ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 42
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 16, 2003
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: June 17, 1960
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE '120J1
want to make more than 21/z million trips
a day-every day-into, out of, around, and
through Salt Lake City in 1975 is an engi-
neering challenge. But it is also a challenge
to mayors and councilmen, downtown busi-
nessmen, and community planners. In the
final reckoning, the outcome of the Salt
Lake metropolitan area transportation study
rests in their hands. If they do their job
well a milkman may be able to finish his
rounds before sundown, a carpenter's helper
may get to work, an insurance company
executive may make that bus, and a house-
wife may get four children to school-safely
as well as on time.
Here is one problem the engineers are
smart to share-from start to finish-with
the citizens of the community they serve.
WHAT'S BEING ATTEMPTED IN THE SALT LAKE
SURVEY
Highway and street engineers in America's
cities have long been aware of the fact that-
construction of the much-publicized Na-
tional System of Interstate and Defense
Highways is not going to solve the total
transportation problem in most of America's
cities-large or small.
However, not many people have actually
known how a city could go about starting
the comprehensive study necesary to develop
a long-range improvement program based on
facts.
A few months ago, an organization called
the National Committee on Urban Transpor-
tation completed a self-appointed task which
it has been working on for 2 years-
namely, to produce the tools with which an
average city can inventory its local street
and highway needs and determine where to
go from there.
The traffic experts-State, county and
city-involved in the Salt Lake City metro-
politan area study are following these pro-
cedures. In the course of the comprehen-
sive $500,000 study they will:
Determine the traffic load on every block
of. city street and every mile of suburban
road in the multi-square-mile area and
classify them as expressways, major arterials,
collector streets, or local streets.
Observe and record the physical condition
of every block and mile of these facilities to
determine where improvements are neces-
sary, such as widening of roadbeds, addition
of drainage, repair of curbs and gutters, re-
habilitation of sidewalks, and installation of
traffic signals.
Measure existing traffic service to deter-
mine traffic volumes, travel time between
strategic points, location of accident "hot-
spots," and parking needs.
Determine the number of trips into,
within, and through Salt Lake City, and its
suburbs from all directions.
Study present and anticipated use of every
block or square mile of land so future traffic
patterns may be predicted.
Measure the role of the local bus company
in providing transportation service. (In
some cities this would include rapid transit
and commuter railroads.)
Collect fiscal information necessary for
legislative bodies to consider in allocating
future funds for transportation improvement
projects.
In some respects, Salt Lake City is more
fortunate than other large cities. Its set-
tlers, looking far ahead in laying out the
original city, allowed plenty of room for ex-
pansion. Streets were given 132 feet of right-
of-way (wide enough for a team of six oxen
to make a U-turn on downtown streets, old-
timers report with obvious pride). Most of
the arterial street system is in good to ex-
cellent condition. A highly professional
traffic engineering staff has steadily boosted
the city's safety rating.
However, there have been no bond issues
for major improvement jobs within the last
20 years and the capacity of much of the
500-mile street and highway plant has been
rendered inadequate under the growing
traffic load. As everywhere, suburban de-
velopment is springing up around the city,
feeding a heavy commuter traffic flow onto
the narrower streets, outside the city, over-
taxing their capacity. Traffic volume has
tripled since 1946 and will double again
within the next 15 years.
Businessmen are feeling the problem in
two ways: Customers are drifting away to
fringe shopping centers and delivery costs
are going up. A local pickup and delivery
truck is moving little more than 50 percent
of the time on city streets.
Because so much of the total traffic in the
State of Utah is generated in the Salt Lake
City area, State engineers are playing a heavy
role in the study. But traffic experts, engi-
neers, and officials from Salt Lake City and
the several surrounding suburban towns and
counties are participating directly in the
undertaking.
They are agreed that only such a compre-
hensive approach can solve what is a mutual
problem. The adequacy of transportation
media throughout the entire area, regardless
of city, county, or. State jurisdiction, cannot
be evaluated independently or improved by
piecemeal projects.
Although the study is being conducted un-
der the guidance of two State highway staff
engineers (J. Edward Johnston, deputy direc-
tor for planning, and Gerald Matthews, chief
research engineer), its course is guided by an
executive committee made up of top officials
of all the cities and counties involved.
All of these jurisdictions are represented
on subcommittees set up to study adminis-
trative, legal, engineering, and fiscal aspects.
The objective here is twofold-to safeguard
the interests 'of all the communities involved
and to familiarize their engineers with the
areawide situation.
Governor Clyde made a point of this pur-
pose in first calling the group together:
"The thing I want to emphasize is that
this is your, transportation study," he said.
"It is not solely designed to locate State
highways. It will serve an even more im-
portant purpose for locating your city streets
and county reads and developing a transpor-
tation system that will insure the best land
use and the best location of public improve-
ments. It is an opportunity, as I see it, for
the various governmental agencies through.
out the metropolitan area to obtain the
factual data they have needed for a long
time to develop a sound transportation plan,
and to have available to them the technical
assistance needed to translate the plan into
an improvement program. Such a plan
would be difficult to obtain by their own
resources."
Federal funds will pay for most of the Salt
Lake City study. Although the traditional
matching basis for Federal highway grants is
50-50, the predominance of public lands in
Utah reduces the State's matching require
ments to only 13 percent. This portion is
being met jointly by the State, city, and
county.
INVESTIGATIONS BY HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SPECIAL COM-
MITTEE ON ASSIGNED POWER
AND LAND PROBLEMS
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
some 10 days ago on the floor of the Sen-
ate I commented in some detail on the
need for revision of our public-land laws.
In particular, I attempted to bring to the
attention of the Senate the series of in-
vestigations which has been conducted
throughout the West by the House Spe-
cial Subcommittee on Assigned Power
and Land Problems.
I was, and still am, concerned about
the methods employed by this subcom-
mittee in reviewing practices of the Bu-
reau of Land Management in my own
State. I questioned the necessity of these
hearings into land transactions in Ari-
zona at the taxpayers' expense, while we
in Congress have failed to act upon a
resolution which would enable a qualified
commission to examine the inadequacy
of our public land laws and recommend
changes.
Mr. President, I review my previous
statement, so that I may be able to com-
ment now on developments since my re-
marks of June 3.
At the time when I brought to the at-
tention of my colleagues these subcom-
mittee probes into Arizona land trans-
actions, the Department of Justice al-
ready was conducting its own investiga-
tion into charges that were made during
the subcommittee's hearings in Phoenix.
Under review by the Justice Department
was the so-called Stegall-Lawrence ex-
change, one of three transactions which
received a great deal of publicity during
the Phoenix hearings.
In view of the accusations that were
bantered about as a result of the subcom-
mittee's investigation, I believe that the
finding of the Justice Department in this
particular case is deserving of special
note.
In reporting to the Department of the
Interior, the Department of Justice said:
The inquiry conducted by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation into alleged irregu-
larities in the filing and processing of this
land exchange application has now been
completed. That investigation has devel-
oped no evidence of the use of "tainted" ap-
praisals in the negotiation of the Lawrence-
Stegall land exchange or otherwise disclosed
evidence of possible violation of the Federal
criminal statutes. Accordingly, the Depart-
ment is closing its file on this case.
Mr. President, I want to. make it per-
fectly clear that I do not question in any
way the right of congressional inquiry.
Having served on select committees, I
know very well the importance of such
investigations to elicit information in the
public interest. However, I believe it
was no coincidence that investigations
and vague charges about the operation of
the Bureau of Land Management should
reach their height during an important
election year. If such investigations are
to be made, I feel it is necessary to bring
all the facts before the public; and that
is my purpose in commenting on the
Department of Justice report today.
I want to reiterate that I recognize the
problems faced by the Department of
the Interior in carrying out its operation
under outdated public land laws. I sug-
gest that Congress move to correct this,
not through the airing of charges and
countercharges by investigative subcom-
mittees, but by sound legislative proc-
esses.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas., Mr. Presi-
dent, has morning business been eon-
elude&
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not,
morning business is closed.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13: CIA-RrAll -00965R000400120007-7
12062' f CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
-
June 17
.tea--
ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT OF. COMPENSATIONmittee on Post Office' and Civil Service
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS 1 approved and favorably reported to the
AND EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES Senate S. 3672, providing a similar in
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Chair lays before the
Senate the unfinished business.
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 9883) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I do not know who has amend-
ments to this bill, but we are hopeful
we can get action on it today, and I sug-
gest that the attaches on both sides of
the aisle notify all members of the com-
mittee and all absent Senators who may
have an interest in the bill that we are
going to proceed to the consideration of
the Federal and postal employees pay
bill. It affects a good many people, a
good many little people, a good many
people who need the assistance provided
by this bill, and I hope all Senators will
give their careful attention to it, be-
cause, if they remain in the Chamber,
we can act much more expeditiously.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum, so that all interested Sen-
ators may be present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Texas request from
what time it shall be taken?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I request
that it be taken off time on the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that I may suggest the absence of
a quorum and that the time be taken
from the time allotted to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the
roll,
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that fur-
ther proceedings under the quorum call
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPRO-
PRIATION BILL
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas.' When was
the legislative branch appropriation
bill reported to the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill was reported yesterday.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Are the re-
ports available to Members?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
and the committee report are at the desk.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I ask the
clerks to see that copies are distributed
to Members, so that they will be avail-
able.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 9883) to adjust the rates
of basic compensation of certain officers
and employees of the Federal Govern-
ment, and for other purposes.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina
obtained the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the majority leader yield time to the
Senator from South Carolina?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, Mr.
President. The Senator from South
Carolina, as chairman of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, will
control the time on the bill in my ab-
sence, and may yield time as he desires.
I commend the Senator from South
Carolina for the fine job he has done.
He has been one of the most fearless
friends of the public servants of America.
He is one of the most distinguished and
able Members of this body. I con-
gratulate the Senator for the excellent
work he has done on behalf of the public
servants of this country.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I thank the majority leader for those
kind remarks. Of course, I. have done
nothing other than what I thought was
right and just for the majority of our
Federal employees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Carolina is recog-
nized for 10 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Caro-
lina. Mr. President, I doubt that any-
one In this Chamber is unfamiliar with
what is at stake in this matter. The
question of a pay raise for our Federal
employees has been the subject of dis-
cussion both here and in the House for
many, many weeks. It has been dis-
cussed in the newspapers and on the
air. The time for discussion is almost
past. The hour for action has arrived in
the Senate.
Mr. President, early In the present ses-
sion more than 80 pay bills were intro-
duced in the House calling for increases
ranging up to 26 percent. As hearings
were held in the House and in the Sen-
ate, adjustments were made. first in one
area and then In another. Finally, there
evolved agreement among the majority,
at least, that the rate of increase should
be somewhere between 7 and 10 percent.
Many felt that a larger increase was
justified, but In their desire to see Fed-
eral employees receive an increase, they
adopted a realistic approach to the mat-
ter.
Early this week, the House was pre-
pared to act under a discharge petition
which had been signed by 219 Members
on a 9 percent bill. In an effort to re-
duce the area of difference, the House
committee the day before yesterday
morning adopted an amendment scaling
down the increase to 71/2 percent. Al-
most simultaneously the Senate Cam-
crease.
Thus, we have before us H.R. 9883 and
S. 3672, identical bills providing a 71/z
percent across-the-board increase to:
(a) Some 535,000 postal employees; (b)
980,000 employees subject to the Classifi-
cation Act; (c) 8,100 employees under
the Foreign Service Act; (d) 19,300 in the
Department of Medicine and Surgery in
the Veterans' Administration; (e) 15,-
000 employees in the agricultural stabili-
zation and conservation service; (f)
5,000 employees in the judicial branch;
and (g) 7,500 legislative employees.
Mr. President, as I indicated, this is a
7V2 percent across-the-board bill with
two minor exceptions as follows:
First, a 71/2-percent increase in grade
18 of the general schedule of the Clas-
sification Act would have raised the rate
to $18,815. The bill holds the salary of
these positions to $18,500. This was done
in order to prevent overlapping with po-
sitions subject to the Executive Pay Act.
Second, in addition to the 71/2-percent
Increase, an additional $5 has been added
to the base rate and the annual incre-
ments in the lower six levels of the postal
field schedule with a similar adjustment
in the rural schedule so that rural car-
riers will continue to receive the same
rate of pay as city carriers with whom
their pay has been alined in the past.
In addition to the pay features of the
bill already mentioned, the measure has
three additional provisions as follows:
First, it amends the Federal Executive
Pay Act of 1956 so as to give the legal
adviser, solicitor, or general counsel of
an executive department. (excluding the
Department of Justice) the same stand-
ing and pay as an assistant secretary.
Second, it creates in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare the posi-
tion of Administrative Assistant See-
retary. Such a position now exists in
the other executive departments.
Third, it adds 5 supergrade posi-
tions to the 20 such positions now estab-
lished in the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission for a total of 25 supergrade posi-
tions in this agency. The number of
supergrade positions given to the Civil
Service Commission for. allocation to the
various agencies is reduced by 20 because
of the direct allocation to the Interstate
Commerce Commission made by this bill.
World events of recent days give this
measure added importance. The em-
ployees whose pay would be adjusted
consist not only of our postal workers but
include the scientific, professional, tech-
nical, and administrative personnel en-
gaged in the execution of our defense
program. These employees are engaged
in the performance of over 15,000 differ-
ent occupational skills in almost every
area on the face of the globe. Less than
20 percent of the total who would benefit
by the bill are located in the Washington
area. The other 80 percent are sta-
tioned in every hamlet in the Nation and
in the most remote outposts of the world.
These employees are dedicated workers.
The jobs they are performing are neces-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 12063
sary to our national welfare. The Con-
gress would be derelict in its duty if it
failed at this time to see that they receive
their just rewards.
in conclusion, it is my hope that the
Senate will accept this measure by as
overwhelming a vote as it was passed in
the House yesterday, and that vote, may
I remind you, was 378 to 40. Inciden-
tally. On a motion to scale down the
increase from 71/2 to 5 percent, the vote
was 324 to 90. In light of this, let there
be no one proclaim that every avenue has
not been explored and considered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed in the RECORD
at this point in my remarks brief ex-
cerpts from the report of the committee
which appear on pages 1 and 2 thereof
under "Purpose," "Salary adjustments,"
"Executive positions," and down to
"Summary of major provisions."
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill is twofold:
1. Title 1 provides a 71/2-percent salary in-
crease for employees in the executive, judi-
cial, and legislative branches of the Govern-
ment.
2. Title 2 authorizes the establishment of
certain additional supergrade positions and
adjusts the relative relationship of a limited
number of existing positions in order to
maintain a proper balance in the areas
concerned.
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
Title I provides a general increase of 71/2
percent in the pay of approximately 11/2 mil-
lion employees in the executive, judicial, and
legislative branches of the Government. The
bill carries out the traditional practice of
treating these employees alike in matters
of pay.
The employees whose pay would be ad-
justed by the bill consist of our postal work-
ers and the scientific, professional, technical,
administrative, and clerical personnel re-
quired to perform over 15,000 different occu-
pational skills essential to the performance
of the varied and far-flung functions of the
Government. Less than 20 percent of the
total are employed in the Washington area.
The other 80 percent plus are employed in
every State and county of the Nation and in
many faraway outposts of the world.
The hearings held on this portion of the
bill established conclusively that the com-
pensation of the Government's white-collar
employees has not kept pace with that of
comparable employees in private industry.
Competent testimony was presented dur-
ing public hearings on this portion of the
bill to the effect that-
1. The Government is losing an alarming
number of career engineers, scientists, and
professional personnel to private industry be-
cause of an unfavorable competitive position
with respect to compensation.
2. The most highly skilled are leaving the
service and replacements are below the qual-
ity needed to maintain the standard of serv-
ice desired.
3. More than a desirable number of em-
ployees-particularly postal workers-find it
necessary to hold a second and even a third
job in order to make ends meet.
4. Currently, one out of every six elec-
tronic, mechanical, and aeronautical engi-
neering p jitions is vacant and similar short-
ages exist in other occupations.
5. Postal workers in our major cities
(where most of such workers are concen.
trated) have fallen behind workers of com-
parable skills in private industry.
in light of these and other facts of an
equally shocking nature, some members of
the committee believe a higher increase than
that provided by the bill is fully justified.
However, in the interest of harmony and in
the belief that an increase of modest -pro-
portions would stand a better chance of
quick enactment, the 71/2-percent, across-
the-board amount was agreed to.
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
Title 2 makes three changes in the aline-
ment of executive positions of the Govern-
ment as follows:
1. The chief legal officers of the executive
departments are given the same standing as
assistant secretaries. As a result of this
change, the salary of these officers would be
increased from $19,000 to $20,000 a year.
2. The position of Administrative Assist-
ant Secretary is established in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare on
the same basis as it exists in the other
departments.
3. Five additional supergrade positions are
authorized to be established in the Interstate
Commerce Commission, which together with
the 20 they now have will make a total of
25 such positions.
GIRLS' HIGHLAND BAGPIPE BAND
OF IOWA
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi-
dent, will someone yield to me about a
minute and a half? Are we under a
limitation of time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
KEATINC in the chair). The Senate is
proceeding under a limitation of time.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President,
I am fully aware of the rules of the
Senate, which I do not wish to trans-
gress, and I shall not transgress them
this morning. I know it is against the
rules of the Senate to introduce anyone
in the gallery, so I shall, not attempt to
do so. I merely inform the Senate that
sitting in the gallery today at this time
is a group of young folks of whom we in
Iowa are justly proud.
We have a famous Girls' Highland
Bagpipe Band, which has a history of
20 or 30 years of activity. These young
people have made two tours of Europe,
and they are now on their way to make
a third tour of Europe. I personally am
very proud to have them in the gallery
today. While I may not formally intro-
duce them under the rule, I call atten-
tion to the fact that if Senators will
look, they will identify the costumes of
these very fine young ladies who make
up this band.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair informs the Senator from Iowa
that he has complied strictly with the
rules of the Senate.
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I assure the
Chair I would not for the world trans-
gress the rules of the Senate, and I shall
bend over backward to keep within the
rules. However, this is a matter of na-
tional importance, and I think the Sen-
ate should be informed of the presence
of this distinguished group of youngsters
who are here from my home State.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, is it a
violation of the rule to applaud in the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair informs the Senator that regret-
tably he is required to rule that it is a
violation of the rule to applaud in the
Senate.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I could ask unani-
mous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair assumes that unanimous consent
would be forthcoming.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that these young
ladies be given a round of applause.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection. The Chair hears none.
[Apj>lapse. ]
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 9883) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ask
if the minority leader will yield me some
time on the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
15 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, it is
with considerable dismay that I enter
into a discussion of the pay legislation
that is now before the Senate.
During my many years of service in
both the House and Senate, I have had
an opportunity to propose, support, and
assist in securing approval of pay legis-
lation. My record in behalf of the in-
terests of our Federal employees speaks
for itself.
It is my sincere hope that the action
we take today can consummate in legisla-
tion that will give our Federal em-
ployees a well-deserved pay increase.
It is my firm conviction that should the
Senate approve H.R. 9883 without
amendment, it will not become law and
our Federal workers, whom I firmly be-
lieve are entitled to additional compen-
sation at this time, will suffer as a result.
There are four points about the pend-
ing salary legislation which I believe
should be made clear.
First, its cost.
The legislation before the Senate has
an overall cost of approximately $750
million. In fact, the most precise esti-
mate that can be made after the hasty
action of the two committees in recom-
mending this legislation is $746 million.
It should be made clear as to how
this amount of money is distributed
among the employees.
The cost for employees paid under the
Classification Act is $452 million. The
cost attributable to the Postal Pay Act
is $252 million. The cost for the De-
partment of Medicine and Surgery in the
Veterans' Administration is $12,400,000.
The cost for the Foreign Service is $8,-
600,000. The cost for the legislative and
judicial branches is $51/2 million. The
final element to be brought into the cost
picture results from a provision in the
bill which establishes new pay scales for
some 15,000 individuals who perform cer-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 - Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12064 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 17
tain duties in connection with the agri-
cultural conservation and stabilization
program. The cost of this action is
$15,500,000.'
I think it should be mentioned that the
inclusion of the agricultural stabiliza-
tion and conservation county commit-
tees employees will bring all of them
under the Civil Service Retirement Act,
the Federal Employees Group Life In-
surance Act, and the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959.
These employees are hired by farmer-
elected, farmer-composed committees,
the members of which are not under
Federal appointment. These employees
are not supervised by a Federal officer.
Their tenure, hours of work, salaries, and
so forth are wholly controlled by the
farmer-elected committees of farmers.
Second. I want to call the Senate's
attention to the fact that this is not,
in reality, a 71/2 -percent bill.
H.R. 9883, as passed by the House, gives
an average increase for the-postal work-
ers at 8.35 percent, or nearly 8.4 percent.
While this is an overall 8.35-percent
increase measure for postal workers, it
should be noted that the increases are
applied unevenly and inequitably, gen-
erally to give the least percentage of in-
crease to employees in the most respon-
sible jobs.
Salary levels 7 and above will re-
ceive 71/2-percent increase, whereas em-
ployees in the top steps of the lower
level, levels 1 through 6, receive as much
as 8.8 percent.
The first step of these lower levels, em-
ploying over 60,000 workers, receives a
71/2-percent increase, whereas employees
in the top step, whose base salaries are
already considerably higher than the
employees in the lower steps, and who
are performing the same duties, will re-
ceive increases of 8.7 percent in level 1,
8.6 percent in level 2, 8.4 percent in level
3, 8.8 percent in level 4, 8.3 percent in
level 5, and 8.6 percent in level 6.
The application of higher percentage
increases in the lower salary levels ob-
viously serves to decrease the percentage
differentials as you get into the first line
of supervision, differentials which are al-
ready precariously narrow in terms of
providing incentive for advancement.
The present difference between the
top step of level 6 and the top step of
level 7 is 8.29 percent. H.R. 9883 would
compress the spread to a 7.55 percent
differential. From the standpoint of
sensible personnel administration in any
competent businessenterprise this would
be immediately recognized as a drastic
step in the wrong direction.
I believethat it is most unwise to en-
act any kind of pay legislation which
does not contain adequate provisions
for further adjustment of the Federal
pay structure.
In 1945, 1946, 1948, 1949, 1951, 1955,
and 1958 the Congress took action to
increase Federal salaries. Each time it
became more apparent that the Con-
gress is not adequately equipped to keep
compensation legislation up to date by
the unsatisfactory device of biennial
hearings. At best these produce much
replowing of old ground and the crea-
tion of an infinite number of distractions
and distortion of fact and proper rela-
tionships.
I have already indicated that the pres-
ent legislation completely fails to pro-
vide for necessary reform in Federal pay
statutes. Further, it does not take into
account facts already known about nu-
merous kinds of jobs in which Federal
compensation is not out of line. It
makes no provision at all for correction
of the errors which will be compounded
by its own provisions.
Third, I would like to call to the at-
tention of the Senate the minority views
reported to the House of Representa-
tives in House Report No. 1636 on H.R.
9883. These views were written before
the bill was redu led to the so-called 71/2-
percent legislation before us but they
are equally applilable to the present leg-
islation except for certain of the dollar
figures therein contained. I would like
to quote from the?,t report.
The Congress lest year provided $500,000
for the executive aranch to institute a sur-
vey of the salary rates being paid by pri-
vate enterprise for work similar to that per-
formed by Federal employees. We have been
advised by the White House that this infor-
mation will be r.-ady for use by the end
of September of this year. This means that
theCongress can adopt a principle for com-
pensating Federal smployees that can be rea-
sonably compared with those paid by pri-
vate industry for work of similar skill and
responsibility. Never before has the Fed-
eral Government had the data upon which
to set such pay. It would appear to us that
the fairness and objectivity of this prin-
ciple should appetl to both the Federal em-
ployees and the tm:paying public.
We deny that this is a delaying tactic. We
maintain that this is the accomplishment
of a new and improved principle in personnel
administration which in the long run will be
more advantageous to the Government and
to the public as well. The executive branch
representatives have indicated to our com-
mittee that they will be able to present to
the Congress early in January 1961 pay scales
based on these Bureau of Labor Statistics
survey findings.
Mr. President, I regret that this report
was not available for study by the Senate
Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
in order that we might have brought to
this body statistics and facts that are
badly needed if we are to write just and
proper pay legislation.
Fourth, I want to state that I believe
a pay increase is justified on the basis of
information we have regarding the cost-
of-living index and the general infla-
tionary trends.
While I cannot support the present
bill, I do not believe-based on the cost-
of -living index and the inflationary
trends-that we should state that the
Federal workers are not entitled to some
pay increase before the next session of
Congress.
It is my intention to offer an amend-
ment to the pending bill which would
provide for a 6-percent across-the-board
pay increase. When I do this, I realize
fully that this does not correct some of
the inequalities and injustics that are
prevalent in th s bill, but if approved
by the Senate i ; would send the bill to
conference betw.:en the House and Sen-
ate, where I believe it could be greatly
improved.
I would not want to mislead anyone
into believing that I have any assurance
that the 6-percent proposal which I am.
submitting would be acceptable to the
President, but I do make this pledge that
if this amendment is approved I will do
everything in my power to assure it
becoming law.
Mr. JOHNSTON of-South Carolina. I
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I
regret deeply that I must disagree with
my distinguished colleague, the senior
Senator from Kansas. The Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service did ge.
above, slightly, 71/2 percent. We went
above 71/2 percent in the extremely low
grades. We felt that a letter carrier who.
spends his life in his work, and who after
7 years finally comes up with a gross
salary of less than $400 a month, on
which to raise a family and educate his
family, is entitled to an increase.
The place where the 71/2 percent is ex-
ceeded is in the case of the lowest pay
grades. Obviously, 71/2 percent on a low
salary is less of an increase than 71/2
percent on a high salary.
If we are to limit the 71/2 percent on
the $15,000 and $17,000 a year positions,
then certainly on the $3,000, $3,400, and
$4,000 jobs, which are submarginal with
today's cost of living, we should go above
that limit.
What we mean when we say the bill
breaks the 71/2 percent rule is that we
have added $5 a year in the low stages,
so as to give them a little more meaning-
ful raise. The raise for the bulk of the
letter carriers, who form the big portion
of postal employees in the first grade,
will be $310. For the second grade, $330,
For the third grade, $350. For the
fourth grade, $370.
Mr. President, it seems to me that by
putting the extra $5 on the lowest part
of the scale, we are only trying to do
justice. We do not believe the bill
should be criticized because attention
has been paid to the substandard in-
comes of the lower-paid postal employ-
ees.
The basis and the genesis of the bill.
has been the long-time, severe suffering
which some of the employees' families
have endured.
I do not believe the Post Office has ad
vanced a legitimate argument by say-
ing that we should hold everything at the
71/2-percent level, and charging that this
is an 8.6 percent or an 8.4-percent in-
crease. That percentage applies only to
those who are in the lowest paid scales,,
and not to the highest paid scales.
I believe the bill has been carefully
prepared after long hearings. There is
a slight difference, of course, in the per-
centage of pay increase which the dis-
tinguished ranking Republican member
of the committee proposes-a 6 percent;
increase-and the proposal before the
Senate providing for a 71/2-percent in-
crease.
-I call attention to the fact that all
these increases will be reduced by the
20 percent income tax which will be de-,
ducted from the take-home pay of the
employees. They will be further reduced.
by the 61/2 percent retirement contribu-
tion; and also by the deduction for the
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
health program, which amounts to $12
a month.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment which I ask to have read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In each sec-
tion where "seven and one-half per
centum" is listed, it is proposed to reduce
the amount to "six and one-half per
centum."
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, if I
may have the attention of the majority
leader, would he object to a quorum call
without the time for the quorum call
being charged to either side?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Let the time
be charged to both sides on the bill. We
have plenty of time on the bill. I shall
be happy to accede to the request of the
Senator from Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON. The distinguished
majority leader says we have plenty of
time. I am not so sure. The bill pro-
vides for more than $50 million. That is
an amount of quite some size.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If there is
any question, we will get additional time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there may be a quorum can,
the time for the quorum call to be
charged against the time on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none. Does
the Senator from Texas suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator from Kansas
yield to himself?
Mr. CARLSON. Ten minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas Is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, after
sending the amendment to the desk, I
find it was improperly drawn. There-
fore, I ask that my amendment be modi-
fied, so as to read in the way I now
submit it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment as modified will be read.
The amendment as modified was read,
as follows:
Wherever 7%2 per centum appears, it be re-
duced to 6 per centum and a corresponding
reduction made in all schedules.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I of-
fer this amendment because I have a very
deep and personal feeling that the em-
ployees of the Federal Government are
entitled to an increase in pay.
This bill, even with my amendment,
will not correct some of the inequalities
I have mentioned in my previous re-
marks. But I believe a 3-percent across-
the-board, cost-of-loving pay increase
can be justified.
No. 111-4
That is more than the Bureau of Labor
Statistics advised us in the committee
the increase in the cost of living has
been; the Bureau stated it was 1.6 per-
cent. But after hearing testimony from
many of these people, I believe we can
well justify a 3-percent increase above
the last pay act, that of 1958.
I also feel-based on past history-
that in a presidential election year there
is an inflationary trend. Present indica-
tions are that that trend will develop
this year; and I think it might be be-
tween 1 percent and 2 percent.
Therefore, I am willing to add 2 per-
cent more to the 3-percent pay increase
which I think should be paid, beyond any
question, to these Government em-
ployees. And to provide good measure, I
am willing to throw in 1 more per-
centage point, thus making a total in-
crease of 6 percent. I am willing to de-
fend that at any time, and that is the
reason why I have offered this amend-
ment.
I state frankly, as I have said previ-
ously, that I have no assurance from the
President that he will sign a 6-percent
pay increase bill. But if the Senate
adopts this 6-percent amendment, I shall
make every effort to see to it that the
bill is enacted into law.
I know there are some problems in
connection with this pay bill, and I know
$580 million is not a small sum of money
for us to vote this afternoon.
On the other hand, when we approach
this problem from the point of view of
the proposed 71/2-percent pay increase,
such an increase would involve an added
cost of $750 million, whereas the 6-per-
cent pay raise which I propose by means
of my modified amendment would
amount to an additional cost of between
$580 million and $600 million.
I realize that the the cost of the
amendment I propose will not be small.
But, as I have said, my feelings and my
sympathies are with these Government
employees, who are entitled to a pay
increase.
Frankly, I do not believe that House
bill 9883, which now calls for a 71/2-
percent pay increase, will ever give our
Federal employees $1 of pay, although
they need a pay increase and are entitled
to it. That is why I have offered this
amendment.
No great amount of debate on the
amendment is needed, for I believe every-
one knows the facts.
As I have stated, the bill Is an overall
bill. I would not have written the bill
in the way it now stands. But the bill
has been passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives and is now before us for our
consideration.
As we go over the various proposals
for the various groups, I believe it im-
portant that we keep in mind that these
items are rather substantial ones. For
instance, the cost for the employees
under the Federal Classificaj!`ion Act is
$452 million. The cost attributable to
the Postal Pay Act is $252 million. The
cost for the Department of Medicine and
Surgery in the Veterans' Administration
is $12,400,000. The cost for the Foreign
Service Act employees is $8,600,000. The
12065
cost for the legislative and judicial
branches Is $5,500,000.
In addition, we added 15,000 new ASC
employees, for the first time in our Na-
tion's history, at a cost of $15,500,000.
Mr. President, it is for that reason
that I offer this amendment to reduce
the proposed 71/2-percent pay increase by
11/2 percent, to 6 percent.
If this amendment or a similar amend-
ment is adopted, so we can get the bill
into conference, I believe we can iron
out, in the conference, some of the dif-
fliculties which I believe every fair-
minded person will admit should be
handled by rewriting some of these pro-
visions.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kansas yield?
