
history, $538,331,704 for the quarter
ended March 31, 1984.
Some of the reason for this magnifi-
cent and praiseworthy success may re-
sult from the fact that just 56 execu-
tives of General Motors draw a total sal-
ary and bonuses greater than the salaries
of all the following combined: all 435
Congressmen, all 100 Senators, all the
Cabinet officers. the President of the
United States, the Vice President, the
Supreme Court, and the Governors of
the 50 States.
President Johnson certainly under-
stands this principle. In his letter of
March 17, 1964, to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the President
said:
Congress and the country surely support
my determined drive for economy In Gov-
ernment. To make that policy work, I need
first-class managers?who can tighten or-
Rams:intone, simplify procedures, trim waste,
and inspire maximum effort. It is false
economy to offer salaries that will attract the
menlocre but repel the talented.
That is the secret of General Motors
success. In this case what is good for
OM will be good for the United States.
This is a national problem because the
Nation needs the best possible men in the
positions of top responsibility in the Gov-
ernment. As the New York Times said
on April 30:
The Nation ha a been fortunate that so
many skilled people have been willing to
accept the financial penalties Involved in
Government service. But with the pay scales
and fringe benefits available to high-caliber
pernonnel in private industry constantly ris-
ing, the Government will and It increas-
ingly difficult to attract and keep executivd
with the talent and training required for
formulating and carrying out policy.
This problem is acute with a number
of key men in Government posts. Not
only are they being pressed to accept pri-
vate jobs at two or three times their Gov-
ernment pay, but they find themselves
going into the hole each year with chil-
dren to educate and the cost of Washing-
ton living constantly mounting.
Examples are: Walter Heller, Chair-
man of the Council of Economic Advis-
ers; Under Secretary of the Treasury,
Robert Roosa; Under Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Wilbur
Cohen; Llewellyn Thompson, principal
adviser on Soviet affairs in the State
Department; Hugh Dryden, Deputy Ad-
ministrator of the space agency. Men
in this category find themselves drop-
ping behind at the rate of $4,000 or
$5,000 a year. They can stay afloat only
by borrowing.
Heller had determined to leave gov-
ernment at once so that he could resume
his post as chairman of the economics
department at the University of Min-
nesota. With three children reaching
college age, he has maintained a home
in St. Paul as well as in Washington.
The President in a long and serious dis-
cussion prevailed on him to stay until
November.
Thompson, whose background out of
5 years in Moscow as Ambassador is in-
valuable, has felt compelled to think
of accepting one of the private offers
coming to him. Cohen has been offered
three university deanships paying more
than his present job with half the work.
We must rectify this situation.
Our employers are the American peo-
ple who are taxed to pay our salaries
and whom we have been elected or ap-
pointed to serve.
I believe that we have a story to tell
to our employers?the American people.
Our employers?the American peo-
ple?are entitled to have the plain, un-
varnished facts, without myths of
bloated bureaucracy and gravy trains.
Surely we are doing neither ourselves
or the people justice if we fail to do this.
Surely this is a platform on which
Government employees?management,
labor, and Congress could unite.
Mr. CORBE'ri. Mr. Chairman, we
have no further requests for time.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, we
have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, pursuant to
the rule, the Clerk will read the bill for
amendment by titles instead of by
sections.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Government Em-
ployees Salary Reform Act of 1964".
TITLE I?FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS
SHOE I' TITLE
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964".
CLASSIFICATION ACT EMPLOYEES
SEC. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Classi-
fication Act of 1949 as amended (76 Stat.
843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b)). is amended to read
as follows:
"(b) The compensation schedule for the
General Schedule shall be as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release'2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP6,69%403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HUU 13057
GS-1
GS-2
GS-3
GS-4
GS-5
GS-6
GS-7
GS-8
GS-9
GS-10_
GS-11
GS-12
GS-13
0-14
GS-15
GS-16
OS-17
GS-18
"Grade
"Per annum rates and steps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
ii
10
$3, 385
$3, 500
$3, 615
$3.75.$3,
845
$3, 960
$4, 075
$4,190
$4, 305
$4, 420
3, 680
3,805
1,910
4,055
4, 180
4, 305
4,430
4, 555
4, 680
4,805
4,005
4,140
4,275
4,410
4, 545
4,080
4,815
4,950
5, 085
5,220
4,480
4,630
4, 780
4,530
5, 080
5,550
5,580
5, 530
6, 680
5,550
5, 000
5, 165
6, 330
6, 495
5, 660
5, 825
5, 990
0, 155
6, 320
6,485
5, 605
5,690
5,875
6,080
0,245
6,430
6, 615
6,800
9,985
7, 170
6,050
6, 250
6,410
6,050
6,850
7,050
7,250
7,450
7,650
7,850
6, 630
6, 850
7, 070
7,290
7, 510
7, 730
7, 950
8, 170
8, 390
8, 610
7,210
7,455
7,700
7,945
8, 190
8,431
8,680
8,925
9, 170
9,415
7,840
8, 110
8, 380
8,050
8,920
9, 100
6,460
9, 730
10, 000
10,270
8, 550
8, 845
9, 140
9,435
9,730
10,025
10,520
10, 615
10,610
11,205
10,200
10, 555
10,910
11,265
11,620
11,975
12, 330
12, 685
13,040
13, 395
12, 075
12, 495
12, 915
13, 335
15,755
14, 175
14, 595
15, 015
15,415
15, 855
14, 170
14, 660
15, 150
55,640
16, 130
16, 620
17, 110
17,600
18, 090
18,580
10, 460
17, 030
17,605
18,170
18, 740
19, 310
19, 880
20,450
21, 020
21, 590
18, 935
19, 500
20,245
20, 900
21, 555
22, 210
22,865
23, 620
24, 175
21,445
22, 195
22, 945
23, 695
24, 445
24, 500
(b) Except as provided in subsection (d)
of section 504 of the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962, the rates of basic compensation
of officers and employees to whom the com-
pensation schedule set forth in subsection
(a) of this section applies shall be initially
adjusted as of the effective date of this
section, as follows:
(1) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at one of the
rates of a grade in the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1919, as amended,
he shall receive a rate of basic compensation
at the corresponding rate in effect on and
after such date.
(2) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate be-
tween two rates of a grade in the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, he shall receive a rate of basic
compensation at the higher of the two cor-
responding rates in effect on and after such
date.
(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
elfective date of this section at a rate in ex-
cess of the maximum rate for his grade, he
shall receive (A) the maximum rate for his
grade in the new schedule, or (B) his exist-
ing rate of basic-compensation if such exist-
ing rate is higher.
(4) If the officer or employee, immediately
prior to the effective date of this section, is
receiving, pursuant to paragraph (4) of sec-
tion 2(b) of the Federal Employees Salary
Increase Act of 1955, an existing aggregate
rate of compensation determined under sec-
tion 208(b) of the Act of September 1, 1954
(68 Stat. 1111; Public Law 763, Eighty-third
Congress), plus the amount of the increase
provided by section 2 of the Federal Employ-
ees Salary Increase Act of 1955, by section 2
of the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act
of 1958, by sectipn 112 of the Federal Em-
ployees Salary Increase Act of 1960, and by
section 602 of the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962, he shall receive an aggregate rate of
compensation equal to the sum of (A) his
existing aggregate rate of compensation de-
termined under such section 208(b) of the
Act of September 1, 1954, (B) the amount
of the increase provided by section 2 of the
Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1955, (C) the amount of the increase pro-
vided by section 2 of the Federal Employees
Salary Increase Act of 1958, (D) the amount
of the increase provided by section 112 of
the Federal Employees Salary Increase Act of
1960, (E) the amount of the increases in
schedule I and schedule II provided by sec-
tion 602 of the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1962, and (F) the amount of the increase
made by this section in the maximum rate
of his grade, until (i) he leaves his position,
or (ii) he is entitled to receive aggregate
No. 117-14
compensation at a higher rate by reason of
the operation of this Act or any other pro-
vision of law; but, when such position be-
comes vacant, the aggregate rate of com-
pensation of any subsequent appointee
thereto shall be fixed in accordance with
applicable provisions of law. Subject to
clauses (i) and (ii) of the immecilately pre-
ceding sentence of this paragraph, the
amount of the increase provided by this sec-
tion shall be held and considered for the
purpose of section 208(b) , of such Act of
September 1, 1954, to constitute a part of the
existing rate of compensation of such
employee.
(5) If the officer or employee is in a posi-
tion in grade 16 or 17 of the General Sched-
ple of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, to which he was promoted on or
after the first day of his first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1964, and
if he holds such position, or another position
in the same grade, on the effective date of
this section, his rate of basic compensation
shall be adjusted, as of such effective date,
to that rate of basic compensation to which
he would have been entitled if the com-
pensation schedule in subsection (a) of
this section had been in effect on the date
of his promotion.
SEC. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1131), relating to
new appointments, is amended to read as
follows:
"Sze. 801. All new appointments shall be
made at the minimum rate of the appro-
priate grade, except that in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Commission
Which provide for such considerations as the
candidate's existing salary, unusually, high
or unique qualifications, or a special need
of the Government for his services, the head
of any department may appoint individuals
to positions in grade 13 and above of the
General Schedule at such rate or rates above
the minimum rate of the appropriate grade,.
as the Commission may authorize for this
purpose.".
(b) Section 1105 of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1071, note and
1082, note), is amended to read as follows:
- "Sze. 1105. The provisions of section 507,
title VII, and title VIII of this Act shall not
apply to professional engineering positions
primarily concerned with research and de-
velopment and professional positions in the
physical and- natural sciences and medicine
placed in grades 16-, 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule in accordance with subsection
(b) or subsection (j) of section 505 of this
Act. The President or an agency or agencies
that he designates shall issue regulations
governing the rate of basic compensation.
within the grade to be received by any of-
ficer or employee occupying, appointed to,
or promoted to, such a position, and, in the
case of reduction in grade, may issue reg-
ulations governing retention of the rate
to which the officer or employee was entitled
immediately before reduction."
(c) Section 505(b) of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b) ),
relating to the limitation on numbers of
positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the
General Schedule of such Act, is amended
by striking out "which may be placed in
such grades" and by inserting in lieu thereof
examiner positions under section 11 of
the Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat.
244; 5 U.S.C. 1010), and positions placed
under this Act pursuant to section 309 of the
Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964, which
may be placed in such grades".
(d) Section 604(d) (3) of the Federal
Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended (5
U.S.C. 914(c) (3) ), is amended to read as
follows:
"(3) In the computation of rates, all re-
maining fractions of a cent shall be elimi-
nated."
POSTAL FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES
SEC. 104. Section 1 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
period at the end of such section and in-
serting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the
following:
"'revenue unit' means that amount of
revenue of a post office from mail and special
service transactions which is equal to the
average sum orpostal rates and fees received
by the Department during the fiscal year
for 1,000 pieces of originating mail and
special service transactions determined in
accordance with section 2331 of this title.".
SEC. 105. Section 702 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"? 702. Classes of post offices
"(a) Effective at the beginning of each
fiscal year the Pottmaster. General shall di-
vide post offices into four classes on the basis
of the revenue units of each office for the sec-
ond preceding fiscal year. He shall place
in the first class those post offices having 950
or more revenue units. He shall place in the
second class those post offices having 190 or
more revenue units, but less than 950 reve-
nue units. He shall place in the third class
those post offices having 36 or more revenue
units, but less than 190 revenue units. He
shall place in the fourth class those post
offices having less than 36 revenue units.
"(b) The Postmaster General shall exclude
from the revenue credited to a post office for
the purposes of this section money received
at that office f or-
"(1) 'setting meters for patrons beyond the
area served by the office unless authorized by
the Department;
"(2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and postal
cards sold in large or unusual quantities to
be used in mailing matter at other offices;
and
"(3) stamps, stamped envelopes, and postal
cards sold for mailing matter diverted from
other offices and mailing of matter so di-
verted without stamps affixed.
"(c) Whenever unusual conditions prevail
at a post office of the fourth class, the Post-'
master General may advance such office to
the appropriate class based on his estimate
of the number of revenue units which the
office will have during the succeeding twelVe
months. Any office so advanced need not be
relegated to a lower class before the end of
the second fiscal year after the advance-
ment. At that time, the office shall be as-
signed to the appropriate class in accord-
ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this
section.".
SEC. 106. Section 704 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by deleting "of the
first, second, or third class" appearing there-
in, and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than
one for which the postmaster furnishes quar-
ters, equipment, and fixtures on an allow-
ance basis) ".
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1305S CONGRESSION AL RECORD ? HOUSE June 11
SF.0 107. Subsection (b) (1) of section 2102
of title 39, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
"(1) for post offices at which the post-
master does no* furnish quarters on an allow-
ance basis;".
SEC_ 108. (a) Section 3501 of title 39. United
States Code. is amended bv- -
(1) deleting from the first sentence of sub-
section (a) the following! "stendard posi-
tions of postmaster in a fourth class office
and rural carrier" and inserting in lieu there-
of "standard position of rural carrier": and
(2) inserting a new subsection (c) fol-
lowing subsection (b) as follows:
c) As of the effective date of this sec-
tion. the Postmaster General shall determine
and adjust the rankings of all positions for
which the number of annual revenue units
of a post office or its class is a relevant factor
of the ranking, using the revenue unite of
the &esti year ending June 30. 1963. and
the class of the office as of July 1, 1964.
Thereafter the Postmaster General shall de-
termine and, effective at the beginning of
the first pay period in each calendar year,
shall adjust the rankings of all positions for
which the number of annual revenue units
of a post office or its class is a relevant factor
of the ranking, using the revenue unite; of
the preceding fiscal year and the clam in
which the office will be placed at the begin-
ning of the next fiscal year. The Postmaster
General also may adjust rankings of such
positions at other times of the year based
upon substantial changes in service con-
ditions.".
(b) Chapter 45 of title 39. United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST
OFFICE CLERK. (ICP-.4 ) "; and
(B) Add the following new sentence to the
end of paragraph (1): "This office has less
than 190 revenue units annually.".
(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516--
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (ICP-I 8 1";
(B) Delete "third Class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $1,700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 40 revenue units annually".
(3) In subsection (b) of section 3517?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-2 0 ) ";
(B) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (fl: and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 44,700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 110 revenue units annually".
(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. ( KP-2 2 1";
(B) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1): and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 46,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 140 revenue units annually".
(5) In subsection (b) of section 3519?
(A) Change the catchfine to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP- 24)": and
(13) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $63,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (I) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 1,490 revenue units annually".
(6) In subsection (c) of section 3519?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
AlTER. IRP- 25
(B) Delete "second class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 416,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert In lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 380 revenue units annually".
(7) In subsection (b) of section 3520--
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP- 27 / ":
03) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (11; and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $83.600" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 1.490 revenue unite annually".
(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521?
(A) Change the catcleine to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP- 2 9 )
(B ) Delete "first class" appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $129.000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 3,060
revenue unite annually".
19) In subsection (b) of section 3522?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-3I";
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(0) Delete "annual receipts of $314,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "apProximately 7,450
revenue units annually".
(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523?
A) Change the c.atchl:ne to read "post-
MASTER. (KP-331
(B)
(B) Delete "first class" appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (I): and
(C) Delete the second sentence of para-
graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof: "This
office has approximately 110 employees, ap-
proximately 14,350 revenue units annually,
13 government-owned vehicle units, one clas-
sified station and 43 carrier routes within its
Jurisdiction.".
( I1) In subsection (b) of section 3524?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (MP-35 and
(13) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,000
revenue units annually".
(12) In subsection (el of section 3524--
(Al Change the catehline to read "POST-
MASTER. KP-38 ) ";
(13) Delete "first rinse" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $1,000,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and.,
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 23.700
revenue units annually".
(13) In subsection (a) of section 3525?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (PCP-37 ) ": and
(13) Delete "annual receipts a $8,460,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert In Lieu thereof "approximately 200,000
revenue units annually".
(14) In subsection (b) of section 3525?
(A) Change the catchline to read "PosT-
MARTER. KP-33 1 ";
(13) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph 1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $2,700,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 64,000
revenue units annually".
(15) In subsection (a) of section 3526?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (14?-39) " ; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of $16,900,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 400,000
revenue units annually".
(16) In subsection (b) of section 3526?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. KP--4 0 )
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annuEd receipts of $4,470,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 106,000
revenue units annually".
(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST -
ANT POSTMASTER, KP-4 2 / "; and
(B) Delete "annua: receipts Of 448,000,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 1,000,000
revenue units annually".
(18) In subsection (c) of section 3527?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
AlAt.Tr..R. (RP-43
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annuai receipts of $8,460,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert In lieu thereof "approximately 200,000
revenue units annually".
(19) In subsection (b) of section 3528?
(A) Change the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-'45) "; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of $140,000,-
000" in the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximate-
ly 2.500,000 revenue units annually".
(20) In subsection (c) of section 3528?
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-4
(B) Delete "first clam" in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $16,900,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert in lieu thereof "approximately 400,000
revenue units annually".
(21) In section 3529?
(A) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (I) to read "POSTMASTER
(KP-4 7 1
(B) Delete "first c:ass" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $48,000,000"
in the second sentence a paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 1,000,-
000 revenue units annually".
(22) In section 3530--
(A) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (:) to read "POSTMASTER
u
(3) Delete "first class" in the first sentence
of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $140,630,000"
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 2,500,-
000 revenue units annially".
Sec. 109. 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 'PPS'. Except as pro-
vided in section 3543 of this title, basic com-
pensation shall be paid to all employees in
accordance with such schedule.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA7RDR6aya403R000500050001-9 13059
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
"Postal Field Service schedule
"PFS
"Per annum rates and steps
1
-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
83, 945
to
co.P.,..1...0.5,S..00,:.40P.P.P.P.:1"
o CO 0 E OC 0 0 IT CO Ca C. 0, eit-
tO 0 C.O P tot to p y
P 0 0 P P 0 01 Co CA 0 0 01 P 0, CT 0 C. P
$4,205
$4,335
84,465
$4,595
$4,725
$4,855
$4,985
$5,115
$5,246
$5,376
2
4,270
4,550
4,690
4,830
4,970
5,110
5,260
6,390
6,530
5,670
6,810
3
4, 615
4,925
5,080
5,236
5,390
6, 545
5,700
6, 855
6,010
0, 165
6, 320
4
5, 000
5,330
5,495
5,660
5,825
5,990
6,105
8,320
6,485
6, 650
6,815
5
5,345
6,705
5,885
6,015
6, 245
6, 425
6,605
6,785
8,605
7, 145
7,825
6
5, 736
8,115
8,305
6,495
6,685
6, 875
7,065
7,255
7,445
7,615
7,825
7
6, 140
6,550
6, 765
6, 960
7, 165
' 7, 370
7,070
7,780
7,985
8, 190
8
6,650
7,090
7,310
7,530
7, 750
7,970
8,050
8,410
8,630
9
7, 190
7,670
7,910
8, 150
8,300
8,630
8,870
9, 110
9, 350
10
7,830
8,380
8r625
8, 890
9,150
9,420
9,685
9,550
10, 215
11
8,656
9, 240
9,535
9, 830
10,125
10, 420
10,715
11, 010
11, 305
12
9, 570
10, 220
10,545
10, 870
11,595
11,520
11,845
12, 170
52,495
13
10, 575
11, 305
11, 670
12, 035
12,400
12,765
13, 130
13, 495
13, 860
14
11, 660
12,470
12, 876
13, 280
13, 685
54,090
14,495
14, 900
15, 305
15
12,805
15,775
14, 220
14,665
15, 110
15, 555
16, 000
16, 445
16, 890
16
14, 240
15, 230
15, 725
16, 220
16,715
17, 210
17, 705
18, 200
18, 695
17
15, 765
16,855
17, 405
17, 955
18,505
19,055
19, 605
20, 155
20, 706
18
17, 460
18,670
19,-280
19, 890
20,500
21,110
21,720
22, 330
22, 940
19
19, 345
20,695
21, 370
22, 045
22,720
23,395
24, 070
2Q
21, 445
22, 945
23, 695
24, 445
' SEC. 110. Section 5543(a) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows-
"(a) There is established a basic compen-
sation schedule which shall be known as the
Rural Carrier Schedule and for which the
symbol shall be 'RCS'.
"Rural carrier schedule
"Per annum rates and steps
1
2
3
4
Carriers in rural delivery service:
Fixed compensation per
annum
Compensation per mile per
annum for each mile up to
30 miles of route
For each mile of route over
30 miles
$2,240
82
25
$2,345
84
25
$2,450
86
25
$2,555
88
25
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
$2,660
$2,765
$2,870
$2,975
$3, 081)
$3,185
$3,290
83,395
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
25
25
25
25
25
-25
25
25".
SEC. 111. (a) Section 3544 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"? 3544. Compensation of Postmasters at
Fourth-Class Offices -
"(a) The Postmaster General shall rank
the position of postmaster of fourth-class of-
fices in level 5 of the Postal Field Service
Schedule and shall establish the annual rate
of basic compensation for each such position
in the proportion of the annual rate of basic
compensation for positions in PFS-5 which
he determines, in consideration of the postal
needs of the patrons of the office, that the
postmasters' hours of service bear to full-
time service. Determinations made by the
Postmaster General under this subsection
shall be final and conclusive until changed
by him.
"(b) Persons who perform the duties of
postmaster at a post office of the fourth class
where there is a vacancy or during the ab-
sence of the postmaster on sick or annual
leave or leave without pay shall be compen-
sated at the rate of basic compensation for
PFS level 5, step 1, determined in accord-
ance with subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) At seasonal post offices of the fourth
class, the Postmaster General may authorize
the payment of basic salary prorated over
the pay periods the office is open for business
during the fiscal year.
"(d) When required by the Postmaster
General a postmaster at a fourth-class office
shall, and any other postmaster in PFS level
5 when permitted by the Postmaster General
may, furnish quarters, fixtures, and equip-
ment for an office on an allowance basis.
The allowance for this purpose shall be an
amount equal to 15 per centum of the basic
compensation for the postmaster at the office
computed on the basis of the first step of
PFS level 5.".
(b) In the operation of the amendment
made by subsection (a) of this section, the
following provisions shall govern:
(1) Each postmaster at a fourth-class of-
fice on the effective date of this section shall
be assigned, as of such date-
(A) to that numerical step of level 5 of
the Postal Field Service Schedule (PFS-5)
which corresponds to the numerical step of
the Fourth-Class Office Schedule (FOS) re-
ceipts category which he occupied immedi-
ately prior to such assignment, or
(B) to the lowest step of level 5 of the
Postal Field Service Schedule (PFS-5) which
will provide him, for the number of hours
of service determined under section 3544
of title 39, United States Code, compensa-
tion which is not less than the compensa-
tion to which he would otherwise be en-
titled, on the effective date of this section,
under Fourth Class Schedule II (as if such
schedule were in effect on such date),
whichever step provides the higher rate of
compensation.
(2) If no step in level 5 of the Postal Field
Service Schedule (PFS-5) Will provide a post-
master, so assigned under paragraph (1) of
this subsection, with compensation which is
equal to or greater than the compensation
which he would have received under Fourth
Class Schedule II (as if such schedule were
in effect on the effective date of this sec-
tion), such postmaster shall receive compen-
sation at a rate equal to the applicable rate
fixed under Fourth Class Schedule II (as if
such schedule were in effect on the effec-
tive date of this section) and the provi-
sions of section 3544 of title 39, United States
Code (as such provisions existed immedi-
ately prior to the effective date of this sec-
tion) . Subject to the provisions of section
3560 of title 39, United States Code, the com-
pensation of a postmaster paid in accordance
with the immediately preceding sentence
shall be adjusted in accordance with changes
in the gross postal receipts of his post office
as though this Act had not been enacted.
The compensation of a postmaster paid in
accordance with any of the foregoing pro-
visions of this paragraph shall continue in
effect until such postrriaster is entitled to
receive compensation at a higher rate by rea-
son of the operation of this Act or any other
provision of law.
(3) If changes in the gross postal re-
ceipts category or changes in salary step
otherwise would occur on the effective date
of this section (without regard to the enact-
ment of this section), such changes shall
be held and considered to have occurred
prior to assignment under paragraph (1) of
this subsection.
(c) The table of contents of chapter 45
of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by deleting:
"3544. Fourth Class Office Schedule.";
and inserting in lieu thereof
"3544. Compensation of Postmasters at
Fourth-Class Offices.".
SEC. 112. (a) Subsection (a) of section
6007 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
"(a) The Postmaster General shall pay to
persons, other than special delivery mes-
sengers at post offices of the first class, for
making delivery of special delivery mail such
fees as may be established by him not in
excess of the special delivery fee.".
(b) Section 2009 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by deleting "at any price
less than eight cents per piece" and inserting
in lieu thereof "at any price less than the
fees established pursuant to section 6007(a)
of this title.".
SEC. 113. Section 3560 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended-
(1) by deleting from subsection (a) "(3)
? gross receipts category, with respect to the
Fourth-Class Office Schedule" and inserting
in lieu thereof "(3) minimum hours of serv-
ice with respect to postmasters in fourth-
class post offices"; and
(2) by deleting from subsection (0) "(1)
reductions in class or gross receipts category
of any post office, or" and inserting in lieu
thereof "(1) reductions in class, revenue
units of any post office, or the minimum
hours of service for a fourth-class post office,
or".
SEC. 114. Section 3552 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new subsection at the end thereof:
"(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a) , (b), and (c) of this section,
the Postmaster General is authorized to ad-
vance any employee in PFS level 9 or below
- who-
"(1) was promoted to a higher level be-
tween July 9, 1960, and October 13, 1962;
and
"(2) is Senior with respect to total postal
service to an employee in his own post office
promoted to the same position since October
13, 1962, and is at a step in the level below
the step of the junior employee.
Any increase under the provisions of this
subsection shall not constitute an equivalent
increase and credit earned prior to adjust-
ment under this subsection for advancement
to the next step shall be retained."
SEC. 115. (a) Section 711 of title 39, United
States Code, is repealed.
(b) The table of contents of chapter 7
of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by deleting
"711. Method of determining gross receipts.".
SEC. 116. (a) The basic compensation of
each _employee subject to the Postal Field
Service Schedule or the Rural Carrier Sched-
ule immediately prior to the effective date
of this section shall be determined as follows:
(1) Each employee shall be assigned to
the same numerical step for his position
which he had attained immediately prior to
such effective date. If changes in levels or
steps would otherwise occur on such effec-
tive date without regard to enactment of
this Act, such changes shall be deemed to
have occurred prior to conversion.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13060 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 11
(2) If the existing basic compensation is
greater than the rate to which the employee
is converted under paragraph (1) of this
section, the employee shall be placed in the
lowest step which exceeds his basic com-
pensation. If the existing basic compensa-
tion exceeds the maximum step of his posi-
tion', his existing basic compensation shall
be established as his basic compensation.
ib) Section 3541(f) of title 39. United
States Code, relating to computation of
rates, is amended to read as follows:
"(f) In the computation of rates, all re-
maining fractions of a cent shall be elim-
inated.".
EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE
AND SURGERY OF THE VETERANS' ADMINIS-
TRATION
SEC. 117. (a) Section 4103 of title 38.
United States Code, relating to the appoint-
ment and annual salaries of certain staff
positions in the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, is
amended to read as follows:
"/ 4103. Office of the Chief Medical Director
"(a) The Office of the Chief Medical Di-
rector shall consist of the following-
"(1) The Chief Medical Director, who
shall be the Chief of the Department of
Medicine and Surgery and shall be directly
responsible to the Administrator for the
operations of the Department. He shall be
a qualified doctor of medicine, appointed by
the Administrator.
"(2) The Deputy Chief Medical Director,
who shall be the principal assistant of the
Chief Medical Director. He shall be a quali-
fied doctor of medicine, appointed by the
Administrator.
"(3) Not to exceed five Assistant Chief
Medical Directors, who shall be appointed
by the Administrator upon the recommenda-
tion of the Chief Medical Director. One
Assistant Chief Medical Director ahall be a
qualified doctor of dental surgery or dental
medicine who shall be directly responsible
to the Chief Medical Director for the opera-
tion of the Dental Service.
"(4) Such Medical Directors as may be
appointed by the Administrator, upon the
recommendation of the Chief Medical Di-
rector, to suit the needs of the Department
A Medical Director shall be either a qualified
doctor of medicine or a qualified doctor of
dental surgery or dental medicine.
"(5) A Director of Nursing Service, who
shall be a qualified registered nurse, ap-
pointed by the Administrator, and who shall
be responsible to the Chief Medical Director
for the operation of the Nursing Service.
"(6) A Chief Pharmacist and a Chief
Dietitian, appointed by the Administrator.
"(7) Such other personnel and employees
RS may be authorized by this chapter.
"(b) Except as provided in subsection (e),
any appointment under this section shall be
for a period of four years, with reappoint-
ment permissible for RUCCESRIVO like periods.
except that persons so appointed or reap-
pointed shall be subject to removal by the
Administrator for cause.
"(c) The Administrator may designate a
member of the Chaplain Service of the Vet-
erans' Administration as Director. Chaplain
Service, for a period of two years, subject to
removal by the Administrator for cause.
Redesignation under this subsection may be
made for successive like periods. An indi-
vidual designated as Director, Chaplain Serv-
ice, shall at the end of his period of service
as Director revert to the position, grade, and
status which he held immediately prior to
being designated Director, Chaplain Service,
and all service as Director, Chaplain Service,
shall be creditable as service in the former
position."
(b) The table of contents of chapter 73 of
title 88, United States Code, is amended by
striking out
"4103. Appointments and compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof:
"4103. Office of the Chief Medical Director."
(c) Section 2 of the Act of July 31. 1894,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 62), shall not apply
to any individual appointed, before January
1. 1964. as Chief Medical Director under sec-
tion 4103 of title 38. United States Code;
but section 212 of the Act of June 30, 1032, as
amended (5 U.S.C. 59a), shall apply, in ac-
cordance with its terms, to any such indi-
vidual.
Sec. 118. Section 4107 of title 38, United
States Code, relating to grades and pay
scales for certain positions within the De-
partment of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration. is amended to
read as follows:
"1 4107. Grades and pay scales
"(a) The per annum full-pay scale or
ranges for positions provided in section 4103
ef this title, other than Chief Medical Di-
rector and Deputy Chief Medical Director,
shall be as follows:
"SECTION 4103 SCHEDULE
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $24,500.
"Medical Director, $21,445 minimum to
$24,445 maximum.
"Director of Nursing Service, $16,460 min-
Mitten to $21,590 maximtun.
"Director, Chaplain Service, $16,460 mini-
mum to $21,590 maximum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $16,460 minimum to
$21,590 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $18,469 minimum to $21,-
590 maximum.
" b) (I) The grades and per annum full-
pay ranges for positions provided in para-
graph (1) of section 4104 of this title shall
be as follows:
"PHYSICIAN AND DENTIST SCHEDULE
"Director grade, $18,935 minimum to $24,-
175 maximum.
"Executive grade, 817,655 minimum to
$23,190 maximum.
"Chief grade, $113,480 minimum to $21,590
maximum.
"Senior grade, $14,170 minimum to $18,580
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $12,075 minimum to
$15.855 maximum.
"Full grade, $10,200 minimum to $13,395
maximum.
"Associate grade, $3,550 minimum to $11,-
205 maximum.
"NURSE SCHEDULE
-Assistant Director grade, $14,170 mini-
mum to $18,580 maximum.
"Chief grade, $12,075 minimum to $15,855
maximum.
"Senior grade, $10,200 minimum to $13,395
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $8,550 minimum to
$11,205 maximum.
"Full grade, $7,210 minimum to $9,415
maximum.
"Associate grade, $6,315 minimum to
$8,205 maximum.
"Junior grade, $5,505 minimum to $7,170
maximum.
"(2) No person may hold the director
grade unless he Is serving as a director of a
hospital, domiciliary, center, or outpatient
clinic (independent). No person may hold
the executive grade unless he holds the po-
sition of thief of staff at a hospital, center,
or outpatient clinic (independent), or the
position of clinic director at an outpatient
clinic, or comparable position.".
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS: STAFF OFFICERS AND
EMP LOY EES
SEC. 119. Section 412 of the Foreign Serv-
ice Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867),
is amended to read as follows:
"FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
"Sec. 412. There shall be 10 classes of For-
eign Service officers, including the classes of
career ambassador and of career minister.
The per annum salary of a career ambassa-
dor shall be at the rate provided by law for
level IV of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule. The per annum salary of a career
minister shall be at the rate provided by
law foe level V of such schedule. The per
annum salaries of Foreign Service officers
within each of the other classes shall be as
follows:
at lass 1
_
( 1fts!, 218,295
$22,650
*23,440
18, 930
$24,590
19,565
VA 200
$20, 835
821, 470
122, 105
Climg 3
14, 860
15.375
15,890
16, 405
16, 920
17, 435
17,950
('lass 4
12, 076
12,495
12.915
13,335
13, 755
14, 175
14, 595
( lass 5 ..
9. 9(81
10,248
10, 690
10,931
11, 280
11.625
11,970
( lass 5
8,205
8,490
8,776
9,061)
0,345
'9,630
'3,915
Class 7
7(80
7,235
7,470
7,705
7,040
8,175
8,410
( lass 8
6.060
6,260
6,450
8,650
6,850
7,050
7,250",
Ste. 120. Subsection (a) of section 415 of
such Act (22 U.S.C. 870(a)) Is amended to
read as follows:
"(a) There shall be ten classes of Foreign
Service staff officers and employees, referred
?Clax,s 1
Class
Class 3
Clan 4
(lass 5
Class 11
(-km 7.
Clan IS
Class 9
Class It
to hereafter as staff officers and employees.
The per annum salaries of such staff officers
and employees within each class shall be
as follows:
$14,580
$15,375
$15,890
$16,406
$16,020
$17,431
$17,950
118,465
118,980
$10,495
12.075
12, 495
12.915
13,335
13.795
14, 175
14, 595
15,015
15,415
13, 855
9.808
10,245
10,590
10,935
11,280
11,625
11,970
12,315
12,660
13,90,5
8,206
5,490
8,775
9,060
9,345
9, 630
9,016
10, 200
10,48.5
10,770
7,406
7,8110
7,915
8, 170
8,425
8, 680
8,93.5
9,190
9,445
0,790
6,710
5, BM
7, 160
7,385
7, 610
7,835
8,080
8.285
8,510
8, 735
6, 205
6,410
6,015
6, 820
7,026
7,230
? 7,435
7, 640
7,845
8, 050
5.490
8.678
5,860
6.045
6,230
6,415
0,60)
6,785
6,070
7,15,5
5,010
6, 176
6,840
5,505
5, 670
5,835
6,0)0
6, 16.5
6,313)
6, 49,5
4.480
4,810
4,780
4,930
5,080
5,230
5,380
5,130
5,680
5,830".
Sec. 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve
officers. and Foreign Service staff officers and
employees who are entitled to receive basic
compensation immediately prior to the ef-
fective date of this section at one of the
rates provided by section 412 or 415 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1948, shall receive
basic compensation, on and after such effec-
tive date, at the rate of their class deter-
mined to be appropriate by the Secretary
of State.
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION
COUNTY COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES
Sze. 122. The rates of compensation of per-
sons employed by the county committees es-
tablished pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) shall be increased
by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac-
ticable, to the increases provided by section
102 of this Act for corresponding rates of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-R9PAB00403R000500050001-913061
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?
1964
compensation in the appropriate schedule
or scale of pay.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 842; 6 U.S.C.
1173) is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
"(d) The rate of basic compensation, es-
tablished under this section, and received by
any officer or employee immediately prior to
the effective date of a statutory increase in
the compensation schedules of the salary sys-
tems specified in subsection (a) shall be
initially adjusted on the effective date of
such new compensation schedules in accord-
ance with conversion rules and regulations
prescribed by the President or by such agen-
cy or agencies as he may designate."
ABSORPTION OF COSTS
SEC. 124. (a) The cost of not less than 10
per centum of the aggregate amount of the
increases in compensation provided by this
title for the fiscal year 1965 shall be ab-
sorbed by the departments, agencies, estab-
lishments, and corporations in the executive
branch; and no amount beyond the addi-
tional sum for such compensation increases
proposed in the budget for the fiscal year
1965 is authorized to be appropriated by any
provision of this Act. The total amount
of such absorption shall be allocated by the
Bureau of the Budget among such depart-
ments, agencies, establishments, and corpo-
rations in such manner and to such extent
as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
deems appropriate in the light of their es-
sential functions.
(b) Pursuant to the objective of this sec-
tion, heads of the executive branch activities
concerned are directed to review with metic-
ulous care each vacancy resulting from vol-
untary resignation, retirement, or death and
to determine whether the duties of the po-
sition can be reassigned to other employees
or whether the position can be abolished
without seriously affecting the execution of
essential functions.
(c) Nothing contained in subsection (a)
of this section shall be held or considered
to require (1) the separation from the serv-
ice of any individual by reduction in force
or other personnel action or (2) the placing
of any individual in a leave-without-pay
status.
Mr. MURRAY (during the reading of
title I). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the further reading
of title I be dispensed with and that it
be printed in the RECORD and be open
for amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
title I.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II?FEDERAL, LEGISLATIVE SALARIES
Sao. 201. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1984".
SEC, 202. (a) Each officer or employee in
or under the legislative branch of the Gov-
ernment whose rate of compensation is in-
creased by section 5 of the Federal Employ-
ees Pay Act of 1916 shall be paid additional
compensation in an amount equal to the
greater of the following amounts, as appli-
cable:
(1) an amount equal to 31/2 per centum
of his gross rate of compensation (basic com-
pensation plus additional compensation au-
thorized by law) in effect immediately prior
to the effective date of this section plus 1
per centum of such gross rate for each whole
multiple, or part of a multiple, of $500 basic
compensation; or
(2) an amount equal to 5 per centum of
such gross rate.
(b) The total annual compensation in
effect immediately prior to the effective date
of this section of each officer or employee of
the House of Representatives, whose com-
pensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the
House of Representatives and is not increased
by reason of any other provision of this title,
shall be increased by an amount which is
equal to the amount of the increase pro-
vided by subsection (a) of this section in
that gross rate which is nearest in amount
to the total annual compensation of such
officer or employee.
(c) Each of the limitations an gross rate
per thousand and gross rate per hour per
person provided by applicable law on the
effective date of this section with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the House of Representatives shall be in-
creased by 7 per centum. The amount of
each increase under this subsection shall be
computed to the nearest cent, counting one-
half cent and over as a whole cent.
(d) The additional compensation pro-
vided by this section shall be considered a
part of basic compensation for the purposes
of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C.
2251 and the following).
(e) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1946, as amended (2
U.S.C. 72a (e) ) , is amended?
(1) by striking out "$8,880" where it first
appears in such subsection and inserting in
lieu thereof "the highest amount which, to-
gether with additional compensation au-
thorized by law, will not exceed the maxi-
mum rate authorized by the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended,"; and
(2) by striking out "$8,880" at the second
place where it appears in such subsection
and inserting in lieu thereof "the highest
amount which, together with additional
compensation authorized by law, will not
exceed the maximum rate authorized by the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended".
(1) (1) This subsection is enacted as an
exercise of the rule making power of the
House of Representatives with full recogni-
tion of the constitutional right of the House
of Representatives to change the rule
amended by this subsection at any time, in
the same manner, and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of the House
of Representatives.
(2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended?
(A) by striking out "$8,880" where it first
appears in such clause and inserting in lieu
thereof "the highest amount which, together
with additional compensation authorized by
law, will not exceed the maximum rate au-
thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended,";1 and
(B) by striking out "$8,880" at the second
place where it appears in such clause and
inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount
which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended".
SEC. 203. (a) The compensation of the
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $30,000 per annum.
(b) The compensation of the Assistant
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $29,000 per annum.
(c) The compensation of the General
Counsel of the United States General Ac-
counting Office, the Librarian of Congress,
the Public Printer, and the Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $28,000 'per
annum.
(d) The compensation of the Deputy
Librarian of Congress, the Deputy Public
Printer, and the Assistant Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $27,000 per
annum,
(e) The compensation of the Second As-
sistant Architect of the Capitol shall be at
the rate of $26,000 per annum.
(f) The compensation of the Chaplain of
the House of Representatives shall be at the
rate of $12,500 per annum.
Sac. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2
U.S.C. 31), is amended to read as follows:
"(a) The compensation of Senators, Repre-
sentatives in Congress, and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at
the rate of $30,000 per annum each; and the
compensation of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall be at the rate of $43,000
per annum."
SEC. 205. No officer or employee ,subject to
section 202(a) or 202(b) of this title shall
receive, by reason of any provision of this
title, an increase in gross rate of compensa-
tion (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by law), or in total
annual compensation, which is in excess of
the amount of the increase in basic com-
pensation provided by the amendment made
by section 102(a) of title I of this Act for
positions in grade 18 of the General Schedule
of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
Mr. MURRAY (during the reading of
title II). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the further reading
of title II be dispensed with and that it
be printed in the RECORD and that it be
open for qmendment at any 'point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The Clerk Concluded the reading of
title II.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES or
tussoula
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Mis-
souri: On page 38, immediately following
line 12, insert the following:
"Sac. 205. (a) Nothwithstanding any other
provision of law and in recognition of the
fact that the duties and responsibilities of
a Member of Congress are conducted on a
full-time basis, there shall be deducted from
the compensation in any year of each Sena-
tor, Representative in Congress, and the Resi-
dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico an
amount equal to the amount of compensa-
tion which such official has received for per-
sonal services from other sources during
such year up to the amount of any increase
provided in this Act. Personal services shall
be deemed to include any personal service
performed by the individual for which he
receives a salary, commission, fee, retainer,
honorarium, per diem, or any other com-
pensation received in return for rendering
such personal service, but shall not include
dividends, interest, rentals, pensions, dis-
ability benefits, insurance, retirement in-
come or any other form of income which is
not predicated upon the rendering of any
personal service."
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I offered this amendment when the
bill was before the House on March 12.
As was to lie expected, the amendment
was voted down. However, after the
session that day several Members came
to me and said, "I did not understand
what you were trying to do."
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
130062 Approved For RelewaS0srt : QA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
tuNAL RECORD ? HOUSE
I shall try to make this very clear. I
believe a majority of the people recognize
that service as a Member of Congress
should represent a full-time job, at least
while Congress is in session, and that any
service or obligation a Member has which
would take him away from his congres-
sional duties and which would prevent
him from attending committee meetings
and prevent him from being on the floor
of the House?or on the floor of the other
body?contributes to extending the
length of the session.
Let me explain what the amendment
would do. Let us presume that the bill
is passed and that the salary is increased
$7,500 a year. The amendment provides
that any personal-service compensation
or remuneration which a Member re-
ceives during the year is to be deducted
from?and up to?the amount of the in-
creased salary. This is for personal
service only, predicated upon the pre-
sumption the personal service requires a
person to be away from his duties here in
the House. That might include a salary.
It might be a commission for a sale he is
making as a salesman. It might be a
fee. It might be a retainer. It might
be an honorarium. It might be a per
diem. It would include anything that
was a personal service.
If that Member during the year re-
ceived, for personal services, $5,000, that
$5,000 would be deducted from the $7,500
he would receive in additional salary.
The people have told us many times
that the Members of Congress are un-
derpaid, and that is the basis. I presume,
upon which the committee and others
who are supporting this legislation are
supporting it. They say that a Member
needs to have more compensation. They
say a Member who lives in the Far West,
In the Deep South, in the Midwest, or
in another part of the country, is pre-
vented, because of his service in the
Congress?though I believe he was
elected f or full-time service?from being
here.
I believe Members should have no
hesitancy about including income from
personal services, since other Members,
because of their residence or because of
their employment?profession, or what-
ever it may be?do not have an opportu-
nity to get the additional money. I be-
lieve that would be fair.
This would put Members of Congress
upon a more equitable basis so far as
their income is concerned.
I wish to make one point quite clear.
This would not include income from
dividends, from interest, from rentals,
from pensions, from disability benefits,
from insurance, or from retirement in-
come. The only thing that this would
affect would be that income from per-
sonal service which takes a Member away
from the House of Representatives?or
from the other body, as the case might
be.
My contention is this, that if all Mem-
bers felt they were going to have to give
up a part of this income?let us say a
lawyer in Philadelphia or some other
professional man who wants to be away
from here every Monday or every Fri-
day and he is not making himself avail-
able--then I think he might be inclined
to be here. If this House and this Con-
gress could stay in session for 7 months
a year, as the law says it should be, then
I think we could get this job done and
we could adjourn by July 31, as the law
provides, and we could get out of here.
I think and I hope I have made myself
clear. If I have not, I would be glad to
answer any questions you might have on
that.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and
was given permission to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. MOSS. I cannot deny that I
have a great deal of sympathy with the
situation you are attempting to correct
by your amendment, but as I read your
amendment, I am afraid you do great
violence in attempting to end an abuse.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. In attempt-
ing to do what?
Mr. MOSS. In attempting to end an
abuse. In the first place, you confine
this exclusively to the Members of Con-
gress. Many others are going to receive
increased compensation under this leg-
islation. They also perhaps take an
honorarium and may take several in the
course of a year. Ytt you do not pro-
pose under this amendment to require
that they return this to the Government
in lieu of the increase in salary. Is that
correct?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I would say
this to the gentlerrian, that the employ-
ees of the House of Representatives can
be under the rules of the House and they
could be taken care of in that manner.
I think you will also find that the chair-
man of a committee or the officers of the
House can see that the staff members or
the people you are referring to in the
legislEtive branch are taken care of.
Mr. MOSS. Would the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Yes.
Mr. MOSS. You do not cover judges
or employees of the executive depart-
rments of the Government or members
of the independent boards or commis-
sions established under the authority of
the Government, do you?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I do not
cover them for this reason: I am trying
to deal with a problem here. Frankly,
as I have stated in the past, I do not
think that the legislative branch has any
business in this bill to start with, but if
we are going to try to improve the leg-
islative branch and the set-up that we
have here, this should be the opportu-
nity to do it. If you want to go and cor-
rect the others, that is all right. All I
am trying to do is something that I know
about here in this House and some of
the practices going on with regard to
some of the income, I think. You say
you want to put these people on a com-
parable level. This would put them on
a level, and they would get their $32,500
or whatever it is.
Mr. MOSS. Could we look at a hypo-
thetical case where injustice occurs
June 11
under your amendment.? You have dis-
cos-Red the problem of those of us who
are many miles removed from the Na-
tion's Capital with our place of residence.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Yes.
Mr. MOSS. I come from California.
Mr. JONES of Missouri That is right.
Mr. MOSS. Supposing in the course of
a year I might have $1,000 or $1,500 in
honorariums and somebody nearby the
Capital would have $15,000 in honorar-
iums. I would be forced to give up the
entirety of my int ome from honorariums,
but the other party would be required to
give up only 50 percent.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. That is right.
Mr. MOSS. I think you might en-
courage greater activity in that area
rather than less.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. They would
also be subject to being here in the House
of Representatives where their job is.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Yes. I yield
to the majority leader.
Mr. ALBERT. I know the gentleman
Is endeavoring to do something which he
feels is in the interest of the Congress
and of the country. However, I am not
sure it will do equity, and I am not sure
It will not complicate the administration
of the act. What about persons owning
many properties who have managerial
responsibilities which keep them away
from Congress? It is difficult to say
whether this would be personal service
or not, but it would involve their per-
sonal time.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. There is
nothing wrong about it, Mr. ALBERT, ex-
cept that I think this: We have a respon-
sibility to be here when the Congress is
in session. I think an amendment of this
kind would be conducive to keeping a
quorum here so that we would not have
the Tuesday to Thursday Club operating.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I think
the gentleman's amendment would be
discriminatory as between someone who
performs a personal service for some-
one else and someor: e who had important
managerial responsibilities connected,
say, with his own business.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I think it is
easy to find excuses why we could not do
this. But I think this would_ at least
make a start to keep people here on the
job. I would be glad to hear from some-
one who would take the position that
being a Member of Congress is not a full-
time job while Congress is in session. ?
Mr. FTJLTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield.
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I believe one of the defects of
the gentleman's amendment is that the
language is not clear. For example,
while / am from the city of Pittsburgh
I also run a sheep ranch. Farming is
within the scope of a personal service,
although I am not out there doing the
work. But I must say that if the farmers
of this House are going to be eliminated
from farming for most of the year while
Congress is in session you are not going
to get very many votes for this amend-
ment.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66130.0_ 13063403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. JONES of Missouri. do not
think they would be eliminated. In other
words, each Member here makes out an
income tax return, or I presume he does.
And then he shows personal service on
that income tax return, if he had any.
I do not say this will make everybody
Pure. I do not think it is going to compel
everybody to make out a correct income
tax return, but at least it will lead toward
that end.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. JONES].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. JONES of Mis-
souri) there were?ayes 13, noes 90.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES OF
MISSOURI
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Mis-
souri: On page 37, lines 20 through 25, and
on page 38, lines 1 through 3, strike out all
of, section 204 and add a new section to read
as follows:
"SEC. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended
(2 U.S.C. 31) is amended by adding the fol-
lowing:
" `(b) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law and in recognition of the full-
time responsibilities of Senators, Represent-
atives, and the Resident Commissioner, each
such official In addition to the compensa-
tion provided above, shall receive from the
first day of January until the thirty-first day
of July each year the sum of $50 for each
day that he is actually in Washington, D.C.,
available for attendance at committee meet-
ings or during sessions of the House or Sen-
ate as the case may be when such legislative
body is in session. On and after July 31 of
each year, the compensation of each such
official shall be reduced in the amount of
$50 for each day that he is not actually in
attendance in the House or Senate as the
case may be when such legislative body is in
session and during the session of Congress;
Provided, That such official shall be deemed
to be present, for the purposes of this Act
if he or she is confined to a hospital, or is
confined to his or her bed under the daily
care of a physician who will certify to such
fact; and Provided further, That such official
shall be deemed to be present on Sundays
and legal holidays when the body of Con-
gress of which he or she is a Member is not
in session, as well as those days when that
body is in official recess.'"
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman,
this amendment is based on a per diem.
It is based on a per diem in addition to
the present salary.
Mr. Chairman, Congress can complete
its work by July 31, as the law sets out,
and during those days, from January 1
until the 31st day of July of each year,
the Member who is -then in Washington
and available for attendance here in the
House of Representatives shall receive
in addition to his regular compensation
$50 a day as a per diem._
Mr. Chairman, some State legislatures
use this form of payment and it has
been found to increase atendance, and
this will make members available on all
days that the House is in session. After
July 31 there would be a penalty for the
days that a Member is absent from Con-
gress.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this amend-
ment offers an incentive and it also pro-
vides a penalty. The incentive would be
comparable to the proposed increase un-
der the present bill. If a Member comes
to Washington and makes himself avail-
able during the time Congress is in ses-
sion, from January 1 through July 31,
he would receive the equivalent amount
of money that he would receive under
this bill. After July 31 he would be
penalized.
Mr. Chairman, I am not very optimis-
tic but at least I would like to see a vote
on this amendment and see if anyone is
interested in cutting out the "Tuesday-
to-Thursday Club."
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment of the gentleman from
Missouri.
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RHODES OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RHODES of
Pennsylvania: On page 38, immediately fol-
lowing line 12, insert the following new
section:
"SEc. 206. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law and in recognition of the fact
that the duties and responsibilities of Mem-
bers of Congress are conducted solely as rep-
resentatives of the public, each Member of
the Congress and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico shall, on or before the 15th
day of April of each year beginning with
the year 1965, submit to the Clerk of the
House or the Secretary of the Senate, as the
case may be, a statement consisting of a full
and complete disclosure of the amount or
amounts of all compensation and incomes
which such Member or Resident Commis-
sioner shall have received, during the imme-
diately preceding calendar year, from any
source or sourcesother than compensation
or incomes received by him for or in con-
nection with his service as such Member or
Resident Commissioner in the Congress as
provided by law. Such statements filed with
the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of
the Senate, as the case may be, and any re-
lated information filed therewith, shall be
held by the Clerk of the House and the Sec-
retary of the Senate as matters of public rec-
ord and shall be available for public access
thereto at any time during the regular busi-
ness hours of the Office of the Clerk of the
House or the Secretary of the Senate, as the
case may be."
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, my amendment for compul-
sory public disclosure of assets and in-
come of Members of Congress, if adopt-
ed, will make it less difficult for many
Members to support the pay legislation
now under consideration.
Public disclosure of assets and income
may be objectionable to some but it
would protect most Members against un-
fair criticism which has been leveled
against the Congress, and which casts a
cloud of suspicion on every Member of
the House and Senate.
A detailed statement of this type would
inform citizens of some of the financial
problems faced by many Members, par-
ticularly those of us who must depend on
their congressional pay to make ends
meet.
It seems to me that this amendment
would receive much popular support and,
if adopted, would expose many of the ef-
forts that are made to discredit the Con-
gress. By distorting the congressional
pay issue, political opponents can use the
issue to confuse the voters ani take the
minds of the people off of important leg-
islation that affects the national interest
and the welfare of the average citizen.
Much of the opposition to congres-
sional pay comes from citizens who feel
that Congress has been negligent in not
enacting legislation which is essential in
increasing the opportunities and lifting
the living standards of the millions of our
fellow citizens who are not properly shar-
ing in our Nation's abundance and in-
- creasing productivity.
They are looking to the Congress for
legislation to boost social security bene-
fits, and to broaden the program to in-
clude medical care for the aged. They
are interested in the kind of legislation
that would help bring about a better bal-
ance in our topheavy economy. Such
legislation as proposed to increase income
tax exemptions to $800 or $1,000, and a
Pension for World War I veterans, which
would give needed purchasing power to
those who need it most. It would give
them a better share in the abundance
with which this Nation is blessed. It
would help ease the problems caused by
automation and unemployment.
President Johnson's effort to strike at
social Injustice with his antipoverty pro-
gram is an important step in this direc-
tion. Because of the President's concern
about needless human distress and his
efforts to help our senior citizens, the job-
less, and other needy citizens, his pro-
posal for improved Federal pay legisla-
tion is consistent and contains much
merit.
The President's request for salary ad-
justments is in line with his efforts to
recruit special talent, which is difficult to
secure with salaries much lower than
those outside the Federal service.
It is a privilege, Mr. Chairman, to serve
as a Member of this House. This is more
compensating than any monetary re-
ward. I realize, however, that with
heavy expenses of House Members and
the cost of election campaigns, it be-
comes increasingly difficult for persons of
moderate means to be elected to this im-
portant body. This is especially true of
Members who support liberal and pro-
gressive legislation and who must often
face a hostile press and heavy campaign
contributions to their opponents from
wealthy individuals and groups.
Personally, I would prefer if the pay
raise for Members of Congress would be
separated from this Federal pay increase
bill, regardless of the case that can be
made for the raise for Members of Con-
gress.
There are many talented and devoted
-people in the Federal service who, at a
financial sacrifice to themselves, are
making an important contribution to our
country. Many are scientists, research-
ers, physicians, and other professional
people. I also feel that this legislation is
important to conscientious and dedicat-
ed postal employees and other Federal
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relea5e 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13061 CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE June 11
workers, particularly those in the lower
paid brackets. It is for that reason that
I hope this amendment will be adopted,
which I believe will assure the enactment
of this Federal pay bill.
Mr. PILLION. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr, P11.1(.10N. What the gentleman
seeks to do is to open up the income tax
forms of Members of Congress to the
public. Could not that be done by legis-
lation which would attain that purpose
by separate legislation?
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. I
would have no objection to that.
Mr. PTITION. They would be sep-
arated from everyone else, and we alone
would have to make public our income
tax statements.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. RHODES].
Mr. Chairman, worthy as the purpose
of the gentleman who introduced this
amendment may be. it seems to me it
has no place in a salary bill. We are
attempting to make salaries of govern-
mental employees comparable to those
In private industry. We are not inquir-
ing into the financial resources of the
Members of Congress. If the gentleman
has this in mind, he should introduce
separate legislation, it should be fully
debated, hearings should be held, and
then the question should be decided.
So I urge that this amendment be
voted down. I question very much
whether it is even germane, but no point
of order was raised so it is too late for
that. But in fact, the judgment of this
House should not be taken on a matter
so quickly. I hope the amendment will
be defeated.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a
moment to commend the gentleman
from Pennsylvania for what I think is
an excellent proposal. I know these
kinds of proposals have been submitted
to the Congress year after year. I also
know the practical difficulty of bringing
these proposals out onto the Soon I do
believe the amendment as offered is ger-
mane and is relevant. We are asking
through this bill for an increase in con-
gressional salaries, one that I think is
merited, but at the same time, I believe
the public would gain more confidence
in the discharge of the representational
duties of a Congressman if he were pre-
pared to make a full disclosure of his
sources of income.
(Mr. FRASER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. RHODES].
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED By MR. LATTA
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. LATTA: On page
34, line 5, strike out all of title II, and re-
number the succeeding titles.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman. I expect
to oppose this administration-supported
salary increase bill for the same reasons
that I opposed it when it was defeated on
March 12, 1964. The bill presently be-
fore us contains increases for Members
of Congress, members of the Cabinet,
members of the Supreme Court, arid
other Government employees in the up-
per pay brackets just as did the bill
previously defeated. Reducing these
salary increases by approximately one-
fourth still does not remove my objec-
tions to them. I am opposed to any in-
creases for these offices and particularly
to the proposed increase fcir Members of
Congress. As I informed this House on
March 12, I ant satisfied with the salary
I have been receiving. Second, the pro-
posed Increase Is more than the annual
Income of most families in my district.
Third, I feel that we should not be bor-
rowing money to increase salaries. It
seems perfectly ridiculous to me to pass
a $533 million salary increase bill today
and then vote to Increase the debt limit
next week to ;324 billion. I do not sub-
scribe to this new fiscal philosophy that
the way to keep from going in debt is to
spend more money.
Mr. Chairman, it is apparent here to-
day that the administration has changed
enough votes to pass this bill. I shall,
therefore, attempt to delete as many
titles from the bill as possible. For this
reason, I have offered the pending
amendment to delete all of title II?Fed-
eral legislative salaries--frorn the hill.
If my amendment to delete these con-
gressional salaries from the bill is suc-
cessful. I shall offer further amendments
to strike title 11E. Federal executive sal-
aries: and title IV, Federal judicial sal-
aries: from the bill.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. LATTA].
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT oaresea Hr MR. BARRY
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BARRY: Page
37. line 20. strike out section 204.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, the pur-
pose of this amendment is to give those
Members who oppose getting this salary
increase next January an opportunity to
strike this section from the bill. There
has been a great deal said about the
irresponsibility of Congress in passing
a tax cut and having a $10 billion excess
of appropriations over income and in
the same session voting themselves a
pay raise. This amendment knocks out
the congressional salary increase provi-
sions of this bill. I do not think it needs
further debate as far as I am concerned.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. Balmy).
The amendment was rejected.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III-FEDERAL EXECCTIVE SALARIES
SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964".
Sac. 302. There is hereby established for
offices and position to which section 303 of
this title applies a basic compensation sched-
ule. to be known as the "Federal Executive
Salary Schedule", watch shall be divided
into six salary levels.
Sec. 303. (a) Level I of the Federal Execu-
tive Salary Schedule shall apply to the fol-
lowing offices and positions, for which the
annual rate of basic compensation shall be
*32,500:
(1) Secretary of State.
(2) Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) Secretary of Defense.
(4) Attorney General.
(5) Postmaster General.
(0) Secretary of the Interior.
(7) Secretary of Agriculture.
(8) Secretary of Commerce.
(9) Secretary of Labor.
(10) Secretary of Health, Education. and
Welfare.
(b) Level II of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule ahall a_oply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $30,000:
(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(2) Undbr Secretary of State.
(3) Administrator, Agency for Interna-
tional Development.
(4) Administrator of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
(5) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
(6) Administrator of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
(7) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission.
(8) Chairman, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
(9) Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
(10) Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
(11) Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
(12) Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency.
(13) Director of the United States Infor-
mation Agency.
(14) Director of the Federal Bureau of
investigation. Department of Justice, so long
as the position is held by the present in-
cumbent.
(15) Director of Central Intelligence.
(e) Level III of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $29,000:
Cl) Deputy Attorney General.
(2) Deputy Postmaster General.
(3) Under Secretary of Agriculture.
(4) Under Secretary of Commerce.
(5) Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportation.
(6) Under Secretary of Health, Education.
and Welfare.
(7) Under Secretary ,)f the Interior.
(Si Under Secretary of Labor.
(9) Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs or Under Secretary of State for Eco-
nomic Affairs.
(10) Under Secretary of the Treasury.
(11) Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs.
(12) Secretary of the Air Force.
(13) Secretary of the Army.
(14) Secretary of the Navy.
(15) Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Agency.
(10) Administrator el General Services.
(171 Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
(18) Deputy Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs.
1191 Deputy Administrator. Agency for In-
ternational Development.
(20) Chairman of the National Mediation
Board.
(21) Chairman. Civil Aeronautics Board.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved Fore -9
(22) Chairman of the United States Civil
Service Commission.
(23) Chairman of the Railroad Retirement
Board.
(24) Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission.
(25) Chairman, Board of Directors, Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(26) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board.
(27) Chairman of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
(28) Chairman, Federal Power Commis-
sion.
(29) Chairman, Federal Trade Commis-
sion,
(30) Chairman, Interstate Commerce Com-
mission.
(31) Chairman, National Labor Relations
Board.
(32) Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(33) Chairman, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(34) Comptroller of the Currency.
(35) Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
(36) Director of Defense Research and En-
gineering, Department of Defense.
(37) Deputy Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(38) Deputy Director of the Bureau of the
Budget.
(39) Deputy Director of Central Intelli-
gence.
(40) Director of the Office of Emergency
Planning.
(41) Director of the Peace Corps.
(42) Chief Medical Director in the Depart-
ment of Medicine and Surgery of the Vet-
erans' Administration.
(43) Associate Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, Department of Justice,
so long as the position is held by the present
incumbent.
(44) Members, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion.
(45) Members, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
(46) Members, Council of Economic Ad-
visers.
(4'7) Director of National Science Founda-
tion.
(48) Deputy Administrator of the Housing
and Home Finance Agency.
(49) President, Export-Import Bank of
Washington.
(d) The President is authorized from time
to time to place offices and positions in levels
IV, V. and VI of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule in accordance with subsections (e),
(f), and (g) of this section. Each such ac-
tion shall be published in the Federal Regis-
ter, except when it is determined by the Pres-
ident that such publication would be con-
trary to the interest of national security.
(e) Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level IV in-
clude assistant secretaries of executive and
military departments, general counsels of
executive departments, members of regula-
tory boards and commissions, deputy heads
of large agencies, heads of certain agencies
and bureaus, and such other offices and posi-
tions the duties and responsibilities of which
he deems appropriate for this level. The an-
nual rate of basic compensation of such of-
fices and positions shall be $28,000.
(f) Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level V include
heads of principal services and such other
offices and positions the duties and responsi-
bilities of which he deems appropriate for
this level. The annual rate of basic com-
pensation of such offices and positions shall
be $27,000.
(g) Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level VI include
heads and board members of smaller agen-
cies, deputy heads of other agencies, and
such other offices and positions the duties
No. 117-15
and responsibilities of which he deems ap-
propriate for this level. The annual rate
of basic compensation for such offices and
positions shall be $26,000.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the members (other than the Chair-
man or President, as applicable, or the Comp-
troller of the Currency in his capacity as a
member of the Board of Directors of the Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation) of each
of the boards and commissions, the Chair-
man or President of which is placed in level
III of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule
by subsection (c) of this section, shall be
placed in level IV of such schedule.
SEC. 304. (a) Section 104 of title 3, United
States Code (relating to the compensation of
the Vice President), is amended by striking
out "$35,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$43,000".
(b) Section 105 of title 3, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
"I 105. Compensation of secretaries and ex-
ecutive, administrative, and. staff
assistants to President
"The President is authorized to fix the
compensation of the six administrative' as-
sistants authorized to be appointed under
section 106 of this title, of the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council,
and of eight other secretaries or other imme-
diate staff assistants in the White House
Office at rates of compensation not to ex-
ceed that of level II of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule.":
Conforming changes in existing law
SEC. 305. The following provisions of law
are hereby repealed:
(1) The Federal.Executive Pay Act of 1956,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), establish-
ing rates of basic compensation for heads of
executive departments and other Federal
officials.
(2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Army.
(3) Section 8013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary
of the Army at $20,000 a year.
(4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy.
(5) Section 6033(c) of title 10, United
States Code, providing the annual salary of
$20,000 a year for the Under Secretary of
the Navy.
(6) Section 304 of Public Law 87-651, ap-
proved September 7, 1962 (76 Stat. 526; 10
U.S.C. 5034, note), providing compensation
of $20,000 a year for Assistant Secretaries of
the Navy.
(7) Section 8012(g) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of $22,-
000 a year for the Secretary of the Air Force.
(8) Section 8013(b) of title LO, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of the
Under Secretary and each Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force at $20,000 a year.
? (9) Section 137(e) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the compensation of the
General Counsel of the Department of De-
fense at the rate prescribed by law for as-
sistant secretaries of executive departments.
(10) (A) The last sentence of section 22 a.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C,
2032(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of
the Chairman and members of such Com-
mission, which reads: "Each member, except
the Chairman, shall receive compen.satAon at
the rate of $22,000 per annum; and the mem-
ber designated as Chairman shall receive
compensation at the rate of $22,500 per
annum.".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 27 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1951
(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a) ), relating to
13065
the salary of the Chairman of the Military
Liaison Committee which reads: ", and who
shall receive compensation at the rate pre-
scribed for an Assistant Secretary of De-
fense".
(11) That part of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 861;
75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note) ?
(A) In section 2 (b) , relating to the annual
salary of the Director of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning, which reads: "and shall re-
ceive compensation at the rate now or here-
after prescribed by law for the heads of
executive departments";
(B) In section 2(c), relating to the annual
salary of the Deputy Director of such Office,
which reads: "shall receive compensation at
the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law
for the under secretaries referred to in sec-
tion 104 of the Federal Executive Pay Act of
1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203) ,"; and
(C) In section 2(d) relating to the annual
salaries of three Assistant Directors of such
Office, whioh reads: "shall receive compen-
sation at the rate now or hereafter prescribed
by law for assistant secretaries of executive
departments,".
(12) (A) That part of the second sentence
of section 202(a) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C.
2472(a) ), relating to the annual salary of
the Administrator of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, which
reads: ", and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $22,500 per annum".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 202(b) of such Act (72 Stat. 429; 42
U.S.C. 2472 (b) , relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Admin-
istration, which reads: ", shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $21,500 per annum,".
(13) (A) That part of section 201(f) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ), re-
lating to the annual salary of a civilian ex-
ecutive secretary in the National Aeronautics
and Space Council, which reads: "and shall
receive compensation at the rate of $20,000
a year".
(B) That part of section 204 of such Act
(72 Stat. 431, 432; 42 U.S.C. 2474(a) (1) , and
(d) ), relating to the annual salary of the
Chairman of the Civilian-Military Liaison
Committee, as follows:
In subsection (a) (1), that part which
reads: ", and shall receive compensation
(in the manner provided in subsection (d) )
at the rate of $20,000 per annum".
In the second sentence of subsection (d),
that part which reads: "fixed by subsection
(a) (1)".
(14) (A) That part of the second sentence
of section 2(a) of the Act of May 26, 1949
(63 Stat. 111; 5 U.S.C. 151b(a) ) as amended,
relating to the rank and salary of the Coun-
selor and of the Legal Adviser of the De-
partment of State, which reads: "and shall
receive the same salary as".
(B) The last sentence of section 2(a) of
the Act of May 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 111; 5
U.S.C. 151b(a) ) as amended, relating to the
rate of basic compensation of the Deputy
Under Secretaries of State, which reads; "Un-
less otherwise provided for by law, the rate
of basic compensation of the Deputy Under
Secretaries of State shall be the same as
that of Assistant Secretaries of State.".
(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as
emended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ) , re-
lating to the annual salary of the Under Sec-
retary of State for Political Affairs or for
Economia Affairs, as designated by the Pres-
ident, which reads: "shall receive compen-
sation at the rate of $22,000 a year and".
(15) The last sentence of section 210(a)
of title 38, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs, Veterans' Administration,
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June ii
which reads: "He shall receive a salary of
$21,000 a year, payable monthly.".
(16) (A) The last sentence of section 201
(a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 1321(a) (2)), relat-
ing to the annual salaries of the Chairman
and members of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
which reads: "Each member of the Board
shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000
per annum, except that the member serving.
as Chairman shall receive a salary at the rate
of $20,500 per annum.".
(B) That part of the second sentence of
section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744: 4E4
U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual sal-
ary of the Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency, which reads: ", and who shall
receive compensation at the rate of $22,500
per annum".
(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744: 49
U.S.C. 1342(a)), relating to the annual sal-
ary of the Deputy Administrator or such
Agency, which reads: "shall receive compen-
sation at the rate of $20.500 per annum,
and".
(17) (A) The last sentence of section 22 of
the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (75
Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2562), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Director of the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament Agen-
cy, which reads: "He shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $22,500 per annum.".
(B) The second sentence of section 23
of such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2563),
relating to the annual salary of the Deputy
Director of such Agency, which reads: "He
shall receive compensation at the rate of
821,500 per annum.".
(C) The second sentence of section 24 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 22 U.S.C. 2564). relat-
ing to the annual salaries of the four As-
sistant Directors of such Agency, which
reads: "They shall receive compensation at
the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2. 1955
(69 Stat. 10; 5 U.S.C. 204, 293, 295a), relating
to the annual salaries of certain officials of
the Department of Justice, which reads:
"Sec. 3. qa) The compensation of the Dep-
uty Attorney General shall be at the rate of
$21,000 per annum.
"(b) The compensation of the Solicitor
General shall be at the rate or $20.500 per
annum.
"(c) The compensation of each Assistant
Attorney General, other than the Admin-
istrative Assistant Attorney General, shall
be at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(19) (A) The last sentence of section 102
(c) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 7 of
1961 (75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note),
relating to the annual salaries of the Chair-
man and members of the Federal Maritime
Commission, which reads: "The Chairman
of the Commission shall receive a salary at
the rate of $20,500 per annum, and each
of the other Commissioners shall receive a
salary at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(B) That part of section 201 of such re-
organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
1332-15, note), relating to the annual salary
of the Maritime Administrator in the De-
partment of Commerce, which reads: "shall
receive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per
annum.".
(20) That part of the fourth sentence of
section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and
913; 15 U.S.C. 78d(a) ). relating to the an-
nual salaries of the Chairman and Commis-
sioners of the Securities and Exchange Com-
mission, which reads: "shall receive a salary
at the rate of $20,000 a year, except that the
chairman shall receive additional salary at
Vie rate of $500 a year and".
(21) Section 8 of the Food Additives
/ mendment of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5 U.S.C.
:105. note), fixing the annual salary of the
c mmissioner of Food and Drugs at $20.000
Par annum.
(22) That part of the first sentence of
section 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act (75
Stat. 48; 42 U.S.C. 2502), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Area Redevelopment Ad-
ministrator in the Department of Commerce,
which reads: "who shall receive compensa-
tion at a rate eqaul to that received by
Assistant Secretaries of Commerce".
(23) The last sentence of section 203(b)
(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (72
Stat. 520; 5 U.S.C. 171c(b) (I)). relating to
the annual salary of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering In the Department
of Defense, which reads: "The compensa-
tion of the Director is that preacribed by law
for the Secretaries of the military depart-
ments.".
124) In section 303(a) of title 23, United
States Code,
(A) That part of the second sentence.
relating to the annual salary of the Fed-
eral Highway Administrator in the Depart-
ment of Commerce, which reads: "shall re-
ceive basic compensation at the rate pre-
scribed by law for Assistant Secretaries of
executive departments and"; and -
(13) The last sentence. relating to the an-
nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway
Administrator in such department, which
reads: "The Deputy Federal Highway Ad-
ministrator shalt receive basic compensation
at a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided
for the Federal Highway Administrator..".
(25) The last proviso in the paragraph
under the heading "falai iGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE" and under the sub-
heading "SALARIES AND EXPENSIS" in the De-
partment of.Rtstice Appropriation Act, 1959
(72 Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206, note), relating
to the annual salary of the Commissioner of
the Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice, which reads: ": Provided further, That,
hereafter, the compensation of the Commis-
sioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service shall be $20,000 per annum".
(26) The second paragraph of section 3
of title 35, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Commissioner of
Patents which reads; "The annual rate of
compensation of the Commissioner shall be
$20,000.".
(27) That part of section 4(a) of the Peace
Corps Act (75 Stat. 612; 22 U.S.C. 2503 (a)),
relating to the annual salaries of the Director
and of the Deputy Director of the Peace
Corps. which reads: ", whose compensation
shall be fixed by the President at a rate not
in excess of $20,000 per annum," and ", whose
compensation shall be fixed by the President
at a rate not in excess of $19.500 per annum".
(28) (A) Section 308 of title 39, United
States Code, fixing the annual rate of basic
compensation of the position of Chief Postal
Inspector in the Post Office Department at
$19,000.
(B) That part of the table of contents of
chapter 3 of title 39. United States Code,
which reads as follows:
"308. Chief Postal Inspector.".
(29) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 4 of the International Travel Act pf
1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating
to the annual salary of the Director of the
United States Travel Service in the Depart-
ment of Commerce, which reads: "who shall
be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per
annum,".
(30) Section 14(b) of the Federal Em-
ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat.
716; 5 U S.C. 3013(b) ). which fixes the com-
pensation of the Executive Director of the
United States Civil Service Commission at
$19.000 per annum.
(31) That part of the amt sentence of
section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of
1951, as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C.
App. 1217(c) 1, relating to the annual salary
of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation
Board, which reads: ", and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of 519.000 per an-
num".
(32)(A) That part of the third sentence
in section 201(a) of the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1963 (74 Stat. 538: 40
U.S.C. 681(a)), relating to the annual salary
of the Administrator of the National Capital
Transportation Agency, which reads: ", and
who shall receive compensation at a rate
equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act o..
f 1949, as amended, plus $500 per an-
num(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538: 40
U.S.C. 661(b) ), relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency.
which reads: ", and who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to the maximum
rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949. as amended-.
(33) The last sentence of section 624(d)
(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75
Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(d ) (1)1, as amended,
fixing the compensation of certain officials
In the Department of State, which reads:
"The Inspector General, Foreign Assistance,
shall receive compensation at the rate of
$20,000 annually; the Deputy Inspector Gen-
eral, Foreign Assistance, shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $20,000 annually,
and each Assistant Inspector General, For-
eign Assistance, shall receive compensation
at the rate of $19,000 annually.".
(34) That part of section 202 of the Act
of July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 6 U.S.C. 623g),
relating to the annual salary of the Admin-
istrative Assistant Secretary of Health. Edu-
cation, and Welfare, winch reads: ", and
whose annual rate of basic compensation
shall be $19,000".
(35) That, part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1963, under the heading
"DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and
under the caption "Boileau or RECLAMATION"
and the subheading "ADMINISTRATIVE PROVI-
SIONS" (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 373a-1). re-
lating to the annual salary of the present in-
cumbent of the position cf Commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads:
"After September 30, 1962, the position of
Commissioner of Reclama-Aon shall have the
annual rate of compensat:on as provided for
positions listed in section 2205(a) of title
5, United States Code, so long as held by the
present incumbent.".
(36) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1962, under the heading
"DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and
under the caption "BONNEVILLE POWER Ao-
muelsreareast" and the subheading "CON-
sTaucrxoN" (75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1).
relating to the annual sa,ary of the present
incumbent of the position of Administrator.
Bonneville Power Administration, which
reads:
"After October I, 1961, the position of
Administrator, Bonneville Power Adminis-
tration, shall have the same annual rate of
compensation as that provided for positions
listed in section 2205(b) of title 5, United
States Code, so long as held by the present
incumbent.".
(37) Section 205 of the Public Works
Appropriation Act. 1968 (71 Stat. 423; 5
U.S.C. 483-1 note, 2208 note), as amended.
relating to the salary of the present incum-
bent of the position of Administrator of the
Southwestern Power Administration in the
Department of the Interior, and to the sal-
ary of the Administrative Assistant Secretary
of such Department, which reads:
"Suc. 205. After August 31, 1957, the salary
of the Administrator of the Southwestern
Power Administration shall be the same as
the salary of the Administrator of the Bonne-
ville Power Administration, so long as held
by the present incumbent; and the salary
of the Administrative Assistant Secretary
of the Department shall be the-same as the
Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.".
(38) The provisio in the first paragraph
under the heading "Ftesast. BUREAU OF IN-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved FtrcReinsMit/1fieclit-BDIDENN9s4R3R000500050001-9 13067
1964
VESTIGATION" and under the subheading
"SALARIES AND EXPENSES" in the Department
of Justice Appropriation Act, 1964 (77 Stat.
782; Public Law 88r245), relating to the an-
nual salary of the present incumbent of the
position of Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, which reads: ": PrOvided,
That the compensation of the Director of the
Bureau shall be $22,000 per annum so long
as the position is held by the present in-
cumbent" and provisions to the same _effect
contained in other appropriation Acts en-
acted prior to the effective date of this
section relating to the annual salary of the
present incumbent of the position of Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(39) That part of section 7801(b)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, relating to the annual salary of
the Assistant General Counsel of the Treas-
ury Department who shall be the Chief
Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service,
which reads: "and shall receive basic com-
pensation at the annual rate of $19,000".
(40) (A) Sections 3018, 5014, and 8018 of
title 10, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the general counsels of the
military departments.
(B) The respective tables of contents of
chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 10, United
States Code, are amended by striking out
"3018. Compensation of General Counsel.";
"5014. Compensation of General Counsel.";
and
"8018. Compensation of Generid. Counsel.".
(41) The proviso contained in the first
sentence of section 5(d) of the Farm Credit
Act of 1953, as amended (75 Stat. 793; 12
U.S.C. 636d(d) ), relating to the annual sal-
aries for not more than three positions of
deputy governor each shall be fixed by the
istration, ,g(rhich reads: ": Provided, That the
salary of not more than three positions of
deputy governor each shall be fixed by the
Board at a rate not exceeding the maximum
scheduled rate of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended".
(42) (A) That part of section 2(a) of
Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1962
(76 Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note), re-
lating to the compensation of the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology, which
reads: "and shall receive compensatien at
the rate of $22,500 per annum". -
(B) That part of section 2(b) of such
reorganization plan .('76 Stat. 1263; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating to the compensa-
tion of the Deputy Director of the Office of
Science and Technology, which reads: "and
receive compensation at the rate of $20,500
per annum".
(C) That part of section 22(a) of such
reorganization plan (76 Stat. 1255; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note) , relating to the compensation
of the Director of the National Science
Foundation, which reads: "shall receive
compensation at the rate of $21,000 per
annum and".
(43) That part of section 624(a) of the
Foreign Ashistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447;
22 U.S.C. 2384(a) ), relating to the compen-
sation of twelve officers in the agency primar-
ily responsible for administering part I of
such Act, which reads: "of whom-
"(1) one shall have the rank of an Under
Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate
not to exceed the rate authorized by law
for any Under Secretary of an Executive De-
partment;
"(2) one shall have the rank of Deputy
Under Secretary and shall be compensated
at a rate not to exceed the rate atuhorized
by law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an
Executive Department; and
"(3) ten shall have the rank of Assistant
Secretaries and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized by
law for any Assistant Secretary of an Execu-
tive Department".
(41) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 104(b) of the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act (66 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104(b) ), re-
lating to the rank and compensation of the
Administrator, Bureau of Security and Con-
sular Affairs, which reads: "and compensa-
tion".
SEC. 306. (a) (1) Section 508 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
? 508. Salaries.
"Subject to subsection (d) of section 303 of
the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964,
the Attorney General shall fix the annual
salaries of United States attorneys, assistant
United States attorneys, and attorneys ap-
pointed under section 503 of this title at
rates of compensation not in excess of the
highest rate of grade 18 of the General Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended.".
(2) Subject to sections 303(d) and 501 (a)
and (c) of this Act, each incumbent United
States attorney and assistant United States
attorney shall be paid compensation at a
rate equal to that of attorneys of compa-
rable responsibility and professional quali-
fications, as determined by the Attorney Gen-
eral, whose compensation is prescribed in the
General Schedule of the Classification Act of
1949, as amended.
(b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 22 U.S.C.
866), relating to the per annum salaries of
chiefs of mission, is amended by striking out
the second sentence of that section and in-
serting in lieu thereof the following: "The
per annum salaries of chiefs of mission with-
in each class shall be at the rate provided by
law for the levels of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule as follows: class 1, the rate
for level II; class 2, the rate for level III.
class 3, the rate for level IV; and class 4,
the rate for level V.".
(c) That part of section 201(f) of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(f) ) , fixing a
limit of $19,000 on the compensation of seven
persons in the National Aeronautics and
Space Council, is amended by striking out
"compensated at the rate of not more than
$19,000 a year," and inserting in lieu thereof
"compensated at not to exceed the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,".
(d) Clause (A) "of section 203 (b) (2) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2) ) ,
as amended, is amended to read as follows:
(A) to the extent the Administrator deems
such action necessary to the discharge of
his responsibilities, he may appoint not
more than four hundred and twenty-five
of the scientific, engineering, and adminis-
trative personnel of the Administration
without regard to such laws, and may fix
the compensation of such personnel not in
excess of the highest rate of grade '18 of
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended, and".
(e) Section 6(f) of the Act of September
24, 1959 (73 Stat. 706; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f) ) , re-
lating to the maximum compensation payable
to employees of the Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations, is amended
by striking out "at a rate in excess of $20,-
000 per annum" and by inserting in lieu
thereof "at a rate in excess of the rate pro-
vided by law for level VI of the Federal Ex-
ecutive Salary Schedule".
(f) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is further amended as follows:
(1) In the last sentence of section 24 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034
(a) ), relating to the annual salary of the
General Manager of such Commission, (A)
by inserting "and" immediately before "shall
be removable by the Commission" and (B)
by striking out that part which reads: ",
and shall receive compensation at a rate
determined by the Commission, but not in
excess of $22,000 per annuni";
(2) In the last sentence of section 24 b.
(71 Stat. 612, 42 U.S.C. 2034(b) ), relating
to the annual salary of the Deputy General
Manager of such Commission, (A) by insert-
ing "and" immediately before "shall be re-
movable by the General Manager" and (B)
by striking out that part which reads:
and shall receive compensation at a rate
determined by the General Manager, but not
in excess of $20,500 per annum";
(3)1n the last sentence of section 24 c.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c) ), relating
to the annual salaries of the Assistant Gen-
eral Managers (or their equivalents) of
such Commission, (A) by inserting "and"
immediately before "shall be removable by
the General Manager" and (B) by striking
out that part which reads: ", and shall re-
ceive compensation at a rate determined by
the General Manager, but not in excess of
$20,000 per annum";
(4) In the second sentence of section 25 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035
(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di-
rectors of program divisions of such Com-
mission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at
a rate determined by the Commission, but
not in excess of $19,000 per annum";
(5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat.
612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(b) ), relating to the an-
nual salary of the General Counsel of such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at
a rate determined by the Comlnission, but
not in excess of $19,500 per annum";
(6) In the first sentence of section 25 C.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035
(c) ) , relating to the annual salary of the
Director of the Inspection Division in such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at a
'rate determined by the Commission, but not
in excess of $19,000 per annum";
(7) In the last sentence of section 25 d.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(d) ), relating
to the annual salaries of certain executive
management positions in such Commission,
(A) by inserting "and" immediately before
"shall be removable by the General Manager"
and (B) by striking out that part which
reads: "; and shall receive compensation at
a rate determined by the General Manager,
but not in excess of $19,000 per annum"; and
(8) _In the second sentence of section 28
,(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2038), relating -to
the compensation of the active member of
the Armed, Forces serving as Director of the
Division of Military Application in such Coro-
mission, by striking out that part which reads
"and the compensation prescribed in sec-
tion 25" and inserting in lieu thereof, "and
the compensation for directors of other pro-
gram divisions".
(g) Section 2 of the Act of July 30, 1946,
as amended (60 Stat. 712; 70 Stat. 740; 22
U.S.C. 287n) , relating to the compensation
of the United States representatives and
alternates at sessions of the General Con-
ference of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is
amended by striking out "Such representa-
tives and alternates shall each be entitled to
receive compensation at such rates, not to
exceed $15,000 per annum, as the President
may determine," and inserting in lieu thereof
"Such representatives and alternates shall
each be entitled to receive compensation at
such rates provided by section 412 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended, as
the President may determine,".
(h) Section 2 of the Act of July 1, 1947
(61 Stat. 215; 22 U.S.C. 289a), relating to the
compensation of the United States repre-
sentatives and alternates at sessions of the
general council and at sessions of the execu-
tive committee of the International Refugee
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE June ii
Organization, is amended by striking out
"Such representative or representatives shall
each be entitled to receive compensation at
a rate not to exceed $12,0110 per annum, and
any such alternate shall be entitled to receive
compensation at a rate not to exceed $10.000
per annum," and inserting In lieu thereof
"Such representative or representatives, and
any such alternate, shall be entitled to re-
ceive compensation at one of the rates pro-
vided by section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946, as amended."
(i) The third sentence of section 2 of the
Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C.
402, note), is amended to read as follows:
"Except as provided in subsection (d) of
section 303 of the Federal Executive Salary
Act of 1964, no officer or employee of the
National Security Agency shall be paid basic
compensation at a rate in excess of the
highest rate of basic compensation contained
In such General Schedule.".
(j) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of
July 25, 1958 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code. secs.
1-204a and 1-204b), relating to the compen-
sation of the Commissioners of the District
of Columbia, are amended to read as follows:
"SEe. 2. Except as otherwise provided by
this section and section 3 of this Act?
"(1) the compensation of the Commission-
ers of the District of Columbia shall be at
the rate of $26,500 each per annum; and
"(2) the Commissioner detailed from the
Corps of Engineers of the United States Army
shall receive an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he receives
as an officer of the United States Army, will
equal the compensation authorized by para-
graph (1) of this section.
"Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of law?
"(1) the compensation of the President of
the Board of Commissioners of the District of
Columbia shall be at the rate of $27,000 per
annum; and
"(2) if the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army is chosen President of the Board of
Commissioners, he shall receive. as President
of the Board, an annual compensation which,
when added to any compensation he receives
as an officer of the United States Army, will
equal the compensation authorized by para-
graph (1) of this section.".
(2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief judge and the associate judges of
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Is
amended?
(A) by striking out "$19,000" and inserting
in lieu thereof "$26,000"; and
(B) by striking out "$18,500" and inserting
in lieu thereof "$25,500".
(3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rates of annual salary
of the chief Judge and the associate Judges
of the District of Columbia Court of Gen-
eral Sessions, is amended?
(A) by striking out "$18,000" and inserting
In lieu there "625,000"; and
(B) by striking out "$17,500" and inserting
in lieu thereof "$24,500".
(4) The first sentence of the second para-
graph of section 2 of the District of Columbia
Revenue Act of 1937, as amended (D.C. Code.
sec. 47-2402), relating to the compensation
of the person appointed to the District of
Columbia Tax Court, is amended by striking
out "$17,500" and inserting in lieu thereof
"$24,500".
(5) That part of the salary schedule In
section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach-
ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (76 Stat.
1229; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501). relating to the
compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools, of the District of Columbia, which
reads:
"Class 1: Superintendent of Settools 1$19,1100 I
Class 2: Lleptity Superintendent ! 18,500 I
is amended to read as followe:
----- I - - -
"Class I: Superintendent of Sciusds...I$A8, OW I
I I
Cleiis 2: Ifepety Superintendent---.1 22,000 I
(6) That part of the salary schedule in
section 101 of the District of Columbia Police
and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
480), as amended (sec. 4-828, et seq.. D.C.
"('lass 10
18,200
Chief of Pollee."
Fee Chief. ('hid
17.000 1 17,400 17,800 I
is amended to read as follows:
"Class 11
Fee Chief.
Chief of Police.'' , 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500
I "
Code, 1961 edition), reb.ting to the compen-
sation of the Fire Chief and Chief of Police,
which reads:
(k) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of
title 10, United States Code, Is amended by
striking out ":compensation",
(2) The table of contents of chapter 303
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by; compensa-
tion."
and inserting In lieu thereof
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by.".
(3) The catchline of section 5031 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(4) The table of contents of chapter 505 of
such title 10 is amended by striking out
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibil-
ities; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsi-
bilities.".
(5) The catchline of section 5033 of such
title 10 Is amended by striking out "; corn-
pense t ion".
(6) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap-
pointment; duties; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: appoint-
ment; duties.",
(7) The catchline of section 8012 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(Eli The table of contents of chapter 803
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties: delegation by; compen-
sation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation by.".
CHANGES IN POSITION TITLES
Sec. 307. Whenever reference Is made in
any law or reorganization plan to the?
administrative Assistant Attorney General,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Interior,
Administrative Assistant. Secretary of
Agriculture.
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Labor.
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury,
or
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Health. Education. and Welfare,
such reference shall be held and considered
to mean the
Assistant Attorney General for Admin-
istration,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Administration,
18,600 19,000
' 23,000 23,500
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Administration, or
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare for Administration,
respectively.
LIMITATION ON SALARIES FIXED DY ADMINISTRA-
TIVE ACTION
SEC. 308. Except as provided by this Act and
notwithstanding the provisions of any other
law, the head of any executive department,
Independent establishment, or agency in the
executive branch who is authorized to fix by
administrative action the annual rate of
basic compensation for any position, officer,
or employee shall not fix such rate in excess
of the highest rate of grade 18 of the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949,
as amended. Nothing contained in this sec-
tion shall be construed to impair the au-
thorities provided in the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949, as amended (50 U.S.C.
403a and following), in section 3 of the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C.
831b), in section 9 of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819), or im section
5240 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481,
relating to the Comptro:ler of the Currency).
POSITIONS PLACED UNDER CLASSIFICATION ACT
OF 1949
SEC. 300. Each office or position in the
executive branch specifically referred to in,
or covered by, any conforming change in law
made by section 305 of this Act which is not
placed in a level of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303 of
this Act, shall be placed in the appropriate
grade of the General Schedule of the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949, as amended, in accord-
ance with the provisions a such Act.
SAVING PRCVISIONS
SEC. 310. (a) Except as provided by this Act,
the changes in existing law made by this Act
shall not affect any office or position existing
immediately prior to the effective date of
any such changes in existing law, the com-
pensation attached to such office or position,
and any incumbent thereof, his appointment
thereto, and his entitlement to receive the
compensation attached thereto, until appro-
priate action is taken in accordance with this
Act or other law.
(b) Nothwithstanding any provision of this
Act, the rate of basic, gross, or total annual
compensation received by any officer or em-
ployee immediately prior to the effective date
of this section shall notbe reduced by reason
of enactment of this Act.
Mr. MURRAY (during the reading of
title III). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the further reading
of title III be dispensed with and that
it be printed in the RECORD and be open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
title III.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For gegougm ity830661En8MR000500050001-9
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JOHANSEN
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JOHANSEN: On
page 67, line 20, strike out all of subsection
(j) down through the material which fol-
lows line 11 on page 70; and on page 70, line
12, strike out "(k)" and insert in lieu thereof
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the
effect of this amendment is to eliminate
all of the officials of the municipal gov-
ernment of the District of Columbia,from
the provisions of this bill.
I direct your attpntion first of all to
the fact that this is a provision of the
bill and a provision that was added to this
bill which not only was not included in
the March 12 bill but which was specifi-
cally rejected on March 12 when it was
offered as an amendment.
It is completely true that since March
12 hearings were held on this subject
matter by the Committee on the Dis-
trict of Columbia, but this bill comes to
the floor of the House today under the
sponsorship and under the aegis of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service.
This is one of the features of this bill
which as a result of the ramrod and
railroad procedures followed in the com-
mittee was not a subject of any hearings
or any testimony nor was there any op-
portunity for discussion.
I would like to point out a further fact
with respect to this provision in this
subsection of the bill. Here is an area
in which the principle of comparability
can be reduced to as near an exact sci-
ence as any segment or any section of
this entire bill. What happens to com-
parability under these provisions?
I invite the attention of the House,
and I am going to read some extracts
from page 7 of the minority views. I
point out the fact that the District offi-
cials in many instances are now above
comparability and that this section of
the bill would aggravate and would add
to and further distort the excessive com-
parability that is involved.
Consider the matter of the District of
Columbia Commissioners who would be
paid $7,500 a year more or a salary of
$26,500 under this bill. They would re-
ceive more compensation than the
mayors in 16 out of the 21 largest cities
In the United States with only 4 cities
paying their mayors higher salaries.
The District of Columbia Police Chief
who now earns a salary or can earn a
salary up to $19,000 a year is presently
the eighth highest paid police chief in
all cities in the United States of over
one-half million population. If the sal-
ary is raised to a maximum of $23,500,
as provided in this section, only the po-
lice chiefs in Chicago and New York and
Los Angeles will be paid more.
The District of Columbia Fire Chief
fares even better. His present max!-
mum salary of $19,000 makes him the
sixth highest paid fire chief in all cities
of over 500,000 population. If his sal-
ary is permitted to go to a maximum of
$23,500, as provided in this section, he
will be the third highest paid fire chief
in the United States, outranked only by
the fire chiefs in Chicago and Los
Angeles.
This is comparability with a ven-
geance, I submit to my colleagues.
Listen also to this. The judges of the
District of Columbia court of general
sessions at their present salary of $17,-
500 now earn more money than the
judges in comparable general trial courts
in 25 of our States.
I invite the attention of the commit-
tee to this?we have been talking about
comparability, the kind that has a half-
billion-dollar leeway one way or the
other.
If the salaries of the judges of the
District of Columbia Court of General
Sessions are increased, as proposed in
this bill, to $24,500, they will be receiving
more money than comparable judges in
44 of our States.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MORRISON. . Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this provision affects
fewer than 31 people in the District of
Columbia. The 3 Commissioners, 23
judges, 2 school superintendents, the
chief of police, and the fire chief. The
total cost will be less than $200,000.
The chairman of the Committee on
the District of Columbia of the House
states that his committee held extensive
hearings on these increases, and I should
like to yield to him at this time.
Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana
yielding to me for a few minutes.
I wish to say that there has been great
confusion in the District of Columbia
since the pay raise bill of two years ago
was passed. At the present time there
are five clerks in the District of Colum-
bia who receive more salary than the
District Commissioners. This is a bad
situation and the fault of the House of
Representatives, since the salary in-
crease bill passed 2 years ago by the
House increased the salaries of the clerks
to rates higher tharr9he District Com-
missioners salary.
We have only three District Commis-
sioners and they are supposed to be the
head of the District of Columbia execu-
tive branch of the Government. It was
my understanding that when this form
of government was created approximate-
ly 100 years ago the Commissioners were
to be the chief executives and to receive
the highest salaries paid any employees
in the executive branch of the District
Government.
I may state that some of us do not
agree with everything or all the regula-
tions issued by the Commissioners.
Some of us do riot agree with all the
decisions rendered by the judges in the
District. If we are to have good judges
and good commissioners we should take
care of this situation by accepting this
provision of the pay bill. ,
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
urge that the amendment be voted down.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
13069
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the House ought to understand that
no hearings whatever were held by the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice with regard to including officials and
employees of the District of Columbia.
For the life of me I do-not understand
why members of our committee were
not even notified that the Committee on
the District of Columbia was holding
hearings on this provision which has
been inserted in the bill, If we are going
to be responsible for legislation brought
to the House, it seems to me we should
have had some testimony presented from
the District government with respect to
justification of these salary increases.
This is a sad and sorry way in which to
legislate.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Would the gentle-
man not agree that the issue here is not
a question of whether it involves a few
hundred thousand dollars of additional
money, but the issue is the pattern of
excessive payment which is set forth and
the abuse of the principle of compara-
bility which, if we accept it in this in-
stance, will become a pattern for other
abuses of a similar type?
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman is ex-
actly correct, and I support the amend-
ment he has offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. JOHANSEN)
there were?ayes 32, noes 122.
So the amendment was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV?FEDERAL JUDICIAL SALARIES
SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the
"Federal' Judicial Salary Act of 1964".
Sm. 402. (a) 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 pursu-
ant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a of
section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.
102(a) (2) ), section 3656 of title 18, United
States Code, the third sentence of section
603, section 604(a) (5), or sections 672 to 675,
inclusive, of title 28, United States Code, are
hereby increased by amounts which reflect
the respective applicable increases provided
by title I of this Act in corresponding rates
of compensation for officers and employees
subject to the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended.
(b) The limitations provided by applica-
ble law on the effective date of this section
with respect to the aggregate salaries pay-
able to secretaries and law clerks of circuit
and district judges are hereby increased by
amounts whioh reflect the respective ap-
plicable increases provided by title I of this
Act in corresponding rates of compensation
for officers and employees subject to the
Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
(c) Section 753(e) of title 28, United
States Code (relating to the compensation of
court reporters for district courts), is
amended by striking out the existing salary
limitation contained therein and inserting
a new limitation which reflects the respec-
tive applicable increases provided by title I
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For EdeltsBisMpar itieblEf66%9614R000500050001-9
1 June 1
3070,
of this Act in corresponding ratee of com-
pensation for officers and employees subject
to the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.
(di Section 40a of the Bankruptcy Act
(11 USC. 88(a)), as amended, relating to
the compensation of full-time and part-
time referees in bankruptcy, is amended by
striking out the existing compensation limi-
tations contained therein and Inserting new
limitations of "1122.500" and "$11,000",
respectively.
SEC. 403. (a) Section 5 of title 28, United
States Code, relating to the salaries of the
Chief Justice of the United States and of
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
of the United States, is amended by striking
out "$35.500" and substituting therefor
"$43,000", and by striking out "$35,000" and
substituting therefor "$42,500".
(b) Section 44(d) of title 28, United
States Code, relating to circuit judges, is
amended by striking out "$25.500" and sub-
stituting therefor "$33,000".
(c) Section 135 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to district judges, is amended
by striking out "$22,500" and substituting
therefor "$30,000", and by striking out
"a23,000" and substituting therefor "$30,-
500".
(d) Section 173 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Court of
Claims. is amended by striking out "$25,500"
and substituting therefor "$33,000".
(e) Section 213 of title 28. 'United States
Code, relating to judges of the Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals, is amended by
striking out "$25,500" and substituting
therefor "833,000".
(f) Section 252 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Customs
Court, is amended by striking out "t22,500"
and 'substituting therefor "$30.000".
(g) The first paragraph of section 803 of
title 28, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the Director and the Deputy
Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts, is amended to read as
follows:
"The Director shall receive a salary of
$28,000 a year. The Deputy Director shall
receive a salary of $27,000 a year."
(h) Subsection (b) of Election 792 of title
28, United States Code, relating to the com-
pensation of commissioners of the Court of
Claims, is-amended to read as follows:
"(b) Each commissioner shall receive
basic compensation at the rate of $27.000 a
year, and also all necessary traveling expenses
and a per diem allowance as provided in
the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended.
while traveling on official business and away
from Waehington. District of Columbia."
(i) Sect!On 7443(c) of the Internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954 (88A Stat. 8791. as
amended, relating to judges of the Tax Court
of the United States. Is further amended by
striking out "$22,500" and substituting
therefor "$30,000".
(j) Section 887(a) (1) of title 10, United
States Code, relating to judges of the Court
of Military Appeals, is amended by striking
out "$25,500" and substituting therefor
"$33,000".
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the further
reading of title IV be dispensed with
and that it be open to amendment at
any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
'There was no objection.
AMENDMENT Okk ED BY MR. UDALL
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chariman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. UDALL: On
page 78. immediately following line 2, in-
sert the following new title:
"I./TUC lb?PERMANENT SYSTEM FOR THIC ES-
TABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PROPER
SALARY RELATIONSHIPS IN FEDERAL EXECUTIVE,
JUDICIAL, CONGRESSIONAL, ASO CAREER BALA..
RIES
"Sec. 501. (a) It is the sense of the Con-
gress that?
"(1) the salary relationships established
by this Act among and between the salary
rates of?
"(Al the General Schedule of the Cies-
aification Act of 1940. as amended, and the
Postai Field Service Schedule, in title I,
"(13) Members of Congress and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives in
title II.
"(Cl Federal executives in title III, and
"(Di Federal judges in title IV, are con-
sistent with the principle of comparability
of Federal and private enterprise salaries
contained in the Federal Salary Reform Act
of 1982. and
? "121 such salary relationships should be
maintained and continued, In principle, in
the future in the interest of maximum ef-
ficiency in the Government.
"(b) In accordance with the policy stated
in subsection (a) of this section. whenever
the Congress shall increase by law the salary
rates of the General Schedule of the Clas-
sification Act of 1049, as amended, the sal-
ary rate of each office or position within
the purview of sections 203 and 304 of title
IT, sections 303 and 304 of title III, and sec-
tion 403 of title IV. of this Act, shall be in-
creased automatically, In accordance with
the effective date provisions applicable to
the increases so made by the Congress in the
salary rates of such schedule, by a percent-
age equal to the greater of?
"(1) the percentage of the increase so
made by the Congress in the maximum sal-
ary rate of such schedule, or
"(2) the average percentage of the in-
creases so made by the Congress in the re-
spective maximum salary rates of all grades
of such schedule."
And on page 78. lines 3 and 4, redesignate
"TITLE V" and "Sec. 501." RS "liaLE VI"
and "Sec. 801.", respectively.
(Mr. UDALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UDALL. Ntr. Chairman, this
amendment falls on the last page of this
bill, so I think it is apparent that we are
nearing the end of the consideration of
amendments. I will not attempt to pass
this off as a 'little, old, unimportant
amendment. I think it is an important
amendment. I think it significantly tin-
proves the bill, and I ask that the com-
mittee adopt It. I pointed out just a
little while ago that since 1866 in the ad-
ministration of Andrew Johnson we have
had four raises for the Members of Con-
gress. and I suspect we have had about
the same number for Cabinet members,
heads of departments, and the other top
people that really make this important
Government run. Now, this is ridiculous.
This explains why we are in this situa-
tion which we have this year. The con-
gressional and executive and judicial
salaries have been a part of this vicious
cycle I wrote all of you about in this
"Dear Colleague" letter yesterday. We
make regular adjustments in career sal-
aries every year of 2 years, but We wait 15
years on the average before we make any
adjustment in congressional or Cabinet
or top executive salaries. The result is
that we get so far behind on what an
adequate salary might be that we corn-
Promise. In 1955, when the last raise
was put into effect, President Eisen-
hower's commission recommended a
$30,000 salary for Cabinet members ant!
a $27,500 salary for Members of Con-
gress. This was compromised and com-
promised until we ended up with the in-
adequate salary which we have today.
The Randall Commission recom-
mended last year that Cabinet salaries
be $50,000; congressional salaries $35,000.
And so we water down and compromise
because we are so far behind that it
takes a big bite to catch up, and then
the cycle starts all over again. The
hard fact of the matter is that the sal-
aries we adopt in this bill will probably
be in effect until 1980 if we follow the
old history. I want to break this cycle.
I want to set up a new system whereby
we have orderly, small adjustments and
keep this whole Federal pay structure
In proportion.
We are establishing in this bill a struc-
ture for every single Federal employee
from the top to the bottom, and if we be-
gin to distort it in fuaire years at the
bottom and in the middle without keep-
ing the top salaries in proportion we are
going to be right back where we are to-
day.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield for a parlia-
mentary inquiry?
Mr. UDALL. I yield
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I am not going to speak on the amend-
ment. We were on title IV, and I
thought I understood the gentleman to
say that he had an amendment to title
IV.
Mr. UDALL. This is a new title, title
V. following the end of title IV, and then
we renumber the following sections.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no
Inquiry as I recall it from the Chair
asking whether there were any amend-
ments to title IV.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman would
have to address his inquiry to the Chair;
I cannot help him.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The reason for
the parliamentary inquiry is this. Have
we passed title IV or have we not?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair under-
stands that this Is a new title. If there
are further amendments to title IV, they
will be in order.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the
Chair.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
want to commend the gentleman for his
dedication, his thoroughness and the tre-
mendous effort he has put forth on this
whole salary problem. I see no reason
why we should not proceed and adopt
his amendment.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Ur. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I, too,
would like to commend the gentleman on
what I think is a splendid amendment.
I would like to recommend it, particu-
larly to the people on this side of the
aisle. I believe it will end future embar-
rassment and will do a great deal to pre-
vent the distortion that the gentleman
spoke of.
I strongly urge the adoption of this
amendment.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
?
Approved Foa EM-PNR000500050001-9
3gtiv egoR utflis)
Mr. UDALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the lady from
New York.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I
also would like to add my commendation
to those of my colleagues of the gentle-
man. I think this is a splendid amend-
ment. I think it carries out a theory
that I have long championed. In fact,
all the years I have been in the Congress
I have urged that these things should be
done on an automatic basis so that we
are not caused this embarrassment, so
that the salary structure should not get
completely out of kilter. I think it is a
splendid amendment and I certainly
hope the Committee and the House will
adopt it.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield.
Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the gentleman how is
this comparability to be determined?
Mr. UDALL. The adjustments in the
executive, legislative, and judicial sal-
aries will be made to cover the Federal
salary structure in proportion. If the
top of the Classification Act, let us say
GS-18, is raised 3 percent, then we would
raise Cabinet officers, sub-Cabinet offi-
cers and department heads and Mem-
bers of Congress 3 percent. The formula
is a little more complicated than that,
but that is the essence of it.
Mr. MORTON. The gentleman real-
izes, looking at it from the other side
of the street, that in industry a great
many industrial salaries are determined
as to comparability on Federal salaries
and that under the gentleman's amend-
ment we could get into a vicious cycle
and have the salary structure escalated
not on a sound economic basis but by
one force being against another.
Mr. UDALL. I do not understand
that there is any comparability cam=
parison that is made between legislative,
executive and judicial salaries in the
Federal Establishment and salaries in
private industry.
Mr. MORTON. Many private-indus-
try salaries are determined as to their
comparability by Federal salaries.
The CHAIRMAN. In response to the
earlier inquiry of the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM], the Chair
will state to the gentleman if he has an
amendment or if there is any other
amendment to title IV of the bill, it must
be presented and voted on at this time
before the vote is taken on the amend-
ment which has been offered by the gen-
tleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I have no amendments. I just wanted
to make sure that if anyone did have an
amendment, we had not gone beyond the
consideration of title IV.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend hth re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. UDALL] a question or two. Why
was this amendment not submitted in
committee when the bill was considered
there? This appears to be a far-reaching
proposal.
Mr. UDALL. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. GROSS. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. Well, I would respond to
the gentleman's question by saying that
this whole problem of freezing top
salaries for the past 15 or 20 years has
concerned me since we originally took
up the consideration of this legislation.
I tried another proposal out on the mem-
bers of the committee and did not ob-
tain a very enthusiastic response. In
fact, my feelings were hurt. That pro-
posal was the establishment of this Com-
mission. Then it seems to me that per-
haps this formula as contained in the
amendment which I have offered today
was the answer. I began to work it up.
We had drafting difficulties and we had
other technical difficulties. I did not get
it ready until after consideration of this
measure in the committee.
Mr. GROSS. Let me ask the gentle-
man if it is not true that we have no
testimony whatever from representa-
tives of the Federal judiciary, from rep-
resentatives of the executive branch of
Government with respect to this amend-
ment? ?
Mr. UDALL. If the gentleman will
-yield further, I have a letter from the
Comptroller General of the United
States, dated June 8, just .2 days ago, in
which he has analyzed this amendment
and says that it does what I say it will
do and, in effect, approves it.
Mr. GROSS. I do not doubt that it
will do what you say it will do, but I
would like to know more about it, and
I think the Members of the House ought
to know exactly what is going to happen
under the terms of this amendment. I
never heard of the amendment until a
few moments ago. Perhaps it is incon-
sequential, but I would like to know what
the Civil Service Commission thinks of
a proposition of this kind.
The amendment goes far beyond
Members of Congress. It includes the
Federal judiciary and the entire execu-
tive branch of Government, as I under-
stand it.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. GROSS. Yes, of course.
Mr. UDALL. I have not had any offi-
cial communications but I have discussed
this with the Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission and with the Deputy
Director of the Bureau of the Budget and
they have both indicated to me that they
think it is a fine proposal.
Mr. GROSS. This is another in a
series of unusual proceedings dealing
with this pay increase legislation.
I hold in my hand a copy of the hear-
ings of the Senate Post Office and Civil
Service Committee. They have held and
apparently concluded hearings on this
bill, H.R. 11049. How they got H.R.
11049 I do not know, because this bill is
still to be passed, if it is, by the House
this afternoon. It is not possible to have
much stranger procedure and proceed-
ings than those in connection with this
pay increase. Apparently, the Senate
13071
having closed its hearings likewise, will
not have hearings on the gentleman's
amendment. It may have merit. I do
not know. I will have to oppose it, not
knowing its ramifications.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I am not going to take the full 5
minutes, but moving as fast as we are
here and judging from the 'looks cif
things, I am very doubtful that we will
have a rollcall vote on this bill. I arn
going to ask for one and hope we get
it. However, I want to announce that
I am opposed to the bill and I hope I
get an opportunity to vote against it on
a record vote. I reiterate urhat I said
when I voted against the bill on March
12, that the legislative branch should not
be included in this bill, but should be
handled in separate legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say in re-
sponse to the gentleman from Arizona
, [Mr. UDALL] who a minute ago talked
about the great amount of care and con-
sideration which was given to this pay
bill by the Committee on Post Office anr:1
Civil Service, I wonder what considera-
tion was given to the formula that we
have in operation here in the House of
Representatives. At the present time
we have a base pay and in order to arrive
at what the actual salary is you have to
go through a total of 10 steps to do that.
Under this formula which will be
adopted in committee, I presume we will
add another step. I do not believe there
is a Member, of this House who could
tell me right now without referring to
his chart when you put a man on the
payroll at $1,000 a year the total salary he
is going to get paid. This thing has
grown like Topsy. I still say this com-
mittee which brought in this legislative
pay bill did not have any bus
Mess fool-
ing with it at all. It should have been
handled by another committee. You
. have not done one thing to correct the
greatest problem and abuse that we have
in the Congress by this bill. Therefore
I am going to vote against the bill, and
I hope we will have an opportunity to
get a record vote.
Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to
the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. NELSEN. I would like to compli-
ment the gentleman for making the
statement he did. I too hope there is
a rollcall vote, but if there is not I
would like the record to show I believe
it would be a bad precedent for the Mem-
bers of Congress to hike their salary at
this time. We have talked about check-
ing inflationary trends in our country, in
my judgment we would be setting a bad
example. Such action will certainly be
a green light for an inflationary trend
all across the board.
I join with the gentleman in the hope
that a record vote will be permitted.
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13072
Approved or WRMANWIR afflg6!__BP-11)48n
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to
the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. QUIE. I just want to give the
assurance that I will stand up for a
RECORD vote. We ought to be on record.
It is unwise to set a precedent now of in-
creasing salaries when we need to hold
down wages and prices. President
Johnson made that same statement.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. MATHLAS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Udall amendment and
of the bill. I do not feel it. is either
efficient or economical for the Federal
Government to be paying salary scales
which are not comparable or competitive
with the salary scales of private enter-
prise. When we have experienced per-
sonnel in the various branches of Gov-
ernment, legislative, judicial, and execu-
tive, it is good business to keep those
qualified people. The only way to keep
them is to be reasonably competitive
with private enterprise. The difficulty
over the years has been that the Fed-
eral Government has fallen behind
business in this matter of pay. We be-
gin to lose people as a result and then
we begin to develop a pay raise which
goes through a legislative process full of
potholes and obstructions. These pot-
holes and obstructions slow down the cor-
rective action and the Government falls
further behind private enterprise in com-
parable Pay.
The Udall amendment would attempt
to level out the potholes and eliminate
the obstructions and will keep the Gov-
ernment salary scales comparable to
those of private enterprise.
For that reason I am supporting both
the Udall amendment and the bill.
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
The Chairman, I am not going to offer
an amendment. All I am going to ask
You to do is this: You people over here
undoubtedly have the votes to pass this
bill, but I want to plead with you to give
the Members who are opposed to this
bill an opportunity to have a rollcall
so that the people of this Nation will
understand which Members are practic-
ing fiscal responsibility.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. YOUNGER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, for a
long time we have regretted that the
people held this organization in disre-
spect. I want to say to you in all con-
fidence and sincerity the action that you
will take today and the procedure which
is going on here today will undoubtedly
create in the minds of our people more
disrespect for this House as a legislative
body than any action that we have taken
in the 12 years that I have been a Mem-
ber of the House.
I regret this exceedingly. I do not
care so much who votes for what, but the
Procedure under which this bill is being
considered I object to. I do not think
that anybody can defend as a legislative
matter the procedure which is going on
here. I do hope along with some of the
rest of the Members that we do get a
record vote on this bill, and that we get
a record vote on increasing the limit of
our national debt so that. we can make
comparisons of these votes at the time of
the election.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Udall
amendment, but I wish to take this time
to set the record straight with regard to
certain statistics. I have heard our mi-
nority leader, the gentleman from Indi-
ana [Mr. Hara.acx1 say many times that
a Congressman is only as good as his
information.
I should like to point out that the total
of Federal employees' salaries today, as
a percentage of our national income and
gross national product, is less than it
was 10 years ago. It has climbed in dol-
lar amount to where it is now only 2.7
percent of our national income, whereas
10 years ago it was 2.8 percent. After
the increase which we vote today, if we
vote it. it will be back to the 1954 level
of 2.8 percent. This has come _about by
reason of the efficiency in the Federal
Government, and I say "efficiency" re-
servedly because I think we are trying
to do too many things, but the facts are
that in 1954 there was 1 Federal em-
ployee for every 66 people in the United
States and now in 1964 there is 1 Fed-
eral employee for every 73 people in the
United States. So if you assume that
the Federal service performs today as
much as it did 10 years ago for the aver-
age American, you will have to say that
the Federal service is increasing effi-
ciency by 10 percent.
There are some things about this bill
I do not like?I certainly think that the
Postal field service shoud be given in-
step increases annually rather than every
2 years. I also feel that if you are going
to establish the principle of comparabil-
ity it should be up to date. By virtue of
our delay last year when the bill was
defeated, comparability is thrown back
some 2 years, so it is only comparable to
1962. But it is a step in the right direc-
tion, and I think that it could stand up
_ on the basis of comparative statistics.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman. I think it is in order
to state that the procedure as far as the
handling of this bill is concerned cer-
tainly conforms to the general practices
of the House. The chairman and Mem-
bers on both sides of the aisle have been
fair in the debate.
As to having a record vote, I have
never had the slightest idea that there
would not be a record vote. I personally
intend to stand up for a record vote and
to stand up for the bill.
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot vote for this
pay raise, especially as it applies to the
House. Senate. and high-ranking mem-
bers of the executive department. It was
but a short time ago that this same bill
was defeated in the House. Yet, the ad-
ministration has been using every pow-
000500050001-9
June ii
er at its disposal to force this bill through
Congress despite its decisive defeat but
a short time ago.
There are members of the lower paid
ranks of civil service and postal work-
ers who are entitled to a pay raise. Yet,
in order to get through a great raise
for other members of the Government.
including Members of Congress, it has
all been tied together. Why not bring
the items in this legislation to Congress
separately so that we can give raises
where they are due to the highest paid
30 percent increases so the highest paid
of our Government. This present bill
allows me but one choice?to vote "no."
In a few days Congress will again be
called upon to raise the already astro-
nomical debt limit. I for one am dis-
gusted with the story that a Congress-
man cannot live on $22,500 per year. The
people who make this claim are also
those who are the loudest to proclaim
that we should do something to alleviate
poverty. These high raises in salaries,
including the 30 percent increase for
Congress. will inflate the American dol-
lar?that is. decrease its value?and add
more to the poverty rolls. Nothing will
contribute more to the extension of pov-
erty than to cause our low-income Amer,
leans to live on a dollar of decreasing
value?a dollar that purchases less and
less. We must return to sanity in spend-
ing and here is a good place to begin.
I know there are many who are at-
tempting to dodge a roll call on this bill.
I for one will stand up to force a roll
call so that it will be clear how every-
one votes.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Arizona [Mr. TJoaaa].
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V-EFFECTIVE DATES
SEC. 501. (a) Except to the extent provided
In subsections (b) and (c) of this section,
this Act and the increases in compensation
made by this Act shall become effectiVe on
the first day of flae first pay period which
begins on or after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(b) Section 204 of this Act, relating to in-
creases In compensaton for Members of
Congress, shall become effective at noon on
January 3, 1965.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act (but except as otherwise pro-
vided in subsection (b) of this section)?
(1) no rate of compensation which is
equal to or In excess of $22,000 per annum
shall be increased in any amount, by reason
of this Act, until the first day of the first
pay period which begins on or after Jan-
uary 1. 1965; and
(2) no rate of compensation which is less
than $22,000 per annum shall be increased
to an amount per annum in excess of $22,000,
by reason of this Act, until the first day of
the first pay period which begins on or after
January 1, 1965.
AMENDMENT OFFEIED ST MR. SIKES
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SIXES: On page
78, line 7, strike out lines 7 and 8 and insert
the words "January 1. 1965".
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
964 ApprovecEFaalfgrca9N0i/g81:5E6-13.1:WA0403R000500050001-9 13073
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
iission to revise and extend his
emarks.)
[Mr. SIKES addressed the Committee.
[is remarks will appear hereafter in the
,ppendix.1
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I
ise in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. JOELSON asked and was given
wrmission to revise and extend his? re-
narks.)
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I am
>pposed to this amendment because I
think there is a very good reason for the
listinction. At the time the last pay bill
was brought up, it was urged that being
epresentatives when we ran for the
)ffice we knew what the salary was and
Ids has a certain kind of validity to it.
rherefore, we today if we pass this bill
ire fixing the salaries for whoever may
In Congress in January 1965. But
o far as the other Federal employees are
3oncerned, their equity is long overdue
ind I think they are entitled to im-
mediate action.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge
rejection of the amendment.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take
the 5 minutes. In view of the applause
on the majority side, I will add, not un-
less an incentive is provided, Mr. Chair-
man. If I were disposed to waste the
time of this committee, I would offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Florida to
read that the pay raise shall become ef-
fective every January 1st hereafter. I
say this because of the statement made
by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
UDALL] in his letter to the Members. He
said "the Congress has already estab-
lished the machinery"?and get these
words so you know what you are doing?
'for regular annual adjustments." Now
ye provide regular annual adjustments
or Members of the Congress, for the
udiciary and for Heaven knows how
nany top officials of the executive
n.anch.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ince of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
he amendment offered by the gentle-
ian from Florida [Mr. Silas].
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FINDLEY
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I of-
er an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr, FINDLEY: Page
8, after line 24, add a new section to read
s follows:
"Bro. 502. The increases in compensation
nade by this Act shall not be effective until
uch time as the receipts of the Government
or the preceding fiscal year have exceeded
,he expenditures of the Government for such
year, as determined by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget."
(Mr. FINDLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, we all
talk about balanced budgets. We all
talk about fiscal responsibility. We all
No. 117-16
talk about holding the line on spending.
And we all know that this bill is infla-
tionary to the very core. We know it
will be financed with borrowed money,
not with money from the Treasury. We
know full well that in a few days the
Federal debt ceiling will go to $324 bil-
lion. We all know a balanced budget is
nowhere in sight for the next fiscal year
or for the year following. If we are un-
willing to exercise a little fiscal restraint
in regard to our own paychecks, can we
hope that a balanced budget will occur
in the foreseeable future?
My amendment, if adopted, would
make "budget cutters" out of everyone
on the Federal payroll, including Mem-
bers of Congress, Cabinet officers, and all
other civilians on the Federal payroll. If
my amendment is adopted, each would
have a personal stake in cutting waste
and balancing the budget. It is the one
sure way to get a balanced budget fast,
and a pay raise, too.
Mr. JENSEN, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I am glad to yield to
tlj,e gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. JENSEN. I believe it might be
well, Mr. Chairman, to remind the Mem-
bers of this House that if this increase
which is contemplated to be provided Ty
the bill goes into effect and is made law,
It will then cost each American family,
on an average, to pay just for Federal
employees, a little less than $30 a month.
That is not $30 a year. - The cost to each
American family, on an average, just to
be governed from Washington, D.C., will
be about $350 a year.
I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment. I can vote for the bill if
his amendment is approved. I shall vote
against the bill if his amendment is not
approved by this House.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. As I understand the
amendment, it proposes that unless we
have a balanced budget Members of Con-
gress could not have a salary increase.
Mr. FINDLEY. That is not quite ac-
curate. It would delay any and all in-
creases in compensation provided in this
bill until such date as the Federal Gov-
ernment had finished one fiscal year with
a balanced budget.
Mr. DENT. Then, the gentleman
would suggest that if General Motors
did not have a profitable year, the em-
ployees should not have their compensa-
tion regardless of the fact that they had
a contract for their compensation?
Mr. FINDLEY. General Motors is not
provided for in this bill, I assure the
gentleman.
I might add that if the General Motors
Corp. had had a record of red ink as long
as the Federal Government's, it would
have been out of business long ago.
Mr. DENT. That may be true.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
[Mr. DENT addressed the Committee.
His remarks appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to im-
pose unduly on the time of the House,
but since General Motors has been men-
tioned I think it might be well to com-
pare congressional pay with salaries of
officials of General Motors, the Nation's
largest defense contractor-59 executives
of General Motors receive more in sala-
? ries than the salaries of the combined
membership of this House of Represent-
atives; add to that 100 Members of the
U.S. Senate; add to that all members of
the President's Cabinet, members of the
U.S. Supreme Court, salaries of the Vice
President and the President, and then
add to all of those the Governors of the
50 States. And all together they add up
to less than the salaries of 59 executives
of General Motors. And the taxpayers
in the long run pay those salaries, too.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania, Representative RHODES, to require
income disclosure by Members as a pre-
condition of their receiving a pay
Increase.
At the outset, I wish to state that I be-
lieve a pay increase for Members is jus-
tified from whatever angle the matter is
judged?responsibility, hours, volume of
work, competence, and conscientiousness.
I do believe, however, that if the salary is
to be increased to $30,000 a year, then
there is a responsibility by Members to
rely exclusively upon their congressional
salary and to consider it as a fulltime job.
Many, many Members as of today, work
70 and 80 hours a week. But it does seem
to me the public is entitled to know the
amount and sources of earned outside in-
come of their legislators.
By earned outside income I mean com-
pensation for services, including fees and
commissions, gross income derived from
business, gains derived from dealings in
property and distributive share of part-
nership gross income?income from work
which a Member is doing while he also
is serving in Congress.
Attention has been drawn in recent
months to the investigation into activi-
ties of Robert Baker when he was Secre-
tary to the majority in the Senate.
Many Members of the Senate, Democrats
and Republicans, are, as a result, sup-
porting legislation to require, among
other things, disclosure of outside in-
come sources by legislative employees.
Some Members would extend this re-
quirement to Senators themselves. We
certainly can do no less.
Mr. Chairman, mandatory disclosure
would, in my view, work to the advan-
tage of the Congress. It would dispel
the innuendoes and inferences about the
financial connections of Members. It
would help discredit the all-inclusive ac-
cusations and the general condemnation.
Some argue that disclosure would make
second-class citizens of Members of the
House and Senate. I do not believe it
would. We require public disclosure by
members of the executive branch who
must be confirmed.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13074 Approved For Rel
In
In recent times, many Members of
both Senate and House have individu-
ally filed their annual statements of in-
come, stocks, and real tiroperty holdings.
In April 1963, for example, several Mem-
bers of the House together filed their
individual statements. Since then, other
House Members have done the same. I
would hope that an even larger number
of Members would voluntarily tile such
statements.
It is time that Democrats and Repub-
licans alike should take whatever steps
are necessary to maintain the integrity
of the National Legislature lest an ero-
sion of public confidence become a real
threat to the democratic process.
The job--for each and every one of us
is to so conduct the Nation's business
that the confidence of the country in the
National Legislature is maintained?yes,
and strengthened. As I said, we demand
this of high-ranking members of the ex-
ecutive branch of the Federal Govern-
ment?the Secretary of Defense, for ex-
ample. But we do not hold ourselves to
the same strict standards of account-
ability.
A disclosure requirement would im-
measurably assist in enhancing the repu-
tation of the Congress.
Again, I say that the Members of Con-
gress do deserve an increase, and, of
course, especially do the postal emPloyees
and many of the judicial and executive
branches. I think that a disclosure pro-
vision for Members of Congress is a just
and acceptable obligation that the Amer-
ican people have a right to expect, indeed
demand.
Therefore, I am happy to join the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman
RHODES, in support of this very impor-
tant amendment.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman,
I support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
RstonEsi, fully realizing that, the ma-
jority of the House are not ready to adopt
a rule binding on all Members concern-
ing disclosure of outside interests. But.
while I have few illusions about the pres-
ent degree of support for full and open
disclosure, I share the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's view that making outside
sources of income a matter of public
knowledge would go far toward check-
ing the growing distrust and indifference
with which the American people regard
their Congress.
The distinguished minority leader in
the other body has said on several occa-
sions that he would resist a disclosure
rule because it would make him a "sec-
ond-class citizen." I disagree. I think
his support for such a rule could only
increase the high regard in which he is
held, and I cannot believe that his own
self-,esteem is so fragile that filing a
financial statement by April 15 of each
year would bend or break it.
Certainly disclosure requirements have
not been demoralizing in any noticeable
way to the thousands of corporation and
bank executives who must reveal their
compensation and personal holdings,
state changes in these holdings, or make
public their membership on certain
boards of directors. And certainly Con-
gress itself thought it was striking a
blow for better Government by better
people when it imposed conflicts of in-
terests rules on top administration offi-
cials.
If Congress continues to exempt, itself
from the sort of disclosure prescriptions
it has freely issued to agencies like the
SEC. the CAB, and the ICC, it can ex-
pect it to be distrusted. Just like anyone
is who has the power to make himself a
special case and uses it for that purpose.
During the past few years a growing
number of Members in each body have
voluntarily disclosed their holdings and
outside sources of income. As one such
Member I must say that I wonder about
the effect this has. I am inclined to
think that one unintended result is to
reinforce the view that those who do
not make a public disclosure are neces-
sarily hiding something, when in fact
there is probably not that much to hide.
But the American people, like nature,
abhor a vacuum. Where there is a sus-
tained and inexplicable lack of knowl-
edge about a matter of public trust such
as the financial activities of elected Rep-
resentatives. suspicions mount until they
tower above reality and the least shred
of evidence is taken as confirming them
all. The only way to reduce this evidence
to its proper significance is to confront
these suspicions with the hard facts
through complete annual disclosure of
holdings and sources of income.
Failure to treat disclosure as a real
Issue which Congress must raise and solve
for itself can only result in the silent ero-
sion of respect for this institution and
representative government everywhere.
Should Congress fail to enjoy the genu-
ine respect of those who look to it for
leadership. it can hardly blame the peo-
ple, the times, or the unseen enemy for
the fact that leadership is sought and
found elsewhere.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY].
The question was taken: and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. FINDLEY ) there
were--ayes 60, noes 162.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly. the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. HOLIFIELD, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Com-
mittee, having had under consideration
the bill H.R. 11049) to adjust the rates
of basic compensation of certain officers
and employees in the Federal Govern-
nient, and for other purposes pursuant
to House Resolution 733, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amend-
ment adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time and was read the
third time.
-9
Julie 1
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman ol
posed to the bill?
Mr. GROSS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The gentlema
qualifies.
The Clerk will report the motion
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gitoss moves o recommit the bill. H
11049, to the Committee on Post Office an
Civil Service.
The previous q-testion was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is oi
the motion to recommit.
The motion was rejected.
The SPEAKFR. The question is co
the passage of the bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, on that
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and then
were?yeas 243, nays 157, answered "pres-
ent" 4, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 1551
YEAS-243
Addabbo
Albert
Anderson
Ashley
Aspinall
Auchlncloss
Barrett
Barry
Bates
Becker
Beckworth
Bell
Bennett, Mich.
Blatnlk
Boggs
Boland
Bolling
Bonner
Bow
Brademas
Brooks
Brown, Calif.
Broyhlll, Va.
Buckley
Burke
Burkhalter
Burton, Calif.
Burton, Utah
Byrne, Pa.
Cahill
Cameron
Carey
Casey
Celler
Cohelan
Conte
Cooley
Corbett
Corman
Daddario
Daniels
Davis, Ga.
Davis. Tenn.
Dawson
Delaney
Dent
Denton
Derounlan
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Downing
Dulski
Duncan
Dwyer
Edwards
'Elliott
Ellsworth
Fallon
Farbetein
Fascell
Finnegan
Fino
Flood
Flynt
Fogarty
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Friedel
Fulton, Pa.
Gallagher
Garniatz
Gary
Giairno
Gibbons
Gill
Glenn
Gonzalez
Grabowski
Gray
Greell, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Grover
Gubrer
Hagan, Ga.
Hagen, Calif.
Halpern
Hanr a
Hansen
Hard ng
Hardy
Harris
Harrison
Hawkins
Hays
Healey
Henderson
Hoffman
Holifleld
Holland
Horton
Hosmer
Jennings
Joelson
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Wis.
Karsten
Kurth
Kastenmeier
Kee
Keitt
Kelly
Kilgore
King, Calif.
King, N.Y.
Kirwmi
Kluczynskl
Kornegay
Kunkel
Lankford
Leggett
Lesinki
Libonati
Lindsay
Long, Md.
McCulloch
McDade
McDowell
McFall
McLoskey
McMillan
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Macdonald
Madden
Mailliard
Martin, Mass.
Mathias
Matsunaga
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Milliken
Minish
Monagan
Moore
Moorhead
Morgan
Morrison
Morse
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Nedzi
Nix
O'Brien. N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara. Mich.
Olsen, Mont.
O'Neill
Garners
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Phllbln
Pike
Filcher
Poo'
Price
Pucinski
Purcell
Rains
Reid, N.Y.
Reuss
Rhodes, Pa.
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
Rodin?
Rogers, Colo.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Roosevelt
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Ryan, N.Y.
St Germain
St. Onge
Schwengel
Scott
Senner
Sibal
Sickles
Sikes
Sisk
9644
Slack
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Staebler
Stafford
Staggers
Steed
Stephens
Stratton
Sullivan
Talcott
Taylor Waggonner
Teague, Calif. Wallhauser
Thomas Watson
Thompson, N.J. Watts
Approved&NteasiMplab96-131Ari9M403R000500050001-9 13075
Thompson, Tex.Weltner
Tollefson Westland
Trimble White
Tupper Wickersham
Tuten Widnall
Udall Willis
Ullman Wilson,
Van Deerlin Charles H.
Vanik Wright
Van Pelt Wydler
Vinson Wyman
Young
Zablocki
Abbitt
Abele
Abernethy
Adair
Alger
Andrews, Ala,
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Arends
Ashbrook
Avery
Ayres
Baker
Baldwin
Baring
Beermann
Belcher
Bennett, Fla.
Berry
Betts
Bolton,
Frances P.
Bray
Brock
Bromwell
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, NC.
Bruce
-Burleson
Byrnes, Wis.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chelf
Chenoweth
Clancy
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Collier
Colmer
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtin
Curtis
Dague
Derwinski
Devine
Dole
Dorn
Everett
Feighan
Findley
NAYS-157
Fisher
Ford
Foreman
Fountain
Fuqua
Gathings
Goodell
Goodling
Grant
Griffin
Gross
Gurney
Haley Reifel
Halleck Rhodes, Ariz.
Harsha Rich
Harvey, Ind. Riehlman
Harvey, Mich. Roberts, Tex.
Hechler Robison
Hoeven Rogers, Fla.
Horan Rogers, Tex,
Huddleston Roudebush
Hull Rumsfeld
Hutchinson Si. George
Ichord Saylor
Jarman Schadeberg
Jensen Schenck
Johansen Schneebell
Johnson, Pa. Schweiker
Jonas Secrest
Jones Mo. Selden
Kilburn Short
Knox Shriver
Kyl Siler
Laird Skubitz
Landrum Smith, Va.
Langen Snyder
Latta Springer
Lennon Stinson
Lipscomb Stubblefield
McClory Taft
MacGregor Thomson, Wis.
Mahon Tuck
Marsh Utt
Martin, Calif. Weaver
Martin, Nebr. Whalley
Matthews Wharton
Meader Whitener
Minshall Whitten
Nelsen
Norblad
O'Konski
Olson, Minn.
Perkins
Pillion
Pirnie
Poage
Poff
Quie
Quillen
Reid III.
Montoya Williams
Morris Wilson, Bob
Morton Wilson, Ind.
Mosher Winstead
Natcher Younger
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-4
Edmondson Pickle Randall
Mills
Ashmore
Bass
Battin
Bolton,
Oliver P.
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Dowdy
Evins
NOT VOTING-27
Forrester
Fulton, Tenn.
Hall
Herlong
Jones, Ala.
Keogh
Lloyd
Long, La.
McIntire
May
Miller, N.Y.
Powell
Roberts, Ala.
Roush
Sheppard
Shipley
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, La.
Toll
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Keogh for, with Mr. Randall against.
Mr. Herlong for, with Mr. Mills against.
Mr. Roush for, with Mr. Edmondson
against.
Mr. Bass for, with Mr. Pickle against.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana for, with Mr.
Jones of Alabama against.
Mr. Toll for, with Mr. Teague of Texas
against.
Mr. Powell for, with Mr. Hall against.
Mr. Clark for, with Mr. Dowdy against.
Mr. Sheppard for, with Mrs. May against.
Mr. Miller of New York for, with Mr: Don
H. Clausen against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Long of Louisiana with Mr. McIntire.
Mr. Ashmore with Mr. Battin.
Mr. Roberts of Alabama with Mr. Oliver P.
Bolton.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Forrester.
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from New
York [Mr. KEOGH]. If he were present,
he wbuld have voted "yea." I voted
"nay." I withdraw my vote and vote
"Present."
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from Ten-
nessee [Mr. BASS]. If he were present,
he would have voted "yea." I voted
"nay." I withdraw my vote and vote
"present."
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I have a live
pair with the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. HERLONG]. If he were present, he
would have voted "yea." I voted "nay."
I withdraw my vote and vote "present."
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Speaker, I
have a live pair with the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Rousil]. If he were pres-
ent, he would have voted "yea." I voted
"nay." I withdraw my vote and vote
"present."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
tJle.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks prior to the vote
on the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Loui-
siana?
There was no objection.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE
WEEK OF JUNE 15
(Mr. HALLECK asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time for the purpose of inquiring of
the majority leader as to the program for
the balance of this week and the pro-
gram for next week, if he can tell us at
this time.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman from Indiana yield?
Mr. HALLECK. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, in re-
sponse to the inquiry of the distinguished
minority leader, the program for the
House of Representatives for the week
of June 15 is as follows:
Monday is Consent Calendar Day.
There are 5 suspensions:
H.R. 4994, labeling of imported woven
labels.
Senate Joint Resolution 103, author-
ization increase for President's Commit-
tee on Employment of the Physically
Handicapped.
House Joint Resolution 1041, interim
90-day extension of rental housing in-
surance program for the elderly.
HR. 10000, extension of the Defense
Production Act,
HR. 11499, to extend for 2 years the
authority of Federal Reserve banks to
purchase U.S. obligations directly from
the Treasury.
On Tuesday the Private Calendar will
be called. Also on Tuesday the 1965 ap-
propriations for public works and HR.
9876, extension and amendment of the
Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Of-
fenses Control Act of 1961. This has an
open rule with 2 hours of debate.
On Wednesday HR. 11376, the Excise-
Tax Rate Extension Act of 1964. This
has a close rule with 4 hours of debate,
waiving points of order.
Thursday and the balance of the week,
HR. 11375, the public debt limit. This
has a closed rule with 4 hours of debate,
waiving points of order.
This announcement, of course, is made
with the general reservation that any
further prograin may be announced later
and that conference reports may be
brought up at any time.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will permit, in regard to H.R.
10000, L think it might be well for us to
explain to the membership, in view of
the fact that there were minority views
filed, that that measure will be offered
undei suspension with an amendment
which, as I understand it, removes the
objections of the people who signed the
minority views.
Mr. ALBERT. The gentleman's un-_
derstanding, coincides with mine.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman from Indiana yield for a
unanimous consent request?
Mr. HALLECK. Yes. I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY,
JUNE 15
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY BUSINESS
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the business in
order under the Calendar Wednesday
rule may be dispensed with on Wednes-
day next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of ( the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There Was no objection.
CLARENCE CANNON: MEMORIAL
TRIBUTE
(Mr. THOMPSON of Texas asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relem.2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
13076 ciitESsIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Jape I,
extend his remarks and include extrane-
ous matter.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Texas. Mr.
Speaker, among the many fine tributes
to the late and greatly beloved Clarence
Cannon, chairman of the House Com-
mittee on Approptiations, is that of his
long-time friend and former colleague
here, Maurice H. Thatcher. who served
for 5 terms--1923-33?as Representa-
tive from the Louisville, Ky., district.
The two were elected to the 68th Con-
gress, and began their service in the
House at the start of that session on
March 4, 1923. Mr. Thatcher was a
member of the House Committee on Ap-
propriations throughout his congres-
sional career of 10 years. Mr. Cannon
served in Congress, as a Representative
from the Mark Twain region of Missouri,
from the beginning of the 68th Con-
gress until his death, which occurred on
May 12, 1964, after an uninterrupted
service of more than 40 years, and in 21
Congresses. He became a member of the
indicated committee in 1929, and Its
chairman in 1941. He continued as such
chairman until his death excepting the
80th and 83d Congresses, when the op-
posing party was in control. Thus he
established a record for this chairman-
ship of something like 19 years, and al-
most twice that of any other chairman;
and this, in itself, constitutes a splendid
evidence of his integrity and ability, and
the esteem of his colleagues.
The budgetary system of fiscal affairs
was instituted during the chairmanship
of the committee of Congressman Martin
B. Madden, of Illinois, who like Cannon,
was an outstanding head of the commit-
tee, and to whose integrity and ability
Mr. Cannon always gave generous praise.
Both were dedicated servants of the peo-
ple; both were thoroughly informed
with respect to the needs involved; and
both, while wise and just in their atti-
tudes, were also the abiding friend of
the American taxpayer, and always
sought to protect his legitimate interests.
With all truth it may be said that Mad-
den and Cannon were two of the great-
est chairmen of this highly important
committee in all its long history.
Mr. Cannon and Mr. Thatcher were
good friends from the beginning of their
congressional careers; and their friend-
ship, through the long period which has
since elapsed, grew stronger and ever
stronger. Both had?among other com-
mon interests?a love and appreciation
for the best in literature; and, touching
Mr. Thatcher's occasional writings, his
friend was lavish in his praise.
It may be noted that Mr. Thatcher had
served, during the construction era of
the Panama Canal. as Civil Governor of
the Canal Zone and member of the
Isthmian Canal Commission, the body
which had immediate charge of the work.
In these posts he had rendered distin-
guished service; and later came his con-
gressional career. He sponsored and
brought about the enactment of much
important legislation for the benefit of
the canal enterprise, and its employees--
both United States and alien citizens;
also for the advantage of the entire
isthmus, including legislation for the es-
tablishment and operation of the Crorgas
Memorial Laboratory in the city of Pan-
ama, an outstanding institution for re-
search touching the cause and preven-
tion of tropical disease. He is now the
sole surviving member of the indicated
Commission. He also rendered impor-
tant service in the Congress in the field
of national parks and parkways; and is
yet interested in these subjects, and able
to give civilian aid in these connections.
Because of his capable and useful con-
gressional service, his membership on
the House Committee on Appropriations,
and his fine achievements with respect
to the canal and the isthmus, the Con-
gress, by specific enactment, and with
complete unanimity, named for him the
splendid new bridge across the canal at
Balboa, Canal Zone. as Thatcher Ferry
Bridge, which not only honors him, but
as well serves to perpetuate historic
memory and justice to the Thatcher
Ferry, on the same site, which the bridge
supplants. In the Congress he had ob-
tained the legislation for the establish-
ment and maintenance of the ferry, a
fine, toll-free utility?as is the bridge?
which, during the 30 years of its exist-
ence, performed for the zone and the
entire isthmus a notable and Indispens-
able service.
Mr. Thatcher has practiced law In
Washington since he left Congress, and
has also continued his activities, to the
extent possible. in behalf of matters of
public concern. Under leave accorded.
I include, as a part of these remarks,
his magnificent tribute to his greatly
esteemed and beloved friend.
CLARENCE CANNON: MEMORIAL TRIBUTE
(By Maurice H. Thatcher)
When this, our Clarence. passed away
From mortal life to deathless day?
Alas, the loss! the people wept;
The trust they gave him he had kept:
And they, In grief, kneeled down to pray.
How great was he? Ab, time will say!
His tolls for good no check could stay;
And his brave conscience never slept?
He loved the State
Truth's path he trod?led where it may;
His real for light nought would allay.
He never was unskilled. Inept;
Less than the best he'd not accept;
He wrought In strength, with knowledged
play?
To serve the State.
His life was like a battle song:
He read the score with practiced eye;
His image should survive as long
As Freedom's banner greets the sky.
With human warmth he loved his friends.
And they loved him?a mutual bond.
A name like his fades not, nor ends,
But lives tomorrow and beyond,
Teacher, lawyer, statesman, chief ?
Thru calm and storm, and cloud and
shade:
And, minus pause or aught relief,
His rugged, sure ascent was made.
Exemplar rare, and patriot.
His life a pattern cloth provide
For those who seek the nobler lot?
A norm the nation's youth to guide.
Steeped in the parliament'ry lore,
And knowledge of resolves and bills.
He won a rank as few before,
Or since; and his especial skills
Earned rich reward and potent yield
In guarding well the Nation's purse.
Thus, long he strove within his field
To find the cure, and void the curse.
By reason of his varied acts
We must account Lis labors great;
He knew the fictions and the facts
And how the problems to equate
Friend of his fellows, loyal, true?
He fought for that he thought was bc t.
We pay him laud for what is due
For efforts that were wise and blest.
He strove with ever-tireless aim;
His life was one of :3elf-denial;
His wisdom brought him wealths of f anie ?
But at the price of rack and trial.
He dared to do what eeemed the right.
And knew the worth of valiant deeds:
He chose to walk within the light,
And from the flowers plucked the weeds.
Full-rev'rent In his biding thought,
And e'er sustained ay faith and hope--
The vital goals he sensed and sought.
And wide-expanding was the scope.
He knew the need for discipline;
The face of virtue was his chart.
His home he loved, and all therein,
With all his ardent soul and heart.
How well it was that to the last
The purpose of his will obtained,
And that he gave, with knowledge vast,
The needed add, while strength remained.
In harness thus, he passed away?
A knightly fate which few may know.
But one for which all heroes pray:
This was the way he wished to go.
How weak the word for any man
Of such supreme, unique degree.
He was a great American,
As all the rounded world could see.
Throughout the span of lengthened year:,
He served the people and the State:
Go, search the Temple?there appears
His name, in gold, upon the Gate.
Accept this, Clarence, from a friend
Who knew thee long, and knew thee well--
A former colleague, who would amend
Death's dark decree its force dispel,
If in his power. The loved helpmate.
And those that bear thy blood, shall be
Shrined in the love of friends who wait
At portals of eternity.
LEITER TO CHRISTIAN HERTER
(Mr. HARVEY of Indiana asked and
was given permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Mr. Speak-
er, under leave to extend my remarks in
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, I include the
following letter which I mailed today to
Hon. Christian Herter, our Special Rep-
resentative for Trade Negotiations in
Geneva.
JUNE 11. 1964.
ROIL CHRISTIAN HERTER,
Special Representatize for Trade Negotia-
tions, Executive Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR MR. HERTER: The domestic ball and
roller bearing and steel ball and roller bear-
ing Industries are in considerable difficulties
today. Mr. Herter, because of the imports of
these items from Japan and other countries.
Perhaps you have seen the several extensions
of remarks in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
which pinpoint this problem from a national
scale. I would like to call your attention
to what the bearing industry means to just
one congressional district?my own.
The Federal-Mogul-Batebr Bearing Co.. in
Greensburg. Ind., has over WO full-time em-
ployees, so roughly 1,000 family members in
the Greensburg area are dependent upon the
success of this company. The company has
an annual payroll of aver $1 million in the
Greensburg area alor.e, and most of this
money is spent right at home with retailers,
service and professional people. The loss of
this payroll would ha-re a most detrimental
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 9669
gotiations. It is an ideal concession, and
one within the present authority of the ad-
ministration to make. We would make one
further point. A recent comprehensive re-
view of residual fuel oil imports by the
OEP had the universal concurrence of all
participating departments that controls of
this product contributed little, if anything,
to the national security. There would there-
fore appear to be good grounds for their com-
plete removal in the national interest and if
so, what better time than during the GATT
negotiations when we might get something
in return.
Mr. Speaker, the foregoing statement
by Myron A. Wright was recently mailed
to Congressmen and Governors by John
K. Evans, executive director of the In-
dependent Fuel Oil Marketers of Amer-
ica, Inc. Mr. Evans' covering letter
speaks eloquently of the unfairness of
continuing residual oil quotas. Because
of its general interest, I am including
here in the RECORD Mr. Evans' letter at
that time:
INDEPENDENT FUEL OIL MARKETERS
OP AMERICA, INC.,
Washington, D.C., April 13, 1964.
DEAR SIR: As a public official from a highly
industrialized and populated State, you have
a stake in the subject, namely, residual fuel
oil import restrictions and controls. Any
action by our Government, created and
caused for purely political reasons, that has
a negative impact on the consumer of en-
ergy in your State is an issue that is of
considerable significance and importance to
you. The restrictions that were placed on
the importation of residual fuel oil in 1959
were the result of an all-out propaganda
campaign by the coal mine owners of our
country and are costing the consumers in
your State millions of dollars each year be-
cause the electric utilities are being denied
their traditional right of freedom of choice
of not only supplier but also of competitive
forms of energy. In addition, the large in-
dustrial consumers of this fuel, such as large
manufacturing plants, pulp and paper mills,
etc., also are being forced to pay higher
prices for their fuels. As a result, indus-
trial enterprises are placed at a disadvantage
competitively, not only within the bound-
aries of 'our country but also when it comes
to competing with foreign products in world
markets. Representatives of these groups
are all on record confirming the above since
they have filed statements with the Trade
Information Committee on the subject mat-
ter. This organization represents the
"small businessman" engaged in marketing
residual fuel oil on the east coast and we
have been fighting for a return to the free
enterprise system since 1960.
My main purpose in writing you this let-
ter is to forward the enclosed statement
that was filed by the executive vice presi-
dent of Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey) with
the trade information committee under date
of March 31, 1964. This is one of the finest,
most concise, most dispassionate and most
factual statement that has ever been made
on this overall subject. We suggest that
you read the statement and that you pass it
along to any member on your staff who has
anything to do with trade issues and the
welfare and competitive standing of the in-
dustrial economy of your State. Just to
put the record straight, this organization
has no ax to grind with Standard Oil Co.
(New Jersey). In fact we have continually
criticized the Secretary of the Interior for
the regulations that control these imports
because they concentrate over 50 percent
of the total allocation in the hands of four
major imports and the largest of this group
is Standard Oil Co. (New Jersey). The lat-
ter makes it all the more impressive and
It is a credit to Mr. Wright's company that
they subordinate their own corporate sel-
fish interests to the welfare of our country.
It is too bad that the coal mine owners of
America do not have some of this patriotism
and loyalty. It is self-evident from this
statement that Standard Oil Co. (New Jer-
sey) not only believes in the socially con-
scious American private enterprise system,
but is willing to fight for that system and
to subordinate its own corporate interests
In the process.
It's time for the consumer to stand up
and fight for his rights. The "squeaking
wheel gets the most grease" in Washington
and the only way in which the best interests
of our country and your State can be served
is for you, the representative of the con-
sumers, to stand up and protest not only
to the President but also to Secretary Udall
to the end that the best interests of our
Nation are served.
I am sending a copy of this letter to all
of the chambers of commerce in your State
and to other civic organizations.
Respectfully yours,
JoHN K. EVANS.
ANNIVERSARY OF ADOPTION OF
THE POLISH CONSTITUTION
(Mr. WALLHAUSER (at the request
of Mr. HAmasoN) was granted permis-
sion to extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Speaker, it
is my privilege to join my distinguished
colleagues in the House, to pay tribute
to the great nation of Poland on the
anniversary of the adoption of the Polish
Constitution, May 3, 1791.
For many years the U.S. Congress has
commemorated this date in the chron-
icals of Polish history. We recall this
anniversary for the many Americans who
are deservedly proud of their Polish
heritage and wish to remember the day
on which their homeland, after many,
many years of struggle and barely 2
years after the adoption of our own Con-
stitution in 1789, succeeded in asserting
the principles of democracy. But more
importantly, we, who are privileged to
serve in the U.S. Congress, are memo-
rializing the date of May 3, 1791, in order
to give hope and encouragement to the
people of Poland who despite their pres-
ent oppression by the Soviet Union fer-
vently hope to once again live -in a free
and democratic nation.
The May 3 Constitution stated:
All power in civil society should be derived
from the will of the people.
These words sound strikingly ? familar
to all Americans whose freedom has been
secured through the ages by the words
of our Declaration of Independence?.
Governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed.
We in this country have been more
fortunate in preserving the foundations
of democratic government so firmly es-
tablished by our Founding Fathers. The
Poles were less fortunate in attaining a
lasting foundation for the third parti-
tion of Poland by Russia, Prussia, and
Austria came only 4 years later, 1795.
Today the free world considers Poland
a Communist country. Yet, we should
and do recognize that though the Polish
Government is "Communist" the Polish
people are not.
May 3 cannot be a joyous holiday sim-
ilar to the exuberant celebration of our
July the Fourth anniversary, but it is a
date for reflection and prayer. And it is
fitting that we in this great Nation, who
are so richly blessed with the privileges
of liberty granted by our Constitution,
should today pay tribute to the Polish
people who are struggling to regain their
freedom and join in their prayers that
they may once again realize the rights of
life, liferty, and the pursuit of ppi ess.
PAY RAISE?A THREAT Tb WAGE
AND PRICE STABILITY
(Mr. CLEVELAND (at the request of
Mr. HARRISON) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday, Under Secretary of the Treas-
ury Robert V. Roosa, warned that the
United? States could face a balance-of-
payments "tragedy" unless wage and
price stability is maintained this year.
His statement was reported in the Wall
Street Journal of Thursday, April 30,
1964, in connection with a new offering
of 10-year Treasury bonds bearing a 41/2-
percent coupon rate, the highest the
Treasury can legally bear, to refund
$10.6 billion of bonds maturing this
month.
On the same day, the Washington Eve-
ning Star carried a full-page headline
"New Pay Raise Gains in the House."
The story went on to point out that the
House Civil Service Committee by a vote
of 14 to 3 had endorsed a new pay raise
bill but one which is -substantially simi-
lar to that which the House voted against
last month.
When we passed the tax-cut bill, in
spite of the fact that it would mean a
deficit, solemn promises were made that
budgetary restraint would be exercised.
Although a case can be made for pay
increases, how can administration lead-
ers call for wage and price stability at
the very time they are pushing pay in-
creases for Federal employees and Con-
gressmen through this House? There is
an inconsistency in their positions that
Is troublesome. People have a right to
expect their elected representatives to
set good examples. If important spokes-
men for the administration call on busi-
ness and labor and the private sector of
the economy to exercise restraint and
maintain wage and price stability, cer.
tainly the people of this country should
expect the U.S. House of Representatives
to practice what the administrationjJ
preaching.
TAX TREATMENT OF BEER
CONCENTRATE
(Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin (at the
request of Mr. HARRISON) was granted
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include extra-
neous matter.)
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I have introduced today a bill
(H.R. 11111) to amend the Internal Rev-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
9670 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 4
enue Code of 1954 relating to the manu-
facture, use, and sale of beer concentrate.
