FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PAY COMPARABILITY SYSTEM--CONFERENCE REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: December 30, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

4
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040007,0
S21560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
I cannot believe that this body would
ever eliminate the sugar program-or
any other commodity program on the
basis of whims so frequently and so ca-
priciously expressed by critics who really
wish to destroy merely for the sake of
destruction.
December.` 30, 1970
The bill
subject to e eneral schedule, the For-
e ice schedule, an a sc e-
ulle and authorizes increases or em-
ployees who are pai under nons a u of
FFEDERAL sa ar sche s oes no ap y to
EMPLOYEE PAY C'GMPAR-` employees in the postal field. It does not
apply to employees in the blue collar
ABILITY SYSTEM-CONFERENCE a a r.
prevailing rates.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I submit The initial adjustment that
a report of the committee of conference pdssiole Tor
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 13000) to implement the
Federal employee pay comparability sys-
tem, to establish a Federal Employee
Salary Commission and a Board. of Ar-
bitration, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent for the pres-
ent consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there objection to the pres-
ent consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of December 9, 1970, pages
H11351-H11357, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, this legis-
lation now before the Senate, I want to
ary 1,1971,
ary 1,1972. Ther eafter, after that second
adjustment, it would go back to the reg-
ularly ohedthat~ luds n
foaber er I or a aTlustment eaoh year.
By moving the date to October, the data
from private enterprise would be about
3 months behind the time; but that is
compared with 8, 10, or 12 months now.
We think that is about as close to
the mark as we can come. There are
two or three other provisions in the bill
of a minor nature which have the ap-
proval of the administration and have
been considered by the House on earlier
occasions in the past.
is negligible and applies to a very tiny
number of employees.
The bill also add? 20 super rade s j o
the pool admin s ere y e Civil Serv-
lee ommiss gives five super-
meta s .' --LIVILIT ----- - CMT15aria
ii-tor ec er em vees_ This is a prin-
cip a legislated by this body a good many
years ago. Now we are simply trying to
translate that principle into a fact of
life.
The legislation rovides fora perman-
ent system to adjust. a sa aries of tine
civi service employees ment on an annual basis ifi accordant
witn Me pEPIC-R17 o a om ara ili 'Ir
got out in al Emulovees Salary
adopted, 4he President would make an-
nual adjustments, effective rent
on cto e
a C~y year, On tF aT~ sis o3' recommen a-
ions submitted by the civil service Com
?fhisssio a c mTie Office of Management
ininthe rivate secto mould consider
e views o t e ederal Employee ay
Council, ma a up o reprev em
1 r anizations and he would con-
S1Ller the views of an advisory committee
to the President on Federal a
If for reasons of national emergency,
inflation, or whatever other conditions,
the President should determine on a pay
adjustment other than that recom-
mended by the advisers, he would have
the option of submitting an alternate
proposal.
Such a proposal would be submitted
to Con ress s ect to~FiZ a prova of
el er withiri-M a,va.
e matter would be highly privileged
under the rules of House and Senate, and
if either House disapproved, the Presi-
.states. --
`-"2Tie onference report represents an
agreement for permanent salary legis-
lation developed by Members of the
House and Senate in cooperation with
the executive branch. I stress that. We
had some differences across-the-board
in seeking some Federal mechanism that
would be equitable, but ehaay d
Ot this position with the White arrived
w-th the Civil er ss on and
wi e unarME o - er amp on,
We in a i is a close, again,
as we can come to a workable mecha-
nism for achieving this goal. The pay
of the employees of Congress is also
included in this bill.
I. want A o say a word about that, so
that there will be no misunderstanding.
After the President makes the adjust-
ment in salaries each year, the Presi-
dent pro tempore of the Senate is di-
rected to issue an order implementing
similar salary increases for employees of
the Senate. The President pro tempore
would have very broad authority to in-
crease salaries and salary limitations, or
make exclusions or modifications as he
sees fit, and to delegate to Senators as
committee chairmen and other officers of
the Senate who have appointive author-
ity as well, to make such salary adjust-
ments, if that is their judgment. average of 6.2 percent behind those in pri-
In other words, this is not automatic, vate industry.
in terms of Senate employees or corn- Should H.R. 13000 be enacted and the
mittee employees. President order a 6 percent Federal salary in-
se , 1971, the President, I ask unanimous con- cal creaYearfor 1971ucostl would be approximately
sent to have
printed in the RECORD a $500 million. By authorization of Public iic Law
w
make would_
(Mr. FONG).
There being no objection, the state-
ment of Senator FONG ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
FEDERAL PAY COMPARABILITY ACT or 1970
(Statement of Senator FONG)
Mr. President, I urge Senate approval of
the conference report on H.R. 13000, the Fed-
eral Pay Comparability Act of 1970.
Enactment of this legislation would put
into effect a permanent system for setting the
pay of Federal statutory-salaried employ-
ees. It also includes authorization for pay
increases for employees of the Congress of
the United States, and the judicial branch.
Consideration of similar proposals have
been presented to the Senate Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service in the past.
However, this is the first time that agree-
ment on such legislation has been reached
among members of both the Senate and
House Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittees, the Administration and Federal
employee groups.
It is a far. reaching plan and one which
I believe has great merit.
The comparability principle as enacted in
1962 for Federal salaries continues as the
basis for pay increases.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will con-
tinue to take annual surveys of pay in pri-
vate industry. These statistics together with
pay comparisons for similar work in the Fed-
eral government will be forwarded an to the
Civil Service Commission, as is being done
now. However, it is at this point that this
measure makes its reforms.
The proposal now before us would give
the President of the United States authority
to put into effect without congressional ac-
tion salary increases recommended by an
agent which he would designate. The agent's
recommendations would be made after re-
viewing the Bureau of Labor Statistics' sur-
vey results and consulting with a Federal
Employees Pay Council.
Presently, the Congress must pass affirma-
tive legislation giving Federal employees pay
increases.
Under this legislation the President is also
authorized to establish a 3-member Advisory
Committee on Federal Pay. The Committee,
composed of non-government members,
would review the recommendations of the
President's agent and would make recom-
mendations of its own to improve the sys-
tem for establishing Federal salaries.
The President is also required to submit
annually to the Congress a report on Fed-
eral pay increases together with the recom-
mendations of his agent and the Advisory
Committee on Federal Pay.
In any year, should the President decide
for national economy or emergency reasons
that the recommendations of his agent are
not in the best interests of the country he
must submit to the Congress an alternative
pay plan. Should either House of the Con-
gress disapprove within 30 days the alterna-
tive plan the President would then have
to implement by October 1 of that year the
pay recommendations of his agent.
The procedures I have just outlined will go
into effect beginning October 1, 1972. Prior to
that time the President is authorized to ef-
fectuate Federal pay increases on January 1,
1971 and January 1, 1972 based on Bureau of
Labor Statistics surveys for 1970 and 1971,
respectively.
According to the latest BLS statistics just
released Federal salaries are now lagging an
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 30, 197, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 21559
AGRICULTURE---SUG .1 HISTORY lion of the 300 million acres of cropland also permitted our domestic producers to
. HOLLAND. Mr. Pi sduring we farm each year, and these exports market additional sugar. Shortly after
Mrtime . the Mr. H I have served Pit- ' he i sident, i Senate our play a crucial part in feeding the hungry, this was done the strike was led and
keeping the peace, and promoting inter- the increased sugar avail le to the
world hds changed with i .redible speed, .national trade. market resulted in depre ed prices to
so much that perhaps the most dis- Instead of gratitude, this record earns the sugar producers. A;Mer conferring
tressing trend of the tine i is the loss of .more and more contempt. Agriculture's , with the Secretary and,: tither USDA of-
continuity experienced b Americans in critics dislike farm programs and ha- ficials. I recommended that provisions
general. Tried and prove i methods re- bitually characterize farmers as the all- be put into effect which restrict the
ccive less and le.% appr- ation of their time champion subsidy recipients, the amount of sugar imported in the United
value; we crave what is ew simply be- facts notwithstanding. States during the, first 6 months of the
cause it is new: vi ev n discuss our certainly the farm programs are not year. Such a limitation. If imposed, would
haritage today almost e: irely in terms perfect, but the strides they have enabled result in a rise in raw sugar prices
of "Where did we begin o go wrong?". Us to make far outweigh their irnperfec- equivalent to that deemed in the act as
Nowhere has the chan? ~ been greater tions. . fair to domestic producers. The recom-
than in agriculture, yet t dpy the coun- My purpose is not to defend farm pro- mendation was followed and prices have
try as a whole no longs- seams to take grams, It is to alert you to the dangers Improved.
pride in our achievemen in hots field- inherent. in this trend. This is an example of how a compli-
achievements that place s mai>,y, many There are a great many different kinds cated program, when properly operated,
years in front of our nea- it competitors. of farm programs and you are already functions-it works smoothly.
In fact it is quite th= contrary; one familiar with the major features of most The built-in features of this program
of the favorite pastime>, that we hive of them. During this session we have should be changed to permit an upward
is to criticize farmers, iii 3 especiallyV passed programs for some of the major 'adjustment in the quota for mainland
criticize farm programs have watched farm commodities for a 3-year period. cane growers; it is an adjustment that
this trend closely in rec tI years. and I\ Other commodities have permanent should be made. Presently, these growers
am alarmed at the amaz 1 , rate at which islative authority. Still others must are the only domestic producers operat-
it has grown during tht years I have considered next year. Each of these Ing under quota restrictions. In fact, their
served as chairman of e Subeommit- prdtrams intimately affects the economic permitted acreage is much less than what
tee on Agricultural Appi -priations. and well`qeing of the areas in which the par- they grew more than 6 years ago when
as a ranking member cer the legislative ticulai crop affected is grown. For ex- they were encouraged by our Govern-
Committee on Agricultur and Forestry. ample.\)ne major farm program of par- meat to expand rapidly because of the
Now I am in my last w~ = t of service in ticular iigportance to my home State, to Cuban crisis.
the Senate after more han 24 years other producing areas and to all con- Certainly their acreage should be as
work in this Chamber, a d I find this a sumers will be considered by the Con- large today as it was when.they were
fitting occasion first to ! ank especially gress during,1971. This pr4ram is per- 'asked-and when they responded-to
those Senators, staff met bers, Members haps more fr uently critittfzed and more meet an urgent national objective. Up-
of the other body and embers of the frequently m understood. than any ward adjustment on quota should go
executive department w i whom I have .other. I refer to the Sugar Act which will along with more acreage.
worked so closely over the years-to be reviewed and bopetully renewed the With all the efforts expended to give
thank them not only fc . their coopera- next legislative sfisslon. In origin this us an adequate domestic supply of this
tion, but more importann ly for the tze act dates back to g time long before I necessary staple it is still a program for
mendous contributions to agriculture came to the Senate,' and was designed a deficit commodity producing only 55
that they have helped make possible. by Congress to protect the welfare of percent of the total consumption of sugar
Former Agriculture Si :retary Orville consumers, that of the domestic sugar- consumed in the United States and re-
Freeman once describeci he work of the producing industry* quiring the importation of the remain-
American farmer as "a :r ddern miracle." The act has accomplished both pur- ing sugar requirements of the Nation.
I believe it is an apt des'- ption, but fear poses, yet it too is continually singled out This is the example of one program
that far too few people eally recognize for criticism. Consider the fact that con- involving one commodity of strategic
and understand its si?'i ficance. sumers have had guaranteed supplies at importance, and I predict that next year
Consider the great a'-t ievements that reasonable prices, producers have )e- . this same program will be both criticized
are now taken for grar- ?d with almost cetvedTair prices for sugar produ ed and and condemned when it comes up for
breathtaking ease: our ehport trade has benefited. Inaddi- consideration before this body.
Our farmers have mt the challenge tion, I note that sugar prices in relation on will
o of f thm pro-
of a 16.7 percent popula- n increase over to per capita disposable income hltve center Undoubtedly much features the criticism
that
the past decade by prod :ing 20 percent risen only 40 percent-using the years gram. An gain n I reiterate the 'point that
more food and fiber. 1935-39 as a base-while all foods are uA Again
They produced that n ~ clr on 6 percent about 90 percent for the same period. , the sugar program has more than paid
fewer acres. Consider also the fact that the entire .its own way in the past, and will con-
Consider
scant 10 years ago ne farmworkfr cost for this program has been financed t4nue to do so in the future. years addition,
fed himself and 23 other : today he pro- through the excise tax on sugar imposed it P significant that for years this pro-
vides more than enough or himself and at the rate of 50 cents per 100 pounds gi has operated smoothly with a lim-
43 others or 20 more per ens than he did raw value. Moreover, during the 35-year itatl+Qn on payments in effect. Designed
in 1960. What an incre=i ble record. But life of the program excise tax collections a means of assisting the smaller pro-
the really incredible per is that hardly paid into the II S. Treasury have totaled ducer,' this provision permits a mail-
e
pounds
anyone really appreciat? it. Ask the first $500 million more than actual program for mum p thos cof 80 ig 350 tons cents per or r 100 less. . The
person you meet to nant, the)tirgest em- costs. aymente Irodu ale
ployer in the Nation. v are'than likely The basic objectives of the Sugar Act rate of pa ens is ss scaled down at various
the answer will be auto; . steel, or utili- are: first, to make sure that we have for pp to aroduceera rs of 30 cents 100 pounds
ties. The correct ansvat agriculture- enough sugar: second, that prices paid by for , of more than an 30000 tons.
usually earns a look of isbelief. Never- consumers are reasonable: and, third, I hope-in hict I feel confident-that
theless, it is true and ti.n disbelief makes that our domestic producers receive a my colleagues i respond to criticism
it nonetheless significann fair return for the sugar they produce. of this vital progm, no matter how vo-
Agriculture employs million work- Each of the components necessary to cal it may become \ on the basis of how
erg-that is morethw the combined make sure that these crucial objectives well the program h1s functioned in the
total for transportation public utilities, are met is provided for in the legislation. past. In that event it will continuo in
.~..,...~ss.... ...,A n...vNr,Ym working -All
I
n fo , some
dustry. Jeopardized this past summer for certain Otherwise, we will , e
Agriculture creates tL .e out of 10 jobs sections of the country by a strike. Sec- tough times.
in private employment retary Hardin increased the consumption The important point is that the critics
Today our farmers a ~3 exporting the estimate which permitted additional im- only criticize; they are says "fresh
production from appre : mately 78 mil- ports of sugar from foreign suppliers and out" of workable alternatives.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 December 3U;pyf%yd For RV.I ax?fWRJ, CJ~- ll72-OWW400070011-6
90-207, military personnel would automati-
cally receive a similar pay increase costing a
little over $600 million for Fiscal Year 1971.
In no case shall a salary affected by this
measure be increased above that of Executive
Level V, which is now $36,000 per annum.
Employees of the legislative and judicial
branches would be subject to pay increase
orders issued by the appropriate heads of
those bodies, following the lead of the Presi-
dent's for the executive branch.
The new procedures required by H.R. 13000
would drastically reduce the long time lags
that are built into the present Federal salary
comparability system. By giving the Presi-
dent the authority to increase pay for Fed-
eral employees the time lag would be cut
from the normal year and a half we now ex-
perience to about six months. At the same
time it retains for Congress the ultimate de-
cision for putting increases into effect should
the President decide against comparability
pay adjustments.
The bill also contains some other minor
provisions affecting very small groups of Fed-
eral workers and would cost not more than
$100,000 a year. These other provisions have
been reviewed by the Civil Service Commis-
sion and they fully support enactment of
these provisions as well as the new Federal
pay setting procedure contained in the main
part of H.R. 13000.
I would also like to point out to my col-
leagues that except for minor changes the
proposal now before the Senate is the same as
that which I introduced as S. 4270 earlier this
year.
I have been a member of the. Senate Post
Office and Civil Service Committee now for
eleven years and have had the privilege of
working on every Federal pay bill enacted
since 1960. Based on my experience in this
area I believe that H.R. 13000 as now pre-
sented to us is a very good bill. I am con-
vinced it is in the best interests of the Fed-
eral service and Federal employees. I am
hopeful that the Senate will approve this
conference report so that it can be sent to
the House of Representatives for similar ac-
tion before we adjourn sine die this year.
-SUMMARY, FEDERAL SALARY BILLS, 1960-70
85-568--------------------- July
1,1960
17.5
87-793 ---------------------- Oct.
11,1962
25.5
Jan.
1, 1964
4.1
88-426---------------------- July
1, 1964
4.2
89-301-------e-------------- Oct.
1, 1965
3.6
89-504---------------------- July
1, 1966
2.9
90-206---------------------- Oct.
1, 1967
4.5
July
1, 1968
7.0
Jana
1, 1969
7.0
91-231---------------------- Dec.
27, 19693
+6.0
Total-----------------------------
1 Over President's veto.
2 Comparability principle adopted.
a Based on June 1969 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures.
4In Postal Reform Act-8 percent more than what other
cla ssified got Aug. 12, 1970.
H.R. 13000 authorizes the President to ef-
fectuate a pay increase on January 1, 1971.
The June, 1970, Bureau of Labor Statistics
survey shows Federal salaries an average of
6.2% behind private industry. A 6% pay in-
crease effective January 1, 1971, would cost
an estimated $500 million for the last half
of Fiscal Year 1971 (Jan. to June 30) for
civilians and a little over $500 million for the
military. Civil Service Commission advises
this increase has been included in the 1971
budget.
June 1970 BLS figures gotten between Mar.
and Sept. 1970. So this would be a lag period
of 6 months instead of almost a year to a year
and a half when bill is enacted. Under this
procedure lag would be 6 months or less.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Wyoming yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the term "employ-
ees" here on the Hill apply to employees
in our offices?