Mr. CARLSON, I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Do I correctly under-
stand that the Senator's amendment
would effect a reduction in the proposed
wage increase from 71/2 percent, in the
overall, to 6 percent?
Mr. CARLSON. That is correct.
Mr. CHURCH. I should like to have
the RECORD show that it has been my
own feeling that, as regards the postal
workers, the case made out before the
congressional committees fully justifies
the proposed 71/2-percent pay increase.
However, as the Senator from Kansas
knows, I have strong misgivings about
the justification for a comparable pay
Increase for all the classified civil service.
I feel that the evidence brought before
the congressional committees fails to
bear out a justification for so large an
increase for all Government employees.
The arguments which the Senator
from Kansas has made In support of his
amendment-to the effect that the bill
in its present form does not tend to solve,
but, rather, tends to compound, many
inequities within the present wage
structure of the Government-Is one
which appeals very strongly to me.
I believe that if the amendment of the
Senator from Kansas were adopted, we
then would have an opportunity in con-
ference to revise the bill, to the end
that some of these inequities could be
dealth with.
Therefore, despite the fact that I be-
lieve the proposed pay increase for the
postal workers, as provided in the bill,
is justified, the argument made by the
Senator from Kansas is persuasive as to
the benefits which would be derived from
a conference which could deal with many
of the inequities which this bill over-
looks in the present wage structure.
So I commend the Senator from Kan-
sas for submitting his amendment; and
I state to him that, for these reasons,
I shall support his amendment.
Mr. CARLSON. I thank the Senator
from Idaho. I know of his interest in
the Federal Government employees, be-
cause we have discussed this matter to-
gether. I call his attention to the fact
that even with the proposed reduction
from 71/2 percent to 6 percent in the
postal-pay section of the bill, the postal
workers will still have 7 percent or better.
Mr. CHURCH. I recognize that to be
the case.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12066
Approved For Reesegffl/3.4LC-ffi-00gf,~400120007-7 June 17
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President,
will the Senator from -Kansas yield to
me?
Mr. CARLSON. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I
share the views which have been ex-
pressed by the distinguished Senator
from Idaho. I tun rather familiar with
the situation of the postal workers. A
number of them live in my hometown
and work in my home county. I know
they are on the borderline of subsistence.
I feel satisfied that even though they
have had a number of pay raises, their
pay is, in many instances, well below the
industrial rates. But they have to com-
pete for a standard of living with the
industrial workers in their communities.
Therefore, I was very eager to support
a bill which would do justice primarily
to the low-income groups in the postal
service with whom I am familiar, and
also a bill which would be enacted into
law.
In checking, however, in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD, I found that every type
of worker had been put in this bill. For
instance, -is it not true that there were
included consular workers overseas who
are getting $19,200 a year, whose salaries
would be raised $700?
Mr. CARLSON. It was a substantial
Increase. I do not have the exact figure
before me, but that is a correct state-
ment; there was a substantial increase.
Mr. ROBERTSON. As to the average
provided in the bill, for the postal worker
is it something over-8 percent?
Mr. CARLSON. The bill, H.R. 9983,
carries an average increase for postal
employees of 8.35 percent.
Mr. ROBERTSON. As I understand
the -Senator's amendment, while it is an
across-the-board increase for those who
make the top salaries as well as those
who can best prove the need for a salary
increase, it will have a better chance, in
the opinion of the Senator from Kansas,
to be enacted into law. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I yield
myself 5 additional minutes.
Mr. ROBERTSON. It will have a bet-
ter chance to be enacted into law than
the bill as passed on the House side, on
which apparently there have been no
hearings held either on the House side or
the Senate side. is that correct?
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator from
Kansas would hope that the amendment
would be more acceptable than the 71/2-
percent increase.
Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator from
Virginia, desiring to have a reasonable
increase for the postal workers, in view
of the fact that they are all lumped to-
-gether in this bill, agrees with the Sen-
ator from Idaho that the amendment
offered by the Senator from Kansas is
our best plan to accomplish that pur-
pose.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CARLSON. Yes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I wonder if the Sen-
ator from Virginia will give heed for a
moment? I notice the hearings were on
Senate bill 3141, which actually related
only to the 21/2-percent pay increase and
the feasibility of making that Increase
permanent. Is that correct?
Mr. CARLSON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I want to correct that
statement. While that was the bill in-
troduced, it wa,i a vehicle for consider-
ing pay increase for classified and postal
workers alike. The hearings and the
testimony bear out that fact. Very lit-
tle was said about the 21/2 percent, for
everybody reali:ed they are getting that
now and that automatically it should go
on.
Mr. DIRKSEN. My statement is gov-
erned entirely by what I see on the title
page of the hearings, because it reads,
"S. 3141, a bill to make permanent the
temporary incl eases in rates of basic
salary provided for employees in the pos-
tal field service, and for other purposes."
That raises this question: Were there
any hearings actually held on the House
bill that is now before the Senate, which
bears the number H.R. 9883?
Mr. CARLSON. There were no hear-
ings on the bill that is before the Senate
this morning, H.R. 9883. We did hold
hearings on Sedate bill 3141, which re-
lated to a 21/2-percent increase for postal
workers, and wo had hearings and testi-
mony on pay nereases generally. So,
while I would not say there were no hear-
ings on pay increases generally, there
were no hearirgs on H.R. 9883 by the
Senate committee.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, let us keep the record
straight. We reported from the com-
mittee a 71/2-percent bill, and we also
held hearings and reached the conclu-
sion that that was a justifiable pay
increase.
Mr. CARLSO N. I do not want to have
any quarrel with the distinguished
chairman of th.- committee, but the rec-
ord shows that there were no hearings
on the House-passed bill which is on the
Senate Calendar. Hearings were held
on the 21/2; pe rcent increase and pay
legislation genorally, which is a true
statement.
Mr. DIRKSP:N. Mr. President, with
respect to the amendment which the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kansas has
offered, he proposes, as I understand, to
substitute his amendment for the 71/2
percent increase in every section of the
pending bill?
Mr. CARLSON. That is the pending
amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. And keep in the bill
pay increasesfor the so-called commu-
nity and county committee men under
the ACP agricultural program. Is that
correct?
Mr. CARLSON. It would .do that.
Mr. DIRKSI:N. They are included?
Mr. CARLSON. They are included.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Kansas has
again expired.
Mr. DIRKSE N. Mr. President, I yield
-the distinguished Senator 5 minutes on
the bill.
Does it incIlde all members of the
legislative bralich, meaning, of course,
the employees?
Mr. CARLSON. It does.
-Mr. DIRKSEN. Does it include all
employees of the judicial branch?
Mr. CARLSON. It does.
Mr. DIRKSEN. In addition, the
amendment of the Senator from Kansas
would also include all employees of the
executive branch, Including, of course,
the postal service. Is that correct?
Mr. CARLSON. It does. To keep the
RECORD absolutely clear, my amendment
would cover classified employees of the
Federal Government, postal employees,
the Department of Medicine and Sur-
gery in the Veterans' Administration, the
Foreign Service, the legislative and ju-
dicial branches of this Government, and
15,000 employees in the ASC who are
not now included. It covers every phase
of the bill which passed the House.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Did the Senator give
an estimate of the cost of his proposal?
Mr. CARLSON. It will cost -between
$580 million and $600 million. Each
percentage point is equal, roughly, to
$100 million. The cost of the bill be-
fore the Senate is, roughly, $750 million.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator in charge of - the time yield to
the Senator from Oklahoma?
Mr. MONRONEY. Will the chairman
of the committee yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Oklahoma -yield me 1
minute?
Mr. MONRONEY. Yes.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, having
visited my senior colleague from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPELI, who was unavoidably
detained, he asked me to express his
support of my amendment and to state
that he is very much interested in secur-
ing pay increases for the Federal em-
ployees of the United States. He has
asked me to make this statement for
him and I quote:
Delegation after delegation representing
postal employees have conferred with me
about this legislation. They have satisfied
me that they are entitled to a reasonable
increase. In my opinion, an increase in the
amount of 6 percent is reasonable. I have
advised them that in my judgment any e:?-
fort to exceed that amount would be opposed
by the executive branch and would probably
cause the legislation to fail.
Frankly, I think we do a disservice to the
Federal employees when we seek to pass leg-
islation that invites a Presidential veto. it
may be "smart politics" to support such leg-
islation and then "pass the buck" to the
President but that doesn't help those who
are finding it more and more difficult to pay
their living expenses.
I support the amendment offered by my
colleague, Senator CARSON. The 6 percent
it would provide is only 11/2 percent less than
the increase provided in the legislation now
before us. This may seem like an insig-
nificant amount over which to quibble. But
from the standpoint of the American tax-
payer this amounts to approximately $200
million per annum. To the Federal employee
it may mean the difference between the- suc-
cess or failure of this legislation.
This concludes Senator SCHOEPPEL'S
statement.
Mr. MONRONEY. -Mr. President, to
put at rest the contention that there
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400.120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12067
have been no hearings held on the bill
before the Senate, let us face the fact
that the bill which is before us was
passed less than 2 days ago. So it would
have been impossible for the Senate to
have held hearings on the House num-
bered bill.
I am sure those in the administration
who vigorously oppose the bill would not
say there had not been any hearings
held on the subject, because fully half
of the record of the hearings is com-
posed of material and exhibits put in
the hearings by the administration, in-
cluding all kinds of charts, graphs, and
dictagrams, and everything else, to try
to prove that an increase was unneces-
sary.
The remainder of the hearings were
the pathetic story of postal and Govern-
ment employees who are trying to live
in a 1960 cost-of-living era on less than
$300 a month.
Further to put at rest the question
whether these hearings were on postal
and classified salary increases, I point
out that on the first page of the opening
statement of the chairman of the com-
mittee, the Senator from South Caro-
lina [Mr. JOHNSTON], in the third para-
graph he said:
The committee also desires to receive ad-
vice and pertinent information on whether
additional adjustments in the salaries of
the Postal and Classification Act employees
are justified and, if so, to what extent, and
in what areas.
The hearings followed that purpose.
Let us not have a misleading assump-
tion that there were no hearings held on
the bill. I have participated in many
pay-raise hearings, and I think the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kansas, always
a great friend of the Government em-
ployees, will admit there were adequate
hearings held by the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee as to the ade-
quacy of Federal pay.
Mr. President, it is easy to say that a
1-percent pay increase equals $100 mil-
lion. Let us face it; that is what the
situation is. A 1-percent pay increase
equals $100 million for 1.7 million em-
ployees.
The reason why the bill is before us,
Mr. President, is that we are dealing
with people. We are dealing with hu-
man beings, whose employer is Uncle
Sam. These people do not have the right
to strike, to collectively bargain. They
must rest their case in the only court
of appeals they have, to keep them from
going into debt, to keep them from
breaking up their homes, to maintain
adequate family standards of living,
housing, and education, and so on. The
court of appeals for them is the Senate
of the United States and the House of
Representatives.
Let us admit, to begin with, that a
1-percent pay increase equals $100 mil-
lion cost in a budget which runs in the
neighborhood of $65 billion to $70 bil-
lion a year. Let us face it. That is
what it will cost to provide a pay in-
crease.
Now let us consider the people. Peo-
ple are what make up the United States.
People make up the Government serv-
ice. People make this Government run.
People make the post offices run. Peo-
ple make the Government run in the
farflung outposts where we grapple
with the threat of Communist countries.
The dedicated public servants repair and
maintain our missiles, our aircraft, and
our trucks. They clean the floors and
do the necessary repair work in our
public buildings, and so on.
There are 1.7 million of those people
involved.
What will the two amendments do?
We are talking about people. There are
1.7 million people we are talking about;
and, of those, 1 million are people who
have salaries below $5,000 a year, gross.
One million of these people are paid less
than $5,000 a year, and many of those
have salary ranges from $3,Q00 to $4,200
or $4,400 a year.
Let us consider a typical case, because
it is typical. Let us consider the level
4 of the letter carriers. There are
400,000 of these men. So that we will
not be accused of being misleading, by
considering the pitifully poor ones, who
are beginning work, let us consider the
highest wage a letter carrier can earn,
after 20 years of service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Oklahoma has
expired.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 5 more minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for
5 additional minutes.
Mr. MONRONEY. After 7 years of
service this man attains the top grade,
and receives $4,875 a year. Mr. Presi-
dent, he has no chance for an ingrade
promotion. He has no chance to move
up, as is true in the classified service or
in the congressional offices. This is the
top of life for 400,000 employees in the
letter carriers' group.
Mr. President, I point out there are
almost a million people in a somewhat
similar position. I believe this is a typ-
ical case.
The bill the committee supports, Mr.
President, would give a 71/2-percent pay
raise, plus $5 per ingrade step to these
men. The reference there is to the fact
that for every year the man worked, for
the first 7 years, he would get $5 above
the 71/2 percent. I do not think that is
a bad provision.
Our bill would provide that the man,
after working more than 7 years-and
for the rest of his life this would be the
top he could get-would be paid a grand
total of $430 increase in his gross salary.
Mr. President, this equals $35 a month,
according to my arithmetic, which we
are talking about under the so-called
exorbitant increase, which, I admit, runs
a little above 71/2 percent for these men.
As a matter of fact, for the top of this
grade, for these particular people, the
increase would be 8.8 percent.
Mr. President, let us consider what the
take-home pay of this man will be. We
have a 20-percent income tax for people
in this grade. The man, of course, has
used up his deductible, unless he should
have more children-and I am sure such
a man will be trying not to have more
children, at this salary. Therefore, from
the $35 a month increase we would give
him, he would pay back to Uncle Sam $7
in income taxes.
Mr. President, we also have a 61/2-per-
cent retirement provision. I grant that
the retirement payment builds up the
man's retirement benefit when he gets
too old to work, and is of benefit to him.
When his feet break down, when he
reaches the age of 65, or when he gets
arthritis and cannot carry the mail,
there is no nice spot in the Cabinet for
him to fill. There is no nice spot keep-
ing track of filing papers or something
for this man. When a man is a letter-
carrier, and his feet give out, he goes on
the retirement roll.
Mr. President, I ask Senators to bear
in mind that this is a 61/2 percent de-
duction from the monthly $35 increase
we would provide. Therefore, the man
would have to give back to Uncle Sam, to
the retirement fund, $2.28.
Then, with a great stroke, I think-I
do not believe a Member of the Senate
voted against it-we passed the great
Dick Neuberger bill. That was the Neu-
berger-Johnson bill for health protec-
tion. That is the health insurance bill
for these employees. The employees
are signing up this week and next week.
The employees must decide whether
they will try to have a health program
for their families or not. If they have
families-and most letter carriers have
families, as most other people do-it
will cost these men approximately $12 a
month to pay for the health insurance
program.
I think that is a good program. I
think the employees should enter it:
However, we must bear in mind the fact
that the money must come from the
take-home pay. From the $35 a month
increase we want to provide, under the
71/2-percent provision there would be a
total of approximately $21.28 deducted.
Actually, Mr. President, these men
would get very little money which they
could spend from the pay increase.
Approximately $21,28 would be deducted
from the $35 pay raise they would get.
The rest is all the money they could
take home, to say to their wives, "Honey,
I brought home a raise."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Oklahoma has
again expired.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 3 more minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The" PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President,
these men would say, "Honey, I brought
home this big raise which Congress
voted. I have brought home nearly $14
for additional groceries or clothes for
the children this month."
That is approximately $3.50 a week, or
50 cents a day, Mr. President. These
pay deductions are for benefits which
are of help to the employees, I am sure,
but, Mr. President, when we talk about
a steel settlement, when we talk about a
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12068
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORI) - SENATE June 17
settlement with the auto workers, when
we talk about any other settlement in a
labor dispute, practically all of these
fringe benefits I have mentioned have
been given in totality as a part of the
bargaining, as fringe benefits. The
figures we get, with respect to a 31/2 per-
cent increase or a 5 percent increase for
the steel workers, do not include these
other benefits for which we charge our
Federal employees. Our employees
have to take pay deductions for them.
Our employees pay for those benefits.
Let us consider the take-home pay.
The take-home pay will be 50 cents a
day.
Under the 6-percent increase provi-
sion, we would have the magnificent in-
crease, in this same grade, for the old-
time letter carrier, who has worked all
his life, of $268.50 a year. That is $22.37
a month.
After we deduct approximately $19.17,
which this employees would have to pay
back to the Federal Government in in-
come taxes, retirement, and for the
health program, what would the em-
ployee receive? He would receive $4.70
per month net take-home pay, to take
to his wife, so that she could buy a new
dress, perhaps. Perhaps she could buy
the baby a pair of shoes. That is $4.70
per month, $1.20 per week, or less than
20 cents per day.
Mr. President, I am concerned about
the cost of Government, but I do not be-
lieve that a government which can
spend money for outer space explora-
tion, which can spend money for re-
search and developrAent, and which can
spend money to build great new build-
ings-we are going to build downtown
-ssome four or five buildings, in the Gen-
eral Services Administration program-
ought to wring the money out of the
lowest salaried people who work, who
can look only to the Congress for a pay
wage adjustment.
Mr. President, I hope the amendment
will be defeated.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me? Does the Senator
have additional time?
Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator
from South Carolina will yield me 2
minutes, I shall be happy to yield to the
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for 2 additional minutes. -
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, is it not
the view of the Senator from Oklahoma
that the cost of Government would in-
crease very substantially if the ability
and efficiency of Government employ-
ees were to decline?
Mr. MONRONEY. I am certain that
would be true. If these people are held
submerged beneath a decent standard
of living, if their families are broken up,
if there are foreclosures and garnish-
ments and the loss of homes, because of
an inability to meet repair bills and
other costs, I would say that we would
see a general collapse of the great cadre
of people who keep Government afloat.
On the floor of the Senate we say this is
the greatest Government and the best
administered Government under a civil
service system on the face of the globe.
Mr. CLARK. Is it not clear to my
friend from Oklahoma that private in-
dustry is in constant competition with
Government employees for the brains
and ability of A:nerica as they come from
our schools and universities?
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator is ab-
solutely correct.
Mr. CLARK. Is it not clear to my
friend from Oklahoma that, unless we
keep the salary and wage standard of our
Government employees at least reason-
ably competitive with that of private in-
dustry, it is a certainty that the Govern-
ment service will lose a very large pro-
portion of its capable and able em-
ployees?
Mr. MO1RONEY. The Senator .is
absolutely correct. We are losing an
alarming number of people, as is pointed
out in the repot t of the committee which
is before us.
1. The Government is losing an alarming
number of career engineers, scientists, and
professional personnel to private industry
because of an unfavorable competitive posi-
tion with respect to compensation.
2. The most h.ghly skilled are leaving the
service and repla ements are below the qual-
ity needed to maintain the standard of serv-
ice desired.
The situation is worse in the skilled
fields. It now amounts to almost a con-
tinual revolvin.; personnel in the lower
grades of the Post Office Department.
Postmasters whom I know tell me they
cannot possibly fill those jobs with com-
petent people at present wages because
every other em;?loyer in town can outbid
them in salary.
Mr. CLARK. Does not my friend feel
that the bill new before us makes only
a modest effort; to achieve that kind of
parity for Government employees which
the Senator ha:; agreed is essential to the
future welfare and well-being of em-
ployees in the Clovernment service?
Mr. MONRONEY. I would say not
quite parity. fps in the farm program, I
would say it is somewhere between 65
and 80 percent of parity as compared
with other wages.
Mr. CLARK. I thank my friend for his
answers.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President I yield to myself 5
minutes.
Something has been said in regard to
the hearings c,n the bill. The fact is
that during the hearings on the bill
most of the wi ;nesses who testified were
officers and employees of- the Govern-
ment. Over half of the testimony pre-
sented at the time was given. by officers
and employees of the Government. A-
good many of them were from the Post
Office Department.
The committee reached the conclu-
sion from all the facts presented that a
71/2-percent increase was the lowest we
could give- to Government workers and
do justice to t iem at all. We found it
to be true that the 800,000 blue-collar
workers who worked for the Government
at the time received a far greater in-
crease in pay from the Government of
the United S fates than did workers
covered under the bill. Those facts
were brought out before the committee
at our hearings.
I call the attention of the Senate to
another fact that we sometimes forget.
The revenue of the Government will be
increased if the bill is passed. If we give
increases in pay to Government workers
which will approximate $700 million, we
will find that at least $150 million of that
amount will never leave the Treasury of
the Government, but will be retained
from the pay of the workers as a with-
holding tax.
Therefore the Government worke::s
themselves in reality will receive only
about 6 percent increase in pay from the
Government after income taxes alone
are deducted. That does not take into
account increases in deductions for re-
tirement and other funds which would
be made. I ask the Senate not to forget
that fact. Employees would receive only
6 percent net, which is what the Senator
from Kansas proposes.
I noticed that the Senator from Kan-
sas said in his speech that we propose i,o
give the Government employees 71/2 per-
cent, and then we give them 1 percent
here and there. I do not know why he
stopped there. I do not know why lie
did not propose to give them the other
11/2 percent, which I think is what they
are really entitled to in equity. That is
what the committee did, and as I re-
member, the committee report was
unanimously agreed to.
The Senator from Kansas reserved the
right to offer amendments in the Senate
at the time the bill was reported. The
members of the committee, having con-
ducted hearings and discussed the sub-
ject, believe that Government workers
are entitled to a 71/2-percent increase
and the three other small increases
which are contained in the bill, and to
which I have already called attention.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. -President, may
I inquire how much time I have remain-
ing?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kansas has 15 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CARLSON. I yield 4 minutes to
the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I share
with the distinguished occupant of the
Chair [Mr. KEATING] representation
of a State which in the Post Office serv-
ice has an enormous representation of
the number of employees affected. We
have in the New York Post Office alone
35,000 employees. Everyone knows that
there has been a great amount of in-
terest expressed by postal employees in
the proposed increase in their compen-
sation.
I think there is one point that must
be emphasized as we consider the
amendment and as we consider the bill,
and that Is that I believe postal er,a-
ployees will feel that they have by no
means attained the result which they
have been seeking. I think we will be
fortunate if we give them the 71/2 per-
cent if they feel that this is even a small
measure of justice.
I have attended a great many meet-
ings of postal employees, and I have.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE.
talked not only with the bread winners
of the families, but with their wives,
who have to make ends meet, and I have
talked with many postal employees. who
must hold down two jobs in order to
make a living, or have their wives work,
notwithstanding that they do a full
day's work, for which they ought to earn
enough to support a family. It is a mat-
ter of disgrace for an official of the
United States to have to face this kind
of justifiable criticism on the part of
employees.
Let us never forget that if the postal
employee is to receive any kind of eco-
nomic justice, we must give it to him.
He has no other remedy. He does not
have the privilege of economic bargain-
ing. He cannot get another job unless
he wishes to leave the service and re-
linquish years of investment in his own
future security. He has no opportunity
to go into business for himself. Only
we can give him justice.
The ultimate verity in respect of
whether a 71/2-percent increase is the
very minimum that we possibly can give
is found in a comparison of the rates of
compensation between the employees
who are included in the bill and those
engaged in similar endeavors in the pri-
vate economic system, and also between
the employees included in the bill and
those engaged in public work, such as
policemen, firemen, and other employees
in municipalities and in States.
When we make such comparisons we
find that even after we give Government
employees the proposed increase, they
will still be under par.
For some reason or other it is dis-
advantageous to work for the Federal
Government in terms of compensation.
For that reason the argument that in
order to retain an effective work force we
must meet economic competition is an
extremely sound one.
Finally, all of us are deeply concerned
about international tensions, and we
realize the tremendous responsibility
which is vested in our Government em-
ployees to maintain at the highest peak
of efficiency our Government machinery-
today in the face of international
tensions.
There is great dissatisfaction espe-
cially in the postal service, a dis-
satisfaction which we will not satisfy
completely by what we propose to do
here, but which will make considerable
progress toward meeting that dissatis-
faction.
Finally, we are urged to keep within
the budget in terms of the surplus
which we expect to attain. I feel as
keenly about that as any other Senator.
What we have to remember, though, is
the great American tradition which we
enforce on corporations, just as we
should enforce it on government itself,
and that is, that we do not take it out
of the backs of our employees. I would
like to repeat that, because this is an
important point. We do not take that
kind of economy out of the backs of our
employees.
Every legitimate survey which we
have had made shows that the United
States is able to pay its bills and is able
12069
we must deal with this question of the
budget and the savings, we must make
certain that we do not take it out of the
backs of our employees. If we can find
no other way, we will have to consider
the continuation of certain taxes. It
seems to me we must face that issue
squarely and honestly. If we must do
everything we are doing and must spend
all that we are spending in every way
which is now encompassed in the budget,
rather than taking the necessary sav-
ings out of the back of our employees,
whq are solely dependent upon us for
economic justice, we must deal with it in
our tax bill and continue taxes which we
might otherwise not wish to continue, in
order to see that the United States does
this measure of justice to the people who
make it what it is.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum, and I sug-
gest that we let it run sufficiently long
so that all Senators may be notified, and
that the time be charged to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be dispensed
with.
the United Press ticker concerning the
bombardment of the offshore islands.
There being no objection, the news re-
port was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Toxso.-Red China announced that
"thousands of guns" on its Funkien Province
coast began shelling the Nationalist-held off-
shore islands tonight in an angry demonstra-
tion against President Eisenhower's visit to
Formosa tomorrow.
"Thousands of guns roared the instant the
order was issued and innumerable flashes cut
through the dark sky over the Taiwan (For-
mosa) straits," the official Communist New
China News Agency said in a broadcast heard
in Tokyo.
The Communist news agency said the gun-
ners shouted anti-American slogans as they
opened fire. They shouted such things, it
said, as "Eisenhower go back-fire"; "U.S. ag-
gressors get out of Japan-fire"; and "Get out
of Asia-fire."
The broadcast said that a "furious rain of
shells poured down on the Quemoy Islands."
Radio Peiping and NCNA said the bom-
bardment began at 8 p.m. mainland China
time (8 a.m. edt). The news agency said
"the powerful shelling in demonstration
against the United States" was "still con-
tinuing," but did not give any indication at
that time the bombardment would stop.
The agency said the soldiers who manned
the guns and "civilians at the Fukien front"
held "meetings and forums" earlier in the
day to protest the "plotting of new wars in
Asia and (the) hostile attitude of the United
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without "The Chinese people opposed the coming to
objection, it is so ordered. Taiwan of warmonger Eisenhower and * * *
would resolutely persist in the struggle as
long as the U.S. aggressors remain in Taiwan."
THE BOMBARDMENT OF THE
CHINESE OFFSHORE ISLANDS
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, the news ticker brings us the in-
formation that the Chinese Communists
have opened fire on Nationalist-held off-
'''7
shore islands to protest against Presi- LERTAIN dent seowervisit FEDERAL OFFICERS JJJ
tomorow
.
According to the report, the Commu- AND EMPLOYEES
nist news agency boasted that the gun- The Senate resumed the consideration
ners shouted anti-American slogans as of the bill (H.R. 9883) to adjust the rates
they opened fire. The bombardment was of basic compensation of certain officers
described-as a "furious rain of shells" on and employees of the Federal Govern-
the Quemoy Islands. ment, and for other purposes.
Mr. President, this is another step in Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, the
the massive effort by'the Communists to distinguished Senator from Kansas
humiliate the United States and to seal would like to have a yea-and-nay vote
off as many people as possible from con- on his amendment. I therefore ask for
tact with freedom. There is not even the. yeas and nays.
the slightest effort to conceal Communist The yeas and nays were ordered.
aims. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I yield
This demonstrates the wisdom of the myself 2 minutes. Then I shall be ready
Senate in strengthening the defense bill to vote.
that was before us yesterday. It is evi- I offered my amendment to the bill
dent that the Communists will use force (H.R. 9883), reducing the amount from
in any area where they believe there is 71/2 percent to 6 percent, across the
not sufficient counterforce to block their board. I do not for this reason. I do
aggression. The free world can exist not know of any Senator who can sin-
only to the extent that it can defend cerely state that he believes a 71/2-per-
itself or has a capacity for retaliation. cent pay increase bill will become law.
I think we must demonstrate similar I would be less than frank if I did not
foresightedness in our efforts to reach state also that I am not sure that a ti-
the uncommitted people of the world. percent bill will become law. However,
Where the Communists ask them to re- I feel it has a much better chance of be-
spond to brute strength, we must appeal coming law than has a 71/2-percent bill.
to the desire for dignity, freedom, and a Not only that, but it shows that I am
degree of security. sincerely trying to do something for the
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- Federal workers. I want them to get a
sent that there be printed in the RECORD pay raise. I do not want to try to get
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I plead
with my colleagues in Congress and with
freedom-loving people everywhere to
keep their powder dry and to
ranks.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 17
something for them that I know cannot
become law. It is for that reason that
I offered my amendment calling for a
6-percent increase. The bill is not in
the form in which I would have drawn it,
but it is the best we can do at this
moment. I urge the Senate to adopt my
amendment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I am opposed to the amendment. I be-
lieve that even a 7'/2-percent increase is
not a sufficient amount to balance the
workers who are included in the bill with
other employees of the United States sub-
ject to the wage board system. I feel
that if the amendment shall be adopted
it will mean the death of any such legis-
lation at this session of Congress. My
reason for making that statement is that
we have tried to work and -get together
with the House in connection with a bill
calling for a 7'/,-percent increase. The
House reduced its amount from 9 per-
cent to 7'/2 percent after it had reported
the bill from committee. Therefore we
have a bill before us that we can get to
the President's desk in time for him
either to sign or not while Congress is
still in session. If we add amendments
to the bill, and if we adjourn on the day
when I think we will adjourn,. no pay
raise bill will be passed by the House and
Senate in time to put it on the President's
desk in time to keep him from pocket-
vetoing it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. We have
been talking here since January about a
10-percent raise, a 9-percent raise, and
finally a 7'/2-percent increase. Leaders
of our Government participated in and
contributed toward working out a set-
tlement involving the steelworkers. I do
not begrudge anyone an increase to
which he is entitled.
However, I think we should bear in
mind that 75 percent of the postal
workers make less than $3,800 a year.
After 25 percent of their pay has been
deducted for income tax and insurance,
most of the families of the postal work-
ers are trying to exist on less than $300
a month.
I am convinced, after observing the
action in the House, where a bill pro-
viding for a 9-percent increase. was re-
ported, but as to which the employees'
groups willingly accepted 7'/2 percent,
that if the Senate begins to amend and
change the bill now so as to make the
amount 8 percent or 6 percent, or any
other figure, all we will do will be to kill
the bill. I think a vote for the 6-per-
cent amendment is-a vote to kill the-bill.
It is a vote against any pay-increase
legislation. So far as I am concerned,
I do not want that blood on my hands.
I shall support the committee bill.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I agree with the majority
leader. If it is desired to kill the bill,
then the amendment of the Senator
from Kansas should be agreed to.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from South Carolina yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator from South
Carolina yield to the Senator from
Ohio?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield 1 minute.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Does the bill apply
to the member: of my staff?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
It applies on a permissive basis to the
members of tie -Senator's staff. The
Senator can increase the salaries of the
members of his staff or not as he de-
sires.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. There, is
nothing mandatory about that, as I un-
derstand it. We proceed on the assump-
tion that the members of our own staffs
are as patrioti, and competent and are
as much entitled to consideration as the
members of a ay other Senator's staff.
However, there is no provision in the
bill which regtires any Senator who be-
lieves his staff is not entitled to an
increase to give it to them.
Each year, I turn back funds allotted
to the various committees over which I
preside and a1otted to my own office,
when I feel that the money is not needed.
Each Senator can be his own judge.
The bill merely provides for an increase.
for all employees.