The bill is intended to preserve the
"status quo" until such time as there Is
a more definitive understanding and
evaluation of the use and economic effect
of beer concentrate. The bill distin-
guishes between "beer" and "beer con-
centrate" in order that the latter cannot
be shipped in interstate commerce as
beer. The bill may be summarized as
follows:
First. The bill defines "beer concen-
trate" as a product separate and distinct
from "beer."
Second. The bill provides for the man-
ufacture of "beer concentrate" in the
brewery for inplant use.
Third. The bill provides for the ex-
portation of "beer concentrate" free of
Lax.
Fourth. Finally, the bill prohibits the
shipment of "beer concentrate" to bot-
tling plants or other breweries for recon-
stitution into beer.
While the concentration process has
been used for several years with respect
to products such as fruit juices, It was
only recently applied to beer on a "test
basis." Under the concentrate process,
the beer is brewed in the brewery in the
same manner as always. A part of the
brewing water is subsequently removed,
by freezing or some other process, reduc-
ing the beer to a concentrated sirup of
about one-fourth its original volume.
This sirup may then be reconstituted
Into beer either at the same brewery, or
at another location such as a bottling
plant. At the bottling plant, carbon di-
oxide and water are added to the beer
concentrate to restore the mixture to the
original consistency of beer. The beer Ls
then bottled and marketed in the usual
manner.
Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code regulates the manufacture, tax-
ation, and sale of all alcoholic beverages.
Under the code and prior regulations,
"beer" could only be produced in a brew-
ery. A tax of $9 per barrel is levied upon
the beer when removed for consumption
or sale. Beer could be transported under
bond between related breweries?under
common control ownership?without the
payment of tax. Beer could also be re-
moved from a brewery for analysis and
for export.. However, there was no pro-
vision in the Internal Revenue Code or
the regulations governing the manufac-
ture, transportation, taxation, or a sale of
beer concentrate.
The Treasury Department published
proposed regulations for the utilization
of beer concentrate in the Federal Reg-
ister on August 31. 1963. These regula-
tions authorize the manufacture In a
brewery of beer concentrate and its ship-
ment under bond to another brewery?
or bottling plant?owned by the same
brewer without payment of the Federal
tax. The beer concentrate could then
be reconstituted at the bottling plant and
the tax paid there. These regulations
went into effect on December 1. 1963.
Because of widespread, concern over
the proposed regulations, hearings were
held by the Committee on Ways and
Means on November 5 of last year.
While the regulations have not at-
tempted to levy a tax directly on beer--
concentrate, the regulations have broad-
ened the code section dealing with in-
bond shipment of beer. The tax pro-
vided for in the code is a tax on beer,
and on beer alone. This tax is based on
volume?$9 per barrel. If beer concen-
trate is construed to be "beer." there
would be a tremendous loss of tax rev-
enue through the reduction in volume
of the taxable article. If beer concen-
trate is not a 'beer," there is no statutory
authority to permit its shipment under
bond as between related breweries. Thus
we have an anomalous situation where
by regulations beer concentrate is treated
as "beer" for shipment under bond, but
cannot be classified as "beer" for tax
purposes. In my opinion, these regula-
tions are of doubtful validity, and cer-
tainly fail to offer any satisfactory solu-
tion to the problem.
At the hearings before the Ways and
Means Committee it became apparent
that there was justifiable concern over
the impact of beer concentrate upon the
industry, and particularly if the indis-
criminate shipment of such beer concen-
trate should be permitted as between
breweries or bottling plants under com-
mon ownership. It was pointed out that
a central brewery might merely set up
bottling plants around the country which
would qualify as breweries for tax pur-
poses. Shipments of bter concentrate
could be made to such bottling plants to
the detriment of the full-fledged brew-
ery which had been established to serve
that locality.
Concern was also expressed over the
passibility of damage to the beer indus-
try through lack of sufficient control over
the quality of beer produced by recon-
stituting beer concentrate. Some wit-
nesses, however, claimed that the recon-
stituting process improved the quality of
the beer.
The licensing of the shipment of beer
concentrate under these regulations thus
could present a serious economic threat
to the many local breweries and their
employees. Large centralized breweries
could establish reconstituting and bot-
tling plants in areas already adequately
served by local breweries. At a relatively
small investment, a bottling plant could
be set up to flood an area with reconsti-
tuted beer and thereby destroy the jobs
and investment In the local brewery. On
the other hand, the local brewery could
In no way profit from the regulations for
the use of beer concentrate., The local
brewery could not buy the concentrate
from a central brewery since, under the
regulations, it can only be shipped under
bond to a bottling plant owned by the
manufacturer of the concentrate.
The small breweries of the country are
already having difficulty meeting the
competition of the larger breweries with
their national advertising campaigns.
The number of small breweries continues
to decrease. I am advised that in 1934,
there were 725 breweries operating in the
United States. Ten years later, this
number had declined to 453. During the
next 10 years?by 1954?the number de-
clined to 298 breweries. Today, there are
only about 195 breweries. 16 of which are
multiple-plant operators. Prompt ac-
tion will be necessary if we are to pre-
serve the remaining independent brew-
eries.
The bill has the support of the U.S.
Brewers' Association and the Brewers'
Association of America. These organiza-
tions represent practically all the brew-
eries in the United Slates.
The bill I have introduced would limit
the utilization of beer concentrate to the
brewery in which the concentrate is fi,:st
produced, thereby preserving the situa-
tion which existed prior to the promul-
gation of these regulations. I propose
this?not as a permanent solution to the
problem?but to forestall any irreparable
injury to the small independent brewers
until a better solution can be considered
by Congress.
At present there is no need to provide
for the shipment of beer concentrate.
The process is still in the experimental
stage. Therefore, we are not acting to
stop a present practice in the industry.
If we delay taking action, however, and
the larger breweries begin shipping con-
centrate, and possibly establishing bot-
tling facilities, it might be too late to do
anything to save the small brewer.
EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION BENElqa S
(Mr. BRADEMAS (at the request of
Mr. LIRONATI) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, on
April 30 I introduced legislation to ex-
tend the period in which unemployment
compensation benefits are paid to jobless
workers to 39 weeks, provide for unem-
ployment insurance grants to the States,
and otherwise strengthen the unemploy-
ment compensation program.
In December of last year, the shutdown
of production by the Studebaker Corp.
cost the jobs of more than 6.000 workers
in South Bend, Ind. Yet, as President
Johnston remarked this past weekend,
after his visit to South Bend, the people
of South Bend have "rolled up their
sleeves and stuck out their chins and
gone ahead."
Already, the Kaiser Jeep Corp., Allied
Industries, and the Cummins Co. have
taken over parts of the Studebaker fa-
cilities, and are well en their way to pro-
viding several hundred new jobs. We
are retraining hundreds of others in
skills which will give them the oppor-
tunity to participate in the benefits of
prosperity.
But at the same time, 350 South Bend
workers have already exhausted their
unemployment compensation benefits.
Many more are faced with the prospect
of losing their rights to compensation
in the next few months.
In the State of Indiana. the maximum
period of compensation is 26 weeks, and
less than a third of the workers are cov-
ered for even that length of time. The
maximum benefit in Indiana. I miaht
add. is $36 per week. Again, a substan-
tial number of the unemployed-30 per-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1064; -
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
results of each of its studies and investiga-
tions, together with such recommend ti ns
as it deems advisable.
age under Federal-State agreement,
which was unanimously reported favor-
bly by the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
kansas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
first sentence of section 218(d) (6) (C) of the
Social Security Act is amended by inserting
"Nevada," after "New Mexico,".
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Page 1, line 5, strike out "after" and insert
"before".
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, the Pur-
pose of this legislation is to amend title
II of the Social Security Act to include
the State of Nevada under the provision
of present law permitting specified
States to divide State or local govern-
ment retirement systems for social secu-
rity coverage purposes. Under this pro-
vision, 17 specified States?and all inter-
state instrumentalities?are permitted
to divide a State or local government re-
tirement system into two parts for pur-
poses of old-age, survivors', and disabil-
ity insurance coverage, one part consist-
ing of the positions of members who
desire coverage, and the other consisting
of the positions of members who do not
desire coverage. Services performed by
the members in the part consisting of
the positions of members who desire cov-
erage may then be covered under old-
age, survivors', and disability insurance,
and, once those services are covered, the
services of all persons who in the future
become members of the retirement sys-
tem must also be covered.
H.R. 287, which was introduced by our
colleague, the Honorable WALTER S. BAR-
ING, would include the State of Nevada in
this list of States. The Committee on
Ways and Means unanimously recom-
mends its enactment.
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, the bill H.R. 287 amends title II
of the Social Security Act to include the
State of Nevada under the provision of
present law which permits States speci-
fied in the law to divide their State or
local government retirement system into
two parts and provide social security cov-
erage for those current employees who
desire such coverage.
As a representative from Wisconsin,
the State which has been a leader in the
establishment of public retirement sys-
tems, t rise in support of this legislation.
I need not remind my colleagues that the
Wisconsin system was founded prior to
the Federal social security system and
and was the first State to integrate its
retirement system with the Federal
system. This legislation merely adds the
State of Nevada to the list of 17 other
States, including Wisconsin, which may
divide their retirement system to provide
OASDI coverage for those employees
desiring such coverage.
PAY INCREASE BILL
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given p-r-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday
afternoon there was delivered to the of-
flees of the members of the Post Office
and Civil Service Committee a new pay
increase bill for Members of Congress
and others. This morning, the Post Of-
fice and Civil Service Committee con-
vened, the gavel fell at 10:35, and a mo-
tion was promptly made to limit
consideration and vote the bill out at
11:20. No hearings were held on the
new bill. There have been no hearings
on any of the pay increase bills since
last October 15. Not a single witness
from the administration was permitted
to appear in behalf of the new bill that,
I say, was made available in the offices
of committee members only yesterday
afternoon. The new bill, calling for pay
increases of more than half a billion dol-
lars a year, was voted out at 11:20 this
morning after only. 45 minutes of con-
sideration. It was one of the most high-
handed operations I have witnessed in
my 16 years in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, there were a few of us on
the committee who yelped like beagle
hounds, and we did not have to have any
pulling of the ears by Lyndon Johnson, j
either.
POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY
(Mr. RIEHLMAN asked and was given
permision to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Speaker, May
3 will be the anniversary of the adoption
of the Polish Constitution. This mo-
mentous event occurred in 1791.
Today I want to join with all the other
friends of the Polish people to demon-
strate to them that we do care about the
valiant defense of freedom they have
maintained through the years.
The nation of Poland has a heritage
of Christianity and participation in the
growth of Western culture. It is one of
the black spots of history that this noble
nation and its courageous people are
being ruthlessly suppressed by the Com-
munist system.
The tremendous struggle of the Poles
in World War II against Nazi-Commu-
nist totalitarianism is an inspiration to
all humanity.
We all hope and pray that this coun-
try may one day rejoin the community
of free nations.
AUTHORIZING- NEVADA TO DIVIDE
ITS RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the bill?H.R. 287?to
amend title II of the Social Security Act
to include Nevada among those States
which are permitted to divide their re-
tirement systems into two parts for pur-
poses of obtaining social security cover-
9397
The bill was unanimously reported
from the Ways and Means Committee
and is worthy of your support.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
[Mr. BARING addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES' and I may ex-
tend our remarks in explanation of these
bills reported from the Committee on
Ways and Means and which are passed
by the House today, and in addition that
the authors of the bills and any other
Members desiring to do so may extend
their remarks. immediately following the
passage of the particular bills involved.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
RETIREMENT SYSTEMS IN MAINE:
POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN IN
TEXAS
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent for the immediate con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 3348) to
amend section 316 of the Social Security
Amendments of 1958 to extend the time
within which teachers and other em-
ployees covered by the same retirement
system in the State of Maine may be
treated as being covered by separate re-
tirement systems for purposes of the old-
age, survivors, and disability insurance
program, which was unanimously re-
ported by the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the present consideration of the bill?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object and I shall not object,
is the gentleman going to explain the
bills?
Mr. MILLS. I will be glad to give an
explanation of any of the bills I am asked
to explain.
Mr. GROSS. I think we ought to
have a brief explanation of each bill as
it is called up and since the gentleman
assures us that he will explain each of
the bills, I will withdraw my reservation
of objection, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the present consideration of the bill?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
316 of the Social Security Amendments of
1958 is amended by striking out "July 1,
1961" and inserting in lieu thereof "July 1,
1965".
SEC. 2. The amendment made by the first
section of this Act shall be effective as of
July 1, 1961.
SEC. 2. Section 218(p) of the Social Se-
curity Act is amended by inserting "Texas,"
after "Tennessee,".
With the following committee amend-
ments:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
9398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE April 30
Page 1, strike out lines 8 and 7.
Page 1, after line?. Insert the following:
"SEc. 2. Section 216(p) of the Social Se-
curity Act is amended by inserting 'Texas,'
after 'Tennessee,'"
The committee amendments were
agreed to.
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Speaker, as unanimously reported
by the Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. 3348 makes two changes in provi-
sions of law relating to the old-age, sur-
vivors' and disability insurance program
under the Social Security Act.
First, the bill, which was Introduced
by our colleague, the Honorable SIANLIY
R. TOPPER, would reopen temporarily a
provision of law permitting the State of
Maine to treat teaching and nonteach-
ing employees who are actually in the
same retirement system as though they
were under separate retirement systems
for social security coverage purposes.
The original provision, enacted as part
of the Social Security Amendments of
1958. expired on June 30, 1960, and was
reopened until July 1, 1961. The pend-
ing bill would reopen the provision until
July 1, 1965, thus permitting the State
of Maine to complete the desired exten-
sions of coverage.
The second section of the bill, as re-
ported, amends section 218 of the Social
Security Act to include Texas in the list
of States which may obtain social se-
curity coverage, under State agreement,
for State and local policemen and fire-
men under retirement systems. This
provision, which presently includes 18
specified States and all interstate in-
strumentalities, is completely permissive
and makes possible the coverage of
groups of policemen and firemen only if
the State specifically requests that its
coverage agreement with the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare be
modified to provide such coverage, and
further, such coverage must be author-
ized by State law. The Committee on
Ways and Means in considering bills of
this nature has always been careful to
refrain from Moving in this area unless
it has seemed clear that It was desired
by the State In question.
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, H.R. 3348, as amended by the
Ways and Means Committee, amends
the Social Security Act to extend the
time during which the State of Maine
may modify its existing agreement under
the Social Security Act with respect to
OASDI coverage for employees under
that State's public retirement system.
In addition, the bill adds the State of
Texas to the list of some 18 States which
may provide social security OASDI cov-
erage to policemen and firemen covered
under that State's public retirement sys-
tem.
The legislation merely allows the
States of Maine and Texas to qualify
under certain provisions of the Social
Security Act in the same manner as cer-
tain other specified States. Both sec-
tions of the bill require implementation
on the part of the respective State gov-
ernments.
Because these two States requested
this legislation, I feel that it merits your
strong support.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, arid passed, and a motion to recon-
sider was laid on the table.
[Mr. l'UPPF2it addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
TITLE II OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent for the immediate consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 9393) to amend
title II of the Social Security Act to pro-
vide full retroactivity for disability deter-
minations, to extend the period within
which ministers may elect coverage, and
to validate Ages erroneously reported
for certain engineering aids employed by
soil and water conservation districts in
Oklahoma, which was also unanimously
reported by the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the present consideration of the bill?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembted. That (a) sec-
tion 316(1)(2) of the Social Security Act is
amended by striking out the third sentence
and inserting In lieu thereof the following:
"A period of disability shall (subject to sec-
tion 323(a) (3) ) begin?
"(A) on the day the disability began, but
only if the individual satisfies the require-
ments of paragraph (3) on such day; or
"(B) if such individual does not satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (3) on such day,
then on the first day of the first quarter
thereafter in which he satisfies such require-
ments."
(hi Section 218(1)(9) of such Act is
amended by striking out "of paragraphs (2)
and (4)" and inserting in lieu thereof "of
paragraph (2)".
(c) Section 216(1)(4) of such Act la re-
pealed.
(d) (1) The amendments made by subsec-
tions (a), (b), and (c) shall apply in the
case of applications for disability determi-
nations under section 216(1) of the Social
Security Act filed alter the month following
the month in which this Act is enacted.
(2) Except as provided in the succeeding
paragraphs. such amendments shall also
apply, and as though such amendments had
been enacted on July 1, 1962. In the came of
applications for disability determinations
filed under section 218(1) of the Social Secu-
rity Act during the period beginning July 1,
1962. and ending with the close of the month
following the month in which this Act Is en-
acted, by an individual who--
(A) has been under a disability (aa defined
In such section 218(I)) continuously since
he filed such application and up to (I) the
first day of the second month following the
month in which this Act is enacted or (II)
if earlier, the first day of the month in which
he attained the age of 65. and
(13) Is living on the day specified in sub-
paragraph (A) (I) .
(3) In the case of an Individual to whom
paragraph (2) applies and who filed an appli-
cation for disability insurance benefits under
section 223 of the Social Security Act during
the period specified in such paragraph?
(A) if such Individual was under a dis-
ability (as defined in section 233(c) of such
Act) throughout such period and was not en-
titled to disability insurance benefits under
such section 23 for any month in such period
(except for the amendments made by this
section), such application and any applica-
tion filed during such period for benefits tin-
der section 202 of the Social Security Act on
the basis of the wages and self-employment
Income of such Individual shall, notwith-
standing section 202(j) (2) and the first sen-
tence of section 223(b), be deemed an effec-
tive application, or
(B) If such individual was entitled (with-
out the application of this section (to) dis-
ability insurance benefits under section 223
for a continuous period of months immedi-
ately preceding?
(I) the second month following the month
in which this Act was emoted, or
(II) if earlier, the month in which he be-
came entitled to benefits under section
202(a),
his primary insurance amount shall be re-
computed, but only if such amount would be
increased solely by reason of the enactment
of this section.
(4) No monthly insurance benefits, and no
increase In monthly insurance benefits, may
be paid under title la of the Social Security
Act by reason of the enactment of this sec-
tion for any month before the eleventh
month before the month in which this Act
is enacted.
(5) In the case of an individual (A) who
is entitled under section 202 of the Social
Security Act (but without the application of
subsection (11(1) of such section) to a
widow's, widower's, or parent's insurance
benefit, or to an old-age, wife's, or husband's
insurance benefit which is reduced under
section 202(q) of such Act, for any month
in the period referred to in paragraph (2) of
this subsection, (B) who was under a dis-
ability (as defined in section 223(c) of the
Social Security Act) which began prior to
the sixth month before the first month for
which the benefits referred to in clause (A)
are payable and which continued through
the month following the month in which this
Act is enacted, and (C) who files an appli-
cation for disability inn:ranee benefits under
section 233(a) (1) of the Social Security Act--
(I) subsection (s)(3) of section 223 of the
Social Security Act shall not prevent him
from being entitled to such disability in-
surance benefits;
(11) the provisions of subsection (a) (1)
of such section 223 terminating entitlement
to disability insurance benefits by reason of
entitlement to old-age insurance benefits
shall not apply with respect to him unless
and Until he again becomes entitled to such
old-age insurance benefits under the provi-
sions of section 202 of such Act;
(iii) such individual shall, for any month
for which he is thereby entitled to both old-
age insurance benefits and disability insur-
ance benefits, be entitled only to such dis-
ability insurance benefits; and
(iv) in case the benefits reduced under
subsection (q) of section 202 of such Act
are old-age insurance benefits (I) such old-
age insurance benefits for the months in the
period referred to in paragraph (2) of this
subsection shall not be recomputed solely
by reason of the enactment of this section,
and, if otherwise recomputed, the provisions
of and amendments made by this section
shall not apply to such recomputation: and
(n) the months for which he received such
old-age insurance benefits before or during
the period for which he becomes entitled, by
reason of such enactment, to disability in-
surance benefits under such section 223
and the months for which he received such
disability insurance benefits shall be ex-
cluded from the "reduction period" and
the "adjusted reduction period", as de-
fined in paragraphs (5) and (6), respective-
ly, of such subsection (q) for purposes of
determining the amount of the old-age in-
surance benefits to which he may sub-
sequently become entitled.
(6) The entitlement of any individual to
benefits under section 202 of the Social
Security Act shall not be terminated solely
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? DAILY DIGEST
Bourbon Whiskey?Coffee: Objection was made to a
unanimous-consent request for immediate consideration
of S. Con. Res. 19, to designate "Bour-bon whiskey" as a
distinctive product of the United States, and H.R. 4198,
to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to provide for the free
importation of soluble and instant coffee. H.R. 2330,
to provide that antiques may be imported free of duty
if they exceed ioo years of age at time of importation,
was not called up. Pages 9408-9410
Program for Monday: Adjourned at 1:57 p.m. until
Monday, May 4, 1964, at 12 o'clock noon, when the
House will call the Consent Calendar and consider,
under suspension of the rules, the following four bills:
H.R. 8078, regarding the Muscatine Bridge Commis-
sion;
H.R. 7654, to designate the lock on the St. Marys River
at Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., as the John A. Blatnik Lock;
H.R. 10053, to amend section 502 of the Merchant
Marine Act of 1936 relating to vessel construction dif-
ferentials; and
S. 627, to promote State commercial fishery research
and development projects.
Committee Meetings
MILITARY HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION
Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Mili-
tary Hospital Construction held a hearing on problems
relating to the construction of military hospital facilities.
Heard testimony from Rear Adm. E. C. Kenney, Sur-
geon General of the Navy; and Maj. Gen. Richard L.
Bohannon, Surgeon General of the USAF.
FOREIGN AID
Committee on Foreign Affairs: Continued a hearing on
foreign aid, and heard testimony from public witnesses.
Recessed until Friday, May 1.
POLYGRAPHS
Committee on Government Operations: Subcommittee
on Foreign Operations and Government Information
held a hearing on the use of polygraphs in the Federal
Government. Heard testimony from public witnesses.
PUBLIC LANDS
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: Subcommit-
tee on Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 9162, "to
establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for
the permanent good of the whole people." Heard testi-
mony from public witnesses.
PRAYER?PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Committee on the Judiciary: Continued hearings on
pending resolutions regarding prayer and Bible reading
in schools and in other public places. Heard testimony
from Representative Fino, Gover
bama; and public witnesses.
FEDERAL PAY RAISE
D333
or Wallace, of Ala-
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Met in
\ executive session and ordered reported favorably to the
House H.R. 11049, the Federal pay raise bill.
PROJECT RANGER
Committee on Science and Astronautics: Subcommittee
on National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oversight held a hearing regarding the investigation of
Project Ranger. Heard testimony from public witnesses.
HOSPITALS
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Subcommittee on Hos-
pitals held a hearing on various hospital and medical
program bills. Heard testimony from public witnesses.
Joint Committee Meetings
KINZUA DAM?SENECA INDIANS
Conferees met in executive session to resolve the differ-
ences between the Senate- and House-passed versions of
H.R. 1794, authorizing payment of funds to Seneca Na-
tion for rights-of-way over lands of the Allegany Indian
Reservation for the Kinzua Dam project, but did not
reach agreement, and announced that they would
resume its consideration next week.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR FRIDAY, MAY 1
(All meetings are open unless otherwise designated)
Senate
Committee on Appropriations, subcommittee, on fiscal 1965
budget estimates for independent offices, 8:30 a.m., room'S-128,
Capitol.
Subcommittee, on fiscal 1965 budget estimates for public
works, 8:30 a.m., 1114 New Senate Office Building.
Subcommittee, on fiscal 1965 budget estimates for the State
Department, 9 a.m. roony-S-i26, Capitol.
Committee on Armed Services, Military Construction Sub-
committee, on H.R. 10300, military construction authorizations
bill, 8:30 a.m., 212 Old Senate Office Building.
House
Cornmittee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on District of
Columbia, executive, ro a.m., H-3o2 U.S. Capitol Building.
Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Real Estate
and Construction, executive, on current real estate projects,
so a.m., 304 Cannon House Office Building.
Committee on Foreign Affairs, on foreign aid, To a.m., H-322
U.S. Capitol Building.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on
Public Lands, to continue hearings on wilderness legislation,
9:45 a.m., 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Corninittee on the Judiciary, on pending resolutions regarding
prayer and Bible reading in public schools and in other public
places, so a.m., 346 Cannon House Office Building.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Congressional
'Record
The public proceedings of each House of
Congress, as reported by the Official Reporters
thereof, are printed pursuant to directions
of the Joint Committee on Printing as au-
thcrrized by appropriate provisions of Title
44. Halted States Code, and published for
inlch day that one or both Houses are In
session, excepting very Infrequent instances
when two or more unusually small consecu-
tive Issues are printed at one time.
The Congressional Record will be furnished
by mall to subscribers, free of postage, for
411.60 per month, payable In advance. Remit
check or money order, made payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. directly to
the Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 20402. For subscription purposes. 20
daily issues constitute a month. The charge
for individual copies varies in proportion to
the else of the issue.
Following each session of Congress, the
daily Congressional Record Is revised,
printed, permanently bound and is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents In Indi-
vidual parts or by Beta.
With the exception of copyrighted articles,
there are no restrictions on the republication
of material from the Congressional Record.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 - ApprovabRtgadele0=5CCIECURIITIA-13114MMIND3R000500050001-9 A1741
board of selection, which chose the 21
churches and temples comprising the
exhibit from more than 160 submissions
from this country and abroad, says:
Perhaps the significance to be perceived
in this collection is the unremitting search
for appropriate form by architects of reli-
gious buildings. In this age we oan no
longer repeat styles, but must find concepts
for houses of worship that are meaningful
for congregations of today and tomorrow.
The architects whose work is represented
in this exhibit feel that they have done this,
or at least have indicated paths to be fol-
lowed for the religious architecture of the
future.
This is but one of a number of public
service activities in which the AIA's New
York chapter has engaged. Some of its
more significant and recent efforts also
deserve attention.
Through the chapter and its women's
auxiliary well over $10,000 is awarded
each year in the form of scholarships and
fellowships. Among these is the Arnold
W. Brunner Scholarship, calling for
study in a field which will contribute to
the advancement of the architectural
profession. Grants have been made for
a study of urban living, new means of
communication which will facilitate
architectural design, and many others.
This past year the scholarship was given
for a study of Government control of
architecture in European countries. In
making the award, Geoffry N. Lawford,
president of the chapter, said:
With the intensive growth of our cities
and our citizens' increasing concern with
better architecture and improved city plan-
ning, the role of legislative controls is of
vital intereat.
The chapter recently completed a
3-year study of the hospital operating
area. Out of this research program,
which was made possible through a grant
to the chapter by the Division of Hospi-
tal and Medical Facilities of the U.S.
Public Health Service, evolved a new con-
cept in planning hospital surgical facili-
ties. The new design approach calls for
the development, within the hospital, of
a nearly self-contained surgical center
capable of caring for patients from ad-
mission to completion of their postopera-
tive recovery period. While patients
would continue to use the hospital's
standard nursing units for convales-
cence, many minor cases would never
even require assignment to a hospital
room.
Specifically designed to give hospitals
-better control over wound infection, by
limiting the patient's and staff's exposure
to contamination, the "surgical center" is
expected to provide additional benefits.
Among these are faster handling of
urgent cases, increased efficiency, im-
provement in the patient's emotional en-
vironment, better use of personnel, and
Increased surgical service capacity. The
U.S. Public Health Service has awarded
research funds to develop the first sur-
gical center at Montefiore Hospital in the
Bronx. The research study was con-
ducted under the auspices of ,the AIA
chapter's hospital and health committee.
It was assisted by an advisory board
composed of persons distinguished in
their work in preventive medicine, sur-
gery, administration, and other pertinent
areas.
During the year the hospital and
health committee conducts a program to
broaden the architect's knowledge of the
latest hospital problems and procedures.
Through hospital tours, meetings, and
speakers, it also contributes to an ex-
change of ideas between hospital repre-
sentatives and architects. It is current-
ly developing a seminar on hospital
planning to prevent sepsis.
Our schools comprise another area of
prime importance. Making a contribu-
tion here is the chapter's school com-
mittee. Last year it jointly sponsored
with the Board of Education of the City
of New York a 2-day seminar on the
unique problems of planning schools in a
big city. Leading educators and archi-
tects in the fields of research, adminis-
tration, and design participated. The
aim of the seminar was to find ways of
improving educational and architectural
standards for urban schools.
Each year the house consulting com-
mittee of the chapter holds a design
competition to stimulate an appreciation
of attractive and efficient house design
and to arouse the public to the im-
portance of good architectural design in
daily living.
An urban design committee keeps con-
stantly abreast of what is happening in
the city with regard to zoning, parks, and
other matters which affect the planning
and development of New York. As a re-
sult, the chapter has given its support
to a proposal for a new civic center, a
park at Breezy Point, promoted the idea
of converting Ellis Island to a memorial
park which would be in keeping with
its historical associations, and was very
active Infighting for passage of a modern
zoning code for the city.
The chapter joined with the American
Management Association in developing
a national conference on design. Prior
to that it sponsored the first conference
on aesthetic responsibility.
It would take far too long to detail the
many other public spirited activities of
this organization and its committees.
Therefore, I have limited myself to some
of the more significant efforts.
The New York chapter of American
Institute of Architects, representing
more than 1,400 members, many of them
known throughout this country and the
world for their work, can serve as a model
and inspiration to other organizations on
city, State, and National levels. Its mem-
bers and its officers are to be con-
gratulated for public spirited efforts as
this chapter enters its 97th year of serv-
ice to its profession, its members, and
the general public.
New Pay Bill for Postal and Other
Federal Employees
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JAMES C. HEALEY
OF NEW ;YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 8, 1964
Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted that the gentleman from Loui-
isiana [Mr. Momuson] has introduced
a new Federal pay bill (HR. 10700) for
our consideration.
This new bill represents a construc-
tive and intelligent compromise over the
bill which this body did not see fit to
approve last month. It reduces the pro-
posed pay increase for Members of the
Congress and for Federal judges from
$10,000 to $7,500 and it delays the effect-
tive date for these two categories until
January 1, 1965. It maintains the same
provisions for postal and Federal work-
ers that were in the original bill, with
an effective date of July 1, 1964.
-Mr. Speaker, I supported the original
Federal pay bill and I shall support this
one.
I know the disappointment and dis-
couragement which filled the hearts of
postal workers in my district when this
body disapproved of the original pay bill.
These people need a pay raise. They
need it badly. The Congress had prom-
ised them this pay raise when it had
passed the pay reform bill of 1962.
Postal workers and Federal workers felt,
quite rightly, that Congress owed them
a debt of honor and that this debt had
been repudiated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the op-
portunity of redeeming our honor by
passing a bill that deserves the en-
thusiastic support of every Member of
this House. The bill follows the rec-
ommendations which the late President
Kennedy made to the Congress a year
ago this month. It also follows the rec-
ommendations which President John-
son has made to the Congress. It is a
fine bill; a constructive bill and a de-
serving bill.
I intend to do everything in my power
do help achieve its passage.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. HOMER E. ABELE
OF OHIO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 8, 1964
Mr. ABELE. Mr. Speaker, I shall leave
the eulogies of General of the Army
Douglas MacArthur to those Members
of the Congress who had greater per-
sonal contact with that great patriot. I
simply wish to express the deep feeling
of loss felt by the people of the 10th Dis-
trict of Ohio by the passing of General
MacArthur. I know that I speak for all
of them in expressing our condolences
to the late general of the Army's family.
Certainly they should know that we share
their great sorrow.
I first heard the words of Douglas Mac-
Arthur when I attended the Republican
National Convention of 1952. I shall al-
ways remember the keynote address that
he gave there. His inspiration carried
us on to victory, at the polls in Noveniber
of that year.
I would quote two paragraphs from
that speech. The words are nonpartisan.
In the future, it would be well if we kept
ourselves constantly reminded of the
following words of General of the Army
MacArthur as they were given by him at
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1712 Approved For RARTgRaMiaNkt: ntt-ORE66130,C1402FORN 00050001-9
that Republican National Convention of
1952:
Spiritually and physically we possess the
resource, properly conserved and realistically
applied, to lead toward a world freed from
the exhausting wars which have so plagued
the past. This is a practical purpose, not
visionary. For the destructiveness of mod-
ern war has now in the atomic age become
too frightful to contemplate by even a poten-
tial victor.
This, then, must be the direction of our
foreign policy. We must, upon restoration of
our military strength and spiritual balance
recklessly dissipated In our headlong retreat
from victory, chart from that strength a
true and unequivocal course to peace and
tranauillty?a peace and tranquility which
will be real, not fictitious; deep-rooted, not
superficial. Our Ideal must be eventually the
abolition of war. Such is the longing hope
in all the masses of mankind of whatever
race or tribe. Indeed, so well is this under-
stood that even the despot In order to assure
a following cloaks the threat or application
of force with the hypothetical pretense that
his purpose is to secure the peace.
We should all heed well the words of
this great American. We should con-
tinue to develop all of our resources that
we may remain strong enough to main-
tain the peace.
I would suggest that a committee be
formed to create a suitable memorial to
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.
To be in keeping with his character, it
should be one that can be used to some
practical purpose.
A Doleful TV Tale
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 8, 1964
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker,
once more we come to the baffling con-
fusion that seems inevitable in Govern-
ment by commission, which shows ,up
again in this very calm and factual arti-
cle by Vermont Royster, that appeared
in the Wall Street Journal of April 7.
It seems that in this matter of licenses
for TV and radio, the FCC is damned if
it does and damned if it does not:
THINKING THINGS OVER: A DOLL! TA. TV TALE
(By Vermont Royster)
Sometimes we just cannot help feeling
sorry for the gentlemen who make up the
Federal Communications Commission,
If there ever was a political hot seat, they
are on it, what with their power to give or
take away television licenses, those little
pieces of paper which have become permits
to coin money. And now a concatenation of
circumstances Involving the fortunes of Lyn-
don Johnson makes It almost certain they
will get burned whether they sit still, squirm,
or try to get off.
Briefly, the tangled plot of this television
soap opera runs like this:
Back in 1943, when Lyndon Johnson was
a young Congressman fresh out of the Navy,
his wife bought a small radio station in Aus-
tin. Tex.. for $17,500. At the time It did not
seem much of a deal since station KTBC had
a limited license and lost money.
What followed, though, was a Horatio Al-
ger success story. Mrs. Johnson quickly
won an unlimited license from the FCC and
a network affiliation with CBS, turning red
ink Into black. Later there came a tele-
vision license, the acquisition of other Sta-
tions, affiliation with the two other networks,
and FCC permission to boost transmitting
power.
Meanwhile, other aspirants for stations in
the Austin area got discouraged about the
necessary FCC clearance for any competing
stations. So some 20 years later the L.B.J.
Co., as it was called until recently. found
Itself with exclusive broadcasting rights in
this rich central Texas area and with a bal-
ance sheet measured in millions.
No breath of scandal marred this success
story. Lyndon Johnson, on the record, owned
no part of his wife's prosperous business, and
neither as Congressman nor as Senator did
he ever say a word on her behalf to the FCC,
csen when be was chairman of the Senate
committee handling FCC business.
But in every television tale, as in the Alger
stories. a little rain must fall. Just as an-
other challenger appeared on the Austin TV
scene?this time a company that "pipes in"
TV shows from out of town?Lyndon John-
son wound up in the-White House.
it's doubtful If this complication bothers
Mr. Johnson, or Lady Ifird either. But it
puts the FCC in an excruciating position.
The other company presently has a license
to pipe in to Austin some TV shows but it. Is
prohibited from offering its customers (who
receive programs by cable into their homes)
any of the network programs the Johnson
station might offer but doesn't until at least
13 days after the Johnson station has passed
up the opportunity. This restriction. whloh
protects the Johnson station, is what is now
at issue.
If the Commissioners don't lift the restric-
tion, they'll be burned for allegedly protect-
ing the Johnson "monopoly," If they do,
there'll be hot howls from previous would-be
entrants who were denied access to the Aus-
tin market and also scorching accusations
that the gentlemen of the Commission are
reversing established policies just to avoid
the charges of favoritism.
So they're dammed If they do and dammed
if they don't which is certainly the stuff of
which dramatic plots are made.
Even so, our sympathy for their plight Is
dampened somewhat by that feeling we often
get watching TV playlets?you know, the
feeling that if the characters In the tale had
acted a little more sensibly they wouldn't be
In such a fix.
The only excuse for putting TV stations
under a licensing system anyway Is a techni-
cal one. That is, in the VHF wave spectrum,
which Is currently the main one for commer-
cial broadcasts, there is room for only so
many stations.
Except for this technical problem there
Is no more reason for a Government ration-
ing agency for TV than for a Federal bureau
to decide how many shoe stores, barber shops,
neweptipers, or movie houses should be al-
flowed in a given town.
But as so often happens, somewhere along
the line policies that had some sense in them
turned ridiculous. Today if you apply for a
TV license in Middletown. U.S.A., the Com-
mission isn't content with just deciding if
there is air room for you to operate without
jamming another station. The Commission
also tries to decide If there's room enough
for competition. And at this point, the
whole thing becomes utter nonsense.
Back in 1948 the FCC suspended granting
any new TV channel ialocations, technical
considerations or no technical considera-
tions, while it launched a "study" of what
was the "right" number of stations per capita
and where they should be located. Subse-
quently it evolved some guidelines, which we
don't profess to understand and which no
Commissioner can logically expain, that
would limit the number of stations on popu-
lation ratios and all that sort of thing.
April 8
Here the Commission doesn't pretend that
It is doing anything but acting "to protect
local television stations from competition."
In other words, the fellow who's already
there has got it made?at least for as long as
the Commissioners are happy with him.
No wonder TV stations sell for fabulous
sums. It's not the physical plant but the
Government license that's worth a mint.
No wonder that present owners are satisfied
with the policy. No wonder, either, that
they live in trepidation of displeasing the
Commission, for whit the Commission gives
the Commission can take away. These
licenses to coin msney, remember, are re-
newable.
And no wonder the Commissioners get
perplexed trying to decide who gets rich and
who doesn't. Solomon would be confused.
The Johnson case, therefore, isn't unique.
True, delivering TV shows to people's homes
In Austin by rented cable wouldn't interfere
with the KTBC-TV signal: it would only
Interfere with the station's exclusive rights
to a captive audience. But in shielding
ICIBC -TV from the winds of competition the
Commissioners aren t singling out the John-
son company for fasortism or, for that mat-
ter, picking on just Austin audiences in de-
priving them of a wider choice of TV shows.
Under FCC policies, it happens all over.
That the Commissioners, nice gentlemen
all, should now find themselves tangled in
the toils of presidential politics is just hapless
fortune, and we'll watch with sympathy as
they try to untangle it. Still, it's just like
all those TV plots--take away the foolish-
ness and there'd be no doleful tale to tell.
Authorizing Appropriations to the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration
SPEECH
or
HON. JOHN W. WYDLER
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday. March 25, 1964
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 10458) to au-
thorize appropriations to the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration for re-
search and development, construction of
facilities, and admlnlatrative operations, and
for other purposes.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, the
NASA authorization bill before Congress
represents this Nation's investment in
the conquest of space. As a member of
the Science and Astronautics Committee
of the House of Representatives, I sup-
port the high priority given this program.
Outside of defense spending, this
Federal space program represents our
largest single expenditure?over $5 bil-
lion.
The responsibility for this programs is
awesome. The Space Agency is expand-
ing at an ellOrMOUS rate. Yet, I am con-
vinced that the men doing the job are
sincere, dedicated, and competent.
They have obtained excellent overall re-
sults of which all Americans can be
proud.
In paying this general compliment. I
must express some reservations and
specific criticisms
First, I have joined with my colleagues
on the Committee in separate views on
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
ApprovedemEsittgidffity0fatogt-RDR
plan has been approved by the local gov-
erning body, and that such approval
must contain findings by that body
that,?as the code states:
(1) the financial aid to be provided in the
contract is necessary to enable the project
to be undertaken in accordance with the
urban renewal plan,"
(ii) the urban renewal plan will afford
maximum opportunity, consistent with the
sound needs of the locality as a whole, for
the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the
urban renewal area by private enterprise,"
(iii) the urban renewal plan conforms to a
general plan for the development of the
locality as a whole."
In my opinion, none of these criteria
have been met, on the facts that I have
available to me. There has been no
estimate of cost of acquiring the land
through eminent domain, and no com-
parison of that cost with that of renting
from a private developer for the same
purpose. 'Under the circumstances, no
one could possibly find that the first,
criteria of the need of Government as-
sistance had been met.
Secondly, the plan for this 12.8-acre
tract makes no arrangements at all for
private enterprise development instead
of purchase and resale' by the Govern-
ment to a favored party. The question
has not even been explored, if the news-
paper reports are true.
Thirdly, the stack exchange ap-
proached the housing body to create an
urban renewal plan for that particular
area for that particular purpose. It can
hardly be said that this project and pur-
pose was anticipated in any general plan
for the community as a whole. There
is no evidence, moreover, that this new
exchange via urban renewal is necessary
to keep the exchange in New York City,
or to increase the intake of property
taxes, or to stimulate new business. On
the contrary, realtors in the area are
complaining that any move, even 400
yards away, would hurt present office
and commercial establishments.
Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example
of how far afield we have gone in the
urban renewal program. No longer are
we helping the needy, no longer are we
concerned with the ill-housed, the small
businessman, the minority groups. I
would like to see any administration
official go into the rent strike areas of
Harlem, or Cleveland, or the Nation's
Capital for that matter, and tell them
why money that should be spent to meet
their needs is being spent elsewhere to
benefit the New York Stock Exchange
and other commercial ventures that
could well afford to help themselves.
This is precisely why the Republican
housing proposal includes a specific set
of priorities, placing housing first, and
commercial redevelopment on a loan
basis.
There is another thing that worries
me, however. We are told that urban
renewal projects are the result of local
decisions and local initiative, and are
solemnly assured that no Federal official
attempts to "sell" the program. Yet
here we have a situation where it is re-
ported that Federal urban renewal of-
ficials gave tentative approval to a plan
having nothing to do with the purpose
No. 73-4
!),
of urban renewal, and they did so even
before the city officials acted. I would
like to know who these Federal officials
are, what contacts were made, what
promises given, and what influence an
apparent prior Federal approval had on
the city board of estimate. As far as
I am concerned, such conduct is out of
line with their official duties, and if true,
should be sufficient to end their employ-
ment by the American taxpayer.
The Wall Street Journal article of
April 10, 1964, follows:
NEW YORK UNIT VOTES URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
POE BIS BOARD'S PROPOSED NEW QUARTERS
(By Laurence G. O'Donnell)
NEW Yorac.?An urban renewal plan,
under which New York City will acquire 12.8
acres as a site for the New York Stock Ex-
change's new headquarters, was approved
unanimously by the city's board of estimate.
The decision clears the way for the slum
clearance plan, which already has tentative
approval of Federal urban renewal officials.
But it may take years for the site to be
acquired from its present owners, chiefly a
group headed by John P. McGrath, a lawyer
and former city corporation counsel, and Sol
Atlas, a real estate developer. They oppose
the urban renewal plan.
The land, at Manhattan's southern tip,
will have to be taken from the present own-
ers through court condemnation proceed-
ings, unless these owners come to terms with
the city out of court. There was no indica-
tion yesterday that this would happen.
CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Mr. McGrath renewed his objection to the
plan, arguing that it was unconstitutional
and contrary to the intent of the urban re-
newal program to take rundown property
from private owners?who planned to rede-
velop it themselves?and then turn it over
to a private business organization, such as
a stock exchange. Such condemnation, Mr.
McGrath argued, would be unique.
He said his group, which wants to build
a 40-story office building on a portion of the
site, would lease or sell land to the ex-
change large enough to house its new trad-
ing floor. He asserted that the exchange
could get its site cheaper this way than
through condemnation. The exchange could
rent office space in the building.
Mr. McGrath also proposed that officials
of the exchange and the city's housing and
redevelopment board, its urban renewal
agency, meet with the present owners in an
effort to make a deal and avoid condemna-
tion proceedings.
But neither an exchange spokesman nor
the head of the housing board expressed
any interest in Mr. McGrath's proposal.
DISCUSSED COSTS
Members of the board of estimate spent
much of the hearing trying to find out
whether the big board knew how much
it thought it would cost to acquire the site
through condemnation or had any interest
in occupying facilities owned by a private
developer.
Charles Klem, a vice president of the ex-
change, said big board officials were not con-
vinced that acquiring the site through a pri-
vate developer would be cheaper, but added
that if shown that It was, the lower cost
would be a factor to be weighed but it might
not be a controlling factor. He indicated
the big board was willing to pay whatever
the court awarded.
One member of the board of estimate,
Edward Cavanaugh, deputy mayor, charged
Mr. Klem with being "sort of whimsical"
and "a little vague on the matter of costs."
Milton Mollen, chairman of the housing
board, brought out that it was the exchange
403R000500050001-9 7885
that wanted to acquire the site through
urban renewal and build its own facilities, so
that it wouldn't have to rent space. Mr.
Klem agreed with the description of the ex-
change's position.
Mr. Klem's appearance was the first by
an exchange official before a public hearing
on the urban renewal plan. Previously the
exchange declined to comment on charges
raised at the hearings.
RAISES QUESTIONS
Mr. Mollen also disputed Mr. McGrath's
contention that condemnation of property
for resale to the exchange was unconstitu-
tional. He indirectly raised questions about
the McGrath group's intentions when it
started to assemble the site in the spring
of 1962.
The housing official cited early 1962 news-
paper articles reporting the big board's in-
terest in the site at Manhattan's tip after
the city rejected it as a luxury housing area.
Mr. McGrath had argued that the land gath-
ering started after the decision on luxury
housing but long before the exchange an-
nounced in late December 1962 that it had
signed a letter of intent with the housing
board to acquire the site and redevelop it
with a new trading facility. "This wasn't
the case of opportunistic speculators moving
Ing in" he said.
Mr. McGrath also charged that he had
been rebuffed in his efforts to make a pro-
posal to the exchange. Instead, he said, he
was shunted back and forth between the ex-
change's real estate consultants who he con-
tended unofficially endorsed his plan, and
the housing board.
Strenuous objections to the urban renewal
plan also were expressed by owners and op-
erators of office buildings near the existing
exchange, some 400 yards north of the urban
renewal area. They contended values of
their holdings would be hurt when the ex-
change left Wall Street for the new site.
The' move would create vacancies, already
high in some of the buildings, as brokerage
houses and others sought new quarters, pos-
sibly in new buildings that may be built,
near the new headquarters, the owners
argued. These real estate interests included
Tenney Corp., Franchard Corp., and Real
Properties Corp. of America, all real estate
investment companies.
(Mr. WIDNALL (at the request of
Mr. BELL) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
?
Tho,
[Mr. WIDNALL'S remarks w appe
hereafter in the Appendix.]
PAY RAISE?PRAISE FOR A '!&o"
VOTE FROM FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
(Mr. CLEVELAND (at the request of
Mr. BELL) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, it is
not often that a Congressman receives a
letter from his district from one who
works for the Federal Government and
who applauds a Congressman for voting
against a pay raise that affects the con-
stituent. 'For this reason, I am pleased
and proud to report that several of my
constituents whose pay was not increased
have assured me that they thought my
vote against the pay raise bill this year
was correct. One such person in par-
ticular wrote me a thoughtful letter and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
7886 Approved For RelgufflawomtupiftiwEpootlion0500050001-9 April 16
has given me permission to publicize this
letter, which I do so now.
Comecon. NM..
March 19. 1964.
Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND.
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CLEVELAND: COITIESS has my
wholehearted approval in rejecting the recent
pay bill, by which its Members and other
Government employees would have received
substantial raises_
Let un not be concerned about pay in-
creases for our already, in my opinion, well-
paid Government workers when there is so
much unemployment. unequality. and hard-
ship in our land.
I should like to point out that all of the
federally paid employees I know are earning
far in excess of those employees of private
industry or State and local municipalities
who must contribute heavily in tax dollars
toward these salaries. New Hampshire State
employees receive salaries far less than those
of Government employees doing comparable
work--for 11 years I worked for our State
and observed this firsthand. As a matter of
fact, federally paid employees also enjoy more
generous fringe benefits than do employees
of most other establishments.
Government workers received a liberal raise
only 2 months ago under the second phase
of the 1982 Salary Act, and to have granted
them an additional increase in pay now
would have been completely unrealistic, un-
justified, and unnecessary.
Please continue to help Uncle Sam to wisely
and prudently spend our hard-earned tax
dollars?as President Johnson only last Sun-
day indicated that to do so was his desire
and objective aim. We taxpayers are proud
of America and its leaders and want our
country to be economically sound.
I feel I am fully justified in expressing my
opinion in this way because I am a Govern-
ment employee, and have been for nearly 9
years.
Sincerely yours.
Einea WEEKS.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. HEL-
LER ON THE WAGE-PRICE GUIDE-
LINES
(Mr. CURTIS (at the request of Mr.
BELL) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, on March
23, I wrote to Dr. Walter W. Heller,
Chairman of the President's Council of
Economic Advisers, inquiring about an
article from the Wall Street Journal
relating to the implementation of the
administration's wage-price guidelines.
On April 3, Chairman Heller replied to
my letter. I have now replied to his.
Because of the critical importance of
the wage-price guidelines, I think it
would increase public understanding of
administration policy if this correspond-
ence were made generally available.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that the correspondence to which I have
referred, as well as a copy of the Wall
Street Journal article, be included in
the RECORD at this point. I also ask
unanimous consent that a question on
the wage-price guidelines which I sub-
mitted to Dr. Heller on January 23, along
with his reply, also be included in the
RECORD at this point.
APRIL 17,1964.
Dr. WALTER W. HELLER
Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers,
Executive Office of the President,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DR. HELLER: Thank you tor your reply
of April 3 to my letter of March 23. Inquiring
about a Wail Street Journal report that the
administration's price-wage early warning
system was going into high gear.
Contrary to the impression I received from
the Journal story, I infer from your letter
that the early warning system and the im-
plementation of the guidelines has not de-
veloped beyond your reply to my question
on the same subject submitted to you on
January 23.
The drawing up of wage-price guidelines
by the Council and the administration's
stated determination that unions and man-
agement must abide by them is an important
departure from existing practice and has vast
implications for the future relationship be-
tween the public and private sectors. It is
my hope that our correspondence will help to
promote public understanding of adminis-
tration policy In the vital area of price and
wage decisionmak Ing.
At the moment, this understanding is im-
precise and vague. The Council has, to be
sure, spelled out the guidelines in some de-
tail in its recent economic reports. How the
guidelines will be implemented remains more
of a mystery.
Your letter, for example. says that the pur-
pose of the early warning system is to en-
able the administration to inform itself on
situations to which further attention might
need be given. In your reply to my question
of January 23, you said that the idea was to
keep the President informed of industry
situations that threaten to overstep the
bounds of responsible price and wagemak-
ing. Such situations, you said, "if serious
enough, would become candidates for further
administration consideration."
Two questions arise. In the first place.
what standards will determine whether a
particular price or wage decision needs
-further attention" or becomes a "candi-
date" for further consideration? I take it
from your statement that not every situation
that exceeds the guidelines will automat-
ically fall into this category. Except for
government, the rules of the game will not
be known to the players. The result Is in-
tolerable uncertainty that is patently unfair
as well as potentially damaging to the
smooth functioning of our economy. Dis-
criminatory abuse of its powers by govern-
ment is oleo an ever-present and disturbing
possibility.
In the second place. what type of action
does the administration plan to take in those
situations where it feels that some action is
called for? Your reply to my question of
January 23 stated that "specific means by
which the President might wish to focus
public attention on particular situations,
and otherwise convey his interest and con-
cern to the parties involved, would, of
course, be up to the President."
Evidently the administration expects to
take action against what it deems to be.ser-
lous infractions of the guidelines by invok-
ing the power and prestige of the Presidency.
At the moment, the methods by which the
President will resist objectionable wage and
price decisions are Inscrutable. You have
assured me, however, that there would be no
repitition of the unfortunate 1982 steel
episode.
What is clear Is that the parties to a par-
ticular wage and price situation will not
know in advance either the nature of the
behavior which will set off a Presidential
response or what the nature of that response
might be. Among the many objections to
this procedure?aside from the fact that it is
not based upon a statutory grant of author-
ity?is that the impassibly heavy burden of
implementation placed upon the Presidency
is certain to weaken both the authority and
the prestige of that high office.
I feel certain that you share my view that
the public has the right to know as well as
the need to know precisely what the admin-
istration's policy is as It unfolds.
Sincerely your;,
THOMAS B. CURTIS.
P.5.?I think it would be particularly
helpful to relate the wage-price guidelines
to the biggest single employer in our econ-
omy, the Federal Government, in light of the
administration's sponsoring the general Fed-
eral employee pay increase legislation at this
time.
--
THIS CHAIRMAN OP THE
COUNCU. or EcoNoluc ADVISERS.
Washington, April 3, 1964.
HOD. THOMAS B. CURTIS.
House of Representatives,
Washington. D.C.
DEAR MR. CURTIS: The "early warning sys-
tem" referred to in the Wall Street Journal
article of March 20, evidently refers to the
administration's efforts to expedite the re-
porting of particular price and wage changes
already put into effect, or announced and
not yet put into effect, or being contem-
plated but not yet decided. The purpose of
these efforts is for the administration to in-
form itself in timely fashion as to current
and prospective developments so that it may
identify and assess situations to which fur-
ther attention might need be given.
This effort was described in our reply to
one of the questions you submitted to the
Council at the ..TEC hearings on the eco-
nomic report. In reply to your question No.
13, we noted that "making use of this infor-
mation, senior officials of the same agencies
will identify, and keep the President in-
formed of. industry s:tuations that threaten
to overstep the bounds of responsible price
and wage making. Such situations, if seri-
ous enough, would become candidates for
further administration consideration. The
specific means by which the President might
wish to focus public attention on particular
situations, and otherwise convey his interest
and concern to the parties involved, would
of course be up to the President" (hearings,
pp. 21-22).
We do not know what might be the basis
for the assertion that 15 major industries
are "under special scrutiny." Conceivably,
this idea might be based on the fact that
an analysis of actual and preferred rates of
operation and output expectations for 15
broad sectors of manufacturing was pre-
sented as part of our reply to another of the
questions you submitted at the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee hearings. Your question
was: "Do you have a breakdown of industries
which are operating at or near their pre-
ferred operating rate? Is it not true that
too sharp of an expansion would cause price
pressures in these industries which would
tend to spill over into other sectors of the
economy?" There was no implication in
our response that the 15 manufacturing in-
dustries were unaer special scrutiny. In-
deed. these 15 sectors represent practically
the whole of manufacturing.
In reply to your final question. I can as-
sure you that our "early warning system" is
concerned equally with price and wage de-
velopments. The administration is scru-
tinizing all forthcoming major collective
bargaining situations in terms of the public
Interest.
As President Johnson said last week to the
United Automobile Workers, and, indirectly,
to employers and unions in all industries:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 10849
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
1964
While this deals with civil cases, it
points out how the thing balances out,
how the judge and the Jury, each per-.
forming their separate function, and
functioning as directed by law under our
judicial system, work as a check and
balance, and thus further serve the
cause of justice, rather than detract
from it.
He stated:
They had a tendency not to hold a plain-
tiff 100 percent responsible when there was
only contributory negligence.
Under some State laws, we have the
statute of comparative negligence, where
the amount of recovery is diminished in
proportion to the contributory negli-
gence of the plaintiff.
He goes on to say:
In later instances we have found that the
juries return a number of verdicts for the
defendant when the court is not directing
them. The latest study in Detroit showed
that there was a substantially higher num-
ber of defendants' verdicts after this change.
So the jury can work to relieve the harsh-
ness at both ends. Although the new view
may seem harsh, the jury tends to amelio-
rate this by taking the middle ground. This
was true in earlier cases as well, for the jury
then tended to take the middle ground also.
Another title in the books is, "The
American Citizen and the Jury." Dean
Joiner says: ,
The jury is a vestige of nonprofessional
government, an institution in which non-
governmental people play a significant part
in the governmental process. Here private
citizens on an ad hoc basis exercise part of
the dispute resolution responsibility of gov-
ernment, thus minimizing any biases of gov-
ernmental bureacracy. It is popular because
it gives private citizens a broad participation
in government. A significant job is per-
formed without hiring new governmental
employees or creating a new hierarchy. The
jury provides for citizen participation in
government unequaled elsewhere. If de-
mocracy is really to work?and it has worked
pretty well for 170 years?our citizens must
not only be informed at election time but
must know the meaning of making responsi-
ble decisions. Through the jury more pri-
vate citizens participate in responsible deci-
sionmaking than in all government put to-
gether. Certainly the decision of a juror is
a responsible one, and he realizes it; and
when he has seen the difficulty in making it,
he cannot help but understand some of the
problems that others, such ea government
officials, face when they have to make even
more significant decisions than his. How-
ever, responsible decisionrnaking by jurors is
possible only when they have the qualifica-
tions for decisionmaking.
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Does the Senator agree
with the statement of Mr. Goldfarb, of
the Department of Justice, in his book
published recently by the Columbia Uni-
versity Press entitled "The Contempt
Power," in which book Mr. Goldfarb
makes the following declaration:
It could well be suggested that, most
peculiarly, in contempt cases the jury has a
valuable role. First, it brings the public's
attention and interest to a dispute which
Is usually an official, governmental one.
Public enlightenment, even if only through
jury representation, has been characterized
as an "indispensable element in the popular
No. 99-13
vindication of the criminal law." This par-
ticipation hopefully encourages popular un-
derstanding and acceptance of the adminis-
tration of justice. Second, the jury may
serve as an insulation' between the alleged
offender and the offended party, who is some-
times the judge and sentencer.
Mr. McCLELLAN. That is correct.
Dean Joiner has one section of his
book which deals with the subject "The
Jury as the Conscience of the Com-
munity."
Mr. HILL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCLELLAN. I yield.
Mr. HILL. Will the Senator agree
with Mr. Goldfarb on this statement:
This conservative deliberation in an other-
wise unlimited, uncontrolled situation al-
lows the jury to function as a wall against
possible abuses by governmental powerhold-
ers upon individuals. The general public
may look with skepticism upon a judicial
process which allows one man to be judge,
prosecutor, victim, and jury, but as Justice
Black aptly pointed out, there is inclined to
be less false martyrdom where a jury con-
? victs.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I agree with the
comment. The more we think about this
issue and contemplate the consequences
of what is proposed to be done here, the
more we need to go back and reevaluate,
reappraise, and reassess our own think-
ing and our own consideration of what
our duty is, and the value that has been
placed on the right of trial by jury
throughout the whole history of this
country. Dean Joiner has a title in his
book, "The Jury as the Conscience of
the Community." In this respect, he
said:
In this section I will try to show that the
jury has a second significant function that
can be served in no other way than by araw-
ing a number of persons from the community
at large. This is the function of acting as
the conscience of the community in dispute
resolution.
A judge might well exercise the
function acting as the conscience of the
community. I do not say that he would
not or could not. But I do say that it is
more likely that 12 good men, tried and
true, duly selected by the jury processes
to serve in a given case, will more often
reflect the conscience of the community
than would a single judge.
Mr. Joiner states:
"Conscience of the communty" involves
bringing a cross section of the coirxmunty
into the process of dispute resolution. An
understanding of the ideas involved in this
section necessitates an acceptance of four
major premises. When these are accepted,
I think the conclusion is inevitable:
1. The jury as we know it is drawn from
the community at large.
2. The judge is also selected from the
community.
3. Most laws are written in very general
terms.
4. The law requires communitywide ac-
ceptance.
Mr. President, I have not elaborated
under each one of those four reasons
that the author has assigned. He has
provided a very able comment in sup-
port of each one. He closes by saying:
These four premises, that the jury comes
from the community and is a reasonably
fair cross section of that community, that
the judge is an expert coming from the elite
of the community, that the law is often very
general in its terms, needing precise interpre-
tation and application in individual cases,
and that it needs to have strong popular
support in the community itself, lead in-
evitably to the conclusion that the litigious
process must somehow involve the com-
munity and that the jury is probably the
best device possible to bring out this com-
munity spirit, this community conscious-
ness of the law. Imperfect as the jury sys-
tem may be, it is far better than having
harsh, rigid standards that are not perfectly
applicable to a case before the court, or
having an unsympathetic member of an elite
interpret the laws. It is the jury that helps
resolve disputes in accordance with the law
which it has interpreted in a way that will
maintain popular support for it and the legal
system, thus helping to build and shape the
application of general laws in a way that
will be widely accepted.
Almost 100 years ago, Mr. Justice Hunt,
speaking in support of a unanimous Su-
preme Court of the United States, expressed
this thought:
"Twelve men of the average of the com-
munity, comprising men of education and
men of little education, men of learning and
men whose learning consists only in what
they have themselves seen and heard, the
merchant, the mechanic, the farmer, the
laborer; these sit together, consult, apply
their separate experience of the affairs of
life to the facts proven, and draw a unani-
mous conclusion. This average judgment
thus given it is the great effort of the law
to obtain. It is assumed that 12 men know
more of the COMMOD affairs of life than does
one man, that they can draw wiser and safer
conclusions from admitted facts thus occur-
ring than can a single judge."
- Mr. President, I assume that there
will be further opportunity to speak, and
If anyone is still in doubt, surely there
is further necessity for discussing the
issue. I hope that there will be further
discussion of it before a vote is taken on
the pending amendment or on any other
amendment involving the issue, because
the subject is too important for us to
make any mistake about it. I believe
the more some of us discuss it and the
more those others who do not discuss
it reflect upon it, the more likely we
will come to a correct decision.
Mr. President, there seem to be other
Senators who want to speak this evening.
I dislike to impose upon their rights, and
thus I feel I should bring my address
today to a conclusion, so as to give them
an opportunity to participate in the de-
bate on the vital issue now before the
Senate.
So much has been said that I think
there is more heat than hate existing.
A few days ago I made reference to some
of the editorials appearing in one of the
great newspapers of my State, the Ar-
kansas Democrat. I commented on one
of them in particular. I find there is
another that I think has a proper place
in the RECORD of this debate. It ap-
peared in the Arkansas Democrat of last
Tuesday, May 12, 1964. It reads:
[From the Arkansas Democrat, May 12, 1964]
SUGGESTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL LEcTuRE
Next time President Johnson feels the urge
coming on him to lecture the public on its
duties, we wish he'd turn his attention to
the U.S. Supreme Court?then to the Senate
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
10850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
for ita perfunctory approval of presidential
nominees to the Court.
The President delivered what the AP called
a "scorching blast" at hate in a speech in
New York City last weekend. He said hate
is a national menace.
What the President loosely calla hate Is
the feeling roused by the results of the Su-
preme Court's racial rulings In the past 10
years. The Senate bears responsibility for
this because it has failed to use its coequal
power with the President to name the Court
Justices.
But there's very little real hate among
Americans toward people. They are too in-
nately kind and generous. They may hate
things?like communism and crime, as they
should.
People often say they hate someone when
what they actually feel la dislike, anger, In-
dignation. scorn or repulsion. Hate, says
Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, "Implies
extreme aversion, especially as coupled with
malice" and includes such other feelings as
rancor, vindictiveness or fear.
A great many Americans resent the Su-
preme Court's upheaving racial decisions.
They are angry, indignant, sometimes bitter
about them.
And they feel the game way about racial
agitators who defy local authority, often
break down peace and order and cause rioting
and violence. But very few Americans feel
the blind wrath of hate.
If President Johnson wants to call this
hate, let him take much of the blame home
to himself. For he is aggravating It with
his civil rights bill, which would impair all
rights to force the demands of willful peace-
breaking and lawbreaking agitators on the
nation.
If he wants to remove this "hate," let him
take his pressure from behind the civil rights
bill and speak out for Court and senatorial
and House respect of the Constitution.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
(No. 228 Leg.)
Aiken Hartke McGee
Allott Hayden McNamara
Bartlett Hickenlooper Metcalf
BayhHill Miller
Bible Holland Monroney
Boggs Hruska Neuberger
Burdick Humphrey Prouty
Cannon Inouye Proxmire
Case Jackson Randolph
Clark Johnston Riblcoff
Cooper Jordan, Idaho Saltonstall
Cotton Keating
Scott
Dodd Kennedy Simpson
Douglas Lausche Smith
Ervin Long, Mo. Sparkman
Fong Long, La. Sy ml ng ton
Gore Mansfield Walters
Gruening McCarthy Williams. N .J .
Hart McClellan Willlarne, Del.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is present.
2
PROPOSED FEDERAL PAY INC ASE
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I wish
to express opposition to the bill which
proposes a pay increase for Federal em-
ployees, judges, Cabinet members, Mem-
bers of Congress, and others. I do so on
the basis that one of the principal con-
cerns of all responsible officials is the
need of holding the line against price in-
creases which may be precipitated by the
improper judgment of vendors or by un-
justified wage increases as they are re-
lated to the recommendations made by
the President and the Council of Eco-
nomic Advisers. Whatever I have heard
spoken on this subject has been directed
primarily against the need to avoid in-
flation. All persons occupying respon-
sible positions, excluding those concerned
with the international threat, have
rather uniformly stated that our primary
problem in this period is to stop the
pent-up powers that are ready to ex-
plode and cause Inordinate increases in
the prices of goods which the public
buys.
Because we are concerned about Pri-
vate employment for the unemployed, it
occurs to me that one of the best meth-
ods of providing work for the unemployed
would be to guarantee an expanded
market in which our people would be able
to buy, and in which producers through-
out the world would be desirous of buy-
ing our goods because of their favorable
price. With that premise, I suggest that
that is no Justification for Members of
Congress to ask for a 33V3-percent pay
Increase, for for Congress to set an exam-
ple that would induce labor leaders and
manufacturers to disregard the plea that
has been made about fixing prices and
wages at a point where the increased
cost shall not be beyond the productiv-
ity of the labor placed into the goods
I shall read excerpts from the Kt):
nomic report transmitted by the Presi-
dent to Congress in January 1964. In
that report, President Johnson said:
A series of specific price increasee in recent
months?especially In manufactured goods?
gives me some cause for concern.
I do not anticipate a renewal of the price-
wage spiral?a spiral that would weaken our
expansion 11.1103 worsen our balance-of-pay-
ments position.
I count on the sense of responsibility of
the Nation's industrialists and labor leaders
(1) to extend the excellent price and coat
records of recent years and (2) to maintain
price and wage policies that accord with the
non-Inflationary guideposts that I have asked
the 0ouncil of Economic Advisors to reaf-
firm In its attached report.
The President further said:
On the heels of solid Increases in real
wages, plus the rise in take-home pay under
the tax cut, I see no warrant for inflationary
wage increases. Accordingly, / shall keep a
close watch on price and wage developments
with the aid of an early warning system
which is being set up In the appropriate
agencies.
I shall not hestitate to draw public atten-
tion to major actions by either business or
labor that flout the public thtereet in non-
inflationary price and wage standards.
The President further said:
On March 23, in Atlantic City, the
President said:
Broader public interest today, more than
ever, requires that the stability of our coats
and our prices be protected. The interna-
tional position of the dollar, which means
our ability to do what we need to do be-
yond our borders, demands that our prices
and our coeta not rise. We must not choke
off our needed and speedy economic expan-
sion by a revival of the price-wage spiral.
Avoiding that spiral is the responsibility of
business, and it is also the responsibility of
labor.
The President further said:
May .18
I speak as President of the Milted States,
with a single voice to both management and
to labor, to the men on both sides of the
bargaining table, when I say that your sense
of responsibility, the sense of responsibility
of organized labor and management, is the
foundation upon whIch our hopes rest in
the coming great years.
I take these words of the President at
their full value. I take it for granted
that, except for the threats to our inter-
national security at the present time,
there is no problem of greater vitality
than to stop any forces that might lead
to Inflation.
I wish to quote one of the high author-
ities of our Government, who is supposed
to be an expert on this subject. He is
Mr. Heller, the President's adviser on
economics. In Detroit, Mich., on March
23, 1964, Mr. Heller spoke about the great
growth in our economy, and then warned
about the dangers that will come unless
we guard against inflationary forces.
He said:
Three years have added $100 billion and
then some to our annual rate of output.
Full shares have been dealt to both business
-and labor?more than $16 billion of added
profits and some $55 billion of added labor
income, at annual rates. At the same time.
the consumer was benefiting from a more
stable price level in the 'United States than
In any other advanced zountry in the world.
Mr. Heller further said:
It is hard, then, to dim the lustre of the
current profits performance. What makes
the rise in profits?and cash flow?partic-
ularly gratifying is that Ills being achieved
In a setting of essential price stability;
wage-rate increases that, are roughly keeping
pace with productivity advances; and briskly
rising total labor earnings.
No better setting has existed in the entire
postwar period for a price-wage-dividend
policy which will achieve fair shares, simul-
taneously, for the consumer, the wage-
earner, and the stockholder.
It will be noted in the statements
which I have quoted, that the consumer
Is mentioned intermittently. That is a
very significant aspect of these state-
ments. We have more than the interest
of the manufacturer, the industrialist,
and the worker. We have the interest
of the large number of consumers in our
country who form an important segment,
of our society and economy. Unless they
are protected, we may find ourselves in
a position where the labor leaders will be
demanding inordinate wage increases.
The manufacturer has received his
profit, but all at the expense of the con-
sumer. In my Judgment this is con-
trary to the interest and the security of
our Nation.
Mr. Heller then continues:
What could destroy this balance? Either
the resumption of inflation or the ballooning
of costs, or the interlocking of the two in
a renewed price-wage spiral. Whether the
economic promise of the mid-1960's is en-
dangered by these forces is my final point of
Inquiry today.
Mr. Heller states:
In today's vigorously expanding economy,
it would be less than prudent not to keep an
eye cocked on the price-wage front. Past
proeperities have often generated upward
pressures on the price level?and our re-
sponses to the "problem of inflation" tend
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 10851
to be governed, not surprisingly, by past
experience.
We face 1964-66 against a background of
Several years of stability in prices and unit-
labor costs.
Two other important factors enter to
satisfy the continuing desire for higher in-
comes and profits without excessive wage in-
creases and without higher price levels:
First, the good productivity growth record
of recent years-3.2 percent currently, com-
pared with 2.8 percent during the 1955-57
period.
Second, the tax cut, 'which provides a sig-
nificant continuing bonus in take-home pay
and net profits. Its addition of 5 to 10 cents
in workers' hourly take-home pay in 1964
compares with a 1963 median, wage increase
of 9 cents an hour (in "major collective bar-
gaining situations"). And its sizable boost
to profits has already been noted.
But responsible public policy must also
recognize the possibility that stronger mae-
kets will whet the appetite for higher
prices?and higher profits will whet the
appetites for higher wages?in a strongly
advancing economy. Even in the face of
greatly improved public understanding of
the relation between wages and costs, be-
tween costs and prices, between prices and
the balance of payments, the temptations
of the market will not disappear.
It is against this background that the ad-
ministration has underscored the importance
of the price-wage guideposts?the standards
for noninflationary wage and price behavior
which expresses the public interest?in wage
settlements that stay within the bounds of
productivity advances; in price decisions
that are consistent with overall stability
O f the price level.
It is on this premise that I rise today
to make an appeal that Congress not
pass the Federal pay raise bill. It is our
responsibility to set the example for the
Nation in the fight to stop inflation. If
we pass an extravagant wage increase,
nothing but chaos and havoc can be the
consequence.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It has been sug-
gested that we will also be asked to re-
duce taxes further. Is that correct?
Mr. LAUSCHE. It is my understand-
ing that some statement has been made
that we will reduce taxes further.
Frankly, I cannot understand how these
things can be done without ultimately
endangering the very existence of our
economic structure and our system of
government.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. The newspaper re-
ports are to the effect that the House
Ways and Means Committee plans to
start immediately to study the problem
of doing away with excise taxes. I agree
with the Senator. I do not see how we
can continue to reduce our revenues and
increase the cost of Government, and
maintain any fiscal stability. I agree
with the Senator that if we get a big
raise in salary at this time, it will be
rather difficult to tell the labor unions
not to insist on an increase in wages, and
it will be rather difficult to ask manage-
ment not to grant it. We set the ex-
ample, as the Senator said.
Mr. LAUSCHE. X concur entirely
with what the Senator from Arkansas
said, that we cannot continually spend
more than we take in without going into
bankruptcy. The management of gov-
ernment is no different that the manage-
ment of a home. The home that spends
each year more than they take in is
destined for an accounting and for an
atonement. And it is usually a very
painful one.
There was once the philosophy that
we ought to tax in an amount equal to
the amount necessary to run govern-
ment. That philosophy was thrown
overboard. A new one was adopted that
provided: "Tax and tax, and spend and
spend."
We now have the philosophy: "Spend
more; tax less; and everyone will be in
better shape."
We may be in better shape for a brief
period, perhaps for a year. But the time
to answer for those misdeeds is sure to
arrive.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. There are those
with tremendous influence in govern-
ment today, who advocate what they call
active deficits as a way of life for govern-
ment. In other words, they advocate
that we should continually spend more
and more, and thus keep a stimulated
economy.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The economic ad-
viser whose name I mentioned, Mr. Hel-
ler, somewhere made the statement that
the bureaucratic hue on public spending
must be dismissed and abandoned.
Mr. McCLELLAN. By that Mr. Heller
means keeping a balanced budget and
living within our income. That is what
he means by "puritanical view."
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. He sort of con-
demned what is known as the "puritani-
cal" approach to the operation of Gov-
ermnent. Whether he meant what he
said, I do not know. He said that moral-
ity in the management of the fiscal af-
fairs of the Government is an antiquated
concept and should be discarded. I can-
not agree with that statement.
Mr. McCLELLAN. He implied that it
is an obsolete standard of ethics and
morality.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. That is what
he advocated.
Mr. President, today's issue of the
Washington Post reports that the guide-
lines which were set down by the Presi-
dent and the Economic Advisory Com-
mittee, advocated by Mr. Heller, are
being abandoned in the wage negotia-
tions in Detroit. Those guidelines will
not be maintained. Instead, they will be
violated.
In Cleveland there is a strike of build-
ing-trades men. A concession of a
75-cent-an-hour increase in wages was
made to 11 unions, I believe. They ac-
cepted the increase. The 75-cent-an-
hour increase is an amount in excess of
what the guidelines of the President and
the Advisory Committee reported. Six
or seven other trade unions refused to
accept that '75-cent package and are ask-
ing for something more than a dollar.
That action is in violation of the guide-
lines set down.
I now come to the principal aspect of
my discussion. Is it proper and advis-
able for the Congress to pass a pay bill
which would grant to Congressmen a
pay raise of $7,500 a year, raising the
salary from $22,500 to $30,000?
Other high public officials would be
granted similar increases. The pay raise
contemplated for Congressmen would be
a 331/3 percent increase. In 1955 the
salary of Congressmen was raised from
$12,500 a year to $22,500. That increase
was practically a 100-percent pay raise.
The salary of the Chief Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court was raised from
$25,500 to $35,500 in 1955. The ,f;alaries
of the Associate Justices were increased
from $25,000 to $35,000 a year. The saf-
aries of Cabinet officers were raised from
$22,500 to $25,000 in 1956.
I shall not attempt to state the pro-
posed salary increases for all public offi-
cials, but the bill would give a liberal and,
in my opinion, an unjustified salary in-
crease to members of boards, members
of commissions, Members of Congress,
members of the courts and others whom
I cannot immediately identify.
As a Congressman, if I should now re-
tire while my salary is $22,500 a year, I
would be entitled to a pension of 21/2 per-
cent for each year of service. I have
been in the Senate for 8 years, sol would
be entitled to 20 percent of $22,500 as a
pension.
If the 'proposed pay raise is granted,
and I should continue to serve another 5
years in the Senate, my pension would
be calculated at the $30,000 level, which
is proposed, inStead of the $22,500 pres-
ent level. U I remained in the Senate
an additional 5 years, my total service
would be 13 years, and I would receive a
pension calculated at 13 times 21/2 per-
cent?which would be 321/2 percent?of
$30,000, instead of $22,500.
As Senators know, we are granted a
$3,000 expemption on our income taxes.
In other words, $3,000 of our income is
not taxed.
We are granted a stationery allowance
of $1,800, and whatever portion of that
amount we do not spend, we are allowed
to retain.
During each session of Congress we
are granted two trips to and from our
homes with reimbursement. We are al-
lowed $100 a month to maintain an of-
fice at home, even though that o.ffice may
be connected with the law office that a
Congressman may be running.
We are allowed to practice lam or to
engage in business. I concede that there
is not much time to do so, but the priv-
ilege exists.
Finally, I pose the question as to how
Many Congressmen would quit if we
failed to raise their salaries to $30,000.
As I said once before, they could not be
driven out with a shotgun.
Yet the argument is made that unless
salaries are raised, good men will not run
for the office. The raising of salaries will
have no impact whatsoever on the qual-
ity of men who are willing to serve. The
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
10852 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
same caliber of men will be running. For
every position that is available there will
be 100 candidates.
I should like to refer again to the sal-
aries of Federal Judges. As I have said,
the salary of a Justice of the Supreme
Court is $35,500. The salary of a dis-
trict court judge is $22.500. But what
about their pensions? They pay noth-
ing into the pension fund. We pay 6%
Percent of our salary. A Federal judge
at the age of 70 years, with 10 years
of service, can retire and receive full pay
for the rest of his life. A Federal judge
at the age of 65 with 15 years of service.
without having paid anything Into the
pension fund, can go on the inactive list,
as they call it, and receive full pay each
year.
The U.S. Supreme Court Judges re-
ceive $35,000 a year. The ILS, district
judges receive $22.500 a year.
Can someone argue that judges can-
not be obtained to go on the Federal
bench? I ask Senate colleagues, How
many applicants do they receive for each
Federal judgeship that is vacant? Have
you ever heard of a lawyer that would
decline to accept a judgeship? I have
not. I have had 20 years of experience
In high office, and I know that the ap-
plicants have been innumerable and end-
less in asking my intervention to receive
appointments to Federal judgeships.
Are we going to be able to turn down
Inordinate demands of others when we
become most liberal in granting to our-
selves the taxpayers' money? I think the
administration and the Congress will be
absolutely defenseless.
When I argue in favor of stability in
prices and wages, how will I be able to do
so in the future, if I vote for the 331,3-
Percent increase, when the guidelines of
the President call for no further increase
than 3.2 percent? I simply will not be
able to do so if I render myself defense-
less by this act.
I want to direct my attention now for
a moment to the situation that prevails
in the State governments. It is argued
that we must raise the salaries of Fed-
eral employees. I ask my colleagues to
listen particularly to some information
which, in my opinion, will be startling to
them.
On the basis of reports made in Oc-
tober 1962, the average weekly earnings
of full-time State employees, except
those in education, was $91 a week. For
the same period in 1062, the average Fed-
eral employee's wage was $113.
Throughout the country the average
weekly compensation of State employees
is $91, and the average weekly compen-
sation for Federal employees is 8113.
In Ohio, the average State employee's
salary is $86. Ohio must compete with
salaries and wages paid Federal em-
ployees, who in Ohio are now claming
$117 a week. In Ohio the average pay
of the Federal employee is $117 a week,
as against $86 a week for the Ohio State
employees.
This is true not only of Ohio but of
practically all the States in the Nation.
I observe present on the floor from
Arkansas [Mr. McCtatts.Nl. I am look-
ing to see if I can find the situation
which prevails in his State.
The average weekly earnings in Ar-
kansas are $85.82-
Mr. McCLELLAN. Is that for the
State government?
Mr. LAl7SCHE. The State govern-
ment. The average weekly earnings of
Federal employees in Arkansas is $9738
a week. So there is a difference of $32 a
week.
What is the problem that arises? The
Federal Government is pirating from the
State of Arkansas its employees. It is
also being done in Ohio.
I see also present on the floor the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYHJ . I am
taking a look to see what the situation
Is that prevails in his State with respect
to wages paid by the Federal Govern-
ment and by the State government.
In Indiana the average State em-
ployee's wage is $79.94. The average
Federal employee working in Indiana re-
ceives $105.02 a week.
If one examines the salaries of judges
in the States, of prosecuting attorneys,
of cabinet members, of Governors, he
finds practically the same disparity to
prevail. Yet this liberal Congress-and
it is most liberal in taking the taxpayer's
money and giving it away-instead of
solving the problem is going to make it
more difficult all the time.
No, I will not support the pay raise bill
that is before Congress. I will not do so
because I feel the Congress of the United
States should set the example for States,
Industry, and labor leaders to guard
against the menace of inflation. U the
menace materialises, Mr. President,
there will be agonizing cries throughout
the country. People with annuities, with
pensions, with Government bonds, with
fixed income, with deposits in the bank
placed there as nest eggs for old age,
will find themselves robbed of their
thrift and savings through a lifetime.
Inflation will eat away their money,
and eat it away rapidly. These are not
my words. They are deducible from
what the President of the United States
has said, what the Economic Advisory
Committee has said, what Mr. Heller has
said about the need of guarding against
pentup inflationary forces.
Why did I run for the office of mayor,
Governor, and Senator? Was it because
of the pay, or was it because I wanted
the dignity, the honor, and the ability to
serve my fellow men? I would venture
to say that, so far as the $22,500 salary
Is concerned, if we made a tabulation of
the 535 Members of the House and of the
Senate, it would be found that $22,500
exceeded the income most of them had
in private practice or whatever occupa-
tions they were in.
If we have reached the stage that
people will not serve their Government
except through the inducement of ex-
travagant pay, our country is in trouble.
That was not. the psychology which
dominated the founders of our country.
Public service was considered an honor.
They wished to give it for the purpose of
establishing our system of government
and serving their fellow men.
I wish we could make a test of it and
say to Members of Congress, "Those of
you who do not feel you are being paid
enough, quit." How many would quit?
May 18
Finally, Mr. President, I campaigned
for reelection in 1962. Did I say to the
people of Ohio at that time, "I am not
being paid enough. My salary should be
Increased to $32,500 or at least to
$30,000"? I did not say it and I am sure
that if I had I would not now be in the
Senate.
I wonder whether there is any one of
the 535 Members of the Senate and House
who, when he was begging for reelection
from the people of his State, said to
them, "If you will elect me I shall go to
Congress and while there will vote my-
self this pay increase."
No one said it and I am sure that if
he did he likewise would now be without
a post in this Congress.
The object was to get elected.
The bill may be enacted., but it will
not be enacted as a result of my vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at the end of my
remarks certain tables from which I gave
statistical information.
The PRESIDING 011'ICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
It is so ordered.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
Average weekly earnings of full-time State
employees, except in education, October
1962
Rank and State
Full-time
State
employees
Average
weekly
earnings
All States
1, 088, 715
$91.42
1, Alaska.
2. Ca likirnia
3, 129
93,619
147.38
124.69
3. Hawaii
6,924
114. 38
4, Nevada
5. M !eh iga n
6. New York
7. Washington
S. Wisconsin
2,706
34,311
109,104
20,468
18,97-2
111.60
109. 71
101.94
101.88
101. 48
9. Oregon
18.883
99.54
10. Illinois
44,6,54
98.85
11. Colorado
12. Utah
11,741
5,803
98. 36
97.16
13. Connecticut
20,352
96.07
14. Arizona
8,313
96.03
15. Vermont
3,917
96. 79
16. Montana
5.926
95.72
17. M Innesota
19,078
94.61
is. Wyoming
3,355
94. 15
19. Massachusetts
37,710
93.13
20. New Jersey._
28,670
92.90
21. Idaho
6,892
91.50
22. New Hampshire
5,191
89.46
23. New Mexico
6,799
86.85
24. Iowa
16,632
88. 13
25. Pennsylvania
77, 405
87.63
26. Rhode Island
7,399
88.68
27. Ohio
46,838
86.58
28. Maryland
20.100
6630
29. North Dakota
4,511
8.5.15
30. North Carolina
28,35.5
83.36
31. Kansas
14, 223
84.90
32. South Dakota
4,986
84.90
II. Maine
8, 997
82.69
34. Kentucky
19,385
80.91
as. Indiana
25.136
79. 74
36. Chloride
37. Missouri
20,435
23,737
70.44
19.96
38. Virginia 30.470
77.71
32 Nebraska 9,717
76.69
40. Texas . 46,862
76. 50
41. Florida 30.989
75. 19
42. Alabama 17.229
75. 16
43. Louisiana 31,197
74.59
44. Delaware 4,886
73.86
45. Soul h Carolina
15,003
73.00
46. Oklahoma
16,520
72.72
47. West Virginia
15.508
68.64
48. .84Lasiselppi
49. Arkansas
12, 638
11,767
67.09
66.42
50. Tennessee
20,605
68.08
Source: Bureau of the Census, "State Distribution of
Public Empk)ymect in 1962," April 1963-, Washington,
Computed from fro October 1962 full-time equiva-
lent employment and total payroll, for functions other
than education.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
ApprovedcF6)1TINugfig0A5/OntoR.-RIANCIWO3R000500050001-9 10853
1964
Average weekly earnings of Federal em-
ployees covered by uneMpfOyMeftt com-
pensation, 1962
Average
Federal
employees
Average
weekly
earnings
All States
1. District of Columbia,
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. California
5. Maryland
6. Ohio
7. Hawaii
8. Oregon
O. New Jersey
10. New Hampshire
11. Pennsylvania
12. Utah
13. Tennessee
14. New York
15. Florida
16. Washington
17. Massachusetts
18. Colorado
19. Virginia
20. New Mexico
21. Michigan
22. Connecticut
23. Nevada
24. Arizona
25. Rhode Island
26. Oklahoma
27. Missouri -
28. Wyoming
29. Delaware
30. Illinois
31, Montana
32. Louisiana
33. Texas
34. Georgia
35. Indiana
36. Vermont
37. Minnesota
38. Idaho
39. Kentucky
40. Wisconsin
41. South Carolina
42. West Virginia
43. Mississippi
44. Nebraska
45. Kansas
46. Arkansas
47. Maine
48. Iowa
49. North Dakota
50. South Dalfota
51. North Carolina
52. Virgin Islands
63. Puerto Rico
2, 504, 131
8113.20
212,830
14, 796
67, 684
206,249
77,436
95, 740
27, 771
22,724
59, 783
13,934
136, 036
30, 237
39, 533
185, 735
55,880
02,416
68, 196
39, 097
87, 809
20,044
48, 105
16, 113
7,216
22,806
13,605
47, 220
56, 048
6,023
4,204
106, 954
11, 528
26, 249
129, 770
65, 545
35, 776
3, 522
28,015
9,053
12, 884
23, 092
28, 141
11,699
10,465
10,402
25,091
16,630
9,243
20,825
8, 504
11,304
37,007
- 14,210
9, 302
136.32
135.22
121. 11
118.67
117. 97
117. 12
116.36
116.04
115. 99
115.80
114.53
113. 87
113.35
113. 07
112.83
112.82
112. 72
112. 37
112.05
110.08
110. 72
110. 58
109. 82
109. 47
109. 21
108. 69
108 62
108. 49
108 11
107. 92
107. 31
107. 05
106. 15
105. 79
105. 02
104. 84
104.33
103.80
103.65
102.65
102.37
102. 18
101.82
99. 41
98. 66
97. 58
97.34
97. 15
90.38
95. 83
93.17
91. 19
87. 62
Source: U.S. Bureau of Employment Security, from
tabulations of State agencies.
Mr. LAUSCH.E. Mr. President, I
yield the floor.
McNAMARA'S WAR IN SOUTH
VIETNAM
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish
to reply to President Johnson's message
to Congress on South 'Vietnam.
I wish to reply, first, by stating that I
completely disagree with his proposal,
and to say most respectfully that the
President should be seeking to send to
the Congress, instead, a proposal for
declaration of war. The President of
the United States should not be sending
to the Congress a subterfuge proposal, a
policy of intention, a policy of carrying
on a war by Executive action rather than
congressional action.
That is my major reason for any
complete opposition to the proposal of
the administration to continue the con-
duct of an unconstitutional war in
South Vietnam, and to the proposal of
the administration to continue to kill
American boys unjustifiably in an un-
authorized war in South Vietnam.
For what purpose, Mr. President?
I repeat, for what purpose?
The need for additional funds to prop
up the Khanh government in South
Vietnam is only one of many such re-
quests that will be made so long as we
continue our fruitless and fatal policy
in that country. It is as fruitless and
fatal as were the French wars in Indo-
china and Algeria, and will come to the
same end.
We are already financing the Ithanh
government at the tate of some $550 mil-
lion a year. This additional money
would raise the figure to $675 million.
That is more than $46 a year for every
person in South Vietnam, and it is ex-
clusive of the cost of our own large mili-
tary force there.
The effort to keep a "front" govern-
ment in power is costing the American.
People well over a billion dollars a year.
Mr. President, we have already poured
into that sink-hole over $51/2 billion, in-
cluding $11/4 billion to $11/2 billion that
we gave to France before its defeat at
Dien Bien Phu. All we are doing is pick-
ing up the great mistakes of France,
Great Britain, the Dutch, and the
Belgians in Asia.
It is colonial, no matter what it may
be called. Colonialism in the world is as
dead as a dodo. American colonialism
has no possible chance to succeed, either.
This is American colonial policy, antl I
do not care what semantics the Presi-
dent of the United States uses to
describe it.
Despite that huge expenditure, the
policy that requires it has not been
either explained or justified to the Amer-
ican people.
The President's message stating that
more money is needed should be read
alongside the report of Robert Moore in
the current issue of U.S. News 84 World
Report, in which he said:
Never before have so many Vietnamese
officers and public officials lived so well in
such a booming economy, injected as it is
with a daily dose of almost $2 million of
American money. It is obvious to the Viet-
namese who are benefiting from this dole
that when the war is over this massive aid
will cease, or at least be drastically modified.
The request for more money should
be read in light of Moore's additional
report that the war effort of South Viet-
nam is characterized by a lack of will to
endure privation on the part of its of-
ficers, the selection of officers and com-
manders for political reasons, the ex-
penditure of U.S. money on luxury liv-
ing, and by graft and corruption from
the huge American aid program.
It is corruption, tyranny, and a will-
ingness to live off the American taxpayer
that are defeating the Khanh govern-
ment as much as anything.
If the administration expects anyone
to believe we are supporting freedom in
South Vietnam, it should be doing some-
thing to bring about the free elections
throughout all of Vietnam that were
supposed to be held 8 years ago.
I am greatly disappointed that my
President in his message to Congress
seeks to rationalize and to justify his
request for this additional support to
Vietnam in the name of freedom.
What freedom exists in South Viet-
nam?
Where is the freedom in South Viet-
nam?
We are supporting a totalitarian, mili-
tary, tyrannical, puppet government in
South Vietnata. If anyone believes that
the South Vietnam people are free, they
Could not be more wrong.
I should be glad to support the ex-
portation to South Vietnam and else-
where in the world of the sinews of eco-
nomic freedom, but I am not going to
support tyranny. I am not going to vote
in the Senate to kill American boys to
support tyranny in South Vietnam-or
anywhere else in the world.
I regret that the administration is
not urging free elections in South Viet-
nam.
Oh, there was some nonsense pub-
lished in the papers the other day about
how there will be an election in South
Vietnam.
On the floor of the Senate, I state, "Tell
the American what kind of election it
would be."
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. It will be a Russian type
election. That is the kind of election
they will have. It will be the kind of
election Diem had, giving the people a
list of candidates on which there is only
one way to vote, and saying to them,
"You vote for them."
Free elections in South Vietnam?
They do not have the slightest compre-
hension of what political freedom means.
I disagree with the President's mes-
sage. It seeks to leave the impression
with the American people that we are
supporting freedom in South Vietnam.
We are supporting tyranny. We are
supporting a military tyrant.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. I stated on the floor of
the Senate a while ago when he branded
me a traitor that this little tinhorn mili-
tary tyrant in South Vietnam-tins Gen-
eral Khanh-is a despot. The United
States is strengthening the arm of a
tyrant in South Vietnam. Before I go
any further, I wish to warn the American
people from the floor of the Senate this
afternoon, that I am satisfied the plan is
on the way eventually to escalate this war
into North Vietnam. Of course, we have
the clear obligation under the United
Nations treaty to take it to the United
Nations and not to commit an act of ag-
gression. We have already been caught
committing an act of aggression against
Cambodia, and the Prince of Cambodia
kicked us out. That ended for all time
the fallacious domino theory of John
Foster Dulles. Cambodia and Burma
have left us, and we all know that, except
for South Vietnam and Thailand, there
is nothing left to the domino theory of
John Foster Dulles.
Mr. McCLELLAN, Mr. President, will
the Senator from 9regon yield?
Mr. MORSE: I am glad to yield to
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. When was that
promise or suggestion of free elections
made? Was it about the time that we
were told we would have all of our
troops home next year?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relene 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
10854 LONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 18
Mr. MORSE. This was in the last 3
weeks. But they will not be free elec-
tions. Those are interesting semantics
being used. They said there were going
to be elections. From that terminology,
the American people would believe that
those would be free elections of course.
But they are not free elections, they are
not free elections over there. It is the
Russian type of election which one gets
in that, part of the world.
No, the sad thing is that my Govern-
ment should be taking this issue to the
United Nations now, and not be talking
about a President's message which seeks
to beef up the unilateral, military Amer-
ican action in South Vietnam and lead
to the probability of escalating the war
into North Vietnam.
I hate the Government of North Viet-
nam. I hate all -Communist govern-
ments. But, Madam President, I recog-
nize the unanswerable truth in inter-
national law that Communist govern-
ments have the same right of interna-
tional sovereignty that a free govern-
ment has, North Vietnam has the same
right of sovereignty which the United
States has, and if the United States be-
comes a party to escalating the war into
North Vietnam, then the United States
stands convicted of aggression. On the
other hand, if we believe North Vietnam
has committed aggression, the only legal
recourse of the United States is to go to
the United Nations with our complaint.
Until we do. we are violating our signa-
ture to the United Nations Charter. Be-
fore I complete these remarks I shall
read the letter I sent to lulled Stevenson.
and the letter I sent to Mr. U Thant. ask-
ing when action will be taken within the
United Nations in connection with the
United States unilateral military action
in South Vietnam. which I consider to be
completely and totally illegal and with-
out the slightest Justification in interna-
tional law. Senators will note that there
is not a word in the President's message
which justifies our course of action in
South Vietnam on the basis of any inter-
national right. We have done it uni-
laterally; that is all. We are proceed-
ing on our own. Yet we profess that we
seek to preserve peace in the world. The
sad fact is that in Southeast Asia the
United States is a threat to the peace of
the world.
Mr. GRUENISIG. Mr. President, will
the Senator Imm Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. GRUENING. Does not the Sena-
tor from Oregon fear that we will also
be involved in Laos. which now seems to
be in the throes of a political upheaval?
Mr. MORSE. There is that great dan-
ger. As I said in my letter to Mr. U
Thant, I believe there is the great danger
of our starting another Korea. If that is
so. Senators know what the casualties
will be. If we start a war against North
Vietnam?and I must repeat this on the
floor several times. as I have in the last
everal weeks repeated it several times?
the great danger is that the United
States will use nuclear weapons, to the
everlasting shame of the United States.
if we start to use nuclear weapons in
south Vietnam, we shall increase the
probabilities of starting a nuclear holo-
caust. I am greatly concerned about
this. Let us look at the position in which
we are putting Mr. Kinushchey. I be-
lieve he has designs to follow courses of
action which amount also to forms of
aggression.
The Senator from Alaska made a very
brilliant speech last week on the floor of
the Senate, on which I have already
commented. In regard to the alinement
which Is being developed between Khru-
shchey and Nasser. The clear implica-
tion is that we may be confronted with a
threat to the peace of the world, first in
the Middle East. and then in the other
part of the world.
When that develops, shall we go to the
United Nations and say, "Mr. U Thant,
you must do something about Khru-
shchev in the Middle East." Can we not
hear Mr. Khrushrhey say, "Look at who
is talking. It is the United States. What
about your action in South Vietnam?"
This is a two-way street in interna-
tional law, Madam President.
I wish my Government to return to its
pied ee under the United Nations Charter.
I want my Government to make perfectly
clear that we want peace in South Viet-
nam. There is all the difference in the
world between a peacekeeping corps
throueh the United Nations in South
Vietnam and making war. Pursuing
peace is one thing. Prosecuting a war is
another.
The sad fact is that the United States
is aiding in the prosecution of war In
South Vietnam. American boys are dy-
ing. It is uncalled for. There is bound
to be. in the weeks ahead, a great debate
across this Republic, because the Ameri-
can people, in mg judgment, must exer-
cise the final say as to whether the
United States is to make war in South
Vietnam. We hove a glorious oppor-
tunity to put into application our pledge
to the United Nations and, incidentally,
to put Russia on the spot.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
Mr. GRUFNING. If our justification
for beefing up our war in South Vietnam
is that there is a danger of a Communist
takeover, will we not be told that we
must do the same thing in neighboring
Laos?
Mr. MORSE. Certainly.
Mr. GRUENING. Then we will be
taking on all of southeast Asia.
Mr. MORSE. We will be at war on a
full scale.
Mr. GRUENING. We are at war there
now, though undeclared,
Mr. MORSE. Yes; if we get into
North Vietnam and into Laos, does any-
one think Red China will send us bou-
quets?
Mr. GRUENING. Of course not.
Mr. MORSE. Let, us be realistic. We
are at a great crossroads in Asia. The
great danger is that the United States
will go down in history condemned for
starting a major conflict in Asia, when
what we ought to do is say to the United
Nations that we will help the peacekeep-
ing corps.
Before I have concluded ray speech r
shall point out again?it is necessary to
repeat this over and over again?that
our alleged allies have walked out on
us in southeast Asia. Australia, New
Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, Great
Britain, Prance, and the Philippines all
signatories to SEATO, have no boys
fighting in South Vietnam. The foreign
minister of Pakistan said in Washington
not so long ago, before the Press Club,
that Pakistan has no intention of going
into South Vietnam. He did not say he
would turn down hundreds of millions of
dollars in American mlitary aid and eco-
nomic aid, so that Pakistan can keep it-
self in a position of making war, not
against Red China, with which Commu-
nist country Pakistan has entered into
agreements, but against India.
Mr. GRUENING. Which we are also
supplying with military aid.
Mr. MORSE. Of course I am opposed
to military aid for India. I am opposed
to building up two powers in that area
of the world who will use military aid to
make war against each other over Kash-
mir.
I say most respectfully that the Penta-
gon is running the foreign policy of our
country more than the State Depart-
ment is running it.
I do not intend to substitute military
policy for foreign policy as the posture
that the United Stases will take before
the world in the field of foreign policy.
It is not pleasant to stand on the floor
of the Senate in such complete disagree-
ment with the policy of my Government.
However, that happens to be my trust. I
intend to live up to my trust. As one
who swore to uphold the 'Constitution of
the United States, I do not intend to sup-
port my Government in a policy which I
consider to be unconstitutional. Until
the President of the United States gets a
declaration of war passed by Congress,
In my judgment he is acting outside the
framework of the Constitution in ask-
ing for this escalaton of the war in
South Vietnam.
I very much regret that the adminis-
tration has fallen prey to what the late
Senator McMahon used to call the
"checkbook reflex" in foreign affairs. It
holds that money will buy anything. In
this case it assumes that any policy can
be made to succeed if only enough money
is spent on it. But I predict that three
times more than $675 million a year will
not keep an American puppet in power
In South Vietnam. What the Congress
and the American people desperately
need is not a request for more money,
and not an inquiry into the American
military equipment being used. What
Is needed is a thorough inquiry into the
objectives of this money and military
expedition, and an inquiry into the policy
that necessitates them, for the present
policy in South Vietnam will always
necessitate more American money and
more American military forces.
If we were to go through with this
program, we would bog ourselves down
in Southeast Asia for a minimum of the
next 25 years. In fact, Great Britain,
Prance, and the Duch know what it
means to be bogged town in Asia. But
their people, at long last, made it clear
to their governments that they should
get out. I say to my government: Once
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
10176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE May 18
portions of his letters to her. In a letter to
the editor of the New York Herald Tribune,
she expressed the hope "that all Americans
would have an opportunity to read them."
Spruill was killed April 21. .
"Above all, this is a war of mind and
spirit," he wrote. "For us to despair would
be a great victory for the enemy.
"At the moment my heart is big enough to
sustain those around me. Please don't let
them back where you are sell me down the
river with talk of despair and defeat. There
is no backing out of Vietnam, for it will fol-
low us everywhere we go.
"We have drawn the line here, and the
America we all know and love best is not
one to back away."
Following are other excerpts from his let-
ters, published by the Herald Tribune:
"It was brought to my attention last night
that we were once inadequately equipped
and poorly trained and that professional
soldiers came from afar to aid the fledgling
American Army in its fight for freedom and
internal order.
"Two of these 'advisers' are well known?
Von Steuben and Lafayette. It is heart
warming to think that we continue their
tradition of sacrifice.
"There are many moments of frustration
in Vietnam. Ineptness, dishonesty, lack of
spirit, confusion, and laziness cause them.
But that is exactly why we are here. It is
exactly in places and in circumstances such
as this that communism gains its foothold.
"I know that you read nowadays of de-
feat or of lack of progress. None of this
bothers me because I am convinced that we
can win it and win it decisively?on the
ground and in the night.
"I have a project. It is a proposal to train
* * * men in night combat and that they
be employed as a mobile strike force at night.
It is in the night that the myth of the in-
vincible guerrilla must be destroyed. The
people are afraid then. I can feel it. When,
the night becomes more ours than theirs,
events will take a dramatic turn.
"To continue to light in the day is fool-
ish, for the day is ours for all intents and
purposes. It is in the night that they are
strong and it is in the night that their back
can and must be broken. Choppers (heli-
copters) do not and cannot fight at night,
but soldiers can and will, and it is soldiers
who will win this war, not choppers.
"I still maintain that we can beat them in
a year or less if we fight them at night and
maintain constant pressure on them at
night. Little emphasis is given t pect."
INTERNATIONAL RECIPROCITY FOR
AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 720 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (S.
920) to amend sections 303 and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
to provide that the Federal Communica-
tions Commission may issue authorizations,
but not licenses, for alien amateur radio op-
erators to operate their amateur radio sta-
tions in the United States, its possessions,
and the Commonwealth of Peurto Rico pro-
vided there is in effect a bilateral agreement
between the United States and the alien's
government for such operation by United
States amateurs on a reciprocal basis. After
general debate, which shall be confined to
the bill and shall continue not to exceed one
hour, to be equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority mem-
ber of the Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce, the bill shall be read for
amendment under the five-minute rule. At
the conclusion of the consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments there-
to to final passage without intervening mo-
tion except one motion to recommit.
(Mr. MADDEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 720 provides for the con-
sideration of S. 920, a bill to amend sec-
tions 303 and 310 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended. The resolu-
tion provides an open rule with 1 hour of
general debate.
The passage of S. 920 would permit the
United States to enter into reciprocal__
agreements with foreign countries
whereby U.S. amateur radio operators
may receive authority to operate their
amateur radio stations in those foreign
countries in return for the United States
granting similar privileges to amateur
radio operators of those nations while
in the United States. The Communica-
tions Act of 1934 in sections 303 and 310
embodied congressional policy against
granting such authority to aliens. How-
ever, it now seems that it would be best
to grant such authority on a reciprocal
basis in order to keep better track of
such stations and operators in this coun-
try. Therefore, in order to enter into
such agreements it would be necessary
to amend the act, particularly those sec-
tions referred to above. As the contents
of the bill will be fully explained to gen-
eral debate I will not go into greater
detail here.
Mr. Speaker, I favor and urge the
adoption of House Resolution 720.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time on this side and there Is no opposi-
tion to the rule that I know of, and now
yield to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE] 30 minutes and
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes in
order the consideration of the bill, S. 920.
As has already been stated, this bill
comes from the committee without any
opposition and I, for one, know of no
opposition to the rule. There has been
a question in some people's minds as to
the safety to our own country from al-
lowing these radio operators to operate
here. But I understand from the report
and from reading the letter from Mr.
Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General,
that he feels any danger that might have
been in the original bill has been elimi-
nated in this one and that the proper
precautions have been taken.
On page 9 of the report, there are some
things that I think we ought to consider
at least and see what the objections
originally were.
It says:
1. While reciprocal agreements?presum-
ably entered into with the more friendly an-
tions?might mitigate security problems,
consideration of national security would re-
main in individual cases especially since we
are here dealing with aliens rather than our
own citizens.
2. Congress---if it enacts such legislation
should assure itself that appropriate security
measures will be undertaken by such agen-
cies as it specifies.
3. The Commission has no expertise or
staff to handle security investigations and
security determinations should not be made
by the FCC.
4. While the Commission would prefer
simply to refer the names of those request-
ing such authority to an appropriate security
agency and have that agency tell us when-
ever a request should be denied on security
grounds, we are willing?should Congress so
desire?to check with whatever- security
agencies Congress deems appropriate?and
to receive information and/or recommenda-
tion from such agencies bearing on the se-
curity issue.
This I gather has been satisfied and
the bill, the purpose of which is to per-
mit the United States to enter into re-
ciprocal agreements whereby 'U.S. ama-
teur radio operators may receive author-
ity to operate their amateur radio sta-
tions in foreign countries in return for
granting amateur operators of those
cofintries similar privileges in the United
States, and the conclusion reached is that
the committee believes that with the se-
curity safeguards written into this leg-
islation which is now before us, enact-
ment of this legislation is in the national
interest.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, and I
have no requests for time, I believe it is
almost unanimous that the rule should
be adopted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid t
table. if?
INTERNATIONAL RECIPROcITY FOR
AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS
Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
I move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 920) to amend sections
303 and 310 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, to provide that the
Federal Communications Commission_
may issue authorizations, but not
licenses, for alien amateur radio opera-
tors to operate their amateur radio sta-
tions in the United States, its possessions,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
provided there is in effect a bilateral
agreement between the United States
and the alien's government for such
operation by U.S. amateurs on a recipro-
cal basis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly,the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill S. 920, with Mr.
O'HARA of Illinois in the chair.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Mr. Bob Wilson of California and Mr.
Rhodes of Arizona for, with Mr. Bray against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Garmatz with Mrs. Frances P. Bolton.
Mr. Keogh with Mr. Bennett of Michigan.
Mr. Fallon with Mr. Morton.
Mr. Buckley with Mr. Osmers.
Mr. Friedel with Mr. Schenck.
Mr. Caller with Mr. Cahill.
Mr. Long of Maryland with Mr. Broyhill
of Virginia.
Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. King of California with Mr. Lipscomb.
Mr. Addabbo with Mr. Conte.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Springer.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Fino.
Mr. Kauczynski with Mr. Chenoweth.
Mr. Gilbert with Mr. Wallhauser,
Mr. Carman with Mrs. May.
Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Taft_
Mr. Matsunaga with Mr. Avery.
Mr. Healey with Mr, Quillen.
Mr. Donohue with Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Grabowski with Mr. Bromwell.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. McLoskey.
Mr. St. Cage with Mr. Michel.
Mr. Ryan of Michigan with Mx. Knox.
Mr. Fogarty with Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Feighan with Mr. Norblad.
Mr. MacDonald with Mr. Burton.
Mr. Muller with Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Sheppard with Mr. McDade.
Mr. O'Brien of New York with Mr. Collier.
Mr. Grant with Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Wilson of Indiana.
Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. Meader.
Mr. Monagan with Mr. McGlory.
Mr. Selden with Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Fulton of Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. Rodino with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. Toll with Mr. BattIn.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Bradernas with Mr. Oliver P. Bolton.
Mr. Ashmore with Mrs. Baker,
Mr. Powell with Mr. Hoffman.
Mr. Calmer with Mr. Brock.
Mr. DuIski with Mr. Mosher.
Mr. Elliott with Mr. Mlnshall.
Mr. Eying with Mr. Martin of Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. Montoya.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Morri-
son.
Mr. Lesinski with Mr. Forrester.
Mr. Reuss with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. McDowell with Mr. Doris.
Mr. Lankford with Mr Nix.
Mr. Fountain with Mr. Baring,
Mr. Andrews of Alabama with Mr. Cooley.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Henderson with Mr. Pepper.
Mr. Wickersham with Mr. Winstead.
Mr. Willis with Mr. Williams.
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Stubblefield.
Mr. Bass with Mr. McMillan.
Mr. Huddleston with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Roberts of Alabama with Mr. Staebler.
Mr. Thompson of Louisiana with Mr.
Pilcher.
Mr. Price with Mr. Jones of Alabama.
Mr. Karth with Mrs. Kelly.
Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr. St
Germain.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY OF NAVAL
AIR STATION, PENSACOLA, FLA.
Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and Pass House
Joint Resolution 889.
The Clerk read the House joint reso-
lution, as follows:
Whereas the city of Pensacola proposes to
celebrate with appropriate ceremonies the
golden anniversary of the Nt0/41 Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida. on June 13, 1904; and
Whereas, while there was limited naval
aviation activity prior to the establishment
of a school for training of naval aviators at
Pensacola. the Naval Air Station. Pensacola,
Is regarded as the first home for naval avi-
ators; and
Whereas the training programs of the
Naval Air Station. Pensacola, have signifi-
cantly contributed to the defense of the
United States and, through its training pro-
grams for friendly governments, has con-
tributed to the defense of the free world:
and
Whereas a celebration of the character
planned will contribute greatly to the edu-
cational and cultural welfare and to the
defense of the people of the United States
by highlighting the great traditions of naval
aviation which have been handed down
through the years and which must be kept
intact in today's troubled world; arid
Whereas appropriate recognition is taken
of the contributions, the intere t, and the
warm friendship shown by the people of
Pensacola and Escambla County through
these fifty years for the personnel of the
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida: and
Whereas the Congress of the United States
recognizes with appreciation the significance
of these events toward maintaining world
peace through strength of naval aviation and
through the greatness of the hearts of the
Navy men who have given naval aviation
that strength: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Cong-ess assembled, That the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
design and manufacture, and to accept pay-
ment therefor from private sources, a galvano
of appropriate design commemorating the
golden anniversary of the Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida. The payment of such
cost, if any, to the Government shall be
reimbursed to the appropriation of the Bu-
reau of the Mint, by the Fiesta of Five Flags
and Naval Aviators Homecoming Celebration,
330 Brent Building. Pensacola. Florida.
The SPEAKER_ Is a second de-
manded? (After a pause.] The ques-
tion is on suspending the rules and pass-
ing the House joint resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof) the
rules were suspended and the House joint
resolution was passed.
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. SIXES. Mr. Speaker. House
Joint Resolution 889 is a Joint resolution
by which the Congress will commemorate
the golden anniversary of the naval air
station at Pensacola. It authorizes the
design and manufacture of a galvano or
medallion in commemoration of this sig-
nificant event. There would be no cost
to the Government for the design and
manufacture of this galvano since local
Interests would defray the expense.
It is planned that the galvano will be
presented in Pensacola on June 13 dur-
ing the celebration of the "Fiesta of Five
Flags,- an annual pageant commemorat-
ing the founding and early history of
Pensacola.
The fact that the galvano is to be pre-
sented on June 13 explains the reason
the resolution is being brought to the
House under suspension of the rules. De-
lays have been encountered in getting
- 10775
the bill to the floor, and it is important
that the matter now be expedited. I am
very appreciative for he help of the
Committee on Banking and Currency,
and particularly of that given by the dis-
tinguished gentlewoman from Missouri,
Mrs. LEONOR SULLIVAN.
On January 20, 1914, the U.S.S.
Mississippi steamed into Pensacola Bay
with the whole of naval aviation aboard.
It comprised 7 aviators, 23 enlisted men,
and 7 aircraft. Upon arrival at the old
Pensacola Naval Yard?located at the
site of a naval shipyard founded in 1837?
they established the first U.S. naval
aeronautical station.
Now, 50 years later, the Navy's air arm
includes 24,853 officers and 196,169 en-
listed men, exclusive of the Marine Corps
air arm which encomnasses 6 404 officers
and 40,165 enlisted men. There are now
71 naval air bases worldwide and 12 re-
serve bases. and 6,976 aircraft. This is a
far cry, indeed, from the tiny beginning
on the shores of Pensacola Bay 50 years
ago.
I consider it highly appropriate that
the Congress join in commemorating the
work of the naval air station at Pensa-
cola and its contributions to the defense
of the United States.
JAMES P. SPRUILL
(Mr. BONNER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD, and to include an
article appearing in the Washington
Post.)
Mr. BONNET?,. Mr. Speaker, in 1950,
I had the privilege of appointing James
P. Spruill, of Plymouth, N.C., to West
Point. Mr. Spruill was a fine, intelli-
gent, and popular young man in his com-
munity. He did well at the Academy.
It is with the deepest regret that I
read in today's paper of his death in Viet-
nam a month ago while serving his coun-
try in an effort to assist that small, be-
leagured nation.
The story appearing in the Washing-
ton Post of Monday, May 18, includes
excerpts from Captain Spruill's letters
to his wife. They are worth reading
for they reassure all Americans of the
selfless dedication of our military men
to the cause of liberty. His confidence
In the ultimate victory in South Viet-
nam should give us confidence. The
thoughtfulness revealed in his sugges-
tions for the improvement of guerrilla
warfare shows the highest type of imag-
ination and initiative.
In their sorrow, Captain Spruill's
mother, wife, and bereaved family may
take some proud comfort from his sac-
rifice to the cause of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to extend my remarks in the RECORD at
this point and to include this news story.
WIDOW SAYS U.S. CAPTAIN URGED VIET NIGHT
FIGHTING
NEW YORK, May 17.?An American Army
captain, killed in Vietnam a month ago,
wrote to his wife that "we roust stand strong
and give heart to an embattled and confused
people. This cannot be done if America
loses heart."
Barbara A. Spruill, of Suffern, N.Y., widow
of Capt. James P. Spruill, made public today
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 :CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196J
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 10779
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
who may wish to do so may revise and
extend their remarks in the RECORD fol-
lowing the remarks I shall make.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Chair-
man, I have no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sub-
section (1) of section 303 of the Communi-
cations Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 303) is amend-
ed?
(1) by inserting "(1) " immediately after
"(1) "; and
(2) by adding at the end of such subsec-
tion the following: "(2) Notwithstanding
section 301 of this Act and paragraph ,(1) of
this subsection, the Commission may issue
authorizations, under such conditions and
terms as it may prescribe, to permit an alien
licensed by his government as an amateur
radio operator to operate his amateur radio
station licensed by his government in the
United States, its possessions, and the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico provided there is
in effect a bilateral agreement between the
United States and the alien's government for
such operation on a reciprocal basis by
United States amateur radio operators: Pro-
vided, That when an application for an au-
thorization is received by the Commission,
it shall notify the appropriate agencies of
the Government of such fact, and such
agencies shall forthwith furnish to the Com-
mission such information in their possession
as bears upon the compatibility of the re-
quest with the national security: And pro-
vided further, That the requested authoriza-
tion may then be granted unless the Com-
mission shall determine that information
received from such agencies necessitates
denial of the request. Other provisions of
this Act and of the Administrative Procedure
Act shall not be applicable to any request
or application for or modification, suspen-
sion, or cancellation of any such authori-
zation."
SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 310 of
the Communication Act of 1934 is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
"Notwithstanding section 301 of this Act and
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection,
the Commission may issue authorizations,
under such conditions and terms as it may
prescribe, to permit an alien licensed by his
government as an amateur radio operator
to operate his amateur radio station licensed
by his government in the United States, its
possessions, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico provided there is in effect a bi-
lateral agreement between the United States
and the alien's government for such opera-
tion on a reciprocal basis by United States
amateur radio operators: Provided, That
when an application for an authorization is
received by the Commission, it shall notify
the appropriate agencies of the Government
of such fact, and such agencies shall forth-
with furnish to the Commission such in-
formation in their possession as bears upon
the compatibility of the request with the
national security: And provided further,
That the requested authorization may then
be granted unless the Commission shall de-
termine that information received from
such agencies necessitates denial of the re-
quest Other provisions of this Act and of
the Administrative Procedure Act shall not
be applicable to any request or application
for or modification, suspension, or cancella-
tion of any such authorization."
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker pro tempore having re-
sumed the chair, Mr. O'HARA of Illinois,
Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee having had
under consideration the bill (S. 920) to
amend sections 303 and 310 of the Com-
munications Act of 1934, as amended, to
provide that the Federal Communica-
tions Commission may issue authoriza-
tions, but not licenses, for alien amateur
radio operators to operate their amateur
radio stations in the United States, its
possessions, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico provided there is in effect
a bilateral agreement between the United
States and the alien's government for
such operation by U.S. amateurs on a
reciprocal basis, pursuant to House Reso-
lution 720, he reported the bill back to
the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading
of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
VIRGIN ISLANDS CONTRACT WITH
INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS,
INC.
(Mr. ASPINALL asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the body of the RECORD and to
include certain pertinent material.)
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, on May
11, our colleague, Representative WEST-
LAND, placed in the RECORD an item re-
garding a contract between the Virgin
Islands government and Mr. Robert
Lodge, doing business as International
Publications, Inc. This article was criti-
cal of the negotiations between Mr.
Henry L. Kimelman, commissioner,
Virgin Islands Department of Commerce,
and Mr. Lodge relative to Virgin Islands
advertising in the Caribbean Pavilion at
the New York World's Fair.
In order to present Mr. Kimelman's
views on the issue I am including in to-
day's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a copy of
a memorandum, dated May 4, 1964, pre-
pared by Mr. Kimelman for the Honor-
able Ralph M. Paiewonsky, Governor of
the Virgin Islands. In his memorandum
Mr. Kimelman explains step by step
the procedures followed in the prepara-
tion and implementation of the contract.
Mr. Kimelman's memorandum reads as
follows:
May 4, 1964,
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Ralph M. Paiewonsky,
Governor of the Virgin Islands.
From: Henry L. Kimelman, commissioner of
commerce.
Subject: Full facts in connection with Lodge
agreement, February 16, 1904, and sub-
sequent controversy.
This is a memorandum in reply to your
request for the full facts in connection with
the agreement entered into between the Gov-
ernment of the Virgin Islands through its
Department of Commerce and Mr. Robert
Lodge.
On December 12, 1963, the legislature
passed bill No. 1960, which subsequently be-
came act No. 1055, This legislation author-
ized particpation of the Virgin Islands Gov-
ernment in the Caribbean Pavilion of the
New York World's Fair of 1964-66, estab-
lished a special World's Fair fund and ap-
propriated $25,000 therefor.
Section 2 of this act specifically states:
"The commissioner of commerce is author-
ized to make such arangements concerning
the subleasing of space at the exhibit, and
the organization of displays, concessions en-
tertainment and similar matters as he be-
lieves will further the objectives of the legis-
lature in authorizing Virgin Islands partici-
pation and will reduce the cost of such par-
ticipation."
Section 3 of this same act states: "That
purchases and contracts for the purpose of
operating the Virgin Islands exhibit may be
made by the commissioner of commerce with-
out advertising and bids."
With opening date of the New York World's
Fair scheduled for April 22, 1964, it was ob-
vious to the legislature and the Governor
that time was a vital factor. We proceeded
to negotiate with the Caribbean Exposition
Corporation, owners of the Caribbean Pa-
vilion and concluded contractual arrange-
ments with them in accordance with act
No. 1055 on January 21, 1964, 92 days be-
fore the scheduled official opening of the
fair.
On that date, our site was barren, indeed
snow covered. The Caribbean Pavilion
opened 91 days later, a day prior to the
official opening of the World's Fair with a
luncheon hosted by our department for over
100 leading travel agents, travel press and
transportation executives.
The sugar mill, stone walls, and large color
photographs comprising our Virgin Islands
government exhibit was complete. A rib-
bon-cutting ceremony was held and a radio
broadcast of the opening ceremonies was
transmitted to the Virgin Islands. We were
ready for businese\on time and at a location
which is by any standard the "Times Square"
of the World's Fair grounds, at the corner
where the Avenue of the Americas meets the
Unisphere.
The advantages of the Virgin Islands' par-
ticipation in the World's Fair are clear
enough. May I quote the comments of the
managing editor of the Home Journal on
Friday, February 7, 1904:
"I had little or no intention of going to
the New York World's Fair but after hear-
ing the persuasive plans of Commerce Com-
missioner Henry Kimelman concerning the
participation of the Virgin Islands in this
$1 billion world production I feel that I
should go to the fair to help save the honor
of the Virgin Islands. Not to do so would be
criminal. The Virgin Islands exhibit in the
Caribbean Pavilion will be beautiful, func-
tional, and profitable to the Virgin Islands
and should be another boost to tourism.
"Virgin Islanders in New York will be
proud of this tribute to their native land and
Virgin Islanders here at home should run--
not walk?to the nearest travel agency to
make plans for the trip.
"The fair will be fun, to be sure, but the
fair will also mean many millions of dollars
in tax revenue from rum sales over the 2
years run of the fair that otherwise would
probably take until 1970 to realize from
present sources. The fair will also mean a
tremendous boost to tourism and local bust-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
10780 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE - May 18
nessmen are pitching in to help the cause.
Virgin Islanders with vision Can prepare for
big things as a result of the fair."
In addition to our prime contract with the
Caribbean Exposition Corp., we concluded
contracts with both rum distillers In the
Virgin Islands, with Caribair, the Virgin
Islands manufacturer of women's perfume,
approximately 30 gift shops, Hertz Rent-A
Car, Pivar Real Estate, 10 Virgin Islands ho-
tels, and a concession lease agreement. We
also concluded an agreement with Lodge for
the printing and distribution of 500,000
copies of a three-Island overall promotional
piece of literature to supply the require-
ments of the approximately 8 million people
it is estimated will visit the Caribbean Pa-
villon.
After all of the negotiations and the mak-
ing of the aforementioned agreements, the
construction of our exhibit building, the
building of our display installation, etc.,
the only item that has given rise to con-
troversy is the agreement between the gov-
ernment of the Virgin Islands and Robert
Lodge.
In connection with our planned participa-
tion in the World's Fair, notices were mailed
to all tourist interests, including the press.
on December 16. 1983. Public participation
was not only solicited, but encouraged and
invited. Two public meetings were held in
St. Thomas and two in St. Croix. Comments
and recommendations were repeatedly asked
for. Press releases were issued in connection
with advance notices of each of these meet-
ings. Hundreds of form postcards were
mailed as well as solicitation by telephone
to all of the press, shops, hotels, etc. There
Is no question that this department did
everything in its power to make the World's
Fair project a community project and to in-
vite not only participation but any and all
suggestions that would help make our Virgin
Islands exhibit outstanding.
Specific charges have been directed at me
in connection with the Lodge agreement
principally from "parties at interest." These
are my comments:
STATEN ENT
1. "For the record, the entire, long and
in my opinion, unethical story began shortly
after you had appointed Henry L. Kimelman
as Commissioner of Commerce. One of Kim-
elman's first actions WM to appoint Robert
Lodge to coordinate a joint advertising cam-
paign encompassing the Virgin Islands gov-
ernment, transportation industries, and in-
dividual businessmen dedicated to the tourist
industry."
COMMENT
This is an outright falsehood. When this
complaint was made in 1081 by this same
source I wrote you, on November 8. 1961. as
follows: "Lodge was never authorized to
represent me personally nor baa he any offi-
cial connection with the department of com-
merce." I reiterate that Mr. Lodge was never
appointed by me for any purpose in any way,
shape or form.
STATEMENT
2. On November 26, 1982, Judge Walter A.
Gordon of the District Court of the Virgin
Islands handed down a judgment of $10,086.85
plus attorneys' fees against Lodge and In
favor of the Hearst Corp. for advertising rum
in their magazines and not paid for. We felt
that this judgment handed down by Judge
Gordon would certainly end any connection
you, as Governor of the Virgin Islands, or
your commissioner of commerce would have
in the foreseeable future with Lodge. Not so.
COMMENT
I was not aware until April 30. 1964, a few
days ago, that a judgment had been entered
by the district court against Mr. Lodge. I
became aware on April 2, 1984. from Mr.
Harman's "Sammy 011ck" letter that Hearst
magazines was suing Mr. Lodge. I queried
Mr. Lodge about this matter. He advised
me that he had a counterclaim against
Hearst for nonperformance on their part in
connection with his dealings with them.
Certainly I would have had no possible rea-
son for suspecting that Lodge might be
Judgment proof. He lives in a substantial
home which I would estimate to be worth
5150.000. drives quality cars and appears to
be a successful publisher and entrepreneur.
Whatever his controversy with Hearst, the
government of the Virgin Islands Is in no
way involved.
STATEMENT
3. "Klanelman says that Lodge is to pay
the government of the Virgin Islands
$10,1300 for the excluelve advertising rights
at the World's Fair. It has been said, and
not denied, that Kitnelnum or his agents
or employees have contracted with Lodge
for a full page of advertising in the name of
the government of the Virgin Islands. If
this is so. simple mathematics show: Lodge
pays government $10,000; government pays
Lodge $11.500; net gain for Lodge, $1,500."
COMMENT
Completely inaccurate. The contract with
Lodge concluded on February 5, 1964, does
not commit the government of the Virgin
Islands to purchase any advertising what-
soever, rum, or tourism in the special
World's Fair publication Lodge was to pro-
duce. During his subsequent solicitation
Lodge approached our advertising agency to
suggest to them the placement of an adver-
tisement for both tourism and rum. The
agency's planning board saw no need what-
soever for tourism advertising In this pub-
lication. Our agency recognized properly in
my opinion the opportunity for a Virgin
Islands rum advertisement in this publica-
tion. It should be particularly noted that
contract with the Caribbean Pavilion called
fur exclusive use of Virgin Islands rum at the
bar, or bars, in the pavilion during the en-
tire period of the World's Fair. The agency's
planning board felt that this medium giving
distribution of 5 million pieces of literature
to visitors who were being made Virgin
Islands rum conscious was an excellent
choice for advertising Virgin Islands rum.
In the early days of March the agency
telephoned me as chairman of the Virgin
Islands Ruin Council to obtain my confirma-
tion. / concurred in this advertisement
provided there were funds available in the
contingent rum advertising account, and
provided they had the approval of the other
active members of the Rum Council, they
could place this advertisement. They re-
ceived such approval and on March 20, 1964,
deputy commissioner and the executive di-
rector of the Rum Council in the Depart-
ment of Commerce approved a half-page.
not a 1-page, Insertion. This accounted for
$5.750 and not $11.500, as stated. Mr. Lodge
subsequently reduced the size of his World's
Fair publication to half Its contemplated
sive and, consequently, the advertising cost
to the government was reduced to half of
$5.750 or *2.875. This advertisement order
was subsequently canceled on your instruc-
tions.
STATEMENT
4. "And with his financial background,
who can be sure that Lodge will pay the
government $10.000. He still had the more
than 610,000 judgment hanging over his
head."
COMMENT
See reply under No. 2. The Lodge con-
tract called for a $5.000 payment within 7
days of signing which has been received as
per contract and deposited in the special
World's Fair account of the government of
the Virgin Islands.
STATEMENT
5. "On March 31, the Comptroller of the
Virgin Islands, Peter Bove, branded this
entire action illegal and added, 'It would
appear to be in the best intere;t of the gov-
ernment to cancel this contract and to take
other steps commensurate with the respon-
sibilities involved now.'"
CON MFINT
The Attorney General advised both of ua
at a meeting in your office on April 2. 1964.
that I had the legal authority to enter into
this agreement with Mr. Lodge. Apparently
the comptroller. Mr. Peter Bove was unaware
of the provisions in act No. 1055 dispensing
with the conditions of adverti3ing and bids
in view of the urgent time schsdule.
STATEMENT
6. "Lt. Cmdr. Harry Harmaa III, in his
'Sammy Glick' letter of March 16, quoted in
part 'All of us knew. i.e., that Bob Lodge "is
a crook," and that no sensible businessman
would have any thing to do wiala him".'"
COMMENT
All one has to do IE pick up a current copy
of St. Thomas's This Week or St. Croix' This
Week and they will see advertised therein
such prominent shcps as Cavanagh's. the
Continental. A. H. Riise. Bolero, Spanish
Main, Casa Venegas, Bluebeard's Castle, Vir-
gin Isle Hilton, Buccaneer Hotel, etc., and
such famous national and intsrnational ad-
vertisers as Grants aril Teachers Scotch, Sea-
grams, Omega and Rolex watches, Zeiss and
Leica cameras. etc., ad Infinitum.
Whereas Lodge has been depicted by com-
petitive interests as a drifter a-ad irresponsi-
ble, he is in fact an energetic, effective, and
by all appearances the most saccessful pub-
lisher in the Virgin Islands. He publishes
This Week publications in other Caribbean
islands and I am informed is presently or-
ganizing the publication of Th:s Week issues
in capital cities in Europe.
It is important to bear in mind that in
response to my requests to the entire com-
munity to come forward with suggestions for
making our World's Fair participation fully
effective, it was only Lodge who developed
and put forward the Idea to produce an over-
all three-island piece of promotional litera-
ture for distribution at the Caribbean Pa-
vilion at the World's Fair. Ll our negoti-
ations he agreed to provide up to 5 minion
copies in the quantities as we required them
during the 2-year period. I suggested that he
offer $10,000 for the exclusive right of dis-
tribution, which offer he then made.
As you are aware it was my intention to
grant to Lodge the exclusive rght of distri-
bution but in the rush of preparing the
contract language granted Loc.ge the exclu-
sive right to publish and not exclusive dis-
tribution of said publication. In effect, the
word "exclusive" /lowered by accident in the
wrong place and this escaped both us and
Lodge's attorney.
It was my opinion that we had a moral
obligation to Lodge to grant him exclusive
distribution of his publication.
After consulting the Attorney General, you
advised me about February 24 or 25 that you
did not consider that Lodge ha i an exclusive
distribution contract. You instructed me to
notify Mr. Lodge that his contract was not
and would not be made into an exclusive
distribution, and I subsequently did so notify
Mr. Lodge.
It was then made publicly known that
distribution proposals for Word's Fair pub-
lications would be entertained from others.
The only party evidencing any interest prior
to the publication of Mr. Peter Bove's press
release, which was simultaneously issued
upon delivery of his letters to you of March
30 and April 1, was Mr. Ariel Melchoir, the
publisher of the Daily News end Virgin Is-
lands magazine.
The Comptroller, Peter Bove, in his letter
of March 30, took the position that the con-
tract was illegal and recommended immedi-
ate cancellation. The headlines in the local
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
May 28, 1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA7RDP65B.0403R000500050001-9 11805
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU
sion, it passed a resolution which was in-
tended to be a reservation to the treaty,
if adopted, reaffirming its adherence to
the principles of self-determination and
its previous vote of sympathy with the
aspirations of the Irish people for a gov-
ernment of their own choice, and went
further and expressed the earnest hope
that once Ireland had got self-govern-
ment it would be promptly admitted as
a Member of the League of Nations.
You know that on account of articles
In the covenant and circumstances of
the day the treaty was not ratified.
But the resolutions here in Congress,
supported as they were, and mirroring as
they did the attitude of the American
people as a whole were made manifest
by immense demonstrations in all the
principal cities throughout the United
States. Recognition was given by the
mayors of your principal cities, by the
governors and legislatures of many of
your States, so that Congress here was
expressing accurately the will of the
American people in regard to Ireland.
It is not necessary for me to tell you
how heartened our peaple were by these
expressions of sympathy and friendship.
We were in a very difficult struggle, fac-
ing very great odds. And it was a com-
fort and an earnest of ultimate success
that this great freedom-loving nation of
America and its people were behind our
efforts.
What was the gratitude of the Irish
people was clearly evident to anyone who
saw the reception that was given to your
late President, President Kennedy. He
was welcomed not merely because he was
of Irish blood, not merely because of his
personal charm and his great qualities
of heart and mind, nor even because of
the great leadership which he was giv-
ing to the world in critical moments; but
he was honored because he was regarded
by our people as the symbol of this great
Nation, because he was the elected
President of this great people. [Ap-
plause.]
In honoring him they felt that they
were in some small measure expressing
their gratitude to the peope of the United
States for the aid that had been given
to them.
The United States since the Declara-
tion of Independence has been looked
upon by all freedom-loving peoples as the
champion of human liberty, the liberty
of nations, and the liberty of individuals.
We in Ireland have constantly looked to
you as such a champion.
We all know that the former League of
Nations came into being as the result of
American initiatiVe--although, as I said,
for reasons which seemed good at the
time to the American people they did not
ratify the treaty or become members of
the League. But the idea came from
America, in modern times, anyhow.
And the successor of the League?the
United Nations Organization?also came
into being as tin result of American in-
fluence.
Most thinking people will admit that
if we are to loft forward to peace, to
anything like a lasting peace in this
world, it can olly be secured by the
working of sue/ an organization?an
No. 107-
organization that will purposely devote
itself to bringing about the rule of law
and, where other means have failed, ju-
dicial determination of international dis-
putes, and enforcement of peace when
that becomes necessary. [Applause.]
Now, you all know that we are far
from being at that goal at present. But
there is no one who has read the speeches
of President Kennedy or the speeches of
President Johnson or the speeches and
Statements of your Secretary of State or
of the chairman of your Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, but must be satisfied
that American leaders are thinking at
the highest level and that they are facing
realistically the complicated situations
that confront them and also the social
evils that have to be remedied.
It is a great comfort to know that a
nation like yours is thinking at that level.
And we have the hope that as long as
there is thinking at that level and as long
as this Nation is guided by the Divine
Spirit that ultimately the peace and the
conditions which we all wish for will be
realized. [Applause.]
But freedom and peace are but the
foundations. They are the necessary
foundations.
The United States as a great nation
and ours as one of the smaller nations,
working in our complementary ways, are
endeavoring to build, to secure that these
foundations will be /well laid.
But that is not all, of course. An
Irish poet thinking some 120 years ago
of the role he would wish his nation to
play addressed us in these words:
Oh, Ireland, be it thy high duty to teach
the world the might of moral beauty and
stamp God's image truly on the struggling
soul.
President Kennedy in his address at
Amherst College, thinking of the future
that he would wish and that he foresaw
for America, said he wished an America
whose military strength would be
matched by its moral strength, the moral
strength of its people; its wealth by their
wisdom; its power by their purpose?an
America that would not be afraid of
grace and beauty.
In short, he said, an America that
would win respect not merely because of
its strength but because of its culture.
I am sure that is the America that ulti-
mately you would want, as it is the Ire-
land that we would want.
But these things can only be secured
by undeviating pursuit of the founda-
tions that I have mentioned and pursuit,
ultimately, of the higher ideals that mean
the mental life, the full life of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to confess
and confess freely that this is an out-
standing day in my own life, to see rec-
ognized, as I have here in full, the recog-
nition of the rights of the Irish people
and the -independence of the Irish peo-
ple in a way that was not at all possible
45 years ago. [Applause.]
I have longed to come back and say
this to you and through you to the people
as a whole.
I would, indeed, be fully happy today
were there not one serious setback that
had occurred in these 45 years.
When I was addressing you here in
1919 and 1920 our ancient nation, our
ancient Ireland, was undivided. Since
then it has been divided by a cruel par-
tition.
As my predecessor, Mr. Sean T.
O'Kelly, when he was addressing you
here said, partition is one of our serious
problems but, please God, that, too, will
be solved.
And I salute here, in prospect, the
representative of Ireland who may be
permitted to address you as I have been
permitted, and who will be able with full
heart joyfully to announce to you that
our severed country has been reunited
and that the last source of enmity be-
tween the British and Irish peoples has
disappeared and that at last we can be
truly friends. [Applause.]
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
renew to you and to the Members of
Congress my thanks for this great privi-
lege?and, of course, to the President of
the United States, without whose gen-
erous invitation I could not be here. I
am deeply grateful. I hope that the close
ties which have kept our countries to-
gether for centuries will continue into
the future. [Applause.]
And that representatives of Ireland
may be able to talk to the American
people as close friends, and representa-
tives of the United States to talk to the
people of Ireland as their close friends.
May I pray in our own language, the
Irish language, that this may be so:
Go dtuga Dia gur mar sin a bheas, agus go
stiftra an Spiorad Naomh na daoine a bheas
mar thereoraithe ar Sr nda. thir, agus taoisigh
an domhain ire cheile, ar bhealach na sio-
chana, agus loam an chine dhaonna,
(English Translation:)
God grant that it be so, and may the Holy
Spirit guide the leaders of our two countries,
and those of the whole world, on the way of
peace and human betterment.
At 12 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m., the
President of the Irish Republic, accom-
panied by the committee of escort, re-
tired from the Hall of the House of
Representatives.
The Doorkeeper escorted the invited
guests from the Chamber in the follow-
ing order: The members of the Presi-
dent's Cabinet, the ambassadors, min-
isters, and charge d'affaires of foreign
governments.
The SPEAKER. The joint meeting of
the two Houses is hereby dissolved.
Accordingly, at 1 o'clock p.m., the joint
meeting of the two Houses was dis-
solved.
The Members of the Senate retired to
their Chamber.
RECESS
The SPEAKER. The House will stand
In recess until 1:45 p.m. .
Accordingly, at 1 o'clock and 1 minute
p.m., the House stood in recess.
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House
was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore, the gentleman from Oklahoma
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66800403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDPEAC r '
11806 CONGRESSIONAL RECOR
di fa?
(Mr. ALBERT I at 1 o'clock and 45 minutes
P.m.
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE
RECESS
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the proceedings
had during the recess be printed in the
RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
3R000500050001-9
USE May 28
ADJOURNMENT OVER 'TO MONDAY,
JUNE 1, 1904
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the gen-
tleman from Louisiana?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object?and I shall not ob-
ject?I wonder if we could have some
idea of when the con res._rg1L9L_p.ay,jn.ud -
%._f_rease bill is going o come up.
Mr. BOGGS. There is a variety of
bills reported by the Committee on Rules
that are being scheduled, but at this time
I am not in a position to give any spe-
cific date for that bill. There are many
primaries pending all over the country.
There is a very hotly contested primary
in California on June 2. There are other
primaries. In order to accommodate
Members on both sides of the aisle we
have sought not to schedule controver-
sial legislation.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I will say
to the gentleman that if it never comes
up it will be too soon as far as I am
concerned; but I would like to be assured
that it will not come up next week.
Mr. BOGGS. I will say to my distin-
guished friend from Iowa that It will not
come up next week and that he will re-
ceive ample notice before it does come
up.
Mr. GROSS. Will it come up before
the bill increasing the Federal debt
limit?
Mr. BOGGS. I am In no position to
say when that bill, or the mass transit
bill, or ARA, or a host of others, will come
up specifically. We have many bills be-
fore us.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR WEEK
OF JUNE 1, 1964
(Mr. BOW asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute.)
Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I have asked
for this time In order to make inquiry
of the distinguished majority whip con-
cerning the program for next week.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, in re-
sponse to the inquiry of the distin-
guished gentleman from Ohio the pro-
gram for the week of June 1, 1964, is as
follows:
On Monday, we have the Consent, Cal-
endar.
No bills are scheduled to be taken up
under suspension of the rules.
On Tuesday we have the Private Cal-
endar and the following:
House Resolution 648, authorizing ad-
ditional policemen on the Capitol Police
force.
House Resolution 653, providing an
additional $150.000 for the Committee
on the Judiciary.
House Resolution 658, providing an
additional $175.000 for the Committee
on Science and Astronautics.
House Resolution 735, providing an ad-
ditional $125,000 for the Committee on
Banking and Currency.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 73.
authorizing printing of 2.000 additional
copies each of parts II and III of Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy's hearings
on AEC authorizing legislation for fiscal
year 1965.
S. 2, establish water resources research
centers. That will come up under an
open rule with 2 hours of general debate.
On Wednesday, HR. 10503, Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1964. This has an
open rule with 2 hours of general debate.
H.R. 10392, authorizing the District of
Columbia Commissioners to locate a por-
tion of a vehicular tunnel under parts of
the U.S. Capitol Grounds and the U.S.
Botanic Garden grounds. This has an
open rule with 2 hours of general debate.
On Thursday and the balance of the
week, House Joint Resolution 977?Na-
tional Commission on Food Marketing.
This has an open rule with 2 hours of
general debate.
Of course, conference reports may be
brought up at any time and any further
program will be announced later.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY NEXT WEEK
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the business in
order on Calendar Wednesday of next
week be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
COMMITTEE ON RIJIRA
Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Rules have until midnight to file cer-
tain privileged reports.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
FOREIGN AID?WHY THE
CONTROVERSY
(Mr. RYAN of New York asked and
was given permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the R:ECORD, and
to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Speaker,
In an effort to create a better understand-
ing of the complexities of oar foreign
policy I have sponsored, in cooperation
with the Foreign Polley Association and
the Reform Democratic Globe on Man-
hattan's west side, a series of forums for
the benefit of my constituents. The for-
ums have not only been informative but
have stimulated enlightened discussion.
I want to take this occasion to commend
Mrs. Susan Cohn, the coordinstor of the
series, and also Daniel J. Nelson, who
worked closely with her in organizing
the meetings. Their committee has
made a valuable contribution to public
awareness of foreign policy issues.
On April 23, 1964, we sponsoi ed an im-
portant forum on foreign aid entitled
"Foreign Aid?Why the Controversy."
The meeting was addressed by Paul G.
Hoffman, Director, United Nations Spe-
cial Fund and William D. Rogers, Deputy
U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Progress.
Mrs Reginia. Andrews, librarian, Wash-
ington Heights Branch Public Library
spoke for the Foreign Policy Association,
and Henry Krisch of the Barnard Col-
lege faculty chaired the meeting.
Mr. Speaker. William D. Rogers, Dep-
uty U.S. Coordinator, Alliance for Prog-
ress, reviewed the performance of the
Alliance for Progress and commented
upon its promise for the fu-;ure. He
pointed out:
In Latin America, the Alliance for Progress
Is our chief hope for a better hemisphere
and a better world. We cannot let It fail.
I include at this point in the RECORD
the remarks of Mr. Rogers.
SPEECH OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. ROGERS,
DEPUTY D.S. COORDINATOR, ALL :ANON FOR
, PROGRESS FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION
DISCUSSION GROUP, Nsw Yong CITY, APRIL
23, 1964
Congressman RYAN, Mr. Hoffman, fellow
citizens, I deeply appreciate this opportunity
to speak before you. 1 am an the more
pleased that the lnvita-Aon came through
LULL RYAN, who so ably represens you in
Washington.
The subject of this meeting, I urderstand,
Is "Foreign Aid?Why the Controversy."
Now, frankly, all my own experience with
foreign aid has been win Lat_n America,
once the stepchild of our wogrants, and now,
under the Alliance for Progress, one of its
brightest features.
Bo, with your pert:OW*1i, my talk will con-
centrate on Latin America.
I must confess that I was puzzled over the
question posed for me.
Tbia is because I am so firm :n may own
mind that our aid progruns In support of
Latin America's own efforts are so clearly
In our national interest that I have trouble
understanding the reason for any contro-
versy.
Our aid to Latin Amesca is helping the
nations there to matntan themselves free
and independent, sharing with us the ideals
of representative democrsy and free enter-
prise. It is brInging-theR closer to the time
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
L.1
ESIKOY
TH (k)NORE813 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i
2d 8earion f
CONSIDERATION 01 H.R. 11049
Ravorrr
1423
MAY 21, 1964.?Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. YOUNG, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany 11. Hee. 733]
The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration louse
Resolution 733, report the same to the House with the recon nda-
tion that the resolution do pass.
oved For Release 2005105/ : CIA-RDP661300403R0
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
rently calculated average market rates of
interest. Under my proposal, the Secre-
tary would be required to do so.
The principal immediate effect of the
proposed bill would be to increase the
present average yield of the $15 billion of
trust fund money in special issues from
an average of about 2.95 percent per an-
num to about 41/8 percent per annum.
As the accompanying table shows, if the
special issues in the trust funds portfolios
as of February 29, 1964, were switched to
Issues bearing an interest rate of 4 V8 per-
cent per year, the annual interest income
earned by the two funds would be raised
from about $444 million to over $620 mil-
lion-an increase of about $176 million.
This increase in interest income is not,
of course, a permanent one. As the spe-
cial issues now held by the funds mature
at dates ranging from 1966 .to 1978, the
present law, which requires new issues at
current market rates, would raise yields
as these issues matured. The difference
In interest income between that possible
under my bill and the income possible
under the present statute will, therefore,
diminish from 1966 onward and be can-
celed in 1978. But in the interim period
a substantial net addition to trust fund
capital will have been made.
These added millions of additional in-
come to the social security fund can be
used either to postpone increases in con-
tributions required to finance present
benefits or, better, to pay the initial cost
of benefit extensions. Among the latter,
programs such as the following could be
considered:
First. Payment of older worker allow-
ances to workers over 55 years of age, who
have exhausted unemployment benefits
and now have to wait until they are 62 to
receive social security benefits. The
Clark subcommittee on employment and
manpower of the Senate has recommend-
ed that workers in this group who con-
tinue to be available for work, retraining,
special work projects, or relocation, and
estimated to total from 20,000 to 25,000,
receive payments of about $2,000 per
year, at an annual cost of $50 million to
$75 million. If the annual payments to
any one person were limited to the aver-
age $1,000 per year now paid in social se-
curity benefits, the cost would be half
that estimated by the Clark subcom-
mittee.
Second. Payment of disability benefits
to disabled widows, who now receive no
benefits until age 62, irrespective of their
age. At a cost of about $100 million per
year, a disability pension of about $1,000
per year could be paid to the 100,000
Women who fall into this disadvantaged
category.
Third. Payment of old age benefits to
childless widows at half-benefit rate at
age 60. Childless widows of workers who
have accumulated social security rights
now receive an average of about $70 per
month at age 62. An average $35 per
month could be paid to the 300,000 child-
less widows who now compose the group
from 60 to 62 at an approximate annual
cost of $150 million per year.
Fourth. Payment of extended benefits
to children of disabled or retired workers
or their survivors. Under the terms of
H.R. 6688 proposed by the gentleman
from Arkansas [Mr. Mims], children's.
benefits would continue to be p'aid until
age 22 when the children continued in
school. These payments now stop when
children reach the age of 18. Extension
of benefits to the higher age limit would
permit an estimated 200,000 young peo-
ple to go on to college at an annual cost
of some $125 million.
The text of H.R. 11328 follows:
HR. 11328
A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act with respect to the investment of
amounts in the social security trust funds
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a) the
fifth sentence of section 201(d) of the Social
Security Act is amended by inserting " ( I) "
after "except that", and by inserting before
the period at the end thereof the following:
? and (2) the rate of interest on such obli-
gations shall in no case be less than 3 per
centum per annum".
(b) The sixth sentence of section 201(d)
of such Act is amended by inserting before
the period at the end thereof the following:
and the investment yield of such obliga-
tions shall not be less than the interest rate
determined in accordance with the preceding
sentence".
Sm. 2. The Managing Trustee of the Fed-
eral Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fuhd and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund shall, immediately upon the en-
actment of this Act, retire the special obli-
gations held by such trust funds on the date
of the enactment of this Act and issue in
lieu thereof special obligations with an in-
terest rate determined as provided for in
section 201(d) of the Social Security Act as
amended by the first section of this Act.
11069
Multiple
Base
Present
gross
Proposed by
H.R. 11049
Percent
increase
Now
gross
0
$6
$891
. 0.5
$935
0.1
60
1,020
.5
1,071
500
2,057
.5
2,160
1
505
2,069
5.5
2,183
2
1,000
3, 157
5.1
3,330
2
1,005
3, 166
6. 5
3,372
2.4
1,200
3,534
6. 5
3, 764
3
1,600
4,052
6.5
4,316
3.
1,001
4,061
7. 6
4,36(1
3.6
1,800
4,685
7. 5
5, 004
4
2,000
0,088
7.5
5, 470
4
2,005
5,095
8.5
5, 533
4.8
2,400
5,955
8. 5
6,461
5?
2, 500
6, 172
8.5
6, 697
5
2,505
6, 183
9. 5
6,770
6
3,000
7,255
9. 5
7,945
6
3,005
7,2(16
10.5
8,025
7
5,500
8,339
10. 6
9,215
7
3,505
8,300
11.5
9,310
7.2
3,600
8,158
11. 6
9, 540
8
4,000
9,422
11.5
10, 506
8
4,005
9,433
12.5
10,613
0
4,500
10,506
12.5
13,819
9
4.555
10,517
13. 5
11, 937
9.6
4, 800
11, 136
13. 6
12, 640
10
5,000
11, 550
13, 5
13, 109
42,005
13,590
14.6
13,237
11
5,500
12, 528
14. 5
14, 345
11
5, 505
12, 538
15. 5
14, 481
12
? 6,000
13, 469
15. 5
15, 556
12
6,005
13, 478
16. 5
15, 702
1.3
6,500
14,400
16. 5
16, 786
L3
6,505
14,418
17. 5
16, 942
L4
7, 000
15, 349
17.5
18, 035
14
7, 005
15, 359
18.3
18, 200
14,4
7, 200
15, 725
18. 5
18, 635
15
7?500
16, 289
18. 5
10,303
[5
7505
16,299
19.5
39,477
1.6
8,000
17,230
19. 6
20, 590
1.6
8,005
17,239
20. 5
20, 773
17
8, 500
18, 170
20. 5
21,895
[7
8,505
18,179
21.5
22,088
1.7
8,880
18,884
21.5
22, 945
[8
9,000
19, 110
21, 6
38,219
8
9,005
19, 120
22. 5
23, 422
[8.9
9,475
20, 000
22. 5
24, 500
PROVISIONS OF THE REVIS
FEDERAL PAY BILL
(Mr. UDALL asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extynd his re-
marks and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, since the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
recently voted out H.R. 11049, the revised
Federal pay bill, I have had many in-
quiries concerning provisions of the bill
relating to legislative employees-the
staffs of congressional committees and
the staffs of Senators and Congressmen.
I should like to say that the provisions
of this portion of the bill are substantially
the same as they were when the House
considered the earlier pay bill, H.R. 8986.
H.R. 11049 is now before the Rules Com-
mittee and I am hoping for approval of
a rule and an early debate in the House.
Without objection, I insert a table
showing legislative salary increases con-
tained in H.R. 11049:
LEGISLATIVE SALARY INCREASES PROVIDED IN
SECTION 202 or H.R. 11049
This amendment is designed to provide
percentage salary adjustments for legislative
employees comparable to those provided for
employees under the Classification Act. The
increases are provided in an amount equal
to 31/2 percent of the employee's gross rate
plus 1 percent of his gross rate for each
whole multiple, or part of a multiple of $500
basic compensation: or an amount equal to
5 percent of such gross rate, whichever is
greater:
TIME FOR DRASTIC ACTION
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was
given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it ap-
pears most unfortunate that a very small
minority of college students-college
hoodlums would be more appropriate-
might well bring discredit to the count-
less numbers of conscientious students
who appreciate the privilege of being able
to attend college. The great majority
show their appreciation. They not only
attempt to learn how to make a living
but also the art of making a life.
"Fraternity Confab Turns Into Near
Orgy," was a recent headline in a Mid-
west paper. Thirty-seven students, in-
cluding 15 coeds, were arrested when the
confab turned into a drunken brawl, re-
sulting in considerable damage to a hotel
in the town. Pedestrians were endan-
gered when beer cans and bottles were
thrown from upper story windows.
More recently the press reported a sim-
ilar occurrence not very far from the
Nation's Capital. Here a cabin was
practically wrecked under comparable
circumstances.
News media this past Monday morning
gave an account of completely irrespon-
sible students from the same institution
who chose one of the Wilson Lines pleas-
ure boats to show complete contempt for
law and order by throwing deck chairs
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
11070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
and life preservers overboard. This was
followed by riots with the police force.
An even more shocking incident was
reported editorially in the May 18 issue
of the York, Pa., Dispatch, which should
be required reading for every Member of
Congress.
Modern conveniences have brought
drastic changes. Improved methods of
heating have largely eliminated the
woodshed. This might well be the pen-
alty of progress for it was here where
many lessons were taught in such man-
ner they were not easily forgotten.
Do we need more woodshed treat-
ments?
An article on this subject follows:
WHILE THE GI's DIE
Americans are dying in an effort to halt
Communist aggression in South Vietnam.
Blood is flowing In defense of freedom
against a relentless enemy. ?
Yet right here in Pennsylvania, some col-
legians are allegedly raising funds that
would help the Communists of South Viet-
nam.
The students said they hoped to drama-
tize what they called American persecu-
tion of people fighting for their national in-
dependence, the Associated Press reported.
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy has
been asked to Investigated the situation
which has reportedly developed on nine
campuses.