Mr. McGEE. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. So that the President pro
tempore may fix the maximum and mini-
mum salaries for them?
Mr. McGEE. The Senator would have
the authority either to say yes or no
whether it applies to one of his employ-
ees, but the range in which it applies,
that is, to the level of the employment,
would be determined by the President pro
tempore.
Mr. AIKEN. The President pro tempore
could say that the salary of a senatorial
office employee may be a minimum of
$3,000 or a maximum of, say, $60,000 or
$70,000. Would he have the right to do
that?
Mr. McGEE. The maximum allowed
here under title 5 would be $36,000 at the
present time.
Mr. AIKEN. This would require a vote
of one House or the other?
Mr. McGEE. That chapter would not
require a vote of the Houses. That is'up
to the individual Senator, or the com-
mittee chairman, whether that is to be
allowed or disallowed for a particular
employee. But the range would be set by
the President pro tempore.
Mr. AIKEN. At the same time, the
President pro tempore would set the
maximum of $36,000 a year?
Mr. McGEE. That is set in the legisla-
tion.
Mr. AIKEN. Had this law been in
effect 2 years ago, how would it have
affected the salaries of Members of the
Senate?
I believe that the Presidential Com-
mission on Executive, Legislative, and
Judicial Salaries recommended $50,000
a year, and through some mechanisms
here in the Senate, it was reduced to
$42,500. Inflation was then on its way.
We could not stop it any longer.
Mr. McGEE. I think it could not have
been stopped. It had very little relevance
to that.
Mr. AIKEN. Could the people down-
town fix our salaries?
Mr, McGEE. No. This was set when
the Senate adjusted its own salaries, and
the decision is retained in its committees.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the bill provide for
debate on any proposals which are made
for the salaries of people working on the
Hill?
Mr. McGEE. Not in terms of the range
of those salaries.
Mr. AIKEN. Does it provide for debate?
Mr. McGEE. No.
Mr. AIKEN. In other words, we turn
it over to the executive branch.
Mr. McGEE. To the President pro tem-
pore of the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. The President pro tem.-
pore estimates what these salaries should
be. Are they on a comparable level with
the salaries which are fixed for the
executive branch?
Mr. McGEE. They would be compa-
rable with the salaries fixed by the ad-
visory board to the President for Federal
employees. And that salary is fixed in
the legislation at $36,000 as far as its
application here is concerned.
S 21561
Mr. AIKEN. Are the decisions and
actions of the President pro tempore sub-
ject to debate on the Senate floor?
Mr. McGEE. No. It is simply delegating
the authority. What we try to do is re-
move as far as is feasible the involvement
of Congress in lobbying operations af-
feeting pay.
Mr. AIKEN. I do not have my report
of the committee with me. However, it
seems to me that there are some actions
which are subject to debate and that the
conferees limit the debate to 2 hours.
Do I understand correctly?
Mr. McGEE. I am advised that is not
true. For the last couple of years this has
been the case.
Mr. AIKEN. But if it did limit debate,
would that be infringing on the Senate's
right to make its own rules or is the
Senate delegating the rulemaking au-
thority to the President pro tempore?
Mr. McGEE. This would be the for-
mula of the law setting salaries for
Federal employees. It would regard the
Senate employees as Federal employees.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, for the next
2 years would the President pro tempore
be elected by the Senate or designated by
the Vice President?
Mr. McGEE. He is selected, however
he is selected now. There is no change
in the procedure.
Mr. AIKEN. I plead ignorance, too.
How is he elected now?
Mr. McGEE. The President pro
tempore of the Senate is elected, I pre-
sume, by the majority.
Mr. AIKEN. I was wondering if our
present Vice President would take over
the Senate and fix its rules.
Mr. McGEE. I would yield to the Par-
liamentarian on that as the Senate
historian.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I do not
doubt that our present Vice President
would do an excellent job. There may be
some who would not agree with me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). The President pro tempore is
elected by the Senate. If for some reason
one is removed, the Senate through its
own procedure selects the replacement.
Mr. McGEE. The present procedure
is that the majority party in the Senate
would select the President pro tempore.
In fact, he generally is the senior mem-
ber of the majority party.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He is
elected by the majority of the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, suppose
that I were to join the Democratic Party.
Would I then be the President pro tem-
pore?
Mr. McGEE. That would be a circum-
stance under which we would be de-
lighted,
Mr. AIKEN. I was just wondering if
under those circumstances I could take
over the Senate.
Mr. McGEE. The selection is made
by the majority of the Senate, not the
Vice President, who is the President of
the Senate.
Mr. AIKEN. But they select the senior
member. I would have to yield to Sena-
tor ELLENDER, anyway. He is my senior.
Mr. McGEE. That is only the custom.
The majority makes the decision and the
majority can remove.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040 0700 1-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE eeern er 30, 1970
Mr. AIKEN. No."' that I have been
fully informed as `~- the bill, I have no
more questions.
Mr. PASTORE. l:l . President, will the
senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yi( .
Mr. PASTORE. Ri President, do I un-
derstand the Sena` correctly that the
President pro tenll? -e does not initiate
this action and nev er does the Senate.
The President pro ?mpore has to wait
for the President t,, tsk for it.
M tr. McGEE. Thor enator is correct.
Tr. PASTORE. V^. have to wait for the
President to act b, )re the elected offi-
cial of the Senate in act.
Mr. McGEE. In r , -ms of the range of
the pay scale. Thl is simply the pro-
posal.
Mr. PASTORE. l; t can the President
pro tempore go bey d the recommenda-
tions of the Presid; it or go under the
recommendations r the President? As I
understood the Sera; :or. he can only say
"Yes" or "No."
Mr. McGEE. I a:? advised that under
the legislation the F esident pro tempore
would have broad r ithority to apply it
to the employees of he Senate.
Mr. PASTORE. i apply what?
Mr. MCGEE, T. increase that the
President had api ed to Federal em-
ployees, in the sane proportions.
Mr. PASTORE. " herefore the Presi-
dent pro tempore c< aid never move un-
less the action had first come from the
President.
Mr. McGEE. No. i herwise there would
have been no salary increase for Federal
employees.
Mr. PASTORE. ' - -1 en what are we dele-
gating to the Pres. 'nt pro tempore?
Mr. McGEE. Thr ecislon as to wheth-
er he would increr. or not increase the
salaries.
Mr. PASTORE. .s recommended by
the President?
Mr. McGEE. As commended by the
President.
Mr. PASTORE. t ut he has no right
to increase or dec: ase or do anything
unless the Presider. acted?
Mr. McGEE. Ur;, is the other salaries
were going up.
Mr. PASTORE. r. President. step by
step I think we are wing away the func-
tion and responsibi ity of the Senate of
the United States.
Mr. TALMADG t Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yi' I.
Mr. TALMADG Mr. President, with
reference to the e: stions asked by the
Senator from Vera ant and the Senator
from Rhode Islanc . I refer to page 8
of the conference port, paragraph (b),
and I read therefro
The adlustments ade by the president
pro tempore shall t- made In such manner
as he considers adv: ole and shall have the
force and effect of la
Will the Senat clarify that? That
gives the Presiding :)Mcer of the Senate
extremely broad el hority, as I see it.
Mr. McGEE. Not the President of the
Senate. the Presic;' it pro tempore, who
is elected by the ma arity.
Mr. TALMADGF The Senator is cor-
rect. The Presider' pro tempore is what
I meant to say.
Air. McGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. Does that mean that
he can reach into a Senator's office and
take out a secretary and raise her salary?
Mr. MCGEE. He cannot touch a Sen-
ator's office. This applies to the employees
of the Senate, not to the employees of a
Senator.
Mr. TALMADGE. What about the em-
ployees of a Senate committee?
Mr. MCGEE. The money available for
the salary limitations is available. But
whether that is applied by the Senator
to his employees is his business as Sen-
ator. The money is made available in the
Senator's allocation.
Mr. TALMADGE. Getting specific now,
would this authorize the President pro
tempore to raise the chief of staff of the
Finance Committee, in his discretion?
Mr. McGEE. The chairman of the Fin-
ance Committee would have the jurisdic-
tion for that decision.
Mr. TALMADGE. In other words, the
President pro tempore then could not
fix the specific salaries of members of
the committee staffs?
Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. Is that what the
Senator was saying?
Mr. MCGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. And the Senator has
also said that the President pro tempore
would not have authority to fix specific
salaries in a Senator's office.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. Suppose that the
Presidential Commission and the Presi-
dent recommended a 5-percent salary
hike for employees. Then the President
pro tempore would have authority, as I
understand It, under section (b), to grant
it to Senate employees or to withhold it
or make it 3.5 percent if he saw fit.
Mr. MCGEE. The question concerns
employees of the Senate who are not on
any Senator's committee and who are not
on any Senator's staff. Then the Presi-
dent pro tempore has broad authority to
make that decision.
Mr. TALMADGE. If the President rec-
ornmended a pay raise, the President pro
tempore could make it zero or could make
it 21,~ percent or make it 5 percent or 10
percent in his discretion. Am I correct
in my understanding?
Mr. McGEE. With a general increase
for Federal employees, the President pro
ten pore complies. The separation comes
with the staff members of the Senate
committees and the Senator's staff mem-
bers. Otherwise the application would
apply automatically under the judgment
of the President. Let us say it is 5 per-
cent to Senate employees-not Senate
committee employees or staff members.
Mr. TALMADGE. Then, I am still con-
fused. I might say. The Senator has
stated that the chairman of the commit-
tee would have the authority to fix the
salaries of the staff of the committee.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator has
further stated that individual Senators
would, as now, fix the salaries of the
staff people in their own offices. I under-
stand that would leave the President pro
tempore with the authority to make such
salary increases or not make them, as
he saw fit, to employees of the Senate
proper. Do I correctly understand that?
Mr. McGEE. Anyone not under a
jurisdiction. For instance, we have the
Sergeant at Arms, who has his employ-
ees, and we have the Architect of the
Capitol, who has his employees.
Mr. TALMADGE. That is right.
Mr. McGEE. They would have the de-
cision as to whether to apply it in their
cases.
Mr. TALMADGE. Am I correct in say-
ing the President pro tempore could au-
thorize it and the individual Senator or
chairman of the committee would deter-
mine whether or not it would be applica-
ble?
Mr. McGEE. That is precisely it.
Mr. TALMADGE, I thank the Senator
for clarfying the matter, because I
thought it was somewhat confusing.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Could the Senator
clarify something for me? Forget the
legislative employees for the moment.
Can the Senator tell me how many em-
ployees, percentagewise, we are talking
about?
Mr. McGEE. About one-half of the
civilian employees of the Government.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Let me make sure
I understand. The President sets up this
Council. It makes recommendations as
to what the salary level should be.
Mr. MCGEE. What the comparability
figure might be.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Very well. Does that
mean they establish what the pay scale
should be?
Mr. McGEE. Yes. The Civil Service
Commission actually makes the recom-
mendation.
Mr. PACKWOOD. To the President?
Mr. MCGEE. To the President. But this
is in consultation with the Bureau of the
Budget, and the Employee Advisory
Council will be consulted on it. But the
recommendation to the President is made
by the Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission.
Mr. PACKWOOD. What about the
recommendation from the Advisory
Council? The recommendation is made
by the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. MCGEE. Yes.
Mr. PACKWOOD. And the President
has the choice at that stage to either
submit it to us or an alternative?
Mr. McGEE. He does not submit it to
us ever unless he rejects the recommen-
dation.
Mr. PACKWOOD. That is what I was
afraid of.
Mr. McGEE. If the recommendation is
that there should be a 5-percent adjust-
ment because of rising costs, whatever it
is, this becomes the automatic increase
for those Federal employees on October 1
of that year. If the President decides that
is too much because of the times or be-
cause of some national emergency that it
should not be allowed at all, and he so
decides, in that case it has to be bucked
back to Congress for both Houses for
judgment, and either House can decide
to take it.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I wish to pursue
this matter further. This commission, the
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 December 3U,pyr90ed For Release CRESSIONALCRECORD - SENATE 400070011-6 S 21563
Civil Service Commission, or whatever,
finally made the recommendation to the
President that there should.be a 10-per-
cent wage hike. At that stage that auto-
matically becomes the pay scale. We do
not veto that.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If he makes an
alternative recommendation that is sent
to Congress and either House may veto
it; but if they do, the other one auto-
matically goes into effect. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. McGEE. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If we are now in an
election year and the President suggests
there should be a 25-percent hike in
salaries-and this is his own recom-
mendation-instead of the 12 percent
recommendation suggested, Congress is
stuck with two alternatives, either 25
percent or 12 percent. Then, the Presi-
dent is in a position to say, "I recom-
mended the 25 percent and that nig-
gardly Congress turned it down." We
have to raise the money. But we have
no alternative as to what it should be.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator's illustration
carries the matter to a very extreme
and most improbable situation. The prob-
lem now has been that in an election
year Congress has been on the spot to
provide a salary increase across the
board for Federal employees for obvious
reasons. We have sought a way, if we can,
to keep Congress from being the object
of the lobbying business, particularly
in an election year.
However, we could not get them out
completely, or get the President out as
long as we have elections, but this re-
moves it to a degree.
Mr. PACKWOOD. How does com a-
bility work now? What commission does
M110 recommends it?
Mr. McGEE. e Bureau of Labor
Statistics submits its- reading n com
lid . i a rea ing E--t0 12
months e m
WOOD. That is submitted to
Congress?
Mr. McGEE. o the Pr siaent.
Mr. PACKW D. The President. Do
they automatically have the force of
law if the President submits them to us?
Mr. McGEE. The last 3 years it has
been automatic once that reading was
supplied. But it would not necessarily be
automatic. That has been a coincidence.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Explain that to me
again. I am not sure I understand that.
Mr. McGEE. For the last 3 years, be-
ginning in 1967, when the Bureau of La-
bor Statistics made its reading public,
this automatically was applied on a com-
parability basis.
Mr. PACKWOOD..And that increase
went into effect without any legislative
action at all.
Mr. McGEE. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I do not understand.
All we are doing is transferring it from
one agency to another if we do not act at
the moment on the salaries.
Mr. PACKWOOD. It is not done pro-
fessionally now?
Mr. McGEE. It is open to question. This
would use the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and the Bureau of the Budget would be
involved, and the labor-employee group
would be consulted.
Mr. PACKWOOD. We argued for 3
months out of this year whether the Pres
ident should have all kinds of power in
connection with foreign relations and
here in one fell swoop we give him power
over $15 or $20 billion a year; and we
have misgivings about when he chooses
between the recommendations of his
council and we are stuck and have no
choice of our own.
Mr. McGEE. It seemed to the commit-
tee the advantage for this was the mech-
anism for carrying out the policy of Con-
gress in trying to arrive at the way in
which comparability was reached.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Why do we not carry
it out?
Mr. McGEE. We have, in a way, but it
has been sporadic and in accordance with
the ups and downs of election dates. To
this extent it has not been even and often
lagged in some categories where the real-
ities would have recommended otherwise.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Were the hearings
printed?
Mr. McGEE. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. When were the hearings
held?
Mr. McGEE. It would have been in late
August.
Mr. AIKEN. Of last year?
Mr. McGEE. A year ago.
Mr. AIKEN. 1969.
Mr. McGEE. I thought it was August
or September.
Mr. AIKEN. I had not heard anything
about the bill being considered.
Mr. McGEE. It was considered and
passed by this body. This is a conference
report, not new legislation.
Mr. AIKEN. Apparently it was passed
at Christmas time last year.
Mr. McGEE. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. It would be a wonderful
Christmas present if it goes through, to
a few people, but as to the rest of us I am
not sure.
Mr. McGEE. I think the emphasis of
it is the mechanism.
Mr. AIKEN. When we agreed to per-
mit our salaries to be raised 41 percent,
we were not in a very good position to
hold down others. In the absence of Sen-
ator RUSELL, who is ill, ALLEN ELLENDER
would be the acting dictator of the Sen-
ate. If we have to have one, I would
rather have him than anyone else I could
think of.
Mr. McGEE. He does not want to be
one.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. Pres-
ident, will the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Do I
reject the one the President sent, we
automatically approve the other?
Mr. McGEE. That is correct. But we
do not give up our right to legislate.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It seems
to me we are indicating that we are giv-
ing it up. Under the previous plan, which
some of us objected to, we had a com-
mission appointed that would send a
recommendation down, but if we rejected
that recommendation, nothing went into
effect. It seems to me they are safeguard-
ing here against the fact that Congress
may want to reject one of these.
Suppose, for example, the commission
recommended 20 percent and the Presi-
dent went down to 15. percent and the
Congress felt we could not afford any-
thing but 10 percent. We would have to
accept the President's recommendation;
otherwise we would be taking 20 percent.
Mr. McGEE. No. The Senate could pass
a law.
Mr.?WILLIAMS of Delaware. We could
repeal that law, but if we are going to
repeal the law to exercise our rights, why
do we not just enact the law and then
pass an original bill? My point is that
if the Senate rejected the recommenda-
tion of the President which was 15 per-
cent, because it was too high, it would'
already have approved the 20 percent.
Mr. McGEE. Yes.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It looks
tO me like Senators had better turn in
their resignations, as some of us have,
if they feel they should not vote on it'
later. I feel I should vote on this pro-
posal, at least, before I leave.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield to the Senator
from Louisiana.
Mr. ELLENDER. I would like the Sen-
ator to tell us whether or not this bill has
been debated on the floor of the Senate
and to what extent.
Mr. McGEE. This provision in the bill
was not debated on the floor. It was con-
sidered and discussed in committee, but
not debated on the floor.
Mr. ELLENDER. The report we are
considering is the work of the conferees
of both houses.
Mr. McGEE. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. And neither the Sen-
ate nor the House passed on the bill as
reported by the conference.