Someone raised a question with me a
while ago about administrative ' assist-
ants. I inquired into the matter and
found that in the Senate there are 100
administrative assistants. Fifty-four of
them are not laid what is authorized to
be paid now, 3ecause the judgment of
the Senators i:; that they should not be
paid more than they now receive. Only
46 are paid the amount which is
authorized.
There is nothing In the bill which re-
quires that those 46 be paid the 7'/2-
percent increase. But if they were so
paid, it would mean for 46 persons an
amount of les,] than $50,000 out of the
$7 million.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, may
I have 1 more minute, to clarify my
position?
Mr. JOHNS DN of Texas. I yield 1
minute to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSC.IE. I do not want my
question to imply that I feel the pay
increase should be mandatorily appli-
cable to the members of my staff. On
the basis of tl'.e salaries which are paid
to employees in private industry in Ohio,
the salaries which I pay are grossly dis-
proportionate. They are so high that I
frequently feel I am not fair to the tax-
payers. The salaries which I pay are
paid on the basis of comparison with
those which o ,;her Senators pay.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I do not
want to have the responsibility for the
salaries which. the Senator from Ohio
pays the mem Ders of his staff. If he is
paying too much, he should reduce the
salaries. He is the sole judge of the
salaries he pays to the members of his
own staff. He may pay them what he
wishes to pay. There is nothing in the
law which recuires him to pay anyone
anything.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I do not want the
Senator from Texas to escape the reality
that the salaries I_pay. must inevitably
be fixed on the basis of the salaries
which other Senators pay.
The -PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Ohio has
expired.
Mr. CARLSON. M,r. President, I yield
back the remainder ofmy time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back
the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Kansas. The
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
LONG], the Senator from Georgia [Air.
RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], and the Sen-
ator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE], and the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are neces-
sarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. CARROLL], the Senator from Arkan-
sas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KFav-
NEDY], the Senator from Hawaii [N[r.
LONG], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE], the Senator from Mis-
sissippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] would each
vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER] is
absent because of illness.
The Senator -from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily ab-
sent.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT] and the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on official
business.
On this vote, the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] is paired with the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPELI.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska would vote "nay," and the Sen-
ator from Kansas would vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 28,
nays 54, as follows:
[No. 2231
YEAS-28
Allott Curtis Morton
Bennett DwOrshak Prouty
Bridges Ervin Robertson
Brunsdale Goldwater Saltonstall
Bush Hayden Talmadge
Byrd, Va. Hickenlooper Thurmond
Carlson Holland Wiley
Case, S. Dak. Lausche Williams, De].
Church McClellan
Cooper Martin
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
NAYS-54
Aiken
Gore
McGee
Anderson
Green
Magnuson
Bartlett
Gruening
Mansfield
Beall
Hart
Monroney
Bible
Hartke
Moss
Byrd, W. Va.
Hill
Murray
Cannon
Humphrey
Muskie
Case, N.J.
Jackson
Pastore
Chavez
Javits
Proxmire
Clark
Johnson, Tex.
Randolph
Dirksen
Johnston, S.C.
Scott
Dodd
Jordan
Smathers
Douglas
Keating
Smith
Eastland
Kerr
Sparkman
Ellender
Kuchel
Symington
Engle
Long, La.
Williams, N.J.
Fong
Lusk
Young, N. Dak.
Frear
McCarthy
Young, Ohio
NOT VOTING-18
Butler
Hruska
Mundt
Capehart
Kefauver
O'Mahoney
Carroll
Kennedy
Russell
Cotton
Long, Hawaii
Schoeppel
Fulbright
McNamara
Stennis
Hennings
Morse
Yarborough
So Mr. CARLSON'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the vote by which the
amendment was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I move to lay on the table
the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
submit an amendment which I send to
the desk, and ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Beginning on
page 17, in line 11, it is proposed to strike
out all through line 6, on page 20.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may
the amendment be read again?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the amendment will be read
again.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. Beginning on
page 17, in line 11, it is proposed to
strike out all through line 6, on page 20,
being the section entitled "Employees in
the Legislative Branch."
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How
much time does the Senator from Loui-
siana yield to himself?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFF'IC'ER. The
Senator from Louisiana will state it.
Mr. ELLENDER. How much time Is
available to me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty
minutes.
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield myself 10
minutes, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am
taken by surprise, by having this bill
come up so suddenly. I was very busy
yesterday afternoon, as well as today, in
hearings on the mutual security pro-
gram.
Mr. President, I wish to say I am all
for a fair wage increase for Federal em-
ployees. In the last vote, I voted to
sustain the committee in maintaining a
7V2 -percent increase.
The purpose of my amendment is to
strike from the bill the provision au-
thorizing pay increases for all employees
connected with the legislative branch of
our Government. It has been our cus-
tom in the past to fix salaries for our
employees, independently of any hard
and fast-wage scale; we have a method
of our own for handling salaries of legis-
lative employees.
I wish to point out that when the
House first considered pay legislation,
the original House committee bill con-
tained a provision which would have
increased the salaries of Senate admin-
istrative assistants from $16,300 to al-
most $19,000 per year. That provision,
of course, was deleted, so that those em-
ployees are in about the same category
as employees in the Civil Service and
the Postal Department, that is, they
would receive an across-the-board 7.5-
percent raise.
It is my belief that, since we have a
method of our own for fixing salaries in
the Senate we should not burden this
bill with raises for legislative employees.
That matter should be handled sepa-
rately.
As I have already stated, the purpose
of this amendment is to delete from the
bill those sections extending the 7.5-
percent pay raise to employees of the
legislative branch. In this connection,
Mr. President, I believe a little back-
ground might be in order.
Under existing law, Senators can pay
one employee up to $16,300 per year, a
second up to $15,731 per year, and a third
employee up to $15,044 per year, with a
maximum limitation as to all other em-
ployees of $10,221 per year, with the
actual number of such employees, being
so compensated subject only to the
overall limitation of salary funds avail-
able to individual Senators.
The total clerk hire figure available
to Senators is dependent, of course, upon
the populations of the respective States.
Now, it goes without saying, Mr. Pres.
ident, that these are far from starva-
tion-level salaries. As a matter of fact,
the salaries I have indicated are, as I
believe Senators will agree, relatively
handsome amounts of money.
Yet, as I pointed out earlier, in the
original version of H.R. 9883, the so-
called 9-percent pay increase bill, quite
a few little gadgets were inserted to fur-
ther increase the salaries of legislative
employees. The bill, at first reading,
would have apparently only accorded a
flat 9 percent increase to employees in
Senator's offices, and employees.of Sen-
ate committees. The top bracket lim-
itation was raised from $16,300 per year
to $17,525 per year. However, in a sub.
sequent subsection of the same section
of the bill, the basic salary limitation for
the top three employees in Senators'' offi-
ces and committee staffs would have
been geared to the three highest brackets
of the classified schedule. In other
words, by so doing, an increase in com-
pensation for the three top brackets of
the classified figure would have, of and
by itself, raised the maximum amount
which Senators could pay to their three
12071
top office staff employees, and other top
employees of committees. In effect, the
limitation, would have increased from
$16,300 per year for the administrative
assistant, to $18,964 per year; for the
second ranking employee, the maximum
would have been fixed at $17,788 per
year, compared with $15,731 per year
under existing law. A third employee
could have been paid up to $16,505 per
year, compared with $15,044 per year
under existing law. The maximum pay
level for ~ employees in Senators' offices,
other than the top three, salary would
have been raised to $11,141 per year, as
opposed to $10,221, under existing law.
Furthermore, as indicated earlier, any
increase in the upper limits of the three
highest existing civil service classifica-
tions would have been automatically
fixed as the maximums for employees of
Senators and employees of Senate com-
mittees. In addition, should any new
grades have been added to the Classi-
fication Act, these new limitations would
have become the maximum, since the bill
states that the maximum salaries of Sen-
ate employees in these categories would
have been equal to the maximum estab.
lished for the third highest grades under
the classification figure.
I hasten to add, of course, that no
Senator would have been required to pass
these increases on to his staff members,
but the fact is, that for all practical pur-
poses, the original bill would have con-
siderably lessened the Senators' control
over maximum salaries which Senators
could pay to their office employees, and
employees of Senate committees.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, for the information of the
Senator, I agree thoroughly with what he
has been saying. The House bill has
been amended, and the bill before the
Senate at the present time gives each
Senator the right to regulate all salaries
within his office.
Mr. ELLENDER. I am pleased to note
that these sections have been removed
from the pending bill, and that the
measure as it is now written merely ex-
tends a flat 7.5-percent increase in the
maximum compensation which could be
paid to employees in Senators' offices
and employees of Senate committees, but
the fact still remains that the new limi-
tations so provided, are amazingly high.
Administrative assistants, for example,
could receive up to $17,525 per year, com-
pared with $16,300 per year, the present
maximum. One other employee could
be compensated up to $16,911, as com-
pared with $15,731 per year under exist-
ing law. A third employee could receive
as much as $1'6,733 per year, as compared
with the 'maximum presently available
for such third employee of $15,044 per
year.
It is now proposed to so legislate that
every Senator will almost be compelled
to increase by 71/2 percent the salary of
an administrative assistant who is now
getting $16,300, as well as salaries of
other employees in his office.
Let me be perfectly frank. I believe
the amount that is now being paid to
employees In the legislative branch is
ample for their needs.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12072 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 17
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President-
Mr. ELLENDER. I am on limited
time.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I will take it out of my time if necessary.
Mr. ELLENDER. Very well.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I should like to point out that at the
present time only 46 percent of the Sen-
ators pay the maximum. In' the future,
if the Senator .wanted to keep down the
payments, he could do so. Any Senator
could do so. However, 54 percent of the
Senators are paying the maximum.
Some of them may want to increase it;
some may not. That is exactly what the
bill provides a Senator can do.
Mr. ELLENDER. It is my belief that
if we follow that policy and provide a
71/2-percbnt increase, it ought to be made
obligatory.
The point I wish to make is that -we
have a method :for fixing salaries of our
employees which is peculiar to the Sen-
ate and to the House of Representatives.
We can give increases in such manner
as we determine, within broad limits, of
course.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD at
this point a document headed "Salary
Tables, U.S. Senate." This document
illustrates the broad flexibility available
to Senators in fixing salaries of their em-
ployees, utilizing the basic salary
amounts available to each. This table
shows, for instance, that by designating
a basic salary of $4,500, a -Senator can
give to an employee in his office a gross
salary of $9,134.05. The difference -is
paid by the Government. In any event,
this schedule demonstrates the latitude
available to Senators in fining salaries of
their employees, and fortifies my position
to the effect that legislative employees'
salaries should not be dealt with in gen-
eral Federal pay legislation.
There being no objection, the docu-
ment referred to was ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Salary tables, U.S. Senate, effective July 1,
1958
(Retroactive to Jan. 1, 1958)
Basic per annum:
Gross
per annum
$60----------------------------
$887.40
$120---------------------------
1,010.32
$180---------------------------
1,133.24
$240--------------------------
1,256.16
$300--------------------------
1,379.08
$360--------------------------
1,502.00
$420---------------------------
1,624.93
$480--------------------------
1,747.84
$540---------------------------
1,870.77
$600--------------------------
1,993.69
$660---------------------------
2,116.60
$720--------------------------
2,239.53
$780---------------------------
2,362.44
$840--------------------------
2,482.64
$900--------------------------
2,580.97
$960--------------------------
-2,679.31
$1,020-------------------------
2,777.65
$1,080 -------------------------
-2,875.98
$1,140-------------------------
-2,974.32
$1,200-------------------------
3,072.66
$1,260 -------------------------
3,162.80
$1,320-------------------------
- 3,252.94
$1,380-------------------------
8,343.08
$1,440-------------------------
3,433.23
$1,500 -------------------------
3.523.37
$1,560---------?----------------
3,623.11
$1,620--------------------------
3,725.87
Salary tables, U S. Senate, effective July 1,
19;8-Continued
Basic per annum :
Gross
per annum
$1,680 --------------------------
$3,828.64
$1,740 -------------------------
3,934.31
$1,800-------------------------
4,047.36
$1,860-------------------------
4,160.38
$1,920 --------------------------
4,273.42
$1,980 --------------------------
4,386.47
$2,040 ------------------------
4,499.50
$2,1.00------------------------
4,612.55
$2,160------------------------
4,725.56
$2,220------------------------
4,838.60
$2,280-------- ------?-------
4,951.65
$2,340------------------------
5,064.68
$2,400------------------------
5,177.73
$2,460------------------------
5,290.76
$2,520------------------------
5,403.79
$2,580------------------------
5,516.84
$2,640------------------------
5,629.87
$2,700------------------------
5,742.93
$2,760------------------------
5,855.97
$2,820------------------------
5,968.98
$2,880------------------------
6,082.04
$2,940------------------------
6,195.07
$3,000------------------------
6,308.12
$3,060 --------?----------------
6,421.16
$3,120------------------------
6,534.19
$3,180------------------------
6,647.23
$3,240------------------------
6,760.25
$3,300------------------------
6,873.30
$3,360------------------------
6,986.34
$3,420------------------------
7,099.37
$3,480------------------------
_7,212.41
$3,540------------------------
7,325.45
$3,600------------------------
7,438.49
$3,860------------------------
7,551.53
$3,720------------------------
7,664.56
$3,780------------------------
7,777.61
$3,840------------------------
7,890.64
$3,900------------------------
8,003.68
$3,960------------------------
8,116.72
$4,020------------------------
8,229.76
$4,080------------------------
8,342.80
$4,140----------------- ------
8,455.83
$4,200------------------------
-8, 668.87
$4,280------------------------
8,881.91
$4,320------------------------
8,794.94
$4,380------------------------
8,907.98
$4,440------------------------
9,021.02
$4,500---------------
---------
9134.05
_
$4,560 -------------------------
9:247.09
$4,620------------------------
9,358.42
$4,680------------------------
9,466.33
$4,740------------------------
9,574.22
$4,800------------------------
9,682.13
$4,860------------------------
8,790.03
$4,920------------------------
9,897.93
$4,980------------------------
10,005.82
$5,040------------------------
10,113.73
$5,100------------------------
10,221.62
$5,160------------------------
10,329.53
$5,220------------------------
10,434.57
$5,280------------------------
10,532.66
$5,340------------------------
10,830.75
$5,400------------------------
10,728.85
$5,460------------------------
10826.93
$5,520------------------------
10,925.02
$5,580 ------------------------
11,023.12
$5,640------------------------
11,121.20
$5,700------------------------
11,219.30
$5,760------------------------
11, 317.39
$5,820------------------------
11,415.48
$5,880------------------------
11,613.56
$5,940------------------------
11,611.65
$6,000----------------------
11,709.78
$6,060------------------------
11,807.85
$6,120-------------------------
11, 905.93
$6,180-------------------------
12,004.02
$6,240------------------------
12,102.11
$6,300 -------------------------
12,200.21
$6,360-------------------------
12,298.29
$6,420-------------------------
12,396.39
$6,480------------------------
12,494.48
$6,540------------------------
12,692.56
$6,600------------------------
12,690.66
$6,660 ------------------------
12, 788.76
$6,720------------------------
12,886,84
$6,780------------------------
12,984.92
$6,840 ------------------------
13,083.02
Salary tables, U.S. Senate, effective July 1,
1958-Continued
Basic per annum:
Gross
per annum
$6,900------------------------
$13,181.12
$6,960------------------------
13,279.21
$7,020-------------------------
13,377.29
$7,080-------------------------
13,475.38
$7,140-------------------------
13,573.47
$7,200-------------------------
13,671.51
$7,280-------------------------
13,769.86
$7,320-------------------------
13,867.75
$7,380-------------------------
13,965. 84
$7,440-------------------------
14,063.92
$7,500-------------------------
14, 162. 02
$7,560-------------------------
14,260.11
$7,620-------------------------
14,358.20
$7,680-------------------------
14;456.29
$7,740-------------------------
14,554.38
$7,800-------------------------
14, 652. 48
$7,860-------------------------
14, 750. 57
$7,920-------------------------
14,848.85
$7,980-------------------------
14, 946. 74
$8,000 i------------------------
14, 979. 45
$8,040-------------------------
15,044. 83
$8,100-------------------------
15,142.94
$8,160-------------------------
15,241.02
$8,220-------------------------
15,339.11
$8,280-------------------------
15,437.20
$8,340-------------------------
15, 535. 28
$8,400-------------------------
15,633.38
$8,460-------------------------
15, 731. 47
$8,520-------------------------
15,829.56
$8,580-------------------------
15, 927. 65
$8,640-------------------------
16, 025. 74
$8,700-------------------------
16,123.64
$8,760-------------------------
16,221.93
$8,820-------------------------
16,300.00
$8,880-------------------------
16,300.00
1 Committeeuse only.
Mr. ELLENDER. What is proposed
would make it possible for an employee
of the Senate to get a salary increase of
71/2 percent when most are already get-
ting ample salaries. That is why I am
opposed to it.
Since the primary purpose of this bill
is to help postal and civil service em-
ployees in the low pay brackets, it is my
belief we should confine the provisions
of the bill to them.
I know, of my own knowledge, that
many postal employees are paid just
about what a janitor gets around here,
and that is very small remuneration.
I am for a bill that will give to the lower
paid-employees fair additional compen-
sation.
Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ' ELLENDER. Personally, I have
doubts as to whether anyone will get a
pay raise if all these additional emolu-
ments are made available.
Mr. BRIDGES. Mr. President, will the
Senator- yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. BRIDGES. I point out that the
same argument which the Senator has
used with relation to pay increases in
the higher pay brackets in the legisla-
tive branch would be- multiplied a thou-
sand times when related to classified
employees and postal employees, be-
cause a great many of those employees
are in those high classifications. To be
consistent, the Senator ought to apply
his proposal to the lower grades of all
Federal employees.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am
glad to inform the Senator that I shall
offer an amendment to make the pay in-
crease applicable only to employees
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12073
whose salaries are not over $10,000 per
year.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator Yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Ohio.
Mr. President, I yield myself such time
as is required.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The statement has
been made that the increase for the
$16,300-a-year employee will not apply
unless the Senator determines it shall
be applied. I wonder if the Senator from
Louisiana understands that under the
provisions of the bill, affirmative action
on the part of the Senator is required,
and that the Senator must notify the
disbursing officer he does not want the
increase applied to a particular em-
ployee.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
No; that is a mistake.
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator must
take some action.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let us get this clear.
Does the Senator have to take some
action?
Mr. ELLENDER. The Senator must,
yes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If the Senator must
take some action, this language is in-
tended to "put him on the spot."
Mr. ELLENDER. That is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. How can I tell my
employee, "I refuse to give you the 71/2-
percent increase"? It is blackmail, de-
fying me to deny the increase. With the
condition the country is in pecuniarily
today, I do not believe we ought to in-
crease the salaries of these $16,300-a-
year employees by 71/2 percent. There
must be motives other than a desire to
deal fairly with these employees.
If I increase the salary of my assistant
by $1,050 a year and the Senator's as-
sistant finds out about it, and the Sen-
ator tells him, "You cannot have it,"
what position will the Senator from
Louisiana then be in?
Mr. ELLENDER. I would not like to
describe it. [Laughter.]
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. This is nothing
more than "putting the bee" on us.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Does the
Senator pay his administrative assistant
the maximum salary now?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I under-
stand that 56 assistants are not paid
the maximum salary now, and 44 are.
That is a matter within the discretion
of each Senator. Who is better able to
determine what a Senator's employee
is worth than the Senator himself?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, it is
not a question of worth at all. My ad-
ministrative assistant is seated next to
me. He is second to none in the Senate.
He worked for me for quite a few years
before I assigned him the position of
administrative assistant. Only a few
years ago I elevated him to that position.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I am not
questioning that statement.
Mr. ELLENDER. I understand. The
point is that there should be some kind
of uniformity imposed here. We have
No. 111-5
a method under which we can proceed,
which is peculiar to the Senate and to
the House of Representatives.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is not
changed in the slightest.
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes, it is.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. It is not.
Mr. ELLENDER. It is, as the Senator
from Ohio pointed out.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. How did the
Senator from Ohio point it out?
Mr. LAUSCHE. Let us find out.
Mr. ELLENDER. We are asked to
make it possible to change.
Mr. LAUSCHE. It is an automatic in-
crease, unless the Senator goes to the
disbursing officer.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
No.
Mr. ELLENDER. Action must be
taken by the Senator.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Action must be
taken?
Mr. ELLENDER. Yes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Where does it so pro-
vide in the bill? Let us find out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana has the floor.
Does the Senator from Louisiana yield;
and, if so, to whom?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
suggest that the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON]
clear up the matter. He is chairman of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. In the meantime, Mr.. Presi-
dent, I repeat that we have our own
method of dealing with our employees.
If a Senator is desirous of increasing the
salary of any of his employees, he can do
so under the rules and regulations set out
for the Senate, up to $16,300 per year, for
one employee. Certainly, this is ample
salary. Why make it possible to add
another 71/2 percent to each employee's
salary?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. The pay of the leg-
islative employees is sufficient that we
should not at this time increase their
salaries.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I am sorry I voted
against the general franking privilege,
which would have permitted a Senator
to send unaddressed letters, so that to
each citizen of the United States could
go a letter that our staff employees are
paid $16,300 a year now and, under the
pretense of helping the underpaid postal
workers, we are giving these employees
a 71/2 percent pay increase.
Very few of the Senators on the floor,
under those conditions, would vote for
this proposal. They would then support
the proposal of the Senator from Loui-
siana.
Mt. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will. the Senator yield to me?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I have con-
ferred with Mr. Brenkworth, who handles
legislative matters for the Senate, and
who has done so for some time. I think
he is a dependable and competent em-
ployee.
To those who are having some diffi-
culty understanding the bill, I may say,.
I am informed this is language identical
to that carried in other acts. -
I ask Senators to turn to section 117 (a)
of the bill.
Section 117(a) provides, in effect, that
every employee in the Senate shall re-
ceive a 71/2-percent pay increase. That
is clear. It refers to the Parliamen-
tarian. It refers to the reading clerk.
It refers to the Sergeant at Arms.
The next paragraph, paragraph (b),
takes care of any individual Senator who
does not feel his employees should have
the 71/2-percent pay increases. A good
many Senators so feel.
It is provided that the increase is
taken away from the employees in the
Senator's office. That is provided in
paragraph (b). We do not provide for a
raise for the Senator's office unless the
Senator "in the case of any employee on
or before the 15th day following the date
of enactment of this Act notifies the Dis-
bursing Office of the Senate" that he
wishes the employee to have the pay in-
crease.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, that
confirms exactly what I said. The Sena-
tor must take this action.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I am not
talking about what the Senator said. I
am trying to explain what is in the bill.
The Senator can interpret the provision
as he wishes. That is the language we
have had in other bills.
It seems to me reasonable, if we are
going to raise the salaries of all the em-
ployees In the Government service by 71/2
percent, that we should have such a pro-
vision. There is no reason why a Sena-
tor should not have individual authority
to extend the pay increase to some em-
ployee in his office. This is simply the
same right which is being extended to
the postal employees and the other Fed-
eral employees.
If we do not have such a provision, we
will find that our employees will leave us
to take the other jobs.
The only explanation I can think of is
that perhaps the Senator is willing to
admit the employees are overpaid now.
I am not going to say what is the Sena-
tor's opinion. -
Mr. President, the only point I make
is that this is the same as the language
which was in the 1955 act and in the 1958
act. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is that we are raising the
salaries of postal employees and of all
Federal employees. We are raising sal-
aries of some 2.4 million people. We are
saying, "We are going to give you a 71/2-
percent pay increase."
The steelworkers got a pay increase.
Other people got pay increases.
In the next paragraph we have pro-
vided that no Senate employee in a Sen-
ator's office will receive the pay increase
unless the Senator wants the employee
to receive it. We leave it up to the Sen-
ator's judgment. We leave it up to the
Senator's management. I trust the
management- of the individual Senator
and the Judgment of the individual Sen-
Approved For Release 2004105/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12074 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
ator, even though sometimes I do not
agree with them.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
have the floor.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator from
Texas has the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to
the Senator from Rhode Island. -
Mr. PASTORE. If we do not approve
an increase for legislative employees
now, we will have to pass at another
time in this session, a special act to do
so, anyway. So what difference does it
make how we do it?
Mr. ELLENDER. I say to the Senator
from Rhode Island that we do not have
to do either.
Mr. PASTORE. Does the Senator
from Louisiana mean that he proposes
to raise the pay of all Federal employees
and not raise the pay of legislative em-
ployees? Why does he seek to discrimi-
nate?
Mr. ELLENDER. If the salaries of
postal employees were equal to the pres-
ent salaries of legislative employees, this
bill would not be before us.
Mr. PASTORE. I consider my assist-
ants as well qualified as are the assist-
ants of the President of the United
States.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I have a
great admiration for the postal employ-
ees. I think they are wonderful people.
I have respect for postal employees. But
I do not yield to anyone with respect to
the devotion and service of my own em-
ployees, and I am not willing to say that
I will approve increases in pay for the
employees of everyone else except those
in my own office.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I could not agree
more with the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana has control of
time.
Mr. ELLENDER. As I sought to point
out a while ago, I do not know who put
the proposals before the House, but an
effort was made to increase the salaries
of administrative assistants :from $16,300
to $18,964; even if this bill should pass,
those salaries will be increased from
$16,300 to $17,525.
I wonder how many Senators would
vote for an increase of their own salaries
at this time? It is my belief that the
employees of the legislative branch are
well paid. We have a method of our own
to increase their salaries if we see that
it is necessary. I do not wish to do
something today that may result in a de-
nial of an increase to those who are en-
titled to it, because I feel confident that
if provisions for increases for legislative
employees remain in the bill, and if we
otherwise make the increase apply to
many employees of the Government who
are now receiving sufficiently large sal-
aries, we may deny pay increases to those
who are really entitled to them.
Mr. President, how much time have I
left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana has 10 minutes
remaining.
s
Mr. ELLENDER. I shall listen to
what my frienc, from South Carolina
has to say.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
To clarify the discussion concerning
the particular provision of the bill be-
fore the Senate, t should like to say that
it is not a new provision. It has been
contained in every such pay increase
bill upon which the Senate has acted.
The bill provides for a 71/2 percent in-
crease for legislative employees, which
is exactly the same increase the bill gives
other employee:, of the Government.
However, in the case of employees in
the office of a Senator, the increase is
not automatic. The bill follows a prac-
tice established in previous pay increase
bills of leaving it up to each individual
Senator to determine whether the in-
crease, in whole or in part, is to be given
to the various employees in his office.
I say to the senator from Louisiana
[Mr. ELLENDER] that the increase au-
thorized by the bill is not mandatory.
A Senator is not compelled by its terms
to give a penn;, increase to the em-
ployees of his office if he does not wish
to do so.
The same is true with respect to com-
mittee employees. The salaries of such
employees are completely within the con-
trol of the chairman of the committee.
If for any reaso a he does not wish the
committee employee. to receive the in-
crease provided in the bill, all he needs
to do is rearrange the base pay of the
employee so that- he will receive the
same amount in the future as he it cur-
rently receiving.
Mr. PASTOR?,. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. Has it not been the
practice of both the Senate and the
House, every time a pay raise is granted
to Post Office employees and to civil
service employees, to grant an increase
in salary to legislative employees as
well? It is dono at the same time, al-
though possibly not in the same bill,
but at the same session of Congress.
Mr. JOHNSTON of -South Carolina.
The Senator is entirely correct. We
have always provided for such an in-
crease in every pay bill, giving legisla-
tive employees the same amount, though
in a lump sum, and leaving it up to the
Senator to act according to his wishes.
Mr. PASTORE. Is there any reason
that the Senator knows why we should
discriminate against faithful, qualified,
and talented legislative employees?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
There is no reason why we should dis-
crminate agains`; them and in favor of
some employee downtown whom we do
not know at all.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, if there is to be any discrimina-
tion, it ought to be the other way. The
Senate remained in session until 12
o'clock last night. I left the Capitol
after midnight. I left men at the desk,
I left men at the office, and I left men
at the room in tie basement. They are
back this morning. Never in 30 years
June 17
of public service have I seen a more ded-
icated group of public servants than
those who serve the legislative branch
of the Government. I cannot say, "I rec-
ommend an increase in salary for every-
one except the folks I have hired. I am
ready -to give 2,400,000 employees $700
million, but not $50,000 for increases in
pay to our own employees."
Mr. President, we have in this country
some equity and some justice. The peo-
ple who work in the Senate, in the
House, in the Secretary's office, in the
office of the Sergeant at -Arms, and in.
the paymaster's office are not hangers-
on. They do not have an 8-hour shift.
Sometimes they work as many as 16,
18, and 20 hours. I do not know why
we should discriminate against them.
We might discriminate for them and
give them a little overtime. We might
give them some of the time-and-a-half
which is talked about, and some of the
wage-and-hour benefits. We might
make such provisions apply to legisla-
tive employees. If we did so, they might
get what they are entitled to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Texas has ex-
pired.
-Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield my-
self 3 minutes. Merely because we have
people that we can control, hire and
fire, working for us, and we think we
might be criticized a little because we.
had extended to them the same priv-
ilege we had given to everybody else, is,
no reason for us to say, "I will give an.
increase to postal employees. I will.
give an increase to the people in the
Pentagon. I will raise the salary of
everybody else except the people who
work in the Senate-the little page boys,
the telephone employees, the secretary,
the librarian, and the rest of the em-
ployees."
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I agree with the Sen-
ator from Texas, and that is the rea-
son I cannot follow the logic of our dis-
tinguished colleague from Louisiana in.
the position he has taken today. He,
has indicated that he intends to vote:
not to cut the proposed 71/2-percent in-
crease to 6 percent, for he wants certain
people to get the 71/2 percent-a position,
with which I agree. He wants this in-
crease extended to the Post Office em-
ployees, with which I agree. He wants
it extended to civil service employees,.
and we agree on that. But when-legis-
lative employees are considered, he has
said they are not entitled to the in.
crease. I cannot follow that logic.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. No Senator
Is required to permit his assistants to
have the increase if he does not want
them to have it. He may walk back to
his office and say, "I do not think you
are entitled to an increase."
Mr. PASTORE. And that Senator
would not give it to them.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. He might
say, "I voted for an increase for every-
body else, but I voted in the Senate to-
day that you are not entitled to one. I
will not give it to you." Senators have
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 12075
that authority.. I do not want any other
Senator to tell me how to handle my
office and what people I shall hire.
Therefore we leave it up to the judg-
ment of the Senators, and I think every
Senator could trust his own judgment.
Mr. MONRONEY. As the Senator
knows, practically every employee cov-
ered in the bill, excepting senatorial and
other legislative employees, are on a 40-
hour workweek.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is cor-
rect.
Mr. MONRONEY. Does the Senator
from Texas know of any office in the
Capitol, or the House or in the Senate,
which is not virtually on a 50-hour work-
week?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. No; and I
think 50 is the minimum. Here we are
talking about 21/4 million people, and ex-
cept for 5 percent of them, they all get
less than $10,Op0 a year. Yet we would
extend the benefits to 435,000 postal em-
ployees, 980,000 classified employees,
8,100 Foreign Service employees, 19,000
medical and surgical employees, 15,000
stabilization and conservation agricul-
tural employees, and 5,000 judicial em-
ployees, but we would say to- legislative
employees, "No, no, we will not extend
this to you. We are not going to permit
any Senator to extend the increase to
you. We are not going to give the au-
thority to Senators to extend this in-
crease to salaries of their employees, if
they think it is necessary and if they
certify it is necessary."
Mr. MONRONEY. Is it not correct
to say that the only position of validity
that can be established for raising every
comparable worker in the Federal Gov-
ernment by 71/2 percent, without per-
mitting a Senator to do likewise, to raise
his employees to that level, is by pre
suming or admitting that they are being
overpaid by 71/2 percent.?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is
exactly correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield my-
self 3 additional minutes.