Somewhere, somehow this handful of col-
legians has slipped off the track.
When supposedly intelligent young men
can equate "national independence" with
Communist aggression, it is time for us to
find out how their thought processes could
become so warped.
The picture of GI's spilling their blood for
freedom while fellow Americans raise funds
for the opposition is difficult to acknowledge
in a world half free and half slave.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks, and include an editorial.)
MARYLAND DEMOCRAT PRIMARY
CONFIRMS LOU HARRIS BIAS
(Mr. HALL asked and -was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute. to revise and extend his remarks,
and include an article.)
Mr. HALL_ Mr. Speaker, the results
of yesterday's Maryland Democrat pri-
mary prove conclusively that Lou Harris,
and all who use his biased poll results
including CBS News, have slandered the
Republican Party by their previous al-
legations that the Governor Wallace vote
in Indiana was the result of an 11- to 15-
percent Republican crossover.
On May 14. I placed in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD on page A2518 an ex-
change of correspondence between my-
self and Fred Friendly, president of CBS
News. At that time. I challenged the
CBS-Lou Harris conclusion that the in-
crease in Democrat primary voters in
1964 over 1960 in Indiana came from Re-
publicans who crossed over to vote.
Though I make no claim as a political
prophet. I said on May 14, that based on
the reasoning expressed in Mr. Friend-
ly's letter, a heavier turnout in the
Maryland Democrat primary on May 19
would have to be attributed to "Republi-
can crossovers" according to Mr. Har-
ris' logic.
The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that 497,-
722 Democrats voted in yesterday's
Maryland primary compared to 286,956
'Democrats who voted in the 1960 Mary-
land Democrat primary. Thus, were it
not for the known fact that Republicans
are prohibited by law from voting in a
Democrat primary in Maryland, Lou
Harris. CBS, the Washington Post, and
I assume NBC and ABC. would today be
saying that the Wallace vote in yester-
day's Democrat primary represented al-
most a 70 percent Republican crossover,
using the same formula as was then fol-
lowed to allege an 11 percent GOP cross-
over in Indiana.
This obvious inconsistency of the Lou
Harris logic, plus the notable absence
of any published Lou Harris prediction
at all regarding the Wallace-Brewster
race yesterday, clearly support my con-
tention that CBS has allowed bias to be
injected Into its reporting of the 1964
political campaign by its use of a former
employee of the Democrat National
Committee and a Democrat assistant to
the President. At the very least I be-
lieve the CBS ought to identify Mr. Har-
ris' affiliation and affection for a particu-
lar political party so the public will not
be under any false impressions when he
speaks over the public airwaves.
I also insert into the RECORD at this
point, an article in the May 11 issue of
the Christian Science Monitor raising
still another question about Mr. Harris'
ethics, and also an article from the -May
17 issue of the New York Times, raising
a question about his ability.
I also want to stress, Mr. Speaker,
that I have told Mr. Friendly of CBS
News that I will insert any response that
he wishes to make in reply to my letter
of May 14. Thus far I have received
none.
[Front the New York (N.Y.) Times, May 17,
19641
POLL TAKERS Ore TO SPOTTY START?ACCURACY
HAS BEEN MIRED IN FIRST PRIMARY AACES
P1'0188510E181 news polling has got off to
shaky start in this election year when polls
will be more extensively published, broadcast
and alluded to than ever before_
Pollster forecasts can be checked with cer-
tainty only against election results. And in
the major ballot-box tests to date--the Re-
publican Presidential primaries in Oregon on
Friday and in New Hampshire on March 10?
one nationally syndicated pollster accurately
predicted the winners, and another proved
to be wrong both times.
Governor Rockefeller inadvertently pointed
up the significance of professional news polls
when he revealed yesterday that he first
thought he would win in Oregon "when I
read Sam Lubell's column." -
He was referring to Samuel Lubell, who
polls for the Scripps-Howard newspapers.
111 his final Oregon primary report last
Tuesday Mr. Lubell forecast a "surprise" and
"perhaps even an upset" by Governor Rocke-
feller.
Mr. Lubell. who flatly predicts or "indi-
cates" probable winners, but does not fore-
cast vote percentages, also foretold the up-
set in New Hampshire where Ambassador
Henry Cabot Lodge confounded political ex-
perts by sweeping the primary as a write-1n
candidate.
On the other hand. Louis Harris, another
nationally published election forecaster,
missed the actual result by wide margins In
both States.
May 20
Mr. Harris, formerly conlidentia. political
pollster for President Kennedy, Mayor Wag-
ner and others, now 18 conductirg a news
poll for the Los Angeles Times syr dicate.
The pre-Oregon Harris Poll, published
Thursday, reported: "Ambassador Henry
Cabot Lodge appears assared of viftory over
five opponents."
Mr. Harris predicted Mr. Lodge would win
with 35 percent of the vote; Governor Rocke-
feller would be second. with 24 percent;
former Vice President Richard M. Nixon
would be third, with al percent; Senator
Barry Goldwater. of Arizona would be
fourth, with 16 percent- and Senator Mar-
garet Chase Smith, of Maine, and Gov. Wil-
liam W. Scranton, of Pennsylvania, would
trail in fifth and sixth place.
In the actual Oregon vote, however, Gov-
ernor Rockefeller won with 33 percent of the
votes; Mr. Lodge was second, 'wish 27 per-
cent; Senator Goldwater third, with 18 per-
cent, and Mr. Nixon fourth, with .17 percent.
Mrs. Smith and Mr. Scranton did ,X1111 badly.
Thus the Harris poll failed to predict the
winner and missed Mr. Rockefeller's per-
centage of the vote by n.ne pearls
That sizable error was an improvement,
however, over Mr. Harris's forecasts in New
Hampshire.
The election eve Harris poll, as reported
in the New York Post and some 100 other
newspapers, indicated a trend to Mr. Lodge,
but predicted that Senator Goranw %TER would
win, with 26 percent of the vote, and Mr.
Lodge would tie Governor Rockefeller for
second place, each getting 24 percent.
When the b Mots were counted Mr. Lodge
turned out to be the victor. His total vote
more than 35 percent of those cast?was 11
percent higher than the Harris forecast.
Mr. Harris and others have explained the
reasons for the errors in a varleay of ways,
and there are likely to be more explanations
In the weeks ahead.
In the modern public opinion rolling pro-
fession an error of approximately 3 percent-
age points is considered reasonable because
of flaws in the science of statstcal sampl-
ing by which a cross-section of the voting
population is selected to be questioned by
the pollsters.
The Harris poll's miscalculations as to the
vote in Oregon and New Hampslaire are some-
what larger than that of the Galup poll in
1948, but slightly under the celebrated mis-
take of the Literary D_gest pal in 1936.
In the Truman-Dewey election of 1948,
all national pollsters missed the mark by
forecasting victory for Governor Dewey.
The Gallup poll's margin of error was a bit
under 5 percent.
The Literary Digest poll in la36 forecast
Gov. Alf M. Landon's election over President
Roosevelt by a landslide. Mr Roosevelt
thereupon won by the biggest majority in
modern times.
Dr. Gallup. Mr. Lutell, Elmo Roper and
other national news pollsters in the 1.960
Presidential contest predicted the unusually
slim vote margin between President Ken-
nedy and Mr Nixon with remarkable accur-
acy.
All forecasts were within 1 percentage
point of the result.
The Gallup poll reports only on a national
and regional basis, and does not sample opin-
ion in State contests. Therefore it offered
no predictions in the Oregon and New Hamp-
shire primaries.
Mr. Roper, like Dr. Gallup a dean of mod-
ern professional polling, is not )et conduct-
ing a news poll of the 1964 campaign.
It was noted yesterday that the most ac-
curate poll in Oregon was a norprofessional
survey by Zan Stark of United Press Inter-
national's Oregon bureau. After a poll of
members of the State Legislature, he pre-
dicted on March 24 that Govenaor Rocke-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
He tells them, like the businessmen, that
this country's international competitive
position, which deteriorated sharply in the
decade of the 1950's, has recently recovered,
but that it could slip back again if wage
costs, and hence prices began to rise again.
He praises them for a recent record in which
average wage increases have been only as
large as annual average gains in produc-
tivity.
Then the President, and the Council of
Economic Advisers, urge that the unions
simply maintain that record, and that they
ask for increases only in line with produc-
tivity gains for the whole economy, which
have averaged 3.2 percent annually for the
last 5 years.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A2677
EVASION EASY
The difficulty with these general "guide-
posts" is that they are very easy to evade
In specific situations. Suppose the paper in-
dustry, for example, despite rapidly rising
labor productivity, has been in a period of
depressed profits and urgently wants to raise
prices as soon as competitive conditions per-
mit?
Suppose the United Automobile Workers
believe that industry profits are simply "too
high," and that the industry can easily "af-
ford" a wage increase of 5 percent without
raising prices? This is the position Walter
P. Reuther, president of the auto workers,
has taken.
The record of this and other countries has
not been particularly good in jawbone at-
tacks. The performance this time may be no
better.
This does not necessarily mean, however, a
general rise in the price level. That would
depend on many other factors besides in-
dividual wage bargaining and leading-indus-
try price decisions. But if the price level
does start to creep up, what does the Presi-
dent have in reserve?
The chief answer is monetary policy?a
move by the Federal Reserve Board toward
a position of greater tightness of credit and
higher interest rates.
CURB ON BOOM
Such a policy would work to curb overall
demand and spending in the economy. Thus
it would undoubtedly slow down the boom,
without necessarily working very quickly to
check the price increases. That is why Presi-
dent Johnson does not want to use it unless
absolutely necessary.
Thus the monetary and fiscal weapons are
at hand to halt inflation, as the 1955-58 infla-
tion was eventually halted. But use of these
weapons would virtually guarantee the con-
tinuation of high unemployment and might
even bring on a recession.
Thus jawbone it is, at least for now. With
the existence of idle plant and Idle labor,
the administration is convinced that the
United States need not suffer an inflation
caused by excess demand. And it believes
that "responsible" behavior by business and
labor is a reasonable hope, to prevent an in-
dependent "cost-push" inflation caused by
private decisions.
Restrictions Eased Against Polish Protest
Signers
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI
OP' WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 20, 1964
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, ad-
dressing the House in commemoration of
the Polish Constitution of May 3 on April
30, I referred to the reprisals taken by
the Polish Government against signers
of a letter of protest against restrictions
of freedom of information and dis-
cussion.
At that time, it was my expressed hope
that Polish leaders would reconsider their
policies tdward the intellectuals who
signed the protest letter.
I was gratified to note a press report
last Sunday that disciplinary actions
against the signers apparently are being
rescinded. This indeed is good news and
the Polish Government is to be encour-
aged for its enlightened reappraisal of
the situation.
. Let us hope that this action is only
the first in a series by which Polish
writers, scholars, and scientists are given
the freedom necessary to pursue their
work. Continuing liberalization of the
Communist regime in Poland would go
far toward advancing Polish culture and
learning, and would be received with ap-
proval in the entire world.
Under permission granted, Mr. Speak-
er, I wish to include a copy of the story
on the situation by Correspondent Paul
Underwood which appeared in the NeW
York Times on May 17:
POLISH REPRISALS IN PROTEST EASED?PASS-
PORTS ISSUED TO SIGNERS OF ATTACK ON
CENSORSHIP
(By Paul Underwood)
WARSAW, May 14.?A Polish scholar, Jan
Kott, left Warsaw by air for Vienna this
Week to accept an international prize for his
essays on Shakespeare.
There would be nothing especially note-
worthy about his trip except that Professor
Kott was one of 34 prominent Polish in-
tellectuals who signed a letter to the Gov-
ernment in March protesting official cen-
sorship.
The letter raised a storm, particularly after
reports had circulated within Poland and
abroad that reprisals had been taken against
some of the signers.
According to Warsaw rumor, Dr. Kott was
one of several who had been disciplined by
having applications for passports refused.
Others were reported to have been suspended
from their jobs.
How many of the rumors were originally
true is difficult to ascertain. Many of them
seem to have been. But the authorities are
now moving to prove most of them untrue,
at least as of the present time.
Professor Kott is one of several to receive
passports in recent weeks. University sources
said that as of now none of the signers is
under suspension from teaching duties. Only
the column once written by the poet Antoni
Slominski is still missing from the humorous
magazine Szpilki.
The authorities have moved to a new kind
of counteroffensive aimed at making for-
eigners the villains for allegedly trying to use
the incident to discredit the Polish regime.
The Warsaw newspaper Zycie Warszawa
carried a statement signed by 155 Polish
writers earlier this week protesting what it
called "foreign interference with our in-
ternal problems and with our cultural pol-
icy, which is the common problem of the
creative intelligentsia and the political and
governmental leadership of the country."
Today's issue reported that 233 more per-
sons had signed the statement. The news-
paper also reprinted a letter sent to the 'nines
of London and signed by 10 of the original
34 protesters objecting to what were de-
scribed as factual errors in published reports
of the affair.
Professor Kott, who was not reported to
have signed either this week's statement or
the letter to the British newspaper, said to-
day he had received his passport "several
days ago."
He had been invited to attend ceremonies
at the University of Vienna tomorrow at
which the German-financed Herder Prize
for literature will be bestowed on him. The
prize carries with it an award of 10,000 wiss
francs (about $2,287),
American Society fonPublic Administra-
tion Favors Federal Pay Raise
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 20, 1964
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Speaker, I com-
mend to the attention of our colleagues
the following statement of the National
Capital Area Chapter of the American
Society for Public Administration favor-
ing increased salaries for legislative, ju-
dicial, and executive officials,
The statement follows:
PAY OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS
By any standard, the present salaries of
Members of Congress, the Federal judiciary,
and high-level Federal ' executives are in-
adequate and inequitable.
They are inadequate in view of the range,
complexity, and overwhelming importance of
the Government's activities. The Govern-
ment needs the highest type of managerial
and professional accomplishment in the
executive branch and needs farseeing lead-
ership in Congress and on the Federal bench.
Existing remuneration is disproportionate to
the responsibilities of high national office
and is incompatible with compensation
standards in business and in other fields of
public service.
Present Federal salaries for those officials
are inequitable when compared with execu-
tive pay in private firms and some other
governmental jurisdictions. While such
salaries need not be directly comparable
with the private sector, the gap has become
dangerously large. Individuals should not
be expected to make excessive sacrifices for
the privilege of public service nor should
inadequate pay restrict Federal office to
those with independent means. ?
Current salary limitations at-the top also
block appropriate increases in the upper
portions of the career civil service. Under
present legislation, such a confused pay sit-
uation exists that some supervisors make
less than their subordinates. Promotions
become adverse personnel actions, and many
levels of responsibility within an agency are
compressed within a salary spread of a few
hundred dollars.
The President's Advisory Panel on Federal
Salary Systems has recommended a Federal
executive salary structure ranging up to a
Cabinet Secretary salary of $50,000; congres-
sional pay of $35,000; and Federal judiciary
pay from $36,000 to $60,500. These pro-
posals would increase the Federal payroll by
less than two-tenths of 1 percent. Several
bills now before Congress include modified
versions of the Panel's recommendations.
The National Capital Area Chapter of the
American Society for Public Administration
urges Congress to enact promptly an ade-
quate salary structure for high Fed-
eral officers. This action will further the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A2678 CONGRESSIc NAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
salary reform begun with the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 and will provide our
National Government a more equitable and
adequate salary structure.
Lively Doings for Elderly
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
or
HON. JOSEPH G. MINISH
OF NEW awasxv
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 20, 1964
Mr. MMISH. Mr. Speaker, as a na-
tion, it is our duty to do all we can to
enable our older people to enjoy the
leisure years so deservedly earned
through decades of hard work and sacri-
fice. One highly important way in which
this obligation can be met is by providing
suitable housing. Older people face spe-
cial problems in finding suitable homes.
These problems include the fact that a
very high proportion of the elderly are
in the lowest income brackets; their age
makes it difficult or impossible for them
to obtain mortgage financing on liberal
terms; and some special design and
neighborhood, features are needed to
meet their housing requirements ade-
quately.
The various Federal aids designed to
meet this problem have been of tremen-
dous value in enabling our communities
to provide good housing suited to the re-
quirements of senior citizens and thereby
helps them to achieve better, fuller lives.
The city of East Orange, N.J., which en-
joys a national recognition as one of the
cleanest, most progressive cities in the
Nation, has characteristically con-
structed a most attractive project "Con-
cord Gardens" for senior citizens and
has developed an excellent program of
activities for them. Mr, George R.
Genung, Jr., the able executive director
of the city of East Orange, recently
stated:
The city of East Orange and housing au-
thority are not only very proud of our out-
standing first public housing project, but
are gratified by the excellent senior citizens
program that is being carried on at the
building. The combination of a superior
building, excellent management, and a com-
prehensive social, health, and recreation pro-
gram are the elements that have our local
councilmen demanding a similar project in
their ward.
I am pleased to insert below a story
that appeared in the Newark Sunday
News on April 26, 1964, which gives rec-
ognition to the excellent program being
carried out at Concord Towers:
LIVELY DOENGS FOR ELDERLY?EAST ORANGE
PLANS PROGRAMS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
(By Don Dust)
A concerted, citywide effort is In progress
in East Orange to make life for ite senior
citizens interesting and lively.
An exceptional combination of volunteer
talent and cityagencies, centered on the first
floor of Concord Towers at 210 Grove Street,
is working at a four-point program of rec-
reation, education, health and information.
Concord Towers is a sleek, new, 64-unit.
9-story building where 82 older people
pay moderate rents for the specially designed
housing. 1 The main floor of the building,
however, 1, devoted to the use of the entire
senior claven population. 11.063. or 14.3
percent of the entire city population.
The dal center, as it Is called, is under
the sponairship of the mayor's council on
senior cit zena, which handles funds for
the cent ei 's financial support.
IMPROVED OUTLOOK
Mrs. Pei Cr E 011endore council chairman,
said the 4:tive atmosphere prevailing at the
center hie improved not only the outlook
of the pdesle using It. but, In some cases,
their heal! h. The people who are making use
of the cell -er are encouraging their friends to
drop by, he said.
On Mil days, Thuredays, and Fridays, th$
floor buzies with activity. Within the oc-
tagonal landing there are groups playing
cards, or other games, watching television,
reading oi? taking lessons in cooking, attend-
ing weekt film programs and, when weather
permits. I utdoor games of shuffleboard and
croquet. i
The se) up is complex, with 8 agencies
and 75 ails gearing their activities toward
the city's i ,enior citizens.
The cif, council paid $8,900 for part of
the furn1 hinge of the center. The health
departmt has given influenza shots, and
ccinductei diabetes tests there. The recrea-
tion cool niselon. under the supervision of
Mrs. Dell ey Coleman. handles the activity
programal and the library has donated 500
books arI I makes films, slides and records
avai iablei
OTHFR SUPPORT
Members of the Junior League of the
Oranges ad Short hills are paying Stanley
S. Mose, I he center's acting director for this
year. a $4 .000 stipend. The league also has
five merti sem staffing a counseling and re-
ferral seri ice.
The seidee is designed to direct senior citi-
zens wit, problems to agencies and people
who cant help them. The problems include
social se urity questions, and health and
welfare robleme. 'rhe United Community
Service U training the Junior Leaguers for
this servf v.
Meals a Wheels, an organization which de-
livers of-pared meals to people unable to
cook for' -hereselves. uses the kitchen in the
center tl? cook and package the food. The
Red Cr 4s sends .a representative once a
week to teach methods of cooking for one
end twol oeople. economically and with lim-
ited filed ties. This is geared mainly to peo-
ple who live outside the project.
A "get$ well cupboard" makes available for
modest $-ntals wheelchair& special beds, and
all kind i$ of other equipment for recuperating
elderly I eople. The cupboard is run and
financed by the united churchwomen of the
city.
George R. Gcnung. executive director of
the cit s housing authority termed the
alsunda ie of activity and interest "unique."
The 3U torIty is reaponsible for construct-
ing and! tenanting the building. Genung is
quite pit seed that while most public hous-
ing developments suffer from a lack of com-
munity 1 .nterest, this one is enjoying suc-
cess.
Big Man for a Big Job
El:TENSION OF REMARKS
Or
40N. GRAHAM PURCELL
Or TEXAS
IN TI E HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
, Wednesday, May 20, 1964
Mr. VRCELL. Mr. Speaker, Texans
are pri ud of our able friend and col-
May 20
league, Congressman GEORGE MAHON, the
new chairman of the Committee on Ap-
priations. They are proud of his record
of service in the Congress, and his dedi-
cation to the best interests of the United
States. I share this feeling of pride with
other Texans. Since I came to the Con-
gress, I have come to know GEORGE MA-
HON as a dedicated American, an out-
standing statesman, and a wonderful
friend.
The distinguished publisher of the Ver-
non (Tex.) Daily Record, Mr. T. B. Quil-
lin, recognizes the capability of Chair-
man MAHON to handle the tremendous
responsibility which now rests on his
shoulders. In an editorial on May 17,
1964, titled "Big Man for a Big Job" the '
Vernon Daily Record congratulated Mr.
MAHON, and expressed its confidence that
the Committee on Appropriations is in
good hands.
Also, Mr. Speaker, on that same date,
the Dallas Morning News carried a very
fine article on Chairman MAHON written
by Mike Quinn, titled "Representative
George Mahon: Scholar, Statesman."
- I commend both the editorial and the
article to the attention of my colleagues.
(From tee Vernon (Tex.) Daily Record,
May 17, 19641
BIG MAN FOR A BIG JOB
Death of Representative Clarence Cannon
of Missour, at 85, dean of the House and
longtime chairman of the important Appro-
priations Committee, shifts the spotlight to
a highly respected Texan, GEORGE MAHON, of
Lubbock, Member of Congress since 1934,
who, as ranking Democrat on the committee,
is scheduled to succeed to the chairmanship.
The late Representative Cannon was dis-
tinguished in a number of ways, skilled par-
liamentarian. length of service, but more
especially as an advocate of economy in
Government. Size of appropriations in
recent years suggest that efforts in the di-
rection of economy had met with little suc-
cess, but it would be hard to estimate the
number of billions the tough-minded, tough-
talking Missourian trimmed from money re-
quests from the executive branch of the
Government.
Even more significant is the fact that the
cuts would have been much deeper if the
full committee and ultimately the House had
followed Mr. Cannon's recommendations.
The chairman of a congressional committee
can have great influence on the fate of leg-
islation considered by his committee. But
there are definite limits on his authority as,
of course, there should be.
But in GEORGE MAHON the House of Repre-
sentatives will have leadership quite as cap-
able and quite as devoted to prudent spend-
ing of tax money as the late Mr. Cannon has
been. It is doubtful if any Member of Con-
gress has greater knowledge or better under-
standing of the overall Government estab-
lishment.
Mr. MAHON'S long service as; a member of
the Appropriations Committee make him
uniquely qualified for the tremendously im-
portant duties that go with the chairman-
ship. Oftentimes there is voiced a criticism
of the custom of making committee assign-
ments, and particularly the chairmanships,
on the basis of seniority. But in this in-
stance seniority and qualifications happen
to meet.
Congratulations are in order. To GEORGE
MAHON fcr recognition and an honor based
on integrity and devotion to duty, but more
Importantly to the Nation in the fact that
one of the most powerful committees in Con-
gress will be under capable leadership.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 ApproveMcmattesttofspH/C1kMjAk-BliTSM0403R000500050001-9 4731
fact, through the past 2 or 3 days, about
some attempt, as my good friend [Mr.
BALDWIN] remarked, to sneak this
through. This is absolutely erroneous.
This again is some of the typical Wash-
ington press reporting that all too often
we have to experience. There was a re-
port this morning that the Congress had
never voted, nor had stood up and been
counted, on pay increases. Again, to
make it clear, in case the press does not
understand how to determine what hap-
pened, I should like to refer to the situa-
tion on February 16, 1955, on rollcall
No. 5, where the House of Representa-
tives voted 283 in favor of and 118
against a pay increase for the Members
of Congress.
Again on the conference report on
March 1, 1955, rollcall No. 13, the House
voted 223 in favor of the conference re-
port and 113 against it.
Mr. Speaker, I propose to ask for the
Yeas and nays on the adoption of this
rule. I urge the adoption of the rule so
that the House may resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and debate and
consider the merits of what I believe to
be a very fine bill.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the resolution.
Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were?yeas 251, nays 147, not voting 34,
as follows:
[Roll No. 65]
YEAS-251
Addabbo Daddario
Albert Daniels
Anderson Davis, Ga.
Ashley Dawson
Aspinall Delaney
Auchincloss Dent
Barrett Denton
Barry Derounian
Battin Diggs
Becker Dingell
Bell Downing
Bennett, Mich. Dillski
Blatnik Dwyer
Boggs Edmondson
Boland Edwards
Bolton, Ellsworth
Frances P. Evins
Bolton, Fallon
Oliver P. Farbstein
Bonner Fascell
Bow Feighan
Brooks Fino
Brotzman Flood
Broyhill,. N.C. Fogarty
Broyhill, Va. Fountain
Buckley Fraser
Burke Frelinghuysen
Burkhalter Friedel
Burton, Calif. Fulton, Pa.
Byrne, Pa. Fulton, Tenn.
Cahill Gallagher
Cameron Garmatz
Cannon Gary
Carey Giaimo
Casey Gibbons
Cederberg Gilbert
Celler Gill
Chamberlain Glenn
Chelf Gonzalez
Chenoweth Grabowski
Clark Gray
OcheIan Grover
Collier Gubser
Conte Hagen, Calif.
Cooley Halpern
Corbett Hanna
Corman Hansen
Cramer Hardy
Cunningham Harrison
Harvey, Ind.
Hawkins
Hays
Hobert
Hend.erson
HahneId
Holland
Horton
Hosmer
Ichord
Jennings
Joelson
Johnson, Calif.
Jones, Mo,
Karsten
Karth
Kastemneier
Kee
Keith
Kelly
Keogh
Kilgore
King, N.Y.
Kirwan
Kluczynski
Kornegay
Kunkel
Lankford
Leggett
Lesinski
Libonati
Lindsay
Long,. La.
Long, Md.
McCulloch
McDowell
McFall
McIntire
McMillan
Macdonald
Madden
MaiWard
Martin, Mass.
Me.tsunaga
May
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Miller, N.Y.
Milliken
Mills
Minish
Monagan
Moorhead
Morgan
Morrison
Morse
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Hatcher
Nedzi
Nix
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
Olsen, Mont.
Olson, Minn.
O'Neill
Osmers
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins
Pike
Pool
Price
Pucinski
Purcell
Quie
Randall
Abbitt
Abele
Abernethy
Adair
Alger
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Arends
Ashbrook
Ashmore
Avery
Baldwin
Baring
Beckworth
Beermann
Belcher
Bennett, Fla.
Berry
Betts
Bray
Brock
Bramwell
Broomfield
BroWn, Ohio
Bruce
Burleson
Burton, Utah
Byrnes, Wis.
Clancy
Clausen,
Don IL
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Curtin
Curtis
Dague
Derwinski
Devine
Dole
Everett
Findley
Fisher
Flynt
Ford
For. man
Forrester
Fuqua
Gathings
Goodell
Reid, N.Y.
Reifel
Reuss
Riehlman
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
Robison
Rodin()
Rogers, Colo.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Roosevelt
Rostenkowski
Roush
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Ryan, N.Y.
St Germain
St. Onge
Sumer
Shipley
Sibal
Sickles
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Sta,ebler
Stafford
Staggers
Steed
Stephens
Stinson
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
NAYS-147
Grant
Griffin
Griffiths
Gross
Gurney
Hagan, Ga.
Haley
Hall
Halleck
Harris
Harsha
Harvey, Mich.
Hechler
Herlong
Hoeven
Horan
Huddleston
Hull
Hutchinson
Jarman
Jensen
Johansen
Johnson, Pa.
Johnson, Wis.
Jonas
Jones, Ala.
Kilburn
Knox
Kyl
Laird
Landrum
Latta
Lennon
Lipscomb
Lloyd
McGlory
McDade
McLoskey
MacGregor
Mahon
Marsh
Martin, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
Matthews
Minshall
Montoya
Moore
Morris
Morton
Mosher
Talcott
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thomas
Thompson, La.
Thompson, N.J.
Thompson, Tex,
Toll
Tollefson
Trimble
Tupper
Tuten
Udall
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Van Pelt
Vinson
Waggonner
Wallhauser
Watts
Weltner
Westland
White
Whitener
Wid.nall
Wilson Bob
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wright
Wydler
Young
Younger
Zablocki
Norblad
O'Kernski
Pickle
Filcher
Pillion
Pirnie
Poage
Pod
Quillen
Reid, Ill.
Rhodes, Ariz.
Rhodes, Pa.
Rich
Roberts, Tex.
Rogers, Fla.
Rogers, Tex,
Roudebush
Rumsfeld
St. George
Saylor
Schadeberg
Schenck
Schneebeli
Schweiker
Schwengel
Secrest
Selden
Short
Shriver
Sikes
Slier
Skubitz
Smith, Va.
Snyder
Springer
Taft
Thomson, Wis.
Tuck
Utt
Watson
Weaver
Whalley
Wharton
Whitten
Wickersham
Williams
Wilson, Ind.
Winstead
Wyman
NOT VOTING-34
Ayres Elliott Nelsen
Bass Finnegan O'Brien, Ill.
Bates Goodling Philbin
Bolling Green, Oreg. Powell
Brademas Harding Rains
Brown, Calif. Healey Roberts, Ala.
Colmer Hemphill Rosenthal
Davis, Tenn. Hoffman Scott
Donohue King, Calif. Sheppard
Dorn Langen Willis
Dowdy Mathias
Duncan Meader
So the resolution was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. King of California for, with Mr. Davis
of Tennessee against.
Mr. Bates for, with Mr. Goodling against.
Mr. Donohue for, with Mr. Langen against.
Mr. Philbin for, with Mr. Colmer against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Healey with Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Rosenthal with Mr. Scott.
Mr. Elliott with Mr. Finnegan.
Mr. Powell with Mr. Brown of California.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Dowdy.
Mr. Rains with Mr. O'Brien of Illinois.
Mr. Hemphill with Mr. Sheppard.
Mr. Brademas with Mr. Roberts, of Ala-
bama.
Mr. Bass with Mr. Harding.
Mr. Willis with Mr. Duncan.
Messrs. RHODES of Pennsylvania,
WATSON, DON H. CLAUSEN, SCHADE-
BERG, PIRNIE, MORTON, McLOSKEY,
and HARVEY of Michigan changed their
vote from "yea" to "nay."
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I was
temporarily absent from the Chamber.
I did not hear the second bell ring, and
I did not hear my name called. I am
very anxious to vote. Do I qualify?
The SPEAKER. Having in mind the
statement just made by the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi, the Chair
is reluctantly constrained to rule that
he cannot vote; he does not qualify.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, under
the rules am I permitted to state how I
would have voted had I qualified?
The SPEAKER. Not at this particu-
lar time.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
(Mr. COLMER asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, had I
been able to qualify on the vote just
taken, I would have voted "no" on the
resolution.
/
MODERNIZATION OF FE ERAL
SALARY SYSTEMS -
IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I 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. 8986) to adjust the rates
of basic compensation of certain officers
and employees in the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 8986, with Mr.
HOLIFIELD in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MUR-
RAY] will be recognized for 11/2 hours,
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4732 Approved For RelEmsA01?MikAlikkatjf@p0L4AMW500050001-9, March 11
DAT. CORBETT] will be recognized for
hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY].
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he ma require to the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT].
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
Permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the bill H.R. 8986 as re-
ported by the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, with certain amend-
ments which I understand will be pro-
posed with the agreement of the major-
ity of the members of that committee.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation comes
from the great Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service by a vote of more than
2 to 1 after extensive hearings on and
consideration of a legislative proposal
of the administration. The committee's
public hearings, which began August 13
and extended through September 24 of
last year, developed what Is recognized
to be the most authoritative and in-
formed testimony on all major Federal
statutory systems that have as yet been
presented.
The committee bill was drawn on the
basis of these extensive hearings and the
overwhelming weight of the evidence
there presented. The committee de-
serves the gratitude and the support of
the House.
Mr. Chairman, the policies and prin-
ciples embodied in the bill before us. as
well as a major amendment to be pro-
posed to title I. will be explained in de-
tail by the distinguished chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Ten-
nessee [Mr. MURRAY] and the gentleman
from Louisiana tMr. MoasisoNI and
other members of the committee. I will,
therefore, confine my remarks princi-
pally to the provisions of title II dealing
with legislative salaries. I do this with
the assurance in my own mind that this
legislation is needed. I also assure the
committee that I will support all of
the provisions of the bill and the amend-
ment to be offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee.
I think it is abundantly evident by
this time that the ultimate key to the
modernization of all major Federal
statutory salary systems intended by
this legislation lies in section 204 of the
bill which amends the Legislative Re-
organization Act of 1946 so as to in-
crease the salaries of Members of Con-
gress. There is one important facet of
that section which, were it not consid-
ered, could result in the substantial de-
struction of the essential purpose and
objectives of the entire bill. The level
of congressional salaries, if set too low,
operates as a compressive ceiling on the
entire classified and postal salary
schedules and on most executive and
judicial salaries.
Now. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to un-
derstand the position of those who have
always opposed any legislation in this
area for anyone, including postal and
classified employees. But in view of the
certain ultimate effect on the salaries of
such employees, it is difficult for me to
understand the position of those who
wart to legislate in that field without
lege} ating also In the field of congres-
sionid, judicial, and higher grade execu-
tive; ialaries.
Censider, if you will, the fundamental
quecion of proper salary relationships
within and among the various salary
systi ms?the executive, legislative, and
judicial. As pointed out in the corn-
mitUe report, these relationships have
been thoroughly analyzed by the corn-
initi )e and unfair and damaging dis-
tortions under existing law have been
disci osed.
Tile committee bill will correct these
disU rtions and restore proper relation-
shin But as important as may be the
effei t of congressional salary levels on
other Federal salaries, the committee's
recommendations should also be sup-
al on other grounds.
Fl .st of all, the congressional salary
level provided in the bill is reasonable.
It represents a percentage materially
less: than that provided by the last con-
gree donal salary bill almost 9 years ago,
and it is $2,500 below the level recom-
men -led by the Randall Panel and, in
turd, recommended by both President
Ken .iedy and President Johnson.
Mr. Chairman. I fully appreciate the
diffiailty that faces a Member in reach-
ing: a decision on increasing his own
said but the Constitution gives the
Meniber this responsibility and he must
face up to it with fairness and with
coin age. ?
Ci-rtainly logic dictates that Members
of C ingress should receive compensation
whi h will enable them fully and effec-
tive( y to devote their time to the prob-
lem} of the high offices which they hold.
Elich Member of Congress represents
Ami ricans ranging In number from
1801100 in the smallest district to 18 mil-
lion or more in the largest State. Col-
lectively Members of the House and Sen-
ate: bring to bear the full force of the
vied s of 190 million Americans on the
pole"ies. programs, and operations of our
Got .rnment. They are the only means
by ihich the voice of the people can be
apir ied directly in national affairs.
'6 ley bear the ultimate responsibility
for ilecisions, the wisdom, timeliness, and
prat ticality of which determine the do-
me3.ic interests of this country and the
woe d position of the United States.
The :.e Is no office or position in private
life or at any other governmental level
whith approaches these requirements of
pud ic accountability and responsibility
in I le Federal Government.
le proposed increases are needed.
The unreimbursed expenses of Members
of Congress far exceed those of any other
offijial or employee of the Federal Gov-
ernirient. A Member of Congress must
mai itain two homes and two offices?
ono of each in his district and in Wash-
ingi 311: A Member of the House must
unci Tgo the expense of a political cam-
pair n every 2 years.
is sharply limited in the number
of rips which he may make at public
expUnse between his district and Wash-
ingron?at a time, as now, when every
Met iber must keep in closer touch with
thei thinking and the views of his con-
stituents than ever before. He is the
chief proponent and supporter of the
fundamental doctrine of the "consent of
the governed" and the public welfare,
but is denied the wherewithal to comply
with this mandate. He must all too
often dip into his own pocket for a great
deal of expenditures on totally official
matters.
A Federal-private enterprise executive
salary comparison cannot really be
made, and on this I agree with the gen-
tlewoman from New York. A recent
sampling of 1,157 private enterprise
manufacturing corporations disclosed a
median salary of $91,000 for the top paid
officers.
But setting that aside, executive, con-
gressional and judicial salaries have
been permitted to fall far below even
those paid in many State and municipal
governments. The State of California
alone has 135 governmental positions
which pay more than $25,000 a year.
Pennsylvania has 165, Illinois has 92 and
New York has 432. The Governor of
New York receives $50,000 plus the use of
an executive mansion. The mayor of
New York receives $50,000. Los Angeles
pays the general manager of its water
and power departments more than $40,-
000. The general manager of the Bos-
ton Transit Authority receives $40,000,
and the superintendent of Chicago
schools is paid $48,500.
In the field of education?so long the
subject of concern over the dearth of
good teachers and educators due to low
salaries?we find that 81 college presi-
dents now are being paid more than
$25,000 per year. The principal full-
time officers of 17 charitable founda-
tions receive more than $35,000 per year.
Although the Commission on Judicial
and Congressional Salaries in 1954 rec-
ommended salaries of $27,500 for Mem-
bers of Congress, a recommendation that
was strongly supported by President Ei-
senhower, that recommendation was re-
duced by $5,000 in the Act of March 2,
1955. Thus the adjustments made in
such salaries 9 years ago were well below
recommended levels at that time. Addi-
tionally, the relationship of compensa-
tion of Members of Congress?the
necessary and proper differentials be-
tween their salaries, on the one hand,
and the salaries of other Government of-
ficials and career employees on the
other, has been further and unsoundly
altered.
Mr. Chairman, complaint has been
made about the fact that congressional,
judicf.al, and high level executive salar-
ies are increased in this bill dispropor-
tionately to increases made at lower
levels, but the point is that these salar-
ies?executive, judicial, and legislative
salaries--have not been increased since
1955" whereas postal and classified em-
ployees have been given six salary in-
creases since that time. These increases
have been cumulative one on the other,
and in the aggregate have amounted, I
am advised, to approximately 51 percent
for classified employees and nearly 55
percent for postal employees.
The committee bill recognizes that the
achievement of full salary comparability
with private enterprise, for high Govern-
ment offices, is not practical and, of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9?
1964
Approved F ctftioNs?R9ISI Ali litECURBDR6EMOB 3R000500050001-9 4733
course, it does not recommend it. It
would be unwholesome if the compen-
sation in Government were at such levels
that men sought appointments as a mat-
ter of personal financial advancement.
There must be, and fortunately there
are, outstanding citizens of ability and
dedication who will accept public office
and the many demands of public office
from a sense of dedlcation to public serv-
ice, putting aside their personal financial
interests; but it is even more economical-
ly and morally unsupportable in my
judgment to keep compensation of the
most important and critical Government
offices at such low levels that only the
rich can be persuaded to accept them.
Moreover, it is grossly unfair, and
im-
provident to subject capable and patri-
otic appointed or elected officials of limi-
ted means to drastic sacrifices due to
austerity levels of compensation.
On this point, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to refer to a great speech delivered
on the floor of this House in 1925 by one
of the great Americans of his genera-
tion, Ogden Mills, a distinguished Re-
publican and able former Secretary of
the Treasury in the office of President
Hoover. Mr. Mills at that time one of
the wealthiest men in Congress, said in
part:
Now it seems to me that there is one class
of men that we do not want to see as
Members of Congress; that is, men to whom
(the) salary * * * is an inducement. And
It seems to me that it would be undesirable
if Congress were composed exclusively of a
group of men whose personal fortunes made
the matter- of salary a matter of total in-
difference to them, because they would ob-
viously represent too limited a class for a
truly representative body.
Gentlemen talk of economy?
Said Mr. Mills, quoting him further,
and I' frankly disagree with the gentlemen
on the other side of the House?
Which was our side then?
who insist on what I consider the worst
kind of economy, the economy which con-
sists in getting the seCond and third best at
bargain rates. The proper economy in busi-
ness is to pay salary that will enlist the
most competent service.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that to many
Members, I should think to most Mem-
bers, this is somewhat a delicate ques-
tion. It is not easy for any individual
in any walk of life to pass judgment on
the value of his own service. Certainly
It is not becoming of us to claim that
we are worth thus and so. But the dif-
ficulty of this job and the personal prob-
lems involved are not the criterion. This
matter involves the position of the Con-
gress within the Federal structure. It
involves the caliber of men and women
who might be attracted to these Halls.
And it involves their ability, whether
they are men and women of means or
not, to perform their jobs fully and ef-
fectively.
Certainly this, Mr. Chairman, is a
matter in the interest of the American
people and of the Republic itself.
Mr. Chairman, while comparisons may
not be controlling, they are certainly
challenging and in my judgment con-
clusive as to the dangerous inadequacies
No. 44 2
of the Federal salaries in the highest
places. Reformation, it seems to me, is
urgently needed and will be provided in
H.R. 8986 to attract and to keep in key
posts the best brains and skills that our
democratic system can develop.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALBERT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I want to congratulate the gentle-
man on a fine presentation. ?But he over-
looked any reference to the salaries of
some of the employees of the House
whose salaries are stated in specific
terms. Would the gentleman care to
make any comment on that?
Mr. ALBERT. This is a matter which
the committee has under consideration
and I should like to yield to the gentle-
man from Arizona on that question.
Mr. UDALL. There has been consid-
eration given and considerable criticism
concerning the salaries fixed in the com-
mittee bill for the Clerk of the House,
the Sergeant at Arms, the Postmaster
and some of the other employees. I have
an amendment which I shall offer and
which I believe will have the support
of the majority of the committee on this
side and on the other side which will
make substantial reductions in those
salaries, so that these employees will
get no larger a percentage of increase
than the members of the classified serv-
ice, or the employees of the classified
service. The increase will be slightly
over $4,000. I trust my amendment will
be adopted. I shall be glad to give the
gentleman any further information he
may wish about it.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield' 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL] who has long
been a member of the committee.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of this bill
we now have before us for consideration.
The subject of this bill is of a continu-
ous nature. It is a problem which we
must face and I think it is a problem
that we have never solved completely
and possibly never will. The reason why
it is so difficult to solve the problem is
because it is the result of inflation and
the result of the consequent increases
in the cost of living.
Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that
we have had before us many times.
Most of the things which will be said
here today have been said many times
before. However, we are here today em-
phasizing another phase of this problem.
Some of us have tried to emphasize this
phase in the past but it has not been
heard loudly enough. In the past we
have generally considered two other
factors to be of more importance. The
first one was this matter of inflation
and the increase in the cost of living,
recognizing that many of the employees
in our Government weren't able to pro-
vide themselves and their families and
their loved ones with the basic neces-
sities of life. So, we approached the
problem from the standpoint of actually
permitting these people to sustain a bet-
ter way of life.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the second ap-
proach which we used and considered in
the past was one of a political nature.
I am not criticizing anyone generally be-
cause certainly I have always recognized
the political facts of life and have been
as interested as anyone in providing the
best salaries and working conditions pos- ?
sible for the people whom it is my honor
to represent.
Mr. Chairman, I commend and con-
gratulate the postal unions for taking
the lead in the past and for bringing the
importance of this matter to our atten-
tion. However, Ets I have said before,
we are emphasizing another phase of
the problem at this time. This phase
has been very eloquently stated by the
distinguished majority leader, the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERT].
This is the problem of competition.
Mr. Chairman, we are in effect man-
agers or members of the board of direc-
tors of a big business. The Federal
Government has on its payrolls approxi-
mately 2.5 million employees who con-
stitute a payroll in the neighborhood of
$14 billion a year. They are managing
a budget of approximately $98 to $100
billion a year. I pose the question, Is
not the quality of that personnel a most
important factor here? Do we not want
the best type people working for our Fed-
eral Government? I believe it is vital
that we be competitive in every field of
personnel relationships.
? Mr. Chairman, the 87th Congress rec-
ognized that and came forward with a
law back in 1962 which stated that we
had to be competitive in every field with
free enterprise and instructed the execu-
tive branch of our Government to make
a study annually and to report annually
to the Congress as to what should be
done in order to be and remain com-
petitive at each of these levels.
Mr. Chairman, this will represent the
first action by the Congress since that
act of 1962. Actually, we are already 2
years behind in meeting this competi-
tion. This is actually a pay adjuStment,
although I recognize that it does result
in an increase in pay. However, it is still
an effort to adjust the pay of Federal
employees with like trades, like levels,
like techniques in free enterprise.
I do not feel, therefore, that we can
renege on this. We must not renege.
We have directed this study and this re-
port, and we have recognized that a con-
tinuous study is necessary. So why
should we now refuse after having ad-
mitted 2 years ago that such a level of
comparability was extremely necessary?
Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect
bill. Any measure that is highly tech-
nical as is this one is extremely difficult
to perfect to the satisfaction of every-
one. It is a compromise. I believe it
has been said many, many times in the
past that all major legislation is enacted
as the result of give and take on the
part of everyone.
Mr. Chairman, we realize that the cost
of this bill is most controversial, ap-
proximately $545 million after pending
amendments are adopted. I believe that
the vast majority of the membership of
this House wants to do everything pos-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4734 Approved For Itelyma030;56NA:RitaR136_613MWA000500050001-9 .0/larch 11
sible to reduce expenditures and some-
day, someway, somehow balance this
budget.
The question is: Can we actually avoid
this pay bill or this pay adjustment?
Would it be pennywise and pound foolish
to ignore the fact that there has been a
cost of living increase, that people in
comparable positions in private indus-
try are making more?
This type of bill is not the cause of in-
flation, it is a necessity as the result of
inflation, and as a result of the increase
in the cost of living throughout the Na-
tion. I have had some experience in pri-
vate business prior to my election to Con-
gress. and I have had to face up to the
problem of meeting competition and the
problem of meeting a weekly payroll. I
found you cannot compete in the field of
free enterprise with other businesses you
have to compete with unless you have
to have a better product, a better price.
I have found that regardless of how pru-
dent we tried to be we never could meet
competition or we could not even stay in
business by trying to get labor or people
to work for us at a lower wage. On the
contrary, we found out the best way of
being competitive in the field of free
enterprise was to seek to attract the best
qualified people to your individual estab-
lishments. and the best way to do that
Is by paying competitive salaries. This
has to be true in the Federal Govern-
ment also. We have 2.5 million on the
payroll, with a total payroll of approxi-
mately $14 billion.
I am wondering whether we could
avoid all of these pay increases in the
past. We have heard the same argu-
ment every time the pay raise bills have
come up for consideration. It is going
to throw the budget out of balance, it is
stated, and it is going to cause infla-
tion. Does any Member of this body
think we could have avoided any of these
pay increases in the past? We have to
face up to it if we expect to stay in
business. We have to pay our employees
comparable wages to those in industry,
and the only way we can reduce expendi-
tures, reduce the budget, or even balance
the budget is to eliminate some of these
programs that are costing money, elim-
inate the programs entirely or reduce the
programs. Certainly you cannot reduce
the cost by paying inferior wages.
I would like to make one brief observa-
tion about Members of Congress, the
members of the Cabinet. Federal execu-
tives, and so forth in this bill. I recog-
nize that this is a politically difficult
question. None of us want to be con-
fronted with the problem of acting on
our own particular pay scale. Of course,
it is political to act on a pay schedule
or raise for Government employees, much
less Members of Congress. I do not feel
it incumbent upon me to plead the cause
of my colleagues, or the cause of Cabinet
members. But we should state facts. I
do not believe we have to make the
salaries of Cabinet members, the judi-
ciary. or Members of Congress competi-
tive with free enterprise.
No one expects that. But I do feel the
Federal executives and the members of
the judiciary should at least receive a
salary somewhat in keeping with the dig-
nity of the office so that they will not
have to dig down into their own private
savings .vhile they are on the job.
We rd :thee, too, that if we do not raise
the sal d les of Cabinet members, Mem-
bers of '13oriftress, and the judiciary, the
Cong red; is going to be extremely reluc-
tant to tncrease others. Certainly if we
fall to it crease the salaries of some Fed-
eral em loyees above that now being re-
ceived b Members of Congress and the
judicialie it will prevent a proper and
equitabie adjustment throughout the
entire st.lary structure due to the com-
pression caused or created at the top.
As fal as I am concerned, the salary
adjustrrOnt for Congress can be elimi-
nated fit mm the bill. But we should not
penalizei other Federal employees if we
are relu tent to face up to a problem.
I am leoud that one of the last official
acts I I erformed as a member of the
House Vast Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee t-a.s to vote in favor of the bill
under et nsideration which provides up-
ward adjustments in the salaries of all
Federal k mployees. I urge my colleagues
to suppi rt this important measure.
The licy which guided our commit-
tee in id deliberations was the principle
of connjarability set forth as congres-
sional Volley in Public Law 87-793, ap-
proved October 11, 1962.
The term "comparability" simply
means that insofar as possible the sala-
ries of l'ederal employees in all grades
and levils should be comparable to the
salaries maid for similar work in private
industry The first implementation of
such poi cy is contained in the bill under
conside tion. This is the reason it pro-
vides &atelier adjustments for certain
categor8 s of employees while providing
substant a/ adjustments in the salaries
of othe0 Federal employees.
The dalary Reform Act of 1962 im-
poses a I emporary $20.000 annual salary
ceiling j I the highest position in the
cla.ssifiet and postal salary structure.
It is Necessary, therefore, for the Con-
gress to terovide adjustments in the sala-
ries of tl Le top executives in our Govern-
ment in mrder to release the compression
at the Op of the Federal employees' sal-
ary scali and to carry out the intent of
the Corti ress as expressed in the Federal
Salary E eform Act.
The Ieteslation under consideration
carries ut the foregoing policy by re-
lieving d as compression at the top of the
Federal !employee salary structure and
provided necessary adjustments all up
and dovt s the line.
Extent ive hearings were conducted by
the Hoti e Post, Office and Civil Service
Committee on this subject and the testi-
mony el esented dramatically demon-
strates the need for this legislation.
A 1963 Civil Service Commission study
showed I he following comparative sala-
ries: :
Over fie Governors. ina-Vors and city man-
agers, adttinistrative and professional execu-
tives, Jul ;es, and public corporation officers
receive 0.4 nual salaries exceeding 825,000 per
year up t a high of g60.000.
A tota4 of 511 principal administrative of-
ficers of 1 oolleges and universities and 143
admInist1 tors In the Nation's public school
systems 13ceive salaries at 620,800 or more
per annupn.
The pay scales of major foundation and
other nonprofit institutions executives range
from $20,000 to more than $50,000 per year.
A study of 14 nonprofit contractors han-
dling Federal research and development work
revealed that 186 officers, technical directors,
and other staff members receive salaries
ranging from 823,000 to $45,000 per year.
A total of 120 top officers of the United
Natons receive compensation ranging from
almost $19,000 to over $25,000 per year.
The President, in his February 1962
message to Congress relevant to salary
reform, recognized the inadequacy of
existing salary levels for executive posi-
tions.
In January 1963. the President estab-
lished a 12-man advisory panel on Fed-
eral salary systems to submit salary rec-
ommendations including the appropriate
levels for executive salaries. Chairman
Clarence B. Randall of the advisory pan-
el submitted its report on June 12, 1963,
recommending substantial salary in-
creases 'for Cabinet members, Supreme
Court Justices, Members of Congress, and
other high Government officials.
The nonpartistan and highly respected
National Civil Service League recently
conducted a survey of leaders in the
fields of business, education, and other
professional pursuits. Approximately
400 persons replied to the questionnaire
and indicated that they were impressed
with the responsibilities of Government
especially in executive positions, and be-
lieved that Government salaries should
be substantially increased. The most
persistent reason given was the com-
pressing effect of the salaries of Cabinet
officers on the "second and third eche-
lon" in Government.
I cannot understand why any
thoughtful citizen of our great Nation
could sincerely oppose these salary in-
creases when they will provide for the
retention of the best-qualified Federal
employees and serve to attract into the
Federal service the most competent high
school and college graduates and other
well-qualified persons who are interested
in Government service as a career.
The "penny wise and pound foolish"
arguments of those who oppose pay ad-
justments for Federal employees do not
favorably impress me. Nor do I believe
the recent action of the Congress in ap-
proving an income tax reduction should
be used as an argument against the en-
actment of this legislation. Each of
these measures should be decided on
their respective merits and to suggest
that because of an income tax cut it is
unwise to provide Federal salary in-
creases is to me a ridiculous and absurd
conclusion.
The principal problem involved is the
fact that over the years the Congress
has been somewhat reluctant to face up
to the challenge of our modern society
and the needs of our Government service
In this dynamic period Of history.
This levislation has been analyzed in
detail by the distinguished chairman of
our comnattee, the gentleman from Ten-
nessee [Mr. MURRAY], and other Mem-
bers and I shall not take the time of the
Members to repeat the various provisions
of the bill. In all likelihood, amend-
ments will be offered which I shall sup-
port to provide more realistic adjust-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
.Approved FcedicAnssgmf449,qifttaSsitFpROARAM3R000500050001-9
ments in the salaries of Federal em-
ployees in the middle grades, who under
the committee bill in my opinion, have
been discriminated against.
Some of the opponents of this bill
stress the cost of the legislation. I be-
lieve that every dollar which is invested
in proper salary adjustments for Fed-
eral employees will bring back greater
returns in the form of increased effi-
ciency by reason of the fact the Gov-
ernment service will .attract and retain
persons of the highest caliber and with
the best qualifications. In other words,
I am convinced that funds appropriated
for salary adjustments of Federal em-
ployees is an investment in the future
of America to make certain that our
Government is better able to meet the
challenge of these times.
(Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia asked and
was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, I requested a rule to
bring H.R. 8986 to the floor, and have
called the bill up under the rule, in view
of the substantial majority by which the
bill was reported from the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service and since
the bill, with an amendment which I will
offer, has the endorsement of the Presi-
dent and his administration.
H.R. 8986, as reported from the Om-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
is noteworthy, in one respect, because its
cost of $668 million represents a one-
third reduction in the cost that could
have resulted had the first bill considered
by our committee been reported. The
committee is to be commended on this
reduction. However, in my judgment,
the cost of this legislation is still substan-
tially in excess of an amount which is
reasonable and appropriate?in the light
of our record peacetime budget and the
prospect of continued deficit financing.
Accordingly, as I stated before the
Committee on Rules, at an appropriate
point in these proceedings I will propose
a major amendment in the nature of a
substitute for title I of the bill?since
title I represents approximately $62$ mil-
lion of the entire cost of the bill. Adop-
tion of my amendment will reduce the
annual cost of this title?and, therefore,
the cost of the whole bill?by nearly $123
million, bringing the total cost down to
approximately $545 million as compared
to the President's budget figure of $544
million for the fiscal year 1965.
The reduction in cost will be accom-
plished by these three major changes in
the bill:
First, the amendment will delete new
authorizations in the bill for extra ben-
efits for certain groups of employees
which were inserted during our commit-
tee deliberations although strongly op-
posed by the administration. Ofie
amendment, especially, was adopted on
the basis of serious misunderstanding of
the cost. Elimination of these overliberal
provisions will save an aggregate of $55
million a year.
Second, my amendment will establish,.
for certain payroll calculations where
fractions of cents are involved, a system
for rounding out any fraction to the
nearest whole cent?in lieu of the pres-
ent practice of carrying all fractions to
the next higher cent. The savings will be
$10 million a year.
Third, my amendment will write into
the bill an absolute mandate that the
departments and agencies shall absorb
10 percent of the increased cost from
their 1965 budget as submitted by the
President, coupled with a prohibition
against the submission of any additional
or supplemental request for funds to
cover any part of the pay raise. The
savings will be approximately $57.8 mil-
lion. Moreover, this congressional man-
date will immeasurably strengthen the
hands of the Bureau of the Budget and
top management in keeping all depart-
ments' and agencies' pay raise costs
within the President's budget figure.
I am confident that my amendment is
In accordance with, ,and will materially
help in implementing, President John-
son's vigorous program to weed out non-
essential Federal jobs. Steps toward this
end were initiated by the late President
Kennedy immediately after the 1962
Salary Act and are reflected in the budget
President Johnson sent to the Congress
on January 21, 1964. Regular civilian
employment proposed for the executive
branch for fiscal year 1965 is down 1,200
from the level at the end of 1964. This
is the first budget to call for a reduction
in total civilian employment since the
practice of making total estimates for
the budget proposals began 9 years ago.
Even before the President's budget was
finally printed, on December 24, 1963, he
wrote each department and agency head
that the budget figures would be "ceil-
ings not goals" and added:
I am still unconvinced that we are getting
the maximum possible output per employee.
I believe we can do better.
I strongly concur in this statement by
the President, and note that he has con-
tinued to press vigorously for more econ-
omies. On signing the recent tax re-
duction bill, he pointed out that he was
working on budget amendments for 1964
which would reflect cuts in June 1965
employment of approximately 7,500 from
the number in his budget. These
amendments already have been sent to
the Congress and they reflect employ-
ment reductions this year as well as
next.
President Johnson has ordered regular
quarterly reports on management and
manpower utilization from the executive
branch bureaucracy starting this April
1. He has promised a continued per-
sonal review of agency employment needs
and employment targets. Clearly, he
means business.
The Chairman of the U.S. Civil Serv-
ice Commission and the Deputy Director
of the Bureau of the Budget have as-
sured me that my proposed amendment
has the strong endorsement of the Presi-
dent and of his entire administration.
I believe it will also receive the general
approval of the membership of the House
of Representatives.
Mr. CORBETV. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. GROSS], a member of the
committee.
4735
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. .Chairman, I lis-
tened with interest to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. ALBERti 'a few moments
ago. I was particularly interested to
note that he did not cite any figures as
to the' pay of State officials in his own
State of Oklahoma or the State of Iowa.
Perhaps it was an oversight on his part
that he did not compare the pay of Okla-
homa's State officials with the pay of
Federal officials under this bill. I would
have liked to have heard some figures
about the pay of State officials in the
State of Oklahoma. Nor am I sure from
listening to his presentation whether this
bill should be retitled "The hardship bill
for Members Of Congress" or whether
with the $10,000 per year increases it
should be titled "The war on poverty
bill." I am not quite sure what the cor-
rect title of this bill _should be in the
light of his -presentation.
Mr. Chairman, my views and those
of some of my colleagues on the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee are
expressed in detail, beginning on page 128
of the report of this legislation, House
Report No. 899. It is my earnest hope
that the Members of the House will read
these minority views on H.R. 8996 before
they determine their vote on this meas-
ure.
This legislation is premature, unjusti-
fied, extravagant, and inequitable. It
constitutes an unwarranted raid on the
Federal Treasury at a time when Amer-
ican taxpayers are already overburdened.
The bill surreptitiously conceals a reck-
less and unreasonable delegation of pow-
er to the President to fix salaries of hun-
dreds of top Government officials, in-
cluding members of quasi-judicial boards
and commissions.
The basic weakness in this legislation
is shown by the fact that there is pro-
posed to be offered a series of amend-
ments which will change the basic provi-
sions of the bill. This means, in effect,
that an attempt will be made to rewrite
the bill on the floor of the House.
This is unacceptable legislative proce-
dure in dealing with a bill as complicated
and of such magnitude as this.
The bill was reported by the commit-
tee on November 13, 1963, 4 months ago,
and conditions have so changed since
that time as to require a complete review
of this matter.
For example, Congress recently ap-
proved a tax reduction measure which
will reduce revenues of the Federal Gov-
ernment by billions of dollars annually
while at the same time this bill proposes
an expenditure of over $650 million
annually.
At the time the tax bill was approved,
Members of Congress smugly stated they
were committed to a program of reduc-
ing Federal expenditures whenever and
wherever possible. The enactment of
this legislation will run contrary to that
policy and the policy which has .been
expressed by the executive branch in cut-
ting Federal expenditures to the bone.
I see little economy in reducing the
electric light bill at the White House by
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1736 Approved For EFigitsftliOffalp :filiklifSliy8f9ER000500050001-9 'March 11
$1.000 or $2,000, while endorsing and ap-
proving legislation of the nature which
is now under consideration.
This penny wise and pound foolish
philosophy of the administration will
result in a substantial increase in our
Federal debt and render useless any
sound fiscal policy which the Congress
may adopt in the future.
I should like to remind my colleagues
that this bill provides greater pay in-
creases for most Federal employees than
was provided in a bill approved by our
committee in 1962 which was discarded
by the House of Representatives in favor
of a more modest proposal. At that
time, the chairman of our committee.
the gentleman from Tennessee IMr.
MURRAY], expressed the majority senti-
ment of the Congress when he referred
to the 1962 bill as follows:
The immoderate cost of this legislation in
and of itself is more than sufficient to war-
rant its disapproval. To proceed further
with such a bill, which Is destructive of
both management needs and essential
budgetary considerations, would be the
height of fiscal irresponsibility.
This observation applies to the bill
under consideration as well as it did to
the 1962 bill which was rejected. Also.
I should remind my colleagues that leas
than 2 months ago a substantial pay in-
crease became effective for career Fed-
eral employees. The full Impact of this
pay increase has hardly been felt in our
economy and by our Federal employees.
but we are now asked to superimpose yet
another pay increase. This means that
within a period of 18 months, if this bill
is enacted, Congress will have approved
three pay increases for Federal employ-
ees costing $1,650 million annually which
former President Kennedy did not favor
when he recommended three annual in-
creases beginning in January 1963, so
that the full impact of these Costs would
be absorbed through 3 complete fiscal
years.
The proponents of this measure have
cited certain cost figures, but they do not
include the indirect costs of the bill in
terms of fringe benefits and retirement
benefits provided therein which will in-
crease the insolvency of the retirement
fund which is now some $36 billion in
the red.
In addition. it has been estimated that
another indirect cost of this legislation
will result from an upward adjustment in
the payments made to Federal Govern-
ment contractors and this increase has
been conservatively estimated at 8250
million annually.
The bill provides increases of $10,000
annually for salaries of Members of Con-
gress. This represents a most untimely
and unwarranted increase. I do not be-
lieve the rank and file of American peo-
ple support any such lavish proposal to
raise the salaries of Members of Congress
at this time. Likewise, the increases
provided for Federal judges are extrava-
gant. No one can conscientiously say
that the Federal judiciary is treated
poorly in terms of lifetime compensation
and free retirement benefits.
Some of the ridiculous inequities which
are contained in the bill can be illus-
trated by showing the proposed salary
rates for! five officials of the House of
Represed _Wives which include the Clerk
of the HI use, the Sergeant at Arms, the
Legislatd e Counsel, the Doorkeeper, and
the Posts taster. Each of these employ-
ees, exce' t the Postmaster, is now receiv-
ing from. $20,877 annually to $21,500 an-
nually. rhe Postmaster of the House
now reed yes $18,346 annually. The bill
provides i salary of $24.500 for the Post-
master said $28,000 annually for each of
the othef four officers of the House of
Represedtatives.
Under the terms of the bill, the Post-
master cf. the House of Representatives
will rece ie the same salary as the Dep-
uty Assd tont Postmaster General, Bu-
reau of 'aerations, who has jurisdiction
over all )f the post offices arid postal
facilities n the United States.
With 6.spect to the other four officials
of OW Ht use of Representatives, the an-
nual rat,/ of pay provided for them of
$28,000 ri.presents a salary increase of at
least $6,1)0 per annum. This means that
the Merl the Sergeant at Arms, the Leg-
islative ounsel, and the Doorkeeper of
the Hou' of Representatives will receive,
under tli provisions of the bill. $3,500
per mind m more than the Assistant Di-
rector (ci Engineering and Development
at the Mi_nned Spacecraft Center, Hous-
ton, Texi . or the Assistant Director of
the Goddard Space Flight Center who is
in chard). of space flight and satellite
applicateins for the National Aeronautics
and Spa4 a Administration.
It is nd my intention to reflect on these
officers cl the House of Representatives.
But it Ii ridiculous to provide annual
compend lion for these five officers of the
House of Representatives in the amounts
which ad included in the bill when com-
pared al h other rates of compensation
for mor eI i?esponsible positions in Govern-
ment std h as top scientific, engineering,
and tecfinical specialists in the Atomic
Energy Commission, National Aeronau-
tics and) Space Administration, and the
Deparinzint of Defense.
A sho4 king and almost unbelievable
provisiod in this legislation is the abdica-
tion of ciingressional authority over fix-
ing salad ? rates for hundreds of top gov-
ernmend I officials who may be paid at
the rate$ of $26,500. $28,000, and $29,500
per annti In.
In thig bill, individual salary rates are
provided for only 61 top executive posi-
tions. 4.ilary rates for all other execu-
tive posl ions are at, the mercy of the
Presideni . These precedent-shattering
and illul try proVisions have fearful int-
plicatiori .
Even 'nue wantonly reckless is the
delegatii of authority to the President,
under syasections 303 at), If), and (g)
of this bill. to assign annual salary rates
of $26.56 I. $28,000, or $29,500 to any or
all s and positions" in Government
"which ! ie deems appropriate." This
provisiod. if enacted, will go down in his-
tory as the Presidential punishment or
reward 4 ction.- In other words, a fa-
vored ?Vial could be rewarded by mov-
ing him o a higher pay level, whereas an
unfavord i official would be punished by
relegatill 4 him to a lower salary rate.
This ctillous effort by the administra-
tion to ti lye such power delegated to the
President violates every reasonable prin-
ciple, relating to salary fixing based
upon duties, responsibilties. internal
alinement, or comparability with similar
positions in private industry.
There is a more disturbing aspect to
these three subsections of the bill. Un-
der these provisions the President is
granted permissive authority to fix sal-
aries of Government officials who are de-
scribed in broad and indefinite terms.
For example, under subsection 303( e ,
"the President is authorized" to pay "As-
sistant Secretaries of executive and mili-
tary departments. General Counsels of
executive departments, members of reg-
ulatory boards and commissions, deputy
heads of large agencies, heads of certain
agencies and bureaus and such other of-
fices and positions the duties and re-
sponsibilities of which he deems appro-
priate" the annual compensation of $29,-
500. Subsection 303(f ) authorizes the
President ao pay the "heads of principal
services and such other offices and po-
sitions the duties and responsibilities of
which he deems appropriate" at a salary
rate of $28,000 per annum. And finally,
under subsection 303(g) the President is
authorized to pay the "heads and board
members of smaller agencies, deputy
heads of other agencies and such other
offices and positions the duties and re-
sponsibilities of which he deems appro-
priaie" the annual salary of $26,500.
These are vicious provisions, because
under their terms the President has
almost unlimited authority to raise or to
lower the salaries of these top executives
at any time without explaining his mo-
tives and without regard to any limita-
tion on the number of Government of-
ficials so affected.
It should be emphasized that among
those positions which the President is
given permissive authority to raise or
to reduce salaries are members of quasi-
judicial boards and commissions where
Independent judgment free from duress
is the backbone of their regulatory proc-
esses, policies, and decisions.
More importantly, if these positions
are to be pawns in the hands of any
Chief Executive, we will have taken a
long step backward in our efforts since
1887 to secure justice and objectivity in
the decisions of our independent regula-
tory boards and commissions.
The tremendous power which is pro-
posed to be delegated to the Chief Execu-
tive to move up or down the salaries of
members of independent boards and
commissions could be used to destroy the
regulatory processes in Government as
we know them today.
This bill should specify with partic-
ularity the salaries of members of inde-
pendent regulatory boards and commis-
sions, so that no President could affect
their decisions by intimidation.
If these provisions become law, they
will create inequities among Government
officials and we predict that the ink will
hardly be dry on the signing of this
legislation before a rash of bills will be
Introduced to alter substantially the pro-
visions of this bill relating to the com-
pensation of these top officials.
I suggest you will witness the begin-
ning of this effort today in the form of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FOOFKIRS8SIONAC15/ISCORERIDPERERONO3R000500050001-9 4737
proposed amendments to raise salaries
of certain favored top administration
officials.
Even though this is a Presidential
election year, I find it incredible that
President Johnson, who has repeatedly
called for "frugality" and "economy" in
the operation of the Federal Govern-
ment, would be found supporting this
measure. How can the President and
the Members of Congress, who recently
joined in ramming through an $11.5 bil-
lion tax reduction in the face of another
staggering treasury deficit, have the au-
dacity to add this pay increase to the
debt and deficit?
A substantial part of the tax reduction
will have to be financed out of borrowed
money and her and now it is proposed
to borrow the money to provide Mem-
bers of Congress and others, particularly
those in the top brackets, with unreason-
able and unwarranted pay increases.
This is not frugality and economy; this
is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst.
When the tax reduction bill was
brought to the floor of the House, the
gentleman from Arkansas and chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee [Mr.
MILLS] told us, in effect, that in ex-
change for a cut in taxes Congress must
travel the hard road of reduced Govern-
ment spending. I have not seen much
evidence to date that Members of the
House have elected to travel that road.
Since Mr. MILLS is probably more re-
sponsible for the tax reduction bill than
any other one Member of the House, I
trust he will take the floor on this bill
and others that will follow to remind the
Members of their responsibility as well as
his own to prevent further deficit, debt,
and inflation from plunging this Govern-
ment into insolvency.
Mr. Chairman, in past months we have
heard a great deal about sit-in demon-
strations in various places across the
country. In recent days there has been
much talk about whether this bill would
be approved without a rollcall vote. I
can assure you there will be the demand
for a rollcall vote on the question of final
passage. Whether there is a record vote
will depend upon whether one-fifth or
more of those present stand to be count-
ed in favor of a rollcall. I cannot believe
Members of the House will stage a sit-in
demonstration today or tomorrow and
on a voice vote hand themselves a $10,-
000-a-year pay increase out of borrowed
money.
This bill should be defeated, and I urge
the House to stand up and be counted on
a rollcall vote to reject it.
Let me say to my colleagues that a vote
for this measure means the end of any
drive for economy. It will be impossible
to vote for this bill and keep a straight
face in supporting measures that call for
reductions in spending.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. In a little while, when
the bill is read under the 5-minute rule,
I am going to start an economy drive up
here by offering an amendment to cut
down the salaries of certain employees
of the House, to which the gentleman
has referred. I want to enlist his aid in
that drive.
Mr. GROSS. Let me say in reply that
the gentleman's efforts are too late and
too little, so far as the gentleman from
Iowa is concerned. I say again as I said
a little while ago, the floor of the House
is no place to rewrite this bill. It ought
to have been properly written in the
committee of which the gentleman from
Arizona is a member.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Lou-
isiana [Mr. MORRISON].
(Mr. MORRISON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this legislation as re-
ported from the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee, and intend to vote
for a few amendments which have the
support of the majority of our committee
members and are deemed appropriate in
view of matters which have been devel-
oped since our committee favorably re-
ported the bill on November 13, 1963, by
a vote of 14 to 6.
As the sponsor of this bill, I most
strongly recommend its enactment and
earnestly believe that it warrants your
support.
This is one of the most important
measures in the interest of more effi-
cient and economical Government opera-
tions to be considered by this Congress.
It is truly a committee bill, worked out
after extensive public hearings and ex-
haustive deliberations in the same spirit
of cooperation and compromise that has
always marked the work of the Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service on
major legislation as to which there are
many differences of opinion. I want to
extend my most sincere compliments to
our chairman, the distinguished gentle-
man from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY], and
to all members of our committee for the
diligence, patience, unfailing courtesy,
and dedication to the public service they
have demonstrated throughout the long
and often trying deliberations on this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8986 is the tat of
whether the Congress will abide by its
commitment, made in Public Law 87-
'793, to the "comparability" principle for
Federal employees' salaries or discard it
within less than 2 years after its adop-
tion. This eminently fair and logical
principle of comparability simply means
that Federal employees should be paid
salaries equal to salaries of their fellow
workers in private enterprise who have
equal levels of responsibility in their
work. It is recognized as the most effec-
tire and far-reaching improvement in
the Federal salary system since the Clas-
sification Act of 1923.
H.R. 8986 is based on the conviction
tl'at the Congress will not abdicate its
responsibility but, instead, will keep its
promise to Federal employees and to the
public by maintaining and strengthening
the comparability principle.
Title I of the bill will implement Pub-
lic Law 87-793 by providing the first
comparability adjustment subsequent to
that act. Public Law 793 helped to bring
Government salaries up so as to be corn-
parable to private enterprise salaries as
to the 1960-61 period. H.R. 8986 is di-
rected to bringing Federal salaries to a
more nearly current basis. The deter-
mination of relationships between Fed-
eral and private enterprise salaries is, by
law, based on annual studies by the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics, which reports
the results of its studies to the President,
who then in turn makes appropriate rec-
ommendations to the Congress.
Since Public Law '793, when enacted in
October of 1962, was already some 16
months late, we now face a need to
close the gap between 1961 comparability
and 1964 comparability. H.R. 8986 would
only partly close that gap. This is true
because the study upon Which it is based
is now some 18 months old.
Title I of the bill provides moderate
comparability adjustments for classified
employees, postal field service employees,
and other Federal workers generally cov-
ered by salary legislation considered by
the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee.
The adjustments for employees will
be substantially equal as a general prop-
osition, but with some variations in
amount and percentage depending upon
the salary levels of particular groups of
employees. That is to say, for example,
a foreign service employee whose salary
now is equal to the present salary of a
classified or a postal employee will, after
enactment of this bill, still receive an
equal salary comparable to salaries for
equal levels of responsibility in private
enterprise.
There is one other major factor which
has engaged the special attention of the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
in setting salary rates, and that is the
economic impact of salaries on employ-
ees who are paid at differing salary
levels.
As I have noted, we are still far behind
In achieving comparability with private
enterprise salaries on a current basis.
Even the enactment of H.R. 8986 will
continue a serious time-lag, but not so
much as presently exists. This thne-
lag, or delay in achieving comparability,
is especially damaging to postal and
other employees in the low-salaried
brackets because their incomes leave lit-
tle or no margin of safety between having
the necessaries of life and suffering at
least some measure of deprivation or
hardship. The delay is less harsh in
its impact on higher-salaried employees
because they have greater flexibility in
disposing their incomes in their every
day life.
It is to be emphasized that the treat-
ment of higher-salaried employees in the
total comparability picture?that is,
Public Lam/ 87-793 and the present bill?
is quite fair and even generous, as clear-
ly spelled out in the last paragraph and
the chart on page 8 of our committee re-
port. These higher-salaried employees
have benefited greatly from adoption of
the comparability principle.
It is important to note, also, that our
committee bill will cost some $381 million
less than the price tag on the bill which
we first took up in executive session. In
other words, our committee members
have given paramount attention, in de-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4738 Approved For RodorimittilM5Mitacht14190M0050005000129 March 11
veloping this legislation, to budgetary
considerations and to the reconciliation
of the requirements of a sound and last-
ing salary policy with the interests of the
taxpayers. The cost will be still further
reduced, to approximately the $544 con-
tained in the President's budget for the
1965 fiscal year, if the amendment to
title I proposed by the gentleman from
Tennessee Mr. MURRAY] is adopted.
In this connection, the President's re-
marks at the signing of the tax bill are
quite pertinent, and I quote:
I am requesting reports from each Inde-
pendent agency and each Cabinet officer each
quarter of the year on how they can reduce
employees under the number provided In
their budget. I am glad to say to the Con-
gress that within the neat few clays we will
send supplemental estimates that will pro-
vide for a reduction, not many jobs but
7,500 under those that we estimated we
would need in January when we sent the
budget to the Congress, and it will provide
reduction la the appropriations that we have
requested of aso
This, of course, will further reduce the
cost of the bill and bring it well below
the President's 1965 budget estimate of
$544 million.
Title I of the bill also includes very im-
portant reformations, recommended by
the Postmaster General, in the system
of fixing salaries of postmasters. Post-
masters at fourth-class offices will have
their pay fixed in proportion to the an-
nual salary rates for PFS level 5, in ac-
cordance with the relationship of their
hours of duty to full-time service. As
to postmasters generally, the bill will
discard the archaic system of measur-
ing postmasters' salaries in terms of the
dollars of revenue received in their post
offices. That system is completely out-
moded and will be replaced, under the
bill, by a new, realistic, and effective sys-
tem which balances and gives proper
weight to all factors entering into the
conduct of post offices and the levels of
duties and responsibilities of the post-
masters.
Title I guarantees a minimum 3-per-
cent salary increase for postal and other
career Federal employees in the lower
grades and levels. The average increase
for postal employees is 5.8 percent, and
the average for classified employees is
approximately 41/4 percent.
The maximum dollar increase for the
highest grades and levels will be $4,500-
representing the difference between the
present maximum GS-18 rate of $20,000,
and the new rate of $24.500 carried in
the bill.
LEGISLATIVE, EXECITTIvE, AND JUDICIAL
Titles II, III, and IV of the bill in-
clude increases in the statutory salary
levels, ranging from $6,000 to $10,000 for
535 Members of Congress and the Resi-
dent Commissioner from Puerto Rico;
approximately 400 Cabinet and sub-Cabi-
net offices; 631 Federal judges; and 17
officials each in the legislative and judi-
cial branches. Titles II and IV also
Include salary adjustments for other
legislative and judicial employees, re-
spectively, which are comparable in
amount to the increases provided by title
I for Classification Act employees. I will
comment later on the legislative em-
ployees' provisions.
I bd icve that a table showing these
congrd sional, executive and judicial in-
creaset is included, for ready reference,
at pa ...0. 11 of our committee report. As
showil by this table, the salaries in our
commi Are bill are from $2,500 to $15.000
below i eveis recommended by the Presi-
dent's Advisory Panel on Federal Salary
Systed s and are also well below the lev-
els cot tabled in H.R. 8716, which repre-
sented the viewS of the administration
last yi ar. The following is page 11 of
the rei rt..
FIDERAi, EXECUTIVE% MEMBERS or CONGRESS,
AND TUDGES
Tit! . II, III, and IV of the bill include
increa4s in the statutory salary levels,
rangtn from $6,000 to 110,000, for 535 Mem-
bers oil Congress and the Resident Commis-
sioner tram Puerto Rico; approximately 400
Cabinet and sub-Cabinet offices; 631 Federal
judges; and' 17 officials each in the legisla-
tive and judicial branches. Titles II and
IV also include salary adjustments for other
legislative and judicial employees, respec-
tively, which are comparable in amount to
the increases provided by title I for Classifi-
cation Act employees.
No increase Is made in the present income
tax deduction for living expense of Members
of Congress or in the number of trips au-
thorized between Washington and their dis-
tricts or States, although such increases were
recommended by the Randall Panel.
The following table compares certain Fed-
eral legislative, executive, and Judicial
statutory salary rates as they are now, as
proposed by the President's advisory panel
on Federal salary systems, as recommended
by the administration in H.R. 8716, and as
provided by the committee bill:
---1 _
I x g 1,1at A:
"I-I3A Ipeaktr
Med hors of Congress
Offilrs of limos:
lest of Ilou.se
t ,rreant at Arne,
1e:sislative counsel
siorkosper
0,inuoter .
Chi of staff, Johtt Committee on Internal Revenue Taxa-
ott n
Cent itreller General of Utah.' States
Aisse ant Comptroller General
1,114 elan of Congress.
The 0 bile Printer
Aral Oct of the CaPitisl_
Dent -at Counsel, GAO
Deli ty Librarian 'f Congress
D el ty Public Priatrr.
Ass ant Architect of Caipital
d Assistant Architect of espitt4
I11111 lain
Etecutit ,..
N'i President
l',e 1- -Cabinet
Le 11--Immediate Fq1b-Cahinet
1.e 111- Delany and Crider Secretarka, etc
4
.,v , V?-Am'. st.,1t,t Secretaries, etc
Le V -Ilessils of principal services, etc
I..r VI-11Ced5 And &Awl members of smeller agencies,
Jud icieutil
Sup, -mc Court:
-1,14.1ustiee
i.ssuclate Justices...
riot iit courts
t '04. t of Claims_
(o1, t of Cu.stema mid l'alent Appeals
csst t of Military Appeals
list let court 1
t 'ust ,t,is Court
Ta4 i 'oust
1411 tor, Adminha rat ive tnliee, 11.8. Courts
Deff it y Director, Administrative Office, U.S. Courts
( oit iiiissioners, Court of Chinas
Pr-'sent Advisory
rate panel
11 .R. 8716
Committee
bill
135, 000 $60, 000
22,500 i 35, 0(X)
21.560
21, 500
21.55)
20,877
18.310
21, WO
22, 500
20, 500
20, COO
20.15)0
20.71)0
20.0(x)
18? 500
18,560
19,000
17, 500
9, 422
35, 000
It 000
22, MO
21, 000
22.1551
19,15)0
35, 500
36,015)
25, 500
25,S00
25, 500
25,500
'2'2, 500
22,504)
22, 500
20,000
20,000
15,000
60,000
50, 000
45,000
40, 000
35, 000
33, COO
30,000
60. 200
110,000
45, 000
45.000
45, 000
45, 000
35, 000
35,000
31,000
26,100
$50,500 145,000
31,000 32, 500
30,000 28.0(x)
30,000 28.006
30,000 28,600
25,000 28,000
25, 500 24, 500
30.000 28, 000
38, 500 32, 500
36,500 30,500
33,000 29,910
33, 000 29.500
33,006 29,500
.36,006 29,506
30. 00(1 28,000
30,060 28,000
30,060 28,0(5)
27,500 26,500
12,160 12,500
50, 500 41,000
40.000 36,15)0
38,500 12,500
311,500 30,500
33,000 29,500
30,000 25,000
27,100 20,560
50,506 45,560
10,000 45,000
40,500 35.510
40,100 35,000
40,100 35, 000
40,500 35.006
35,000 32,500
35,000 32,000
35.000 32, 509
31,000 29,500
32,500 28,000
32,500 28,000
I A Is ecommendoca that 55.00001 Members' salaries be deducti ile At' income tat purposes to offset living etpenses;
that Ui4 number or trips permitted each year between Washington Members' State: or districts be increased
substarif ally; and that salaries of other officers in the legislative branch be increased proportionately to fit them into
prolier I vets of t he executive salary structure. 11.R. a03,6 does not clismge in any way present provisions of law affect-
ing Med le tax deduct:pits for Members of Congress or the number of trips they are permittol each year between
Woshil ton and their ,Iistricts or StlaCS.
judge, 5500 More.
Aid lough less than 1,600 offices and Members of Congress. The cost of the
posit' )ns are concerned in the congres- congressional pay increase ,amounts ap-
sionall. executive, and judicial salary pro- proximately to $5,350,000. Each missile
visiodi, and the aggregate cost of $15.7 that is launched from Cape Kennedy
milli(' a is but 2.6 percent of the total costs more than that, so only one missile,
cost f the bill, these provisions in the whether success or failure, would take
judg4 lent of the committee-a judgment care of this congressional increase. It
stro ly supported by recognized author- is less than 1 percent of the cost of the
ities n the subject both in Government entire bill.
and rrivate life-are the key to the But early adoption of the proposed
esta ishment. and maintenance of a salary rates for these high offices is of
soun salary system at every level of the even more consequence than flows from
Fe& 11 Government. For one thing, their impact on general Government
the 4 mtinued application of the corn- salary levels. Members of Congress-
pare. ility principle to salaries of postal the 100 Senators, the 435 Representa-
and ther career Federal employees de- tives in Congress, and the Resident Corn-
pencil ; in the final analysis, on the salary missioner-in a sense sit as a board of
levels of Federal executives, judges, and directors for the world's biggest busi-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved Wislimsia4:15{95t1ReMeERDFA@RW$03R000500050001-9
ness?the Government of the United
States. Each and every one of them is
the lawfully elected representative of
citizens ranging in number from 180,000
in the smallest district to 18 million in
the largest State. Together, they bring
to bear the full force and effect of the
views and interests of 190 million Ameri-
cans on the policies, programs, and
operations of their Government.
By comparison a Federal-private en-
terprise executive salary comparison
borders. on the absurd. A recent sam-
pling of 1,157 private enterprise manu-
facturing corporations disclosed a medi-
an salary figure of $91,000 for the high-
est paid officer. But setting that aside,
Federal executive, congressional, and
judicial salaries have been permitted to
fall far below even those paid in' many
State and municipal governments. A
Federal Cabinet officer, heading one of
the 10 great departments that are so
vital to national safety and welfare, now
receives $25,000 a year. The State of
California alone has 135 governmental
positions which pay more than $25,000 a
year. Pennsylvania has 165, Illinois has
92, and New York has 432. The Gover-
nor of New York receives $50,000 plus
the use of an executive mansion. The
mayor of New York City receives $50,000.
Los Angeles pays the general manager
of its water and power departments over
$40,000. Florida pays the director of a
trade exposition $50,000. The general
manager of the Boston Transit Author-
ity receives $40,000, and the superin-
tendent of Chicago schools is paid
$48,500.
In the field of education?so long the
subject of concern at the dearth of good
teachers and educators due to low sala-
ries?we find 81 college presidents being
paid more than $25,000. The principal
full-time officers of 17 charitable foun-
dations receive over $35,000.
Similarly, the 400 Executive Salary
Act positions in the bill are those of the
10 Cabinet posts?the highest appointive
offices within the public domain, and the
President's closest advisers in guiding
our national destiny?their immediate
sub-Cabinet associates and aids, and
their chief management and administra-
tive assistants. These are the few high
offices charged with the duty and trust
of advising the President and the Con-
gress for the advancement of the na-
tional interest and of carrying out, under
the direction of the President and sub-
ject to the laws of the Congress, our
great defense and other essential pro-
grams. Upon their wisdom and judg-
ment, their foresight and ability, their
dedication and skill, depend the peace
and the prosperity and the well-being--
indeed, the very existence?of the United
States. The men and women who hold
these offices have imposed on them the
incalculable weight of responsibility for
the protection and the advancement of
all of the vast interests and affairs, both
internal and among nations, of the 190
million Americans they serve.
In titles II and IV of the bill we have
followed our historic policy of providing
salary adjustments for legislative and
judicial employees which are comparable
to the adjustments granted to classified
employees. This was done in the 1955,
1958, and 1960 salary bills, and in our
committee bill in 1962 which was not
acted on. In 1962, the bill written in
the other body granted only a single
phase adjustment for legislative em-
ployees?effective in October 1962?
whereas the 1.6 million other employees
received the 1962 raise as the first phase
under Public Law 87-793 and, in addi-
tion, have now received a second-phase
raise effective last January, under the
same law. Our committee bill is in-
tended to restore parity in these salaries
for the executive, legislative, and judi-
cial branch employees.
However, with respect to legislative
employees, the considerable lapse of time
since the committee reported the bill,
the interposition of the second-phase
salary adjustment for ? classified em-
ployees last January, and the additional
increase provided by the committee bill
for the first five classified grades require
a change in technical language to carry
out the committee's intention. Without
this change, the customary and desir-
able internal alinement of congressional
employees' salaries would be distorted.
I understand a proper amendment will
be offered to take care of this.
As pointed out in our committee re-
port, full comparability with private en-
terprise salaries is impractical for the
highest Government offices. But present
Federal salaries at top levels are so ab-
surdly low as to be grossly unfair and
burdensome, and seriously impede ef-
ficient management and effective direc-
tion of the public business.
Comparability with private enterprise
pay levels for our great Federal career
services, on the other hand, is not only
practical but is commonsense economy
in the interest of the taxpayers. This
is demonstrated by the history of salary
legislation between 1945 and the adop-
tion by Congress of the comparability
principle in 1962. Pay raise legislation
before 1962 was on the shotgun basis,
influenced more by pressures and emo-
tional factors than by any systematic or
realistic consideration of Government
requirements and proper salary levels.
The seven across-the-board pay raises
beginning with the 1945 salary act and
ending with the 1960 act averaged out
to a 4.9-percent pay raise each year for
the approximately 1.5 million classified
and postal employees. Had the compa-
rability policy been in effect, the raises
would have averaged more nearly 3 per-
cent.
The points I have noted are those
which I believe to be of paramount im-
portance and concern so that the mem-
bership of the House may be fully in-
formed as to the principles of our com-
mittee bill and of the necessity for its
early enactment. I hope that this
worthy legislation will receive approval
of the House of Representatives.
In other words, the proposed increase
of $10,000 per year in congressional sal-
aries is only 1 percent or a little less
than 1 percent of the entire cost of this
bill. Every time a missile is launched
at Cape Kennedy, whether it is a success
or not, it costs more than the total
amount of the salary increases for Con-
4739
gressmen, Members of the Senate and
the House for the year. In other words,
say 20 missiles launched in future
months, the cost of those 20 missiles
would pay this congressional salary in-
crease for the next 20 years.
I certainly urge my fellow Members
to support this bill.
Mr. CORMa-r. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. WALLIIAUSER], a member
of the committee.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of H.R. 8986. As one
who introduced an identical bill it is ob-
vious that I am and always have been in
favor of a bill of this kind. I believe
that as Members of this great body we
have a very heavy responsibility and I
believe we should meet it.
We are in the position of a board of
directors approving management recom-
mendations; therefore, we have in our
hands the economic fate of about 134
million persons. I do not believe we
should evade this responsibility. We
should meet it because many of us know
that, especially in the lower classes, our
employees are forced to take secondary
jobs or have their wives working, thereby
taking the jobs of others, in order to
maintain their status of life, and to meet
their responsibility in the neighborhoods
in which they must live. Therefore, I
say that if we are to do that which is
right and especially since we claim to be
the greatest country on the face of
this earth, we must pay our Federal em-
ployees a fair and just salary for a fair
and just day's work.
I will not go through all of the reason-
ing behind this bill. You have heard it
explained technically. You know it has
the idea of comparability in it. You
know the Bureau of Labor Statistics is
going to make a survey every year and
report to the President, and the President
is required to come before the Congress
and tell us what the differential is. This
was all taken care of in the Salary Re-
form Act of 1962, and I do not believe it
is necessary for us to go into this ques-
tion and be repetitive, but I should like
to remind you what President Johnson
said in his budget message to the Con-
gress about this very pay legislation. He
said:
Although this budget is deliberately
restrictive, I have concluded that Govern-
ment economy will best be served by an
upward adjustment in salaries.
He continued,
This budget provides for the cost of such
action in this session of Congress. Any pay
action by Congress should bring salary rates
for top executive branch positions up to
levels more nearly commensurate with their
respective responsibilities.
I thoroughly agree with the President's
fine words. I believe there is ample
justification for paying top management
salaries to top management people. Of
course, we can always get men and
women to run for Congress, there is no
question about that. What we want is
to get the best men and women to run,
and when they are here to let them live
according to the standards by which they
should live.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4740 Approved For RitimrAla0?06/4cilinafigRff.130
I call your attention to the fact there
have been only four increases in con-
gressional salaries since 1866, and none
since 1955. Therefore, I think Members
of the Congress are justified in going
before the taxpayers of this country and
asking for a salary which is commen-
surate with their responsibilities which,
as you know and I know, are quite grave.
I would like to pay tribute to the re-
porters for the local newspapers in this
area. It seems to me that we are par-
ticularly blessed by having men like
Jerry Klutz of the Washington Post,
Joseph Young of the Evening Star, and
John Cramer of the News, who clarify
Federal employee matters before us and
before the Federal employees.
I should like also to point out par-
ticularly that one of the amendments the
chairman of our committee, the Honor-
able Tom MURRAY, Will introduce, is di-
rectly a result of a suggestion by one of
these fine reporters.
I think it is almost unique in the
annals of journalism that a newspaper-
man, through the agency of just one
story, has saved the American taxpayers
$10 million annually. That newspaper-
man is John Cramer, the Federal re-
porter for the Washington Daily News.
In a column ostensibly addressed to
the President of the United States, Mr.
Cramer suggested that In writing the pay
bill now before the House, the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service should
amend current law to provide for the
computation of rates of pay in full cents,
by rounding off the fractions to the
nearest penny. This seemingly simple
idea has evidently never occurred to any-
one in Government before. This sug-
gestion is carried out in one of the
amendments we will be considering. The
best informed experts say that the
adoption of this amendment will save
the taxpayer a minimum of $10 million
a year and perphaps more, without hurt-
ing a single Federal employee.
I congratulate Mr. Cramer for his in-
telligence and his concern for the na-
tional economy. Surely an achievement
as great as this is deserving of appro-
priate notice and attention.
When we get back into the House, Mr.
Chairman, I propose to ask unanimous
consent to include this story with my
remarks.
The story is as follows:
IDEA FOR L.B.J.: How To SAVE $16 MILLION
(By John Cramer)
I have a Government economy suggestion
for President Johnson?about 18 or 17 mil-
lion bucks worth?a case of mills becoming
millions.
The idea comes from a State Department
employee, who prefers to remain anonymous,
but asked me to relay it.
Anyway, Mr. President, there's roughly $16
to $17 million of what might be called
"windfall money" in the pending Federal
employee pay raise bill.
And if you put that famous presidential
arm on the right Members of Congress, the
windfall can be eliminated before the bill
eventually comes to you for signature?and
precedent can ? be established for similar
savings on future bills.
NO INJUSTICE
Moreover, this can be done with perfect
equity to all Federal employees, and Injus-
tice to none.
tl3g00500050001.9 March 11
lierq 3 the
The piay bill provides raises for LB million
postal classified (white collar), and related
Federal employees?increases intended as
another step toward lifting their rates to a
level 1 easonably comparable" with national
average private enterprise rates.
Under the "comparability" formula, the
annual rates of Government workers eventu-
ally wit match the average annual rates of
private employees.
But he truth is, Mr. President, that vir-
tually ill Federal employees are paid more
than hie annual rates spelled out in their
salary chedules.
That s true of present scales.
It al.!) vr111 be true if the pending bill is
eciactet in its present form.
DIVISION
Let illy State Department idea man ex-
plain. : He wrote:
"The original pay rates in the Federal
service! were established as figures that were
divisible by the 24 pay periods in a year.
When L.he number of pay periods was in-
creased to N. the rates were not exactly
divisible by 26.
"SIM Ily legislation was passed, and con-
tinue& in the pending pay bill, which pro-
vides list 'an hourly rate shall be estab-
lished :iy dividing the annual rate by 2,080'
and 'All rates shall be computed in full
cents. !.-ounting a fraction of a cent as the
next higher cent.'
"The effect of this provision Is to raise
the sal tries actually paid above the statu-
tory al mud rate. For example, the annual
rate ft r the first step of GS-8 is $8.035.
but tlj.! formula raises it to $5,054.70. For
GS-7, the statutory rate is $5,540, the formu-
la rate $553.80.
- IN FRACTIONS
"My! proposal is to amend the pay bill to
provldi that all rates shall be computed In
full ci nts, with fractions of cents being
roundel to the nearest full cent."
"In i iractice, this would limit to $10.40
the all ount that could be paid in excess of
the Refloat rate in any given case. The
amoun . less than the annual rate which
could l e paid would be $10.39."
Now! Mr. President. let's look at the sav-
ings. I
Shot Id the pay bill be revised in the man-
ner pe iposed, roughly half of all Federal
employ .eft would find their hourly rate ad-
Justedi downward to the next lower penny?
rather i than upward to the next higher.
They temporarily would lose a cent-an-
hour--! 20.80 per year.
But i ater, as they moved up their within-
grade ' lay steps, they would recover this
rienny4 in-hour for a time ? ? ? lose it
again r ? ? recover it again. And at the
end ce their Federal careers, their total
carotin s inevitably would balance out at
something very, very close to a true annual
"compl rability" base.
I Mild? 1.8 million Federal employees by
one-he f. multiply by $20.80, and come up
with 01 annual saving of $16.840,000.
As ii happens, Mr. President, I think the
"comm rability" principle makes all the
sense 4 1 the world. But I don't think Fed-
eral ert ployees are entitled to $18,640.000 per
year mire than "comparability."
I a;uld like to take just a moment to
i
answ . one of the criticisms made by
the d tinguished gentleman from Iowa.
Mr4 Chairman, I cannot share the
alarm( that has been expressed over the
soctiot: of this bill which establishes six
levels! of Federal salary schedules and
which gives authority to the President
to phi le certain positions in levels IV,
V. an VL
Let us look carefully at these provi-
sions t f H.R. 8986 which are giving cause
for undue alarm and let us see exactly
what is proposed.
In my opinion, the creation of a six-
level salary schedule in which would be
placed the approximately 40,0 top Fed-
eral executives is just as enlightened
and progressive a step forward in good
personnel management as was the en-
actment of the Classification Act in 1923.
What does it do? It replaces the pres-
ent hodgepodge of 14 different salary
levels for these top officials which have
grown up like Topsy over the years to the
point v, here they have almost become
unmanageable and certainly unwieldy
and' cumbersome.
In the first three levels of the execu-
tive salary schedule positions are spe-
cifically placed by title. For example,
all cabinet officers are placed in level I;
certain Deputy and Under Secretaries
generally in level II. Other Deputies
and Secretaries in level III.
Now listen to this. Section 303(d)
then gives the President or authorizes
him to place certain other officers and
positions in levels IV, V. and VI, in ac-
cordance with guidelines and criteria
that have been established. Now this is
the section against which criticism has
been leveled. I ask: What is so very
fearful and so ominous about delegating
authority to the President of the United
States to place certain executive posi-
tions in these levels? Is not this the
same kind of authority that you or I
would give any executive of any private
corporation? Is it not standard practice
in private industry? Can anyone give
any credence to the allegations that may
be made or that have been made that
any President of the United States would
abuse this authority? Do we not give
him a great share of responsibility for
our national security? Does he not have
the responsibility of our domestic wel-
fare in his hands? Should we not give
him seine right to move various posi-
tions around according to his best judg-
ment so that there will be no conflict
between heads of various departments?
Certainly, this is good management, and
to me seems as though it would be
right and I, for one, have no fear what-
soever of any President of these United
States abusing this authority. I say that
we should not be concerned about this.
In closing, I would like to say that we
are all for economy. Every Congress of
the United States is apparently for econ-
omy. The appropriation committees are
always trying to reduce the budget. But
I say that if we are going to use a sur-
geon's scapel approach?do not let us
take it out of the hides of the men and
women who are producing fine govern-
ment for the citizens of the United States
of Ame:ica.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man. I wish to take this opportunity to
say to the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. WiLLHAUSER I who is now address-
ing us that his departure from the Con-
gress will be a loss to the Congress and to
the Nation as well. When we on this
side of the aisle learned of the gentle-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4741
man's plans for retirement we felt as
badly and downhearted I am sure as the
gentleman's colleagues on his own side
of the aisle. We all have the greatest
admiration and the highest respect for
our distinguished colleague from New
Jersey.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I thank my col-
league very much.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to compliment the gentleman
on the fine speech he is making in regard
to this bill.
While I support most of the provisions
of H.R. 8986, I oppose title II, the por-
tion of this legislation which affords
MerrIbers of Congress an immediate and
substantial increase in salary.
At the very least, the congressional
pay raise should not become effective
until the next Congress has been elected
and convened. We all know what the
pay was when we ran for the 88th Con-
gress. Our election amounts to a con-
tract with the people we represent, to
serve them for the duration of this Con-
gress, in accordance with the terms of
employment existing when we took oath
of office.
There is another reason for consider-
ing adoption of title II to be untimely.
We have but recently voted a very sub-
stantial reduction in Federal taxes. At
the time the Federal tax bill passed the
House, those of us who supported that
legislation pledged ourselves to re-
doubled efforts to effect economies in
the national budget.
How can we be consistent with that
pledge if we now vote ourselves a large
pay increase? Should we not rather,
exercise restraint in voting major bene-
fits to ourselves at this time.
Is it not incumbent upon us to ex-
hibit personal leadership for economy in
Government by declining this raise?
Now I for one would like a pay raise
as well as the next fellow. No doubt my
creditors would be overjoyed to learn I
had received one. But under the cir-
cumstances existing today, I must op-
pose title II.
I support title I of the bill which
raises the salary scales for post office
and civil service employees. I do so for
two main reasons. First because the
raises originally proposed by the com-
mittee have been reduced until the over-
all cost of the bill is within the budget
recommendations made by President
Johnson for this purpose. Second, be-
cause the pay raises contained in title
I are designed to bring Federal salaries
in classified employment, in line with
the principle of "comparability," accord-
ance with legislation which was adopted,
with my support, by the 87th Congress.
Thus the Federal Government will be
paying its employees at a level equal to
that earned in private industry for work
requiring similar loads of responsibility
and degree of skill.
(Mr. STAFFORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extended his
remarks.)
No. 44 3
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Dursicr].
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate very much the Chairman allow-
ing me this time to speak on H.R. 8986.
As you all know, I have been a very
strong supporter of adequate salaries for
our dedicated employees?both our post-
al employees and the rank-and-file em-
ployees of the Federal Government.
Salary increases are to be provided for
the employees under title I of H.R. 8986.
I supported those increases in our com-
mittee deliberations, and I support them
today. However, I have some reserva-
tions about some ?of the generous in-
creases to be provided in other portions
of the bill.
It is my understanding that at a later
time our distinguished chairman [Mr.
MURRAY] will offer an amendment. In
part this amendment will strike out a
section which was adopted in our com-
mittee.
The amendment adopted in the com-
mittee is nothing more than a formtla of
providing the postal workers with full
credit for full-time work in the computa-
tion of their salary levels. This amend-
ment is in conformity with the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1962.
Mr. Chairman, Public Law 87-793,
known as the Pay Reform Act of 1962,
sought to establish for future application
the principles of "equal pay for sub-
stantially equal work" and "pay com-
parability with similar work in private
industry." Unfortunately, the imple-
mentation of Public Law 87-793 created
many inequitable pay situations. These
resulted primarily because the imposi-
tion of an arbitrary cutoff date of Octo-
ber 13, 1962, thereby depriving many
postal employees of full and proper
credits for their postal service.
As a result, postal employees in the
first four levels who had not progressed
beyond step 5 retained their anniversary
dates for step increases. In many in-
stances, such employees received an ad-
ditional step increase within weeks or
months after the enactment of Public
Law 87-793. On the other hand, em-
ployees in the first four levels in step 6
or above, and employees who had al-
ready earned longevity step increases, did
not retain their anniversary dates and
were compelled to start new periods to-
ward their next step increases.
We are hopeful that the following
examples, which I shall give, will clarify
the detrimental and inequitable effects
on postal employees with many years of
service.
As an example, a level 4 employee who
entered the postal service on October 1,
1956, was placed in step 8 on October 13,
1962, at an annual wage of $5,685. An
employee in the same level who entered
the postal service 2 weeks later, on Octo-
ber 15, 1956, was placed in step 7 and
received an annual wage of $5,525. The
latter employee will be required to serve
3 years in step 7 before going to step 8,
thus earning $160 per annum less than
the first employee. For the next five
step increases over a period of 15 years
the employee who entered the service
only 2 weeks later will be out of pocket at
least $2,400.
Let me give another illustration of this
Inequity.
An employee who entered the postal
service on October 1, 1950, was placed in
step 9 at $5,845 per annum. An em-
ployee who entered October 15, 1950, 2
weeks later, was placed in step 8 at
$5,685.
An employee who went into the postal
service on October 1, 1945, was placed in
step 10 at $6,005 per annum. 'An em-
ployee who entered 2 weeks later, on
October 15, 1945, was placed Instep 9
at $5,845 per annum, the identical sal-
ary of the employee who entered almost 5
years later on October 1, 1950.
It is my hope that my amendment that
was adopted in committee be retained
in the bill.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of this bill, H.R. 8986,
which will provide a much needed and
richly deserved increase in pay to our
postal workers and other Federal em-
ployees. In addition, I am definitely in
favor of the Dulski amendments, and
certainly hope that such amendments
are retained in the bill as passed by this
House.
I have supported pay raise legislation
for employees of our Federal Govern-
ment in the past, and it appears to me
that in enacting such legislation the
Congress is continuing to assume its
rightful respOnsibilities in maintaining
fair and adequate salary schedules for
its civil servants. Several years ago we
passed the Federal Salary Reform Act,
and once again today we have the oppor-
tunity to update the provisions of that
act and to bring the salaries of our Fed-
eral workers more in line with the
salaries paid in private industry for com-
parable work. We are all well aware of
the fact that in private industry pay
Increases are given somewhat automati-
cally in line with the rise in the cost of
living, improved production, longevity, or
in accordance with contracts which
have been negotiated between labor and
management, and which take all these
factors into consideration. Our Federal
employees must rely on the considera-
tion and generosity of the Congress to
adjust salaries, and for the most part
these have been in the past rather inade-
quate compromises which have kept the
Federal pay scale lagging behind similar
scales in private industry.
In order to attract employees to the
field of Government service, we must
offer benefits which are at least com-
parable to those in private industry, and
although the salary is not the sole factor
to be considered, it is most certainly the
most important one. We must maintain
our productivity, and at the same time
set an example for private industry in
the field of personnel relations.
I am particularly aware of the condi-
tions affecting our postal workers in the
New York City area. They work long
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 11;la ich 11
hours, at hard work, and it has been
amply demonstrated during the recent
hearings on this legislation that they
fall far behind the pay scales of em-
ployees performing comparable work in
the field of private enterprise. It is be-
coming increasingly difficult to attract
and retain these employees in the Post
Office Department because of the pay
and the unfavorable working conditions.
Those who would honestly like to make
a career in the postal service find that
they cannot do so because of insufficient
compensation with which to support
themselves and their families. If they
do remain with the Department, they
are forced to seek additional employ-
ment in order to meet the continued
high cost of living; or, in the alternative,
the wife must leave home and seek work
in order to supplement the family in-
come. This certainly does not create a
healthy and harmonious atmosphere in
the home, especially where there are
children. The same situations. of
course, face many of our employees in
other branches of the Fedral service. It
is up to us to rectify these conditions.
Too often our Government employees
are held up to ridicule and contempt.
and accused of incompetence and sloth-
fulness. Because one apple in the barrel
turns out to be rotten, too many of our
citizens are ready to hand down a
blanket indictment of all civil servants.
In my opinion. too much cannot be said
on the credit side, about their loyalty,
their devotion, their dedication to duty,
and their capacity for work, in many in-
stances under conditions which leave
much to be desired. I hope that my col-
leagues will see their way clear today to
bring about the enactment of this bill
which will, in some small measure, let
our Federal workers know that their ef-
forts are appreciated and acknowledged.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Tennessee
I Mr. Quu,LEN1 such time as he may
desire.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given'
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QULLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the section of H.R. 8986
which increases the pay of the Members
of Congress to $32.500.
As for myself. I knew what the pay
was when I ran for election, and I can-
not break faith with the people who
elected me to this office.
I am very much in favor of the raises
for postal employees and other employees
in the Federal Government. They de-
serve this increase.
The congressional pay increase should
be eliminated; and, if it is not, then I
must vote against the bill.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Michigan,
a member of the committee IMr. JOHAN-
SEN!. 10 minutes.
Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman. I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
count. [After counting.] One hundred
and eight Members are present, a
quo l um.
hlr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
ristt in opposition to H.R. 8986?the Fed-
eral pay bill.
I! voted against this bill in committee.
I joined in signing the minority views,
whlah I urge my colleagues to read start-
ing!ln page 128 of the committee report.
I vci,ed against the rule.
I! favor a straight recommittal motion
to Enable the committee to eliminate or
cod ect the many grave defects in this
bill! and to modify its provisions in the
ugh, of the recently voted $11.5 billion
tax! cut.
I, do not believe a motion to recommit
witl. instructions?which, I understand,
will be offered?can accomplish these
urtantly needed corrections.
ace a straight recommittal motion is
thti precluded. I shall vote against the
bill; and I urge my colleagues to do like-
xvist . I hope this vote on final passage
will be by rollcall.
I: proceed immediately to the major
reatons for my opposition to this legis-
lad' at.
Arst. This bill, and the claims made
in t s behalf, constitute a fraud on this
House and on the American taxpayers.
T vo key words figure prominently in
th& arguments of proponents of this
bill.; -economy and comparability.
Hath words are used fraudulently.
course, we now have an Orwellian
bia4!c-Is-white, up-is-down, revised deft-
nitit ,n of economy.
this revised definition, economy is
saving which ends up leaving the tax-
paytx paying more, net.
Ins bill is full of that kind of
eco i omy.
Crnsider, for example. the self-right-
eoully boastful claim made on page 3 of
the majority report. The report claims
that the salary schedules proposed in
thi4 legislation?as voted out of com-
mittee last November 13?involve "a re-
duct ion of $381 million below the $981.8
mill on cost which would have been
inc*rred had the proposal first taken
up !)3( the committee for action been
ado t ited."
Ad then the majority report smugly
add:
Tt Is is the greatest proportionate reduc-
tion, in a major Federal salary increase
mea 4 ore that has ever been made by the
corninittee.
'II 'is boastful statement?designed to
cm, te an impression of a heroic and suc-
ces4 .ul committee effort to reduce ex-
pentlitures--is a perfect example of the
new version of economy. It is a saving
whit h ends up costing the taxpayer
mor; a great deal more, I will add,
heated on top of two other recent and
verT expensive economy efforts of exactly
they ame sort.
'flak about glorying in one's shame.
When this $981 million "first proposal"
was( "taken up by the committee for ac-
tion '?I am using the majority report's
rain t words?we were just 10 months re-
mo4 -ad from prior enactment of a two
steal $1 billion pay boost?and the second
phal e of this pay increase was still near-
ly 5tnonths in the future.
I would think that the majority of
the committee who took up this $981
million first proposal in August of last
year?would be happy just to forget that
they even considered such a second bil-
lion dollar folly.
But no?they drag it out in order to
congratulate themselves on their record-
breaking economy accomplishments.
Today we are having another display
of economy heroics. Under the amend-
ment offered?or to be offered?by our
distinguished chairman the price tag of
this bill is being cut back to $545,700,000.
More economy of the same kind?an-
other saving that ends up as a new, added
cost to the taxpayer. I am not just sure
how much more such economy the Amer-
ican taxpayer can endure and survive.
But before you let yourself get caught
up in the economy fervor being promoted
here today, may I remind you that if this
bill?even with the Murray amend-
ment?becomes law, the Congress will
have voted a billion and one-half dollars
In additional Federal payroll costs in
about 18 months.
And you will have completed this re-
markable demonstration of economy on
the heels of a $11.5 billion tax cut which.
while cutting Federal revenues, provides
a fourth increase in the take-home pay
of Federal employees in 21 months.
Now there is another reason why I
would have thought the authors of the
majority report would have preferred to
have forgotten about the $981.8 million
Pay bill "proposal first taken up by the
committee for action."
This brings me to the comparability
fraud involved in this legislation and in
the arguments offered in its support.
The majority report! states that the
purpose of this legislation is "to comply
with the mandate, laid down by the Con-
gress in Public Law 87-793, that postal
and other Federal career employees shall
be paid salaries comparable to salaries
paid their fellow workers in private en-
terpr.se for comparable levels of respon-
sibility, skill, and performance."
The report further claims that in this
bill "the comparability principle has been
applied to the career employees' salary
adjustments to the maximum practical
extent."
All of this raises some very pertinent
questions:
The first proposal "taken up by the
committee for action"?by the report's
own admission, or boast?cost $381 mil-
lion more than the amount finally voted
out by the majority of the committee.
Does this mean that the bill voted out is
$381 million short of a genuine applica-
tion of the comparability principle? If
so, then the claim that there is a -pros-
pective saving under the comparability
principle of approximately $175 million
a year," a claim based on the pay in-
crease actually voted out, is a proven
phony.
On the other hand, if the proposal
first "taken up by the committee for ac-
tion" was actually $381 million?or any
substantial portion of this figure?in ex-
cess of the true cost of applying com-
parability, why was it ever proposed for
consideration by the committee?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved Faedityg.sia5R/MithIMDPEONO3R000500050001-9
Is comparability so vague and ill-
defined a standard and measuring-stick
that it can involve a 50 percent factor of
error?a 50 percent overshot?
If the total cost of the originally pro-
posed pay schedules was reduced be-
cause it was an error, an overshot, why
doesn't the majority report frankly say
so?and take the credit it is entitled to
for correcting this error?
Instead, the majority report attributes
the reduction to budgetary considera-
tions. If this was the case why doesn't
the majority report admit that under
budget restrictions it had to fall this far
short of comparability and give some
indication as to when and how it is going
to catch up on this gap while also keep-
ing pace with subsequent annual in-
creases in the pay scales of private enter-
prise?
Or is the simple truth that despite the
much-touted comparability principle the
old rule of asking for "all the traffic will
bear" still prevails? Evidently my col-
league from Virginia [Mr. BROYHILL]
thinks so since he calls this bill a com-
promise?and I thought comparability
was a really objective yardstick.
At the very least, comparability must
be a very elastic concept.
I suspect that it is, in reality, a pious
fraud.
Second. This bill is dangerous because
it in effect ratifies?or, if you please, re-
ratifies?the dubious principle of com-
parability.
Let us read what the majority report
says on this very point:
HR.. 8980 represents the first?and un-
doubtedly the conclusive?test as to whether
the Congress intends to abide by its com-
mitment to the comparability principle or
discard it within a year after its adoption.
Well, if the action on this bill is to be,
as the majority report implies, the "con-
clusive test" as to whether Congress is
to be permanently committed to this
comparability principle, I suggest that
we had better take a hard, last-chance,
second look at the matter.
We are, in effect,- at the end of the
probationary period for this scheme.
Before we make it an established fixture
of Federal pay policy, let us carefully
review the question.
Especially, since it is already requiring
a $11/2 billion increase in payroll costs
to get the program airborne?if, indeed,
it is actually airborne.
Especially, since proponents of this
principle claim that average pay in-
creases for Federal employees for the
past 15 years has been 4.9 percent for
each year while, in fact, during the 2
years of the operation of the compara-
bility principle, Congress will have pro-
vided?with adoption of this bill?more
than 5 percent a year average increase
for most Federal employees.
Especially, since the Budget Director
and the Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission have accepted a 3-percent-
a-year increase as the minimum likely
increase in wages in the private economy
as the frame of reference for annual pay
increases for Federal employees under
the comparability principle. There is no
assurance that this 3 percent will be the
ceiling for such annual increases. In
fact, I think you can safely bet that it
will not be. Moreover, these officials pre-
dict that the executive pay schedules will
have to be cranked up higher every 6,
7, or 8 years because of compression
created by these built-in annual pay
boosts at the lower levels.
Consider, also that Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports show that the cost-of-
living index has risen 7.5 percent since
December 1957, while in the same period
Classification Act employees have re-
ceived an average of 23.2 percent pay in-
crease plus 4.1 percent which went into
effect January 1 of this year. Obviously,
cost of living goes into the ashcan as a
factor in determining Federal pay in-
creases if we go whole hog on the com-
parability kick.
I repeat the warning I voiced in Octo-
ber 1962, when the House voted to adopt
this principle. It ties Federal pay raises
into the strike-induced or strike-threat-
induced pay raises of private collective
bargaining, and it also gears Federal pay
raises to the pay scales of the cost-plus
contract system of Government cohtrac-
tors who find it easy to capitulate to
wage increase demands in their tax-
subsidized competition for personnel.
Perhaps comparability is a commit-
ment, a promise.
However, a bad promise, I submit, is
sometimes better broken.
Third. This pay bill involves an un-
precedented and unconscionable grant
of power to the President?power to
punish and reward.
It abdicates to the Executive the au-
thority, previously retained by Congress,
to fix the salary rates in the $26,500,
$28,000, and $29,500 brackets for hun-
dreds of top Government officials.
Worse than that, it also provides that
in addition to specifically identified
categories of offices and positions which
the President may thus assign to these
salary brackets his authority extends to
"such other offices and positions the
duties and responsibilities of which he
deems appropriate for this level."
Worst of all, this discretionary author-
ity to promote or demote?salarywise--
extends to "members of regulatory
boards and commissions" which can
make a mockery of the independent
agency status of these boards and com-
missions.
Surely I do not need to elaborate on
the potent and potential evils and abuses
inherent in such a grant of power to the
Executive.
Fourth. The $10,000 a year pay in-
crease for Members of Congress?and
top Executive Pay Act officials?is a bo-
nus for profligacy if not bankruptcy and
an affront to the American taxpayer.
We have a $310 billion national debt,
with a forecast of a $317 billion total
by June 30, 1965. We have a $10.7 bil-
lion deficit for the currentyear, with a
$5 billion deficit next fiscal year a cer-
tainty and a $10 billion deficit a possi-
bility.
We have a credit card tax cut of $11.5
billion?and, I might add, the proposed
beneficiaries of the $10,000 a year pay
raise benefit also, and substantially,
from this tax cut in terms of added take-
home pay.
4743
True there are Members?younger
Members with families?who have finan-
cial problems. But I know of no pay
systems generally prevalent in private
enterprise which are geared to the size
of the employee's family. I do not
think we can use this argument for pay
increases for Congressmen with good
grace.
True the annual cost of the congres-
sional pay increase of $10,000 is as its
advocates are so fond of emphasizing?
"only" $5,360,000. True this is a small
fraction of the aggregate pay raise costs
In this bill and in the pay bills enacted
since the last congressional pay increase
in 1955.
But bear in mind that the congres-
sional and top Executive Pay Act in-
creases pull the plug on pay increase de-
mands all the way down the line of the
classified pay system. It is literally a
"lid raising operation" as I said on the
House floor during debate in October
1962, on the last pay bill.
Who is to set an example of restraint,
of prudence, of salaries geared to per-
formance, if not the public servants in
these highest salary categories and?
above all?Members of Congress?
I suggest that there is a price, in terms
of the loss of confidence, faith and re-
spect of the American people, in and for
the Congress of the United States and
its Members, which we cannot afford to
pay to gain only $5,360,000 in agree-
gate salary increases. This is a price,
indeed, which cannot be measured in
dollars.
I have read news reports of a $100-a-
plate dinner to be held here in Wa,shin--
ton tomorrow evening. It is suggested
that because of the makeup of the guest
list passage of this pay bill will "give the
celebrants something extra to cheer."
This may prove to be the case. If so
it will not be prudence or sound economy
or fiscal responsibility that will be ap-
plauded.
I could not help recalling a message
writ large on the walls of another and
ancient banquet hall?in another and
ancient Babylon:
Thou art weighed in the balances and
found wanting.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has expired.
Mr, JOHANSEN. I ask the gentle-.
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT]
If he will yield me 5 additional minutes?
Mr. CORBETT. I am very, very sorry.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Let me say to the
gentleman that I assure the Members of
House they will hear the rest of what
I have to say later.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. OLSEN].
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in explanation of our com-
mittee's activities regarding the compar-
ability principle. The principle is based
on the fact that the Federal service must
compete for skilled employees with the
private economy?the lawyers, the elec-
tricians, the scientists, the economists?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4744 Approved For RVemAlfgleMi,C.RMS613.0pinaff00500050001-9
'March 11
the high skilled and the low skilled. Our
Government employees must be as skilled
as the employees in the private economy.
This is a must for the sound operation
of such a wonderful Government as we
have.
On this principle of paying wages to
Federal employees comparable with
those paid in the private economy, we
had hearings that lasted 10 days and
spread over 2 months. Not a single wit-
ness appeared against the principle.
Numerous leaders in private industry
and numerous experts in matters of the
economy supplied statements in support
of comparability.
Now then, how did we study this mat-
ter? First, we consulted the Bureau of
Labor Statistics who provided us with
comparability surveys. For the most
part, we found that classified workers in
grade 5 and postal employees in level 4
were 5 to 6 percent behin-d the private
economy; and the surveys were at least
2 years old. So there is a timelag in
even our recommendations. If we ex-
tended or projected the Bureau of Labor
Statistics figures to the present, we
would probably have to be paying an in-
crease of 9 percent to these levels. So
you see, first we compromised in our
comparison between the Federal em-
ployee and the skilled private worker by
often not grading the Federal employees
with the same identical skills as the
private employees.
For example, letter carriers are barely
being equated with common laborers,
when really they should be equated with
skilled craftsmen in the private economy.
On top of that compromise we have the
time lag in our statistics. For this rea-
son, our bill comes out $300 million less
than our original estimate of what the
price of increasing pay for Federal em-
ployees was calculated to be. The other
factor that I think should be pointed out
is that since 1955. there have been a
number of pay increases which have
given a 55-percent overall increase to all
the grades and levels up to 15 or 16.
The remaining Federal employees in
grades through 18 and those who are in
the executive. judicial, and legislative
positions have received no increases. We
do not propose that these higher scaled
people be paid comparably to the same
skills in the private economy. To do so
would be extremely difficult and a great
deal more expensive. For example, the
Secretary of Defense left_a position pay-
ing $400,000 a year in private industry
to take a position paying only $25,000 a
year. With our bill, we would only raise
him to $35,000. Thus, what we are really
doing is facing the fact that the higher
paid executive, Judicial, and legislative
positions have become a ceiling for the
classified employees' pay in the higher
classifications. The skilled scientist and
the skilled lawyer or economist just can-
not be offered more than $20,000 under
the present system. We cannot be pro-
viding higher salaries for employees than
their superiors and administrators.
There is not a chance of raising them
until their superiors in the executive,
legislative, and judicial positions are
raised. Then, raising these, we must
have some comparison between the Cabi-
net, tli judiciary, and the Congress. I
think I; is a reasonable comparison that
we hate made, and that it is a good bill.
It is tecessary if we are to keep our
countit? strong by attracting the highly
skilled! people needed to carry on the
many t omplex functions of Government.
Mr.! CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio gvfr. OLIVER P. BOLTON I .
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I first want to express my thanks
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. ()ORBETT] for giving MC this time,
althoul h I am not a member of the
comm* tee.
Mr. ichairman, I want to discuss with
the cotarnittee an amendment which I
will oft.r when the proper time comes, an
arnenctnent which is a very simple one.
It is edibodied in a bill which I have in-
troduck in the House, which was re-
ferred! io the Committee on Government
Opera) ons. It contains a very simple
propo4tion, namely, that the accounts
of thetcommittees of this House and of
the Arehitect of the Capitol be subject
to thei audit of the General Accounting
Office, not by request, as the law now
reads, ! Jut by requirement.
Presintly the legislative branch is out-
side tt.e consideration of the law that
the (3i-neral Accounting Office should
audit ! its accounts. My amendment
would merely require that the accounts
of ouri committees and of the Office of
the AO hitect of the Capitol be subject to
such ludit, and that those audits be
printet as House documents, similar to
those rf other departments.
Mr. Chairman, considering the
amounts that we in the House are now
spendliig for the operation of the Con-
gress !and considering the criticisms. -
rightftil or wrongful, which have been
directel at the Congress, in my opinion
main4 because of a lack of understand-
ing an)l because of a lack of opportunity
to give( sufficient attention to these opera-
tions,) do not see how we in this House
can td te a position that we should not
be ac d )untable in detail for the funds
whichl.ve spend in order to carry out our
We function.
The! chairman of the Committee on
Goveri ment Operations was kind
etiougl to request comments regarding
this 14:islation, which I presented, from
the Grneral Accounting Office, from the
Comrh.ttee on House Administration,
and ft )m the Architect of the Capitol.
The fdrmer two seemed to favor it, the
latter labjected. At an appropriate time
in thei e proceedings I will ask permis-
sion oi the House that these replies to
the coiamittee be inserted in the RECORD.
Hower, it is my understanding at this
point that the chairman of the Commit-
tee on Government Operations, whom I
should like to thank for his courtesy to
me, his not scheduled or at least has
given le no intention of scheduling hear-
ings li this measure. That is why I
have Olt forced to take this opportunity
and this method of bringing the matter
up for the consideration of the House.
I si)icerely hope the committee will
give tt is amendment its serious consid-
eratioi . Even though on the surface
it may appear not only simple but un-
meaningful to many, actually I believe
It will be a long step on the road to re-
building the confidence in the reputation
of this House in certain quarters where
It has been torn down in recent months.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BARRY. I wish to commend the
gentleman for bringing this accounting
aspect to. the attention of the House at
this time.
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, my remarks relating to H.R. 8986
will be very brief. This bill, designed to
provide comparable salaries to postal and
other career employees of the Federal
Government has considerable merit.
The section pertaining to postmasters
altering their work week appropriately
recognizes an employment policy con-
sistent with private enterprise trends.
I find no quarrel with these objectives.
There are many Members of Congress,
myself included, who would like to sup-
port this basic adjustment in compensa-
tion as we did for the military, early this
year. However, with the $10,000 salary
increase included for Congressmen in
title U, I cannot, in good conscience, vote
for the bill. With a firm commitment
to my constituency to do everything
within my power to balance the budget,
any vote to increase congressional sal-
aries wculd have to wait until this ob-
jective is reached.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from Ari-
zona [Mr. UomiLl.
Mr. T.IDALL. Mr. Chairman, about a
year ago it became apparent to me that
if we 'acre going to have an efficient,
businesslike Federal Government, we
were going to have to completely restruc-
ture the Federal salary system, and to do
this we would have to change the salaries
of Members of Congress.
The gentleman from Virginia 1Mr.
Baoviiiiir.1 and I stopped and hesitated
a moment, and we decided this was good
legislation and we put our names on it
and we sponsored these bills. Eventually
they were reported out. The gentleman
from Louisiana sponsored a similar bill.
and that is the bill which is before us.
All this talk you are hearing today is
about 1 percent of this bill. The salaries
of the Members of Congress, $5.4 million.
are just 1 percent of the cost of this bill.
It reminds me of the two drunk who
started out of the bar and staggered down
the sidewalk. The only obstruction in
the whole block was one lamppost. They
walked up headon into it. They stag-
gered back and started again and ran
into it again. The third time they hit
it and staggered back and one fellow
said, "My dear friend, we are lost in an
impenetrable forest."
That is the situation here. No one
wants to talk about the other provisions
of this bill and what a good bill it is and
what it will do for efficiency and good
management in the Federal Government.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 :_CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4745
Some of our colleagues say, "How can
I possibly go home and tell my constitu-
ents I voted for a pay raise and I sup-
ported this bill?"
My answer is?Go home and tell them
the facts. This will not be the first bill
that you have to explain. On the face
of it, it may have some bad features, but
give them the facts and tell them this is
a good bill. Tell them it is a good bill for
the taxpayers. Tell them it is a good
bill for the country, and tell them it is a
good bill all the way around.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have
sponsored legislation of this kind. This
legislation will do more to improve the
Federal Government and upgrade the
Federal establishment than anything we
have considered in a long, long time.
I am one of those who has some faith
in the good sense of the American peo-
ple. I do not know of a businessman or
a newspaper editor or of a constituent
since I introduced this bill who has taken
the time to study it who has not come
out and said, "I will support it."
This legislation is needed. It is nec-
essary legislation and it is good legisla-
tion. The American people believe that
a man ought to be worthy of his hire and
the American people are ready and will-
ing to pay the Members of their House
of Representatives who have such awe-
some responsibilities a salary that is
commensurate with the heavy obligations
of the position, with a 16-hour day in
many, many cases, and with a half mil-
lion people whose demands must be met.
Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that the
Constitution makes us, the Members of
Congress, the only people in the Federal
Establishment who have to fix their own
salaries. I am sorry it is that way. But
let us face up to our resporisibilties and
let us not shirk them.
Of course, most of the people in my
district know that I have sponsored this
legislation already and before the festivi-
ties next November 3, I am sure my op-
ponent will tell every last one of them
in every last hamlet, village, and town
about it. Of course, there will be the
demagogs who will attack each one of
you who supports the bill. Of course,
there will be uninformed editors who will
write editorials and there will be wise-
cracks such as you have heard today
about this being part of the war on pov-
erty. And you will hear all the rest of
It, but this is not the first vote or the
last vote that people will criticize. Maybe
I can fortify some of you with a story we
ran across irrour hearings. The late Sam
Rayburn, one of the great men of the
United States in the Congress, voted to
raise his pay back in the early thirties or
late twenties from $7,500 to $10,000. He
went home as he used to tell the story,
and was out at a little smoker in the
backwoods of Texas. His opponent criti-
cized him rather bitterly for voting for
his pay increase. Mr. Sam said to the as-
semblage, in words and in the kind of
earthy language that I cannot use here?
but in substance he said to them, "I came
to the Congress when the pay was $7,500.
I wanted the job. I would be glad to serve
on the job for $5,000. I am going to be
happy next year to go back and serve
on the job at $10,000. But my opponent
did not want the job when it paid only
$7,500. He did not run for the job. But
now when the pay is raised to $10,000, he
is here asking for the position."
Someone might ask why this is a good
bill and what are the good features of it?
Many of them have been discussed. This
is the first attempt in history to make
sense of the Federal salary system and
have a logical, orderly, and interrelated
relationship of the Federal salary sys-
tems in the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches. It will put into the
law effectively this principle of compar-
ability which will avoid for each of you,
if we can make it work, this harum-
scarum election-year increase for postal
workers and classified workers because
we will have orderly, annual, rational
adjustments every year based on the
principle of comparability which is a
sound principle.
This will correct an injustice to thou-
sands of able civil servants at the top
levels who devote their lives and dedi-
cate themselves to Federal service, when
they could be making far much more
money in private enterprise.
I am tired of Congress downgrading it-
self and downgrading the Federal Es-
tablishment. We are important people.
The chairmen of the great Committee
on Armed Services, Committee on Ways
and Means, and Committee on Appro-
priations, deal with the lives and safety
of the people of our whole Nation. They
deal with $100 billion a year. Yet we pay
them, because somehow we are timid,
salaries which are preposterous.
The Secretary of State of New York,
who issues barbers' licenses among other
duties, is paid $28,000, or $3,000 more
than Secretary Dean Rusk is paid.
The police chief of Chicagd ig paid
$30,000 a year. What do we pay Bob
McNamara, who is charged with the safe-
ty of the whole country? We pay him
$5,000 less. J. Edgar Hoover, who has a
14,000-man establishment for the pro-
tection of internal security, is paid $8,000
less than the police chief of Chicago is
paid.
We pay the Director of the Veterans'
Administration, who manages 151 hos-
pitals, less than any self-respecting board
of directors of a hospital would pay for
management of one hospital. That good
man is paid $21,000.
I could go on and on, but I will give
one more example and then quit.
Two years ago we created the Satel-
lite Communications Corporation, a Fed-
eral corporation with private participa-
tion. They went out to get the best
brains they could. They picked a pres-
ident. He is being paid $25,000 a year
more than the President of the ;United
States is paid, and yet not a word of
complaint has been heard. The execu-
tive officer, who is a former Under Sec-
retary of the Air Force and was paid
$20,000, is now getting $80,000. Is his
job four times more important in the
Satellite Communications Corporation as
his job was when he was the Under Sec-
retary of the Air Force?
It has been said over and over again
that we need good business management
in the Federal Government. I agree.
But let us consider this argument. The
Federal Government is the largest or-
ganization of its kind in the world. Its
decisions affect the lives, security, and
property of 190 million Americans and
people all around the world.
Federal salaries are out of line. Wash-
ington, D.C., is a happy hunting ground
for the private corporations. When a
man works in one of the Federal agen-
cies and begins to show promise?to
shake it up and make it efficient?he then
goes out to private enterprise or to some
State government, at double his previ-
ous salary.
Do you know what is paid, according
to this survey, for positions of equivalent
responsibility to GS-18 in private cor-
porations? Forty-four thousand dollars
is the average pay in private industry
for the responsibility a person has as a
GS-18.
So I ask these questions: What kind of
businessman would stand by while his
key- executives were hired away by his
competitors? What kind of businessman
would refuse to increase his payroll by
one-twentieth of 1 percent in order to
keep his key plant manager, his sales
force, and his comptroller? What kind
of businessman would stand for the kind
of turnover we have seen in the Civil
Aeronautics Board, a very important
agency regulating a multibillion-dollar
business? Thirteen of the last twenty-
one members have stayed an average of
3 years, though the term is 6 years. They
stay only long enough to get a good job,
and then they move on into private en-
terprise.
What kind of businessman would put
the temptation and pressure of handling
billions of dollars in defense contracts,
down in the Defense Department, in the
hands of men paid $18,000, $19,000, or
$20,000 a year, when they are making
decisions for 4 or 5 years ahead to affect
every taxpayer in the country?
Let me carry this argument a bit fur-
ther, and put the whole thing into focus.
Let us suppose we are talking about a
small corporation. The small corpora-
tion has $3.1 million debt, a comparison
to our $310 billion debt. Let us say it
plans to spend $980,000 and to take in
about $940,000, so it will have to borrow
$40,000. It is a $3 million corporation.
Its annual payroll is $140,000, in my ex-
ample, compared to the $14 billion in the
Federal payroll.
For an expenditure this year of $500?
that is all it amounts to compared to a
$140,000 payroll?for my hypothetical
corporation?this company could keep
its key executives, could give them raises
sufficient to keep the good men on the
job; and, for an additional $5,000 in a
$140,000 payroll, it could meet its com-
petition by keeping its key workers down
in the plant happy, and keep them on
the Job.
Let me say one thing more: There has
been a lot of talk on this business of
whether or not we will have a rollcall
vote. I do not care whether we do or not.
My position has been made very clear.
I resent .a little bit those who are not
content to state their own position, but
want to tell other Members what they
must do. Any Member of this House,
who wants to go on record, can march
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4746 Approved ForReimeipM16,: GIA:ROP66BQ0403R000500050001-9
AL ? HOUSE March 11
down here and insert his remarks in
the Raman and let his people know
where you stand.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. BARRY] a member of the
committee.
(Mr. BARRY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, before
I begin my analysis of what others have
thought about the pay legislation. I
would like to quote from President
George Washington in 1796, which quo-
tation appears on page 368 of the hear-
ings. He said at that time:
The compensation of the various officers
of the United States in various instances,
and in none more than in respect to the
most Important stations, appears to call for
legislative revision. ? ? ? It would be re-
pugnant to the vital principles of our Gov-
ernment virtually to exclude from public
trusts talents and virtue unless accompan-
ied by wealth.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a non-
partisan bill. This bill had its genesis
In a study of Federal employee wages
begun by President Einsenhower. If
you will recall, a few years ago many
of us in the last year of President Eisen-
hower's adininistration voted against a
pay raise because we did not want to
prejudice the bill with the 7-percent in-
crease that was voted at that time over
the President's veto of the bill which
was passed by the Congress. Remarks
have been made concerning the Presi-
dent having the power in this bill to
change salary levels as he wills. I sub-
mit to you that the only Presidential
authority in this bill to change salary
levels is in levels IV to VI. In these
levels the President has the power only
to change from 826.500 to $29.500. So I
take a very dim view of those who would
oppose this bill because it gives too much
Presidential authority that is felt not to
be merited. Certainly, if we demand
that the President of the United States
confirm these people in the Senate. we
would allow the Executive, whether he
be Democrat or Republican, the discre-
tion to determine between a $26,500
amount and a $29,500 amount; and that
is all this bill does.
Now, just what have some former
Eisenhower administration officials
thought about this bill? I invite your
attention to page 363 of the hearing
where the President of Procter tz Gam-
ble Co., Neil McElroy, former Secretary
of Defense, in a letter to the gentleman
from Tennessee Mr. MURRAY] recently.
He said:
I am sure it Is generally realized that the
pay reform proposals of the pending legis-
lation not only are supported by the present
administration but also conform to recom-
mendations by President Eisenhower during
his incumbency.
`I hen Mr. Elroy went on to say that
they are long overdue and merit the sup-
port of every American interested in good
government.
What did Mr. Eisenhower say about
this himself? On page 367, he says, and
I quote:
If wet Ire to retain in Government service
the highly skilled and able civilian employees
who col _tribute so much to the Nation's
strength it Is clear that certain revisions are
needed In the statutory pay structures for
these erl pioyees.
This s what this bill will accomplish.
You hare heard much today about
comparldile salaries, and I will not re-
peat tie defense, but I would like to re-
mind the Members of this body that
Federal contractors?if you will examine
your report further?are indirectly paid
salaried of $23,000 to $45,000. This
demon d rates that if we cannot afford to
buy thd kind of technical skills required
or do ni t have the funds available to do
it undet the right salary structure, they
are boitht on the outside under a con-
tract. o, in effect, we do hire people
at higher salaries than they are cur-
rently (fuming in the executive depart-
ment ci the Government. This is a
calamiti and if we face up to our re-
sponsibt ities we will pass legislation to-
day that helps correct this practice.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minulys to the gentleman from New
Jersey VIr. DANIELS].
4.Mr. DANIELS asked and was given
permissim to revise and extend his
remark)
Mr. LIANTELS Mr. Chairman, I rise
in suppdi of H.R. 8986. I shall speak on
sectioa of the bill, the comparability
feature: For almost a year now we have
owed tlia postal and Federal employees
of this Dation a debt of honor. That
debt is tverdue. We must pay it.
As yeti know, in 1962 the Congress
passed it pay bill which became Public
Law 87-4'93. This was one of the most
importal t pieces of legislation ever to
affect die livelihood ? and welfare of
postal a4 d Federal employees. Sections
502 and 03 of that bill were designed to
set up, dace and for all, an orderly and
dignified way of providing that these
fine pece)le in the Government service
would h ceforth be able to earn a living
compardale to that being earned by peo-
ple in sitiilar jobs in private industry.
Mr. Cl airman, Public Law 87-793 was
designed to insert some order and scien-
tific appt ?aches to the postal and Fed-
eral pay, scales. It was designed to in-
sure our; loyal and dedicated workers a
comparaPe pay scale with those of
workers in private industry. It was de-
signed t4 eliminate the expensive and
wastefull biennial pay campaigns that
postal at d Federal employee organiza-
tions hal e been forced to mount every
year in cf -der to keep abreast of the eco-
nomic pfl!aile.
As we dl know, Mr. Chairman, work-
ers in plivate industry, by and large,
have tamer pay raises written into their
contracte They get these pay raises
regularly4 and quietly without public
fanfare. The Pay Reform Act of 1962?
Public LS w 87-793?was an attempt to
give posl ti and Federal employees the
same kin!!l of fair treatment that work-
ers in prt ate industry get as a matter of
COUI-SC.
In appi oving that legislation, the Con-
gress contracted a sacred obligation to
put post et and Federal pay on a scien-
tific, orde and dignified basis.
You vital remember, Mr. Chairman,
that when we passed Public Law 87-793,
it was the sense of the Congress that
comparability pay raises for postal and
Federal employees would be practically
automatic whenever the President of the
United States?acting on information
supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics?recommended such raises.
The late President Kennedy made such
a recommendation last April 29. We
have been very slow?too slow?in living
up to the obligations we contracted when
we passed the law in 1962.
Public Law 87-793 had one flaw in it
which is corrected in the present pay bill,
HR. 8986, which the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON] has intro-
duced. The law, as it was enacted, pro-
vided for a built-in time lag which would
give postal and Federal employees com-
parability, not with the wages in pri-
vate industry today, but with what they
were 2 to 3 years ago. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics based Its recommenda-
tions on data collected in late 1961 and
early 1962. The President made his rec-
ommendation to the Congress in April
1963, with the proviso that the proposed
pay raises would become effective on
January 1, 1964.
But workers in private industry had,
on an average, received two to three pay
raises in the interim. So the President's
proposal would leave postal and Federal
employees two or three pay raises be-
hind their civilian counterparts.
This legislation?HR. 8986?will give
these Government workers a wage scale,
at long last, roughly comparable with
wage scales in the private sector.
The Committee on Post Office and
Civil Serv:ce, of which I have the privi-
lege to be a member, has approved this
pay bill. It is now the task of the House
of Representatives as a whole to redeem
a pledge that we have permitted to
gather dust.
When the Congress approved the 1962
Pay Reform Act, only 21 Members of this
House voted against it. In the other
body, only six Members voted in the neg-
ative. Every person who voted affirma-
tively on this legislation contracted, as I
have said, a debt of honor payable to the
postal and Federal employees of the
United States. We have been careless in
recognizing this debt; we have been dila-
tory in paying it. Now the time has
come for us to act. The integrity of the
Congress is at stake, and it is our duty
to preserve that integrity among those
who deserve so well of us. Therefore I
urge all- of my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
10 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. MICHEL].
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given
permission to revise and eitend his re-
marks.1
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, it has
often been said in this game of politics
that it is not the big things that count
so much as the little things. Most of
the heat generated by the news media on
the legislation before us this afternoon
has to do with that part of the bill
which makes up only eight-tenths of
1 percent of the total in the bill and hav-
ing to do with increases in pay-for Mem-
bers of the Congress.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
--Approved FoeggimpAqwpigtitikiftpesffsgpm3R000500050001-9
I had occasion over the weekend to
read the bill and the report and must
say that some of its provisions did cause
me great concern, particularly with
respect to the Congress giving to the
President the power to arbitrarily set the
scale of pay for those in the higher
brackets of the executive branch, rather
than following the traditional pattern of
having the Congress set the scale. I must
say that I, too, was surprised to learn of
the increases that were in store for some
of our officers and employees of the Con-
gress, who have as a general rule shared
in the increases granted to the postal and
civil service employees over the past
several years. I was concerned, too, that
the total amount in the bill exceeded
President Johnson's budget figure.
I am glad, however, in listening to the
debate thus far to learn that the chair-
man, supported by his committee, will
offer an amendment to cut this overall
figure down to within a million dollars
of President Johnson's budget figure. I
certainly do not want to be in the posi-
tion this afternoon of voting to increase
the President's budget, for our Ap-
propriations Committee in all of the
department bills before us will be striv-
ing to keep our appropriations within
the President's guidelines and, moreover,
will be making substantial cuts where
they can be made.
Now in addressing myself to the most
controversial provision of this legislation,
which I say again embodies only eight-
tenths of 1 percent of the total amount
in the bill, I cannot help but recall the
convincing arguments for the last in-
crease made by our Speaker, who was
then majority leader, Mr. McCostmex,
our minority leader, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. HALLECK], the venerable
Martin Dies, of Texas, and others. I am
reminded, too, of a Member of this
House who at the very outset of the
debate in 1955 spoke out for increases
for everybody else but himself; and
while piously proclaiming that "public
office is a public trust. We are servants
of the people" And that Members of
Congress did not need a raise, he was
stashing away in 80 separate bank ac-
counts sums of money obviously from
other sources than straight salary to
Members of Congress?so much so that
he ultimately came under Federal in-
dictment for income tax evasion was
tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison.
Now there are those who have argued
and will continue to argue that one does
not have to run for Congress, that there
are always those ready to take his place
at the prevailing salary scale. There is
no question but that voting to increase
one's own salary is a very ticklish propo-
sition, but the Founding Fathers recog-
nized that changes would have to be
made from time to time by providing in
section 6, article 1 of the Constitution
that "the Senators and Representatives
shall receive a compensation for their
services, to be ascertained by law.".
And
And I would point out further to the
House, as to the constitutionality of an
effective date for a salary increase, that
at the time of the adoption of the first
10 amendments to the Constitution the
States refused to ratify a proposed
amendment that no law varying the
compensation of the Congress shall take
effect until an election shall have inter-
vened. The rejectioni of that proposed
amendment reflects the recognition on
the part of the people that occasion may
arise requiring adjustments in compen-
sation without procrastination; and
further I believe it removes the baseless
conception held by some persons that
it is unconstitutional to increase com-
pensation during the term of office.
Now I should like to address myself
to the problems confronting the younger
Members of this House with growing
families, and who are required to main-
tain not only a home in our district but
also one here in Washington as well.
Each Member has to determine for him-
self what is best for his family. My
wife and I prefer to have our children
educated and reared in the environment
of our home community of Peoria, which
causes me to be more or less a com-
muter. In the past year I made 25 trips
back and forth to my district-19 by
plane at a cost of approximately $111
for each round trip, six of them by car
at less cost, but with the attendant wear
and tear of driving the nearly 1,700 miles
round trip.
Now of this total of 25 trips back and
forth to the district, I was reimbursed for
only 3 and the balance came out of my
salary, just as you Members must like-
wise do for those trips over and above
the meager 3 provided for us. I do not
think this fact is known generally to
the public, for in talking with supposedly
well-informed people, I find that some
of them are under the illusion that we
do not even pay income taxes on our
salary and that all of our domestic
travel is paid for by the Government,
when such is clearly not the case.
Here in Washington I have just an
efficiency apartment for which the rent
last year was $2,700. With the $3,000
limitation imposed on Members of Con-
gress for the deduction they might take
on their income tax return for living
expenses in Washington, there was, as
you can see, only $300 left for food for
the entire year, not to mention the other
legitimate costs attendant with "travel
away from home," as provided for in the
Internal Revenue Code. We do not put
the traveling businessman under this
kind of limitation, and I for one cannot
understand why we are so reluctant to
lay the facts of life before our constitu-
ents and the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I come from the land of
Lincoln, and at the time when Lincoln
was a Member of this House, the pay
for Members of Congress was $6 a day.
There was actually a proposal to move
the Capitol to Georgetown in those days
because the room rent was only $8 a
week in Georgetown as against a $10-a-
week charge in the District of Columbia.
I do not propose to remedy our problem
by moving the site of the Nation's Capi-
tol, but I do say that we ought not be
afraid to face up to the facts of life and
tell the people about them as far as our
own personal problems are concerned.
Now over and above this, I have never
yet seen a campaign in which I have
been engaged in which I did not have to
4747
draw heavily upon my own financial re-
sources. And all of us spend varying
amounts for entertaining our visiting
constituents. I am sure that most, if not
all of us, support the religious faith and
church of our choice, but one would be
surprised of the number of solicitations
a Member of Congress receives for
church building funds going on through-
out his district. The same would hold
true for hospitals. Yes, and for every
little volunteer fireman's ball, PTA ba-
zaars, and what have you.
As I mentioned earlier, the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK] gave one
of the most compelling arguments for an
increase in 1955 when he recounted the
days of his first coming to Washington
with a growing family, and I would say
that in addition to this big problem of
movement back and forth from the Dis-
trict, these year-round sessions foreclose
Members from the opportunity of par-
ticipating in their own businesses, in their
agricultural pursuits, or in any kind of
law practice. As a matter of fact, one
gets to that point where he has to make
the choice as to whether he would like
to continue in public service or go back
to his business, industrial, agricultural,
or professional pursuit, because we are
no longer able to supplement our income
when Congress stays in session all year
long.
I have often said that this is a much
more acceptable job if one has no chil-
dren or is at the age where his children
are through school, married and on their
own. But it must be said, too, in sup-
port of a pay raise for the older more
experienced Members of this House that
a married Member with no children and
no other income who files a joint return
with his wife pays a Federal income tax
on his current salary of $5,394, and that
under the provisions of this bill, his
Federal income tax will be $9,601, or a
net income after taxes of $22,899, a net
increase, then, in take-home pay of
$5,793.
Earlier in the year I had occasion to
read into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a
report of our findings on salaries of pub-
lic officials at the Federal, State, and
local level that were in excess or equal
to that paid to Members of Congress.
That report appeared in the RECORD on
July 18, 1963, with a supplement August
19, 1963, and those figures are, of course,
already outdated. But it did disclose
that there were better than 2,000 pub-
lic officials at the Federal, State, county,
and local levels drawing salaries, exclu-
sive of any fringe benefits, over and
above that paid to Members of Congress,
and those figures ranged from $22,500 to
$60,000.
Mr. Chairman, one of the great re-
wards I have found in serving in this
House is that? regardless of special in-
terest and political pressures brought to
bear upon us, I have been free to speak
my mind, vote my conscience, and stand
for principles in which I strongly believe.
I happen to believe that our constitu-
ents would prefer that we be financially
independent to call the shots here as we
see them regardless of the pressures, in-
ducements, and enticements and a salary
level commensurate with our ever-in-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4748 Approved FordslcmAigypat8kRob.gya6fetigiR000500050001-9 -karat ii
creasing responsibilities will enable
Members of the Congress to remain
"free agents" to discharge our obliga-
tions as best we see them.
In view of the assurances given to us
by the committee that amendments will
be offered to bring this bill in line with
the President's budget figure, I shall
vote for the bill and would implore my
colleagues to be strong, stiffen up, and
do likewise.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman. I yield
such time as he may desire to the gen-
tleman from Mississippi [Mr. ABER-
NETHY].
(Mr. ABERNETHY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman,
it has been years now since the Federal
Government operated within its Income.
Year after year we have added to the
national debt and just as often we have
again and again advanced the national
debt ceiling.
This would be regarded as a poor way
to run a business. It is just as poor a
way of operating a government. The
time has come to put the business of this
Government in order. It is up to us to
reduce spending and to begin making
substantial payments on the national
debt. If the Congress has any idea of es-
tablishing a sensible and responsible
fiscal policy, then the time to begin is
now and the means of doing it Is to
defeat this bill.
Mr. Chairman. I have for years advo-
cated, worked for and developed a voting
record in favor of a balanced budget.
On numerous occasions I have voted
against proposals, programs, and salary
raises, all of which had merit, on the
ground that the Federal Treasury was
unable to bear the burdens thereof.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, will cost $600
million. To lay it aside would go a long.
long way toward balancing the Federal
budget. Indeed, this is what we ought to
do.
Sometime ago, this administration
committed itself to a program of econ-
omy. While . I applaud the example, I
can tell you now it is going to take more
than turning off a few light to carry
through on the promise. Passage of the
tax cut bill was tied to a promise that
Federal expenditures would be reduced.
The Congress should see to it that this
commitment is met. To pass this $600
million pay raise bill on the heels of that.
commitment would amount to a breach
of faith with the American txapayers.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the
passage of this bill is bound to set off
demands for comparable increases in
wages, salaries, and profits throughout
the country. This means more inflation
and in the end further loss to everyone.
The salary increases provided for in
this bill are neither justified nor neces-
sary. Government pay is good. The
Civil Service Commission is not encoun-
tering any trouble at all in recruiting sat-
isfactory employees for the Federal serv-
ice. I have not heard of anyone, from
the highest Cabinet officer down to the
lowest paid employee, quitting because of
the level of salary.
We shetad vote this bill down and get
on with tte essential business of the Con-
gress. Flirthermore, Mr. Chairman,
there shonld be a rollcall vote on the bill.
I, for onei will stand in favor of such,
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such tine! as be may desire to the gentle-
man froila South Carolina [Mr. ASH-
MORE). :
(Mr. AUHMORE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ASIINIORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposn ion to the pending bill which
would ind rease the salary of all Federal
employeet, including members of the
President{ s Cabinet, Supreme Court
Judges, a 1 members of the Federal ju-
diciary aid Members of Congress. I op-
pose this! All, first, because the proposed
Increase t'or the Members of Congress
and othet high officials is exorbitant and
unreasonl bly large.
In the: beginning of our Government
one of the leaders said:
Salaries' should be fixed in the middle-
ground wiere dignity blends with economy.
I beliet,-e this statement is practical
and base4 on commonsense. The present
salary op Congressmen and Federal
judges?$32,500 per year?is a middle-
ground ttlary under our present day
economy; A Congressman can live on
this sal$ y in dignity, provided he is
economienl, and certainly, we should all
be econoely minded today with the cost
of local, Rate. and Federal Government
inereasinl- almost every year. Our pres-
ent natiol.al debt has now reached an all-
time hig$ of approximately $312 billion.
In an efOrt to reduce this tremendous
debt and also bring the Federal Budget
Into balance, President Johnson has an-
nounced that Federal expenditures for
fiscal 19($i will be less than they were for
fiscal 19firl. I, and many other Members
of the Huse, have applauded the efforts
of our Pi esident to reduce Federal ex-
penditures and thus make a Federal tax
cut feasitle and practical. Inasmuch as
I have vciod to reduce taxes and pledged
myself te support the President's pro-
gram of :reduction in Federal expendi-
tures, I :cannot consistently and con-
Retention} ly vote for this bill, which pro-
vides foi salary increase of more than
one-half' Mon dollars annually.
The pii.nt is made by many who sup-
port thisi legislation that higher salaries
would lartng better men to Congress. If
my menilry serves me correctly, this
same ura ound argument was made in
1954 whi n congressional salaries were
last raised. Since that raise went into
effect. I have not noticed any improve-
ment in :he caliber of those of us who
have Qui honor to serve as Members of
Congres..4 On the contrary, there are
many int tances today, as well as in the
past, whi re well qualified citizens have
given up high positions to serve for less
money in the President's Cabinet, the
Supreme Court, Federal Judiciary and
the Seni te and House of Represent-
atives. lien of this capacity have freely
surrendeped large incomes so that they
might aci.:ept positions of greater honor,
trust an service in the Government of
their col ritry.