Mr. McGEE. That is not correct.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. McGEE. I yield.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Do I un-
derstand that, because this is not in the
Senate bill, it was not in either the House
bill or the Senate bill?
Mr. McGEE. It was in the House bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. It was in
the House bill?
Mr. McGEE. Yes, it was in the House
bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. And the
Senate accepted it?
Mr. McGEE. That is correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. First let me yield to the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. McGEE. What we are doing that understand if we approve this and this
makes it different is we are asking it be board makes a recommendation of x
done on a professional management basis percent, and the President sends another
in arriving at the formula for adjusting recommendation, higher or lower, all we
the wages in terms of comparability. can do is accept or reject one, and if we
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 S 21564
Mr. ELLENDER. M~
the Senator will corre,
it that the House ac- i
Mr. McGEE. X i
particular ph
that was in the Hoti.,v
rn a mec-ITAtl i ; )
rate m
Mr. McGEE. That
Mr. ELLENDER. I..
report struck that pr,
Mr. McGEE. That
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr.
Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yield
Approv CONGRESSIONAL /RECORi lA_RD--,~OQ337R0000070011-G D 1970 SEN eceIn er ,
President. I hope
himself. What is
d in this bill?
oft se added this
mechanism
t e in 11
was stricken,
o lde fQr a veto
an, s
correct.
I the conference
ision out.
orrect.
resident, will the
the labor organizations here at the
Washington level, appointed by the
agents of the President.
Mr. McGEE. No. That Is the Federal
Employees Advisory Council.
Mr. ELLENDER. I am speaking of the
Federal Employees Pay Council.
Mr. URIFFIN. i refer the Senator to
page 3.
Mr. McGEE. Referring to the top of
page 3 of the report relating to the Fed-
eral Employees Pay Council, and I read
now--"of five members who shall not be
deemed to be employees of the Govern-
ment of the Unilted States by reason of
appointment to the Council arid shall not
receive pay by reason of service as mem-
bers of the Council, who shall be repre-
sentatives of employee organizations
which represent substantial numbers of
employees under the statutory pay sys-
tems. and who shall be selected with due
consideration to such factors as the rela-
tive numbers of employees represented
by the various organizations. but no more
than three members of the Council at
any one time shall be from a single em-
ployee organization, council, federation.
alliance, association, or affiliation of em-
ployee organizations."
The Federal Employees Pay Council Is
strictly advisory.
Mr ELLENDER. Will the Senator read
It Into the RECORD?
Mr. McGEE. I will read it Into the
RECORD. It is shelled out here.
The President's agent shall:
(2) provide for meetings with the Federal
Employees Pay Council and give thorough
consideration to the views and recommenda-
tions of the Council and the individual views
and recommendations, if any. of the mem-
bers of the Council regarding-
(A) the coverage of the annual survey con-
ducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
under subsection (a)(1) of this section (in-
cluding, but not limited to. the occupations,
establishment sizes. industries, and geo-
graphical areas to be surveyed):
(B) the process of comparing the rates of
pay of the statutory pay systems with rates
of pity for the same levels of work in private
enterprise; and
(C) the adjustments in the rates of pay
of the statutory pay systems that should be
mado to achieve comparability between those
rates and the rates of pay for the same levels
of work In private enterprise;
Mr. ELLENDER. It is the Federal Em-
ployees Pay Council that makes those
recommendations. That is what I have
been saying.
Mr. McGEE. Their views are only
thoroughly considered by the group that
Civil Service Commission. These others
are advisory.
Mr. ELLENDER. What is transmitted
to the President?
Mr. McGEE. The figure for the recom-
mended increase. if there is to be one.
Mr. ELLENDER. And that is fixed by
the Federal Employees Pay Council?
Mr. McGEE. That is one of the groups
that recommend 6, 5, 10 percent, and so
on.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is right and
that is what I have been saying.
Mr. McGEE. That is subject to a dif-
ferent recommendation to the President
by the President's agent.
Mr. ELLENDER. At any rate, suppose
the Federal Pay Council fixes the rates
and that recommendation is submitted
to the President's agent; the agent sub-
mits it to the President?
Mr. McGEE. They submit it to the
President's agent, not the President. The
Chairman of the Civil Service Commis-
sion makes the final adjustment.
Mr. ELLENDER. That is only for the
first 2 years. Thereafter there is a differ-
ent organization.
Mr. McGEE. This is a permanent or-
ganization. It is not just for the first 2
years.
The President does it on his own tem-
porarily, on the first two January fist's
for those years, until the mechanism
gets going.
Mr. ELLENDER. But he gets advice
from the Civil Service head?
Mr. McGEE. That is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. And the Bureau of
Labor Statistics?
Mr. McGEE. And the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and the Bureau of the Budget.
Mr. ELLENDER. And those remain the
agents for 2 years? -
Mr. McGEE. That Is correct.
Mr. ELLENDER. And thereafter they
do not remain the President's agents.
Mr. McGEE. They are the President's
agents.
Mr. ELLENDER. They are the Presi-
dent's agents the first 2 years, and then
the Federal Employees Pay Council and
another council that is appointed to
take over; it is a different organization
altogether, from what I can understand
from this report.
Mr. McGEE. The President can desig-
nate some other group if he were so to
decide, but his agent in the mechanism
is the Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission and the Bureau of the
Budget.
Mr. ELLENDER. And what they do is
simply transmit to the President what
this Federal Employee Pay Council rec-
ommends.
Mr. McGEE. If that should be their
decision.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. McGEE. This is not a transmittal
job. Their job is to make a judgment and
recommend to the President, and among
the factors that influence their judg-
ment as it is spelled out is that they ex-
amine these statistics from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics and they take the rec-
unimendations from the Federal Pay
Council and assimilate them, and make
their recommendation.
Mr. ELLENDER. Who composes the
Federal Employee Pay Council?
Mr. GRIFIN. I ar+ trying to under-
stand the legislation ? d trying to follow
the questions of the senator. is it the
recommendation of V, Federal Employ-
ees Pay Council that ecomes effective?
Mr. McGEE. The ;wer is "No." TI
Federal Employees Pi.: Council is strictly
anadvrsor
ENDER. ie Senator is in
error.
Mr. McGEE. In otr words, they are
not the ones that stir mil the formula.
The formula that is ; "I ppgsed nn_by
7 rest en one t i has hem
pted the e TavePS t i3L ounrii_ co -
suited t e 13 t,! the Budget. and
en su mil the b,.. recommen a ion
r m the C lairm.n, 1 sR ll~?4wrvii'~
the group, or commi on, or whatever it
is, and how is it mad- ip that does make
the final recommenc:~ ion?
Mr. McGEE. It i the Civil Service
Commission. the Bu_' iu of the Budget,
advisory to the Presi '. at-It is the Presi-
dent's advisory grout,
Mr. GRIFFIN. Is 1:' limited in his ap-
pointment of that up?
Mr. McGEE. Yes:. der these terms he
is. That is. the Civil 'rvice Commission
and the Bureau of i , Budget limit the
President's advisory roup. In the dis-
cussions we had on they were advised
to go through the a al procedure with
the Bureau of Labor ; tatistics. as one of
the procedures they would go through.
Mr. ELLENDER. Ir. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I yiel:?
Mr. ELLENDER. 7 rat Is the funct'on
of the Federal Empi yees Pay Council?
Mr. McGEE. The unction is strictly
advisory. This is e Employees Pay
Council.
Mr. ELLENDER. I iat is not what the is primarily responsible to the President.
report says. The Fe: cal Employees Pay These are advisory opinions.
Council is the body hat fixes the rate Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will
of pay that is preset t ?d to the President. the Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. I If ught the Senator "fir. McGEE. I yield.
said the Federal f nployces Advisory Nor. PACKWOOD. Is the Advisory
Council. Committee on Federal Pay referred to
Mr. ELLENDER. on page 2 of the report the same as the
Mr. McGEE. The seers) Pay Council Federal Employees Pay Council?
is the group that n. :es the recommen- Mr. McGEE. No.
dation. I misunder: od the Senator. Mr. PACKWOOD. They are not the
Mr. ELLENDER. 7ho composes that same?
council? Mr. McGEE. Where is the reference
Mr. McGEE. Th, ivil Service Com- on page 2? .
mission, the Chaim. n, and the Bureau If the Senator will notice at the bot-
of the Budget. tom of page 2, the final recommendation
Mr. ELL ENDER ['he Senator is in is transmitted to the President only by
error. They are sc!; e of the heads of the President's agent, chairman of the
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 pyr ved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 3 , 9~/0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE S 21565
Mr. McGEE. The five designated mem- recommendation made by someone serv- Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
bers from the various employee groups. ing as the President's agent. Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. And, as I have stated, Mr. McGEE. What is left out there, if Mr. HOLLAND. I have one more ques-
this group will be the ones to make the I may say to the, Senator, is that if it tion.
recommendations as to what the pay were this serious, and seemed to be a There would be no way at all to main-
increase shall be. flagrant disregard of the wishes of the tain present salaries except by the pas-
Mr. McGEE. They make their recom- President, Congress has the legislative sage of new legislation approved by the
mendation. process directly available, and I hope. President, would there?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes. would resort to it in a case. like that. Mr. McGEE. That is correct.
Mr. McGEE. They make t~ hei~ recom- Mr. HOLLAND. I undersand. I think Mr. HOLLAND. Under the situation. I
mendation, not the recommendation. I understand that; and that would mean have named, the only choice left to Con-
There is a differ en~ a that if this machinery had been avail- gress would be to approve either the 5
Mr. ELLENDER. Those are the ones able to President Johnson and the Pres- percent recommended by the President or
that will be considered and followed, ident who suceeded him, who recom- the 10 percent recommended by the
though. mended that the congressional salaries President's agent.
Mr. McGEE. Not necessarily. I think be raised to $42,500, whereas the agency Mr. McGEE. Or to legislate otherwise.
that is where we are missing the track before that had recommended $50,000, Mr. HOLLAND. I say that the only
here. That is not true. They make their if either House had then turned down choice, short of legislation, which would
recommendation of what they think is the President's recommendation of $42,- have to be approved by the President and
fair, but the President's agent is the one 500, and this machinery had been in ef- passed by both Houses, would be, within
that has to make the final recommenda- fect, the $50,000 salary would have gone 30 days, to either accept the 5 percent or
tion that the President accepts. They into effect; am I right or wrong? go back to the 10 percent.
need not be the same, though they might Mr. McGEE. If that were applied to Mr. McGEE. Yes, that is correct.
be. Federal employees, but not Senators as I think it is fair to add that the theo-
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the in the Senator's illustration, that would retical possibilities on almost any mecha-
Senator yield? be correct, yes. nism in representative government are
Mr. McGEE. I' am happy to yield. . Mr. HOLLAND. Again it seems to me sometimes horrifying. I think we would
Mr. HOLLAND. I think I understand that we are putting the agency ahead of be better grounded if we start with the
the Senator, and I hope that if I am the President and that we are making it assumption of honorable men, with good
wrong in what I say now, he will correct possible for a House that is being highly intentions, and that this would be the
me. pressured by employees of the Govern- more average case that would arise on
As I understand it, the President's ment to ignore a more economical recom- this annual basis. We have now been
agent, who is the chairman of the special mendation made by the President than talking about extreme possibilities that
commission, considers all these recom- has been made earlier by his agent and could arise in these circumstances and
mendations that come in from the Fed- go back to the less economical recom- how they would be resolved.
eral Employees Pay Council, and also mendation that is made by the Presi- Mr. HOLLAND. I do not think that
the coverage of the annual survey by dent's agent, making the President's these are the maximum conditions that
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and also agent the final power, the final author- could arise. I do not think men who ask
the Advisory Committee, and the Civil ity, who has raised salaries. for a 10-percent raise are dishonorable,
Service Commission Chairman makes If I incorrectly understand this bill, I and I do not think it is a question of
recommendations to the President, want to be corrected. But it seems very honor. It will be a question of pressure
Mr. McGEE. To the President, that is clear to me, after the brief study pos- for the largest raise that has been sug-
correct. sible here, and I reinterate the fact stated gested, whether it be by the agent of the
Mr. HOLLAND. All right. Suppose he by the Senator from Louisiana, that this President, which will have to be made
recommends a 10 percent pay raise, provision did not appear in either of the known, or by the President himself. I
based on all the facts and reports he has, bills and it has never been debated on would much prefer to give the President's
and suppose the President, operating the floor of the Senate before. recommendation higher standing than is
under section c(1) of the act, as shown I could never agree to a program un- given by this bill.
on page 3 of the bill, because of national der which the President's agent is given Mr. McGEE. Congress could take that
emergency or economic conditions, de- more authority than the President him- action by not repudiating the President's
cides that that 10 percent is too much, self. decision.
and he recommends instead 5 percent, Mr. McGEE. It seems to me that the Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
and that is what comes to Congress. one missing link in order to make that Senator yield?
Mr. McGEE. That is, then, what comes statement complete is that it also means Mr. McGEE. I yield.
to Congress; that is right. that Congress can support the President, Mr. STENNIS. I will be quite brief in
Mr. HOLLAND. All right. Suppose one if the President cut it from 10 to 5 and this matter. My position on it is the
House of Congress turns down the Pres- there was no action. same as it was when we had the commis-
ident's recommendation of 5 percent. Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct. sion concerning our own salaries, that
Then, if I understand this act, the rec- Mr. McGEE. And that prevails. it was aborting our personal and ofli-
ammendation of 10 percent which was Mr. HOLLAND. I wonder whether the cial responsibility, which I think is one
made earlier by the Civil Service Com- Senator thinks any pressure would be put of the primary responsibilities we have.
mission, the agent of the President, upon Congress if the agent had recom- The argument was made then that we
would be come operative and- go into MA-I.A a IA_,-.-,,..+,...;..,.- - ought to resort to some other method
my understanding. rais "" """" there be any pressure placed as a precedent here to set up another.
Mr. HOLLAND. -Mr. President, this upon Congress by employees groups and
would mean that the President's agent employees? My amenta, posit powith m a i it is
is given stronger standing, under this Mr. McGEE. I am sure that in that a fundamental position with whatever act, than the finding and recommenda- circumstance pressure would be applied. Congress has no right whatever under
tion of the President itself; am I. right It is applied constantly now. This would the Constitution, it a any it kind of sor wrong in that? be on those selected circumstances such its direct cts responsibility what we tthis very dodge
Im
Mr. McGEE. That would be correct, as the Senator has selected for his illus- its dirld, which involves of this very of
in that instance, tration. portant
dollars. IiI ece which vo want lves iceions be
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I could The point still is that the judgment of doneI am not aganta all pay raises.
never support a measure under which, Congress would be the turning factor, I was one of those who voted the other
if the Congress turned down a smaller and if Congress is going to have bad day with reference to the administrative
recommendation made by the President judgment at a time like that, it is the assistants. I thought that the ones who
himself, we would go back to a larger responsibility of Congress. qualified were entitled to that pay.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040Q0700111-6
S21566 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Decent December 30, 1970
I want to make -iis point: The pri- Wage Board people have wage rates re- or some figure in between? Why should
many part of this i ll, as i understand viewed annually; they are reviewed in we delegate away the opportunity to ex-
it, has not been lot ore the Senate be- comparison to private industry, under ercise our own judgment at that point,
fore. It was not in cte Senate bill. Only the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And if which, after all, is the essence of legis-
10, 12. or 15 Seam t rs have heard this the finding is that comparable wage rates lative responsibility?
debate. I do not t ame them for not in private industry are higher than those Mr. McGEE. The best explanation I
being here.With tLI r other duties, there paid the Wage Board employees, the could give to the Senator from Idaho is
i, not time, under t its procedure, to get Wage Board employees automatically get that in the years I have been on the
this matter develo; ' d before the Senate. a raise. We passed that the other day. Clvii Service Committee, we have always
There is no repo: -it is scant, if any- We extended it into post exchanges, into been playing a game of catchup with
all
d I m
n Y
l
that contains a full xplanation. So there
is no stain membem 'ho can read the re-
port. The Senator n ty have some report.
To what extent is his matter reported
and backed up by t ttmony?
Mr. McGEE. it . statement of the
managers of the bii a conference report.
Mr. STENNIS. P. s not the usual pres-
entation of testim': y on this point, as I
understand it.
It is unthinkable f I may say further-
thanking the Sen.. or for his valuable
work, as always -at we could adopt
what I call a Rub.' 3oldberg setup here;
and I say that wii i all deference to the
memory of that ti to artist and enter-
tainer, who recent.; passed away. Here is
a trapeze that look to me as though it
is brought in with 6 double string on it,
the recommendati,: k of someone way out
yonder-whom we o not know-and the
other is a man u i o does have respon-
sibility as Presiden! of the United States.
We just make a v;i e here as to a choice
between the 2. an whichever one goes
down, the other ~. to comes up. I have
never heard of an y hing that goes to the
vitals of governrr mat that is such a
trapeze as this wom d be.
I believe we ougi . to provide some way
to get Senators in here to hear the de-
bate-to hear th~? facts, not to debate;
just to hear the lets, so that we can
make a judgment ! it.