Mr. PASTORE. Another fact that we
must not forget is that not everyone
working for a Senator is an administra-
tive assistant. We have a great many
people below that level.
Mr. JOHNSON' of Texas. If we take
all the increases that could be given ac-
cording to the bill before us and apply
them to all the administrative assist-
ants, all 100 of them, out of the 2,400,000
employees, less than $120,000 out of a
total of $700 million would be paid out.
This is a red herring. It is nothing more
than an attempt calculated to beat the
bill. If we load the bill down with
amendments, we will say, "I am in favor
of giving a raise to the postal employees
and to the classified employees, but not
to the legislative employees." If we
add such an amendment and It goes to
the House and it gets to conference, we
will wind up without any bill.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Perhaps it is
not popular to raise the pay of someone
who is making more than $10,000. 1
can testify to the fact that I have had
two administrative assistants leave me.
I believe that they are now making at
least twice as much as they could make
working for me. It has been my impres-
sion that if we have a good administra-
tive assistant he is very much under-
paid. My guess is that even a- Senator
could get more pay, that it would be
impossible to hire a Senator for $22,500.
At the same time an administrative as-
sistant does not get the recognition that
he deserves in his State. Many times
an administrative assistant works just
as hard and just as long as a Senator,
and in some cases I should imagine he
performs greater service for his con-
stituents back in his State.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER,. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield my-
self an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The argument made
by the Senators from Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, and Texas completely overlook
the fact that the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. ELLENDERI has already stated that
the increase of 71/s percent, in his opin-
ion, should not be applied to the high
salaried officials in the Pentagon or in
the offices of Senators.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I under-
stand his viewpoint.
Mr. LAUSCHE. He stated that he
proposed to offer an amendment on that
subject. I contemplate supporting him
on that subsequent amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. That is one
of the reasons I believe we are second
in space to the Soviet Union, and in
many other technological fields, because
people come up and say, "I won't vote
for higher salaries."
Mr. President, we have scientists
working for the Government who could
get three times their salary in private
industry. Does anyone think that
Wernher von Braun is .not worth more
than the salary he works for. He must
subsist. He must get along. He does
not have a high salary, but his salary is
high in terms of $10,000.
The other day we had a request from
a department to give them an additional
authorization so that the Government
will not lose some of the best men it has
in the scientific fields.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. 'JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. In view of the ex-
planation made by the distinguished
Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHEI, I
want the position of the junior Senator
from Rhode Island to be made quite clear
on the record. I still disagree in all
aspects with the reasoning and logic of
the Senator from Ohio and the senior
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield my-
self an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. There is not a State
in the Union that is not concerned about
the pirating by the Federal Government
of State employees. Ohio employees are
in an exodus from the payrolls of Ohio
to the payrolls of the Federal Govern-
ment. May I say-
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent-
Mr. LAUSCHE. May I say-
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yielded to
the Senator for a question.
Mr. ELLENDER. I will be happy to
yield some time to the Senator from
Ohio.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I have the
floor.
Mr. LAUSCHE. On the matter of
casting a vote in the Senate, to gain a
few popular votes, the Senator from
Texas made an implication that those
who are supporting the Senator from
Louisiana are doing it to gain votes. I
say to the Senator from Texas that the
easy course to follow is to dig deep into
the Treasury of the Federal Government
and hand out the money. There are
many persons in the galleries who have
frowns on their faces because some of us
oppose this proposal.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I do not
know who is in the gallery. I know that
some of them who are there sometimes
have an appeal and sometimes their in-
terest is calculated to influence. I do
not know what the situation is in the
Senator's State. I am much more con-
cerned with the pirating that industry
is doing of scientific employees of the
Federal Government-and of some legis-
lative employees, too-than I am of any
pirating that the Federal Government
does on the State level. I live in the
capital of my State. We are still func-
tioning there. The people are satisfied,
so far as I know. We have had no com-
plaints from the Governor or the Attor-
ney General about being called to Wash-
ington. We have a good relationship
down there. I was down there last week.
We get along very well together. As far
as I know, there is no problem. I do
hear complaints about industry coming
in and taking some of our best scientists
and our best administrative employees
out of the Government.
We are talking about $700 million.
Some Senators say, "Let us not do it for
the few people who work for the Senate
as administrative assistants." That
amounts to $100,000 out of $700 million.
If we add this amendment to the bill,
we will endanger the whole bill. Be-
sides that, I believe we would do an ex-
treme disservice to the country and an
extreme injustice to the people.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Louisiana yield back
the balance of his time?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays on my amend-
ment.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I have a perfecting amend-
ment.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12076
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE June 17
The PRESIDING -OFFICER. Does
the Senator from Louisiana yield back
the remainder of his time?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Let us see
if we cannot get the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I again request the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I have a perfecting amend-
ment, which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On pages 17
and 18, in subsection (b) wherever the
word "Senator" appears, insert the words
"or Representative."
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I invite the attention of Sen-
ators who have been working with the
bill to what I am here proposing. I
invite comment as to whether it is ap-
plicable or not. As I examine .the bill,
it seems to me that subsection (b),
which begins at line 19, page 17, pro-
vides that the increase shall not apply
if the Senator notifies the disbursing
office, in writing, that he does not wish
it to apply to a particular employee.
But I have not been able to find any-
where in the bill indicating that a Rep-
resentative has a . similar privilege. It
seems to me that in that sense the bill
is uneven and discriminatory.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, will the Senator from
South Dakota yield?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
The bill came from the House. The
language is similar to that which is in
every bill which the House passes with
respect to pay. The House likes to
handle its affairs in its own way; and
the Senate acts on its affairs in its own
way. That is according to past history.
So the language of this bill has been
prepared according to that policy. It
leaves the matter to the discretion of
each Senator. In the House the prac-
tice is different.
Mr. CASE of South-Dakota. I recog-
nize that it is customary for each House
to operate for itself. I have offered the
amendment to point out that the lan-
guage of this paragraph would establish
a mandatory increase for the staff em-
ployees of the House of Representatives,
as I see it; but with the -Senate, the
increase would not be a mandatory.
I accept the interpretation which has
been placed upon paragraph (b) that
the basic compensation of senatorial
employees-that is, employees in the
offices of the Senate-would be auto-
matically adjusted downward, to keep
them where they are, unless a Senator
notifies the disbursing office, in writing,
that he wants his employees to have the
benefit of the bill. - That is the point I
think the Senator from Texas was de-
bating a while ago. It takes a rather
clase reading of paragraph (b), but I
think it is correct to say that the bill
automatically adjusts downward the
basic compensation of employees in the
offices of the Senate, so that they will
not get the benefit of this increase un-
less the Senator indicates to the dis-
bursing office, in writing, that he wants
them to get the increase.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The Sen-
ator is correct. Mr. Brenkworth con-
firmed that interpretation.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. That
understanding is confirmed both by the
chairman of the committee which re-
pbrted the bill and by the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
That is true.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. But I
have not found aay provision in the bill
which permits that to be done in the
House of Representatives.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. There is
none. The House handles these mat-
ters in its own way.
Mr. CASE of i3outh Dakota. In the
House, therefore, the increase would be
mandatory for every employee. I sug-
gest that that establishes some discrim-
ination. The bi;.l then provides that
employees in the offices of Representa-
tives will get a 7'/2-percent increase,
The employees in the offices of Senators
will not get the increase'unless Senators
individually, as tc their employees, indi-
cate that they want them to get the
increase. Certainly that is discrimina-
tory. I think we should treat our em-
ployees evenhandedly. I think Senators'
employees should not be treated differ-
ently from employees of the Members of
the House of Representatives.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I agree with
the -Senator. The Senator is correct in
his understandings that there is a differ-
ence. The House chooses to operate in
that way. There are many differences In
the operating arrangements of the two
bodies.
As the Senator knows, the House re-
fused to employ administrative assist-
ants, following t:re passage of the Re-
organization Act, which was introduced
by the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
MONRONEY] and the late Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Ga -Follette, authored.
The House did riot choose to have the
high-level personnel which the Senators
have. Theirs is a different situation.
In this instance, the House has chosen
to pass the bill as the Senator has it
before him. -Although I would much
prefer to have the same provision apply
to both Houses, I think the comity which
exists between the two bodies, and the
understanding w,, have always had, is
desirable. Accordingly, the Senate does
not touch the provisions relating to the
House of Representatives. If the Senate
does not have enough to do without han-
dling the affairs of the House of Repre-
sentatives, then the Senatex,;s, under-
worked.
The situation throughout thhe'years has
been that the House of Representatives
handles its own business, and the Senate
handles its own.
The pay of the Senate Parliamentari-
ans is different from the pay of the House
Parliamentarians, Some of the em-
ployees of the House get more than the
comparable employees of the Senate.
Some are - given increases by statute,
while ours are not.
In each instance, the leadership has
felt that it was better to leave such mat-
ters up to the membership of the other
body. The vote in the other body on this
bill was, as I recall, something like 8 or 9
or 10 to 1.
I dislike in the concluding days of this
session to have the Senate adopt an
amendment affecting the House. It
would be something we have never done
before. If we did, I think perhaps the
House simply would not receive it and
would send it back to us.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I am
fully aware of the logic and historical
traditions by which each body legislates
for itself. However, I am glad to have
the confirmation of the Senator from
Texas of the fact that there is a differ-
ence in the treatment which is accorded
the employees of Senators and Repre-
sentatives.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. There al-
ways has been.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. There
are two ways to handle the matter:
Either to include the words "or Repre-
sentative" after "Senator," or to strike
subparagraph (b) from the bill.
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. EL-
LENDER] has proposed to strike the entire
section from the bill. I offered my
amendment as a perfecting amendment
so that it could be considered before the
Senate votes upon the amendment of-
fered by the Senator from Louisiana.
If it is not desired to act in that way,
and if the amendment of the Senator
from Louisiana should not be accepted,
then the other way to proceed would be
to strike subparagraph (b) from the bill,
so that Senators will not be in the oner-
ous position of having individually to de-
termine whether the blanket pay in-
crease which would be given to the em-
ployees in a Representative's office shall
not extend to the employees in a Sen-
ator's office.
I have thought that the logical thing
to do, under the motivations which pro-
duced paragraph (b) of the bill, is to
give the Senate an opportunity to avoid
discriminatory action by including the
words "or Representative." If that is
not desired, then the entire paragraph
should be stricken from the bill, so that
Senators will not be called upon to pick
and choose, if Representatives are not
going to pick and choose.
-I hope the amendment will be agreed
to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from South
Dakota.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CASE of -South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Dakota will state it.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Would it
also be considered a perfecting amend-
ment if I were to move to strike para-
graph (b) from section 117?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator could move to strike that sec-
tion.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 1960
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 12077
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I move
that subparagraph (b) of section 117,
beginning on line 19, page 17, and con-
tinuing through line 7, on page 18, be
stricken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota, Mr.
President, I should like to discuss the
amendment for a moment. I invite the
attention of the Senator from Louisiana
[Mr. ELLENDERI to the situation which
now exists.
If the entire section 117, relating to
employees in the legislative branch, re-
mains in the bill undisturbed, then we
will have a situation in which the em-
ployees in the office of a Representative
will get an automatic pay increase of 7i/z
percent. The employees in the office of
a Senator will not get such an increase
unless the Senator notifies the disburs-
ing office, In writing, that he wishes his
employees to get the increase-and, pre-
sumably, which employees In his office
he wishes to receive the increase.
If the employees in a Representative's
office are to get the increase automati-
cally, as the employees in the other
branches of the Government will get it,
why should we not strike paragraph (b)
of section 117, so that the employees in
senatorial offices will be treated just as
fairly as and on all fours with the em-
ployees in the offices of Representatives?
If the employees-in the offices of Repre-
sentatives are to get the increase auto-
matically and uniformly, why should not
the employees in the offices of Senators
get the increase automatically and uni-
formly?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from South Da-
kota yield?
The . PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BYRD of West Virginia in the chair).
Does the Senator from South Dakota
yield to the Senator from Texas?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I will tell
the Senator why. It is because the
House of Representatives, which regu-
lates its own business, does not choose
to have its employees dealt with in this
way.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota: But I
am not proposing that the Senate legis-
late for the House of Representatives
employees. I am proposing that the
Senate legislate for the Senate em-
ployees.
If the House decides that the em-
ployees of the House of Representatives
are to receive an automatic pay increase,
are we to say to the employees in the
senatorial offices, "You will not get an
automatic pay increase. Your Senator
must go to the disbursing office and must
notify it in writing which of his em-
ployees is to receive an increase, and
how much."
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from South Da-
kota yield further to me?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I say we
should vote to proceed In the way rec-
ommended by our committee, because I
think a considerable number of Sena-
tors do not want their employees to re-
ceive an automatic pay increase of 5 per-
cent or 6 percent or 7 percent; instead,
those Senators want to be the judge of
what their employees shall receive.
In the House of Representatives the
situation is different. I propose that
each body make the decision for itself.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Very
well, and I am proposing that the Sen-
ate make the decision as to whether it
wants the Senate employees not to re-
ceive an increase which the House of
Representatives employees will auto-
matically receive.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The House
has decided this question for itself; but
I do not want any Senator to be forced
to increase the pay of his employees 6
percent or 7 percent, if, in his judgment,
he does not want that done.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. But the
employees of the. House of Representa-
tives should not automatically receive
benefits which the employees of the Sen-
ate will not automatically receive.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Dakota yield, to per-
mit me to propound a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I rise
to' a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Colorado will state it.
Mr. ALLOTT. I wish to ask whether
an amendment which I have in mind
will properly lie to the amendment of
the Senator from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will
the Senator from Colorado state the na-
ture of the amendment he has in mind?
Mr. ALLOTT. I shall discuss the
amendment in just a moment. On page
18, in line 3, I propose to strike out the
word "not."
The effect of the amendment-and I
hope the amendment will solve part of
the difficulties which are bothering the
Senator from South Dakota-will be
simply that the pay raises will not be
applicable until the individual Senator
notifies the disbursing office, in writing,
that he does wish such provisions to ap-
ply to such employees. In other words,
the amendment takes off the burden,
and reverses the situation.
I hope that my friend, the Senator
from South Dakota, will see fit to accept
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment submitted by the Senator
from South Dakota must first be acted
upon, before the amendment of the
Senator from Colorado can be acted
upon.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I think the issue is clearly be-
fore the Senate; so I have nothing fur-
ther to say. This issue is merely
whether Senators want the bill, as
passed, to discriminate in favor of em-
ployees in the offices of Members of the
House of Representatives, and against
employees in the offices of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I wish to make a brief statement:
2,400,000 persons are affected by this
bill; and at the moment we are talking
about a relatively small number of these
Government employees.
I have checked with the House of
Representatives office, and it makes this
statement:
The Senate has traditionally followed the
practice of requiring affirmative action in
order to give the increase to its employees.
The House has always done it the other way;
the House employees get it unless action is
taken to take it away from them.
That has been true of every increase
that has been made through the years.
The House has traditionally proceeded in
the other way-making the increase
automatic. The House employees receive
the increase automatically, unless action
is taken to prevent them from receiv-
ing it.
I hope that in dealing with an item
which affects so few people relatively we
shall not take action which will necessi-
tate sending the bill to conference.
Mr. President, I yield back the re-
mainder of the time available to me.
Mr. . CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, I wish to say a further word.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Then, Mr.
President, I reserve the remainder of
the time available to me. I had thought
the Senator from. South Dakota had
yielded back the remainder of the time
available to him.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, the Senator from Texas has
been making the point that each House
should legislate for itself. But now he
has taken the position that not one
amendment should be written into the
bill by the Senate, but that the bill
should be passed by the Senate in exactly
the same form as that in which the bill
came to us from the House of Repre-
sentatives, so that the bill will not have
to go to conference. That is a denial of
the right of the Senate to have any part
in this legislation. If no amendment
is to be made by the Senate to the bill,
then we let the House of Representatives
write the legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON 'of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator from South
Dakota yield?
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. The Senate
committee reported the bill in this form.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Yes, but
under the same strictures which the ma-
jority leader now wishes to lay down for.
the Senate-namely, that we take the
bill just as it is, and do not amend the
bill and have it go to conference. If
that is permitting the Senate to write
its own ticket, I do not so. understand it.
Mr. President, I ask for a vote on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from South
Dakota.
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana [Mr. ELLENDERI.
On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered; and the clerk will'
call the roll.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
-12078 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE June 17
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS],the Senator from Texas
[Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the Senator from
California [Mr. ENGLE] are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], and the Sena-
tor from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. -KEFAUVER], the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE], and the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
CARROLL], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator from Ten-
nessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Sen-
ator from Michigan [Mr. McNAMARA],
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEN-
Nis], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR-
BOROUGH], and the Senator from Cali-
fornia [Mr. ENGLE] would each vote
"nay.'
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland -[Mr. BUTLER]
is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and theSenator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily
absent.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT] and the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on official
business. If present and voting, the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA],
and the Senator from Kansas - [Mr.
SCHOEPPEL] wouldeach vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 19,
nays 63, as follows:
[No. 224]
YEAS-19
Anderson Hayden Saltonstall
Bennett Lausche Talmadge
Bush Lusk Thurmond
Byrd, Va. McClellan Williams, Del.
Curtis - Mansfield Young, Ohio
Ellender Prouty
Gore Robertson
NAYS-63
Aiken Ervin Long, La.
Allott Fong McCarthy
Bartlett Frear McGee
Beall Goldwater Magnuson
Bible Green Martin
Bridges Gruening Monroney
Brunadale Hart Morton
Byrd, W. Va. Hartke Moss
Cannon Hickenlooper Murray
Carlson Hill Muskie
Case, N.J. Holland Pastore
Case, S. Dak. Humphrey Proxmire
Chavez Jackson Randolph
Church Javits Scott
Clark Johnson, Tex. Smathere
Cooper Johnston, S.C. Smith
Dirksen Jordan Sparkman
Dodd Keating Symington
Douglas Kerr Wiley
Dworshak Kuchel Williams, N.J.
Eastland Long, Hawaii Young, N, Dak.
NOT VOTING-18
Butler
Hen nings
Mundt
Capehart
Hru aka
O'Mahoney
Carroll
Kefnuver
Russell
Cotton
Kennedy
Schoeppel
Engle
McSamara -
Stennis
Fulbright
Morse
Yarborough
So Mr. ELLENDER'S amendment was
rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
Is open to further amendment.
Mr. ELLENDI:R. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and ask
to have It stated; and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will first suite the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 20,
between lines 16 and 17, it is proposed to
insert the following new section:
LIMITATION ON INCREASES
SEC. 123. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act ox of any amendment made
by this Act, no su, h provision shall-
(1) provide or uthorize an increase in
any rate of basic compensation or gross com-
pensation (basic o.ompensation plus addi-
tional compensation authorized by law) if
such rate, computEd without regard to such
provision, is $10,000 or more per annum, or
(2) provide or authorize an increase in
any rate of basic or gross compensation to
an amount in exce:;s of $10,000 per annum If
such rate, comput(d without regard to such
provision, is less than $10,000 per annum.
Mr. ELLENDE)i. Mr. President, I re-
new my request for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, a parliame itary inquiry.
The PRESIDIN-aOFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it. -
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. What time
will be used for the call of the roll?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Louisiana request that the
time not be changed to either side?
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the time for the
call of the roll not be charged to either
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Louisiana? The Chair hears none,
and it is so ordered. -
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ELLENDEIZ. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous cons,lnt that further pro-
ceedings under the quorum call be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, It is so )rdered.
Mr. ELLENDER3.. Mr. President, I re-
new my request. I ask for the yeas and
nays on the amendment.
The yeas- and nays were ordered.
Mr. ELLENDERZ. Mr. President, this
is a very simple amendment. All it
seeks to do is to confine the 7.5 percent
across the board pay increase provided
in the pending bill to persons making
less than $10,000 per year. Under my
amendment, an employee receiving $10,-
000 per annum or more would receive no
pay increase, and, as to persons present-
ly receiving less than $10,000 per year,
in no case could their compensation be
increased under the authority of the
pending bill, to more than $10,000 per
year.
I do not enjoy offering amendments of
this kind to proposed pay legislation, but
I feel compelled to do so because I am
firmly convinced that if the inflationary
spiral is to be stopped, if burgeoning
Federal expenditures are to be reduced,
it is up to the Federal Government to
set the example.
There is doubtless a strong case to be
made for a pay increase for persons in
the lower income brackets, but I do not
believe that persons presently earning
$10,000 per year or more, which is a sub-
stantial amount of money, need a pay
increase to the extent that the lower
paid Federal workers do.
Actually, Mr. President, it could per-
haps be argued that a pay raise of the
magnitude provided in the pending bill
might be somewhat excessive, even as to
the lower income brackets. According
to my information, the cost of living, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index,
has increased by only 2 percent, since
the last Federal pay raise in 1958.
A more limited study of the Consumer
Price Index, embracing only housing,
apparel, transportation, medical care,
personal care, reading, and recreation,
Indicates that there has been an average
net increase in prices for these items of
only 3 percentduring the sameperiod of
time.
Now I am not unaware of the fact
-that individuals employed in the private
sector of our economy have received sub-
stantial wage increases since 1958, but I
return to the basic premise, that despite
such increases it is up to the Federal
Government to lead the way in holding
down the cost of living, in holding down
Government expenditures.
We cannot afford to follow blindly in
the footsteps of other segments of our
economy, and, in effect, participate in an
effort which is .bound to further increase
the cost of living. I am also compelled
to inform Senators that despite the fact
that average hourly earnings in manu-
facturing and similar industries have in-
creased only an average amount of 6.4
percent since 1958, the pending bill
would provide a 7.5-percent increase for
Federal employees. Thus, Mr. Presi-
dent, even assuming that the -Federal
Government should go forward and "fol-
low the leader" in raising wages, the
average hourly earnings in other seg-
ments of our economy has increased by
only some 6.4 percent, compared with
the 7.5-percent increase provided under
the pending bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the tables showing the Con-
sumer Price Index for all articles, the
Consumer Price Index for selected items,
and the average hourly earnings, ex-
eluding overtime, for selected industries,
be printed at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the tables
were ordered to be printed In the REC-
ORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Consumer Price Index, all items
March 1958__________ [1947-49 =1001 123.3
March 1960_______________________________________ 125.7
Net change--------------------------------- +2.4
Change, +2 percent (rounded).
Consumer Price Index, selected items
1958
March
Percent
average
1060
change
Housing________________
327.7
131.3
-x-2.8
Apparel----------------
107.0
108.8
+1.7
Transportation ---------
140.5
146. 5
Medical care -____:_____
144.6
155.0
+7.8
Personal care-----------
128.6
132.7
+3.2
, Reading and recreation-
116.7
120.9
+3.6
Food -------------------
120.3
117.7
-2.2
Average hourly earnings (excluding
overtime)
[Selected industries]
1958
February
Percent
average
1960
change
Manufacturing (all) _ ___
$2.58
$2.22
+6.7
Banks------------------
1.78
1.87
+5.0
llotels__________________
1.13
1.20
[-6.2
Telephone______________
2.05
2.22
+8.3
Telegraph --------------
2.17
2.27
+4.6
(las and electric utilities-
2.46
2.65
+7.6
Chemical industry-----
2.31
2.46
+6.4
Textiles --- _ ----Primary metals (includ-
ing steel)-------------
1. 51
1.60
+5.9
Average Increase_
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I
also tell Senators that, according to the
best information I have been able to ob-
tain, the adoption of my amendment,
which, as I have said, would limit the
pay raise provided in the bill to the
lower paid employees of the Federal
Government, would result in savings ag-
gregating at least some $48 million. The
latest available figures on Federal em-
ployment which I have obtained from
the Civil Service Commission, show that
there are 55,971 civil service employees
earning more than $10,000, out of a
total 962,264,000 employees. These
$10,000 per year and over employees-
and I am referring to civil service em-
ployees only=were receiving as of June
30, 1958, aggregate pay totaling $639,-
101,065. Applying a 7.5 percent to this
amount, it is easy to see that the saving
as to civil service employees alone,
would be $47,932,579 per year.
I also have before me a table headed
"Employees by pay group, all areas, June
30, 1959," indicating that of all Federal
employees-classified, wage board, postal
field service, and others--only 71,993 re-
ceive salaries in excess of $10,000 per
year. Thus, it becomes obvious that the
amount I propose will not affect the rank
and file of our Federal workers, but will
apply only to a little more than 3 per-
cent of our total Federal payroll, in
terms of number of employees, while at
the same time, saving an amount in ex-
cess of $48 million per year.
I do hope, Mr. President, that my
amendment will be adopted. I do not
mean to say that persons presently earn-
ing $10,000 per year are overpaid. That
is not the point at all. The fact is, as
I have already tried to point out, the
Federal Government owes to our peo-
ple a major responsibility in curbing in-
flation, and in halting the ever rising
cost of Government.
It strikes me that this is a particularly
appropriate time for the Congress to
fulfill its responsibilities in this area.
Under my amendment, a step forward
in this regard would be taken, without
as I have indicated, working any injury
upon the great majority of our Federal
employees.
As I previously stated, I wish to be in
a position to vote for a pay increase for
those who need it. As I pointed out
previously, the bill is dubbed a bill to
increase the pay of postal employees.
Every telegram I have received in the
past 24 hgurs refers to the bill as a postal
pay raise bill, when, as a matter of fact,
it affects practically every classified em-
ployee, many of whom, as I have said,
are today receiving salaries that are fair
and just. My fear is that by overload-
ing this pay increase bill, by increasing
the salaries of people who are now re-
ceiving sufficient salary, we may prevent
the bill from becoming law.
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to
my distinguished friend from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I
thank the able and distinguished Sena-
tor from Louisiana for yielding to me.
I commend him for the amendment he
has offered. As a matter of fact, I had
prepared an identical amendment which
I had planned to offer myself.
I have great sympathy for the hun-
dreds of thousands of employees of the
Government who live on nominal and
sometimes little more than subsistence
salaries. I am ready and willing to lend
my voice and my vote to improve their
lot. But, in considering raising the pay
of Government employees, I also have
equal sympathy for the millions of
Americans outside the employment of
the Federal Government who are bur-
dened with oppressive taxation.
During the past 31 years we have suc-
ceeded in balancing our budget only
five times. During that same period of
time the value of our dollar has eroded
to slightly less than 47 cents. Although
I have had the privilege of serving in
the Senate for less than 4 years, during
that time we have acted or soon will act
on four different bills to raise the ceil-
ing on the national debt.
We have been guilty of nothing less
than complete and abject fiscal irre-
sponsibility.
At a time when the Nation Is having
difficulty selling its bonds we in the Sen-
ate find ourselves considering a bill
which would raise the pay of virtually
every civil employee in the United States,
regardless of his present level of income.
How can we justify raising the salaries
of employees who are receiving $10,000
to $19,000 a year when we have not bal-
anced our budget and the value of our
dollar is steadily declining. We seem to
have gotten caught in a vicious cycle of
having to raise the salaries of employees
whose incomes have not kept pace with
the inflation created by irresponsible
Federal spending.
As has the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana, I, too, have tried to get some
facts on this matter. My time was
12079
limited as I prepared my amendment
only this morning. But I found that of
the 535,000 postal employees, only 1,141
earn in excess of $10,000 a year. Thus
the proposed amendment would affect
them virtually not at all.
This bill is intended to aid the people
who work for the Government of the
United States to meet their obligations,
a purpose in which I concur. However,
I do not think that we should hap-
hazardly pass legislation affecting vir-
tually every employee. of our Govern-
ment, regardless of his salary, when we
cannot even balance our budget.
The figures I obtained on the saving
which would be accomplished under the
amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana vary somewhat
from the figures given by the Senator
from Louisiana, but they are along the
same line.
The-staff of the committee informs me
that if the amendment is adopted, it will
save $35 million a year. I arrived at a
little different result on the basis of the
information I received from the Bureau
of the Budget. That agency reported
the savings as $56 million a year. The
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]
received figures from the Civil Service
Commission which put the amount in the
vicinity of $48 million a year.
I do not think this Senate ought to
raise the salaries of the people in the
highest pay brackets in the Government
at the expense of placing an even greater
burden .on our children and on our
grandchildren yet unborn.
I hope that the amendment of the
Senator from Louisiana will be adopted.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr.. President, I call to the attention of
the Senate what the Cordiner report
had to say in regard to some of the
salaries that would be affected by the
amendment :
In the top-level civilian employee field,
the Department of Defense is in direct com-
petition with industry for scarce skills. In-
dustry Is free to offer greater economic in-
centives. As a result, the Department is
suffering alarming losses of established career
civilians-engineers, scientists, and managers.
We hear a good many people talking
about our inability to retain skilled
workers, but if the amendment passes,
it will only serve to keep more people
from remaining with us in the different
scientific fields. The Cordiner report
says further:
To be precise turnover is Increasing. The
ratio of losses of top scientists and engineers
in 1956 was four times that of 1951.
Quality is decreasing. Supervisors indi-
cate that their best people are leaving and
that the replacements don't measure up to
those who have left.
Many positions remain unfilled. In June
1956, one out of every five electronic, me-
chanical and aeronautical engineering posi-
tions was vacant. Similar shortages exist
In other occupations, The situation grows
steadily worse.
The excerpts I have read are from
what is known as the Cordiner report.
I hope the Senate will not agree to the
amendment. I call to the attention of
the Senate again the fact that Sena-
tors might just as well vote against the
bill as to amend it and send it to con-
ference.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12080 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I rise
to explain briefly the reasons why I sup-
port the amendment offered by the Sen-
ator from Louisiana. I must say at the
outset that normally I would oppose the
amendment, because it is not my feeling
that those who occupy high policy-mak-
ing positions in the Government are
overpaid. If-I felt that a case had been
made out by which I could, in good con-
science, justify the 71/2-percent increase
proposed in the brill for all Civil Service
employees, then I would wish to see the
same increase given to the employees in
the highest brackets as well as those in
the middle or lower brackets.
Because I feel that no case has been
made to warrant a 71/2-percent increase
for civil service employees generally, I
must support any amendment which will
tend to temper the cost which is encom-
passed in the proposed legislation. The
cost, as the Senate well knows, is three-
quarters of a billion dollars, permanently
added to the Federal budget, and to the
burden of the taxpayers.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am glad to yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas.- How much
is involved in the pending amendment?
Mr. CHURCH. The pending amend-
ment would effect a saving of anywhere
from $35 million to $55 million a year,
depending upon the source of the figures.
There seems to be some divergence with
regard to the estimates made by the Civil
Service Commission, by the Bureau of the
Budget, and by the staff of our own
committee. However, whichever figure
is taken, be it $35 million or $55 million,
it is a significant figure. I feel that it
justifies support of the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. How many
people are affected?
Mr. CHURCH. I am sorry I do not
know the answer. Perhaps the Senator
from Louisiana knows the answer.
Mr. ELLENDER. Fifty-five thousand.
Mr. CHURCH. Fifty-five thousand
people would be affected. That would
be the total number of people on the
Federal payroll whose salaries are now
above $10,000. -
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Does the
Senator realize that most of our tech-
nological and scientific people are in that
group?
Mr. CHURCH. Yes. If I felt that a
71/2-percent increase were warranted, I
would want it to go to those in the
higher brackets, as well as to the middle
and lower brackets.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Coming
from the State that the Senator does,
with the great interest he has in the
problem, he knows of the difficulty we
have of holding technological people in
our employ, the people who fall into this
group, particularly because industry is
hiring them away from government all
the time.
Mr. CHURCH. I am trying to keep
this matter in perspective. The total
cost of the bill is very large indeed. To
justify favorable action on the bill as
a whole, upon the ground of what it
might do for these highly trained peo-
ple and specialists, seems to me not to
be sound. After all, we have a big pack-
age. We have to consider the impact
of all of It on the cost of government.