Yes, there is abundant evidence to
prove that money alone does not bring
the best men to Congress, or to other
offices of great responsibility in our Gov-
ernment. It is simply love of country
and the willingness to sacrifice some of
the material things in life that prompts
so many people of great mental ability
to enter the service of our great demo-
cratic Government.
This bill provides for an increase of
$10,000 per year for each Member of
Congress, Federal judges, and even
larger increases for members of the Su-
preme Court, the President's Cabinet,
and others. I wish to emphasize the fact
that a majority of my voting constit-
uents do not receive as much as $10,000
in wages or salary per year. Yet, many
Members will vote today to increase
their own salary in the sum of $10,000
annually. I hope that this simple com-
parison will point out to all of my col-
leagues the inherent dangers involved in
the passage of this bill, both from an
economical and political point of view.
In my opinion, if Congress expects to
hold the respect and confidence of the
people of this country, it should defeat
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I wish to
call my colleagues attention to an edi-
torial in the Greenville News of Green-
ville, S.C., dated March 9, 1964. The
editor of this great newspaper has
clearly expressed the conservative view-
point on this question:
ECONOMY BEGINS--SOMEWBERE ELSE
If the reader had thought that the ulti-
mate in congressional extravagance was ex-
pressed In the $83 million-plus office build-
ing the House is constructing for one-third
of its Members he is advised that this
optimism is unwarranted.
The Senators and Representatives are not
yet through with throwing your money
away.
Next they plan to throw a little of it their
way.
The House Rules Committee, that bastion
of conservatism, has cleared the way for a
bill to raise the salaries of most Federal
employees, including Supreme Court Justices
(they deserve a raise), Cabinet members, and
other top Washington officials.
Also included Is an increase of $10,000 per
year for guess who??why, the Congressmen,
of course.
This is an increase of a whopping 44 per-
cent for the salons since 1955 when they gave
themselves another raise which almost
doubled their pay.
To be Jumped from $12,500 to $32,500 in
less than 10 years is not bad, not bad at all.
Especially considering that the cost of liv-
ing has risen only some 15 percent since the
last pay hike.
What the Congressmen figure they have
done to deserve this munificent treatment
at the har,ds of the taxpayers is beyond
US. The last time we listened most of them
were crying, not only for more economy in
government but also about the sad state of
things In Washington generally.
The gap between preaching and practice
Is rather readily apparent, however.
Of course the Congressmen have more than
the necessary quota of people telling them
to go ahead and raise their salary. These
range from the usual sycophants who tell
them how great they are, to the natural-born
spenders who have a mystic attachment to
squandered tax money, to the union bosses
who know that few can vote against an in-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FornAtitstesg?8N0A5t1 WiEENINP69M3R000500050001-9
4749
crease in minimum wages if they have voted
for an increase in congressional wages.
The net result is that the clamor for
frugality is pretty well drowned out by the
exhortations of self-interest.
It will take a greater noise to be heard
above the din. If this kind of thing keeps
on much longer, the incumbent Congress-
men may hear it at the ballot boxes.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. CELLER].
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I shall
briefly speak on the question of increased
salaries for judges. We dare not be nig-
gardly in our compensation to our
judges. The laborer is worthy of his
hire. Our judges are laborers in the
vineyards of the law and worthy of their
hire. We should not belittle their work
by underrating their value.
Economy is one thing; parismony is
another. It is false economy to devalue
their worth. It is parsimony to excise
the bill's increase.
I am informed that somebody will of-
fer an amendment to strike out the
,provision about judicial salaries. Such
action would lessen their dignity, wound
their pride, and affect their standing.
It is vainglorious to place a cheap tag
upon them.
Emerson said:
We often pay dear for a small frugality.
Unless we increase judicial salaries,
lawyers of standing, attainment, and
rare ability, who are much needed on
the bench, will refrain from making the
sacrifice in wearing the ermine of judi-
cial office.
You cannot catch flies with vinegar.
Advance in pay ,js the honey that will
attract. Salary, of course, is not the only
attraction for acceptance of judgeship.
These are prestige and opportunity to
render services. Justice is the bread of
the Nation, because everyone hungers
for it, but it cannot be had cheaply.
You cannot buy the experience needed
on the bench for a song, nor the wisdom
required for a will-o'-the-wisp.
Remember the safety of our people lies
In our courts. The courthouse is the
repository of our liberties. And it is the
judge who must know how to apply the
"never-changing principles of freedom
to the ever-changing conditions" of this
Nation. We need the best judicial talent
obtainable.
Judges are no different than we are.
As Shakespeare has it, "he is fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weap-
ons, subject to the same diseases, healed
by the same means, warmed and cooled
by the same winter and summer as we
are."
The present era of inflation has
caught up with him as with us. He too
must pay the premium on his life in-
surance. He too must pay the interest
on his mortgage. He too must pay for
the education of his children. He too
must pay the increases for food and
raiment. He too must pay the install-
ment due on his auto. He too must Pay
his income taxes. We must do unto him
as we do unto ourselves. We would in-
deed be selfish brutes if we raised our
salaries and not theirs.
No. 44-4
I would much rather cancel out this
bill in its entirety than deprive our
judges of a much needed hike in salary.
I desire a satisfied, happy, contended
judiciary than one disgruntled and un-
happy. It is no answer to say they have
life tenure.
Then we should have never raised their
emolument above $7,500?that was the
amount of salary accorded a U.S. district
judge when I was elected to Congress
.42 years ago. That was our salary also.
By easy stages the salaries of district
judges were raised to $10,000, 1926; to
$17,500, 1946; to $22,500, 1955. Our in-
creases paralleled theirs. With each ju-
dicial salary advance bill we heard the
same argument?life tenure?each time
we cast that argument into limbo. We
now hear it again as a sort of echo from
limbo.
It should have no weight?no more
weight than a feather in a high wind.
Unlike Members of Congress, judges
cannot practice law and thus supple-
ment their salary. Their outside activi-
ties are restricted. They must pretty
well stick to their judicial knitting.
Felix Frankfurter said:
A judge should be compounded of the
faculties that are demanded of the historian
and the philosopher and the prophet. The
last demand upon him?to make some fore-
cast of the consequences of his action?is
perhaps the heaviest. To pierce the curtain
of the future, to give shape and visage to
mysteries still in the womb of time is the
gift of imagination. These judges must
have something of the creative artist in
them; they must have antennas registering
feeling and judgment beyond logical, let
alone quantitative, proof.
Do you suppose you can procure such
judges for a shilling a piece? No in-
deed. If a judge is to be historian, phi-
losopher and prophet, he must be paid
accordingly.
A good judge stands against unjust
winds that blow, as a haven of refuge
for those who might otherwise suffer,
because they are helpless or weak or out
numbered or because they refuse to con-
form to prejudice or are the victims of
intolerance.
A judge rendering such invaluable
service is a good judge, entitled to a good
salary. Happily our courts abound in
such judges.
Our judiciary in our land is second to
none. Let our pride in our judiciary
equal the length and content of a fair
purse. The increases set for our judges
are fair and equitable.
-Why is a Justice of the highest Court
In our land paid less than most of the?
successful members of the bar appearing
before him earn in fees?
Furthermore, unless we make the judi-
ciary attractive financially, then only
the scions of wealth will aspire to judge-
ships. Then we shall set up a sort of
judiciary aristocracy?a fate I would not
with upon our Nation. We cannot afford
to have only rich men man our judicial
Stations.
We must pay salaries that provide en-
couragement to men and women of the
highest ability, dedication, legal train-
ing, judicial temperment and conviction
about the American way of life.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[ Mr. Poor.].
Mr. POOL. Mr. Chairman, I have
consistently advocated upward adjust-
ments in the pay of employees in the
lower grades of the postal service and
Classification Act schedules. Federal
employees should be paid comparable
salaries as those paid in private industry.
However, when I voted in committee on
H.R. 8986 in November of last year
against the bill, I felt that only the first
five grades of the Classification Act and
the first four levels of the postal service
should be raised. I felt that other
raises should be delayed until the Fed-
eral budget was balanced. Today our
President, Lyndon B. Johnson, has cut
the deficit by one-half and has proposed
a budget of less than $100 billion. His
philosophy shows every sign of good
sound fiscal governmental responsibility.
In fairness and fair play, I feel now if the
proposed amendments are adopted?and
I feel they will be?that the bill will be
reduced to come within the President's
budget, and I will support the bill if it
is so reduced.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from South Carolina [Mr. Dorm].
(Mr. DORN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, the Con-
gress must set the example for the rest
of the Government and for the people
of the country. In opposing this pay
raise bill, I do so because the Congress
must set the example of economy, fru-
gality, and restraint.
Inflation is still a great threat to the
security of our country and welfare of
our people. I fear cheap money more
than I fear the Communists. The Con-
gress must provide for the American peo-
ple a sound dollar. We must have a bal-
anced national budget. Someone must
sacrifice if our economy is to be main-
tained and our Nation preserved.
This bill, in providing a tremendous
Increase in salary for members of the
Supreme Court and a $10,000 annual in-
crease in salary for each Member of
Congress, is not the way to stop inflation.
If we pass this bill, it will be the signal
throughout the country for wage in-
creases, and price increases; and none
in the Congress could argue against it.
Many organizations who are advocating
the passage of this bill know that Con-
gress, if it passes this legislation, will be
In a compromising position.
The people are looking to their Rep-
resentatives in this Congress to put a
stop to wild Federal spending at home
and abroad. We cannot do the job if
we are to increase our own salary by
$10,000. The people are looking to us
to put the bridle on the Supreme Court,?
not to pat them on the back for outlaw-
ing prayer, Bible reading, and God in
our schools and other sinister decisions,
by increasing their salary by $10,000.
The people appreciate the fact that
the Congress worked long and hard last
year for economy in Government. I be-
lieve the people were proud that we
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-R10P66130_4_Q?000500050001-9
4750 CONGRESiIONAL RECORD ? HOU Mulch 11
stayed in session right up to the Christ-
mas holidays in order to do what we
thought was right. I know the people
have confidence in their duly elected
Representatives. But, Mr. Chairman, we
will undo all of our good work by voting
to increase our own salary.
Mr. Chairman, I simply do not believe
It is right to vote for our own salary in-
crease and make it almost immediately
effective.
Mr. Chairman. I cannot and will not
support this bill.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from Illinois Mr. Gavel.
(Mr. GRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
[Mr. GRAY addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. CHARLES H. WiesoNJ.
Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in wholehearted sup-
port of the legislation before us and
also to express my support for the
amendments which the chairman of the
committee [Mr. MURRAY] will submit
later during consideration of the bill un-
der the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a very re-
warding experience for me during this,
my first term in the Congress, to have
participated in the lengthy hearings and
executive discussions from which has
emerged the legislation now before the
House.
I sincerely believe that any reasoned
analysis of this legislation cannot help
but lead to an equally reasoned con-
clusion that HR. 8986 is extremely de-
sirable legislation and that it should be
enacted promptly.
H.R. 8986 modernizes every major Fed-
eral statutory salary system. Its primary
objective is the implementation of the
comparability principle which the Con-
gress committed the Federal Govern-
ment to in 1962. It also provides reason-
able salary adjustments for Federal
executives, judges, and Members of Con-
gress that maintain proper and neces-
sary pay distinctions between these of-
ficials and so-called career employees.
We have heard argument advanced
here this afternoon that we cannot
afford to enact pay adjustment legisla-
tion at a time when our President is
engaged in promoting the strictest econ-
omy in all governmental operations. It is
my considered judgment that this legis-
lation is completely in accord with the
President's economy progam and I sub-
mit that we simply cannot afford not to
enact it.
The President himself has recognized,
as all able administrators do, that econ-
omy achieved at the expense of low
wages is illusory. A pay system that does
not permit the Federal Government to
recruit the best qualified personnel and
encourage them to make careers of serv-
ice to their Government, and which
does not promote increased productiv-
ity?which destroys morale?cannot in
any terlis of good management be con-
sidered $is contributing to economy.
Recogtaizing this, President Johnson
In his btidget message to the Congress in
January in a much quoted statement,
said, ant I quote:
Athoug tt this budget is deliberately restric-
tive. I cave concluded that Government
economy; will he best served by an upward
adJustrnitit In salaries.
The Resident recommended salary ad-
justment s on the basis of comparability
for carter employees, along with in-
creased rates for Federal executives, the
Congreaa and the judiciary, to bring
their sallary levels "more nearly corn-
mensure te with their respective respon-
sibilitiet " For this purpose, he allo-
cated a amount of 8545 million in the
fiscal 145 budget.
Mr, -chairman, in the private sector
of our ..,conomy pay raises are always
conside -ed in the light of productivity.
I think it is quite important, therefore,
that w ascertain if this legislation is
justifie4 an the basis of the productivity
of our 'ederal Government work force.
First kf all, the record shows that Gov-
ernme employment, except for sea-
sonal u s and downs, has remained fairly
static it the past 10 years. This is true
despite ?: he fact that our total population
has inci eased appreciably, and that the
Federal Government has undertaken a
complesity of new and vastly expensive
mission some of which would have been
beyond eomprehension 10 years ago.
In 19? 6, there were 19 civilian workers
serving. each 1,000 American citizens.
The ntanber dropped to 14 by 1956, and
today I is down to 13?a 31-percent de-
crease. If we were to subtract all em-
ployees working in Defense, the postal
service and the Veterans' Administra-
tion, tisa Federal Government, for all Its
varied and important new activities,
would 3c employing less people than
the tel >hone industry.
It is pertainly interesting to note that
in May 1960, the Post Office Department,
in con.ult.ation with management ex-
perts. tade an objective projection of
emplo nent in the Post Office Depart-
ment r the next 5 years. Under the
projection, it was predicted that total
postal employment on June 30, 1963,
would be 614,000. This was the mini-
mum number of employees it was felt
would xe necessary to maintain proper
postal ervice in the face of a rapidly
inereaa ng population and a consequent
increa4c in mail volume. The actual fig-
ures sow that employment as of June
30, 19 3 in the Post Office Department
was 51.008-27,000 persons less than
the en 1 )loyment estimated in May 1960.
More artling, certainly, is the fact that
In .1 year 1963 the Post Office De-
partme at handled 67.9 billion pieces of
n increase of 1.4 billion pieces
over fit cal year 1962?and that it han-
dled t Is huge increase with less em-
ployee ?1.316 to he exact?than were
on th payroll in the preceding year.
Ce .inly, the record is clear that the
Fcder Government as an employer need
make t 0-apology for the production out-
put of its employees.
Mr. Chairman, the weight of the eco-
nomic facts of life support the enact-
ment of this legislation. I repeat that
H.R. 8986 is not only consistent with
-Government economy, but that it will
contribute to economy and this is not a
fraudulent statement. We simply can-
not afford not to pass this legislation if
we are to keep faith to our commitments
that Federal salaries shall be compara-
ble, where possible, to private industry
salaries and if we are to promote effi-
ciency and economy in Government.
(Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Ma. Gmt-e].
Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, my col-
leagues tell me that as a Member of this
House who is not seeking reelection to
the Congress, I should be able to view
the legislation before us today in a com-
pletely objective manner. I can only
say to them it is not that easy; in fact,
my departure from the wars of this body
at the end of the present term makes my
decision on this Federal pay bill more
difficult. There are political facts of life
that almost dictate the decisions of a
candidate on legislative questions of this
kind. As a noncandidate?and I say this
with no disrespect of our political proc-
esses?the influencing considerations
seem to be more numerous.
For this reason I am deeply interested
in the actions that will be taken on this
Federal salary bill today. There are
parts of the measure which I find objec-
tionable. I am concerned by its high
cost at a time when taxes are being cut
and efforts are being made elsewhere to
reduce Federal spending through the
curtailment and consolidation of Federal
programs.
There are such obvious inequities in
the bill that they lead inevitably to the
question: Was the measure carefully and
properly drawn? I call particular atten-
tion to the fact that the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue could only be paid
under this bill at what is called execu-
tive level 4. This status, in my judg-
ment, unfairly, and improperly down-
grades the office of a man who reports
directly to the Secretary of the Treasury
and has, among his many duties, the ad-
ministration of our vast tax program
through the management of an agency
with mole than 60,000 employees in more
than 1,000 cities. Legislative history
has placed the office of Commissioner of
Internal Revenue at a level comparable
with that of an under secretary; yet this
bill we have before us today ranks the
office lower than that of the Director of
the Disarmament Agency, the Adminis-
trator of the Small Business Adminis-
tration, the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission and many others
whose management duties and personnel
responsibilities do not come close to
comparing with his.
I understand that an amendment will
be offered today to correct this particular
situation, but what of other possible in-
equities? Has enough consideration
been given in committee to the fact that
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 =, Approved MtitiuggaM5M6.11151112P481M03R000500050001-9
this will be the third increase in salaries
for Federal career employees in 15
months at a total cost of $1,650 million.
The purpose of this bill, of course, is to
carry out the intent of legislation
enacted during the 87th Congress to
bring Federal pay scales in line with
those paid in private industry. I am
told that this bill achieves that pur-
pose, but I am not sure the argument will
prove convincing to the $350 a month
secretaries in my congressional district.
On the other hand, I can see con-
siderable merit to many parts of the
bill?particularly the increases pro-
posed for Cabinet members and other
Federal executives, Federal judges, and
Members of the Congress. As one who
cannot profit by the raise because of its
effectiveness after my retirement, I am
convinced that these high officials of our
Government are deserving of greater
compensation for their services. It is
unfortunate that this particular part of
the bill has drawn the greatest criticism.
I hold in my hand a list of executive
salaries paid to their officers by many
of the leading industrial corporations in
the United States. This list shows that
four officials of the General Motors Corp.
were paid for their services in excess of
$500,000 ea'ch in 1962, and three other
officials of the company were paid in ex-
cess of $400,000 each. As you go down
this list you find executive after execu-
tive receiving from $100,000 to $200,000
annually. Even many State govern-
ments are offering better salaries to their
officials than the Federal Government.
Under these circumstances, it makes it
extremely difficult to ask men like De-
fense Secretary McNamara to give up a
far more lucrative salary, come to Wash-
ington and assume the awesome respon-
sibilities of Secretary of Defense for
$25,000 annually. Not many months ago
Postmaster General Day, charged with
the responsibility of running the world's
largest business at the same $25,000 an-
nual salary, had to resign as Postmaster
General because it was costing him more
money to serve than he was making. In
financial terms, he announced at the
time, that he had merely "run out of
gas."
Members of Congress and the Federal
judiciary have not received an increase
in pay since 1955. In that period there
have been six salary increases for em-
ployees of the Federal classified service
with a cumulative increase in pay of
approximately 51 percent.
I would hasten to add that we cannot
expect to pay our public servants or, as
Members of the Congress, to receive com-
pensation on a scale equal to that paid
in private enterprise. We will always
have to count on the dedication of a
citizen to the service of his country. But
it seems to me that we are going to have
to do something if we are to continue to
attract better men to the public service.
A more reasonable salary schedule would
certainly help.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY. I yield to the gentleman
from Alabama.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pending pay
raise bill. It was only a few weeks ago
that this House voted to reduce our in-
come tax. This reduction meant we
have decreased the Federal Govern-
ment's present revenue by over $11.5 bil-
lion for the next 2 years.
Such an action will obviously add mil-
lions to the already enormous national
debt. Now the pending bill proposes to
needlessly spend even more unearned
money. It is not only a have-your-cake-
and-eat-it-too scheme, but the cake is
expected to grow while it is eaten.
I am sure many Members of Congress
that supported the tax reduction did
so on the good faith the President
actually meant if the Congress actually
reduced taxes, the administration would
make a concerted effort to actually re-
duce spending. This pay raise bill
flouts its finger in the face of the Ex-
ecutive's promise. It is nothing but
foolish to reduce your income and at
the same time increase your bills.
Besides the fiscal danger of a pay raise,
such a move is not needed. Many Mem-
bers of Congress are making more now
than they could in the outside profes-
sions.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I take
this opportunity to commend the gentle-
man from Virginia on the points he has
made with reference to the Comissioner
of Internal Revenue. I am inclined to
agree with him and will support an
amendment to upgrade the salary level
of the Commissioner. He is directly re-
sPonsible to the Secretary of the Treas-
ury and responsible for 60,000 employees
in the collection of over $100 billion in
taxes. He is entitled to an increase.
Mr. GARY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Mis-
souri [Mr. JONES].
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I appreciate the many difficulties
in arriving at a satisfactory agreement
on any controversial bill, and certainly
this bill can qualify as being contro-
versial. Among those of us who oppose
this bill in its present form, you would
probably find almost as great a variety
of reasons as there will be votes against
the bill. I appreciate the courtesy of the
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY] in
allowing me the opportunity of making
these brief observations I will make, and
to point out the areas where I find my-
self in disagreement with the majority
of the committee.
May I say at the outset that I cannot
argue that there are not thousands of
employees throughout this Nation Who
are badly in need of a pay raise, and I
4751
would think that a majority of these are
employees in the Post Office Department.
I know that here in the District of Co-
lumbia, and in practically all of the
metropolitan centers of the Nation there
are clerks and carriers who, because of
their low salaries, are forced to seek em-
ployment in their off hours, and for their
wives to work to supplement the family
income. This problem becomes less
acute as we move to the smaller towns,
villages, and rural areas, where in some
of the smaller post offices the clerks and
rural route carriers are among the high-
est paid individuals in the community
on a comparative basis, considering the
educational and training requirements
to qualify for the job. That is why I
have advoctaed for years a cost-of-living
formula to be included in the pay sched-
ule of the classified and postal employees.
Unions and private industry recognize
this factor in establishing scales of pay.
However, I must say that I do not con-
sider that there is the urgency for pay
Increases in the upper brackets of Gov-
ernment employees, including Members
and employees of Congress. In view of
the recent tax cut; the announcement of
the President of his desire to curtail ex-
penses wherever possible, and to ap-
proach a balanced budget, convinces me
that under the circumstances, I cannot
support a pay increase in the legislative
branch of Government, just as I am op-
posed to increases in the other higher
brackets. I do not have the fear that
has been expressed by some that I would
suffer political repercussions if I voted for
a pay increases for Members of Congress.
In fact, if the legislative pay increase
were in A separate package, and could
be considered on its own merits?I might
say at this point that I think the gen-
tleman from Illinois [Mr. MICHEL] made
a very splendid statement in that re-
gard?I would have no hesitancy in vot-
ing for some adjustments.
Furthermore, I feel that the legislative
pay should never have been tied in with
the general pay increase bill, and I am
hopeful that the entire title II will be re-
moved from this bill by an amendment.
I feel certain that such an amendment
will be offered. I would also hope to have
the opportunity of voting for amend-
ments which will be offered to other sec-
tions of the bill. I expect to offer some
amendments to the legislative sections of
the bill which would propose to place cer-
tain restrictions on any increase in con-
gressional pay if title II remains in the
bill.
I agree that the pay for a Member of
Congress who devotes his full time to
this job is not adequate. I have an
amendment which I propose to offer
which would take into account the out-
side income for personal services, which
would imply that the Member of Con-
gress is taking time away from this job
to get other compensation. I think that
should be taken into consideration and
I shall offer such an amendment when
the proper time comes.
In closing, may I say that I expect to
be among those who will seek to secure
a rollcall on the final passage of this bill.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4752 Approved For ReefileaMCKWALCIkEjtclayi5130_014M00500050001-9
Mr. MURRAY. Mr, Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Fox-
RESTER I.
(Mr. FORRESTER, asked and was giv-
en permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORRESTER. Mr. Chairman,
I voted against the rule for H.R. 8986
which provides an increase in the salary
of all Federal employees,
This was a very unpleasant vote to
cast, but it was one vote I felt I must
cast in the public interest, our country's
interest, and even in the Federal em-
employees interest.
I am reasonably certain that some
Government employees need and deserve
some moderate increase in salaries. This
bill, however, must be voted up or down.
We are not permitted to vote for in-
creases for those that deserve increases,
and, in my judgment, the bad outweighs
the good so far as this legislation is con-
cerned.
I do not believe that this one bill
should cover salaries for postal work-
ers, Goverruhent workers, Congressmen,
Supreme Court Judges, and all Federal
employees of every kind. It is a catch
all, and, in my judgment, the various
employees should be dealt with separate-
ly so far as salaries are concerned.
This bill raises the Congressmen's
salaries in the sum of $10,000. The pres-
ent salary is $22,500, making a raise of
over 40 percent. Though our present
salary is not stupendous, everything con-
sidered, we can live on It in Washing-
ton with dignity, and as well as perhaps
the majority of us have been accus-
tomed.
A few days ago this Congress voted a
tax cut causing a deficit of $111;2 billion,
which coupled with the deficit, which
the administration concedes will occur
this year, will create an additional defi-
cit of close to $20 billion. Our national
debt is about $312 billion and increasing
hourly. We are passing laws to prevent
the flow of gold to foreign countries, and
even passing laws discouraging travel in
foreign countries, in order that the
money spent by these travelers in foreign
countries will not have to be redeemed
from our short gold supply. Our Presi-
dent has the lights cut out in the White
House at night. I think everyone will
agree that if lights burn at night, they
ought to burn at the White House. We
are closing installations even closing
weather stations costing over $10,000
annually to operate: orders are going
out to military installations to cut out
jobs, release civilian personnel, and use
military men in jobs formerly held by
civilians, because we say we must econo-
mize. Under such circumstances I can-
not, and will not, support a $10,000 an-
nual increase in Congressmen's salaries.
As a matter of fact, the increases in this
bill would give Congressmen, Supreme
Court judges, and certain employees in
Congress an increase in salary larger
than the entire earnings of at least 75
percent of the people in the district I
represent.
Raises in salaries do not put additional
money in the employees' pockets for
long. Increases produce further infla-
tion, land in a few months the increases
are et mpletely absorbed by higher prices
in tle marketplace, and particularly
higher increases in the necessities of
life. [ Continued increases with inflation
folio* tog these increases are destroying
jobs,idling many people who are willing
to wfrk and must work, and materially
redueing Government work in the vari-
ous it-cantles. People drawing social se-
euritt , pensions, or annuities are having
the ving that they thought they had
provtled for themselves completely
wipe( out by inflation. Our money Is
now to cheap, that our prices on goods
are sp high, that. we cannot sell to for-
eign Ilxiuntries. The foreign countries
are linable to pay our prices, but they
woult if they could, and doubtless would
like ts better if they could buy from us
instejd of receiving charity from us. It
emba rrasses anyone to receive charity.
It s said that higher salaries would
brine better men to Congress and put
better judges on the bench. I have been
herel 14 years and I have a high regard
for It Y colleagues, but I certainly cannot
say diat any improvement in the quality
of t e Members is due to salary in-
crews. I do not believe that the in-
crews in salaries have increased the
qualty of the judges sitting on the U.S.
Stipa, me Court.
s bill will cost the taxpayers of
Arnel ica a half billion dollars annually.
I hale always supported adequate wages
for Oar postal workers and our Federal
Goya -nment employees, and I will sup-
port. reasonable increases any time I am
permitted to do so. There is a way,
however, to extend proper increases to
thest workers without resorting to an
overall bill that will materially increase
salar es of Congressmen and certain
othet Federal employees of approximate-
ly 40i odd percent.
Mt MURRAY. Mr. Chairman,_ I
yielci such time RS he may consume to
the jaentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Jos4;oNi.
(Mr. JOELSON asked and was given
perntis.sion to revise and extend his re-
marts.
MI JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, as one
who: believes that postal and other Fed-
eral l .triployees are entitled to a fair and
reastnable rate of pay, I certainly sup-
port4 their cause as expressed In the bill
under consideration.
Wtth regard to the congressional pay
incrtases. I believe that the committee
she d have favored an increase of 15
peret nt which is the rise in the cost of
livinj t since the last pay increase in 1955.
Thil should be coupled with authority to
reint)urse each Member for all travel
expel ases for trips relating to his con-
great tonal duties to and from the district
whie a he represents, and also to reim-
bur*, each Member In the sum of $200
each month for costs and expenses of
residing in Washington.
e approach I have outlined would
takel the American people into our eon-
Met cc, and bring them a greater aware-
nes l of the problem.
Mt.. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gent eman from Alabama [Mr. Seisma].
(Bre BELDEN asked and was given
March 11
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the pending measure.
In recent weeks Congress voted the larg-
est tax cut in the history of our Na-
tion. To justify a tax cut of this mag-
nitude, many who voted for it stated
they expected to vote for a decrease in
expenditures. Yet, the legislation under
consideration today will increase?not
decrease?Federal expenditures by more
than $600 million.
Undoubtedly there are some increases
included in the pending bill that can be
justified. Others, however, are exces-
sive and unwarranted. An increase of
nearly 45 percent in the salary of Mem-
bers of Congress is only one example of
the latter category.
Should the Congress fail to exercise
restraint in connection with its own sal-
aries, it is unreasonable to believe that
it can exert a reasonable degree of cau-
tion in connection with other Federal
expenditures. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
I expect to vote in opposition to the
pending bill, and I trust the opportunity
will be given me, and other Members of
like mind, to cast a record vote against
this measure.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RANDALL].
(Mr. RANDALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks)
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I
voted "aye" on House Resolution 650 on
the "rule" for HR. 8986. Some Mem-
bers may have opposed the rule because
they thought it might be the only record
vote during this debate. I must disagree
with this thinking. Those of us who are
opposed to some of the provisions of the
bill believe it can be amended and realize
that for it to be amended it must be de-
bated. There is nothing evil in the rule.
The fact that congressional salaries are
tied to in one measure with salary ad-
justments of the postal workers and clas-
sified service was not the fault of the
Rules Committee. That committee pro-
vided for an open rule and a reasonable
amount of debate. A closed rule would
have failed.
But support of the rule by a Member
does not mean he is in sympathy with
the provisions of the bill, but simply
opens the matter for full debate and dis-
cussion with amendment at any point.
I must oppose H.R. 8986 as it is now
written. I hope it may be amended to-
morrow so that it will be possible to sup-
port the bill so far as postal workers and
some of the other Federal career em-
ployecs are concerned. I am hopeful
that title II or that portion of the bill
pertaining to Federal legislative salaries
may be stricken out and considered sepa-
rately at some future time. Certainly
section 201(a) , which sets the rate of
compensation for Members of Congress
at $32,500 per annum. should not have to
be voted on or down as a part of a bill
pertaining to Feieral employees' salaries.
I realize a Member who talks against
a congressi-mll pay raise is not going to
increase 11,s popularity with his col-
leagues. The tact remains we do owe
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/03/18 ?_CJA-RDE6M0403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL KECOtto 4753
$312 billion and pay about $11 billion a
year in interest.
Worse yet, if we approve for ourselves
a $10,000 pay raise then we become vul-
nerable to every group in the country,
including every special group that asks
for this or that whenever they come
along, once we vote ourselves this raise.
It has been suggested that unless a
Member asserts again and again that
he wants to be on record by a rollcall
vote that he is sneaking or underhanded
and any other sort of vote is a secret
vote. It is said he does not want to let
his constituents know where he stands
on this bill. I submit this reasoning is
fallacious for the ieason the true test
of a Member's stand on this bill will de-
pend on what he does at the time amend-
ments are offered and whether or not he
stands to ask for a teller vote and wheth-
er he walks through the teller line to
seek the adoption of a perfecting amend-
ment?where everyone in the galleries
can observe this method of his voting.
Furthermore, no Member can be said to
be hiding from his constituents if . he
states his views clearly and participates
in the debate.
Returning to the provisions of title II
of the bill, I think some more support
might have been gained for the congres-
sional salary increase if the effective date
were January 1, 1965. Then it could be
said that this Congress was not voting
itself an increase but was voting an in-
crease for the 89th Congress. In most
of the States, the opportunity still exists
for anyone who may 'be so attracted to
file for office in consideration of this
rate of pay. Filing for office in several
States does not close until June, July,
August, and in a few instances in Sep-
tember. By making January 1, 1965, the
effective date, no one could say the pres-
ent Congress was voting itself a raise but
simply providing for an increase in pay
for the new Congress.
I submit that for the committee to
provide in the bill a 44-percent increase
is the wrong approach. I suspect I speak
for many of the Members when I say
a better approach for a compensation
adjustment for Members would have
been to make some allowance for ex-
penses incurred by official trips to the
district and within the congressional dis-
trict with the provision that there be
a strict accounting for these expenses.
I think the pattern of the Canadian
Parliament is a good approach in this
direction. In the Pennsylvania legisla-
ture, I understand there is a similar ap-
proach to the compensation problem for
members. To prove the fairness on this
point of expenses the Internal Revenue
Service never questions the $3,000 de-
duction for living expenses accorded
Members here in the District of Colum-
bia.
Congress simply cannot afford the
luxury of voting a salary increase in
face of several overriding circumstances.
Why is this so? First, we have a na-
tional debt of $312 billion. We cannot
in good conscience vote ourselves a big
increase and at the same time ask every-
one else to take all possible steps to de-
crease the national debt. This would
be but an illustration of "do as we say
and not do as we do." A second reason
is that the Congress has just enacted
the biggest tax cut in the history of this
Nation. This was done in an effort to
spur the economy, decrease unemploy-
ment, but when that bill was passed the
Congress made the commitment to take
all reasonable means to cut Government
spending, and it would be a violation
of this commitment for the Congress to
turn around a few months later and vote
itself the huge pay increase proposed in
this bill. A third reason against a big
Increase in congressional salaries at this
time is it would be inconsistent with our
urging of the executive branch for re-
straint and reduction in Federal ex-
penditures. President Johnson has re-
sponded and is showing determined effort
to hold spending to the lowest limit con-
sistent with good government and ade-
quate national defense. If the Members
of Congress are unwilling to exert re-
straint in the matter of their own sala-
ries, then they have no right to demand
economy in other Federal expenditures.
I am sure Congress looks with favor
on the plight of the rank and file of Fed-
eral employees. But the postal em-
ployees in particular should be relieved
of carrying all other Federal employees
on their backs when it comes to salary
adjustments. I hope I can support these
postal and some of the classified em-
ployees in their needed salary adjust-
ments but I cannot vote for such a small
increase for postal employees and, in the
same measure, vote a $10,000 increase for
myself.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the balance of the time on this side to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Wicx-
ERSHAM].
(Mr. WICKERSHAM asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
While I favor a pay raise for postal and
classified Government workers, I can-
not vote for the bill unless salary in-
creases for executive and congressional
personnel are eliminated.
Therefore, I shall introduce an amend-
ment to knock out pay hikes for the leg-
islative branch, including Senators and
House Members. If it fails, I will vote
against the pay raise bill.
I also plan to introduce an amendment
eliminating pay increases for members
of the judicial branch. Supreme Court
Justices are now making $35,000 per
year. Based on some of their recent deci-
sions, perhaps they should be paying the
Government $35,000 per year for the
privilege of being a Supreme Court Jus-
tice.
This pay bill is a mockery of sound
government fiscal policy. I do not see
the logic of Congress advocating econ-
omy with one hand and voting foolish
salary increases with the other.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNING-
HAM].
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
[Mr. CUNNINGHAM addressed the
Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey. [Mrs.
DwyEs].
(Mrs. DWYER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mrs. DWYER,. Mr. Chairman, there
is much in the pending bill, H.R. 8986,
that I strongly support. But I feel
obliged to state at the outset that I can-
not accept the justification for raising
the salaries of Members of Congress. I
trust we shall have an opportunity to
vote on this specific question, and I
believe it can be done in such a way that
other sections of the bill will not be
jeopardized.
In most respects, it seems to me, this
is a good bill, and I congratulate the
members of the Committee on the Post
Office and Civil Service for the care and
diligence with which they approached the
painstaking and complex job of con-
structing the bill. It is a major respon-
sibility of the Congress?as representa-
tives of the employers of civil servants?
to maintain the salary structure for Fed-
eral employees so that the system itself
will be internally consistent and will pro-
vide a just and equitable level of compen-
sation in terms of the cost of living and
of salaries paid for comparable work out-
side the Government. This objective will
be achieved in large measure by approval
of the appropriate provisions of the bill.
It is altogether too easy to take for
granted, Mr. Chairman, the capable and
often devoted public service which the
people of the United States receive day
after day from their fellow citizens in
the postal and other Federal career serv-
ices. This debate provides a valuable
opportunity to recognize their continu-
ing contributions and express our appre-
ciation for their loyal service.
Despite my general agreement with
the comparability principle, especially
for employees at the lower and middle
grades and levels, I am not satisfied that
this principle should be slavishly fol-
lowed at the upper levels of Federal ex-
ecutives, judges, and Members of Con-
gress. Here the circumstances and satis-
factions of Federal service are qualita-
tively different. I do not mean to imply
that top-level civil servants and those
serving under Presidential appointments
should be discriminated against in re-
gard to their salaries or that somehow
they should learn to live on the sense of
accomplishment they get from their
work. I understand and accept the need
for salary adjustments at these levels not
only to do them abstract justice but also
to reduce the costly attrition of highly
competent officials whose personal re-
sponsibilities force them to leave the
Government for substantially higher
paying jobs in private industry or the
professions.
I do contend, however, Mr. Chairman,
that we must make some allowance for
the differences between private and Gov-
ernment employment at these higher
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relear_2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP661300403R00050005000179
4754 NG) ESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Metich 11
levels. In general, I think it is fair to
conclude that career Federal officials en-
joy greater security than their opposite
numbers in the private economy. They
also have the advantage of the special
incentives, prestige, and satisfaction that
come from the knowledge that the gen-
eral public rather than private interests
are the beneficiaries of their work. It
may be difficult to place a monetary
value on these factors when determining
salary levels, but I do think these factors
justify something less than exact com-
parability for high level career and ap-
pointive employees.
This is true, or should be. to a much
greater extent for Members of Congress.
Although we all have family responsi-
bilities, special expenses, and other fi-
nancial needs. I fear we would do a
disservice to traditions of public service
and to the ideals of elective office if we
should ever set congressionl salaries at
a level high enough to make the salary
itself a major attraction to those who
might consider seeking the office. I say
this knowing full well that many of our
colleagues do have a tough time meet-
ing expenses. I say it, too, recognizing
the objection to limiting membership in
the Congress, in effect., to those rich
enough or ruthless enough not to have
to worry about their salaries. For I do
not mean to suggest that congressional
salaries should never be raised or that
nothing valid can be said in favor of
maintaining them at a respectable level
within the context of Government sal-
aries generally.
What I do suggest is that there is
more to this job than money?more, in
fact, than there is in any other job in
the world with the sole exception of the
Presidency. We do not pay the Presi-
dent the more than $1 million a year
many tycoons of private enterprise are
paid, nor anywhere near it. But I doubt
seriously if anyone here would contend
that this reflects adversely on the office
or the person of the President or some-
how diminishes public respect for his
awesome power and responsibilities, or
even reduces the field of prospective
candidates for President. On a slightly
lower scale, the same point can be made
about Congress. Some financial sacri-
fice is part and parcel of election to this
high office. I do not believe we can
rightly eliminate it. For, when we seek
this office, we are not reaching for a
plum; we are offering to serve.
I would also object to the congres-
sional pay raise provisions of the bill on
grounds of bad timing. We have not yet
convinced the people we represent, in
my judgment, that Congress as a whole
deserves a 40 percent or higher increase
in salary. Unfortunately, the reputation
of Congress among the people generally
is not at its highest. To a certain ex-
tent, at least, we share the responsibility
for this situation, since we have not
taken affirmative and effective steps to
reshape and improve the procedures
which govern our activities or to impose
upon ourselves the higher standards of
conduct and performance which people
have a right to expect.
At this time, then, Mr. Chairman, re-
spect for the opinions and values of our
peoP le would seem to me to counsel
agatist this sizable increase of our own
salaj les.
Fl wily, I am led to protest against the
self4:mposed necessity for Members of
Conj ress to determine their own and
theft colleagues' salaries. There is
somi thing slightly distasteful about it,
soffit thing approaching a conflict of in-
terei t situation, which Congress should
seek( means of avoiding?if honorable
and -esponsible means of avoiding it can
be fj und.
I !yonder if, in past efforts to avoid
this dilemma, sufficient attention has
heed given to the possibility of devising
a ermanent and self-perpetuating
forniula under which a disinterested and
wholly objective committee outside the
Conj ress could be assigned the respon-
sibi6ty, under generally accepted stand-
ard A and criteria related to the office,
of eitablishing and revising from time
to time the level of compensation for
Men. hers.
Ti e benefits of such a formula are
obvibus. Among others, we would be
freeing ourselves to do a more dispas-
sionbte job of determining salary levels
thrd ighout the rest of the Government.
And we would be removing any trace of
susri don that what we do about Federal
&alai les may at the same time benefit
ours :lives.
Licking such a formula, Mr. Chair-
man, and considering all the relevant
eirci mstances. I do not believe we should
raisi our own salaries in this bill. I
expiet an amendment will be offered
rembving congressional salaries from
the bill and I shall vote for this amend-
men;.
M'. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman. I
yieli myself such time as remains on this
side
Chairman, we all who are Mem-
bers of this body, recognize that it is a
had and a disagreeable task to deal with
the ialaries of all of the people in the
Fed, ral Government from the Vice
Fret tient down to the page boy, includ-
ing anselves. ?
However, Mr. Chairman, the duty for
so ri-iing falls squarely upon our shoul-
der S We must necessarily face up to
that responsibility.
M'. Chairman, in reviewing, and for
reettphasis, some of the arguments that
hay been advanced I believe these
thin zs are vital. In the Salary Act of
1962 we wrote into that act this feature
of cianparability. I said on the floor of
the 'House at that time and before our
coninittee that we were definitely set-
ting up a system whereby there would be
an innual pay bill dealing with Federal
emp.oyees' salaries, because we included
in that bill the positive directive to the
Pres .dent of the United States that he
shotid annually, based on a considera-
tion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
make a recommendation to the Congress
on j ie matter of salary adjustments.
W wrote that law, we established the
prir lpie. and as a result thereof this
riled iure is before us today.
Then we have something else that was
couilly foreseeable and that is we set up
a 4- uation in which we were pressing
the!elassified salaries, particularly in the
supergrades, up against the $20,000 lim-
itation. and up against the congressional
salary. Right now, if this bill were to
Pass with title II, or the congressional
salary stricken from it, what we would
have would be a situation in which peo-
ple in the four highest grades of the
classified service would be making more
money than a Member of the House or
Senate. Salaries in grade 18 a ouid go
to $24.500 which would, of course, be
$2.000 higher than the congressional sal-
ary. That situation simply could not
exist. I know there are many of us, and
I might be included among them, who
would prefer that congressional salaries
were not in this bill. But how are you go-
ing to escape the responsibility? How are
you going to go on allowing increases in
the "executive branch, allow increases in
the classified service, allow increases in
the judiciary, and then say to the Mem-
bers of Congress that you are not worth
as much money as the people employed
under your legislation? We can make
ourselves awfully absurd.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBE-1-1'. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Would it not
be practical to go on and make these
other adjustments so that we may have
them smoothed out, then consider the
legislative branch separately, and we
would know where we are?
Mr. CORBETT. I agree with the gen-
tleman about the timing on this particu-
lar bill and the consideration of it, but
I would do it the other way around. I
think consideration of congressional
raises should take place, then have the
adjustments made afterward. They
should not be in the same bill. You
should have this legislative action hap-
penin; simultaneously or prior thereto,
or you are not going to know where you
are going.
I may say to the gentleman on the
timing and the introduction of this legis-
lation, that was a matter of choice of
the leadership on his side. We had noth-
ing to do with it.
In this connection somewhere along
the line I propose to offer a motion to
recommit with instructions. That mo-
tion. whatever it eventually will be, de-
pends in part on what is done in Com-
mittee of the Whole. But it will keep
everything within scale in titles II, Ill
and IV, which is the legislative, execu-
tive, and judiciary. If you pick out one
specific point in this bill, with the rarest
exception and amend it up or down,
you are going to have inequities, dis-
proportionment, and so forth. So any
motion to adjust the salary schedules in
titles II, III. and IV has to be done in
a lump approach.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. You would
make one exception, and that is in the
terms of some of the employees of the
House who were specifically stated. I
think you would want to change that.
Mr. CORBET1. I might say to the
gentleman the only reason I am not go-
ing to introduce an amendment to place
them in the same category as classified
service is because my colleague from
Arizona is going to do it, and I shall
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
, ApproveclemaTitsgroN9X0fatoM-RDRKW403R000500050001-9 4755
support that. So we are going to treat
them exactly as we treat people in the
classified service.
Having gone over the matter of the
comparability feature, I think something
else ought to be pointed out. In the
past 15 years we have had salary bills
before us for the Federal employees.
Those bills have increased the salaries
of Federal employees on an average of
about 5 percent a year. They have re-
sulted from tugs of war, from shotgun
situations, they have resulted from dis-
charge petitions, everything of the like.
And that 5 percent a year, I might say,
is really compounded. It is 5 percent on
top of 5 percent on top of 5 percent.
With that, they went up quite a ways.
If it should happen that the Bureau of
Labor Statistics is accurate in saying
as far as it can be predicted that the
cost of living will go up in the neighbor-
hood of 3 percent a year, or the com-
parability will go up 3 percent a year,
then the pay raises that are going to
happen from the establishment of this
principle will be less than the pay raises
that have restated from the necessary
test-of-strength pay raises. So we are
not doing something here that is out-
landish, that is fiscally irresponsible. We
are doing the exact opposite.
I want to say about the matter of fis-
cal responsibility that two of the per-
sons who spoke against the rule on this
bill got up here and fought and bled
and died, and some others as well, on
the matter of balancing the budget, fis-
cal responsibility and whatnot. I looked
up the record. Here is a bill that ulti-
mately could cost in the neighborhood
of $540 million for persons. They voted
among other things for the feed-grain
program, and what did the feed-grain
program cost in the last fiscal year? It
cost $936 million. I assume that they
probably voted for the cotton bill and
the peanut bill and some other things,
too. I do not know for sure, but in
fiscal 1961 the feed grain bill, Which was
gaining full momentum, cost $800 mil-
lion even then. This means that in the
last 2 fiscal years for which there are
records the feed grain bill has cost
$1,745 million. I did not vote for it. The
fact of the matter is the bill passed by
a vote of, only 208 to 196.
But when we are talking about the
feed grain responsibilities, I think I
would rather in a great country, a
wealthy country, realize that one of its
first responsibilities after interest and
pensions is proper compensation of its
employees. If we are going to be fis-
cally responsible, and I hope we are, we
certainly would do better to take it out
on grain than on persons.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. When the gentleman
voted to bring this bill out of commit-
tee, am I correct in assuming that this
comparability feature had been satis-
fied, in his opinion? Was the compara-
bility satisfied?
Mr. CORBETT. I was checking some-
thing else here for a moment. Did not
the gentleman vote for that feed grain
bill, too?
Mr. GROSS. I do not think I did.
No, I do not think I did, I will say to the
gentleman. I do not think I did. I will
check it up tomorrow and let the gentle-
man know.
Mr. CORBETT. What was the gen-
tleman's question?
Mr. GROSS. On the subject of the
subsidy, I would hate to have the total
of the Subsidies that have gone into
Pennsylvania and its industries on the
part of the Federal Government. I think
we would get a pretty good figure.
Mr. CORBETT. I might say to the
gentleman, Pennsylvania has done pretty
well?we have gotten back about 80 cents
for every dollar that we turn into the
Federal Government. That is a pretty
good record.
Mr. GROSS. That is a better record
than the State of Iowa has.
Mr. CORBETT. Maybe we may have
more talented people?I do not know.
Mr. GROSS. What about this com-
parability feature? The gentleman sup-
ported that in the committee. As I
understand it, tomorrow there will be an
amendment offered to reduce the total
amount of this bill by what?$170 mil-
lion or something like that? There was
this comparability feature when it came
out of the committee. The gentleman
supported it. Will it be comparable and
will it be on the basis of comparability
tomorrow if the amendment is adopted?
Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman well
knows and his question is more a matter
of irritation than information and we
recognize that comparability cannot be
achieved in a single day, particularly
when we have influential Members of
this House who are against it. Second,
we have to make these steps step by
step. I think this will go a long way in
the right direction. One of the reasons
certainly for the chairman putting in
this amendment, and the gentleman
knows it, is because he wants to be finan-
cially responsible. There are $545 mil-
lion budgeted for a pay raise and we
are trying to hold the figure right on that
line because of the sound advice of the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
for the compliment.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. BOGGS. I would like to compli-
ment the gentleman for the statement
he has made here. It is very obvious
the gentleman has made a thorough and
objective study of the issues involved.
He has made an objective presentation
of the issues to the House and I con-
gratulate the gentleman.
Mr. CORBETT. I thank the gentle-
man very sincerely.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in
closing, I do believe that we can very well
adopt the amendment to be offered by the
chairman of the committee to title I. I
believe we can scale back titles II, III,
and IV and still allow plenty of room to
prevent compression in the near future.
I hope after these things have happened
that we do pass this bill. The chief rea-
son I am in favor of the bill, if it is
amended as indicated, is because of the
very criticism that has been directed
against this body by people who have not
liked the way we conduct ourselves. To
my mind, if we are going to be a body de-
serving of respect and if we are to set
an example of good, efficient activity in
the Government of these United States,
we ought to be equipped with the inde-
pendence that the gentleman from Illi-
nois spoke of; we should be properly
staffed and we ought to be properly dedi-
cated and we ought to do what we can
not only to elect good men to this House,
but to keep them here when we get them.
So I hope, after we have properly consid-
ered the amendments, that we do our
duty and pass this bill and raise the
salaries of the Federal employees to a
more comparable position, and I think
we may feel proud of our efforts.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HAYS. I would like to join the
gentleman from Louisiana, the majority
whip, in congratulating the gentleman
for. his very courageous. and very en-
lightening speech. I think the gentle-
man has taken a sound position. It is
not an easy position to take. I would
point out to the gentleman, and to the
House, that none of the criticisms that
I have seen in the press. about this
salary raise has been directed toward
the judiciary or any of the other execu-
tive branch or departments at all, which
branches of the Government are, of
course, included in the bill. The only
attack that has been made has been
made on the Congress. This is nothing
unusual. The Congress always is the
whipping boy and, I suppose perhaps, in
a democracy that is the way it has to be.
But I am always reminded of what for-
mer President Truman said, and I like
to apply this rule in my own case?if you
cannot take the heat, you ought to get
out of the kitchen.
But for the benefit of some of these
people whose consciences seem to be
bothering them, I would inform the gen-
tleman, and I have informed the man-
agers of the bill on this side, that I have
an amendment that I will offer tomorrow
at the proper time which will permit any
gentleman who feels that his conscience
bothers him, to waive any part or all of
the increase; or for that matter if he
thinks he is not worth it, he can waive
the entire salary.
I have it on good authority, from no
less than the chairman of the Commit-
tee on Ways and Means, who has told
me he will so state on the floor, that this
also will exempt any such Member or
Members from any tax, liability for that
portion of the salary which is waived.
I shall offer this amendment not face-
tiously?it merely will provide that any
portion may be waived?but in the sin-
cere hope that it will be agreed to. If
it is agreed to, some of those who have
lobbied me on the last pay increase to
vote for the bill, when they could not
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4756 Approved For ReicwirommuclARUMBD40139P0500050001-9 March 11
vote for it but wanted to be first in line
to get the money?and I have a list of
them?may wish to waive a portion. If
they do not waive a portion, I shall un-
dertake to let their constituents know
the depth of the hypocrisy they have
reached in this matter.
Mr. CORBETi. I would remind the
gentleman of a closing session when we
were to vote on adjournment. A num-
ber of Members brought their suitcases
to the floor. They wanted to leave town
at once. They hoped that we would
vote to adjourn, but they would not.
Mr. HAYS. The same situation ex-
isted. I recall at least two Members who
said:
Well. I hope you will vote for it. My name
is high on the alphabet and I will be later
on the roll, but I will be there to get the
check even though I cannot vote for the
increase.
Mr. CORBETT. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Though I do not
wish to be in opposition to the distin-
guished gentleman from Ohio, I might
say that the Comptroller General of the
United States on April 15, 1955, when a
similar question arose on the other pay
bill, addressed a letter to the Sergeant
at Arms about it. I will read exactly
what he said:
In our decision of March 19, 1025. A-8427,
to the then Sergeant at Arms. House of
Representatives, involving a similar situa-
tion, we held that the payment of salary of
Members of the Congress could be made only
at the rate fixed by law. Accordingly, you
are informed that Members of the Congress
may not. in the absence of statutory au-
thority, waive any portion of their statutory
salaries.
Mr. HAYS. That is the point, if the
gentleman will yield.
Mr. CORBETT. Just a moment.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. coRsh-rr. I yield for 30 sec-
onds.
Mr. HAYS. The crux of it is. "in the
absence of statutory authority." They
did not have it. My amendment would
give it to them. That would change the
whole situation. If the amendment is
agreed to, they will have statutory au-
thority.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBaari. I wish to interrupt
for just a moment. If the bill does not
pass, this argument is quite academic
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would agree.
I do not wish to be in an argument with
the distinguished gentleman, but the
original opinion, which was in 1925,
went on to say that even if it were pos-
sible for a Member to waive the salary
it could always be claimed and would
be required to be paid to his heirs.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBEri. Not at this time. The
gentleman can offer his amendment and
tomorrow it can be discussed.
Mt KNOX. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlaman yield?
Mt CORBET1. I yield to the gentle-
mann
MI. KNOX. Mr. Chairman, I rise to-
day in opposition to H.R. 8986, the Fed-
eral tamployees Salary Act of 1964. I do
so beimuse this pay increase bill is un-
warrinted and unwise at this time, and
reprtsents a clear breach of faith with
the American people.
Jul t 2 weeks ago this House and the
Senate approved the conference report
on the tax reduction bill. We did so
with:Angina pledges of economy in Gov-
ernni mt. These pledges were neces-
sary J many of us felt, if the tax cuts were
to bil Justified, and it was on the basis
ofts.lese pledges that the tax bill was
pas d. In fact, we were told by the dis-
tingq.shed chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means. the Honorable
Wrialura Mitts, that upon passage of
the tux bill we must:
0e:2areful as we proceed after the enact-
menti of thle legislation?keep in mind the
pledgi that we made to exercise all the pos-
sible f-estraint that we can on the spending
side it Government.
Ye . today we are being asked to make
a mtl:lkery of these pledges of economy.
We ire being asked to approve a pay
hike! or Federal employees and Members
of C.Ingress that would total anywhere
front $544 million to well over $600 mil-
lion.1 Surely, if we are to approve spend-
ing this much money we shall have to
find ! Justification for it. Yet there is
littiel or no justification for most of the
I
pay ' aises contained in this bill.
It 3 at the higher echelon levels of the
exec tive department, and the legisla-
tive And judicial pay raises authorized by
this iiill that all justification is thrown
to ttla winds. Surely at a time when we
are *inning In the red, with deficits of
over t10 billion for the current fiscal year
and i;5 billion projected for next year,
we q uanot justify these pay increases.
Furg.er, we have just had a substantial
inenause in take-home pay through the
tax }:eduction bill. Yet we are being
asket to ignore fiscal responsibility and
appriNe pay increases which in the case
of Pt:embers of Congress amount to
$10,410 per year?a 44-percent increase.
I sulinit to you that we have not earned
this !pay increase. Also, our judiciary
is no exactly starving. We seem to for-
get iat life tenure and more than gen-
'gout pensions toward which the judges
makt no contribution represent "fringe
benej its" of considerable magnitude.
And i he higher echelon executive branch
emplayees, like Members of Congress,
- shoup be willing to forego pay increases
untit Congress and the administration
get ci ir Federal fiscal house in order and
balat cc the budget. Even if these pay
raisel are approved, they should not go
into i .yffect until budget receipts exceed
experitures by an amount sufficient to
cove the cost of this bill.
Int conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I
saynlhat I intend to stand up and be
arm ed on this measure. As sure as I
am itanding here an attempt will be
made to have this bill passed by a voice
vote i or teller vote: in other words, to
avoid at all costs getting each Member
on record as to how he stands. I for one
Intend to demand a rolleall vote on this
measure, and I hope enough of my col-
leagues will join me so that our constitu-
ents can see for themselves which of us
has the audacity to vote himself a $10,-
000 pay increase at a time when we are
already running far in the red. Mr.
Chairman, I obviously feel very strongly
about this measure. I only hope that in
light of the economy pledges we made
just 2 weeks ago, that those who feel as
strongly in favor of this measure as I do
against it will stand and be counted with
me. If this is done, if we get a rollcall
vote on this bill. I am confident that
H.R. 8986 will suffer the resounding de-
feat it deserves.
(Mr. KNOX asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the remainder of my time to the gentle-
man from Arizona [Mr. TJanal.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. UDALL], is recognized
for 8 minutes, to close the debate.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman. will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
(Mr CORBETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Colorado.
(Mr BROTZMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks)
Mr. BROTZMAN, Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, it was proper to grant
a rule so this pay raise bill could be
brought to the floor, amendments pre-
sented, and then to permit each Member
to vote for or against the bill according
to his conscience by rollcall vote.
I regret that the measure includes
raises for Members of Congress along
with increases for Federal employees.
Certain adjustments for Federal em-
ployees including postal workers are in-
dicated but I do not believe that Mem-
bers of Congress are entitled to a 44-per-
cent increase in order to do this. Cer-
tainly not, in face of the largest tax cut
In history coupled with the Nation's as-
tronomical debt in excess of $300 billion,
this is an invitation to the most dreaded
tax of all?inflation.
Unicss the proposal to increase con-
gressional salaries is removed, I intend
to vote against the measure.
Mr. LIBONATI. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
8986, the Federal pay raise bill is in
reality a pay readjustment measure. The
$545 million measure is supported by the
adminfstration and executive and busi-
ness leaders throughout the Nation. It
provides for an increase in pay for 1.7
million Government employees and an
increase of $10,000 in the salaries of
Members of Congress.
The pay raises for Federal executives
and employees are in conformity with
those wages paid by private industry for
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4 Approved FocranwpaativiapP6m3R000500050001-9
4757
comparable positions. The last pay
raise voted-1962?initiated this princi-
ple as a basic consideration for future
legislation at this level.
Since 1945 the Government employees
have received through congressional en-
actment 10 raises. The 590,000 postal
employees received a 6.2-percent increase
and other employees numbering 1.1 mil-
lion?classified and other White-collared
help?received 4.86-percent increases.
All throughout the history of these raises
by the Congress the greater pressures
were activated by the better organized
Federal groups of employees, thus the
emotional or political advantages of
pressures resulted in a superficial and
loose consideration of the problem as a
study?no comparative figures developed
between industrial compensatory tables
of wages and those of Government
workers, thus establishing a basic rela-
tionship between the Federal salary sys-
tem and those of industry, as reflected in
comparative employment statistics pre-
pared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in their statistical tables, which estimate
the average annual adjustments of be- -
tween 21/2 and 3 percent will establish
the comparability law in Government.
It is contemplated that the compara-
bility principle in fixing of Federal sal-
aries will effect a 50-percent decrease
in the expense incurred in increased sal-
ary expenses.
The BLS survey of 1961-62 is used as
the basis of the rates in the bill. A 1962-
63 study advocated a 3-percent increase
above those of the administration in
Federal pay, but also recommended a
cut in the salaries of the middle and
higher bracketed employees?below the
1961-62 figures.
The administration approves the bill
with the reservation that in the future
a bill to correct the inequities in the
m:ddle and top grades be enacted to full-
fil the principle of complete compara-
bility with similar positions in industry
and business.
As far as the judges of the courts no
one can deny that their judicial abili-
ties and talents would in private fields of
their profession earn far more than their
Federal salaries.
An equally important provision of the
bill provides for an increase of $10,000
for the Members of the Congress?the
uninformed citizen would be critical of
the Congress voting a pay raise for its
Members at what critics say is an ill
opportune time period when the finan-
cial stability of the Nation is continuing
in the deep red side of the ledger; and
all sorts of suggestions in public, busi-
ness, and political circles are advanced
on theories to secure a total economic
conservatism in Government spending.
Just what is the financial situation
confronting the Members of the Con-
gress relative to questions involving the
inadequacy of the present level of sal-
ary. Although the present salary?
$22,500?appears to the same as sub-
stantial sum as compensation for the
Federal services at this level?yet few
ctitzens realize the terrific expenses in-
curred by the Members of the Congress
No. 44-5
in meeting the financial responsibilities
of this office.
To begin with the income tax reten-
tion as the part of the Government
amounts the average case of one mar-
ried with one dependent at 171/2 percent
of salary equal to about $3,800 per year.
The contributions at all levels of chari-
ties and programs for medical research
aid foundations, school groups visiting
Washington, travel fares?incidental to
required return to attend district func-
tions and congressional business; further
the maintenance of two homes and of-
fices far beyond the Government allow-
ances. No small item is the wide range
of gifts, donations, and emoluments
given to constituents, and services?tips
and cab fares. Further the obligations
of a political nature including the con-
tributions to churches, medical programs
and above all the dinners to visitors in
Washington. Substantial sums are also
a needed outlay of 71/2 percent of salary
for the pension fund and policies insur-
ing life at $10 to $12 per month and
health at $10 to $12 per month for family
protection. Many of the Members who
are elected from districts sans political
organizations must wholly finance their
own political units in order to perfect a
working and functioning campaign for
their election. Many are in a serious
financial condition due to the heavy costs
between yearly interval campaigns each
2 years. The Members with growing
families are beset with problems of
school and college tuition, also subsist-
ence costs of education.
Unless the salary increase as proposed
in this legislation in a few years only per-
sons of affluence can be expected to place
their names upon the lists as candidates
for congressional office.
There are less than 1,600 offices and
positions covered in the congressional,
executive, and judicial salary provi-
sions at an aggregate cost of $15.7 mil-
lion and represents but 2.6 percent of
the total cost of the bill. These changes
have been recommended strongly by rec-
ognized authorities on the subject both
In Government and private life. The bill
establishes basically a sound salary sys-
tem for all levels of Government. Also,
the continued application of the com-
parability principle to salaries of postal
and other career Federal employees de-
pends in the final analysis on the salary
levels of Federal executives, judges, and
Members of Congress.
Fair and substantial salaries will re-
tain in the Government employ execu-
tives in key posts?judges of high repute
and talented abilities, authorities in
their profession?and attract and con-
tinue at the legislative level of Govern-
ment capable and skilled legislators and
individuals who are fit to accept the
heavy responsibilities of the office and in
dedication to this service are not beset by
financial deficits in their public and fam-
ily obligations.
The committee in its proposal has pre-
sented a realistic bill in H.R. 8986 as a
result of long study and thorough re-
search of the problem. My compliments
and appreciation are extended to its il-
lustrious Chairman Tom MURRAY and
the members of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service for their ines-
timable valued contribution to the per-
fection of good sound Government op-
eration insuring, through efficient and
intelligent personnel, a strong function-
ing Government.
Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, it has
barely been 2 weeks since final passage
of a tax bill which will reduce Federal
revenues by some $11.5 billion. We have
been told that the Federal deficit will
approximate $10 billion in the present
fiscal year, and the projected deficit for
the 1965 fiscal year is $5 billion. The
President has predicted that the na-
tional debt will go from the current
figure of $310 billion to a total of $317
billion on June 30, 1955.
With such a fiscal picture there is an
urgent need for economy and fiscal re-
sponsibility. We have an obligation to
the American taxpayers to hold the line
on additional spending until we put our
fiscal house in order. We at least should
know the economic consequences of the
recently enacted tax reduction program.
This is a most inappropriate time to
consider increases in the salaries of top
officials of the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches, along with other Fed-
eral employees.
In any consideration of Federal pay-
roll adjustments it must be remembered
that in January of this year a pay in-
crease ranging from 2 to 8 percent be-
came effective automatically under pres-
ent law. This added $380 million an-
nually to payroll costs. There was an-
other Federal employee pay increase in
October 1962, which added costs of
about $670 million annually. The total
civilian payroll for the year ending Jan-
uary 31, 1964, came to nearly $16 bil-
lion.
In the past, I have favored pay legis-
lation designed to improve the living
standard of classified and postal em-
ployees and to keep Federal employees
on a sound comparability basis with
business and industry. I recognize that
there are civil servants at the lower and
medium scale of the pay ladder who are
deserving of further consideration and
whose pay should be increased.
However, the overall fiscal position of
the Federal Government cannot be
Ignored in the consideration of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, when I supported final
passage of the tax bill a little more than
2 weeks ago, I told my constituents:
The enactment of this tax legislation must
be recognized as a commitment by both Con-
gress and the President to reduce Federal
spending where possible, and apply rigid
discipline in appropriations and expendi-
tures. I will support such an effort.
I intend to uphold my pledge to the
taxpayers of my district. With the con-
dition of the Federal Treasury in mind,
I cannot in good conscience support H.R.
8986.
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, even if
all of the increases Called for in this
legislation were needed and could be
justified by statistics, comparable salary
comparisons, cost of living needs and the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9,
4758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 11
like, I would still be against this meas-
ure because of one aspect alone. That
is the audacity we are displaying by even
considering an increase in salary for
Members of Congress.
This Government continues to run in
the red at the rate of $10 billion a year.
We certainly don't know how the new
tax eut will affect the economy, some
high-level optimism notwithstanding.
And there is still no concrete indication
that this Congress is really ready to hold
a firm line on spending. But we do have
the nerve to bring up a pay bill that
contains a $10,000 a year salary increase
for every Member of this Congress.
I am bitterly opposed to congressional
salary increases at this time. This Con-
gress should go on record against such
pay boosts until the Federal budget has
been in balance for at least 6 months
and shows every indication of remaining
that way. To enact such pay legislation
now is to charge the cost to future gen-
erations.
It should not be necessary to remind
ourselves that there are plenty of un-
solved problems floating around these
halls that need more attention than this
legislation today. Let us take a close
look at spending policies, or at the prob-
lems facing American agriculture, for
instance. It is time we demonstrate to
the American public that we are worth
that much money before reaching for
this pot of Government gold. Borrowed
gold at that.
Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman, Govern-
ment pay increases during periods of
Government deficit financing are impru-
dent, at the least. This is fiscal irrespon-
sibility. Deficit financing by Govern-
ment inflates the currency, that is, cuts
the buying power of the dollar. This is
too dear a price to pay for pay boosts,
worthy though they may be.
As to the merits of this bill, otherwise,
I find much good sense in the several
minority views in the report accompany-
ing the bill. Yet, I see no reason to
analyze the pay bill as to merit or de-
merit when deficit financing rules out
any pay boost.
Yet, lest I be subject to criticism for
not further outlining my views, particu-
larly since Members of Congress are in-
volved I must add this. Comparability
is a difficult principle in equating private
and Government jobs. Yes, it should be
kept in mind as one factor. Yet, I recog-
nize also that the service of an elected
official is different from private enter-
prise, and the appointed official is in yet
another category.
I want to make this plain, that I be-
lieve that Members of Congress should
be paid more, in order that men may
serve without outside income, or without
being independently wealthy, or without
being in the position of conflict of in-
terest. The pay should be enough to
attract men of top ability who then can
live on their salary. To me this is most
important.
If the budget were in balance, I would
approve the salary increase for Members
of Congress. Also, I would outline fur-
ther my beliefs as to the other pay in-
creases of classified Federal employees,
postal employees, judges, and the other
Federal employees covered by the bill.
As Members of Congress we should
earn the pay boosts for all Government
employees, including Congressmen, by
expenditure control resulting in the sur-
plus beyond the balanced budget which
then could go into this pay bill.
Even as we should have earned the tax
cut we should earn the pay boost. Any
other conduct on our part, I hold, is
wrong and fiscally unsound.
[Mr. QUIE addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
? Mr. TUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the bill H.R. 8986, now
under consideration and known as the
modernization of Federal salary system.
The title of this bill is a misnomer and
is nothing more than the wholesale In-
crease of Federal salaries to the tune of
nearly $600 million annually. If this bill
is enacted into law, it will complicate an
already serious situation and further
contribute to inflationary conditions,
disturbing the economy of the Nation at
a time when all thoughtful citizens
should be concerned about such matters.
The passage of this bill means the
spending of money that we do not have.
It means an increase in expenditures
when the present Congress has already
voted to cut taxes. It is not sound in
principle to increase appropriations and
reduce taxes at the same time. Such a
procedure is contrary to my philosophy
of government and to the legislative
record which I have established through-
out my entire public service extending
over a period of 40 years.
The most objectionable feature of the
proposed legislation is that it boosts the
salaries of officials and others who are
already in high salary brackets, certainly
in brackets sufficient to support them
and their families in a manner fitting
to their respective positions.
I am opposed to increasing the pay of
Members of Congress until such time as
Congress balances the budget. The serv-
ices of patriotic men and women cannot
be bought over the counter like common
merchandise. Public service is an honor
and a trust, and we should have men in
public office who are willing to sacrifice
whatever is necessary to save our coun-
try from fiscal imbalance and ruin. Our
country was not made great by men who
were holding out their hands and crying
for more pay. Our country was estab-
lished by workingmen who were lifters
and not leaners.
I am likewise opposed to increasing
the salaries of Cabinet members and
Supreme Court Justices and others.
Irrespective of whether or not these
public servants are worthy of highenpay,
I cannot give my approval to such an
increase at a time when our national
budget is so far out of balance.
It would be pleasing to me to be able
to approve a further raise for the govern-
mental and post office workers in the
lower brackets to offset the inflation of
recent years which has, in effect, reduced
their pay. But we have in the past 8
or 9 years increased the pay of many of
these workers by approximately 50 per-
cent and the result each time has meant
more inflation and has brought little, if
any, relief, certainly not to those who
are harassed with financial problems.
My position on this legislation is a
matter of piinciple from which I cannot
deviate. I would be willing to vote for
legislation to relieve those who are feel-
ing the results of intensive inflation, but
I am not convinced that this Nation is
in such a financial condition that it can
appropriate more than half a billion dol-
lars a year for such a purpose.
In my opinion, such a proposal is un-
conscionable and smacks of a salary grab
at possibly the worst time in our history
when the Government is already in fi-
nancial straits.
[Mr. UDALL addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Boocs] is recog-
nized for 4 minutes to close debate.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, I think the
gentleman who immediately preceded me
has made, probably much more ade-
quately than I could, the point that I
wanted to make; namely, that we do live
In a country which requires the very
best brains that we can bring to the
Government to operate the vast and
complex installations, the scientific op-
erations, the nuclear projects, the de-
fense projects, the research laboratories,
which maintain the vitality and the very
security of the United States of America.
We have a great country and we have
a strong country. The main motiva-
tion which brings people to the service
of our country is patriotism and love of
country.
This has been true in every adminis-
tration that I have had any connection
with. I know that men who have come
here to serve in the Cabinet, to serve in
under-Cabinet positions, to serve as re-
search specialists in the National Insti-
tutes of Health, to work in the atomic
energy program, to work in the fantasti-
cally complicated lprograms of the De-
fense Department involving the use of
these missiles and this weaponry which
none of us dreamed about just a genera-
tion ago. I know that most of these
men?and I say most of them, but really
all of them?come because of a sense of
duty and a sense of patriotism, and not
because of the material reward con-
nected therewith. If the only motiva-
tion was the pay that they receive, most
of them would not come.
But because of love of country they
come here. I think it terribly unfair
that we penalize people for that. I real-
ize that it is impossible to have the
same compensation, moneywise, in Gov-
ernment that you have in private indus-
try, but I think that every study that
has been made by every impartial, objec-
tive board indicates that adjustments
are badly needed in the Federal salary
system. .
I know that it is easy for us to talk
about the pay of the Members of this
body. When I think back to the respon-
sibility of Members of Congress in the
days even when I first came here as
compared with responsibilities today,
there is a remarkable difference.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved Pc46Muggif:M5M6.6RDPAIWO3R000500050001-9
& few years ago, prior to World War
II, we had a budget of something like
$14 or $15 billion, if that much. Today
we have a management responsibility of
about $100 billion a year.
Somebody mentioned some of the com-
mittee chairmen. We have some sub-
committee chairmen who have to handle
$50 billion a year. The notion that any
man can serve here and do his job ade-
quately and well without giving his full
time to it-and I mean full time, morn-
ing, noon, and night, and in between-
as all of you know, is one that any con-
scientious Member of this body rejects
and repudiates.
So I say that, as I see it, this bill is
a bipartisan bill. It is the result of many
years of study. It seeks to make adjust-
ments which are needed desperately,
Particularly in the executive branch of
the Government.
I hope that on tomorrow, when we
come back, all the Members on both
sides, those who are for this bill as well
as those who are against it, will be here
on the floor. I hope they will listen to
the debate objectively and with an open
mind. And I think if they do that, we
will legislate intelligently tomorrow and
pass this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will
now read the bill by titles, instead of
by sections, for amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS
Short title
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Employees Salary Act of 1963".
Classification' Act employees
SEC. 102. (a) Section 602(a) of the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 843) is
amended to read as follows:
"(a) Section 603(b) of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat. 843; 5
U.S.C. 1113 (b) ), is amended to read as fol-
lows:
"'(b) The compensation schedule for the
General Schedule shall be as follows:
"'Grade
Per annum rates and steps
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
GS-1
0S-2
0B-3
0S-4
OS-5
084
GS-7
0R-8
GS-9
GO-10
OS-11
09-12
GS-13
GS-14
GS-15
GS-16
GS-17
GS-18
$3, 385
3,680
4,005
4,480
5,000
5,505
6,050
6, 630
7, 210
7,840'
8, 550
10,200
12,075
14, 170
16, 460
18, 936
21,440
24, 500
$3, 500 $3, 615 $3, 730 $3, 845 $3, 960 $4, 076 $4, 190 $4, 305 $4, 920
3, 805 3, 930 4, 055 4, 180 4,305 4,430 4, 565 4, 680 4, 805
4, 140 4, 275 4, 410 4, 545 4,680 4,815 4, 950 6, 085 5, 220
4,630 4, 780 4, 930 6, 080 5,230'5, 380 6, 530 6, 680' 5, 830
0,165 5,330 0,495 5,680 5,825 5,090 6,055 6,320 6,485
s,850 5, 875 6, 060 6, 245 6,430 6,615 8,800 6, 985 7, 170
6,250 6,450 6,610 6, 850 7,050 7,250 7,450 7, 650 7, 850
6,850 7, 070 7, 290 7, 510 7, 730 7, 950 8, 170 8, 390 8, 510
7,455 7, 706 7, 945 8, 190 8, 435 8,680 8,925 9, 176 9, 415
8,116 8, 380 8,600 8, 920 9, 190 0,460 9, 730 10, 000 10, 270
8,845 9, 140 9,435 9, 730 10, 025 10, 320 10,615 10, 910 11, 205
10, 555 10, 910 11, 265 11, 620 11, 975 12,330 12,685 13, 040 13, 395
12, 496 12, 915 13, 335 13, 755 14, 175 14, 698 15, 015 15, 435 15, 855
14, 660 15, 150 15, 640 16, 130 16,650'17, 110 17,600 18, 090 18, 580
17, 030 17, 600 18, 170 18, 740 19, 310 19, 880 20, 460 21, 020 21, 590
19, 590 20, 245 20, 900 21, 555 22, 210 22,865 23, 620 24, 176
22, 195 22, 945 23, 695 24, 445
(b) The first sentence of subsection (c)
of such section 602 is amended by striking
out "The rates of basic compensation of offi-
cers and employees to whom Compensation
Schedule II of the General Schedule set
forth in subsection (a) of this section ap-
plies shall be initially adjusted," and by
inserting in lieu thereof "Except as provided
in subsection (d) of section 501 of this Act,
the rates of basic compensation of officers
and employees to whom the compensation
schedule set forth in subsection (a) of this
section applies shall be initially adjusted,".
SEC. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1131),
relating to new appointments, is amended
to read as follows:
"SEe. 801. All new appointments shall be
made at the Minimum rate of the appropri-
ate grade, except that in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Commission
which provide for such considerations as the
candidate's existing salary, unusually high
or unique qualifications, or a special need
of the Government for his services, the head
of any department may appoint individuals
to positions in grade 13 and above of the
General Schedule at such rate or rates above
the minimum rate of the appropriate grade
as the Commission may authorize for this
purpose.".
(b) Section 1105 of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1071, note), is
amended to read as follows:
"Sac. 1105. The provisions of section 507,
title VII, and title VIII of this Act shall not
apply to professional engineering positions
primarily concerned with research and de-
velopment and professional positions in the
physical and natural sciences and medicine
placed in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule in accordance with subsection
(b) or subsection (j) of section 505. The
President or an agency or agencies that he
designates shall issue -regulations governing
the rate of basic compensation within the
grade to be received by any officer or em-
ployee occupying, appointed to, or promoted
to, such a position, and, in the case of reduc-
tion in grade, may issue regulations govern-
ing retention of the rate to which the officer
or employee was entitled immediately before
reduction."
(c) Section 505(b) of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)),
relating to the limitation on numbers of
positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule of such Act, is amended by
striking out "which may be placed in such
grades" and by inserting in lieu thereof
"? examiner positions under section 11 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (60 Stat. 244;
5 U.S.C. 1010), and positions placed under
this Act pursuant to section 309 of the Fed-
eral Executive Salary Act of: 1963, which may
be placed in snch grades".
POSTAL FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES
SEC. 104. Section 1 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the
period at the end of such section and in-
serting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the
following:
"'revenue unit' means that amount of rev-
enue of a post office from mail, and special
service transactions which is equal to the
average sum of postal rates and fees received
4759
by the Department during the fiscal year for
1,000 pieces of originating mail and special
service transactions determined in accord-
ance with section 2331 of this title.".
SEC. 105. Section 702 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"I 702. Classes of post offices
"(a) Effective at the beginning of each
fiscal year the Postmaster General shall di-
vide post offices into four classes on the basis
of the revenue units of each office for the
second preceding fiscal year. He shall place
in the first class those post offices having
950 or more revenue units. He shall place in
the second class those post offices having 190
or more revenue units, but less than 950 rev-
enue units. He shall place in the third class
those post offices having 36 or more revenue
units, but less than 190 revenue units. He
shall place in the fourth class those post
offices having less than 36 revenue units.
"(b) The Postmaster General shall exclude
from the revenue credited to a post office for
the purposes of this section money received
at that office for-
"(1) setting meters for patrons beyond
the area served by the office unless author-
ized by the Department;
"(2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold in large or unusual quanti-
ties to be used in mailing matter at other
offices; and
"(3) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold for mailing matter diverted
from other 'offices' and mailing of matter so
diverted without stamps affixed.
"(c) Whenever unusual conditions pre-
vail at a post office of the fourth class, the
Postmaster General may advance such office
to the appropriate class based on his esti-
mate of the number of revenue units which
the office will have during the succeeding
twelve months. Any office so advanced need
not be relegated to a lower class before the
end of the second fiscal year after the ad-
vancement. At that time, the office shall be
assigned to the appropriate class in accord-
ance with subsections (a) and (b) of this
section.".
SEC. 100. Section 704 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by deleting "of the
first, second, or third class" appearing there-
in, and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than
one for which the postmaster furnishes quar-
ters, equipment, and fixtures on an allow-
ance basis)".
SEC. 107. Subsection (b) (1) of section
2102 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read-as follows:
"(1) for post offices at which the postmas-
ter does net furnish quarters on an allow-
ance basis;".
SEC. 108. (a) Section 3501 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by-
(1) deleting from the first sentence of
subsection (a) the following: "standard po-
sitions of postmasters in a fourth-class office
and rural carrier" and inserting in lieu
thereof "standard position of rural carrier";
and
(2) inserting a new subsection (c) follow-
ing subsection (b) as follows:
"(c) The Postmaster General shall deter-
mine and, effective at the beginning of the
first pay period in each calendar year, shall
adjust the rankings of all positions for
which the number of annual revenue units
of a post office or its class is a relevant fac-
tor of the ranking, using the revenue units
of the preceding fiscal year and the class in
which the office will be placed at the be-
ginning of the next fiscal year. The Post-
master General also may adjust rankings
of such positions at other times of the year
based upon substantial changes in service
conditions.".
(b) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST
OFFICE CLERK. (KA-4 ) "; and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 -
1760 CONGRI SSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 11
(B) Add the following new sentence to the
end of paragraph (1): "This office has less
than 190 revenue units annually.".
(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516--
(A) Change the catchline to read "Posr-
NI ASTER. (KP-18)"
B> Delete "third class" In the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $1,700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 40 revenue units annually".
(3) In subsection (b) of section 3517-
(A) Chance the catehline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP- 20 ) ";
13) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (I); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 64,700" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert In lieu thereof
"approximately 110 revenue units annually".
(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518, -
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. ( KP-2 2 ) " ;
(B) Delete "third class" in the first sen-
(ence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 66,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 140 revenue units annually".
(5) In subsection (b) of section 3519- ?
(A) Change the catchline to read "AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (SP-24)"; and
(B) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately 663,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof "ap-
proximately 1,490 revenue units annually".
(6) In subsection (e) of section 3519-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-25("
(B> Delete "second class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $16,000" in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert In lieu thereof
"approximately 380 revenue units annually".
(7) In subsection (b) of section 3520-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. ( KP-27 ) ";
(B) Delete "first clasa" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delta "annual receipts of approxi-
mately $63,000" In the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu 'thereof "ap-
proximately 1.490 revenue units annually".
(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. I KP-25) ";
(B) Delete -first class" appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (I); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $129,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof "approximately
3.060 revenue units annually".
(9) In subsection (b) of section 3522--
(A ) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER ( HP- 31 )
(B) Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); arid
(C) Delete "annual receipts of $314,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof "approximately 7,450
revenue units annually".
(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523-
(A) Change the catchline to read "vosr-
MASTER ( KP-3 3 ) ";
(B) Delete "first class" appearing In the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete the second sentence of para-
graph Ii) and insert in lieu thereof: "This
office has approximately 110 employees, ap-
proximately 14,350 revenue units annually,
13 government-owned vehicle units, one
classified station and 42 carrier routes with-
in its jurisdiction.".
1 1 11 In subsection h) of section 3524-
IA) i':`,hange the catchline to read "Assfar-
A ST P0 TMASTER. KP-ss) "; and
113) laelte "annual receipts of $2.700.000"
in the> iecond sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert In lieu thereof approximately 64,000
reventi? units annually".
(12)1 In subsection (C) of section 3524-
(A) 1,)hange the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER (((P-Sal":
(B) (Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence f paragraph (1); and
((7) i)elete "annual receipts of $1000000"
in theL econd-sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert In lieu thereof "approximately 23.700
revende units annually".
(13 )1In subsection (Si of section 3525-
IA; )()hange the catchline to read "ASSIST-
ANT POI TMASTER. ( KP-37 ) " ; and
(11) Delete "annual receipts of $8,460,000"
in the> econd sentence of paragraph ( I) and
Insert In lieu thereof "approximately 200.000
revenui units annually."
(14(1 In subsection (b) of section 3525
ii1hange the catchline to read"roar-
ASTEli K-P-3 13 ":
(B) t3elete "first class" in the first sen-
tence Sf. paragraph (1); and
C) !Delete "annual receipts of 62.700,000"
in the> econd sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert In lieu thereof "approximately 64,000
revenui units annually".
( 15) ! In subsection (a) of section 3526-
(A) kThange the catchline to read "As-
SISTA Ni POSTMASTER. ( ICP-3 ) "; and
(B) lielete "annual receipts of $16.900,000"
in the 1 econd sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert Ii lieu thereof "approximately 400,000
revenui units annually".
(18) 1In subsection (b) of section 3526-
(A) Mange the catchline to read "POST-
MASTSF0 ( KP-4 )
(B) (Delete "first class" in the first sen-
tence d: paragraph (1); and
(0) peiete "annual receipts of $4,470,-
000" id the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof "approximately
106,04:4 revenue units annually".
(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527-
(A) f'hange the catchline to read "AS-
SISTA N71 POSTMASTER. (KP-43) "; and
(B) (Delete "annual receipts of $48,000,-
000- in) the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof "approximately
1.000,000 revenue units annually".
(18) In subsection (c) of section 3527-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. )ICP-4 3 1";
(B) 121,31ete "first class" in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
IC1 Delete "annual receipts of $8,460,000"
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
Insert In lieu thereof "approximately 200,000
revenue tints annually".
(19) In subsection (b) of section 3528-
(A) Change the catchline to read -AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (((('-4 5)"; and
(13) Delete "annual receipts of $140,000,-
000" in the second sentence of paragraph
Ill and insert in lieu thereof "approxi-
mately 2.500.000 revenue units annually".
(20) In subsection (c) of section 3528-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. ( KP-4 6 ) ";
(B) Delete -first class- in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1): and
(C) Delete -annual receipts of $16,900,-
000" In the second sentence of paragraph
1) and insert in lieu thereof "approxi-
mately 400.000 revenue units annually".
(21) In section 3529-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-47 ) ";
(B) Delete "first class'' in the first Sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
(C) Delete "annual receipts of 48,000,-
000" in the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof "approxi-
mately 1.000,000 revenue units annually."
(22) In section 3530-
(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (11CP-4 8 1";
(B) Delete "first class'' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1): and
(C) Delete -annual receipts of 6140,000.-
000" in the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof "approxi-
mately equal to 2.500,000 revenue units an-
nually".
SEC. 109. Subsection (a) of section 3542
of title 59, United States Code, is amended
by-
(1) deleting "sections 3543 and 3544"
from the second sentence and inserting in
lieu thereof "section 3543"; and
(2) amending the Postal Field Service
Schedule II to read as follows:
"POSTAI, FIEL11 SERVICE SC11 F.1111,E 11
fl-iice for tip. per1t81 beginning on the first day of t he first :ty piny begttut rot on or after January 1,
1964, and thereafter)
1
Per . nitwit rates awl ,tens
'. $3. 945 $4071 $4,006 $4,315 $4,465
' 4,270 4,411) 4,510 4,600 4,530
3 1 4,1115 4.770 4.526 5.080 5,235
i 5,000 5.16S 6,330 2,40.5 5.060
5 . _ t 5,345 5. 525 5.705 5.855 6,085
; 5, 735 1.0.26 0,115 0.305 (3,495
7 6, 140 0. 346 1 11, 5.50 6, 75.5 6, NO
6. 410 (1.570)7,000 7,310 7,530
9. ' 7,11(0 7.430 7.070 7,1110 8, 150
10. ... 7.1140 5. 0(36 8,380 5,523 8,591)
5,630 8.1)46 9,240 0,530 9,530
11 . _ 0,570 9.5136 10,120 10,543 10(170
13 36,675 I 10. 940 11.305 11,670 12,036
14 .. 11,660 12. 06.5 1 (2.470 12,875 13,280
15 _ . 4--. 13,331) 13.77$ 14,220 14,066
10----. ' 14,241) 14,736 11,130 15, 725 16,120
17 , 15. 755 10,305 16, 826 17,406 17,1)56
18,.,J i7.460 15(541 18,070 19,280 19,690
19. . .. ,,, ; 19,346 20. fril 20,056 21,370 2'2,1)45
20_ . ___ , , 21. 445 '22. 195 22,945 '23,005 24, 445
$4,695
4,970
5,390
5,825
6,245
6.685
7.166
7, 750
8,390
9, 155
10, 125
11, 195
12, 400
12,08,5
15, 110
16, 715
18, 505
'20,300
12,720
SEC. 110. In subsection (a) of section 3543
of title( 39. United States Code, the Rural
54,7.2.
5, 11C
5, 545
5)811
6,421.
6, 871,
7, 37t
7, 97f1
6,031
9,421,
10, 42t+
11,621'
12, 765
14. 090
15, .55t
17, 21t
19. 06:
21,
'23,367
9 10
$4,635 $4,055 $2, 115
5,121) 5,31(0 5,530
5,700 5,865 5,910
6,115 ! (t3'20 1,465
6,0(1 6,781 0,965
7,066 7,265 7,445
7,575 7,7(1)) 7.08,5
8.11)0 (1,41(1 5. 630
8,87)) 11,110 1.1.350
9.136)) 111,'215
9, 685
10,715
11, 845
13,130
14, 4115
16,000
17,7(15
19, 605
21.720
24,070
12, 170 (2,495
13,405 13.800
14,900 15,303
10,445 16, 890
111,20(1 IS, 605
20, 156 20, 705
12,330 :12. 840
11 12
56, 24.5 $5,175
6,670 5,810
0,065 6,1'2t)
6,6.30 0,815
7, 145 7.126
7,636 7.525
8, 190
Carrier Schedule II is amended to read as
follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4761
"RURAL CARRIER SCHEDULE II
"(To be effective for the period beginning on the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1964,
and thereafter)
"Per annum rates and steps
Carriers in ruraldefivery service:
Fixed compensation per an-
num
Compensation per mile per
. annum for each mile up to
30 miles of route
For each mile of route over
30 miles
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
$2,240
$2,345
$2,450
$2,555
$2,660
$2, 765
$2,870
$2,975
$3, 080
$3,183
$3, 200
$3,395
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25".
SEC. 111. (a) Section 3544 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"? 3544. Compensation of Postmasters at
Fourth-Class Offices
"(a) The Postmaster General shall rank
the position of postmasters of fourth-class
offices in level 5 of the Postal Field Service
Schedule and shall establish the annual rate
of basic compensation for each such position
in the proportion of the annual rate of basic
compensation for positions in PFS-5 which
he determines, in consideration of the postal
needs of the patrons of the office, that the
postmaster's hours of service bear to full-
time service. Determinations made by the
Postmaster General under this subsection
shall be final and conclusive until changed
by him.
"(b) Persons who perform the duties of
postmaster at a post office of the fourth class
where there is a vacancy or during the
absence of the postmaster on sick or annual
leave or leave without pay shall be com-
pensated at the rate of basic compensation
for PFS level 5, step 1, determined in accord-
ance with subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) At seasonal post offices of the fourth
class, the Postmaster General may authorize
the payment of basic salary prorated over
the pay periods the office is open for business
during the fiscal year.
"(d) When required by the Postmaster
General a postmaster at a fourth-class office
shall, and any other postmaster in PFS level
5 when permitted by the Postmaster General
may, furnish quarters, fixtures, and equip-
ment for an office on an allowance basis. The
allowance for this purpose shall be an
amount equal to 15 per centum of the basic
compensation for the postmaster at the office
computed on the basis of the first step of
PFS level 5.".
(b) In the operation of the amendment
made by subsection (a) of this section, the
following provisions shall govern:
(1) Each postmaster at a fourth-class
office on the effective date of this section
shall be assigned, as of such date,-
(A) to that numerical step of level 5 of
Postal Field Service Schedule II (PPS 11-5)
which corresponds to the numerical step of
the Fourth-Class Office Schedule (FOS) re-
ceipts category which he occupied immedi-
ately prior to such assignment, or
(B) to the lowest step of level 5 of Postal
Field Service Schedule II (PFS 11-5) which
will provide him, for the number of hours of
service determined under section 3544 of title
39, United States Code, compensation which
is not less than the compensation to which
he would otherwise be entitled, on the effec-
tive date of this section, uncles' Fourth Class
Schedule H (as if such schedule were in
effect on such date),
whichever step provides the higher rate of
compensation.
(2) If no step in level 5 of Postal Field
Service Schedule II (PFS 11-5) will provide
a postmaster, so assigned under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, with compensation
which is equal to or greater than the corn-
.
pensation which he Would have received
under Fourth Class Schedule II (as if such
schedule were in effect on the effective date
of this section), as provided by paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of section 712 of the Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act of 1962, as amended,
such postmaster shall receive compensation
at a rate equal to the applicable rate fixed
under Fourth Class Schedule n (as if such
schedule were in effect on the effective date
of this section) and the provisions of section
3541 of title 39, United States Code (as such
provisions existed immediately prior to the
effective date of this section) , in the manner
provided by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of section 712 of the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962, as amended. Subject to the
provisions of section 3560 of title 39, United
States Code, the compensation of a postmas-
ter paid in accordance with the immediately
preceding sentence shall be adjusted in ac-
cordance with changes in the gross postal re-
ceipts of his post office as though this Act
had not been enacted. The compensation
of a postmaster paid in accordance with any
of the foregoing provisions of this paragraph
shall continue in effect until such postmaster
is entitled to receive compensation at a
higher rate by reason of the operation of
this Act or any other provision of law.
(3) If changes in the gross postal receipts
category or changes in salary step otherwise
would occur on the effective date of this
section (without regard to the enactment
of this section), such changes shall be held
and considered to have occurred prior to as-
signment under paragraph (1) of this sub-
section.
(c) The table of contents of chapter 45
of title 39, United States Code, Is amended
by deleting:
"3544. Fourth Class Office Schedule.";
and inserting in lieu thereof
"3541. Compensation of Postmasters at
Fourth-Class Offices.".
SEC. 112. (a) Subsection (a) of section
6007 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
? "(a) The Postmaster General shall pay to
persons, other than special delivery messen-
gers at post offices of the first class, for mak-
ing delivery of special delivery mail such
fees as may be established by him not in
excess of the special delivery fee.".
(b) Section 2009 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by deleting "at any price
less than eight cents per piece" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "at any price less than
the fees established pursuant to section 6007
of this title.".
SEC. 113. Section 3560 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended-
(1) by deleting from subsection (a) "(3)
gross receipts category, with respect to the
Fourth-Class Office Schedule" and inserting
In lieu thereof "(3) minimum hours of serv-
ice with respect to postmasters in fourth-
class post offices"; and
(2) by deleting from subsection (f) "(1)
reductions in class or gross receipts category
of any post office, or" and inserting in lieu
thereof "(1) reductions in class, revenue
units of any post office, or the minimum
hours of service for a fourth-class post of-
fice, or".
SEC. 114. (a) Section 711 of title 39, United
States Code, is repealed.
(b) Section 3552(a) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(a) (1) Each employee of the Postal Field
Service Schedule and each employee subject
to the Rural Carrier Schedule who has not
reached the highest step for his position
shall be advanced successively to the next
higher step as follows:
"(A) To steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7-at the
beginning of the first pay period following
the completion of fifty-two calendar weeks
of satisfactory service; and
"(B) To steps 8 and above-at the begin-
ning of the first pay period following the
completion of one hundred and fifty-six cal-
endar weeks of satisfactory service.
"(2) The receipt of an equivalent increase
during any of the waiting periods specified
in this subsection shall cause a new full
waiting period to commence for further step
increases."
(c) Section 3541(d) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by-
(1) striking out "postmasters," in para-
graph (3) thereof; and
(2) adding immediately following para-
graph (5) thereof the following new para-
graph:
"(6) To compute the daily rate of basic
compensation for postmasters, the annual
rate of compensation shall be divided by
260."
(d) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding a new section
to read as follows:
"? 3577. Postmasters
"Postmasters shall be scheduled to work
a five-day week except upon determination
by the Postmaster General that a workweek
in excess of five days for the postmaster of
a particular post office is necessary to main-
tain essential postal service in the public
Interest. The provisions of this section shall
not be applied to require the closing of any
post office on any weekday, Monday through
Saturday inclusive."
(e) Section 3552 of title 39, United States
Code, relating to automatic advancement by
step increases of postal field service em-
ployees, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
"(d) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this title and in addition to advance-
ment under other provisions of this section,
each employee in levels 1 through 6 of the
Postal Field Service Schedule, each employee .
subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule, and
each employee subject to the Fourth Class
Office Schedule, who-
"(1) on October 13, 1962, had performed
at least one thousand and ninety-two weeks
of satisfactory service and who has not at-
tained step 12 of the step rates of his posi-
tion shall be placed in step 12;
"(2) on October 13, 1962, had performed
at least nine hundred and thirty-six weeks
of satisfactory service but less than one
thousand and ninety-two weeks of satis-
factory service and who has not attained step
11 of the step rates of his position shall be
placed in step 11;
"(3) on October 13, 1962, had performed
at least seven hundred and eighty weeks of
satisfactory service but less than nine hun-
dred and thirty-six weeks of satisfactory
service and who has not attained step 10
of the step rates of his position shall be
placed in step 10;
"(4) on October 13, 1962, had performed
at least six hundred and twenty-four weeks
of satisfactory service but less than seven
hundred and eighty weeks of satisfactory
service and who has not attained step 9 ,of
the step rates of his position shall be placed
in step 9;
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP661300403R00050005000179.
1762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 11
"(5) on October 13. 1963, had performed
at least four hundred and sixty-eight weeks
of satisfatcory service but less than six hun-
dred and twenty-four weeks of satisfactory
service and 'who has not attained step 8 of
the step rates of his position shall be placed
In step 8,
"(6) on October 13. 1962, had performed
at least three hundred and sixty-four weeks
of satisfactory service but less than four
hundred and sixty-eight weeks of satisfac-
tory service and who has not attained step
7 of the step rates of his position shall be
placed in step 7;
"(7) on October 13, 1962. had performed at
least two hundred and sixty weeks of satis-
factory service but less than three hundred
and sixty-four weeks of satisfactory service
and who has not attained step 6 of the step
rates of his position shall be placed in step
6:
"(8) on October 13, 1962, had performed
at least one hundred and fifty-six weeks of
satisfatcory service but less than two hun-
dred and sixty weeks of satisfactory service
and who has not attained step 5 of the step
rates of his position shall be placed in step
5;
"(9) on October 13, 1962. had performed at
least one hundred and four weeks of satis-
factory service but less than one hundred
and fifty-six weeks of satisfactory service
and who has not attained step 4 of the step
rates of his position shall be placed in step
4; and
"(10) on October 13. 1982, had performed
at least fifty-two weeks of satisfactory service
but less than one hundred and four weeks of
satisfactory service and who has not attained
step 3 of the step rates of his position shall
be placed in step 3.
Service in excess of the minimum service re-
quired for placement in a step under this
subsection shall be credited toward service
required for placement in the next higher
step under this subsection."
(f) The table of contents of chapter 45 of
title 39, United States Code, Is amended by
Inserting
"3577. Postmasters."
Immediately following
"3576. Holiday service of rural carriers and
employees assigned to road duty."
(g) The table of contents of chapter 7 of
title 39. United States Code, Is amended by
deleting
"711. Method of determining gross receipts.".
SEC. 115. The first sentence of section 712
of the Federal Salary Reform Act of 1982 (78
Stat. 856) is amended by striking out "The
basic compensation of each employee sub-
ject to the Postal Field Service Schedule II,
Rural Carrier Schedule II, or Fourth Class
Office Schedule H. as the case may be, on the
effective date of such schedule shall be de-
termined as follows:" and by Inserting In
lieu thereof, "Except as provided in sub-
section (d) of section 504 of this Act and
section 111( la) of the Federal Employees
Salary Act of 1963, the basic compensa-
tion of each employee subject to the Postai
Field Service Schedule II or Rural Carrier
Schedule II, as the case may be, on the effec-
tive date of such schedule shall be deter-
mined as follows:".
Sec. 116. (a) Section 713 of the Federal
Salary Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 856) is
amended by adding a new paragraph (3) to
read as follows:
"(3) Notwithstanding any provision of
this section to the contrary, an existing rate
of compensation fixed by reason of section
3560 of title 39, United States Code, relating
to salary protection upon reduction in sal-
ary standing, shall be increased by an
amount equal to the amount of Increase in
such rate made by the applicable Schedule
II".
(b) Schedule 713 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 850) Is hereby
repealedi with respect to the increases In
rates of I sompensation made by Postai Field
Service tehedule II and Rural Carrier Sched-
ule II ael contained In the amendments made
by sectiens 109 and 110 of this Act and with
respect I) the increases in rates Of compen-
sation poirsuant to this subsection.
EMPLOYE,18 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE
AND IIIRGERY OF THE VETERANS' ADMINIS-
T5ATI4 4
Sec. 1117. (a) Section 4103 of title 38,
United l tates Code, relating to the appoint-
ment aid annual salaries of certain staff
Positionp in the Department of Medicine and
Suigeryi of the Veterans' Administration, is
amend: to read as follows:
"I 4103.i Office of the Chief Medical Director
"(a) I'he Office of the Chief Medical Direc-
tor shag consist of the following-
"(ii ("he Chief Medical Director, who shall
be the l'hief of the Department of Medicine
and Sue (ery and shall be directly responsible
to the I Idministrator for the operations of
the Deli .rtment. lie shall be a qualified doc-
tor of teleclicine, appointed by the Adminis-
trator. i Section 2 of the Act of July 31,
1894, al amended (5 U.S.C. 82), shall not
apply i 1 any individual appointed Chief
Medical Director before January 1, 1984; but
section! 212 of the Act of June 30, 1932, as
amende I (5 U.S.C. 59a), shall apply, in ac-
cordant a with Its terms, to any such Indi-
vidual.;
"(2) I The Deputy Chief Medical Director,
who ste 11 be the principal assistant of the
Chief :edical Director. He shall be a quali-
fied d tor of medicine, appointed by the
Aciminf trator.
-(3) !Not to exceed five Assistant Chief
Medical Directors, who shall be appointed by
the Adedinistrator upon the recommendation
of the I7.111ef Medical Director. One Assist-
ant Cita Medical DIrecator shall be a quali-
fied dol tor of dental surgery or dental medi-
cine wl o shall be directly responsible to the
Chief tledical Director for the operation of
the Det al Service.
"(4)1 Such Medical Directors as may be ap-
pointet by the Administrator, upon the rec-
ommeti lotion of the Chief Medical Director,
to suit ,he needs of the Department. A Medi-
cal Dig ctor shall be either a qualified doctor
of medicine or a qualified doctor of dental
surgerj or dental medicine.
"(5)i A Director of Nursing Service, who
shall i e et qualified registered nurse, ap-
pointee by the Administrator, and who shall
be resjonsible to the Chief Medical Director
for the operation of the Nursing Service.
"(6)! A Chief Pharmacist and a Chief
Dietittm, appointed by the Administrator.
"(7)i Such other personnel and employees
as ma be authorized by this chapter.
"(b Except as providedin subsection (c),
I
any a dointment under this section shall be
for a period of four years. with reappoint-
ment permissible for successive like periods,
escepg that persons so appointed or reap-
pointset shall be subject to removal by the
Admig.strator for cause.
"lc i The Administrator may designate a
membi r of the Chaplain Service of the Vet-
erans'ci Administration as Director, Chaplain
Servi . for a period of two years, subject to
remo; 1 by the Administrator for cause. Re-
desig .tion under this subsection may be
made , for successive like periods. An in-
dividd a designated as Director, Chaplain
Service , shall at the end of his period of
service as Director revert to the position,
grade4 and status which he held Immediately
prior eo being designated Director, Chaplain
Servide, and all service as Director. Chaplain
Servicp, shall be creditable as service In the
forme, position.".
(b) The table of contents of chapter 73.
title 33, United States Code, is amended by
strikil g out
"4103; Appointments and compensation."
and it setting in lieu thereof:
"4103. Office of the Chief Medical Director.".
SEC. 118. Section 4107 of title 38, United
States Code, relating to grades and pay scales
for certain positions within the Department
of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans'
Administration, is amended to read as fol-
lows:
"l 4107. Grades and pay scales
"(a) The per annum full-pay scale or
ranges for positions provided in section 4103
of this title, other than Chief Medical Direc-
tor and Daputy Chief Medical Director, shall
be as follsws:
"SECTION 4103 SCHEDULE
"Assistant Chief Medical Director, $24,500.
"Medical Director, $21.445 minimum to
$24,445 maximum.
"Director of Nursing Service, $16,460 mini-
mum to $21,590 maximum.
"Director, Chaplain Service, $16,460 mini-
mum to 821,590 maximum.
"Chief Pharmacist, $16,460 minimum to
$21,590 maximum.
"Chief Dietitian, $16,460 minimum to $21,-
590 maximum.
"(b) (1; The grades and per annum full-
pay ranges for positions provided in para-
graph (1 of section 4104 of this title shall
be as follows:
"PHYSICIAN AND DENTIST SCHEDULE
"Director grade, $18,935 minimum to $24,-
175 maximum.
"Executive grade, $17,655 minimum to
$23.190 maximum.
"Chief grade, $16,460 minimum to $21,-
590 maximum.
"Senior grade, $14,170 minimum to $18,580
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $12,075 minimum to
$15.855 maximum.
"Full grade, $10,200 minimum to $13,395
maximum.
"Associate grade, $8,550 minimum to
$11,205 maximum.
- "NURSE SCHEDULE
"Assistant Director grade, $14,170 mini-
mum to $18,580 maximum.
"Chief grade. $12,075 minimum to 515,855
maximum.
"Senior grade, $10.200 minimum to $13,395
maximum.
"Intermediate grade, $8,550 minimum to
911,205 maximum.
"Full grade, $7,210 minimum to $9,415
maximum.
"Associate grade, $6,315 minimum to $8,215
maximum.
"Junior grade, $5,505 minimum to $7,170
maximum.
"(2) No person may hold the director grade
unless he Is serving as a director of a hos-
pital, domiciliary center, or outpatient clinic
(independent). Ito person may hold the
executive grade unless he holds the position
of chief of staff at a hospital, center, or out-
patient clinic (independent), or the position
of clinic director at an outpatient clinic, or
comparable position.".
FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS; STAFF OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES
SEC. 119. Section 412 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1946. as amended (22 U.S.C. 867), is
amended to read as follows:
"FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
"Sec. 412. There shall be 10 classes of For-
eign Service officers, including the classes of
career ambassador and of career minister.
The per annum salary of a career ambassador
shall he at the rate provided by law for level
IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule.
The pet annum salary of a career minister
shall be at the rate provided by law for level
V of such schedule. Effective on the first day
of the first pay period which begins on or
after January 1, 1964, the per annum salaries
of Foreign Service officers within each of the
other classes shall be as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relean 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4763
"Class 1
$22, 660
$23, 440
$24, 500
,
Class 2
18,295
18,930
19, 565
$20, 200
$20, 835
$21,470
$22, 105
Class 3
14, 860
15, 375
15, 890
16, 405
16,920
17, 435
17, 950
Class 4
12, 075
12,401
12, 915
13, 335
13,755
14, 175
14, 595
Class 5
0,000
10,245,
10,500
10, 935
11,280
11,021
11, 970
Class 6
8, 205
8,400
8,775
9, 060
0,345
9,630
9,915
(Mass 7
7,080
7,238
7,470
7, 705
7,040
8, 175
8,410
Class 8
6,050
6,250
6, 450
6, 650
6, 850
7,050
7,250".
SEC. 120. Subsection (a) of section 415 of
such Act is amended to read as follows:
"(a) There shall be ten classes of Foreign
Service staff officers and employees, referred
to hereafter as staff officers and employees.
"Class 1_ _
Class 2_ _
Class 3_.
Class 4____
Class 5
Class 6 _
Class 7__ _
Class 8
Class 9
Class l0___
$14, 860
12, 075
9, 900
8, 205
7,405
6, 710
6, 205
5, 490
5,010
4, 480
$15, 375
12, 495
10, 245
8, 490
7,060
0, 935
0, 410
5, 675
5, 175
4, 630
Effective on the first day of the first pay
period which begins on or after January 1,
1964, the per annum salaries of such staff
officers and employees within each class shall
be as follows:
$15, 890
12, 915
10, 590
8, 775
7,915
7, 160
6, 615
5,860
5,340
4,780
$16,405
13, 335
10, 935
9,060
8,170
7, 385
6, 820
6,045
5, 505
4,520
$16,920
18, 755
11, 280
9,345
8,425
7,610
7,025
6, 230
5, 670
5, 080
$17, 435
14, 175
11, 625
5, 630
8,680
7,835
7,230
6, 415
5,835
5,200
$17, 950
14, 595
11, 970
9, 915
8,935
8, 060
7, 405
6, 600
6, 000
5, 380
$18, 465
15, 015
12,315
10, 200
9,100
8, 285
7, 640
6, 785
6, 165
5, 530
SEC. 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve
officers, and Foreign Service staff officers and
employees who are entitled to receive basic
compensation immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of this Act at one of the rates pro-
vided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1946, shall receive basic com-
pensation, on and after such effective date,
at the corresponding rate in effect on and
after such date.
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION
COUNTY COMMITTEE EMPLOYEES
SEC. 122. The rates of compensation of
persons employed by the county committees
established pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) shall be increased
by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac-
ticable, to the increases provided by section
102 for corresponding rates of compensation
in the appropriate schedule or scale of pay.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 123. Section 504 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
1173) is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new subsection:
"(d) The rate of basic compensation, es-
tablished under this section, and received by
any officer or employee immediately prior to
the effective date of a statutory increase in
the compensation schedules of the salary
systems specified in subsection (a) shall be
initially adjusted on the effective date of
such new compensation schedules in accord-
ance with conversion rules and regulations
prescribed by the President or by such agency
or agencies at he may designate."
Mr. MURRAY (interrupting the read-
ing of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading
of title I be dispensed with, that it be
printed in the RECORD, and that it be
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIAMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. HOLIFIELD, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, reported that that Commit-
tee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 8986) to adjust the rates of
basic compensation of certain officers
and employees in the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
$18, 980
15, 435
12, 660
10, 485
9,445
8, 510
7, 845
0, 970
6, 330
5, 680
$10, 495
15, 855
13,005
10,770
9,700
8, 735
8,050
7, 155
(1,495
5, 830".
CIVIL RIGHTS
(Mr. SELDEN asked and was given
permission to address the House for I
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call to the attention of the Mem-
bers of the House an extremely worth-
while project presently being undertaken
by the members of the Montgomery, Ala.,
Junior Chamber of Commerce. They,
along with numerous Members of Con-
gress, feel that the people of the United
States generally are not thoroughly fa-
miliar with the provisions of the pend-
ing civil rights bill. For this reason, the
Montgomery Junior Chamber of Com-
merce has printed a booklet, entitled
"The Truth." In addition to the text of
the bill, the booklet contains a resolution
by the Montgomery Jaycees and a short
analysis of the bill by two former presi-
dents of the American Bar Association,
Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield.
These follow:
A RESOLUTION (PASSED BY THE MONTGOMERY
JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FEBRUARY
18, 1964)
Whereas there is now pending for consid-
eration before the U.S. Senate the Civil
Rights Act of 1963; and
Whereas included in this act as title VII
Is the establishment of the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission; and
Whereas_ the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Commission shall be empowered un-
der the provisions of this act with authority
to usurp all the constitutional rights of
management in the selection, promotion,
and firing of its employees through constant
Government supervision; and
Whereas included in this act as title II is
the section covering public accommodations
which empowers the Federal Government to
supervise business enterprises which are
privately owned in their choice of customers,
clients, guests, or clientele; and
Whereas such unprecedented power being
placed in the hands of any governmental
agency, whether it be local, State or Fed-
eral level, violates every principle contained
in our free enterprise system and relation-
ship between a government and its people;
and
Whereas the national creed of the U.S.
Junior Chamber of Commerce contains as
its core the principle "that economic justice
can best be won by freemen through free
enterprise"; and
Whereas the preservation a our free en-
terprise system is our greatest weapon in
the fight against communistic collectivism
and should be preserved at all cost: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That every member of the U.S.
Junior Chamber of Commerce who sub-
scribes to and believes in this principle as
pronounced in the national creed should
endeavor with all his effort and ability to
bring about the defeat of titles II and VII of
this act and to prevent the creation of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion; and be it further
Resolved, That every Jaycee chapter
which sincerely and honestly subscribes to
the national creed should awaken the people
of its community to this danger to our eco-
nomic system; and be it further
Resolved, That every responsible American
should read and study this proposed legis-
lation and every Jaycee chapter should en-
deavor to make available the truth concern-
ing this unconstitutional invasion of all our
property rights.
AN ANALYSIS BY LLOYD WRIGHT AND JOHN
C. SATTERFIELD, PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE
AMERICAN 13AR ASSOCIATION
Attorney General Robert Kennedy is now
urging Congress to pass a package of legisla-
tion called the Civil Rights Act of 1963.
Its title is a misnomer. This bill is but 10
percent civil rights. The rest-90 percent-
is an extension of Federal executive power
created at the expense of individuals, States,
and municipalities. It is, in fact, the blue-
print for a controlled system of life, more
drastic than all such legislation ever passed.
Consider the bill's principal provisions:
Under the cloak of civil rights-if this
bill becomes law the Federal Government
henceforth will dictate to whom you may sell
or rent your home.
If you are the proprietor of an establish-
ment that offers goods and services for use
or hire-not just public accommodations
(hotels, restaurants, and such) but any
kind of business that offers anything to the
13ublic-then, under this bill, your business
would be subject to Federal control.
In like manner, the bill covers all con-
tractors and subcontractors in every pro-
gram or activity where direct or indirect fi-
nancial aid is rendered by the Government.
In the sense of this bill, you are a contractor
(or subcontractor) if you borrow money
from or deposit money in a Government-
insured bank (FDIC); if you have a FHA,
VA, or Small Business Administration Loan;
if you are a realtor or developer; if you are
a farmer who has financial dealings with
the Farm Credit Administration, the Com-
modity Credit Corporation, or the Soil Con-
servation Service or if you have Federal
Crop Insurance; if you deal with RISA or
participate in any agricultural program in-
volving Federal funds; if you have financial
dealings, direct or indirect with any of these
agencies, you will come under Federal con-
trol.
Under this act, all employers who partici-
pate in any of these programs can be told by
a Federal Fair Employment Practices Com-
mission (FEPC) whom they shall hire, fire,
promote and demote, and how they shall
handle their employees.
Under this act, simple "integration" will no
longer suffice. If It becomes law, a Federal
inspeetor May render a finding that racial
or religious imbalance exists in a business.
Thereafter, that business could not employ
or promote those people it preferred but
only "racial" or "religious" individuals in
such quantity as the Federal inspector desig-
nated. His ruling would apply to all job
classifications: To common laborers, to the
secretarial staff, to supervisory employees,
and to vice presidents, all alike. Federal
administrative personnel would be prose-
cutors, judge, jury and executioner.
Enforcement of the Federal inspector's
findings would be simple. Failure to comply
would mean the end of all participation
in Federal programs. Your loan could be
called, you could be blacklisted for further
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9 -
4764 CONGREt,SIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE ' March 1.1
loans from banks and financial institutions
insured by the Government, and you could
be prevented from taking p irt in any activ-
ity that had to do with Federal financing.
In certain situations. an Employer would be
Jailed without trial by Jury.
And that is only part or It.
The Civil Rights Act of 1963 va,uld also
bring under Federal control individuals and
businesses never before thought to be con-
stitutionally subject to such regulation. For
Instance. under the bill's title II, any per-
son who pays a business license to a State
or municipality could be included.
Thus, the act brings in almost every pro-
fession ansi every business?lawyers, realtors,
doctors, small establishments, theaters, res-
taurants, gasolines stations, hotels, motels
and lodging houses---and the Federal con-
trol will never end.
It goes even further. If this act should
become law, between 100 and 200 statutes
now in effect would be amended. Everyone
who had dealings with Federal education
programs, for instance, would be subject to
its force. Under the provisions of the act.
the U.S. Commissioner of Education could
force the transfer of children from one school
to another?back-and-forth?until racial
balance and religious balance existed. Then,
if "imbalance" should recur, the process
could be repeated, ad infinitum, so that your
child would have no assurance or school
continuity.
Under the authority given in connection
with Federal financing, school lunch pro-
grams, research programs, the building of
schools. Hill-Burton hospitals?all such pro-
grams and organizations would be subject
to Federal political manipulation.
As applied to schools, there would cer-
tainly be claimed to exist?and the claim
doubtless would be upheld?the Govern-
ment's rights to find that if a teacher
taught race or anthropological history con-
trary to the Federal Government's policy,
then such instruction could be halted and
the teacher tired. And if the books 'being
used were not to the Federal Government's
liking, the Government could stop their use.
Which is another way of saying that the
Federal Government proposes- under the
Civil Rights Act of 1963?to take over the
education of our children. Thought control
of future generations would be an accom-
plished fact.
Nor is that all. The principal step to
unfettered dictatorship is Incorporated in
this bill, that is, control of the electoral
machinery.
In 1961, the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights recommended?contrary to express
provisions in the Constitution?that the
Federal Government control the qualifica-
tions and registration of voters, the holding
of electors, the counting of votes, the fixing
of voting and electoral districts. The Civil
Rights Act of 1963 would put the first two
of these recommendations Into effect.
It follows, then, a politically minded at-
torney general could go into an area where
the voting might be close and. if this act
becomes law, he could file suit, make certain
allegations, and?without proof that his al-
legations were true?register tens of thous-
ands of voters. The ballots would be cast,
and the votes counted and the election won,
even though the attorney general's act, later,
was determined by the courts to have been
invalid. Then at the next election. he could
repeat the whole operation.
It goes on: In giving the Federal Govern-
ment control in the hiring, firing, promoting,
and demoting, and payment of employees, the
act also gives the Federal Government power
to destroy not only the seniority system of
unions, but also an employee's rights within
the company for which he works. This is
so because the act gives full and unlimited
power to Federal inspectors to determine
who slif 11 be hired, promoted, demoted, or
fired, wJenever a charge is made that racial
and or I eligious Imbalance (discrimination)
exists. l
The i ivtl Rights Act of 1963. as can be
seen. tit itroys everything that we have be-
lieved, .ieretofore, to protect us from the
complei and absolute power of a Central
Governj lent. It is something that strikes
at the I ieart of every parent of school-age
childrel , at every businessman, at every
prays/anal man, at every homeowner, and
at ever wage earner in the United States.
Mani] or the provisions of the act are con-
trary il , the Constitution of the United
States-1 true. They are also contrary to
1x.Stint decisions of the Supreme Court of
the Unf et!, States. But, no one can foretell
what ie Supreme Court would hold, If
Congre i makes a "legislative finding" in
the ar is mentioned. That is, if the Civili
IUghts act of 1963 is passed by Congress.
The '1/21ontgomery Advertiser in an edi-
torial iated February 25. 1964, made the
follow ag comments on the efforts of the
Mont* imery Jaycees "to wake Amer-
icans p to the provisions of the pending
civil r Thts bill":
irr,itri the Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser,
Feb. 25,1964]
WAKE UP
'The 4ontgornery Junior Chamber of Com-
merce ties undertaken a civic duty of mag-
nitud the same being to wake Americans
UI) to the provisions of the pending civil
rights fill. Along with the Advertiser, our
jaycee4 do not believe the people are gen-
erally informed about this law designed to
recon4 ruct America.
The Jaycees are seeking, not State, but
nationLI distribution of the bill as passed
by thej House. The 10-cent booklet. entitled
"The truth," contains the bill and a short
analysl I by two former presidents of the
Amerif in Bar Association, Lloyd Wright and
John C Satterfield.
Thel distribution effort is on?for example,
a col has been mailed to the president of
all t Civitan Clubs in the country and
600 litors--and the Jaycees are eager for
new itribution devices.
The, Jaycees, we predict. will find their
efforti rewarded by eager response as the
peopli in the North. East, and West learn
that tile bill applies to their private interests
Just at it does to those in the South.
Theje LB a visible stirring in the country
over ergiastic race-mixing Jihads. For ex-
anvil In Brooklyn civic groups represent-
Mg 7 0.000 people will demonstrate against
busin children across town from Brooklyn
to Hi tem simply to achieve intermingling.
This i
shite demonstration Is designed to
coun r the Negro demonstrations and is
obvic sly a development of consequence.
Th syndicated columnists, Rowland Evans
and 'obert Novak. are pointing out that
one f the country's keenest politicians
lensel the revolt. Richard Nixon, in a Lin-
coln IDay address, bluntly said that "ex-
trem Ls" are generating "an atmosphere of
hate nd distrust."
Ob iously Nixon recognizes that GOLD-
WA has been on the right track all the
time ind he seeks to wrest the nomination
from ,ilm by stealing his thunder.
In Caeorna last week the people stood up
with . roar in behalf of their property rights.
They! voted 4 to 1 to nullify an open-housing
ordirj ince.
In Seattle, the city council ducked the
Mel singly hot issue. It made the issue
subj ?:t to a March 10 election.
I t week In Seattle's primary election for
may ., the winner was Dorm Braman, a Re-
publi an and the only candidate to state
ope y that he was against an open-housing
ordiij ince.
Democratic politicians In California are
saying that In the prospective statewide
referendum late this year, citizens may vote
as high as 2 to 1 to repeal the occupancy
The provisions in the national civil rights
bill strike in all directions and strike harder.
iff enough Ameroans learn that the bill af-
fects alrit3st everybody, it will be nailed.,/
CITIZENS OF 39TH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VOICE
THEIR VIEWS
(Mr. PILLION asked and was given
permissi)n to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous mat-
ter and tables.)
Mr. PILLION. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to bring to the attention of the
Members of this House and of the Sen-
ate, the vio}vs of the citizenry of the
39th Congressional District of New York
on questions of major concern to this
Congress and this Nation.
On February 3, I mailed to every
household of the district a question-
naire end memorandum? a total of
122,000. The memorandum was in-
tended to give the basic facts and back-
ground of the major and pressing prob-
lems confronting Congress.
The questionnaire contained 40 ques-
tions. The purpose of this opinion
survey is:
First. To determine. in broad terms,
the att.tudes and opinions of the con-
stituency on vital current domestic and
International issues.
Second. To stimulate public interest
and discussion, on the part of the pub-
lic, for the strengthening, unifying, and
bettering of this Nation and its Peoples.
Third. To give to each citizen as great
and as direct a voice as possible in their
Federal Government, and in the deci-
sions that so greatly affect their future.
Fourth. To make available to the
Members of the U.S. Congress, and to
the responsible officials of the executive
branch, the views of the citizens of the
39th Congressional District.
A total of 10,154 questionnaires were
completed and returned. This remark-
able response is proof that the citizens
of the 39th Congressional District are
deeply concerned with this Nation's, and
the world's problems. It also evidences
their willingness to assume the responsi-
bilities of citizenship in a free country.
I am, personally, most grateful to
those persons who generously took the
time and trouble to complete and re-
turn the questionnaire. About two-
thirds of these questionnaires contained
additional comments or attached letters
explaining or expanding upon either the
questions or upon other issues. I deeply
appreciate and respect their valuable
suggestions and views.
The 39th Congressional District con-
tains in it a small part of the city of
Buffalo, about one-half of the city of
Lackawanna and 23 towns around the
city of Buffalo. The district contains
urban, suburban, and rural areas. Its
composition is a fair cross section of the
Nation. The answers would be fairly
representative for the Nation's popula-
tion.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A ? R000500050001 9
1964 RONggt8319?P 9t-MR.SciARPRNBil-3 A1287
pprovee&
MAA program has no relative responsibility
clause, nor property lien clause, it does limit
personal property including the case value
of life insurance. It is my feeling that the
principal reason keeping older persons from
applying for this public assistance is their
unwillingness to experience the feeling of
shame, loss of dignity, and invasion of pri-
vacy associated with the means test.
Indicative of this, is a recent article which
appeared in the Baltimore Sun regarding a
meeting between the City Health Commis-
sioner Dr. Farber, and officials of the medical
profession, regarding how to reach over
8,000 people in Baltimore whom, it was
thought, needed MAA assistance, but had not
applied for the program. The medical pro-
fession's answer to this problem is to shift
the means test from the welfare department
to the health department, and somehow
through this magic formula eliminate the
objections of our proud oldsters.
This same article discusses the problem
of "urging more doctors to accept aged pa-
tients in the program." Evidently, problems
have arisen regarding MAA beneficiaries who
could not locate physicians to care for them
in some parts of Baltimore. In order to cor-
rect this situation, I have been informed
that the Baltimore City Medical Society has
circulated a memo to its members, urging
them to participate in the MAA program, and
stating that while it (MAA) may not be per-
fect, it is better than the socialistic alterna-
tive now before Congress.
Another shortcoming of the MAA program
as it operates, in Maryland is the practice
whereby MAA patients admitted to hospitals
for treatment become staff patients and
thereby lose their choice of physicians. Their
regular physician can care for them in the
hospital only if he agrees not to receive
.payment for his services.
In fairness to members of the medical
profession, it should be noted that they are
supporting efforts being made to liberalize
the MAA program by the addition of nurs-
ing home care which is not presently avail-
able and by more flexible income limitations.
As in other States, however, the realities of
the demands on a State budget sometimes
force a delay in needed programs. In the
recent session of the Maryland General As-
sembly, the State health department rec-
ommended the inclusion of flexible income
limits for the chronically ill, and increased
dental and eyeglass care under the MAA pro-
gram and requested $150,000 in State funds
to pay for these improvements, but un-
fortunately, this item was deleted from the
budget.
The question which, of course, arises is
why can't the State of Maryland be more
liberal in their standards of eligibility and
also in the extent to which they meet the
costs of these healtt services, especially
for the poverty stricken. The fact is many
of the States, including Maryland, are mak-
ing a real effort to provide more medical care
for the aged. But, the burden is heavy and
the extent to which they can go?in the
judgment of the State ofRcials--has real
limits. Mrs. Margaret Schweinhaut, chair-
man of Maryland Commission on Aging,
noted recently that 4 years ago, the State ap-
propriated $31/2 million for hospital care of
the indigent; last year, it appropriated $11
million for this purpose. And this cannot be
the end to increased costs.
Mrs. Schweinhaut referred to the hospital
costs analysis survey made by the Hospital
Council of Maryland which indicated the
present cost of hospitalization for one per-
son per day now averages $35.34, a rise of
$4.25 in 1 year. All States, including Mary-
land, are confronted with the need for in-
creased appropriations in the face of their
limited sources of revenue. These costs are
increaSing despite the large share provided
by the Federal Government in meeting medi-
cal aid to the aged costs.
If the King-Anderson bill is enacted,
Maryland and other States would not be
burdened by these millions of dollars in
, State costs and all their senior citizens who
needed these services could avail them-
selves of these benefits. In addition, the
elimination of the "needs test" under the
social insurance proposal would eliminate
most of the burdensome costs of adminis-
tration and do away with the need of a
bureaucracy compelled under present cir-
cumstances to invade the privacy of our sen-
ior citizens.
In discussing the circumstances of the
aged in the first three categories I established
earlier, I would like to focus on one partic-
ular aspect of the bill I do not believe has
been given the importance It merits in the
discussions thus far. This is the provision
in the King-Anderson bill for up to 180 days
of nursing home care and up to 240 visits
for home health care which would meet the
needs of many elderly patients at a low cost.
Few elderly people can meet the costs of
nursing home out of their own incomes.
Nationally, 3 out of 4 elderly families
and 9 out of 10 elderly individuals would be
unable to pay as much as $250 monthly for
nursing home care.
The actual costs in Maryland for nursing
home care are higher than $250. The average
cost for an indiivdual in a skilled nursing
home in Maryland would be closer to $350
a month.
For those on public assistance (OAA)
Maryland now pays $135 a month for rou-
tine care in a nursing home, somewhat more
if special attention is required. For example,
if the patient needs to be fed. Maryland will
pay from $6 to $8 daily, or about $200 a
month. Most operators of nursing homes
maintain that these payments do not meet
the full costs. As I mentioned earlier, the
MAA program does not provide any pay-
ments for nursing home care so this is a
serious gap in the program.
What about private insurance? Under the
Maryland Hospital Service Blue Cross plan,
a person is entitled to 70 days of hospital
care and/or 2 days of nursing home care for
each hospital day not used. Of course, the
premium for this policy is over $260 per
year putting it beyond the reach of many of
our elderly citizens. Certainly such costs
would be very difficult to meet for those in-
dividuals with incomes under $1,500 per year
and would be equally difficult for those
couples with incomes under $3,000.
Of the two nationwide insurance com-
panies covering the largest number of aged
policyholders, one, the Continental Casualty,
does not provide nursing home expenses at
all, and the other, Mutual of Omaha, pro-
vides $5 a day for 55 days.
Although I have stressed the factors of
poverty among the aged and the nursing
home provision, it should be clear that I
support all the provisions in the King-An-
derson bill for the benefit of all of our elderly
citizens.
I am not impressed by the argument that
a small fraction of wealthy persons among
those of age 65 and over who could pay for
their own medical costs would come under
the provisions of this bill. They need not
avail themselves of the benefits if they are
opposed in principle.
In any case, they are equally entitled to
the protection of such legislation, if enacted,
as they are entitled to equal treatment in
the courts, and police protection against
threats to persons and property. All of us,
not only the present aged, face the prospects
of ill health if we live into the later years.
It is a common danger that needs to be met
by nationwide measures.
At present it is said with much truth that
only the very poor and the very rich can get
the wide range of basic health services they
need.
The average elderly person in our country
who has worked, raised a family, paid taxes,
throughout his working years, has earned
the right to be helped when in his old age,
he needs such help. The younger generation
certainly prefers to provide for the future
now rather than become a charity case in
the future. Let us pass legislation on behalf
of both groups; let us pass this long overdue
legislation this year.
Put the Brakes On
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI
OF ILLINOIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the
Economist newspaper chain in Chicago,
last Wednesday, March 4, directed its
readers' attention to the size of Federal
and State gasoline taxes, as well as to
the key question of whether the tax-
payers are being intelligently served by
the highway expansion program.
There are many questions to be an-
swered at this stage of our Federal-State
highway program, and it would be well
for us to review them at this midpoint,
so that the taxpayers might be spared
the cost of duplication or unnecessary
facilities, with funds still needed for
obvious motor transportation improve-
ments.
I insert the editorial for the attention
of the Members:
PUT THE BRAKES ON
In his quarterly report to stockholders and
employees of the Standard Oil Co., President
John E. Sweringen says that Federal and
State gasoline taxes now add 50 percent to
the price of gasoline to the consumer.
Gasoline taxes also are paying three-quar-
ters of the present $71 billion program of
the 41,000-mile Interstate System of super-
highways, he added. Under this program
the Federal Government contributes 90 per-
cent of the cost and the States 10 percent.
Now the Illinois Highway Commission,
created by the legislature last year, is sched-
uled to consider recommending a boost in
the Illinois gas tax rate from 5 to 7 cents
a gallon. Such a boost would cost motorists
and truck owners $60 million more than
the $270 million they now pay with the 5-
cent rate.
Instead of proposing another boost in the
rate, the commission should consider ways
and means for reducing the cost of highway
construction. The Interstate System, when
proposed in 1956, was to cost $27.6 billion,
but after 5 years the figure was raised to
$41 billion. Efforts are underway to expand
the system an additional 14,000 miles. That
means higher Federal gas tax. Mr. Swer-
ingen observed:
"We strongly support a good highway sys-
tem in the interest of all citizens, and we
agree that gasoline taxes should help pay
for the system. But there should be limits,
imposed by good judgment. Overly ambiti-
ous highway programs can be self-defeating,
developing massive problems of mainten-
ance, obsolescence and financing.
"When taxation of a single product?
gasoline?has reached the rate of 50 percent,
and more is being suggested, American
motorists could hardly be blamed for ob-
jecting to additional taxes on gasoline or
demanding more efficiency and economy in
the highway programs they are playing for."
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A14288
Approved Formymgais itiK5BP669Qpo1Q,500050001-9
With which the motoring public will agree.
Building highways that become death traps
parallel to toll roads or realining routes
only a few years old because special In-
terests want the change, make for waste of
funds, as does the condemnation of more
land than is needed for grade separations,
expressways and similar projects.
The Challenge of Citizenship
---
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Or
HON. JOHN W. DAVIS
OF GEORGIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday. March 11, 1964
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I offer the
following prize-winning essay written by
my constituent Miss Carol Clark, of
Ringgold, Ga. This essay received the
first prize in the State of Georgia in a
contest sponsored by the Veterans of
Foreign Wars.
The essay follows:
THE CHALLENGE OF CITIZENSHIP
(By Carol Clark, Ringgold, Oa.)
Awaken, America. Our world is changing.
It is fearful, exciting, challenging. Many
doors beckon us, the youth of America.
Opportunity seems to be knocking many
places at the same time. But we pause to
study each entrance, for the door through
which we pass must open the storehouse of
free thinking; must preserve with vigilance
the marvelous fruits of our-American way of
life. The key to that door is good citizen-
ship.
Good citizenship is the heart of our great
country. It- is the mystic organ that pumps
the lifegiving stream of courage and convic-
tion to nourish the vital organs of liberty.
It is the pulse of democracy.
There are many foes that would stop the
beat of this heart. One of the most ominous
of those is communism?a deadly disease
that pollutes the bloodstream of truth and
justice. Communism would deafen our ears
to the needy cries of the hungry people who
look to America for life sustaining aid. It
would sever the hand that stretches out In
friendship to the oppressed. It would si-
lence the clarion call of the voice of freedom
throughout the world. Communism would
sap the strength of a healthy body of people
who believe implicitly in the individual
rights of men.
Indifference is another enemy of good citi-
zenship; indifference to duty. to civic re-
sponsibility. We must love our country
honestly and unashamed, and actively devote
our energies to her. We must stand ready
to fight, and, if need be, to die for our
country. And, even more important, we
must live for her. We, the youth of America,
have without effort fallen heir to citizen-
ship. In an incredibly short time we will
be voters, we shall choose our leaders.
What other country in this whole world has
such a precious heritage? It's time for some
clear thinking about these responsibilities.
We must take a real and active Interest in
politics and Government affairs. We must
dedicate ourselves to our country in what-
ever profession we serve. Our votes must
elect leaders who stand firmly and unques-
tionably for the principles that have made
America the greatest country on earth.
Citizenship is an educated heart. Our
Nation calls for the highest knowledge and
skill we can attain.
Citizenship Is a charitable heart. "And
now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity."
America reaches out in compassion to share
her wealth with people in all countries of the
world. But the merciful hand that holds
the bread to starving people can wave the
banner of friendship for all to see.
citizenship is a spiritual heart. "In God
We Trust- is more than a slogan on our coins.
It is the foundation upon which our country
was built. It is a measure of our success as
a Nation. High moral and spiritual charac-
ter is essential. It begins in our homes and
is nurtured by our churches and schools.
The sanctity of our homes and churches is
of the utmost importance.
Citizenship is a flame that glows in the
window of freedom. But a flame that is not
carefully tended becomes a thing of terror.
Fanned by the winds of deceit, prejudice,
and hatred, it will consume the sturdy tim-
ber of truth and decency, and leave barren
the fields of freedom. We must lovingly feed
the flame with the fuel of tolerance and
understanding, that its beam may serve as
a beacon of encouragement for the nations
behind the Iron Curtain, and light the way
for nations stumbling in the dark to find the
safe path to freedom.
Our glorious past is an inspiring record of
courage, sacrifice, and bravery. Our future
will be what we make of our opportunities
today. With God's help, let us work and pray
that the heart and soul of America may for-
ever beat loud and clear for freedom and Jus-
tice for all peoples everywhere.
?
Federal Salary Increases
and Postal Employets
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JAMES A. BURKE
OF RLASSACHLIMITS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Speaker under
leave to extend my remarks in the REC-
ORD I include a statement made by Secre-
taxy-Treasurer John C. Kabachus of the
International Association of Fire Fight-
ers in support of the proposed salary in-
creases for classified and postal service
employees. John Kabachus is one of
the most able men in the trade labor
movement. He is respected because of
his sound views and good judgment. He
has dedicated his life and efforts on be-
half of the firefighters of this Nation.
The International Association of Fire
Fighters, organized February 28, 1918,
representing approximately 115,000 full-
time, professional firefighters, wishes to
go on record in support of the proposed
salary increases for classified and postal
service employees.
Because the international represents
firefighters who are employed by the
Federal Government as well as more
than FM municipalities, we are well
aware of the inequities that- exist be-
tween Federal firefighters and firefight-
ers employed by other jurisdictions.
The IAFF Research Department con-
ducts annual surveys on salaries and
working conditions of firefighters
throughout the United States covering
firefighters employed at Federal, State,
March 11
and private ilstallations and mor' than
1,200 municiT alities, and thus hat more
information c n the salary disparity that
exists in this trea than any other group.
These data are sources of information
for the salar.cs of firefighters i a U.S.
cities, as list .d in the Municipa Year
Book, publisf ed by the Internotional
City Manager:' Association. In addition,
these data so.e used by the Bur aau of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Depa-tment
of Labor.
In support of our position we have
complied the salaries paid to first-class
firemen in all cities ranging in popula-
tion from 10( ,000 to 150,000 which have
responded tc our salary and working
conditions si rvey conducted in early
1963. The 113,000 to 150,000 population
range was se ected because a lar? e pro-
portion of tie Federal firefighters are
employed at installations or liv near
metropolitan areas that are with.n this
population re.nge or larger.
Had we included cities above th s pop-
ulation range the disparity betwe m sal-
aries of firefighters in municipalites and
firefighters employed by the Federal
Government 'You'd be even greatar, due
to the fact tl at there is a tendency for
salaries to be higher in larger metropoli-
tan areas. vie feel that this is a fair
comparison: al fact, we are bein r quite
conservative.
The result: of this study indica ;e that
'the average c:ty in this populatior range
paid its first-class firefighters $i),534 a
year, as of January 1963. This does not
Include extra pay for service time?
longevity ratas.
It must b.. remembered that during
the year negotiations take place between
local affiliate-3 of the internatior al and
the various thunicipalities. In 0.-tier to
get some idea of the percentage of in-
crease in sal aries that has taken place
during the past year, the Janua-y 1963
salaries were compared with sale.ries in
the same cit. as of this populatior group
which have thus far responded to our
1964 survey.
Because atnost 75 percent of the cities
in this population bracket, which have
responded to our 1963 survey. have
already responded to our current survey,
any deviatic a in the average 'ate of
change for the remaining 25 )ercent
would be so minute that it would have
little effect -in the average rate of in-
crease that has been computed for the
cities which have thus far respohded.
We find ir our computation taat the
average rate of increase in salories of
first-class fli amen in these cities -vas ap-
proximately 3 percent. When consid-
eration is g ven to this percent age in-
crease that has taken place during the
year, the average city in this pear ulation
group paid its first-class firefighters
$5,700 annually by the end of 194;3.
A first-class firefighter in the Federal
service is classified at the GS-1 level.
The present salary for a grade 4 in the
first step is $4,215 or $1,485 below the
average sala 34 paid to his coun-erparts
employed by the municipalities.
Because the Federal firefighter is re-
quired to we rk 60 to 72 hours per week,
he receives :an additional 10 per cent of
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
19e-4 ApproveittNefalgRAMOMOM#7_13DtififiNTRRO00500050001-9 A1289
his base pay if he works a 60-hour week
or an additional 20 percent if he works a
72-hour week?altogether too little for
working overtime. Even if we assume
they all received the additional 20 per-
cent of base pay, their total salary in the
first step of grade 4 would be $5,058 per
year or almost $650 per year less than
his counterpart employed by the munici-
pality. At the same time, we must re-
member that through the efforts of the
International Association of Fire Fight-
ers the length of the workweek in the
municipality has been reduced consider-
ably, and in the larger metropolitan
areas the trend is toward a 48-, 42-, or
40-hour week. When this is taken into
consideration, the existing inequity be-
comes even greater.
The passage of H.R. 8986 would be a
move in the direction of reducing not
only this inequity but in general the gap
that exists between salaries of persons
employed by private industry and those
employed by the Federal Government.
Let us now turn to some of the respon-
sibilities and requirements of the fire-
fighter's occupation. It is well known
that the firefighter is responsible for the
protection of human life and property,
even at the expense of his own safety.
The National Board of Fire Under-
writers, a national organization of cap-
ital stock fire insurance companies,
which employs a group of experts for
establishing standards in fire protection,
had this to say of the educational re-
quirements of firefighters:
Fire service cannot remain static; its failure
to modernize in equipment or apparatus, or
to learn how to combat new fire hazards
must, under the laws of progress, result in a
retrograding in the service to the public.
A fireman's education must include such
features as spontaneous ignition, the proba-
bility of flammable gases being liberated,
the action of water on certain chemicals and
the possible influence of other chemicals on
the fireman himself, to prevent his being
knocked out or even killed by breathing
dangerous fumes.
Preventing fires is of vital importance to
the fireman. But this prevention must go
further than a mere preachment against
carelessness. It must involve an intimate
knowledge of some of the scientific facts of
fire?the relationship of heat, oxygen and
combustible material. To this must be added
other semitechnical facts as to gases given
off, heat produced, volatility, solubility in
water and other characteristics of materials
found in commerce.
Special schools of instruction have been
set up in practically every State in the
Union, consisting of short courses provided
by a State college or university.,
These requirements are universal and
apply to firefighters whether they are
employed by municipalities, States, or
the Federal Government.
The municipalities have long recog-
nized the responsibilities and the profes-
sional nature of the fireman's occupa-
tion. This is made obvious by the fact
that the firefighter's occupation has been
rated high on municipal job evaluation
schemes. By this, I mean ranked with
professional and skilled people.
On the other hand, the Federal fire-
fighters have not fared well. They have
, Quoted information obtained from NBFU
bulletins Nos. 234 and 238.
been placed near the bottom rung of the
ladder. They are in the same classifica-
tion with occupations that require less
advanced education, training, and ac-
quired skills.
We are not saying that the salaries of
these other occupations are not justified;
in fact, we recognize the fact that they
also lag behind their counterparts in pri-
vate industry. We are only attempting
to emphasize the fact that, while mu-
nicipalities have recognized the require-
ments and demands of the firefighting
profession, the Federal Government has
not.
In conclusion, we are asking that this
body take a step in the direction of cor-
recting these existing inequities as pro-
vided for in the comparability principle
embodied in the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962.
A major step can be taken in this di-
rection by the passage of House bill No.
8986.
An American Prayer
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. H. ALLEN SMITH
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speak-
er, a constituent of mine, Mrs. Marie
Cousland Carpenter, has forwarded to
me a prayer which she composed and
which I think is lovely. I would like to
place it in the RECORD for the edification
of those who read it:
AN AMERICAN PRAYER
0 Almighty and eternal God.
Thou source of law and life,
We invoke Thy holy guidance
In these times of stress and strife.
Let the leaders of our Nation
Never yield, but press their plan
To elevate in this great wide world
The place of every man.
Let each member of our Nation
Forget this not?But bear in mind
That in the heart of each true American.
Rests the future of mankind.
Grant, that true to our Constitution
We shun the unworthy and seek the good,
And place above all things else
The virtues of true brotherhood.
Let us never be content to live for self,
But with dignity, honor and speed
Develop each God-given talent
In Thy honor?for mankind's need.
Implant the principles of courage and
justice
Deep in each American mind:
In our hearts instill love for .our fellowman,
In whom Your divine likeness we find.
Let us never be slaves to the narrow mind;
May prejudice ever from us depart,
Mindful that race, religion and political
creed
Must never ill feelings start..
Help us to think, to speak and act clearly.
Keep us from every and all transgressions.
May our thoughts, our words and all our
deeds
Advance, not retard, all mankind's needs.
Amen. '
Patman and Reserve
- EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CLARENCE E. KILBURN
OF ,NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
Mr. KILBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think
the Members of the House will be inter-
ested in reading the following objective
article from the financial section of the
New York Times of March 9, 1964:
TATMAN AND RESERVE?POLICIES OF FEDERAL
SYSTEM SURVIVING WAR OF WORDS LED BY
CONGRESSMAN
(By M. 3, Rossant)
Representative WRIGHT TATMAN'S all-out
war against the Federal Reserve System has
been loud, furious, and totally ineffective.
Mr. TATMAN, who appears to have been con-
ducting a vendetta against the Federal Re-
serve for many years, sought to make the
money managers more responsive to the ad-
ministration's economic policymakers. But
he made more friends for the Reserve than
for his own cause.
This was largely due to the Texas Demo-
crat's overzealousness. Instead of concen-
trating on the Reserve's relationship to the
administration, he persisted in .flailing away
at all sorts of targets, real and imaginary.
Mr. TATMAN lambasted the Reserve for its
present monetary policy. He could not resist
attacking the Reserve for spending money on
entertaining foreign bankers. He created
other diversions by seeking information on
the personal finances of Federal Reserve bank
presidents and by demanding Government
audits of the Reserve's books.
CRUCIAL ISSUE
These excursions detracted attention from
the crucial issue of whether monetary policy
should be subject to political control. The
Reserve's present policy or the private lives
of its officials have no bearing on this
question.
As the regulator of the Nation's money
supply, the Reserve can exert a powerful
influence over economic conditions. For this
reason, Mr. TATMAN feels that it should not
be allowed to operate independently.
Rather, he argues that monetary policy must
be coordinated with the other economic
weapons in the hands of the administration.
The notion that central banking is too
important to be left entirely to central bank-
ers has many adherents. They feel that the
administration, which is responsible for
overall economic policy and can be tossed
out of office by the voters, must have con-
trol over monetary policy. But few of them
were willing to aline themselves with Mr.
TATMAN in his personal war with the Federal
Reserve.
Under the circumstances, the Reserve has
had no trouble defending itself. Its officials
recognize that failure to cooperate with the
administration would invite a serious attack
on their independence, so they have been
careful to maintain good relations.
Although the Kennedy administration had
previously supported some of the proposals
for reforming the Reserve recommended by
the Commission on Money and Credit, Sec-
retary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon gave
his blessing to the present state of affairs.
In testifying last week before Mr. PATMAN'S
committee, he rejected proposals for reform
and claimed that he could not conceive of
"any closer relationships than those that
have characterized the Treasury and the
Federal Reserve during the last 3 years."
But many economists would prefer to spell
out the division of responsibility and cement
the relationship.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1290 Approved For MmiTE2s0sTp45118 iiiKAIN6648We500050001:Rarch-/ ;
Eli Shapiro. protessor of finance at, Har-
vard University's Graduate School of Busi-
ness Administration, who served as codirec-
tor of research for the Commission on Money
:old Credit, argues that the present struc-
1 ore of our Federal Reserve System contains
many vestigial remains which positively do
it no good and, in point of fact, lead to
suspicion as LO its ultimate motivations."
According to Professor Shapiro, it "is de-
sirable that the central bank's' activities
should be harmonized with the other sta-
bilization activities of the Government." He
would not go as far as Mr. FATMAN in bring-
ing the Reserve under the control of the
administration. but he does suggest that the
President be given the right to name his
own chairman and endorses other rerorm
measures proposed by the commission.
Prof. Paul Samuelson, of the alassachu-
aetts Institute of Technology, also urged
that the Reserve be made a more "respon-
sible institution in the American political
structure." He observed that "it has been
more of a lucky accident than an inherent
feature of present legislation and practice
that the United States has been able to
avoid costly friction; but not even with our
lucky combination of personalities and
events, has our economy been spared some
cost attributable to lack of unified monetary
policy."
In proposals for carrying out reform, Pro-
fessor Samuelson goes along with some sug-
gestions made by the Commission. The ob-
jective, he says, should be to make the
Reserve something like Britain's House of
Lords, which "should be able to delay in-
novations, to smooth down the volative
changes of public opinion and thin ma-
jorities."
Professor Shapiro supported the proposal
made by James L. Robertson. a Federal Re-
serve Board governor, to establish a separate
banking commission that would have respon-
sibility for banking examinations and super-
vision. This would leave the money man-
agers free to conduct their primary task of
managing money.
But these criticisms of the present rela-
tionship failed to get the hearing they de-
served. Mr. PATMAN'S indiscriminate attack,
his belaboring the Reserve for Its practices
and performance, succeeded only in obscur-
ing the major issue of reform. The battle
over who is to control the Federal Reserve
is still to be fought.
Gov. David L. Lawrence?Mr. Democrat
of Pennsylvania
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD
t)p PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 4, 1964
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, March 7. 1984, at the ADA
Roosevelt Dinner in Pittsburgh, Mr.
Democrat of Pennsylvania, former Gov.
David L. Lawrence, spoke eloquently of
President and Mrs. Roosevelt and drew
an interesting parallel between the first
hundred days of Franklin Roosevelt's
Presidency and the first 100 days of Lyn-
don Johnson's Presidency.
The remarks of the Governor follow:
REMARKS OF FORMER GOV, DAVID L. LAWRENCE,
ADA ROOSEVELT Door DINNER, PE N N-
HER ATON HOTEL, PITTSBURPH, SATURDAY,
MARCH 7, 1964
I have always looked forward to these
Roosevelt Day dinners with pride and eager-
ness, because they honor the memory and
works of one of history's greateat men and
also because they give me the opportunity to
once again see so many old friends and co-
workers in the liberal cause, some of whom
were with me in the vanguard of the Roose-
velt movement more than three decades ago.
I am proud that the Americans for Demo-
cratic Action here in Pittsburgh has main-
tained the tradition of honoring Franklin
Roosevelt every year. Just as the Allegheny
County Democratic Committee has continued
celebrating his birthday each January 30.
These affairs demonstrate that we remember
the man and what he stood for?as well we
should?and that we recognize the continu-
ing need to carry on the work of achieving
the kind of world for which he devoted his
lite.
It would be appropriate. In the years
ahead, if these observances honor as well the
memory and deeds of Eleanor Roosevelt,
whose assistance to her husband and whose
activities of her own, have made our lives
and millions of others richer and wiser and
better. As President Johnson observed about
Mrs. Roosevelt this past. Wednesday. "poverty
was her concern, peace was her hope, people
were her passion, just as they were the con-
cern and the hope and the passion of her
husband."
We meet tonight 31 years after Franklin
Roosevelt first hundred days had begun.
and a week after Lyndon Johnson's first hun-
dred days have been completed. The paral-
lels in the approach and the motivations of
these two men are noteworthy and
impressive.
Both assumed the Presidency in times of
crisis anti both acted with a decision and a
sureness which gave confidence to the uncer-
tain and optimism to the sick at heart. In
his first 3 months in office. Franklin Roose-
velt rescued a nation and Lyndon Johnson
had the task, in the words of the New Re-
public. "To unify and reassure the Nation
and our allies, estabilsh a feeling of continu-
itv. help assuage our grief, and get things
going again."
For Roosevelt, the task required innovation
and experimentation, bold new ideas and a
determination to move swiftly. His chal-
lenges were most domestic, yet in those
first hundred days he met with dozens of
foreign leaders whose own countries were
tottering and on the brink of collapse. Hit-
ler used the chaos in Germany to seize con-
trol. and communism threatened many of
the staid capitals of Europe?indeed it
threatened an America with millions unem-
ployed, with tens of thousands foreclosed
from their homes, and with bankrupt corpo-
ration and money-poor banking institutions.
But Franklin Roosevelt convinced this coun-
try, in these first days of his Presidency, that
- it could survive and prevail, and so it did.
Had it not been for him, and for such great
leaders of labor like Phil Murray, John Lewis.
Sydney Hillman. and Dave Dubinsky, the
Red tide might very well had swept over this
Nation and freedom, as we know it. destroyed
for all time.
While the Roosevelt era extended long
after those first terrible and challenging
days, it was then that his leadership was in-
delibly established in America and through-
out the world.
In the case of Lyndon Johnson. he had the
Presidency thrust upon him with a jolting,
unbelievable abruptness in a time of domes-
tic social upheaval and in a world capable
of self-obliteration. Pressures for broader
economic and social justice at home were
powerful and persuasive, while worldwide
competitions for power and influence had
created dangerous problems in many of the
continents of the globe. The numbing shock
of President Kennedy's assassination brought
confusion and consternation to Much Of hu-
manity, anti fear and uncertainty was abroad
in a world of grief.
In his first hundred days, Presiden1 John-
son made it clear that America's ideals and
its purposes remain firm and inviolas e that
the struggle fist peace with freedom i. going
forward withoat pause or falter, at d that
the dedication to economic progre is and
social justice is undiminished and undiluted.
Indeed, he has never ceased to rerr ind us
of his determioation to continue ths Ken-
nedy program, and the record of 1:i: arst
3 months is unmistakable evidence th it he is
holding to this determination and g-ving it
solid achievement.
He has proved that he is a man wao gets
things done. He is a persistent. r solute.
strongrninded :nan, rooted in the ropulist
tradition, skilled in the craft of govei nment,
Inspired by t. ?.e greatness of Franalin D.
Roosevelt and .loins F. Kennedy, and certain
of America's capacity for progress and lead-
ership.
In his hundred days, he has pro ?Cd his
mettle, and made clear that he move 3 along
the liberal pathway, ignoring the roa ablocks
and shunning the detours.
It is natura:, I suppose, that he should
remind us of Stoosevelt, whom he served so
ably, and that his program should :dentify
itself with Kennedy, because he helpsd con-
ceive that pragram and was always com-
mitted to it. :3ut he has an identity of his
own, a repute lion for accomplishrn .nt. an
Irresistible pei?suasiveness, not to rtention
a tremendous appetite for long hours of hard
work. He alsa has the ability and the wis-
dom. indispenaable in government, of en-
listing able rn'Ti to his cause. There is no
better exampla of this than our spea ser this
evening; whose counsel and energies have
been on constant call and who has helped
make the Joh :mon hundred days the proud
and productive ones they have been.