My opinion is at the primary re-
sponsibility Is on t ;, that this thing, in-
stead of helping anyone politically, if
anyone has that ; mind, can be a pit-
fall, a mine, or a stump hole that we
could fall into' tL, At the people at large
oyees-an mea
the unappropriated fund area. Federal emp
This is trying to face up to the total catchup. We run a little faster catching
problem of salaries in Government em- up every other year, when somebody is up
ployment and to put the salaries paid to for reelection. We lag behind in the years
Government employees on a comparable when nobody is running for reelection. It
basis with those in private business. is an attempt to take it out of that con-
I think the fears expressed here are text, if it is feasible, and still preserve
the fears that the Chairman of the the basic intent. That is the reason for
Civil Service Commission would look at the mechanistic approach that was sug-
Government wages and recommend in- gested here.
creases that go across the board; Mr. CHURCH. With all deference to
whereas, this bill envisions a mechanism the Senator, I do not feel he has answered
for establishing different rates of pay the question.
comparable to those paid in private in- I can understand the need for compar-
dustry-and private Industry must take ability. I can understand the possible
the lead if there is any increase at all. utilization of a special committee to
This is to provide comparable rates of make recommendations with respect to
pay in Government employment to those comparability. I understand that the
paid for similiar jobs in private employ- President should have or say in the mat-
ment. ter. Yet, after all that has occurred, this
We are trying to delegate the author- bill then ties the hands of Congress. It
it:. to do this on a scientific basis, with says, as the distinguished Senator from
advice from the employees' group and Mississippi mentioned a momei t ago,
from a separate advisory body, but leav- that we have one or two choices, but that
ing it to the President's agent to make is all. No choice or choices lie in between.
the final recommendation as to what There is no discretion. There is no op-
rates of pay shall be applied to each portunity to come to our own judgment
grade. each type of job, through the en- after we have had the recommendations.
tire Government. It would take us years This seems to me to be another abdica-
and years to try to get this pay schedule Lion by Congress of its responsibility.
back into shape, where Government em- With all respect to the Senator, he has
ployees have comparable rates of pay for not answered the question I posed.
Government employees doing the same Mr. McGEE. I apologize if I did not
job that is done in private industry. answer the question. I think the point
Is that not the main purpose of this that is valid is that Congress has not
bill-the mechanism for the adjustment been in a position to meet the test of
of comparability? comparability. It has not taken the time.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator is correct. It has not had the inclination. It has
The whole focus of the bill is to try to been an uneven and a spotty perfoim-
make it possible for Congress to arrive ance. It was our feeling that compara-
want us to exert e our direct respon- where it legislated its Intentions long billty should be arrived at as a judgment
sibility in this Imp rtant field. ago-namely, comparability-to try to in a far more scientific way than we have
I thank the Ft uttor very much for place on a comparable level in the vari- been prone to do up until now, and that
yielding to me. I tm going to listen to ous categories of employment in Federal in arriving at what is comparability, we
the rest of the [-i is and hope I can be service a salary return that meets fair have essentially removed the need for
recognized. competition from the private sector. any critical serious judgment factor ex-
Mr. STEVENS Ir. President, will the That is the whole purpose of it, and we cept in a national crisis of some sort, in-
Senator yield? simply want to remove the uncertainty cluding an inflationary crisis, in which
Mr. McGEE.I% ; ?ld. and chaos of the present mechanism and there is that reserve for the President of
Mr. STEVENS think that the ques- have some procedure that at least offers the United States.
tions that have )eon directed to the us a more orderly chance to arrive at Mr. CHURCH. The Senator has an-
chairman of our i )mmittee have missed that comparability judgment. It is the swered my question and has confirmed
the basic purpos. )f this bill, which is to only purpose of the measure- my misgivings. This bill represents an
establish comlp> -ability, throughout Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the abdication on the part of Congress; we
Government em oyment with wages ' Senator yield for a question? are turning over to an advisory commit-
paid in the pri?.: to sector. Mr. McGEE. I yield. tee not only authority to make recom-
If anything, th due regard to my Mr. CHURCH. I see no objection in mendations with respect to compara-
friend. if there a Rube Goldberg sys- establishing a special board to assist in bility', but authority recommending a
tem, it is the on- :hat is in effect today. achieving comparability. and certainly definite rate, too. If the President dis-
Congress, in effeldent, in his judgment, cut down
some of them materially before he made
any report to Congress.
However, under this bill, this advisory
ooiiimittee and the Federal Employees
Pay Council make their recommenda-
tions to the President's agent, who, as I
said. would be either the Chairman of
the Civil Service Commission. the Direc-
tor of the Budget, or someone named by
liim. or both of them, and those people
are said to be the agent of the President
under this bill. They, after considering
these recommendations, and in the ef-
fort to accomplish comparability of pay,
which all of us desire to see accomp-
lished, recommend a pay rate which they
think will be comparable to pay rates
in private industry.
Mr. President, I call attention to some-
thing that was mentioned by the dis-
tinguLshed Senator from Alaska and
which has not been mentioned by any-
one else in this debate. These rates will
not be equal as to all classifications any
more than were the rates recommended
by President Johnson some time ago.
They will be addressed to each of the
groups in the effort to obtain compar-
ability in the judgment of the President's
agent. When the plan comes to us, if it
conies to us at all, it will have to come
because the President disagrees with his
agent. If the President does not dis-
agree with his agent, whatever that plan
is, we have surrendered to the President,
who announces the program as recom-
mended to him by the agent. We have
agreed in advance to that.
We are asked by this bill, therefore, to
abdicate our right to consider the plan,
if the President recommends the plan
that is recommended to him by his agent.
I do not think Congress is ready to
abdicate its right yearly-more than
yearly for the early future, but on a
year by year basis for the indefinite fu-
ture-to have anything to say about pay
raises.
Particularly do I think it is unwise
when we remember what we did when
the President's program came to us,
which I mentioned a while ago, in which
$42.500 was recommended as the rate
of pay for Members of Congress. We
changed some details of that plan be-
cause we had tha right. We had reserved
to ourselves the right to pass upon the
merits of the proposal, and its several
details.
We do not reserve any such right at
all under this particular conference bill
to mak,: any change at all if the Presi-
dent approves what his agent recom-
mends and simply sends it to us. It is
something which will take effect regard-
less of what we do unless we pass a law
to set it aside. The Presiding Officer (Mr.
SPARKMAN i knows how difficult it would
be to pass such a bill in the limited time
set out here, which is 30 days.
It is only when the President varies
from the recommendation of his agent
that the plan comes to Congress. so Con-
Cress has the right to either accept the
President's plan or reject it within 30
days and, therefore, to go back to the plan
recommended by his agent.
In other words, if the agent recom-
mends a program of pay rates that aver-
aged a 10-percent increase, and if the
President because of his feeling that the
Nation was not in a condition to justify
such a raise, recommended an average
5-percent pay raise, we would have a
magnificent choice between the average
5-percent rate and the average 10-per-
cent rate, and that is the only choice we
have. If we turn down the President's
more economical plan, under this bill we
go back to the original plan, the average
of 10 percent.
This has been admitted by the spon-
sors of the bill in colloquy with the few
Members of the Senate who were here.
I wish more Members of the Senate had
been here.
I repeat that in the event the Presi-
dent refuses to pass on the recommenda-
tion of his agent, but instead refuses it,
the magnificent right is reserved to Con-
gress to either approve or disapprove the
President's recommendation and should
we disapprove it we go back to the rec-
ommendation of his agent. We have only
the choice between those two programs
and no other choice. There is no doubt
about this. It is admitted by the sponsors
of the bill and the handlers of the con-
ference report.
To me it is rather unthinkable that in
the first instance we are asked to ap-
prove a program under which if the
President approves his agent's recom-
mendation we have no jurisdiction at all.
It would not even come to us; and in the
second instance if he disapproves those
recommendations and sends us different
ones, let us say reduced ones as in the
case of President Johnson, we have the
choice of either approving those reduced
recommendations as a whole or disap-
proving them. and in the event we disap-
prove them we go back to the agent's
recommendation, meaning we put the
agent before the principal. That is what
we are asked to do or to be permitted to
do under the terms of this conference
report..
Mr. President, for the reasons I have
stated, it would seem to me completely
intolerable for this Congress to seriously
consider approving this conference re-
port-a conference report that sets up a
new plan, appearing in neither the Sen-
ate bill nor the House bill, a new plan on
which there have been no hearings, on
which there has been no report, on which
there has been no debate heretofore, be-
cause we have never seen it until it
comes here in the form of a conference
report more than a year after the origi-
nal bills were passed.
For the reasons which I have cited. but
particularly for the reason that -I think
this Congress should not even think
about surrendering, abjectly resigning,
its rights entirely in such a manner, and
particularly in view of the fact that we
might find some recommendations which
we approve In a general set of recom-
mendations, and some which we disap-
prove but are unable to get at, I think we
should reject the conference report; and
I strongly plead that the Senate do just
that-reject the conference report,
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31: CIA-RDP72-0 R RR 3 0400070011-6
December 30, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the adoption of the conference
report. The yeas and nays have been or-
dered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. ANDER-
soN), the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. BURDICK), the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. DODD), the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS),
the Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Mc-
CARTHY), the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. MONTOYA), the Senator from Maine
(Mr. MusKIE), the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. RUSSELL), the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. STEVENSON), the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. TYDINGS), and the Sena-
tor from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) are nec-
essarily absent.
If urther announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
STEVENSON), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. HARRIS), and the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. BURDICK) would each
vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. FONG),
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON),
and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLD-
WATER), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
HRUSKA), and the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) are absent on
official business.
The Senator from Colorado (Mr. DoM-
INICK) and the Senator from South Da-
kota (Mr. MUNDT) are absent because of
illness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) would
vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Dela-
ware (Mr. BOGGS) is paired with the Sen-
ator from South Carolina (Mr. THUR-
MOND). If present and voting, the Sena-
tor from Delaware would vote "yea" and
the Senator from South Carolina would
vote "nay."
One this vote, the Senator from Ore-
gon (Mr. HATFIELD) is paired with the
Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER). If
present and voting, the Senator from
Oregon would vote "yea" and the Sena-
tor from Texas would vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 40,
nays 35, as follows:
[No. 461 Leg.]
YEAS-40
Baker
Javits
Percy
Bayh
Jordan, N.C.
Proxmire
Bible
Kennedy
Randolph
Brooke
Magnuson
Ribicofl
Byrd, W. Va.
Mansfield '
Saxbe
Case
Mathias
Schweiker
Cook
McGee
Scott
Dole
McGovern
Smith
Goodell
McIntyre
Stevens
Gravel -
Metcalf
Talmadge
Griffin
Mondale
Williams, N.J.
Hartke
Moss
Yarborough
Hollings
Nelson
Jackson --
Pau
NAYS-35
Aiken Ervin Murphy
Allen Fannin Packwood
Allott Fulbright Pastore
Bellmon Gore Prouty
Bennett Gurney Sparkman
Byrd, Va. Hansen Spong
Church Holland Stennis
Cooper Hughes Symington
Cotton Jordan, Idaho Williams, Del.
Cranston Long Young, N. Dak.
Curtis McClellan Young, Ohio
Ellender Miller
NOT VOTING-25
Anderson Goldwater Muskie
Boggs Harris -Pearson
Burdick Hart Russell
Cannon Hatfield Stevenson
Dodd Hruska Thurmond
Dominick Inouye Tower
Eagleton McCarthy Tydings
Eastland Montoya
Fong Mundt
So the conference report was agreed
to.
Mr. CANNON subsequently said: Mr.
President, when the vote on Federal pay
legislation was called, I was unavoidably
detained and arrived on the floor 2 min-
utes after the vote had been concluded.
I would like the RECORD to show that had
I been here for the vote I would have
voted "no" on the conference report on
Federal pay legislation.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Berry, one of its read-
ing clerks, announced that the House
had agreed to the report of the commit-
tee of conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 18582) to
amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964, as
amended.
LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING
PREVENTION ACT-CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, I
submit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 19172) to provide
Federal financial assistance to help cities
and communities to develop and carry out
intensive local programs to eliminate the
causes of lead-based paint poisoning and
local programs to detect and treat in-
cidents of such poisoning, to establish a
Federal demonstration and research.pro-
gram to study the extent of the lead-
based paint poisoning problem and the
methods available for lead-based paint
removal, and to prohibit future use of
lead-based paint in Federal or federally
assisted construction or rehabilitation.
I ask unanimous consent for the present
consideration of the report.,
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CUR-
TIs). Is there objection to the present
consideration of the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report, as fol-
lows:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 91-1802)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
S 21575
19172) to provide Federal financial assistance
to help cities and communities to develop
and carry out Intensive local programs to
eliminate the causes of lead-based paint poi-
soning and local programs to detect and treat
incidents of such poisoning, to establish a
Federal demonstration and research program
to study the extent of the lead-based paint
poisoning problem and the methods avail-
able for lead-based paint removal, and to pro-
hibit future use of lead-based paint in Fed-
eral or federally assisted construction or re-
habilitation, having met, after full and free
conference, 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 in-
serted by the Senate amendment insert the
following :
That this Act may be cited as the "Lead-
Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act".
TITLE I-GRANTS FOR THE DETECTION
AND TREATMENT OF LEAD-BASED
PAINT POISONING
GRANTS FOR LOCAL DETECTION AND TREATMENT
OF LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING
SEC. 101. (a) The Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare (hereafter referred
to in this title as the "Secretary") is au-
thorized to make grants to units of general
local government in any State for the pur-
pose of assisting such units in developing
and carrying out local programs to detect
and treat incidents of lead-based paint
poisoning.
(b) The amount of any such grant shall
not exceed 75 per centum of the cost of
developing and carrying out a local program,
as approved by the Secretary, during a period
of three years.
(c) A local program should include-
(1) educational programs intended to
communicate the health danger and preva-
lence of lead-based paint poisoning among
children of inner city areas, to parents, edu-
cators, and local health officials;
(2) development and carrying out of
intensive community testing programs de-
signed to detect incidents of lead-based paint
poisoning among community residents, and
to insure prompt medical treatment for such
afflicted individuals;
(3) development and carrying out of
intensive followup programs to insure that
identified cases of lead-based paint poison-
ing are protected against further exposure
to lead-based paints in their living environ-
ment; and
(4) any other actions which will reduce or
eliminate lead-based paint poisoning.
(d) Each local program shall afford oppor-
tunities for employing the residents of com-
munities or neighborhoods affected by
lead-based paint poisoning, and for provid-
ing appropriate training, education, and
any information which may be necessary to
inform such residents of opportunities for
employment in lead-based paint poisoning
elimination programs.
TITLE II-GRANTS FOR THE ELIMINA-
TION OF LEAD-BASED PAINT POISON-
ING
SEC. 201. The Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare is authorized to make
grants to units of general local government
in any State for the purpose of assisting such
units in developing and carrying out pro-
grams that identify those areas that present
a high risk to the health of residents because
of the presence of lead-based paints on
interior surfaces, and then -to develop and
carry out programs to eliminate the hazards
of lead-based paint poisoning.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000,400070011-6
 S21576
(a) A local prograr
, f) development an
prehensive testing pr,
presence of lead-basec
residential housing;
2) the developmer
a comprehensive pr,
prompt elimination
from all interior s,_..
exterior surfaces to wi
commonly exposed, of
which lead-based pair
a surface covering. in;
on which non-lead-b.
used to cover surface
paints were previously
(3) any other acti,
or eliminate lead-bas-
(b) Each such progra
(1) be consistent
local program assisted
121 afford, to the me
opportunities for empi
communities or neigi
lead-based paint poi
viding appropriate tr-
any information whirl
inform such resident
employment in lead-b.
programs.
TITLE III-FEDERA 1
AND RESEAR;
FiDERAL DEMONSTR,.
PRU~
SEC. 301. The Seer.
Urban Development, it
Secretary of Health. E
shall develop and carr
and research program
ture and extent of the
paint poisoning in ii
ticularly in urban ar,
by which lead-based .
lively be removed in
porches, and exterior :
dren may be eommt
dential housing. Witt;
date of the enactment
tary shall submit to t
complete report of bi
mendations as develo:
program, together wi,,
legislation which sho
any changes in existir w
made. in order to c::-
mendatlons.
TITLE IV---PROHIBI
TURE USE OF Li
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE December 30, 1970
should include:
arrving out of com-
rams to detect the
aints on surfaces of
Ind carrying out of
'am requiring the
lead-based paints
aces, porches, and
cb children may be
ildential housing on
have been used as
(ding those surfaces
d paints have been
o which lead-based
plied: and
which will reduce
paint poisoning.
shall--
th the appropriate
Eder section 101, and
num extent feasible.
ing the residents of
rhoods affected by
ling, and for pro-
ing, education, and
may be necessary to
If opportunities for
d paint elimination
DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM
iN AND RESEARCH
M
.ry of Housing and
onsultation with the
cation, and Welfare,
fut a demonstration
) determine the na-
'oblem of lead-based
United States, par-
;, and the methods
int can most effec-
a interior surfaces,
-faces to which chil-
l exposed. of reai-
one year after the
t this Act the Secre-
Congress a full and
tndings and recom-
3 pursuant to such
a statement of any
d be enacted, and
aw which should be
v out such recom-
ON AGAINST FU-
3-BASED PAINT
lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in
the total non-volatile content of liquid
paints or in the dried film of paint already
applied.
CONSULTATION WITH OTilER DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES
Src. 502. In carrying out the authority un-
der this Act, the Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare shall cooperate with and
seek the advice of the heads of any other
departments or agencies regarding any pro-
grams under their respective responsibilities
which are related to, or would be affected
by, such authority.
APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 503. (a) There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to carry out the provisions
of title I of this Act not to exceed $3,330,000
for the fiscal year 1971 and $6,660,000 for
fiscal year 1972.
(b) "There Is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated to carry out the provisions of title
11 of this Act not to exceed $5,004,000 for the
fiscal year 1971 and $10,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1972.
(c) There is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated o carry out the prow islons or title
III of this Act not to exceed $1,670,400 for
the fiscal ear 1971 and $3,340,000 for the
fiscal year 1972.
(d) Any amounts appropriated under this
section shall remain available until expended
when so provided In appropriation Acts; and
any amounts authorized for the fiscal year
1971 but not appropriated may be appropri-
ated for the fiscal year 1972.