Mr. JOHNSON' of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I could ap-
preciate the Senator's position on an
amendment separating the postal em-
ployees from the other employees, if he
wished to raise only the postal em-
ployees. However, that is not this
amendment. Tl.is amendment says,
"We will give everybody a raise except
to the people we :need the most, the peo-
ple who are being grabbed away from
the Government." It seems to-me that
the Senator would do that to save $35
million in the hectic period when bombs
are raining on Quemoy. It is a poor
way to try to take $35 million from peo-
ple we are looking for to help maintain
freedom in the world.
Mr. CHURCH. I do not believe that
the committee reports contain data upon
which we can draw, with any degree of
assurance, what ,he Government's diffi-
culties are, with respect to procuring
these highly skilled people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 3
additional minutes to the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. We do not know what
the difficulties aie with respect to. pro-
curing these specialists, or what adjust-
ments should be made in their wages. I
do feel that if this 71/2-percent increase
is not warranted generally for the Civil
Service employee.>, then let-us take such
steps to modify the bill as the majority
will support. It seems to me that the
amendment of the Senator from Louisi-
ana at least has this force to it. It
will confine the increase to those who
are most likely to be in need of it, be-
cause their salaries are in the lower
brackets. It will effect an overall saving
of between $35 Million and $55 million.
Until a better case is doclunented,
showing, to my satisfaction, that ad-
justments in the higher brackets are
necessary in order to maintain, attract,
and hold, scientis ,s and technicians, who
now receive anywhere from $16,000 to
$19,700 a year, I believe that I am justi-
fied in supportin? the amendment.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yields,
Mr. CHURCH. I am on limited time,
but I am glad to yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE Why does the Sen-
ator assume that a single girl earning
$4,000 a year is in more need than a
married man with five children earning
$11,000?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Are we not
concerned with families as well as in-
dividuals?
Mr. CHURCH. We can choose con-
venient-examples, of course. I am con-
cerned about those who work for the
Government with families, whether they
are earning $11,000 or $7,000 or $5,000.
Mr. PASTORE. Precisely.
Mr. CHURCH. Those in the lower
brackets who have families are faced
June 17
with the rising cost of living. They are
the ones who are most in need of such
increases as we may choose to give. I
-therefore feel, that if we are -going to
have a 71/2-percent increase, let us at
least confine that increase to those who
are most in need of it. It seems to me
that those who are making less than
$10,000 are the ones most in need.
Mr. PASTORE. Is not the Senator
arguing and is not his logic taking this
form, that we can afford to give this pay
increase, provided it costs $35 million,
but not if it costs $800 million?
Mr. CHURCH. No, indeed I am not.
This amendment would save $35 million.
I am about to offer an amendment
to the bill which will confine the increase
to postal workers, because I believe a
legitimate case has been made to war-
rant an increase for these workers.
That will exclude the $500 million in
the bill that would go to the classified
civil service employees, because I think
no case has been made out to warrant
an increase of this size for these em-
ployees. This would save money which
could better be spent for the critical
needs of the country. I am therefore
supporting the Senator from Louisiana,
and I will later offer an amendment
which will not effect a savings of only
$35 million or- $55 million, but will effect
a saving of a half a billion dollars.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 1
additional minute to the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. I wish to observe that
I can understand the logic of the Sena-
tor's position on his overall amendment,
but I submit that it is not so much a
question of the individual need of the
scientist as it is the need of the Govern-
ment itself. These people are going into
private industry. They are going into
private plants. I believe that what the
Senator is saying to these people is, "We
are going to raise everybody up to this
level, but we are going to ignore you."
That will aggravate the problem, rather
than help to solve it. Perhaps the steel
workers were not entitled to get an in-
crease. However, if we are to give an
increase to anyone, we should certainly
give it to those we need the most in the
critical period we are -facing.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will. the Senator yield me 3
minutes?
Mr. JOHNSON. of Texas. I yield 3
minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I dislike very
much to disagree with those who argue
in favor of the amendment. I should
like to say a word about it. When the
junior Senator from Louisiana came to
the Senate the Hoover Commission had
worked out recommendations for job
economy in Government. One of their
leading recommendations was that we
should try to give an increase in pay
to people who had the responsibility of
management in the Government. The
argument for that was that the Govern-
ment was losing a great amount of money
for lack of first-class managers in Gov-
ernment.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13': CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The junior Senator from Louisiana
handled the bill on the floor, and had
great difficulty in getting an increase for
the top management officials in Govern-
ment, although in his opinion an almost
irrefutable case had been made that by
spending money we could make tremen-
dous improvements in efficiency and bet-
ter management. I have seen bills go
through Congress raising the salary of
low grade employees but not of the high-
er grade employees. Incidentally, that is
popular with the postal people. Raise
all the low-grade people, who squabble
over their supervisors, but do not raise
the supervisors because they are not too
popular with the letter carriers or the
clerks.
If we are to have good management,
we shall have to pay something for it.
It is my impression that the best people
in the Government today in the man-
agerial end are staying there solely to
obtain their retirement benefits, because
the Government has a good retirement
program. But they are being paid much
less than persons having comparable
ability who are employed in other areas
of endeavor.
It is my judgment that if we want to
keep the best people, the postmasters
and persons in managerial positions in
Government, we will do well to give
them an increase.
We talk about people who are getting
better-paid work elsewhere. They are
the very people who would get no in-
crease at all, while everyone else would
get the 71/2-percent increase.
My guess is that the pending amend-
ment affects the people who have the
most ability and who deserve a pay
raise, while those who would be paid
less would be those who would not get
a pay raise, because we pile up the pay
increases or incentives, in my judgment,
and a better case would be made for the
people who are paid on the basis of abil-
ity.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Louisiana yield?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I yield..
Mr. GOLDWATER. The Senator from
Louisiana is making a good case for what
I believe is the basic trouble with the pay
raise approach which confronts us every
election year. I know a little something
about management and something about
hiring people.
We will not retain people in desirable
positions in the Government with a 71/2-
percent increase. Suppose a man is
making $20,000 a year. If an aircraft
company wants that man, it will offer
him $30,000, which will mean a net in-
crease of about $8,500 more than if he
got a 71/2-percent increase in the Gov-
ernment.
Every election year, for votes only, we
come'into this Chamber and argue about
the underpaid postal workers and the
underpaid civil service workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Louisiana has
expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield the distin-
guished Senator 5 additional minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Would it not be
better for the committee to devote itself
to a real study of the pay bases and pay
scales of the Federal employees? Would
not that be better than to come here
every election year, knowing it is very
difficult to vote against pay increases?
It is like voting against mother love or
against the flag. I think we are wasting
the taxpayers' money. I do not think we
are getting the best out of our workers.
If the postal employees are underpaid,
then let them be paid what they are
worth. But let us not increase their pay
in a political year merely by voting for
a 71/2 -percent increase.
I guarantee that any private business
that wants to pirate or hire any Govern-
ment worker will not be stopped by a
71/2-percent pay increase. It may be
that we shall have to increase some of
the pay bases by 20, 30, 40, or 50 percent.
But I suggest that we do it, and not come
here every election year with a purely
political bill which does 'not do the
worker any good. Let us not say that
we have helped the underpaid employ-
ees of the Government. We have done
them no good. We simply add to the in-
flationary spiral, and we add to the eco-
nomic problems of the workers.
If we would stop irresponsible spend-
ing, we would do more good for the coun-
try than by providing wage increases.
I got away from the question I had in-
tended to ask. Does not the Senator
agree that the basic problem is one of
studying the whole wage structure of the
Federal employees?
Mr. LONG - of Louisiana. That is a
problem connected with it, but the bill
is before the Senate. My general feeling
about it is that if we are to give a pay
raise to everyone, the people who would
be denied a pay raise by the amendment
are those who could fill any position.
They certainly are worth more than they
are getting and are worthy of a pay
raise. That being the case, I hope they
will share in a pay raise, if a pay raise is
to be granted.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I-
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I shall
sum up the reasons why I oppose the
amendment. It has been argued by the
distinguished majority leader and other
Senators that the Government has a
great need for technicians and other
highly educated and expert persons who
are not now working for the Government
because of the higher wages they receive
in private industry, or who are leaving
the Government because-they can receive
higher wages elsewhere. I suggest that
this is an assertion which is not backed
up by the committee hearings. We have
no data or studies upon which to rest
a competent judgment - that that is so.
We have no proof, upon which we can
act, that this is so. We have merely
surmises and the contention.
Furthermore, we have no proof what-
ever that a 71/2-percent increase will
cause those persons to stay with the
Government, as was well pointed out by
the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
The kind of salary competition which
may be attracting them away from Gov-
ernment service is not a differential of
71/2 percent; it is a differential which
may run as high as 20 or 30 percent.
12081
Therefore, I believe we cannot assume,
upon the evidence now before us, that the
passage of the bill providing for a 71/2-
percent increase would rectify the prob-
lem which has been alluded to on the
floor.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the' Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I will yield as soon as
I have finished my statement.
Second, it seems to me that if the 71/2-
percent increase were justified overall,
then it ought to apply to persons in the
higher categories as well as to those in
the lower or middle categories. That is
why I said at the outset that normally
I would not support an amendment of
this kind.
But where there is no justification, in
my opinion, for a 71/2-percent increase
overall, then-I would prefer any amend-
ment which would tend to limit the size
of the increase to those who are clearly
most in need of it. Those persons, ob-
viously, are the ones in the lower and
middle brackets. They are persons who
are faced with the high cost of living
but are having a difficult time making
their budgets meet their living costs.
So I support the amendment. I be-
lieve it will effect a saving of at least
$35 million to $55 million a year. Of
those who are earning $10,000 or more
a year, the great majority are not the
technicians or the scientists to whom
reference has been made; they are those
in the regular civil service positions of
the Government. They are the persons
who are most in need of a raise.
So let us effect a saving by the in-
crease, if there is to be one, by granting
the raise to persons in the lower income
brackets, who certainly are most in need
of an increase.
For these reasons, I believe it is in the
public interest to support the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Louisi-
ana.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator has
heard of Parkinson's law, has he not?
Mr. CHURCH. I have, indeed. I
would only add to that statement that
the existence of Parkinson's law makes
it all the more mandatory for the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service,
on which I formerly served, and for
which I have the highest regard, not to
come before the Senate with a package
which requires us to vote for a 71/2-per-
cent pay increase for everyone in the
Government simply in order that the
postal workers can get their share, or in
order that scientists and technicians will
stay with the Government, but rather
come to the Senate with tailored legis-
lation and a well-documented case to
support the kind of reformation which
should take place on the Federal payroll,
if wd are properly to serve the public in-
terest. I submit that we have failed to
do that in the pending bill.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, has
the Senator from Alaska been yielded
time? -
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield 1
minute to the Senator from Alaska.
No. 111-9
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12082
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 17
Mr, GRUENING. The amount to be
Mr,
saved by the amendment will be some-
thing in the neighborhood of one two-
hundredths of 1 percent. By adopting
such a provision, we will impair the value
of the persons who are most valuable,
most skilled, and most important to the
Government.
Only a few hours ago, I was at lunch
with one of our colleagues who said that
he had lost his three top employees to
private industry because he could not af-
ford to keep them at the maximum sal-
aries which the Senate permits.
If we make this distinction, we will
pile up a large number of persons at the
$10,000 level, and will be grouping per-
sons having different values in one
group. That would be most unfortunate.
We should proceed to vote on the bill as
it now is.
Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back
the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Louisiana.
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from California [Mr.
ENGLE], the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. HART], the Senator from Georgia
[Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Missis-
sippi [Mr. ?STENNIS], and the Senator
from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are ab-
senton official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS], and the Sen-
ator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT]
are absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the
Senator from Tennessee [Mr. - KEFAU-
TER], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
McNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE] , the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAHONEY] are necessarily ab-
sent.
On this vote, the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. HENNINGS] is paired with the
Senator from Michigan [Mr. McNA-
MARA]. If present and voting, the Sen-
ator from Missouri would vote "yea" and
the Senator from Michigan would vote
"nay."
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. CARROLL], the Senator from Cali-
fornia [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from
Michigan [Mr. HART], the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the
Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS],
the Senator from Texas [Mr. YAR-
BOROUGH] would each vote "nay." %
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER] is
absent because of illness.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The -Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily ab-
sent.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT] and the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPELI are absent on official
business.
On this vote, the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRU8KA] is paired with the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. ScHOEPPELI.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska would v)te "yea," and the Sen-
ator from Kansas. would vote "nay."
The result was announced--yeas 23,
nays 58, as follows:
[,To. 2251
YEAS-23
Allott Dworshak McClellan
Anderson Elleiider Mansfield
Bridges Ervii Robertson
Byrd, Va. Golcwater Talmadge
Case,-S. Dak. Hayden Thurmond
Church Holland Williams, Del.
Cooper Laus;che Young, Ohio
Curtis Lusk.
NAYS-58
Aiken Grec n Monroney
Bartlett Gruening Morton
Beall Hart ke Moss
Bennett Hickenlooper Murray
Bible Hill Muskie
Brunsdale Hun Lphrey Pastore
Bush Jackson Prouty
Byrd, W. Va. Javits Proxmire
Cannon Johneon, Tex. Randolph
Carlson Johnston, S.C. Saltonstall
Case, N.J. Jordan Scott
Chavez Kea-;ing Smathers
Clark Kerr Smith
Dirksen Kuehel Sparkman
Dodd Long, Hawaii Symington
Douglas Lon;, La. Wiley
Eastland McCarthy Williams, N.J.
Fong Mcttee Young, N. Dak.
Frear Magnuson -
Gore Mar in
NOT VOTING-19
Butler Hennings O'Mahoney
Capehart Hruska Russell
Carroll Kef:euver Schoeppel
Cotton Ker nedy -Stennis
Engle McNamara Yarborough
Fulbright Morse
Hart Mundt
So Mr. ELLEIS DER'S amendment was
rejected.
Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HARTKE in the chair). The bill is open
to further amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send
an amendment o the desk, and ask to
have it stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the Senator fromIdaho
will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. It is proposed, be-
ginning on page 4, at line 21, to strike
all through page 13, line 6; and begin-
ning on page 15, line 12, to strike all
through page 20, line 6.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the
effect of the amendment is to strike
Part B of Title I of the pending bill.
If adopted, it would mean a. saving of
about half a billion dollars. I therefore
think it is a matter of sufficient import-
ance to warrant; the yeas and nays. I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
If we were to confine this bill to the
postal workers and adopt the increases
in the proposed legislation for them, it
would tend to bring them abreast of
other workers t 1 the Government, and
to equate their pay with that being
received by the majority of workers in
the classified civil service.
Secondly, the great bulk of the postal
workers, as the Senate well knows, are
concentrated in the lower grades, and
they are faced with an increasingly seri-
ous problem in trying to meet rising liv-
ing costs. I think they are the most en-
titled to a pay raise. They have more
need for the higher pay, and there is
greater justification for giving it to them.
I think this is borne out by the partic-
ular fact that data before the commit-
tees show that 31 percent of the postal
employees have to have a second job in
order to make a living, and 43 percent
of the postal employees have wives who
work, in order that their joint pay may
-be sufficient to meet the family bills.
Therefore, I think a convincing case is
made for the need to increase the gen-
eral level of salaries of the postal work-
ers.
Thirdly, there is evidence that many
postal workers still receive far less for
the work that they do, than those en-
gaged in comparable work in private
industry. During my. 4 years in the
Senate I have tried to be fair with Fed-
eral employees. I believe they are en-
titled to comparable pay for comparable
work. The fact that this is still not
true with respect to many in the postal
service is still another reason why we
should pass their pay increase, as -em-
bodied in this bill.
Since 1951 average industrial wages
have gone up 45 percent, while postal
salaries have gone up 19 percent.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I would like to com-
plete my statement. Then I shall be
happy to yield.
The question I want to raise, in all,
seriousness, before the Senate is:
Apart from the postal workers, what
justification does the record show for in-
creasing the salaries of the classified.
civil service employees by 71/2 percent?
I have studied the committee hearings,.
I have studied the reports very carefully,
to see if I could find, to my satisfaction, a,
case which would justify the increase
entailed in this proposed legislation.
I have asked myself, Is it because the
salaries we pay to the Federal employees
generally are substandard? That is not
so. Unlike the casd of the postal workers?
we have no convincing evidence before us
which would lead us to believe that Fed-,
eral employees in general are not being
paid wages comparable to the kind of
wages that prevail for the same kind of
work in private industry. On the con-?
trary, theevidence I have seen shows
that present wage levels are fair, and
that the fringe benefits we now give
to Federal employees areeven more gen-
erous than those that generally obtain
in private industry. Benfits in life in-
surance, health insurance, retirement,
hospitalization and medical expenses--
all these have been estimated to have a
value of 30 percent, over and above the
actual wages paid to Federal employees.
So then, Mr. President, I suggest that
no case has been made that prevailing
wage levels of Federal employees are so
1/2-per -
substandard as to warrant a 71/2-per-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 12083
cent increase, as provided in the pending
legislation.
Therefore I have asked myself this
second question: Are we granting this
7!/;j-percent increase to enable Federal
employees to keep abreast of the rising
cost of living? Is that the justification
for this bill? If so, I would support it,
because I want to do equity by the Fed-
eral employees, and I think they are en-
titled to have wage adjustments as the
rising cost of living may require. But
since the last pay raise took effect a lit-
tle more than 2 years ago, the cost of liv-
ing index has gone up but 1.6 percent.
We are here proposing an increase of
7.5 percent. I wish to make it perfectly
clear on the record that I favor any
such adjustment as may be required to
keep up with rising living costs. I would
support such a bill here and now. I
would support such a bill if it came from
a conference committee, as it might re-
late to cost-of-living pay increases for
classified civil service employees.
If the amendment I offer is adopted,
the effect will be to send the bill to con-
ference. There the conferees will have
an opportunity to review what may be
justified for the civil service employees
in the light of all the data they can as-
semble with respect to rising living costs.
Then the conferees can come back and
recommend an increase in line with the
needs of Federal employees, and I shall
be happy to support such a measure.
However, the proposed pay raise con-
tained in the bill. before us cannot pos-
sibly be justified on the basis of the evi-
dence presented to the committees, on
account of increased living costs. What,
then, is the justification?
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I will yield to the Sen-
ator after I finish my argument, if I may.
If it is not that present wages are sub-
standard, if it is not that inflationary
rises in the cost of living require the ad-
justment to be made, what, then, is the
justification for the bill? Is it that we
have neglected for too long our Federal
employees? That cannot be.
Mr. President, since the war Federal
employees in the classified civil service
have received regular increases In pay
amounting, in the overall, to some 80
percent. If Members of the Senate who
are interested will look at the minority
views in the House report they will see
a detailed listing of the increases granted
by the Congress in the Federal wage level
since the war.
In 1945, we granted an average in-
crease of 15.9 percent.
In 1946, we granted an average in-
crease of 14.2 percent.
In 1948, we granted an average in-
crease of 11 percent.
In 1949, we granted an average in-
crease of 4 percent.
In 1951, we granted an average in-
crease of 10 percent.
In 1955, we granted an average in-
crease of 7.5 percent..
In 1958, we granted an average in-
crease of 10 percent.
Now we are asked to grant an increase
of 7.5 percent.
The sum, all told, represents approved
pay increases by the Congress of 83.6
percent in the last 15 years, and the em-
ployees have received seven of these in-
creases, representing an inpocket aver-
age increase of 72.6 percent.
I say, Mr. President, in all reasonable-
ness, the record simply does not support
the theory that Federal employees as
a whole have been forgotten or neglected
in any way. Rather, the record shows
that Federal pay boosts come up like
spring grass, every election year, as has
been well pointed out by the distin-
guished Senator from Georgia.
Having found no other basis to war-
rant the salary increase proposal con-
tained in the bill, I have concluded it
is a familiar malady which furnishes the
impetus for the proposed legislation,
and that malady is election fever. Re-
spectfully, I implore the Senate to con-
sider the cost of the passage of this
measure.
As the bill now stands, it would add
approximately three-fourths of a billion
dollars to the cost of Government from
now on. That is not simply for 1 year,
but for next year and the next year
and the next year, for so long as anyone
can foresee. It will permanently affix
1 percent to the tax burden of this coun-
try. It represents an added 1 percent
permanently engrafted upon the Federal
budget.
I say to you: Come chaos, calamity,
war, pestilence, or economic collapse, one
thing is as certain as death and taxes.
The country may come down, but the
Federal wage scale will not come down,
once it has been approved by the Con-
gress.
The cost of this proposed legislation
cannot be accepted cavalierly, or dis-
missed simply because it may be polit-
ically expedient for us not to consider it.
Is it prudent, Mr. President, at this
time to engraft an additional three-
fourths of a billion dollars a year on the
Federal budget, to increase Federal pay?
Oh, we talk a lot, Mr. President, about
our critical needs, and many indeed are
the grave problems we are leaving un-
attended and unsolved.
I support-generously, I think-ap-
propriations of public money for causes
which I think require our attention, and
many have been the times on this floor
when I have said, "We are not doing
enough to meet the critical needs of the
country."
However, Mr. President, I cannot, in
good conscience, support a three-quarter
billion dollar bill to fatten Federal pay,
when the proof is not before us to justify
it.
This bill, Mr. President, represents a
cost seven times as great as the $90 mil-
lion the Congress authorized to be ap-
propriated for the elimination of water
pollution. That bill, as the Senate well
knows, was vetoed by the President. The
veto was not overridden by the Congress.
This bill represents a cost three times
the amount of money the Senate was go-
ing to provide to rehabilitate depressed
areas. The depressed area bill was also
vetoed by the President, and the veto
was not overridden by the Congress.
I am told that this time we are going
to override the veto. I am told that this
time we are going to appropriate three-
quarters of a billion dollars and then
override the veto. It will be the second
time since Mr. Eisenhower became Presi-
dent of the United States that his veto
has been overridden. Well, that is a fine
record. We will vote to override the
President's veto to fatten the Federal
payroll, but not to meet the critical needs
of this country.
Mr. President, there is so much crying
to be done. Public money is needed to
help rehabilitate depressed areas; to
provide urban renewal in the rotting
cores of our big cities; to upgrade public
transportation In congested areas, now
20 years behind our needs; to clean up
our polluted rivers; to do something
about the thickening contamination in
the urban air; to end the classroom
shortage in our public schools; to in-
crease teachers' pay; to close the dan-
gerous gaps we know exist in our mili-
tary defenses; to deal with the inade-
quate care and medical attention which
is now extended to the old, the handi-
capped, and the feeble of this land.
Mr. President, the Congress may have
difficulty in pointing to a record in these
fields-and assuredly we cannot show
with respect to any one of them that we
have overridden a Presidential veto-
but the plan is to overide the veto of the
President to fatten the Federal payroll.
I could go on, Mr. President, but the
point is clear. Public money is desper-
ately needed for urgent problems. Let
us not spend it for a pay increase with-
out cause, without justification, without
any proven need.
But if we pass the bill as proposed,
then, for goodness' sake, let us at least
have the grace afterward to stop talk-
ing about this being a time for self-
sacrifice for the country. This bill is
self-indulgence. Let us stop talking
about bravely standing up and tighten-
ing our belts, and doing something
strong about the challenge which faces
us. This bill is. weakness.
I have always stood for fair treatment
of Federal employees, and I always shall.
I am for the postal pay raise because I
think it Is justified on the record. I am
for such adjustments as rising costs of
living may require, for Federal em-
ployees-all of them. But I am not in
favor of squandering public money where
the need is unproved, in the face of the
desperately important and critically un-
attended to needs which face our country
today, both at home and abroad.
I have sent to all Senators a telegram
which summarizes my case for the
amendment. I ask unanimous consent
that it be incorporated in the RECORD
at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the telegram
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
I urge your support of my amendment
limiting pay raises to postal workers. Its
adoption would effect an annual saving of
nearly half" a billion dollars. No case has
been made to warrant 71/2 -percent increase
in salaries of classified civil service em-
ployees. Their present wage scale compares
favorably with, comparable work in private
industry, while their fringe benefits are even
more generous. Since last pay raise was
granted 2 years ago, cost of living has in-
creased only 1.6 percent. The pending bill
will permanently add three-quarters of a
billion dollars to the cost of Government at
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12084
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 17
a time when public money is urgently re-
quired to meet critical needs on many fronts
which we are leaving unattended.
Mr. CHURCH. - For these reasons, I
urge the adoption of the amendment. If
it is adopted, I think we shall have ren-
dered a signal public service.
If the amendment is not agreed to, I
shall have to support the bill on final
passage, in order to do justice to the
postal workers. But in that event, we
shall be paying a very high price to do
right by one segment of our -Federal
employees. -
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. In his remarks
earlier I understood the Senator to make
a statement with respect to the amount
of money that his amendment would
save annually. What was the amount
stated by the Senator?
Mr. CHURCH. The best estimate that
I have is that the amendment would
effect an annual saving of about a half
billion dollars.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Is that not ap-
proximately two-thirds of the amount
involved in the bill?
Mr. CHURCH. That is right; it is
approximately two-thirds of the amount
involved in the bill.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to compli-
ment the Senatoron the very able ad-
dress that he has made in support of
his amendment. I subscribe to the views
that he has expressed, except that I have
difficulty in agreeing with him in that
we should vote for two-thirds of the bill
that is bad in order to get the one-third
which is needed enacted into law. That
is not a sound or safe guide or policy to
pursue.
Can we therefore, in the light of our
fiscal situation, in view of the heavy
burdens upon us, go further into debt
by spending money we do not have, to
raise salaries to the tune of a half bil-
lion dollars for employees where no ade-
quate justification is shown to exist at
the present time for such increase. I
can't in good conscience do that. A case
is made here for the postal employees,
and -I want to vote to increase - their
salaries.
I believe that we should raise the sal-
aries of the postal workers. I agree that
there is justification for doing so, and I
want to do that. However, as the able
Senator from Idaho has pointed out,
there is no need to raise Federal salaries
across the board. There is urgent need
for this half billion dollars-a half bil-
lion dollars - that we actually do not
have-to be spent for things that are
critical to the security of our country.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree with the Sena-
tor.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to compli-
ment the Senator highly. I hape that his
message has reached home in the hearts
of enough Senators so that we can rise
to the occasion and meet our responsi-
bilities as Senators, and protect the in-
terest of the taxpayers, while dying jus-
tice to those Federal employees in the
postal service who deserve the Increase
that this bill provides.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
from Arkansas.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President-
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President-
Mr. CHURCH. I promised to yield to
the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina; when he finishes, I shall be
happy to yield to the distinguished Sen-
ator from New York.
Mr. ERVIN. I wish to join the Sena-
tor from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLANI in
commending the magnificent and cour-
ageous presentation which has been
made to the Senate by the able and
distinguished Senator from Idaho. The
bill before the Senate has troubled me.
I have made a study of the matter and
have reached the identical conclusions
which the Senator from Idaho has
reached with respect to the proposal to
raise the pay of Federal employees as
set forth in the bill.
The postal workers have made out a
case which in my judgment justifies the
pay increase 'propo3ed for postal workers.
I think there has been a total failure
to make out a case for the increase of
pay for Government employees gener-
ally.
I sometimes feel as though we ought to
hang. our heads in shame for the con-
duct of Congress ir. fiscal affairs. I make
that statement because 28 years ago the
people of the United States had a na-
tional debt of $3C billion. Today they
have a national debt of $290 billion.
They have that national debt because
Congress has failed to exercise the moral
and political courage to raise, by taxes
upon the living, sufficient moneys to pay
the appropriations it has made. Instead
of doing so, Congress year after year, in
25 years out of 28, ;has appropriated more
money than it has had the moral and
political courage to raise by revenue
measures bearing upon those living
Americans who have a chance to walk up
to'the ballot box and say whether they
approve of the way Congress is manag-
ing affairs.
It is time for Congress to quit appro-
priating the unearned income of unborn
Americans, and that is precisely what
this bill proposes insofar as it under-
takes to raise the pay of Federal em-
ployees generally. I think it is time for
somebody to rerresent these unborn
Americans who, when they come into
the world find themselves already in
debt to an extent in excess of $1,600
apiece as their pro rata part of the na-
tional debt.
During 25 of the last 28 years, Con-
gress has not had ;he moral and political
courage to raise enough revenue to take
care of the expenditures which it has
been authorizing. I wish to commend
the Senator for hie courageous and intel-
ligent presentation.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
from North Carolina. I appreciate his
remarks. I can only add that yester-
day the Senate presed a defense appro-
priation bill, which relates to the Mili-
tary Establishment. When that bill
comes out of conference, it is entirely
likely, and I venture to predict, that the
total amount of increase the Congress
will make to strengthen the national de-
fense, over and rbove the budget re-
quests of the President, will be less than
the amount of money that we provide in
this bill to fatten the Federal payatoll.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. KEATING. I realize the Senator
from Idaho is a member of the commit-
tee, and therefore has been able to make
a study ofthe problem in a way which we
have not. As I understand the Senator's
position, he favors a raise for postal
workers because they have made out a
case. As I have been able to review the
testimony and the ample evidence pre-
sented to me, that is so. They have
made- out a good case. -
The Senator from Idaho, however,
does not favor the proposed raise for
other employees of the Government be-
cause they have not made out a sufficient
case. I ask this question of the Senator
from Idaho, because I am somewhat im-
pressed with his argument. There may
well be-an answer to it.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, the Senator from New
York has referred to the Senator from
Idaho as being a member of the com-
mittee.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I wish
to correct that statement. It was my
privilege to serve on the committee for a
period of 2 years, but I am not longer
a member of the committee and have
not been for some time.
My allusion to the committee had ref-
erence to the time I had previously
served on it. I did not attend the actual
hearings on this bill, but I have tried to
review the reports made bythe commit-
tee, and the evidence presented to jus-
tify the reports.
Mr. KEATING. I appreciate the clar-
ification. I intended to say that the
Senator has had an opportunity to study
the problem in a way which has not been
given to those of us who have never been
members of the committee.
I ask the Senator to refer to page 220
of the transcript of testimony, on which
appears the testimony of Mr. James A.
Campbell, thepresident of the American
Federation of Government Employees.
I also call attention to the statement
on page 223, of the testimony of Mr.
Campbell. As I say, there may well be
an answer to these assertions, but it is
said at page 220-:
During the 10-year period ended in Feb-
ruary 1960, Federal classified employees re-
ceived three raises which amounted to an
average increase of 30 percent on a cumu-
lated basis. During the same period, hourly
rates of employees of seven of the largest
corporations were raised through collective
bargaining to a degree far exceeding that of
Federal workers.
The total increase ranged from 53.7 percent
for the Sinclair Refining Cos. to 87 percent
for the Aluminum Co. of America, as indi-
cated in appendix table 1. During the 2-year
period from January 1, 1958, the hourly rates
of employees of these seven companies were
raised as much as 10 percent in contrast to
no raise for Federal classified employees.
Then on page 223, below the middle of
the page, there is this statement:
It would require an average increase of
approximately 12.5 percent to return classi-
fied salaries to their 1939 purchasing power.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12085
I would appreciate it if the Senator workers, I should like to point out some
from -Idaho or, for that matter, any of the inequities that would result. The
member of the committee, could enlight- Post Office Department pays the salaries
en us on whether those are accurate of the workers who clean the post offices
statements or inaccurate statements, or if the post office occupies more than 50
whether there is some other answer to percent of the space. If they do not oc-
them, because they do seem to me to cupy more than 50 percent of the space,
present an argument on the other side. that work is done by employees under
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The the Classified Act. We must treat them
Senator from Idaho has 1 minute re-
maining.