All of which speaks well for this Nation,
and its future.
It is a testament to our greatneos as a
people, when a former teacher from ti e Texas
flatlands can'ta on the work largely started
by a country squire from the bank: of the
Hudson?work that was moved forwsrd by a
farmboy from Missouri and invigora:ed and
enlarged upor by the brilliant grandson of
Irish immigrants.
There is es-try reason for us to believe
tonight that Franklin Roosevelt w add be
proud of this Nation, pleased with 1-.5 prog-
ress, happy about its growing maturity, con-
fident, of its les dership.
When that so, we can all take atisfac-
Lion that the work he began so vsell?al-
though still u ifinished?is going on and this
Nation and al the world is the better for it.
And that, .n truth, is the most fitting
memorial we :an possibly provide ind the
only one Fran,ain Roosevelt would e'er have
wanted.
GOVERNMEN C PUBLICATIONS F01. SALE
Additional copies of Government aublica-
Lions are offered for sale to the public by the
Superintendent of Documents, Govarnment
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. at cost
thereof as determined by the Public Printer
plus 50 percen a Provided, That a disaount of
not to exceed 25 percent may be allowed to
authorized beokdealers and quantity pur-
chasers, but such printing shall nct, inter-
fere with the prompt execution of work for
the Government. The Superintendent of
Documents s aill prescribe the terms and
conditions under which he may a athorize
the resale of Government publications by
bookdealers, a ad he may designate any Gov-
ernment office.' his agent for the sale of Gov-
ernment publ.catIons under such regulations
as shall be ag-eed upon by the Supe-intend-
ent of Documents and the head of the re-
spective depastment or establishmer t of the
Government .U.S. Code, title 44, ;ec. 72a,
Supp. 2).
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FoPfgiCallisidatth A1CMIgibP6fitra33R000500050001-9
?
"8012,-6ecYetary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation 7:4; com-
pensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation by.".
Changes in position titles
SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in
any law or reorganization plan to the?
Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Interior,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Labor,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, or
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare, ?
such reference shall be held and considered
to mean the?
Assistant Attorney General for Administra-
tion,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Ad-
ministraiton,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Adminis-
tration.
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Administration, or
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare for Admi-istration,
respectively.
Limitation on salaries fixed by administrative
action
SEC. 308. L'xcept as provided by this Act
and notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law, the head of any executive depart-
ment, independent establishment, or agency
in the executive branch who is authorized to
fix by administrative action the annual rate
of basic compensation for any position, offi-
cer, or employee shall not fix such rate in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended. Nothing contained in
this section shall be construed to impair the
authorities provided in the Central Intelli-
gence Agency Act of 1949, as amended (50
U.S.C. 403a and following) .
Positions placed under Classification Act
of 1949
SEC. 309. Each office or position in the ex-
ecutive branch specifically referred to in, or
covered by, any conforming change in law
made by section 305 of this Act which is not
placed in a level of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303 of
this Act, shall be placed in the appropriate
grade of the General Schedule of the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949, as amended, in accordance
with the provisions of such Act.
Saving provisions
SEC. 310. (a) Except as provided by this
Act, the changes in existing law made by
this Act shall not affect any office or posi-
the existing immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of any such changes in exis7,in.g
law, the compensation attached to such of-
fice or position, and any incumbent thereof,
his appointment thereto, and his entitlement
to receive the compensation attached thereto,
until appropriate action is taken in accord-
ance with this Act or other law.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act, the rate of basic compensation received
by any officer or employee immediately prior
to the effective date of this Act shall not be
reduced by reason of enaament of this Act.
Mr. MURRAY (interrupting the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the further reading of the
title be dispensed with, that it be con-
No. 45,-13
sidered as read and open for amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF
MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana. Page 41, line 13, strike out "1963" and
insert in lieu thereof "1964"; And on page
43, immediately following line 3, insert the
following:
"Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
"Director of Central Intelligence.
"Administrator of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency."
And on page 44, immediately following
"(18) " in line 7, insert the word "Deputy";
And on page 45, strike out lines 9 and 10
and redesignate accordingly the subpara-
graphs following line 10 on page 45.
And on page 45, immediately following
" (38) " in line, 14, insert the word "Deputy";
And on page 45, immediately following line
23, insert the following:
"Comptroller of the Currency.
"Commissioner of Internal Revenue."
And on page 58, line 8, stirke out "(e)"
and insert in lieu thereof "(d);
And on page 68, line 23, strike out "203 of
this Act" and insert in lieu thereof "303 of
the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964".
And on page 71, immediately before the
lieriod in line 24, insert ", in section 3 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16
U.S.C. 831b), or in section 5240 of the Revised
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the Comp-
troller of the Currency) ".
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, these are technical corrections to
the bill, for the most part. _In the several
rinted copies made of the bill there wre
some errors in the placing of the execu-
tive positrons int, For
instance, the Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs, the Administrator of the Hous-
ing and Home Finance Agency, and the
Director of Central Intelligence were
1ThlThd1iiievel 2 o the administration
approved bill with which we started.
The committee bill now before_w_in-
em in levell,71.1e
coin ee no m en o reduce_tio
raniting of 'hese three positions. under
"ex ting av=-77-tre11-1?.3ositi=a-i'e in the
same level as most of the positions in-
cluded in level 2 under H.R. 8986.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON. These positions
were inadvertently put in these Rides
I ? ' ?
ace
?
?
?
een
pu
e gra
e a n men ca s or. e commit-
fee members on this side will accept the
amendment.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I thank the
gentleman.
- Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, the peo-
ple of the United States can be rightfully
proud of the system of internal revenue
taxation that has carefully and delib-
erately evolved throughout the years.
We, in the legislative branch, must share
the successful role we have played in
this evolution with the able and dedi-
cated men who have accepted the bur-
,4953
dens of the office of Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. I know of few posi-
tions, within or outside Government,
which are as complex, as difficult, or as
responsible.
One of the most important responsi-
bilities the Commissioner has is to foster
and encourage a general attitude of tax-
payer compliance with our tax laws and
regulations. We have watched in our
time the growth of a spirit of voluntary
taxpayer compliance unmatched else-
where in a free society. More than 97
percent of our tax revenues are the re-
sults of self-assessments by the taxpay-
ers. From the standpoint of relative
efficiency, no tax jurisdiction that I
know of can match the continuing record
of the Internal Revenue Service. Con-
sistently, they have kept the costs of Col-
lecting our revenues down to much less
than 1/2 cent per tax dollar. Without
the spirit of fiscal integrity which we
rely upon the Commissioner to foster
and instill in our citizens, I cannot imag-
ine the levels to which our costs of col-
lection might grow.
I am moved to compare the efficiency
and results achieved in this country to
the tax collection efforts in other lands.
We can be grateful for the caliber of
men who have willingly accepted the
responsibility to administer the tax laws
we now live under.
It is my point in these remarks to
offer a reminder that HR. 8986 furnishes
little recognition, indeed, for the job we
have come to expect from the Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue. Under this
bill, level IV is the highest level in the
proposed Federal executive salary sched-
ule that the President can assign to this
job. This is a clear demotion of the
Commissioner's position. I ask that the
position be regarded as no less than level
III in the legislation we finally enact.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN].
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF
MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana: Page 69, strike out lines 3 to 8, in-
clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing:
"( j) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of July
25, 1959 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs. 17-204a
and 1-204b), relating to the compensation
of the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia, are amended to read as follows:
"'Sze. 2. Except as otherwise provided by
this section and section 3 of this Act?
"'(1) the compensation of the Commis-
sioners of the District of Columbia shall be
at the rate of $29,000 each per annum; and
" ' (2) the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
'Army shall receive an annual compensation
which, when added to any compensation he
receives as an officer of the United States
Army, will equal the compensation au-
thorized by paragraph (1) of this section.
"'Sm. 3. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law?
" ' (1) the compensation of the President
of the Board of Commissioners of the District
of Columbia shall be at the rate of $29,500
per annum; and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4954 Approved For eekTORINSWAID RIMBEW6613004M1R000500050001-9 March 12.
'12) if the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army is chosen President of the Board of
Commissioners, he shall receive, as President
of the Board, an annual compensation
which, when added to any compensation he
receives as an officer of the United States
Army, will equal the compensation author-
ized by paragraph (1) of this section.'
"121 Section 11-702(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rates of annual sal-
ary of the chief judge and the associate
judges of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, is amended?
" (A) by striking out 119,000' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 128,000% and
-(B1 by striking out $18,500' and Insert-
ing in lieu thereof 11127,500'.
43) Section 11-902(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (7'7 Stat. 487; Public Law
88-2411, relating to the rates of annual sal-
ary of the chief judge and the associate
judges of the District of Columbia Court
of General Sessions, Ls amended--
"(A) by striking out 118,000' and Insert-
ing in lieu thereof 126,500% and
"(B) by striking out 117,500' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 126,000'.
"(4) The first sentence of the second pars-
graph of section 2 of the Distrtct of Colum-
bia Revenue Act Of 1937, as amended (D.C.
Code, sec. 47-2402), relating to the compen-
sation of the person appointed to the Dis-
trict of Columbia Tax Court, Is amended by
striking out 117,500' arid inserting in lieu
thereof 126,000'. -
"(5) That part of the salary schedule in
section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach-
ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (75 Stat.
1229; D.C. Code. sec. 31-1501), relating to
the compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools. and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools, of the District of Columbia, which
reads-
- 'Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools $19, 000
Class 2: Deputy superintendent 16.500'
is amended to read as follows:
" 'Class I: Superintendent of
Schools $28,000
Claes 2: Deputy superintendent 22, 500'
"(6) That part of the salary schedule in
section 101 of the District of Columbia Police
and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
480), as amended (Sac. 4-823, et seq.. D.C.
Code, 1961 edition) relating to the compen-
sation of the Fire Chief and Chief of Police,
which reads:
o $17,00u i 50%403
Vire Chief.
thief of Police."
mended to read as follows:
"
Vire Chief.
( 'hie( of Police."
541 500
Mr. OLSEN of Montana (interrupting
the reading of the amendment). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Montana?
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Montana IMr. OLSEN I is recog-
nized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the
eentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given Per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman. I call
your attention to a most 'regrettable
oversight in HR. 8986. I refer to the
omission from either level II or level III
in section 303, of the position of Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue. Under
the bill in its present form, the highest
salary that the President could assign
this position is level IV. Considering the
Positions listed in level II? and espe-
cially those shown in level III?this is
not only a substantial demotion for this
Position, but a gross underestimate of
tile importance of the tax agency along-
aide the positions which the bill ap-
proves for higher levels.
Under the Executive Pay Act of 1956,
in section 104(a), the position of Corn-
niissioner of Internal Revenue was shown
at No. 1 in a salary range providing for
5.17.
101
$13,
200
316,600
5??.1
1100 .,
11
503
1 $23,180
$19, OW
$23, 500'
a total of 20 posit:oils. Eighteen of these
positions?now paid on the same basis
as the Commissioner?are assigned
either to level II or level III of the pro-
posed Federal Executive Salary Sched-
ule. It was the Judgment of Congress
in 1956 that the position of Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue should be
numbered among the most important
and most difficult in the Federal Estab-
lishment. In my present judgment, the
Commissioner's position should be main-
tained in this same leading category.
I am strengthened in my conviction by
the fact that at level III in the bill pres-
ently before us there can be identified
17 positions which hitherto have been
paid at lower rates than the Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue. Surely, it
was never intended that these jobs were
to be considered of superior scope and
importance than the IRS position. But
that is precisely what will come about
unless the Commissioner's position is
rightly restored to the relationship it
had with the other positions under the
1956 Executive Pay Act.
Relative size and importance of agen-
cies should have been given some consid-
eration in the assignment of an appro-
priate salary level for the IRS position.
In this connection, I note that the Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue heads an
organization fully 21i times as large as
the largest of the agency head positions
listed in level U. Moreover, level ri in-
cludes both autonomous and semi-
autonomous agencies, the latter repre-
sented by the Administrator, Agency for
International Development, a constituent
bureau of the State Department. By the
same reasoning that places this position
In level II, it is my firm belief that the
IRS position is ao less than a level III
job. This semiautonomous status of the
Internal Reven le Service within the
Treasury Department has been recog-
nized in an ir teresting fashion by a
White House dieument, In 1955, For-
eign Operations Administration?one of
the predecessors of the Agency for Inter-
national Develcoment?was changed by
Executive Ordei No. 10610 from an inde-
pendent agency to a part of the State
Department. tresident Eisenhowea at
that time explained that the foreigr aid
agency would function within the De-
partment of State in the same mauler
as Internal Revanue within the Treasury
Department; tl: at is, with internal au-
tonomy for its operations, but subjeat to
policy control ?nd coordination by the
Department.
The Adminisarator of the Agenc:, for
International Development within State
Department lika the Commissioner of In-
ternal 'Revenue within Treasury Depart-
ment, still operates with "superbureau"
status. Since ahe H.R. 8986 recognizes
level II for thc AID job, I ask thut no
less than leve: III recognition bc ex-
tended to the position:of Commiss:.oner
of Internal Re aenue.
PROPOSED PA' PATUS OF COMMISSION-TM OF
ER N A L REVENUE
This paper discusses the downward re-
vision in the olative executive pay level
of the Commissioner of Internal Re,,enue
as proposed in HR. 8986.
First. The al tached memorandum sets
forth the effect of the bill on the re.ative
ranking of the Commissioner within the
executive bran ah.
Second. Th c relation of the Corimia-
stoner within the Treasury.
The positions of the Secretary cf the
Treasury and 4:f the Commissioner of In-
ternal Revenue are relatively cor,stant
combinations f the duties and responsi-
bilities, largely determined by staautory
guidelines. Oa the other hand, the du-
ties of the Un.ler Secretaries and /assist-
ant Secretaries of the Treasury aae de-
termined frona time to time at the dis-
cretion of the particular Secretary at
the time. Delegations of authority flow
from the Secretary to the Commisaioner,
and not from the Under Secretary. At
various times the Commissioner has re-
ported direct to the Secretary, or through
an Assistant and, currently, ti' rough
the Under Searetary. In job evaluation
terms, the Commissioner's supervisor is
-the Secretary with the Under Secretary
as his assistant for this purpose, among
others, consie ared as a single supeavisorY
combination. This is at a high leoel, an
Instance of a position of Assistant
Chief?here, the Under Secretary?not
necessarily a grade higher than E. prin-
cipal subord:nate of their Chief, even
though the subordinate reports through
the Assistant Chief.
Again in job evaluation terms, a com-
parison of a positions of the Commis-
sioner and a Under Secretary confirms
that they are substantially equoralent,
all factors bang considered, even though
one is highei in hierarchical rani:. The
public identification and management
responsibility of the Commisisonea of In-
ternal Reverse for the operation; of the
Service, invc lye the tremendous magni-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
House of Representatives
The House met at 12 o'clock noon and
was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore [Mr. ALBERT).
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before
the House the following communication
from the Speaker:
THE SPEAKER'S ROOMS,
March 17, 1964.
I hereby designate the Honorable CARL
ALBERT to act as Speaker pro tempore today.
JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
Speaker of the Rouse of Representatives.
PRAYER
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D.D., offered the following prayer:
I John 5: 4: This is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith.
Eternal God, our Father, we humbly
acknowledge that our own day is a time
which is trying the souls of men and fill-
ing many with fear and foreboding.
It fortifies us to know that all along
the dark and dismal paths of history
there walked those who have remained
steadfast and strong, however beset by
trials and tribulations.
Help us also to carry on bravely for we
believe that in our day and generation
4' we have companions and comrades who
are ready to suffer and sacrifice for that
which is true and honorable and will
never surrender to fear and cowardice.
Grant that in the great adventure and
gigantic struggle of establishing peace on
earth and brotherhood among men, may
we cling with increasing tenacity of faith
to the sustaining and indwelling spirit
of our blessed Lord.
Hear us in His name. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Ar-
rington, one of its clerks, announced that
the President pro tempore had appointed
Mr. SMATHERS and Mr. PERSON, as mem-
bers on the part of the Senate, to the
United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development in Geneva, Switzerland,
from March 23 to June 15, 1964.
NEED FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
APPROVAL OF LEGISLATION TO
INCREASE PAY LEVELS OF GOV-
ERNMENT EMPLOYEES?COMMU-
NICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.
NO. 248)
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before
the House the following communication
5292
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1964
from the President of the United States;
which was read, and, without objection,
referred to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service and ordered to be
printed:
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, March 17, 1964,
Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I urge the House to
reconsider and approve legislation to in-
crease pay levels of Government em-
ployees. If the pay raise is not enacted,
it will deprive 2 million Federal workers
of fair and reasonable pay adjustments;
make it difficult to recruit and retain top-
flight men and women; impair my efforts
to achieve true economy in Government.
Specifically, failure to take this action
will?
undercut the principle and the promise
of comparable pay?Federal career pay
scales comparable to those in private
enterprise?adopted by the Congress just
a year and a half ago in the historic Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act of 1962;
thwart our efforts to strengthen profes-
sional and technical leadership and step
up the productivity of Federal workers.
Competence is the keystone of that pro-
gram. Fair salaries are vital to attract
and hold competent people;
make it harder than ever to recruit and
hold the outstanding people we need for
our top policy jobs. They already earn
less?often far less?than they did earn,
or could earn, in private jobs. This
salary gap has been growing. The pro-
posed bill will not close it. But it will
reverse a dangerous trend;
jeopardize increases in military pay
which I have recommended to keep
Armed Forces pay generally in line with
nonmilitary salaries;
renew pressures for the old approach of
fiat percentage increases for postal and
other career workers. Such increases
destroy a fair and rational pay system.
Every cent of these increases is already
included in my budget for fiscal year
1965?the smallest budget in proportion
to our national output since 1951.
Congress and the country surely sup-
port my determined drive for economy
in Government. To make that policy
work, I need first-class managers who
can tighten organizations, simplify pro-
cedures, trim waste, and inspire maxi-
mum effort. It is false economy to offer
salaries that will attract the mediocre
but repel the talented. Business, foun-
dations, universities, State and local gov-
ernments are all learning that lesson?
or already have.
If Congressmen feel they should post-
pone increasing their salaries until next
year, even though they are most deserv-
ing of an increase in pay, there is no rea-
son to postpone equitable and just action
for others who serve the Government and -
the Nation.
I need your help in my program to get
a dollar's worth of value for every dollar's
worth of pay?and the dollars paid to at-
tract brains and ability to the Federal
service will come back to the American
people many times over in more economi-
cal and effective Government.
I am sending a copy of this letter to
the Honorable CARL, HAYDN, President
pro tempore of the Senate.
Sincerely,
LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
ST. PATRICK'S DAY
(Mr. KIRWAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Speaker, I take
this time to thank the Ancient Order of
Hibernians for presenting the carnations
that we wear today to the Congress.
I also thank those who have flown
from Ireland the shamrocks that we see
here today. The Members of Congress
and the people connected with the run-
ning of the Congress are thankful to the
Ancient Order of Hibernians for their
generosity, and to the Ambassador.
THE LATE SENATOR JAMES M. MEAD
(Mr. DLTLSKI asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I was
shocked and distressed to learn- of the
passing of former Senator James M.
Mead. Senator, as he was known even
after his retirement, was loved by every
person who knew him, and I feel per-
sonally gifted that I was privileged to
know him.
Mr. Speaker, words are inadequate to
convey the popularity of Senator Mead.
His passing will be sorrowed by many,
not only in the Buffalo, N.Y., area, but
all over the Nation. He was a giant
among othei, political leaders, and was
devoted to his fellow man throughout his
public and private life. Senator Mead
worked untiringly for the benefit of the
workingman,. and particularly for postal
and classified workers.
Mr. Speaker, a most eloquent sum-
mary of the wonderful life of Senator
James J. Mead has been compiled by one
of our leading newspapers, the Buffalo
Evening News.
James Michael Mead, 78, who rose from a
railroad worker's shack to a leading place in
national politics, died today after a long
illness.
Starting in the Erie County Board of Su-
pervisors, he served as a legislator at the
local, State, and national levels for 32 suc-
cessive years.
During the New Deal era of Democratic
dominance he was one of his party's most
Influential leaders in Congress.
He withdrew from active politics in 1947
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ICIA:RDP6.61300_403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEINIA.1.E 5291
key. I know that you do not believe in
segregation. I know that it is your pri-
vate property. But the State law says,
'Segregate.'
Is that not an interference with pri-
vate property? I say that, it is. The
businessman might say. "Segregation
would ruin me economically. It runs
against my religion. It is opposed to my
attitude. It is against my sense of
morality."
Still, the sheriff says, "Sorry, old boy.
The law says 'Segregate.'"
Why do not people who are in opposi-
tion to the bill condemn that practice?
The Government of the United States
says, "You shall be treated as a citizen
of the United States." We do not say
"integrate." In the bill it is provided
that segregation in public places and in
public establishments violates the Con-
No. 49-8
stitution, and particularly so if a State
law requires it.
The Constitution further guarantees
equal privileges and immunities and
equal treatment under the law for every
citizen of the United States. If that is
not the case, then a citizen, regardless
of his looks?whether he is short or tall,
thin or fat, flatfooted or high arched,
bald or curly headed?is entitled to come
into public places. That is the simple
argument.
I thank the Senator for his tolerance
and understanding.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, I yield the floor.
RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW AT
11 A.M.
Mr. HITMPHREY. Mr. President, if
there is no further business to come be-
fore the Senate at this time, I move, pur-
suant to the order previously entered
that the Senate stand in recess until 11
a.m. tomorrow.
The motion was .greed to: and (at E
o'clock and 19 minv tes p.m.) the Senate
recessed, under the order previously en-
tered, until tomorrow, Wednesday, March
18, 1964, at 11 a.m.
NOMINATION
Executive nomint tion received by the
Senate March 17 (legislative day of
March 9i, 1964:
DEPARTME1.1" OF LABOR
Mary Dublin Keyse ling, of the District o:
Columbia. to be Diroctor of the Women':
Bureau, Department of Labor, vice Mrs
Esther Peterson, eleva
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Congressional Record
United States
00th
of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE oo CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 110
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1964
No. 48
House of Representatives
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
Rabbi Arthur Schneier, MA., of Con-
gregation Zichron Ephraim, offered the
following prayer:
Almighty God, our Founding Fathers,
touched by Thine infinite wisdom, forged
a union of self-governing states. The
self-rule of individual communities mold-
ed into national unity, strengthened the
American character of initiative and re-
sourcefulness. It made us freemen in-
stead of slaves of the state. This in-
dependent spirit, in 300 years, developed
small New Amsterdam into the thriving
metropolis of New York.
0 Lord, help us resist pressure and
temptation to alter the delicate balance
of Government power. May these sacred
halls not become pressure chambers of
selfishness. Help us rather execute what
is right in Thy sight.
Knowing that our cities and States
can become outposts of national honor
or disgrace, 0 God, help us cast aside
provincial pride which keeps our hearts
from one another. May we unite in the
fight against poverty and human misery
so that everyone in our land can grate-
fully proclaim, "We have eaten, we are
satisfied, blessed be Thy name, 0 Lord."
Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of
Thursday, March 12, 1964, was read and
approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States was communi-
cated to the House by Mr. Ratchford,
one of his secretaries, who also informed
the House that on the following dates
the President approved and signed bills
of the House of the following titles:
On March 10, 1964:
HR. 6982. An act for the relief of Pas-
quale Florica;
H.R. 7235. An act to amend sections 671
and 672 of title 28, United States Code,
relating to the Clerk and the Marshal of
the Supreme Court; and
HR. 8171. An act to authorize the Secre-
tary of the Interior to acquire lands, in-
eluding farm units and improvements there-
on, in the third division, Riverton reclama-
tion project, Wyoming, and to continue to
deliver water for 3 years to lands of said divi-
sion, and for other purposes.
On March 11, 1964:
HR. 6092. An act for the relief of Alexan-
der Haytko;
H.R. 7821. An act for the relief of Wlady-
slawa Pytlak Jarosz; and
H.R. 9640. An act to authorize appropria-
tions for procurement of vessels and aircraft
and construction of shore and offshore es-
tablishments for the Coast Guard.
On March 13, 1964:
H.R. 1182. An act for the relief of Willy
Sapuschnin;
H.R. 1295. An act for the relief of Edith
and Joseph Sharon;
HR. 1355. An act for the relief of Stanis-
lawa Ouelette;
H.R. 1384. An act for the relief of Areti
Siozos Paidas;
HR. 1455. An act for the relief of Ewald
Johan Consen;
H.R. 1520. An act for the relief of Jozefa
Trzcinska Biskup and Ivanka Stalcer Vla-
hovic;
H.R. 1521. An act for the relief of Lovorko
Lucie;
HM. 1723. An act for the relief of Agnese
Brienza;
HR. 1886. An act for the relief of Valeriano
T. Ebreo;
HM. 4085. An act for the relief of Tibor
Horcsik;
MR. 4284. An act for the relief of Chry-
santhos Kyriakou;
MR. 4682. An act for the relief of Mr. and
Mrs. Fred T. Winfield;
H.R. 5144. An act for the relief of Doyle A.
Ballou;
H.R. 5617. An act for the relief of Elizabeth
Renee Louise Gabrielle Huffer;
11 If. 6313. An act for the relief of Stanis-
law Kuryj;
H.R. 6320. An act for the relief of Walter
L. Mathews and others;
H.R. 6477. An act for . the relief of Capt.
Otis R. Bowles;
MR. 6591. An act for the relief of Con-
stantine Theothoropoulos;
H.R. 7347. An act fol? the relief of Teresa
Elliopoulos and Anastasia Elliopoulos;
MR. 7533. An act for the relief of Deme-
trios Dousopoulos;
H.R. 8085: An act for the relief of Roy W.
Ficken;
HR. 8322. An act for the' relief of John
George Kostantoyannis; and
HR. 8507. An act for the relief of certain
medical and dental officers of the Air Force.
FEDERAL PAY RAISE BILL
(Mr. ROUSH asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1 min-
ute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Speaker, a great
number of us found ourselves in a most
difficult position last Thursday when we
considered the pay raise bill. Most of
us recognized a need for a general pay
increase among Federal employees.
Exclude from this bill those unreason-
ably high increases in the legislative,
executive, and judicial salaries and I be-
come an enthusiastic supporter of this
legislation. It is needed and desirable.
That which made it most difficult was
the fact that included were substantial
Increases in the legislative, executive,
and judicial which would have, of course,
included a substantial increase in my
own salary. My expenses are great and
I feel the pinch of the cost-of-living rise
but I could not and would not vote for a
$10,000 increase for myself. If I had
voted for this substantial increase, how
could I have looked a laboring man back
in Indiana in the eye when I know he is
making less than $5,000 or $6,000 per
year. I could not.
If these increases in the top-pay
brackets could be reduced so as to pro-
vide for a modest increase, then I would
have supported this bill. But, as it stood,
I had to vote against it. Because of the
support I want to give to the Federal
employee, I hope that this matter might
be reconsidered and we might have an-
other chance to vote on a reasonablej
LE y raise bill.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL
BUSINESS
Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the House Select
Committee on Small Business be per-
mitted to sit during general debate on
March 17 and 18 next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee?
There was no objection.
5109
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5110 Approved For itematiggwit :ote06/141916M000500050001-9 March 16
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON
POVERTY
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, this is
a historic day for the Congress. To-
day we have received a message from the
President which commits this Nation
to a total, unrelenting, and?I am sure?
a successful war against Poverty.
We enjoy in this country today un-
precedented prosperity and affluence,
but fully a fifth of our people do not
share it. This is an intolerable situa-
tion. The President has spoken for all
of us in his determination that the bene-
fits of our advanced technology and,
perhaps even more importantly, the
American conscience will be directed now
to bringing basic security and comfort to
the more than 30 million Americans who
do not have such security and comfort.
There is no single cause or aspect of
poverty. It must, therefore, be fought
on many fronts and with many weapons.
The President's recommendations con-
stitute a well-rounded, coordinated series
of specific programs. Emphasis will be
on youth, because we seek not only to
relieve today's poverty but to prevent
tomorrow's.
I hail the President's message, because
it puts its emphasis on what all Amer-
icans can do in this great crusade?not
just the Federal Government. Every
community in America will now be chal-
lenged to take part.
The Congress will now work its will
on the specific recommendations of the
President. I am confident that his mes-
sage sets us on the right course. The
American people will join President
Johnson in hoping for quick and com-
prehensive action by the Congress. This
is now our round. Let the people who
will benefit from this program know that
we will not let them down.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON
POVERTY
(Mr. BOGGS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. 13000S. Mr. Speaker, the Pres-
ident's program for combating poverty
in America is one of the most sweeping
ever presented to the Congress. Its prac-
tical approach recognizes that poverty
must be attacked from many different di-
rections?that there is no single panacea
for reducing the extent and severity of
poverty.
I like the emphasis which the program
places on local initiative and planning.
It is proper that each community should
take the lead, with Federal financial as-
sistance, in determining how to reduce
poverty in its own area.
Two of the programs recommended?
the National Job Corps and the work-
study program?bring back memories of
two of the finest programs over under-
taken by this Nation?the CCC?Civilian
Conservation Corps?and the NYA?Na-
tional Youth Administration. Back in
the 1930's the CCC and the NYA won
almost universal acclaim for what they
did for the youth of that generation, and
it is my ferveut hope that these new pro-
grama will furnish the same great hell)
for the poverty-stricken youth of this
generation.
The selection of Sargent Shriver to co-
ordinate and supervise this program is
a magnificent choice. His direction of
the Peace Corps has won unprecedented
International acclaim, and his reputa-
tion as a diplomatic, farseeing, dollar-
conscious administrator of great skill will
get President Johnson's antipoverty pro-
gram off to a fine start.
THE DAY OF DISTRIBUTIVE
JUSTICE
(Mr. CAREY asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, we have
the message and the target is poverty.
No citizen can deny its effect, no legis-
lator can be indifferent to its existence
in a land of abundance blessed by
providence.
The message is as important as the
message. The proposals are truly in ac-
cord with the principle and virtue of
distributive justice.
They respect the freedom of the indi-
vidual and the unity of the family.
They enlist all our effort and re-
sources public and private?without
discrimination as to persons or projects.
This distributive justice program ad-
dresses itself to our national dilemma.
Under our national creed we are cre-
ated equal but through the predicament
of poverty we have been too long
unequal.
Now we purpose to proportion our na-
tional effort?public, private, and indi-
vidual?to create opportunity for the
full development of the potential of
every American.
In education, in the economy, in rural
slough and urban slum, this is a day of
hope?the dawn of distributive justice.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr.
Speaker, on March 10, on rollcall No. 62,
I am recorded as absent. I was present
and answered to my name. I ask unani-
mous consent that tale permanent
RECORD and Journal be c&rected accord-
ingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
There was no objection.
THE BAKER INVESTIGATION
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.,
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, it is time
for a single standard for witnesses ap-
pearing before congressional committees.
It is time to end the double standard
treatment that. has resulted in the cod-
dling of White House Aid Walter Jen-
kins. What has been in the mind of the
committee that refuses to call him, and
continues to insulate him against any
possible perjury prosecution?
Mr. Don Reynolds was questioned
under oath. Ee has said he will return
for still more criestioning as to the con-
tradiction between his testimony and
the statement attributed to Jenkins.
The commiLee counsel has tried to
rationalize the double standard. He re-
fuses to put Jenkins under oath and
question him on the arrangements 'under
which $1,200 was paid to the L.B.J. Co.
Jenkins was an, employee of the other
body at the tine of the transaction.
The fact that he has become a White
House employee should give him no im-
munity now.
Had there lo:!en no confrontation be-
tween Whitak:T Chambers and Alger
Hiss there wou:d have been only ircon-
elusive denials and coverups.
It is the duty of Congress to find the
truth, and to diligently search out the
facts when the:.7,e are contradictions,. If
Congress fails, then there can be no re-
spect for the a ithority of Congress.
Mr. Speakei part 1 of the hearing
record of the Senate Rules Committee
contains a irEanorandum prepared by
two committee 3taff members from which
I quote the following:
Mr. Jenkins ha no knowledge of any con-
versation betwet Mr. Baines and Mr..-leyn-
olds, nor does he have any knowledge cl any
arrangements by which Reynolds purchased
advertising tim( on the TV station.
In the same hearing record?pal t 1--
the counsel to: the committee, Mr_ Mc-
Clendon, ques-,ioned Mr. Reynoles, as
follows:
Mr. Mcesstioc I. What comment, if any, do
you have to maize about the content d the
statements mado by Mr. Jenkins in the in-
terview?
Mr. REYNOLDS No. 1 is the statement that
he had no knowledge of any question of ad-
vertising time tz) be purchased from KTBC,
which Is a statien owned by L.B.J. Co., sir.
Mr. McCLENisc,N. And your statement is?
Mr. REYNOLDS He did have knowledge and
discussed it with me, sir. And he discussed
It directly with the president of the Mid-
Atlantic Stainless Steel Co., Mr. Albirt G.
Young.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Reynolds appeared
before the committee and testified -mder
oath. Mr. Jenkins, the Presidentied aid,
has not been called to do likewise al-
though there 13 here a clear case of per-
jury on the part of someone.
The public :3 entitled to the tru:h.
CORRECTION OF ROLLCALL
Mr. CURTL'I. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
call No. 66 I a; a recorded as not answer-
ing. I was present and answered to my
name. I ask u aanimous consent that the
permanent Recoss and the Jourr al be
corrected accordingly.
The SPEAK R. Is there object on to
the request of ;he gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was r o objection.
CALL OF TEE PRIVATE CALENDAR
ON TUESDAY
(Mr. ALBERT asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
And in the postwar period, the Greek that the Senate, if given an opportunity
people were again threatened by a tyran- to do so, would follow suit as soon as
ny from the East. Soviet Russia at- feasible, consistent with the parliamen-
tempted to subjugate this freedom-loving situation now confronting us.
people. With timely American aid, the
Greek people were again successful in
defending their freedom.
Mr. President, our commemorating
Greek 'Independence Day reconfirms our
devotion to the principle of democracy
which came to light in Greece thousands
of years ago and emphasizes our deter-
mination to see that its light shall banish
the darkness which threatens to envelop
our world today.
UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, today the Comptroller Gen-
eral submitted another report in which
he sharply criticizes the Defense Depart-
ment for an unnecessary expenditure of
more than $445 million.
In this report the Comptroller General
ails our attention to an expenditure by
the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics?since
reorganized as the Bureau of Naval
Weapons?of more than $445.4 million
over a 10-year period for the P-6M-2 sea-
plane program, and according to the
Comptroller General they 'did not receive
a single serviceable aircraft as the result
of these expenditures.
The most of these expenditures repre-
sents payments made to the Glenn L.
Martin Co., Baltimore, Md., over the past
10 years.
Continuing, the Comptroller General
states that the Bureau ordered quantity
production of 24 operational P-6M-2 sea-
planes before a reasonably satisfactory
seaplane had been developed.
This is another typical example of the
irresponsible manner in which the pro-
curement division squanders the tax-
payers' money in the name of national
defense. In this instance nearly $500
million was spent for planes which never
left the ground.
This entire report dated March 23,
1964, No. B-146885, should be read by
every Member of Congress and in partic-
ular by the Appropriations Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the report
be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the report
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C., March 23, 1964.
To the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE-
SENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM-
PORE OF THE SENATE
Enclosed is our report on additional costs
incurred in the procurement of POI sea-
planes from the Glenn L. Martin Co., Balti-
more, Md., by the Department of the Navy.
The P-6M program, which was begun in 1951
to fulfill a need for a fast jet-powered sea-
plane for laying mines, was terminated in
August 1959 because of delays, increased
costs, and unexpected difficulties experienced
with the aircraft.
Our review disclosed that the Navy Bureau
of Aeronautics (since reorganized as the Bu-
reau of Naval Weapons) spent spent more
than $445.4 million over a 10-year period for
the P-SM seaplane program and did not re-
ceive a single serviceable aircraft. The Bu-
reau ordered quantity production of 24 op-
erational P-6M-2 seaplane before a reason-
ably satisfactory seaplane had been devel-
oped. The award of this production con-
tract for the 24 operational aircraft and con-
tracts for supporting items at a time when
it was known that there were serious un-
solved problems with the prototype aircraft
resulted in expenditures of $209.2 million
which might have been saved if these con-
tracts had not been awarded. Also, our re-
view disclosed that significant coat increases
FEDERAL PAY RAISE
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, last
week President Johnson in a letter to
the Speaker urged the other body to
reconsider its recent action killing the
bill to raise the salaries of 1.'7 million
Federal employees.
I am immensely gratified that the
President's recommendations were fol-
lowed almost immediately by the intro-
duction of a number of new bills in the
House leaving out congressional pay
raises, and limited to primarily the clas-
sified service, the postal employees, and
others in the three branches of Govern-
ment. I understand the Committee on
Past Office and Civil Service in the other
body will begin its consideration of these
measures tomorrow. The expedition is
most heartening, for if action were de-
layed out of consideration for the oppo-
sition that had developed with regard
to the congressional pay hike, an im-
mense injustice would be done to those
Federal career employees who have been
promised that the principle of compara-
ble pay?pay scales more nearly com-
parable to those in private enterprise?
would be translated into concrete form
this year.
I have read reports that the new
measures may run into heavy weather
with some Members of Congress, since
upper echelon salaries in the other
branches of the Government and among
congressional staff might conceivably be
raised l enough to be higher than the
present pay of Congressmen. In my
view, while this possibility is present,
and poses a genuine problem, that is all
the more reason for plowing into con-
sideration of the bill right now and
threshing out these problems, so that
past promises to classified and postal
workers may be redeemed. I know there
is a widespread feeling that the Senate
may not be able to reach any pay bill
until after the civil rights bill is dis-
posed of; but that view neglects to take
into account the fact that considerable
progress may be made in the other body
and, as I have urged, in the Senate Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
while the civil rights bill is pending here,
so that we may be in an advantageous
position to take final action when the
civil rights bill is no longer holding ur
our other business.
Mr. President, I- hope the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service in the
other body and, in turn, the House itself
will give prompt approval to one of the
pending new measures. I am confident
6049
were incurred by the Navy in this program
because of design and engineering errors
committed by the contractor as well as a
failure by the contractor to adhere to the
Navy's aircraft testing procedures. Under
the terms of the contracts, the cost of the
contractor's errors are borne exclusively by
the Government.
The Martin Co., by letter dated March 29,
1963, commented on a draft of this report.
The Martin comments dealt generally with
the difficulties anticipated and experienced
in making the technical advances needed
to develop an aircraft to meet the Navy
requirements for the P-SM. The Martin
reply did not comment on the specific find-
ings or deficiencies related in our report.
In commenting on our findings and con-
clusions, the Navy agreed that serious prob-
lems with the P-6I11 were known and that
solutions were not certain when it ordered
quantity production, but informed us that,
in accordance with its policies and practices
at the time, the Navy feels that it was justi-
fied in entering into and continuing the
production program, until terminated in
August 1959. The Navy acknowledged, how-
ever, that, on the basis of a current assess-
ment, it should have terminated the pro-
gram at an earlier date. The Navy agreed
with our proposal that in the future costly
quantity production of new weapon systems
should not be authorized until the con-
tractor has given adequate evidence that
a satisfactory operational product has been
developed. The Navy informed us that its
current programing system and new program
change and review procedures established
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
would assure that the objective of our pro-
posal would be carried out. In view of these
changes, we are not making any recom-
mendations ,at this time relative to prema-
ture contracting for production quantities
of an unproved item.
The Navy, in commenting on the additional
costs incurred by the Government because of
the contractor's errors, advised us that the
contractor could not be held financially re-
sponsible for such additional costs in ac-
cordance with the contract terms. The con-
tracts provide that the contractor will not
be responsible for the additional costs re-
sulting from correction of defective work
unless the defective work resulted from fraud,
lack of good faith, or willful misconduct on
the part of the contractor.
It is unreasonable for the Government to
incur the costs resulting from errors or de-
fective workmanship on the part of a con-
tractor. This seems particularly true when
the Government has selected that contractor
for its competence in the field. Accordingly,
we are of the opinion that provision should
be included in development and production
contracts which will place financial respon-
sibility on the contractor for additional costs
incurred due to engineering errors or design
deficiencies resulting from poor performance
on the part of the contractor. We recognize
that a distinction must be made between
additional costs incurred in development
contracts when the reasons are associated
with technological risks in new areas as
opposed to lack of competence on the part
of a manufacturer in his specialized field
or a failure to apply the developed state of
the art involved. Therefore, we are recom-
mending to the Secretary of Defense that
the present contract clauses be revised and
Implemented to require the contractor to
assume financial responsibility under cost-
plus-a-fixed-fee development and produc-
tion contracts for additional costs incurred
due to performance which is less than
should be expected of a skilled contractor.
We are recommending also that administra-
tive procedures include realistic criteria upon
which the quality of the contractor's per-
formance can be evaluated.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
6050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE March 25
Copies of this report are being sent to
the President of the United States. the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
the Navy.
Joseen CAMPBELL.
Comptroller General
o the United States.
ALLEGED FORGERIES ON TAX RE-
TURNS IN THE ROBERT BAKER
CASE
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, on March 12 I received an af-
fidavit from Mr. Milton L. Hauft, an ac-
countant who on occasions had prepared
income tax returns for Mr. Robert G.
Baker.
In the affidavit Mr. Hauft charged
specifically that on one of the individual
tax returns of Mr. Baker on file in the
Treasury Department his signature is a
forgery: in addition, he insisted that
two of the partnership returns prepared
for the Carousel Motel as they appear in
the Treasury Department's records like-
wise bear his forged signatures.
I ask unanimous consent that the af-
fidavit of Mr. Hauft, as transmitted to
the committee on March 12, be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the affidavit
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MARCH 12, 1904.
I. Milton L. Hauft. living at 3801 Archer
Place, Kensington, Md.. do give this affidavit
to Senator Joux J. Wussmics (Delaware) of
my own free will.
On this date I was called to the Internal
Revenue Service to give information rela-
tive to tax returns I had prepared for Robert
G. Baker.
During the course of presenting the in-
formation in my possession I was questioned
about some partnership tax returns prepared
for the Carousel Motel. During the course
of my association with Mr. Baker I had never
prepared any returns for the Carousel Motel.
When presented with the return by the
Internal Revenue Service / noted that the
signatures purported to be mine were for-
geries.
As the result of this I went back to the
personal returns for Mr. Baker prepared by
sue, and on looking at the signatures on
these returns I noted that the signatures
as to the person preparing these returns were
also forgeries and were not my signatures.
This was reported immediately to the In-
vestigators of the Internal Revenue Service.
and samples and specimens of my handwrit-
ing were also presented to them for match-
ing purposes.
MILTON L. HAUFT.
District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
12th day of March. 1964.
KATHRYN M. COULTER,
Notary Public.
My commission expires April 14. 1985.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, last Friday a representative
of the Treasury Department confirmed
that the Department agreed that the
signatures of the accountant appearing
on the Carousel Motel partnership re-
turns were not the bona fide signatures
of the accountant.
The accountant likewise stands by his
sworn statement that his name has been
forged on these partnership returns and
that he had never participated in the
preparation of these returns.
In addition, one of Mr. Baker's per-
sonal tax returns on file in the Treasury
Department bears the forged signature
of this same accountant.
These charges have not been contra-
dicted by the Treasury Department, the
Justice Department, or anyone else.
The accountant's signatures as ap-
pearing on these returns are recognized
as forgeries.
Mr. President. the question has been
raised as to what the penalties are for
filing a tax return which bears a forged
signature of the preparer of the return.
In order that there may be no question
as to the penalty, I directed an inquiry
to Mr. Cohn F. Stam, chief of staff
of the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation.
I have Just received a letter from Mr.
Stam from which I shall read in part
and then place the whole letter in the
RECORD. I quote:
This is in response to your inquiry re-
garding the penalty provisions applicable
in a situation where a tax return has been
filed with a forged signature of a preparer
of the return.
In the letter Mr. Stain points out vari-
ous sections of the law under which af-
fixing a forged signature would be a
crime and what the penalty would be.
Mr. Stain points out that any person
who forges a signature on a tax return
"shall be guilty of a felony and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be fined not
more than $5,000, or imprisoned not
more than 3 years, or both, together with
the costs of the prosecution."
Prosecution could also develop under
section 7207 of the Internal Revenue
Code. An offender could also be prose-
cuted under section 1001 of the Criminal
Code.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the letter of March 25, 1964,
signed by Mr. Colin P. Stain, outlining
the penalties for forging the signature
of a preparer on a tax return be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL
REVENUE TAATION,
Washington. March 25, 1964.
Hon. JOHN J. WILLIAMS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington. D.C.
DEAR SENATOR WILLIAMS: This is In re-
sponse to your inquiry regarding the penalty
provisions applicable in a situation where a
tax return has been Med with a forged
signature of a preparer of the return.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, such an
offense may be prosecuted under section
7206(1) or under section 7207. Section
7206 (I) provides:
"Any person who?
"(1) Declaration under penalties of per-
jury.?Willfully makes and subscribes any
return, statement, or other document, which
contains or is verified by a written declara-
tion that it. is made under the penalties of
perjury, and which he does not believe to
be true and correct as to every material mat-
ter; or".
? ? ? ? ?
"shall be guilty of a felony and, upon con-
viction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$8,000 or imprisoned not more than 3 years,
or both, together with the costs of prosecu-
tion."
Section 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code
relating to frat lulent returns, statemmta, or
other documen7a provides:
"Any person who willfully delivers or dis-
closes to the i,ecretary or his delegi te any
list, return, aecount, statement, or other
document, knc en by him to be frat dulent
or to be false as to any material natter,
shall be fined :tot more than $1,000, or im-
prisoned not m we than 1 year, or botl.. Any
person required pursuant to section ea47(b)
or (c) to fun lab any information to the
Secretary or ar y other person who willfully
furnishes to the Secretary or such other
person any information known by hint to be
fraudulent or ea be false as to any material
matter shall to fined not more than $1,000,
or imprisoned not more than 1 par, or
both."
Such an ?ire ase may also be pros,=.euted
under section 1301 of the Criminal C-arie of
the United Stats (title 18, U.S. Code), which
provides:
"Sec. 1001. St dements or Entries (Jeneral-
ly. Whoever, in any matter within the juris-
diction of any aepartment or agency of the
United States k aowingly and willfully falsi-
fies, conceals or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or devi:e a material fact, or makes
any false, fictitlius or fraudulent statements
or representatio:te, or makes or uses arie false
writing or doct rnent knowing the same to
contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statement or en -AT, shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
five years, or be :h."
Sincerely yours,
COL/N P. STABS,
Chief of s-aff.
CIVIL Ft: GHTS ACT OF 1963
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the motion of Mr. MANSFIELD that the
Senate proceed to consider the bill H.R.
7152) to enforce the constitutional right
to vote, to con fer jurisdiction upon the
district courts of the United Stat s to
provide injunct .ve relief against disc rim-
ination in pub1:2 accommodations, t,-) au-
thorize the Attorney General to insti-
tute suits to protect constitutional rights
In public facilil les and public education,
to extend the Commission on Civil
Rights, to prevent discrimination in fed-
erally assisted 3rograms, to establish a
Commission on Equal Employment Op-
portunity, and for other purposes.
The PRF,SE iING OFFICER. The
question is on cgreeing to the moticn of
the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANS-
F/ELD1 that the Senate proceed to the
consideration o:" House bill 7152.
Mr. ELLEND):31. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absene- of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call t; te roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. HUMPH. tEY. Mr. Presider t, I
ask unanimous consent that the ofder
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is .FA ordered.
IMPROVED MitNAGEMENT AM) OR-
GANIZATIO'T IN FOREIGN AID
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the P:es-
ident's decision not to make major or-
ganizational chi nges in our foreign aid
program is, I ark sure, based partly on
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
United States
of America
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Togressional 'Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 88th CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
Vol. 110
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1964
No. 55
The Senate met at 10 o'clock a.m., on
the expiration of the recess, and was
called to order by the Acting President
pro tempore [Mr. METCALF].
The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown
Harris, D.D., offered the following
prayer:
0 Thou God of life and light, our glad
hearts thrill at the risen glory of the
awakening earth robed in the blooming
garb of spring. As common bushes,
lately so bare, are now aflame, and the
time for the singing of birds has come,
may a spiritual springtime make our own
hearts even as the garden of the Lord,
where barren branches may be clothed
upon with the beauty of holiness and the
fair flowers of humility and charity lift
their fair petals above the fallow ground.
In this week of weeks, as we are driven
to the strange Man lifted up from the
earth, as He climbs new Calvaries with
the Cross that ne'er turns back, may we
know that it is by that sign that we, too,
must conquer as we face those who would
exploit and degrade the holy temple of
human personality.
Whatever the future holds, in the
might of that conquering sign, may we
face it, calm and confident in the as-
surance that there lives the beauty that
man cannot kill.
May we hold that faith, and hold it
fast. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
On request of Mr. MCINTYRE, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of Monday,
March 23, 1964, was dispensed with.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomina-
tions were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Miller, one of his secretaries.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session,
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore laid before the Senate messages
from the President of the United States
Senate
(Legislative clay of Monday, March 9, 1964)
submitting sundry nominations, which
were referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
? MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
insisted upon its amendment to the bill
(S. 1057) to promote the cause of crimi-
nal justice by providing for the repre-
sentation of defendants who are finan-
cially unable to obtain an adequate
defense in criminal cases in the courts
of the United States, disagreed to by the
Senate; agreed to the conference asked
by the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
CELLER, Mr. RODINO, Mr. ROGERS Of Colo-
rado, Mr. McCur.LocH, and Mr. MOORE
were appointed managers on the part of
the House at the conference.
The message also announced that the
House had passed a joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 962) making a supplemental
appropriation for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1964, for the Department of
Labor, and for other purposes, in which
it requested the concurrence of the
Senate.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
REFERRED
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 962)
making a supplemental appropriation
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964,
for the Department of Labor, and for
other purposes, was read twice by its
title and referred to the Committee on
Appropriations.
TRANSACTION OF ROUTINE
BUSINESS
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that there be the
usual morning hour, with statements not
to exceed 3 minutes in length.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
CALL OF THE ROLL
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll; and
the following Senators answered to their
names:
Aiken
Allott
Bartlett
Bayh
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brewster
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Carlson
Case
Clark
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Dodd
Dominick
Douglas
Ervin
Fong
Fulbright
Goldwater
Gruening
Hart
[No. 96 Leg.]
Hartke
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hill
Holland
Hruska
Humphrey
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Johnston
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Keating
Kennedy
Lausche
Long, Mo.
Long, La.
Magnuson
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
McNamara
Metcalf
Monraney
Morse
Morton
Mundt
Muskie
Nelson
Neuberger
Pastore
Pell
Prouty
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Robertson
Russell
Saltonstall
Scott
Smothers
Smith
Sparkman
Stennis
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AN-
DERsoN], the Senator from Idaho [Mr.
CHURCH], and the Senator from Utah
[Mr. Moss] are absent on official busi-
ness.
I also announce that the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. EAsrr...m)], the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER],
the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE],
and the Senator from Tennessee [Mr.
GORE] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is
absent because of illness.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I announce that the
Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] is ab-
sent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. PEAR-
SON] is absent on official business.
5833
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
Approved For IteateR2OWNI: Ret8E6?_lpgpfkRin00500050001-9 March 24
5834
The Senator from California [Mr.
KueliEl. ], the Senator from New Mexi-
co [Mr. MECHEM]. the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Sissesoiel and the Sena-
tor from Texas Mr. Town.] are nec-
essarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. A quorum is present.
Morning business is in order.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS,
ETC.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore laid before the Senate the following
letters, which were referred as indicated:
REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASTRONAUT
PHYSICAL CONDITIONING FACILITY
A letter from the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Washington, D.C., reporting, pursuant to law,
on the construction of an astronaut physical
conditioning facility, as an extension of the
Translation and Docking Simulation Facility
at the Manned Spacecraft Center. Clear Lake,
Tex.; to the Committee on Aeronautical and
Space sciences
RIN'ORT ON UNNECESSARY PER DIEM PAYMENTS
FOR MIL/TART PERSONNEL REPORTING EARLY
FOR TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENTS
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on unnecessary per diem pay-
ments for military personnel reporting early
for temporary duty assignments. Department
of the Navy, dated March 1964 (with an ac-
companying report); to the committee on
Government Operations.
REPORT ON DEFICIENCIES AND PROBLEM AREAS
RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL-
Aro HIGHWAY PROGRAM IN STATE CT NEW
Yortx
A letter from the comptroller General of
the United states, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on deficiencies and problem
areas relating to the administration of the
Federal-aid highway program in the State
of New York. Bureau of Public Roads, De-
partment of Commerce. dated March 1964
(with an accompanying report); to the Com-
mittee on Government Operations.
REPORT ON ADDITIONAL COSTS INCURRED IN
PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN SEAPLANES
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant
to law, a report on additional costs incurred
in the procurement of P--6M seaplanes from
Glenn L. Martin Co.. Baltimore, Md., De-
partment of the Navy, dated March 1964
(with an accompanying report); to the Com-
mittee on Government Operations.
Am-enrosizarr or SECTIONS 2275 AND 2276 or
THE REVISED STATUTES, RELATING TO CERTAIN
LANDS GRANTED TO THE STATES
A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed
legislation to amend sections 2275 and 2276
of the Revised Statutes, as amended, with
respect to certain lands granted to the States
(with an accompanying paper); to the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
Petitions, etc.. were laid before the
Senate. and referred as indicated:
By the ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore:
A petition signed by Marvin J. Andersen,
for the Jack Fork Creek Watershed Ranch-
ers, of Sardis. Okla., praying for a congres-
sional hearing with reference to the Clayton
Dam on Jack Fork Creek in Pushwataha
County. Okla.; to the Committee on Public
Works.
A petition signed by Marvin J. Andersen,
and sundry other citizens of the State of
Oklahoma. praying for a congressional hear-
ing and reconsideration of the Clayton Dam
approved for construction on Jack Fork Creek
in Pushwataha County. Okla.; to the Com-
mittee on Public Works.
A memorial signed by Stanley H. Smith,
Jr.. and sundry other citizens of the State
of Arizona, remonstrating against the en-
actment of the civil rights bill; ordered to
lie on the table.
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION
INTRODUCED
Bills and a joint resolution were in-
troduced, read the first time, and, by
unanimous consent, the second time, and
referred as follows:
By Mr. HARTLE :
S. 2679. A bill to make a supplemental ap-
propriation for the Department of Agricul-
ture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984,
for watershed protection in the State of
Indiana; to the Committee on Appropria-
tions.
(See the remarks of Mr. HARTKE when he
introduced the above bill, which appear
under a separate heading.)
By Mrs. N7EUBERGER:
S. 2680. A bill to increase annuities pay-
able to certain annuitants from the civil serv-
ice retirement and disability fund; to the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
(See the remarks of Mrs. NEUBERGER when
she introduced the above bill, which appear
under a separate heading.)
By Mrs. NEUBERGER (for herself and
Mr. MORSE):
S. 2681. A tarn to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to construct. operate, and
maintain the Tualatin Federal reclamation
project. Oregon, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs.
(See the remarks of Mrs. NEUBERGER when
she introduced the above b1,11. which appear
under a separate heading.)
WATE.RSILE..D PLANNING SUPPLE-
MENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR IN-
DIANA
Mr. IIARTKE. Mr. President, on
March 12 I was one of an inspection
group who flew by Convair and helicop-
ter over the drought-stricken Ohio River \ ANNUITY INCREASES NEEDED FOR
area from Louisville to Evansville, Ind., RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
and along the flooded Patoka River. The
worst floods in 20 years have brought
uncalculated damage, damage which
would undoubtedly have been worse a
few years ago before the progress in
reservoirs and watershed development
which has been made.
But the progress to date, Mr. President,
has not been sufficient. I refer particu-
larly to the watershed development under
the Department of Agriculture conser-
vation program. This program for work
to prevent the kind of runoff which is a
prime cause of floods such as we have
seen is vital. To date 2 watershed proj-
ects in Indiana have been completed,
work plans for 15 have been prepared,
and 12 approved for operations.
This sounds like real progress. But
alongside of this must be put the fact
that in the State of Indiana a survey by
the Department of Agriculture shows 182
areas which should be developed as
watersheds. In order to proceed, a
greater effort must be made in planning
Federal funds in fiscal 1964 for the two
watershed planning parties for Indiana
were $100,000, but this year's figure has
been reduced to $85,000. The orgeniza-
tion on the larger sum is geared to pro-
duce 6 to 8 wo:Ae plans a year, but
cations being :aeceived are from 12 to 15
a year. This s double the achiev ment
on the present $100,000, which it i3 now
proposed to reduce.
Therefore. Mr. President, in view of
the great neec. for flood protection in the
State of India la as evidenced by tae re-
cent disastrow; floods in the area, I Intro-
duce, for app:upriate reference, E, sup-
plemental a.pF.roraiation bill to remedy
this situation I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of the bill be printed
in the RECORD
The ACTING PRESIDENT pre tern-
pore. The bill will be received and ap-
propriately n f erred; and, without ob-
jection, the 1:111 will be printed n the
RECORD.
The bill (S 2679) to make a s IPPle-
mental appropriation for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1964, for watarshed
protection in the State of Indiana, intro-
duced by Mr. HAMM, was received, read
twice by its -Ale, referred to the Coin-
mitt.ee on Appropriations, and ordered
to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacte,, by the Senate and 119use of
Representative, of the United States of
America in C:rngress assembled, Ti at the
following sum is appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise ap-
propriated, for the fiscal year endirg June
30, 1964:
DEPAR1 MENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil .7onservation Service
Waiershed Protection
For an add tional amount for e,cpenses
necessary to etriduct surveys, investi pitions,
and research and to carry out preventive
measures in a.: cordance with the Watershed
Protection ELLI:i Flood Prevention Pet, ap-
proved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 100:--10013),
and the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 590a.-
f), to remain uvailable until expended, $100,-
000, and to be available only fir such
activitlea,witb m the State of Indian t.
a
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. Pres-dent, I
Introduce, for appropriate refer mce, a
bill which wi.uld provide a 5-percent in-
crease in annuity benefits for retired
Federal emp oyees and their surv vors.
The pligh ; of retired Feder tl em-
ployees who devoted a lifetime to Gov-
ernment service is a difficult one.
Inflation is ;heir great enemy, end the
5-percent ar auity increase voted in 1962
by Congress was all too small.
Legislation is being actively pi ?meted
for pay incr,sses for postal and Federal
employees. :1 seems only fair tht,t. some
Increase be naavided in annuity benefits
for those F -demi employees wl o have
retired.
Mr. Presit ant, it is a pleasure for me to
Introduce proposed legislation requested
by the National Association of Retired
Civil Employees, which actively end ably
represents the needs and welfale of all
retired Peck employees.
I ask una dmous consent to in3lude in
the RECORD it the conclusion of my re-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 -
Approved FcMuggRA.V5iikabRDPsylaTF3R000500050001-9
marks a letter of March 19, 1964, to me
from Glenn R. Simcox, president of the
National Association of Retired Civil
Employees, which discusses the bill I
have introduced.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The bill will be received and ap-
priately referred; and, without objection,
the letter will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2680) to increase annuities
payable to certain annuitants from the
civil service retirement and disability
fund, introduced by Mrs. NEUBERGER, was
received, read twice by its title, and re-
ferred to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
The letter presented by Mrs. NEU-
BERGER Is as follows:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED CIVIL EMPLOYEES,
Washington, D.C., March 19, 1964
Hon. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building,
Wahsington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Enclosed is a
draft of a bill to increase annuities paid
from the civil service retirement and dis-
ability fund which we hope you will sponsor
in the Senate.
Inflation is the greatest enemy of the
retired employees of the Federal Govern-
ment and their dependents and survivors
who are trying to live on meager retirement
annuities. Congress made an effort 2 years
ago a bridge part of the gap between annuity
dollars and the cost of living but the 5-per-
cent adjustment effective as of January 1,
1963, was only about half enough to make
ends meet.
The two outstanding changes in the Civil
Service Retirement Act were made in 1948
and in 1956. The revisions in 1948 in-
creased the annuity formula for persons who
would retire in the future and also at the
same time granted 25-percent increases in
the annuities of most of those previously
retired. On the other hand, the further
revisions in the formula approved in 1956
for those who would retire in the future
made no provision whatsoever for persons
previously retired. It was not until 2 years
later, in 1958, that a 10-percent increase was
approved for persons retired before the effec-
tive date of the 1956 revisions.
In the meantime, salaries were rapidly
climbing in both Government and private
industry, and inflation was squeezing the
purchasing power of annuity dollars. In
1962, when the Congress took up the bill
to increase annuities, it adopted the base
year of 1958, in determining that cost of
living had then risen at least 5 percent,
which overlooked a number of essential facts.
The increase in 1958 was not a general ad-
justment of annuities, but only a belated
correction of an adjustment neglected for
2 years. The real gap in cost-of-living de-
ficiency started in 1956 and not in 1958.
We believe that an analysis of cost-of-
living figures from July 1956 through De-
cember 1962 will disclose that there was an
increase during that period of approximately
10 percent. One half of this gap was covered
by the increase which became effective in
1963. We hope you will help us get a fur-
ther adjustment to cover the rest of the gap.
If I, or any member of our staff can assist
you or members of your staff at any time,
please call upon us.
With best personal regards, and thanking
you for the splendid cooperation we are
always receiving from you, I am,
GLENN R. Srmcox,
President.
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
TUALATIN RECLAMATION PROJ-
ECT
Mrs. NEUBERGER. Mr. President, a
rapid change in land and water uses in
Washington County of Oregon has pre-
sented the people of that area with a
critical problem. This particular sec-
tion of Oregon is drained by the Tua-
latin River. The Tualatin is relied upon
as the source of supply for irrigation of
farms and orchards and for municipal
and domestic water for a thickly popu-
lated and intensively farmed section
near Portland, Oregon's largest city.
The water supply situation for all uses
has become acute. However, some years
ago the Bureau of Reclamation con-
ducted a thorough-going investigation
and determined that it would be feasible
to build a storage dam at the Scoggins
Creek site on the Tualatin River, thus
assuring an adequate supply of water
for the urban and rural demands of the
area.
I have just received word that the
Bureau of the Budget has given its ap-
proval to the proposed report on the
Tualatin project by the Secreary of In-
terior. The Secretary's report which has
received the approval of affected State
and Federal agencies has found the
Tualatin project on Scoggins Dam eco-
nomically feasible. I am, therefore, in-
troducing for myself and for my col-
league, the senior Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MossE], a bill to authorize the Sec-
retary of the Interior to construct, op-
erate, and maintain the Tualatin Fed-
eral reclamation project, Oregon, and
for other purposes.
The Tualatin project plan of develop-
ment provides for a 61,000-acre-foot
reservoir behind the proposed Scoggin
Dam to store excess wintertime flows of
the river and release the water as needed
for municipal and industrial supplies,
irrigation, the maintenance of fish life
in the river, flood control, and water
quality control.
Included in the plan are some '70 miles
of main canals and necessary pumping
plants, laterals, drains, and appurtenant
facilities to irrigate 17,000 acres of pro-
ductive lands. Project facilities would
provide for the foreseeable water needs
of three cities in the project area and
for other nonagricultural uses. Specific
facilities would also be provided at Scog-
gin Reservoir for recreation and fish en-
hancement, and modifications at an
existing downstream industrial diversion
dam will insure the passage of anad-
romous fish.
Washington County cites of Hillsboro,
Forest Grove, and Beaverton, Tigard
Water District, as well as the Lake Os-
wego Corp., will require about 14,000
acre-feet pf water annually from the
project.
Construction cost of the Tualatin
project is estimated at $19,235,300 of
which $14,431,500 is reimbursable. Ten-
tative allocations of the project cost to
functions are as follows:
Irrigation, $13,089,000; municipal and
industrial water supply, $1,342,500;
5835
water-quality control, $1,720,700; fish
and wildlife, $1,977,200; recreation,
$795,100; flood control, $30,800; high-
way transportation, $280,000.
Mr. President, this project has been
strongly endorsed by tha' Oregon State
Water Resources Board, as well as the
local units of government concerned.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. The bill will be received and ap-
propriately referred.
The bill (S. 2681) to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to construct,
operate, and maintain the Tualatin Fed-
eral reclamation project, Oregon, and
for other purposes, introduced by Mrs.
NEUBERGER (for herself and Mr. MORSE),
was received, read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF
BILLS
Under authority of the orders of the
Senate of March 16, 1964, the following
names have been added as additional co-
sponsors for the following bills:
S. 2635. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, and for other pur-
poses: Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. CARL-
SON, Mr. COOPER, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HARTKE,
Mr. RANDOLPH, and Mr. WILLIAMS Of Dela-
ware.
S. 2637. A bill to provide a new program
for wheat and to provide a long-range pro-
gram for the retirement of excess land from
the production of agricultural commodities:
Mr. BARTLETT.
ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI-
CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE
APPENDIX
On request, and by unanimous con-
sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc.,
were ordered to be printed in the Ap-
pendix, as follows:
By Mr. YARBOROUGH:
Address delivered by John A. Gronouski,
Postmaster General, at dedication of New
York World's Fair Post Office, on March 11,
1964.
By Mr. MAGNUSON:
Article entitled "Look Into the Sea," pub-
lished in the March 9, 1964, issue of Sports
Illustrated, dealing with the subject of re-
search on the biology fluctuations, status,
and statistics of the migratory marine
species of game fish of the United States and
contiguous waters, which will appear here-
after in the Appendix.
By Mr. HARTKE:
Articles relating to Miles Laboratories,
published in the March 15, 1964, issue of
Forbes magazine.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OBJECT
TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS DUR-
ING SENATE SESSIONS
Mr. MORSE and Mr. AIKEN ad-
dressed the Chair.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KEN-
NEDY in the chair). The Senator will
state it.
Mr. MORSE. I should like to have the
Chair state what understanding or
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For85lease 20n5/05/18 ? CIA-RnP66Rnn4nN000500050001-9
5836 N-Gius-sioNAL RECORD ? sENA luarcn 24
agreement has been reached with regard
to committee meetings being held dur-
ing the sessions of the Senate, and
whether there is any agreement that per-
mits them to hold meetings during the
Senate sessions without obtaining fur-
ther unanimous-consent agreements
daily from the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Committee on Appropriations is author-
ized to meet today only. The Commit-
tee on Rules and Administration has
been authorized to meet for the re-
mainder of the week. No other com-
mittees are authorized to meet while the
Senate is in session.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Ore-
gon wishes to announce that, in the ab-
sence of any prior commitment, the
senior Senator from Oregon will object
to any committee hearings being held
while the civil rights bill is before the
Senate, at least for the time being.
I wish to explain why I make that
statement. The Senate should either
fish or cut bait. We should either fol-
low orderly procedure or not. The civil
rights bill should be referred to com-
mittee for 10 days. If that could be
done, it would be possible for the Sen-
ate, in keeping with regular procedure,
to conduct its business during that pe-
riod of time. When the committee re-
ported the bill back after 10 days, it
would undoubtedly be made the pending
business before the Senate, and we could
get on to disposing of the proposed legis-
lation.
With all respect to the disagreement
Senators may have with the Senator
from Oregon on this matter. I am con-
vinced that the only way the Senate can
dispose of the bill in a reasonable period
of time is by directing its attention to it,
and not doing anything else but work on
the civil rights bill. Also this would re-
sult in directing the attention of the peo-
ple of the country to the floor of the
Senate and to the importance of passing
a civil rights bill.
It is with some reluctance that I make
this announcement. Nevertheless I am
convinced, after observing civil rights
fights in the Senate for many years, that
when we get into this kind of situation,
all the time and attention of the Senate
should be directed to this issue. The
Senate should not be transacting other
business while the civil rights issue is be-
fore it.
I close by saying that every American
should understand that this is a great,
historic issue. The price of liberty
comes high for everyone. I do not be-
lieve we can justify making exceptions
for any group that wants this legisla-
tion, or that legislation, or some other
legislation considered, when the job of
every Senator is to be present on the
floor of the Senate every moment of the
time the Senate is in session until the
civil rights bill is enacted.
Therefore. I announce to my leader-
ship that I shall make it my business to
see to it that I am on the floor of the
Senate to raise objections. I hope, if I
am not on the floor of the Senate, I may
have the courtesy of a quorum call in
order to give me an opportunity to raise
an objection to any request for permis-
sion for a committee to meet while the
Senate is in session.
Mr. MANSIatELD and other Senators
addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Montana.
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I
am indeed sorry to hear the statement
just made by the Senator from Oregon.
I do not know whether he knows it or
not, but another Senator on the Demo-
cratic side has made it very plain that
he would not accord the Appropriations
Committee the usual courtesy of meeting
_during sessions of the Senate. This
program has been in operation for many
decades, and it is one committee which
has been given that consideration be-
cause of the multiplicity of its duties.
I point out to the Senator that even yet,
on this the 14th day, I believe, since the
debate began, we are not considering the
civil rights bill, but only the question of
taking it up and making it the pending
business.
I would hope that there would_ be some
way by which arrangements could be ar-
rived at whereby some of the other busi-
ness of the Senate could be carried on by
duly constituted committees, because if
we stop everything for civil rights, it
means that everything will be stopped,
in my opinion, -not for the weeks ahead
but for the months ahead, and the busi-
ness of the people in other respects will
be neglected.
There is other business to attend to,
even though this particular matter is of
paramount importance at the moment.
Mr. MORSE. In my judgment, the
best way to get a civil rights bill before
the Senate and to proceed to consider
It is to do nothing but devote all our at-
tention to the civil rights issue.
One of the reasons I shall object to
committee hearings is that, in my judg-
ment. It will help us get the civil rights
bill before the Senate. Second, I have
already intimated that I do not believe
any other business should be transacted
by the Senate until the matter of deliv-
ering the Constitution of the United
States to the Negroes of America, for the
first time in our history, is finally settled
by the Congress.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Even though I dis-
agree very much with the Senator from
Oregon in his announcement to the effect
that he would oppose any committee
meetings, I must in all honesty recognize
that he is acting within his rights under
the rules of the Senate.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. RUSSELL. I was somewhat con-
fused as to why the Senator from Mon-
tana thought it was of such paramount
Importance that committees meet to con-
sider run-of-the-mine legislation that is
of little or no consequence, when he is
not willing to have a committee even con-
sider the civil rights bill, which he says
Is of paramount importance to the people
of the country.
Mr. MANSkIELD. If the Senator
from Georgia will allow me to reply. I
would point out that the majority leader
did attempt to aave the bill referred to
committee and he did almost succeed in
so doing. How ever, one objection was
made, and the unanimous-consent re-
quest was thereay lost. So the attempt
having been made. I believe it wouli be
far better to get on with the business
rather than to ..efer this proposal tc the
Judiciary Com: oittee, where we know
the kind of treatment it will receive,
Mr. RUSSELa. There was a rather
pale attempt ta get the bill befo e a
committee for cnly a few days with the
clear instructio: is of the Senate that the
committee could not amend the bill, and
could not make a recommendation with
respect to it. I Jo not see that the com-
mittee hearings would serve any useful
purpose with stela an understanding
Mr. MANSKELD. Pale or lurici, it
was an atteme a and the attempt was
defeated.
Mr. RUSSELL. Let us see what amp-
pens in other areas such as the one in
which the Senat 3r from Oregon has a iven
notice, which h e is within his right
Mr. MANSF CELD. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. ALIATT. Mr. President, wil the
Senator from Montana yield?
Mr. MANSKELD. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. I am very much disap-
pointed to hear the distinguished aien-
ator from Oreron make the statement
that he has east made. Of comae, I
realize that he .00ks very fine and hand-
some in the tan: at cloak of virtue which
he has drawn over his shoulders and
which he wears over his shoulders Ike a
halo, except it is in the wrong place.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, wir the
Senator yield?
Mr. ALLOT]. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator from
Colorado has the appearance of Apollo.
Mr. ALLOTT. I have all the reapect
in the world for the Senator from Ore-
gon, but I should like to engage hi; at-
tention for just a moment, to comnent
on the fact that last year the Senate was
kept in session for 12 months, and that
even during the month of December we
were still tryina to dispose of the appro-
priation bills.
Perhaps the distinguished Senator
does not reallae the amount of detail
and the number of hours and weeks re-
quired to dispose of these bills.
If the Senatar from Oregon is waling
to remain inn. September. October, or
November, and will attend Senate ses-
sions every da while it is workir g on
appropriation bills, his point is well
taken.
But what we shall be doing, in effect, is
slowing down the work of the S mate
that must go on day by day, without
waiting until July or August, bezause
the people will be rendered a disservice
if the Senate cannot dispose of aapro-
priation bills.
The opinion of the Senator from Ore-
gon may be that if there are no coramit-
tee meetings civil rights legislation will
be expedited. The Senator's positi m on
civil rights is no stronger than mine,
and I will not accord to him any credit in
this field that I would not take fo my-
self. But tic Senate must transact
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 5723
chief engineer to head the great con-
struction project, he went to the railroads
and found him in the person of John F.
Stevens, 1873-1943, who in 1889 had
made the dramatic discovery of Marias
Pass, Mont., through which he had con-
structed the Great Northern Railroad.
In the preparation of a 1956 address
on "John F. Stevens: Basic. Architect of
the Panama Canal" before the Panama
Canal Society of Washington, D.C., I
went deeply into the story of the life
and achievements of this great pioneer
engineer, which was published in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of May 29, 1956.
In many ways a man of universal tal-
ents, Stevens left his mark on many lands
as well as on his own, among them Pan-
ama, Russia, Siberia, and China.
It was therefore, with the greatest
Interest that I read a brief story of
Stevens' discovery of Marias Pass, by
Jenkin Lloyd Jones, in the March 16,
1964, issue of the Washington, D.C.
Evening Star, which follows:
MARIAS PASS: BEST IN ROCKIES?ROUTE FOR
TRAINS THROUGH MOUNTAINS FOUND BY
MAN NAMED STEVENS IN 1889
(By Jenkins Lloyd Jones)
SPOKANE, WAsx.?All day long the train
roars westward across northern Montana.
Hour after hour the featureless plain rolls
beneath the dome cars.
But ahead lies the wall of the Rockies.
The Bear Paw Mountains, rising white in
their snow mantle south of Havre, stand as
the first sentinels. North of Chester the flat-
ness is broken again by the Sweetgrass Hills.
And, finally, in the afternoon sun, the frozen
summits of Glacier Park shatter the hori-
zon.
Now the wall is plain, stretching north and
south as far as you can see. You can find
no opening. But the train climbs toward it
with confident purpose. It is heading for
Manias Pass?the best of all the great passes
through the American Rockies?and the last
dicovered.
In the days of Lewis and Clark the Indians
told of an easy route to the Great Ocean,
but Lewis and Clark never found it. In the
1850's the U.S. Government, recognizing that
the railway age was coming, grew interested
in surveying the best route to the Pacific.
The southern route, southwest from Fort
Smith, across the Comanche lands of Texas,
through El Paso del Norte and on through
the Apache country to California was easy?
if you did not count the Comanches and
Apaches.
The Santa Fe Trail with its extension along
the 32d parallel was Well known. So was
the Mormon Trail up the North Plattee, over
South Pass and to San Francisco via the
Nevada desert. But routes over the northern
Rockies were a puzzle. ?
In 1840 Robert Greenhow published a map
showing the great pass right about where it
really is. But no one paid much attention
to Greenhow's map, an admitted guess.
All the time the Biackfeet Indians knew
about the pass, but they feared it as the
home of evil spirits and would guide no one
there. As the Civil War clouds darkened, the
Government gave up the search.
Thirty years went by. James J. Hill, the
Canadian boy who started as a steamboat
clerk in St. Paul, had become the "empire
builder." The rails of the Great Northern
had crawled west across the Dakota plains
and Hill had driven them halfway across
northern Montana to Havre, still hoping to
find an easy way. But at Havre he paused,
frustrated. His surveyors had returned dis-
couraged. Reluctantly, he began laying rails
southwest toward Helena.
As a last shot, in the late fall of 1889, he
sent out a tough young engineer, John F.
Stevens. Stevens could get no Indian guides.
He pressed on blindly westward in the teeth
of a deepening blizzard. Finally, he found
a little river, named Manias 84 years before
by Capt. Meriwether Lewis for his cousin,
Maria. In the late afternoon he slogged
through deep snow to its headwaters, crossed
a low saddle and found the beginning of a
creek that trended west and north. It proved
to be a tributary of the Flathead which goes
into the Kootenai. Marias Pass was found.
That night the temperature dropped to
10 below. He didn't dare cuddle in his
blanket next to the fire. There was too much
hazard of a sleep that leads to death. All
night long he walked back and forth in-the
snow. The next day be struggled east. With-
in a week jubilant Jim Hill had his half-
frozen coolies grading a right-of-way straight
west from Havre.
The beautiful long train with its snaking
dome cars passes the winter-cloied Glacier
Park Lodge and behind its full-throated
diesels climbs through the snow sheds along
the north bank of the Manias. There at the
top, half buried in a drift, is the bronze
statue of John F. Stevens in his stocking
cap and fleece coat, staring out across his
pass. The altitude-6,313 feet?the lowest
railroad crossing of the Continental Divide
north of the Southern Pacific.
The stor3sr of mankind, mostly, is a story
of people who, like the Blackfeet, feared evil
spirits and never even sought the better
way. Beyond these are the fumbling seek-
ers, the easily discouraged who blunder up
the wrong approaches and tell the world that
the better way is a phantom or the short-
sighted and timid who suspect the truth but
don't pursue it.
That's why civilization can never get
enough John F. St,evenses, the men who brave
the blizzards and stubbornly find the way.
The big diesels are:silent now. The brakes
screech on the curves. The "Empire Build-
er" glides easily down toward the big ocean.
UNFORTUNATE COMMENTARIES ON
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
(Mr. O'HARA of Michigan (at the re-
quest of Mr. GONZALEZ) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, some public commentary on a
number of social problems in the United
States often conveys the impression that
the sins of a few are the sins of many.
This unfortunate habit of transferring
the minority's guilt to the majority leads
to profound misunderstanding of Many
serious problems in American society and
certainly obscures the constructive ef-
forts of many dedicate Americans to
overcome those problems.
To be specific, Mr. Speaker, I would
call the attention of my colleagues to the
many unfortunate commentaries offered
almost daily on juvenile delinquency.
How easy it is for us to read about anti-
social or criminal behavior in the young-
er set and attribute a tendency toward
that behavior to most youngsters. How
unjust and wrong it is for us to be caught
up in this habit of generalization and
oversimplification, particularly at the
expense of a vast majority of junveniles
whose behavior represents the best tradi-
tions of citizenship.
Seven years ago, the Macomb County,
Mich., probation department launched
a pioneer program to salvage the lives
and future prospects of youthful offend-
ers. The story of that admirable and
constructive effort appears in a recent
article by Staffwriter Lean Goldman, of
the Mount Clemens Monitor Leader.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this
article serves as a much-needed remain-
der that 95 percent of our young people
often accept the blame for a wayward
5 percent, and that those few who do run
afoul of the law?at least in Macomb
County?have a second chance to live
useful lives thanks to the far-sighted ef-
forts of the probation officers. Under
unanimous consent, I include Mr. Gold-
man's article in the RECORD so that other
communities in America may benefit
from the example of Macomb County:
HUMAN SALVAGE PitoJECr SAVES COUNTY YOUTH
(By Leon Goldman)
All is not lost with the younger generation
despite the impression created by the current
uproar over juvenile delinquency.
At least, it isn't the situation in Macomb
County.
You have the authoritative opinion of
those in position to know whereof they
speak.
In the first place?it is stressed?here, as
elsewhere, only about 5 percent of the youth
element can be classified as delinquent.
The other 95 percent behave themselves
and are model citizens.
The good conduct of the overwhelming
majority is overshadowed by the wayward
few.
Even with those who have gone astray,
all is not lost. .Many can, and are being
rehabilitated into good citizens through a
"human salvage" program pioneered by Ma-
comb County.
It is a special probation program put into
motion 7 years ago by the county probation
department. The date was January 2, 1957.
The "guidance without custody" system
has since spread to many other counties in
the State.
An average of 96 out of 100 beginning of-
fenders a year in this county are now being
channeled back into the straight and narrow
through the process, statistics show.
Even the most cynical will concede that
this is a creditable batting average in any
league.
Reached to discuss and comment on the
operation are three law-enforcement officials
who have worked closely in administering
the program.
They are Guy L. Brown, chief of the proba-
tion department; County Prosecutor George
N. Parris; and County Police Justice Francis
A. Castellucci.
This is the operation:
Probation in the lower bourt probation
division is restricted to misdemeanor of-
fenders, for which the maximum penalty is
a $100 fine or 10 days in jail or both.
Probation is given in lieu of penalty.
Minimum court costs and supervisory fees
are paid, the fees going into the county's
general fund.
Probationers involved are mainly in the
age range from 17 to 20, primarily the youth-
ful offender?both in years and in criminal
experience.
Most are first offenders who appear headed
for further trouble.
Prior to adoption of the system?to put
emphasis on crime prevention and correction
by placing a premium on future good be-
havior?the lower courts had to rely on fines
and/or sentences, and let it go at that.
The prospect for the offender was gradua-
tion to felonies to be handled by the circuit
courts. Prison loomed in the not-too-far
distance.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5724
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 28
There were no direct means of providing
guidance and supervision as a deterrent to
further criminal activity. The offender paid
the prescribed penalty and walked out of
custody with no strings attached.
All municipal and justice courts in the
county are now participating in the human
salvage program.
Of significant value is a presentence in-
vestigation conducted by the probation de-
partment which provides the sentencing
judge with family history and criminal back-
ground along with other pertinent data.
Also included is a recommendation as to sen-
tence.
This practice formerly had prevailed only
in the handling of felony cases in circuit
court.
In some nonviolent felony cases, where the
offender oppears to be good salvage material,
Prosecutor Parris will permit addition of a
misdemeanor count to the indictment. This
permits the lower court to retain jurisdiction
over the offender rather than binding over
to circuit court on the higher count.
Three probation officers, all college trained.
handle the lower court probation investi-
gation and supervision under Brown.
They are Harry L. Haller, Paul R. Steele,
both veterans of the service, and David E.
Schmeiser, a comparative newcomer who
divides his time between the upper and
lower court divisions.
Significant are latest statistics which
show that out of a total of 331 probationers
supervised by the probation department for
the lower courts in 1963, only 12 failed to
meet requirements satisfactorily.
A total of 260 successfully completed pro-
bation and received honorable discharges.
Ten of the 12 who flunked probation were
sentenced for new offenses.
Of those who failed to make good, only
one absconded.
Statistics for the proceding year are com-
parable.
Other figures further attest to the worth
of the probation process and the redemption
of manpower.
Total earnings of probationers in the
division in 1963 amounted to $407,616, re-
flecting the earning power unleashed in
contrast with the incarceration and its at-
tendant costs to the taxpayer.
- "The system permits the individual to re-
main at home and support his family by
working," Brown said. "rather than becom-
ing a public liability."
He noted that approximately $11,000 was
collected in court Coats last year and turned
over to the county's general fund.
An additional $4,000 in restitution was
collected from the probationers and re-
turned to those who had sustained the
financial loss as a result of the crimes.
Moreover, the department collected ap-
proximately $4,500 in family support and
handed it over to families of the offenders.
The latter, Brown explained, involved cases
of criminal neglect of family in which there
Is no divorce or decree pending and which
would not come under the jurisdiction of
the friend of the court.
For the most part, older individuals are
involved, in the domestic cases. said Brown.
adding:
"Generally speaking, youth predominates.
I think you will find that situation is true
across the Nation. Nipping youthful crim-
inal tendencies in the bud means fewer adult
offenders later. Naturally, we are extremely
pleased with our results."
Brown went on to comment:
"I don't think there is a county in Mich-
igan that has a better working relationship
between law enforcement agencies than we
do. I don't think either that we are getting
any more crime in Macomb County per capita
today than we had 20 years ago.
"Being one of the fastest growing coun-
ties in the Nation, naturally crime is keeping
pace."
On the other hand, noted the probation
chief, increased law enforcement personnel
and improved means of crime detection have
made It "more difficult to get away with
anything."
Brown praised cooperation of the lower
courts and the prosecutor's office for making
the program "work."
lie termed Justice Castellucci's court as
"our biggest supplier."
Justice Castellucci referred 1.33 of the 291
cases handled by the lower court probation
division last year. The next highest number
was 33, referred by Utica Justice Richard C.
Stavoe.
They were among 22 municipal judges and
justices who made use of the service.
The others were:
Judges: Malcolm E. Trombley, Mount
Clemens; Edward J. Gallagher and Verne C.
Boewe, Warren; Herman L. Brys, St. Clair
Shores; Raymond R. Cashen and Mary E.
McDevitt, Roseville; Martin J. Smith and
Harold H. Heins, East Detroit, and John
O'Hara. Harper Woods (transfer case).
Justices: Joseph P. Flutter, Shelby; George
F. Bunker and Gordon E. Havey, Sterling;
Harold L. Lemmer and. Henry Sloe, Chester-
field; James C. Schocke, Bruce; John E.
Donahue, Clinton; Bronson Hill, Armada;
Paul Mabley. Richmond, and Thomas W.
McDonell, Fraser.
Much of Castellucci's volume stems from
the geographical location of his court in the
county seat of Mount Clemraens. It is loca-
cated in the same building that houses the
county jail and the sheriff's department.
Castellucci, a resident of Romeo and a
veteran attorney, is examining magistrate
at the jail.
Castellucci, presently serving as president
of the Macomb County Bar Association,
commented:
"You hear everywhere that the kids are
going to pot. Our figures and experience
don't reflect that.
'I wouldn't, go so far as to say 'there are
no bad boys.' There are plenty. I have seen
them. But you will find most have redeem-
ing qualities. It's a matter of getting it out
of them."
Boys outnumber girls more than five to
one in the commission of criminal offenses,
the statistics show. Most of the offenses
involving women are of the shoplifting
variety.
Lauding the junior probation system, Jus-
tice Castellucci asserted:
"It's working. You can't argue with suc-
cess of a system that salvages 96 out of 100
offenders. Look at it this way. Last year
only 12 out of 334 probationers failed to
meke good. Were It not for the system, we
would be working with a 934 potential."
He added that the figures are "fairly con-
stant."
The county is blessed, Justice Castellucci
said, with have a probation department and
allied agencies that understand the problem
and are willing to do something about it.
"The easy way out would be to pass sen-
tence of a fine or jail and let it go at that.
That's only avoiding the problem. You
haven't accomplished a thing."
He added:
"I think I can speak for all in saying
that it's highly gratifying to look back over
a year's work and know that you have fig-
ured in saving 96 out of 100. fellows who
have gone astray.
"For me:* he continued, "it has been extra
rewarding to look back through files and see
letters of appreciation from those who have
been helped.
"They tell you how they have made good
in school, college, or out in the business
world. They al to tell you of their .mmes
and families, tad of their determiaation
that their children will benefit from mow!-
edge of the dilference between right and
wrong that they learned themselves th r hard
way."
Noting that f gures refiecs, a sharp 'educ-
tion in felonies by youthful offend n-s in
the county last year. Castellucci said much
credit can be gleen to the part the pragrarn
has played in cotting down on "repe iters."
In assessing the success of the program,
Justice Castellt 3di. praised the prosecutor's
office for its coeperation in saving in iny of
the offenders fslony records by a realistic
and humane approach to the problem
He summed up the secret of the pro-
gram's success :n a line: "Cooperation and
rigid supervistoi ."
Prosecutor Parris had this to say:
"When I cam? into office, one of my am-
bitions was to strive for rehabilitaton of
youthful offendars, and to keep them sepa-
rated from harcened criminals.
"With the cc operation of the proaation
department, unier the excellent guidance of
Guy L. Brown. .tistice Francis A. Castellucci,
and the other municipal judges and justices
handling criminal cases, we have beet suc-
cessful beyond expectation.
"My policy of allowing first offenders who
commit nonviol :tit felonies?those wOo are
deserving of a break and who have f, good
chance for reha silitation to plead to mis-
demeanor has worked out exceptionally well.
"A youthful 'irst offender who can be re-
habilitated and can become a good eitfzen of
our society neec:s the assistance immediately
after commission of his first felony.
"To convict e youngster of a felonl," the
prosecutor continued, "practically shuts the
door of future 1 apes and dreams in his face."
He then streseed:
"Of course, snyone committing silent
crimes deserves and our office prosect.tes to
the fullest eat( at of the law. Our records
are indicative c r a successful policy."
Resuming cor iment on the office's altitude
toward rehabilitation of youthful offenders,
Parris stated:
"The latest probation department statis-
tics makes me more determined thaa ever
to continue this humane and beneficial policy
of special consideration for those deemed de-
serving. Societe and the individual are both
tremendously benefited.
"Incarceratios in jail or prison costs ap-
proximately $2,b00 a year per inmate, whereas
probation costs are virtually nil sin -e the
probationer pa; probation and court costs.
Restitution is generally ordered by the court
as part of the sentence.
He then corn hided:
"The greatest asset of all is the salvation
of these young. ters?since prison means in
more than 40 sarcent of the cases a aepeti-
tion in a life o. crime against seeiet,,y "
tot,DERA1.! PAY RAISE Eau;
(Mr. SICK:-...ES (at the request of
Mr. GONZALEZ ) VMS granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and t!! include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. SICH.1.ES, Mr. Speaker. the
House Post, Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee is seeking to revive a majo- por-
tion of the Federal pay raise bill which
the House recently failed to appr Are.
It is extremAy important that the sec-
tions of this legislation providin pay
raises for 1.7 million Federal employees
be approved. There are two bastc rea-
sons for this.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDPUBON3R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Ho u 5725
First, for those in the lower and mid-
dle grades of the salary spectrum, Con-
gress must act to keep faith with a prin-
ciple of comparability established in the
Federal Pay Act of 1962.
For those in the upper salary brackets,
it is necessary that Congress raise sal-
ary ceilings that now exist in the Fed-
eral Establishment. If pay raises are
not approved for this group the Govern-
ment may lose some of its best mana-
gerial talent. Inaction could induce? the
flight of top-level employees to private
industry and also greatly reduce the "in
house" capacity of the Government to
conduct research projects and other ac-
tivities that require services of skilled
professional and scientific personnel.
While, in my view, an increase in the
level of congressional salaries is desira-
ble, the provisions to accomplish this
purpose in the pay bill which was de-
feated last week are expendable. I be-
lieve that the 435 Members of the House
would sacrifice a personal salary in-
crease, however desirable it may be, to
insure the passage of legislation which
concerns 1.7 million Federal employees
and affects the ability of the Federal
Government to attract and retain com-
petent civil servants. Therefore, it is my
hope that we can take favorable defini-
tive action on pay legislation before ad-
journment.
(Mr. PATMAN (at the request of Mr.
GONZALEZ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
Rzeoree and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. PATMAN'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. PATMAN (at the request of Mr.
GONZALEZ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. PATMAN'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. PATMAN (at the request of Mr.
GONZALEZ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
[Mr. PATMAN'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
WILLIAM SCOTT STEWART
(Mr. IJBONATI (at the request of Mr.
GONZALEZ) was granted was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. LIBONATI. Mr. Speaker, William
Scott Stewart, noted Chicago criminal
lawyer, died of a heart condition on
March 8, in Miami, Fla. He was in re-
tirement since July 1963. In recent
years he appeared primarily in appellate
jurisdictions in criminal causes before
the several courts of appeals and the U.S.
Supreme Court. His briefs reflected in
every respect the work of a master in this
field.
He was a graduate of John Marshall
Law School and later in his career, filled
a professorship in criminal law there.
He was admitted to the bar in 1911. His
fame as a prosecutor in the early twen-
ties?on States Attorney Robert E.
Crowe's staff?gained for him the ap-
pellation as "the hanging prosecutor."
He sent to the gallows such noted crimi-
nals as Harvey W. Church, Carl Wan-
derer, Harry Ward, and Frank Le-
grandi?and got death sentences and
long prison terms against many others.
After resigning in 1923, he became a
defense lawyer wherein he became
equally as famous as a trial lawyer as he
had been on the side of the prosecution.
He acted as counsel for William Darling
Shepherd, tried in 1925 for the typhoid
germ murder of William Nelson, McClin-
tock, Roger Touhy in the kidnaping of
John?Jake the Barber?Factor. Won
acquittal for Touhy in St. Paul, Minn.,
on charges arising in the kidnaping of
William Hamm of the brewery family.
Other clients included "Golf Bag" Hunt
and many others.
For the better part of two decades
Stewart was active and acted as Chicago
chairman of the Civil liberties commit-
tee and for a time as president of the
International Committee for Human
Rights.
It is not necessary for a lawyer to be an
orator to be a brilliant criminal attorney.
Nor is it the orator who attacks the
minds of the jury for the weighing of the
evidence in their deliberations.
William Scott Stewart was not an ora-
tor, but he was a brilliant lawyer in the
knowledge of the law and gained-A na-
tional reputation as a trial lawyer in
criminal cases. His active mind gave
him depth in determining errors in the
record, of faults in the technical proce-
dures, in causes before the trial court.
He was an authority in the interpreta-
tion of the law of evidence?and had a
comomnsense approach to the present-
ment of argument to the court, in ex-
plaining the intricacies of the introduc-
tion of evidence or documents under the
cardinal rules.
William Scott Stewart, as a respected
law school professor, never fully aban-
doned the meticulous scholastic ap-
proach.to legal problems.
A few fellows around the criminal
court building in Chicago, who have
watched the changes in the breed of men
who weigh out justice and fill the roles
of the prosecution and the defense?
know now that the thinning ranks of the
actor-lawyer types, on both sides of the
table?casting their flippant remarks
and innuendoes?stirring up dramatic
scenes and humorous incidents?all done
to influence the jury as actors before an
audience, are gone forever?except for
the few remaining now in retirement.
Many of Scott's friends of the early
days are gone now?passing through the
portals of life to their destiny in the
Promised Land.
Nate Gross and Bensinger of Chicago's
American; Hildy Johnson, Morning Examiner;
and Jim Doherty of the Tribune; Art Sum-
merfield, Clem Lane, and Enoch Johnson of
the Daily News, The now-retired, distin-
guished George Wright of the Chicago Daily
Tribune, and Ted Todd, retired of Chicago's
American, and Congressman Roman Pucinski
of the Sun-Times were celebrated reporters
of that era.
The members of the famous criminal bar
at that period were Miles Devine, Patrick
O'Donnell, Clarence Darrow, Frank McDonald,
George Crane, Wilbur Crowley (Judge),
Erbstein, Brodkin, Bellows, Petrone, Stewart,
Nicosia, Love, Bulger, Brody, E. M. Libonati,
Busch, Meyers, the Devine brothers, Schultz,
Barbaro Scalise, the Still? brothers, Altieri,
Billy Smith, Ropes O'Brien, Milton Smith,
Michael Romano, Emmett Byrne, Harold
Levy, Judge Austin, Alex Napoli, Congress-
men Edward Finnegan, Barrett O'Hara,
Bieber, and Covelli.
Among the outstanding members of the
bench were O'Connell, Dougherty, Butler,
Crowley, Hartigan, Lupe, Sharbaro, Pope,
Melia, Barth, Geroulis, Cornelius Harring-
ton, Morrissey, Quilici, Greene, Dunne, Mc-
Dermott, Chelos, Drucker McSweeney, Kula,
McCormick, Covelli, Austin, Weiss, Padden,
Casey, Normoyle, Wells, Dempsey, Barry,
Robson, Holmgren, Roberts, Kluczynski,
Ward, Burke, Bicek, Tucker, Leonard, Kiley,
Touhy, Lyons, Adesko, Stanton, Helander,
Jacobs, Hayes, and Rooney.
He is survived by his son, William Scott
Stewart III, a Navy commander; a
daughter, Mrs. Mary Welch; three
brothers and two sisters.
The Illinois congressional delegation
extends to the family our heartfelt con-
dolences on their loss.
HAWAII: STATEHOOD ANNI-
VERSARY
(Mr. GILL (at the request of Mr. GON-
ZALEZ) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. GILL. Mr. Speaker, statehood is
still new enough to us in Hawaii for its
anniversary to be an occasion. I think
an anniversary of this sort should have
two purposes: First, of course, we should
once again express to the leadership and
to our friends in Congress, our continu-
ing gratitude for your gift of full citizen-
ship. We should also express our hope
that those who represent the 50th State
in these Halls have lived up to your ex-
pectations. Second, and most impor-
tant, we owe this Congress a report on
what we as a State have been able to ac-
complish since statehood, and what we
have yet to do.
Let me speak briefly at the second
point.
There was some concern at the time
the statehood bill was being considered,
whether Hawaii could stay afloat eco-
nomically as a State. You need have no
fear. Total personal income has con-
tinued to rise from about $1.3 billion in
1959 to about $1.68 billion at the end of
1963. Gross State product at the end
of 1963 was estimated to be about $2 bil-
lion, a 5.2-percent increase over 1962.
In the preceding 2 years, 1960-62, the
gross State Produet had increased at an
average annual rate of 5.7 percent.
These gross figures do not indicate much
detail, but they do show our steady
growth in almost all areas.
Hawaii is still heavily dependent on
Federal spending and undoubtedly will
continue to be because of our strategic
military Position. However, our contri-
butions to the Federal Treasury have
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5726
Approved For ledwritiNER/Al :reeffilaMER
also risen. For example, we paid $232,-
300,000 in Federal taxes in 1960; this
rose to $283.700,000 in 1962 and is still
going up. While a recent study of the
Tax Foundation, Inc.. showed that in
1962 Hawaii put in 50 cents for every $1
received, it also showed that 10 States
put in a smaller percentage.
All in all, Mr. Speaker. Hawaii is pull-
ing its share of the load, and, further, is
developing at a rate substantially faster
than the average for the rest of the
Nation.
But we have a long way to go.
We must have a far broader economic
base. We must serve as the educational,
cultural, and economic hub for the Pa-
cific area, and here we have only made a
start. With the help of Congress and
the State Department our East-West
Center has become known across the Pa-
cific and in parts of Asia as a successful
new experiment in cultural and techni-
cal interchange; but here too we must
regroup and redefine our objectives so
that people in Washington can better
understand our mission. Our racial
harmony has long been a byword, and
indeed we have done better in this area
than most parts of the Nation; however,
we also need improvement and we fur-
ther need to relate our experiences in
some fashion which will help the more
troubled sections of our country.
On balance. Mt. Speaker, I think we
are meeting our responsibilities and the
trust you placed in us by granting state-
hood. And we expect to better this in
the years ahead. It is our pride that our
people, to borrow the phrase of our late
President, are inclined to first ask what
they can do for their country. May this
always be our guiding principle.
FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF HAWAIIAN
STATEHOOD
(Mr. MATSUNAGA (at the request of
Mr. GONZALEZ) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. 1VIATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker,
more than 1,000 citizens of Hawaii will
join tonight to partake of a hundred-
dollar-a-plate dinner at the Royal Ha-
waiian Monarch Room in Honolulu to
celebrate the Fifth Anniversary of Ha-
waiian statehood. The Honorable Ed-
mund G. (Pat) Brown, Governor of the
State of California. will deliver the prin-
cipal address. The affair is being spon-
sored by the Democratic Party of Hawaii.
It was 5 years ago, on March 18, 1959.
that President Dwight D. Eisenhower
signed the Hawaii statehood bill into law,
making our Paradise Isles the 50th State
in the Union. This great body of the
Congress had passed the bill on March
12. and the Senate had approved it the
day before.
Mr. Speaker. I take this opportunity to
call the attention of this august body to
this event because I am convinced that
the granting of statehood to Hawaii is
one of the greatest things that. this
Congress has done in this Nation's entire
history. Let us just pause a moment to
think about it. Out there in the middle
of the expansive Pacific Ocean, more
A
6
than 2,000 miles off the coast of Cali-
fornia, lies a chain of islands repre-
sented by almost invisible specks on the
map of the world. Who in his sane mind
would ever have thought that these
Islands would some day became a full-
fledged State in the Union of States? It
was only through the extraordinary
courage and bold imagination of the
Members of the 86th Congress, many of
whom are still serving in this body and
in the Senate. that Hawaii's dream of
more than half a century became a
reality.
How has Hawaii fared in its first 5
years as the 50th State of the Union?
The Honorable John A. Burns, Hawaii's
last delegate to Congress, who is cred-
ited with having carried the ball over the
statehood goal line, and who is present-
ly Governor of Hawaii. has praised the
people of Hawaii for having proven "in
every possible way their willingness and
readiness to assume the responsibilities
of a sovereign State." He points with
particular pride to the "new politi-
cal maturity that has been demonstrated
by our people." He says that Hawaii's
People "have much to be proud of and
much to look forward to," and foresees
a greater role of leadership for Hawaii
In the field of commercial and cultural
exchange between the United States and
the Pacific-Asian nations.
Hawaii's people are willing to accept
this leadership. They are not asking
that the rest of the Nation do some-
thing for them; they are offereing their
unique qualifications and geography of
their State for full exploitation by the
Uinted States.
As it has been repeatedly said by an-
thropologists, sociologists, poets, and pol-
iticians, Hawaii is -a showcase of Amer-
ican democracy." There in the middle
of the Pacific Ocean. peoples of differ-
ent races and cultures have proven by
actual experimentation that they can
live together in harmony and under-
standing for their mutual betterment.
Our late beloved President, John F. Ken-
nedy, recognized this, for when he de-
livered his first major civil rights speech
In Honolulu on June 8. 1963, he told his
listeners that be had chosen Hawaii as
his platform because -Hawaii is what the
United States is striving to be."
The first 5 years of statehood has been
of proven benefit to the people of Ha-
waii, but of greater importance is the
fact that Hawaii has been able to make
unique contributions to the Nation as a
whole. Hawaii's people have proven
themselves to be our greatest assets in
our struggle to win and maintain the
friendship of the Afro-Asian countries.
The Plast-West Center for Cultural and
Technical Exchange in Honolulu has
worked exceptionally well in the multi-
cultural atmosphere of Hawaii and is
fast proving to be one of the best invest-
ments in peace that our Nation has ever
made. Peace Corps trainees too have
found Hawaii an excellent training
ground.
What I am trying to say here is that as
a nation we must to a greater extent
avail ourselves of the benefits that can
be derived from the ideal geographic
location and climate of the 50th State
ff000500050001-9
March 03
and the unique character and quail lea-
tions of its citizenry. We might begin by
establishing a fi ae port and internati mal
trade complex on Sand Island, as pro-
posed by Governor Burns, to promote
commercial intercourse and culture: ex-
change among the nations of the treat
Pacific basin.
On this, the 1ifth anniversary of Ha-
waiian statehood, the grateful citizei is of
Hawaii are ready and willing to continue
to serve the U: dted States in its treat
effort toward pc ice in a better world
The SPEAKE1/. Under previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. PATESAN] is recognized for 60
minutes.
[Mr. PATMA t4 addressed the Hause.
His remarks will. appear hereafter Ir the
Appendix.]
CLYDE HERRlIsIG SHOULD BE RE-
TAINED ON INTERSTATE CDM-
IVIERCE CO:A:MISSION
The SPEAKEa. Under previous crder
of the House, toe gentleman from :owa
[Mr. SCHWENGEL] is recognized lb: 15
minutes.
(Mr. SCHWITGEL asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, ask
unanimous cor.sent that all Members
have 5 days in 'which to insert theia re-
marks on the su aject of-my special oader.
which is the d:.smissal of Mr. Clyde E.
Herring.
The SPEAKE R. Without objecticn, it
is so ordered.
There was fie objection.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker,
when the President made his announce-
ment he was going to fill some of the top
echelon positions in Government with
women, I had ni reason to disapprove. I
favor making ti:e most of the abilitits of
all qualified cit hens, regardless of sex.
I have supported equal rights legisla-
tion?in fact, I introduced a bill which
would help accomplish this.
It is apparent now that the Presid nit's
announcement was prompted for aoli-
Meal reasons as much as any other. All
of us can now claim this with more cer-
tainty. In this presidential election :Tar,
It is important for him to bolstei his
image wherevez he can, so if he can ,vrap
up a few votes tri the name of Ameiican
womanhood, it is only natural that he
would move in 1hat direction.
Whenever thpre is a vacancy v;hieh a
qualified woma a can fill, I find no :Malt
In bringing her into a Government ])osi-
tion. In fact, all other factors icing
equal, I am sur . I would support it.
There is one proposed change, how-
ever, to which I strenuously object be-
cause all othe. factors are not e
That is the replacement for Clyde E.
Herring, of Iowa, one of the Commis-
sioners on the Interstate Comn.erce
Commission. The President has recom-
mended that M. Herring be replacEd by
Mrs. Virginia Mae Brown, of West Vir-
ginia. Apparently as soon as this ap-
pointment is confirmed by the Se late,
Mrs. Brown wil:. take over as one or the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
NDIX A1449
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPE
We hope that our appeal to the courts for
justice on behalf of the oversea schools
will awaken the Defense Department to its
responsibilities to its teachers. Most of all,
we hope it will awaken the Defense Depart-
ment to its responsibilities to the 150,000
American children whose parents have been
assigned to oversea duty. We appreciate
fully the tremendous burden carried by our
Defense Department in its primary mission.
We trust that ultimately the equity in
this case, involving only a tiny proportion
of the Defense Department's worldwide op-
erations and financial resources, will be
recognized by the responsible officials of the
department.
OJL
The Federal Government Cannot Aff d
Not To Raise Salaries
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ABRAHAM J. MULTER
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. MOLTER. Mr. Speaker, I com-
mend to the attention of our colleagues?
particularly those who voted against the
pay bill?the following editorial from the
New York Times of March 15, 1964:
INCREASING FEDERAL PAY
A shortsighted and small-minded coali-
tion of Republicans and southern Democrats
has voted down a salary-increase bill in the
House of Representatives, but this decision
should not be permitted to stand, The bill
can and should be revived through action
Initiated either in the House or Senate.
The measure which deserves this second
chance would raise by an average of about 5
percent the pay of a million and a half
white-collar classified employees and postal
workers. It would increase by somewhat
more than this the pay of Cabinet members
and of other top-level Federal officials, and
of all Federal judges. It would lift the
salaries of Members of Congress from $22,-
500 to $32,500. The annual cost of the whole
plan would be $545 million. It would be
worth it.
It would be worth it because it is good
economy to pay salaries high enough to at-
tract topnotch men and women into Federal
office and to keep them there in the face of
increased competition for their services, One
of the most familiar, and discouraging, sto-
ries in Washington is the loss by one Federal
agency after another of public servants who
are doing an excellent job, who like their
work and want to go on with it, but who
feel compelled to turn elsewhere for a better
income.
It is perfactly cbnceivable that there will
be an exodus from Washington of high-
quality officials who cannot afford to stay
unless a bill of this kind Is passed. They
should not be asked to make the financial
sacrifice they are making?and this comment
applies particularly to those in the upper
levels of Government.
In the case of Members of Congress, there
Is a particularly strong argument for higher
salaries. This is the desirability of freeing
Congressmen from the need or the tempta-
tion of supplementing their Federal pay by
outside work which may easily involve a
conflict of interest with thir legislative work.
A genuinely, hard-working Congressman,
ready and equipped to face intelligently and
conscientiously each piece of public busi-
ness as it arises, is worth every bit of $32,500.
No petty political considerations should be
allowed to block reconsideration of this bill.
Bank Interlocks Should Be Curbed
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. EMANUEL CELLER
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I have to-
day introduced a bill to amend section 8
of the Clayton Act as it relates to bank
interlocks. Section 8 forbids interlock-
'ng directorates among corporations gen-
erally, and it also contains special pro-
visions relating to bank interlocks.
The bill I introduced today would
bring the bank interlock provisions of
section 8 up to date by prohibiting inter-
locks through officers, directors, agents,
trustees, employees, and substantial
stockholders between banks subject to
regulation by the Federal banking agen-
cies and other commercial banks, savings
banks, trust companies and savings and
loan associations. This prohibition is
qualified by certain exceptions in accord-
ance with regulations to be prescribed by
the Federal banking agencies.
The general interlock provisions of
section 8 were enacted in 1914 and have
remained unchanged ever since, despite
the vast changes which have taken place
in our commercial practices and our ex-
panding economy. The business enter-
prises of 1914 were mere prototypes of
today's huge, diversified, interdependent
corporations.
Comparable changes have occurred in
our banking structure. Yet, the bank
interlock provisions were last amended
in 1935.
I am convinced the time has come for
a fresh look at interlocks generally?
their nature, extent, and effect on compe-
tition and on our business and financial
structure. I am equally convinced that
clarification and strengthening of ex-
isting law is long overdue.
Interlocks pose three dangers: First,
they provide a golden opportunity to re-
strain competition both through the ex-
change of plans and information, and
through the exercise of common control
or influence over two or more competing
enterprises. Second, they are a fertile
breeding ground for conflicts of interest.
No man can serve two masters, and the
interlocking officer, director or control-
ling stockholder cannot give the last full
measure of devotion to the conflicting
interests of two competing enterprises.
Third, where leading businessmen under-
take directorships of many different en-
terprises, it becomes increasingly difficult
to give to each the time and attention it
deserves and often chronic absenteeism
results.
The need to revise section 8 as it ap-
plies to bank interlocks is widely recog-
nized. The provisions of section 8 re-
lating to bank interlocks were enacted
at a time when the power of the Congress
respecting interstate commerce and fi-
nancial institutions was -much more in
doubt than it is today, and at a time
when the activities of financial institu=
tions were generally more limited than
they are now. As a result, the provisions
of section 8 regarding bank interlocks are
quite unrealistic in today's economy.
For instance, section 8 does not presently
prohibit interlocking relationships be-
tween commercial banks and savings
banks or between banks and savings
and loan associations, or between those
banking institutions and insurance com-
panies, even though they may compete
directly for deposits or investments, for
mortgage financing and other types of
financial activity. ,
On September 17, 1962, a distinguished
Advisory Committee, consisting largely
of leading bankers, made the following
recommendation to the Comptroller of
the Currency:
Interlocking directorates:
The financial structure of the Nation needs
to be guarded against conflicts of interest.
This means that the law and its application
by the supervisory authorities should re-
strict interlocking directorates, and not only
between competing commercial banks (as is
now the case) but also between commercial
banks and certain other types of competing
financial institUtiona, notably, mutual sav-
ings banks and savings and loan associa-
tions. As presently interpreted, the law pro-
hibits various specific types of interlocking
directorates as between member banks but
does not similarly restrict interlocks involv-
ing other classes of financial institutions to
the extent desirable. Hence, there is a clear
need for legislation dealing with this prob-
lem.
The prohibitions of the present law on in-
terlocking directorates should be made ap-
plicable between banks, savings and loan
associations and mutual savings banks,
whether chartered under Federal or State
law.
Even more recently, on April 10, 1963,
a Presidential Committee on Financial
Institutions, composed of the principal
officers of the executive branch con-
cerned with banking, likewise recom-
mended:
Section 8 of the Clayton Act has two parts.
The first part, which applies only to banks,
prohibits (with exceptions) interlocking re-
lationships between member banks of the
Federal Reserve System and other banks in
the same or a nearby community. But inter-
locking relationships among nonmember
banks, savings and loan associations, and
other financial institutions are not covered
by the law. Mutual savings banks are ex-
plicitly exempted, as are relationships in-
volving a member bank if the banks are not
located in the same or "contiguous" or "ad-
jacent" city, town, or village. The Commit-
ee sees no reason why these limitations on
interlocking relationships should apply only
to member banks.
Although the second part of section 8
deals with corporations in general, it con-
tains a reference to banks and is therefore
pertinent to the work of the committee.
* * " It might be interpreted, . however, as
exempting an interlocking directorate be-
tween a bank and a competing financial in-
stitution even though the latter type of
interlocking relationships is not covered
by the first part of section 8. This commit-
tee believed that the Clayton Act needs
clarification in this respect.
Conclusion 21: The Committee believes
that the provisions of section 8 of the Clay-
ton Act which govern interlocking relation-
ships involving financial institutions should
be clarified and probably strengthened.
The bill I introduced today is designed
to fill these gaps in the bank interlock
provisions of section 8.
While I am not introducing a bill on
this subject today, comparable made-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX March 19
quacies and anachronisms exist in the
provisions of section 8 which relate to
interlocking relaitonships between com-
mercial and industrial corporations
generally.
These provisions are presently con-
fined to interlocking directorates be-
tween competing corporations. This
leaves glaring deficiencies. Section 8
does not prohibit one man from act-
ing as an officer of more than one com-
peting company, or as an officer of one
and a director of another competing cor-
poration. It does not apply to inter-
locks between supplier and buyer. Nor
does it apply to a common controlling
stockholder of two competing companies.
It fails to cover indirect interlocks be-
tween competitors through a common
lender.
Section 8. in a word, is as full of holes
as swiss cheese. Its shortcomings have
been highlighted again and again in re-
ports by Government agencies charged
with antitrust enforcement, by the
Antitrust Subcommittee on the Select
Committee on Small Business of this
House and by legal scholars and experts.
Thus existing law leaves the door wide
open to interlocking relationships be-
tween the managers of our great indus-
trial, commercial, and financial enter-
prises. The twin dangers of widespread
restraints of trade and conflicts of in-
terest are obvious. As Mr. Justice
Douglas. has observed:
The web that ia woven may tie many in-
dustries, insurance companies, and financial
houses together into a vast and friendly
alliance that takes the edge off competition.
United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 943 U.S.
629, 637 (dissenting opinion).
Accordingly, I have directed the staff
of the House Antitrust Subcommittee, of
which I am chairman, to undertake a
study of interlocking relationships be-
tween our major industrial, commercial,
and financial companies, and to survey
the American business establishment.
I am also considering legislation to
plug the loopholes in existing general
interlock law.
The House Should Reconsider and Pass
the IDA Bill?A Chance To Regain
Leadership
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. HENRY S. REUSS
wISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 26, 1964
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, an in-
crease in the funds available to the In-
ternational Development Association for
loans is very much in the national inter-
est of the United States. I hope that the
House will reconsider its refusal on Feb-
ruary 25, 1964, to authorize American
participation in increasing IDA's funds.
I urge the Members to take note of the
cogent arguments in favor of the IDA
bill in the following editorial from the
American Banker of March 17, 1964:
CHANG'S To REGAIN LEADERSHIP
The House of Representatives has proved
Itself pennywlse and pound foolish in vot-
ing to cut off U.S. contributions to the multi-
national International Development Agency.
the soft-loan adjunct of the highly success-
ful World Bank.
But the Roues is to be given a chance
to reconsider, In hearings before its Com-
mittee on Banking and Currency next week;
and the men most concerned with the Na-
tion's foreign economic policy are making
every effort to restore U.S. support to this
valuable agency.
They deserve every encouragement.
The IDA. a comparatively new organiza-
tion. formed in MO, was designed specifically
to develop useful loans from the accumula-
tion of local currencies which have been
generated by the World Bank In its global
activities, and to use these funds for the
necessary type of development loan which
Is not bankable by the high World Bank
standards, but which is necessary to supple-
ment the projects which the World Bank
does finance.
An example would be an IDA loan in local
currency to build the access roads for a
fertilizer plant built with World Bank aid.
The United States took a major role in
the creation of the IDA. and committed it-
self to continue this leadership as a financial
catalyst, mobilizing not only the financial re-
sources, but also the hopes and enthusiasms
of the less developed nations. The whole
purpose of the IDA has been to generate
low-interest, long-term credits, on the easiest
poesible terms and in the most available cur-
rencies. It was, In effect, specifically designed
to be soft.
With the exertion of powerful US. leader-
ship, 90 nations joined the IDA; 18 of them,
In addition to the United States, agreed to
shoulder the main burden of support. Last
year, this country maintained its leadership
by agreeing to supply 8312 million of the
8750 million the association needed to do its
work for the year.
- Now the House of Representatives has
voted to pull back this commitment; if that
reversal sticks, the country will be embar-
rassed in a most sensitive area, and this val-
uable organization almost surely will col-
lapse.
The sad thing about the House action
Is that it struck at one of the most realistic,
farsighted, and workeble extensions of U.S.
leadership in the aid field.
The whole emphasis of the US. aid pro-
gram in recent years has been toward asaist-
Me the undeveloped to get to their economic
feet. and toward getting other nations, both
developed and underdeveloped to take up
more of the load. The IDA was designed
to aid this process, and has been effective in
doing so already during its short life.
Particularly valuable in the IDA concept
is its principle of multinationality. By
operating through the IDA, the United
States does net go Into these underdeveloped
nations as a hard-eyed lender, demanding
ce:LaltIl reforms. Rather, the loan is proc-
essed, and the terms established, by a group
.,1 the borrower's peers. The immediate
identification with the United States is ells-
Bleated, and the job accomplished without
specific resentment being aimed at this
country.
It is not enough to observe that the John-
son administration was caught by surprise
by the vote of the Rouse, by 208 to 188, to
end US. support for the IDA. It should
else be noted that the administration ap-
peared to have regarded approval of the
modest IDA appropriation as rather routine,
for the chief administration witness in favor
of the bill was Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury John C. Builitt.
Next week, as the House Banking Com-
mittee takes up the IDA bill again, the ad-
ministration will send up Its big guns. in the
persons of Seer tary of State Dean Rusk
and Secretary o:' the Treasury Dougla ;.
Their support should be enough to recover
the lost initiative.
But It is to ti hoped that the adr dnis-
tration has learned a valuable lesson from
this near setbacl: which still can be averted.
Given the brisk and politically invigoi ating
climate for coat cutting in Goverrment
which now enveleps Capitol Rill, the admin-
istration has to protect with special vigi-
lance those prof:rams which are good but
not large, and wleich might be blown avay in
a puff of misdirected frugality.
Soft on Sukarno
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. STEVEN B. DEROUNI1N
( F NEW TORE
IN THE ROUE E OF REPRESENTATTTES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. DEROUSTIAN. Mr. Speaker, one
reason our fc:eign aid program is in
such trouble In the Congress of: the
United States s the deliberate insistence
of the administration to be soft on
Sukarno.
To show how deeply this cuts in*?o the
thinking of froe nations, the Washing-
ton Daily News tells us how the people
of democratic 'Malaysia are disappointed
by our treatmf nt of a tyrant.
The article I01.10WS:
"SOFT ON SUN, MO" BAFFLES MALAYST.ANS?
WORRIED ABOUT US. POSITION
(By VT. D. Friedenberg)
KUALA LUBIN:A, March 18.?The G)vern-
ment of newly independent denewratic
Malaysia Is bad led and disappointed 'ay the
American police of being "soft on Sukarno,"
Indonesia's saber-rattling president.
Ever since the farfiung Federation was
forged last September, it has been preoccu-
pied with der:siding itself against Indo-
nesia's-avowed efforts to "crush Malaysia."
Here in Maaysia's lush, hilly capital,
?Melee's express confidence that I ritain,
former colonial tutor and now a Common-
wealth partner, will continue to provide
troops to help b ant down Indonesian guerril-
las in Malaysia's North Borneo territories.
INFILTRATION
They expect so all-out Indonesian attack.
But they fear continued guerrilla ope-ations
against Bornee and infiltration, seteaotage,
and subversion in Malaya and Singalese will
force Malaysia to divert its scarce re aeurces
from development to defense and this un-
dermine the netion both economicaly and
politically.
The Mairsysiens are convinced Indonesia
will keep up .ta crush-Malaysia ca-npaign
until the United States orders a halt They
argue only the United States with it diplo-
matic arm-twisting strength, foreign aid le-
verage and the power of its 7th Meat, can
persuade Sukarno to be a good neighl or.
SUPERFICIAL
The Malaysians regard Attorney reeneral
Robert Kenne .y's recent cease-fire :niss'on
as well intentlened but superficial, and they
think the U.S. peacemaker role is ineffective
If not unbecorr
Says one ilalaysian official pr vately:
"Washington .4nows Malaysia is no British
neocolonialist plot as Djakarta secures, and
knows which side is the aggressor in Borneo.
"If you can force Khrushcliev to bark down
in Berlin and Cuba, why can't you help us
straighten out Sukarno?"
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- APPENDIX A1439
but they will not be able to trade on the
advertising efforts of the manufacturer and
the sales efforts of the small merchant. The
buyer will then have to make certain that
what he is getting is worth the price.
The American market has been flooded
with shoddy goods in the past years. I my-
self have bought clothing at discount houses
for discount prices, lulled by the display of
brand names into believing that a high level
of quality was being maintained. The cloth-
ing when to pieces in a fifth of the usual
time. I therefore bought 20 percent of prod-
uct at what, in this instance, was 80 percent
of the price.
The bargain was more apparent than real.
This is what the quality stabilization bill is
about?the "low prices" that are really
higher.
The Beef and Sheep Men Pay
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. CHARLES B. HOEVEN
OF IOWA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, cattle-
men throughout the Nation are deeply
disturbed over the question of meat im-
ports, and their concern is most under-
standable. Under leave to extend my
remarks in the RECORD, I include the
following editorial from the April 1964,
edition of the Farm Journal:
THE BEEF AND SHEEP MEN PAT
"I am pleased," said Secretary Freeman of
the voluntary agreement this country has
just completed with Australia and New Zea-
land over meat Imports. Judging by the
cries of anger from the cattle and sheep
country, he must be the only one who is.
The agreement allows these countries to
ship in as much beef (and the Australians
as much mutton) as the average for 1962-63.
That's 6 percent less than in 19133 but 10
percent more than in 1962. Furthermore
they get an increase of 3.7 percent for the
next 2 years, so by 1966 they'll be sending
us more than in 1963.
What the agreement amounts to is that
things won't get worse but neither can they
get much better.
U.S. stockmen wanted imports set at the
average of 1958-63 period, or about half as
much as now. Probably we could have got-
ten it. Why, then, was the level set so
high? Simply because our Government has
been trying to promote the idea of "sharing
markets,' around the world. We're about to
go to the meeting of GATT (General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade) at Geneva, Swit-
zerland, to sell the "sharing" idea. Our nego-
tiators wouldn't want to admit that we our-
selves had just put up the bars against any-
thing. So the stockmen of the United
States have been offered Up as a sacrifice
in our attempt to free up international
trade. It's not surprising that they don't
care for the role.
The cattlemen's plight is simply this:
They sent 7 percent more beef to market
in 1963 than in the 1958-62 period. Exports
added another 1 percent. But our market
can absorb an increase of only 3.5 to
4 percent without harm to prices. We
brought on most of the trouble ourselves,
by sending 1.25 million more cattle to mar-
ket than the year before, and making them
an average of 19 pounds heavier (33 pounds
for steers). We're keeping a record 106.5
million head out in the country, and a
higher percentage of them than usual are
cows, ready to produce more calves.
However, that's not the whole difficulty.
At the very time of our acute distress, the
Australians and New Zealanders were rush-
ing an unprecedented quantity of meat here.
In 1958, the Australians sold us only 18 mil-
lion pounds of beef, but by 1963 were send-
ing 517 million. Imports now furnish 11
percent of our entire supply. Our market
has paid by far the highest prices in the
world, and it has been wide open. Our
tariff of 3 cents a pound has amounted to
nothing.
Meanwhile, other governments are offering
their farmers more protection, not less. we
got a foretaste of what the,Common Market
Intends in the "Chicken War," which we
lost. Now Western Europe is trying to keep
our feed grains out. Britain has recently
established import quotas, as well as import
prices, on both beef and pork to protect her
stockmen. That's the way the rest of the
world is "sharing."
It's against that picture that our Govern-
ment, in an attempt to set a shining example
which no one is following, permits meat im-
ports at record levels. This, by the way, is
the same Government that recently wanted
to graze retired cropland acres because "we
need _more meat."
Actually, should we get a drought we could
have a real disaster on our hands. Our im-
port agreement can't be abrogated without
6 months' notice. We'd better all pray for
rain.
What can cattlemen do about it? Well,
first they will have to send less beef to mar-
ket. Second, they can keep pressure on
Congress and the White House for tougher
import controls, even though denied them
now. Third, they can refuse to be quieted by
a little beef buying for school lnuch pro-
grams and a Tariff Commission hearing, now
likely to be meaningless. Failing all else
they can resort to the ballot box next fall.
That's one recourse they can't be denied,
and lve think they'll know what to do with it.
I.
Modernization of Federal Salea y Systems
SPEECH
OF
HON. GLENN CUNNINGHAM
OF NEBRASKA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 8986) to adjust
the rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
as a member of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, I am aware of
problems confronting our employees. I
have in the past supported reasonable
wage increases for our employees and
helped in legislation on other matters
which concern them. I have considered
the needs of our employees just as I
would if I were a private employer. In-
deed, the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee has the same responsibility
on wages and working conditions of
Federal employees as does an employer
In private industry for his employees.
I again favored wage adjustments for
employees of the Government when
hearings were held and the bill before us
was debated in the committee last year.
I do so today. However, I strongly op-
posed the whopping increases in salary
for the legislative branch, including
Members of Congress, and the high-
ranking members of the executive
branch, including Cabinet officers and
other officials. I also opposed the big
increases for members of the judiciary.
I consistently supported the proposi-
tion that the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service should debate and ap-
prove salary legislation for Post Office
and rank-and-file classified employees.
That is the responsibility of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service.
But the salary increases for the mem-
bers of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of the Government do
not rightly belong in this bill. The sal-
ary legislation affecting these latter
three groups should properly go to the
Committees on House Administration
and Judiciary, Just as they have in the
past. Even so, I repeat, Mr. Chairman,
I can see no justification for the whop-
ping increases proposed in this bill for
the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches. I so stated in my minority
views which are before you as a part of
the committee report.
We have Just passed a huge tax reduc-
tion bill and many nice speeches were
made by the supporters of that bill that
we should now economize. But the ink
is hardly dry on that measure when now
we have before us this huge increase in
salaries for ourselves, the high-ranking
members of the executive branch Sand
the judiciary. This proposal certainly
does not set a good example of our in-
tention to reduce spending.
After the general debate is concluded,
Mr. Chairman, I shall offer amendments
to the pending bill to eliminate the sal-
ary increases for officials of the legisla-
tive, executive, and judicial branches. If
my efforts to divorce these from title I,
which has to do with the postal and
rank-and-file classified workers, fail,
then I shall have to vote against the en-
tire bill.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated in my mi-
nority views which were written by me
last fall, I do not argue with any Mem-
ber as to whether he thinks his pay
should be increased by 45 percent or if
he believes similar increases should be
given to the high-ranking officials of the
executive branch and the Federal judi-
ciary. I do, however, in all sincerity, call
upon each Member to stand up in sup-
port of a rollcall on final passage in
order that the public will know just
where each Member stands.
I voted for the rule to bring this meas-
ure before us. I felt dutybound to do
so because the bill came from my com-
mittee. But it should be understood
that I did so because I felt certain the
rule would be adopted and I could then
offer the amendments to separate the
postal and rank-and-file wage section of
the bill from the excessive increases pro-
posed for Members of Congress, Cabinet
officers, and members of the judiciary.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? APPENDIX March 19
Employment of the Handicapped
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM
OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19. 1964
Mr. WICXERSHANI. Mr. Speaker,
the winner of Oklahoma's State essay
contest sponsored by the Governor's
committee on employment of the handi-
capped is Miss Carol Greenwood, a resi-
dent. of my district in Lawton. Okla.
She is a student at Lawton High School
and her essay reflects much thought on
hiring the handicapped. I would like to
include it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
at this point:
Rat-a-tat-tat. Rat-a-tat-tat. The sound
of a drum is Inspiring. It has stimulated
men to battle, rousing their spirits as they
march. Rat-a-tat-tat. The drummer, play-
ing his insistent rolls, has kept them in step
as they tramp to their destiny. Even today
there are drummers, but they do not play
loudly nor In public. Each man must listen
to his own and march accordingly. The
handicapped march to a drummer that whole
men can never hear. According to Thoreau,
"If a man does not keep pace with his com-
panions, perhaps it is because he hears a dif-
ferent drummer. Let him step to the music
which he hears, however measured or far
away."
"Let him step to the music which he
hears." You are in a chair on the righthand
side of a crowded auditorium in a growing
town. It is 1952, an election year. On the
stage sit several men, all political candidates.
A man with twinkling eyes and a good-na-
tured smile stands. As he strides toward the
microphone, a few people notice his slight
limp. The woman sitting beside you asks
about his leg. Engrossed in the words and
ideas of this pleasant, capable man, you do
not answer. Faintly, far back in your mind,
you hear the rat-a-tat-tat of a drum.
The man who stood before you first heard
that drum during World War II. Be heard
it at the same moment a land mine de-
stroyed half of his leg. The drum, faint at
first, gradually gained volume. With an ar-
tificial limb this man relearned to march, this
time to a new drumbeat. He learned well
and in 1962 became the new mayor. Later
he held the position of area contact repre-
sentative for the Veterans' Administration.
He proved that a land mine could not prevent
a man with ability from keeping step with
his drummer.
Up and down the piano keys run the ag-
ing fingers. Up and down the piano keys
mimic the smaller ones, eagerly groping for
perfection. In the background is the faint,
sweet whisper of a drum. The older fingers
belong to a middle-aged piano teacher who
is confined to a wheel chair. Her ability as
a teacher Is not affected by the polio in her
legs. She may never consciously pay atten-
tion to the drum, but unknowingly, she
hears and heeds.
A horse neighed, car brakes squealed, a boy
screamed, and somewhere far away a drum
began to beat. This was the way one young
man of 15 learned to march a new way. A
car struck the horse he was riding, cutting
his leg off just below the hip. What an enor-
mous blow the accident was to a young boy, a
blow that could have handicapped much
more than his body; however, he heard the
Henry David Thoreau. "Adventures in
American Literature," New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Inc.. 1963, p. 683.
drum_ Once outfitted with an artificial
limb, he, too. stepped to its music: he ran
to its music: he won the City Tennis Tourna-
ment to its music Ability, a tennis rac-
quet, and a drum made an unbeatable com-
bination.
More than 4 million handicapped persons
have fallen into step with this drum during
the last 15 years.: These have enlisted
through State employment agencies, while
untold numbers have joined the growing
ranks of handicapped workers on their own.
They have convinced nationwide firms and
small businesses alike that their ability
counts, but there are thousands more still
awaiting an opportunity to follow the drum-
mer.
Each person mentioned here accomplished
what he set out to do, despite obvious hard-
ships. Perhaps this accomplishment was
easier for the woman because her ability and
disability were so disconnected. For the men,
keeping step down their chosen paths was
extremely difficult. Yet the three of them
had one thing in common: each heard that
special drummer, and each stepped to his
music. In the words of Ella Wheeler Wilcox:
"When a soul burns with a godlike purpose to
achieve, all obstacles between it and Its goal
must vanish as the dew before the sun." 3
What Is this "God-like purpose to achieve"
but the sound of a drummer, a drummer who
plays for all the handicapped, a drummer
whose message is courage, strength and faith?
Look around you. Innumerable handicapped
workers are proving that their ability counts,
and each one is marching to the staccato beat
of a faraway drum.
"Fifteen Years," U.S. Government pam-
phlet.
'Ella Wheeler Wilcox, "My Book of Golden
Thoughts," Racine, Wis.; Whitman Publish-
ing Co.. 1931, p. Si.
Flag Rates Respect
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH
OF INDIANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. ROUDEBUSH. Mr. Speaker, Mr.
David R. Johnson, principal of Hillsboro
High School, Hillsboro, Ind., has written
a very moving and eloquent letter to the
editor of the Indianapolis Star.
Principal Johnson praises the respect
that his student body has shown for the
national anthem and the flag of the
United States. I believe the pupils of
Hillsboro have set an example that could
be followed by students of all our high
schools and colleges. Under unanimous
consent, I wish to insert this fine letter
to the editor in its entirety in the Cow-
caESSIONAL RECORD:
FLAG RATES RF.SPECT
To the EDITOR OF THE STAR:
In the last year I have had the opportunity
to observe many students, teachers and
parents at ball games when the national
anthem was played.
It is a disgrace to think the American peo-
ple-would eat popcorn. hotdogs, laugh, kiss,
talk, chew gum, stand with their hands in
their pockets and worst of all not even re-
move their bats, while the national anthem
is played. We are failing our future genera-
tions and losing our freedom by our own
examples. It only takes a few minutes of
our time tas learn, show and teach proper
respect for our American flag.
Recently f was so proud of tha students
and baskett cli team of Hillsboro High School
that I alnbet burst with pride. They all
stood at attention with their rIght hand
over their aeart, showing complete respect
for our flag Let me tell you?aa I looked
at our flag. I could almost swear I saw a
million sm.ling faces asking themselves,
"We deserve this kind of respect, why can't
every Amerlaan do this for us" I ask myself,
why can't tvery American do this? After
all it is so little for so much.
DAVID R. JornatioN,
Pririaipaa Hillsboro Public Schools,
HILLSBORC
Whitewash
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. BOB WILSON
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE laDUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thqrsday, March 19, 19(4 -
Mr. BC.B WILSON. Mr. Speaker,
under leav-E, to extend my remarks in the
RECORD, I kaclude the following editorial
from the Washington (D.C.) Evening
Star, Thunday, March 12, 1964:
WHITEWASH
Those who have been trying to identify
that unpleasant odor floating around the
Senate side of the Capitol need go no fur-
ther. It's a hitewash.
There is every indication that the Senate
Rules Conuaittee, under the chairmanship
of Senator .3 DRDAN, of North Carolina, is pre-
paring to gbe up the ghost in its "Investiga-
tion" of the Bobby Baker scanda. Appar-
ently the aonunittee, or the controlling
members of tale committee, have had enough.
They don't .7ant to develop the whole truth
for the edification of the public.
The exclate offered is that thee are no
other use! u. witnesses who might be called.
This is nonsense.
What about Senators? What about party
girls? Wha -.. about unexplored statements
regarding CI rripaign funds? What about Jay
McDonnell, who was fired as asnstant to
Bobby Bake: because he didn't agree with all
aspects of tae Baker method of operation?
What about a lobbyist named I. Irving Da-
vidson, who might have some imptatant tes-
timony to Five?
Most imp'srtrint of all, what abscut Walter
Jenkins, longtime aid to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Senator Williams, Republican, of Delaware.
has just given the committee an affidavit
from Don Fa Reynolds, Silver Sprang insur-
ance man, which raises grave questions re-
specting Mr. Jenkins. Shouldn't these be ex-
plored, at least to the extent of trying to pin
down the it it!? '
And what about the deal in which Mr.
Reynolds sa i he bought 81,280'worth of use-
less advertbang time on the Johnson tele-
vision station in Texas after he had sold a
$100,000 life insurance policy to Mr. John-
son? Mr. Raynolds has testified under oath
that he dirsiussed this advertislag project
with Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins has never
been called to testify. But he has denied in
a sworn statement that he had aay knowl-
edge of the arrangements betweer Mr. Rey-
nolds and Vie station.
Is this not important? Mr. Jenkins was a
Senate emptoyee at the time. Why has he
not at leas: been called as a witness and
croes-examir ed in an effort to clear up this
apparent ci screpancy? Mr. Reynolds un-
doubtedly aeld for the time. Somebody
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ..c1A-RAEPHIM823R000500050001-9 A1435
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? AP
in regional and field organizations. The
launching of the comprehensive program
coincides with the shift in emphasis in the
reserve program and the two must obvioUsly
complement one another.
Task forces organized under the compre-
hensive program involve as many reservists
as possible. This helps the task force to
avoid mistakes which the trained reservist
can more readily detect. In addition, it en-
courages complete compatibility with Federal
agency programs. The reservist with a Fed-
eral assignment is likely to be more familiar
with national problems and objectives and,
therefore, can contribute valuable back-
ground and experience to task force planning.
But the advantage Works both ways. As
reservists become members of State and
local task forces they are assured of the
most timely information in the emergency
planning field and the training received
through their Federal agency assignment is
thereby enhanced.
So as you can see, the executive reserve,
with a present enrollment of about 3,100 top
drawer leaders, in 14 regions of the country,
figures prominently in the total emergency
planning effort. We need rapidly to expand
the size of most units of the NDER. It is
not now strong enough. Growth in all areas
is anticipated as 31 Federal departments and
agencies move to respond to a mandate is-
sued 2 years ago?specific Presidential Execu-
tive orders spelling out the emergency plan-
ning responsibility of each segment of the
Federal Government as an extension of their
peacetime roles.
Let me cite some examples of how we hope
this total expansion will be achieved.
The Department of Agriculture is now es-
tablishing a reserve unit with an expected
strength of SOO members recruited from a
wide range of industries including food, fer-
tilizer, pesticide, farm equipment, process-
ing and other food-connected activities.
The Office of Emergency Transportation
has organized a unit with an authorized
strength of 300 to staff its transportation
mission at national, regional, and State lev-
els.
Other departments and agencies with com-
parable expansion timetables include the
Department of Labor, Interior, and Com-
merce (including BDSA and the Maritime
Administration) /and the Interstate Com-
merce Commissioh.
None of us will ever forget the last na-
tional conference of the National Defense
Executive Reserve, in Washington, D.C. It
is particularly clear to me since I directed
that conference. All, however, remember
that date, October 22, 1962, because it was
that evening that President Kennedy an-
nounced the quarantine of Cuba that was re-
quired by the introduction of Soviet offensive
measures. I know we all remember the ten-
sions of the succeeding week until it be-
came clear that peace would be maintained.
Perhaps more than ever before, the Cuban
crisis brought home to executive reservists
and to all of the American-people that nu-
clear warfare, however unlikely, remains a
possibility which we must be prepared to
meet..
Another national conference is tentatively
sc'ieduled for 1965 in Washington. I venture
an educated guess that the fruits of this ex-
pansion will be quite evident at that time.
With respect to that conference, we have
duly noted your comments and suggestions
regarding the shortcomings of previous na-
tional Executive Reserve conferences. We-
recognize that reservists must be permitted
more time for the hard but productive work
of hammering out concrete assignments
within parent agencies. We intend to assure
that ample time is set aside for these en-
deavors at the next national conference for,
in reality, these are the nuts and bolts of
reserve duty if membership is to mean some-
thing more than the possession of a certifi-
cate.
Finally, let me stress that membership in
the reserve is something more than recog-
nition of your individual talents and skills.
Those who serve the total mission of mobi-
lization preparedness have put themselves
in the front lines of the epic struggle for
freedom. Your work is no less urgent be-
cause a limited nuclear test ban treaty has
been signed.
As encouraging as this first step is, in the
long journey toward diaarmament, it alone
gives no cause for relaxation. On the con-
trary, it is only because we are prepared
militarily, economically, and socially for the
Worst that we can take these steps toward
the best?a peaceful world with a chance of
freedom for all.
This work of the executive reserve, in
emergency planning, then, is for a great
goal?the freedom and safety of our country,
our neighbors, our children.
tract topnotch men and women into Federal
office and to keep them there in the face of
increased competition for their services.
One of the most familiar, and discouraging,
stories in Washington is the loss by one Fed-
eral agency after another of public servants
who are doing an excellent job, who like
their work and want to go on with it, but
who feel compelled to turn elsewhere for a
better income.
It is perfectly conceivable that there will
be an exodus from Washington of high-qual-
itrofficials who cannot afford to stay unless
a bill of this kind is passed. They should
not be asked to make the financial sacrifice
they are making?and this comment applies
particularly to those in the upper levels of
Government.
In the case of Members of Congress, there
is a particularly strong argument for higher
salaries. This is the desirability of freeing
Congressmen from the need or the tempta-
tion of supplementing their Federal pay by
outside work which may easily involve a con-
ict of interest with their legislative work.
A genuinely hard-working Congressman,
ready and equipped to face intelligently and
conscientiously each piece of public business
as it arises, is worth every bit of $32,500.
No petty political considerations should
be allowed to block reconsideration of this
bill.
Second Thoughts on the Pay Bit
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. MORRIS K. UDALL
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, it is very
apparent to me, as I am sure it is to most
of my colleagues, that the House is hav-
ing some second thoughts following last
week's defeat of Federal salary legisla-
tion. I would hesitate to predict the out-
come of these second thoughts, but I
know there are many Members who
would like to see further action of some
sort on the pressing problems which
prompted this legislation in the first in-
stance.
Over the weekend a number of news-
papers took the House to task for its
failure to pass the pay bill. One of these
was the New York Times, which carried
an editorial in its edition of Sunday,
March 15. On the same page was a
column by James Reston giving his views
on the need for increases in the pay of
top-ranking Federal executives. Both
the editorial and the column deserve the
attention and sober reflection of all of
us in the Congress.
Without objection I insert the edi-
torial and column at this point in the
Appendix of the RECORD.
INCREASING FEDERAL PAY
A shortsighted and small-minded coalition
of Republicans and southern Democrats has
voted down a salary-increase bill in the
House of Representatives, but this decision
should not be permitted to stand. The bill
can and should be revived through action
initiated either in the House or Senate.
The measure which deserves this aecond
chance would raise by an average of about 5
percent the pay of a million and a half white-
collar classified employees and postal workers.
It would increase by somewhat more than
this the pay of Cabinet members and of other
top-level Federal officials, and of all Federal
judges. It would lift the salaries of Mem-
bers of Congress from $22,500 to $32,500.
The annual cost of the whole plan would be
$545 million. It would be worth it.
It would be worth it because it is good
economy to pay salaries high enough to at.
JOHNSON'S MONEY PROBLEMS AND OTHER
THINGS
(By James Reston)
WASHINGTON, March 14.?One of the per-
sistently awkward things about the people
who work for the Government in Washington
Is that they like to eat and have children
and be paid for their hire like other members
of the human race.
This has created a problem for every Pres-
ident since General Washington, and Lyndon
Johnson is no exception. His appointments
so far have been good, but he has lost several
brilliant men from the old Kennedy team,
including Ted Sorensen, Kenneth Galbraith,
Jerome Wiesner, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,
and the Congress has added to the brain
drain by refusing to pass the administration's
pay-rise bill.
Some of this drift of talent was inevitable
and some of it was desirable. There is al-
ways an evacuation in every election year,
and President Johnson should and will have
his own men if he wins in November. But
holding or recruiting talented and experi-
enced men who are tough enough to stand
up to Lyndon Johnson 18 hours a day, 7
days in the week has been made all the more
difficult by freezing wages even below aca-
demic, let alone industrial or commercial
levels.
PROBLEM OF PRIORITIES
Part of the difficulty is that Congress has
refused to raise the pay of one group of
public servants unless it can -raise them all.
It draws no distinction between a secretary
who wrestles with letters and an Under Sec-
retary who wrestles with De Gaulle. In
short, it has ignored the fact that -there are
too many drones at the bottom of the Gov-
ernment and too few, brains at the top.
Also, the Congress, not unnaturally, feels
that if the executives in the Government
get more money, Congressmen, who also pay
rent and have children, should get more too,
and this would bring the across-the-board
pay hike to $545 million a year, which is
more than some Congressmen think the
voters would be in a mood to approve after
the Bobby Baker case in an election year.
So long as Congress refuses to distinguish
between a postman and a scientist And be-
tween the shortage of brains and the surplus
of bodies in Washington, the problem is in-
soluble, but there is a way to reconcile sanity
with solvency.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX March 19
This is to pay more for brains at the top.
and lop off more bodies at the bottom. This
would improve the Government at both ends,
probably without the expenditure of much
more money, and it has the added advantage
of fitting neatly into the JohnsonIan Ideal
of an administration that is a generous
tightwad.
It can be argued, of course. though Sena-
tor BYRD would not agree, that comparatively
the Federal payroll is not inflated. In the
last 10 years, while the population of the
country has gone up 17 percent. and non-
Government employment has gone up over
10 percent. the State and municipal em-
ployees have increased by 65 percent and the
Federal civil employees have gone up only 6
percent.
Thus, with the help of automation for
processing checks and bonds and income
taxes, among other things, there are now 13
Federal employees for every thousand Ameri-
cans, whereas there were 14 a decade ago.
Nevertheless, there is scarcely an observer
in or out of the Government here who would
not argue that the Government is over-
staffed and could be improved by judicious,
or even a little injudicious, pruning.
One of these days the automobiles of the
Federal employees are going to get into such
a jam that the Government will simply stop
and somebody will have to pave over the
cars in the Federal triangle and start all
over again.
If all the friends of friends who occupy
Federal Jobs as status symbols in the outer
rooms of assistants to the deputy assistants
to the directors of subbureaus in the coun-
try sections of large agencies or depart-
inents?all of them?were fired on Monday,
the Government would probably purr with
efficiency and enough money would be saved
to pay really competent and essential people
twice what they could command anywhere
else.
FRIVOLITY ASIDE
The payroll for the people who really know
enough to tell the great men what to do is
really not very much. Though the total pay-
roll increase for everybody amounted to $545
million a year, the proposed pay rise for the
really critical executive-payroll?from assist-
ant secretaries up through bureau heads and
the Cabinet?amounted to only $4.2 million.
And this much could probably be saved by
lopping off half the chauffeurs and making
some of the bigshots ride to the office on the
hits.
This is not a totally frivolous suggestion.
No government is any better than its top
policy advisers, and no administration needs
them more than this one. It is brilliant at
getting things through the Congress?prob-
ably much better at It than the Kennedy ad-
ministration?but it is not so clear about
what it wants to get through. and this Is
the job of many of the men who are now
quietly negotiating their way into higher
paying jobs in foundations. universities, re-
search centers, magazines, and industries
next autumn.
Invocations by Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. J. GLENN BEALL
OF MARYLAND
IN THE SENATE OF usa UNITED STATES
Thursday, March 19, 1964
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, on Febru-
ary 24, 1964, Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch
delivered the invocation for the annual
banquet of the National Housing Confer-
ence. Rabbi Hirsch also delivered the in-
vocation for the banquet in 1963.
In his brief comments, Rabbi Hirsch
has been able to relate religious values
to the subject of housing. These invoca-
tions are eloquent in their brevity and
simplicity, and I ask unanimous consent
that the Invocations delivered by Rabbi
Richard G. Hirsch be printed in the Ap-
pendix of the REcOan.
There being no objection, the invoca-
tions were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
INVOCATION BY RABBI RicHasn G. HIRSCH AT
THE NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE, FEB-
RUARY 24, 1964
0 Lord, creator of all, as we view the
communities which are the work of our
hands, we still hear the echo Of the angry
denunciation of Thy prophet of old:
"Woe to him who gaineth evil gains for
his house, to set his nest on high, to be safe
from the reach of harm. Thou has devised
shame to thy house by cutting off many
peoples." (Habbakuk 2: 9, 10.)
Oh Lord, may our society never build
nests so high that we cannot see the evil
consequences of our gains:
The callous cutting off of many peoples
from the proper living environment con-
ducive to fulfillment of their potentialities;
The blind obeisance to the fickle idol of
economic theories which tend to favor the
housing needs of the "haves" over those of
the "have-note."
The searing shame of perpetuating segre-
gation by race and class,
Praised be Thou, 0 Lord. our God, for
the nourishment on our tables, and for the
sense of justice in our souls which does not
permit UB to be at ease until all men receive
in adequate measure the material blessings
which Thou bast intended for all created
in Thine image, Amen.
INVOCATION BY RADE/ RICHARD G. HIRSCH AT
THE NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE, FED.
RUARY 25, 1963, WASHINGTON, D.C.
0 Master of the Universe, Thou who haat
created man to be a steward of all Thy
possessions, even as it is written in Scrip-
tures:
"The land Is mine (sayeth the Lord) for
ye are strangers and settlers with Me, and
in all the land of your possession shall ye
grant a redemption for the land."
Even as we begin the process of redemp-
tion and renewal for our land, we are ob-
structed by those who have forgotten that
the land and all that is thereon is Thine,
and that our civilization is a monument, not
to rugged individualism, but to responsible
individuals, to the accumulated rewards of
generations of collective effort by countless
human beings.
We are perverted by our own passion for
self-indulgence which has produced cities
without citizens, communities without com-
municants, and neighborhoods without
neighbors. We substitute idolatrous devo-
tion to manmade theories of supply and
demand for divine commandments to devote
the earth's abundant supply to the demands
and needs of our fellow men.
Give us the insight, 0 Lord, to know that
man's spiritual needs cannot be Isolated
from his physical needs, that the real blight
of our time is not the slum but the society
which tolerates the alum, not the unem-
ployed but the society Which passively ac-
cepts human stultification, not the inade-
quate provisions for the elderly, but the in-
adequate vision which falls to see that "they
shall still bring forth fruit in old age"
(Psalms 92: 15), not, the substandard hous-
ing, but the substandard society which stops
short of guaranteeing dignity to every human
being.
Instill in its. 0 Lord, the will to fu.fill the
words of the Psalmist:
"Except am Lord keep the cit..,1
The watchman waketh but in Nam;
Except the Lord build the houso
They labsr in vain that build t"
,:Psalms 127: 1.
Congress 'ihould Act Promptly on
Presif eat's Poverty Plan
EXTEN. ;ION OF REMARK 3
OF
HON. JOE L. EVINS
OP TENNESSEE
IN THE H013:3E OF REPRESENTATNES
Wedneiday, March 11, 1964
Mr. EialsIE Mr. Speaker, President
Johnson's pr :tposed plan to pro-Tide a
Job Corps to put 100,000 idle youths to
work in more Ilan 100 camps aronid the
country is meeting with widespread ac-
ceptance and approval. Prompt action
on this propoal and the President's war
on poverty program has been en lorsed
and urged in many areas by the Press
and the public.
The Nash r Ile Tennessean, a great
news journal If my State, in an editorial
of March 17, :964, has called for prompt
action on this program, and under unani-
mous consent I include this editoial at
this point in ti-c Appendix of the RECORD:
CONGRESS SHOUID ACT SOON ON POVERT PLAN
President Janson has submitted to Con-
gress his progra.n for reducing poverty in the
Nation. The pan submitted Is no hslfway
measure. It ea: is for a massive attack on the
causes of poverai rather than merely Al the
symptoms.
The Presiden: set the pace for this type of
effort when I asked Congress fcr the
weapons with which -to win a "total rctory"
in the war against poverty.
Mr. Johnson inked for approval of "Job
Corps" eventually to put 100,000 youths to
work in more than 100 camps acorn .d the
country. Abou: half of these would v,ork in
special conserv..tion projects to give them
work experience. The other 50 percent
would get train..ng, basic education anti work
assignments in the training centers.
Under the w: ole program, almost 1'00,000
underprivileged youth would get a cha ace to
develop skills, continue education, ani find
useful work.
One of the most attractive features of the
plan is the optortunity for each American
community to develop an antipoverty plan to
meet its own problems and receive Federal
aid to carry it ot
The Governmant would also help p Ly the
cost of providing jobs in such places as play-
grounds, librarlos and settlement houses to
youths between 16 and 21 out of scho 1 and
out of work. linother fund would provide
part-time jobs Or students having tc work
their way through college.
Special phases of the program would as-
sist poverty-str.cken farm families, pxtvicle
loans for small businesses to provide more
jobs for low irs-ome workers, and help un-
employed fatheis of needy families to be-
come self-suppcffilng.
The program, which would be ffarrit d out
by a special Office of Economic Opportunity,
in cootdination with other governmei t de-
partments, obviously is the result of a great
deal of plannine and research Into flu pov-
erty pockets of toe Nation.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FetadkaftWAC/kEttgkrp_pfWgiO3R000500050001-9
peace of the world and the prevention of
Communist revolutionary of all of Latin
America and the West Indies are at stake
and must be accepted as factors in the
Panama Canal equation.
The text of the indicatbd statement of
President Johnson follows:
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 19641
REMARKS BY JOHNSON ON PANAMA SITUATION
(The White House transcript of President
Johnson's remarks on Panama, during his
Alliance for Progress speech)
Let me now depart for a moment from
my main theme to speak of the differences
that have developed between Panama and
the United States.