And the Senate agree to the same.
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH,
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS,
TED KENNEDY,
GAYLORD NELSON,
THOMAS F. EAGLETON,
ALAN CRANSTON.
HAROLD E. HuGIrrs,
PETER H. DOMINICK,
J. K. JAVITS,
GEORGE MURPHY.
WINSTON PROUTY,
WM. B. SAAxBE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
WN. A. BARRs'rr.
HFNRY REUSS.
T. L. ASHLEY,
WR,LIAM MOORHFAD,
WILLIAM B. WIDN ALL,
SY HALPERN.
WILLIAM STANTON.
.lfun4Agers on the Part of the (louse.
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the principal author of this bill is the dis-
tinguished Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. KENNEDY), I am one of the coau-
thors. As chairman of the Subcommittee
on Health, I have heard the testimony.
Senator KENNEDY has been very diligent
in pursuit of the measure and so have
some Senators across the aisle in the
other party. and some Members of the
House. We have diligently pushed this
bill.
This bill is designed to help local gov-
ernments develop programs to eliminate
the causes of head-based paint poisoning
that affects almost 400,000 children an-
nually, causing 200 deaths and leaving
many thousands permanently mentally
retarded. This is not, some new disease
recently found. This is something that
has been going on for scores of years, and
we have known it for scores of years, and
it is one of those things about which we
have done nothing up to this time.
Several cities have led in this country
in doing something about it on a local
basis-notably Baltimore, Md., and
Cincinnati, Ohio, Boston, Chicago,
and New York are now following suit,
but in most of the country practically
nothing is being done.
Children between the ages of 1 and 5
are afflicted with something called pica.
I do not think it is a disease, but it is
a trait of those years of age in children,
they go around eating almost anything
they can get their hands on-paint,
dirt, most anything. They often become
permanently retarded if they eat lead-
based paint, which they find peeling off
the walls, usually of old buildings.
The Senate bill authorized $24.5 mil-
lion annually for 3 years; the House bill
authorized $15 million annually for 2
years. The conferees agreed on $10 mil-
lion for the first year-fiscal 1971-and
$20 million for the second year-fiscal
year 1972. Since 6 months of 1971 are
already passed, we consented to the
lower figure the first year, and raised
the House figure for the second year.
The distinguished Senator from New
York (Mr. JAVIrs) made a notable con-
tribution to this. He proposed that we
out out the third years authorization, to
have time to amend this law and im-
prove it after the first year and a half.
It is hoped that the bill will be a
proven success after the first 2 years and
Congress can enact an extension with a
larger appropriation.
I urge my colleagues to approve this
conference report on a very worthy bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. First of all. I urge the
adoption of the conference report by the
Senate.
I commend the chairman of the Sub-
committee on Health, the distinguished
Senator from Texas (Mr. YARBOROUGH),
for the work he has done on the measure.
He has had strong bipartisan support.
I see the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER) on his
feet. He has been extremely interested in
this program and proposal and has a
somewhat different approach, but he has
been extremely helpful in the develop-
ment of the measure.
This is one of the most significant and
important pieces of legislation to come
out of our committee this year. It is not
a measure of massive scope, but best esti-
mates are that the adoption of this con-
ference report will result in the saving of
the lives of 200 children in the next year.
It is therefore a matter of great impor-
tance. It has had strong support on both
sides of the aisle, and I am grateful for
its passage.
I join the distinguished Senator from
Texas in urging adoption of the confer-
ence report, and I commend him for the
work he has done in the matter.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YARBOROUGH. I yield.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President. I
commend the Senator from Texas for
his leadership in this area, as well as the
Senator from Massachusetts. They have
been very diligent in pursuing this mat-
ter.
I think this is one of the few cases in
which we can point to a disease and we
say that we know how to stop it, and all
PROHIBITION AGAINST tr? OF LEAD-BASED PAINT
IN FUTURE CONSTRUGTI, AND REHABILITATION
SEc. 401. The Secre-,,. v of Health. Educa-
tion, and Welfare sha! take such steps and
impose such condition as may be necessary
or appropriate to proAt the use of lead-
based paint in reside' Sal Structures con-
structed or rehabillts.- 3 after the date of
enactment of this Ac- by the Federal gov-
ernment, or with Fed it assistance In any
form.
DEFIN, . ONS
SEc. 501. As used in ts Act-
(1) the term "Stag- means the several
States, the District o1 O1umbla, the Com-
monwealth of Puertc taco, and the terrI-
tories and possessions t the United States;
2) the term "unit, d general local gov-
ernment" means (A) :-: 1 city, county, town-
ship. town, oorough, 1 :.: ish. village, or other
general purpose poll' at subdivision of a
;late, (B) any con; cation of units of
gr:,eral local governr. it in one or more
S, ,tees. IC) an Indian ibe. or (D I with re-
spect to lead-based pr, t poisoning elimina-
ti.,n activities In their ban areas, the terri-
t, ies and possessions f the United States;
ar:d
(3) the term "lead-l-ed paint" means any
paint containing more than 1 per centum
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 31, 1970' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
Rostenkowski
Snyder
Waggonner
Roudebush
Stafford
Watts
Rousselot
Staggers
WVeicker
Ruppe
Steiger, Ariz.
Whalen
Sandman
Steiger, Wis.
Whalley
Schadeberg
Stephens
Wilson, Bob
Scherle
Sullivan
Winn
Scheuer
Taft"
Wold
Sebelius
Talcott
Wright
Shipley
Thompson, Ga. Wydler
Sikes
Tiernan
Wyman
Sisk
Tunney
Yatron
Smith, Calif.
Ullman
Zion
Smith, N.Y.
Vigorlto
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 232
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were?dispg lsed
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 13000,
IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL EM-
PLOYEE PAY COMPARABILITY
SYSTEM
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read
the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Decem-
ber 9, 1970.)
The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a second.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, a
second will be considered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. DuLsi I) is recognized.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. UDALL), the author of the bill.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield for a parliamentary in-
quiry? '
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamen-
tary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HALL. Is the gentleman in the
well, my friend from Arizona, the author
of the bill or the author of the confer-
ence report. If so, which bill-the bill
that was in the other body or the bill
that passed this body? The distinguished
chairman said he yields to the gentleman
from Arizona, my friend, who is the au-
thor of the bill. I am just not quite sure
which bill we are discussing.
The SPEAKER. The Chair believes the
inquiry should be directed essentially to
either the chairman of the committee
or the gentleman from Arizona.
Therefore, the Chair expects the, par-
liamentary inquiry should be directed
either to the chairman of the commit-
tee or to the gentleman from Arizona.
The Chair would like to be able to
answer the question as a parliamentary
inquiry, but the Chair does not think it
proper to do so.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield,
I would pose the same question, although
I always address the Chair, to the gen-
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to en-
lighten the gentleman as to the history
of this legislation.
In October of 1969, nearly 15 months
ago, this House passed the bill H.R.
13000, of which I was one of the drafters
and sponsors. The bill as then presented
would have created a permanent system
of fixing salaries of Federal employees.
The bill went to the Senate, where, in
December 1969, it was stripped down into
a plain old pay raise. We went to con-
ference in 1970. Because of the postal
strike and some intervening events, that
conference was idle for many months,
and in December of this year, 1970, the
conference was reconvened to determine
what we should do about 'pay for 1.3
million Federal civilian employees and,
incidentally, what would be done for the
nearly 3 million men in the armed serv-
hat happens to this bill.
I helped draft the conference commit-
tee substitute which is now before us. I
also helped draft the original bill. I hope
that answers the gentleman's question.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman will yield
further, it really does not. Your distin-
guished chairman and my friend yielded
to you as the Member who was the
author of the bill. All I want to know
is whether it was the original bill, H.R.
13000, or whether it is the conference
substitute or-
Mr. UDALL. We are dealing today with
the conference substitute. I do not deny
paternity of it, either. I had something
to do with the drafting of both. I think
the question, the narrow question, in
these 40 minutes of debate, if we take,
it all, is whether this conference sub-
stitute is a good bill and whether it
should be approved or defeated. I think.
it is a good bill and should be approved.
Mr. HALL. If the gentleman was the
mother of the bill, who was the father?
Mr. UDALL. I do not know. I have
not figured out the ancestry entirely.
But I am prepared to defend the bill and
explain it. That is what I hope to do in
these 5 minutes, if they have not already
expired.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the distin-
guished minority leader.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. On October 14,
1969, when H.R. 13000 came to the floor
of the House, I, along with 50 other Mem-
bers of the House, opposed it. At that
time it was, I believe, pretty well known
that the administration was vigorously
opposed to this legislation and I was also
on the merits. I am now told that the
content of the bill before us is quite dif-
ferent from the version that came before
us in October 1969. Is that an accurate
statement?
Mr. UDALL. The gentleman is correct.
One of the main reasons the gentle-
man and others opposed the bill is that
at that time we set up a permanent sys-
tem of fixing pay regularly, in an orderly
manner, and with comparability adjust-
ments. In that procedure in the original
bill the President was left out. We cre-
ated a salary commission. When the sal-
ary commission acted, its findings and
decisions would come to the Congress,
we would vote it up or down, and then it
would take effect.
The President felt very strongly, as
overseer of the whole Federal establish-
ment and as the one required to make
up the Federal budget, that he ought to
H 12587
be taken into the procedure. We met that
objection over months of negotiation
with the Civil Service Commission and
the Bureau of the Budget, and the Presi-
dent, I am told-and the gentleman is
more of a spokesman for him than I
am-now approves this bill and would
like to see it enacted.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The executive
branch of the Government has made
known its views as to what ought to be
the content of the legislation before us
and, as I understand, the content before
us does contain the recommendations
that were made by the executive branch
of the Government. So as of now the
head of the Civil Service Commission en-
dorses the legislation. The head of the
Office of Management and Budget like-
wise endorses the legislation. The net re-
sult is - that the objections originally
raised by the President no longer exist.
It Is good legislation and I support it.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the gentleman
from Michigan for that statement. I am
proud and pleased that in this bill the
Federal Government is taking the lead,
because I foresee if we do not do some-
thing, if this is voted down today, next
year the same trends and the same un-
happiness in the Federal establishments
that brought on the postal strike, and
the same kind of unhappiness and frus-
tration that brought on the slowdown of
the aircraft controllers is going to erupt.
We have had all these problems in this
country. We have seen raises in other
fields of 20 percent or 30 percent. If this
bill passes, what will happen is that we
will have a Federal pay raise of probably
5 or 6 percent next year. Unless we pass
this bill and unless we see to it that we
will have some machinery to take care
of the problem; I foresee we will have
more and more teachers' strikes and
strikes of all kinds of public employees.
This is an attempt to set up an orderly,
rational, sensible system. to make the
adjustments in a decent way.
I am proud to say the AFL-CIO sup-
ports this, and President Nixon supports
this, and the major employee independ-
ent union supports this. I think this is a
fine way to discharge our responsibilities
in the adjustment of Federal pay.
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. -UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Montana.
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Speaker, the only
thing we are talking about is compara-
bility and competition in having people
employed by the Federal Government
on a comparable basis with those em-
ployed in private enterprise. That is all
we are talking about.
Mr. UDALL. That is right. I thank the
gentleman for the contribution he made
as a conferee and as one of the people
who helped put this conference report
together.
Mr. Speaker, I want to answer some
of the questions that have been raised
by some of my colleagues about the ap-
plication of this bill to the employees
of the House, to the legislative branch
employees. We wanted to have a perma-
nent system that would apply to the
employees in the executive branch, and
the question arose about what we should
do regarding our own employees. The
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
H 12588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 31, 1970
bill approaches in this fashion. If
through this pro( !ss, this regular an-
nual adjustment 'ocess. the salaries of
the regular empi. lees are adjusted by
5 percent, let us :. i, then the allowance
available for Hon e employees, for the
Members' staff w1 wane, would be au-
tomatically adjua d by 5 percent, or 6
percent, or what(,~ 'r the figure is.
There have beer navy complaints pre-
viously that we a' somatically made in-
creases to employ,, s of Members, and to
employees of the use committees. This
bill takes a difft~, !nt approach. There
will be no auton:. tic increase, but the
salary allowance Members. the clerk-
hire allowance of ?ach Member will be
changed. If there a 6-percent increase
for the classified ?mployees, there will
he an increase of , percent, for example.
in the clerk-hire . Ilowance. The Mem-
ber who now has 33,500 in staff allow-
ance would go to 141,510-but no em-
ployee would get rat extra money un-
less the Member mself decided to al-
locate some of th . The Member could
allocate some of or none of it, or all
of it in increases. 3 could hire new staff
members, for exar' )le, under the bill out
of the House Adni t _istration Committee,
which increases fr, m 13 to 15 the num-
ber of staff positi, s allowed.
So I think thi is a sensible, sound
way to handle th., particular problem.
Mr. DENNIS. r. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I !ld to the gentleman
from Indiana.
Mr. DENNIS. T. ; question is basically
for information. was reading an ac-
count of what wa., urported to be in this
bill. I want to ask he gentleman, as the
father or mother the bill, as the case
may be. whether his account is sub-
stantially accurat. It says here that the
procedure would that each Year an
official designate by the President
makes a report a o the new pay scale,
then a board reN ! ws it and makes its
recommedations. . 'id if the President
orders the new st e into effect that is
the end of it. We cave nothing further
to do. Is that corm t?
Mr. UDALL. Tl. t is correct.
Mr. DENNIS. 1 however, the Presi-
dent sends in an ternate plan, we can
veto that, but if do. it goes back to
the plan set by t! board. Is that sub-
stantially correct',
Mr. UDALL. T t is correct. Let me
give the gentlem:~ the philosophy be-
hind that. becau this is very funda-
mental to the perm nent pay-fixing plan.
I have always beg an advocate of the
philosophy that (' egress ought to set
the policy. This bill does not depart from
that philosophy- IL this bill we say Fed-
eral pay should b, ?omparable to pay in
private enterprise
We delegate to he Bureau of Labor
Statistics and tc the Bureau of the
Budget and to e President of the
United States th4 power to determine
what numbers are , ecessary, what dollar
figures are necesr.:.. y, to carry out that
policy.
The SPEAKEI; pro tempore (Mr.
SLACK). The time the gentleman from
Arizona has expirrt
Mr. DULSKI. 10; Speaker, I yield the
gentleman 2 addit nal minutes.
Mr. UDALL. If that policy is carried
out, that is the end of it. There is no
point in coming back to the Congress.
any more than there would be for one of
the gentleman's employees to come back
to him if the employee had carried out
his policy.
If, however. the President decides to
say. "Sorry, I am not going to have a pay
raise this year," or if for any other rea-
son he makes any decision other than to
achieve the comparability policy, then it
will come back to us, and the bill guar-
antees that we will have a vote on it.
I believe that is a sound compromise
between those who do not want to dele-
gate anything-who want to wrestle
every year with the salary fights, as we
have since I have been engaged in in the
Congress-those who want to continue
as we have in the past and those who
want to delegate entirely to someone else.
We make the policy and we delegate to
someone else the mechanics of carrying
out that policy.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman
frotn Indiana.
Mr. DENNIS. I would point out that
even the policy may be subject to some
dispute, because personally I do not be-
li-ve any Federal or public employee's
pay is exactly in the same situation as
pay in a private industry where there is
the element of profit to consider. There
are no profits available out of which to
pav public salaries-every penny comes
out of the taxpayers.
Passing that question, the cardinal
point remains that under this bill we can
do nothing as Members of the Congress
except to chose between the pay scale set
by the President and that set by the
beard, if the President disagrees with
this appointed board.
Mr. UDALL. Yes. If we do not like this
stistem we can change it. I want to try
ft around the track for a couple of years,
to see if it works. There is something we
can do. We can repeal the law, and I will
be with the gentleman in repealing it if
it does not work, if the President is going
to abuse this power.
Mr. DENNIS. If it is better for some
appointed board to discharge the func-
tions of this body in this respect, why
not. let them do it all and get rid of the
(`on?ress?
Mr. UDALL We set the policy, and
give the appointed board the authority
to carry out that policy.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. UDALL. I yield to my friend from
Iowa.
Mr. KYL. There is nothing in this bill
which prevents the Congress from doing
what it has always done. If we do not
like the procedure.
Mr. UDALL. Precisely. We can pass
a law at any ime changing what the
President did.
Mr. KYL. If the Congress does not
like what the Board does, we can act.
Mr. UDALL. We can, indeed.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to
rise today in support of the conference
report submitted last week on H.R.
13000. The road has been a long and
arduous one and I would like briefly to
take the time to outline the path that
has led us here.
On October 14, 1969, the Federal Sal-
ary Comparability Act (H.R. 13000)
passed the House of Representatives.
On December 12, 1969, a different ver-
sion passed the Senate. The House ver-
sion provided salary adjustments for
Federal employees, established a perma-
nent method of adjusting rates of pay of
Federal employees in the statutory pay
systems, and included certain miscella-
neous employee fringe benefits. The Sen-
ate version, by and large, provided for
a flat percentage increase in Federal pay.
The House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and asked for a conference.
The Senate in turn insisted on its
amendment and agreed to the confer-
ence which convened March 25, 1970.
The conference committee had several
meetings during the early part of 1970
but came to no resolution.
Subsequently, Public Law 91-231 was
approved in April providing for a 6-per-
cent salary increase, retroactive to De-
cember 27. 1969, for all employees under
the statutory pay systems, as well as for
employees in the Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion Service, and certain employees in the
judicial legislative, and executive
branches whose rates of pay are fixed
by administrative action.
Also, Public Law 91-375, the Postal Re-
organization Act of 1970, approved in
August, provided for an 8-percent pay
increase for all employees of the Post
Office Department, retroactive to April
16. 1970. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker.
these legislative developments resulted
from the settlement of the postal em-
ployees' strike during that period. Left
unresolved and still before the conference
committee was the question of a perma-
nent method of adjusting rates of pay
for Federal employees.