Mr. CHURCH. As the Senator knows,
it is always possible to present an argu-
ment to support any proposition. Argu-
ments have been presented here which
are confined to certain wage scales pre-
vailing in certain industries at certain
times. I have referred the Senate to the
increases that Congress has granted
since 1945. The increases referred to by
the Senator from New York relate to a
more limited period, beginning in 1950.
I believe that when we go back to the
end of the war and take into account all
the increases which have been granted
by Congress until the present time, and
compare them with the rising cost of
living which has occurred during the
same period of time, no case is made for
the proposition that we have not acted
fairly toward our Federal employees.
The evidence I have seen has led me to
the judgment that no sufficient case has
been made to justify a 71/2-percent in-
crease across-the-board. I would ap-
prove of an increase which was commen-
surate with the rise in the living costs
since we last made a salary adjustment.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I have listened to the
Senator from Idaho, and I was very
much struck by some of his statements.
I notice that the Senator has said that
we increased the salaries since the war
by 83.6 percent. I should like to call his
attention to the fact that if that is true
we ought to have a higher increase than
we are proposing in the bill, for this rea-
son. We did not increase the salaries
during the war. They were frozen.
When we go back to the time before the
war we find that the dollar was worth
100 cents. Today it is worth 47 cents to
the dollar. It would take a 106-percent
increase to equal the salaries the em-
ployees were getting at that time.
Then, too, we 4iust consider the in-
come tax. They had salaries of $5,000
in the Federal Government prior to that
time, and the man got whatever his sal-
all alike. We must be equitable in deal-
ing with all of them. Postal workers and
classified workers should received the
same treatment. They both have to pay
the same amount for the cost of living.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will'
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. KEATING. The Senator perhaps
heard what I read from the testimony
of Mr. Campbell. I would appreciate
any enlightenment he can give us on
this statement by Mr. Campbell, as to
whether it is accurate or not accurate.
I particularly wish to ask the Senator'
about this statement on page 8 of the re-
port, near the top of the page:
This survey discloses that the salaries of
classified employees in the middle ranges-
gradeS 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13, which include
419,734 employees-declined 20.3 percent
from 1950 to 1960, notwithstanding salary
adjustments approved by the Congress.
I assume that that statement is inac-
curately phrased. I assume it means to
say that their standard of living has de-
clined 20 percent. Is not that what it
means? The following sentence in the
report is:
This independent and unbiased conclusion
means that in one short decade hundreds of
thousands of Federal employees have been
pushed 20 percent lower in their standards
of living, in comparison to their friends and
neighbors in private enterprise.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
From what report is the Senator read-
ing?
Mr. KEATING. I am reading from the
top of page 8 of the report.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Is
that the House report?
Mr. KEATING. It is the House com-
mittee report. I am reading from the
top of page 8. I wonder if the Senator
could clarify that statement. It seems
to me that if that is a fact it is a rather
persuasive argument for a raise for other
Federal employees.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
ary was. Today the Government reaches Well, I have no answer, but according to
out and takes, when the salary is over what is stated here, the salaries declined
a certain amount, 20 percent, 25 per- 20.3 percent.
cent, or 30 percent of the man's salary. Mr. KEATING. I suppose that the
Therefore, according to the Senator's actual salary of any Federal employee
own statement and according to his own has not declined. I believe that means to
figures, we are not giving the employees say that the standard of living has de-
enough. The committee thought so too. clined because the cost of living has gone
We have always dropped back every time up more than the salaries have gone up.
that we gave an increase. Some Sena- Is that correct?
tors who have served on the committee, Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
like the minority leader, know from their The purchasing power of the salary had
experience with bills of this kind that we decreased. I believe that is what was
have dropped back 1 or 2 percent prac- intended to be conveyed by that lan-
tically every time we passed a salary in- guage.
crease bill. Mr. KEATING. I believe that is true.
We have found too that the work has In the statement of Mr. Campbell, he
been increased. The employees are turn. said that during the 10-year period ended
ing out more work. in February 1960 Federal classified em-
If we should increase the salaries of ployees received a 30-percent raise as
the postal workers and not the classified compared with 1953, and 87 percent of
the hourly rates paid by the seven large
corporations.
I wish to ask the Senator from Idaho a
question, because I recognize, having
tried lawsuits, as has the Senator, that
we can pick out peculiar situations, and
make any case.
I ask the Senator from South Caro-
lina whether he feels that this statement
by Mr. Campbell is a fair and accurate
statement, as picturing the fact that the
increases for Federal employees gener-
ally have been well below the increases
for workers in private industry.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
From all the facts brought out in the
committee, the Federal Government is
behind the large corporations in the
United States in increasing the pay of
its employees.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I can give a list of figures for different
periods of time. All the information has
been placed in the RECORD. It shows that
the Federal Government is behind pri-
vate industry in every big city in the
United States in which-we could gather
the information. For example, blue-col-
lared workers or laborers in Boston are
28 percent below; helpers are 27 percent
below.
We went into this question from city to
city and place to place in the United
States, and we found that that is correct.
I myself believe that the proposed in-
crease is but half of what it would be if
we were to raise the pay to what is paid
by the big corporations in the United
States. However, we cannot afford to
do that at this particular time, so we
want to pass a bill which will be within
the limits of'the Government's ability to
pay. I hope it will be signed by the
President.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I ap-
preciated the statement made by the
Senator from Idaho today. I shall ad-
dress myself to this question.
There- are several features about the
bill which I do not like, but it is the
pending bill. It is the only bill before
the Senate. I think I would be less than
frank if I did not say I -do not believe
we can pass legislation, personally, I
could not favor passing legislation,
which would, in my opinion, treat un-
fairly one group of Federal employees as
compared with another group.
Mr. Campbell's statement on page. 218
of the hearings calls attention to some
of the problems of the classified workers.
While I am talking about Mr. Camp-
bell, I wish to say in his behalf, and in
behalf of those whom he represents, that
he is, in my opinion, one of the ablest
of the various representatives of the
labor group who come before us. He has
rendered outstanding service on behalf
of the classified employees of the Nation.
I call attention to this statement by Mr.
Campbell :
Eighty-seven percent of the 2,200,000 Fed-
eral employees have their salaries or wages
fixed under three separate pay systems-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12086
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAI, RECORD - SENATE June 17
I repeat-three separate pay systems.
These three systems are:
1. Classification Act, covering 970,000 em-
ployees.
They are the employees whom we are
talking about at the present time in dis-
cussing the amendment.
2. The Postal Pay Act, covering 470,000
employees.
3. Army-Air Force and Navy wage systems,
480,000.
There are those three different groups.
I shall read from the statement what
has happened as between the classified
employees, whose pay is fixed by Con-
gress, and the Wage Board employees. I
read from page 222 of the hearings:
A comparison of how Wage Board and clas-
sified rates have differed in one 4-year pe-
riod-1952-55-will illustrate the advantage
of an annual review.
The discussion was as to whether
there should be an annual review.
During those 4 years classified salaries
were increased once by 7.5 percent. In the
same period wage board rates advanced 20.7
percent. An increase of that size probably
would have been challenged if proposed as a
single raise, but divided into four separate
raises it was assimilated without question.
The year-to-year wage board raises were
as follows: 1952, 5.5 percent; 1953, 7.8 per-
cent; 1954, 4.3 percent; 1955, 1.7 percent.
I desired to stress that fact because
classified employees during that 4-year
period received a 71/2 percent pay in-
crease, while wage board employees,
whose salaries and wages are fixed by
boards of the Federal Government, re-
ceived a 20-percent increase. Therefore,
I do not believe that we could, with any
justice at all, adopt an amendment
which would unfairly, in my opinion,
treat classified Federal workers as com-
pared with other workers.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. KEATING. I am grateful for the
explanation made by the Senator from
Kansas. -It is very difficult for us in the
Chamber to reach a correct conclusion
without having heard the testimony and
studied it at great length. The testi-
mony of Mr. Campbell impresses me as
being very persuasive on the point that
the rates of pay of Federal employees
generally, including the postal workers,
have not kept pace with the rates in
other industries.
If I may have permission, I should like
to ask the Senator from Kansas whether
he believes that the testimony of Mr.
Campbell, which appears to be so per-
suasive, is much to be relied upon, or
whether Mr. Campbell has picked out
certain isolated cases which make a bet-
ter case than really it should.
The PRESIDING, OFFICER. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield 1 additional minute to the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, the
figures in the wage board decisions are
based on comparable wages in the com-
munities. Therefore, I think they are
figures which really and truly reflect the
wage increases which have been paid em-
ployees who come under that system, as
compared-with the classified and postal
workers who come under the regular
Federal pay system.
Mr. JOHNSTCN of South Carolina.
The rates fixed by the wage boards are
based on the prey ailing wages in the re-
spective areas.
Mr. CARLSON. They reflect the
wages out in the communities.
Mr. KEATING. Do the Senator from
Kansas and the Senator from South
Carolina believe that the years which
have been selected make an especially
good case for the employees? If another
series of years, or a 10-year period, or
any other period, had been selected,
would substantially the same effect have
been shown?
Mr. CARLSON. It is my opinion that
they would show substantially the same
effect.
Mr. KEATING subsequently said:
Mr. President, will the Senator yield
me a half a minute?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr KEATING. Mr. President, earlier
in- the day I made - some remarks in con-
nection with an amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent to include at the
conclusion of my remarks copies of sev-
eral letters whicr. I havereceived with
reference to this subject.
There being nc objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR KEATneo
This measure, vie red in its overall impact,
is designed to bring the salaries paid Fed-
eral employees more nearly in line with those
paid to workers in private industry. As such,
it should command ride support.
We now learn that in the last 10 years, lit-
erally thousands of fine Federal employees
have dropped some 20 percent lower in their
standards of living, in comparison to their
neighbors who happen to work in private in-
dustry.
Here are some- more statistics- which have
been furnished to .ne and which I believe
to be accurate: Tho average overall private
industry wage is $15 a week or $780 a year
higher than that of Federal employees doing
the same type of work. Even the proposed
increase will-not bring the level of Federal
salaries up to that of salaries outside the
Government, but it rill be a step in the right
direction.
As against the 30-percent increase in Fed-
eral employees' salaries in the last 10-year
period, here are some more comparisons with
private industry. Hourly wages have in-
creased at the following rate since 1950 in
these -specific companies: General Motors
Corp.-a 62-percent advance, compared to 30
percent for Federal employees. United States
Steel 66 percent-o' this increase 9.5 per-
cent has been since January 1, 1958. There
has been no increase in Federal salaries dur-
ing the past 2 year:-. The Aluminum Corp.
of America has raised its wages 87 percent
in the last 10 years.
Other pertinent figures include: Goodrich
Rubber-56 percent, Lockheed Aircraft, 63
percent. These pet centages were supplied
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and there-
fore must be viewed as reliable. These figures
make the Federal se.lary increase of 30 per-
cent in the last 10 rears look small indeed.
I have received literally thousands of let-
ters from postal workers and other Federal
employees, as well as their families and
friends, pointing out the needfor an ade-
quate pay raise measure. These communica-
tions demonstrate the very real, the very
personal manner in which the present inade-
quate wage scales are affecting these people.
A postal worker's wife in Tonawanda wrote
me in part as follows:
"As the wife of a post office employee, I am
writing to you in the hope that you may act
in getting a pay raise bill passed.
"We have our home and three children to
support. We live in a modest community but
we can't associate with any of our neighbors
because their incomes are far above ours. I
have a part-time job, driving for a school
but with our combined income, we have quite
a problem just getting by. It doesn't seem
fair to-just get by, not ever being able to
afford anything but food and clothing, while
most everyone around us has new cars and
can take vacations. We have vacation time
but where can you go on nothing. We can't
even charge anything extra because there
just is not enough money left over after pay-
ing mortgage payments, light, heat, and
food."
Here is one from a constituent of mine
in Rochester:
"Both my wife and myself are career dis-
tribution clerks at the Rochester Post Office.
I have 111/2 years of service and my wife has
a little over 1 year. We have lour children
going to school; a mortgaged home; and one
car, which is a necessity. Our living expenses
are such that even though we are both work-
ing we can only just' manage to live from
one payday to the next. We would like to
be able to help further the education of
our children and live as others do."
A lady from Staten Island recently wrote
me the following letter on this subject:
"I am the- wife of a Federal employee who
works in New York City, and the mother
of six children. We live in a housing proj-
ect.
"I write with much experience about the
continuous rising of living expenses that
make- the bare necessities of an existence
on this earth: food, -rent, and clothing, a
constant, impossible struggle.
"With an outside job there is no leisure
time to divide between -family and commu-
nity and only a slight chance that anyone
can match expenses. - Yet, without an out-
side job, my family and I would be hard put
to survive.
"Please make possible a worthwhile, live-
able raise for those of us who must depend
on Federal salaries. Let us get in step with
the rest of America on our pay."
Here is one from -a housewife in Floral
Park:
"Have you ever missed a night's sleep
worrying how you were going to pay your
bills? Does _ your wife ever hesitate to call
the doctor when your children are sick?
"Well, if you were a postal worker you
would know these problems. My husband
has a second job as most postal workers do,
and we are still just getting by. The cost
of everything has gone up but not the post
office salary. When the bill for the post
office raise comes up please vote yes, as we
do need more money just to live on."
I also have a letter from a Federal worker
in New York City. He writes:
"For the past years it's been very hard
for us to meet expenses and I have had to
take other work in order to meet my obli-
gations,
"I am away from my home too long and
the children do not see enough of me. It
seems like the only time I am home is
Sunday, but then I'm so tired I find it hard
to bother with them.
"You can easily see the problem. I'm a
career man and I don't want to give up
my job with the Government. I've been on
20 years, so you can easily see why.
"We Government workers need a pay
raise-now; not in some future day. Help
us please
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 1960
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12087
Finally, here is a. letter from the wife of
a post office worker In Elmira, N.Y.:
"As the wife of a postal clerk, I would
appreciate your affirmative vote on the pay
raise bill.
"This increase is definitely needed-the
few that we have received in recent years
have been very minor in the lower grade
levels, in which the majority of Federal
workers are employed. The compensation
paid to postal employees is not commensu-
rate with salaries paid in private industry;
are not high enough to permit the same
standard of living enjoyed by these same
employees in 1939. Even a 9-percent in-
.crease will. not bring the salary level up
to these standards.
"We would not be causing inflation, as has
been indicated-we need the increase be-
cause of inflation.
"You are familiar with the unemploy-
ment in the Elmira area. Usually. a situ-
ation like this has the effect of downgrading
the cost of living in an area. But the re-
verse is true. The new sales tax, an in-
crease in the school tax and the reappraisal,
which will Increase our other real estate
taxes, are but a few of the items that will
take what Increase we may receive.
"A regular postal clerk's salary is $4,875
annually. These are the five largest items
in our budget:
Taxes-Income (Federal and State),,
real estate, sales, other-----------
$1,000
Food ------------------------------
1,800
Mortgage payments-----------------
840
Insurance and utilities-------------
800
Total------------------------
4,440
"You can readily see why the increase is
needed."
These letters are typical of the flood of
communications I have received from all
over New York State testifying to the great
need for a pay raise for postal and other
Federal employees. They point up graphi-
cally-In a way no set of cold figures could-
the urgent need for salary increases to bring
the pay for these Government workers more
in line with those now offered to employees
In private industry. The additional fact is,
however, that the cold figures support the
need for this legislation.
We must eliminate this' inequity In our
laws. We can do it by rejecting amend-
ments to this measure which will unduly
water it down and prevent its benefits from
fully helping these people out.
I hope this measure, so important in hu-
man terms to so many of our people, will
gain the overwhelming approval of the Sen-
ate.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Maryland.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I associate
myself with the Senator from South
Carolina and the Senator from Kansas
in opposing the amendment. I think
the Senators have shown that the adop-
tion of this amendment would be very
definitely discriminatory against the
classified civil service employees.
I must oppose any amendment which
would exclude the civil service employees
from the well-earned and well-deserved
pay raise. The persons who would be
excluded by such an amendment are
dedicated public servants. They are men
and women who, at a sacrifice to them-
selves, are devoting their entire time and
talent to a better civil service. That is
my personal observation.
I know many persons In the civil serv-
ice who could earn much more in pri-
vate industry. They are making a career
of their service in the Government, and
we should not turn our backs on them.
The 71/2 percent salary raise has been
fully justified, I believe, by the Senator
from South Carolina and the Senator
from Kansas. Taking that for granted,
who could be more deserving of the raise
than the employees in the classified civil
service?
The prices of commodities, rents, and
everything else in Washington and the
surrounding suburbs, as elsewhere, have
risen substantially. The civil service
employees need this pay raise in order
to meet the rising costs of living.
In my opinion, it would be cruel for
Congress to exclude the civil service em-
ployees from the pay increase. In fact,
it would make a mockery of the entire
move for the much deserved increase.
I hope the Senate will not agree to the
amendment. As has been so ably ex-
plained by the Senator from South
Carolina and the Senator from Kansas,
to adopt the amendment would result in
discrimination against a dedicated group
of Federal employees. -
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. CHURCH. My time has been ex-
hausted.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I hope the amendment will not be
adopted. I do not believe we should
say, "Brothers, we will give you a pay
raise; sisters, we will not give you one."
I do not think we should say to the
postal workers, "We recognize your
faithful, dedicated service to the Gov-
ernment"; but to a civil service clerk on
duty at some remote post, "We are going
to reduce your pay." I believe we ought
to deal with all these people equitably
and fairly.
The committees have carefully con-
sidered this measure. They began with
a 10 percent provision, and then reduced
it to 9 percent, and now have reduced it
to 71/2 percent. I believe they have dealt
equitably and fairly with these em-
ployees.
I do not think we wish to say we will
give a postal carrier a pay increase, but
will not give a civilian employee in Guam
an increase in pay. I do not believe it
fair to provide a pay increase to one
group, but to ignore another in that con-
nection.
Mr. President, admittedly, savings
could be made. For instance, we could
have cut in half the Defense Department
appropriations we considered and passed,
yesterday; but I do not think such pro-
cedure would be wise.
Therefore, Mr. President, I hope the
amendment will be decisively rejected.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President-
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the
Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, I wish to
congratulate the committee on the work
it has done.
I am glad the bill It has.reported pro-
vides for a pay increase for the postal
employees and for all the other em-
ployees, equitably.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield back the remainder of the
time under my control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moss
in the chair). All time on the amend-
ment has either been used or been
yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Idaho
[Mr. CHURCH]. On this question, the
yeas and nays have been ordered; and
the clerk will call the roll.
The Chief Clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from California [Mr.
ENGLE], the Senator from Arizona [Mr.
HAYDEN], the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOR OUGH] are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and the Sen-
tor from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVERI, the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-
NEDY], the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon
[Mr. MORSE] and the Senator from Wy-
oming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
Carroll], the Senator from California
[Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Missis-
sippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS],
the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KE-
FAUVERI, the Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Mich-
igan [Mr. MCNAMARA], and the Senator
from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] would each
vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER] is
absent because of illness.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator fromNe-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily
absent.
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr.
MUNDT] and the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on official
business.
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr.
YOUNG] is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] and the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL]
would each vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 22,
nays 58, as follows:
[Roll No. 226]
YEAS-22
Brunsdale Ervin Saltonstall
Case, S. Dak. Frear Talmadge
Chavez Goldwater Thurmond
Church Hickenlooper Wiley
Cooper Holland Williams, Del.
Curtis Lausche Young, Ohio
Dworshak Lusk.
Ellender McClellan
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
NAYS-58
Aiken Gore Mansfield
Allott Green Martin
Anderson Gruening Monroney
Bartlett Hart Morton
Beall Hartke Moss
Bennett Hill Murray
-Bible Humphrey Muskie
Bridges Jackson Pastore
Bush Javits Prouty
Byrd, Va. Johnston, Tex. Proxmire
Byrd, W. Va. Johnston, S.C. Randolph
Cannon Jordan Robertson
Carlson Keating Scott
Case, N.J. Kerr Smathers
Clark Kuchel Smith
Dirksen Long, Hawaii Sparkman
Dodd Long, La. Symington
Douglas McCarthy Williams, N.J.
Eastland McGee
Fong Magnuson
NOT VOTING-20
Butler Hennings O'Mahoney
Capehart Hruska Ruseell
Carroll Kefauver Schoeppel
Cotton Kennedy Stennis
Engle McNamara Yarborough
Fulbright Morse Young, N. Dak.
Hayden Mundt
So Mr. CHuRCH's amendment was re-
jected. _
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
is open to further amendment.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk, which I ask
to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment of the-Senator from Illinois
wil be-stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed
to strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof:
The rates of pay of Federal employees
should be generally comparable to rates paid
by private enterprise for similar work, should
adequately recognize differences. in difficulty
and responsibility of work and provide ma-
terial incentive to advance in the service,
and should be governed by rules of admin-
istration which make pay a useful tool of
management.
In accordance with this policy the Presi-
dent is authorized and directed.
1. To adjust the rates of pay in the Classi-
fication Act of 1949, as amended, the Postal
Field Service Pay Act, the Veterans Bene-
fit Act as amended, and the Foreign Service
Act as amended, to levels generally compar-
able with those reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics as a result of its current
survey of pay rates in private enterprise.
2. To revise the pay structures in the said
acts in order to insure internal equity and
to provide adequate incentives for advance-
ment. -
3. To establish rules for administration
and use of the pay rates thus established.
The President is authorized and directed
to make these adjustments and revisions
effective as of the first day of the first pay
period which begins on or after January 1,
1961.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, this
pay bill has indeed done- a grand shuffle.
When it first began it started at a level
of 23 percent. The second approach was
at the level of 15 percent. The third ap-
proach was at the level of 9 percent.
The bill that is presently before us calls
for an increase of 71/2 percent.
If it is applisd generally across the
board to 1,700,000 workers, it is very easy
to calculate the budgetimpact of the
bill. Just figure $100 million for every
1 percent of pay increase, and that
makes an easy rule-of-thumb calcula-
tion.
It seems ama..ing to me to make this
proposal in view of the fact that in the
Labor appropriation bill for fiscal 1960
we provided a sum of $1 million, of which
$500,000 was earmarked for a study of
so-called compa ?ability of remuneration
in government, as distinguished from
industry. That job was assigned to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our present
information is that they have completed
this work in sorle 30 metropolitan cen-
ters. - It is intended to do the job in
something over 1:0 centers. It will not be
completed until September of this year.
The whole purpose of this study, in
the hands of people in an agency created
by Congress, wai; to determine what the
disparity was between the pay in busi-
ness and industry and the pay in gov-
ernment. It r rises this interesting
question: Do we not want to wait for this
survey to be completed? Are we afraid
that results of the survey will cause us
to confess that this afternoon we have
wasted $500,000 of the people's money?
Why have the st.rvey? We are the ones
who indicated i t in the first instance,
and I think it is long overdue. That
kind of survey fhould have been made
some years ago, becausethe question-of
what the pay is :n industry as compared
with what it is in government, or vice
versa, continues to arise like some an-
nual specter whenever we deal with the
pay structure.
The amendm lnt now at the desk
operates from that stance, and it is very
simple. It strikes out everything in the
bill except the enacting clause, and it
not only authorizes, but directs, the
President of the United States to read-
just the pay, anc. also the pay structures
and the inequities that have become
almost rigid in the pay structure, and
do it by the next pay period after Janu-
ary 1, 1961.
It has to be done, as the amendment
provides, at levers that will be generally
comparable with those reported by the
Bureau of Labor' Statistics, as a result
of its current survey, of pay rates in
private enterprisE.,.
I am ready to see this problem
resolved. I should like to see it resolved.
We continue to rush up hill and then we
rush down hill again. If one examined
the testimony on the 23 percent increase
bill, he would find it was just as intense,
just as passionate, just as persuasive as
the testimony or. the 15-percent bill.
If Senators wil I examine the testimony
with respect to -;he 9-percent pay raise
bill, they will observe that the same
arguments were made as were made for
the larger percentages. It was said the
employees could not get along without
the increase. This "bogey" continues to
haunt us from time to time.
What is prop used Is a sensible ap?
proach, unless we want to confess we
June 1
have no confidence in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and that we are afraid
of the results, which will not be known
until sometime close to election. Are we
afraid the issue will not be resolved until
after the Congress adjourns? I am con.-
tent to abide the issue. I am content to
do so now.
If this agency in the Department of
Labor, on which we lavish large sums o:,
money every year, has any value at all,
then of course we could well wait until
the study has been completed. The free
enterprise system of this country uses
the agency figures. The business strut..
ture of this country uses those figures.
The other agencies of the Government
use those figures. Are the Senate and
the House to say, "That is perfectly all
right, but we do not want to bother
about those figures." That would be an
amazing confession, to say the least.
We can say, "Well, we `kissed'
$500,000 goodby. The devil with this
study. The devil with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. We will ignore them.
We will not wait."
We could say that, notwithstanding -
the fact that it takes a given amount of
time, always, to assemble the data and
to do the job. Once the job is done, the
amendment provides that upon the
basis of the levels which are ascertained,
to get comparability with remuneration
in industry, the President "is authorized
and directed to make these adjustments
and revisions effective as of the first day
of the first pay period which begins on.
or after January 1, 1961."
I listened with interest to the argu-
ment of the distinguished Senator from.
Idaho. Much of the burden of his argu-
ment was that there are no real, factual
data, except in the case of the postal
workers. That is the point the Bureau
of the Budget makes. The Director of
the Bureau of the Budget appeared be-
fore the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service.
Incidentally, this is a good time to
come to grips with the question of how
the President may feel. - The President
of the United States supports the Direc-
tor of the Bureau of the Budget. The
Budget Director does not take a position
unless he confers with the President.
On the 28th of April the Budget Di-
rector appeared before the House Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service.
I read one sentence from what he said.
It needs no further argument:
The administration finds no justification
at this time for enactment of any legislation
which would provide general increases in
salary rates under the Classification Act, the -
Postal Field Service Pay Act, and other
statutory pay systems.
The Budget Director elaborated. The
whole statement can be compressed, I
think, in a minute of time.
The reason for the position is that the
enactment of the general salary in-
creases would ignore the only sound
principle ofFederal pay fixing, which is
reasonable comparability. That is the
reason we set up the survey group. We
are waiting for the study to be com-
pleted. We are waiting for the results.
The second reason the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget assigned was that,
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 12089
based on information presently avail-
able, enactment of any flat percentage or
dollar increase would result in excessive
salary rates in some grades and possibly
inadequate salary rates in other grades.
We can compress this in a few words-
rigidities and inequities which have per-
sisted in the salary structure.
The third reason put forth is that any
salary increase would be without sound
factual justification. We are waiting
for the data.
Realizing, of course, the rather intense
circumstances under which the bill was
rushed along, and the desire that no
amendment be agreed to, so as to avoid
a conference, in order to send the bill to
the President of the United States, to
make sure there will be no pocket veto,
it seems to me in that kind of haste we
are playing with the fiscal responsibility
of the country, because three-quarters
of a billion dollars are involved in the
bill.
I am not insensible to all of the argu-
ments which have been made, but I do
not wish to be pushed into this thing
when the Budget Director tells us there
is no factual foundation, the compara-
bility study has not been completed, and
the inequities still persist. Certainly
.they do.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. DIRKSEN. If the Senator will
permit, I should like to finish a thought
or two first.
I know how easy it is to assail the
Budget Director. That seems to be a
common indoor sport in Congress today.
I simply remind Senators that in 1921
we passed the Budget and Accounting
Act. In that act, among other things,
we set up a Bureau of the Budget and
named a Director of the Budget. The
Director has been carrying on since that
time. If Senators want to know what
are his responsibilities, they can examine
the 1921 law. His business is to help
the President determine how to most
efficiently and economically operate this
Government. His business is to give aid
to the committees of the Congress.
That is what the law provides. His
business is to have the departmental
budget officers get their material to-
gether and come in to pool their in-
formation, so that there can be some
responsible fiscal operation in Govern-
ment.
There was a time when at the end of
a session of Congress nobody knew what
were the fiscal circumstances. Every
committee, prior to 1921, not only took
action upon its own proposed legisla-
tion, but also took action upon proposed
appropriations. There was a wilderness
until the act was passed to correct it.
That is the responsibility of the Budg-
et Director. I will say, with respect to
Maurice Stans, the present Director, he
is in my judgment not one of the most,
but-I think-the most capable Budget
Director who has occupied that office
since the Budget and Accounting Act
of 1921 was passed, and I make abso-
lutely no exception.
The job of the Director of the Budget
is to move into this matter, to advise
the President, and to advise the com-
No, 111-7
mittees of Congress. That he has done.
The only way we are going to properly
resolve the issue now, as I see it, is to
strike out everything after the enacting
clause and to authorize and direct the
President to readjust the pay schedules,
the pay rates,' and the structure, after
this survey has been completed in Sep-
tember, after he has the factual foun-
dation to determine pay comparability
and to do the job properly. In my book,
it is that simple. I have nothing'more
to say. I am prepared to yield back the
remainder of my time, and I am ready
to vote.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota and Mr.
BUSH addressed the Chair.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. The Sen-
ator has referred to the bill as involving
three-quarter billion dollars, and the
same reference has been made at other
times during the debate. I wish to point
out to the Senator that this is an annual
recurring cost.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. This bill
does not-involve merely three-quarter
billion dollars. Yesterday we were talk-
ing about appropriations for the De-
partment of Defense. The price tag for
an item might be three-quarter billion
dollars, or so many hundred million dol-
lars, or something else, but it repre-
sented a one-time purchase. In this in-
stance, if we pass the bill, without having
the benefit of the study the Senator has
suggested, we shall be committing the
country to an annual expenditure of an
additional three-quarter billion dollars.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Exactly. I am re-
minded of the story of the fellow in jail
back home. When I walked across the
courthouse yard I said, "What are you'
in foie?"
He replied, "Larceny."
I said, "For how long?"
He said, "From now on."
Mr. President, this is going to be from
now on.
Mr. BUSH. . Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield 10 minutes to
me in order to enable me to speak in
support of the amendment at the proper
time?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I shall be delighted to
do so.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I ask the Senator from
Illinois the difference between raising the
wages of employees of the U.S. Govern-
ment and the proposed appropriation of
$4 billion for foreign aid, which we con-
sidered this morning in committee?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I see
that argument advanced in letters, and
it is easy and appealing. I will explain
the difference. The Constitution pro-
vides that provision shall be made for
the common defense. Foreign aid, mis-
named "mutual security," is a collective
security arrangement and a program en-
acted by Congress in pursuant of a con-
stitutional principle. By that law the
Commander in Chief and the Congress,
in its capacity as the exclusive legislative
and law-making body of the Govern-
ment, undertakes in partnership to sub-
serve the interest of common defense,
which involves all of the 179,200,000 peo-
ple in this country, and not just a group.
That is the difference.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Where are we to get
the help about which the Senator is
talking?
Mr. DIRKSEN. What help?
Mr. CHAVEZ. Help for foreign aid to
enable Uncle Sam to get along in the
world. I ask the Senator where we are
getting with respect to Japan, Korea, the
Philippines, and Turkey.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I -did
not know that we were going to debate.
the mutual security bill this afternoon.
If we are, I had better ask for an exten-
sion of time for 2 or 3 hours to enable me
to get my notes. We may as well con-
sider the bill now as later. I thought we
were debating a pay bill and attempting
to find a factual, equitable, and reason-
able basis on which to act, since we are
dealing with 1,570,000 people, which is
quite different from the interests of 179
million men, women, and children, and
probably quite different from the inter-
ests of 67 million people who file income
tax returns in this country and who have
some stake in the matter.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. DIRKSEN. yield.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I do not run easily. I
do not care what is said. I prefer to
take care of the American girl in Wash-
ington and in New Mexico and in Illinois
than to help elsewhere. That is the only
difference between the attitude of the
Senator from Illinois and myself. I wish
to take care of our girls.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I do not quite get the
point of my distinguished colleague from
New Mexico.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Probably the Senator
does not want to get the idea.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I have some interest
in all the people of this country, includ-
ing even the taxpayers, who must make
up the money which we appropriate,
since it comes from the general revenue.