Our own position is clear and it has been
from the first hour that we learned of the
disturbances. The United States will meet
with Panama anytime, anywhere, to discuss
anything, to work together to cooperate
with each other, to reason with one another,
to review anll to consider All of our prob-
lems together, to tell each other all our
opinions, all our desires, and all our con-
cerns, and to aim at solutions and answers
that are fair and just and equitable without
regard to the size or the strength or the
wealth of either nation.
We don't ask Panama to make any pre-
commitments before we meet, and we in-
tend to make none. Of course, we cannot
begin on this work until diplomatic rela-
tions are resumed, but the United States is
ready today, if Panama is ready. As of this
moment, I do not believe that there has
been a genuine meeting of the minds be-
tween the two Presidents of the two coun-
tries involved.
Press reports indicate that the Government
of Panama feels that the language which has
been under consideration for many days
commits the United States to a rewriting
and to a revision of the 1903 treaty. We
have made no such commitment and we
would not think of doing so before diplo-
matic relations are resumed and unless a
fair and satisfactory adjustment is agreed
upon.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S POSITION
ON PANAMA IS FAIR AND SOUND
(Mr. ABERNETHY asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I
desire to associate myself with and com-
mend my colleague, Mr. FLOOD, on his
remarks. I call attention to and applaud
the President's remarks regarding
Panama made March 16 in his Alliance
for Progress speech. The position of the
U.S. Government, laid down by the
President, is fair and sound. He said, in
summary, "We are ready to talk but we
will not make any advance commit-
ments."
The President's statement had the
quality of resoluteness that has been
lacking following previous Latin inci-
dents. It was this very lack of firmness,
combined with excessive toleration of
insults and assaults heaped upon us
throughout Latin America which, in my
opinion, brought on the present
Panamanian crisis. Stated bluntly, our
actions tended to mislead Panama into
thinking she could take over the canal
or at least rewrite the treaty of 1903 on
her terms. We kept giving on small
issues which may have led Panama to
believe that we would give on the big ones
too.
We have no apologies to make to
Panama and no restitution is called for.
We have fulfilled our obligations honor-
ably and generously. Our association
with Panama over the years has been
mutually beneficial and generally bene-
ficial to the entire world.
It is important for everyone to know
that we have paid our way in Panama.
While some find it distasteful to point to
mundane money matters, it is a cold
cruel world we live in and money matters
are highly significant in the affairs of
men and nations.
Direct annual payments of $250,000
were paid to Panama for U.S. rights in
perpetuity in the 10-mile-wide strip be-
ginning 9 years after ratification of the
original treaty of 1903. This amount
was paid annually until 1936 when such
payments were increased to $430,000 per
year, made retroactive to the 1934 pay-
ment. In fiscal year 1957 the payment
was raised to $1,930,000 of which $430,-
000 is reimbursed to the U.S. Treasury
by the Panama Canal Company. The
other $1,500,000 is appropriated annu-
ally by Congress.
In 1903 a lump-sum payment of $10
million was given to Panama by the U.S.
Government.
Thus, from 1903 through 1963 the
United States has made direct payments
of over $175 million to Panama for the
canal.
Under the terms of the 1955 Treaty
of Mutual Understanding and Coopera-
tion the United States agreed to trans-
fer to the Government of Panama cer-
tain U.S.-owned property outside the
Canal Zone, which property was valued
at about $24 million. We also agreed to
construct a high-level bridge costing $20
million across the canal at Balboa to
speed Panamanian traffic. The property
transfer involved schools, hospitals, rail-
road yards, military reservations and
extensive residental construction. The
Thatcher Ferry Bridge was completed in
1962.
In addition to the direct payments
which I have enumerated, millions of
U.S. dollars flow out of the Canal Zone
and into the mainstream of the Pana-
manian economy indirectly through U.S.
agencies, the Canal Company, contrac-
tors, and private organizations such as
shipping agents, clubs, churches, oil com-
panies, banks and employee associations.
Salaries of non-U.S. citizens employed
In the Canal Zone amounted to $33 mil-
lion in 1962. Retirement and disability
benefits paid by the Canal Company to
Panama residents amounted to another
$3.5 million.
Direct purchases by U.S. Government
agencies in the Republic of Panama
totaled $11.8 million in 1962. Purchases
of goods in Panama by private organiza
tions in the Canal Zone added anothe
$4.4 million. Contractors' purchases of
goods and services reached a value Of
$10.6 million. And U.S. citizens em-'
ployed in the Canal Zone spend ancither
$20 million yearly in the Republic of
Panama.
Altogether these indirect payments to
the Republic of Panama amounted to
about $82,465,000 in 1962.
5377
U.S. foreign aid granted to the Gov-
ernment of Panama amounted to $63
million between July 1, 1945, and Decem-
ber 31, 1962.
The World Bank has loaned a total of
$18,047,000 for use in agricultural de-
velopment, electric power, and highway
improvement.
Finally, American investments in
Panama are substantial. U.S. private in-
vestments were estimated at $328 million
in 1960, over half of which was in oil
tanker and shipping operations. This
was estimated to be about half of the
total capital invested in Panama; the
other half being 48 percent Panamanian
and 2 percent other foreign, mainly
French.
The Republic of Panama would not
have been born except for the U.S. deter-
mination to build the canal. We were
both mother and midwife, and we nursed
the infant nation through childhood to
maturity. We have sustained her eco-
nomically, politically and militarily
through all the years of her life.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in
our relations with Panama. We have
the right and the obligation to continue
the treaty of 1903 and our control of the
canal.
(Mr. FEIGHAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[Mr. FEIGHAN'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
CORRECTION OF ROLLOALL
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr.
Speaker, on rollcall No. 68 I am recorded
as being absent. I was, in fact, present
and answered to my name. I ask unani-
mous consent that the RECORD and the
Journal be corrected accordingly.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Cali-
fornia?
There was no objection.
4
FEDERAL PAY INCREASE
(Mr. SNYDER (at the request of Mr.
BEERMANN) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.)
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, in yes-
terday's Evening Star ? it was reported
that President Johnson has written to
the leadership of the Congress to the ef-
fect that he needs the Federal pay in-
crease in order to attract more quali-
fied people in responsible positions in
the Government. I wonder, Mr. Speak-
er, if the President would be kind enough
to name for us the unqualified people
that he has been unable to replace boa)
cause of insufficient pay.
THE CHAF`F THAT CHAFES
(Mr. HORTON (at the request of Mr.
BEERMANN) WM granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, my op-
position to the sale of U.S. agricultural
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5378 Approved For Rtlep,Tting?ftlaii qmisittbuicymgypoo50005000i -9 March 18
commodities to the Communist bloc Is
a matter of record. I have repeatedly
opposed these transactions.
Earlier this month, I addressed the
House and reaffirmed my belief that the
sale of our wheat to Russia is contrary
to our national interest. The sale is in-
defensible on economic grounds since we
have granted credit to Khrushchev on
these purchases, and, thus, obviated any
chance of turning the gold outflow tide.
The sale is indefensible for security rea-
sons since wheat can be turned to alco-
hol, a prime ingredient in munitions and
missile fuel. The sale is indefensible for
International policy purposes since it
makes a mockery of our avowed inten-
tion to use peaceful means for the defeat
of communism.
Now, I find the sale of wheat to Russia
is having an alarming consequence for
the thousands of American industries
who rely on railroad shipments and de-
liveries and the millions of men and
women employed by those industries. A
critical shortage of rail cars for domes-
tic shipping has developed from the di-
version of these cars for wheat ship-
ments to coastal ports.
Mr. Speaker, this shortage of rail cars
is having a pronounced impact on the
36th Congressional District, which I rep-
resent. A fertilizer manufacturer, for
example, fears that he will not be able to
meet his production schedules because
the raw materials essential to his indus-
try are shipped by rail from the mines
and chemical companies. Certain weekly
newspapers in my district report these
shippers have warned their customers
that major wheat shipments destined for
foreign delivery are tieing up thousands
of rail cars.
If the raw materials cannot be shipped
because of two few available rail cars,
economic havoc will occur for the shipper
who loses customers, for the manufactur-
er who loses customers, for the farmer
who loses customers, and for the consum-
er who will have to pay a higher price for
a smaller supply of farm goods. And,
we should not forget that at every step in
this chain of chaos, there will be men and
women whose employment is jeopardized.
Mr. Speaker, the Interstate Commerce
Commission?ICC?has indicated its
awareness of the present problem. In
fact, the ICC reported to the Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee:
Undoubtedly, any upsurge of grain move-
ments stemming from transactions with the
Union of Soviet Socialists Republics or any
Soviet bloc country would greatly increase
the demand for boxcars and obviously ag-
gravate the present and Increasingly acute
baxcar shortage.
Because of the gravity surrounding
this situation. I feel Congress should
record itself as favoring priority for the
rail transportation requirements of do-
mestic shippers. I believe it should be
expressed as the sense of Congress that
the ICC not require the use of the rail
carriers' equipment and facilities for the
movement of grain to be shipped to our
Communist foes, unless all other domes-
tice transportation needs have been met.
Mr. Speaker, an appropriate resolution.
House Concurrent Resolution 228, has
been introduced by the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CEDER-
BERG] and now is pending before the
House Committee on Interstate and For-
eign Commerce. I wish to announce that
I enthusiastically endorse this measure
and am pledged to its passage.
Further, I want to appeal to the ICC to
take immediate steps to assure that suf-
ficient railroad cars are available for the
use of domestic shippers. Certainly, this
Federal agency has a responsibility to do
all it can to prevent the unemployment
and lost business which will result. if these
shipments cannot be made..
The rail car shortage is the "straw that
breaks the camel's back"?or, more ap-
propriately, the "chaff that chafes."
FOREIGN TRADE
(Mr. WEAVER (at the request of Mr.
BEERMANN), was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD, and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Speaker, a favor-
able balance of foreign trade depends
upon mutual respect and consideration
by each of the countries involved. The
problems of increasing imports and de-
creasing competitive export opportuni-
ties has been evident in the steel, meat,
and electrical transformer industries.
In the case of the forthcoming GATT
conferences. I have submitted to the re-
spective Chairman of the U.S. Tariff
Commission and the Trade Information
Committee, a letter which puts forth my
views on this basic problem. It is indeed
essential because of the industries' im-
portance to the domestic economy that
U.S. duties on products of elec-
trical manufacture should be reduced
only in consideration of equally favorable
foreign concessions on the same products.
The foreign nontariff barriers have an
even more restrictive influence on Amer-
ican exports of electrical manufacture
than under tariffs. It is, therefore, nec-
essary that the United States make clear
in the GATT conferences that it believes
that such barriers are inconsistent with
the purposes of that conference and that
an expert adviser on electrical products
be a member of that negotiating team.
The following is the text of my letter:
The Honorable BEN Doerasaar,
Chairman, U.S. Tariff Commission,
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable W. H. Roan,
Chairman, Trade Information Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MESSRS. DORFMAN' AND RODD: A
number of large plants manufacturing
electrical apparatus are located in the
congressional district which I represent.
These plants, the employment they pro-
vide. the products they make, and the
research and development they conduct,
are of the greatest importance to the econ-
omy of this region of Pennsylvania and of
the United States. I have reviewed the eco-
nomic information they have submitted to
the Tariff Commission and to the Trade In-
formation Committee In connection with
the forthcoming GATT negotiations. I com-
mend this Industry for endorsing the pur-
poses of the Trade Agreements Act of 11162.
and I sincerely hope that the Tariff Com-
mission (Trade Information Committee) can
accept the recommendations of the Ameri-
can electrical manufacturing Industry?
namely, that the U.S. negotiators at Geneva
insist upon obtaining meaningful, actual op-
portunity for American electrical manufac-
turers to sell ti- sir products to electrie utili-
ties and heavy manufacturing concerns In
Europe. European tariff and nontaril bar-
riers and the rationalistic buying pr ictices
of the Common Market and other Eumpean
countries' government-owned or controlled
electrical utilita systems constitute en un-
fair discritninallon against Americar elec-
trical manufacturers. I am convinced that
unless such ba.Tlers are broken dean and
unless this Ind stry is accorded mear ingful
opportunity to compete in the Eu?opean
markets on th'' basis of the perfornanee.
quality, and price of their products, it would
be the greatest folly to reduce An.erican
tariffs on heavj electrical apparatus since
this action would principally benefit Euro-
pean and Japanese electrical manufacturers.
The widespread use of electricity by all
segments of ou: population and in vi:tually
all American fs :tortes, at the world's lowest
rates, has been a significant factor in giving
us the highest standard of living elad the
highest producAvity In the world. Tle con-
tinuing availability of reliable, inexpensive
electric servic: throughout the United
States could never have been achieved
without the prpgressive operations and re-
search and development carried on ay the
American elect teal equipment manu'actur-
Ing industry, a ad it must remain viable if
our country is to maintain its economic
progress.
I urge the 'I triff Commission (Trade In-
formation Corr =Mee) to consider Vats in-
dustry's problems with the greatest ympa-
thetic care and Mention.
LIVERMORE FALLS DAM?OP ?OSI-
TION ECHOES IN THE WEST
(Mr. CLEINLAND (at the request of
Mr. BEERMANT, ) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this pcint in
the REcoae end to include extreneous
matter.)
Mr. CLE".'ELAND. Mr. Speaker,
throughout tie West there is rising op-
position to unneeded Federal dam proj-
ects which destroy existing economic de-
velopment ar J. ruin scenic beauty. In
New Hamps lire we are also being
threatened with a Federal dam project
that premiers propose to foist upon us
despite its ummitability and the opposi-
tion of loca. citizens. The proposed
Livermore Dam, which I oppos,3 and
concerning waich I have spoken Lie last
2 clays?CONCRESSIONAL RECORD, March
16, page 5121; March 17, page 3330?
would perhars ruin the econom-c and
community iife of the entire upper
Pemigews-sser Valley in New Ham.)shire.
By delaying Poute 93 it is a threat to the
entire north ::ountrY.
More Americans should join in saying
"No" to indiscriminate public works
planners and spenders as an increasing
number of citizens are now doing. I con-
gratulate the people from the 1[. com-
munities in New Hampshire who are
fighting to sive their area from Vie un-
necessary ii ivasion of the Federal
Government.
I commend to my colleagues' atten-
tion an artiele, "Where Money From
Washington Is Being Turned Down,"
from the Merch 16 issue of U.S. News
& World Reyort which tells abeut the
heartening resistance in the West to the
Federal dam builders:
WHERE MC REY PROM WASHINGTON IS
Bs.Nu TURNED DOWN
(The West, long prone to view Wash-
ington as the 'wellspring of plenty, it taking
another look.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
United States
of America
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 88th CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
Vol. 110
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1964
No. 50
House of Representatives
fro-41
The House met at 12 o'clock noon.
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D.D., offered the following prayer:
Psalm 145: 9: The Lord is good to all:
and His tender mercies are over all His
works.
Almighty God, as we daily meditate
upon Thy goodness, may we have a
greater faith in the sovereignty of Thy
divine love which is redeeming in its
purpose and power.
May, we be emancipated from all self-
ish and sordid desires to have the good
things of life for our own satisfaction
and security instead of sharing them
with the poor and needy.
Inspire the soul of humanity to be
lifted out of the fret and jar of life into
that free and peaceful atmosphere where
all shall be striving for justice and right-
eousness, for truth and love.
Grant that we may be obedient to Thy
moral and spiritual laws which are a
command and a challenge to our better
self, and sending us down upon our knees
in reverence and bidding us to rise and
go forward, never again to doubt or be
afraid.
Hear us in Christ's name. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the Presi-
dent of the United States was communi-
cated to the House by Mr. Ratchford, one
of his secretaries.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr.
Arrington, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed without
amendment bills of the House of the
following titles:
H.R. 1759. An act for the relief of Rebecca
K. Clayton;
H.R. 2189. An act for the relief of Morris
Aronow and other employees of the Post
Office Department;
H.R. 2724. An act for the relief of Davey
Ellen Snider Siegel;
H.R. 4681. An act for the relief of CWO
James A. McQuaig;
HR. 5584. An act for the relief of Capt.
Ransom C. Aplin;
H.R. 6748. An act for the relief of the J. D.
Wallace & Co., Inc.;
H.R. 828b. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Annette M. Rasor and Dr. Robert W. Rasor;
HR. 8470. An act for the relief of War-
ren A. Jeffers and Francis H. Leik; and
H.R. 8930. An act for the relief of certain
employees of the Bureau of Indian Afflairs.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed bills of the following
titles, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
5.309. An act for the relief of Lt. Col.
Henry H. Allport, Army of the United States,
retired;
S. 353. An act for the relief of Benjamin A.
Ramelb;
S. 476. An act for the relief of Zenon
Zubieta;
S. 1030. An act for the relief of Sister
Aurora Martin Gelado (also known as Sister
Nieve) ; and
S. 1999. An act for the relief of Francisco
Navarro-Paz,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINES AND
MINING OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcom-
mittee on Mines and Mining of the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs be
permitted to sit during general debate
today.
FEDERAL EM1ALOYEE PAY RAISE
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, the
President's plug for the pay raise bill re-
jected by the House last week twists
logic as well as arms.
He says that failure to vote the pay
raise will "jeopardize increases in mili-
tary pay which I have recommended to
keep Armed Forces pay generally in line
with nonmilitary salary."
This line of reasoning leaves me con-
fused.
It seems to say that we must raise the
pay of civilian Federal employees so that
we can vote a second pay raise for the
Armed Forces so that the Armed Forces
pay will be kept in line with the pay of
the civilian employees which the Presi-
dent.wants us to increase.
This is not the only assault on logic
contained in the President's- remarkable
statement.
He indicates we will economize by
spending more, that we will get a better
class of "managers" by raising the pay
of the managers we now have, and re-
lieve Members of Congress of the em-
barassment of voting a $5 million pay
increase for themselves by voting a $540
million pay raise for everyone else.
If this be logic, it must at least be
admitted that it carries a high price tag j
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Lfz_the taxpayers.
the request of the gentleman from Colo-
rado?
There was no objection.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NASA OVER-
SIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Subcom-
mittee on NASA Oversight of the Com-
mittee on Science and Astronautics be
Permitted to sit during general debate
today.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
[Roll No. 71]
Bass Clawson, Del Dowdy
Blatnik Colmer Edwards
Buckley Curtis Fallon
Carey Davis, Tenn. Finnegan
5347
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5348 Approved For ReigmgaitMIWALCIketvianBil0EIRW0500050001-9
Forrester Karth Olsen, Mont.
Fu I ton. Tenn. Kee Powell
Gray Lankford Rains
Hagan, Ga. Lloyd Roberts. Ala.
Halpern McIntire Rogers, Tex.
Harvey, Mich. Macdonald Rooney, N.Y.
Hemphill Martin, Calll. Roosevelt
Hoffman Martin. Mass. Roykal
Jarman Minstiall Schadeberg
Johnson. Pa. Mother Stephens
Jones, Ala. Murray Willis
Karsten O'Brien. Ill.
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 383
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
THE CHICAGO DF.I.EGATION
i Mr. O'HARA of Illinois asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
the Chicago delegation under the guid-
ance and inspiration of our beloved Tom
O'Bareer- has made a reputation in this
House for sympathetic understanding of
the problems of our colleagues from
other areas and, understanding their
problems, always we have cooperated.
Mr. Speaker, I am now speaking for
the solid delegation from Chicago. We
feel that an injury has been done us by
one of the great committees of this
House. We are not criticizing the com-
mittee. We think that the committee,
pressed for time, was too easy in ap-
proving a payment of $5 million for the
vanity of one stupid general.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the committee will
give- the Chicago Members ample time
during general debate to present our case
to the membership of this body, and we
ask that our colleagues from the other
States listen to our presentation. Then
if in good conscience you can vote with
us we assure you of our appreciation.
Five million dollars is a pretty steep
price to pay for the vanity of any in-
dividual. even a general who was edu-
cated at taxpayers expense and then out-
grew the people who footed the bill.
Five million dollars is just the starting
figure.
TREASURY-POST OFFICE APPRO-
PRIATION BILL, 1965
Mr. GARY. Mr. Speaker. I ask unani-
mous consent that the Committee on
Appropriations may have until midnight,
Friday. March 20. 1964, to file a report
on the Treasury-Post Office appropria-
tion bill for 1965.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Vir-
ginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MICHEL reserved all points of
order.
REPORT OF ACTIVITY UNDER AU-
THORITY OF PUBLIC LAW 875?
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC.
NO. 249)
The SPEAKER laid before the House
the following message from the Presi-
dent of the United States, which was
read, and, together with accompanying
papers, referred to the Committee on
Public Works:
To the Congress of the United States:
I have the honor to send to the Con-
gress a report of activity under authority
of Public Law 875, 81st Congress, as
amended, and required by section 8 of
such law.
Funds which have been appropriated
to accomplish the Federal assistance de-
termined ellgible under this authority
are specifically appropriated to the Pres-
ident for purposes of disaster relief.
LYNDON a JOHNSON.
THS Wrirra Holm, March 18, 1964.
Federal assistance in major peace-
time disasters is a coordinated operation
under Public Law 875, 81st Congress, as
amended. Public Law 875, popularly
known as the Federal Disaster Act, gives
the President broad powers to supple-
ment the efforts and available resources
of States and local governments in
carrying out their responsibilities to al-
leviate suffering and damage resulting
from major disasters.
A "major disaster" is any flood,
drought, fire, hurricane, earthquake,
storm or other catastrophe which in the
determination of the President is of suffi-
cient severity and magnitude to warrant
Federal assistance.
When, in his determination, condi-
tions warrant the declaration of a major
disaster, the President is authorized to
call upon the services of such elements
of the Federal Establishment as may be
necessary to provide disaster assistance;
to coordinate the disaster activities of
Federal agencies; and to direct any Fed-
eral agency to perform certain types of
service not authorized under such
agency's normal authority.
The Federal Disaster Act requires the
Governor of a State to certify to the
President the need for Federal assist-
ance and provide assurance of the ex-
penditure of a reasonable amount of the
funds of the State and local govern-
ments in combating the effects of dis-
aster. To insure that the Federal Gov-
ernment does not carry the entire bur-
den of disaster relief, the Governor is
required to certify that the total expend-
itures and obligations for disaster relief,
in that disaster and all other disasters
during the 12-month period preceding
the request for assistance, meet or ex-
ceed an amount published in the Federal
Register as the minimum for that State.
In accordance with authority granted
the President in section 5(b) of Public
Law 81-875 to exercise any power or au-
thority conferred on him by the act
through such Federal agency as he may
designate the President has delegated
responsibility for administration of the
Federal disaster assistance program to
the Office of Emergency Planning. Ex-
ecutive Orders 10427, 10737 and 11051
give the Director of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning the authority to coor-
dinate and direct the activities of
Federal agencies in providing Federal
disaster assistance to State and local gov-
eriunents and to administer funds for
disaster relief made available by con-
gressional appropriation to the Presi-
dent.
Mar* 18
During ca.endar year 1963, 2C major
disasters wee declared in 17 States.
Guam and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islar es under the autherity of
Public Law 11-875. The President au-
thorized allocations in the ameunt of
$13,625,000 fcr use in these disasters. In
addition, initial and supplemental allo-
cations in tae amount of $16.051,000
were made f ar eight disasters oceurring
in 1962. A total of $29,676,000 W AS allo-
cated from t: te President's disaster fund
in 1963. Tie allocations provided for
performing r rotective work essential for
the preserve ;ion of life and property,
performing ? mergency health and sani-
tation measures, clearing delmes and
wreckage, aid making emergercy re-
pairs and temporary replacement of es-
sential public facilities of States and lo-
cal governments damaged or deetroyed
in such major disasters, including provi-
sions for temporary housing or emer-
gency shelter.
In the sprrig widespread flocating in
the Appalact Ian area affected Georgia.
Kentucky, Teanessee, Virginia and West
Virginia. The territory of Guam, which
was severely damaged by Typhoon Karen
in the fall of 1962, was struck a second
time in April 1963. The second storm,
Typhoon 011i a, also affected the islands
of Tinian, Rota and Saipan in the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands. In both
territories, the Office of Emergency
Planning has assigned primary responsi-
bility for the anergency repair and tem-
porary replac ?anent of damaged public
facilities to tI e Department of the Navy.
The Federa t disaster assistance regu-
lations were a mended during the e ear to
improve proc -elures for the deter mina-
(don and certilcation of State and local
expenditures for disaster relief. The
amendment, by requiring that the Gov-
ernor's certification of expenditures con-
tain a breakd Dwn of such expenditures
into specified '3ategories, will assist both
the States and the Office of Emergency
Planning in eealuating requests foe Fed-
eral disaster assistance. At the time the
regulations wire amended, the Once of
Emergency Planning also announced a
modest upwarel adjustment for all 3tates
in the schedu:e of minimum State and
local expenditures required to qualify for
assistance under Public Law 875. Both
the procedure I change and the revised
schedule of re inImum expenditures will
become effecti/e on July 1, 1964.
Substantial gains were made during
1963 in the-deeelopment and distribution
of educational materials on the disaster
program. Geaeral information pam-
phlets outlining the procedures ard re-
quirements for Federal disaster Essist-
ance were pre eared for and distributed
to Members of Congress, Governors and
local government officials. A procedural
manual, the ' OEP Regional Operating
Guide?Natural Disaster Program.' was
prepared for Pederal departmente and
agencies with disaster relief responsi-
bilities; and a "Natural Disaster M Inual
for State and Local Applicants' was
made available to all State and local dis-
aster offices.
There is atte ehed a list showing Presi-
dential declarations of major disasters
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 Approved Featikaaesiffinkeitrpg.pRoA9N3R000500050001-9
5031
tion is to the general interest. The State
commission ordered Motorola, Inc., to cease
subjecting job applicants to its overall abil-
ity test on the finding that the test is
unfair to "culturally deprived and disadvan-
taged groups." The test was compiled and
copyrighted by Prof. Philip Surrager of the
Illinois Institute of Technology in 1949 and,
with some revisions, has been in use since
then. He defined its objective as "not to
exclude Negroes from whites * * * but to
help evaluate the trainability of a prospec-
tive employee * ? ? and I know of no way
to evaluate that a test in itself is discrimi-
natory toward any group."
THE FIRST INSTANCE
Nevertheless, exercising for the first time
an authority over the ability tests an, em-
ployer may use in screening applicants, a
State FEPC examiner ordered Motorola, Inc.,
not only to disuse Surrager's questionnaire,
but to offer a job to a Negro who charged
he was denied a job because of his race. The
Employers Association of Chicago, represent-
ing 1,400 companies in the area, challenged
the order. And, in announcing that Motor-
ola, Inc., would appeal the action "all the
way to the Supreme Court if necessary," its
attorney said:
"The question at hand is whether an em-
ployer in Illinois is going to be permitted
to set the educational, moral, and aptitude
standards for its employees, or whether the
State will dictate the standards." If title
VII survives the Senate debate, the scope of
this "question at hand" will spread from
Illinois to the Nation. Meanwhile, the at-
torneys for Motorola, Inc., have contended
that the company cannot depend on a fair
hearing of its rebuttal because the hearing
officer designated by the commission is a
Negro.
The company's finding that the applicant
had not passed the Surrager test is compli-
cated, so far as his particular case is con-
cerned, by the announcement of the Illinois
FEPC that he passed it on reexamination in
its own offices. But, in commenting on the
examiner's order, the Chicago Tribune
stated the issue in its broad perspective,
The examiner had also ruled that the
questions in the test did not take into ac-
count "inequalities and differences in en-
vironment," thereby favoring the "advan-
taged groups." This, said the Tribune, "may
be reduced to the absurdity that any test
acceptable to the FEPC would be one which
brought out no distinction whatsoever
among competing applicants. How then is
an employer to develop any basis for making
a choice. So here the doctrine is enunciated
that a political appointee is going to dictate
to business [its] standards of selection."
1Q)j)L
service employees. At best the provi-
sions contained in H.RQLwsuld have
brought salaries o os al and other civil
service employees up to a par with those
being received by persons in comparable
positions in private Industry 2 years ago.
Many of our Federal employees hold
two jobs now in order to make up this
deficit and to better provide for their
families. Adequate pay raises will in-
sure not only that their families will be
better provided for, but also will give
well-deserved recognition for the impor-
tant duties they perform in the opera-
tion of our Government.
It seems to me only equitable and fair
that Federal salaries should be brought
Into line with those paid by private in-
dustry, and that those who are really
in need and are deserving of an increase
should not be prejudiced by the defeat
of this measure in the other body, which
undoubtedly came about because there
was attached to it the inexcusable effort
to increase salaries of Members of
Congress.
In my opinion before serious consid-
eration is given to raising the salaries
of Representatives and Senators service
in the Congress must be made a full-
time job for both Members and em-
ployees. The disclosures in the Rules
Committee investigation to date, apart
from any question of wrongdoing, make
it obvious that this is not now the situa-
tion.
Conflict of interest legislation appli-
cable to Members and employees must
be approved and archaic and unfair
rules and procedures of Congress must
be completely revised. Then, we will be
in a better position to ask the American
people for a raise and that request
should stand or fall on its own merits.
I believe that there are votes in both
the Senate and the other body to enact
a bill which would provide an increase
for post office and civil service employ-
ees now and that the votes are not here
and should not be here or in the other
body at this time to give a raise to Mem-
bers of Congress.
It is my hope that the House Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
and the appropriate committee in the
Senate, will give early thought and at-
tion to the favorable report of a bill
give a much deserved pay increase to
our postal and other civil service em-
ployees.
PAY INCREASE FOR POST OFFICE
AND CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, the de-
feat by the other body of a combined pay
raise for postal and civil service em-
ployees'and Members of Congress will be
a sad blow to thousands of civil service
and postal employees around the coun-
try. They need this extra money and
were counting on it but have lost out by
an unconscionable attempt to include
congressional salary increases in the
same bill.
In my judgment, it was a mistake to
try to attach a provision to an omni-
bus Federal pay increase bill to raise
the salaries of Members of Congress.
That issue should stand or fall by itself.
It should not be attached to a meritori-
ous and much needed effort to give an
increase to our postal and other civil
WALTER F. WILLCOX?A FIGHTER
FOR APPORTIONMENT
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, be-
hind the decisionmaking process of Gov-
ernment lie many unsung heroes, one of
whom is Prof. Walter F. Willcox, of
Ithaca, N.Y., a longtime professor at
Cornell University, whose firm dedica-
tion to obtaining scientifically appor-
tioned and equitable representation in
the House of Representatives culminated
in the recent Supreme Court decision.
For many years, Professor Willcox has
campaigned for this too often ignored, if
not forgotten, provision of the Consti-
tution.
On a number of occasions I have had
the privilege of talking with Professor
Willcox and enjoyed the opportunity to
hear his views.
Professor Willcox is a distinguished,
able, and alert man who, I am proud to
say, this month with celebrate his 103d
birthday. He is a remarkable man. His
determined efforts to insure that one
man's vote equals another's were in no
small part responsible for the recent
Supreme Court decision, which goes to
the very roots of our system of repre-
sentative government.
I take this opportunity to congratulate
Professor Willcox, and to wish him
health, happiness, and success in the
future. As a fighter for equal represen-
tation, he deserves the gratitude of every
American.
HIGH-SPEED PHOTOCOMPOSITION
Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, the
Joint Committee on Printing, of which I
am chairman, has this week authorized
the Public Printer and the Department
of the Air Force to acquire high-speed
electronic conversion units for use in
connection with the output of automatic
data processing equipment.
The increasing volume of copy which is
being generated by automatic data proc-
essing equipment is generally unsatis-
factory for printing without being con-
verted. Wastage of paper, unnecessary
printing and binding costs, and poor
typographical quality result when such
copy is used for printing unless it is con-
verted to a more suitable form by type-
setting or other means.
The unit approved for the Air Force
is planned for installation at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton,
to contribute much to the responsive
needs of the Air Force for stock lists and
other publications. The unit approved
for acquisition by the Public Printer will
enable the Government Printing Office in
Washington to convert data which it re-
ceives from numerous departments and
agencies into a satisfactory format for
printing.
For purposes of explanation, I ask
unanimous consent to insert in the REC-
ORD, the statement of the Joint Commit-
tee on Printing which was issued at its
meeting of March 10,1964.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
The Joint Committee on Printing today
announced its approval of two requests for
authority to purchase high-speed photo-
composing systems to augment the composi-
tion facilities of the Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., and Wright-Patter-
son Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. The cost
of both installations is expected to be
amortized through savings in less than 11/2
years.
The authorization action is a significant
milestone in a program which began on April
10, 1962, when the Joint Committee on
Printing requested the Public Printer to in-
stitute a research and development program
designed to overcome constantly growing
waste stemming from material produced by
high-speed printers on automatic data
processing equipment.
Pursuant to that request, the Public Print-
er created the position of Electronic Printing
Research Officer and, subsequently, the GPO-
Departmental Electronic Printing Committee
was formed.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved Foraiekaggpaf.M8iEMBF'16?glia013F000500050001-9 March 13
5032
The basic conclusions of that committee
confirmed the original view of the Joint
Committee on Printing that computer gen-
erated copy results in excessive wastage in
paper, presswork, and binding operations, as
well as poor typographic quality.
Six contractors responded to a Govern-
ment Printing Office request for a proposal
for a high-speed photocomposer and, fol-
lowing careful evaluation, it was determined
that only the Mergenthaler Linotype Co.
was fully responsive to all the terms of the
request.
The Government Printing Office system
calls for the capability to produce high qual-
ity, automatically justified text matter. The
Mr Force system will include not only that,
but also graphical matter such as line and
half-tone illustrations with proper position
correlation between the two kinds of mate-
rial. Both systems will be basically com-
patible.
A photocomposing speed of 600 characters
per second is achieved by the use of a single
linotron?the off-line, magnetic-tape, high-
speed photocomposer developed by Mergen-
thaler Linotype Co. working in cooperation
with CBS Laboratories. This high-speed
composition will be delivered in the form
of negatives of graphic arts quality suitable
for use In the production printing of pub-
lications required by the Federal Govern-
ment.
The Government Printing Office installa-
tion is expected to become operational
within approximately 2 years and the Air
Force installation within approximately 9
years. The pioneer work which demon-
strated the practicability of the system re-
sulted from a contract initiated by the Mr
Force during 1902.
OUR ONCE PROUD BROTHER: THE
AMERICAN INDIAN
Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. President, I
would like to bring to the attention of
my colleagues in the Senate and excel-
lent sermon delivered by the Reverend
Robert Zoerheide at Cedar Lane Uni-
tarian Church on Sunday, March 8,
1964.
The sermon, entitled "Our Once Proud
Brother: The American Indian," elo-
quently focuses our attention on the
plight of the Seneca Indians who will
lose their homes anci reservation lands
as the Kinzua Dam nears completion.
Reverend Zoerheide's sermon deserves
great praise, and I solemnly hope that
all those who are concerned with the
problems of a much abused minority in
our great Nation, the American Indian,
will read this sermon.
I ask unanimous consent that the ser-
mon be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sermon
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
OUR ONCE PROUD BROTHER: THE AMERICAN
INDIAN
Bill HR. 1794 now before Congress seeks
to provide $19 million from our taxes for
compensation, and to aid the social and
economic development of the Seneca Indians
who will lose their homes and reservation
lands as the Etna-us Dam nears comple-
tion.
In 1794, a year coincident to the num-
ber of this bill, we made a treaty with the
Seneca Nation which read: "The United
States will never claim (your lands), nor dis-
turb the Seneca Nation, nor any of the six
nations, or of their Indian friends residing
thereon and united with them, in the free
use and enjoyment threof: but It shall re-
main theirs, until they chose to sell the
same to the people of the United States, who
have the right to purchase."
The railroads displaced have already been
paid. The Pennsylvania received over $20
million 3 years ago for a few miles of right-
of-way. As 1964 began, not a Federal dime
has been received for the relocation of Seneca
Indian families.
History returns upon us in this hour.
John Collier, former U.S. Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, and one of our most reliable
authorities, wrote a book called "Indians of
America, the Long Hope." The ffret sen-
tence of that book is electric with meaning:
"They had what the world has lost." The
author goes on to identify this lost In-
gredient: "the deep cause of our world agony
is that we have loot that passion and rev-
erence for human personality and for the
web of life and the earth which the Amer-
ican Indians have tended as a central sacred
fire since before the stone age. It Ls our
only long hope."
Compare this with the "Tomahawk" ads
for TV and movies! We have a curious way
of portraying those things as savage which
we do not understand. The long tragic
history of suffering, by American Indians.
as a minority group, is well known but rele-
gated to small print and back pages because
they have been considered to be politically
unimportant.
A recent annual report of the Unitarian
Service Committee gives an account of our
off-reservation Navajo community center at
Wingate Village, near Gallup, N. Mex.. and
points out that these displaced persons.
Within our own land, have the most rapidly
growing population in the world in spite of
shockingly high infant mortality.
When we do think of our misdeeds against
the Indians we tend to review the see-saw
of mutual guilt and bloodshed, the destruc-
tion of life and of property on both sides.
The case for conscience is far more serious.
When we came to these lands and cleared
them of so-called Indian savages, we com-
mitted a WHIM social crime?all too common
in those less enlightened years, but only
now are we beginning to see what it was
we really did destroy. and still do in tile
instance of the Senecas.
Centuries of culture among the American
Indians had developed human relations so
highly that Collier's studies have led him
to say: "I think no institutional achieve-
ment of mankind exceeds it in either wisdom
or intelligence?accepting the limits of Its
time and place." Collier was speaking of
the Iroquois Confederacy of eve tribes (later
six) formed near the home of the Senecas,
who were proud and independent members.
Along with the others of the area, they
agreed to a plan for peace on the condition
that it Include all six nations. This was
taking place here long before Plymouth was
settled.
Will Rogers enjoyed reminding the proud
descendants of the Mayflower company that
his ancestors met the Pilgrims on the shore.
His ancestors were not in flight from their
culture.
The Iroquois Confederacy became a real-
ity about the middle of the 16th century
through the remarkable strength and wis-
dom of Deganawida. It WU his idea to make
the Onondagas. who were nearest to the
center, the flrekeepers in the proposed league.
While each tribe cast a unit vote through
its chief in the council, the chief of the
Onondagas was the head of the council, the
firekeeper or chairman. In a unanimous
decision by the others, he simply confirmed
the matter?In good group-dynamics fash-
ion?and decisions not unanimous were die-
cusped by the iirekeeper in order to discover
common ground, or, some new solution, The
matter was then remanded to the voting
units. This procedure made of legislative
process a path to discovery rather than dead-
lock The Security Council should take note.
In the "History if the New York Iroqu As,"
the definitive work on the subject. Beau-
champ says; "One feature should not be
overlooked: the rank and great influences
of women ? ? ? the chief women had the
power of naming principal chiefs for their
family or clan. 'Ipeeches are made in the
council for them .3ut not by them, and Red
Jacket was long their speaker. The most
curious testimony- to the high estimaticn of
women is the ole Huron and Iroquois rule,
that for a woman's life the atonement sh mid
be double that of L man."
When the sari,us matter of choosing a
Sachem (or wise .can) to represent the peo-
ple came up, there was employed one o the
finest guides to Lidgment ever set fortn by
a community. The ina.n was chosen "in
whose _presence :I was easiest to arrive at
the truth." Combine this insight with those
formulated about the method for arriving
at a group declaim and there is evident an
Improvement on 'he essence of what wl are
boldly calling t1 a new approach of group
dynamics.
These Amerleat Indians, on this very soil,
fashioned a soca' system for peace that
lasted for over L',)0 years; they developed a
system of greaten/is in human relationships,
one that encouraged individual excellance;
they grew a perscnal and sdcial web relating
man to nature; and, in contrast to our
slaughterhouse :,aethods, they reveree the
very animals the:, killed for their food; they
not only grantee. their women rights, they
also recognized their ability for greatness.
This kinship wit:v nature, workable plen for
peace, utility of group strength, and rever-
ence for the In man personality, may well
"stand today as the most brilliant creation
in the record of man," according tc his-
torian Beauchtarip.
Then came tne so-called civilized white
man.
The tragedy that followed was not nearly
so much the losa of life, as it was the total
destruction of one of the most valuable ways
of life the worle. bad produced. Where to-
day can you fime. an example of similar kin-
ship with nati re and fineness of social
development?
Our soil is crop to can, or, waste in storage.
But for the Innen, the corn he eats is loved
as a member of a family: He sings what
he feels:
"Yellow butterflies,
Over the bloat aming virgin corn.
With pollen-painted faces
Chase one another in brilliant throng.
"Blue butterflies,
Over the blossoming virgin beans.
With pollen-painted faces
Chase one another in brilliant streams."
We tore the Oldish from his lands; thus
we tore the del, rate fabric of his soul. Time
and time agent forced treaties were made
to remove the Enclians for a small psyment
in cash. On ?t,pril 23, 1838, Ralph Waldo
Emerson wrote a letter to President Van
Buren, in whiCi he warned the Chief Execu-
tive that if he approved the removal of the
Cherokee Indio as from Georgia the name of
this Nation, 1,e said, "hitherto the sweet
omen of religion and liberty, will stink to
the world." Will we have an Emerson in
April of 1984, wilt the Senecas?
Out of 18.00C souls composing the Cherokee
Nation, 15,668 protested the so-callen treaty
to deprive them of their lands. They were
nonetheless moved in forced migration. Uni-
tarian Henry Thoreau joined Emerson at a
protest meeting in Concord. Neither man
liked mass prctests, but this outrage really
brought forth 'Malden secluded Thoreau, who
was once descrbed by Oliver Wendell Holmes
as "half college graduate and half Algon-
quin."
But the Preident signed the measure and
the Cherokees were herded along a en'aperate
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FoalaitsEMOK1WielASDP1136M3R000500050001-9
For these reasons I am convinced of
the need for speedier justice and the
maintenance of orderly processes of law
which this legislation would provide. I
would add that the fight for this legis-
lation was begun 11 years ago, and
the need for it it is even greater today.
In addition to myself, Congressman
JAMES B. UTT has worked diligently for
the success of this legislation.
Special commendation is due Sher-
wood Roberts and the San Diego Bar
Association for their long and dedicated
Interest and to Representative PAT
MINOR MARTIN, whose position on the
Judiciary Committee has greatly im-
proved the chances of passage this year.
The text of the bill follows:
H.R. 9567
A bill to create four judicial districts for the
State of California, to provide for the ap-
pointment of four additional district
judges for the State of California, and for
other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States o/
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 84 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
"1 84. California
"California is divided into four judicial
districts to be known as the Northern, East-
ern, Central, and Southern Districts of Cali-
fornia.
"NORTHERN DISTRICT
"(a) The Northern District comprises three
divisions.
"(1) The Northern Division comprises the
counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake,
Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco,
San Mateo, and Sonoma.
"Court for the Northern Division shall be
held at San Francisco and Eureka.
"(2) The Eastern Division comprises the
counties of Alameda, and Contra Costa.
"Court for the EaStern Division shall be
held at Oakland.
"(3) The Southern Division comprises the
counties of Monterey, San Benito, Santa
Clara, and Santa Cruz.
"Court for the Southern Division shall be
held at San Jose.
"EASTERN DISTRICT
"(b) The Eastern District comprises,three
divisions.
"(1) The Northern Division comprises the
counties of Lassen, Modoc, Plumes, Shasta,
Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity.
"Court for the Northern Division shall be
held at Redding.
"(2) The Central Division comprises the
counties of Apline, Amador, Butte, Cala-
veras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Inyo, Mono,
Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Sierra, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tuolumne,
all of Yosemite National Park, Yolo, and
Yuba.
"Court for the Central Division shall be
held at Sacramento.
"(3) The Southern Division comprises the
counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera ex-
cept Yosemite National Park, Mariposa ex-
cept Yosemite National Park, Merced, and
Tulare.
"Court for the Southern Division shall be
held at Fresno.
"CENTRAL DISTRICT
"(c) The Central District comprises the
counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura.
"Court for the Central District shall be
held at Los Angeles.
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT
"(d) The Southern District comprises the
counties of Imperial and San Diego.
"Court for the Southern District shall be
held at San Diego."
SEC. 2. (a) The two district judges for the
Nortern District of California holding of-
fice on the day before the effective date of
this section and whose official station is
Sacramento shall, on and after such effective
date, be the district judges for the Eastern
District of California whose official station
shall be Sacramento. All other district
judges for the Northern District of Cali-
fornia holding office on the day before the
effective date of this section shall, on and
after such effective date, be the district
judges for the Northern District of Cali-
fornia.
(b) The district judge for the Southern
District of California, residing in the North-
ern Division thereof and holding office on
the day before the effective date of this
section, -shall, on and after such effective
date, be the district judge for the Eastern
District of California whose official station
shall be Fresno. The two district judges
for the Southern District of California hold-
ing office on the day before the effective date
of this section and whose official station is
San Diego shall, on and after such effective
date, be the district judges for the Southern
District of California, as established by sub-
section (d) of the first section of this Act.
All other other district judges for the South-
ern District of California holding office on
the day before the effective date of this sec-
tion shall, on and after such effective date,
be the district judges for the Central Dis-
trict of California.
SEC. 3. The President shall appoint, by
and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, two additional district judges for
the Northern District of California, and two
additional district judges for the Central
District of California.
SEC. 4. Not less than one judge of the
Northern District of California shall have
his station at San Jose, and not less than
one judge in that district shall have his
station at Oakland.
SEC. 5. In order that the table contained
in section 133 of title 28, United States Code,
will reflect the changes made by this Act in
the number of judicial districts and dis-
trict judgeships for the State of California,
such table is amended to read as follows:
"Districts Judges
? *
California:
Northern 9
Eastern 3
Central 12
Southern 2
* * * * *
SEC. 6. The first section and section 2 of
this Act shall take effect on the sixtieth day
after the date of enactment of this Act. The
other provisions of this Act shall take effect
on such date of enactment.
.4.999
would support these sections of the bill
if they stood alone. Even so, the Pres-
ent operating deficit of $10 billion make
such increases questionable unless we
are willing to enact overall savings in at
least the amount of the total resulting
annual salary increases. But combined,
as these provisions are, with high per-
centage increases for Members of Con-
gress, the executive branch, and the
judiciary, I cannot support the bill.
While some of these higher offices may
be poorly paid, there seems to be no ex-
cuse for such large percentage increases
at a time when we are continuing to op-
erate in the red and are cutting taxes
out of borrowed funds. It is also doubt-
ful that there is any dearth of appli-
cants for high office in any branch of
Government. To the contrary, the size
of certain salaries proposed might tend
to make the primary objective of some
officeseekers a monetary one. Appar-
ently, the war on poverty is to be
attacked most fiercely for those above
the $20,000 level.
The Member from Nebraska [Mr. CUN-
NINGHAM], has offered an amendment
which would correct some of the serious
objections I have made to the bill by
striking the legislative salary provision.
I join in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
Another point, not unconnected with
the amendment and the issues I have
discussed, is the willingness or refusal of
the Members of this House to stand for
a rollcall vote on this measure. The fail-
ure to have such a recorded vote will
rightly be looked upon by the Nation as
cowardly and irresponsible and will be
a severe blow to the public confidence in
Congress as an institution, a confidence
that according to some public opinion
samplings recently, is at an alltime low.
It will also lead the Nation further in an
attitude already too prevalent, that pub-
lic servants, like too many other Amer-
icans, are primarily concerned with their
own financial reward and little with the
general well-being of the country.
ATLANTIC CONVENTION NEEDED
WITH IKE A- DELEGATE
(Mr. ELLSWORTH (at the request of
Mr. BRUCE) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, none
of our colleagues speaks with more cour-
ge and imagination than the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY]. PAUL
FINDLEY has most recently shown both
courage and imagination, and political
leadership of the highest order, in his
call for an Atlantic Convention, with
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower in the U.S.
Delegation, to consider the formation of
a Union of the Free.
I include PAUL FINDLEY'S statement,
taken from the March 1964 issue of
Freedom and Union, at this point in my
remarks, and commend it to my col-
leagues in the Congress and to the whole
leadership of our beloved Nation.
ILL-TIMED AND ILL-COUPLED
(Mr. TAFT (at the request of Mr.
BRUCE) was given permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. TAFT. Mr. Speaker, the Federal
Employees Salary Act of 1963 as pro-
posed to this House is ill-timed and ill-
coupled.
The principle of comparability is
sound as applied to postal employees and
classified civil service employees. I
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5000
Approved For Mira Els0145,ign11,8 i165.EF66
ATLANTIC CONVENTION NEEDED WITH twE 1.
DELEGATE
(By Palm FINDLEY, Republican Congressman,
20th District, Illinois)
The same somber tones appropriate in
1787 are required today to paint a picture
of the mood and misery that beset the com-
munity of freedom.
The community?consisting of 15 free na-
tions?is linked only by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization. It has been accurately
described as the most hopeful agency we
have for peace and freedom. But, at best,
NATO is but a hopeful beginning. It is far
weaker than the Articles of Confederation
which were found to be totally inadequate
In the 18th century.
If a system was found too flimsy for the
horse-and-buggy days, can we safely settle
for one still more flimsy for the rocket age?
NATO is an alliance and nothing more. As
such, it carries in It the same seeds for self-
destruction typical of all alliances. In his
farewell address, George Washington warned,
in a much-misrepresented passage, against
the frailties of all alliances. He said:
"To the efncacy and permanency of your
union a government for the whole is Indis-
pensable. No alliances, however strict, be-
tween the parts can be an adequate substi-
tute. They must inevitably experience the
Infractions and interruptions which all al-
liances in all times have experienced. Sens-
ible of this momentous truth, you have im-
proved upon your first essay by the adoption
of a constitution of government better cal-
culated than your former for an intimate
union and for the efficacious management of
your common concerns."
In short, Washington said that an alliance
cannot be an adequate substitute for a gov-
ernment. In words so clear they cannot be
misunderstood, be said that alliances "must
Inevitably experience the infractions and in-
terruptions which all alliances in all time
have experienced."
Without exception, alliances have failed to
stand the test for time. They are unworthy
of confidence. They are fundamentally
doomed to failure. The NATO alliance bee
experienced an abundance of the "infractions
and Interruptions" which Washington fore-
told. To cite a few:
Cyprus.
French recognition of Communist China.
British sale of buses to Cuba.
Canadian sale of wheat to Red China.
French blackball of British entry in the
Common Market.
U.S. cancellation of Skybolt.
Test ban treaty of Moscow. essentially a
bilateral deal between United States and
Russia.
Withdrawal of missiles from Turkey and
Italy.
U.S. insistence on keeping keys to all
NATO nuclear weapons.
Stalemate over the multilateral naval
forces proposed.
Broad U.S. tendency toward a detente with
Russia, which tends to weaken the thin
thread of alliance.
Our nuclear policies now place more trust
in our enemies than in our friends. We have
never been at war with France at any time
since this Republic was founded. And yet,
our nuclear policies deny France and other
NATO nations the nuclear weapons we
know?and they know?the enemy possesses.
We complain when the British sell buses to
Cuban Communists, but see nothing wrong
in selling wheat to Russia, the heartland of
the Communist movement.
We fight a chicken war and now perhaps
a beef war with our friends, and hand the
enemy super-duper bargains In wheat?better
prices than we offer to our friends.
These events?the inevitable infractions
and interruptions of which Washington
faR000500050001-9 March 12
spoke?have caused a steady deterioration of
NATO.
When we review our weak followthrough
after the Cuban confrontation, the with-
drawal of missiles from our NATO alliee
(Turkey and Italy), our shameful silence
over the murder of U.S. airmen over East
Germany?who can blarne our European
allies for wondering If, in a showdown, we
would really use nuclear weapons to defend
their homes. Who can blame them for seek-
ing, in their own way. to appease the Corn-
mu nista?
Not long ago, I heard one of our top mili-
tary leaders bitterly exclaim, "We have a
minimal deterrent, no-win policy."
Present policies are heading us to ulti-
mate Isolation in which liberty will sure-
ly perish from within, If not from aggres-
sive forces across our borders. Surrounded
by a sea of communism, we would likely
resort to police-state methods at home in
order to meet the police state menace abroad.
It's high time America's greatest inven-
tion?the Federal union system?la put to
work anew. Freedom-loving people of the
world are needlessly divided and weakened
In their quest of peace, liberty and ma-
terial progress?and in their crucial effort
to meet the latest and meat ominous of
tyrannical forces, international communism.
The barricades which keep these free
peoples from uniting today are formidable
but certainly no more so than thote which
separated the original 18 States In 1787.
How can it be done? Where do we start,
and when?
Almost precisely 35 years ago?February 9,
1939 to be exact?a book called "Union Now"
made its appearance. Written by a New
York Times correspondent, Clarence K.
Streit, who had witnessed the decay of the
League of Nations, it proposed that the Fed-
eral union system which has served the
people of the United States so brilliantly, be
used to join them In a new broader union
with other peoples of similar heritage and
aspirations.
The peoples to be so united were to be
those who had demonatzated a capacity for
self-government and a devotion to individual
liberty, principally the British Common-
wealth of nations, France, the Low Coun-
tries and the Scandinavian countries.
Had this union been created in 1939, very
clearly the blood bath of World War II would
have been avoided. The conquests of Hitler
and Mussolini would have ground to a halt.
The massive economic, military and moral
power brought together in this new Federal
union would have undoubtedly ushered in
a century. perhaps a milleniurn, of peace and
progress. Micah's dream would have become
reality, as most of the swords and spears
could safely have been converted to plows
and pruning hooks.
But the book stayed too much on the
library shelf, and the union was not created.
By many, It was considered to be visionary,
unrealistic. one-worldish, and by some,
downright subversive.
Times have changed. It is now a respect-
able proposal, given serious consideration
In many high circles. Serious thought along
this very line is now being given by these
leading Republican contenders to the Presi-
dency?Rockefeller, Goldwater, and Nixon,
The people of the United States, and their
leaders, are graduating from the grammar
school level in the politics of freedom.
We have suffered through the agony of a
second worldwide conflict, and many learned
from It that we cannot wisely retreat Into
a fortress-America concept. We have also
outlived the Illusion that a useful meeting
place of the nations, called the United Na-
tions, can be transformed through wishful
thinking into a peacekeeping freedom..
advancing organization.
We have also outlived the panic which
first. accompanied realisation of the awe-
some destructive r 3wer of the atom. At last,
many were impelled to clamor for any aind
of aceommodatior. with the enemy to eatoici
a world holocaust_ Now, sober afterthoaght
reminds one of Patrick Henry's question "Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be pur-
chased at the prae of chains and slave -y?"
Death by nuclear weapons is no more anal
than death by tile crossbow. Our del-case
must continue ta be the preservatios, of
the spirit of liberty, no matter what the
odds and hazards. Abraham Lincoln's ;len-
nition of defense is just as useful, just as
searching and jut as appropriate today as
a century ago, He said, "Our defense is the
preservation of tin at spirit which prizes lib-
erty as the heritage of all men, in all 1 aids
everywhere. Destroy that spirit, and you
have planted the seeds of despotism arc und
our doors."
NATO in its p:asent form is doomed to
failure. Our NATO defense force hangs by
the tiny thread of national expediency.
Unanimity is req aired before anything can
be_done. In the flashing instant of a nu-slear
showdown, unantnity may come too laae or
not at all. No oae can foretell the declsion
of any member of NATO?net even our
own?until the moment of crisis arrives.
We must build the house of freedora on
rock, the solid -ock of Federal union to
which Washingtan referred. It is as Amer-
ican as apple r ie, and everyday America
bespeaks its sUCci is.
I propose that ;he President of the II-sited
States assemble a blue-ribbon panel of citi-
zens and invite athe leaders of other l'eATO
nations to do the same. Then let these best
minds of the fr s world sit down together,
just as our forei sthers met in Philadelphia
in 1787. Let them fashion and propose for
ratification a new standard to whict the
wise and honest ean repair:
The U.S. delegation most certainly should
include Dwight la Eisenhower, the organizer
and first Comm( oder of NATO, for 8 years
President of the United States, better re-
spected throughout the entire world than
any other living aerson, more knowledgeable
in the art of Pee-world diplomacy. First
in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts
of his countrytr an of the broad free-world
community, General Eisenhower could be-
come the Georas Washington of the 20th
century.
Perhaps, as Caorge Washington himself
wrongly predicted of the 1787 Conventkm, no
plan proposed 1:7 this convention of 1964
would be adopted. But is there any 'setter
hope, a more speetant course to follow?
Perhaps. In the gloom and doom of today's
problems, we c sn indeed match the ac-
complishments of the inventors on the
American Reptialic in 1787. It's worth a
first-class effort by first-class minda, be-
cause at stake :s a first-class ideal: Free-
dom.
AU that is needed is the application of
the time-tested system of Federal un-on to
the urgent task of uniting the world s free
nations. what better place than Incepen-
dense Hall nazi! in Philadelphia?
In the words of John Fiske. hlstor an of
the U.S. constitutional period, "In Boric fu-
ture still grant Sr convention we tru a the
same thing will be done between States that
have been wholly sovereign, whereby peace
may gain and eiolence be diminished over
other lands than this which has set tae ex-
ample."
FINDLEY REPREf.ENTS COUNTIES LINCOI N DID
By remarkabl coincidence, almost to a day
25 years after the author of "Union Now"
first made its atlantic federation ptoposal
public in a lect tre on February 9, 193E, Con-
gressman PAUL PINDLEY proposed in a -elease
February 11 that President Johnson tame a
blue-ribbon pas el, including General Eisen-
hower, to work ast a plan to transform NATO
Into a federal ur ion.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- APPENDIX A1293
hope to achieve objectives of long-range
value to the Nation unless there is Govern-
ment interest and support.
That applies to fair foreign trade or un-
employment.
There is an erroneous impression that we,
and other unions, favor Government inter-
?vention into and consequent control over
our affairs.
This is absolutely absurd.
We recognize that Government has the
right to act at any time in what it deems
to be the public interest. But we prefer in
labor-management relations to work out our
own problems, wherever possible, through
the processes of free collective bargaining.
I do believe that the chances of solving our
common national problems are considerably
enhanced when labor, management, and Gov-
ernment all are sighted in on the same tar-
get.
There are a few other illusions I would
like to correct before I close.
The first of these is the idea that our
union blindly insists on imposing some so-
called pattern of wage and social benefits
upon all and sundry plants with which we
hold contracts.
It is true that we seek the best for all of
our people, but it is most unyue that we
seek the impossible. Our union always is
mindful of, and seeks to make reasonable ac-
commodations to special problems, where
these problems are proven to exist.
Nor do we attempt to exercise a voice in
the pricing policies, or the profits of the
companies with which we have contract re-
lations. We do not want any part of these,
or any other rights of management.
We do want our plants and factories to be
profitable. We are very well aware that in
our democratic capitalistic system, profitable
operation is necessary to keep people at work.
There may be one final illusion limited
largely to this audience.
And that concerns the idea that I may
have something to say about what the
United Auto Workers will seek, or perhaps
achieve, in the forthcoming negotiations.
The answer is that I do not have anything
to say and I will not.
That is a problem which concerns the
Auto Workers and the industry.
I hope that it can be resolved amicably and
fairly.
Finally, I do not expect to find all accept-
ance of my ideas in this forum but I do
hope that these expressions will generate
ideas of your own on the need for solving
the common problems.
The time has come for all of us to consider
ideas for what they are worth, rather than
where they originated.
We must consider that we are in another
industrial revolution with the prospect of
a social upheaval which may change the
world for centuries to come.
In previous eras of great industrial change
there always were new lands to settle and
cultivate. Today our new frontiers must be
established with our brains, rather than with
the plow and rifle.
That will take massive intellectual effort.
It is time we all put our minds to the task.
Modernization of Federal Salary Svtns
SPE.LCH
OF
HON. MORRIS K. UDALL
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 11, 1964
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 8988) to adjust
the rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees in the Federal Gov-
ernment, and for other purposes.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman; in clos-
ing the debate I wish to make two points;
then I will yield to the majority whip,
who will consume about half of the time
remaining.
I hope that on tomorrow we will not
hear any more of this facetious, prepos-
terous, non sequitur argument that
"there are many candidates back hon'4
in my district who want to run for Con-
gress" and therefore we should not raise
salaries. This has been said a half dozen
times today, and I hope we will not hear
It tomorrow.
Are those people who make this argu-
ment saying that the office of a Member
of Congress ought to go to the lowest
bidder?that we should reduce the salary
to $20,000, to $15,000, to $12,00, to $5,000,
and so long as there is one man who says,
"I will run for Congress," we will lower
it some more?
Then you might have a social occasion
and you say, "Ladies and gentlemen, I
want to present your Congressman, the
only man we could find in nine counties
who ? would go to Washington for this
salary we are offering." Logically, if
this argument has only validity, that
Is what we are saying. I think you
could get people to run for Congress, if
you would, who would pay the U.S. Gov-
ernment $22.500, and those who want
real economy here and to improve the
Federal fiscal position maybe believe
that is something we ought to do, but
I will tell you the kind of people we
would get, if that is what you are talk-
ing about. You would get the kind of
people that we do not want in Congress.,
So I hope, gentlemen, that we will not
hear any more of this argument tomor-
row.
I said this was a management bill.
We have heard talk about the deficit
and we do have a deficit, and I am go?
-
ing to do all I can to balance the budget
around here.
But let me tell you why this argument
Is not particularly valid. Let me cite
you a ease history: In the Defense De-
partment is a man whose responsibilities
Include, among others, the detailed ex-
amination of all aspects of a major
weapons system and he must isolate
decisions which will be required in the
next 5 budget years and be ready with
prudent alternatives. These decisions
involve hundreds of millions of dollars.
This man is a GS-18, at $20,000 a year.
He came here from a top executive posi-
tion with an aircraft maker where he
received about $40,000 a year. Every
month or so people from industry come
In and say to him, "We want you as vice
president at $40,000 a year."
So far he has been dedicated. How-
ever, when the day comes for him to go,
if we take away the hope that we are
going to give him a decent salary, you
can send all the Members you want down
there to say to him, "Let us tell you about
our deficit and let us tell you about the
national debt and let us tell you about
what great trouble the Government has."
This fellow, if he has a family and is
going to send his children to college,
if he can get a better job, unless he is
dedicated, is going to say, "I do not care.
You go and tell that story about that
Federal debt and that deficit and all of
the rest of the troubles the Government
has to someone else."
have case histories and I have a
dozen of them of people who have been
presidents, of corporations and who are
sought after every month by private cor-
porations to leave their jobs at double
and triple their salaries. They hang on
because they want to serve the Govern-
ment. Yet we have had more and more
turnover in these critical positions and
we lose these men at just about the time
they begin to produce for the Govern-
ment. These positions I might add carry
very little honor or prestige.
As the National Association of Manu-
facturers said:
If a business were losing money because
costs were too high, it might consider hiring
some new department heads to cut costs?
pay them well for doing it and thus balance
the budget.
But not Government.
This is a bill that will do something
for the taxpayers and help us to get the
kind of Federal Establishment we can all
be a little more proud of. I hope the
Committee of the Whole tomorrow will
support our committee in the particular
amendments that are going to be offered
and, rollcall or no rollcall, that we will
pass this bill, because it is a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time
remains to the gentleman from Louisi-
ana [Mr. Boass], the majority whip.
Resolution Opposing Civil Rights
Legislation
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. STROM THURMOND
OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, March 12, 1964
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
invite the attention of Senators to a
resolution which has been approved by
Ward 3 of the South Carolina Demo-
cratic Party in Laurens, S.C., in support
of the position being taken by those of
us who oppose the so-called civil rights
legislation. This resolution has been
approved by the Laurens County Demo-
cratic Convention and is being forwarded
to the South Carolina State Democratic
Party Convention which will be held on
March 25, 1964.
I appreciate, Mr. President?and I
know I speak for all of us in opposition
to this power grab legislation?the strong
words of encouragement and support
which this resolution lends to our cause.
I, therefore, ask unanimous consent
that this resolution be printed in the
Appendix to the RECORD.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
LAURENS, S.C., February 22, 1964.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SOUTHERN SENATORS
IN STAND ON CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
Whereas it is the prerogative and duty of
citizens interested in the common good and
welfare of the people to communicate to
Approved For Release 2005/05/1'8 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
A1294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX March 12
their representatives in the Congress their
feelings and opinions on far-reaching and
momentous proposals, and
Whereas in these troublous times, it Is
apparent that the workshops of the sociolog-
ists and the rampagings of extremists are
dictating to our courts and being joined by
them in trying to change the very way of life
of all men overnight, and
Whereas it is obvious that the so-called
civil rights bill soon to be debated by the
Senate of the United States is the result of
high-pressure motivated by a purpose con-
ceived In venegeance and turmoil, nurtured
in a vicious climate of exploitation and pro-
moted by ruthless political maneuvers for
personal and group advantages that would
strip the people of personal, social, civic, civil,
and business freedom and liberties and set-
up a Gestapo-type of organization of marau-
ders that would run roughshod over the
minds and hearts of men and reduce to
shambles the very foundation upon which
this great Nation was founded and built:
Now therefore be it
Resolved, That this Democratic Party con-
vention here assembled in Laurens County
voice its condemnation of the so-called civil
rights bill; further be it
Resolved, That a communication be sent to
each of our United States Senators telling
them of our support of their stand against
the vicious bill.
To be sent to State Democratic convention.
Vietnam Need: Winning the People
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. E. ROSS ADAIR
OF INDIANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 12, 1964
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, for years
now some of us have been saying that
the only way to win the war in Vietnam
was for the Central Government to win
the loyalty and allegiance of the people.
An article by Takashi Oka in the March
9 issue of the Christian Science Monitor
points this out very well, and I include
it herewith:
VIETNAM NEED: WINNING THE PEOPLE
(By Takashi Oka)
SAIGON. VIETNAM.?TO gain victory in
South Vietnam's frustrating war against the
Communist guerrillas, there must be a shift
in emphasis from killing Communists to
winning the people.
This is a view widely shared by Vietnamese
and Americans with long experience in corn-
bating the Vietcong, the Communist guer-
rillas.
Trite and worn as the phrase "winning
the people" may sound, and as many times
as lipservIce has been paid to this slogan.
it is still the Irreducible minimum for win-
ning victory, these observers say.
"For 3 years the Pentagon has emphasized
military measures?killing the Vietcong,"
one knowledgeable source commented.
"We've killed thousands of Vietcong, ac-
cording to our statistics, yet those 45 Viet-
cong battalions still remain.
"What we have got to do is to get the vil-
lagers to defend themselves?motivate them
to defend themselves. This will take care of
the small unit actions that form the bulk
of Vietcong attacks today. Then the regu-
lar army can concentrate on the large ac-
tion?the 300- or 400-men attacks?which
villagers obviously can't come with,"
The problem is how to motivate the vil-
lagers. Some months ago a survey was con-
ducted to determine what a villager actually
wanted. The lint boiled down to four essen-
tials: first, physical security; second, eco-
nomic opportunity; third, local self-deter-
mination; fourth, the rule of law.
It was obvious that the Communists could
not provide any of these four requisites ex-
cept in a limited degree over limited periods
of time. It was clear that the Government
of South Vietnam as then constituted also
failed to perform this task.
But the government was and is in A far
better position to do this than the Com-
munists. And when and as it does. It has
a legitimate claim on the loyalty of the vil-
lagers.
In another, more recent survey, 33,000 peo-
ple in a single critical province near Saigon
were interviewed. Many grievances against
the government came to light.
But the surveyors found that the inter-
viewees also had an active antipathy toward
the Communist guerrillas in their midst.
In some villages, Interviewees supplied
rosters of resident Communists at consider-
able risk to themselves.
Potentially, therefore, the villagers were
not "attentistes"?fence sitters. They had
definite ideas as to how they wanted the
government to function. And to the extent
that the government actually did function
in this manner It could begin to regain
ground lost during the final years of the
dictatorial Ngo Dinh Diem regime.
As for the argument that the war should
be carried to the north, thoughtful observers
here say that it sounds like a panacea which
does nothing to solve the primary problem?
winning the allegiance of the people in the
South Vietnamese countryside.
The war must be fought and won in the
south, whatever may happen In the north,
these observers say. And in their view this
war is in the highest sense a political war.
Military means are useful only as this basic
fact is recognized and applied.
Panama and the Canal
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. J. GLENN BEALL
OF MARYLAND
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thursday, March 12, 1964
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, yesterday
I had the pleasure of meeting with my
good friends of Centreville, Md. This
meeting, which was so ably arranged
and led by Mrs. David Williamson, evi-
denced the interest and concern of fel-
low Marylanders about this country's
foreign and domestic policies. While
there, an article published in the Queen
Anne's Record-Observer was called to
my attention. The article, written by
Capt. Philip W. Reeves, discusses the
timely topic of Panama. The captain.
who Is a master mariner, has seen the
canal many times while sailing from New
York to California. Therefore, he speaks
from a personal knowledge of the situa-
tion and his feelings merit examination.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article may be printed in
the Appendix of the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed In the RECORD,
as follows:
In view of the discussions now going on
about the Panama Canal, it might be of in-
terest to review, briefly, the canal history.
In 1534 King :lharles V of Spain oriered a
survey made for a proposed canal across the
Isthmus.
In 1855 the Panama Railroad acrrss the
isthmus from Colon on the Atlantic side to
Panama City en the Pacific side, was com-
pleted. It is said that a man died f rr each
crosatie in the railroad track. At th it time
yellow fever was the curse of the -;ropics.
Until the canal was completed pasaiengers
and freight were transshipped across the
isthmus on this railroad.
Actual cons -auction of the can ).1 was
started by the Wrench in January 1881. The
French Canal c:;o. had a concession granted
by the Govern.-aent of Colombia in 18:78.
The Panama Railroad. the canal rigats and
properties of the French Canal Co. were
bought by the United States for $40 Trillion
in 1904.
The Isthunei of Panama is the pi incipal
and most impartant part of the Repablic of
Panama. It was originally a part of ahe Re-
public of Colombia. Panama was established
as an independ :rit Republic at the time when
the United States was negotiating for the
purchase of the canal properties from the
French. The a.ew Republic was made pos-
sible by the be :king of the United Kates.
The newly .:reated Republic of Panama
granted by treaty, to the United Sta-es, the
Panama Canal Zone, a right-of-way across
the isthmus 10 miles wide and 50 miles long.
The Panama Pailroad is in this zona. The
United States paid the Republic of Panama
$10 million ad agreed to pay eaca year,
starting 9 year: after the treaty was ratified,
the sum of $2.50,040 gold. Since than this
sum has been increased until today it is
about $2 militia).
The treaty ith the Republic of Panama
was ratified February 26, 1904, and work
started on the canal by the U.S. Arm-, Engi-
neers under General Goethals. Panama and
the Canal ZOI E were cleaned up and the
yellow fever learught under control. Today
sanitary regulations are very strict and the
Canal Zone is 'use of the healthiest paces in
the world.
When the 1:.S. Engineers took neer the
construction o! the canal they found that a
sea level canal was not practical on recount
of the differenre in the height of tie tides
on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal.
On the Pacific side the tides are 28 feet on
the Atlantic aide, 4 feet. This is why a sea
level canal cam: ot be built across the i ithmus
here or in any 4 ther location.
Thousands af contract laborers, mostly
West Indian Yegroes, were brought in to
work on the caaal. A tough crowd who were
kept in order ty the Canal Zone police.
The population of the Republic of Panama
is a mixture c races. Spanish the official
language. Population in 1955 was 911,400.
Panama exports some bananas, coffee, and
tropical produ:ts. Her main source of in-
come of course, is the canal paymer is and
what business E brought there by the ships
using the canal. Most of the locel mer-
chants are Chiaese or East Indians.
The Universiay of Panama is a small col-
lege in the cite of Panama. It is doubtful
If it would be an accredited college by our
standards. Th.) teaching staff like se many
others is donanated by Communia's who
are the plotters and instigators of ziost of
the canal troubles. The student riots that
we hear so much about are standard Com-
munist procedare in all Latin American col-
leges.
The COMMIE -1st professors and polaicians
believe that they can steal the cam--i from
the United Sta tea by following the example
set by Suez. 7-hat the politicians in Wash-
ington will submit peacefully to their take-
over of the canal. All kinds of arguments
will be offered the United Nations to jus-
tify their claire No doubt the Panan.anians
are taking into consideration the fallure of
the United States of America to d> more
than talk about the so-caned naticnaliz,a-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/03/14: GIA:RDP6fia804.03R000500050001-9 5003
1964 CONGRESSIONAL KLCuito ?
think it it covers the entire philosophy well.
But I would suggest, too, that you read all
of it, and not just part of it. For instance,
if you were to read what Mr. Welch has to
say about the dangers of communism, the
dangers of total statism in this country,
the danger of big government, and so forth,
most of you would agree right down to the
ground, and would start looking for a place
to join and pay your $25. I agree with much
of what he says. But I did not look for a
place to join, because I read all the book,
and when I got to the "meat" of the thing
and discovered how Robert Welch plans to
overcome today's ills of government, I
reached for a pencil to make notes on how
to warn people I know against this insidious
thing.
In "The Blue Book," Mr. Welch designates
himself as the savior of the country. He
said, "I know in my own mind, beyond all
doubt or question, that without dynamic per-
sonal leadership around which the split and
frustrated and confused forces on our side
can be rallied, rapidly and firmly, we do not
have a chance of stopping the Communists
before they have taken over our country.
It is not that you would choose me, or that
I would even choose me, against other pos-
sibilities. It is simply that under the pres-
sure of time and the exigencies of our need
you have no other choice, and neither do I."
What does Robert Welch propose, then?
That he becomes a political candidate? That
he preach his views from the political stump?
That he campaign for the Presidency of the
United States? That after educating voters
in his philosophy and capabilities, he would
stand or fall by the will of the voters of a
free community?
You be the judge. In "The Blue Book" he
says, "As you look more and more carefully
into the hopes that have been bred, and the
disappointments that have followed,
throughout the political performances of
these 20 years, you come increasingly to real-
ize the wisdom of the adage, 'Put not your
faith in politicians.' We shall have ?to use
politicians, support politicians, create politi-
cians, and help the best ones we can find
to get elected. I am thoroughly convinced,
however, that we cannot count on politi-
cians, political leadership, or even political
action except as a part of something much
deeper and broader, to save us."
These are the words of a potential Amer-
ican dictator. That's why the John Birch
Society worries me.
I am going to quote some more from
Welch, the authority of the John Birch So-
ciety. Listen carefully. He speaks of the so-
ciety as a monolithic body. Monolithic
means "one stone" that supports all else.
Welch, obviously, is the stone. In "The Blue
Book" he says,
"The John Birch Society is to be a mono-
lithic body. A republican form of govern-
ment or of organization has many attrac-
tions and advantages, under certain favor-
able conditions. But under less happy cir-
cumstances it lends itself too readily to in-
filtration, distortion, and disruption. And
democracy, of course, in government or orga-
nization, as the Greeks and Romans both
found out, and as I believe every man in
this- room clearly recognizes * * * demo-
cracy is merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon
of demagoguery, and a perennial fraud. For
withstanding the stresses and strains of in-
ternal differences and external animosities,
throughout changing political climates over
long periods of time; for the building of
morale and loyalty and a feeling of unified
purpose and closely knit strength; for effec-
tive functioning in periods of crisis and a
permanence of high dedication throughout
more peaceful decades; for these and many
other reasons, the John Birch Society will
operate under completely authoritative con-
trol at all levels.
"The fear of tyrannical oppression of indi-
viduals, and other arguthents against the
authoritarian structure in the form of gov-
ernments, have little bearing on the case of
a voluntary association, where the author-
itative power can be exercised and enforced
only by persuasion. And what little validity
they do have is outweighed by the advant-
ages of firm and positive direction of the
society's energies. Especially for the near
future, and for the fight against commu-
nism, which is the first great task of the
society. It is imperative that all the
strength we can muster be subject to
smoothly functioning direction from the
top."
Did you listen? The last line I quoted
from Robert Welch was, "Especially for the
near future, and for the fight against com-
munism, which is the first great task of the
society, it is imperative 4' * *" et cetera,
et cetera.
When I first read that, there flashed to
my mind the slogan of the arrogant Nazis
of Hitler in the thirties, "Today Germany.
Tomorrow the world."
I have tried to be factual and unemotional
about this subject. I can vouch for my
facts. I can't vouch for my emotions. I
can't remain unemotional in the face of a
threat to individual liberty, whether it come
from the far left or the far right.
The word "militant" is not misused in
speaking of "militant far left" and "militant
far right." It has its base in the Latin
word "miles" which means soldier." Its
connotation is "force" in direct contrast to
"reason."
Good-afternoon, everyone. Thanks f
listening.
were computed on a more realistic basis,
the pressure for a salary increase would
lessen. I believe it is high time that
Members of Congress be placed on the
same relative basis for charging their
expenses as are representatives of any
business firm. Although I respect the
motives of every one of my colleagues,
I personally do not believe that a salary
raise can be justified to counterbalance
the skimpy travel allowance and other
expense allowances.
CIVIL RIGHTS OR CIVIL WRONGS?
(Mr. WAGGONNER (at the request of
Mr. GoNzAtEz) was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and, to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to see that one of the largest
newspapers in the United States, the
Chicago Tribune, has joined the chorus
of northern newspapers who are now ac-
tively opposing the infamous civil rights
bill.
I will not chastise them for not hav-
ing made known the truth about this
bill a year or more ago when the true
content of this bill began to take shape.
If they had publicized the fact that this
measure is 90 percent devoted to a mas-
ive grab for Federal power and domina-
tion over all Americans and 10 percent
concerned with vaguely defined rights
of a minority, then we might have had
a few more votes in opposition to the bill
when it was considered here in the House
recently.
I hope that what they have to say is
not too late to impress some of the Mem-
bers of the other body.
I would like to insert here in the REC-
ORD the Chicago Tribune's editorial titled
"Civil Rights or Civil Wrongs," and the
article by Prof. Robert Bork, of Yale
University, to which reference is made:
From the Chicago Tribune]
CIVIL RIGHTS OR CIVIL WRONGS?
Changing times? What do you mean?
The only thing that has changed has been
the method man has used to destroy what he
has built up. To destroy it under the mysti-
cal Pied Piper illusion of civil rights is mere-
ly finding a new way of accomplishing what
man has been doing since history first re-
corded his yearning to be free. We have
stood as an exception to the trend, in my
judgment, for one basic reason: the wise
constitutional limitations on actions of gov-
ernment. Now I am not so sure?Representa-
tive JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Republican, of Ohio.
The Tribune has given extended attention
in its news columns set on its editorial page
to the 11 titles of the civil rights bill which
Is now before the Senate after approval by
the House. We did so in the belief that
there was not one person out of 10,000 who
had more than the faintest conception of the
contents of the bill or the sweeping impli-
cations and probable effects of this legisla-
tion.
At the conclusion of our factual presenta-
tion and parallel editorial comment, we
opened our pages Sunday to two professors
of law, one from the University of Chicago,
one from the Yale law faculty, presenting
opposing opinions on the merits and con-
stitutionality of the bill.
Prof. Philip B. Kurrland spoke for the
legislation. Prof. Robert Bork spoke against
it. As the legal battle of the century, this
turned out to be something less than the
CONGRESSIONAL SALAR BILL
(Mr. HECHLER asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Speaker, there
have been many opinions expressed dur-
ing the past 2 days on this legislation.
There have been many difficult decisions
made by those supporting and opposing
the bill. As with so may bills which
confront us, the issues were not black
and white. I am sure that all Members
examined this legislation carefully and
for varying reasons cast their vote in
support of or in opposition to the legis-
lation.
During the debate, there were many
flashes of brilliance. Although I voted
against final passage of the bill, to me
one of the greatest stars of this debate
was the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
UDALL.] He exhibited great qualities
of courage, leadership, oratory, and par-
liamentary skill. Few Members of this
body have come so far in so short a time.
This debate marks him as one of the
truly great Members of the House.
I voted against this bill because of an
honest conviction that the proposed
raises in congressional salaries were
poorly timed. Coming on the heels of a
tax cut and at a time when we are try-
ing to reduce Federal expenditures the
congressional salary raise did not seem
to me to be appropriate. It is patently
true, however, that early action should
be taken, to provide a more realistic sys-
tem of expense allowances for Mem-
bers of Congress. In particular, with
most Members making many official
business trips to their disrticts, the trav-
el allowance should more nearly equal
the actual official expenditures. If the
travel and other expense allowances
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
5OO1 CONGRESSIONAL R ECORD ? HOUSE Maud 12
Clay-Liston brawl. It, was as if both gladi-
ators developed sore arms and failed to re-
spend to the bell for the seventh round.
We shall not, however, hold up their purses
on that account.
Mr. Bork proved a cautious constitution-
alist. Mr. Kurland was the Clay of the en-
gagement, shouting, "I'm the greatest." and
to the Tribune. "Eat your words." He em-
broidered the occasions by reiterating him-
self of some curdled resentments of less
standing against this newspaper. We think
we'll survive.
Among Mr. Kurland's other aspersions wa.s
that the Tribune, both in its news stories and
editorial comment, offered the arguments
only of antagonists of the bill. Should he
chance to read the debate in the House, to-
gether with the majority and minority re-
ports of the Judiciary Committee, he will
discover that the majority coalition offered
almost no arguments in support of the con-
stitutionality of the various provisions.
It had the votes and chose to avoid con-
stitutional justification, perhaps for the rea-
son that the bill was unloaded on the Judi-
ciary Committee at the last minute by the
Department of Justice and committee debate
was limited to 1 minute for both the Demo-
cratic majority and the Republican minority.
the leaders of which were both committed to
the bill, sight unseen.
The constitutional arguments were thus
confined to opponents of the bill when de-
bate began. It is noteworthy that the two
most effective speeches against the bill were
made by northern Republicans?Representa-
tive ASHBROOK. of Ohio and Representative
WYMAN, of New Hampshire. The benighted
southerners who opposed the bill signified
that they at least knew thg Constitution and
the law. They argued intelligently. if un-
availingly, and were gifted with a humor
conspicuously absent from the ranks of
righteousness.
If we chose, we could throw a little consti-
tutional law back at Mr. Kurland. He ig-
nores the fact that an unreversed Supreme
Court decision in 1883 held unconstitutional
a public accommodations act strikingly sim-
ilar to that in the present bill, except that
it was based solely on the 14th amendment
and did not also appeal to the commerce
clause. This is the only section of the 1964
led which Mr. Kurland argued at length.
Mr. Kurland cites law to his purpose. We
could cite Supreme Court decisions on the
other side, such as the Wilmington Parking
Authority case of 1061, the Greenville case of
1963, the Howard Johnson case of l950. and
the "broken package doctrine." But the ef-
fort is hardly rewarding. We will concede
Mr. Kurland one thing: Any constitutional
question bearing the sacred tag of "civil
rights" is most likely to find Chief Justice
Warren and the "liberal" majority on the
wrong side of the facts and the law.
As we have said, the civil rights 13111 is a
vast invasion and usurpation on the part of
the Federal Government of the rights of
business. Individuals, unions, homeowners.
and everyone else. It has been declared to
be--we believe truthfully-90 percent con-
cerned with the extension of Federal power
and 10 percent with any rights which can
be so described. It is a distortion of the
public interest, requiring that 89.9 percent
of the population accommodate Itself to the
convenience of the remaining 10.1 percent.
especially as regards privacy, association, and
choice. If these relinquishments were based
on sound constitutional command, they
might be accepted, if not welcomed. but we
do not find it so.
The legislation, further, rewards those
who, by promoting lawbreaking and civil
clamor, have occasioned much of the domes-
tic vexation of the country. It is a payoff
to a Martin Luther King. who says that laws
not to his satisfaction are to be broken.
It is an appeasement of an ADAM CLAYTON
Poweee who proclaims. ''We've got the white
man on the run," and advises Negro citizens
to "think as a bloc, act as a bloc, and vote
as a bloc." When injunctions of morality are
invoked, such sentiments are not irrelevant.
Moreover, the provisions of this bill. If they
become law, will not prove even a halfway
house. Demands will mount until constitu-
tional restrictions become as a broken rub-
ber band. In time, we shall all be under
an absolutism that will make the Orwell
account of 1984 look like a nursery story.
We predict that nonwhites, who were mak-
ing steady progress through the amellora-
tem of once-hardened attitudes, are going to
like the outcome as little as Whites.
AGATNsT THE Bits.
(By Robert H. Bork)
The major issue concerning the civil rights
bill now to be considered by the Senate is not
whether private racial prejudice is unjust?it
is?but whether It is either proper or wise
tor the Government to prohibit it by law.
These are two very different questions, and
their difference raises basic questions about
the sort, of society we want to live in.
Much of the civil rights bili (e.g., the sec-
tions on voting rights and desegregation of
public education) is admirable. But there
are serious and substantial difficulties con-
nected with the public accommodations and
employment provisions. Such laws would:
I. Adopt a principle of enforcing associa-
tions between private individuals which
would, if uniformly applied, destroy per-
sonal freedom over broad areas of life.
2. Raise serious constitutional problems
which would not be removed even by a Su-
preme Court decision upholaing the law.
3. Prove impossible to enforce effectively,
and so have deleterious effects both upon law
observance generally and prospects for peace-
ful solutions to racial problems in particular.
4. By recognizing race and religion as prop-
er topics for explicit legislation, and politica/
struggle, perhaps worsen rather than improve
the relationships of racial and religious
groups in American society.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
Much of the unsatisfactory situation of
Negroes in American society today is directly
due to discriminatory laws, particularly in
the South, which have long forbidden or reg-
ulated many associations of Negroes and
whites regardless of the desires of the indi-
viduals concerned.
Such laws are, of course, completely un-
justifiable. They are and have been under
steady attack in the Federal courts and it
seems certain that all of them will meet the
constitutional doom they deserve.
The proposed public accommodations and
employment practices laws, however, would
reverse this situation and compel association
even where it is not desired.
The accommodations law, for example.
would inform all owners of specified busi-
nesses that in artier to continue in their
ezteblished trades they must deal with and
serve persons with whom they do not wish to
aseociate. It would, similarly, inform all
customers of such businesses that they must
sacrifice what seems to some of them an im-
portant aspect of their personal liberty in
order to enjoy the services and goods of any
such commercial establishment.
A VALUE Or HIGH PRIORITY
The case for freedom, as many proponents
of this bill are fond of pointing out when
other issues are at stake, is usually most
important precisely where it is most difficult
to make. The temptation is to despise the
freedom cd those whose preferences we dis-
approve.
Yet freedom Is a value of such high
priority and may so easily slip away that a
very heavy burden of proof rests upon those
who ask us to sacrifice it to other ends.
It is not enot gh to be assured that some
people use thel t freedom badly and that
others are there y affronted or even m de to
suffer. The saeie could be said of many
other freedoms that we continue to rstain.
Moreover, the Intrusion upon freedom rep-
resented by a eublic accommodation. and
employment pie:dices law would be >f an
extraordinary na ;ure?for it is extraordinary
that Govertuner s should regulate the asso-
ciations of private perS0118.
DANGI:ROUS PRECEDENT
And this lae would set a partic ilarly
dangerous precedent because of the ligical
and political in possibility of confinieg its
principle of coercing private associaticns to
the particular aseas It covers. If the own-
ers and patrons e the commercial este eish-
ments reached be this bill (roughly: le stau-
ranee, hotels and motels, gas stations, and
theaters) are to be denied freedom of asso-
ciation in the name of a larger morality, how-
can that freeddn be left to any sel7er of
goods or services -
There is, in faet, no reason to eolith-.e the
principle of enfceced association to con .mer-
eta' relationships.
Recent headiii es make it completely clear
that the demand for Government-enf erced
association does not stop at the boundaries
of the commerci .1 world butts being pressed
aggressively in titter areas of life. The ac-
commodations i.nd employment prov.sions
of the civil righes bill cannot be view 'd in
isolation but ti ust be assessed as otily a
modest first step in a broad progra at of
coerced social eh .nge.
If, therefore, the principle of enl3rced
association whi h underlies this bill were
uniformly applied and, of course, If it is
a good principle it ought to be uniformly
applied), we world have a greatly different
society from the one we now enjoy. The new
one might possr dy be more just and moral,
but it would qu to certainly be far less free.
It seems a bad eecha.nge. We would dc bet-
ter to continue so rely upon social change,
which is taking place, through free and uri-
coerced evolutio:
CONSTI" UTIONAL PROBLEMS
Many constiti tional problems are i aised
by the civil righs bill but among the most
serious are those raised by the publi t ac-
commodations section. The House bill rests
that section both upon Congress' con titu-
Muni power to regulate interstate com-
merce and upon the 14th amendment.
The law would reach about as far as possi-
ble under the interstate commerce p3wer.
It provides, for instance, that no lunch
counter owner c In discriminate if a 'sub-
stantial portion' of the food he serve ; has
moved in interst te commerce.
The results are plain for the conce3t of
federalism, the istoric idea that theta are
important powees wholly reserved tc the
States and beyoed the reach of the National
Government.
If Congress en dictate the selectie n of
customers in a remote Georgia diner beeause
the canned soup once crossed a State line,
federalism?so fr r as it limits national rower
to control behas or through purported eco-
nomic regulaticm?is dead.
To be sure, it has not shown much life
for some time, eat this would be thi last
nail in the con. lid. Few bills when con-
sidered by Conde sea have had as little irgu-
able connection with interstate comn.erce.
No one even seriously pretends that resula-
tion of commerce is the real motive here,
Rather, a ten ems past connection with
a movement acre ss a State line is mads the
pretext by which Congress imposes its view
of individual morality within the bounearies
of a State. Ther s is little doubt the Sul reme
Court would uphold the attempt but that
certainly does nut mean that Congress itself
should continue to use its commerce power
to accomplish en-Ls that, whatever their yther
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
House of Representatives
The House met at 11 o'clock a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev.Bernard Braskamp,
D.D., offered the following prayer:
John 8: 12: / am the light of the world;
He that followeth Me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Almighty God, our Father, who art
high and holy, we rejoice that Thou hast
respect unto the lowly and art mindful
that human life is often so fragile and
fleeting, and so tangled and turbulent.
We earnestly beseech Thee to defend us
against those beseiging vanities and those
rude cynicisms of the world which are
seeking to undermine our character and
corrupt that finer spirit with which we
have been endowed when Thou didst cre-
ate man in Thine own image.
Grant that in all the days of our life
we may bear testimony to Thy divine
image and may our life be invested with
a dignity and a worth which has endur-
ing sanctity and eternal significance.
May we be numbered among those who
are aspiring and struggling to achieve
the better and nobler life, and following
with a passionate and persistent fidelity
those ways which Thou hast marked out
for us.
Hear us in the name of our blessed
Lord. Amen.
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of yes-
terday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr.
Arrington, one of its clerks, announced
that the Presiding Officer of the Sen-
ate, pursuant to Public Law 115, 78th
Congress, entitled "an act to provide for
the disposal of certain records of the
U.S. Government," had appointed Mr.
JOHNSTON and Mr. CARLSON members of
the joint select committee on, the part
of the Senate for the disposition of ex-
ecutive papers referred to in the report
of the Archivist of the United States
numbered 64-11.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT APPROPRI-
ATION BILL, 1965
Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee
on Appropriations have until midnight
tomorrow night to file a privileged re-
port on the Department of the Interior
and related agencies appropriation bill
for 1965.
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1964
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. HARRISON reserved all points
of order on the bill.)
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not pres-
ent.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Iowa makes the point of order that a
quorum is not present. Evidently, a
quorum is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
Bass
Battin
Bonner
Brademas
Brown, Calif.
Burton, Calif.
Celler
Clausen,
Don H.
Curtin
Davis, Tenn.
Denton
Dowdy
[Roll No. 68]
Duncan Powell
Green, Oreg. Rains
Griffiths Roberts, Ala.
Hoffman St Germain
Kee
King, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
Mathias
May
Meader
Nelsen
O'Brien, Ill.
Pepper
St. Onge
Scott
Sheppard
Shipley
Short
Wilson,
Charles H.
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 397
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
CORRECTION OF RECORD
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, in my
remarks appearing in the March 4, 1964,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, at page 4161, in
an article entitled "The 175th Anniver-
sary of the U.S. Federal Union," in line
8 of the second paragraph of my re-
marks, in column 1, the following sen-
tence appears:
In Fraunce's Tavern at the corner of Pearl
and Broad Streets a group of citizens, in-
cluding Clarence K. Streit, author and editor,
today met in the very room where the First
Congress under the new Federal Constitution
met on March 4, 1789.
In that sentence the words "in the very
room" should be changed to read "near
Federal Hall."
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the permanent RECORD be corrected
accordingly.
The SPEAKER. It there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Illi-
nois?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Speaker, on Tues-
day last, when the vote was taken on the
passage of the bill H.R. 8070, relating to
the establishment of a Public Land Law
Review Commission, I was absent. Had
I been present I would have voted "aye."
MODERNIZATION OF F
SALARY SYSTE S
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 89 6) to ad-
just the rates of basIdflinsation of
certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government, and for other pur-
poses.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H.R. 8986, with
Mr. RoLIFIELD in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Com-
mittee rose on yesterday, the further
reading of title I was dispensed with
and title I is open to amendment at any
point:
The Cliair recognizes the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY].
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MURRAY
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment, in the nature of a sub-
stitute to title I of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MURRAY: On
page one strike out line 3 and all that fol-
lows down through line 12 on page 35 and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "That
this Act may be cited as the 'Government
Employees Salary Reform Act of 1964'.
"TITLE I?FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SYSTEMS
"Short title
"SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the
'Federal Employees Salary Act of 1964'.
"Classification Act employees
"SEc. 102. (a) Section 603(b) of the Clas-
sification Act of 1949, as amended (76 Stat.
843; 5 U.S.C. 1113(b) ), is amended to read
as follows:
"'(b) The compensation schedule for the
General Schedule shall be as follows:
4917
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4918 Approved For itqjklestaggwat : akeR136.008Aroo50005000 -9
I[Ia`7ch
" q-lrarle
41S-9
GS-3
GS-4
f 1S-e,
f iS -7
(S-S
(1S-9
GS-10
GS-11
GS-12
(1S-1)
Gs-15_
i; N-16
N-18
I
'Per annum
4 5
83, 730 V. 845
4,080 4. IRO
4,410 4,545
4,930 6.080
6,495 5.1160
6.000 I 6.24.5
6,650 6,8.50
7,200 7.510
7,948 M. 190
6,0.5018.934)
9,435 9 730
11, 205 I 1.1120
13.33.5 = 13.755
l5.4'.40 01.130 I
18. 170 Is. 740 I
20 900 ? 21.180 I
23, 695 24.445
rates and steps
1
2
6
$3,030
4.305
4,680
6, 230
6.82.5
6,430
7.060
-3
6.435
5.180
10.1123
Ii, 975
14,175
10,1120
19, 310
22 210
7
14,190
4,650
4,950
6.630
5,156
6,900
7,460
5,170
8,926
9,730
10.0(6
12.550
16,016
17,600
20,450
10
*3,385
3,680
4,005
4,480
5,000
6, 50.5
6,060
6, 630
7.210
7,840
8.800
10,200
12,1)75
14, 170
16. 460
15.935
21. 4-45
24,500
$3,500
3,805
4,140
4,030
6,105
5,600
6,384)
6,850
7,465
8,110
1 8,845
10, 565
12,495
14, 660
17,030
16.590
22, 195
*3,615
3,930
4,279
4,7130
5,330
5.575
6,450
7.070
7.700
6.380
1 9, 140
10,910
12.915
15.180
IS. SOO
211.248
72.545
34,076
4,430
4,816
6.380
6,990
6,015
7,2.50
7.1160
R tso
9.480
10.230
12, 330
14,505
17. 110
19. 8540
22 ,st.5
64,305
4,680
6,085
6,660
6,320
6,965
7,650
8,3110
0,170
10,000
10,910
13,040
16,435
18.000
21,070
24, 175
64,420
6,220
5,830
6,485
7,170
7,850
8,610
9,415
10,270
11, 702
13,3116
15,866
18, 6411)
21,580
"(b) Except as provided in subsection (d
of section 504 of the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962, the rates of basic compensation of
officers and employees to whom the compen-
sation schedule set forth in subsection (a) of
this section applies shall be initially adjusted
as of the effective date of this section, as
follows:
"(I) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at one of the
rates of a grade In the General Schedule
of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended,
he shall receive a rate of basic compensation
at the corresponding rate in effect on and
after such date.
"(2) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate be-
tween two rates of a grade in the General
Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949.
as amended, he shall receive a rate of basic
compensation at the higher of the two cor-
responding rates In effect on and after such
date.
"(3) If the officer or employee is receiving
basic compensation immediately prior to the
effective date of this section at a rate in ex-
cess of the maximum rate for his grade, he
shall receive (A) the maximum rate for his
grade in the new schedule, or (B) his existing
rate of basic compensation if such existing
rate is higher.
"(4) If the officer or employee, immedi-
ately prior to the effective date of this sec-
tion, is receiving, pursuant to paragraph (4)
of section 2(b) of the Federal Employees
Salary Increase Act of 1955, an existing ag-
gregate rate of compensation determined tin-
der section 208(b) of the Act of September
1, 1954 (88 Stat. 1111: Public Law '783. Eighty-
third Congress), plus the amount of the in-
crease provided by section 2 of the Federal
Employees Salary Increase Act of 1955. by sec-
tion 2 of the Federal Employees Salary In-
crease Act of 1958, by section 112 of the Fed-
eral Employees Salary Increase Act of 1960,
and by section 602 of the Federal Salary Re-
form Act of 1962. he shall receive an aggre-
gate rate of compensation equal to the sum
of (A) his existing aggregate rate of com-
pensation determined under such section
208(b) of the Act of September 1. 19.54, (B)
the amount of the increase provided by sec-
tion 2 of the Federal Employees Salary In-
crease Act of 1958, by section 112 of the
increaee provided by section 2 of the Fed-
eral Employees Salary Increase Act of 1958,
(Di the amount of the increase provided by
section 112 of the Federal Employees Salary
Increase Act of 1960, (E) the amount of the
increases in schedule I and schedule II pro-
vided by section 602 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962, and (F) the amount of
the increase made by this section in the max-
imum rate of his grade, until (I) he leaves
his position, or (ii) he is entitled to receive
aggregate compensation at a higher rate by
reason of the operation of this Act or any
other provision of law; but, when such posi-
tion becomes vacant, the aggregate rate of
compensation of any subsequent appointee
thereto shall be fixed in accordance with
applicable provisions of law. Subject to
clauses II,and I II) of the immediately pre-
ceding sentence of this paragraph, the
amount of the increase provided by this sec-
tion shall be held and considered for the
purpose of section 208(b) of such Act of
September 1, 1954, to constitute a part of
the existing rate of compensation of such
employee.
"(5) If the officer or employee Is in a posi-
tion in grade 16 or 17 of the General Sched-
ule of the Classification Act of 1949, as
n111011(1E94, to which he was promoted on or
after the first day of his first pay period
beginning on or after January 1, 1964, and
if he holds such position, or another position
in the same grade, on the effective date of
this section. his rate of basic compensation
shall be adjusted, as of such effective date,
to that rate of basic compensation to which
he would have been entitled if the oompen-
setien schedule in subeection (a) of this
section had been in effect on the date of his
promotion.
"Sxr. 103. (a) Section 801 of the Clas-
sification Act of 1949 (5 U.S.C. 1131), relat-
ing to new appointments, is amended to read
as fellows:
" 'Sae. 801. All new appointments shall be
made at the minimum rate of the appropri-
ate erade, except that in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Commission
which provide for such considerations as the
candidate's existing salary, unusually high
or unique qualifications, or a special need
of the Government for his services, the head
of any department may appoint individuals
to positions in grade 13 and above of the
General Schedule at such rate or rates above
the minimum rate of tile appropriate grade
as the Commission may authorize for this
purpose.'.
"( hi Section 1105 of the Classification Act
of 1949. as amended (5 U.S.C. 1071, note and
1082. note), is amended to read as follows:
"'SKr. 1105. The provisions of section 507,
title VII, and title VIII of this Act shall not
apply to professional engineering positions
primarily concerned with research and devel-
opment and professional positions In the
physical and natural sciences and medicine
placed in grades 18. 17. and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule in accordance with subsection
lb ) or subsection (j I of section 505 of this
Act. The President or an agency or agencies
that he designates shall issue regulations
governing the rate of basic compensation
within the grade to be received by any officer
or employee occupying, appointed to. or pro-
moted to. such a position and, in the case
of reduction in srade. may Issue regulations
governing retention of the rate to which the
officer or employee was entitled immediately
before reduction.'
c ) Section 505(b) of the Classification
Act of 1949. as amended (5 U.S.C. 1105(b)),
relating to the limitation on numbess of
positions in grad ss 16, 17, and 18 of the Gen-
eral Schedule of such Act, is amended by
striking out 'which may be placed in such
grades' and by mserting in lieu ther sef
examiner positions under section 11 of the
Administrative F eocedure Act (80 Stat. 244:
U.S.C. 1010). .-nd pcsitions placed under
this Act pursuans to section 309 of the Fed-
eral Executive Ss ary Act cd 1964, whice may
be placed in sucl grades'.
"(d) Section 64 41d (3) of the Feciera= Em-
ployees Pay Act c: 1945, as amended (5
044(c) (3) ), is asiended to read as blows:
"'(3) All rates, shall be computed to the
nearest cent, a enting, one-half cent and
over as a whole cont.'.
"Postal fie Id service employees
"Sac. 104. Seceion 1 of title 39, U sited
States Code is a: leaded by striking ou: the
period at the enc of such section and irsert-
ing in lieu thereof a semicolon and the fol-
lowing:
" ' "revenue u eit" means that amount
of revenue of a post office from mail and
special service tsansactions which is equal
to the average a in of postal rates and fees
received by the 7Separtment during the fis-
cal year for 1.000 pieces of originating mail
and special servise transactions determined
In accordance w th section 2331 of ins ti-
tle.'.
"Sec. 11)5. Sect on 702 of title 39, Ulited
States Code, is amended to read as fol-
lows:
? 702. Classes of post offices
"'(a) Effective at the beginning of each
fiscal year the P atmaster General sha I di-
vide post offices Into four chimes on the
basis of the revenue units of each office for
the second prees ding fiscal year. He shall
place in the amt. 2lass those post offices hav-
ing 950 or mole revenue units. He shall
place in the sec end class those post c faces
having 190 or m.ire revenue units, but less
than 950 revenus units. He shall plaoe in
the third class tense post offices havirg 36
or more revenuE unite, but less that 190
revenue units. Ile shall place in the faurth
class those post affioes having less than 36
revenue units.
"'(b) The Pcx tanaster General shal: ex-
clude from the sevenue credited to a post
office for the puraoses of this section money
received at that clIce for-
"'(1) betting :cetera for patrons be ,ond
the area served 1:y the office unless au, hor-
teed by the Depai ement:
-(2) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold in large or unusual q
ian-
titles to be used in mailing matter at other
offices; and
"'(3) stamps, stamped envelopes, and
postal cards sold 'or mailing matter diverted
from other office; and mailing of matt-T so
diverted without 3tamps affixed.
" '(c) Wheneve unusual conditions pr?.vail
at a post office of the fourth claw, the Post-
master General Flay advance such of:5,e to
the appropriate c ass based on his estimate of
the number of re ,enue units which the office
will have durir g the succeeding ti7elve
months. Any office so advanced need not
be relegated to a lower class before the end
of the second fiseal year after the adve nce-
ment At that tine, the office shall be as-
signed to the appropriate class in accord.ence
with subsections (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion:.
"Sec. 108. Sect on 704 of title 39, United
States Code, is assended by deleting 'ce the
first, second, or teird class' appearing there-
in, and inserting in lieu thereof '(other 'than
one for which the postmaster furnishes c.uar-
ters, equipment, E.nd fixtures on an allowance
basis) '.
"Sac. 107. Subseetion (b) (1) of section 2102
of title 39. Unitea States Code, is ame ided
to read as follows
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1'964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66BM3R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? 4919
" (1) for post offices at which the post-
master does not furnish quarters on an al-
lowance basis;'.
"Sac. 108. (a) Section 3501 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by?
'(1) deleting from the first sentence of
subsection (a) the following: 'standard posi-
tions of postmaster in a fourth class office
and rural carrier' and inserting in lieu there-
of 'standard position of rural carrier'; and
"(2) inserting a new subsection (c) follow-
ing subsection (b) as follows:
" '(c) As of the effective date of this sec-
tion, the Postmaster General shall deter-
mine and adjust the rankings of all positions
for which the number of annual revenue
units of a post office or its class is a relevant
factor of the ranking, using the revenue units
of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, and
the class of the office as of July 1, 1964.
Thereafter the Postmaster General shall de-
termine and, effective at the beginning of the
first pay period in each calendar year, shall
adjust the rankings of all positions for which
the number of annual revenue units of a post
office or its class is a relevant factor of the
ranking, using the revenue units of the pre-
ceding fiscal year and the class in which the
office will be placed at the begininng of the
next fiscal year. The Postmaster General
also may adjust rankings of such positions at
other times of the year based upon substan-
tial changes in service conditions.'.
"(b) Chapter 45 of title 39, 'United States
Code, is amended as follows:
"(1) In subsection (c) of section 3513?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST
OFFICE CLERK. (KP-4)'; and
"(B) Add the following new sentence to
the end of paragraph (1) : 'This office has less
than 190 revenue units annually.'.
"(2) In subsection (e) of section 3516?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'roar-
MAS (KP-113) ';
"(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $1,700' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 40 revenue units annually'.
"(3) In subsection (b) of section 3517?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-20)';
"(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $4,700' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu 'thereof
'approximately 110 revenue units annually'.
"(4) In subsection (b) of section 3518?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-221';
".(B) Delete 'third class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $6,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 140 revenues units annually'.
"(5) In subsection (b) of section 3519?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-24)'; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $63,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 1,490 revenue units an-
nually'.
"(6) In subsection (c) of section 3519?
"(A) Change the catchline to read .'POST-
MASTER. (KP-25)';
"(B) Delete 'second class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $16,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 380 revenue units annually'.
"(7) In subsection (b) of section 3520?
"(A) Change the catchline to read "POST-
MASTER. (KP-27)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of approxi-
mately $63,000' in the second sentence of
paragraph (1) and insert in lieu thereof
'approximately 1,490 revenue units
"(8) In subsection (b) of section 3521?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST.
MASTER. (KP-29) ';
"(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $129,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
3,060 revenue units annually'.
"(9) In subsection (b) of section 3522?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER,. (KP-3I)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $314,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
7,450 revenue units annually'.
"(10) In subsection (b) of section 3523?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (i-s3)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' appearing in the
first sentence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete the second sentence of para-
graph (1) and insert in lieu thereof: 'This
office has approximately 110 employees, ap-
proximately 14,350 revenue units annually,
13 government-owned vehicle units, one
classified station and 42 carrier routes within
its jurisdiction.'.
"(11) In subsection (b) of section 3524?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (IIP-35 ) '; and
NB) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph
(1) and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
61,000 revenue units annually'.
"(12) In subsection (c) of section 3524?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-313)
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $1,000,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 23,700
revenue units annually'.
"(13) In subsection (a) of section 3525?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'AS-
SISTANT POSTMASTER. (KP-37) '; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,000'
in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
200,000 revenue units annually'.
"(14) In subsection (b) of section 3525?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-38)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $2,700,000'
In the second sentence of paragraph (1) and
insert in lieu thereof 'approximately 64,000
revenue units annually'.
"(15) In subsection (a) of section 3526?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-39)'; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
400,000 revenue units annually'.
"(16) In subsection (b) of. section 3526?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-40)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $4,470,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
106,000 revenue units annually'.
"(17) In subsection (b) of section 3527?
(A) Change the catchline to read 'ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-42) '; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
1,000,000 revenue units annually'.
"(18) In subsection (c) of section 3527?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (1IP-43)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' In the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $8,460,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
200,000 revenue units annually'.
"(19) In subsection (b) of section 328?
"(A) Change the catchline to read `ASSIST-
ANT POSTMASTER. (KP-45)'; and
"(B) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
2,500,000 revenue units annually'.
"(20) In subsection (c) of section 3528?
"(A) Change the catchline to read 'POST-
MASTER. (KP-40)';
"(B) Delete 'first c ass in the first sen.-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $16,900,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu threeof 'approximately
400,000 revenue units annually'.
"(21) In section 3529?
"(A) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POSTMASTER.
(KP-47)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $48,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
L000,000 revenue units annually'.
"(22) In section 8530?
"(A) Change the catchline immediately
preceding paragraph (1) to read 'POSTMASTER.
(KP-413)';
"(B) Delete 'first class' in the first sen-
tence of paragraph (1); and
"(C) Delete 'annual receipts of $140,000,-
000' in the second sentence of paragraph (1)
and insert in lieu thereof 'approximately
2,500,000 revenue units annually'.
"Sec. 109. Section 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 section 3543 of this title, basic com-
pensation shall be paid to all employees in
accordance with such schedule.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Relmseng/Q5/_16 ? CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4920 tuNAr RECORD - HOUSE March le
" 'Postal field service schedule
'Per annum rates and steps
"IFS 1.
2
3
4
1.
52.945
$4,075
$4,205
$4,335
?
4.270
4,410
4,550
4,618)
3
4,015
4,770
4,926
8.1)80
4
5,000
5,106
6,330
5,495
5
6.345
6.1125
5,705
6,8133
t?
5,735
5, 026
6,116
6,305
7
6,140
6,345
6,560
6, 755
It
5,650
6,870
7,090
7,310
9
7.1110
7,4.30
7,670
7,910
10
7.830
&096
8,360
8,625
11
8,e50
6,945
9,240
9.835
l'",
9,670
9,895
10,220
10,545
13
LO, 575
10,1140
11,305
11,1170
14
11, 550
12,065
12,470
12, 375
15
12,883
13,330
13,776
14,72))
IC
14,240
14,73
15,230
15,7.15
17
15,753
16,305
06.800
17,405
IA
17,460
18,060
18, 670
15,250
19
19,345
20,020
20,605
21,371)
20
21,445
22,105
22. 945
2:3,095
9 10
11 I 12
$4,406
4,830
5,235
6.000
6.003
8,490
6.900
7.53(1
8, 164)
8,818)
9,530
10,870
12, 035
13,281)
14, 565
10,220
17,955
15, 390
22.045
24. 445
"Sec. 110. Section 3543(a) of title 39.
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows-
''(a) There is established a basic corn-
$4, 595 $4,726 $4,866
4.970 6,11016,250
6,390 6.646 6,700
5.925 SW) 6,156
5.246 6,425 5, 505
6,685 6,876 7,0(15
7,100 7.370 7,675
7,760 7.970 8,100
8,3Y0 8.1130 8,870
9,16619,420 9,681
10, 125 10,420 10,715
11,195 11,52(1 11,8.46
12,400 (2,706 13,130
13, 686 14,090 14,495
15,11(1 (5,553 16,000
16,715 17,2111 17,7(16
18, 505 15,053 19, 505
20,500 21,119 21,720
22.721) 23,390 21,070
54.906 $6,118
5,390 6,680
6,866 6,010
6.320 6,186
0,786
7.266
7.780
8,410
9,110
6.950
11,010
12. 170
13.495
14, 900
IC, 445
15,200
?
6, 966
7,445
7, DM
8,830
9,350
10,216
11,305 -------- -
12,496
18,800
16,306
te 803
18,695
$6,345
6,670
6,166
6,1150
7, 145
7,635
$6,375
5,810
5,320
6,818
7,325
7,825
20 705
22,330 2'2,1040
pensation schedule which shall be known
88 the Rural Carrier Schedule and for which
the symbol shall be "RCS".
" 'llurul carrier schedule
Carriers in rural delivery service: I
Fixed compensation iter an. i
nurn i V2.240: t2. 3 i 5,1'2. 450 . V, 555.62. MO,
Compensation per mile per I I I I
1
30 miles of route 1 821 84 851 8131
For each mile of route over , 1
30 miles 251 251 251 2.51
1 1
- -
smuts, rates and steps
5 1 9 1. 10 1 II 12
1
1 1 1 1
765 8718V, 975183, OSO, 3, 1851$3, 290 53,305
1 Si 1 1 1 1
sum, La for eaeb mile up to 1
'9.1 441 961 tee 1001 102: 104
25, 25, 251 231 251 261
051 25'.
1
1
"SEC. 111. (a) Section 3544 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
" '6 3544. Compensation of Postimeeters at
Fourth-Class Offices
(a) The Postmaster General shall rank
the position of postmaster of fourth-class
offices in level 6 of the Postal Field Service
Schedule and shall establish the annual rate
of basic compensation for each such position
in the proportion of the annual rate of basic
compensation for positions In PFS-5 which
he determines, in consideration of the postal
needs of the patrons of the office, that the
postmaster's hours of service bear to full-
time service. Determinations made by the
Postmaster General under this subsection
shall be final and conclusive until changed
by him.
''(b) Persons who perform the duties of
postmaster at a post office of the fourth class
where there is a vacancy or during the absence
of the postmaster on sick or annual leave or
leave without pay shall be compensated at
the rate of basic compensation for PFS level
5. step 1. determined in accordance with
subsection (a) of this section.
"*(c) At seasonal post offices of the fourth
class. the Postmaster General may authorize
the payment of basic salary prorated over the
pay periods the office is open for business dur-
ing the fiscal year.
" '(d) When required by the Postmaster
General a postmaster at a fourth-class of-
fice shall, and any other postmaster in PFS
level 5 when permitted by the Postmaster
General may. furnish quarters, fixtures, and
equipment for an office on an allowance beefs.
The allowance for this purpose shall be an
amount equal to 15 per centum of the basic
compensation for the postmaster at the of-
fice computed on the basis of the first step
of PFS level 5.'.
"ib) In the operation of the amendment
made by subsection (a) Of this section, the
following provisions shall govern:
",1) Each postmaster at a fourth-class
office on the effective date of this section
shall he assigned, as of such date-
"( A) to that numerical step of level 5 of
the Postal Field Service Schedule (PFS-5)
which corresponds to the numerical step of
the Fourth-Class Office Schedule (FOS)
receipts category which he occupied Ircune-
diately prior to such assignment, or
"033 to the lowest step of level 5 of the
Postal Field Service Schedule (PFS-5) which
will provide him, for the number of hours of
service determined under section 3544 of title
39, United States Code, compensation which
Is not less than the compensation to which
he would otherwise be entitled, on the effec-
tive date of this section, under Fourth Class
Schedule II (as if such schedule were in
effect on such date),
whichever step provides the higher rate of
compensation.
21 If no step In level 5 of the Postal
Field Service Schedule (PFS-5) will provide
a postmaster, so assigned under paragarph
(1) of this subsection, with compensation
which is equal to or greater than the compen-
sation which he would have received under
Fourth Class Schedule it (as if such sched-
ule were in effect on the effective date of this
section 1 , such postmaster shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to the applicable
rate fixed under Fourth Class Schedule II (as
If such schedule were in effect on the effec-
tive date of this section) and the provisions
of section 3544 of title 3e, United States Code
(as such provisions existed immediately prior
to the effective date of this section). Sub-
ject to the provisions of section 3560 of title
39, United States Code, the compensation of
a postmaster paid in accordance with the
Immediately preceding sentence shall be ad-
justed In accoeiance with changes n the
gross postal re::elpts of his post oflce as
though this Act had not been enacted The
compensation c 7 a postmaster paid .n ac-
cordance with =my of the foregoing provi-
sions of this I iragraph shall contlrue in
effect until suc a postmaster is entitled to
receive compen, ation at a higher rite by
reason of the cperation of this Act or any
other provision of law.
"(3) 1.1 change in the gross postal receipts
category or cha:.ges in salary step otherwise
would occur on the effective date of thLs sec-
tion (without regard to the enactment of this
section), such ehanges shall be heel and
considered to ho ve occurred prior to assign-
ment under pa sigreph (1) of this selesec-
Don.
'(c) The tab:3 of contents of chap,er 45
of title 39, Une ed States Code, Is amended
by deleting:
'3544. Fourth .:flass Office Schedule.';
and inserting ir lieu thereof
'3544. Compensation of Postmaste e at
Fourt.1-Class Offices?.
"Sec. 112. (a) Subsection (a) of section
6007 of title 159, United States Code, is
tunended to rent as follows:
" ' ( a) The Poetmaster General shall pay to
persons, other t am special delivery messen-
gers at post offices of the first class, for mak-
ing delivery of ssecial delivery mall suca fees
as may be estab ishod by him not in sxcese
of the special de tvery fee.'.
"(b) Section 2009 of title 39, United .States
Code, is arnende3 by deleting 'at any price
less than eight cants per piece' and inserting
In lieu thereof 'as any price less than the fees
established pure lent to section 6007(a) of
this title.'.
"Sec. 113. Sec tori 3560 of title 39, I tilted
States Code, is amended-
"(1) by deleting from subsection (a '(3)
gross receipts cetegory, with respect to the
Fourth-Class Of Schedule' and inserting
in lieu thereof ' 3) minimum hours of serv-
ice with respect to postmasters in fcurth-
class post offices and
"(2) by deletilig from subsection (f '(1)
reductions in cis ss or gross receipts category
of any post office, or' and inserting II. lieu
thereof '(1) reduetions in class, revenue units
of any post office, or the minimum laceirs of
service for a foueth-class post office, oe.
"Sec. 114. SecAon 711 of title 39, United.
States Code, Is re sealed.
"Sec. 115. The table of contents of &enter
7 of title 39, Uni sea States Code, Is amended
by deleting
" '711. Method of determining groan re-
ceipts .
"Sec. 116. The basic compensation of each
employee subjec', to the Postal Field Service
Schedule or the Rural Carrier Schedule im-
mediately prior so the effective date ce this
section shall be determined as follows:
"(1) Each erre 4oyee shall be assign.el to
the same numerical step for his poi Mon
which he had at:allied Immediately prior to
such effective do e. If changes in lev, Is or
steps would otherwise occur on such effective
date without reeard to enactment of this
Act, such changes shall be deemed to have
occurred prior LO conversion.
" (2 ) If the cxi iting basic compensation is
greater than the 'ate to which the employee
is converted ureter paragraph (1) of this
section. the emp ayee shall be placed in the
lowest step whica exceeds his basic con pen-
nation. If the cdstIng basic compens aeon
exceeds the max,mum step of his pas tion,
his existing bar c compensation shall be
established as his basic compensation.
"Employees in tie Deparment of Medicine
and surgery of the Veterans' Adminidra-
tion
"Sec. 117. (a) .Section 4103 of title 38,
United States Coee, relating to the oppoint-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
,1964,
ApprovedFotlftipang9ft?tQA/A8RAWADF266f)(A491R000500050001-9 4921
ment and annual salaries of certain staff
positions in the Department of Medicine and
Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, is
amended to read as follows:
"? 4103. Office of the Chief Medical Director
"4(a) The Office of the Chief Medical Di-
rector shall consist of the following-
"4(1) The Chief Medical Director, who
shall be the Chief of the Department of
Medicine and Surgery and shall be directly
responsible to the Administrator for the op-
erations of the Department. He shall be
a qualified doctor of medicine, appointed by
the Administrator.
Section 2 of the Act of July 31, 1894,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 62), shall not apply
to any individual oppointed Chief Medical
Director before January 1, 1964; but section
212 of the Act of June 30, 1932, as amended
(5 U.S.C. 59a), shall apply, in accordance
with its terms, to any such individual.
"4(2) The Deputy Chief Medical Director,
who shall be the principal assistant of the
Chief Medical Director. He shall be a quali-
fied doc.tor of medicine, appointed by the
Administrator.
"4(3) Not to exceed five Assistant Chief
Medical Directors, who shall be appointed
by the Administrator upon the recommen-
dation of the Chief Medical Director. One
Assistant Chief Medical Director shall be a
qualified doctor of dental surgery or dental
medicine who shall be directly responsible
to the Chief Medical Director for the opera-
tion of the Dental Service.
"4(4) Such Medical Directors as may be
appointed by the Administrator, upon the
recommendation of the Chief Medical Di-
rector, to suit the needs of the Department.
A Medical Director shall be either a quali-
fied doctor of medicine or a qualified doctor
of dental surgery or- dental medicine.
"'(5) A Director of Nursing Service, who
shall be a qualified registered nurse, ap-
pointed by the Administrator, and who
shall be responsible to the Chief Medical
Director for the operation of the Nursing
Service.
"'(6) A Chief Pharmacist and a Chief
Dietitian, appointed by the Administrator.
" ' (7) Such other personnel and employ
ees as may be authorized by this chapter.
"4(b) Except as provided in subsection
(c), any appointment under this section
shall be for a period of four years, with
reappointment permissible for successive
like periods, except that persons so appointed
or reappointed shall be subject to removal
by the Administrator for cause.
'4(c) The Administrator may designate a
member of the Chaplain Service of the Vet-
erans' Administration as Director, Chaplain
Service, for a period of two years, subject to
removal by the Administrator for cause.
Redesimation under this subsection may be
made for successive like periods. An in-
dividual designated as Director, Chaplain
Service, shall at the end of his period of
service as Director revert to the position,
grade, and status which he held immediately
prior to being designated Director, Chaplain
Service, and all service- as Director, Chaplain
Service, shall be creditable as service in the
former position.'.
"(b) The table of contents of chapter 73
of title 38, United States Code, is amended
by striking out
" '4103. Appointments and compensation.'
and inserting in lieu thereof:
" '4103. Office of the Chief Medical Director.'.
"SEC. 118. Section 4107 of title 39, United
States Code, relating to grades and pay scales
for certain positions within the Department
of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans'
Administration, is amended to read as
follows:
No. 45-9
"'I 4107. Grades and pay scales
"4(a) The per annum Tull-pay scale 02
ranges for positions provided in section 4103
of this title, other than Chief Medical Di-
rector and Deputy Chief Medical Director,
shall be as follows:
"'Section 4103 schedule
" 'Assistant Chief Medical Director, $24,500.
"'Medical Director, $21,445 minimum to
$24,445 maximum.
" 'Director of Nursing Service, $16,460
minimum to $21,590 maximum.
"'Director, Chaplain Service, $16,460 min-
imum to $21,590 maximum.
"'Chief Pharmacist, $16,460 minimum to
$21,590 _maximum.
"'Chief Dietitian, $16,460 minimum to
$21,590 maximum.
"4(b) (1) The grades and per annum full-
pay ranges fox: positions provided in para-
graph (1) of section 4104 of this title shall
be as follows:
"'Physician and dentist schedule
"'Director' grade, $18,935 minimum to
$24,175 maximum.
"'Executive grade, $17,655 Minimum to
$23,190 maximum.
" 'Chief grade, $16,460 minimum to $21,590
maximum.
"'Senior grade, $14,170 minimum to
$18,580 miximum.
" 'Intermediate grade, $12,075 minimum to
$15,855 maximum.
"'Full grade, $10,200 minimum to $13,395
maximum.
"'Associate grade, $8,550 minimum to
$11,205 maximum.
"'Nurse schedule
"'Assistant Director grade, $14,170 mini-
mum to $18,680 maximum.
"'Chief grade, $12,075 minimum to $15,855
maximum.
"'Senior grade, $10,200 minimum to
$13,395 maximum.
" 'Intermediate grade, $8550, minimum to
$11,205 maximum.
"'Full grade, $7,210 minimum to $9,415
maximum.
" 'Associate grade, $6,315 minimum to
$8,215 maximum.
" 'Junior grade, $5,505 minimum to $7,170
maximum.
"4(2) No person may hold the director
grade unless he is servitig as a director of a
hospital, domiciliary center, or outpatient
clinic (independent). No person may hold
the executive grade unless he holds the posi-
tion of chief of staff at a hospital, center, or
outpatient clinic (independent), or the po-
sition of clinic director at an outpatient
clinic, or comparable position.'.
"Foreign Service officers; staff officers and
employees
"SEc. 119. Section 412 of the Foreign Serv-
ice Act of 1946, as amended (22 U.S.C. 867) ,
is amended to read as follows:
"'Foreign Service officers
"'SEc. 412. There shall be 10 classes of
Foreign Service officers, including the classes
of career ambassador and of career minister.
The per annum salary of a career ambassador
shall be at the rate provided by lair
for level IV of the Federal Executive Salary
Schedule. The per annum salary of a career
minister shall be at the rate provided by law
for level V of such schedule. The per an-
num salaries of Foreign Service officers with-
in each of the other classes shall be as
follows:
" 'Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 6
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
$22, 650
38,295
14,860
12,075
9,900
8,201
7,000
6,050
$23, 440
18, 930
15, 375
12, 495
10,245
8,490
7,235
6,250
$24, BOO
19, 566
15, 890
12, 915
10,990
8, 775
7,470
6,410
.0o.wwoo
?01-34SK
$21, 470
17,431
14,175
11,625
9,610
. 8, 175
7,050
$22, 105
17,950
14, 595
11,070
9,015
8,430
7,250',
"SEc. 120. Subsection (a) of section 415
of such Act (22 U.S.C. 870(a) ) is amended to
read as follows:
" '(a) There shall be ten classes of Foreign
Service staff officers and employees, referred
to hereafter as staff officers and employees.
The per annum salaries of such staff officers
and employees within each class shall be as
follows:
" 'Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
$14, 860
12,075
9,900
8, 206
$15, 375
12, 495
10, 245
8, 490
$15, 890
12,915
10, 590
8, 775
$16, 405
13, 335
10,939
9,060
$16, 920
13,715
11,280
9, 345
$17, 435
14, 175
11,625
9,610
$17, 950
14, 695
11,070
9,915
$18, 465
15, 015
12, 315
10, 200
$18, 980
15, 435
12, 660
10, 485
$19, 495
15, 855
13, 005
10, 770
Class 5
7,405
7, NO
7, 915
8, 170
8,425
8,680
8,935
0, 190
9,441
9, 700
Class 6
6, 710
6, 935
7, 160
7, 385
7,610
7, 835
8,080
8, 285
8, 510
8, 735
Class 7
6, 205
6, 410
6,815
6, 820
7,025
7, 230
7, 435
7,840
7, 845
8, 050
Class 8
5,490
5,675
5,860
8,049
6, 230
6, 416
8,600
6, 785
6, 970
7, 155
Class 9
9,010
5, 175
0,340
5, 505
9,670
6, 835
8,000
6, 165
6, 330
6,405
Class 10
4, 480
4, 830
4, 780
4,900
8,880
5, 230
5, 380
5, 530
5, 680
5, 830'.
"Sac. 121. Foreign Service officers, Reserve
officers, and Foreign Service staff officers and
employees who are entitled to receive basic
compensation immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of this section at one of the rates
provided by section 412 or 415 of the Foreign
Service Act of 1946, shall receive basic com-
pensation, on and after such effective date,
at the rate of their class determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of State.
"Agricultural stabilization and conservation
county committee employees
"Sim. 122. The rates of compensation of
persons employed by the county committees
established pursuant to section 8(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 690h(b) ) shall be increased
by amounts equal, as nearly as may be prac-
ticable, to the increases provided by section
102 of this Act for corresponding rates of
compensation in the appropriate schedule
or scale of pay.
"Miscellaneous provisions
"Sac. 123. Section 604 of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
1173) is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new subsection:
"4(d) The rate of basic compensation, es-
tablished under this section, and received by
any officer or employee immediately prior to
the effective date of a statutory increase in
the compensation schedules of the salary
systems specified in subsection (a) shall
be initially adjusted on the effective date
of such new compensation schedules_ in ac-
cordance with conversion rules and regula-
tions prescribed by the President or by such
agency or agencies as he may designate.'
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4922 Approved Forcli9MirfAgliaRt8 itRtbEBp_16?196gF000500050001 -9
Illed.ch 12.
"Absorption 01 costs
"SEc. 124. (a) The cost of not less than 10
per centum of the aggregate amount of the
increases in compensation provided by this
title for the fiscal year 1965 shall be absorbed
by the departments, agencies, establish-
ments, and corporations in the executive
branch; and no amount beyond the addi-
tional sum for such compensation increases
proposed in the budget for the fiscal year
1965 is authorized to be appropriated by any
provision of this Act. The total amount of
such absorption shall be allocated by the
Bureau of the Budget among such depart-
ments, agencies, estblishments, and corpo-
rations in such manner and to such extent
as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget
deems appropriate In the light of their es-
sential functions.
"(b) Pursuant to the objective of this sec-
tion, heads of the executive branch activities
concerned are directed to review with metic-
ulous care each vacancy resulting from vol-
untary resignation, retirement, or death and
to determine whether the duties of the posi-
tion can be reassigned to other employees
or whether the position can be abolished
without seriously affecting the execution of
essential functions.
"(c) Nothing contained In subsection (a)
of this section shall be held or considered
to require ill the separation from the serv-
ice of any individual by reduction in force
or other personnel action or (2) the placing
of any individual in a leave-without-pay
status."
Mr. MURRAY (during the reading of
the amendment.) Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the further
reading of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment reduces the cost of this bill
by approximately $123 million by elimi-
nating the "frills" added in committee
although strongly opposed by the admin-
istration, by correcting a deficiency in
payroll operations, and by requiring ab-
sorption of 10 percent of the cost.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Tennessee yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio for a parliamentary in-
quiry?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I would like to inquire of the Chair
whether or not there are any commit-
tee prints of this amendment available
so that Members might be able to know
what it contains.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot
inform the gentleman as to that.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman from Tennessee
yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I would like
to inquire whether or not committee
prints are available of this amendment
which, as I understand it, is a substitute
for title I of the bill. Are copies avail-
able for distribution among the Members
of the House so that they may know
what it contains? I have been told at
the desk here that there is ohly one coin-
mittee print available. I would be happy
to look at that copy but I believe other
Members should have an opportunity to
see a copy of the amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. I believe copies are
available and can be obtained by any
Member.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Where are
they? Is anybody distributing copies of
the amendment?
Mr. Chairman. if the gentleman from
Tennessee will yield further, I would
like to state I feel the minority Mem-
bers of the House should be just as much
entitled to read this amendment as the
majority Members. I want to insist, if
I may. that copies of this amendment
should be available for distribution to
Members so that they may know what
is in the amendment.
Mr. MURRAY. There are copies, I
believe, at the desk on each side that
are available for every Member.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. There are no copies
here, at the back, or there in the front.
Can we clear this up and possibly have
copies distributed? We can follow the
presentation better if we have them.
There is only a single copy.
Let us have the record clear. Were
copies made up, or is this just a state-
ment that they are around? Does the
majority have copies? Does anyone over
there have copies? We have none, ex-
cept the single one at the desk.
Mr. MORRLSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield.
Mr. MORRISON. I believe the gentle-
man can call a page and get copies on
that side or on this side. There were
copies put in the back for both the ma-
jority and the minority.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Tennessee yield further,
in this colloquy?
Mr. MURRAY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Missouri,
Mr. CURTIS. I say to the gentleman
that is exactly what we have done. We
have checked. There are not copies
available. Who is handling this? Why
can this not be taken care of? Who is
in charge of this, for heaven's sake?
Who is handling the bill? Copies obvi-
ously were printed. Here is the one copy
we have on this side of the aisle. There
are none in the back. We have just
checked. Can we get this clarified?
Who is in charge here?
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I will
explain the amendment, I hope to the
satisfaction of all.
Mr. CURTIS. I wish to say, if the
gentleman will yield further, that this is
about 30 pages. Without copies available
I believe possibly a recess will be in order.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. The gentleman from
Tennessee had the floor. and I have not
heard him yield to any Member lately.
He is not standing.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY I has been
recognized by the Chair. We hope the
gentleman from Tennessee will main-
tain his position standing, if he wishes
to obtain the attention of the Chamber.
Mr. MURRAY. I thank the Cheir-
man. I shell do sa.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment woild
reduce the cost this bill by apprcxi-
matey $123 millian by eliminating costly
"friths" added ei committee althotigh
strongly opposed by the administratian,
by correcting a d eflciency in payroll op-
erations, and b... requiring absorpt.on
of 10 percent of tie cost.
First, the erne: idment strikes out sec-
tion 114(e), which would grant step in-
creases for posts. employees in the f rst
six levels on the basis of total postal
service. This wi: save $46.5 million.
Mrs. FRANCFS P. BOLTON. Mr.
Chairman, a poin ; of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewozran
from Ohio wish,. s to make a point of
order.
Mrs. F'RANCE;3 P. BOLTON. It is
absolutely imposable to hear or under-
stand what the i:entleman is saying. If
the gentleman a. trying to put the ex-
planation in place of a copy of ',he
amendment, this is certainly a strange
way to proceed.
The CHAIRMe N. The point of or ler
Is well taken. ('he Chair once ag,tin
appeals to the Members to please deist
from audible conversation. Those
Members standir I in the aisles will take
seats or retire to the cloakrooms. The
gentleman is entitled to be heard in -he
explanation of h is amendment.
Mr. MURRAY Mr. Chairman, s ec-
ond, the amendrient strikes out sect on
114(b), which wauld unduly acceler tte
automatic step i: icreases for postal em-
ployees in salary levels 7 and abcve.
This will save $1.)
Third, the ameadment strikes out sub-
sections (e) and (d) of section 114
which would put postmasters on a 5-ay
workweek. This will save at least $6.7
million.
Fourth, the ai.aendment adds a rew
section 103(a) te correct a deficiency in
payroll operators for hourly and pay-
period salary calculations by provid ng
that fractions 01 a cent be rounded to
the nearest cent instead of being c tr-
ried to the next aigher cent as at pres-
ent. This will save $10 million a year.
Fifth, the ameadment adds a new sec-
tion 124 which requires all executive
departments an. agencies to absorb 10
percent of the cast of their salary at-
creases from their budgets presented by
the President and forbids any supale-
mental requests for funds to cover -the
cost of their pea raises. This will save
$57.8 million.
The adoption of these amendme its
will bring this la .1 into conformity with
the policy of the Federal Salary Reform
Act of 1962. I urge approval of .he
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of he
gentleman from Tennessee has expired.
Mr. CORBan-I . Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
Mr. JOHANSE:a. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman y: lid for an inquiry?
Mr. CORBETI I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. JOHANSEia. I wonder if the gen-
tleman, as the ra -liking minority memaer
of the committee, is able to enligh-,en
us as to the availability of any cor ies
of these amendments.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
19 64,
Approved For Release 2005/015/18..? uCLArRDPWRiO3R000500050001-9 4923
CONGRESSIONAL KECtcy
Mr. CORBETT. I might say to the
gentleman that while I did not even
know there was one printed copy, the
committee has been called and they are
trying to round up any copies that do
exist. However, rrly understanding of
the amending process here in the Com-
mittee of the Whole is that it simply
means the amendment has to be written,
and it is only required to have one copy
available at the desk. I know it would
be more convenient to have a full copy,
but particularly for the benefit of the
Member, who is a hard working mem-
ber of the committee, I would advise or
suggest that a copy be handed to him,
so he could read it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Will the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I suggest that the
Members of the House are entitled to the
opportunity of knowing what is in an
amendment as broad and sweeping as
this is. May I make a parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. CORBETT. I was going to try to
explain the amendment a little bit, but
the gentleman is using up all my time.
Go ahead.
The CHAIRMAN (Mi. HOLIFIELD) .
Does the gentleman yield for a parlia-
mentary inquiry?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Would a motion
that the Committee rise be in order at
this time?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman
from Pennsylvania yields for that pur-
pose.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
cannot yield further. I probably only
have 3 minutes left.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania refuses to yield fur-
ther. The Committee will be in order.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
might say that this amendment was pre-
sented to the Committee on Rules. It
was discussed there at some length'. It
in effect takes out of the title all of those
amendments which we in the committee
referred to as "goodie" amendments,
that is, the things which did increase
the compensation or the fringe benefits
of the employees but did not in any way
affect the salary schedule. This amend-
ment, as I understand it, leaves the sal-
ary features of title I exactly as they are
in the bill reported. It only takes out
In a?group all of these side benefits that
might have been included. For exam-
ple, the Dulski amendment, which might
have cost in the neighborhood of $43
million, is eliminated by this amend-
ment. The 5-day week for postmasters
is eliminated, and so on and so forth.
In the interest of trying to get the
total cost of the bill back to the amount
of money budgeted for the coming fiscal
year, this amendment?that is, title
was prepared and numerous members of
the committee, whether they did or did
not favor the passage of individual
amendments in committee, decided that
they should support the Murray amend-
ment to title I, and then, if these things,
these other matters, were desirable, they
ought to be included in legislation at
some other time.
With the passage of this amendment
we maintain identically the comparabil-
ity features as set up in the original re-
ported bill. We eliminate all of the
fringe benefits. We cut the total cost
of the bill back from in the neighborhood
of $668 million to around $545 million.
This is a good amendment for those who
want to economize and for those who
want to be fiscally responsible and for
those who want to keep within the
budget limitation. This amendment
should be passed.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, in
order to cut down some of the confusion
that some are trying to generate here,
I should like to say this, and I think it
is very simple. I have been here 21
years and I have seen hundreds and
hundreds of amendments offered and
there were no printed copies for Mem-
bers. The proper procedure is to send
the amendment to the desk and the
clerk reads the amendment. The Mem-
ber then explains his amendment and I
believe our chairman and other mem-
bers of the committee can fully explain
same. There are some people here who
are in such a big rush, they do not seem
to want to have the amendment ex-
plained. This is just a simple amend-
ment. It cuts down the cost of this bill.
I want to ask the gentleman from Ari-
zona, who is familiar with this matter,
and is the author of one of the bills, if
this amendment does not cut out of the
bill $123 million and reduce the total
cost of the bill to $545 million, which
is within $1 million of the President's
budget request? Is that correct?
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman is exactly
correct. Much of the outcry from those
who are demanding a copy of this 31-
page amendment, comes from people
who are opposed to the original bill. I
suspect they will be opposed to the bill
after the amendment is adopted. And
I suppose they will still be opposed to
the bill whether or not we amend it or
change it in any other fashion.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman Yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Ohio. -
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Just a short
observation in order to clarify the record,
if the gentleman please. I understhnd?
I was not there?but I understand that
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MUR-
RAY] for whom I have a great regard, as
I do for other members of that commit-
tee, did present this amendment in testi-
mony bpfore the Committee on Rules on
Wednesday of last week. At that time
the amendment seemed to have been at
least in typewritten form. So I do not
believe it is so peculiar or so strange that
some of us would like to have had the
opportunity of seeing a printed copy of
this very important amendment today.
I do believe there was plenty of time to
have the amendment printed. I hope
that explains the situation and clarifies
the atmosphere, for the benefit of the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MOR-
RISON] who seems to have been disturbed
by my inquiry.
Mr. UDALL. There has been consid-
erable conversation about economy in
recent months and because of that situa-
tion we had only 100 copies of the amend-
ment printed. That is about 98 copies
more than the number ordinarily printed
of amendments which are sent to the
desk.
Mr. Chairman, let me try to explain
briefly what this amendment is, and
then if I have any time I shall yield. The
bill has five titles. We are now starting
with the first title. The chairman of
our committee has offered a rewrite of
that first title. But it does not rewrite
very much of it. It is in technical lan-
guage, and the simplest way to rewrite
the small portion involved was simply
to rewrite the whole title and offer it as
a substitute. The title covers the classi-
fied service. It covers the postal employ-
ees and postmasters. It covers the Vet-
erans' Administration's various sched-
ules in medicine and surgery and other
employees. It covers the Foreign Service
schedule and the ASCS employees. None
of these major salary systems are affected
in any way by this substitute amend-
ment. It does not affect the Veterans'
Administration, the Foreign Service, the
ASCS. The schedules for the postal and
classified system are exactly word for
word and line for line and figure for
figure the same ones you have in the
basic bill before you.
As has been said already, and I thought
there would be great enthusiasm for it,
all it does is to cut off $123 million of
the cost and bring it down within the
ball park so we will have a cost which
has been fully budgeted in the 1964 budg-
et and will be budgeted in the 1965
budget.
The three major things that this does?
and the Chairman covered this?the
three major savings are first, in some
fringe benefits, the so-called Dulski
amendment which, when it was presented
to the committee, we thought had a very
modest price tag, but it turns out that it
has a price tag anywhere from $45 to
$55 million. This is eliminated by the
substitute, and in my Judgment it should
have been eliminated.
Second?and this was touched on
yesterday?there is a provision which
will require the rounding out of any pay
raises down to the nearest whole cent.
This will save about $10 million.
The third major change?and this is
the most important?requires, in a
straightforward, rigid, mandatory fash-
ion, that each department which has em-
ployees entitled to this raise must absorb
10 percent of the cost. It is binding
language. They are bound to absorb 10
percent of the cost. Ten percent of the
cost of $540 million is something over $50
million.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arizona has expired.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? IRA:SE
Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
may proceed for an additional 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. UDALL. This mandate, inciden-
tally, if the Congress passes it today is
going to strengthen the hand of the
budget which will attempt to keep these
agencies in line. In other words, they
will be able to point to a mandate we
have adopted which requires that 10
percent of the cost of this bill be ab-
sorbed.
Mr. Chairman, during the hearings on
the 1962 pay raise we had testimony to
the effect that 42 percent of the cost was
absorbed by the agencies. This can be
done and it will be done.
Mr. Chairman. while I am speaking,
permit me to make one other point. If
you have a Government contract for
$100 million, all of this money goes out.
We may get back eventually from
the taxpayers some of this amount in
the form of income tax return. How-
ever, the bill before us deals only with
Federal employees and if a person re-
ceives a $100 pay raise, he will never see
$20 of that $100. It will be withheld
and never leave the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is de-
signed to reduce the cost of this bill to
the extent of $145 million if this sub-
stitute amendment is adopted.
Mr. WESTLAND. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Washington.
Mr. WESTLAND. That is the sort of
question I wanted to ask. As I under-
stand it. the original bill provided for
$600 million, and you are going to reduce
that $123 or $125 million.
How do you wind up with $544 mil-
lion? Why do you not wind up with
$476 or $478 million?
Mr. UDALL. I have the figure sheet
here at the desk.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. The original
cost of the bill was $668 million.
Mr. WESTLAND. That is not what
the report shows.
Mr. UDALL. The report is on a bill
which was reported last November. The
bill at that time had a different cost.
Mr. WESTLAND. This report on the
bill H.R. 8986, page 3, says the cost of
the bill is $600.7 million.
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. WAL1.1{AUSER I to
explain that.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I do not have
the report in front of me, but I have the
cost sheet which shows the original ad-
ministration bill cost was $566 million.
Then the committee bill, H.R. 8986, came
out with S668.5 million, and with the
Murray amendment it comes to $545.7
million.
Mr. UDALL. Yes; $123 million comes
off.
Mr. WESTLAND. You ought to have
your report corrected, because the report
does not show that at all.
Mr. LTDALL. I do not think there is
any error in the report.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. To clarify
the difference, the report has figures
based upon 1962 employment figures and
the information given now by the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania is basedon 1963
employment figures.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. The gentleman
should be complimented for clarifying
some of the questions involved. There
are two unanswered questions I would
like to have reemphasized and answered.
First. in what other parts of the report
are there figures that are in need of ad-
justment? Second, will the gentleman
please explain to the membership how
the majority of the committee was so
overliberal in overloading the original
administration bill?
Mr. UDALL. I reject the gentleman's
suggestion that the report is filled with
inaccuracies. It is not. It is a good
report, and it is accurate. It is based on
figures we had when we reported the bill
last November. We had some delay in
getting this bill to the floor. But Gov-
ernment goes on, employment changes,
and there have been salary adjustments
come into play, promotions, and things
of that kind. So I reject the thought
there are any great number of inaccura-
cies in the report. I think it is a good
report. and I recommend it for the read-
ing of the Members of the House.
The gentleman wants to know why we
reduced the cost of the bill. It was be-
cause we wanted economy, we wanted to
bring this bill within the budget figures.
This is not an addition to the budget.
The bill will be within the 1964 budget
of President Kennedy and within the
1964 budget of President Johnson.
Mr. DERWINSKI. The question I
asked the gentleman was why in commit-
tee we added the $123 million that we
are now scaling down.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman was a
member of the committee. He did not
want to add anything. as I recall. He
was against all raises for postal employ-
ees, classified officials, Members of Con-
gress. and everyone else. This is my
recollection.
(Mr. CTIFTeF asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the Raceme)
Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, recently
I have voted against the $4 billion foreign
aid--the $312 million additional lending
authority for the International Aid Ad-
ministration, which is foreign aid under
a different woodshed?and what I con-
sider to be other unnecessary Federal
spending programs. I did this in order
to help keep and to maintain a balanced
budget and, therefore, justify the tax cut
that I vigorously supported as far back
as the late 1950's, I did so because I felt
our people and American business des-
perately needed such an incentive in or-
der to grow, develop, and expand their
plants, which in turn would create more
jobs and more prosperity.
In the last few days unprecedented
rains have whipped up swirling. angry
Marc!? 72
floodwaters tl.at have greatly da-naged
and even dest ..oyed several of my cities.
For instance, the entire populat:on of
West Point, liardin County, Ky., lying
on the Ohio River near Louisville has
had to be evaeuated completely. Shen-
hercisville, in Bullitt County, alsc near
Louisville, is two-thirds under eater.
This happenee notwithstanding the fact
that recently the good citizens there,
working with their Coneressmai , the
Army enginee and the commanding
general at Fort Knox, had caused Salt
River to be ileared, cleaned, dredged,
and its channel improved. It had been
thought by th. Army engineers that this
recent job on ,Salt River would all iviate
future floods. Howhver, a rainfall of 6.3
inches, all wit tin several hours, had not
been anticipated. Northern Kentuilcy is
in horrible ceedition. Campbell, Ken-
ton, and Boone Counties are inundated.
Hundreds of i imilies have been evacu-
ated. The cite ss of Covington, Nereport,
Ludlow, Fort 1 homes. Dayton. and many
others are under water.
In view of tile present suffering, mis-
ery, and privation that some of me peo-
ple are being s ibjected to, I cannol vote
for this pay increase. While I cennot
vote for this till, I want the RECCRD to
show that for the past 20 years that I
have been in this body. I have ben a
friend of the Federal employee, beeause
I have consistently voted for all pay
raises for all el' our fine Federal and
postal workers including our Sur reme
Court judges, Federal judges, Cabinet
members, amb:. ssadors, and others.
While I agrt ?. with the proponerts of
this legislation who have made such a
long and hard audy of it, that ther is a
need for a fair equitable, moderate and
general pay raiee for Federal employees;
however, due te the horrible and tragic
conditions tha exist in my district at
this time, I ca nnot in good consc ence
support this perficular piece of letisla-
tion.
The good Lord knows that the Faurth
District of Kentucky could surely use
some of that fc reign aid money nor be-
ing sent to countries overseas, that is to
be given to pee ple we do not know. will
never see, and who care nothing about
us, while our very own suffer from -vane
and neglect.
AMENDMENT OF 'ERED BY MR. CUNNINGHAM
Mr. CUNNIN CIHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment-to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Tenne3see.
The Clerk read as follows
Amendment cCereci by Mr. CUNNINIMAM
to the amendment offered by Mr. Mm RAY
On page 18 of I ne committee print, Cateci
March 5. 1964. id the amendment ofered
by Mr. Murray, insert "(a)" tmmedlItely
following "src. :09." in line 7 and imme-
diately below the table on page 18 i melt
the following:
-(D) (1) Sectl. ii 3515 of title 39, Milted
States Code, rela Ang to positions in silary
level 4 of the Poltal Field Service Schelule,
is amended by ir serting at the end of mch
section the following subsection:
"'le) Mall hantler. (KP-13)
(t) BAsic y:TwcrioN?Loads, unL)ads,
and moves bulk mail, and performs cther
duties incidenta to the movement and
processing of mall
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDF'661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4925
"'(2) Duties and responsibilities.?
"'(A) Unloads mail received by trucks.
Separates all mail received by trucks and
conveyors for subsequent dispatch to other
conveying units, and separates and delivers
working mails for delivery to distribution
areas.
"'(B) Places empty sacks or pouches on
racks, labels them where labels are prear-
ranged or racks are plainly marked, dumps
mail from sacks, cuts, ties, faces letter mail,
carries mail to distributors for processing,
places processed mail into ,sacks, removes
filled sacks and pouches from racks, closes
and locks same. Picks up sacks, pouches
and outside pieces, separates outgoing bulk
mails for dispatch and loads mail onto
trucks.
" ' (C) Handles and sacks empty equip-
ment, inspects empty equipment for mail
content, restrings sacks.
" '(D) Cancels stamps on parcel post, op-
erates canceling machines, carries mail from
canceling machine to distribution cases.
" ' (E) Assists in supply and slip rooms
and operates addressograph, mimeograph,
and similar machines.
"'(F) In addition, may perform any of
the following duties:
"'(I) Acts as armed guard for valuable
registry shipments and as watchman and
guard around post office building.
"'(ii) Makes occasional simple distribu-
tion of parcel post mail requiring no scheme
knowledge.
" '(iii) Operates electric fork-lift trucks.
'"(iv) Rewraps soiled or broken parcels.
"'(v) Performs other miscellaneous du-
ties, such as stamping tickets, weighing in-
coming sacks, cleaning and sweeping in
workrooms, offices, and trucks where such
work is not performed by regular cleaners.
" ' (3) Organizational relationships.?Re-
ports to a foreman or other designated su-
pervisor.'
"(2) Section 3514 of title 39, United
States Code, relating to positions in salary
level 3 of the Postal Field Service Schedule,
is amended?
"(A) by striking out subsection (d), re-
lating to the position of mail handler (NP-
8); and
"(B) by striking out
"'(e) Garageman. KP-9)
and inserting in lieu thereof
"'(e) Garageman. (KP-8)
"(3) Section 3515 of title 39, United States
Code, is further amended by striking out
' (KP-10) ' (KP-11) ' (KP-12) ', and '(NP-
13)' and inserting in lieu thereof (KP-9)',
' (KP-10) ' (KP-11) ', and ' (KP-12) ', re-
spectively.
"(4) Each employee in the position of mail
handler on the effective date of this sub-
section, which is moved from level 3 to 4
of the Postal Field Service Schedule by
reason of the amendments made by this
subsection, shall be placed in that step of
such level 4 having the lowest basic com- .a employees. Some people think that all
pensation which is higher than his basic
compensation immediately prior to such ef-
fective date and shall retain all his service
credit for automatic advancement by step-
increases in such level 4 under and in ac-
cordance with section 3552 of title 39,
United States Code, relating to automatic
advancement by step-increases."
The CHAIRMAN. The
from Nebraska is recognized
utes on his amendment.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield, simply for a comment
on procedure?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CURTIS. Before us now is this
substitute amendment. For the con-
venience of the House, if amendments
are made to the substitute, which was
printed ahead of time, most such amend-
ments are not printed ahead of time. I
think this explains why there was con-
cern on this side why the substitute was
not available.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
although this amendment, which was
carefully prepared, takes up about 41/2
pages, it is relatively simple. Those
Members who are not on the committee
may not be familiar with the various
classifications among the postal em-
ployees or the various grades in which
individuals work. However, there is a
classification which involves what are
commonly known as mail handlers.
They are in level 3. The post office
clerks are in level 4, for example.
The mail handlers perform many du-
ties that are similar to those performed
by the post office clerks. I do not want
to take anything away from the dedi-
cated work that the post office clerks
do, but I have gone into this carefully
and I have visited post offices. In mod-
ern times the duties between the mail
handlers in level 3 and the clerks in
level 4 are more and more being fused
together. Therefore, the people who are
known as mail handlers feel they should
be placed in level 4 because they perform
so many side-by-side duties with the
post office clerks who are already in this
level.
Before the unanimous consent was
granted, the details of all the work that
the members of the mail handlers per-
form was partially explained. But they
have many more duties. They cancel
stamps and handle parcel post and op-
erate canceling machines and carry mail
from the canceling machines to the dis-
position cases. They assist the supply-
ing slip rooms and operate various ma-
chinery. There are just many, many
things that this group of dedicated peo-
ple do. They are not a large number.
They are a relatively small group when
you consider the overall number of postal
gentleman
for 5 min-
Mr. WALLHAUSER (interrupting the
reading of the amendment). Mr. Chair-
man, I ask unanimous consent that the
further reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
they do is throw the mail sacks around
from the truck to the platform or vice
versa. But if you will go into the work
that they are doing as I have and as
other Members have, you will realize
they have many diverse duties and, in
my opinion, they should be placed in
level 4. I am always honest and frank
with Members of the House and with
members of this committee. I did offer
this in the committee when this bill was
under consideration and it did not pre-
vail. But at that time we were rush-
ing through amendments right and left,
and I feel confident that enough time
was not granted for a thorough discus-
sion of the plight of the mail handlers.