Realizing that the problem of Federal
wages will not be solved until a rational,
permanent method of establishing rates
of pay is enacted into law, a number of
my colleagues and I introduced H.R.
18403, a bill designed to implement the
pay comparability system for Federal em-
ployees on a semiautomatic basis. The
Chairman of the Civil Service Commis-
sion in turn submitted a legislative rec-
ommendation proposing similar perma-
nent procedures for applying the pay
ccmparability policy adopted by this
great body in 1962. This proposal took
legislative form in H.R. 18603, as intro-
duced by Mr. CORBETT.
Both of these bills were referred to my
Subcommittee on Compensation of the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee.
We held extensive hearings on the meas-
ures and worked out the proposal that
ultimately was submitted to the confer-
ence committee on H.R. 13000. The con-
ferees in turn accepted this substitute
and on December 8. 1970, reported out
the version that is before us today.
Let me briefly summarize the confer-
ence substitute for H.R. 13000 and con-
trast it with provisions of the original
bill. We propose a permanent method of
adjusting the rates of pay of Federal em-
ployees under the general schedule,
Foreign Service, and for physicians,
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 31, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
dentists, and nurses of the Veterans' Ad- us today, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Em-
ministration. These categories are com- ployees Pay Council will give our Fed-
monly referred to as the statutory pay eral employee organizations a significant
systems. voice in the fixing of Federal pay. Their
The greatest difference between H.R. views must be considered by both the
13000 as approved by the House on Octo- President's agent and the President him-
ber 14, 1969, and the conference substi- self in devising pay plans and the Pres-
tute is that under the latter the President ident- in turn must pass on to the Con-
is directed to make annual adjustments gress employee recommendations con-
in the rates of pay, whereas under H.R. cerning pay.
13000 a Federal Employee Salary Com- The advisory committee on federal
mission was directed to submit recom- pay will give the President still another
mended pay adjustments to the Congress perspective as to the pay needs of our
which would become effective upon ap- Federal employees. This group will con-
proval by Congress. sist of individuals not .employed by the
The procedure established under the Federal Government who are generally
conference substitute requires the Presi- known for their expertise and impar-
dent to direct such agent as he considers tiality on pay matters.
appropriate-normally the Chairman of This is not to say that members can
the Civil Service Commission and the Di- not or will not have a labor or manage-
rector of the Office of Management and ment background. Indeed we would be
Budget-to prepare and submit to him hard put to find anyone versed in the
-annually, after considering the views complexities of pay matters without
and recommendationsr of Federal em- such backgrounds. In fact, under the
ployee union representatives, a report- bill, any interested party such as a labor
First, that compares the rates of pay organization, may make nominations for
of the statutory pay systems with the pay membership on the committee. I fully
in private industry; anticipate that both labor and manage-
Second, that makes recommendations ment organizations will have names to
for adjustments in rates of pay based submit to the President and hope the
on comparability; and President will give close scrutiny to these
Third, includes the views and recom- recommendations. But the advisory
mendations of employee organizations. committee is not intended to be an ad-
The President is required to make ad- versary body. It is intended to give a
justments in statutory rates of pay as he hard, impartial look at pay questions and
determines appropriate to carry out the to serve as a valuable party in the fixing
comparability principles effective Octo- of Federal pay.
ber 1 of each year, except that in 1971 In the conference substitute we also
and 1972 such adjustments will become included provisions authorizing admin-
If, because of a national emergency or
economic conditions affecting the general
welfare, the President determines that it
is not appropriate to make the pay com-
parability adjustments, he is directed to
prepare and transmit to the Congress,
before September 1, an alternate pay
adjustment plan. The alternate plan
would become effective on October 1 un-
less within 30 days after receiving it,
Congress vetoed the plan. In such event,
the President is required to put into effect
the original comparability recommenda-
tions. The congressional veto of an alter-
nate plan would follow the same pro-
cedures established for congressional
disapproval of an executive reorganiza-
istrative pay fixing authorities in the leg-
islative, judicial, and executive branches
to fix the rates of pay for those em-
ployees who are not covered by the statu-
tory pay systems consistent with the an-
nual adjustments. The authority under
this section is entirely discretionary.
This means that Members of the House
of Representatives will for the first time
have the authority to raise wages or
withhold a raise in accordance with per-
formance rendered by congressional
staff employees.
The conference substitute contains
some miscellaneous provisions as well.
Allowances for employees at remote
worksites and allowances for employees
involved in floating plant operations
tion plan. - with the Corps of Engineers are au-
Recommendations of Federal employee thorized. The nepotism provisions of law
union representatives will be considered have been extended to employees of the
by the President through the newly es- U.S. postal service and additional super-
tablished Federal Employees Pay Coun- grade positions for the U.S. Tax Court
cil. This group consists of five members and for allocation by the Civil Service
chosen from representatives of employee Commission among departments and
organizations and is charged with the agencies in the executive branch have
duty of consulting with the President's been authorized.
agent in implementing the comparability Mr. Speaker, let me deal briefly with the
procedure. subject of a pay raise for 1971. Many colum-
An advisory committee on Federal pay ists have labeled this legislation a "pay bill",
is also established for the purpose of but this Is really a misnomer. There is no
recommending to the President pay pro- comparability increase ordered by the bill.
It was our feeling that the Civil service com-
posals that will implement the compara- mission and the Office of Management and
bility principle. This is an independent Budget could better devise a pay plan to
body consisting of three members ap- fit the needs of all employees in the statu-
pointed by the President from outside tory pay systems for 1971 and for that reason
of the Government. Members will serve we refrain from including any mandatory pay
for 6-year terms. increase.
The establishment of these two advi- This is not to say, however, that we do
sory bodies represents a significant fea- ua
not ry 1, anticipate In theacourse eof ourinegotia-
ture of the committee substitute before tions we were assured time and again by
H 12.589
Individuals both within the Civil Service
Commission and within the-Office of Man-
agement and Budget that the President fully
intended to use the authority that we have
granted him under this bill to make a corn-
parability increase for the upcoming year.
I for one would like to go on record as being
in favor of this increase; I think it is needed
and I think we owe it to our federal em-
ployees to bring them up to full comparabil-
ity as we guaranteed them under the 19.62
law.
If the President does not see fit to make
this adjustment, the matter will not end
there. Once the bill becomes law the Con-
gress will immediately have the authority
to serve as overseer of the President's ac-
tion on pay matters. The congressional ma-
chinery provided in the bill for overriding
an alternative plan submitted by the Presi-
dent will be available to us immediately and
I for one intend to hold this administration
to the assurances that have been given us.
Lest there be any doubt concerning the
availability of the congressional machinery
for 1971 and 1972, let me quote you the
language of the relevant section. Section
5308(c) of the committee substitute provides
that the President may make the initial
adjustment-(for 1971)-without regard to
the Advisory Committe on Federal Pay and
the Federal Employees Pay Council.
It further provides that notwithstand-
ing any provision prescribing an effective
date of October 1 for any pay provision
made by the President, the initial adjust-
ment shall become effective on the first
day of the first applicable pay period that
begins on or after January 1, 1971, and
January 1, 1972, respectively. Finally, the
President's agent for purposes of the
1971 and 1972 adjustments shall be the
Director, Office of Management and
Budget and the Chairman, U.S. Civil
Service Commission.
Note, Mr. Speaker, that this section
does contain language that suspends the
role of Congress as overseer of the pay
process for these 2 years. And indeed,
why should it? It is nonsensical to thijak
that the years 1971 and 1972 should be
treated differently from any other year.
Our interest in the well being of Federal
employees is not cyclical-it is constant.
In other words, it was and is the intent
of the conferees to make available the
congressional machinery immediately
upon enactment of this legislation. And
in fact, this was and is the intent of the
administration as well. At the end of my
remarks I am including a letter from
Chairman Hampton of the Civil Service
Commission in which he states:
It was definitely not our intent in fixing
a January date for the first two adjustments
to preclude the President from submitting
an alternate plan. (It was our intent)
simply to permit the first adjustment to me
made without reference to the President's
Advisory Committee and to change the dates
for the first two adjustments to accommo-
date to the present (BLS) survey schedule
... We interpreted the Committee print to
permit the submission of alternate plans
these first two years.
Part and parcel to the alternate plan
procedure is the congressional review
procedure. Thus for 1971 and 1972, if the
President determines that he cannot
make the full comparability adjustment,
he must submit an alternate plan to the
Congress. Upon receipt of the alternate
plan, the Congress has 30 days within
which to act. If the President, because of
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 1, 1970
congressional act.- f., is required to make ence report to the House under suspen- The conference report contains at least
the full adjustme:: , increases in rates of Sion of the rules procedure is just one three specific provisions which were not
pay will take effe( on the first day of the
first applicable pa?. period that begins on
or after the day congressional action.
I do want to ge my colleagues to
support our effort Mr. Speaker. "phis is
really an historic dece of legislation in
every sense of this
n years I have
about some kind
permanent meth
problem of the
salaries. In 1967 s
effort by passing
That bill set
Federal salaries
statutory Pay s'.
automatically in 1,
cress was partial:-
sensical position ,
-rear out over Few
stead, Congress
overworked term. For
een trying to bring
of rational, sensible.
of approaching the
.justment of Federal
took a big step in this
e Federal Salary Act.
ecedent by directing
employees under the
.ems to be adjusted
58 and 1969. The Con-
taken out of the non-
fighting year in and
al pay legislation. In-
viewed the decisions
more sordid-and i emphasize sordid- committed to the conference committee,
example of the irresponsibility of this which were not contained in either the
by the proponents of-the conference re-
port are an obvious admission that the
handiwork of the conference committee
fractured every rule of the conference
and it could not on its merits be pre-
sented to the House in orderly fashion
to stand the test of the House rules.
At this point I note the presence of
the distinguished majority leader iMr.
HLRERTI. I should like to ask him when
the House last considered a conference
report under suspension of the rules pro-
cedure which prohibits amendments and
prevents the offering of points of order?
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. Of course I yield.
Mr. ALBERT. I do not remember the
last time, but the Speaker has the au-
thority to recognize for suspension of
tine rules.
Mr. GROSS. No one disputes that he
has that authority.
Mr.-ALBERT. And the majority leader
never encroaches on that authority.
Mr. GROSS. I should like to address
an inquiry to the distinguished minority
leader iMr. GERALD R. FORD).
Did the minority leader join in this
enterprise-this irresponsible enterprise
of bringing a conference report to the
House floor under a suspension of the
rules procedure?
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
v, ill the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the minority
leader.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I am sure the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa
knows that the prerogative for invoking
this procedure is not in the jurisdiction
of the minority leader. It is the sole pre-
rogative of the distinguished Speaker.
I happen to be for this legislation, but
I had no choice as to whether or not
this conference report should come up
under this procedure.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman has not
answered the question as to whether he
approved this procedure.
The gentleman usually is consulted as
to how legislation comes to the House
floor in situations of this kind, especially
the dying hours of a session of Congress.
Why have committees of the Congress
if members of a committee can go into
a conference with the other body and
put anything-and I mean anything-
into the legislation, come back to the
House and be protected under a suspen-
sion of the rules by which it is Impossible
to raise points of order or offer amend-
ments to remove the ungermane pro-
visions? Why have committees if such
dictatorial procedures are to be used?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield to me?
Mr. GROSS. No; not at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to make
a point of order against the conference
House or the Senate amendments, and
which are clearly not germane to the
conference substitute.
First, the conference substitute, in
section 8. contains an amendment to
the Postal Reorganization Act (Public
Law 91-375) dealing with "restrictions
on Postal Service employment of rela-
tives" which was not contained in either
the House bill or the Senate amendment.
It is completely nongermane and irrel-
evant to the general matter of Federal
employee pay which was committed to
the conference committee.
Second, the conference substitute, in
section 9, provides for 20 adidtional
supergrade positions to the supergrade
pool administered by the Civil Service
Commission and specifically creates five
new such positions for the U.S. Tax
Court. The matter of supergrade posi-
tions was not even remotely involved in
the House bill or the Senate amend-
ment and inclusion in the conference
substitute is certainly not germane, and
clearly introduces extraneous matter
not committed to the conference com-
mittee.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference
substitute, in section 31a) delegates to
the President all authority in the future
to set the rates of pay for employees un-
der the statutory pay systems. This is
a radically new concept incorporated in
the conference substitute that was not
in the House bill or the Senate amend-
ment. This concept is not germane to the
matter that was in disagreement and it
is not a matter that was committed to
the conference committee by either
House.
This is a vitally important point. Mr.
Speaker, since it is the very substance
of the conference substitute, yet it clearly
violates the rules and precedents of
the House. Rule 28, clause 3, of the Rules
of the House reads:
Whenever a disagreement to an amend-
ment in the nature of a substitute has been
committed to a conference committee it
shall be in order for the Managers on the
part of the House to propose a substitute
which is a germane modification-
I repeat. "a germane modification"-
of the matter In disagreement, but their
report shall not Include matter not com-
mitted to the conference committee by
either House.
The Senate bill was an amendment in
the nature of a substitute for the House
bill. The conference report is an addi-
tional substitute on the same subject.
However, the conference report distinct-
ly, clearly, and specifically includes
matter not committed to the conferees
by either House, and matter which can-
not be held to be a "germane modifica-
tion on the matter of disagreement."
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 13000 passed the
House and Senate in late 1969-more
reached by the es !utive and maintained
overall control of -re process, and that is
as it should be.
We took anotl.F ' big step in bringing
permanence to nge fixing procedures
last August. It v ; ; then we shifted pay
setting for poste', employees from Con-
gress to a new ,:; ass-corporate govern-
mental agency. F. ,e collar workers have
been under a sin: tar system for almost
100 years. What 1 ay we should do today
is to complete t: process by enacting
this bill, the re, t being a systematic
method of raisins lay for nearly all Fed-
eral employees.
I' S. CIVIL VICE COMMISSION,
Washingtosy 7.C.. November 9. 1970.
Hon. MORRIS K. UD1: ?
Chairman. Comp- Batton Subcommittee,
Committee on ost Ofjfee and Civil Ser-
rice. House of 'presentatires, Washing-
ton. D.C.
DEAR MR. UDALL Is have learned from the
Committee staff t t your Committee Print
of October 8 is be::: interpreted to preclude
the President's sin mitting an alternative
plan with respec~ o the pay adjustments
which would othe, Ise take effect in Janu-
ary 1971 and Jan : -y 1972.
It was definitel, lot our Intent In fixing
a January date fo- he first two adjustments
to preclude the f`: sident from submitting
an alternative plan The purpose of section 3
of the Adminlstra on's bill was simply to
permit the first ad stment to be made with-
out reference to ne President's Advisory
Committee and I. hange the dates for the
first two adjustmc a to accommodate to the
present survey sch=' ule.
My testimony I a pages 57 and 58 of the
printed hearings: makes clear our Intent
that the Presiden ould submit an alterna-
tive plan with re ect to the January 1971
adjustment. We i:: Irpreted your Committee
Print to permit the submission of alternative
plans in these fir,-, two years. If you believe
-.hat the language f the Committee i'rlnt Is
slot sufficiently cl, r on this point, I should
be pleased to sia test amendments which
would bring It ln' line with the Adminis-
tration's position n this point.
t incerely y rs,
,e#RT E. HAMPTON.
Chat, man.
Mr. GROSS. r. Speaker, I yield my-
self 8 minutes.
(Mr. GROSS ked and was given per-
mission to revise Lind extend his remarks
and include ex'. neous matter.)
Mr. GROSS. \ r. Speaker, the deplor-
able maneuver bringing this confer-
report but being denied that privilege I than a year ago-and for all intents and
want to submit for the RECORD and for purposes was abandoned and superseded
the edification of the House those items by the enactment of Public Law 91-231,
which I contend are In flagrant violation enacted in April of this year granting a
of the rules and precedents of the House 6-percent retroactive pay raise to all
of Representatives. Federal employees.
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 31, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
It is clearly evident that this bill was
resurrected as a convenient vehicle for
ramming through the Congress, in the
closing days of the 91st Congress, with
complete disregard-yes, with complete
contempt-for the orderly procedures of
this body, an entirely new, radical, non-
germane proposition for setting Federal
pay.
I cannot in good conscience partici-
pate in such maneuvering and in such
deception.
Mr. Speaker, aside from the incredible
procedures being used to ramrod this
legislation through Congress with a
minimum amount of consideration, the
conference report should be rejected en-
tirely because it is dangerously bad legis-
lation.
It represents a complete abdication of
congressional responsibility in a vital
area of national fiscal affairs. It is ex-
plosively inflationary, and completely
contrary to the best interests of the
American people.
What is here planned, simply stated,
is for the Congress to turn over to the
President for all time in the future blank-
check authority to set the pay of all
Federal employees. It is proposed here
in the dying days of the 91st Congress
to divest the Congress of a vital respon-
sibility which it has properly exercised
since the founding of the Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
SLACK). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 3 additional minutes.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill
does violence to the appropriation and
revenue-raising responsibilities of' the
legislative branch. It turns over to the
President-any President sole respon-
sibility for managing the $48.8 billion a
year civilian and military payrolls of the
United States with each 1-percent in-
crease in those payrolls amounting to an
automatic additional Federal expendi-
ture of $361 million.
Under the procedure proposed in this
bill, the sole role of Congress in the
future with respect to setting Federal
pay will be to find the money some-
where, somehow, to pay the bill. Con-
gress will have absolutely no control over
the amount of any future pay raise re-
gardless of how critical the fiscal situa-
tion may be at any particular time.