Mr. CHAVEZ. Does the Senator worry
about the $4 billion that is appropriated
for foreign aid?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I answered my friend
a moment ago and tried to debate the
subject on the high ground of constitu-
tional responsibility for the defense and
survival of this country, which takes it
out of the narrow course in which some-
times we move.
I yield now to the distinguished Sena-
tor from Connecticut [Mr. BusH] 10
minutes, if I still have 10 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, the basic
issue of our times is whether the United
States, a republic with a representative
form of government based upon free
elections, can compete successfully with
the totalitarian dictatorship which rule
the Soviet Union and her Far Eastern
ally, Communist China.
I believe we can, once the American
people, and their representatives in Con-
gress, awaken to the realities we face.
But I must confess, Mr. President, that
there are grounds for pessimism when
one considers the record of this Con-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12090
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAI. RECORD - SENATE June 17
gross to date, and especially the political
cynicism which has brought this pay in-
crease bill for Government employees be-
fore us today.
World tensions have been heightened
by Khrushchev's torpedoing of the sum-
mit conference, and by renewed Com-
munist pressure to drive us from our
oversea bases, as evidenced by the riot-
ing in Japan.
In recognition of the increased dan-
ger created by these and other events
on the international stage, the Senate
on yesterday increased the defense budg-
et by more than $1 billion.
But, Mr. President, our national se-
curity, our military strength, is based
upon the financial stability, and the
credit of the United States. While ap-
propriating billions for defense, we seem
determined to undermine those founda-
tions upon which our defense rests by re-
fusing to exercise fiscal responsibility.
President Eisenhower submitted a
budget with an estimated surplus of $4.2
billion, which is needed to retire some
of our huge national debt and thus
strengthen the credit of the National
Government.
The committees in charge of taxation
have refused to approve his recommen-
dations for raising the revenues required
to achieve that surplus. Nondefense
spending has been. proposed far in ex-
cess of the President's budget.
Unless we pxercise restraint and in-
sist upon fiscal responsibility, not only
will we wipe out the projected surplus
but also run the danger of incurring an
inflationary deficit in the coming fiscal
year.
In the Washington Daily News of to-
day is an editorial entitled "Rush to a
Deficit," which says, in part:
In the rush toward adjournment, our
convention-minded Congress is showing a
reckless tendency to play fast and loose with
our hard-earned dollars.
a s s ? ?
As the outlook now adds up, extra spend-
ing of nearly $5 billion is in the works-
more than the surplus President Eisenhower
had estimated for next year. And an opti-
mistic estimate it was, too.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the editorialbe printed in the
RECORD at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
RUSH TO A DEFICIT
In the rush toward adjournment, our
convention-minded Congress is showing a
reckless tendency to play fast and loose with
our hard-earned dollars.
The trend is to more spending and less
income-a sure route to inflation.
While the Senate Finance Committee, over
the objections of its wisest heads, was voting
to cripple the Government's revenue by
cutting some obnoxious but productive
taxes, other committees were trying to out-
do each other in new ways to spend.
The House voted to raise Government sal-
aries, and a Senate committee promptly
approved the plan, Increases in spending
for housing, welfare and defense were being
eagerly pushed.
As the outlook now adds up, extra spend-
ing of nearly $5 billion is in the works-
more than the surplus President Eisenhower
had estimated for next year. And an opti-
mistic estimate it was, too.
The transportation, telephone and tele-
gram taxes the Senate committee has voted
to repeal were imposed on a temporary
basis because of the Korean Wax. They
have been reimpos Id year after year, simply
because the Government needed the money.
The Government aeeds the money no less
now.
Repeal of these taxes would be desirable
In normal times. So would the repeal of
any taxes. But tl.ere is only one practical
way to reduce taxes-and that is by first
reducing spending. The waste and over-
spending in the Government is sinful. But
a worse crime against the people would be
inflation-robbing the dollar of its integrity
by running up thy; Government's debt.
The same finance committee which voted
to take away $751, million of the Govern-
ment's income by reducing the transporta-
tion and communi-ration taxes also found it
necessary to raise--again-the Government's
legal debt limit to $298 billion, $4 billion
more than what tl.e Government now owes.
The spending, tax-cutting schemes Congress
is cooking up may put temporary icing in
our cake-but deficit-made inflation will
take away the cake
-Mr. BUSH. Tl e pending pay increase
bill would unwisely add $750 million to
Government spending, not only in the
coming fiscal year, but in all the years to
come.
I say unwisely, because we do not have
the facts before us upon which to base a
judgment concerning what amounts of
salary increases, rid for what positions,
are needed to ccmpensate Government
workers fairly, and to attract the skills
the Federal service requires.
Only last year, we appropriated $500,-
000 to enable the :3ureau of Labor Statis-
tics to conduct a study to determine
those facts. The Bureau is scheduled to
submit a report in September of this
year, so that carefully considered leg-
islation may be drafted for submission
to the next Congress to provide pay ad-
justments for all employees to compen-
sate for cost-of-living increases, and to
correct inequitie;; which exist ii? the
salary schedules.
As the Senator from Illinois has said,
we would waste o:- throw out the window
$500,000 of the taxpayers' money by
passing a bill wl ich takes the shotgun
approach of incre ising all salaries across
the board by 71/2 percent for most Gov-
ernment employees, and by more than
8 percent for the postal workers.
The bill has b yen brought before us
for one reason and one reason only:
politics in a pre:,idential election year.
We might as wel. face it. That is why
we are facing the bill.
Organizations of postal workers, and
of other Governnent employees, have
brought heavy p-essures to bear upon
Members of the-Senate and of the other
body. There have been threats, some-
times veiled and sometimes bluntly
stated, that Members who vote against
the pay bill will suffer at the polls. It is
surrender to the 3e pressures that has
brought the bill to the Senate floor today.
The political cynicism. behind the bill
lies in the fact that it is well known that
it is entirely unacceptable to the Presi-
dent of the Unite(l States.
Testimony has been submitted to that
effect by the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget, and by Senators on the floor
today.
Some feel secure in voting for it, with
the knowledge that the President - will
rescue them from what they know is
folly by a veto. Others feel confident
that there will be sufficient votes to over-
ride the veto. In either case, it is hoped
to gain some political advantage by vot-
ing "for" the Government employees,
and picturing the administration as be-
ing "against" them.
This kind of political maneuvering
may be acceptable in normal times. In
the days in which we live, when the
United States and the entire free world
are in increased danger from Commu-
nist aggression, I, for one, will havg no
part of it.
Mr. President, I have voted in the past
for salary increases for postal and other
Government workers. I expect I shall
do so again. But I shall not so vote un-
til I have a solid base of facts upon
which to form a judgment.
I have consulted with postal workers
from my own State during all my 8 years
of service in the Senate, and especially
in the past few months. I enjoy friend-
ships among them, and have a sympa-
thetic understanding of their problems.
I have carefully considered all the in-
formation they have presented to me,
and all the information -I could obtain
from other sources.
The levels of postal salaries have been
compared with those of State govern-
ment employees in Connecticut, and with
wages in industrial and nonindustrial
employment in my State and elsewhere.
Although it is difficult to draw com-
parisons, a general conclusion can be
reached. It has not been demonstrated
that the salaries of postal workers and
other Federal workers lag behind those
prevailing in the Connecticut State gov-
ernment service, or in private employ-
ment in my own State. On the contrary,
the evidence at hand indicates that these
Federal employees are keeping pace, and,
in some instances, enjoy advantages over
those in private employment or the State
service.
Mr. President, the attempt has been
made to picture this administration as
being unconcerned with the welfare of
the postal employees. The record over
the past-71/2 years refutes that unfound-
ed charge. In pay and fringe benefits,
totaling $544,323,000 in the first year and
increasing in succeeding years, these ac-
tions have been taken :
First. Direct pay increases totaling ap-
proximately 20 percent, for a first-year
cost of $436,831,000.
Second. Greatly liberalized retirement
benefits, with an added first-year cost of
$10,538,000.
Third. Group life insurance, at a first-
year cost of $7,103,000. -
Fourth. Group health insurance, with
an estimated first-year cost of $37,963,-
000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moss
In the chair). The time of the Senator
has expired.
Mr. BUSH. I yield myself 10 minutes
on the bill.
Fifth. Executive order holiday benefits
for rural carriers, and Saturday holiday
benefits which guarantee each employee
eight paid holidays per year, with first-
year costs of $4,433,000.
Sixth. Additional equipment allow-
ance for rural carriers, with first-year
costs of $6,800,000.
Seventh. Increased travel allowances,
with first-year costs of $4,100,000.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Eighth. Tax-free uniform allowances
of up to $100 per uniformed employee
each year, with first-year costs of
$13,600,000.
Ninth. Biweekly pay periods, provid-
ing one extra day's pay per year, with a
first-year cost of $6,700,000.
Tenth. Military leave for substitute
employees, at a first-year cost of $2,800,-
000.
Eleventh. Longevity pay for substitute
employees, at a first-year cost of
$765,000.
Twelfth. Unemployment compensa-
tion, with an estimated first-year cost to
the Federal Government, attributable to
postal employment, of $7,200,000.
Thirteenth. Free fidelity bonds at an
estimated annual savings to postal em-
ployees of $776,280 and a cost to the
Department of $190,000.
Fourteenth. Social security coverage
extended to temporary employees, at a
first-year cost of $5,300,000.
I do not think that is the picture of
an administration which is not interest-
ed in postal employees; on the contrary,
it is evidence of the very deep interest
the administration has for people who
are working for the Government.
I am confident that the administra-
tion will continue to give fair treatment
to its employees in the postal service,
as well as to those in the classified serv-
ice. I am confident that when the study
ordered by Congress at a cost of $500,000
is completed in September, legislation to
provide fair and equitable adjustments
in compensation for all Government em-
ployees will be drafted and submitted to
the next Congress. I am confident that
it will be legislation that Members of the
Senate can support.
If the Dirksen amendment shall be
agreed to, and I hope it will be, the Pres=
ident will have before Congress in Jan-
uary of next year a schedule of pay ad-
justments and increases which will be
made in the light of the study for which
we are paying $500,00 of the taxpayers'
money.
To enact the bill now before the Sen-
ate would be an act of fiscal irrespon-
sibility, and demonstrate a failure to
recognize the dangers we face. For the
reasons I have stated, Mr. President, I
shall support the amendment offered by
the Senator from Illinois.
I have given a great deal of study to
this issue. I have spent more time on
it than on anything I have been involved
in during this year. I have talked to
people in my own State and I have talked
to the Chairman of the Civil Service
Commission, as well as to members of the
committee. I have also read volumes
about it. I am satisfied that the jobs
in the Post Office Department and in the
classified service are in demand. Cer-
tainly that does not indicate that the
Government is not offering comparable
compensation with the State govern-
ment or with private firms in commerce
and industry, at least within the State
of Connecticut. On the contrary, It in-
dicates we need more information, and
certain knowledge concerning inequities
which may exist, before we can legis-
late fairly in the interests of all Federal
employees.
Furthermore, the record shows that
the "quit rate," as it is called, of people
leaving the service, is lower than in pri-
vate industry, which indicates that peo-
ple are reluctant to leave Government
service.
I hope that the Senate will adopt the
Dirksen amendment. I believe that the
report which we are about to receive in
September will be a competent one, that
It will be a report which will have been
painstakingly and carefully prepared by
people who are competent to make such
an objective study. With this guidance,
the President will, I hope, make what
adjustments may be necessary, to treat
fairly our Government employees.
I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BUSH. I yield.
Mr. KERR. I am much interested in
the statement the Senator made con-
cerning the number of applicants for
postal or other Government jobs because
those jobs would be better than the jobs
which the persons are now in. Would
the Senator know if those persons are
persons whose economic condition is
worse as a result of their trying to make
a living under Benson's farm program?
Mr. BUSH. Not many persons in
Connecticut are displaced by the Benson
farm program. Most of the people in
Connecticut have been strongly behind
Mr. Benson, and approve his farm
policies.
Mr. KERR. Most of the people in
Oklahoma are behind him, too, but for
different purposes. [Laughter.]
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield time
to me?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New
Mexico.
THREE HUNDRED AND FIFIETH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE FOUNDING OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I " am
against the amendment and for the com-
mittee bill. That is certain. But before
continuing with the debate on the bill,
I should like to call the attention of
the Senate to another, matter. First, I
am so glad that the Senators from Indi-
ana are present.
It seems to me quite fitting that we
should take a few moments to divert
our attention from the turmoil and tul-
mult of these riotous times and give heed
to a significant event in my glorious
State of New Mexico. Beginning June 17
and for 1 crowded week, the good people
of my State, and especially those of
Santa Fe, will celebrate the 350th anni-
cersary of the founding of New Mexico.
Everybody in the State, from Gov. John
Burroughs and Mayor Leo T. Murphy, of
Santa Fe, will join in this observance,
basking in the past glories and looking
forward to greater progress.
An event of the opening day of these
festivities is worthy of note. Through
the cooperation of its producers, Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer, there will be a special
performance of the new motion picture,
"Ben-Hur," and the Governor and mayor
have proclaimed June 17 as Ben-Hur Day
in the anniversary celebration. Why
12091
"Ben-Hur"? There is an interesting
story behind that question; perhaps, my
good colleagues the Senators from In-
diana [Mr. CAPEHART and Mr. HARTKE]
would prefer I did not tell the story. But
the folks back home think I should.
"Ben-Hur" is a New Mexico product,
and its author is being honored as one
of the picturesque and courageous citi-
zens of Santa Fe. Indiana and " Craw-
fordsville, Ind., like to make similar
claims to the origin of "Ben-Hur" and the
citizenship of its author. But the record
indicates that, at least, the honors must
be shared. Gen. Lew Wallace, Civil War
hero, Minister to Turkey, politician, and
author, wrote the inspiring novel, "Ben-
Hur." He began the book while living
in Crawfordsville, Ind., but he finished it
while he served as Governor of the Ter-
ritory of New Mexico from 1878 to 1881.
Wallace was a fantastic character; he
was sent to New Mexico by President
Hayes to try to clean up the territory
which then was ridden by all of the
lawlessness and problems of the early
pioneer days. Among Wallace's prob-
lems was a young fellow known as Billy
the Kid, who had the territory terrorized.
Wallace contrived to have Billy give him-
self up, eventually. Prior to that the Kid
swore to get Wallace. The fearless war
hero refused to let the Kid or anybody
else deter him from finishing the final
chapters of "Ben-Hur." Wallace, stub-
bornly ignoring his wife's fears and pro-'
tests, refused to draw the shades of his
window as he sat writing at night. He
made a perfect target for Billy the Kid.
It was in that spirit that Wallace went
about improving conditions in the old
New Mexico. Now, 80 years later, Wal-
lace and his immortal "Ben-Hur" are
being honored in Santa Fe and through-
out New Mexico.
I hope our Indiana friends will not
.mind.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHAVEZ. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from New Mexico
has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 2 minutes on
the bill to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HARTKE. I thank the Senator
from New Mexico for acknowledging the
fact that Lew Wallace came from In-
diana. The generosity of Indiana is well
known. We are glad to share such a
distinguished leader with New Mexico.
I observed that Lew Wallace went to
New Mexico to clean things up and did
a pretty good job of cleaning them up.
He went further and helped to develop
the State of New Mexico.
One of the finest persons ever to come
out of that State is the Senator who
made the statement. He is one in a
long line of the heritage of New Mexico.
Mr. CHAVEZ. I acknowledge that fact
that if it had not been for Lew Wallace,
I might not be here.
Indiana has contributed much to New
Mexico throughout the years. So have
Vermont and New Hampshire. New
Mexico would not have a railroad if it
had not been for Vermont and New
Hampshire brains and Boston money.
That is true also of the State of the
distinguished junior Senator from Kan-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 12092
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 17
sas [Mr. CARLSON]. The Atchison, To-
peka, and Santa Fe Railroad was built
from Kansas into New Mexico. That
railroad would not have been built to
tie Pacific Coast if it had not been for
Vermont brains and Boston money.
AD'J #MENT OF COMPENSATION
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 9883) to adjust the
rates of basic compensation of certain
officers and employees of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN ] .
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, on the
amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, how
much time-have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Illinois has 54 minutes re-
maining on the bill.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, in my
own time, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
Mr. - SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
will the Senator withold his suggestion of
the absence of a qourum?
Mr. - DIRKSEN. Mr. President, T
withdraw my suggestion of the absence
of a quorum.
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO MASSACHU-
SETTS PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to take time
from both sides on the amendment to
ask, on behalf of the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], that the Chair appoint a
committee of conference.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I ask that the Senator
from Massachusetts be permitted to do
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate -a message from the
House of Representatives announcing
its, disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5888) to au-
thorize the Secretary of the Navy to
transfer to the Massachusetts Port`Au-
thority, an instrumentality of the -Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts, certain
lands and - improvements thereon com-
prising a portion of the so-called E
Street Annex, South Boston Annex,
Boston Naval Shipyard, in South Boston,
Mass., in exchange for certain other
lands, and requesting a conference-with
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I move that the
Senateinsist upon its amendment, agree
to the request of the House for a con-
ference, and that the Chair appoint the
conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. RUSSELL, to the fiscal situation in this country.
Mr. STENNIS, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. SALTON- He said:
STALL, and Mr. CASE of South Dakota Fact No. 1 Is that our present national debt
eoliferees on the ;?art of the Senate. of $290 -billion is far from all we owe for
JUUTMENT OF -COMPENSATION
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES
The Senate res.imed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 9683) to adjust the rates
of basic compens ition of certain officers
and employees of the Federal Govern-
ment, and for ot'ler purposes.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I re-
new my request for the yeas and nays
on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GOLDWP.TER. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield time to me?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
5 minutes on the bill to the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
support the ame idment of the Senator
from Illinois and shall- explain why I do
so.
Since I have been in this body, we have
approached all the problems concerning
salary increases in the Government
from the wrong angle. Instead of de-
termining what the probable salary
should be vis-a-vis Government and pri-
vate employment, we have merely
jumped at some figure, sometimes a
round number, sometimes not so round,
to determine what the Federal employees
should receive as a pay increase.
Mr. President, the greatest danger to
the payrolls of America is the Federal
Government itself, as we go along in our
irresponsible way, spending billions of
dollars that we do not have. Only 2
years ago we we at through the process
of increasing the pay of the postal work-
ers and the Federal employees; and at
that time I told my friends in the em-
ploy of the Federal Government that if
we did not stop this reckless spending,
we would negate, within 2 years, the in-
creases we gave them. That seems to
have come true, Mr. President.
The real problem is inflation, and one
of the greatest contributing causes to
inflation is continued deficit spending.
Recently, I w&.s privileged - to read a
speech which M:.,. Maurice Stans made
not so long ago. I wish to read part of
that speech into the RECORD, so that
Senators will urderstand what we are
doing and so that when Federal em-
ployees and other employees come to us
and say to us thr,t the dollar is not buy-
ing as much as it used to, we can take
credit for that development.
Mr. Stans said
Where is the Federal budget headed in the
coming decade? :: can tell you this, as a
statistical fact and not a prediction: If we
continue the trer.d of the past several
decades for just another 10 years we will
have budget experditures of $160 billion by
1970. Impossible? so it seems. Yet it is
not a bit more fantastic than the increases
we have already scored, from $3 billion in
1930 to $9 billion in 1940, to $40 billion In
19A to almost $80 billion in 1960.
The Mr. Stans made what I believe Is
a very sobering statement, as it relates
the past. This is just the interest-bearing
current debt. To really understand what we
owe, you have to add in some other things.
For example, benefits which we have prom-
ised to veterans and their dependents will
cost $300 billion in the years ahead. On top
of that, unfinanced Government liabilities
for military andcivil service retirement plans
already come to nearly $60 billion more.
Mr. President, the $290 billion in pub-
lic debt, plus more than $350 billion of
obligations for past services, plus $90 bil-
lion of c.o.d.'s, come to the almost un-
believable total of nearly $750 billion.
We in the Senateshould be fully aware
of what we are doing. Every time we
endanger our fiscal responsibility, by
considering measures such as the one
before us today, we are not helping the
wage earner of the United States. In-
stead, by enacting such a measure we
would be destroying the wages he earns.
What advantage does he gain if we in-
crease his salary by 10 percent, but then
decrease the purchasing power of the
dollar by 12 percent or 15 percent? To
me, the answer to this issue can be found
by means of such simple arithmetic.
I believe it is high time that we in
this body stop thinking about votes, and
begin to think about our responsibilities
to the people of the Nation, regardless of
whether they work for the Government
or whether they work for private in-
dustry. We in the Congress must take
the responsibility for the position the
dollar is in today.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT]
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Utah is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have
been interested in the possible impact of
the pending measure on the employees
of the State of Utah who more nearly
parallel Federal employees than private
employees.
Today, I have received some very in-
teresting figures: Using the present pay
scales, before the proposed increase, em-
ployees of the State of Utah who cor-
respond to Federal GS-2 and GS-3
clerks, are now earning from $50 to $60
a month less than their Federal counter-
parts. If the pending bill goes into ef-
fect, It will increase that difference by
another $20 to $24 a month.
Employees in the State of Utah who
correspond to Federal GS-4's in grade
are earning approximately $60 a month
less than their Federal counterparts.
Employees in the State of Utah who
correspond to Federal GS-7's in grade
are earning $75.a month less, for com-
parable employment.
The State of Utah employees in the
professional group are earning from $80
to $90 a month less than the pay received
by professional employees of the Fed-
eral Government who are -engaged in
similar work.
The Utah social case workers, who
are a semiprofessional group, are earn-
ing between $60 and $100 a month less
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12093
than the pay received by Federal Gov- chances of obtaining its enactment this Federal employees. While other workers
ernment employees who perform similar session will be seriously dampened. We have received 14 or 15 pay increases since
work. may be sure that if the bill is amended 1945, total increases in Federal em
The journeyman mechanics in Utah and returned to the House, the oppo ployees' wages number 7. Postal em-
are being paid $100 a month less than nents of pay raise legislation-and the ployees have received four. Salaries of
Federal journeyman mechanics are paid. administration in particular-will do all the greater number of employees con-
I wonder whether we stop to realize in their power to kill it throjigh delaying tinues to lag far behind the rising price
the damage we are going to do to the tactics, in these few remaining days of level. It is not just to require the clas-
State governments and their employees, the session. s ie possibility of the employees toion wait for
particularly in the case of the smaller I am confident that the Senate will the minor pay systems the cloo i some future
States far removed from the large approve the bill as reported from com- other metropolitan centers, when we widen mittee and that it will be sent to the date.
July 1951 to November 1959,
this variation. Not only shall we in- President by such a large vote in its From Jul
wage increases averaged
crease the burden on the taxpayers, by favor that the President will realize that postal creases approximately e
reason of the added cost of the Federal his veto will not prevent its enactment. 3clerks,
381/2 cents an hour, or* payroll; but, in addition, we shall put In June'of 1959 there were 2,380,000 percent, while workers in all industries
the taxpayers in many States in a sit- civilian employees on the Federal pay- received average increases of 70 cents
uation in which, by using the Federal roll. It has been 30 years since there an hour, or in excess of 45 percent. This
Government's example as a lever, at- has been a thoroughgoing review of the marks a lag of 25 percent between July
tempts will be made to force up the compensation scales. There have been 1951 and November 1959 for postal
State, county, and municipal payrolls. dozens of plans put together in a piece- clerks.
So the real burden on the taxpayer meal fashion. The three major pay The postal clerks are not alone. Mil-
may be very much heavier than that systems in use now include: first, the lions of Government employees face the
represented by the proposed legislation Classification Act, and under this fall same situation. They cannot wait to eat
now before us. This is one reason why 970,000 employees; second, the Postal and to live. They must go on with their
I am persuaded that under present cir- Pay Act with 470,000 employees; and own family lives.
cumstances I cannot support this mea- third, Army, Air Force, and Navy with if, just for a moment, one assumes that
sure. 480,000 employees. classified employees were paid in 100-
I was also greatly impressed by the To delay the pay raise now being con- cent dollars in early 1939, it becomes ap-
statements made by the Senator from sidered, the argument has been offered parent that the employee has lost much
Idaho CMr. CHURCIi] with respect to the that there are those who do not deserve more than appears on the surface. A
classified service employees. this pay raise and that we must wait GS-5 salary would have to be increased
Mr. President, when we consider the for the results of a Bureau of Labor 5.2 percent to make it equal in purchas-
total impact of all these factors and Statistics survey to be completed in Sep- ing power to 99 and GS-7hesalary rtes
developments, we realize that rather tember 1960. I am confident that this worth much wider. hi re
sobering considerations face us as we survey will show that the wages of Fed- brackets the gap less, prepare to vote on the question of eral employees are not comparable-by store 1939 purchasing power today, be-
passage of the bill. and large-with wages for similar work tween 3- and 61-percent raises are needed
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President- In private industry. I do not believe at different levels.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. that such a delay is either necessary or it is obvious that wages of comparable
Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the warranted. situations in private industry are far
Senator from Minnesota. This is certainly true in the case of the ahead of wages in Government employ-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The postal employees. There is no reason to ment. There are perhaps one or two
Senator from Minnesota is recognized delay. The temporary increase of 21/2 grades at which they are equal, but from
for 10 minutes. percent of 2 years ago must be approved, these lowest grades on up, pay in private
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the As the result of a survey by the National industry far exceeds Government pay in
amendment offered by the minority Association of Letter Carriers, 24,878 managerial, scientific, and technical
leader, the Senator from 'Illinois [Mr. budgets of members were studied; 74.9 fields. The higher the level, the greater
DIRKSEN] is, of course, an amendment percent-almost 75 percent-had to seek the gap. At GS-18, non-Federal pay is
in the nature of a substitute for the en- other income sources or have their wives approximately $22,500 per year, while
tire text of the pending pay bill. work. Ninty-six percent reported that Federal employees receive $15,500. This
First of all, I desire to commend the they were unable to live on their present low wage scale creates a great deal of
chairman of the Committee on Post Of- salaries. difficulty in recruiting and maintaining
five and Civil Service and the other It is more than interesting to note that workers.
members of that committee for the the Federal Housing Administration has it now costs the Federal Government
prompt consideration they have given determined that a letter carrier with 25 $900 to train a new employee in the
the Federal workers pay raise bill, fol- years service, earning $5,170 per year, postal service. At the same time, a
lowing its passage on Wednesday of this does not have a sufficient income to pur- trained man is utilized to instruct the
week by the House of Representatives, chase a $15,0000 home under an FHA new man. One thousand eight hundred
by the overhelming vote of 378 to 40. 30-year mortgage. An income of $5,384 dollars is now tied up in these two men.
The vote in the House of Representa- Is necessary. The average salary of a The turnover rate in the postal service is
tives, especially in view of the opposition letter carrier is only $89.23 per week. by no means small. Each time a man
of the administration to pay raise leg- Every individual needs sufficient funds leaves, the Federal Government loses
islation, is very significant and encour- to keep abreast of the times. Federal $900. A satisfactory salary, which would
aging. salaries must be commensurate with sal- keep these men in service would, in the
It indicates that the vast majority of aries paid in private industry. There is long run, be less expensive than the wage
the Members of Congress are convinced a time element involved here. We are increase. These men can rarely earn
that the case for Federal pay raise leg- dealing with human beings, faced with more than $5,175 per year, and then only
islation is sound and that the time to an increase in the cost of living. Clas- after 25 years' service. Frequently, they
act is at hand. It also gives those of sifted workers and post office employees must learn difficult postal schemes on
us who have been advocating a fair pay have received only two pay raises under their own time and at their own expense.
raise for Federal employees reason to the present administration. Three pay Is it any wonder that they leave this
believe that even if the President should raises passed by Congress have been service?
veto this measure there are sufficient vetoed. Salaries fixed by statute have Recently, United States Steel granted
votes in the Congress to override the not been adjusted in any timely or ade- an increase to its office clerical workers,
veto. quate manner in response to general an increase in wages already higher than
I intend to support the bill as reported changes and rises in non-Federal sal- those of classified Federal employees in
from the committee. I earnestly hope aries. comparable positions. A file clerk in
that the bill is not further amended here Pay raises have become an annual oc- Federal service receives $3,825 per year.
in the Senate, because if it is, the currence in most industries, but not for A United States Steel file clerk now re-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
June 17
ceives $4,430, and by October 1961 will shall be author-.zed and directed to ad- for the inflation in the cost of money,
receive $4,722. Government tabulating just the pay scales in the Classification which takes its toll out of everyone who
machine operators receive $4,325, while Act of 1949, as amended, the Postal Field buys anything on time. This is a credit
those with United States Steel receive Service Pay Act, the Veterans' Benefit economy, in which the largest single
$5,299 and will receive $5,753 by October Act, as amended, and the Foreign Serv- item in the cost of living is the cost of
1961. ice Act, as amended, to levels generally money.
Sperry Gyroscope Co., International comparable with those reported by the Furthermore, I heard one Senator say
Harvester Co., and Chrysler Corp. pay Bureau of Labor Statistics as a result of that we shall pay more to Federal em-
between $4,320 and $5,186 per year for its current survey of pay rates in private ployees than is paid in Utah. There is
stenographers, typists, and key punch enterprise, an 'answer to that: Raise the wages in
operators. In the Federal service, these Then the substitute proposal of the Utah. That is the answer.
positions are classified in GS-2 to GS-4, Senator from Illinois directs the Presi- I would like to have some of our col,.
for which the maximum pay is $4,325. dent to do two more things: to revise the leagues demonstrate as much concern
Only one of the private industry rates is pay structures in the several acts in over the worker's interest as they seem
in this category, most are comparable to order to insure internal equity and to to demonstrate over what they call this
GS-5. provide adequate incentives for adminis- item of inflation.
Guards in private industry in the St. tration, and to establish rules for What would be the cost of the pro..