I would hope very much that the com-
mittee would favorably consider this.
As I said, it does not involve many people
and I do think it is an act of justice to
put them in level 4.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I think, Mr.
Chairman, the record should be made
very clear that the gentleman from
Nebraska has been a constant champion
of this group of dedicated employees and
I think the gentleman should be com-
mended for it. He has done his utmost
to correct what he believes to be an in-
equity. Perhaps in the future some leg-
islative relief should be given to this
group. I would like -to add my word of
commendation to those of others on our
committee who have observed the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Nebraska
over the years, constantly trying to im-
prove their status.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(Mr. CEDERBERG asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD.)
Mr. CEDERBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to this salary increase
legislation because I believe it is incon-
sistent to increase Government payrolls
over $500 million at a time when the Fed-
eral Government anticipates a deficit of
$10 billion this fiscal year, and we will
be requested to increase the national
debt to over $315 billion in June.
The pay raise suggested for Members
of Congress is certainly excessive. If
?the Congress would take the actions
necessary to hold down spending and
balance the budget, then consideration
of a congressional pay increase might be
in order. Federal payroll costs have in-
creased almost $1 billion in the past 18
months. It seems inconsistent to me to
ask unions and private industry to hold
the wage/price line and at the same time
have the Federal Government increase
Its payroll costs so substantially.
I consider the most pressing domestic
need at this time is for the Federal Gov-
ernment to put its financial house in
order. I intend to do what I can to
assist in this problem.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will it
be in order to offer an amendment to
the pending substitute amendment fol-
lowing the disposition of the Cunning-
ham amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, amendments
will be in order at that time.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am certainly in sym-
pathy with my distinguished friend, the
gentleman from Nebraska, about these
particular people. But this amendment
will add to the cost of this bill. I think
our committee can work out a satisfac-
tory solution at a later date. By chang-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
ing one level to another level, the
amendment will add approximately $400
more to the salary of each employee in
this particular group, on top of what
they already will get under the new
salary schedule. This would be a dis-
crimination against all the other Fed-
eral employees. It will destroy the
proper relationships between the various
salary levels.
Mr. Chairman, not only was this
amendment voted down when our com-
mittee considered this bill, but it had
been voted down at a previous time.
This amendment, as I have said. Mr.
Chairman, would destroy the relation-
ship of the wage scales in the levels that
are referred to in the gentleman's
amendment.
I urge the Members in the Committee
of the Whole to reflect upon the action
of our committee, which went over this
not once but twice and voted it down
both times. It does not belong in this
bill. It should not be in this bill, It
would add considerably to the cost of
the bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORRISON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Nebraska.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman
Is quite forceful in all his arguments.
I compliment him. I agree with him on
many occasions, but I cannot subscribe
to what the gentleman has said so far
as cost is concerned.
I should like to reduce the cost, also,
but there is a principle involved. I am
hopeful that we can approve this. As
I said, considering the overall employ-
ment in the postal service, this is one
of the smallest groups. I think it would
not add any significant cost whatsoever.
I make the further observation to the
gentleman from Louisiana that the
amendment was not given the careful
consideration it should have been given.
I happen to know that committee prints
were developed overnight and the com-
mittee had only about 2 seconds to
develop this subject the next morning.
I hope the gentleman will not try to
knock down every constructive amend-
ment which is offered.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I do
not yield further.
It is a matter of opinion as to what the
committee did. Some Members believe
the committee considered it carefully.
Others take a different viewpoint.
This is simple arithmetic. When we
consider the tens of thousands of em-
ployees, if we add $400 to each salary
we see what we will come up with for
the salaries for a year. That is all it
amounts to.
This amendment would not help the
bill, nor should it be in the bill. As I
say, it was voted down by the full com-
mittee not once but on two occasions,
after full consideration.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUN-
NINGHAM] has raised the point?and I
believe he is in order in doing so?that
his amendment was considered during a
period of rush in the committee, under
the pressure of time and with limited
consideration in debate, I should like to
comment further on that practice.
I share the concern of the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. CURTIS I over the lack
of availability of the copies of the corn-
mittee amendment, which has been of-
fered. I assure the gentleman, however,
In extending my sympathies, that we
who serve on the committee are not un-
familiar with the problem. When there
Is proposed legislation before us in com-
mittee, we frequently have it presented
to us at the time we meet to consider it
and then have a motion for the previous
question and a railroading operation. I
say on the floor of the House that this
has become standard operating proce-
dure in this committee. I go further and
say that there would not be the necessity
for this kind of amending process on the
floor of this House if the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service had been
permitted, by the majority of its mem-
bership, to perform in an orderly fashion
and with an opportunity to give full con-
sideration to amendments that were
presented.
I say further, for the benefit of my
good friend from Louisiana, he may re-
gard this allegation as a matter of
opinion, but I regard it as a matter of
fact. I am sure there are a number of
members of the committee who will
corroborate that view.
Let me just add one further point. I
note with interest from the statements of
my friend, the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. Urviaa], that the limitation on the
number of copies of this amendment was
voted in the interest of economy. Let
me say it seems to be the general prac-
tice of this administration, whenever
they do indulge in economy, to involve in
some way turning the lights out. So
today we have the lights down to dim in
respect to the number of copies of this
amendment.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Yes. I will yield to
the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman is a very
valuable and very knowledgeable and im-
portant member of this committee. Does
he mean to leave the impression that if
he wanted a copy of this amendment,
which has been available for over a week,
that our fine committee staff would not
have given it to him yesterday, last night.
or today?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I want to leave the
Impression that the Members of this
House who wanted copies of it this morn-
ing were evidently not able to get them
at the time that they needed them. .
Mr. UDALL. Did not the gentleman
have a copy before this morning?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I did not.
Mr. UDALL. Did he ask for it?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I did not.
Let me make one final observation.
Let me say in response to the gentleman
that whether the gentleman from Michi-
gan did or did not ask for a copy has no
bearing on whether copies were available
to the Members of the House who did
desire them. It is obvious they were not
available.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield
Mr. JOHANSE NT. Yes. I will be glad
to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. 'rou would have thou ght
the minority members of the committee
would have been supplied with copie of
the gentleman's amendment since it re-
vised almost hall of the 76-page bill.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Of course. Ana I
would have thought also there mitht
have been an opportunity for the com-
mittee to meet aad consider the amend-
ment and be far dliarized with it before
It was brought tc. the floor of this House.
I yield back th balance of my time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I m we
to strike the requisite number of woids.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was giaen
permission to : evise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. :dr. Chairman, this is a
relatively simple amendment, we are
told. It is so simple that it requires 36
pages. The first time I saw it was abut
10 minutes ago. It revamps almost lalf
of the total bill c f '76 pages, but it is E till
described as a relatively simple amend-
ment. As I und. rstand it, the minority
members of the r.:ornmittee?and I can-
not speak for th.. first ranking minmity
member of the 2ommittee, the gen-le-
man from Pennc. ylvania [Mr. CORBE2
but as far as I am concerned, I hive
never seen a copy of this, and I do lot
think that any other members of the mi-
nority, unless tht y are in on the so-called
strategy that pais on within the com-
mittee, saw this amendment until this
morning. This a. the "less worse, cone-
on amendment,' this amendment that
has been offered by the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from T
nessee [Mr. MURRAY). You know, it in-
trigues me to sec all of these new-found
advocates of eco:lorny that we are fiear-
ing from today. I do not know where
they were last fall when the committee
prints were comiag in at the rate of .me
overnight for 3 (a 4 days when this bill
was being hanc.led in the commitee.
Yes, I am intrigaed by all of these c in-
verts to econonr. I wonder what tato,
were thinking about last fall, last No-
vember, when th s bill came out. Were
they advocates of economy then? They
offer this sop today for an alleged saving
of $120 million aid still leave a total ac-
penditure of $55C million. I see the g in-
tleman from Wac hington who questioned
some of the figur. s in the majority retort
a little while ago I will say to the gan-
tleman that I thi ak if he wants the p ire
quill on this bill, he should turn to the
minority report. There he will get the
figures that tell the story on this bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the- gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I want to say 0-lilt I support the Murray
amendment. I t aink it is a step in the
right direction. I just hope that the
Committee will a so support this amend-
ment that I haw just offered to help the
really destitute people, the mail han-
dlers, and put them where they shook be
put, in level 4.
Mr: GROSS. !dr. Chairman, I oppose
the Murray EMU adment. It is a snare
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
/964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4927
and a delusion. It is not economy in the
true sense of the word, and everyone who
supports it knows it. This offer of a re-
duction in total spending on this bill is
made for the purpose of securing votes.
If I know the taxpayers of this country,
they will see through this attempt to take
$5 from them and give them back $1 and
call it economy. That is about the story
when only $100 million is cut from a pro-
posed expenditure of $500 million.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike out the req-
uisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, quite obviously this bill
is highly technical and has a tendency
within itself to become somewhat confus-
ing. I would like to attempt in my feeble
way to put this problem again somewhat
in its proper perspective, even though I
realize that it has been thoroughly and
effectively discussed on yesterday. But
we have a tendency here to dramatize
certain features of it, to emphasize the
cost and make it appear that we are
voting on a simple question as to whether
we are to have increased spending or an
unbalanced budget, or whether you are
for or against fiscal integrity. I feel,
frankly, that is oversimplification.
This bill within itself is not the one
that necessitates an increase in cost. It
is because of inflation and the increased
cost of living in the past that makes
this bill by the committee necessary. It
is an action by Congress to have all these
vast programs costing in the neighbor-
hood of $98 to $100 billion a year that
necessitates this cost. I think we should
put this very clearly in the proper per-
spective.
The main objective of this bill is com-
parability. I said the main objective-
99 percent of it, any way. Is there any
Member of this body who has had any
experience in business or in management
who thinks that it is unnecessary that we
pay technicians, scientists, engineers in
the Federal Government comparable sal-
aries with those paid their counterparts
in free enterprise? I should not think
that particular objective of this legisla-
tion would be at all controversial.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. The point has
been made several times that the Con-
gress has put one pay raise on top of
another pay raise, on top of another pay
raise, and so forth. Is it the opinion of
the gentleman from Virginia that this is
an added pay raise, or is it his opinion
that the employees started from away
behind scratch originally, that these pay
raises that have been given have slowly
tended to bring them up finally to com-
parability? Is that correct or not?
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. The
gentleman has stated the position of the
gentleman from Virginia; he is abso-
lutely correct, yes. Federal employees
have always been the caboose, or the tail
that wags the dog. We have always been
trying to catch up, so far as the pay of
Federal employees is concerned, as com-
pared to wages in private industry. The
Congress did recognize that this was a
problem and that something should be
done, in the act of 1962.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Does this pay
raise put them ahead of private enter-
prise in salaries and wages?
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. It most
certainly does not, because we author-
ized this study and directed this re-
port back in 1962. At that time they
were using, I believe, comparable figures
for 1961.
Mr. Chairman, when the committee
considered this legislation last year we
were already 2 years behind on the fig-
ures which we were using. On top of
that, we compromised some of the fig-
ures. We are doing that right now. In
other words, we are about a year and a
half or 2 years behind in comparable
positions in free enterprise; that is, what
these people holding comparable posi-
tions in free enterprise are receiving.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore this.
This is bad management and we must
recognize the facts of life.
Mr. Chairman, we have discussed at
quite some length the various positions
in the executive branch of Government.
This report and study is available. The
only think which the Committee on the
Post Office and Civil Service has done
is to accept the results of that report.
Mr. Chairman, we are paying out this
fiscal year approximately $184 million in
contracts on which we have 11,469 in-
dividuals working for the Federal Gov-
ernment on those contracts. The
salaries which these people are receiving
far exceed that which we have allowed
Federal employees under the Classifica-
tion Act.
Mr. Chairman', on some of these out-
side Government contracts we have some
Individuals who are making as high as
$40,000 a year, more than the members
of the Supreme Court receive. This fig-
ure is far in excess of that which is
allowed in this particular bill. We have
20 people alone in the Bureau of Ships
in the Department of the Navy who are
receiving $27,000 a year.
Mr. Chairman, the point is that we
have not faced up to our responsibilities
to bring about comparability in the
salaries and wages which are paid in
the Federal Government for comparable
work performed by Federal employees.
Mr. Chairman, we have this responsi-
bility.
,The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Virginia has expired.
The question is on the amendment of
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
CUNNINGHAM] to the amendment of the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MUR-
RAY].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. CUNNINGHAM)
there were?ayes 4, noes 55.
So the amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DULSKI
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DutsKI to the
amendment offered by Mr. MURRAY: Amend
section 114 by inserting "(a)" immediately
following "SEc. 114." and by adding three
new subsections, as follows:
"(b) Section 3541(d) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by?
(1) striking out 'postmasters,' in para-
graph (3) thereof; and
"(2) adding immediately following para-
graph (5) thereof the following new para-
graph:
(6) To compute the daily rate of basic
compensation for postmasters, the annual
rate of compensation shall be divided by
260.'
"(c) Chapter 45 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding a new section to
read as follows:
"'I 3577. Postmasters
'"Postmasters shall be scheduled to work
a five-day week except upon determination
by the Postmaster General that a workweek
in excess of five days for the postmaster of a
particular post office is necessary to main-
tain essential postal service in the public
interest. The provisions of this section
shall not be applied to require the closing of
any post office on any weekday, Monday
through Saturday.'
"(d) The table of contents of chapter 45
of title 39, United States Code, is amended
by inserting
"'3577. Postmasters.'
immediately below
"'3576. Holiday service of rural carriers and
employees assigned to road duty.'"
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, yester-
day in our deliberations I discussed the
Murray amendment. The Murray
amendment strikes out two important
sections of the entire bill.
The first section takes away the inequi-
ties of Public Law 87-793 that was
adopted and known as the Payroll Re-
form Act of 1962. The other portion of
the bill removes the 40-hour week that
was passed in our committee for the
postmasters of the United States.
In the United States there are slightly
more than 34,000 postmasters. They are
managers in the field of our vast postal
system which is a most important seg-
ment of the communications complex
existing in our country today.
Industry could not thrive nor prosper
without it and the well-being of both the
individual and family depend upon it.
Post offices serving the villages and
small localities are known as of the
fourth class. We find that there are
10,362 of these faithfully serving the peo-
ple in every area and corner of our Na-
tion today.
Postmasters at these small offices have
no clerical assistance whatever except
for special occasions such as annual, or
sick leave or convention attendance.
This is the person who arrives at his
post of duty early in the morning, hangs
out the flag, receives the mail, sweeps
the floor, sells stamps, issues money or-
ders, weighs up the parcel post, takes
care of general delivery patrons, sorts
and dispatches the mail usually at the
end of the day. Under present law, this
postmaster is scheduled 6 days a week
and frequently he is expected by patrons
to come down to the office on Sundays.
Post offices at the larger towns and
cities are known as Presidential offices
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4928 Approved For e8INtsfirgi9ir 9fflieF661i3119faR000500050001-9
March 12 ?
and comprise what is known as the first,
second, and third class.
Of the 24,000 postmasters in this
group, 14,000 in the third class and the
smaller second class, have neither an as-
sistant postmaster nor an assistant to
the postmaster. However, these offices
generally speaking have qualified per-
sonnel for replacement of the postmaster
on Saturday if an allowance therefor is
granted.
President Johnson has gone on record
in favor of this. Here you have a Gov-
ernment agency still working people 6 or
7 days a week.
The 10,000 postmasters in the larger
towns and cities have no problem for
5-day-a-week privileges as qualified as-
sistance is available.
Other postal employees for two decades
have enjoyed a 40-hour, 5-day week.
They are paid overtime and are granted
compensatory time. We ask for neither
of these benefits for postmasters. We
only want a decent 5-day week estab-
lished by law.
The 5-day workweek provided in
H.R. 8986 corrects an inequity not of
this year or last year or the year before;
it is an inequity for many years.
This would be accomplished at a cost
of less than $7 million which, we submit,
is very small, indeed, compared to a post-
al budget of more than $4 billion and
an estimated cost of approximately $600
million for H.R. 8986.
These dedicated servants of the people
should have a prescribed decent weekly
tour of duty. The 5-day week is main-
tained all through the Government serv-
ice and the postmasters deserve equiva-
lent treatment.
We are progressing in all fields of com-
munications, such as, for instance, the
projected trip to the moon.
Postmasters should be included in the
modern conception of duty requirements.
It is archiac to maintain a 6-day week
for these faithful employees of the Gov-
ernment.
I would like to place in the RECORD the
following letter which was sent to Chair-
man MURRAY of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service on October 30,
1964:
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been informed
that your committee has under consideration
an amendment to the Federal salary bill
which win provide for most postmasters to
be scheduled on a 5-day per week basis. I
concur and endorse such a proposal since a
5-day, 40-hour week has become fairly com-
mon in the U.S. business economy and the
Federal Government. In fact, we had
planned to institute this program by admin-
istrative action on July 1, 1964, with the con-
currence of the Bureau of the Budget.
Therefore, we have no objection to such
action being authorized by statute.
The estimated cost of the proposed action
will be about ti8.7 million per annum. In
my opinion the language as proposed pro-
vides sufficient flexibility to schedule moat
postmasters regularly on a 5-day, 40-hour
workweek and still maintain essential service
6 days a week.
You might be interested to know that dur-
ing the past year we have modified previous
regulations to extend to postmasters time
off on Saturday without charge to leave for
emergency reasons, while at the same time
making arrangements to keep the post offices
open.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN A. Gamousar.
Postmaster General.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, postmasters' salaries under the
present law are based on 313 workdays
per year-6 days per week. Mr. Doasice's
amendment would base postmasters' sal-
aries on 260 workdays per year-5 days
per week.
Postmasters in larger offices who have
assistant postmasters or other super-
visors. or enough clerical replacement.
can take Saturdays off under present
regulations. However, approximately
17,000 postmasters in smaller communi-
ties do- not have adequate clerical re-
placement and therefore are required to
work 6 days per week, 8 hours or more
per day.
Postmaster General Gronouski, in a
letter to the gentleman from Tennes-
see, Chairman Told MURRAY, of the
House Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee, last October endorsed the 5-day
workweek for postmasters. He esti-
mated the cost of the amendment at $6.7
million per year. That money would not
go to postmasters, but rather would go
to the lowest paid employees in the postal
service?namely, clerks in the third- and
fourth-class offices, some of whom work
as little as 12 or 14 hours per week. This
amendment would give them an average
of 4 hours per week more employment.
I support the Dulski amendment to
the Murray amendment.
The Morrison salary bill is the original
Kennedy comparability bill. This
amendment to put all postmasters on a
5-day week or 5-day, 40-hour week is only
catchup legislation to make the work-
week of postmasters comparable to the
workweek of all employees in the postal
field service.
All postmasters are responsible for the
efficient operation of their offices, the
safeguarding of mall, and the safeguard-
ing of postal property on a 24-hour per
day basis, 7 days a week. As managers
of the individual post offices and as Gov-
ernment officials, they are not asking un-
der this amendment to be relieved of that
responsibility. The wording of the
amendment provides sufficient flexibility
so that postmasters in times of emer-
gency, or in certain periods when the
mails are exceptionally heavy, can work
more than 5 days and more than 40 hours
each week without being paid overtime
or compensatory time. Postmasters do
not request compensatory time or over-
time pay when requirements of the serv-
ice necessitate their presence in their
offices. This amendment merely makes
It possible under normal conditions for
postmasters to be scheduled to work a 5-
day workweek or 40-hour workweek.
The National Association of Postmas-
ters, under the able leadership of Charles
Pushkar, their secretary-treasurer, have
presented a good case for the 5-day week.
I urge support of the Dulski amendment
to the Murray amendment.
I Include the letter of the Postmaster
General to the gentleman from Tennes-
see, Chairman TCM MURRAY, recomme ad-
ing the 5-day w?ek for postmasters:
PUS MASTER GEMILAL JOHN A. GRONOI,SKI
ENDORSES 5-DA': WORKWEEK FOR P )6T-
MASTERS
We are gratati t to Postmaster General
Gronouski for endorsing the NAPUS amend-
ment to the Baler!, bill. On October 30 he
sent the followinc letter to Chairman '7cm
MURRAY of the B use Post Office and Civil
Service Committe.:
'?DFAR MR. CH A fftMAN : I have been in-
formed that your 1:onunittee has under con-
sideration an an- endment to the Federal
salary bill which ,a11.1 provide for most p xst-
masters to be scheduled on a 5-day per week
basis, / concur and endorse such a prop)sal
since a 5-day, 4..-hour week has become
fairly common in he U.S. business economy
and the Federal :lovernment. In fact, we
had planned to lastitute this program by
administrative act ion on July 1, 1964, vith
the concurrence of the Bureau of the Budget.
Therefore, we ha,,e no objection to sich
action being authorized by statute.
"The estimated ..ost of the proposed ac,ion
will be about $6.1 million per annum. In
my opinion the 1..nguage as proposed pro-
vides sufficient ficeibility to schedule moat
postmasters regul,rly on a 5-day, 40-tour
workweek and still maintain essential ser dee
6 days a week.
"You might be interested to know that
during the past ye tr we have modified ev-
taus regulations ?.o extend to postmas ;era
time off on Saturday without charge to leave
for emergency reasons, while at the se me
time making arrangements to keep the post
offices open.
"Sincerely y airs,
"a:mt.; A. GRONOITSKI,
"Postmaster General
I must say in fairness that since the
above-quoted let:er the Postmaster Gan-
eral has issued a new estimate of cost
of $20 million, and now opposes this
5-day-week proposal.
Mr. UDALL. 1r. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman .!rom New York 'Mr.
DU/SKI].
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman y:eld?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON'. Is this not a waa of
cutting the Murray amendment prac-
tically in half? In other words, the
Murray amendmant has savings of $123
million. This takes away at least 355
million of it. Therefore, the Murray
amendment savi ags would be reduced
from $123 million to $68 million and, in-
stead of having this within the Presi-
dent's budget Item of $544 million, it
would raise the cast to over $600 milli in.
Is that not right? If the proponents of
this amendment have a very deserv:ng
position, I feel ti at our committee co-lid
work out a satisfactory solution at a later
date.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman is ex-
actly correct. Tis is the principal rea-
son why I oppe se the amendment to
the amendment ../hich is now before us.
The gentlemaa from New York has
spoken of the pcatmasters and some of
the other groups that would be affecaed
by his amendment. I think all of us are
sympathetic toward the problems that
they have, but this particular Dul3ki
amendment was arought up in the con-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved FoctAttempggUipigja:BIWED1264118130033R000500050001-9 4929
mittee, and it passed by a vote of 12 to
11, as I recall, on a very sincere but mis-
informed .representation at that time
that the cost would be about $5 or $6
million. When we got through and
started to make our recapitulation, it
was determined that the first part of his
amendment would increase the cost
something in the range of $45 million,
and the 5-day postmaster week, for
which you can make a pretty logical
argument, would cost $7 million, as he
said, to start it, but to get it in effect
and keep it in effect would be something
in the range of $24 million a year. So
to keep within the budget and to keep
the agreement that we made with the
Rules Committee and the Members of
the House that we would bring in a bill
that would be within the budget, the
majority of the members of the com-
mittee are going to oppose this amend-
ment.
Mr. DULSKL Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from New York. ?
Mr. DULSKI. In our deliberations
about the Dulski amendment, I think
the cost was stated yesterday at $22 mil-
lion.
Mr. UDALL. I do not recall the fig-
ure. The gentleman Is a very valuable
and sincere Member. I know he was as
surprised as some of the rest of us were
when the Department said the cost
would be higher than he thought.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment
will be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. Duran] to
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Tennessee [Mr. 1VIoaritcr].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. DeLsia)
there were--ayes 19, noes 51.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BARRY
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BARRY to the
amendment offered by Mr. MURRAY: Page 24,
line 3, strike out lines 3 and 4 and insert in
lieu thereof the following:
"Section 3652(a) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) (1) Each employee of the Postal
Field Service Schedule and each employee
subject to the Rural Carrier Schedule who
has not reached the highest step for his
position shall be advanced successively to
the next higher step as follows:
"'(A) To steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and '7?at
the beginning of the first pay period follow-
ing the completion of fifty-two calendar
weeks of satisfactory service; and
" '(3) To steps 8 and above?at the be-
ginning of the first pay period following
the completition of one hundred and fifty-,,
six calendar weeks of satisfactory service.
" '(2) The receipt of an equivalent in-
crease during any of the waiting periods
specified in this subsection shall cause a
new full waiting period to commence for
further step increases.'"
Mr. BARRY (interrupting the reading
of the amendment). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the further
reading of the amendment be dispensed
with.
No. 45-10
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, many of
us who find it difficult to support the bill
will only support the bill providing
It is a forward step in management.
Whereas there were many hearings on
this bill last year and in previous years,
and some of us have been giving support
to the bill, we certainly do not want to
adopt an amendment that has in it pro-
visions that further throw out of line
the very rule of comparability that the
bill purports to do. In the House bill
known as the salary reform act of 1962,
postal employees progress through seven
steps at 1-year intervals. When the
Senate committee met, they reported a
bill that did not include the extension
of 1-year intervals beyond level 6 and
due to the rush ' toward adjournment
that year, in 1962, and the fact that the
Senate bill was acted upon first, the
1-year interval was deleted for employ-
ees in levels 7 and higher, which con-
sists mainly of postal supervisors and
postmasters.
The House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service realizing the inequities
created by the 2-year step increase for
some employees and 1-year step in-
creases for all levels beyond level 6 put
back the 1-year interval in the present
bill that we have before us today.
The Murray amendment knocks that
out and reverts back to the Senate pro-
vision of a 2-year step interval for level
'7 and beyond.
Now I know this may sound like
gobbledygook to all of you, but let me
give you an example of what this does.
A glance at this example will immedi-
ately disclose that an employee who ad-
vances at 1-year intervals lessens the
salary differential between himself and
his supervisor each year, which basically
would not be fair. The differential be-
tween a supervisor and his employees is
the small amount of $480 and would be
reduced in 4 years to only $140 unless
my amendment is adopted. If em-
ployee A in level 6 is promoted, for 4
years up to 1968, he advances to step 7
or level 7 at $7,150 which is $400 more
than employee B who was promoted to
level 7, 4 years earlier. Employee B will
not reach step 7 until 1971. Now there
is nothing fair about that.
So I say to you, if this bill Is to have
meaning and if this bill is, indeed, a
forward step in management putting
salaries on a comparability basis, I vig-
orously urge adoption of this amend-
ment so that an employee working under
a supervisor in 4 years' time does not re-
duce the spread from $480 to $140.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman places
me in a very embarrassing position.
have been opposing amendments all
morning trying to keep the bill down to
the budgeted figure. I sponsored this
particular amendment in the original
legislation that was presented to our
committee. The cost of this amendment
is about $2 million.
Mr. BARRY. It would be nearer
$1,800,000.
Mr. UDALL. That is correct. The
cost of this amendment would be $1.8
million. In my judgment, this is a good
amendment. However, to be fully con-
sistent with the position that I have
been taking here this morning would
embarrass me a little bit. I want to em-
phasize I speak only for myself and I
know that the majority of the committee
on this side at least are probably going
to oppose the amendment. However,
there is an inequity here and the gen-
tleman by his amendment has put his
finger on it.
Mr. BARRY. I thank the gentleman
and I realize the position he is in.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mx. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRY. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I want to
compliment the gentleman from New
York. He is a dedicated, hard work-
ing member of the committee. He has
explained his amendment with great
clarity and I would hope that the lead-
ership on the other side will not close
their ears to every amendment as these
amendments are offered because there
are some good amendments that would
be worth adopting on this bill in my
opinion.
commend the gentleman.
Mr. BARRY. I thank the gentleman
for his observation. I hope those who
either vote for this bill or against will
see fit to support this amendment, be-
cause it indeed will accomplish compara-
bility. Without this amendment we will
be making a step backward insofar as
this particular group of postal employees,
which number over 40,000, is concerned.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, the Civil Service Commis-
sion is opposed to this amendment. The
Post Office Department, which has full
control and jurisdiction over these em-
ployees, because they are a part of it,
opposes it. The Bureau of the Budget
opposes the amendment. The adminis-
tration is against it.
The amendment would cut down the
amount of savings to be provided by the
Murray amendment approximately $2
million, and thereby would not permit
a balance with the figure in the Presi-
dent's recommendation to the Bureau of
the Budget. If the amendment were
agreed to it would hurt comparability and
discriminate against classified workers
in the same relative salary levels, who
are not in the Post Office Department.
I believe the amendment should be
rejected.
Mr. CORBETT. I rise in support of
the amendment.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. BARRY. I should like to ask the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Molt-
mow] a question. The gentleman says
that all these people are against the
amendment?the Civil Service Commis-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4930 Approved For lavaimegin:pcidn6_6Bprolor00500050001-9
March 12'
sion and the administration. Does the
gentleman have anything he can intro-
duce into the RECORD to prove that?
Mr. MORRISON. Does the gentle-
man mean the CONGRESSIONIL RECORD?
What record is the gentleman talking
about?
Mr. BARRY. The gentleman pre-
viously made reference to the fact that
the Civil Service Commission. the Post
Office Department, and the administra-
tion oppose this amendment.
Mr. MORRISON. The Post Office
Department testified against It.
Mr. BARRY. I wish the gentleman
could produce that evidence.
Mr. MORRISON. If the gentleman
will look at the records in the commit-
tee he will see it.
Mr. BARRY. We put this in in the
committee, because we thought it was
proper. The gentleman remembers that.
He probably came along and voted with
us at the time. Now he seeks to take it
out on the pretext of a big saving.
Mr. MORRISON. That will save $2
million.
Mr. BARRY. It may save $2 million,
but it will only create a further imbal-
ance in the comparability principle which
we have been trying to obtain. The
whole business of salary reform will be
thrown out of the window if we do that.
It is penny pinching, which is pound
foolish.
Mr. MORRISON. I could not disagree
with the gentleman more. His amend-
ment would destroy comparability.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I also
am in full and sincere support of the
Murray amendment. However, if there
is an exception which can be justified it
is this exception, which has been pro-
posed by the gentleman from New York.
I am thoroughly committed to keep-
ing the cost of the bill down to the
budget figure, but I believe we can adopt
this amendment in the interest of com-
parability and by adopting other amend-
ments which will be offered later we can
make up for the cost of $1.8 million
which this amendment would involve. I
believe this is the exception which more
or less proves the rule, and ought to be
approved.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am somewhat amazed, if not im-
pressed, by the attack of economy which
seems to have seized certain Members
on the other side. The position seems
to be that we have reached the point
that we are willing to sacrifice the prin-
ciple of comparability or the principle
of equity in order to have alleged econ-
omy.
I remind my colleagues that this is
the same kind of economy I was talking
about yesterday. When we get it all
done and wind It tip, we leave the tax-
payers stuck with an additional cost.
The facts of the matter are, on this
matter of requiring the absorption of
10 percent of the cost, that that is a
principle I supported and introduced
amendments to provide for in previous
pay bills. However, the simple truth is
that this great concern about economy
is activated by just one purpose; namely,
to get this pay bill through superim-
posed on top of two recent pay increases.
The purpose of all of this sudden afflic-
tion or attack of economy is to see to it
that the taxpayers are stuck with the
higher cost of the total payroll. For
that reason 1 question very seriously the
effectiveness of the kind of economy that
is being advocated here,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the necessary number of
words.
Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct
your attention for just a moment to a
discussion that the gentleman from Vir-
ginia and I had awhile ago. The sugges-
tion was made that we were adding pay
raise to pay raise to pay raise. I would
like our colleagues to know that in the
fall of 1959?that is 5 years ago?the Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics completed a
study on the amount of money neces-
sary for city workers' family budgets in
20 cities and suburbs throughout the
country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
described this budget as neither "mini-
mum maintenance" nor "luxury." It
was average. It is a budget that is con-
sidered necessary for a four-person fam-
ily if it is to maintain a decent and ade-
quate standard of living.
Let us look at a few of the amounts.
In Houston, Tex., a family would re-
quire $5,370. In Pittsburgh it would be
$6,199. and in Chicago $6.587. The fam-
ily budget averaged out for all of the
20 U.S. cities at $6,083 a year. Please
remember this survey is 5 years old, and
the cost of living has risen 6.6 percent
since that time. What I am trying to get
at, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, is to show you that the sal-
aries of Federal employees are not above
the average. Let us take some of the
salaries as they are presently being paid.
Post office clerks now receive an an-
nual average salary of $5,860. City let-
ter carriers get an average annual sal-
ary of $5.872. I do not, want to bore you
with a lot of statistics, but these are im-
portant to get in the RECORD. Postmas-
ters of all classes receive $5,961.
None of these employees today receives
an income approaching the average fam-
ily budget that the Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics thought 5 years ago was neces-
sary for decent average living in the
cities surveyed, and the legislation we are
considering here today will not bring
them up to date as far as the cost-of-
living increases up to 1064 are concerned.
Obviously, this legislation is needed and
desirable in the face of these facts.
Mr. Chairman. I yield back the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman. I want to commend
the committee for the work it has done
In this field of comparability in our per-
sonnel practices in the Federal Govern-
ment. I think there has been some ex-
cellent work done, and this is an impor-
tant area for us to move forward In at the
appropriate time. Now is not the ap-
propriate time. I am opposed to the bill
because I feel nothing could be more un-
timely than this bill at this time with the
overall dangerc is fiscal picture we have
in this country. We do not have a bal-
anced budget. We are going to have,
under the admilistration's own figure, a
$5 billion deflci at a time when we are
In an economic upturn. The theory has
always been Unit if we were going to in-
dulge in deficite during periods of down-
turn, we must recoup during periods of
upturn. The orly thing President John-
son said about cutting expenditures is
that the deficit will not be $10 billior but
it will be $5 bil Ion. Actually, I thiek a
realistic appraisal of the budget revenue
and expenditui estimates will reveal
that the deficit is going to be closcr to
$10 billion. Hewever, even with a $5
billion deficit t ie President in his eco-
nomic report to the Congress warned us
that to preven inflation we must use
these price-wase guidelines they have
established to maintain the discieline
that labor must exercise over its rem ests
for wage increaE es and that management
must exercise in the area of price. Here
we are dealing right in this area that
will set either a good or bad example for
the some 90 to 100 major labor-man tge-
ment contracts that are going to come
up for renegotitition this calendar sear.
We are debatir k here whether we are
going at this time to increase govern-
mental wages massively with these in-
flationary form; that exist with no ref-
erence to whethe 7 productivity gains lave
or have not been made by in the Federal
governmental sector. ?
If the Consumer Price Index goet up
1 percent we lone $4 billion of purchas-
ing power. It went up about 2 percent
this last mien& r year. The forces that
we have at plae now indicate that we
are going to haee an increase of about
3 percent. So this is an inflatior ary
problem that would actually cause more
damage to the very people we are trying
to assist, not to ;nention the great dam-
age to our Nation. Increasing Federal
salaries at this time would be setting
an example, the reverse of what is ad-
vised in the Pre: ident's economic report.
I do not think ee can leave out of -his
context the far t that we have given
everyone in the Congress and all of
these Federal employees, along with the
rest of our peoele, an actual raise in
take home pay through the tax cut.
There is not a Federal employee who
does not benefit by that. So there al-
ready has been t:ome raise given by this
Congress. We E tould pay attention to
this.
I do agree w: th the point that ;ias
been made that iin overemphasis should
not be laid in tills bill on the increase
In congressional ealaries. That amounts
to only 1 perce ft of the cost. Noae-
theless it becorr es of symbolic impor-
tance. It transcends its small ratio 3C-
cause if this Congress does not exercise
judgment and discipline when its own
salaries are involeed, in this critical time
of the balance-of-payments problem end
inflationary forces that threaten our en-
tire economic am', I should add, military
posture, if we do not show that kind of
discipline, what in the name of heaeen
is going to hold us in reaching pro2er
decisions on thi se other difficult ex-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved Fo6ienedpaN9riiatbD_E6M9H3R000500050001-9
penditure bills that will come before
us?
Finally, on congressional salaries, I
happen to oppose an increase here, too,
for other reasons as well. These rea-
sons are quite fundamental. I would
agree that these salaries should be in-
creased if the Congressman's job is to
become full time; and indeed many ar-
gue that it already is full time. I sug-
gest that for representative government
to function as it is designed and as it
must function, Representtaives should
be members of their community and
should be part time, not full time. Con-
gress could get its work done in 5 or 6
months and, looking at salaries on that
basis, they are adequate. But I do recog-
nize there is a fundamental principle
involved in our concept of representa-
tive government.
If those of you who believe we should
be full time are correct in your evalua-
tion, that we are full time, I do not
think you are far off in regard to sa-
laries. On the other hand, if those who
adhere to my basic concept of repre-
sentative government, that we must
keep Representatives a part of their
community, they must be back in their ?
communities, then the theory of repre-
sentative governments is that we are part
time down here. I believe that the Con-
gress could get its work done tn 5 or 6
months, as I think it could. If this were
the case then the present salaries are
adequate. Indeed, by increasing salaries
without deciding the key question of the
nature of representative government,
namely, should Representatives be full-
time or part-time Federal employees,
we tend to aresolve the question without
a debate.
But the overriding point at this time,
I submit, is the very serious problem that
we have With our overall fiscal posture.
Domestically and internationally, I
think to be fiscally responsible we must
vote down this entire bill at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. BARRY] to the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. MURRAY].
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. BARRY) there
were?ayes 20, noes 56.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. FINO. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. FINO asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FINO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the Murray amendment. I
am particularly opposed to that portion
of this amendment which has as its pur-
pose the elimination of section 114(e) of
the original bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a great
deal this morning about economy. I am
for economy. However, I am not for
economy at the expense of or at the sac-
rifice of our Federal employees. Equi-
table treatment of our postal workers is
far more important, in my opinion, than
the savings contemplated if the Murray
amendment is adopted.
Mr. Chairman, section 114(e), the so-
called Dulski amendment, was embodied
in the bill, H.R. 8986, to correct an un-
fair and unjust provision contained in
the Federal Pay Reform Act of 1962. As
a result of the 1962 act, certain inequities
resulted "which denied fair and equal
treatment to all employees for actual
time served. I am certain that it was
not the intent of the Congress at that
time to take away from the postal em-
ployees any,credit for services actually
performed or for time actually served.
Yet, because of the cutoff date in that
law, October 13, 1962, we took away
credit for the work which the postal em-
ployees performed in the computation of
their salary level.
The purpose of section 114(e) in this
bill, as it stands, is to restore the full
and justifiable credit for all time actu-
ally served and for all services actually
performed by our Federal postal employ-
ees. This, in my opinion, is a fair, equi-
table, and just amendment which should
not be eliminated by the Murray amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no windfall in-
volved in the Dulski amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we heard comment
about the cost?$25 million, $30 million,
$40 million, $48 million, and so forth.
There is no Intent to grant unearned
salaries to any of the postal workers in-
volved. The only aim and purpose of
the Dulski amendment is to restore cer-
tain credits and rights which these postal
employees had prior to 1962.
Mr. Chairman, regarding the cost in-
volved. I say that the cost?whether it
Is $20 million, $40 million, or even $50
million?is immaterial if an injustice has
occurred. Then the only concern we
should have is to correct it, regardless of
the cost..
Mr. Chairman, the Dulski amendment
as contained in the original bill would do
exactly that. In my opinion it is a fair
and just proposal which is intended to
correct this mistake that we earlier made.
It is a corrective measure which recog-
nizes the actual time served and the ac-
tual services performed by these postal
employees.
Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the Murray
amendment we will have denied the
affected postal employees fair and just
treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of
the Committee to give serious considera-
tion to the Murray amendment and de-
feat it.
Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
(Mr. RYAN of New York asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment. I am particularly con-
cerned about the effect of this amend-
ment in striking out section 114(e), or
the Dulski amendment, which is incor-
porated in the bill as it was reported out
of the committee to the House.
The purpose of section 114(e) , which
the amendment would eliminate, is to
correct an inequity resulting from the
implementation of the Federal Salary
Reform Act of 1962. It provides postal
employees credit for their full length of
4931
service in the computation of salary
levels.
The imposition of a cutoff date of
October 13, 1962, deprived many postal
workers of full credit for prior service.
H.R. 8986, as reported by the committee,
sets up a formula to compensate the
dedicated and conscientious postal work-
ers for the inequities they have suffered.
It is meritorious. It is jiRt. It should
be retained, in my opinion. I urge de-
feat of the Murray amendment.
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of New York. I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. JOELSON. I agree 114(e) would
remedy an obvious mistake and a glaring
injustice. I urge its retention.
Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of New York. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILBERT. I wish to compliment
the gentleman for his presentation in
opposition to the Murray amendment,
particularly with reference to the elim-
ination of the Dulski amendment in the
original bill.
I would like to point out one thing.
There is a great inequity, as has been
pointed out by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. RYAN] and, the previous
speaker from New York [Mr. Fmo].
I would like to suggest an example.
If you have level-4 employee who en-
tered the postal service on October 1,
1956, was placed in step 8 on October
13, 1962, at annual wage of $5,685. An
employee in the same level who entered
the postal service 2 weeks later on Octo-
ber 15, 1956, was placed in step 7 and
received an annual wage of $5,525. The
latter employee will be required to serve
3 years in step 7 before going to step
8, thus earning $160 per annum less than
the first employee. For the next five
step increases over a period of 15 years
the employee who entered the service 2
weeks later will be out-of-pocket at
least $2,400.
This is a gross inequity. I believe the
intention of the Dulski amendment
should be kept in this bill in order that
our employees in the Federal postal serv-
ice will be treated fairly and equitably.
Mr. RYAN of New York. I thank the
gentleman for his valuable contribution
to the debate. The example offered by
the gentleman from New York illustrates
the inequities which the Dulski amend-
ment would correct. We should, there-
fore, defeat the pending amendment and
retain the Dulski amendment.
Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
eliminating these provisions before us.
It is my firm belief that, in particular,
section 114(e) of the bill succeeds in
granting postal workers full credit for all
the work they have performed in the
progressive salary levels.
It is apparent that the Federal Pay
Reform Act of 1962, by containing a cut-
off date of October 13, 1962, brought
certain inequities. In technical compu-
tation, an employee who commenced
service only 2 weeks later than another
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4932
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
employee in, for instance, October 1956,
will be entitled to far less income during
the next 15 years than would be fair and
just. This is a technicality involving the
salary levels and the 1962 law.
I feel all employees should receive
equal pay for actual time served. The
provision in the measure before us will
accomplish that end.
I refer to the bill before us, not the
amendment.
The Post Office has estimated that re-
tention of this particular section 114( el
provision will amount to an additional
$46 million. This figure has been widely
disputed, and justly so.
In the first place, pay adjustments
will be amortized over a 1- to 6-year
period. In addition, the adjustments
themselves, affecting primarily those
employees with many years of service.
will produce a far smaller amount than
$46 million.
In real terms this provision will
amount to approximately $26 million for
work actually performed.
This is the least we can do to insure
that the postal worker is justly treated,
and I trust the amendment before us
will be resoundingly defeated.
AMENDMENT OFFEERED HT MR. SMTI H OF IOWA
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SMITH of Iowa
to the amendment offered by Mr. MURRAY:
Alter the period at the end of the substitute
insert a new section limiting salary pay-
ments, as follows:
"SEc. 124. For the purposes of this sec-
tion?
"(1) 'Department' means each department,
agency, establishment, or other organization
unit in or under the legislative, executive, or
judicial branch of the Government of the
United States or of the municipal govern-
ment of the District of Columbia, including
a Government-owned or controlled corpora-
tion.
"(2) 'Public official' means any officer or
employee of the Government of the United
States or of the municipal government of
the District of Columbia, whether elected or
appointed, in whom is vested the authority
by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom such
authority has been delegated, to appoint.
promote. or discharge persons in connection
with employment with any such govern-
ment or to recommend persons for appoint-
ment or promotion.
"131 'Relative' means any person who is
related to a public official as father, mother.
son, daughter, brother, slitter, uncle, aunt.
first cousin. wife, niece. nephew, father-in-
law mother-in-law, brother-In-law, sister-in-
law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson. step-
daughter. stepbrother, or stepsister.
"SEc 2. fa A public official shall not ap-
pk,int, employ, or recommend for appoint-
ment., employment, promotion, or advance-
ment LO a position in the department in
which he is serving or over which he ex-
ercises jurisdiction or control any person
who is a relative of such official.
"i in Any relative appointed, employed,
promoted, or advanced In violation of this
.-icction shall not be entitled to compensa-
tion, and no money shall be paid from the
Treasury of the United States as c,ompen-
,tition to any relative so appointed, em-
ployed, promoted, or advanced."
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman.
this is what is known as the antinepotisin
provision. This is identical to my bill
H.R. 1134. which has been before the
committee for about 3 years and on
which I have been unable to get a hear-
ing. However, I do believe that this is
the ideal time, if the majority of the
House want this kind of provision, to
have it adopted; to wit, while we are
dealing with all three of the branches of
Government. I do not believe we should
deal in this regard merely with one
branch only.
This provision would apply prospec-
tively. It does not apply to any of those
who are now working, unless they have
to be reappointed. I am practical about
this. I know if somebody was appointed
10 years aeo under these conditions, the
majority would not, vote to come along
later, ex post facto, and deny them their
salary.
This would affect new appointments
to the executive branch. As far as the
Coneress is concerned, it would affect
appointments in the next session of Con-
gress and new appointments made here-
after this year.
I think the most common practice of
nepotism is probably in small post offices.
Most of those of us who represent sev-
eral counties have some post offices with
four or five employees, and we have en-
tirely too many of them where the post-
master employs his wife. It does not
make for a good morale situation in the
post office. In some instances they will
not take a permanent clerk from the
eligible retaSter unless their wife is on
the eligible register. In this case, they
will instead employ their wife as a tem-
porary employee 8 or 10 months of the
year. They may come to work late and
get off early, and still get a good evalua-
tion on the record. In these cases the
Government does not receive full value
for payments made to the postmasters
relative and it also tends to reduce effi-
ciency of other employees.
1 think the prevalence of this prac-
tice is increasing In Washington too.
Acknowledgment of this comes from the
fact that the Civil Service Commission
has finally adopted a rule that in summer
employment there shall be no nepotism
starting next summer. This was brought
out by the facts set forth in the discus-
sion on the Beckworth bill which was
passed overwhelmingly by the House on
two occasions. Actually, it is more obvi-
ous in summer employment than in
permanent employment because all are
new employees being hired. The same
situation exists in Washington with
permanent employees as in summer em-
ployment but is not as obvious because
new employees are a lesser percentage
of the total work force. As a department
becomes larger, the personnel manager
and branch heads, feel more sheltered
from criticism and therefore nepotism
will become more and more prevalent in
the departments in the future. I will
frankly admit that some of these em-
ployees are good employees. On the oth-
er hand, we have so many who are not
earning their full salary and the situa-
tion created so harms the morale of those
with whom they work. that I think it is
better to prohibit nepotism entirely and
cause these people to go to some other
agency to apple for a position. If they
are good capable employees, they can
probably get a ob in some other agency
and will not ne d to have picked out just
one little burez u within the whole gov-
ernment of tin United States to secure
employment.
So far as th Congress is conce -ned,
every Member surely recognizes that
this is a husbend and wife job jr the
Congress of tl .e United States. Most
Members work and are glad to woik an
average of abo it 60 hours per week and
their wives alsi spend many hour:- an-
swering telepla nes. helping where most
needed or doir g? some kind of con tres-
sional work. E iery wife renders services
for the constiteents of her husband but
less than 30 an on the payroll. I bclieve
wives who are lot on the payroll dc just
as much as th average wife who .s on
the payroll. ['here is nothing illegal
about putting vives on the payroll, 3Ut I
think it is better in a salary bill lilt( this
to make whateaer adjustment is nceded
for Members oi Congress and let that be
the combined ausband and wife sslary.
I recognize the. most people think Mem-
bers of Congre is and department heads
should not receive less than subordinate
civil service employees but I believe it
would be better to do it directly rather
than permitting a few Members to con-
tinue to finam e usual family exp inses
by adding men3bers of the family t ) the
payroll. It is interesting to note that
some of the m st vigorous opponerts of
any adjustmeet in Members' seCaries
achieve the same result by practicing
nepotism. I think it is better tc put
everything on ? op of the table. I d ) not
deny anybody the right sto hay?. an
opinion opposi ;e to mine. Some have
very strong op? nions and some have ex-
amples where teople who are hiree un-
der circumstanees that could not be paid
under my ameadment are good workers
and doing a good job and would be hard
to replace. But I believe that overa'l the
Government of the United States will be
better off and it will get better in the
future if we atiopt this amendinew and
now is the ideal time to adopt such an
amendment.
Mr. MORRSON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendmcnt.
Mr. Chairman, there was a bill iatro-
duced, H.R. 1 34, to prohibit nepatism
in Govermnei, t employment ant for
other purpose:. Our committee asked
for a report c a that by the chai 'man
of the Civil Se: vice Commission. We re-
ceived a stroni adverse report. In ither
words, the administration and the Civil
Service Commi ision opposes this an end-
ment and the principle involved _n
Whereas we h ive never officially ,rote
on it in our I,ommittee, many o: our
Members have discussed it. As a rr atter
of fact, this b 11. H.R. 1134, whicY was
introduced has never been taken up by
our committee for a vote and there is a
letter from John Macy, Chairman c f the
Civil Service C emmission, from wl-ich I
will quote a part:
This is In fu?ther reply to your rtquest
for the views of :he Civil Service Commission
on H.R. 1134 a till "To prohibit nepotism in
Government em iloyrnent, and for othe ? pur-
poses."
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05118: CIA-RDP66BDOARR000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? 4933
H.R. 1134 would prohibit public officials,
either elected or appointed, in the executive,
legislative, or judicial branches of the Gov-
ernment, from appointing, employing, or
recommending for appointment, employ-
ment, or promotion in the department or
other organizational unit in which the offi-
cial is servicing, or over which he exercises
jurisdiction or control, any person who is a
relative of the official.
The Commission objects to this bill for
the same reasons given in our report on an
identical bill, H.R. 9812, in the 87th Con-
gress.
Briefly, these reasons are:
1. While we agree that nepotism (or favor-
itism in any form) is not an appropriate
basis for appointment under a merit system
our experience with the "members of fam-
ily" requirement in the Civil Service Act has
led us to regard with disfavor restrictions
on competition because of kinship. The
"members of family" restriction (not more
than two members of a family serving in
permanent positions at the same time) is not
the same as that proposed in H.R. 1134 but
It is similar and its original purpose was the
same.
We have found that on occasion it pre-
vents the hiring of persons who are other-
wise well qualified for Government work.
Many of these persons have skills which
are in short supply, and many, because they
have been reared in a tradition of public
service, are interested in careers in Govern-
ment. We believe that H.R. 1134 would ex-
tend the adverse effects of the "members of
family" requirement.
2. The broad extent of merit system ap-
pointment (about 91 percent of Federal em-
ployees are in the competitive service or a
comparable merit system) precludes any
significant incidents of nepotism. The com-
petitive processes of examination, ranking
and selection provide good assurance that
the primary consideration in appointment
will be ability, not family.
They say it is unworkable. Frankly,
I believe it would do harm instead of
good to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. Spurn] to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. SMITH of Iowa)
there were? ayes 31, noes '70.
Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I
demand tellers.
Tellers were refused.
So the amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
legislation and in opposition to the
Murray amendment.
As a former member of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, I
worked in the development of legislation
which was passed by the Congress giving
to our classified and postal employees an
increase to bring their salaries close to
salaries of workers in comparable in-
dustrial positions. This legislation also
provided for annual review to assure our
Federal employees an equitable salary.
After passage of this legislation, it was
found that there were inequities relative
to step increases. The legislation we
are considering today is just and proper
legislation for correcting those inequities
and again brings our Federal employees
closer to salaries for comparable non-
Federal employees.
This Congress, I believe, is carrying
out its responsibilities to our Federal
employees and the Nation in legislating
fair return for the labors of these public
servants.
This Congress has seen fit in the past
and will probably in the future vote
agriculture subsidies to protect the in-
come of farmers. As a member of the
Committee on Appropriations, we are
considering an agriculture budget for
1965 of upwards of $6 billion. We are
using a portion of the tax dollars of all
to protect the income of our farmers who
are also an important segment of our
economy and Nation. We also spend
these tax dollars to find better agricul-
tural products- and cures for crop and
livestock diseases and pests.
I believe, if it is just to spend tax dol-
lars to help and protect this segment of
our national economy then it is as just
and proper, if not more so, to give to our
Federal employees a fair salary, They
are entitled to the means to purchase the
fruits of that which they are helping to
maintain and protect.
In regard to executive and congres-
sional salary increases, I believe that this
is a fair increase. There are many in
this Nation who believe that we receive
free transportation to and from our dis-
tricts and all our living expenses here in
Washington are paid by the Govern-
ment. This we know not to be the fact.
The fact is: it costs over $2,500 a year in
travel expenses to and from my district
alone, the living costs here average over
$3,000 per year, and to this must be
added an average of $5,000 to $6,000 a
year for donations, ads in souvenir jour-
nals of various organizations, tickets,
and so forth, most of which are not
deductible.
I believe this is a fair and just bill and
urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The question oc-
curs on the amendment of the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. MURRAY].
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. Deux') there
were?ayes 92, noes 18.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II?FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE SALARIES
' SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1963".
SEC. 202. (a) The gross rate of compensa-
tion (basic compensation plus additional_
compensation authorized by law) in effect
immediately prior to the effective date of
this Act of each officer or employee in or
uAder the legislative branch of the Govern-
ment whose rate of compensation is in-
creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees
Pay Act of 1946 shall be increased by an
amount determined in the manner provided
by this section.
(b) Except as provided by section 203 of
this Act, the total annual compensation in
effect immediately prior to the effective date
of this Act of each officer or employee of the
House of Representatives whose compensa-
tion is disbursed by the Clerk of the House
of Representatives and is not increased auto-
matically, or is not permitted to be increased
administratively, by reason of any other pro-
vision of this section (except subsection
(d) ), shall be Increased by an amount de-
termined in the manner provided by this
section.
(c) Each of the limitations on gross rate
per thousand and gross rate per hour per
person provided by applicable law on the
effective date of this Act with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the .House of Representatives shall be in-
creased by an amount which is the same per-
centage of such limitation as that percentage
which the amount of the increase provided
by title I of this Act in the rate of basic
compensation for the fourth step of grade 6
of the General Schedule of the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended, is of the rate
of basic compensation for such step immedi-
ately prior to such increase. The amount of
each increase under this subsection shall be
computed to the nearest cent, counting one-
half cent and over as a whole cent.
(d) The respective amounts of the in-
creases provided for by subsections (a) and
(b) of this section shall be determined in
accordance with the following rules, as
applicable:
(1) If the gross rate of compensation or
the total annual compensation is less than
the minimum scheduled rate of grade 7 of
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended, as in effect im-
mediately prior to the effective date of this
Act, the amount of the increase in such
gross rate of compensation or such total an-
nual compensation shall be an amount which
is the same percentage of such gross rate of
compensation or such total annual compen-
sation as that percentage which the amount
of the increase provided by title I of this
Act in the, rate of basic compensation for
the fourth step of grade 6 of such schedule
is of the rate of basic compensation for such
step immediately prior to such increase.
(2) If the gross rate of compensation or
the total annual compensation of the officer
or employee concerned is equal to or greater
than the minimum scheduled rate of grade 7
of such schedule as in effect immediately
prior to the effective date of this Act, the
amount of the increase in such gross rate
of compensation or such total annual com-
pensation shall be an amount which is the
same percentage of such gross rate of com-
pensation or such total annual compensation
as that percentage which the amount of th1f
Increase provided by title I of this Act in the
rate of basic compensation for the) fourth -
step of the applicable grade is of the rate of
basic compensation for such step immediately
prior to such increase. As used in this para-
graph, "applicable grade"? means that grade
of the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1919, as amended, as in effect imMedi-
ately prior to the effective date of this Act,
with 'respect to the range of compensation
rates of which the gross rate of compensa-
tion or the total annual compensation, as
the case may be, "s equal to or more than
the minimum scheduled rate of such grade
but less than the minimum scheduled rate
Of the next higher grade.
(e) All percentages determined under this
section shall be rounded to the nearest one-
half percent.
(f) The additional compensation provided
by this section shall be considered a part of
basic compensation for the purrKves of the
Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C. 2251
and the following).
(g) Section 202(e) of the Legislative Reor-
ganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C.
72a (e) ) ,is amended?
(1) by striking out "68,880" where it first
appears in such subsection and inserting in
lieu thereof "the highest amount whith, to-
gether with iddit'onal compensation au-
thorized by law, will not exceed the maxi-
mum rate authorized by the Classification
Act of 1949, as rin-nded,"; and
(2) by strikinr: out "8,880" at the second
place where it Pi-ars in such subsection
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4931 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
and inserting in lieu thereof "the highest
amount which, together with additional com-
pensation authorized by law, will not exceed
the maximum rate authorized by the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended".
( h (l) This subsection is enacted as an
exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives with full recogni-
tion of the constitutional right of the House
of Representatives to change the rule
amended by this subsection at any time, in
the same manner, and to the same extent as
in the case of any other rule of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Clause 28(c) of Rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives is amended?
(A) by striking out "$8,880" where at first
appears in such clause and inserting in lieu
thereof "the highest amount which, together
with additional compensation authorized by
law, will not exceed the maximum rate au-
thorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended,"; and
(13) by striking out "8,880" at the second
place where it appears in such clause and
inserting in lieu thereof "the highest amount
which, together with additional compensa-
tion authorized by law, will not exceed the
maximum rate authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended".
SEC. 203. (a) The compensation of the
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $32,500 per annum,
(b) The compensation of the Assistant
Comptroller General of the United States
shall be at the rate of $30,500 per annum.
(c) The compensation of the General
Counsel of the United States General Ac-
counting Office, the Librarian of Congress,
the Public Printer, and the Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of $29,500 per
annum.
(d) The compensation of the Clerk, the
Sergeant at Arms, the Doorkeeper, and the
Legislative Counsel of the House of Repre-
sentatives, the Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.
the Deputy Librarian of Congress, the Deputy
Public Printer, and the Assistant Architect of
the Capitol shall be at the rate of $28,000 per
annum.
(e) The compensation of the Second As-
sistant Architect of the Capitol shall be at
the rate of $26,500 per annum.
(i) The compensation of the Postmaster
of the House of Representatives shall be at
the rate of $24,500 per annum.
(g) The compensation of the chaplain of
the House of Representatives shall be at the
rate of $12.500 per annum.
SEC. 204. Section 601(a) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946. as amended 12
U.S.C. 31), is amended to read as follows:
"(a) The compensation of Senators. Rep-
resentatives in Congress, and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be at
the rate of $32.500 per annum each; and the
compensation of the Speaker of the House
of Representatives shall be at the rate of
$45,000 per annum."
Mr. UDALL (interrupting the reading
of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that the further reading
of title II be dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. UDALL
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment Offered by Mr. UDALL to H.R.
8986: Page 40, strike out lines 15 to 21, in-
clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing:
"td) The compensation of the Deputy
Librarian of Congress, the Deputy Public
Printer, and the Assistant Architect of the
Capitol shall be at the rate of 08,000 per
annum."
And on page 40, strike out lines 24 and 25.
And on page 41, line 1. strike out "(g)"
and insert in lieu thereof "(ft".
And on page 41, immediately following line
10, insert the following:
"SEc. 205. No officer or employee subject
to section 202(a) or 202(b) of this title shall
receive, by reason of any provision of this
title, an increase in gross rate of compensa-
tion (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by law), or in total
annual compensation, which Is in excess of
the amount of the increase in basic com-
pensation provided by the amendment made
by section 102(a) of title I of this Act for
positions in grade 18 of the General Schedule
of the Classilicatien Act of 1949, as amended."
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, first I
would want to explain to my colleagues
that we have now reached title II of this
This is a title in which some of
you may have a casual interest. The
title is Legislative Salaries. For the next
hour or two hours we are going to be
discussing sonic things that will be of
rather general interest around here, and
I hope those Members who favor this
legislation will stay on the floor. We
may need you here.
We had a discussion yesterday at the
beginning of the debate. The gentle-
man from Missouri said that in his
judgment one of the things wrong with
the bill was that the salaries provided
for officers of the House were too high,
I assured him then that I would offer
an amendment?and it has the support
of the majority of the members of the
committee here on both sides?which
would make some substantial reductions
in those salaries. As a further part of
this economy drive that we have had
underway here today I am proposing
this amendment..
The present salary of the Clerk, the
Sergeant at Arms, the Legislative Coun-
sel, and the Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxa-
tion?these are the four people who are
now in one category?is $21.500. This is
their present salary. Under my amend-
ment they would go to $26,000. The
other two officials involved in my amend-
ment are the Doorkeeper, who is now at
$20.800, and the Postmaster, who is at
$18,300. The Doorkeeper would go from
$20,800 to $25,300, and the Postmaster
would go from $18,300 to $22,290.
Mr. Chairman, let me make just a few
brief comments. The technical mechan-
ics of my amendment are to strike out
from the bill any attempt specifically to
fix the dollar amounts of the salaries of
these employees, as previously. What we
do is put them in a position so that they
may not get more than the maximum
rates provided for the classified em-
ployee. The top rate for 05-18 provided
by this bill will be $4,500 above the pres-
ent salary. ? So the greatest raise that
could go to any officer of the House under
my amendment would be the same per-
centage which would turn out to be a to-
tal raise of about $4,500.
Some of you are going to say that these
salaries still are too high. In defense of
the officers of the House, let me speak to
that for just a moment. The test, in my
judgment, is what is the responsibility of
this man; how many employees does he
supervise; what is his budget; what do
they pay in conmarrible positions of re-
sponsibility in State government or in
private enterpriae?
The Clerk of tie House has more than
200 employees. He has a budget of $55
million which h ? is responsible for ad-
ministering. He handles all of the book-
keeping. He dii.burses under his ju
diction something like $55 million a ot,ar.
For 100 years tt e salary of the Clerl of
the House was t) e same as the salary of
Members, Even if this amendmerr, is
adopted, he will be making somethina in
the order of $6,5 0 less. So this is a sib-
stantial change ; .nd should meet the ob-
jections of Merr bers who felt that the
original salaries we fixed were too tagh.
The Doorkeep r of the House handles
the House paget he handles the House
document room. he supervises the fold-
ing room.
He has large responsibilities and a
very large number of employees under
him. I think t ie salary we provide is
reasonable.
The Sergeant it Arms has a cash ac-
counting process down here amounting
to more than $12 million a year. He
runs a bank that handles $12 million a
year. He has a total of 101 employees
under his jurisdi.3tion. He is responstble
for the appointment and supervisior of
the Capitol Poi ice, the Capitol Police
Board and some of the other important
functions around here.
The adoption of this amendment will
meet the objections that have been made
and will give these very responsible of-
ficials of the house adequate sala:ies
and keep a fair differentiation between
the salaries of Members who must run
for reelection, IT aintain two homes, and
all the rest of .1, and the officers who
serve them in th: 3 House.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that my amend-
ment will be ado ited.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I :Ise
in support of tt e amendment.
Mr. Chairmaa, this is an excel' ent
amendment. It should be adopted. The
amount of savings that will result are
not great because there are not m my
Individuals invo: ved. However, in older
to keep the salaries of these office: in
proper perspective I believe this amend-
ment should la adopted. I think it
ought to be said also that none of the
individuals hold ng these positions have
come before the committee nor have
they approachec. me in favor of getting
themselves a greater increase. My
thought is that .t is a good amendrrent
and it should be approved.
Mr. MORRIS(1N. Mr. Chairman, gill
the gentleman y eld?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gen:le-
man from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRLSON. I certainly take the
same position. I believe most of the
members of the committee on this side
take a similar losition. I believe :;his
amendment is certainly meritorious and
should be adoptt 1.
SUBSTITUTE A',IENDMENT OFFERED BY
Mt. mosso=
Mr. HOSMER Mr, Chairman, I cffer
a substitute arm adment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
ApprovedForclMeaftVA06M/i18ife6-89P66RefORR000500050001-9
4935
Amendment offered by Mr. HOSMER as a
substitute to the amendment offered by Mr.
UDALL: Mr. HosAm moves to delete section
203, commencing line 5, page 40, and ending
at line 2, page 41; and insert the following:
"Sm. 203 (a) There is hereby established
a Commission of Federal Legislative Com-
pensation (hereinafter referred to as the
'Commission') .
"(1) The Commission shall be composed
of eleven members, as follows:
"(A) Five appointed by the President of
the United States, of whom two shall be
personnel of the Executive Branch of the
Federal Government who have had experi-
ence in Government personnel and salary
matters and three private citizens who shall
have had experience in personnel and salary
matters in private industry;
"(B) Three appointed by the President of
the Senate, from Government or private life,
or both, and having experience in personnel
and salary matters;
"(C) Three appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, from Govern-
ment or private life, or both, and having
experience in personnel and salary matters.
"(2) Persons appointed to the Commission
shall be appointed without regard to polit-
ical affiliation.
"(3) The term of office of each member of
the Commission shall be five years. Each
member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Vacancies on the Commission shall be filled
by the respective appointing authority.
"(4) The President shall designate a
Chairman and a Vice Chairman from among
the members of the Commission.
"(b) The Chairman of the Commission
shall convene the Commission within ninety
days after the date of enactment of this Act
at a time and place designated by him.
Thereafter, the Commission shall meet at
least once every four years to carry out its
duties.
"(c) It shall be the duty of the Commission
to conduct, from time to time, studies and
investigations of the compensation of
"The Comptroller General of the United
States;
"The Assistant Comptroller General of the
United States;
"The General Counsel of the United States
General Accounting Office;
"The Librarian of Congress;
"The Public Printer;
"The Architect of the Capitol;
"The Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, the
Doorkeeper, the Postmaster, the Chaplain,
and the Legislative Counsel of the House of
Representatives;
"The Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee
on Internal Revenue Taxation;
"The Deputy Librarian of Congress;
"The Deputy Public Printer; -
"The Assistant Architect of the Capitol;
"The Second Assistant Architect of the
Capitol;
"Senators;
"Representatives in Congress;
"The Resident Commissioners from Puerto
Rico; and,
"The Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives;
and of the compensation of officers and
employees who occupy positions of compara-
ble trust and responsibility in private indus-
try in the United States and in the executive
and judicial branches of the Federal Govern-
ment for the purpose of determining whether,
and on what basis, an adjustment upward or
downward in the compensation of such
named officers and employees of the legisla-
tive branch is necessary and desirable in
order to compensate such officials and em-
ployees of the legislative branch on an
equitable basis in relation to that of em-
ployees of private industry in the United
States and officers and employees of the
ekeeutlye and judicial branches of the Fed-
eral Government who occupy positions of
comparable trust and responsibility. The
Commission shall submit a report to the
President and to the Congress on or before
December 15 of each second even-numbered
year, beginning with the year 1964, with
respect to the results of such studies and
investigations, together with its specific
recommendations for adjustments upward
or downward in the compensation of each
such named officer and employee of the
legislative branch of the Federal Govern-
ment. The specific adjustments in com-
pensation submitted and recommended to
the President and the Congress by the Com-
mission shall have the force and effect of
law on and after the beginning of the first
session of the next following Congress of
the United States thereafter, and the com-
pensation of each of such named officers and
employees of the legislative branch of the,
Federal Government thereafter shall be paid
in accordance therewith unless otherwise ad-
justed by law. Until the compensation of
such named officers and employees shall be,
adjusted as provided by this Act, each shall
be compensated in accordance with provi-
sions of existing law.
"(d) The Commission may hold such hear-
ings, take such testimony, and sit and act
at such times and places in the United States,
as it deems advisable.
"(e) During the years, in which it is re-
quired to submit a report, the Commission
may appoint for a period not exceeding six
months, and fix the compensation of, a di-
rector without regard to the Classification
Act of 1949. Such appointment shall be
without regard to political affiliation.
"(f) The Chairman, under regulations of
the Commission, may appoint and fix the
compensation of necessary staff personnel
of the Commission, during the tenure of its
director, without regard to political affiliation
and the civil service and salary classification
laws.
"(g) Members of the Commission who are
Government personnel shall serve without
compensation other than compensation in
their Government positions, but shall be al-
lowed necessary travel expenses (or, in the
alternative, a per diem in lieu of subsistence
and mileage not to exceed the -rates pre-
scribed in the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as
amended) , without regard to the Travel Ex-
pense Act of 1949, as amended, the Stand-
ardized Government Travel Regulations, or
Section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (6
U.S.C. 73b), and other necessary expenses
incurred by them in the performance of
duties vested in the Commission. Other
members of the Commission shall receive
compensation at the rate of $50 per day for
each day they are engaged in the perform-
ance of their duties as members of the Com-
mission and shall be entitled to reimburse-
ment for travel, subsistence, and other nec-
essary expenses incurred by them in the
performance of their duties as members of
the Commission."
NOTE?If the foregoing amendment passes,
a motion will be made to delete Sec. 204,
which fixes Members salaries at $32,500.
(Mr. HOSMER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, this is
perhaps one of the very key amendments
to be offered to this bill. I have advised
all of the Members by letter that I would
offer it today. -
Throughout history Congress has fixed
its compensation according to article 1,
section 6, clause 1, of the Constitution
which reads in part:
Senators and Representatives shall receive
compensation for their services to be ascer-
tained by law and paid out of the U.S.
Treasury.
One way in a law is to indicate a spe-
cific monetary amount of compensation.
Another way for a law to? ascertain this
compensation is in accordance with a
formula such as contained in the amend-
ment I have placed before the House.
Actually, we have no business fixing
our own salary. We are not qualified to
do so because of the closeness which we
are to the business, and, secondly, the
remoteness which we are from area of
knowledge regarding comparable com-
pensation in other branches of the Gov-
ernment, and particularly in private in-
dustry.
What this amendment provides is that
a commission will be convened this year
to report by December 15. It will make a
survey of the salaries or compensation
of all of employees listed in section 203
of the bill, including the Comptroller
General, and so forth, as well as the
Senators and Members of the House, and
the compensation paid employees and
officers of private industry in the United
States, and of the executive and legisla-
tive branches of the Government, and
determine what is a comparable salary
for Members of the Congress of the
United States and these other legislative
employees.
There is little that can be said against
the wisdom and fairness of such a means
of ascertaining the compensation thus to
be paid.
Let me add just this one further point.
It is provided in this amendment the
commission be convened every 4 years
beginning in the year 1964. Its actions
thereafter would be automatic. In other
words, this takes it out of the hands of
Congress to fix or establish monetary
amounts from time to time and estab-
lishes a means whereby compensation of
the Members and these other named of-
ficials may be ascertained by law in an
alternative manner. I do not think I
should have to argue this amendment one
way or the other.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. As I understand
it, this strikes section 203?
Mr. HOSMER. This strikes section
203, and if the amendment is agreed to
I will offer an amendment to strike sec-
tion 204 because it would be then re-
dundant in the bill.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. It was my in-
tention to offer a similar amendment,
but the gentleman's amendmerit gies
further than mine. I think the amend-
ment of the gentleman from California
is better than mine; therefore, I shall
support his amendment.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. Why would not this
same approach be applicable to salaries
in all areas, not alone in this section?
Mr. HOSMER. I think the approach
would be a good one for the executive
and judicial salaries as well, and perhaps
it might be a wise idea if whoever con-
trols the motion to recommit would in-
clude it in the motion to recommit, I
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4936 Approved For EtiRtsft&OMAy ity&583)66E1W000500050001-9
March 12
think we would have here a means
whereby this subject of the matter of
salaries in the legislative branch could
be handled fully and fairly and not by
the persons whose pocketbooks are most
vitally affected. The same principle, ex-
cept for the latter consideration, applies
in the cases of executive and judicial
salaries.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. If the Members
of the Congress are able to 'set the sal-
aries of every other emproyee of Govern-
ment, why are we not able to set our own
salaries after advice from the executive
?department, which we have had, and
after surveys have been made? Why
are we not able to do that?
Mr. HOSMER. We are able to do so,
but I seriously doubt the wisdom of do-
ing so. That is why this proposal is
made.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. MICHEL. How does this commis-
sion differ from that which was estab-
lished in 1955?
Mr. HOSMER. In this respect, that
when the coinmission makes its report
and its findings those become the com-
pensation scale for these named officers
at the beginning of the first session of
the next Congress immediately following
that in which it reports.
Mr. OLSEN* of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment.
(Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, the procedure by which your Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
has already considered the whole of the
pay bill find particularly with reference
to legislative, judicial, and executive sal-
aries, is substantially what is being pro-
posed by this amendment.
The Randall Report, as we call it, was
made pursuant to the appointment of a
Committee by the President of the
United States, and that report was made
to the President in June, 1963. In the
report he says, and I will read just the
opening lines:
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor
to present to you the final report of the
Advisory Panel on Federal Salary Systems.
In your letter of January 29, 1963, you re-
ferred to the report of the Senate Post Office
and Civil Service Committee on the Fed-
eral Salary Reform Act of 1962 (Public Law
87-793) and asked us to consider three sub-
jects: (1) appropriate levels for executive
salaries; (2) the-relationship between execu-
tive salaries and those payable to career em-
ployses; and (3) the relationship between
executive salaries and those paid to Mem-
bers of the Congress and the judiciary.
Very quickly I wish to relate who were
on the Panel.
The Chairman was Clarence B. Ran-
dall of the Advisory Panel on Federal
Salary Systems.
They had: Omar Bradley, general of
the Army; John J. Corson, Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and Interna-
tional Affairs, Princeton University;
Marion B. .Folsom, Eastman Kodak Co.;
Theodore V. Houser, Sears, Roebuck &
Co.; Robert A. Lovett, Brown Bros. Har-
riman; George Meany, American Fed-
eration of Labor & Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations; Don K. Price, Grad-
uate School of Public Administration,
Harvard University; Robert Ramspeck,
former Member of Congress from Geor-
gia and former member of our Commit-
tee on the Post Office and Civil Service
and former member of the Civil Service
Commission; Stanley F. Reed, Associate
Justice, now retired, Supreme Court of
the United States; Sydney Stein, Jr.,
Stein, Roe & Farnham.
Then if you will look to the report that
is filed here with the House, you will find
on page 11 an analysis of the figures re-
ported. In separate columns there are
the present rates that the Advisory Panel
-recommends and what our original bill
was, H.R. 8716, and then the final com-
mittee bill.
Present
rate
Advisory
panel
H.R. 8716
Committee
bill
00 000C-0 00000000000,, 0000 00 000000000000
00 000,.cH 00.00000000N 0000 00 000000000000
0. ...00= ...00,0.0.0.V 00.0_00 .0...0...00000
MC,4 CINC.11,1 NNNNGINN.r.i. -'CONC.C4 N,q CCM,NCqNNCICINNCqr-i
03
?--,*
"
CI g
E. 151 H
3 a
c3 23
'
1 ti
Q
g .
oiCQ
Eai 'a "6
0
0o
A 8 h0 -5
8
cqo
- -
! g
-8 8. -2
20 nis.'-. ti g44
_t -4t 0.0
, a cS' -a0.6.9%.2
. .,.' gt% go!a.,A a?=, 0
.,g...
ttl'c' 4 qtsd -04-48,1 -G-do- 3 2.>,
,.o.g,, ccic>4.-.5?6:125 07142* 3t24r4t41-4 g8b
A..,5,85.t8s ,tu.8.,,,.5.:9,2 ,td 11.til ccg4g0(5--44g1
geag7.41-L72, -61:-tcpal-1.5 7311,t2 ot1Q---c)-1
' ;50,2r2,EitUcPfg6 '121:14471clAt41''''''?- E4.g3t442ff-VaZt7
E80m,...4gw8gE48 :21.0.a4gg,?.0000.00.,;20'.,t2 2R.
e.004 ,Th'=o26_2E515"v2,sott.t.3 .8"o's.4g4og
0 0 0..Pg.3084,44,44,4 :a 0000g0E-4p0
. .,
4 A g
?
P 1.PPPP.P..PPIP
oo7o7vvoc, 0,0/000G7T0101?010-10 0.0000 010
000000000000 0 000000 00000000 000 00000 00
000000000000 0 000000 00000000 000 00000 00
$60,0(10
$50, 500
1 35, 000
35, 000
(0
30, 000
30, 000
30,000
28, 000
25, 500
30,000
38, 500
36, 500
33,000
33, 000
33,000
33, 000
30,000
30,000
30,000
27,500
12, 500
60, 000
50,500
SO, 000
40,000
45, 000
38, 500
40, 000
30,500
35, 000
33, 000
33, 000
30, 000
1 30,000
27,500
60, 500
50,500
60,000
10,000
45,000
40,500
45,000
40, 600
45,000
40,500
45,000
40,500
35,000
.31,000
36,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
32, 500
26, 500
32, 500
1 Also recommended that $5,000 of Members' salaries be deductible for income tax purposes to offset by ng expenses;
that the number of trips permitted each year between Washington and Members' States or districts be increased
substantially; and that salaries of other officers in the legislative branch be increased proportionately to fit them into
proper levels of the executive salary structure. H.R. 8986 does not change in any way present provisions of law
affecting income tax deductions for Members of Congress or the number of trips they are permitted each year between
Washington and their districts or States.
Chief Judge, $500 more.
So what has already been done is
that the Congress has been considering
thoroughly the report of the committee
appointed by the President and bringing
It to the membership for final decision.
We considered this proposition of dele-
gating the authority to fix the salaries
of Congress and of the executive and of
the judicial branch to somebody else,
but we concluded in committee that that
Is the job of the Congress. If, indeed,
the Congress is to control the expendi-
tures of this Government, we must fix
the salaries of the executive under the
classified act and under the Postal Act
as well as the top executive salaries, and-
the same thing applies to salaries in the
judicial branch.
The congressional salary in this bill is
on the basis of historical comparison
with the judiciary and the judicial sal-
ary, in turn, is based upon what we found
and recommended as necessary in the
executive branch.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent (at the request
of Mr. MomusoN), Mr. OLSEN of Montana
was granted permission to proceed for 5
additional minutes.)
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I am somewhat repeating myself,
but I want it to be understood the rea-
son there has been recommended by the
President and recommended by our com-
mittee an increase in the highest salaries
in Government is because all of the sal-
aries in the classified service and the
postal field service have come up to that
ceiling and the people in the top three
and four grades of the classified service
and the Postal Service are beginning to
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP6618_01g3R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU 4937
crowd together because they are under-
neath the salaries of the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial.
Specifically, there is an example in
yesterday's evening paper telling of Mr.
Williams of the Aeronautics and Space
activity who is quitting the Government
because his job does not pay him a suffi-
cient salary. He is going to work for a
corporation which, incidentally, has a
Government contract so the Government
is going to be paying Mr. Williams his
higher salary and a carrying charge in
addition.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
gentleman. ,
Mr. MORRISON. I might point out
that I know the gentleman to whom
our colleague has referred and I know
him personally. In fact, he is a graduate
of Louisiana State University. He was
In charge of the entire Mercury project
from the very beginning. I know of no
man of the stature of Dr. Williams who
is needed more in Government. Dr.
Williams himself told me personally:
Congressman, if you do not get out there
and get with the other Congressmen and
Senators and get these salaries increased, I
am not only going to have to leave but there
are a lot of fellows in the same circum-
stances that I am in who feel the same way
about this and who are likewise going to
have to leave.
This gentleman is leaving because he
will get $10,000 a year more in another
job. I believe it will be quite difficult to
replace him. I do not know of a man
more needed than he is, in this particu-
lar job. I do not know of any more im-
portant job in our entire Government
than the one in which he has been serv-
ing.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, on the subject of the amount, the
Randall Panel made its recommendation
based upon information it gathered from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from the
Civil Service Commission, and from
many other sources. Specifically from
the Civil Service Commission it received
a survey which was made of 1,157 cor-
porations in America in several indus-
trial divisions: manufacturing, retail
trade, banks, rail and air transportation,
gas and electric utilities, mining and life
insurance.
Illustrative salary data paid by various Amer-
ican non-Federal organizations?private
enterprise?Total compensation of the 3
highest paid executives in 1,157 corpora-
tions, 1961 1
Industry division
Median compensation
Highest
paid 2
25
highest
paid 2
3d
highest
paid 2
Manufacturing
$01,000
$63,000
$51,000
Retail trade
87,000
64,000
61,000
Banks
82, 000
55,000
40,000
Rail and air transportation
81,000
49,000
40,000
Gas and electric utilities
74,000
49,000
37,000
Mining
71,000
46,000
40,000
Life insurance
53,000
86,000
30,000
No. 45-11
1 Compensation includes base salary plus any bonus
or incentive award earned in 1961. Firms included,
with the exoption of banks and insurance companies, are
restricted to those listed on the New York Stock Ex-
change.
2 Usually the president or chairman of the board.
2 Usually oxecutivo vice president or vice president of
a major function.
Source: "Top Executive Compensation," Studies in
Personnel Policy No. 186, National Industrial Con-
ference Board, 1962.
PAY RATES OF $25,000 OR MORE IN STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1
Tabulations which follow do not include
all State and local governments positions
payiug $25,000 or more. For example, only a
few localities of less than 400,000 population
are covered and there are known to be school
superintendents and city managers paid
$25,000 or ? more in other localities in the
lower population brackets. Hence, the term
"Partial" appears on each tabulation.
The least median in any of the 1,157
corporations, for pay, was $30,000. That
was the least median.
This is the basis, then, for the Randall
Report. This is exactly, in my opinion,
what is being asked for again in the
amendment being submitted.
Further, in the amendment there would
be done the thing which I myself will not
do. I shall not back away from the re-
sponsibility of being an elected Repre-
sentative from my district in Montana.
That is my job. I would be ashamed to
have my salary fixed by someone else,
and to duck out by saying, "I have to
take it, because that is what somebody
else fixed."
I know and all Members know it is the
law of this land that we fix our salaries,
as we fix them for the judiciary and the
executive branch. I believe we must
have that kind of courage and that kind
of honesty with our folks, so that on the
basis of facts presented us we fix this
small portion of the pay bill?$5.4 mil-
lion?the one-tenth of the whole pay bill.
Our part of the pay bill is smaller than
the Murray amendment, which was just
passed.
I say that this smallest part of the bill
should be easy for us to consider, when
we consider the billions upon billions of
dollars we pass upon from day to day.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Montana has again ex-
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. OLSEN of
Montana was given permission to pro-
ceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. The gentleman
Is making the point that there is a dou-
ble judgment here; first there is the
judgment of a commission and then the
judgment of a committee of this House,
backed up by the judgment of all the
Members of the House.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is my
position.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. The gentleman
believes this to be a better procedure
than merely having a decision by a com-
1 Source: U.S. Civil Service Commission
Special Study, March 1963.
mission, which might not have sufficient
staff and which might not do a good
survey job, as to the setting of salaries
for 435 Members of the House plus 100
Members of the Senate; is that correct?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is my
point, in addition to the fact that I be-
lieve salaries must be fixed by a group of
men directly responsible to the people.
I do not feel that anyone else should fix
salaries, other than responsible Mem-
bers responsible to the electorate.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman
stated how much the Mtirray amend-
ment would cut, and how much the
amount would be with respect to con-
gressional salaries. The salary increase
of $10,000 per. Member for 20 years?
for the next 20 years?would be more
than paid for by the amount of savings
just voted under the Murray amend-
ment.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from California.
Mr. HOSMER. I wish to correct one
statement. The Constitution does not
provide that the salaries of Members of
Congress be? fixed by Congress:- it pro-
vides that the compensation of Mem-
bers will be ascertained by law.
It does not tell us how to write4hat
law. One way to write it is with spe-
cific salary amounts. Another way to
write it is in the manner the substi-
tute amendment suggests. I respect-
fully suggest to the gentleman that this
is as much an exercise of the responsi-
bility of Congress to do it this way as
it is to do it the way the gentleman
suggests.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has again expired.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest
reluctance that I rise in opposition to
an amendment offered by my good
friend the gentleman from California
[Mr. Hosivrcal. I take this time to de-
velop further the very point on which
the gentleman from California [Mr.
HosmEal was commenting a moment ago.
Let me read first of all from section 6 of
article I of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall
receive a compensation for their services, to
be ascertained by law.
Now let me read article I, section 1, of
the Constitution:
All legislative powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
I am well aware of the fact that there
are examples, all too many examples, I
would add, of the farming out by the
, Congress of the legislative powers vested
In the Congress by the Constitution. I
cannot gainsay the fact that you can
offer precedents for that. I do not
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
agree, however, that those precedents
necessarily make this a wise or a sound
practice. I submit that to abdicate the
responsibility of direct exercise of legis-
lative power in the matter of our own
compensation is an act of evasion?and
I am tempted to use the word "coward-
ice"?that is indefensible. I agree with
my colleague on the other side of the
aisle, a member of the committee, in say-
ing that we must not back away from
this responsibility. I might add fur-
ther that we have here again another
one of these examples of a reverse veto.
It is proposed that there shall be sub-
mitted by this commission certain rec-
ommendations, and if I understand
rightly the provisions of this amend-
ment, they will become effective unless
by the beginning of the next Congress
they shall have been adjusted by law,
which I presume to mean adjusted by a
modifying act of the Congress. I do
certainly subscribe to one proposition in
this amendment, namely, that there
should be no effective date for any in-
crease in compensation of Members of
Congress until the election of a House
of Representatives has intervened. I
think it is in order to point out in
this connection that the first 12 pro-
posed amendments to the Constitution,
of which 10 were adopted and are known
as the Bill of Rights, included one offered
by Congressman James Madison which
provided specifically that there should
not be an effective date for a pay in-
crease without such intervention of an
election of the House of Representatives.
I think that restriction could be made by
statute and without the necessity of
constitutional amendment.
I hope that if, unfortunately, the
bill is adopted, the effective date for
Members' pay raise will not be until
January 1 of next year.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois,
Mr. MICHEL. The gentleman spoke
of the amendment to the Constitution
offered at that time. However, the
States failed to ratify that proposed
amendment, did they not?
Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. MICHEL. They must have recog-
nized in the early days of our history
that there would be a need for our not
having to wait for an intervening
election.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Evidently, in their
judgment, they so felt. I reserve the
right to disagree with them. But I will
say this: There was no proposal at that
time submitted, either by statute or by
proposed amendment, for the Congress
to delegate its legislative responsibility
to a commission which the Congress
could then use as an alibi for accepting
its results.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. KYL. Is there any difference so
far as facing up to responsibility is con-
cerned through turning this over to a
commission, and failing to stand up to be
recorded on final passage of a bill such
as this?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Of course, the
gentleman knows that any answer I give
is prejudiced, because I think we ought
to stand up and be recorded.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. COLLIER. Does the:-- gentleman
feel that it is wrong at all times to rely
on any commission for any information
or recommendation that we might
desire?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan IMr. JOHAN-
SEN has expired.
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to proceed for 1 further
minute.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, of
course I am not going to accept such a
proposition at all. I suppose there are
occasions?I still favor this as a basic
principle--where there is the right of the
Congress to take final affirmative actions
on the recommendations of a commis-
sion. But I said at the outset that there
are abundant precedents for farming out
of legislative responsibility. I am not
going to say that it may not be justified
or tolerated in certain circumstances. I
do say that in this matter we ought not
to duck the responsibility.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield further?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. COLLIER. I do not think that
this necessarily constitutes the farming
out of a responsibility. As I understand
the gentleman's amendment?and if I
am wrong I stand to be corrected?it
merely assigns the responsibility for con-
sul and recommendation which the Con-
gress will or will not have the right to
accept or reject; is that correct?
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield.
Mr. HOSMER. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Michigan has again
expired.
(Mr. JOHANSEN asked and was given
permission to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
Mr. HOSMER. Congress is entitled
at its will to make an enactment which
entirely wipes out the adjustment or
fixes the adjustment at any other stage
It desires.
Mr. JOHANSEN. May r respond to
my good friend by saying again that I
am reluctant to be in a position of oppos-
ing the gentleman for whom I have such
high regard. But let me say, human
nature being what it is, even among
Members of Congress, I think it is a
little more difficult to get action on the
part of the Congress in a situation in
which a commission of this type is mak-
ing a recommendation. There Is the law
of inertia or gravity or whatever you
want to call it that makes it very easy
for the Congress to accept the result of
its having delegated its legislative re-
sponsibility.
Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. MULTER. May I direct the gen-
tleman's attention to the language of
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California? This is more than a
recommendation. The language is that
this action by this commission shall fix
the salaries and it says it shall be the
salary unless we, the Congress, there-
after otherwise adjust it by laar.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I thank the gen-
tleman for making the point. It is a
very important point. A recommenda-
tion presupposes that there must be ap-
proving or disapproving action. This
presupposes requirement that the corn-
miasion action become effective unless
there is disapproving or altering action
by Congress.
Mr. MULTER. In other words, it be-
comes effective when the commission
acts. It becomes effective unless the
Congress thereafter makes some changes.
Mr. JOHANSEN. And to that extent
it is substantially more than a mere rec-
ommendation.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, I ob-
ject to the request.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman. I
reserve the right to object.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 20 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman. I ob-
ject.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman. I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. YOUNGER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, one of my
objections to this bill is to the method
by which we have been fixing salaries?
and it attaches not only to this bill but
to the previous bill which I voted against.
The simple reason is that we are not
qualified for a proper survey has not
been made of these salaries.
Mr. Chairman, nothing has been said
about the blue-collar workers who work
for the U.S. Government. just the same
as everybody else who works for their
Government. However, we do not hear
anything on the floor of the House with
reference to fixing the salaries of blue-
collar workers. Their salaries are fixed
otherwise. We have no arguments with
reference to them. They are fixed in
the various regions of the country. The
Workers are all happy with the method.
Mr. Chairman, some method must be
worked out for fixing the salaries of the
employees of the Federal Government so
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
that every 2 or 3 years we will not be
caught in a bind such as we are caught
inhere
Mr. Chairman, I have a great number
of Government workers in my district.
Our district is a high-living-cost one.
They are not receiving justice insofar as
their pay is concerned. This is true
because every time the Congress fixes
the salaries we fix them somewhere be-
tween the low-cost areas and the high-
cost areas, and the Federal civil and
postal workers in the district which I
have the honor to represent never re-
ceive equity.
Mr. Chairman, our area in and around
San Francisco is a high-cost area.
Postal service people who transfer to that
area from other States cannot make a
living; whereas, they had a very good
living in their former area of the United
States. That is one reason why I shall
vote against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, until we can find a
method of fixing salaries by regions and
not as the result of pressures and argu-
ments in the Congress we are not going
to achieve our aim.
I was quite interested in what the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Or..sEw]
said With reference to avoiding respon-
sibility. I know what is going to be done
here today in an effort to try to prevent
a record vote. I believe such maneuver-
ing represents the greatest type of avoid-
ance of responsibility I know about.
When Members of Congress are called
upon to authorize an appropriation of a
half billion dollars of the taxpayers'
money and then are not willing to be
recorded on that expenditure they are
doing a great injustice to the Members
of the House.
Mr. Chairman, my personal feeling is
that this House should have a rule to the
effect that no authorization or no ap-
propriation exceeding $100 million be
legal without a recorded vote having
been had on the same. I sincerely hope
that when the time for the vote on this
bill comes all of us will be willing to
record our votes, and if the bill passes,
fine, well, and good.
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yierd?
Mr. YOUNGER. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. BURKE. I would like to ask the
gentleman from California if this bill is
passed and Congress votes the raise, will
he take it?
Mr. YOUNGER. Now, that is not the
question that is before us.
Mr. BURKE. It is a question which
I am asking right now of the gentle-
man. Will the gentleman take the raise?
Mr. YOUNGER., Will I take the raise?
Mr. BURKE. Yes, will he take the
raise?
Mr. YOUNGER. If I am reelected
and I serve in the House I will take
whatever the salary is for the job. How-
ever, that is not what I am arguing
about. I am arguing about the question
of whether the Members of the House
will stand for a record vote. I will stand
up and vote. I shall be willing to vote.
I vote on a number of bills, when I am .
in the minority. That does not mean
that I will not observe the law, just be-
cause I happen to be in the minority.
Mr. BURKE. If the 'gentleman will
yield further, he is evading the question.
Mr. YOUNGER. No, I am not evad-
ing the question.
Mr. BURKE. In other words, the
gentleman? will take the raise if it is
voted this year? That is what I am ask-
ing the gentleman. He will take the
raise before the election?
Mr. YOUNGER. I say I will take the
raise; yes, but I will vote against it and
I want to say that I am willing to be re-
corded against it. Now, will the gentle-
man stand up for a record vote?
Mr. BURKE. I will vote for the
measure, I will support it subject to cer-
tain clarifying amendments, and I will
let the people of my district know. I do
not know of any Member of this House
who is afraid to do the same thing.
Mr. YOUNGER. You just wait and
see. If the bill is passed that way all
well and good.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. I should like to
ask the gentleman this question: If the
amendment now before us fails, does not
the gentleman feel there would be less
criticism if the effective date of this bill
were put off until the opening of the new
Congress in 1965?
Mr. YOUNGER. I think so, yes. I
think I would vote for an amendment to
that effect.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DENT. The gentleman stated he
would vote for an amendment to make
it effective January 1. Would the gen-
tleman then vote for the bill?
Mr. YOUNGER. No, I will not vote
for the bill because, as I said, there are
too many inaccuracies in this bill and
the fixing of salaries in this way is
wrong. I have told my postal workers
that under this system they will never
get equality, not until we find a different
method of fixing salaries, and therefore I
will continue to vote against such bills.
Mr, DENT. I can appreciate the gen-
tleman's position. We have an awful
time in my committee trying to set up
minimum wage laws on a regional basis.
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts.
Mr. BURKE. I would like to ask the
gentleman if he knows of any board of
directors of any of the large Corporations
of this country who do not vote for their
own salaries, for their own bonuses, for
their own retirement system, for their
own special insurance plan? Is the gen-
tleman opposed to them doing that?
Mr. YOUNGER. The gentleman is
trying to put the United States in the
privata industry class. I do not believe
that the money of the taxpayers is in the
private industry class. That is just a
difference we have. So far as this bill is
concerned?I want to repeat my opposi-
tion to it. It is like our legislature in
California. They wrestled with this
problem of salaries for years. Finally
they put it back into the personnel board
4939
and eliminated the fixing of the salaries
of employees by the legislature. The
city of San Francisco has done that, all
of our cities in our county have done the
same. This is not a proper function for
a large legislative body of this kind.
My objection to this bill rests mainly
with the method by which they are fixed.
As a result of the method we will never
have equity so far as our employees are
concerned.
Mr. Chairman, much of this debate
has revolved around the effect of our vote
for the salary increase upon the voters
of our respective districts. Surely we are
not dealing with one-half billion dollars
of the taxpayers' money in a manner to
buy votes in this coming election. If this
be true, we are not entitled to our pres-
ent salary. I plead that we have a re-
corded vote on this bill so that we who
are opposed to this legislation may be
recorded.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, there are
a number of amendments pending at the
desk. I ask unanimous consent that all
debate on this amendment and all
amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, this is not
on the whole title?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. HAYS] may have his
full 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I now ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 10 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, does this
apply only to the pending amendment,
and not to the title?
Mr. UDALL. Precisely.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and ask unanimous consent to speak out
of order in the last 3 minutes of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio? ?
There was no objection.
(Mr. HAYS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, yesterday
I stated I would have an amendment to
offer today to this title which would
allow waiver of any amount or the total
amount. Very frankly, since I made
that announcement I have been sub-
jected to some persuasion by the leader-
ship on my side because it would put
a number of fine people on both sides of
the aisle on the spot. Quite honestly,
that is exadtly what I intended to do, but
I have yielded to the persuasion. I will
not offer the amendment, but since my
word is good, I wanted to give that ex-
planation as to why I will not offer the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4940 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
amendment, after having said that I
would offer it.
Mr. Chairman, in the morning press?
and I might say I have been here for
nearly 16 years, and I have never taken
the well to complain or in any way talk
about any article that ever appeared
about me in a newspaper?this morning
in the Washington Post and other
Papers in the country under the byline
of one Jack Anderson Was an attack on
Colonel Glenn, using me as a whipping
boy. It said that I had in a standing
vote, voted against the public accommo-
dations section of the civil rights bill
and that I had been observed doing this
by somebody from the gallery, and that
when they called my office I would not
tell them whether I had or not.
That is an unmitigated lie, and Mr.
Anderson never called me to check as
to whether or not it was true. The
Speaker has told me that he would issue
a statement that I had not done this,
and I do not think there is any Member
on this floor or in this House that would
say they saw me standing to vote for
any crippling amendment to the civil
rights bill.
I am-not making this speech neces-
sarily under cover of legal immunity,
because I called my local paper, which
comes out this afternoon, and which
carries this column, and they told me
they would put on the front page the
statement I said it was an unmitigated
lie. They are carrying that this after-
noon on the front page.
I further said to the newspaper that
I would be better off to let Anderson's
statement stand, if my mail were any
indication, because according to the
mail from my district I should have
voted to strike the public accommoda-
tions section, but since a principle was
involved I did not. I am only making
this denial because a principle is
involved.
He said that one Jerry Cole. someone
I have never heard of, watched from
the gallery, called my office, and I jerked
the phone out of my secretary's hands
and said something to him. The truth
of the matter is that the fellow, called
one of my secretaries six times and an-
noyed her and got fresh with her. She
told me about it. We do not know who
he is. This is the name he gave.
I said, "If he calls again, give him to
me." He did call. I said. "What do you
want?" He said, "I want to know how
you voted on the public accommoda-
tions section." I said, "It is in the bill,
isn't it?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Well,
I am recorded as voting for the bill, and
don't be bothering this office any more
unless you want to get me personally,
and then I will take care of it person-
ally."
That is the whole sum and substance
of the story. That is the kind of column
it is. That is why as a matter of princi-
ple I have called Mr. Anderson a liar
in the public print and I have called him
one here again. And if he wants to sue,
I will prove that in this instance he
printed a lie in his column.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
UDALL 1.
Mr. /MALL. Mr. Chairman, I think
maybe we should back up and see where
we are. About an hour ago I offered an
amendment to reduce the increases pro-
vided for officers of the House, the Clerk,
the Sergeant at Arms, and other offi-
cers of the House. To that amendment
the gentleman from California [Mr.
Hosfaea ] offered an amendment which
would strike out my provision and in-
sert a whole new section. This section
would set up a Commission on Congres-
sional Salaries. That Commission
would make an investigation to deter-
mine what salaries were needed by Mem-
bers of Congress and others, and then
certify or fix the salaries. They would
go into effect unless the Congress within
60 days vetoed them.
The vote will come first on the amend-
ment offered by Mr. HOSMER, and if that
is rejected the vote will come then on my
amendment, which will deal only with
salaries of the Members and officers of
the House.
I think the amendment has been fully
and fairly debated. I hope the amend-
ment to the amendment will be defeated
and that my amendment will be agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
liaasna 1.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I was
under the impression when the gentle-
man asked for the limitation on debate,
it would apply to title II. As I under-
stand, it only applies to the Hosmer
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. It is the under-
standing of the Chair that it applies only
to the pending amendment.
Mr. HARSHA. Then. Mr. Chairman,
I yield back the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York [Mr.
WHARTON. I.
Mr. WHARTON. Mr. Chairman, I
have serious reservations concerning cer-
tain sections of H.R. 8986. which are in
direct contravention of the Constitution
of the State of New York, as well as other
Stales.
Specifically, we from New York have
always felt that any salary increase ap-
plicable to an elective office should in
no event take effect during the current
term or tenure of that office. The prac-
tical effect of that very desirable con-
stitutional provision is to give the elec-
torate an opportunity to protest at the
general elections, In the interest of good
government as well as honest and orderly
procedure. To be more precise, anyone
who seeks public office presumably knows
something of the duties and emoluments
of that office and if he doesn't, he does
not deserve to be supported at the polls.
It is unthinkable that after assuming
office, anyone should take immediate
steps to raid the Public Treasury for
their personal gain.
I have no quarrel with the need for
adjusting Federal salaries consistent
with private industry and the cost of
living, but do feel the taxpayers should
have an opportunity to voice possible
objection to an increase of our salaries
in midterm. This provision of the pres-
ent legislation is especially repugnant
and I urge the defeat of any bill of that
nature.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. CORMAN 1 .
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
only to correct the RECORD. I believe
that my colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. YOUNGER] misspoke him-
self as to who fixes the salaries in the
city of Los Angeles which is the largest
city in the State and the County of Los
Angeles, the largest county. Salaries are
fixed by the elected legislative branch
subject to the normal right of veto of
the executive.
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORMAN. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. YOUNGER. I never mentioned
Los Angeles. I said San Francisco, the
State of California and cities in San
Mateo County.
Mr. CORMAN. I did not hear the
gentleman limit his reference to cities
to San Mateo County, but I would say
further in the city of Los Angeles and
In the County of Los Angeles, the local
government follows the policy of fixing
salaries based on comparable salaries in
private industry with the result that we
have a high tele' of municipal service at
minimum cost. It seems to me if city
councilmen can face up to the responsi-
bility of fixing salaries so can the Con-
gress of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California [Mr.
BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, it is
my understanding that following the
vote on the pending amendments, there
will be an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. CUN-
NINGHAM] Which would strike out the in-
crease in pay for Members of Congress.
Personally, I intend to support the Cun-
ningham amendment. / do not believe
In the present fiscal circumstances with
the deficit that is anticipated this year,
that we shout( be voting for an increase
our own salary
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gent eman from Missouri I Mr.
JONES] .
Mr. JONI of M13G0U1'i asked and was
given perinaai -n to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I had announced that I would offer
an amendment to strike all of title n,
and I will do so if I have the opportunity
after other amendments have been of-
fered. I also have another amendment
which, if thal should fail, I shall offer
at the appropriate time to place some
limitations on the amount of increase in
Members' salaries:. At the present time
we are face'l iv?th the decision of decid-
ing between ;lie least objectionable of
the Provision : that are open to us to
decide upon s I said, I would like to
see all of I- ' 'e'eted and I hope that
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
ApprOved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4941
that is done. However, I would prefer
the amendment of the gentleman from
California [Mr. HosatER] rather than the
language that is in the bill. I would
also call attention to the fact that his
amendment should have covered all of
the other parts of the bill applying to
other employees of the House. I think
this part of the bill should never have
gone to the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service. That has been the
obligation and under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on House Administration,
I have been trying for years to get some-
thing done about all the gobbledegook
that we have in our base pay. I hold in
My hand, and I am sure all Members are
familiar with it, the 10 different steps we
take in raising the pay of employees of
the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. HosmER] to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. UDALL].
The question was taken; and on a
division (demanded by Mr. HosmER)
there were?ayes 26, noes 143.
So the amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now is
on the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Arizona [Mr. UDALL].
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CUNNINGHAM
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CUNNINGHAM :
Page 35, strike out line 13 and all that fol-
lows down through the period in line 10 on
page 41.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of my amendment.
Mr. MORRISON. 'Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. For a unani-
mous-consent request I yield; yes.
Mr. MORRISON. I wonder if we Can
agree that all debate on the amendment
and all other amendments to title II end
in 20 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I do not yield for that purpose. That
would come out of my time.
Mr. MORRISON. After consideration
of the gentleman's amendment, could all
debate on all amendments end in 20
minutes?
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman,. I
move that be done.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Nebraska has the floor. Does the
gentleman from Nebraska yield to the
gentleman from Louisiana?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, because I
wish to make a statement. Following
my statement the gentleman can be rec-
ognized.
?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Nebraska is recognized for 5 min-
utes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, this will
evidently be an unpopular amendment,
because it would strike in its entirety
title II, which has to do with an increase
in Members' salaries.
I would be appreciative if. the Members
would read my minority views which are
in the committee report, page 137. In
my Minority views I state that the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee
should be concerned with a study and
make recommendations on postal and
classified salaries as in title I.
In the 8 years I have served on the
committee I have supported salary in-
creases for these people and have worked
hard in their behalf and that type of
legislation is in title I.
However, the other three sections, the
legislative, executive, and judicial, in my
opinion do not belong on the Post Office
Committee agenda. I might say, re-
gardless of what denials or objections
are made to what I am going to say, that
there was no study of the salaries by the
committee that are provided in the leg-
islative, executive, and judicial. I do
not know where this table of salaries was
written, but it was not written in the
committee. So I believe, and I certainly
do not deny any Member of this body
the right to vote yes or no as far as his
salary increase is concerned, but I per-
sonally do not feel that I should vote my-
self an increase in salary and I will not
do so. I was elected at a certain salary,
and even though I, like others, have
problems making ends meet, I do not feel
that I can and I certainly will not vote
for an increase in my own salary.
In my remarks in the minority report
I stated, and I want to reiterate, that
this package of legislative, executive, and
judicial salaries, regardless of how you
feel about it, should go to the Committee
on the Judiciary, as it always has in the
past. Mr. JONES of Missouri spoke about
the Government Operations Committee.
Perhaps that committee should consider,
this. The Post Office and Civil Service
Committee is charged with title I?that
is, the post office salaries and the Classi-
fied Act salaries. But evidently the other
three sections could not stand on their
own feet, so they were made a part of
this bill. Therefore I say, Mr. Chairman,
that this section should be divorced from
this bill so that those of us who have the
best interests of the postal and rank-and-
file classified workers at heart can help
them without having to vote for an in-
crease in our own salaries.
'In closing my minority views, I said:
In the final analysis, each Member will
have to decide for himself what he wants to
do. But I do believe that these proposals
should be separated as mentioned above. I
agree with what Lyle Wilson of UPI said in
his syndicated column.
He did not take a special position on
this legislation, but he did end up by
saying, that every Congressman should
be counted in a record vote on this pay
raise and I again say I agree to that.
I hope whether you are for one or
against one, and without criticizing any
Member for his stand, that we can have
a record vote, because, as has been men-
tioned in general debate, I think it would
be necessary and I shall vote against an
increase in my salary.
(Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last three words.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this
amendment. It strikes out all of title
IL I know every Member here under-
stands exactly what this amendment
does. We could stay here, I think, and
talk for the next 2 hours, but I do not
think it will change the way one Mem-
ber is going to vote, so I say let us go
ahead and vote it up or down and get
on with the bill.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated before,
I had planned to offer an amendment
exactly like the amendment that has
been /offered to strike out all of title II.
The first part of title II only compounds
and further confuses the formula under
which we determine the pay of em-
ployees of the House of Representatives.
I would say that there is not a soul in
this House who, without referring to this
salary table here?and I doubt if some
of us -even with the benefit of this?
could tell us or anybody so that they
could understand it what the wording of
pages 36 and 37 mean or how much the
salaries would be affected.
I have talked to several employees of
the House whose salaries in the past
have been fixed by action of the Com-
mittee on House Administration after
being approved by the House and I have
not found one who knows how much his
salary would be increased by this -bill.
I think all of this needs a thorough go-
ing-over and that we need to come down
to specifics.
I am not going to put this table in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; I am not trying
to publicize it, but I think alma every-
one will admit that it is rather silly to
take a base salary and add to it 10 dif-
ferent formulas in order to arrive at the
salary of an employee of this House.
And this bill would add another step to
that and further complicate it. I hope
that this whole title is stricken and that
the Committee on House Administration
can take up this particular problem and
get it solved. I think something needs
to be done about it.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
MORRISON] said a minute ago that every-
body knew what this amendment would
do. I think that is right. It will just
remove all of title II. However, if you
do not remove it, you are going to leave
something in the bill that nobody un-
derstands. I would rather vote for some-
thing I do understand than to leave in
the bill something that I do not under-
stand and which I think is wrong. So
I am hoping that we will have an oppor-
tunity to stand up and be counted on
this bill when the time comes. I will
vote for a change, an adjustment up-
ward in the salary of Members of Con-
gress and employees of the House. But
I do not want to be sandbagged into
doing it. I think this legislation was put
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
into this bill because they said, If old
Paul Jones has $10,000 in it, that will
cause him maybe to vote for the rest
of the bill. I like $10,000. But I am not
going to be sandbagged into voting for
a whole lot of other gobbledygook in
order to get it. I hope we will leave the
legislative title out of this bill.
There is another thing I want to call
attention to. We are taking care of only
the House part of the legislative branch.
I do not know what will happen when
this bill is sent over to the other body,
and how it will look when it comes back
here, what kind of salaries will be in it.
I say let us leave it out and let the House
take care of its awn business through
the Committee on House Administration
as it has done with House employees in
the past. I think we can do a much
better job.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to
the gentlemen from Oklahoma.
Mr. WICKERSHAM, The provisions
of the Cunningham amendment, the
Jones amendment, and my amendment
are the same?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. That is right.
Mr. CORBEri, Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. CORBETT. I would like to say to
the gentleman regarding the salaries of
our own legislative employees that I
agree with him 100 percent, and I hope
that in the committee in which we both
work, the House Administration Com-
mittee, he will offer such a bill in the
near future.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I hope the
gentleman will vote with me at this time
to take this whole title out. Then you
will have the opportunity to do it. If
we let it stay in we will not have that
opportunity.
Mr. CORBEri. Certainly we will.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. No.
Mr. CORBEri. This is a matter of
giving the legislative people the same
consideration which we give the classi-
fied people. We have no guarantee of
the action that will come on a bill such
as the gentleman proposes, because we
have had this rather queer situation for
many years and no action has been
taken.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. They have
had 10 raises over this period of time
about which I have been speaking. I
would like to see the Congress under-
take a study of the salaries of certain
employees of the House of Repre-
sentatives.
Mr. coRBEFT. I join the gentleman
from Missouri in this thought, but we
cannot be sure that it is going to hap-
pen this year, when it has not happened
during the past 10 years.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Oh, yes; we
have taken care of them.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman. I
ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment end in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, reserving the right to object, the
gentleman's motion has specific refer-
ence to this one amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I withdraw my reservation.
lMr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. What is the amount
of time provided for under the motion
for further debate?
The CHAIRMAN. Ten minutes, on
this amendment.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I object.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on this amendment
conclude in 10 minutes,
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, a paliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. If the motion
of the gentleman from Louisiana pre-
vails and we close debate, would such
action preclude the offering of a new
section at the end of line 10?
The CHAIRMAN. It would not.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I thank the
Chairman.
' The CHAIRMAN. The question Is on
the motion of the gentleman from Lou-
isiana.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Montana [Mr.
OLSEN I for two-thirds of a minute.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. PERKINS asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the Fite?Rea
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, I am
hopeful that we will strike out any arid
all salary increases for Members of Con-
gress. I feel that we should not increase
congressional salaries until we do some-
thing for the thousands of retired work-
ers throughout the country who are try-
ing LO subsist on meager annuities of $40,
$50, and $60 a month. lam very much
In favor of the increase in pay for post-
masters. postal employees, and other
Federal employees whose salaries are not
In line with those being paid outside of
Government. In the event the congres-
sional salary section is deleted, I can sup-
port the rest of the pay raise legislation
with enthusiasm, otherwise I will have
to vote against the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentlemen from New Jersey
I. Mr. JOELSON .
Sr REITTTUTE AMENDMENT OFTERED ST MR.
JOE LSD N
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
a substitute amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JOELSON as a
substitute for the amendment olTered by Mr.
CUNNINGHAM: On page 41, strike out lines
6 through 10, and substitute therefor the
following:
"(a) The compensation of Senators, Rep-
resentatives in Congress, tZle Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Res.dent
Commissioner from Puerto Rico shall be in-
creased by 15 per centum of their present
salaries, which percentage is the amount of
the rise in the cost of living since the last
salary increase for these officials in 1955. In
addition thereto, each of such officials shall
be reimbursed monthly for all travel expenses
for tripirelating to his Congressional duties
to and from the Congressional district which
he represents, and shall also be reimbursed
In the sum of $200 each month for costs and
expenses of residency in Washington."
(Mr. JOELSON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, this
substitute amendment would make it
possible for us to take the American
people into our confidence and would
give to them an increased awareness of
the problem.
Mr. Chairman my amendment would
grant pay increases to Congressmen in
the percentage amount of the cost-of-
living increase since 1955, which was the
date of the lass pay increase. What
reasonable man could object to that.
It further provides for reimbursement
for travel expenses to and from our in-
dividual districts on official business.
What reasonable man could object to
the reimbursement of Members of Con-
gress for their travel expenses? How
can we expect an employee to pay out
of his own pocket his cost of traveling
when traveling in behalf of his employer?
Mr. Chairman, we go home for the
purpose of taking care of the business
of our constituents. We go home to serve
our constituents.
Furthermore, we must live in Wash-
ington and as a result thereof have out-
of-pocket expenses here as well as those
necessary expenses back home. We are
required to maintain two places of
residence.
Mr. Chairman, mine is a reasonable
and fair amendment, It is much more
desirable than an across-the-board in-
crease of $10,000 per year because it talks
frankly to the American people. I urge
its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. STINSON].
(Mr. STINSON asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Cunningham amend-
ment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my
mind that the pay of our postal workers
and Federal Civil Service should be on
a level with private industry. This is
necessary in order to attract and keep
good people. The portion of H.R. 8986
that deals with our postal and civil serv-
ice employees is good and I fully support
It. However, I believe that Congressmen
should not have a pay raise at this time
and I greatly resent the fact that the
congressional pay raise was tacked onto
this bill.
If the congressional pay raise provi-
sion is removed from the bill, I shall vote
for it. If not, I shall not vote for it
because I cannos in good conscience vote
for a pay raise for myself.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP60001403R000500050001-9
1964, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4943
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California
[Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Cunningham amend-
ment I believe the 44 percent increase
in congressional salaries as provided in
the bill is exhorbitant and out of line.
The Cunningham amendment should be
adopted.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Quo].
(Mr. QUIE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I hope we
will have an opportunity to vote on the
record on this bill. I will stand to se-
cure a record vote. In the event a suf-
ficient number of my colleagues do not
stand with me so that we might be on
record, I am taking this opportunity to
let all know where I stand.
I will vote in favor of the Cunningham
amendment to strike Title II: Federal
Legislative Salaries. When the amend-
ments are offered, I will support efforts
to strike Title III: Federal Executive
Salaries and Title IV: Federal Judicial
Salaries. In the event these amendments
are successful, I shall vote for the bill.
If they are not, I shall vote against it.
The reason I am in support of Title I:
Federal Employees Salary Systems is that
through it the Congress is fulfilling its
commitments in Public Law 87-793
passed in 1962. This was the compara-
bility principle, established in that law,
and to be used in establishing Federal
career salaries. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics makes comparability surveys
and_ on these are based the increases in
title I of H.R. 8986.
As the report on the bill indicates on
page 5, the comparability principle can
decrease by as much as 50 percent the
annual increased salary expense which
otherwise might be incurred in future
years. If we are to have efficient, highly
qualified Federal employees, this princi-
ple must be adhered to. The high sal-
aried executive personnel can be expected
to be attracted due to a feeling of service.
However, this cannot be expected of the
classified and postal employees even
though there is a great feeling of service
amongst many of them.
The report on page 13 states that
"comparability" is not recommended for
high offices. It states that achievement
of full salary comparability with private
enterprise for high Government offices
is neither appropriate nor practical. I
believe that at this time with continued
annual Federal deficits, the increases for
the top legislative, judicial, and execu-
tive offices are not appropriate which
this bill provides.
The increases for Senators and Con-
gressmen are $10,000 per year, Cabinet
officers increases are $10,500. These are
the men who have the major responsi-
bility for the continued Federal deficits.
Federal judges' salaries are increased by
$12,550.
These increases are difficult for people
of my district to understand when their
annual income on an average is less
than $5,500. I maintain that the highest
Federal officer should be well paid, but
Increases to the amount in this bill are so
out of line that I shall vote against the
bill if they are included.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. WATSON].
(Mr. WATSON asked and was given
permission to revise and? extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, al-
though I was not a Member of this body
in 1962 when the comparability principle
for Federal pay was enacted into law, I
subscribe to that position and, as a mem-
ber of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee; I worked to bring about com-
parability of salaries in this pay bill.
Naturally, a measure of such magnitude
will have imperfections and unjustified
disparities within certain classifications;
however, I believe the bill under consid-
eration does rectify or eliminate some of
the inequities in our Federal salary
schedule.
As I have stated so often, I believe in
paying employees well; for the produc-
tivity and efficiency of one adequately
paid employee will be greater than that
of two underpaid and dissatisfied em-
ployees. Therefore, I favor the in-
creases for the classified and postal em-
ployees and have so advised them. My
position on that issue remains un-
changed.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, as I
stated to the fellow members of my com-
mittee when voting to report this bill to
the House, I reserve the right to oppose
the measure on the floor unless congres-
sional and Supreme Court pay increases
are removed or drastically reduced.
Frankly, the proposed increases in these
categories are both unwise and exorbi-
tant.
Economy and fiscal responsibility be-
gin at home. As a Congressman I can-
not call for strict economies in otfier
agencies and activities of the Federal
Government while at the same time sup-
porting a salary splurge for ourselves.
With the present exorbitant debt limit
and the recent substantial tax reduction
measure which has recently become law,
it is absolutely imperative that we cur-
tail nonessential expenditures and keep
essential increases to a minimum.
Mr. Chairman, candor compels me to
admit that I could use to good advan-
tage the proposed congressional salary
increase, but my conscientious belief as
to what is best for the Nation and the
people of my district must be paramount
to my own personal interests. It is not
only a matter of conservatism for me
but, also, one of conviction.
As to the salaries for our Supreme
Court Justices, I frankly share the opin-
ion and belief of many of my constitu-
ents that actually the Chief Justice and
some of the other members of the U.S.
Supreme Court are presently overpaid.
Certainly I cannot vote to increase the
Chief Justice's salary to $45,500 when
many of his decisions and public pro-
nouncements have not been, in my hum-
ble judgment, for the best interests of
citizens.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the House
persists in the passage of this congres-
sional pay increase I shall propose an
amendment to the bill making such sal-
ary increases contingent upon the bal-
ancing of our Federal budget. At least,
the requirement for the balanced budget
before such increases shall be effective
would be a helpful stimulant in bringing
frugality and fiscal responsibility to our
National Government.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
UDALL].
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the effect
of this amendment is to knock out of
the bill any raise in congressional
salaries. It would bring about a situa-
tion where the Chief of Naval Opera-
tions, an admiral, receives $32,000 under
legislation we passed last year, his boss
the Secretary of Defense $25,000, his boss
the Secretary of the Navy, who makes
$22,000, while the great chairmen of the
Committees on Armed Services in the
House and Senate will receive only $22,-
500. It would leave in the bill raises
under the Classification Act for 16's, 17's,
and 18's, but would downgrade your own
staff members, the key staff people on
whom Congress depends.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. The
salary changes should stay in, and this
amendment should be met head on and
voted down.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. HEMPHILL].
(Mr. HEMPHILL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend ?his
remarks.)
Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairnian, and
members of the committee, I rise in sup-
port of the Cunningham amendment,
particularly because I do not believe that
we, as Members of a sitting Congress,
should raise the pay level of this Con-
gress. Each of us ran for office knowing
that the salary was $22,500 a year and
we asked the people of our respective
districts to send us to this office on the
basis of such salary. If we intended to
raise the salary we should have told
them on the respective stumps of our
respective districts that we intended to
raise the salary of the office of which we
would hold.
Do not think from this statement that
I do not believe in good salaries and good
wages. I do. In fact, I think the salary
of the Members of Congress should be
raised but that they should be raised
after the next Congress and let the peo-
ple of the respective districts vote into
office a candidate for that particular
office at that particular salary. If the
effective date was January 1965, so that
the people could elect the '89th Congress
on the basis of the increased salary, I
would be much more in favor of the bill.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
JOELSON] approached the matter very
prattically. He took the cost of living
index and provided for certain travel
expenses. Certainly this is a very fair
approach and I would support that
amendment except for the effective date
which would raise the salary for which I
ran and I will not vote to change the sal-
ary while I am drawing the salary.
Insofar as the legislative assistants are
concerned, I would prefer a system in
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4944 Approved For RE*18mingiMA Weiff9_3(196B1300500050001-9
March 12
which we had the entire responsibility
of fixing the salaries of the people who
assist us in our various congressional
offices. We now have a formula or series
of formulas which, to some extent, hides
the true salaries we are paying, and r
do not believe in hiding things from
the American people. I can say this
with a clear conscience as it is well
known that I pay as good or better sal-
aries to my staff and I am proud of it.
I am proud of them and I am always in
favor of giving them a raise when they
deserve it but I think I should have the
Individual responsibility instead of Con-
gress passing some new formula.
I want to support the raises for Post
Office and civil service employees. I am
particularly interested in the Internal
Revenue Service employees who have the
difficult task of intensive work in admin-
istrating the complicated tax laws and
who deserve more recognition by better
salaries. Unfortunately, if voting for the
bill would include a raise in pay which is
against my principles, I cannot vote with
them, as much as I would like to as it
becomes a matter of integrity with me in
considering my own salary. I took this
position when I was in the State Legis-
lature of South Carolina and I feel it is
a proper and just position to take now.
For this reason I am going to support
the Cunningham amendment and I wish
the legislative provisions were either
amended or stricken so I could vote for
the rest of the bill.
Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. Chairman. I
yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. ROOSEVELT).
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman,
coming from California I rise to support
the gentleman from New Jersey. We
can do much better in California under
his amendment. To be quite truthful
most Members would rather receive tax-
free expense allowances than a fully
taxable pay increase. The gentleman's
amendment would be perhaps difficult to
police and might be subject to abuse.
But as a California Member we must
admit that the cost of getting home to
service our constituents is high and al-
most prohibitive unless it is a taxable
expense. Our present allowance of two
business trips a year when we sit from
9 months to the whole year is ob-
viously not enough to keep proper con-
tact with our friends at home. Some
adjustment based on geographical dis-
tance would be the best way but lacking
this, Mr. JOELSON'S amendment is a great
improvement.
(Mr. ROOSEVELT asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
OLIVER P. BOLTON 1 .
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man. I ask unanimous consent to yield
my time to the gentleman from Ohio
Mr. HARSHA I.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
HARSHA 1.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Cunningham amend-
ment. I have an amendment at the
desk which strikes out titles II, lEE, and
IV from this bill, but because of the par-
liamentary procedures it can not be of-
fered in that form, but must be offered
to each title as it is read. Therefore,
we must go through this procedure
piecemeal. However, my remarks are
addressed to all three titles. It Is my
firm conviction that all three of them
should be stricken.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is'
identical to the Cunningham amend-
ment. I have endeavored to obtain rec-
ognition, but because of the policy of
recognizing members of the committee
first, the gentleman from Nebraska was
able to offer the same amendment ahead
of me. However, it makes little differ-
ence who offers the amendment so long
as it is accepted. I have similar amend-
ments to other sections of the bill which
will strike out pay raises for the judi-
cial and executive branches; however, I
understand the gentleman from Nebras-
ka. a member of the committee, will
offer similar amendments so I will sup-
port them. Mr. Chairman, this amend-
ment and the others that will follow are
very easily understood. They simply
elimniate all persons from H.R. 8986
except classified and postal workers.
In other words, it would eliminate from
this measure, the raise for the executive
branch, the judicial branch, and the leg-
islative employees, including Members
of Congress.
.Tust 2 weeks ago, this Congress passed
the Revenue Act of 1964 authorizing a
tax cut of over $11 billion. Then, and
during the debate last fall on this bill,
we heard many pious speeches about
holding down expenditures; about prac-
ticing economy in Government. We
promised the American taxpayer that we
were going to be frugal with his tax
money. In fact, one of the arguments
propounded in favor of the tax cut was
that it would force the Congress to cut
down on Federal spending. Further-
more, the declaration by Congress in
section 1 of the Revenue Act states that
It is the sense of Congress that the tax
reduction provided by this bill, through
the stimulation of the economy, will,
after a brief transitional period, raise
revenues and that such revenue increases
should first be used to eliminate the defi-
cits in the administrative budgets and
then to reduce the public debt. I want
to repeat that again?"shou]d first be
used to eliminate the deficits and then
to reduce the public debt"?and what are
we attempting to do?practically the
first thing we endeavor to do is raise
congressional salaries by about 44 per-
cent. Is this declaration of policy just
so many idle words to pacify the tax-
payer?
This declaration also provides that, to
further the objective of obtaining bal-
anced budgets in the near future, Con-
gress, by this action, recognizes the im-
portance of taking all reasonable means
to restrain Government spending. It is
difficult to understand how we restrain
Government spending by proposing the
exorbitant pay increases advocated in
H.R. 8986 for the executive, judicial, and
legislative branches of this Government.
If Members of Congress are unwilling to
exert restraint on spending in connec-
tion with their own salaries, it is diffi-
cult to believe that the Congress can
exert a reasonable degree of restraint in
connection with other Federal expendi-
tures.
The public has been told of the great
sacrifices on the part of all, which are
necessary in maintaining a sound econ-
omy. This Government has been en-
couraging. and no doubt in the future
will encourage, labor and industry to
hold the line on wages and prices: Yet,
we in another breath, attempt to raise
congressional, judicial, and executive sal-
aries from roughly 30 to 50 percent. Ap-
parently, Congress intends to throw the
restraint it spoke of in the tax bill to
the winds. An increase by this amount
cannot be justified at this time.
The average American wage and salary
earner has an annual income of around
$5,000. To increase executive, judicial,
and legislative salaries by twice that
much is difficult for the average Ameri-
can voter to comprehend and those of
you who hope to return next year, may
have cause to regret this action. The
American voter is no longer uninformed.
What about the poor social security
pensioner who is required to live on $73
per month or $128.70, if married. You
all have received mail from these con-
stituents asking for a modest increase.
Yet, none is forthcoming.
Look at the World War I veterans who
are asking for a pension of $100 per
month and have filed a discharge peti-
tion in an effort to get the bill out of
committee. Yet, by this bill, you are in-
creasing the salaries, some of them by
almost $1,000 per month. If you think
you can justify this action to the social
security retiree, to the World War I vet-
eran, to the unemployed and to the aver-
age wage earner of this Nation who earns
about one-half of this suggested raise. I
am afraid you are going to be sadly
mistaken.
Now, just a word about the judges.
Most of them are appointed for life and
are granted generous retirement ben-
efits to which they make no monetary
contribution. No one can seriously con-
tend that the Federal judiciary is shab-
bily treated in terms of compensation or
retirement benefits.
As far as the Cabinet officers are con-
cerned, there has been no difficulty in
obtaining qualified applicants for these
positions. Most of them, when they
leave private endeavors to come with the
Government, do so, not because of the
pay involved, usually they come at great
financial sacrifice, but because of a de-
sire to serve their country. Government
could not possibly pay them what private
industry or endeavor does. An increase
of this kind will not encourage more
qualified personnel to join Government,
but rather will add to the already ex-
hausting burden of the taxpayer.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
urge the adoption of this amendment.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP6.613_9t03R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU 4945
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that
this amendment will be adopted so we
can give the postal and classified em-
ployees their promised raise. In 1962
when we passed the pay raise bill for
these employees we cut the amount down
and promised them a comparability study
and further if this study indicated a
raise was due them we would in turn
provide it. That study has been made
and indicates they are entitled to a raise.
We should honor this commitment and
grant them their promised raise. This
portion of the bill I support and would
urge my colleagues to support it. By
striking titles II, III, and IV from the bill
we will be keeping our commitment to
the American taxpayer and then this
Congress will be in a position to pass title
I and thereby fulfill our obligation to
the postal and classified employees. Our
pledge to the American people in the tax
cut legislation requires us at this time
to eliminate legislative, executive, and
judicial salary increases from this leg-
islation. I urge the adoption of this and
subsequent amendments to accomplish
this end.
Mr. Chairman, unless these amend-
ments are adopted I can't in good con-
science vote for this measure. I feel our
pledge in the tax cut bill to the Amer-
ican people precludes any of us from vot-
ing for this bill with raises in it for the
legislative, judicial, and executive
branches.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
FISHER].
(Mr. FISHER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I am
constrained to oppose the pending pay
raise bill. At a time when the current
deficit is estimated at about $10 billion,
In the face of which the Congress re-
cently enacted a bill reducing taxes by
more than $11 billion annually, it is
difficult to see how the Congress can
justify this pay increase which would
cost more than $600 million a year.
This is particularly true in view of the
general pay increase for Federal em-
ployees approved less than 2 years ago,
costing in excess of $1 billion annually.
If this bill is enacted, and if history
repeats itself, the effect will be to en-
courage another round of wage raise
demands in private industry all over the
country, with the resulting inflation.
Now, of all times, it behooves the Con-
gress to set an example of frugality and
restraint in this wide area of the Fed-
eral payroll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. Chairman, I voted
for the rule on this bill so that the House
could work its will. There are thousands
of Federal employees and officers other
than Members of Congress affected by
this measure.
In view of the failure of the House to
make material changes in the bill and
In view of the further fact that we are
supposed to be trying to economize on
the cost of Government.
I cannot and will not support this
measure which will add over $500 mil-
lion per year to our cost of the Federal
Government.
No. 45-12
I could support a bill for those in
the lower pay scale, and have done so
in the past where a raise is needed badly,
but I can not on one hand advocate
economy and then on the other vote to
increase my own pay 40 percent regard-
less how much I would like a pay raise.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
COLLIER].
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, in the
interest of both equity and economy may
I ask the author of this amendment
whether it is his intention to take the
same action on the sections of the bill
covering the executive and judicial
branches?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is.
Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentle-
man.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. WINSTEAD].
(Mr. WINSTEAD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. 'WINSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the pending bill
because of my conviction that it goes too
far and is entirely too all-inclusive.
Under provisions of this bill, Members
of Congress, Supreme Court Justices
and other high Government officials
would receive salary increases of more
than 40 percent. I personally cannot
see the necessity of any such increases
to people who are already receiving $20,-
000 or more per year. I think this ac-
tion is uncalled for and cannot be jus-
tified at this time.
I have consistently voted against ex-
cessive spending by the Federal Govern-
ment in the hope that we could balance
the budget. I cannot, therefore, lend
my support to this measure, particularly
In view of the present deficit and the
recent tax reduction.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
RANDALL] .
(Mr. RANDALL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Cunningham amend-
ment.
There has been some discussion to the
effect that if title II remains in this bill
every Member will be sandbagged into
voting for it because of his own self-in-
terest. That is why I favor the Cun-
ningham amendment and will support
it when it comes to a vote. The reason
goes something like this: Our friends in
the classified service and some of our
good friends in the postal service write
to us saying Members of Congress are
entitled to a $10,000 increase. They do
so knowing that such a statement will
lend encouragement to us to vote for our
own pay increase, knowing that in the
same bill are increases for the authors
of these letters. I have no grievance
against such correspondents but I think
we have to look at these letters and the
reason they are written.
Mr. Chairman, it has been argued that
some portions of this bill should have
been assigned to the Civil Service and
Post Office Committee and yet other por-
tions to the Judiciary Committee and
even other parts to the House Adminis-
tration Committee. It seems to me these
arguments are valid. Certainly, the Ju-
diciary Committee should have consid-
ered the salaries of Federal judges and
if the House Administration Committee
has jurisdiction over other expenses or
allowances of the legislative branch then
it would seem to me it would be the
appropriate committee to consider title
II of this bill. But to whatever com-
mittee this bill had been referred, con-
gressional salaries should not be con-
sidered as part and parcel in the same
bill with postal workers and other per-
sonnel in the executive branch.
Mr. Chairman, during the course of
this debate, there have been statements
made about how our constituents feel
about this pay increase for Members of
Congress. Well, I do not know about
other Members but I have not received
' a single piece of correspondence from
any individual or group supporting the
congressional pay increase that did not
in the same letter ask for support for
another provision in the bill. There is
nothing wrong in such correspondence.
I simply mention it to paint out that not
a single letter has come from a disinter-
ested source saying that Members of
Congress should receive $10,000 a year
increase. All of the resolutions of the
American Bar Association approving
congressional pay raises, in these same
resolutions asked Members to be for
increases for the Federal judiciary. I
repeat, this is to be expected but it shows
there is no one in favor of congressional
pay increase outside the circle of those
?who hope to receive some benefit from
another provision in the bill.
On the other side of the issue, I wish
to report I recently mailed out about
30,000 questionnaires and although the
proposition of compensation increases
for employees and Members of Congress
was not mentioned as a question, none-
theless, we received handwritten nota-
tions in hundreds of instances express-
ing opposition to congressional pay
raises in the amounts that had been
discussed in the press back during the
latter part of January in the amounts
proposed in this bill today. These let-
ters were from persons whose opinions
had been solicited on such things as
Presidential succession, voluntary
prayer, foreign aid, and civil rights.
The opinions expressed on pay increases
were sent in unsolicited by our constit-
uents. It showed very clearly they were
opposed to pay increases for Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I could support a small
increase in congressional pay not greater
than an amount equal to the rise of
the cost of living since the last increase
of 1955 and even provide for a reason-
able number of trips to and from the
home district. This I think would be
accepted by our constituents. If it is
possible to separate the congressional
pay from these other raises, we will have
no problem. That is the reason I sup-
port the Cunningham amendment and
associate myself with the arguments for
the Cunningham amendment by the
other Members.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
Mr. CORBETrl.
Mr. CORBE-1-1'. Mr. Chairman, these
amendments should be defeated. They
are illustrative of the fact that if you
try to make adjustments in any part of
this bill without reference to other parts
as well you are going to get into all
kinds of inequities. Therefore. I believe
that an amendment to reduce these sal-
aries has to apply to all three titles or it
is not going to be worthwhile. If we pass
one and not the other, we are clear out
of kilter.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
MORRISON] to close debate.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, as
appears from the other arguments that
have been made, this is a bad amend-
ment. I ask that it be voted down.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. JonsoN] to
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM).
The amendment to the amendment
was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM I.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. CUNNINGHAM)
there were?ayes 37, noes 125.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand tellers.
Tellers were refused.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF
MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana: Page 35, strike out line 14 and all that
follows down through the period on line
14 on page 38 and insert In lieu thereof the
following:
"SEc. 201. This title may be cited as the
'Federal Legislative Salary Act of 1904'.
"SEC. 202. (a) The gross rate of cotnpen-
sation (basic compensation plus additional
compensation authorized by law) In effect
Immediately prior to the effective date of
this section of each officer or employee In
or under the legislative branch of the Gov-
ernment whose rate of compensation is in-
creased by section 5 of the Federal Employees
Pay Act of 1946 shall be increased by the
greater of the following amounts, as applica-
ble:
"(1) an amount equal to 31/2 per centum
of such gross rate plus 1 per centum of such
gross rate for each whole multiple, or part
of a multiple. of $500 basic compensation;
or
"(2) an amount equal to 5 per centum of
such gross rate.
"(b) The total annual compensation In
effect Immediately prior to the effective date
of this section of each officer or employee
of the House of Representatives, whose com-
pensation is disbursed by the Clerk of the
House of Representatives and is not in-
creased by reason of any other provision of
this tile, shall be increased by an amount
which is equal to the amount of the In-
crease provided by subsection (a) of this
section in that gross rate which is nearest
in amount to the total annual compensation
of such officer or employee.
-(c) Each of the limitations on gross rate
per thousand and gross rate per hour per
person provided by applicable law on the
effective date of this section with respect to
the folding of speeches and pamphlets for
the House of Representatives shall be in-
creased by 7 per centum. The amount of
each increase under this subsection Shall
be computed to the nearest cent, counting
one-half cent and over as a whole cent."
And on pages 38 and 39 redesignate sub-
sections (f), (g), and (h) as subsectIon6
(cl), (e), and (f), respectively.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana (interrupting
the reading of the amendment). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the further reading of the amend-
ment be dispensed with.
Mr. sTiNsoN. I object, Mr. Chair-
man.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment,
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN] iS recog-
nized.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, the language now contained in
H.R. 8986 which would provide salary
adjustments for our legislative em-
ployees has become technically imperfect
due to the passage of time and due to
adjustments that have occurred in pay
schedules over a period of time,
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. MORRISON. This is a clarifying
amendment and Members on this side
will accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Where you
have here on this first increase?"an
amount equal to 3 per centum of such
gross rate"?I can understand that?
Plus 1 per centum of such gross rate for
each whole multiple or part of a multiple of
$509 basic compensation.
Now if a person had basic compensa-
tion of $4,000 that would be an 8-percent
increase: is that correct? Plus the 31/2
percent would be 111,2-percent increase;
is that correct?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That would
be correct.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. What would
be the maximum amount of basic com-
pensation of any employee who would be
affected by section 202(a) ?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. The maxi-
mum base compensation of anybody af-
fected by this would be $9.475.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. In other
words, that would be a 23-percent in-
crease for the person with that basic
amount?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. It would
mean it would be a little over 18 percent
and it would mean that the person who
now has a gross pay of $20,000 would be
getting approximately $24,000.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
g en Lleman.
Mr. MORRISON. Is this not just an
amendment to give the legislative
workers the same increase as the classi-
fied workers in the same levels?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is ex-
actly what it does and the percentage
has been worked out to make it exactly
equal to what the classified employees
are getting in title I.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman. I move
to strike out the last word.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me
see if I can get this straight, if I may
have the attention of the gentleman from
Montana. I assume this means that an
employee on your staff or on my staff,
getting $7,000 base and being paid $15,-
349 at present, under the terms of this
would go to $18,035: is that correct? Am
I working on the right table?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. You are
working on the correct table. Of course,
I must say it. is in these brackets that
you are speaking of, in the higher brack-
ets where the major changes occur in the
calculation because of the great timelag
that has occurred in making increases in
salaries for the higher brackets of the
classified, postal, and legislative work-
ers and we are trying to do it all uni-
formly.
Mr. GROSS. At the other end of the
Capitol, in the other body, does the gen-
tleman know the average pay of an ad-
ministrative assistant, as they are called
over there?
Would that be $19,000, $20,000, or
what?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. It would be
about $19,000. The gross would be
more than $22,000 in the other body now.
Mr. GROSS. If I have the correct
table, it would be about $23,000.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. $22.945.
Mr. GROSS. So if we consider the
office formerly held there by one Bobby
Baker, and paid $19,600 a year, if he were
still operating out of the other side of the
Capitol, he would get up to $23,000 or
$24,000, would he not?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana, About $23,-
400.
Mr. GROSS. Apparently he would
not need this increase if he were still
there, because he managed to 'put to-
gether a fortune of a couple of million
dollars.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I do not
have any ideas about anything except
what is of record.
Mr. GROSS. I hope that the legisla-
tive employees on this side of the Capitol
are not indulging in some of the Baker
manipulations. Does the gentleman not
believe this ii a pretty healthy schedule
of increases?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. As I said,
the increase is to give the legislative em-
ployees on the Hill a comparable increase
to that to be enjoyed by the classified
services and the postal services, in the
same comparable levels.
Mr. GROSS. In the same comparable
levels?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. GROSS. I do not know exactly
how to regard this comparability busi-
ness. Before our committee the other
day we heard testimony from the Civil
Service Commission that the difference
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4947
in the cost of living as between Houston,
Tex., and Chicago, III., was 22 per-
cent. I wish someone would tell me how
it is proposed to arrive at any kind of
a true measure of comparability in fixing
salaries when within the continental
limits of the United States there is a 22-
percent spread in cost of living as be-
tween cities.
I believe the increases proposed in the
amendment are unacceptable and I am
opposed.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if we can agree on a time limita-
tion for debate on this amendment. I
ask unanimous consent that debate end
in 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. MORRISON. I move that debate
end in 5 minutes on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN.' The question is on
the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
BRAY] for 1 minute.
(Mr. BRAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot
support this omnibus pay raise bill.
While there are unquestionably instances
where the pay of government workers
should be raised, I cannot take the whole
"package deal" that has been sent to us
by the administration and the House
leadership.
Employees of the executive depart-
ment, postal workers, other branches of
civil service, the judiciary and congres-
sional employees should all be considered
separately and on their individual merits.
Congress is being asked to raise its own
pay by 44 percent, and this raise is to
take place not after the voters have had
an opportunity to select new Members
of Congress, but those of us who are now
sitting in Congress are asked to raise our
own salaries by 44 percent this year
which amounts to $10,000 per year, in
the term which we are now serving.
All members of the civil service are not
treated so well. A GS-1, drawing $3,305
per year, is given an increase of 2.4 per-
cent, a total of $80 per year. The upper
echelon of Government service are to
receive increases from 40 to 47 percent,
amounting to from $7,500 to $10,000 per
year.
I will be very happy to study and vote
on pay raises for the various segments
of our Government employees on their
respective merits, but I cannot in good
conscience support this legislation.
I also want to assure this body that I
will do my best to see that there is a roll-
call vote on this measure.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
JOHANSEN].
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, how
do you like the steamroller tactics?
I hope, if I can get the answer in 1
minute?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield? I will answer.
We like it fine.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I will not yield at
all.
I should like to ask the chairman of
the committee if nere is now in the bill
before us an effective date for the salary
increase for Members of Congress; and,
if so, what it is.
Mr. MURRAY. It would apply on
January 1, 1964.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I would like to ask
the chairman, the ranking majority
member and the ranking minority mem-
ber, if we can have at this time their
assurance that if this effective date is
changed to July 1 of this year by the
other body, they will stand firm in con-
ference for a January 1, 1965, date for
congressional pay increases.
Mr. MORRISON. Will you vote for
this bill?
Mr. JOHANSEN. The gentleman's
question is irrelevant entirely.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I will ask the ques-
tion again later until I get an answer.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to answer the gentleman's
question and then yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. BROYHILL ].
I would like to say to the gentleman
that his question is not properly put.
The effective date in this bill is January
1, 1964, but there has to be some change
in that because that date has passed.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I appreciate the
gentleman's answering that question.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
BROYHILL].
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN].
The passage of time since last Novem-
ber, when this bill was reported from the
committe, has made the language con-
tained in the bill providing salary in-
creases to legislative employees unwork-
able. The new language which is pro-
posed to be substituted in the bill for
legislative employees will provide a work-
able formula under which these em-
ployees will receive salary adjustments
comparable to those which will be given
to their counterparts who are covered
by the Classification Act. In other
words, what is proposed here is that our
legislative employees receive raises in a
similar amount?no more and no less?
to those given employees who are em-
ployed in the executive branch.
Mr. Chairman, for reasons beyond my
comprehension there exists among some
of my colleagues a tendency to down-
grade our own employees, and to either
overlook them entirely when pay adjust-
ments are given to all other Federal em-
ployees, or _t_o treat them less equitably
than we do other employees.
This is a rather incongruous situation
since it exists at a time when increas-
ing emphasis is being given to the need
for the proper staffing of the Congress.
A number of national publications have
recently carried articles pointing out how
very important it is to the national wel-
fare that the Congress have available to
it the best available technical assistance
it can secure. As most of you know, the
American Political Science Association
has recognized the necessity of main-
taming the highest possible degree of
skill and knowledge among congressional
staff assistants and for this purpose it is
now awarding a series of liberal congres-
sional fellowships. Certainly, if by mod-
ernizing our Federal salary structure we
are to give the executive branch the
means whereby it can recruit and retain
competent personnel, we can do no less
for the legislative branch.
When we tend to downgrade or neglect
our own employees, we should also keep
in mind that they work under condi-
tions that are already vastly inferior to
their counterparts in the executive
branch.
Our legislative employees are without
civil service status and the consequent
armor of protection that such status af-
fords. They have no guaranteed tenure,
no appeals rights, and are not covered
under numerous laws such as the vet-
erans' perference law that grant protec-
tion and preference to employees in the
executive branch. They are not covered
under the overtime laws applicable to
other Federal employees; they have no
sick leave protection, and no system of
annual leave.
Despite all of this, you will certainly
find nowhere in the Government any
group of employees who are generally
more dedicated and who possess a higher
degree of competence than you will find
here at the Capitol.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this
amendment and I hope that it is adopted
unanimously as a vote of confidence for
a group of Federal workers who have for
too long not received the recognition due
them.
(Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. MORRISON].
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. ChairmaL, I
take this time to make an explanation
that a ranking member of the commit-
tee proposed an amendment changing
the effective date from January 1, 1964,
to after the enactment of this legislation.
The bill calls for January 1, 1964, now.
An amendment will be made to change
that so that the effective date will be
-after the enactment of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
The question occurs on the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. OLszN].'
The amendment was agreed to. ?
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that all debate
on title II and all amendments thereto
end in 10 minutes.
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr.
Chairman, reserving the right to object,
may I inquire how many amendments
there are at the desk to title II?
The CHAIRMAN. The Criair reports
there are three amendments.
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr.
Chairman, I object.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
move that all debate on title II and all
amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is in
doubt as to the meaning of the gentle-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
man's motion. Will the gentleman
please repeat it?
Mr. MORRISON. Yes. I just changed
from 10 to 15 minutes the time limit on
this section.
The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair un-
derstands it, you have moved that all
debate on this title and all amendments
thereto cease in 15 minutes.
Mr. MORRISON. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion of the gentleman from Loui-
siana.
The question was taken, and the Chair
announced that the ayes appeared to
have it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, on
that I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. JOHANSEN
and Mr. MORRISON.
The Committee divided, and the tell-
ers reported that there were ayes 159,
noes 64.
So the motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
OLIVER P. BOLTON] for 112 minutes.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLIVER P. BOLTON
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLIVER P. Hot-
Tom on page 40, immediately following line
4, insert the following:
"SEG. 203. Section 117 of the Accounting
and Auditing Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 837; 31
'mac. in) is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
" '(c) Except as otherwise provided by
law, the Comptroller General In auditing the
financial transactions of the House of Rep-
resentatives and of the Architect of the Capl- ?
tol shall make such audits at such times as
he may deem appropriate. For the purpose
of conducting such audits, the provisions of
section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act
(42 Stat. 26: 31 U.S.C. 54) shall be appli-
cable to the legislative agencies under audit.
The Comptroller General shall report to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives the
results of each such audit relating to the
financial transactions of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and shall report also to the
Architect of the Capitol the results of the
audit of his office. All such reports. Includ-
ing the reports required by the Act of July
26, 1949 (63 Stat. 482), shall be printed as
House Documents.'"
And redesignate sections 203 and 204 on
pages 40 and 41 as sections 204 and 205. re-
spectively.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is not germane and has
nothing to do with pay raises. It was
not discussed in our committee. It cov-
ers a subject completely outside the pro-
visions of the bill. It is not contemplated
within the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Ohio desire to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I do. Mr.
Chairman.
Actually, I am surprised that the ger-
maneness of the amendment would be
raised. The bill deals with the salary
of the Members of the House. My
amendment would go toward the ac-
counting for those expenditures of the
House which if they were not expended
by the House would well be considered
salary, such as, if I may list a few: Trav-
el for staffs and for members of com-
mittees, investigations made by mem-
bers of committees, appropriations of
the House for office furniture for rugs,
and so forth, appropriated funds used
to pay for stationery allowances, appro-
priated funds made for office rental at
home.
In addition I would point out to the
Chairman that this is germane to the bill
because it is an accounting measure.
Also that in 1922 with reference to a sim-
ilar measure the specific question was
raised as to the germaneness of an ac-
counting and disclosure bill amendment.
If the members of the committee will
look at volume 65, part 10, of the CON-
GRESSIONAL Raceme for June 3, 1924, they
will note that the House had under con-
sideration S. 1898, a bill for reclassifi-
cation of the salaries of postmasters and
employees of the postal service.
The question was raised as to whether
or not a bill requiring Members to dis-
close campaign contributions would be in
order. A long parliamentary discussion
ensued. The Senate bill was not recog-
nized, and the House Speaker recognized
that the amendment specifically was a
House amendment and was ruled to be
ermane to the postal bill.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, therefore, this
13 a precedent; but I do not rely wholly
on the precedent. I would respectfully
state to the Chair this is intimately con-
nected with the pay, either direct or in-
direct, of Members of the House.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. HOLIFIELD).
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has listened to the argu-
ments made by the gentleman from Ohio
and the gentleman from Louisiana.
The subject matter of the pending bill
pertains to salaries of various govern-
mental employees and not to accounting.
The amendment that the gentleman from
Ohio offers is, in effect, the same as a
bill which he has introduced that was
referred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations. The subject matter
of the bill and of the gentleman's amend-
ment pertains to accounting, which
comes under the jurisdiction of the Corn-
mittee on Government Operations and
not under the jurisdiction of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service.
On previous occasions the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. SMITH] and the gen-
tleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mims),
while presiding in a Committee of the
Whole, have ruled that such subject mat-
ter as the gentleman presents is not ger-
mane. The Chair therefore sustains the
point of order made by the gentleman
from Louisiana.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR JONES OF
MISSOURI
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES CA Ms-
Fouri: Page 41, immediately following line
10, insert the following:
"Ssc. 205(a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law and in recognition of the
fact that the duties and responsibilities of
a Member of Congress are conducted on a
full-time basi:, there shall be deducted from
the compensation in any year of each Sena-
tor, Representative In Congress, and the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
an amount equal to the amount of compen-
sation which such official has received for
personal services from other sources during
such year up o the amount of any increase
provided in this Act. Personal services shall
be deemed to include any personal service
performed by the individual for which he
receives a salary, commission, fee, retainer,
honorarium, per diem, or any other compen-
sation received in return for rendering such
personal service, but shall not include divi-
dends, interest, rentals, pensions, disability
benefits. Insurance, retirement income, or
any other form of income which is not pred-
icated upon the rendering of any personal
service."
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. HAYS;. Mr. Chairman, I make
the point of order on the ground it puts
upon the Disbursing Office of the Con-
gress duties that are not contemplated
in this act, and duties he would be unable
to perform in trying to ascertain all the
other things that are mentioned in this
amendment ln the way of income.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Missouri desire to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I do. Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is
germane. It is based upon the fact that
the salary of a Member of Congress is
for a full-time job. That is the argu-
ment that has been advanced for in-
creasing the salary of a Member of Con-
gress. If we are paying for a full-time
job, then we ought to get a full-time
Member to fill that job. However, I
would not require any Member to devote
his full time, if he wants to practice law,
if he wants to practice medicine, if he
wants to practice any other profession
for which he will receive an income.
Presumably he would have to be absent
from the body here before he could get
that income. He would merely report
that income, which he would have to do
on his income tax anyway, and tell the
Clerk he had received $10,000 additional
income; that he was not entitled to the
full salary.
I have the greatest sympathy for the
man who lms no other income, who is
trying to raise a family. Even the
$35,000 would be inadequate. But for
people who have outside income, and I
have a little outside income, they would
come under the provisions of this act.
I am not trying to take advantage of
anyone else, but if I do not give my full
time to the job, I should not be paid
for it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
talking to the merits of the amendment.
Will he please confine his remarks to the
point of order.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I will be glad
to get back to the point of order. I
want to thank the gentleman from Ohio
for getting roe this extra time.
I say it would not impose any great
duty on the disbursing office. This
amendment is predicated on a full-time
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4949
job. If a Member does not want to give
a full-time job, he can so indicate to the
disbursing office up to $10,000. He is
required to report that on the income
tax, anyway. It would be a very simple
o,peration. I think everybody would be
happy. I do not know of anybody who
wants to take their time away here and
have the Government pay them for the
time they are practicing law or practic-
ing medicine.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the bal-
ance of my time and ask that the amend-
ment be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. HOLIFIELn).
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Missouri [Mr. JoriEs] pertains
to the bill under discussion, which refers
to matters concerned with the salaries
of Federal officers and employees. The
Chair has listened carefully to the argu-
ment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
HAYS] and the gentleman from Missouri,
and the Chair is constrained to overrule
the point of order.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. JONES].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. JONES of
Missouri) there were?ayes 28, noes 132.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. Bitoex].
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROOM
Mr. BROCK. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr, BROOM: On
page 41, line 11, amend se/ion 201 by adding
a new subsection, Subs ion (B) to read
as follows:
"(b) As of July 1 of every year, the Secre-
tary of the Treasury shall ascertain and
certify to the Sergeant at Arms of the House
of Representatives and the Secretary of the
Senate the amount of the increase or de-
crease in the public debt as compared with
the public debt on the preceding July 1, with
the amount of such increase or decrease
rounded off to the nearest $100,000,000 and
counting $50,000,000 or more as $100,000,000.