In fact, under the specific provisions
of this legislation the Congress can only
act at such time as the President does
not increase pay, or does not increase it
enough-I repeat, does not increase it
enough. And incredibly enough, the au-
thors of this legislation have, in effect,
told the President that from now on
"you increase the pay of Federal em-
ployees on a periodic' basis with the
Congress looking over your shoulder to
make sure you do so."
Mr. Speaker, it must be made abun-
dantly clear that by reason of this con-
ference report the President will be re-
quired to raise the pay of all Federal
civilian and military personnel effective
January 1, 1971-tomorrow-again on
January 1, 1972, again on October 1,
1972, and on each October 1 thereafter.
Thus, the first three pay raises will come
in less than 2 years.
It is expected that the pay raise effec-
tive January 1, 1971-tomorrow-will
approximate 6 percent and will in-
crease the total budget by $2.3 billion.
This money is not in the budget. It
means adding another $2.3 billion deficit
to a budget that is already in the red by
over $10 billion and this during a criti-
cal period of rapid inflation and rising
unemployment. The President himself
has just recently pleaded with business
and labor to make a special effort to ex-
ercise restraint in price and wage deci-
sions. Any example of restraint should
certainly begin in Federal Government
wage decisions.
The action this House takes today goes
far beyond any so-called inflation
alert. If this bill is enacted it will be
an inflation blast that will ring in the
ears of all Americans for a long time to
come. The consequences on our econ-
omy could be devastating.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self 2 additional minutes.
Mr. Speaker, just 3 years ago in this
same month, in the closing days of a
congressional session, I opposed the en-
actment of legislation which turned over
to the President the final authority to
set the pay of Members of Congress,
judges, and Cabinet officials. I pointed
out then, as I do now, that this is an
important responsibility that belongs in
the Congress which must be accountable
for the expenditures of public moneys
and the raising of tax revenues. I pointed
out then, as I do now, the inflationary
aspects of such action. I pointed out, too,
the shameful step-by-step delegations
of power to the President-powers and
responsibilities no Congress should sur-
render.
On December 11, Donald Saltz, busi-
ness editor of the Washington News, de-
voted his entire column to the conse-
quences of our action of 3 years ago.
His first two paragraphs are as fol-
lows :
One of the great mistakes of recent years
occurred in early 1968 when Congress ac-
cepted a pay raise from $30,OOQ to $42,500 a
year, or more than 40 per cent.
What that did was to open a Pandora's
Box of inflationary troubles which are hack-
ing and kicking away at our economic struc-
ture. It has led to union demands for huge
pay increases without corresponding rises in
production.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative for this
Congress to decide here and now that it
will not abdicate to the Chief Executive
its role in managing a $48,800,000,000
total Federal payroll and that it will not
recklessly feed the already intense fires
of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative for the
general welfare of this Nation that we
here and now reject this conference re-
port.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. GROSS. I have promised to yield
time to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-
tleman from Iowa has consumed 13 min-
utes.
Following is the full text of the article
by Mr. Donald Saltz in the Washington
Daily News:
H 12591
[From the Washington News, Dec. 11, 1970]
HILL RAISES STIMULATE INFLATION
(By Donald Saltz)
One of the great mistakes of recent years
occurred in early 1969 when Congress ac..
cepted a pay raise from $30,000 to $42,500 a
year, or more than 40 per cent.
What that did was to open a Pandora's
Box of inflationary troubles which are hack-
ing and kicking away at our economic strut-?
ture. It has led to union demands for huge
pay increases without corresponding rises
in production.
Automobile workers, now rail workers, gov-
ernment employes and numerous other or-
ganized groups are seeking sharp additions
of pay, under the guise of simply offsetting
cost-of-living increases. k
ABOVE INFLATION
The -pay increases being sought and the
sums received, in most cases, are more than
enough to meet the rate of inflation. What
they have the effect of doing is causing more
and stronger inflation, and the cycle con-
tinues.
If selfish individual demands for more
money continue, the U.S. will likely price
itself out of more world markets. Already,
about one of every nine cars bought in this
country is foreign-made. American-made
cars have gone up another $175 to $200 or
so, as an after-effect of large wage settle-
ments for auto workers.
A large rail pay settlement will mean high-
er freight rates which will be passed along
to the consumer, and that means almost
everybody because we all use products that
are shipped by rail.
Federal government workers have come to
expect annual raises "to bring the workers
up to private industry scale," but many gov-
ernment people do not take into account the
stability of their positions, their fringe
benefits or even annual increments as a re-
sult of length of service.
An exact equal, on-the-surface pay foot-
ing for government workers stimulates pri-
vate employers to pay a bit more to offset
other advantages of government workers.
HANDICAPPED-RETIRED
As the Congress prepares to raise social
security benefits, the other side of the coin
shows social security taxes rising at a stag-
gering rate. It offers another reason for work-
ers to demand more pay, which in turn makes
prices go up, and once again the retired
persons on social security find their dollars
inadequate.
The cycle will continue, interrupted only
by breathing spells.
As salaries go up, taxes do more than rise
proportionately. Higher incomes are assessed
higher tax rates.
A large union could win long-time public
favor if it would face contract time with a
sensible approach and seek wage increases
equal to productivity gains. If there has not
been an increase in productivity, is it right
to seek wage increases?
In some instances, probably, where under-
payment is severe. For most lines of work,
however, no real justification exists for high-
er pay on a regular basis.
How can we complain about a higher cost
of living when we are responsible for it?
Voluntary restraint is one way to keep
prices down. But as long as groups of people
plunge headlong into a pool of pay-raise ad-
vocates and refuse to consider the longer-
term effects of more money for the same
work, the country's in trouble.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. HoGAN).
(Mr. HOGAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, the legisla-
tion before us today is long overdue. As
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE December .f1, 1970
has been indicat, previously the Con-
gress is not abdit ing its responsibility
in this area of 1 feral pay legislation.
What we are doin_ is creating an admin-
istrative mechanic which would enable
the pay raise ti -each the employees
sooner to give son. equity in the matter
of comparability.
The legislative process is slow and
cumbersome and, r ccause this is so. Fed-
eral employees ar aways lagging behind
in comparability.
The Congress the United States
promised Federa employees compara-
bility in 1962, but t has been an empty
promise since tho' time because we have
been unable to + ;pond to the cost of
living increases in sufficient time to get
the benefit to tb employees when. they
deserve them.
Mr. Speaker, v it this legislation be-
fore us today doer s create a mechanism
to get the raise t :he employee quicker.
Mr. Sneaker, t conference report on
H.R. 13000, the I' y Comparability Act
of 1970. provides my opinion a rational
and realistic ap: ?oach to a problem
which has beset t. ' Post Office and Civil
Service Commits, and the Congress,
for too long. That s, the fixing of pay of
Federal employe.: under the statutory
pay systems.
In effect, what , e are trying to do to-
day is fulfill a pi(,, re which the Congress
made in 1962 to Is" )rd full comparability
to Federal emplc:'. res. That principle of
comparability is :t sensible and fair to-
day as it was the:' but it cannot ever be
properly effected - r in a timely manner
unless we adopt a ermanent pay-setting
system as propos! in this legislation.
As one of the riginal cosponsors of
this legislation, hope this conference
report now befor, us will be promptly
approved.
In brief, the c iference substitute to
H.R. 13000 provi;l s the following:
First. it requir:? the President to di-
rect such agent i he considers appro-
priate-normally he Chairman of the
Civil Service Con-.1 fission and the Direc-
tor, Office of Mar Bement and Budget-
to prepare and sG ,mit to him annually.
after considerinf, he views and recom-
mendations of Fr, eral employee organ-
ization represen tives. a report rec-
ommending pay 4 justments in rates of
Pay of the state ory pay systems on
the basis of corn: arability with private
industry. The P' sident is required to
make adiustmen' in statutory rates of
pay as he dete -lines appropriate to
carry out the c iparability principles,
effective October of each year, except
that in 1971 and 972 such adjustments
would become C. -etive on January 1.
Congress would t be involved in these
adjustments.
Second. If, t,? ause of a national
emergency or er -lomic conditions af-
fectin>z the gene- .1 welfare, the Presi-
dent determines ' nappropriate to make
the pay comparr ility adjustments, he
shall prepare ant transmit to the Con-
gress, before Sept mber 1, an alternative
pay adjustment plan. The alternative
plan would beep!: , effective on October
1 and would con' nue unless within 30
days after receivi g it, Congress vetoed
the plan. In suet event, the President
is required to issu the original compar-
ability adjustments. The congressional
veto of an alternative plan would fol-
low the same procedure established for
congressional disapproval of an execu-
tive reorganization plan.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize there will be
some Members objecting to this pro-
cedure in fear the Congress is abdicating
its responsibility of setting pay, but I do
not agree that this is the case. To answer
their anticipated arguments, I agree that
we in the Congress are responsible for
establishing basic pay-fixing policies.
which we will be doing, but the long
bitter history has shown that the Con-
gress is just not very well suited to the
administrative task of determining and
fixing pay schedules. Federal employees
who always have to wait on inordinately
for their much deserved pay raises, are
the sufferers from Congress inability to
respond to their need more promptly.
Our Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee has struggled for years to arrive
at a solution to this problem of rate set-
ting whereby our Federal employees and
Federal Government would jointly share
in a system affording fair and compa-
rable pay to Federal employees, while al-
lowing a competitive climate for our G:)r-
ernment to retain and recruit the best
possible employees.
As my distinguished minority leader
has stated, the administration is not op-
posed to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced we have
found in this legislation a workable solu-
tion, and I urge the adoption of the con-
ference report by the required two-thirds
vote.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 min-
utes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
HALL).
(Mr. HALL asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime
student of the procedures of this body
and having observed its proceedings since
1965 through the recent bill that was
enacted into law on the reorganization of
the Congress, I enthusiastically associate
myself with the remarks of the gentle-
man from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) about the
technique of bringing this bill on the floor
so that points of order cannot be lodged
against it, nor can it be amended or prop-
erly debated.
I would like to ask the principal spon-
sor of the bill. my friend. the gentleman
from New York, the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, was the substance of
this conference report ever considered
in any hearings held by the committee
of this body?
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
Gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DULSKI. Yes; it was.
Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman cite
those hearings to me, please?
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DULSKI. A compensation on the
Federal classified system hearing before
the Subcommittee on Compensation of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service of the 91st Congress. second ses-
lion, on H.R. 13000. July 27. 28, 29, 30,
and 31 of 1970.
Mr. HALL. Is my distinguished friend
by his answer implying that the substance
of this conference report, and particularly
the statement of the managers on the
part of the House, evolved as a direct re-
sult of those hearings-is that correct?
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. When I ask the gentleman
a question. I automatically yield to him
to answer.
Mr. DULSKI. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. I suggest you ask the
chairman of the committee if there was
any committee. action on this substitute.
Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman care
to respond to that?
Mr. DULSKI. The subcommittee acted
on this.
Mr. GROSS. The question: Was there
any full committee action on this sub-
stitute?
Mr. DULSKI. The gentleman knows
very well that there was none.
Mr. GROSS. I am glad to have that
established in the RECORD.
Mr. HALL. I think it is important to
make this record, and I say to the Mem-
bers who are sitting here under suspen-
sion of the rules that this is why points
of order against portions of this confer-
ence report cannot be lodged, and I pre-
sume it is why the signers or the man-
agers on the part of the House do not
include all of those who were appointed
to the conference.
I would further like to ask if the new
supergradds included in the conference
report for the Civil Service Commission
are needed, and if those already assigned
to the downtown pool have been ex-
hausted and, in that same context.
whether or not these include the level 4's
for the advisory committee?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield to me to answer that
question?
Mr, HALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. I ask unanimous consent
to include at this point in the RECORD a
letter dated December 7, 1970, from Mr.
Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of the
Civil Service Commission, which answers
that specific question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
SLACK). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The letter is as follows:
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., December 7, 1970.
Hon. THADDEUS J. DUI.SKI,
Chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee, House of Representatives, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a follow-up
of my discussions with members of your
committee about the need for 30 additional
supergrade positions.
The increase of 150, which the Congress
authorized in December 1969, was sufficient
to meet only the most crucial, barebones
needs that existed at that time. Attached Is
n list Indicating our distribution of the 150
positions authorized by Congress. When I
testified in support of the positions, I
pointed out to members of your committee
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 31, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
that we would review future program re-
quirements to determine how many addi-
tional supergrades would be needed. We now
conclude that a minimum of 30 new posi-
tions are required. Most of these new criti-
cal needs are in the following new or an-
ticipated organizations and functions:
The Environmental Planning Agency. This
newly founded agency desperately needs au-
thority to appoint its top staff to permit it
to begin its attack on national environ-
mental problems.
The Office of Telecommunications Policy.
Top-level posiitons need to be established to
develop a national policy for this heretofore
splintered function.
The National Oceanographic and Atmos-
pheric Administration. Established from
several different agencies, this new Admin-
istration needs to have sufficient executive
manpower to coordinate and establish cen-
tralized control over the various programs
assigned.
Inter-American Social Development In-
stitute. This new organization, part of the
President's -program "Foreign Assistance for
the Seventies," will strive to bring improve-
ments in education, agriculture, health,
housing, and labor to Latin America by work-
ing principally through private organiza-
tions, individuals and international organiza-
tions. Supergrade spaces are required for
the top several positions in this new In-
stitute.
In order to make most efficient use of quota
spaces currently available, the Commission,
on a daily basis, has been reassessing priority
needs among the agencies and questioning
priority needs within the agencies. Space
control has been rigorously followed and
spaces have been moved among agencies and
within agencies after careful scrutiny of
priorities and needs. The Commission has
launched a program wherein positions that
are not filled within 180 days are automati-
cally returned to the Commission pool and
reassigned to satisfy higher priorities. I have
personally discussed these stringent control
measures with the Under Secretaries of the
major agencies. These efforts have been suc-
cessful in getting maximum use from the
existing quota, but we have now reached a
point where we simply need additional
spaces.
I would greatly appreciate a favorable
reception to this request for 30 additional
supergrades.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Chairman.
Total
Agriculture ------------------------- 4
Bureau of the Budget -------------- 1
CAB ------------------------------- 1
Commerce -------------------------- 4
Commission on Civil Rights -------- I
Council on Environmental Quality ____ 4
Export-Import Bank 1
FCC --------------------------------- 2
Federal Home Loan Bank Board ____ 1
Federal Labor Relations 'Council ------ 4
Federal Mediation and Conflation Serv-
ice
------------------------------- 1
FPC
-------------------------------- I.
FTC
-------------------------------- 2
GSA
-------------------------------- 2
Government of District of Columbia __ 5
HEW
------------------------------- 10
HUD
------------------------------- 11
Indian' 'Claims Commission ----------- I
Interior ---------------------------- 6
IOC -------------------------------- 1
Justice
------------------------------ 21
Labor
------------------------------ 7
National Communication 'Consumer Fi-
nance ---------------------------- 1
National Foundation on the Arts ------ I
Post Office ----------------------------- 5
Pres. Comm., Empl. Handicapped _____ 1
Selective Service System -------------- 10
Smithsonian ------------------------ I
DOT --------------------------------
27
Treasury ---------------------------
3
Veterans' Administration_______________
3
Office of the Vice President ------------
4
Reserve -----------------------------
1
150
Mr. UDALL. In that letter the Chair-
man of the Civil Service Commission says
that they are exhausted, that they do
need additional supergrades. In fact, they
asked desperately for 50 for the new en-
vironmental agencies that have been set
up. The gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. HENDERSON) negotiated with them
and said, "We will not give you 50, but
we will give you 20," and so it was at
the request of Mr. HENDERSON that we
put 20 in the conference report.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman for
his answer, but I submit to the Members
who are attentive to the question of this
violation of good procedure; that the
House, after the bill is enacted, would
have nothing more to do about those. We
will have lost the committee's respon-
sibility of surveillance, review, and over-
sight as to how these are allotted from
time to time and whether or not, indeed,
they are needed. I question whether they
are, although I know the problem of
recruiting.
Gentlemen, what we are here involved
with, is the question of a sacred cow on
the part of the big spenders versus the
violation of a principle, a principle that
goes back to the Constitution itself,
wherein it says that the people's personal
representatives, their Representatives in
the House, will originate such proposals,
pertaining to taxes, including stamps,
tariffs, and levies, and it was for a viola-
tion of that principle that we fought
King George in his effort to enforce the
Stamp Act, and thus become a represent-
ative Republic.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time
of the gentleman from Missouri has
expired.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman from Iowa yield me additional
time?
Mr. GROSS. Yes. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the gentleman from Missouri 2 addition-
al minutes.
Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentleman
yielding further.
Mr. Speaker, this violation of the
principle of nongermaneness, the right
of the minority to strike by submitting
points of order against that which, under
.any rule of the House, is not pertinent;
and bringing back a conference-origi-
nated complete new bill is unconscion-
able, and the question is not merely
whether we are going to have compar-
ability. I believe maybe that could be a
good thing, although I do not believe in
all of the requirements of the bleeding
hearts for comparability or that it can
even be assayed. But the point at issue
here, is that we are leaving Congress
completely out of any effective action,
which is required by the Constitution.
I would like to ask one other question
in the short time remaining: Who is the
"President's agent," as referred to in
the conference report, and how is he
derived or appointed?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. UDALL. He is paid nothing but his
usual salary. The agent for the first 2
years will be jointly the Director of the
Office of Budget and Management, Mr.
Shultz, and the Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission, Mr. Hampton.
Mr. HALL. So there are two agents,
and it is Mr. Hampton, not Mr. HENDER-
SON. I appreciate the gentleman correct-
ing that from his last statement.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HALL. Be that as it may, I do not
know how these men can act vis-a-vis
the President's requirement, which we
here impose upon him from the pre-
rogatives of the House, including reports
vis-a-vis the Civil Service Commission
and vis-a-vis the gentleman's committee
on which he acts, and for which he
speaks.
Finally, I think we have had enough
raises in this session of the Congress.
We certainly have had enough in this
Congress, the 91st Congress, starting out
with a doubling of the President's sal-
ary, not at his request but at the request
of an advisory commission previously
submitted by a prior administration,
and then we raised our own salary 41
percent.
Then we raised the salary of our help.
Then we raised the salary of our own
committees. Then we raised the salaries
of House functionarys administration.
Then we raised that of the Speaker and
gave him an unconscionable going-
away present only last week. There are
cther examples and the people are tote-
ing them.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I would
point out there have been three pay
raises in the last year for Federal em-
ployees and this legislation will trigger
another raise, effective tomorrow, and
costing more than $2 billion.
Mr. HALL. There have been pay raises
and they have been in the interest of
comparability and equity. It is the re-
sponsibility of the Congress to decide
these things, whether they be in the
military or in the Postal Service or in
the General Service Act.
An often forgotten truth these days is
that the Treasury tax funds are not the
subject for charity or to be given away
at the instigation of headline-hunters or
those who would please indivdual seg-
ments by such legislation.
I recommend from the bottom of my
heart, not only because of the procedure
under which we consider this, but also
because it is a violation and a raid on
the Treasury, that it be voted down with-
out the slightest compunction.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentle-
man from, Pennsylvania.
[Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania ad-
dressed the House. His remarks will ap-
pear hereafter in the Extensions of Re-
marks.]
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, before the
debate closes, I want to make two points.
I was a little bit disturbed to hear that
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE December 31, 1970
gentleman from `, issouri, wito served
with distinction c.e the Armed Services
Committee, talking, bout bleeding hearts
and talking about he $2 billion cost of
this bill. Over $1 ti ion of that $2 billion
will go to the army services. The cost of
this bill includes rereent for the mili-
tary. If anybody is been squeezed by
the inflation in ti last 2 years. it, has
been these people
Second. the big , lint about germane-
ness and the tall: tbout the 20 super-
grades, that is lesr han 2 percent of the
supergrades in th, ?ederal service.
There is another- toint about the anti-
nepotism provision We passed in 1967-
and the gentler!, i from Iowa (Mr.
SMITH 1, was the r. -. hor of it, the father
of it. and he had t ' support of the gen-
tleman from Ic.1 t-an antinepotism
provision. I proml d the gentleman on
the floor when wf? )assed postal reform
and we left that rovision out, that I
would support a pr iision to get antinep-
ctism provision m. e governmrntwide.
So these are the o main things about
which we are he.. ng In this order of
business. about th. increase of less than
1 percent in the ipergrades. which is
less than one-halt if what the admini-
stration wanted..:: 3 the redemption of
a promise some of made that we would
correct the oversi)s ; regarding the anti-
nepotism provisior which was left out of
the Postal Reform _- t.
Mr. DULSKI a. i 'd and was given per-
mission to revise end extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DULSKI. M
lation originally i
a year ago by a rt
As passed by the 11
salary adjustment
ees, established a
adjusting rates of
ees under the stag!
included certain
benefits for Feder
The Senate pas- '
of the bill, the bill
and the conferees
during the early t}.
to no resolution.
justments for ems
utory pay system,
became law undi
and Public Law (
most important ll
passed the House.
of a permanent
rates of pay for
mains unresolved
On July 22. 197i
Civil Service Con:
legislative recomt
new, permanent
menting the pay
adopted by the C
tional hearings wr.,
istration's proposd..
are before us toda',
as the provisions
istration's propos,.
The provisions e
port of the admi,i
objected to by th-
tions representinv
statutory systems
The primary pur
now before the Her
statutory procedur
Speaker, this legis-
ised the House over
,rd vote of 311 to 51.
ise, the bill provided
for Federal employ-
'rmanent method of
y of Federal employ-
Dry pay systems, and
iiscellaneous fringe
I employees.
i a different version
is sent to conference,
eld several meetings
rt of 1970 but came
ibsequently pay ad-
yees under the stat-
were enacted and
Public Law 91-231
-375. However, the
rt of H.R. 13000 as
evolving the question
eethod of adjusting
deral employees, re-
the Chairman of the
aission submitted a
endation proposing
ocedures for imple-
:omparability policy
greys in 1962. Addi-
held on the admin-
The provisions that
re basically the same
eluded In the admin-
of July 22. 1970.
ve the complete sup-
:tration and are not
employee organiza-
'mployees under the
)vered by the bill.
ose of the legislation
se is to prescribe the
s for fixing rates of
pay under the comparability system for
employees under the three statutory sal-
ary systems-the general schedule, staff
officers and employees in the Foreign
Service, and physicians, dentists, and
nurses in the Department of Medicine
and Surgery of the Veterans' Adminis-
tration.
The procedure requires that an agent
of the President-ordinarily the Chair-
man of the Civil Service Commission
and the Director of the Office of Man-
agement and Budget-will prescribe a
comparability pay survey to be con-
ducted by the Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics, prepare an annual comparative
statement of the rates of pay based on
the survey and submit recommendations
for pay adjustments to the President.
An Advisory Committee on Federal
Pay. to be composed of three Presiden-
tial appointees, will review the recom-
mendations and report to the President
its findings and recommendations.
The President is to make adjustments
in the rates of the statutory pay sys-
tems as he determines necessary to carry
out the comparability principle.
The provisions of the legislation also
require the establishment of a Federal
Employee Pay Council consisting of five
members to be chosen from representa-
tives of employee organizations. This pay
council, as well as other representatives
of employee organizations, has the right
to consult with the President's agent and
the Advisory Committee on Federal Pay
on the procedures for implementing the
comparability.
The pay adjustments will become effec-
tive in October of each year except that
in 1971 and 1972. respectively, they
would become effective on January 1.
The action by the President in imple-
menting the comparability increases
would be final and does not require any
action by the Congress. However, provi-
sions are included so that the President,
if because of a national emergency or
economic conditions affecting the gen-
eral welfare, considers it inappropriate
to make the comparability adjustments.
he may submit to the Congress an alter-
nate plan providing pay adjustments
other than those required by the com-
parability survey.
An alternate plan would become ef-
fective on October 1 and would continue
In effect unless, prior to the end of a
period of 30 calendar days of continu-
ous session of the Congress, after the
date on which the alternate plan Is
transmitted, either House of Congress
adopts a resolution disapproving the
alternate plan.
The legislation also authorizes adjust-
ments to be made In the rates of pay of
employees of the legislative, judicial,
and executive branches of the Govern-
ment whose rates of pay are fixed by
administrative action. Such adjust-
ments are required to be in amounts
not exceeding the rate of any adjust-
ments that may be made by the Presi-
dent for the general schedule employees.
In the case of the House of Repre-
sentatives. provisions are included au-
thorizing the Clerk of the House to ad-
just each minimum and maximum rate
of pay applicable to any employee or
class of employees whose pay is dis-
bursed by the Clerk of the House. The
Clerk is also authorized to adjust the
monetary limitations and monetary al-
lowances applicable to House employees.
This includes the authority for the Clerk
to adjust automatically the Clerk-hire
allowance for Members. However, the
legislation does not contain any provi-
sions under which the pay of House em-
ployees would be adjusted automatical-
ly. It does contain authority for the pay
of House employees to be adjusted at
the discretion of the pay fixing author-
ity, such as by a Member, in the case of
an employee in a Member's office.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize
that this legislation does not contain
any increases in rates of pay. It does
prescribe a permanent system or method
under which the rates of pay of the ma-
jority of employees of the U.S. Govern-
ment may be adjusted on an annual
basis to fulfill the comparability policy
adopted by the Congress in 1962.
I urge that the House act favorably
on this proposal here today.
I include a summary of the proposal
approved by the conferees:
SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE SussrtrUTE
To H.R. 13000
The Conference substitute provides a per-
manent method of adjusting the rates of
pay of Feedral employees who are paid un-
der the statutory pay systems (General
Schedule. Foreign Service, and Physicians.
Dentists and Nurses of the Veteran's Ad-
ministration).
The greatest difference between H.R. 13000
as approved by the House on October 14.
1989. and the Conference substitute is that
in the substitute the President is directed
to make annual adjustments in the rates
of pay, whereas under H.R. 13000 a Federal
Employee Salary Commission would submit
recommended adjustments to the Congress
which would become effective upon approval
by Congress.
The procedure established under the Con-
ference substitute requires the President to
direct such agent as he considers appro-
priate (normally the Chairman of the Civil
Service Conunission and tae Director. Of-
fice of Management and Budget) to prepare
and submit to him annually after consid-
ering the views and recommendations of
Federal employee union representatives, a
report-
(1) That compares the rates of pay of
the statutory pay systems with the pay in
private industry:
(2) That makes recommendations for ad-
justments in rates of pay based on com-
parability: and
(3) Includes the views and recommenda-
tions of employee organizations.
The President is required to make adjust-
ments in statutory rates of pay as he de-
termines appropriate to carry out the com-
parability principles, effective October 1 of
each year. except that in 1971 and 1972
such adjustments would become effective
on January 1. Congress is not involved in
these adjustments.
ALTERNATE PAY PROPOSAL
If. because of a national emergency or
economic conditions affecting the general
welfard, the President determines it in-
appropriate to make the pay comparability
adjustments, he shall prepare and transmit
to the Congress, before September 1, an
alternate pay adjustment plan. The alter-
nate plan would become effective on Octo-
ber 1 and would continue unless within
30 days after receiving it. Congress vetoed
the plan. In such event, the President is
required to issue the original comparability
adjustments. The Congressional veto of an
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
December 31, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
alternate plan would follow the same pro-
cedure established for Congressional dis-
approval of an executive reorganization plan.
FEDERAL PAY COUNCIL
A Federal Pay Council is established, con-
sisting of five members chosen from repre-
sentatives of employee organizations. The
function of the Council .is to consult with
the President's agent in implementing the
comparability procedure.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL PAY
An Advisory Committee on Federal Pay is
established as an independent establishment
consisting of three members appointed by
the President for six-year terms. The func-
tion of the Committee is to review the report
submitted by the Agent to the President,
consider all recommendations, and report its
findings and recommendations to the Presi-
dent.
PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR EMPLOYEES NOT UNDER
THE STATUTORY SYSTEMS
Provisions are included authorizing ad-
ministrative pay fixing authorities in the
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches
to fix the rates Of pay for those employees
who are not covered by the statutory pay
systems consistent with the annual adjust-
ments. The authority under this section is
entirely discretionary.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Conference substitute contains provi-
sions-
(1) Relating to allowances for employees
at remote worksites and allowances for em-
ployees involved in floating plant operations;
(2) Extending the nepotism provisions of
law to the employees of the United States
Postal Service;
(3) Authorizing a total of five supergrade
positions (GS 16, 17, and 18) for the United
States Tax Court; and
(4) Authorizing 20 additional supergrade
positions for allocation by the Civil Service
Commission among departments and agen-
cies in the Executive Branch.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr, Speaker, in or-
der to place this proceeding in proper
perspective, I want to emphasize a few
points about the conference report on
H.R. 13000, so that we realize the rami-
fications of our action here today.
. Notwithstanding all the trappings of
advisory and consultatory panels, what
this legislation does is place in the hands
of the executive branch the absolute au-
thority over the expenditure of public
funds for the Federal civilian and mili-
tary payrolls.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we all realize
that this legislation will permanently
separate the Congress from any future
determination on the size and scope of
the Government employee payroll.
It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that in
this bill Congress is surrendering author-
ity over salaries of Government employ-
ees while two weeks ago it arbitrarily
mandated a pay raise to employees of
America's railroads. Could there be a
possible contradiction here?
The requirements of this legislation,
and the statements made about it, seem
to indicate that all future pay raises are
mechanical reactions to the prevailing
economic trends in private industry.
I understand that the Civil Service
Commission favors in large, part this
package, but its inflationary conse-
quences are clearly underestimated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I offer these
comments in the spirit of caution but
wonder if the proponents of this elabor-
ate package have truly anticipated these
possible difficulties.
I do, Mr. Speaker, want to offer one
word of commendation to the conference
committee. Section 5 of the conference
substitute, which deals with pay adjust-
ments of employees in the House of Rep-
resentatives, is a long overdue reform of
congressional pay procedure.
Under the language of this section,
each Member of the House is the pay
fixing authority for the employees on his
staff and will be able to exercise his
independent judgment on the merits of
each annual adjustment. This new pro-
cedure is an enlightened departure from
the past arrangement, and because I
proposed the same change in many pre-
vious pay bills, I am especially pleased
to find this bright spot in an otherwise
doubtful legislative package. If this be-
comes law, then, for the first time, a
Member of the House will be able to
apply a consistent and progressive pay
policy in the administration of his office.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today
I shall vote "no" on the salary bill not be-
cause I am against adequate pay and
salaries for Government employees, in-
deed with one exception in my 14 years
in Congress I have Voted for salary
raises for Government employees. The
principal reason for my "no" vote today
is because of the low priority Congress
has given the plight of our retirees-
23,000,000 people on social security have
to wait now to get their due-a raise
just to meet the ravages of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we of the House, first acted
on the social security bill last April.
What a shame that these people to
whom we owe so much and given so lit-
tle should have to wait so long-when
oh, when will we make proper evalua-
tion and set proper priorities when we
deal with the well-being and needs of
deserving people.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Speaker, this, in my
judgment is a bad bill.
In the first place the much vaunted
principle of comparability is, itself sub-
ject to some question. Private and pub-
lic employment are not entirely the
same-there are essential differences.
Private industry attempts, at least, to
operate at a profit-and the profits are
properly used, in part, to pay wages and
salaries. There are no profits to draw
on where public employment is con-
cerned-every penny paid comes out of
the hide of the taxpayer. Again, the high
wages of industry are balanced'by the
changes or layoff; the public employee,
if sometimes more modestly paid, under
a civil service system at least, has a
much greater degree of job security.
Laying the matter of comparability
entirely aside, there is another, and over-
riding, reason why this is a bad bill; it
is an abdication by the Congress, and by
each individual Member of the Congress,
of its and of his constitutional duties and
responsibilities. We were sent here, as
elected representatives of our people, to
exercise our judgment on matters within
our jurisdiction, including the rate of
pay of employees of the Federal Govern-
ment. By this measure we surrender this
duty and responsibility to unelected em-
ployees of the executive branch-and,
H 12595
to a lesser degree, to the President of the
United States.
Moreover, calls for an automatic an-
nual pay raise, which the Congress, by
this measure, so long as it remains upon
the books, renders itself powerless to
prevent. It is a clear surrender of the
responsibility we owe to the American
people who pay the bill, and it is a built-
in invitation to a continued inflation.
With all respect and good will toward
my colleagues who take a different view,
I must say that I can see no justifica-
tion for supporting legislation of this
character.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, 1 move the
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
SLACK). The question is on the motion of
the gentleman from New York that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the
conference report on H.R. 13000.
The question was taken.
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. 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 183, nays 54, not voting 195,
as follows :
[Roll No. 4671
YEAS-183
Adams
Frey
Mizell
Albert
Fulton, Pa.
Mollohan
Annunzio
Galiflanakis
Monagan
Arends
Garmatz.
Morgan
Ashley
Gonzalez
Morse
Ayres
Green, Oreg.
Natcher
Barrett
Green, Pa.
Nedzi
Beall, Md.
Gude
Nix
Bennett
Halpern
O'Hara
Bevill
Hamilton
Olsen
Biester
Hanna
Patman
Bingham
Hansen?Idaho
Patten
Blanton
Harsha
Pelly
Blatnik
Hathaway
Perkins
Boggs
Hechler, W. Va. Pettis
Boland
Heckler, Mass.
Pickle
Bolling
Helstoski
Pike
Brademas
Hicks
Poff
Brasco
Hogan
Preyer, N.C.
Bray
Horton
Price, Ill.
Brinkley
Hosmer
Pucinski
Brooks
Hungate
Quie
Brotzman
Hunt
Quillen
Brown, Ohio
Ichord
Rees
Burke? Mass.
Jones, Ala.
Reid, N.Y.
Bush
Jones, N.O.
Reuss
Byrne, Pa.
Jones, Tenn.
Robison
Byrnes, Wis.
Kastenmeier
Rodino
Carey
Kazen
Rogers, Colo.
Chamberlain
Kee
Rogers, Fla.
Clark
Keith
Ruth
Cleveland
King
Ryan
Cohelan
Koch
St Germain
Conte
Kuykendall
Saylor
Conyers
Kyros
Scheuer
Gorman
Leggett .
Schneebeli
Coughlin
Lloyd
Scott
Culver
Long, Md.
Shriver
Daniels, N.J.
Lukens
Skubitz
Davis, Wis.
McCarthy
Slack
Dellenback
McCloskey
Smith, Iowa
Downing
McDade
Springer
Dulski
McFall
Stanton
Duncan
Macdonald,
Steed
Eilberg
Mass.
Steele
Feighan
Madden
Stokes
Findley
Mailliard
Stratton
Flood
Matsunaga
Stubblefield
S
Ford, Gerald R. Melcher
tuckey
Taylor
Ford,..
Mikva
Teague, Calif.
William D.
Miller, Ohio
Thompson, N.J.
Forsythe
Minish
Thomson,. Wis.
Fraser
Mink
Tiernan
Approved For Release 2006/01/31 CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
 Approved For Release 2006/01/31 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400070011-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 34,' 1970
Tunny
W
on
Wright
The Clerk announced the following
Udall
Van Deerlin
Wit
Wt
e
ehurst
Wyatt
Yates
pairs:
Vander Jagt
Wi