Effective January 1 of the calendar year next
succeeding each certification by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury under this paragraph,
the rate of compensation set forth in subsec-
tion (a) of this section shall be adjusted
as follows:
"(A) Such rate of compensation shall be
increased at the rate of 1 per centum per
annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which the
public debt was decreased, as certified by
the Secretary of the Treasury.
"(B) Such rate of compensation shall be
decreased at the rate of 1 per centuni per
annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which the
public debt was increased, as certified by the
Secretary of the 'Treasury.
Whenever the amount of the increase or
decrease in the public debt certified by the
Secretary of the Treasury contains an
amount which is a fractional part of
$1,000,000,000, the adjustment of such rate
of compensation under subparagraph (A) or
(B) shall be, or shall include, as the case
may be, an amount which bears the same
ratio to 1 per centum of such rate of com-
pensation as the fractional amount of such
increase or decrease bears to $1,000,000,000."
(Mr. BROOK asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
on the grdund that it is not germane to
this title or to this bill. The subject
matter of the amendment is obviously
one within the jurisdiction of the Com-
mittee on Ways and Means.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Tennessee desire to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. BROCK. Mr. Chairman, we have
in section 204 on page 41 offered an
amendment to the Legislative Reorgani-
zation Act, United States Code 31. This
amendment applies to that particular act
and is an addition to that section. It
would simply add an additional subsec-
tion; therefore, I think it is germane.
.The CHAIRMAN (Mr. HOLIFIELD in
the chair) . The Chair is prepared to
rule.
The Chair has listened carefully to the
arguments of the gentleman from Ari-
zona and the gentleman from Tennessee.
The amendment of the gentleman
from Tennessee clearly sets forth addi-
tional tests and duties which are not con-
templated in the original act. There-
fore, the Chair is constrained to sustain
the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. WATSON].
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WATSON
Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WATSON: Page
41, line 3, insert "(a)" immediately follow-
ing "SEc. 204."
And on page 41, immediately following
line 10, insert the following:
"(b) The increases in compensation pro-
vided by the amendment made by subsection
(a) of this section shall not be effective for
any fiscal year immediately following a fiscal
year in which the total revenues of the Gov-
ernment of the United States are less than
the total expenditures of such Government,
as determined by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury."
Mr. WATSON. Mr: Chairman, this is
a very simple amendment, and I am sure
it needs no explanation. Earlier dur-
ing the general debate, I believe one of
our colleagues suggested he was going
to offer an amendment predicating all
of the salary increases on the balancing
of the budget. I do not think that is fair
because the classified and postal em-
ployees do not have the primary respon-
sibility for balancing the budget. That
is our responsibility. For those who be-
lieve in a balanced budget, this is your
opportunity to put your money where
your mouth is.
Mr. Chairman, if we provide for these
increases regardless of a balanced budget,
how are we ever- going to balance the
budget?
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WATSON. I am delighted to
yield to the gentleman. ,
Mr. HAYS. Did you offer this amend-
ment to the public works bill?
Mr. WATSON. I did not.
Mr. HAYS. You had some projects
in that bill; did you not?
Mr. WATSON. There were many
projects throughout the United States,
and the gentleman knows the public
works bill did not include any salary in-
creases for the Congress. Therefore, a
similar amendment was not in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from South Carolina [Mr. WATSON].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III?FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SALARIES
SEC. 301. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Executive Salary Act of 1963".
SEC. 302. There is hereby established for
offices and positions to which section 303 of
tills title applies a basic compensation sched-
ule, to be known as the "Federal Executive
Salary Schedule", which shall be divided
into six salary levels.
SEC. 303. (a) Level I of the Federal Execu-
tive Salary Schedule shall apply to the fol-
lowing offices and positions, for which the
annual rate of basic compensation shall be
$35,000:
(1) Secretary of State.
(2) Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) Secretary of Defense.
(4) Attorney General.
(5) Postmaster General.
(6) Secretary of the Interior.
(7) Secretary of Agriculture.
(8) Secretary of Commerce.
(9) Secretary of Labor.
(10) Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(b) Level II of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following of-
fices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $32,500:
(1) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(2) Under Secretary of State.
(3) Administrator, Agency for Interna-
tional Development.
(4) Administrator of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
(5) Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
(6) Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
(7) Director of the United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency.
(8) Director of the United States Infor-
mation Agency.
(9) Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation, Department of Justice, so long
as the position is held by the present in-
cumbent.
(c) Level III of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule shall apply to the following
offices and positions, for which the annual
rate of basic compensation shall be $30,500:
(1) Deputy Attorney General.
(2) Deputy Postmaster General.
(3) Under Secretary of' Agriculture.
(4) Under Secretary of Commerce.
(5) Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportation.
(6) Under Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare.
(7) Under Secretary of the Interior.
(8) Under Secretary of Labor.
(9) Under Secretary of State, Political Af-
fairs.
(10) Under Secretary of the Treasury.
(11) Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs.
(12) Secretary of the Air Force.
(13) Secretary of the Army:
(14) Secretary of the Navy.
(15) Administrator of the Federal Avia-
tion Agency.
(16) Administrator of General Services.
(17) Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
(18) Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
(19) Deputy Administrator, Agency for
International Development.
(20) Chairman, Atomic Energy Commis-
sion.
(21) Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4950
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
(22) Chairman of the United States Civil
Service Commission.
(23) Chairman of the Council of Econom-
ic Advisers.
(24) Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission.
(25) Chairman, Board of Directors. Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Corporation.
(26) Chairman of the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board.
(27) Chairman of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
(28) Chairmen, Federal Power Commis-
sion.
(29) Chairman, Federal Trade Commis-
sion.
(30) Chairman, Interstate Commerce Corn-
miesion.
(31) Chairman, National Labor Relations
Board.
(32) Chairman. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(33) Chairman, Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
(34) Director of Defense Research and
Engineering, Department of Defense.
(35) Administrator of the Housing and
Home Finance Agency.
(36) Deputy Administrator of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion.
(37) Deputy Director of the Bureau of
the Budget.
(38) Director of Central Intelligence.
(39) Director of the Office of Emergency
Planning.
(40) Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
(41) Chief Medical Director in the De-
partment of Medicine and Surgery of the
Veterans' Administration.
(42) Associate Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, Department of Justice,
so long as the position is held by the present
incumbent.
(d) The President is authorized from
time to time to place offices and positions
in levels IV. V. and VI of the Federal Execu-
tive Salary Schedule in accordance with sub-
sections (e). ( f ) , and (g) of this section.
Each such action shall be published in the
Federal Register, except when it is determined
by the President that such publication would
be contrary to the interest of national secu-
rity.
(e) Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level IV include
assistant secretaries of executive and mili-
tary departments, general counsels of execu-
tive departments, members of regulatory
boards and commissions, deputy heads of
large agencies, heads of certain agencies and
bureaus, and such other offices and positions
the duties and responsibilities of which he
deems appropriate for this level. The an-
nual rate of basic compensation of such of-
fices and positions shell be $29,500.
(f) Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level V include
heads of principal services and such other
offices and positions the duties and respon-
sibilities of which he deems appropriate for
this level. The annual rate of basic com-
pensation of such offices and positions shall
be $28,000.
(gI Offices and positions which the Presi-
dent is authorized to place in level VI in-
clude heads and board members of smaller
agencies, deputy heads of other agencies,
and such other offices and positions the duties
and responsibilities of which he deems appro-
priate for this level. The annual rate of basic
compensation for such offices and positions
shall be 326.500.
SEC. 304. (a) Section 104 of title 3, United
States Code (relating to the compensation
of the Vice President), is amended by strik-
ing out "$35,000" and inserting in lieu
thereof "$45,000".
(b) Section 105 of title 3, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
"3 105. Compensation of secretaries and ex-
ecutive administrative, and staff
assistants to President
"The President la authorized to fix the
compensation of the six administrative as-
and-ants authorized to be appointed under
section 106 of this title, of the Executive
Secretary of the National Security Council,
and of eight other secretaries or other im-
mediate staff assistants in the White House
Office at rates of compensation not to exceed
that of level II of the Federal Executive Sal-
ary Schedule.".
Con I orming changes in existing law
Sec. 305. The following provisions of law
are hereby repealed:
Ill The Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956,
as amended (5 U.S.C. 2201-2209), establish-
ing rates of basic compensation for heads
of executive departments and other Federal
officials.
(2) Section 3012(h) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of
$22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Army.
(3) Section 3013(b) of title 10, United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of
the Under Secretary and each Assistant Sec-
retary of the Army at $20.000 a year.
(4) Section 5031(d) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of
$22,000 a year for the Secretary of the Navy.
(5) Section 5033(e) of title 10, United
States Code, providing the annual salary of
320,000 a year for the Under Secretary of the
Navy.
(6) Section 804 of Public Law 87-651, ap-
proved September 7. 1962 (76 Stat. 536),
providing compensation of 320,000 a year
for Assistant Secretaries of the Navy.
(71 Section 8012(g) of title 10, United
States Code, providing compensation of
$22.000 a year for the Secretary of the Air
Force.
(Si Section 80131b) of title 10. United
States Code, fixing the annual salaries of
the Under Secretary and each Assistant Sec-
retary of the Mr Force at $20,000 a year.
(9) Section 137(c) of title 10. United
States Code, fixing the compensation of the
General Counsel of the Department of De-
fense at the rate prescribed by law for as-
sistant secretaries of executive departments.
(10) (A) The last sentence of section 22 a.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
emended (68 Stat. 924; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C.
20.12.(a11, relating to the annual salaries of
the Chairman and members of such Com-
mission, which reads: "Each member, ex-
cept the Chairman, shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $22,000 per annum; and
the member designated as Chairman Ethan
receive compensation at the rate of 322.500
per annum.".
(13) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 27 a. Of the Atomic Energy Act of 1054
(68 Stat. 926; 42 U.S.C. 2037(a)), relating to
the salary of the Chairman of the Military
Liaison Committee which reads: ", and who
shall receive compensation at the rate pre-
scribed for an Assistant Secretary of
Defense".
(11) That part of Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799 and 861;
75 Stat. 630; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15 note)?
(A) In section 2(b), relating to the annual
salary of the Director of the Office of Emer-
gency Planning which reads: "and shall re-
ceive compensation at the rate now or here-
after prescribed by law for the heads of
executive departments";
(B) In section 21c), relating to the annual
salary of the Deputy Director of such Office.
which reads: "shall receive compensation at
the rate now or hereafter prescribed by law
for the under secretaries referred to in sec-
t:on 104 of the Fedeal Executive Pay Act of
1956 (5 U.S.C. 2203) ,"; and
(C) In section 2(d) relating to the annual
salaries of three Assistant Directors of such
Office, which reads: "shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate now or hereafter prescribed
by law for assistant secretaries of executive
departments,".
(12) (A) That part of the second sentence
of section 202(a) of the National Aerenaii-
tics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42
U.S.C. 2472(a)), relating to the annual salary
of the Administrator of the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, which
reads: ", and sha'l receive compensaton at
the rate of $22,500 per annum".
(B) That part cf the first sentence of sec-
tion 202(b) of such Act (72 Stat. 429; 42
U.S.C. 2472(b)), 'elating to the annual sal-
ary of the Deputy Administrator of such
Administration, which reads: ", shall receive
compensation at the rate of $21,500 per
annum.".
(131(A) That part of section 201(1) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 428; 42 U.S.C. 2471(1)), relat-
ing to the annual salary of a civilian execu-
tive secretary in the National Aeronautics
and Space Council, which reads: "and shall
receive compensation at the rate of 320,000
a year".
(B) That part of section 204 of such Act
(72 Stat. 431; 42 U.S.C. 2474 (a) (1) and (d) ) ,
relating to the annual salary of the Chair-
man of the Civilian-Military Liaison Com-
mittee, as follows:
In subsection (a) (1), that part which
reads: ", and shell receive compensation (in
the manner provided In subsection (d)) at
the rate of $20,000 per annum".
In the second sentence of subsection (d),
that part which reads: "fixed by subsec-
tion (a) (1)".
(14) That part of the second sentence of
section 2(b) of the Act of May 26, 1949, as
amended (73 Stat. 265; 5 U.S.C. 151b(b) ),
relating to the annual salary of the Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs or
for Economic Alairs, as designated by the
President, which reads: "shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $22,000 a year and".
(15) The last sentence of section 210(a)
of title 38, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Administrator of
Veterans' Affairs, Veterans' Administration,
which reeds: "lie shall receive a salary of
621,000 a year, payable monthly.".
(16)(A) The last sentence of section 201
(a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958
(72 Stat. 741; 49 U.S.C. 13211,0(2)), relating
to the annual salaries of the Chairman and
members of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
which reads: "Each member of the Board
shall receive a salary at the rate of $20,000
per annum, except that the members serving
as Chairman stall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,500 per annum.".
(3) That part of the second sentence of
section 301(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744;
49 U.S.C. 1341(a) ), relating to the annual
salary of the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Agency, which reads: ", and who
shall receive compensation at the rate of
$22.500 per annum".
(C) That part of the second sentence of
section 302(a) of such Act (72 Stat. 744;
49 U.S.C. 1342 a)),' relating to the annual
salary of the Deputy Administrator of such
Agency, which reads: "shall receive compen-
sation at the rate of $20,500 per annum,
and".
(17) (A) The last sentence of section 22 of
the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (75
Stat. 632; 50 U.S.C. 1522), relating to the
annual salary a the Director of the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, which reads: "He shall receive corn- -
? peilsation at the rate of $e2,500 per annum.".
(B) The second sentence of section 23 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 50 U.S.C. 1523), re-
lating to the annual salary of the Deputy
Director of such Agency, which reads: "He
shall receive compensation at the rate of
$21,500 per annum.".
(C) The second sentence of section 24 of
such Act (75 Stat. 632; 50 U.S.C. 1524), re-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18: CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 4951
lating to the annual salaries of the four
Assistant Directors of such Agency, which.
reads: "They shall receive compensation at
the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(18) Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1955
(69 Stat. 10; U.S.C. 294, 293, 295a), relating
to the annual salaries of certain officials of
the Department of Justice, which reads:
"Sec. 3. (a) The compensation of the Dep-
uty Attorney General shall be at the rate of
$21,000 per annum.
"(b) The compensation of the Solicitor
General shall be at the rate of $20,500 per
annum.
"(c) The compensation of each Assistant
Attorney General, other than the Adminis-
trative Assistant Attorney General, shall be
at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(19) (A) The last sentence of section 102
(c) of Reorganization Plan Numbered 7 of
1961 (75 Stat. 840; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15, note),
relating to the annual salaries of the Chair-
man and members of the Federal Maritime
Commission, which reads: "The Chairman of
the Commission shall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,500 per annum, and each of the
other Commissioners shall receive a salary
at the rate of $20,000 per annum.".
(B) That part of section 201 of such re-
organization plan (75 Stat. 842; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15, note), relating to the annual salary
of the Maritime Administrator in the Depart-
ment of Commerce, which reads: "shall re-
ceive a salary at the rate of $20,000 per
annum,".
(20) That part of the fourth sentence of
section 4(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (74 Stat. 408 and 913;
16 U.S.C. 78d (a)), relating to the annual
salaries of the Chairman and Commissioners
of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which reads: "shall receive a salary at the
rate of $20,000 a year, except that the Chair-
man shall receive additional salary at the
rate of $500 a year and".
(21) Section 8 of the Food Additives
Amendment of 1958 (72 Stat. 1789; 5 U.S.C.
2205, note), fixing the annual salary of the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs at $20,000
per annum.
(22) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 3 of the Area Redevelopment Act (75
Stat. 48; 42 U.S.C. 2502), relating to the an-
nual salary of the Area Redevelopment Ad-
ministrator in the Department of Commerce,
which reads: "who shall receive compensa-
tion at a rate equal to that received by As-
sistant Secretaries of Commerce".
(23) The last sentence of section 203(b) (1)
of the National Security Act of 1947 (72 Stat.
520; 5 U.S.C. 171c (b) (1) ), relating to the
annual salary of the Director of Defense Re-
search and Engineering in the Department
of Defense, which reads: "The compensation
of the Director is that prescribed by law for
the Secretaries of the military departments.".
(24) In section 303(a) of title 23, United
States Code,
(A) That part of the second sentence, re-
lating to the annual salary of the Federal
Highway Administrator in the Department of
Commerce, which reads: "shall receive basic
compensation at the rate prescribed by law
for Assistant Secretaries of executive depart-
ments and"; and
(B) The last sentence, relating to the an-
nual salary of the Deputy Federal Highway
Administrator in such department, which
reads: "The Deputy Federal Highway Admin-
istrator shall receive basic compensation at
a rate $1,000 less than the rate provided for
the Federal Highway Adrninistrator.".
(25) The last proviso in the paragraph
under the heading "IMMIGRATION AND NATU-
RALIZATION SERVICE" and under the subhead-
ing "SALARIES AND EXPENSES" in the Depart-
ment of Justice Appropriation Act, 1969 (72
Stat. 251; 5 U.S.C. 2206 note), relating to the
annual salary of the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
which reads: ": Provided further, That, here-
after, the compensation of the Commissioner
of the Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice shall be $20,000 per annum".
(26) The second paragraph of section 3
of title 35, United States Code, relating to
the annual salary of the Commissioner of
Patents which reads: "The annual rate of
compensation of the Commissioner shall be
$20,000."
(27) That part of section 4(a) of the
Peace Corps Act (75 Stat. 612; 22 U.S.C.
2503(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of
the Director and of the Deputy Director of
the Peace Corps, which reads: ", whose com-
pensation shall be fixed by the President at
a rate not in excess of $20,000 per annum,"
and ", whose compensation shall be fixed by
the President at a rate not in excess of $19,-
500 per annum".
(28) Section 308 of title 39, United States
Code, fixing the annual rate of basic com-
pensation of the position of Chief Postal In-
speotor in the Post Office Department at
$19,000.
(29) That part of the first sentence of
section 4 of the International Travel Act of
1961 (75 Stat. 130; 22 U.S.C. 2124), relating
to the annual salary of the Director of the
United States Travel Service in the Depart-
ment of Commerce, which reads: "who shall
be compensated at the rate of $19,000 per
annum,".
(30) Section '14(b) of the Federal Em-
ployees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (73 Stat.
716; 5 U.S.C. 5013(b)) which fixes the com-
pensation of the Executive Director of the
United States Civil Service Commission at
$19,000 per annum.
(31) That part of the first sentence of
section 107(c) of the Renegotiation Act of
1951, as amended (73 Stat. 211; 50 U.S.C.
App. 1217(c) ), relating to the annual salary
of the General Counsel of the Renegotiation
Board, which reads: ", and shall receive com-
pensation at the rate of $19,000 per annum".
(32) (A) That part of the third sentence
In section 201(a) of the National Capital
Transportation Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 538; 40
U.S.C. 661(a) ), relating to the annual salary
of the Administrator of the National Capital
Transportation Agency, which reads: ", and
who shall receive compensation at a rate
equal to the maximum rate for grade 18 of
the General Schedule of the Classification
Act of 1949, as amended, plus $500 per an-
num".
(B) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 201(b) of such Act (74 Stat. 538; 40
U.S.C. 661 (b) ), relating to the annual salary
of the Deputy Administrator of such Agency,
which reads: ", and who shall receive com-
pensation at a rate equal to the maximum
rate for grade 18 of the General Schedule of
the Classification Act of 1949, as amended".
(33) The last sentence of section 624(e) (1)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75
Stat. 447; 22 U.S.C. 2384(d) (1) ), as amended,
fixing the compensation of certain officials in
the Department of State, which reads: "The
Inspector General, Foreign Assistance, shall
receive compensation at the rate of $20,000
annually; the Deputy Inspector General,
Foreign Assistance, shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of $19,500 annually, and each
Assistant Inspector General, Foreign Assist-
ance, shall receive compensation at the rate
of $19,000 annually.".
(34) That part of section 202 of the Act of
July 1, 1960 (74 Stat. 305; 5 U.S.C. 623g),
relating to the annual salary of the Admin-
istrative.Assistant Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, which reads: ", and
whose annual rate of basic compensation
shall be $19,000".
(35) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1963, under the heading
"DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and
under the caption "BUREAU OF RECLAMATION"
and the subheading "ADMINISTRATIVE PRO-
visiows" (76 Stat. 1223; 43 U.S.C. 373a-1),
relating to the annual salary of the present
incumbent of the position of Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, which reads:
"After September 30, 1962, the position of
Commissioner of Reclamation shall have the
annual rate of compensation as provided for
positions listed in section 2205(a) of title 5,
United States Code, so long as held by the
present incumbent.".
(36) That part of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1962, under the heading
"DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" and
under the caption "BONNEVILLE POWER AD-
MINISTRATION" and the subheading "CON-
STRUCTION" (75 Stat. 728; 16 U.S.C. 832a-1),
relating to the annual salary of the present
incumbent of the position of Administrator,
Bonneville Power Administration, which
reads:
"After October 1, 1961, the position of
Administrator, Bonneville Power Administra-
tion, shall have the same annual rate of
compensation as that provided for posi-
tions listed in section 2205(b) of title 5,
United States Code, so long as held by the
present incumbent.".
(37) Section 205 of the Public Works Ap-
propriation Act, 1958 (71 Stat. 423; 5 U.S.C.
483-1 note, 2206 note), as amended, relating
to the salary of the present incumbent of
the position of Administrator of the South-
western Power Administration in the Depart-
ment of the Interior, and to the salary of the
Administrative Assistant Secretary of such
Department, which reads:
"Sec. 205. After August 31, 1957, the salary
of the Administrator of the Southwestern
Power Administration shall be the same as
the salary of the Administrator of the Bonne-
ville Power Administration, so long as held
by the present incumbent; and the salary of
the Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Department shall be the same as the Solicitor
of/the Department of the Interior.".
(38) The proviso in the first paragraph
under the heading "FEDERAL BUREAU OF IN-
VESTIGATION" and under the subheading
"SALARIES AND EXPENSES" in the Department
of Justice Appropriation Act, 1963 (76 Stat.
1087; Public Law 87-843), relating to the
annual salary of the present incumbent of
the position of Director of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, which reads: ": Pro-
vided, That the compensation of the Direc-
tor of the Bureau shall be $22,000 per annum
so long.as the position Is held by the present
incumbent" and provisions to the same effect
contained in other appropriation Acts en-
acted prior to the effective date of this section
relating to the annual salary of the present
incumbent of the position of Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(39) That part of section 7801(b) (2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as
amended, relating to the annual salary of
the Assistant General Counsel of the Treas-
ury Department who shall be the Chief Coun-
sel for the Internal Revenue Service, which
reads: "and shall receive basic compensation
at the annual rate of $19,000".
(40) (A) Sections 3018, 5014, and 8018 of
title 10, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the general counsels of the
military departments.
(B) The respective tables of contents of
chapters 303, 503, and 803 of title 10, United
States Code, are amended by striking out
"3018. Compensation of General Counsel.";
"5014. Compensation of General Counsel.";
and
"8018. Compensation of General Counsel.".
(41) The proviso contained in the first sen-
tence of section 5(d) of the Farm Credit Act
of 1953, as amended (75 Stat. 793; 12 U.S.C.
636d(d) ), relating to the annual salaries for
not more than three positions of deputy gov-
ernor in the Farm Credit Administration,
which reads: ": Provided, That the salary of
not more than three positions of deputy gov-
ernor each shall be fixed by the Beard at a
rate not exceeding the maximum scheduled
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000500050001-9
4952 Approved For R5 184: ategp?_pww00500050001-9 March 1 '2
rate of the General Schedule of the Clase18-
cation Act of 1949, as amended".
(42) (A) That part of section 2(a) of Re-
organization Plan Numbered 2 of 1962 (76
Stat. 1253; 5 U.S.C. 183z note), relating to
the compensation of the Director of the Of-
fice of Science and Technology, which reads:
"and shall receive compensation at the rate
of $22,500 per annum".
(B) That part of section 2(b) of such re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1258; 5 U.S.C.
133z note), relating to the compensation of
the Deputy Director of the Office of Science
and Technology, which reads: "and receive
compensation at the rate of $20,500 per
annum".
(C) That part of section 22(a) of such re-
organization plan (76 Stat. 1255: 5 U.S.C.
133z note), relating to the compensation of
the Director of the National Science Founda-
tion, which reads: "shall receive compensa-
tion at the rate of 321,000 per annum and".
(43) That part of section 624(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 447;
22 U.S.C. 2384(a)). relating to the compensa-
tion of twelve officers in the agency primarily
responsible for administering part I of such
Act, which reads: "of whom?
"(1) one shall have the rank of an Under
Secretary and shall be compensated at a rate
not to exceed the rate authorized by law for
any Under Secretary of an Executive Depart-
ment:
"(2) two shall have the rank of Deputy
Under Secretaries and shall be compensated
at a rate not to exceed the rate authorized
by law for any Deputy Under Secretary of an
Executive Department: and
"(3) nine shall have the rank of Assistant
Secretaries and shall be compensated at a
rate not to exceed the rate authorized by law
for any Assistant Secretary of an Executive
Department".
(44) That part of the first sentence of sec-
tion 104(b) of the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act (60 Stat. 174; 8 U.S.C. 1104(b)),
relating to the rank and compensation of
the Administrator, Bureau of Security and
Consular Affairs, which reads: "and com-
pensation".
Sec. 306. (a) Section 508 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"1 508. Salaries
"The Attorney General shall fix the annual
salaries of the positions of United States at-
torneys, assistant United States attorneys,
and attorneys appointed under section 503 of
this title at rates of compensation not in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended.".
(b) Section 411 of the Foreign Service Act
of 1946, as amended (70 Stat. 704; 22 U.S.C.
866), relating to the per annum salaries of
chiefs of mission, Is amended by striking out
the second sentence of that section and in-
serting in lieu thereof the following: -The
per annum salaries of chiefs of mission with-
in each class shall be at the rate provided by
law for the levels of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule as follows: class 1, the rate
for level II; class 2, the rate for level III;
class 3, the rate for level IV: and class 4, the
rate for level V.".
(c) That part of section 201(f) of the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72
Stat. 428; 42 U.S:C. 2471(f)), fixing a limit
of $19,000 on the compensation of seven per-
sons in the National Aeronautics and Space
Council. is amended by striking out "com-
pensated at the rate of not more than $19,000
a year." and inserting in lieu thereof "com-
pensated at not to exceed the highest rate of
grade 18 of the General Schedule of the
Classification Act of 1949 as amended,".
(d) Clause (A) of section 20300 (2) of
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958 (72 Stat. 429; 42 U.S.C. 2473(b) (2)),
as amended. is amended to read as follows:
"(A) to the extent the Administrator deems
such action necessary to the discharge of his
responsibilities, he may appoint not more
than four hundred and twenty-five of the
scientific, engineering, and administrative
personnel of the Administration without
regard to such laws, and may fix the com-
pensation of such personnel not in excess of
the highest rate of grade 18 of the General
Schedule of the Claseincation Act of 1949, as
amended, and".
(e) Section 13(1) of the Act of September
24. 1959 (73 Stat. 708; 5 U.S.C. 2376(f)), re-
lating to the maximum compensation pay-
able to employees of the Advisory Gonamis-
Mon on Intergovernmental Relations, is
amended by striking out "at a rate in excess
of $30,000 per annum" and by inserting in
lieu thereof "at a rate in excess of the rate
provided by law for level VI of the Federal
Executive Salary Schedule".
(f) The Atemile Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is further amended as follows:
(I) In the last sentence of section 24 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034
a)), relating to the annual salary of the
General Manager of such Commission, by
striking out that part which reads: ", and
shall receive compensation at a rate deter-
mined by the Commission, but not in excess
of $23,000 per annum";
(2) In the last sentence of Section 24 b.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2034(b) ). relating to
the annual salary of the Deputy General
Manager of such Commission, by striking
out that part which reads: ", and shall re-
ceive compensation at a rate determined by
the General. Manager, but not in excess of
$20,500 per annum";
(3) In the last sentence of section 24 C.
(71 Stat. 012; 42 U.S.C. 2034(c)), relating to
the annual salaries of the Assistant General
Managers (or their equivalents) of such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: ", and shall receive compensation at
a rate determined. by the General Manager,
but not in excess of $20,000 per annum";
(4) In the second sentence of section 25 a.
(68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat. 612: 42 U.S.C. 2035
(a) ), relating to the annual salaries of di-
rectors of program divisions of such Com-
mission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
In excess of 319.000 per annum";
(5) In section 25 b. (68 Stat. 925; 71 Stat.
612; 42 U.S.C. 20351b) ). relating to the an-
nual salary of the General Counsel of such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shall receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
In excess of $19.500 per annum":
(6) In the first sentence of section 25 C.
(68 Stat. 925; '71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035
(c)), relating to the annual salary of the
Director of the Inspection Division in such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads: "and shell receive compensation at a
rate determined by the Commission, but not
Iii excess of $19,000 per annum";
(7) In the last sentence of section 25 d.
(71 Stat. 612; 42 U.S.C. 2035(5) ), relating
to the annual salaries of certain executive
management positions in such Commission,
by striking out that part which reads; ", and
shall receive compensation at a rata de-
termined by the General Manager, but not
in excess of $19,000 per annum"; and
(8) In the second sentence of section 28
(68 Stat. 026; 42 U.S.C. 2038). relating to the
compensation of the active member of the
Armed Forces serving as Director of the
Division of Military Application in such
Commission, by striking out that part which
reads "and the compensation prescribed in
section 25" and inserting in lieu thereof,
"and the compensation for directors of other
program divisions".
(g) Section 2 of the Act of July BO, 1946,
as amended (60 Stat. 712; 70 Stat. 740; 22
C.S.C. 287n). relating to the compensation
of the United States representatives and
alternates at sessions of the General Con-
ference of the United Nations Educational.
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, is
amended by striking out "Such represent-
atives and alternates shall each be entitled
to receive compensation at (filch rates, not
to exceed 416,000 per annum, as the Presi-
dent may determine," and inserting in lieu
thereof "Such representatives and alternates
shall each be entitled to receive compensa-
tion at such rates provided by section 412 of
the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended,
as the President may determine,".
(h) Section 2 of the Act of July 1, 1947
(61 Stat. 215; 22 U.S.C. 289a), relating to
the compensation of the United States rep-
resentatives and alternates at sessions of
the general council and at sessions of the
executive committee of the International
Refugee Organization, is amended by strik-
ing out "Such representative or representa-
tives shall each be entitled to receive com-
pensation at a rate not to exceed $12,000 per
annum, and any such alternate shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate
not to exceed 110.000 per annum," and in-
serting in lieu thereof "Such representative
or representatives, and any such alternate,
shall be entitled to receive compensation at
one of the rates provided by section 412 of
the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended,".
(i) The third sentence of section 2 of the
Act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; 50 U.S.C.
402 note), is amended to read as follows:
"Except as provided in subsection (d) of
section 203 of this Act. no officer or employee
of the National Security Agency shall be paid
basic compensation at a rate in excess of
the highest rate of basic compensation con-
tained in such General Schedule.".
(j) Section 2 of the Act of July 25, 1958
(72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code. see. 1-204b), relat-
ing to the compensation of the Commis-
sioners of the District of Columbia, is
amended by striking out "at the rate of $19,-
000 each per annum" and inserting "at the
rate provided by law for level VI of the Fed-
eral Executive Salary Schedule.".
(k) (1) The catchline of section 3012 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out "; compensation".
(2) The table of contents of chapter 303
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
duties; delegation by; compensa-
tion."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"3012. Secretary of the Army: powers and
and duties; delegation by.".
(3) The catehline of section 5031 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(4) The tab:e of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking
out
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: responsibili-
ties; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5031. Secretary of the Navy: respon-
sibilities.".
(5) The catehline of section 5033 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(6) The table of contents of chapter 505
of such title 10 is amended by striking
out
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap-
pointment; duties; compensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"5033. Under Secretary of the Navy: ap-
pointment; duties.".
(7) The catchline of section 8012 of such
title 10 is amended by striking out "; com-
pensation".
(8) The table of contents of chapter 803
of such title 10 is amended by striking out
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
=1964'
Approved FassiiraidiS9DIZKO1RECORIRDP6BEMOSEI3R000500050001-9 4953
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation toy; com-
pensation."
and inserting in lieu thereof
"8012. Secretary of the Air Force: powers
and duties; delegation by.".
Changes in position titles
SEC. 307. Whenever reference is made in
any law or reorganization plan to the?
Administrative Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Interior,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agri-
culture,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Labor,
Administrative Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, or
Administrative Assistant Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare,
such reference shall be held and considered
to mean the?
Assistant Attorney General for Administra-
tion,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Administration,
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Ad-
ministraiton,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Adminis-
tration.
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Administration, or
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare for Adnat-istration;
respectively. '
Limitation on salaries fixed by administrative
action
SEC. 308. rxcept as provided by this Act
and notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law, the head of any executive depart-
ment, independent establishment, or agency
in the executive branch who is authorized to
fix by administrative action the annual rate
of basic compensation for any position, offi-
cer, or employee shall not fix such rate in
excess of the highest rate of grade 18 of the
General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended. Nothing contained in
this section shall be construed to impair the
authorities provided in the Central Intelli-
gence Agency Act of 1949, as amended (50
U.S.C. 403a and following) .
? Positions placed under Classification Act
0/ 1949
SEC. 309. Each office or position in the ex-
ecutive branch specifically referred to in, or
covered by, any conforming change in law
made by section 305 of this Act which is not
placed in a level of the Federal Executive
Salary Schedule pursuant to section 303 of
this Act, shall be placed in the appropriate
grade of the General Schedule of the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949, as amended, in accordance
with the provisions of such Act.
Saving provisions
SEC. 310. (a) Except as provided by this
Act, the changes in existing law Made by
this Act shall not affect any office or posi-
the existing immediately prior to the effec-
tive date of any such changes in exis'Ang
law, the compensation attached to such of-
fice or position, and any incumbent thereof,
his appointment thereto, and his entitlement
to receive the compensation attached thereto,
until appropriate action i? taken in accord-
ance with this Act or other law.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act, the rate of basic compensation received
by any officer or employee immediately prior
to the effective date of this Act shall not be
reduced by reason of enactment of this Act.
Mr. MURRAY (interrupting the read-
ing,). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the further reading of the
title be dispensed with, that it be con-
No. 45-13
sidered as read and open for amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF
MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana. Page 41, line 13, strike out "1963" and
insert in lieu thereof "1964"; And on page
43, immediately following line 3, insert the
following:
"Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
"Director of Central Intelligence.
"Administrator of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency."
And on page 44, immediately following
"(18) " in line 7, insert the word "Deputy";
And on page 45, strike out lines 9 and 10
and redesignate accordingly the subpara-
graphs following line 10 an page 45.
And on page 45, immediately following
" (38) " in line 14, insert the word "Deputy";
And on page 45, immediately following line
23, insert the following:
"Comptroller of the Currency.
"Commissioner of Internal Revenue."
And on page 58, line 8, stirke out "(e)"
and insert in lieu thereof "(d)";
And on page 68, line 23, strike out "203 of
this Act" and insert In lieu thereof "303 of
the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1961".
And on page 71, immediately before the
period in line 24, insert", in section 3 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16
U.S.C. 831b), or in section 5240 of the Revised
Statutes (12 U.S.C. 481, relating to the Comp-
troller of the Currency) ".
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, these are technical corrections to
the bill, for the most part. In the several
printed copies made of the bill there were
some errors in the placing of the execu-
tive positions in the wrong level. For
instance, the Administrator of Veterans'
Affairs, the Administrator of the Hous-
ing and Home Finance Agency, and the
Director of Central Intelligence were
included in level 2 of the administration
approved bill with which we started.
The committee bill now before us in-
advertently placed them in level 3. The
committee did not intend to reduce the
ranking of these three positions. Under
existing law, these positions are in the
same level as most of the positions in-
cluded in level 2 under H.R. 8986.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON. These positions
were inadvertently put in these grades
and should have been put in the grades
the amendment calls for. The commit-
tee members on this side will accept the
amendment.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, the peo-
ple of the United States can be rightfully
proud of the system of internal revenue
taxation that has carefully and delib-
erately evolved throughout the years.
We, in the legislative branch, must share
the successful role we have played in
this evolution with the able and dedi-
cated men who have accepted the bur-
dens of the office of Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. I know of few posi-
tions, within or outside Government,
which are as complex, as difficult, or as
responsible.
One of the most Important responsi-
bilities the Commissioner has is to foster
and encourage a general attitude of tax-
payer compliance with our tax laws and
regulations. We have watched in our
time the growth of a spirit of voluntary
taxpayer compliance unmatched else-
where in a free society. More than 97
percent of our tax revenues are the re-
sults of self-assessments by the taxpay-
ers. From the standpoint of relative
efficiency, no tax jurisdiction that I
know of can match the continuing record
of the Internal Revenue Service. Con-
sistently, they have kept the costs of col-
lecting our revenues down to much less
than 1/2 cent per tax dollar. Without
the spirit of fiscal integrity which we
rely upon the Commissioner to foster
and instill in our citizens, I cannot imag-
ine the levels to which our costs of col-
lection might grow.
I am moved to compare the efficiency
and results achieved in this country to
the tax collection efforts in other lands.
We can be grateful for the caliber of
men who have willingly accepted the
responsibility to administer the tax laws
we now live under.
It is my point in these remarks to
offer a reminder that H.R. 8986 furnishes
little recognition, indeed, for the job we
have come to expect from the Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue. Under this
bill, level IV is the highest level in the
proposed Federal executive salary sched-
ule that the President can assign to this
job. This is a clear demotion of the
Commissioner's position. I ask that the
position be regarded as no less than level
III in the legislation we finally enact.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN].
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLSEN OF
MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered) by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana: Page 69, strike out lines 3 to 8, in-
clusive, and insert in lieu thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(j) (1) Sections 2 and 3 of the Act of July
25, 1959 (72 Stat. 414; D.C. Code, secs. 1-204a
and 1-204b), relating to the compensation
of the Commissioners of the District of
Columbia, are amended to read as follows:
" 'Sze. 2. Except as otherwise provided by
this section and section 3 of this Act--
"'(1) the compensation of the Commis-
sioners of the District of Columbia shall be
at the rate of $29,000 each per annum; and
"'(2) the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States
Army shall receive an annual compensation
which, when added to any compensation he
receives as an officer of the United States
Army, will equal the compensation au-
thorized by paragraph (1) of this section.
"'Sze. 3. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law?
"'(1) the compensation of the President
of the Board of Commissioners of the District
of Columbia shall be at the .rate of $29,500
per annum; and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4954 Approved Foriksfitiggper,TAR :/etteop_oiquoRp00050005000i -9 March 12 -
-'t2) If the Commissioner detailed from
the Corps of Engineers of the United States(
Army is chosen President of the Board of
Commissioners, he shall receive, as President
of the Board, an annual compensation
which, when added to any compensation he
receives as an officer of the United States
Army. will equal the compensation author-
ized.by paragraph (1) of this section.'
'(2) Section 11-702(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 484; Public Law
88-241), relating to the rate of annual sal-
ary of the chief judge and the associate
judges of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, is amended--
"(Al by striking out 119,000' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 128,000'; and
"IBI by striking out $18.500' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 127,500'.
t 3) Section 11-902(d) of the District of
Columbia Code (77 Stat. 487; Public Law
88-2411. relating to the rates of annual sal-
ary of the chief Judge and the associate
judges of the District of Columbia Court
of General Sessions, is amended?
"(A) by striking out '618,000' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 126,500'; and
"(B) by striking out 117,500' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 126,000'.
-14) The first sentence of the second pars-
graph of section 2 of the District of Colum-
bia Revenue Act of 1997, as amended (D.C.
Code. sec. 47-2402). relating to the compen-
sation of the person appointed to the Dis-
trict of Columbia Tax Court, Ls amended by
striking out 117,500' and inserting In lieu
thereof 120.000'.
"(51 That part of the salary schedule in
section 1 of the District of Columbia Teach-
ers' Salary Act of 1955, as amended (78 Stat.
1239; D.C. Code, sec. 31-1501), relating to
the compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools, and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools, of the District of Columbia, which
reads:
"'Class 1: Superintendent of
Schools 119. 000
Class 2: Deputy superintendent_ _ 16. 500'
is amended to-read as follows:
" Class 1: Superintendent of
$28. 000
Class 2: Deputy superintendent 22, 500'
"al) That part of the salary schedule in
section 101 of the District of Columbia Police
and Firemen's Salary Act of 1958 (72 Stat.
480), as amended (Sac. 4-1323, et seq., D.C.
Code. 1961 edition) relating to the compen-
sation of the Fire Chief and Chief of Police,
which reads:
'Class 10 17,000 51,40) I
Fin, Chief.
( 'h ief of Police."
amended to read as follows:
40 $l8.2?
$18,. 600 I 11(1,65)0'
`. 'Class 10
Fin! (1hirt. I !,..11. 000 ! 621,500 , OlX1 $22,500 1 623.000
('the! of Pollee."
Mr. OLSEN of Montana (interrupting
the reading of the amendment). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Montana?
Mr. STINSON. Mr. Chairman. I
object.
The CHAIRMAN: Objection is heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN] is recog-
nized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from New York.
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I call
your attention to a most regrettable
oversight in HR. 8986. I refer to the
omission from either level II or level III
in section 303, of the position of Corn-
missjoner of Internal Revenue. Under
the bill in its present form, the highest
salary that the President could assign
this position is level IV. Considering the
Positions listed in level II? and espe-
cially those shown in level IU?this is
not only a substantial demotion for this
position, but a gross underestimate of
the importance of the tax agency along-
side the positions which the bill ap,
proves for higher levels.
Under the Executive Pay Act of 1956,
in section 104(a), the position of Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue was shown
at No. 1 in a salary range providing for
$M, WO'
a total of 20 positions. Eighteen of these
positions?now paid on the same basis
a-s the Commissioner?are assigned
either to level U or level ILI of the pro-
posed Federal Executive Salary Sched-
ule. It was the judgment of Congress
in 1956 that the position of Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue should be
numbered among the most important
and most difficult in the Federal Estab-
lishment. In my present judgment, the
Commissioner's position should be main-
tained in this same leading category.
I am strengthened in my conviction by
the fact that at, level 111 in the bill pres-
ently before us there can be Identified
17 positions which hitherto have been
paid at lower rates than the Commis-
sioner' of Internal Revenue. Surely, It
was never intended that, these jobs were
to be considered of superior scope and
importance than the IRS position. But
that is precisely what will come about
unless the Commissioner's position is
rightly restored to the relationship it,
had with the other positions under the
1956 Executive Pay Act.
Relative size and importance of agen-
cies should have been given some consid-
eration in the assignment of an appro-
priate salary level for the IRS position.
In this connection. I note that the Com-
missioner of Internal Revenue heads an
organization fully 2'/2 times as large as
the largest of the agency head positions
listed in level II. Moreover, level U In-
cludes both autonomous and semi-
autonomous agencies, the latter repre-
sented by the Administrator, Agency for
International Development, a constituent
bureau of the State Department. By the
same reasoning that places this position
in level U. it is my firm belief that the
IRS position is no less than a level III
job. This semiautonomous status of the
Internal Revenue Service within the
Treasury Department has been recog-
nized in an interesting fashion by a
White House document. In 1955, For-
eign Operations Administration?one of
the predecessors of the Agency for Inter-
national Development?was changed by
Executive Order No. 10610 from an inde-
pendent agency to a part of the State
Department. ?resident Eisenhower at
that time explained that the foreign aid
agency would function within the De-
partment of State in the same manner
as Internal Revenue within the Treasury
Department; that is. with internal au-
tonomy for its operations, but subject to
policy control and coordination by the
Department.
The Administrator of the Agency for
International Development within State
Department like the Commissioner of In
ternal Revenue within Treasury Depart-
ment, still operates with "superbureau"
status. Since the H.R. 8986 recognizes
level II for the AM job, I ask that no
less than level III recognition be ex-
tended to the position of Commissioner
of Internal Revenue.
PROPOSED PAY STATUS OF COMMISSIONER OF
INI ERNAL REVENUE
This paper discusses the downward re-
vision in the relative executive pay level
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
as proposed in H.R. 8986.
First. The attached memorandum sets
forth the effect of the bill on the relative
ranking of the Commissioner within the
executive branch.
Second. The relation of the Commis-
sioner within the Treasury.
The positions of the Secretary of the
Treasury and of the Commissioner of In-
ternal Revenue are relatively constant
combinations of the duties and responsi-
bilities, largely determined by statutory
guidelines. On the other hand, the du-
ties of the Under Secretaries and Assist-
ant Secretaries of the Treasury are de-
termined from time to time at the dis-
cretion of the particular Secretary at
the time. Delegations of authority flow
from the Secre;ary to the Commissioner,
and not from the Under Secretary. At
various times the Commissioner has re-
ported direct to the Secretary, or through
an Assistant, and, currently, .through
the Under Secretary. In job evaluation
terms, the Commissioner's supervisor is
the Secretary, with the Under Secretary
as his assistanr; for this purpose, among
others, considered as a single supervisory
combination. This is at a high level, an
instance of a position of Assistant
Chief?here, the Under Secretary?not
necessarily a grade higher than a prin-
cipal subordinate of their Chief, even
though the subordinate reports through
the Assistant Chief.
Again in job evaluation terms, a, com-
parison of the positions of the Commis-
sioner and the Under Secretary confirms
that they are substantially equivalent,
all factors being considered, even though
one is higher in hierarchical rank. The
public identification and management
responsibility of the Commisisoner of In-
ternal Revenue' for the operations of the
Service, involve the tremendous magni-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964,
Approved FcrttlitftussW/M/1ftakt-BDPENOWN3R000500050001-9 4955
tude of its internal progaming and its
nationwide external relations, compen-
sate for the higher policy coordination
responsibilities and superior hierarchical
authority a the Under Secretary, so
that the two positions present differing
but equal "factor profiles"; each is
strong in different respects or -factors,
and equal compensation for the two posi-
tions is therefore not inappropriate.
Third. Special status of the Internal
Revenue Service within the Treasury De-
partment.
Following the reorganization of the In-
ternal Revenue Service in 1952, the prin-
ciple was established by the Treasury
that supervision of the Service by the
Secretary and his office should be for pol-
icy control and coordination only. De-
tails of tax administration and opera-
tions are left to the Commissioner and
the Service, in order to insure public con-
fidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the tax system.
The special status of the Internal Rev-
enue Service within the Treasury De-
partment has been recognized in an in-
teresting fashion in a White House doc-
ument. In 1955 Foreign Operations Ad-
ministration?the predecessor of AID?
was changed by a reorganization order
from an independent agency to a part of
the Department of State?as Interna-
tional Cooperation Administration.
President Eisenhower at that time ex-
plained that the foreign aid agency
would function within the Department
of State in the same manner as Internal
Revenue within the Treasury Depart-
ment, that is, with internal autonomy
for its operations, but subject to policy
coordination and control by the Depart-
ment.
It should be noted in this connection
that the Administrator of AID?still op-
erating with "super-bureau" statuS with-
in State, as the successor to Foreign Op-
erations Administration and ICA?is in
level II in the proposed Federal Execu-
tive Pay Act, along with the Under Sec-
retary of State. A pay status for the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue of at
least level III is certainly appropriate, to
give similar treatment with this parallel
"superbureau" organization.
EFFECT OF H.R. 8986 ON THE RELATIVE RANK-
ING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV-
ENUE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
H.R. 8986 was introduced by Congressman
MORRISON on October 30, 1963, and approved
by the Haire Post Office and Civil Service
Committee on ,November 13, 1963. It pro-
vides, in effect, for fixing of the salary for
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in a
manner which seems completely inconsistent
with prior statutes, and inequitable with
respect to the relative scope of authority and
responsibility of other positions covered by
the bill.
Section 104(a) of the Federal- Executive.
Pay Act of 1956, as amended (5USC2203),
placed the position of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue as No. 1, in a salary
range providing for a total of 20 positions,
as follows:
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
2. Director of Central Intelligence.
3. Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation.
4. Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
5. Administrator of General Services.
6. Administrator of the Housing and Home
Finance Agency.
7. Administrator of Veterans' Affairs.
8. Director of the International Coopera-
tion Administration (now Agency for Inter-
national Development).
9. Director of the U.S. Information Agency.
10. Governor of the Farm Credit Adminis-
tration.
11. President of the Export-Import Bank
of Washington.
12. Under Secretary of the Treasury.
13. Under Secretary of the TreasUry for
Monetary Affairs. ?
14. Deputy Postmaster General.
15. Under Secretary of the Interior.
16. Under Secretary of Agriculture.
17. Under Secretary of Commerce.
18. Under Secretary of Commerce for
Transportation.
19. Under Secretary of Labor.
20. Under Secretary of Health, Education,
d Welfare.
In H.R. 8986, nearly all of these positions
now paid on the same basis as the position
of Commissioner of Internal Revenue are
assigned either to level II or to level III of
the proposed executive pay scale, for which
rates of $32,500 and $30,500, respectively, are
provided. The highest possible salary which
the President could assign to the position of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue under
H.R. 8986 would be $29,500, i.e., level IV. The
only other Executive Pay Act positions now
paid at the same rate as the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, which are not provided
for in the listings of level It or level III of
H.R. 8986, are the Governor of the Farm
Credit Administration (an agency with 239
employees) and the President of the Export-
Import Bank of Washington (an agency with
275 er-ployees) . The Commissioner of Inter-
nal Revenue is responsible for the manage-
ment of an agency with over 60,000 em-
ployees, located at more than 1,000 posts of
duty throughout all of the 50 States and in
a number of foreign countries. Also the
Commissioner is concerned with directing the
administration and enforcement of the tax
laws of the United States, which directly and
indirectly affect each and every citizen, the
economy, including the complete range of
business enterprise from the very smallest
businessman to the giant corporations, and
the collection of over $100 billion in taxes.
He is also concerned with directing the en-
forcement of the laws and regulations gov-
erning the alcohol and tobacco industries.
Size of agency
Positions listed in level It of H.R.
8986 which are not considered
to have responsibilities greater
than those of the Commis-
sioner are:
Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration
Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation
Director of the U.S. Arms Control
and Disarmament Agdicy
Administrator for International
Development
Director of the U.S. Information
Agency
Chairman, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System
(not available*).
Positions listed in level III of HR.
8986 which are not considered
to have responsibilities greater
than those of the Commis-
sioner are:
Administrator of Federal Avia-
tion Agency
Administrator of General Serv-
ices Administration
Administrator of Small Business
Administration_
25,828
14,014
188
16,304
*11,450
45,863
32, 001
3, 180
Size of agency
Positions listed in level III, etc.?
Continued
Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission 6, 953
Deputy Administrator of National
Aeronautics and Space Agency_ 25, 828
Administrator of Veterans' Af-
fairs 0173,411
Administrator of the Housing
and Home Finance Agency 013, 626
Director of Central Inteligence
(not available? ) .
Chairman of Civil Aeronautics
Board *831
Chairman of Federal Communi-
cations Commission *1,435
Chairman of Federal Deposit In-
surance Corporation *1, 236
Chairman of Federal Home Loan
Bank Board *1, 194
Chairman of Federal Maritime
Commission *196
Chairman of Federal Power Com-
mission *1,034
Chairman of Interstate Com-
merce Commission *2, 410
Chairman, U.S. Civil Service
Commission *4, 146
Chairman of Securities Exchange
Commission *1,405
Chairman of National Labor Re-
lations Board *2, 056
Chairman of Tennessee Valley
Authority *18, 025
Director of Office of Emergency
Planning *454
Director of Medicine and Surgery
of VA *831
NorE.-01 ? the positions listed above,
which would go to salaries higher than the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue under
H.R. 8086, many now actually receive a lesser
salary than the Commissioner, under the
present Executive Pay Act. Positions now
paid at lower rates, which would go to level
III (above the Commissioner), and, in one
case, to level II, are those marked with an
asterisk(*) i.e., a majority of those listed.
(Positions marked "'" have same salary as
Commissioner at present.)
The proposed salary alinement, with a
substantial demotion in relative ranking for
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, looks
like an underestimation of the importance
of the tax agency and the Commissioner's
position. There may also be a possible mis-
understanding of the special status of the
Internal Revenue Service within the Treas-
ury Department, so that it is not "just an-
other bureau," as its equality in salary with
the Under Secretary, for the past 7 years,
partially demonstrates. The Commissioner's
salary should be continued on a par with
others of equal importance, as measured by
the Congress, not less than level III. On no
account should this position be relegated to
a level below so many other executive posi-
tions now paid at lesser rates, and wlth much
less substantial duties and responsibilities.
In summary, level H in HR. 8986 now has
nine positions, whose current salaries range
from $22,500 to $20,500, as compared to
$21,000 for the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. (These nine include one now paid
at the same rate as the Commissioner, and
one now paid at a lower rate.) Level III has
42 positions, whose current salaries range
from $25,000 to $20,000, including 9 higher,
16 at the Commissioner's present rate
($21,000), and 17 hitherto at lower rates
($20,500 and $20,000) than the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue. .
AMENDMENT BY MR. OLSEN OF MONTANA TO
TITLE III OF H.R. 8986, RELATING TO CERTAIN
OFFICIALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN-
CLUDING JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM-
BIA COURTS
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, the primary purpose of this amend-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For IleNteRylsOsTapa: aeop_6Bpptiligo00500050001-9
1956 March 12
mint is to provide appropriate adjust-
ments in compensation for the judges of
the courts of the District of Columbia.
The amendment, also, will adjust the
compensation of the Superintendent of
Schools and the Deputy Superintendent.
the Police and Fire Chiefs, and make a
better alinement for the salaries of the
members of the Board of Commissioners.
During the deliberations by the com-
mittee on H.R. 8986, it was called to our
attention that no provision was made for
adjusting the compensation of any offi-
cials of the District of Columbia. A rec-
ommendation was made in committee
concerning the members of the Board of
Commissioners. Subsequently, it was
brought to my attention that adjust-
ments, also, should be included for the
judges of the District courts, the Super-
intendent of Schools, and the Police
Chief and Fire Chief.
This proposal has the approval of our
colleague, the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMiLLAN1, chairman of
the District of Columbia Committee, and
several other members of the committee.
My amendment includes the president
of the Board of Commissioners and the
two Commissioners. It also includes the
chief judge and 2 associate judges of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
the chief judge and 15 associate judges
of the District of Columbia court of gen-
eral sessions, the chief judge and 2 asso-
ciate judges of the District of Columbia
Juvenile Court. the judge of the District
of Columbia Tax Court. the Superin-
tendent and Deputy Superintendent of
Schools of the District of Columbia. and
the Police Chief and Fire Chief.
Cost of Amendment for District of Columbia
Officials
23 judges $197,000
2 school Offloers 15, 000
Police and Fire Chiefs 8. 000
C,orranissioners B. 500
Total 228, 500
Mr. MORRISON. In other words, this
is done with the approval and on request
of the chairman of the House Committee
on the District of Columbia, Mr. Me-
MiLLAN. the gentleman from South Caro-
lina, and is comparable to all other salary
increase requests in the executive portion
of the bill?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. O'NEILL. I want to ask the
chairman of the committee a question.
Would the gentleman tell the House at
what level the U.S. Board of Parole
would be compensated? This Board is a
regulatory quasi-judicial board which
exercises the sentencing function under
the indeterminate sentence law. They
are Presidential appointees who deter-
mine the length of sentences of the Fed-
eral prison population.
Mr. MORRISON. They are in the
Classification Act, and they will get a
proportionate increase in pay to every-
one in a similar position.
Mr. O'NEILL. I merely ask this ques-
tion to spell it out in the RecoaD.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, so far
as the committee members on this side
are concerned we accept the gentleman's
a mendment.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I yield to
the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Is it not
correct that the Classification Act or the
rank-and-file employees of the District
of Coibmbia are covered automatically;
they are included in this bill and always
are included in the Classification Act as
voted by our committee?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. The gentle-
man from Virginia Is correct,. All of the
rank-and-file employees of the District
of Columbia are within the Classification
Act. We have already passed that sec-
tion of the bill here today. This has to
do with supervisory officers who have
to be specifically taken care of by this
amendment.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. As the
gentleman has pointed out this has the
approval of the chairman and the ma-
jority of the members of the House Com-
mittee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Yes; and
by their recommendation.
Mr. CORBL-r1. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I suppose this is as
good a time RS any to discuss the recom-
mittal motion that I shall offer. We
have in this amendment a perfect ex-
ample of how, dealing with one section
at a time or with one category of work-
ers at a time, we are apt to get it al-
together out of kilter. Consequently.
when it comes down to the recommittal
motion that I shall make, it will apply
to titles II. HI, and IV where salary
increases go as high RS approximately
S10.000.
My amendment will put a ceiling on
these raises of $7,500. In every case the
salary of people will be adjusted up or
down from the figure of $30,000. Mem-
bers of Congress and District Judges
would, under that amendment if it pass,
be at $30,000. All the other positions
which are presently below the pay of
Members of Congress will be that much
reduced. Jobs which carry higher sal-
aries such as circuit judges, Supreme
Court Judges, will be higher. That mo-
tion will have to affect this amendment
as well so that these increases will be
scaled down.
We have, for example, to start with,
the President of the Board of Commis-
sioners and two Commissioners. The
president's salary is raised to $29,500.
The two Commissioners' salaries are
raised to $29,000. So I hope that by
cutting back these titles. Ii, HI, and IV,
and doing it in a lump operation, we
can put everything In progression and
keep everything in balance and thus
eliminate any inequities.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. KYL. In other words, under the
motion to recommit to which the gentle-
man has referred, the increases are set at
$7,500 instead of $10,000 in a certain
category. A person voting for the mo-
tion to recommit is voting to increase the
salary of a Member of Congress by
$7,500. If he votes against the motion
to recommit, that is in effect a vote for
an increase of $10,000. I should like
to inform the gentleman that I shall vote
against the motion to recommit because
I intend to vote against the entire bill.
Mr. CORBETT. That is the gentle-
man's prerogative. A person may vote
for or against a motion to recommit or
for or against final passage. That is his
prerogative which he has always had. I
feel that on the basis of such informa-
tion as I can secure that is what the
other body is apt to do. I do not see
why we need to do something contrary
here.
Mr. Chairman. I understand fully that
we do not need to be governed by that,
but these are a part of the possible facts
of life.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. CORBETT. Yes.
Mr_ KYL. 'There is also the po,tsi-
bility that regardless of what action is
taken on this motion to recommit, the
other body cart take whatever action it
desires. If it .sceepts the action of the
House, we will need no conference and
the bill is approved without any further
action on the part of the House.
Mr. CORBEIT. I might say to the
gentleman that we did make numerous
requests to persons who might be han-
dling this bill in the other body. We re-
quested meetings with them, but they
have not been held.
Therefore, the gentleman can be sure,
as he points out, that the other body is
certainly going to act independently of
what we might do. But, in any event,
I did want to cxplain this and I did not
want to catch anyone by surprise with
the motion to recommit. I am certainly
going to offer it in the sincere hope that
it does prevail
Mr. BURTON of Utah. Mr. Chairman,
I am against e, pay raise for Congress-
men at either $32,500 or $30,000. So that
no one will construe that I am in fact for
a raise at either level. I wish to asso-
ciate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from Iowa and to inform my
colleagues .I shall vote against the mo-
tion to recommit.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per
to revise and extend his re-
marks.) .
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if I may
have the attention of the gentleman
from Montana fMr. OLSEN] who offered
this amendment, do I understand that
some of these pay raises?well, let me
just take the Commissioners of the Dis-
trict of Columbia?what are they pres-
ently paid and to what figure would
they be increased?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. If the gentle-
man will yield, the present salary of the
President and the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia is $19,000. The bill
would raise the President to $29,500 and
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved ForetkeneMplit8 it?&IRP661hONAR000500050001-9
would raise the two members of the Com-
mission to $29,000.
Mr. GROSS. To $29,000?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Yes.
Mr. GROSS. From a present salary of
$19,000?
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. That is
what I said.
Mr. GROSS. That is a pretty good
pay increase for a member of a city
council. We do not do that well in
Waterloo, Iowa. Perhaps we are old-
fashioned.
I want the Members of this House to
understand this: that as far as I know?
and I attended most of the sessions
of the committee in the hearings on this
bill?there was no testimony taken in
justification for the amendment that the
gentleman from Montana has just
offered. There was not one word of
testimony before the committee in justi-
fication for these pay increases. If I am
wrong, please correct me.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS, Yes; I yield to my friend
from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Might I suggest to
the gentleman that the reason they do
not have this kind of a pay scale in Wa-
terloo, Iowa, is because they may have
more responsible members of the city
council there than they have in this
House of Representatives.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Yes. The gentleman is
a member of the Committee on the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and it is my under-
standing that there has been no hearing
before that committee.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is right. I
have been a member of that committee
and I do not remember ever hearing that
matter discussed in the committee in any
manner, nor have I heard it discussed
elsewhere.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Connecticut.
Mr. GIAIMO. I am not familiar with
the efficiency of the commissioners or
other people in the home city or State
of the -gentleman from Iowa, but I am
familiar with the workings of the Com-
missioners of the District of Columbia.
I am also familiar with the workings of
many officials in the Northeast and
throughout the metropolitan areas. I
would say to the gentleman from Iowa
that they work effectively.. They are
hardly all bad and in many instances
they are terribly underpaid.
Mr. GROSS. That is the opinion of
the gentleman from Connecticut. I re-
fuse to yield further. The gentleman
can obtain time.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Yes, I yield to the gen-
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. I camp prepared and I
have been waiting for 2 days to use these
figures. The head of the University
Hospital in Iowa makes $30,000. The
president of your State university makes
$26,000?your two universities?and the
Director of Mental Health in Iowa is
paid $25,000.
Mr. GROSS. I thought we were talk-
ing about the Commissioners of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the nominal city
council of the District of Columbia.
While the gentleman from Arizona is
On his feet does he have a run-down on
the salaries paid the State and muni-
cipal officials in the State of Arizona?
I understand that they are not too
high.
Mr. UDALL. The Governor of Ari-
zona makes the same salary you and I
do, the superintendent of schools of my
hometown makes $6,000 more.
Mr. GROSS. Go on through the list
of your State officials. I imagine they
are comparable to what they are in the
State of Iowa.
Mr. UDALL. Yes. You get what you
pay for.
Mr. GROSS. For the information of
those who are so gleeful and have such
a proclivity for spending the taxpayers'
money, may I say that in the State of
Iowa we have no bonded debt. Our
Constitution prohibits bonded debt in
the name of the State of Iowa except
for $200,000 or $300,000.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman,
who is a pretty good spender in his own
right of the taxpayers' money, think he
can make a contribution at this time?
Mr. HAYS. I just wanted to tell the
gentleman we had no bonded debt in
Ohio until a Republican Governor came
into office a few years ago.
Mr. O'NEILL. Show me a State that
Is not in debt, and I will show You a
State that does not take care of its men-
tally retarded or its aged.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. OLSEN].
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana) , there were?ayes 115, noes 138.
So the amendment was rejected,
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CUNNINGHAM
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CUNNINGHAM :
On page 41, strike out line 11 and all that
follows down through the period in line 22
on page 72.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I tried to eliminate title II because I am
opposed to raising my salary and because
I felt that titles II, III, and IV did not
properly belong in a bill from the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
and that the subject matter of titles II,
III, and IV had not been so considered by
that committee in prior years. I know
for a fact that the legislative, executive,
and judicial salary schedules in the bill
were not developed within the committee
but from an outside source. Again, I will
say I do not pretend to tell any Mem-
ber of this body what to do, but I think
the legislative, executive, and judicial
salaries should be divorced from title I,
which the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service has traditionally handled.
I do not believe any of us on the corn-
4957
mittee know where these figures that are
In the bill were developed as far as title
III is concerned. Just now we had an
amendment to drastically rewrite the
salary figures in title III. I doubt wheth-
er very many members of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service certainly
on my side of the aisle know where these
figures came from. So my amendment
is to strike title III for the reasons stated.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise
In opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have already plowed
this ground on title II and determined to
leave title II in the bill. Very shortly
we shall have an opportunity to pass on
this bill and vote it up or down. But
we ought to have a logical bill with cor-
related pay schedules for the executive,
judicial, and legislative branches. If
you pass this bill without any of these
titles you will have a bobtailed bill which
would have something for the classified
employees and the legislative branch but
nothing for the Federal executives and
the judiciary.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amend-
ment for another reason. I ask you to
turn to page 46 of the bill. There you
will find the provisions which I previ-
ously designated as the Presidential re-
ward and punishment section. In other
words, the president can move salaries
up and down between $26,500 and $29,-
500. He can play them up and down the
string as he sees fit, as he deems appro-
priate. On page 46, beginning in line
6 and running down through line 2 on
page 4'7, this language ought to be
stricken. This title of the bill ought to
be stricken with that language in it.
Mr: JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I direct attention
particularly to line 9 on page 46, by virtue
of which members of regulatory boards
and commissions are included in this
discretionary authority given the Presi-
dent.
Mr. GROSS. To raise and lower sal-
aries at his pleasure.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in view of statements
made earlier by the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Gsoss] and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN], I should like
to ask a question of the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. UDALL] or the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON]. As I
understand it, the salaries of the Chair-
men of such independent boards and
agencies as the National Labor Relations
Board and the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve are fixed by the terms
of this bill. However, the salaries of the
other members of such independent
boards and agencies are not fixed by this
bill; instead the bill would delegate-au-
thority to the President "from time to
time" to fix their salaries within certain
limits. The language on page 46, begin-
ning on line 6, indicates certain guide-
lines which refer to regulatory boards
and commissions; however, it is not clear
that this language limits the discretion
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4958 Approved ForatItedgmasiatgBP66H
otherwise given to the President. Ac-
cordingly, I should like to ask whether it
Is true, as stated previously, that the
President could change the salaries from
time to time of members of such inde-
pendent boards as the NLRB? I am glad
to yield to the gentleman from Arizona
because I think we should have the an-
swer to that inquiry.
Mr. UDALL. I appreciate the gentle-
man's concern, and there has been some
very serious concern on the part of many
Members about this feature of the bill.
This was touched on yesterday by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. WALL-
natTSER1.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am sorry that I
did not have the opportunity to hear
the gentleman's speech on yesterday.
Mr. UDALL. It is in the RECORD and
he made a very good explanation.
Mr. GRIFFIN. May I ask, what did
he say?
Mr. UDALL. To answer your ques-
tion specifically, the President would
have some discretion; he could put mem-
bers of the commissions that you refer
to as I read the bill in level 4, 5, or 6.
He has made it very dear or the Civil
Service Commission and the Budget Bu-
reau who conducted these studies and
through this bill make it very clear that
the major regulatory agency members
are to go in level 4. There is no argu-
ment about it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. But if the President.?
and I do not refer to any particular Pres-
ident because my concern would be the
same regardless of who the President
might be or to which party he belonged?
If the President should not like the de-
cisions of the National labor Relations
Board, and if he were of a mind to do
so, then he could reduce the salaries of
members of the NLRB; is that a cor-
rect interpretation under this bill?
Mr. UDALL. Theoretically he could
do so, but if any President ever does. I
will join with the gentleman to take
some action.
Mr. GRItee'IN. But I do not know
why in the world we would want to give
a President that discretion in view of
the fact that such agencies and commis-
sions are supposed to be independent
quasi-judicial bodies?
Mr. UDALL. This is a discretion be-
tween $26.500 and $29,000. It is a very
limited discretion. Because the trouble
has been. Just like you have 20 commit-
tees of the House and Senate and each
one has their favorite agency or agen-
cies, and there are 50 pages of salary
legislation fixing the salaries of the
various regulatory commissions, and
there has been no coordination. This
is finally the first time in the history of
the Civil Service Commission and the
Bureau of the Budget working through
our committee that we have tried to
draw up a structure to add some flexi-
bility and make sense as between all
these different agencies.
Mr. GRIre'IN. It would seem to me
that we could say very simply that mem-
bers of such agencies as the NLRB, the
ICC, and other regulatory boards and
commissions with quasi-judicial func-
tions should be paid $500 or $1,000 a
year less than the chairman of the board
S."
or commission, whose salary is fixed by
this bill.
Mr. CORM:re. ? Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gentle-
man,
Mr. CORMeri. Just as a matter of
Information, this flexibility was written
Into the law because it does conform to
what is the law at the present time.
The Civil Service Commission has the
right to change the titles and the com-
pensation and job descriptions for over
1 million employees.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Does the Commission
have the authority now to set the salaries
of members of the NLRB if they do not
decide cases the way they want them to?
Mr. CORM:in. Well, when you are
saying that he is going to change their
salary if they do not make decisions the
way they want them to. that is another
question. However, on these independ-
ent regulatory agencies, I do not believe
that fixing their salaries firmly and tak-
ing that flexibility away from the Exec-
utive would be a good thing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I wonder if, as a mat-
ter of law, the Civil Service Commission
can now set the salaries of members of
regulatory agencies with quasi-judicial
authority.
Mr. CORM:11. I do not believe they
have that authority.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I believe that such sal-
aries are fixed by law, and if they are not,
they should be.
Mr. CORM:1-1. I think we can agree
with the gentleman, If he can find some
way to write an amendment which would
still preserve the flexibility of the Execu-
tive. Or else leave these things under
Its present authority.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LATTA, Mr. Chairman, I am in
complete agreement with the amend-
ments being offered by the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM], 8
member of the committee which has had
this bill under cansideration. The Cun-
ningham amendments will strike titles
II, III, and IV from the bill. Title II
Includes salary increases for Members
of Congress and legislative employees.
Title III includes salary increases for
members of the Cabinet and other top
salaried positions in the executive branch
of Government. Title IV includes salary
increases for members of the Supreme
Court and other Federal judges.
I oppose any increase in salaries for
the offices covered by these three titles,
and particularly increases for Members
of Congress. I believe that salaries for
some positions in the Federal service are
too low but they certainly are not those
covered by titles fl, III, and IV of this
bill.
I feel it is a real privilege and an
honor to represent the people of the
Fifth Congressional District of Ohio.
These fine people first elected me to Con-
gress in 1958 and at that time, I knew
what the salary would be during my
HR000500050001-9 March 12
tenure of service, I entered into the
service completely satisfied with that
salary and I'm still satisfied with it. As
one Member of Congress, I want no
change in my sa:ary and intend to vote
against this bill if the Cunningham
amendments are not adopted deleting
these proposed increases. A $10,000-a-
year increase in salary is ridiculous at
any time and certainly at a time when
we are attempting to reduce taxes and
balance the budget. According to the
1960 census, 66,962 of the 75,026 fami-
lies in my district had incomes less than
$10,000 per year. To be a party to any
effort to increase my salary by more
than the incomes of these 66,462 fami-
lies would be unconscionable.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Nebraska IMr. CUNNINGHAM I.
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. STINSON) there
were?ayes 50, noes 142.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE IV?FEDERAL JUDICIAL SALARIES
SEC. 401. This title may be cited as the
"Federal Judicial Salary Act of 1963".
Src. 402. (a) The rates of basic compensa-
tion of officers ar d employees in or under
the judicial branch of the Government
whose rates of compensation are fixed by or
pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision a
of section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (11
U.S.C. 102(a) (2) ). section 3656 of title 18 of
the United States Code, the third sentence
of section 603, section 604(a) (5), or sections
672 to 675, inclusive, of title 28 of the United
States Code, are hereby increased by amounts
which reflect the respective applicable in-
creases provided by title I of this Act in cor-
.responding rates of compensation for of-
ficers and employees subject to the Classi-
fication Act of 1943, as amended.
(b) The limitatons provided by applicable
law on the effecttve date of this Act with
respect to the aggregate salaries payable to
secretaries and law clerks of circuit and dis-
trict judges are hereby increased by amounts
which reflect the respective applicable in-
creases provided by title I of this Act in cor-
responding rates of compensation for of-
ficers and employ sea subject to the Classifi-
cation Act of 1949 as amended.
(c) section 7531e) of title 28, United States
Code (relating to the compensation of court
reporters for district courts), is amgrided by
striking out the existing salary limitation
contained therein and inserting a new lim-
itation which reflects the respective appli-
cable increases provided by title I of this
Act in corresponding rates of compensation
for officers and employees subject to the Clas-
sification Act of 1149, as amended.
(d) Section 40a of the Bankruptcy Act
(11 U.S.C. 68(a) ) , relating to the compensa-
tion of full-time and part-time referees in
bankruptcy, is amended by striking out the
existing compensation limitations contained
therein and inserting new limitations of
"$24,000" and "612,000", respectively.
SEC. 403. (a) Soction 5 of title 28, United
States Code, relating to the salaries of the
Chief Justice of the United States and of
the AsFociate Jus, ices of the Supreme Court
of the United States, is amended by striking
out "535,500" and substituting therefor "845,-
500", and by striking out "$35,000" and sub-
stituting therefor "$45,000".
I13) Section 44(d) of title 28, United States
Code, relating to circuit judges, is amend-
ed by striking out "$25,500" and substitut-
ing therefor "f35,500".
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
196.4 Approved For Rtotagf69/jilf :RCeR1366Emogpo00500050001-9
4959
(c) Section 135 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to district judges, is amended
by striking out "$22,500" and substituting
therefor "$32,500", and by striking out "$23,-
000" and substituting therefor "$33,000".
(d) Section 173 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Court of
Claims, is amended by striking out "$25,500"
and substituting therefor "$35,500".
(e) Section 213 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Court of
Customs and Patent Appeals, is amended by
striking out "$25,500" and substituting there-
for "$35,500".
(f) Section 252 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Customs
Court, is amended by striking out "$22,500"
and substftuting therefor "$32,500".
(g) The first paragraph of section 603 of
title 28, United States Code, relating to the
compensation of the Director and the Dep-
uty Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts, is amended to read
as follows:
"The Director shall receive a salary of
$29,500 a year. The Deputy Director shall
receive a salary of $28,000 a year."
(h) Subsection (b) of section 792 of title
28, United States Code, relating to the com-
pensation of commissioners of the Court of
Claims, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Each commissioner shall receive basic
compensation at the rate of $28,000 a year,
and also all necessary traveling expenses and
a per diem allowance as provided in the Trav-
el Expense Act of 1949, as amended, while
traveling on official business and away from
Washington, District of Columbia."
(i) Section '7443(c) of the Internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954 (68A Stat. 879), as amend-
ed, relating to judges of the Tax Court of
the United States, is further amended by
striking out "$22,500" and substituting there-
for "$32,500".
(j) Section 86'7 of title 10, United States
Code, relating to judges of the Court of Mili-
tary Appeals, is amended by striking out
"$25,500" and substituting therefor "$35,-
500".
Mr. MORRISON (interrupting the
reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unani-
mous consent that the bill be considered
as read and open for amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. The remainder of
the bill?
Mr. MORRISON. Yes, the remainder
of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request Of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
I will not object if the gentleman will
limit the request to the title.
Mr. MORRISON. There are only two
more titles, title IV and title V.
Mr. GROSS. We have been dealing
with each title.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent, then, that title
IV be considered as read and open for
amendment at any point.
Mr. GREFFIN. Mr. Chairman, reserv-
ing the right to object, would that pre-
clude the offering of an amendment to
title III?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
state that title III has been passed and
title IV is being considered at the pres-
ent time. The request applies to title IV.
Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT O5snRED BY MR. OLSEN OF
'MONTANA
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OLSEN of Mon-
tana: On page 72, line 25, strike out "1963"
and insert in lieu thereof "1964".
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, this is merely a clarifying amend-
ment, so that the title will be properly
titled for 1964.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Montana.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CUNNINGHAM
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. OUNNINGHAM:
On page 72, strike out line 23 and all that
follows down through the period in line 6 on
page 76.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, this
amendment would strike out title IV.
At the beginning, when I started to
talk about this subject, I said that postal
and classified people, in my view should
be divorced from the legislative, execu-
tive, and judicial, because the last three
categories have never come before our
committee and have never been given
serious consideration. I do not yet know
where those salary figures came from.
I believe that title IV ought to go to
the Judiciary Committee, which knows
the problems and needs of the judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my amend-
ment be adopted.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
We have tentatively agreed to title II,
to cover the legislative. We have tenta-
tively agreed to title III, to cover the
executive. Now we are on title IV, and
the gentleman's amendment would strike
it out.
If we are going to have to increase it,
I hope the salaries will be related to
each other and to all three branches of
the Government.
I ask the amendment be defeated.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CORBETT. I would like to ask
the gentleman if the folks on your side
would not agree by unanimous consent
to allow for the gentleman from Michi-
gan [Mr. GRIFFIN] to go back to title III
to offer an amendment dealing with the
regulatory bodies. It would only take a
couple of minutes.
Mr. UDALL. I would have no objec-
tion on lily part.
Mr. CORBETT. As soon as this
amendment is disposed of we will seek
a unanimous consent agreement on that.
Mr. UDALL. All right.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, we have
come down to title IV, which deals with
the salaries of Federal judges, including
the Justices of the Supreme Court. I
can think of no Federal employees that
need a salary increase less than the
Justices of the Supreme Court and the
Federal judges of this country. As Mem-
bers well know, they hold lifetime ap-
pointments and they contribute not one
dime to their retirements, which are the
most liberal that could be devised. Here
it is proposed to raise the salaries of the
Justices of the Supreme Court to $45,000
and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court to $45,500. How much further in
orbit do you want to put this bill? How
much more do you want to load on the
backs of the taxpayers of this country?
This provision of the bill should be de-
feated.
I do not want_to prolong debate on this
measure even though there is no $100-
per-plate fundraising dinner being
staged in Washington tonight for my
benefit. I understand there is one and
It is labeled as a political fund-raising
dinner, but it is hoped that it will also be
In the nature of a pay increase victory
dinner. I hope not, because this entire
bill ought to be defeated. However, I
can think of no title in this bill that is
less worthy of being approved by the
Congress of the United States at this
time than this particular title in view
of the lifetime jobs and the free retire-
ments that the judges and the justices
get.
Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I indicated
I would offer an amendment striking
title IV, relating to the Judiciary. The
gentleman from Nebraska has now of-
fered a similar amendment. The gen-
tleman from Nebraska and I are in
agreement that this section is a matter
that should be properly considered by
the Committee on the Judiciary and
should be divorced from this bill.
Again I say, in view of several
recent decisions by members of the Su-
preme Court, many of my constituents
feel that it might be proper that they
be paying $35,000 a year for the privilege
of sitting on that Court rather than have
their salaries raised to $45,000 per year.
Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
to defend our judicial system and the
Supreme Court. Throughout the his-
tory of the Nation, our courts have stood
as bulwarks of individual rights and lib-
erties. It may truly be said that among
the heroes ?of this century are those
Judges and Justices of the Supreme
Court who have advanced the cause of
freedom. We should honor and revere
men such as Judge Learned Hand, Jus-
tices Holmes and Brandeis and Chief
Justice Warren. If is they who are the
spiirtual inheritors of the great ideals of
the Founding Fathers. Their decisions
have produced some of the shining mo-
ments in our history. We shall be for-
ever grateful to them for protecting and
preserving the rights guaranteed us in
the Bill of Rights and the 14th amend-
ment to the Constitution.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
ApprovedFoRswAcenkti eiiRoiti9F1?1y8K13 R000500050001-9
4960 March .12
It ill-becomes the Members of this
House to mount scurrilous attacks on the
courts. It has always been a source of
pride for Americans that ours Is a so-
ciety founded on the rule of law and re-
spect for the courts. Some of the very
Members who have criticized the courts
today are the very ones who have de-
nounced certain groups in this country
for their lack of respect for law and
order. Their actions here today do not
contribute to the goal they profess to
seek.
In these times it would be a grievous
error for this House to demean the pres-
tige of the Federal judiciary by eliminat-
ing the proposed pay increases for Fed-
eral judges from this bill. We will
strengthen the cause of democracy and
promote the cause of justice and orderly
government by showing the Judges and
Justices of the Supreme Court the dig-
nity and admiration dire them. Let us
support the bill as reported by the Post
Office and Civil Service Committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The question oc-
curs on the amendment of the gentle-
man from Nebraska [Mr. CUNNINGHAM].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. STINSON) there
were--ayes 97, noes 130.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JONES OF
MISSOURI
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JONES of Mis-
souri: On page 76. after line 6, add a new
title to read as follows:
`'TITLE V?WORILING PRESS
"Sac. 501. Recognizing that the working
press Is grossly underpaid, on and after the
effective date of this Act, any accredited
member of the House or Senate Press, Radio.
or Periodical Gallery, whose salary has not
been increased by his or her employer by at
least 44 per centum over what they were re-
ceiving before passage of this Act, shall be
denied the privileges of the Press Gallery,
and the privileges of the Press Gallery shall
be denied to the employees of any employer
who has failed to comply with the provisions
of this section."
Mr. UDALL A point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. UDALL. I make the point of order
against the amendment that it is not
germane to the provisions of this bill.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, may I be heard on the point of
order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the gentleman on the point of order.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, we have now done something for
all the employees of the Government.
The working press is a quasi-public body.
In fact, members of the press are more
faithful in their attendance on the
House even than Members of this body.
I think they should have consideration
in this bill
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. lima-
FIELD) . The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman's amendment is clear-
ly not germane to the bill. It applies to
a group of people who do not come within
the jurisdiction of the Federal Govern-
ment. Therefore the Chair sustains the
point of order.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, when this amendment
was first proposed?and I do not claim
altogether the authorship of it?some-
body suggested it might be unconstitu-
tional. I said, Well, I do not think it is
unconstitutional if we look at it on a
comparative basis with what we did in
the civil rights bill last week. There
we said who a man could hire or fire.
And we said in otherlaws how much they
shall be paid. I think that is the proper
place to try to increase the pay of the
press.
Mr. Chairman, as far as its germane-
ness is concerned. I might not argue so
much about that. However, I feel that if
we are going to take care of the people
who are employed in the House and in
the Federal Government and over in
the Supreme Court and everywhere else
and give them a raise, I believe these
people in the Press Gallery ought to have
a raise.
Mr. Chairman. I had planned to offer
an amendment to this amendment and
I believe the members of the committee
would have welcomed the opportunity of
voting for that amendment. Someone
said:
w)uid be In favor of having an increase
in salary for the Press Gallery if they would
not ride our elevators to the third floor when
we have a quorum call and go up to the
third floor.
So I was hoping that I could make
some kind of an arrangement along that
Also, Mr. Chairman, there was an-
other suggestion to this effect: How
about all these people who come here
and go through the torture of listening
to me and other Members who talk here.
Perhaps we could do something for them.
I was preparing to do that when I was
cut off.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Missouri. Does the
-gentleman want to get in on this too?
Mr. HAYS. Yes. The gentleman can
do something for the people in the gal-
leries by Just sitting down. That will re-
lieve them.
Mr. JONES of Missouri. I thank the
gentleman for his contribution. I shall
now resume my seat.
(Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words. It was my understanding that
there was a gentlemen's agreement that
we were to return to title III and permit
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
GRIFFIN) to offer an amendment.
I ask that before title V is taken up
it be in order that the gentleman from
Michigan be permitted to offer his
amendment.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. 'UDALL. I had indicated in-
formally that as soon as the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN] Could
complete compiling his amendment, then
on whatever title we were proceeding. I
for one would suggest that we give him
unanimous consent to return to title
I had understood he was not yet pre-
pared to offer his amendment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. If this is the appro-
priate time. I ask unanimous consent to
be permitted to cffer the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
Mr. MORRISON. I object. We have
already passed that title. If we con-
tinue to go back to titles which we have
passed, we will have to go back to the
beginning of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is not
aware of any previous agreement.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. FINDLEY. Am I correct in as-
suming that an amendment would be in
order to add a new title after line 6 on
page 76?
The CHAIRMAN. It would be at this
time.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FINDLEY
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment,
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. FINDLEY: On
page 76, after line 6, Insert a new title to
read as follows:
"TITLE V?BtELCTIVE DATE OF SALARY INCREASES
"Sze. 501. The authorization for appropri-
ation for salary increases contained in this
Act shall not be effective until such time as
the receipts of the Government for the pre-
ceding fiscal year 1 ave exceeded the expendi-
tures of the Government for such year, as
determined by th3 Director of the Bureau
of the Budget."
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would delay the effective
date of the-pay increases until the Fed-
eral Government has finished a fiscal
year with a balanced budget.
It is the most practical and the surest
way to a balanced budget.
It will make tudget cutters out of all
Members of Congress, all Cabinet offi-
cers, almost all tap officials in the execu-
tive department and all other civilian
employees of the Federal Establishment.
Every one of the 2,400,000 Federal em-
ployees would have a powerful personal
incentive to cut official spending, elimi-
nate waste, balance the budget. Each
nickel saved weuld bring a pay raise
that much closer.
If my amendment is adopted, I freely
predict that we will have a balanced
budget next year. The pressure for
budget cutting wfll be irresistable.
Imagine the cumulative effect of 2,400,-
000 people trying to balance the budget.
And those, like Members of Congress
and Cabinet officers who have the great-
est control over spending policies, would
have the biggest personal incentive of
all?$10,000 a year to be exact.
Let us not kid ourselves. Human na-
ture being what. it is, this amendment
would make this pay bill a sure-fire way
to a balanced budget.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FongylipaREEggp?t(tpit8R~BP16fiefeHR000500050001-9
Ways would be found to make big
cuts in spending, and quick. It would
not' surprise me if the feverish budget-
cutting activity which this amendment
would set in motion might even wash
away the $10 million deficit predicted
for this year?notwithstanding the fact
that the fiscal year is two-thirds gone.
The budget-cutting incentive of a
$10,000-a-year pay raise could do won-
ders.
It is a simple question of priority.
Which should come first, a pay raise or
a balanced budget?
Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Washington.
Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, I think
everything we are doing here ought to
lead in the direction of stability. There
is no point in having a pay raise if in-
flation comes along and wipes the whole
thing out like a spring flood. This is a
very practical amendment, and I shall
support it.
Certainly I would gladly vote for this
bill if it were not for the capacity that we
have shown to authorize and spend more
each year than we are taking in.
It has been but a few days since the
greatest tax reduction bill in the history
of the Republic was signed into law.
This loss of revenue is supposed to be
compensated for by an increase in all
commerce?yet we have yet to experience
that.
We have seen State governments in-
crease their tax-take from the common
purse of the Nation, we have heard our
labor leaders say they will ask for wage
raises.
Nothing is certain except that we can
expect to continue to be tossed upon the
stormy waters of instability.
Yet should the amendment offered by
my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. FINDLEY] to make the enactment of
this legislation contingent on a balanced
budget?then I can vote for this meas-
ure with some assurance.
(Mr. HORAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. FINDLEY. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the balanced budget
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. FINDLEY]. I had
planned to offer this amendment myself.
This is just plain, sound economics.
The amendment:
The authorization for an appropriation
contained in this act shall not be effective
until such time as the receipts of the Gov-
ernment for the preceding fiscal year have
exceeded the expenditures of the Govern-
ment for such year, as determined by the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
It simply states that we will not spend
more money until, through economizing,
we save it, or through increased reve-
nues, we raise it. With this amendment,
No. 45-14
those who make most of our final deci-
sions on Federal spending?Representa-
tives, Senators, Cabinet officers?would
have a powerful, personal incentive,
$10,000-a-year to be exact, to eliminate
waste and cut back on Government
spending. To lesser degrees, so would
all other Federal employees. Each citi-
zen would help to balance the Federal
budget, and a balanced budget would be
the key to higher pay.
I would very much like to see my civil
service friends, particularly the hard-
working, dedicated postal employees, re-
ceive a pay increase. Our Cabinet officers
and Members of Congress are, for the
most part, outstanding, capable execu-
tives and deserve salaries commensurate
with their responsibilities. However, at
a time when our Federal budget is at an
all-time high, when our deficit is so great,
and our national debt is greater than
that of all nations combined, I cannot, in
good conscience, vote for his all-encom-
passing pay raise without a balanced na-
tional budget.
If we are for economy in Government,
if we do really want a meaningful tax
cut, then we should, and must, curb
spending. Voting ourselves a 40-percent
salary increase is not frugal or wise at
this time. I have constantly endeavored
to vote for responsible fiscal policy.
Gentlemen, let us stop waste in our
Government, let us stop giving our hard-
earned tax dollars away in expensive and
uncontrollable foreign aid programs.
Let us get this business of Government
operating on a sound fiscal basis and bal-
ance our budget, then we can justify a
salary increase.
Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
FINDLEY].
The best thing that could possibly hap-
pen for every American citizen and to
the generations yet unborn would be a
balanced budget, hence I strongly sup-
Port the Findley amendment which
provides that when the budget is bal-
anced the provisions of this bill shall
become effective, but not before. If the
Findley amendment is approved and this
bill to raise Federal employees' and Con-
gressmen's wages is made law, I am
sure every Federal agency head and
every. Congressman would be strong for
Government economy in order to get the
pay raises provided in this bill at the
earliest date possible.
Mr. Chairman, a balanced U.S. budget
is a must in order to halt the declining
Purchasing value of everybody's dollar.
It would soon more than offset the bene-
fits in this bill for Federal employees and
Congressmen, and then we could safely
pass a big tax reduction bill, one that
would give great impetus to our entire
economy. It would impose no great
hardship on anyone to wait for this pro-
posed pay raise until the budget is bal-
anced, and the people's heavy tax load
is lightened.
4961
I hope the Findley amendment will
be adopted. Without its adoption I can-
not support this bill.
Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
8986 in its present form.
I have advised every postal employee
and postmaster who urged me to sup-
port this bill that I would like to sup-
port the bill for comparability of postal
pay. That I have always supported their
reasonable requests.
But I cannot in good conscience vote
for the unreasonable salary increases
provided for the-executive, judicial, and
congressional branches of Government.
If the postal pay bill remains a part
of this omnibus bill, I will accordingly
vote against this bill.
The nominal and modest changes in
this bill by amendment have not changed
the position I have already announced.
Because of the persistent and contin-
uing rumors on the floor that this bill
will be railroaded through without a
record vote I voted against the rule to
express my opposition and resentment.
I will stand at the demand for a record
vote to assure every Member the record-
ing of his vote.
At a time when we are urging economy
and a reduction of expenditures in the
operation of our Government we should
not be even considering raises of the
magnitude contained in this bill.
A tax cut has just been voted?to make
that worthwhile or meaningful we must
restrain Government spending and hold
down costs.
When We stop borrowing and start
reducing the national debt, when we put
our economic house in order, we may
have justified the discussion of a pay
raise for the bureaucracy and Members
of Congress.
A motion to recommit which makes
provision for congressional pay raises
does not remove any objection to this
bill and I will therefore oppose it as well
as opposing the bill.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, may I
say to the gentleman from Illinois that
the spirit which prompts the offering of
this amendment is laudible, but I per-
sonally question the practicality of it.
Suppose 25 percent of the Government
employees and 25 percent of the Mem-
bers of Congress actually and sincerely
attempted to cut expenditures, Is it the
gentlemen's intent to penalize the other
75 percent forevermore and, if we do not
cut the budget, foreclose them from any
Increase in salary?
Mr. FINDLEY. That is not antici-
pated or suggested. The objective of the
amendment is to bring about a balanced
budget. Even if 10 percent of the peo-
ple on the Federal payroll accomplished
that and 90 percent stood idly by, it
would accomplish a balanced budget.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
21962 Approved Forc153MsfeLiMpAt8itakiflpF16_6M964R000500050001-9 March 1?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Illinois.
Laudable as the idea may be. I wish
to point out very clearly that you are
placing an absolutely impossible respon-
sibility on more than a million and a half
employees who have nothing to say about
the expenditures of Government, but
who would be penalised.
There are two ways to balance the
budget. You can either reduce expendi-
tures, or you can increase revenues. No
matter how low you may decrease ex-
penditures, you still cannot increase rev-
enue, and you may never have a balanced
budget. It seems to me this is placing a
restriction on a salary increase that is
beyond the realm of constructive criti-
cism.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope this
amendment will be defeated.
Mr. MORRLSON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALLHAUSER. I yield to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MORRISON. We have already
been over this ground. The gentleman is
exactly correct. We have already met
this issue. I think we ought to go ahead
and get along with the bill.
Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Chairman,
I urge that this amendment be voted
down.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is significant
to point out that the gentleman has of-
fered this amendment from time to time,
but that he picks his spots. I took par-
ticular notice, because I like to know
what is going on around here, that the
gentleman did not offer this amendment
to the public works bill. I also took
particular notice that the gentleman had
some projects in the public works bill.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. Do you want to deny it?
Mr. FINDLEY. Well--
Mr. HAYS. I do not yield to you for a
speech. If you want to deny that what
I have said is true. I will yield to you.
Otherwise, let us vote.
Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the la.st word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say
to the gentleman who offered the amend-
ment that he is incorrect if he thinks
that those of us who vote for spending
measures that we think vital to the se-
curity and well-being of our Nation will
turn out backs on the needs of the Na-
tion, in order to get ourselves a pay in-
crease. The gentleman talks about hu-
man nature. That does not happen to be
my. human nature.
'Mr. CLANCY asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. CLANCY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to H.R. 8986 because I do
not believe the proposed salary increase
for Members of Congress is justified.
At a time when we are urging econ-
omy and reduction of expenditures in
the operation of our Government. we
should not be considering raises for
ourselves. In my opinion, this bill is ex-
ceedingly ill timed, coming as it does on
the heels of the recent tax cut. I can-
not conscientiously vote for a bill which
would provide for salary increases for
ourselves of more than $5 million
annually. Any pay increase will
have to come from borrowed revenue
and will, as a result, contribute to a
further growth of the national debt
which has now reached an alltime high
of approximately .1312 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I also intend to vote
against the motion to recommit if it
provides for any increase in congres-
sional salaries. It is my understanding
that a motion to recommit will be of-
fered which will increase the salary of
Members of Congress by $7,500 instead
of the $10.000 provided in the bill re-
ported by the committee. I intend to
vote against the increase under the mo-
tion to recommit and also against the
bill itself which provides for the full
$10,000 increase.
(Mr. ASHBROOK asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. ASHl3ROOK. Mr. Chairman. I
rise in opposition to this bill. I have
supported efforts to delete the pay raises
of the Congressmen, Supreme Court
members and top executives in Washing-
ton. All of these efforts failed. It
seems incredible to me that we should
pass a $11.5 billion tax cut, consciously
head this country in the direction of
deficit spending and then sanctimoni-
ously vote ourselves a $10,000 pay
increase.
Admittedly, the congressional pay
increase is only a small portion of this
bill. roughly $5 million out of a total of
$545 million. It is the principle that
counts, in my judgment, and arguments
which told us that this portion is only
"peanuts" overlook' the fact that we
should set an example.
In my 4 years in the Ohio Legislature
and my 3 years in Congress, I have been
consistently conservative on fiscal poli-
cies. No one has fought increased
spending any harder than I and the roll-
call record shows it. However, when it
comes to the pay of State or Federal
workers, I have always looked at the
problem from the family budget stand-
point and I know that most of them
have trouble making ends meet. It was
with reluctance that I opposed this bill
and if we had succeeded in cutting out
the congressional pay and the other
executive salary increases, I would have
supported the increase for the rank and
file workers. The Congress is commit-
ted to the principle of comparability and
I am personally committed to it as a
matter of belief. I will continue my
efforts to cut unnecessary spending?
even cut unnecessary Federal employ-
ment wherever possible?but I will also
support adequate pay increases for Fed-
eral employees.
I have always felt that we cannot
blame employees for the derelictions of
the Congress. If there are 200.000 too
many employees overall, that is not the
fault of the employees. They should
not be made to suffer. In this case,
however, the principle is so important
that it is necessary to oppose this meas-
ure. If a reasonable pay increase bill
for rank and file employees comes back
without these objectionable features, I
will support it. Congress should get its
own house in order before any increase
in salary is considered. Too many peo-
ple already believe that the crows are
guarding our corn. Unfortunately,
there is a large amount of truth in this
charge.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Minds [Mr. FINDLEY).
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. FINDLEY) there
were?ayes 58, roes 164.
So the amendment was rejected
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. OLIVER P. BOLTON
Mr. OLIVER. P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offer,ed by Mr. OLIVER P. Box--
TON: Page 76, str_ke out all after line 6 and
substitute a new title V as follows:
"TITLE I?EFFECTIVE DATE
"Sec. 501. This Act shall become effective
on the first day of the first pay period which
begins on or after the day this measure
becomes law, except that no increase in sal-
ary provided for in section 204 for Members
of the House of Representatives shall become
effective until Jaatiary 1, 1965."
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Mr. Chair-
man, I think his amendment is very
clear. I have consistently taken the posi-
tion while I have been a Member of this
House that the Members of this House
should be paid a salary commensurate
at the very least with the cost of main-
taining the job and doing a job as each
Member requires.
At the same time it is my understand-
ing that under the law of the State of
Ohio, there is a constitutional provision
which prohibits any member of the leg-
islature from i aising his own salary or
any elected official having a salary raised
during his own term of office.
I had hoped to support this bill be-
cause I feel there are numerous injus-
tices today within our pay scales. I know
of numerous cases both within the clas-
sified and the postal workers as well as
in the executive department where sal-
aries need to ba raised. However, I can-
not myself be in a position of voting for
a salary increase for myself during the
term of office that I offered myself for
election at a previously understood' con-
tract price. Therefore, I have offered
this amendment, hoping the House will
accept the fact that we are not trying
to establish salaries for this year of the
Congress and we are not trying to estab-
lish salaries for us in view of the fact
that we agreed to accept the respon-
sibilities of our office at the salary which
was then the going rate, but that we
believe the salary needs to be increased
in order to meet the needs of Govern-
ment.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I gladly
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. How would
the gentleman apply this to the Senate?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964 Approved FctwoRnswiwnpmentalmeleamp3R000500050001-9 4963
Under the terms of the gentleman's
amendment, many of the Senators will
still be in office for 2 more years and for
4 more years as the case might be.
Would you have them wait until they
have finished their terms of office before
the salary increase applied?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. That is not
a part of my amendment and I am fully
aware that this is an intensely sticky
wicket.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. How would
you deal with the Senate under your
amendment?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I frankly
feel that the Senators must raise their
salaries as of the 1st of January and
therefore because of their staggered
terms, some of them are going to have
to raise their own salaries. But I do not
think that applies to us in the House.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. In other
words, you feel that what would apply to
us should not necessarily apply to the
Senate?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. Because of
the staggered terms.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me so that I may
make a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. OLIVER P. BOLTON. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I direct this inquiry
to the Chair as to? whether it will be in
order if I secure recognition to offer an
amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute for the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the gen-
tleman, if he is recognized, may offer an
amendment.
Mr. MORRISON. A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman
secured recognition first and asked the
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has
not been recognized, except for a par-
liamentary inquiry.
Mr. MORRISON. The gentleman has
a substitute amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
made the parliamentary inquiry as to
whether he could offer an amendment,
and the Chair responded that the gentle-
man could offer an amendment if he was
recognized.
Mr. JOHANSEN. I thank the Chair-
man.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the points made by the gentle-
man from Ohio. I feel that there should
be a delay in the effect so far as Mem-
bers are concerned.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. UDALL
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLIVER P.
BOLTON].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. 'UDALL as a sub-
stitute for the amendment offered by Mr.
OLIVER P. BOLTON: On page 76, strike out
lines 8 to 10, inclusive, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
"SEC. 501. This Act shall become effective
on the brat day of the first pay period which
begins on or after April 1, 1964, or on- the
first day of the first pay period which begins
on or after the date, of enactment of this
Act, whichever day later occurs."
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, this is
the last of the amendments to be offered
by the committee members on the ma-
jority side.
The bill which was reported last No-
vember made all of the salary changes
effective in January 1964. That time has
come and gone. It is administratively
difficult to provide for retroactive pay.
My amendment would provide that all
the salary changes in the bill?for Mem-
bers of Congress, classified, postal and all
others?become effective the first pay
Period following April 1, or the effective
date of the act, whichever comes later.
The other body, I am told, is e,ngaged
in an oratorical contest, and there is no
telling when they will finish and consider
this bill, if it should be passed.
This language is written so that when-
ever they get to this legislation the salary
changes will become effective in the first
pay period immediately thereafter.
Mr. Chairman, because we are nearing
the end of the debate on the bill and be-
cause I wish to discuss briefly the 'motion
to recommit, and it is important, and has
not been discussed, I ask unanimous con-
sent that I may proceed for 5 additional
minutes beyond the 5 minutes already
granted.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, re-
serving the right to object, though I do
not know whether there will be any time
limitation, I certainly wish to be in a
position to answer the gentleman if he
makes very many mistakes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. BARRY. In referring to the other
body and its present preoccupation, was
it the gentleman's thought that perhaps,
by virtue of our passing the bill and put-
ting a time limitation into it as to when
It would become effective?after they
pass it?probably there might be some
inducement to end the present filibuster?
Mr. UDALL. Yes. We would give
them some incentive.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield.
Mr. BOGGS. Before the gentleman
proceeds to a discussion of the motion
to recommit, in order that the Members
of the House may understand fully his
amendment, I should like to ask the gen-
tleman one or two questions.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLIVER
P. BOLTON] offered an amendment which
would have the effect of limiting the ef-
fective date for Members of this body?
only for Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives; is that correct?
Mr. UDALL. That is correct.
Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman from
Arizona has offered a substitute for the
gentleman's amendment which would
make it effective uniformly for all groups
covered by the proposed legislation?
after the signing of the proposed legis-
lation; is that correct?
Mr. UDALL. That is correct.
Mr. BOGGS. That date would depend
upon when the legislation ultimately is
passed.
Mr. UDALL. Precisely,
Mr. BOGGS. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. COR-
BETT] indicated earlier that in a few
minutes, when we reach the end of de-
bate on this bill, he will offer a motion
to recommit with instructions.
The effect of the adoption of the mo-
tion would be to cut the congressional
salaries from $32,500 to $30,000; to cut
the salaries for Cabinet members from
$35,000 to $32,500; and to make com-
parable cuts in the salaries of judges and
lesser executive officials provided for in
the bill.
I intend to oppose and to vote against
the motion to recommit, and I hope it
will not carry. I take these 5 or 6 min-
utes to discuss the reasons why.
If the bill is beaten, if the legislation
does not become law, at least it is ob-
vious to this Member that there will not
be any salary legislation for any of the
Federal employees this year. For too
long this artificial ceiling of $22,500 has
been a lid on all salary levels in the Fed-
eral Establishment. We have had people
banging up against this ceiling, and a
change must be made in congressional
salaries or we cannot adjust the Fed-
eral compensation structure to a decent
level.
This measure now to cut down the
raise to $7,500 from $10,000 is a half
measure. I do not think it accomplishes
anything. You can go back and leak at
the Randall committee. They asked
1,000 people in private industry what
should Members of Congress be paid.
Most of the answers from businessmen,
who know you have to pay in order to
get brains and talent, was $50,000. They
said, No, we cannot go that high. It is
unrealistic. We will go to $35,000, which
Is a figure that any Congress ought to
agree to. It is a minimum fair compen-
sation. Then we got into committee and
some were afraid that we would get into
trouble and be criticized, so we cut that
down to $32,500. I think today, in a
misguided attempt to defend ourselves in
an expression of the kind we have had
here, we are failing to recognize the im-
portance of this body and we are going to
cut it down a little bit more, to $30,000.
I ask those of you who are for this bill
and those of you who believe salaries
should be adjusted, three questions: Do"
you think you will get one less snide edi-
torial with respect to you if you vote for
a $7,500 increase as against a $10,000
increase? Do you think you will get one
letter less of protest or one less joke will
be made by the uninformed and the
demagogs that you will run into back
home because it was only a $7,500 in-
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For iw5..giteigssTakiA8L: March 12
ivet3n66Bmimo00500050001-9
1964 SQ /48L:
crease instead of a $10,000 increase?
No: it will not make a bit of difference,
and I believe we ought to face up to it
and decide whether this raise is justified
or is not justified. If it is justified?and
I think it is?we ought to stand by it.
I hope this Congress will act that way.
We are downgraded all the time. This
is the most important legislative body in
the world as far as I am concerned, and
to see its own Members timidly and fear-
fully take the view that we are not as
important as the school superintendent
in some city or the chief of police or the
city manager in some city. I think is
ridiculous.
We passed a bill here last year and
tliitre were only five who voted against
it?only five. We raised the military
salaries $1.2 billion. There was a deficit
then and a bigger one. We did not hear
arguments then about it. In that bill
we gave the Chief of Naval Operations a
salary of $32,500, $10,000 more than the
great chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services is paid. and $6,000 or
$7,000 more than the Secretary of De-
fense is paid. When are we going to
stop being timid and afraid and let the
People of this great country know that
Congress is important and pay a salary
to them that recognizes that we have
year-long responsibility and that we
represent half a million people and have
demands of all kinds and are handling
the affairs of the most important and
greatest country of the world? We still
have big discrepancies even when we get
through with this bill, because we will be
behind State governments and what they
pay there. We will still be far behind
the city governments. If you want to
vote down the whole idea of fair and de-
cent compensation for men in the Fed-
eral Government who handle billions of
dollars in the executive departments, if
you want to vote down the idea of ade-
quate compensation for key executives
In the Defense Department and many
other agencies, then go ahead and do it,
but let us not adopt a motion to recom-
mit. which is a half-way measure and
which simply says, well, we ought to
have $10,000 raises; we ought to have
large raises in the executive depart-
ments, but fearfully and timidly, be-
cause we are afraid to explain the good
features of this bill and the necessity for
this bill, we are going to attempt to
soften some of the criticism by cutting it
down a little bit.
One more thing I want to say is the
history of the Congress is that salaries
have been raised only once about every
20 years. It has been 9 years since the
last time. If we pass this bill today and
if we proceed the way that we have in
the past, there will not be any more sal-
ary raises for 9. 10, 11, 12, or 15 years.
You are fixing the salary for this Con-
gress, if you pass this bill, not for today
but for next year and the year after that
and into the 1970's. I think this ought
to be taken into account.
I am amazed at the people of the press
in this country. The editors who have
studied this bill and the men who come
out and say it is necessary and good.
Here was William S. White, the great
writer who covered Congress and said
that the pay raise of $35,000 which we
proposed was not an adequate raise. He
said it ought to be $50,000. I trust that
the Members will decide in their hearts
and in their minds what is fair and
right and not be afraid of reelection or
something of that kind. In 1955 when
a similar bill passed with a larger per-
centage of increase there was not a defeat
of a single incumbent, based on the con-
clusions of those who studied the matter,
that had anything substantial to do with
the pay raise of that year.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether
we are going to have a rollcall vote or
not. That is up to the Members. We
have procedures in the House, honored
procedures. We have different kinds of
votes. Each man has the right to de-
cide for himself what kind of vote he
wants on this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL I
has expired.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman. I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. CORBETT asked and was given
permission to speak out of order./
Mr. CORBE'r.i.. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate very much the sincerity of the
gentleman who Just preceded me. He
has worked very hard on this bill and
very courageously. However, if we look
back into the history of this legislation
from the beginning, we have had a series
of adjustments from the start until right
now; and I would remind him that when
we eventually brought the bill from the
committee we reduced it considerably
from the recommendations either of the
Randall Commission or of some of the
bills that had been introduced. When
we got to the floor, we came here under
pretty much of an agreement.
One of the first acts of today was to
pass Chairman MURRAY'S amendment to
title I, which cut approximately $123
million from the bill. Now I am pro-
posing an amendment tb titles II, III,
and IV which will make cuts, not half-
way measures as the gentleman said, but
three-fourths. My amendment will sim-
ply limit any increase In titles II, III.
and IV to $7.500. I submit that the
differential between a salary of $30,000,
the top level in grade 18, which would
be $24.500. would leave a wide-open dif-
ference of $5,500. so there would be no
compression for a considerable period of
time.
I suspect that some of the force behind
the $32,500 idea Is because congressional
salaries are hard to raise and they want
to keep the ceiling imposed on congres-
sional salaries above the classified top.
So. Mr. Chairman. I am advancing
the recommittal motion in all sincerity
and in good faith. I feel that it is in
line with just what we have been do-
ing in committee, and what we have
done here In Committee of the Whole
today. We will have trimmed this
amount back to a figure that is much
more justifiable.
Mr. Chairman, I might say in closing
that if we pass this bill with the re-
committal motion in it I predict that
that same bill is apt to go through the
other body without amendment. If It
does the job will be wrapped up.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CORBETT. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Can the
gentleman ter.. me what would be the
total saving that he calculates under his
proposed motion?
Mr. CORBETT. The total saving
would be significant only in this regard.
There are not very many employees in
titles II, III, and IV, and in fact. the
entire pay raise for Congress, as the
gentleman knows, is only $5.4 million,
so you cannot save a great deal. But
this amendment would save $3 million.
It would put the cost of this bill some-
thing under the budgeted figure of $545
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, the big
reason for the cut is as someone men-
tioned earlier, symbolic. Instead of
having a $10,000 raise for judges and
members of the executive branch, we
would have an increase of $7,500.
Mr. Chairman, I, of course, recom-
mend my motion to this body and I hope
it does pass.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the motion to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. UDALL] .
If the parliamentary situation had
been such that I were able to do so I
would have offered an amendment which
would have made the effective date for
the congressional pay raises for both the
House and the other body January 3 of
next year. Mr. Chairman, I am very
interested in the fact that some of the
guardians and keepers of the conscience
of the Members of this House have been
telling us that it is morally mandatory
that anyone who votes against the pay
raise reject the pay raise himself. I am
surprised that there is not an equal con-
cern on the part of those gentlemen over
the matter of giving the voters and the
taxpayers of tne country an opportunity
to pass their judgment on those who do
vote either for or against the bill, by
making the effective date later.
Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of amaze-
ment to me that this should be the case.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHANSEN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, even
though I find myself in the same posi-
tion as that exactly occupied by the gen-
tleman from Michigan, I also have an
amendment which I would have offered
which would have made title U effective
with the beginning of the next Congress.
However, the parliamentary situation has
also excluded me from offering that
amendment.
However, Mr. Chairman, I wish to as-
sociate myself with the remarks made
by the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN].
Mr. JOHANSEN. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say this final
word. In view of the implication that
has been left on the record that some-
how those who vote against the increase
ought to waive the increase, I suggest
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
- Approved For Release 2005/05/18 CIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 4965
that a proposal to 'get that sort of issue
into the next political campaign or into
any campaign comes dangerously close
to violating the spirit if not the letter of
the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which
states in effect that whoever shall offer
any benefit provided for or made possible
in whole or in part by an act of Congress
shall be guilty of a violation.
I suggest that anyone who wants to
campaign for election or reelection on
the basis that he did not take the pay
and will not take the pay voted by the
Congress is in serious jeopardy with re-
spect to tliat law.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Bolton amendment, I feel its enactment
should make this bill more acceptable to
Members from California.
It happens that in our State, as in
Ohio and certain others, the law pro-
hibits an increase in the salary of an
elective official during the term of office
to which he was elected. This constitu-
tional provision in California applies to
the pay of statewide officials, county
supervisors, elected department heads
and other local officeholders.
Admittedly, no such restraint exists at
the national level. But to apply the
same principle seems to me a matter of
simple ethics.
Each of us, in filing his candidacyfor
a 2-year term, knew what this job paid.
Our election would seem to constitute a
contract with the voters?a bargain that
we have no opportunity to renegotiate
until the next election.
This amendment makes it possible for
us to raise the pay of future Con-
gresses?not the one in which we were
elected to serve. It imposes only a6-
month delay in implementing the change.
The amendment is logical, and it is
right. I urge its adoption.
Mr. BURTON of Utah. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr. Chairman, I shall vote against the
motion to recommit. My reasons for do-
ing so are exactly the same as those of-
fered earlier by the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. KW.
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairma,-ft, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Utah. I yield to the
gentleman from Colorado. -
(Mr. BROTZMAN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
am opposed to the motion to recommit
offered by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. CORBETT] . I do not intend
to vote for a salary increase for Members
of Congress either at $10,000 or $7,500
per annum. A vote for the motion ac-
tually is a vote to increase salaries of
Congressmen by $7,500. I do not believe
our Nation or the taxpayers of this
country can afford it. ,
Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Utah. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
(Mr. RICH asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend, his re-
marks.)
Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I am op-
posed to any increase in the congres-
sional salaries at this time and therefore
will vote against the motion to recommit
the bill. This is an attempt to increase
the salaries to $7,500 instead of the
$10,000 as provided for in the bill.
(Mr. DORN asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, during
this debate I have heard over and over
again the argument that our salaries
and others provided for in this bill
should be increased to that in industry.
Frankly, I do not know what industry
my friends and colleagues have been
talking about.
The comparison I would like to make
is with those in? industry I am most fa-
miliar with. The great majority of the
employees in industry in my own con-
gressional district are employed in the
textile industry. The textile industry
has been having a difficult? time. Many
mills have closed since World War Id
and thousands of jobs have been lest
because of foreign imparts and through
automation. Some of the mills have
been operating on part time and on the
stretchout system. There are no great
profits in the textile industry today.
Theirs is the struggle to exist and pro-
vide jobs.
Most textile wages in the United
States average less than $1.80 per hour.
When we start talking about industry,
Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentle-
men of the House, these are the people
who will have to pay for an increase of
$10,000 in the salary of each Supreme
Court Justice and Members of Congress.
The money of industrial workers will be
withheld by the Federal Government for
this salary increase.
Mr. Chairman, paid vacations of my
textile workers cannot compare with the
vacations of those in the Federal Gov-
ernment. My textile workers and those
in other industries generally throughout
the country get 1 week of paid vacation
annually even though they may have
worked for 30 years. Mr. Chairman,
thoSe in the Federal Government with
15 years of service get 26 working days of
paid vacation in addition to holidays.
Mr. Chairman, this is the comparison
we should use during this debate The
same could be said for our farmers. I
know farmers who get no vacations, no
holidays, and who have a net income of
virtually zero when all bills are paid at
the end of the year. _
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this
bill. Let us have an open rollcall vote
and I urge the House to defeat this bill.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I was amazed at some
of the statements made by the last two
speakers in which they complained about
the fact they did not have the oppor-
tunity to vote on an amendment which
would defer the effective date of the in-
crease for the House until next January.
My understanding is that there is such
an amendment pending, and that. the
amendment submitted by the gentleman
from Arizona Is offered as a substitute.
If the amendment which is now pending,
offered by the gentleman from Ohio, is
adopted, this will have the effect of de-
ferring the effective date of the increase
for the House of Representatives until
January of 1965.
Mr. Chairman, I subscribe to the views
of those who feel that when_we set our
own salaries an election ought to in-
tervene before such increase becomes
effective. I propose to support the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio. His amendment, which I
have checked at the desk, is in good
form, and it will have the effect of defer-
ring the effective date of the salary in-
creases of Members of the House until
January and make the other increases
effective after passage of the act.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will
?the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRASER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. JOHANSEN. Let me say first of
all that if we have an opportunity to
vote for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio I will vote for it,
although I am not satisfied that it applies
simply to the House. It ought to apply
equally to the Members of both Houses.
If there is an opportunity to vote for it,
however, in view of the fact that evi-
dently. the parliamentary situation does
not permit one that would apply to both
Houses, I will vote for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. FRASER I may say to the gen-
tleman that the other body can take
care of its own problems. The amend-
ment as now framed provides an ade-
quate opportunity to defer the effective
date for House Members.
(Mr. FRASER asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, whether
or not the January 1965 date is adopted
as the effective date for House Members,
I shall support this bill. I would like to
point out that this bill has many salary
adjustments in it of importance to mil-
lions of Federal workers. The adjust-
ments in the bill for Cabinet officials and
other members of the executive branch,
the increases for the judiciary, and the
other provisions in the bill are long over-
due. In some ways, it is unfortunate that
the congressional salaries are also in-
cluded in this bill, for these seem to have
become the center of controversy.
For myself, the proposal of the gentle-
man from New Jerry [Mr. JOELSON], to
provide a more modest increase for the
Members of Congress but with separate
provision for travel and for the additional
expense of maintaining a home here in
Washington more closely conformed to
the problems which do indeed confront
the Members of this House. For this rea-
son I supported the Joelson amendment.
I regret that the amendment did not
receive more support.
Nevertheless, our, Government will be
made more effective in its work if this
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 ? CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? IIOUSE March 12
bill becomes law as it now stands. I urge
that it be supported by everyone inter-
ested in improving the quality of public
service at the Federal level.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the substitute amendment of the gentle-
man from Arizona [Mr. Uraita] to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. BOLTON].
The question was taken; and on a di-
vision (demanded by Mr. OLIVER P. Boa-
Tose there were?ayes 159, noes 115.
So the substitute amendment was
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr. Boelang) as
amended by the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona 1Mr.
UDALL].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, as far as
I know, there is only one matter to be
disposed of, and that is the matter the
gentleman from Michigan and I dis-
cussed, about which I do not think there
will be any argument. I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on all the titles
of the bill and on the bill cease in 15
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will
state that the substitute amendment
agreed to for section 5 ends the debate
on the bill, unless there is an amendment
that has been agreed be offered by unan-
imous consent.
Mr. UDALL. Then, Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. GRIFFIN] be
allowed to return to title II for the pur-
pose of offering an amendment.
Mr. ROONEY of New York. I object.
Mr. Chairman.
AMENDMENT OFFERED DT MR. GRIFFIN
Mr. GR110101N. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GRIFFIN !
On page 76, between lines 6 and 7, insert a
new title V as follows:
"rri 'LE V?INDFFENDENT BOARDS AND
(?')MMIS,IONIS
"Sec. 501. Notwithstanding the provi-
sions of SEC. 303. the annual rate of basic
compensation for members of each of the
following regulatory agencies and Commis-
sions shall be $1,000 per year less than the
rate of basic compensation hereinbefore pro-
vided for the Chal man of each such agency
or commission. The agencies and commis-
sions to which this section shall apply are
the following: The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, U.S. Civil Service
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Fed-
eral Maritime Commission, Federal Com-
munications Commission, Federal Power
Commission, Federal Trade Commission, In-
terstate Commerce Commission, National
Labor Relations Board, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission."
And redesitmate the succeeding title and
sections accordinely.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman. I ask
unanimous consent that following the
gentleman's 5 minutes for the presenta-
tion of his amendment all debate on this
amendment and all amendments to the
bill cease in 10 minutes.
Mr. GROSS. I object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, atten-
tion has previously been called to the
language on page 45 of the bill, lines 24
and 25, which provides that the President
is authorized from time to time to place
numerous offices and positions in vari-
ous categories or levels of compensation.
This means that the President, whoever
he might be, at any time `could raise
or lower the salaries of members of the
several independent boards and com-
missions which have been created by the
Congress to perform judicial functions.
Now, I do not know whether it is a
good idea to allow the President to raise
or lower salaries of officials in the various
departments of his administration. I
would not object, particularly, insofar as
such authority might be applied to those
officers in the various departments of
Government who serve at the pleasure
of the President. But I do not believe
that any President should have that
power with respect to such independent
quasi-judicial boards and commissions
as the ICC, and NLRB. The members
of such boards and commissions have
been appointed for fixed terms; their
appointments must be approved by the
Senate, and they are expected to serve
independent of any kind of influence or
suggestion of influence or pressure. In
the past, the Congress and its commit-
tees have been properly concerned about
certain activities which might tend to
influence the decisions of these agencies.
Whether or not a President would
actually lower salaries of members of
one of these agencies for any reason, the
very fact that he would have the power
under this bill to do so. could operate
to influence or conceivably influence or
affect the decisions of such agencies. I
doubt that the committee gave this as-
pect of the bill very serious considera-
ion because I doubt the committee
would have approved this provision if
Its ramifications had been debated.
Since this bill just might become law,
even though I cannot support it, I hope
the House will make the change I have
proposed.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. I think the gentleman is
making a very constructive contribution
to the bill, although I regret that he
does not intend to support the bill, be-
cause I do think it is a good bill. But I
would urge the House to approve the
amendment that has been offered by the
gentleman from Michigan. I think it
improves the bill.
The CHAIRMP N. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Michlean [Mr. GarrarNI.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, it is
never a very pleasant task to vote
against salary increases for anyone and
I think it is most unpleasant to be in a
position to vote against a salary in-
crease for one's own compensation.
I happen to be in this position. I do
not feel that H.R. 8986 will accomplish
the desired and stated objective which
is the equalization of salaries among
Federal Government and private indus-
tries. The legislation will only result in
an increasing rise of salaries in indus-
try and other parts of our economy.
The overall result will be an inflationary
trend in our Government.
I do not believe that a person who is
elected to serve his Government within
an elected or appointed capacity in-
tended to become wealthy. If the in-
dividual did this, I think he is in the
wrong business. If a person's only ob-
jective in life is making money, they
should get out of Government service.
I am not one who holds to the theory
that we will be unable to induce compe-
tent people to serve in the Government
if we do not raise salaries. I know that
there are plenty of people who are will-
ing to serve as Federal judges, Cabinet
officers, sub-Cabinet officers, heads of
departments, postal positions both ad-
ministrative and otherwise, at the pres-
ent salary level. There are also any
number of people who are willing to
serve as Members of the House of Rep-
resentatives and Members of the Sen-
ate at the present salary level.
Some of the specific provisions of the
legislation which I believe are inappro-
priate concern some of the employees
of the House of Representatives. For
instance, the postmaster of the House of
Representatives, under this proposed
legislation, would receive more compen-
sation than any other postmaster in our
Nation.
Cabinet officers and sub-Cabinet offi-
cers would still receive, in addition to the
increased salaries, all of the present
emoluments of office, including private
limousines with chauffeurs and, in some
Instances, airplanes.
Let us look at the Federal judiciary.
Under this bill, a Federal judge, after
10 years of service, could retire for the
rest of his life at $32,500 a year. I know
of no vacanca in the Federal judiciary
today which is not filled because com-
petent applicants cannot be found to
fill the job at the present salary. I do
not think at this time we can preach
economy in government and raise prac-
tically every Federal employee's salary,
including our own, and still be consist-
ent with an economy program.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, HR.
8986 is a broad base legislative act to
adjust the rates of basic compensation
for certain officers and employees in the
Federal Government. It includes
among raises for the postal employees,
for classified employees, raises for Mem-
bers of the Congress, members of the
President's Caoinet, and all members of
the Federal judiciary.
Mr. Chairman, I realize completely
the necessity for considering increases
for those Federal employees in the postal
service and those who are classified em-
ployees of the Federal Government.
Since coming to the Congress, I have in-
troduced legislation to provide pay raises
for these employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment. I recognize there is merit to
this bill relathe to the need for increas-
ing the salaries of these employees. In
order for me to support this bill today,
it appears that I must also vote for a
salary increase for myself in the amount
of $10,000. This, Mr. Chairman, I can-
not do. This, Mr. Chairman, I will not
do.
Further, it a my understanding that a
motion will be made to decrease the
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
? Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66160.01i3R000500050001-9
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOU 4967
amount of proposed salary increase for
Members of Congress to $7,500. I want
to repeat, Mr. Chairman, this I cannot
do. This, Mr. Chairman, I will not do.
Mr. Chairman, in consideration of the
severe economic difficulties in the State
of West Virginia, I cannot, in good con-
science, vote to increase my salary for
any of the suggested sums. For, in both
instances, they far exceed the annual
Income of the majority of the people I
represent.
I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, therefore,
that the provisions of this bill, as they
affect a Member of the Congress, will be
deleted in order that I may support the
legislation. If this is not done, I have
no alternative but to oppose it.
Mr. BATES. -.Mr. Chairman, while I
support 95 percent of the pay bill before
us today, H.R. 8986, and believe that the
post office and civil service employees
are entitled to the increase which the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice now recommends, I do have decided
reservations about the salary increase
proposed for Members of Congress.
Although Congress has not had an in-
crease in pay in 9 years, and a case can
be made for some increase at this time,
I believe the amount recommended is
inappropriate and inconsistent with our
efforts to cut expenses in the Federal
Government. How can I advocate re-
ductions in other areas and not apply
the rule to myself?
I am, therefore, opposed to title II in
its present form covering congressional
pay. Some economy has been effected
under title I, however, by the commit-
tee's action in reducing the amounts of
raises originally proposed so that they
now come within the budget recommen-
dations for this purpose. Moreover, the
Salary scales for the post office and civil
service employees are, in this bill,
brought into line with the com-
parability provisions of the legislation we
enacted in the 87th Congress. This
means that Federal classified employees
will be receiving pay commensurate with
that in private industry for equivalent
duties and responsibilities.
Accordingly, I have today voted for
every amendment which would lessen the
Increase for Congresmen, and I trust that
the motion to recommit will prevail. In
fact, I hope the reduction in congres-
sional pay in the motion to recommit is
much large than has been suggested.
When the bill comes up for final pas-
sage, however, because, I believe that
such a large portion of it is fair and just,
I intend to support it.
Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in opposition to H.R. 8986.
At a time when Members of Congress
should be setting an example of economy
and thrift, we find ourselves in the im-
possible position of voting on a bill which
would increase our salaries by $10,000 a
year, an amount larger than the total
income of most families in our respective
congressional districts.
On the basis of what has been done?
and what has not been done?in Con-
gress in the past year, I think there are
a great many people in this Nation who
would question whether Members of
Congress are worth their present sal-
aries, much less this increase.
All of us are aware, I am sure, that
there was some difficulty in a number of
congressional committees in holding
hearings and conducting committee ses-
sions last year.
It seemed that when important bills
were up before committees for consider-
ation, efforts to find enough Members
were something less than successful.
I imagine that the proponents of this
bill would have us believe that the high
cost of living kept many Members from
remaining in the Nation's Capital, and
that they were forced to flee to Paris and
the Caribbean to escape the temptations
and the high living of the Washington
area.
I believe we can pardon our constit-
uents if they look not too kindly on such
reasoning.
The fact is that this bill would pro-
vide a 44-percent pay increase for Mem-
bers of Congress. It would provide this
pay increase without event going through
the formality of waiting for the next
congressional session to take effect.
There have been no valid arguments
for these increases?and until there
are?they should not be granted.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman,
this administration has embarked on a
great austerity program. The people of
this country have been bombarded with
propaganda about how the Chief Execu-
tive plans to cut Government spending.
To many people much of this program
seems so deceiving and fallacious. On
February 25, this House voted to cut the
taxes of this country. Because it assured
a further increase of the national debt,
I could not in good conscience support
that legislation. Today I cannot in good
conscience support this pay raise bill as
reported. Furthermore, I cannot see
how the Members of this House, who just
recently voted for a tax cut, can support
legislation that will increase the deficit
to over $12 billion.
We were assured when the tax bill was
passed that an effort would be made to
hold down spending. Yet today we are
faced with a bill that would add over
$600 million to the cost of the Federal
payroll yearly.
This is not to say that I can see no
justification for some of the pay raises
in this bill. Undoubtedly, many are jus-
tifiable, especially those in the postal
salary schedules and in the grades of the
other civil service classifications.
There may even be some justification
in raising the salaries of higher govern-
mental officials, including Members of
Congress. But, in view of the other ac-
tion we have taken in this Chamber this
year in failing to recognize sound fiscal
policy, I cannot see how we can have the
audacity to raise our own pay.
Before we can fully justify a pay raise
for ourselves, we Must become fiscally re-
sponsible. It is inconceivable that one
could call the passage of this bill an ex-
ample of fiscal integrity.
Often before in this House I have
talked about the dangers of inflation.
You may say, What part does inflation
have in this debate?
Simply this: At the present time our
economy is booming. With the tax cut
even more money will be flowing. By
passing this bill we will not only be put-
ting more money into the economy
through pay raises, but we will be in-
creasing Government spending at a time
when Government income is not com-
mensurate to expenditures. This is
bound to create a dangerous and explo-
sive situation. To say this is a poten-
tial. inflationary situation is really an
understatement. Passage of this bill
makes an already dangerous situation
more dangerous, it creates even greater
problems. Because of adverse effects
this, has on retired employees any infla-
tion is a cruel tax. Unless expenditures
of this Government are brought in line
with its income, we will continue to tax
the American people in this grossly un-
fair manner.
We should work harder at correcting
existing and still unchecked loopholes in
the tax structure. If tax reform was
?truly achieved, many of the problems
with which we are now faced would dis-
sipate.
I am especially opposed to raising the
salaries of Members of Congress at this
time. Until we can prove that we are
deserving of a raise we should not con-
sider this action. I do not believe our
actions have justified or have proofed
our deserving a raise.
Let us look at the record. Last year
we were in session the entire year all the
way through December. We met only
186 days for 119 rollcall votes. In 1982
we adjourned in mid-October, the 13th
to be exact. Yet that year we met for
177 days or 9 fewer than last year and
incredibly enough we took 124 rollcall
votes, 5 more than last year.
I believe that this is a clear indication
that there is something wrong with Con-
gress. We need to reform ourselves, have
a housecleaning if you please before we
should pat ourselves on the back with a
raise.
We must ,become a more effective,
efficient and responsible body before we
can become deserving of any new mone-
tary rewards. How can a Congress that
discriminates against its minority de-
serve a pay raise? We in the minority
have brought before the attention of this
Congress a situation that demands imme-
diate attention. The minority in this
Congress is entitled to adequate profes-
sional staff assistance. Yet this House
has failed to recognize or even attempt
to deal realistically with this problem.
I say that this Congress must first
prove to the people of this country that
it deserves a raise. We can do so by
acting fiscally responsible with reforms
in both spending and tax structure. We
can do so by becoming a more respon-
sible, effective and efficient body. We
can do so by adopting the necessary re-
forms that would make us that kind of
a body. Until and unless we are willing
to reform our tax system and our spend-
ing habits we do not deserve a raise.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the
House has been considering the Federal
Employees Salary Act, a bill to adjust
the rates of basic compensation of offi-
cers and employees in the Federal serv-
ice. This measure was recommended by
the Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee after a series of hearings and a
number of executive sessions.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
Approved For Reamleg5/0.5/18 ? GIA-RDP661300403R000500050001-9
4968 morNAI: RECORD ? HOUSE March 12
The proposal covers four distinct cate-
gories:
Section 1 proposes increases for 1,-
697,063 employees of the classified, pos-
tal and foreign service, together with
certain Veterans Administration and
Agriculture employees at a total cost of
$576 million.
Section 2 urges a salary boost for 8,179
legislative employees, including House
and Senate Members of Congress, at a
cost of $11 million.
Section 3 calls for increases to 400
Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officers of the
executive branch in the amount of $4
million.
Section 4 provides for increased wages
to 6,255 judicial employees and Federal
judges at an annual cost of $9.500.000.
The Committee bill, collectively, pro-
vides 1,711,897 employees of the Federal
Establishment with pay increases of at
least $601 million. From my past ex-
perience in dealing with cost estimates
on Federal legislative proposals prepared
and submitted by the various agencies,
I would venture to guess that figure is
low. Despite any cuts made in the
House today, the cost will perhaps ex-
ceed that amount by 10 to 15 percent.
In my opinion, this legislation is ex-
travagant in all categories; it contains
many inequities; the $10,000 boosts have
not been justified; and a general wage
increase does not appear to he war-
ranted at this time. In a period of 15
months, the Congress has provided Fed-
eral employees with a pay increase on
January 1, 1963, another one on January
1, 1964, and a tax cut on March 1, 1964?
which was primarily designed to pro-
vide more take home pay for the wage-
earner. Now, another increase has been
proposed to take effect upon passage of
this bill.
Before we have another spiral of wage
increases, let us first evaluate what ef-
fect the recent tax cut will have upon
the economy. Here we are being asked
to approve legislation for pay raises, and
no employee in this Nation has as yet
had chance to feel the extra dollar in
his pay check. We do not know whether
the tax-cut theory is going to work and
provide the economic advantages it was
principally designed to provide.
Above all, however, it is fiscally un-
sound at this time when the Federal debt
is so high, cutbacks in personnel are
being demanded, military bases are
closed for economy reasons, and less Fed-
eral spending is being advocated.
I fully realize that there are instances
in the Federal pay system that rightly
need adjustment, but the approach used
by this bill to correct those injustices is--
in my opinion?unconscionable.
The President has called for an attack
on poverty in the United States?it seems
to me that raising Federal salaries over
$600 million annually is a poor way of
solving the problem in our midst. The
Chief Executive has called upon business
to hold its price line, and labor its wage
line until a better balance in the econ-
omy can be achieved. Is the Govern-
ment operating under a separate set of
standards? Are we different than those
in non-Government activities? The ex-
ecutive, legislative, and judicial branches
should provide an example and not lull
the country into another round of infla-
tionary prices, wages, and living costs.
The poor, those on fixed incomes, retire-
ment and veteran pensions are the ones
who would suffer most.
The U.S. Government consists of
191,259,346 Americans. Each and every-
one of us tries as best we can to live
within our means. When we incur a
debt?in order to provide the necessities
of life?we make arrangements from our
Income for systematic methods of repay-
ment. So should our Government.
When spending is increased, revenue
should be raised to balance the budget.
Over the past many years, this does
not seem to be the concern of responsible
leaders?their motive appears to be
spend today and let the future genera-
tions worry about paying it back. Our
children and grandchildren will have to
tope with their own problems through
life?why should we recklessly abandon
our responsibilities and obligations. If
this pay raise is so necessary, then let
the proponents also recommend a way
to pay for it.
Who are the principal advocates of
this legislation? I hold in my hand the
letters and telegrams received yesterday
urging my support and approval to the
pending bill.
They are from the United Federation
of Postal Clerks, National Association of
Post Office Employees, National Associa-
tion of Letter Carriers, National Associa-
tion of Postmasters of the United States,
Government Employees Council, AFL-
CIO. American Federation of Govern-
ment Employees. Pennsylvania State As-
sociation of Letter Carriers, the Veter-
ans of Foreign Wars of the United States,
the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, the American Bar
Association, Pennsylvania Bar Associa-
tion, and the Erie County Bar Associa-
tion.
In addition, I have received a lengthy
communication from the National Civil
Service League releasing statements
from the following business and indus-
trial leaders who support increased com-
pensation for Cabinet officers, Members
of Congress, and judges.
They are Ralph E. Ablon, chairman
and president, Ogden Corp.; Winthrop
W. Aldrich, board of directors, Rocke-
feller Center, Inc.; John D. Biggers,
chairman, Finance Committee Libbey,
Owens, Ford Glass Co.; Roger M. Blough,
chairman, United States Steel Corp.;
Harold Boeschenstein, chairman, Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Corp.; Lucius D. Clay,
senior partner. Lehman Bros.; John
Cowles. president. the Minneapolis Star
and Tribune; Henry Ford, chairman,
Ford Motor Co.; Clarence Francis, indus-
trialist; G. Keith Funston, president,
New York Stock Exchange; C. R. Smith,
president, American Airlines; T. S. Pe-
tersen, director, Standard Oil Co. of Cali-
fornia; and Sidney J. Weinberg, partner,
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Now these gentlemen are respected
business leaders of this country, but I
doubt whether any one would advocate
salary boosts in their respective fierns if
they were operating in the red as our
Government has been doing. I am sure
that any official in their organization
who supported such a fiscal policy and
huge expenditures would be immediately
replaced. Furthermore, if the fiscal af-
fairs of any company were operated as
the Federal Government handles its re-
ceipts and expenditures, I know it would
not exist very long. How then can re-
sponsible people of this Nation advocate
that the Federal Treasury can stand
such an outlay, continually spend the
taxpayers money with reckless abandon,
and not attempt to make the outgo bal-
ance the income?
So I say, Mr. Chairman, Congress
would be deplorably derelict in its duty to
approve this massive pay raise bill to give
increased salaries to its Members, Cab-
inet, judges, high Government officials,
bureaucrats, and every Federal employee.
The Federal budget cannot afford this
excessive expenditure regardless of the
need for, or the desirability of, the in-
crease. Common respect should demand
that the top bracket groups on the Fed-
eral payroll provide leadership in mak-
ing the sacrifices the President has con-
stantly asked for, and the people are de-
manding. The Congress and executive
departments should strive to eliminate
extravagance and diligently seek to re-
duce the huge national debt?thus the
resultant stabilization of the dollar will
lower living costs to the advantage of
every American.
I do not believe that it is fair to the
taxpayers who foot the bills, and to
future generations who will bear the bur-
den to add to this staggering national
debt.
Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, it, is
difficult for me to understand how the
Members of Cris body can vote for a
Federal pay raise bill at this time. Less
than 1 month ago Congress voted to re-
duce taxes by $11.5 billion. I voted
against this bill, because I have always
felt that if taxes are cut, there should be
a comparable cot in spending. Certainly,
all of us will agree that taxes are too
high, but the cold hard fact is that taxes
are high because spending is high. At
that time we heard a lot of talk about
economy and reduced spending, but the
record was that since the passage of the
tax cut bill, every appropriation bill and
authorization measure that this body has
acted upon has exceeded the spending
and authorizat.ons which were provided
in fiscal 1964.
It is amazing that the President has
talked of economy, frugality, and war on
poverty. And yet where does the ad-
ministration propose to start the drive
in its war on poverty? By recommend-
ing a pay increase which will cost the
taxpayers $545 million.
I shall not take the time of this body
to discuss the pros and cons of the vari-
ous increases which have been provided.
These can be found in the committee re-
port. The fact is that for 26 of the past
33 years, we have operated on a deficit
basis?always adding more to the public
debt. Twenty-two billion dollars in the
red will be our record for the past 3 fis-
cal years. Does any Member of this body
think the administrative officers of a
corporation would recommend increases
for themselves and their employees on
that kind of a record?
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
1964
Approved FoeNt9ARARIAtlER:061E19enwmpRO00500050001-9
Let the department heads and the bu-
reau chiefs spend more time looking for
areas to save money and less time dream-
ing up new ways to spend more money.
Let the' Congress face up to its re-
sponsibilities and act as legislators and
not as a jury to pass on the executive
recommendations.
Let us stop delegating our powers, and
when such action is necessary insist that
the agencies remain the servant of the
Congress and not of the executive
branch. Let us insist that spending shall
not exceed our revenues.
Do these things, and there will be no
objection by the taxpayers to legislation
of this nature.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Speaker having re-
sumed the chair, Mr. HOLIFIELD, Chair-
man of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, re-
ported that that Committee having had
under consideration the bill (H.R. 8986)
to adjust the rates of basic compensa-
tion of certain officers and employees in
the Federal Government, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
650, he reported the bill back to the
House with sundry amendments adopted
in Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time and was read the
third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. CORBETT. I am opposed to the
bill in its present form.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman
qualifies.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker-
The SPEAKER. For what purpose
does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
Mr. GROSS. Under the rules of the
House, Cannon's Procedure in the House
of Representatives, a member of the
committee who is unqualifiedly opposed
to the bill takes precedence over a mem-
ber who qualifies his opposition.
The SPEAKER. The Chair under-
stands that the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania is opposed to the bill in its pres-
ent form.
Mr. GROSS. I am opposed to it un-
qualifiedly.
The SPEAKER. Since the gentleman
from Pennsylvania is opposed to the bill
In its preset form, the Chair rules that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania quali-
fies.
The Clerk will report the motion to re-
commit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. CORBETT moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 8986 to the House Post Office and Civil
Service Committee with instructions to re-
No. 45-15
port it back forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 40, line 6, strike out "$32,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
Page 40, line 9, strike out "$30,500" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$28,000".
Page 40, line 14, strike out "$29,500" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$27,500".
Page 40, line 21, strike out "$28,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$25,000".
Page 40, line 23, strike out "$26,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$24,000".
Page 41, line 8, strike out "$32,500" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
Page 41, line 10, strike out "$45,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$42,500".
Page 41, line 22, strike out "$35,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$32,500".
Page 42, line 10, strike out "$32,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
Page 43, line 7, strike out "$30,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$28,500".
Page 46, line 14, strike out "$29,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,500".
Page 46, line 20, strike out "$28,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$26,500".
Page 47, line 2, strike out "$26,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$25,000".
Page 47, line 6, strike out "$45,000 and
insert in lieu thereof "$12,500".
Page 74, line 14, strike out "$45,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$13,000".
Page 74, line 15, strike out "$45,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$42,500".
Page 74, line 18, strike out "$35,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$32,500".
Page 74, line 21, strike out "$32,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
Page 74, line 22, strike out "$33,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,500".
Page 74, line 25, strike out "$35,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$32,500".
Page 75, line 4, strike out "35,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$32,500".
Page 75, line 7, strike out "$32,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,000".
Page 75, line 13, strike out "$29,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$27,500".
Page 75, line 14, strike out "$28,000" and
insert in lieu thereof "$26,500".
Page 75, line 20, strike out "$28,000" and
Insert in lieu thereof "$26,000".
Page 76, line 3, strike out "$32,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$30,000'.'
Page 76, line 6, strike out "$35,500" and
insert in lieu thereof "$32,500".
Mr. CORBETT (interrupting the read-
ing) . Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be con-
sidered as read. They have been fully
explained and debated.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. Without objection,
the previous question is ordered. -
The question is on the motion to re-
commit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 184, nays 222, not voting 26,
as follows:
]Roll No. 671
YEAS-184
Addabbo Becker Brooks
Albert Bell Broyhill, Va.
Ashley Bennett, Mich. Buckley
Aspinall Blatnik Burke
Auchincloss Boggs Burkhalter
Barrett Bolling B'r'. Calif.
Bates Bow Byrne, Pa.
Cahill
Cameron
Carey
Cellar
Cohelan
Cooley
Corman
Daddario
Daniels
Davis, Ga.
Dawson
Delaney
Dent
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Downing
Dulski
Edwards
Ellsworth
Fallon
Farbstein
Fascell
Feighan
Finnegan
Fine
Flood
Fogarty
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Friedel
Fulton, Pa.
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gary
Giaimo
Gilbert
Gill
Glenn
Gonzalez
Grabowski
Gray
Gubser
Hagen, Calif.
Halpern
Hanna
Hansen
Harding
Hardy
Hawkins
Hays
Healey
Hebert
Hoffman
Holifleld
Abbitt
Abele
Abernethy
Adair
Alger
Anderson
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Arends
Ashbrook
Ashmore
Ayres
Baldwin
Baring
Barry
Beckworth
Beermann
Belcher
Bennett, Fla.
Berry
Betts
Boland
Bolton,
Frances P.
Bolton,
Oliver P.
Bonner
Bray
Brock
Bromwell
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Bruce
Burleson
Rurton, Utah
Byrnes, Wis.
Cannon
Casey
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chelf
Chenoweth
Clancy
Clark
Holland
Horton
Jennings
Joelson
Johnson, Calif.
Karsten
Karth
Kastenmeier
Kee
Kelly
Keogh
King, NY.
Kirwan
Kluczynski
Kunkel
Lankford
Leggett
Lesinski
Libonati
Long, Md.
McCulloch
McDowell
McFall
McMillan
Macdonald
Madden
Mailliard
Martin, Mass.
Matsunaga
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Milliken
Minish
Monagan
Moorhead
Morgan
Morrison
Morse
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murray
Nedzi
Nix
O'Brien, N.Y.
O'Hara, Ill.
O'Hara, Mich.
Olsen, Mont.
O'Neill
Osmers
Ostertag
Passman
Patman
Pepper
Philbin
NAYS--:222
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Collier
Colmer
Conte
Corbett
Cramer
Cunningham
Curtin
Curtis
Dague
Derounian
Derwinski
Devine
Dole
Dorn
Dwyer
Edmondson
Everett
Evins
Findley
Fisher
Flynt
Ford
Foreman
Forrester
Fountain
Fulton, Tenn,
Fuqua
Gathings
Gibbons
Goodell
Goodling
Grant
Griffin
Gross
Grover
Gurney
Hagan, Ga,
Haley
Hall
Halleck
Harris
Harrison
Harsha
Harvey, Ind.
Harvey, Mich.
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9
4969
Pike
Pool
Price
Pucinski
Purcell
Reuss
Rivers, Alaska
Rivers, S.C.
Rodino
Rogers, Colo.
Rooney, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Roosevelt
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roybal
Ryan, Mich.
Ryan, N.Y.
St Germain
St. Onge
Sibal
Sickles
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Staebler
Stafford
Staggers
Stephens
Stratton
Sullivan
Talcott
Thomas
Thompson, La.
Thompson, N.J.
Thompson, Tex
Toll
Trimble
Tupper
Tuten
Udall
Ullman
Van Pelt
Vinson
Wallhauser
Westland
White
Widnall
Willis
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wright
Young
Zablocki
Hechler
Hemphill
Henderson
Herlong
Hoeven
Horan
Hosmer
Huddleston
Hull
Hutchinson
Ichord
Jarman
Jensen
Johansen
Johnson, Pa.
Johnson, Wis.
Jonas
Jones, Ala.
Jones, Mo.
Keith
Kilburn
Kilgore
Knox
Kornegay
Kyl
Laird
Landrum
Langen
Latta
Lennon
Lindsay
Lipscomb
Lloyd
Long, La.
McClory
McDade
McIntire
McLoskey
MacGregor
Mahon
Marsh
Martin, Calif.
Martin, Nebr.
Matthews
May
Miller, N.Y.
Mills
4970 Approved For Wwwgglpai/ja :RyealS'61E19819F000500050001-9 March 12
Minshall
Montoya
Moore
Morris
Morton
Mosher
Natcher
Norblad
O'Konski
Olson, Minn.
Petty
Perkins
Pickle
Pitcher
Pillion
Pirnie
Posse
Poff
Qule
Quillen
Randall
Reid, Ill.
Reid, N.Y.
Reifel
Rhodes, Ariz.
Rhodes, Pa.
Rich
RichMien
Avery
Bass
Battin
Brademas
Brown, Calif.
Clausen,
Don H.
Davis, Tenn.
Denton
Roberts, Tex.
Robison
Rogers, Fla.
Rogers, Tex.
Roudebueh
Roush
Rumsfeld
St. George
Saylor
Schadeberg
Schenck
Schneebell
Schwelker
Schwengel
Secrest
Selden
Benner
Short
Shriver
Sikes
Slier
Skubitz
Smith,
Smith, Va.
Snyder
Springer
Steed
Stinson
Stubblefield
Taft
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Teague. Tex.
Thomson, Wis.
Tollefson
Tuck
Litt
Van DeerIln
Vanik
Waggonner
Watson
Watts
Weaver
Weltner
Whalley
Wharton
Whitener
Whitten
Wickersham
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson, Ind.
Winstead
Wydler
Wyman
Younger
NOT VOTING-25
Dowdy
Duncan
Elliott
Green, Oreg.
Griffiths
King, Calif.
Mathias
Meader
Murphy, N.Y.
Nelsen
O'Sden, Ill
Patten
Powell
Rains
Roberts, Ala
Scott
Sheppard
Shipley
So the bill was rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Brademas for, with Mrs. Griffiths
against.
Mr. King of California for, with Mr. Shipley
against.
Mr. O'Brien of Illinois for, with Mr. Bat-
tin against.
Mr. Scott for. with Mr. Don H. Clausen
against.
Mr. Denton for, with Mr. Davis of Tennes-
see against.
Mr. Powell for, with Mr. Nelsen against,
Mr. Murphy of New York for, with Mr.
Meader against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Brown of California with Mr Dowdy.
Mr. Sheppard with Mr. Roberts of Ala-
bama.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Patten with Mr. Duncan.
Mr. BECKER and Mr. OSTERTAG
changed their vote from "nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
RS above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
' table.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR WEEK
OF MARCH 16
(Mr. BRUCE asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Speaker, may I In-
quire of the majority leader as to the
program for the rest of the week and for
next week as well?
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BRUCE. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. ALBERT. This concludes the
legislative business for this week, and I
will ask unanimous consent to go over
ala the conclusion of announcing the
program.
The program for next week is as fol-
lows:
Monday is Consent Calendar day.
There is one suspension. H.R. 9711, to
amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Tuesday, the Interior Department ap-
propriations bill, 1965.
Wednesday and the balance of the
week:
H.R. 10300, authorizing construction
for the military departments and Reserve
components; and
HR. 5838, amending the Organic Act
of the National Bureau of Standards.
This announcement is made subject to
the usual reservation that conference re-
ports may be called up at any time, and
that any further program will be an-
nounced later.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY,
MARCH 16
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today it adjourn to meet on
Monday next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the business in
order under the Calendar Wednesday
rule may be dispensed with on Wednes-
day next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM STUDY:
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO-ECONO-
MIST CAlt-S FOR RULES FOR THE
CONDUCT OF MONETARY POL-
ICY?TRUSTS CONGRESS RATHER
THAN BANKERS
(Mr. PATMAN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and include extra-
neous matter.)
Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker. the Sub-
committee on Domestic Finance of the
Banking and Currency Committee of the
House has been hearing testimony from
the Nation's most outstanding econo-
mists on the Federal Reserve's structure
ami policies. What, the Federal Reserve
does has effects on employment, prices,
business profits, interest rates, gross na-
tional product, and other economic vari-
ables. It is, therefore, of utmost impor-
tance for all of us to be as informed as
possible about the Federal Reserve's
structure and policies.
On Tuesday. March 3, Prof. Milton
Friedman, the Paul Snowden Russell dis-
tinguished service professor of economics
at the University of Chicago. testified be-
fore the subcommittee. Professor Fried-
man has made path-breaking contribu-
tions to our knowledge of the Nation's
money system and the effects of mone-
tary policy on the economy's perform-
ance. His work has commanded the at-
tention of all economists, and though
they do not all agree with everything he
says, they have paid all of it attention.
Both before and after Professor Fried-
man's appearance before the subcommit-
tee, other witnesses spent considerable
time commenting on his ideas. Professor
Friedman is known as a conservative
economist. I do not agree with all of his
ideas. but I found much of Professor
Friedman's tesi imony to be eminently
sensible and all of it worth careful con-
sideration. Excerpts from his state-
ments and remarks follow:
EXCERPTS FROM "SHOULD THERE BE AN INDE-
PENDENT MONETARY AITTHORTTY," BY PRO-
FESSOR FRIEDMAN
Central bankers ? ? ? have tended to at-
tach great importance to stability of the ex-
change rate ? ? ? and prevention of infla-
tion. They have therefore tended to oppose
many of the proposals for extending the scope
of government. This coincidence of their
views in these respects with those of people
like myself. who regard narrowly limited gov-
ernment as a requisite for a free society, is
the source of much of the sympathy on the
part of this group, whom I shall call new
liberals, for the notion of an independent
central bank.
One defect of an independent central bank
? ? ? is that it almost inevitably involves
dispersal of responsibility. If we examine
the monetary system in terms not of nom-
inal institutional organization but of the eco-
nomic functions performed, we find that the
central bank is hardly ever the only authority
In the Government that has essential mone-
tary powers. ? - ? In practice, therefore,
even if something called an independent
central bank is established * ? ? there re-
mains other governmental authorities, par-
ticularly the fiscal authority collecting taxes
and dispersing funds and managing the debt,
which also haae a good deal of monetary
power. ? ? ? Our present division of respon-
sibility for debt management between the
Federal Reserve and the Treasury is very
inefficient. ? ? ? In the past few years, I
have read through the annual reports of the
Federal Reserve System from 1913 to date,
seriatim. On of the few amusing dividends
from that ordeal was seeing the cyclical pat-
tern that shows un in the potency that the
authorities attribute to monetary poLcy. In
years when things are going well, the reports
emphasize that monetary policy is an exceed-
ingly potent war pm and that the favorable
course of eventf, is largely a result of the
skillful handling of this delicate instrument
by the monetary authority. In years of de-
pression, on the other hand, the reports em-
phasize that monetary policy is but one of
many tools of economic policy, that its power
is highly limited, and that it was only the
skillful handling of such limited powers as
were available that averted disaster. This
1R an example of the effect of the dispersal
of responsibilits ? * ? no one assumes or
is assigned the r nal responsibility.
Another defect of the conduct of monetary
policy through an independent central bank
that has a good deal of leeway and power
is the extent to which policy is thereby made
highly dependent on personalities. In study-
ing the history of American monetary pol-
icy, I have been struck by the,extracrdinary
importance of accidents of personality.
? ? ? A similar situation prevails today. The
actions of the Reserve System depend on
whether there are a few persons in the Sys-
tem who exert intellectual leadership.
A third technical defect is that an inde-
pendent central bank will almost inevitably
give undue emphasis to the point of view of
bankers ? ? ? since the banking con-.munity
Approved For Release 2005/05/18 : CIA-RDP66600403R000500050001-9