Paul-Minneapolis area receive $2.17 an administration. posal of the Senator from Illinois? We
hour. Guards, rated GS-2, receive a Is not this interesting? Last night, have no figures that indicate the cost.
highest pay of $1.84. In 1939, postal less than 24 hours from this hour, the On the one hand, it is being paraded
letter carriers wages were generally minority leader i dmonished us not to di- before us as though it is of benefit to
greater than policemen. Today it is the rect the President to put anything in a the workers. If it Is beneficial, it is
opposite. message, that it would be dangerous, that going to cost something., On the other
The whole body of Federal employees the President would veto it. There were hand, some speakers say it is beneficial
is working for the benefit of industry speeches on the floor of the Senate to the because it will not cost anything. Mr,
and for the well-being of the entire Na- effect that to di -ect him to lay down a President, we cannot play both sides of
tion. Industry could not efficiently blueprint in terns of planning in the the street. The Proposal of the Senator
function without the post office or the field of housing would give the President from Illinois will result either in in-
many services provided by the depart- too much power. I was reminded last creased salaries or decreased salaries,
ments. Government engineers, scien- night that this was almost socialism, and it seems to me we have a right to
tists, and medical men benefit all the But today the same spokesmen-and I know which before we vote on his pro-
people. A fair salary is one that is com- put that word in the plural-say now the posal.
patible with business and justifiable in President should act like a little dictator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
cost. To wait for the current survey is He shall set the pay rates for Federal em- of the Senator has expired.
an unnecessary delay ignoring all previ- ployees who wort: for the Government of Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
ous studies and surveys. It is important the United States, a Government that I yield 5 minutes more to the Senator
that the Senate take favorable action on consists of the Congress as well as the from Minnesota.
this bill now, executive branch, and the President shall Mr. HUMPHREY. Finally, let us face
I wish to comment briefly on the not only set the Say rates, but he is au- the fact that Federal workers have only
amendment proposed by the Senator thorized and directed to make such one place to go. There is no use of their
from Illinois. Last evening, when the adjustments as his own Bureau of Labor talking about going to see the President.
housing bill was discussed in the Senate, Statistics advise: him to make. They will not find him in. Let us face
there was considerable debate on con- Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the it, the Federal workers will not get an
centration of power in the Executive and Senator yield? audience at the White House. First of
the fact that the Congress was directing Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. all, the President of the United States,
the President to put something in a mes- Mr. CLARK. The Senator makes a when he applies himself to his work, will
sage. The ghost of constitutionality was very powerful argument, but, to be very be a busy man, and the Federal workers
raised. We were told it would violate candid, is the Senator not of the opinion will not have' an opportunity to make
the Constitution. We were told by one that the minority leader was wrong both their case if this matter is turned over to
Senator that we were pioneering an new times? the executive -branch. If this is turned
ground. I realize that for the Repub- Mr. HUMPHREY. It is not only my over to the executive branch, we may as
lican leadership that is a rather danger- opinion, but I tl ink it can be demon- well turn over everything else, because
ous adventure, but we were reminded strated to be a fact, this touches the heart of government.
this was something we should not do. This is a delaying tactic. That is an- I am surprised that the advocates of
The housing billcalled upon the Presi- other reason why this is being done. We less executive power, the advocates of
dent to make recommendations in his can be sure that there will be men in the States rights, come before the Senate
message to the Congress, and it was other body of equal capability and with a proposal which would put in the
stated that, In furtherance of the realiza- ingenuity who will be able to use some hands of the Executive-the President of
tion of this goal, the President shall kind of delaying tactics, and the Federal the United States-control over the pay
transmit to the Senate and the House worker will get no help or no justice from scales of workers for the Federal Gov-
of Representatives, after the beginning his Government. ernment, without any regard to the
of each session of the Congress, but not i have heard speeches made today Congress of the United States.
later than January 20th, a report which about what the proposed pay raises The Constitution says that we shall
shall include certain specified items, would do to the Federal budget. I heard establish the rate of compensation. The
Mr. President, this was not going to what the pay increase would do to infla- Constitution does not say that the Presi-
cost anybody anything. It was not said tion. I wonder where the words are, I dent shall do so. I suggest that we
that the President was going to legis- say most respectfully, in behalf of the should hold the limited authority and
late by edict. All we were suggesting was wage earners, when prices go up? I power we have to ourselves.
that the President take cognizance of have not heard many speeches from the The point is that Federal workers do
certain developments in the housing pic- other side of the aisle when steel prices not have the right to strike. Federal
ture, certain housing needs of the Amer- have gone up time after time. I have workers do not have the right of some
ican people, and that he make known not heard many complaints from the workers to collective bargaining. Fed-
those observations through a message to other side of tho aisle about interest oral workers have only one right. That
the Congress. rates going up. 3: say to my colleagues is the right to appeal to their representa-
The minority leader led the fight on the other side of the aisle that the tives in Congress for justice.
against 'that proposal, which he called average wage earner will pay more in These workers have never been able to
extreme legislation.. He said the Presi- increased interest than he will receive keep up with the wage scales throughout
dent would veto a bill which directed from the pay increase as provided in this the country. Surely, we can locate a
him to do such a thing as that. Yet the bill. Federal -worker here or there who may
minority leader today brings In a sub- I have not heard any Senator on the earn more than is earned by someone in`
stitute that provides that the President other side of the aisle condemn anyone a small country town; but we do not
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
generalize from those limited statistics.
We must consider the total picture.
The facts are that testimony before
the committees of Congress has shown
that many Federal workers need two jobs
in order to. maintain a home of modest
means.
I have not seen many Federal postal
workers or Federal employees spending
2 months on a yacht in the Caribbean.
They have a tough time getting enough
money together to be able to spend 2
days on a rowboat on a lake in Minne-
sota.
Those who are always admonishing the
workers of this country as to the things
they should or should not do are usually
in Bermuda, in the Bahamas, at Nassau,
or at Miami Beach at $100 a day, in a
swank hotel.
Mr. President, these workers are not
overpaid. The tragedy is that the ad-
ministration always wants to study the
pay of the workers. This administra-
tion really is guilty of being a slow learn-
er. It studies and studies, and never
seems to catch on.
I suggest that the Congress of the
United States, after having reviewed
these matters in the committees month
after month and year after year, is in a
better position to know what is the situa-
tion than some study commission which
has been appointed, which is somewhat
removed from the realities of the eco-
nomic life of the workingman or work-
ingwoman.
There is one thing wrong with the
Congress, above all. Too many times it
has lost its sensitivity to the needs of
the average man, to the needs of the
man who does not have a chance to be
in the social columns of the local news-
paper.
Some of us in the Congress need to
stand up to speak for the person who
earns $5,000 a year or $4,000 a year.
A woman who testified before the
committee, who lived in Fort Lauderdale,
Fla., said that her husband had a take-
home pay of $89_a week, after 21 years of
service with the Federal Government.
My friends in the Senate, who have sal-
aries of $22,500 a year, should try to live
on $89 a week. I have lived with the
people long enough to know that it costs
a great deal to rear a family.
The Federal Government has an ob-
ligation to establish standards, not to be
trailing behind. The people who carry
the mail, the people who work in our
Federal agencies, by and large are fine,
good, dedicated people.
One of the reasons there Is trouble in
America today is that too often it takes
two breadwinners in a family to pay for
the cost of living. This causes delin-
quency. This causes problems.
I suggest that the Government of the
United States should set a standard un-
der which one breadwinner in a family
can earn enough for the mother, the chil-
dren, the father, and perhaps a relative
or so, if need be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Minnesota has
expired.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Wyoming Is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, I wish to
associate myself with the remarks of the
distinguished Senator from Minnesota,
who has said in terms only he seems ca-
pable of commanding the things which
need to be said at a moment like this.
The Senator has moved me to bring. into
the focus of the picture today once again
a reference I have made on other occa-
sions to an individual whom I have de-
scribed as a "one-eyed bookkeeper."
The "one-eyed bookkeeper" is the Di-
rector of the Bureau of the Budget.
"One-eyed bookkeeping" goes on in the
Bureau of the Budget.
Let us visualize what this could mean.
The Bureau of the Budget opposes this
legislation. In a statement before the
Civil Service Committee, Budget Director
Stanssaid:
The administration finds no justification
at this time for the enactment of any legis-
lation which would provide general in-
creases in salary rates under the Classifica-
tion Act, the Postal Field Service Pay Act,
and other statutory pay systems.
The Bureau of the Budget is the arm,
If not the brain-I sometimes think it is
the brain-of this administration.
These, indeed, are the words of the
oracle, the words of the "one-eyed book-
keeper."
Mr. President, I make my remarks
after examining the Bureau of the Budg-
et's own pay policies, in its own bail-
wick, since 1953. What I expected,
really, was to find that the Bureau of the
Budget, finding no justification for pay
raises, was practicing what it preached.
I was amazed to discover that since 1953
the average grade level of Bureau of
Budget employees has climbed from
GS-10.2 to GS-11.1. Despite adminis-
tration objections, in the last several
years the Congress has enacted legisla-
tion to increase the pay of the Federal
employees.
Bureau of the Budget ----------------------------------
Office of Secretary of the Treasury----------------------
Office of Secretary of the Interior___________
Office of Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare_-
Office of Secretary of Agriculture-----------------------
Mr. McGEE Q' Mr. President, two
things stand out in this table.
First, the staffs in the Secretaries'
offices of these four departments receive
salaries which are substantially below
those in the Bureau of the Budget.
Second, the Bureau of the Budget has
granted its employees, through improved
grade levels, far greater increases than
have the offices of the four Secretaries
enumerated above.
I have not made a detailed analysis
of the other agencies in these depart-
ments, nor, of other departments, but
I am certain that such an analysis would
support the contention that the Bureau
12095
The pay has continued to go up for the
workers at the Bureau of the Budget.
Because the Bureau of the Budget has
the highest grade level for its employees
of any Federal agency, they have on the
average received the greatest raises.
Since 1953 the average Budget Bureau
employee has received an $1,100 salary
increase as a result of pay legislation.
These increases are the legitimate in-
creases resulting from action by the Con-
gress despite Presidential vetoes. These
are the efforts that the Congress has
made to keep the salaries of Federal em-
ployees reasonably consistent with those
paid in private industry. I emphasize
again that this increase for Bureau of
the Budget employees occurred despite
administration objections.
However, on top of this legitimate in-
crease, the Bureau of the Budget,
through raising the average grade of its
employees from 10.2 to 11.1, has added
approximately another $1,100 to the
salary of each of its employees.
No wonder the Director of the Budget
Bureau can find no justification for a
general salary increase. When he in-
quiries into his own Bureau he finds that
salaries are up and that his employees
are "doing very nicely, thank you."
This earns for the Director of the Bu-
reau of the Budget the designation 'as
the "one-eyed bookkeeper." He looks at
his own records through one eye, and
through the other eye he cannot see and
does not, see the plight of his brethren.
Mr. President, I have compared what
has happened in the Bureau of the
Budget with the salaries in the offices of
the secretaries of four of our major
departments of Government. I ask
unanimous consent at this point in my
remarks that this table be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Amount
below
Bureau of
the Budget
Amount
below
Bureau of
the Budget
Change
since 1953
10.2
-----?-
11. 1
----------
+0.9
8. 1
_2.1
8.4
.7
+.3
9.0
-1.2
9.
3
-1.8
+.3
7.7
-2. 5
2
8.
-2. , 9
+?5
8.0
-1.6
8.7
-2.4
+. 1
of the Budget has taken good care of its
own and has chosen to neglect the
rest.
Mr. President, I do not contend that
Federal employees should be denied a
pay raise. On the contrary, I believe
that they are entitled to a raise and I
believe especially that the postal em-
ployees are entitled to a raise.
My petition is that the "one-eyed book-
keeper" has his principles mixed up and
is looking in the wrong direction at what
he considers to be the right time. He
ought to give the same consideration to
other employees of the Federal Govern-
ment as he gives to his own people.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 -12096
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 17
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from Wyoming has
expired.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 2 additional minutes?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Wyoming is recognized for
3 additional minutes.
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, how the
Bureau can justify the extremely large
increases in the Bureau at the same time
it asks Congress to hold down salaries
of other categories of Federal employees
is difficult to comprehend, unless it is
rationalized in the "one-eyed bookkeep-
er" vernacular.
Mr. President, I also believe that the
Bureau of the Budget has itself violated
all of the arguments it has given in op-
position to a general salary increase.
If this is not the case, then apparently
there is already available sound factual
justification for the salary increases
proposed in the legislation that the
Congress is now considering.
Budget Director Stans in his presenta-
tion to the Congress claims that he is
not quibbling over insignificant amounts.
He said:
If we raise Federal white collar pay levels
now on the basis of inadequate information
which can make the results merely guesses,
and if the September BLS report shows that
such increases result in unnecessary or im-
proper expenditures, then we will all have
much to regret.
But this is not the situation In the
temple of the savers where the high
priests of economy are gathered. There
has been no difficulty there in justifying
a pay raise averaging $1,100 per em-
ployee in addition to the $1,100 pay raise
effective in the Bureau of the Budget as
a result of past legislation.
I- ask unanimous consent that a table
showing the relationship between the
average salaries paid the Federal em-
ployees in five important conservation
agencies in 1953 to those to be paid in
1961,,in comparison with the pay scales
in the Bureau of the Budget, be printed
in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
Increase
since
1953
Bureau of the Budget .----_
$6,979
$9,320
$2,341
Bureau of Reclamation- .__-
4,675
6,260
1, 694
Geological Survey--_--_----
4,553
1 6, 428
1, 875
Soil Conservation Service--
4, 391
5,556
1,165
Porest Service--------------
4, 655
5, 614
959
Agricultural Research Serv-
ice-----------------------
14,869
6,083
Bureau of the Budget
differential---------------
2, 110
2, 892
1 Best paid for fiscal year.
Mr. McGEE. These are comparative
to the pay scales of the Bureau of the
Budget.
Some reference has been made in the
Senate to the fact that the proposed leg-
islation will cost us a little more money,
and that is is dishonest of Government
to spend this additional money without
preparing a tax :Measure to balance the
exepnditure. I certainly can agree that
it is dishonest no,; to face up to what this
country must do, I am not impressed,
however, with the suggestion that gen-
erations yet unborn will have to pay
these costs. While I, too, am concerned
about the future generations, I am like-
wise concerned about the generations
who are still living. They, too, have a
right to continue to live in an area where
costs continue to rise.
The overhauling and revamping of
the Federal pay ;chedules has long been
overdue, and ye; this opportunity has
been frittered away during the 8 years
of the Eisenhower administration.
One serious accomplishment of the ad-
ministration han been the appparent
ability of the Bureau of the Budget to
award itself salary increases while hold-
ing down the salaries of other Federal
employes. This is the spectacle of the
"one-eyed bookk(!eper."
I conclude by suggesting that not only
is the pay legislation before the Congress
necessary, but also, I believe the Con-
gress might welt. give consideration to
reducing the salaries in the Bureau of
the Budget to the relationship that they
had with other federal salaries In 1953.
I wuold predict tiat were this suggestion
adopted, we would have to appropriate
money for the construction of a wailing
wall on the White House side of the
temple of the savors.
Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Pres-
ident, will the Senator from Illinois
yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. CASE of S )uth Dakota. The pro-
posed amendment of the Senator from
Illinois makes it great deal of sense.
References have been made during the
debate to what is being paid to workers
in industry and to people in State gov-
ernments as compared with what is pro-
posed to be paid to employees of the Fed-
eral Government, The amendment of
the Senator froir. Illinois will merely give
authority to the President of the United
States to adjust the rates of pay. The
amendment states in part:
To adjust the rates of pay in the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended, the Postal
Field Service Pay Act, the Veterans Benefit
Act as amended, a id the Foreign Service Act
as amended, to the levels generally com-
parable with thos s reported by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics as a result of its cur-
rent survey of psy rates in private enter-
prise.
Congress provided half a million dol-
lars for the survey, the results of which
ai;L expected to some in September, and
it is expected to use the survey as the
basis for pay adjustment.
The dislocation of relative pay scales
is a problem in a discussion of the cost
of living. Established pay scales are
thrown out of kilter. Then we try to
adjust them, and sometimes there Is no
good relationship. The final result is
relatively little better than the situa-
tion that existec at the outset. A cycle
is started.
What disturbs me is that we talk
about a percentage increase which
ranges from 71/2 to as much as 8 percent
and even 81/2 percent for some em-
ployees, thus throwing them farther out
of a fair relationship.
In some sections of the Post Office
Department the discrepancy between
supervisory positions and the rank and
file postal workers could be again jeop-
ardized. Only a year or so ago we
passed a bill to correct an inequity in
the relative pay scales of the general
workers and the supervisors.
One of the most glaring inequities
that exist today is the fact that the av-
erage net income of farm families is
only $2,380. Yet under the proposed
legislation we have increases proposed,
which affect all Government employees,
in which the - starting salary for - an in-
dividual in the civil service rank is
$2,960. The starting pay for the civil
service employee of $2,960 is already
$500 more than the average net income
of an entire farm family.
One of the tests of the relative equity
of pay scales is the turnover, The Civil
Service Commission during 1959 deter-
mined that the average quits per month
per 100 employees are as follows: 1.25
percent in private industry; 0.70 percent
in the Federal Government as a whole;
and 0.57 percent in the U.S. postal serv-
ice. The turnover in private industry
is twice as much as the turnover in the
postal service, which would certainly in-
dicate that the postal service and the
Federal Government as a whole are
more attractive places of employment
than is private industry.
In my experience I have noted that
there seems to be no lack of applicants
for postal positions, and I am-obliged to
believe that at least in South Dakota
employment in the postal service is more
attractive than vacancies in industry
generally.
I asked the Post Office Department
about the following figures and I was
told that the figures represent their
experience over - the country: -
During the first 3 months of this year
238,000 persons applied forpostal posi-
tions. That number of applicants is
enough- to fill more than 40 percent of all
the positions which the Post Office De-
partment has. In the New York area
there were 37,000 applicants. In the
Chicago area there were 14,000; in the
Los Angeles area, 12,000; in the San
Francisco area, 11,000; in the Phila-
delphia area, 7,000 plus; in the St. Louis
area, over 4,000. Therefore it seems- to
me that the proper approach is on the
basis of the study which the Bureau of
Labor Statistics is making to give the
President the authority and the respon-
sibility toadjust pay scales to the levels
determined by a factual study.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
time of the Senator from South Dakota
has expired.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, the
minority leader has been compelled to
leave the Senate for a moment. I ask,
unanimous consent that I may suggest
the absence of -a quorum without having
the time charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none.
Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 1960
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7 12097
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I offer
the amendment which I send to the desk
and ask to have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, if I
may have the attention of the Senate
for a minute, I can save the trouble of
reading the amendment, although I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD as follows:
On page 22, at the and of line 24 insert a
new title numbered three.
"TITLE III-TO READJUST POSTAL RATES, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
"First class mail
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The fornia [Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from
clerk will call the roll. Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator
The legislative clerk proceeded to call from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], the Sen-
the roll. ator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], the
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS],
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAU-
sent that the order for a quorum call VERI, the Senator from Massachusetts
be rescinded. [Mr. KENNEDY], the Senator from Michi-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- gan [Mr. McNAMARA], and the Senator
out objection, it is so ordered. from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] would each
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I vote "nay."
have not said anything on the amend- Mr. KUCHEL. r announce that the
ment, but I want every Senator to know Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER] is
that I do not approve of the amend- absent because of illness.
d [Mr CAPE-
The Senator from In Iana
turn over to
t
d
o
y
m not rea
ment. I aany one man, whether he be a Democrat
or a. Republican, the power to regulate
the salaries of 2,300,000 employees of the
To do so would be set-
.
Government
ting up a dictatorship in the United
States. We hear a great deal of talk
about dictatorships. I believe that in
Congress we have yielded entirely too
much to the administration in regu-
lating various and sundry things. This
is one time that I am not in favor- of
going this far.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. I
yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. I concur with my
distinguished chairman that Congress
should not abrogate its powers in this
way. Furthermore, I ask the chairman,
if we were to grant this power to the
President to fix wages, how- would we
know who in the 9th or 10th or 11th
echelon would exercise the powers which
Congress would supposedly be granting
to the President.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Yes, while he is off somewhere trying
to get into some country or other. Per-
haps we ought to make him work at
least a 40-hour week, if we are going to
adopt this kind of amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I believe the other side has used up all
its time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
for debate has expired. The question is
on agreeing to the amendment offered
by the Senator from Illinois [Mr.-DIRK-
SEN]. The yeas and nays.have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from California [.Mr.
ENGLE], the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS], and the Senator from
Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH] are absent on
official business.
I also announce that the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and the Sen-
ator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] are
absent because of illness.
DIRKSEN's amendment was re-
I further announce that the Senator Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Mr. President, I move to reconsider the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN- vote by which the amendment was re-
NEDY], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. jetted.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I move to
[Mr. MORSE], and the Senator from lay that motion on the table.
Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] are neces- The motion to lay on the table was
sarily absent.
I further announce that, If present agreed to. -
and voting, the Senator from Colorado The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
[Mr. CARROLL], the Senator from Cali- Is open to further amendment.
"SEC. 2. (a) That part of the first section
of the joint resolution of June 30, 1947, as
amended (61 Stat. 213, 72 Stat. 138, 39 U.S.C.
280), which precedes the proviso, is amended
by striking out '4 cents' and inserting in lieu
thereof '5 cents'.
"(b) Section 1 of the Act of October 30,
1951 (65 Stat. 672; 39 U.S.C. 280), as amend-
ed, is further amended-
"(1) by striking out '3 cents' wherever
appearing in subsection (a) and inserting in
lieu thereof '4 cents'; and
"(2) by striking out'3 cents' in subsection
(b) and inserting in lieu thereof '4 cents'.
"Domestic air mail
"SEC. S. Section 201 of the Postal Rate
Revision and Federal Employee Salary Act
of 1948 (62 Stat. 1261; 39 U.S.C. 463a), as
amended, is further amended-
"(1) by striking out '7 cents' in the first
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof '8
cents'; and
"(2) by striking out '5 cents' in the sec-
ond sentence and inserting In lieu thereof
'6 cents'.
"Air parcel post
"SEC. 4. Section 1 of the Act of June 29,
1948 (62) Stat. 1097; 39 U.S.C. 475), Is
amended-
"(1) by striking out the words 'for the
period of two years' appearing in paragraph
(11); and
"(2) by adding the following sentence to
paragraph (11) : 'In no event shall the rate
of postage on air mail of the first class
weighing in excess of eight ounces be less
than the rate prescribed In section 2(a) of
this Act' -
"Second-class mail
"SEC. 5. (a) The postage rates for publi-
cations entered as second-class mail when
mailed for delivery at the office of original
entry is one-half cent per copy mailed when
delivery is made through post office boxes,
general delivery or by rural or star route
carriers.
"(b) The postage rate for publications
entered as second-class mail when mailed
for delivery at the office of mailing by city
or village letter carrier or when mailed at
the office where it is entered for delivery by
city or village letter carriers at a different
office within the delivery limits of which the
headquarters or general business office of the
publisher- is located is 1 cent for each copy
weighing two ounces or less ar 2 cents for
each copy weighing more than two ounces
or the zone-pound rates provided in sub-
section (c) of this section, whichever is
higher. .
"(c) The postage rates on publications en-
tered as second-class mail not entitled to be
mailed at the rates in subsections (a) and
(b) of this section (including sample copies
to the extend of 10 per centum of the weight
of copies mailed to subscribers during the
calendar year), when mailed by the pub-
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily
absent.
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEN-
LOOPER], the Senator from South Dakota
[Mr. MUNDT], and the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. SCHOErlEL] are absent on
official business.
On this vote the Senator from - Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSxn] is paired with the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL].
If present and voting, the Senator from
Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], would vote
"yea," and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
SCIlOEPPEL7, would vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 11,
nays 70, as follows:
[No. 2271
YEAS-11
Bennett
Cooper
Morton
Brunsdale
Curtis
Wiley
Bush
Dirksen
Williams, Del.
Case, S. Dak.
Goldwater
Aiken
Green
Mansfield
Allott
Gruening
Martin
Anderson
Hart
Monroney
Bartlett
Hartke
Moss
Beall
Hayden
Murray
Bible
Hill
Muskie
Bridges
Holland
Pastore
Byrd, Va.
Humphrey
Prouty
Byrd, W. Va.
Jackson
Proxmire
Cannon
Javits
Randolph
Carlson
Johnson, Tex.
Robertson
Case, N.J.
Johnston, S.C.
Saltonstall
Chavez
Jordan
Scott
Church
Keating
Smathers
Clark
Kerr
Smith
Dodd
Kuchel
Sparkman
Douglas
Lausche
Symington
Dworshak
Long, Hawaii
Talmadge
Eastland
Long, La.
Thurmond
Ellender
Lusk
Williams, N.J.
Ervin
McCarthy
Young, N. Dak.
Fong
McClellan
Young, Ohio
Frear
McGee
Gore
Magnuson
NOT VOTING-19
Butler
Hickenlooper
O'Mahoney
Capehart
Hruska
Russell
Carroll
Kefauver
Schoeppel
Cotton
Kennedy
Stennis
Engle
McNamara
Yarborough
Fulbright
Morse
Hennings
Mundt
So Mr.
jetted.
 -12098 Approved For Rel I 00965R000400120007-7
A - SENATE
fishers thereof from the post office of pub-
lication and entry or other post office where
entry is authorized, or when mailed by
news agents registered as such under regu-
lations prescribed by the Postmaster General
to actual subscribers or to other news agents
for the purpose of sale are one-half cent
for each individually addressed copy or
package of unaddressed copies and in addi-
tion the pound rates set forth in the fol-
lowing table:
Mailed (luring
calendar year
Mailed after
Dec. 31, 1960
1960
Zones I and 2- ------------
Cents
2.6
Cents
3.0
Zone 3-------------------
3.5
4.0
Zone 4--------------------
5.2
6.0
Zone 5--------------------
7.0
8.0
Zone 6--------------
8.7
10.0
Zone 7--------------------
11.0
12.0
Zone 8--------------------
12.5
14.0
1'onadvertisi.ng portion_-_
2.3
2.5
Publications having over 75 per centum
advertising in more than one-half of their
issues during any twelve months' period
shall not be accepted for mailing as second-
class matter and their entry shall be re-
voked, except that for the purpose of this
proviso only, a charge made solely for the
publication of transportation schedules,
fares, and related information shall not be
construed as constituting a charge for ad-
vertising.
"(d) The rate of postage on copies of
publications having second-class entry
mailed by others than the publishers or au-
thorized news agents, sample copies mailed
by the publishers in excess of the 10 per
centum allowance entitled to be sent at the
pound rates, and copies mailed by the pub-
lishers to persons who may not be included
in the required legitimate list of subscrib-
ers, shall be 2 cents for the first two ounces
and 1 cent for each additional ounce or frac-
tion thereof, except when the postage at the
rate prescribed for fourth-class matter Is
lower, in which case the latter rates shall
apply, computed on each Individually ad-
dressed copy or package of unaddressed
copies, and not on the bulk rate of the copies
and packages.
"(e) For the purpose of this section, the
portion of a publication devoted to adver-
tisements shall include all advertisements
Inserted in and attached permanently to the
publication,
"(f) The Postmaster General may require
publishers to separate or make up to zones,
in such a manner as he may direct, all mail
matter of the second class when offered for
mailing.
"(g) With the first mailing of each issue
of each publication entered as second-class
mail, the publisher shall file with the post-
master a copy of such issue together with a
statement containing such information as
the Postmaster General may prescribe for
determining the,postage chargeable thereon.
"Controlled circulation publications
"SEC. 6. Section 203 of the Postal Rate
Revision and Federal Employees Salary Act
of 1948 (62 Stat. 1262; 39 U.S.C. 291b), as
amended, is further amended--
"(1) by striking out '12 cents' and insert.
ing in lieu thereof '14 cents'; and
"(2) by striking out '1 cent' and inserting
in lieu thereof '3 cents'.
"Third-class mail
"SEC. 7. Section 3 of the Act of October
30, 1951 (65 Stat. 673; 39 U.S.C. 290a-1), as
amended, is further amended-.
"(1) by striking out '3 cents' from that
part of the section which precedes the first
proviso and inserting In lieu thereof '4
cents'; and
"(2) by striking out 11% cents' from that
part of the section which precedes the pro-
Viso and insert.ng In lieu thereof ?2 cents';
and
"(3) by striking out 'twenty pounds' from
the first proviso) of said section and insert-
ing in lieu thereof 'forty pounds'; and
"(4) by striking out '16 cents' from the
second proviso of said section and inserting
in lieu thereof '18 cents'; and
"(5) by striking out from the second pro-
viso of said section, whenever they appear
therein the words '2x/2 cents when mailed on
or after such late' and inserting in lieu
thereof '2%2 cents when mailed on or after
July 1, 1960, arid prior to January 1, 1961,
and 3 cents when mailed on or after Jan-
uary 1, 1961'.
"(6) by striking out '10 cents' from the
second proviso of said section and insert-
ing in lieu-thereof '14 cents'.
"(7) by striking out '31/2 cents' from the
third proviso of said section and inserting
in lieu thereof '4y2 cents'.
"Fourth-class snail
"SEC. 8. (a) faction 204(d) of the Postal
Rate Revision and Federal Employees Salary
Act of 1948 (39 U.S.C. 292a(d) ), as amended,
is further amended-
"(1) by striking out '9 cents' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof '10 cents', and
"(2) by strikilg out '5 cents' and insert-
ing in lieu thereof '6 cents'.
"(b) Section 204(e) of the Postal Rate
Revision and Federal Employees Salary Act
of 1948 (39 U.S C. 292(e) ), as amended, is
further amende(1-
"(1) by striki Zg out '4 cents' and Insert-
ing In lieu thereof '5 cents'; and
"(2) by strikilg out '1 cent' and insert-
Ing in lieu. thereof '3 cents'.
"Repeals
"SEC. 9. The :'ollowing provisions of law
are hereby repealed: -
"(1) Section 5 of the Act of June 23,
1874 (18 Stat. 232; 39 U.S.C. 283) ; and
"(2) Sections 1101, 1102, 1103, and 1106
of the Act of October 3, 1917 (40 Stat. 327;
39 U.S.C. 283, 28") ; and
"(3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Act of
February 28, 1925, as amended (43 Stat. 1066,
1067; 39 U.S.C. 2113, 287); and
"(4) Subsecticns (a), (b), (c), and (e)
of section 204 of the Act of May 27, 1958 (39
U.S.C. 283); and
"(5) Sectiolr 15 of the Act of March 3,
1879, as amended (20 Stat. 361; 39 U.S.C.
286) ; and
(6) Section 2 of the Act of October $0,
1951 (65 Stat. 672; 39 U.S.C. 289'a).
"SEC. 10. (a) ^'he provisions of this sec-
tion-and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (1), (2),
(5), and (7), 8, and 9 of this Actshall be-
come effective on July 1, 1960.
"(b) The provisions of section 7 (3), (4),
and (6) of this Aot shall become effective on
January 1, 1961."
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, the
amendment is in the form of a bill I
introduced in March of this year, It
provides for an increase in postal rates
in first-, second-, and third-class post-
age. I know that the amendment is not
germane under the germaneness clause
in the unanimoi s-consent agreement. I
confess that in my momentary inepti-
tude in the hur)y-burly of things, I was
not looking dow)i the road far enough at
the time I looked at the division of time
and the allowance of hours on the
amendments when the unanimous-con-
sent agreement was adopted. I shall
not quarrel about that. I shall not ask
for any violation of the rules. I freely
admit that the I,mendment is subject to
'a point of order, if any Senator cares to
make a point of cyder.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Il' inois may proceed.
June 17
Mr. DIRKSEN: Mr. President, In con-
formity with an informal understanding
I have with the chairman of the corn-
mittee, the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] I shall
take only a few minutes for an explana-
tion and will be very brief.
This is a measure I introduced In
March. It was sent to me by the-Poat-
master General. It had the approval of
the President. What it is designed to
do is this: On first-class letters or first-
class mail, it would raise an estimated
$409 million. On airmail it would raise
$18 million. On second-class mail it
would raise $46 million. On other items
it would raise $85 million. It is esi~i-
mated, therefore, that the amendment
would raise $554 million.
The bill has been the subject of hear-
ings before the House Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service.
If we are to vote money with which
to pay employees, we shall have to find
the money somewhere. I asked the
Bureau of the Budget today for a state-
ment covering the most nearly current
period-and the statement is dated
June 16-to ascertain now where we
stand, with respect, first, to the revenue
measures asked for by the President
which have been denied; the unbudgeted
proposals to increase expenditures, some
of which have not yet been enacted, but
which would be a threat to the budget;
and then the unbudgeted proposals,
which would reduce revenue.
I point out that the Committee on
-Finance, as I understand, has taken
action to repeal the telephone tax and
to repeal taxes on other items. The dis-
tinguished Senator from Florida [Mr.
SMATUEas] has just reported a bill from
the Committee on Finance. The reve-
nue involved, as I understand, is esti-
mated at between $150 and $250 million,
We have done nothing about aviation
fuel. The proposal requested by the
President is estimated to produce $89
million.
The discontinuance of the telephone
tax would, in the first fiscal year, cost
$346 million. There are other items
with respect to budget proposals which
would have an impact of roughly $1.5
billion.
As I sum up the rest of the items,
they amount to $3.2 billion.
So the grand total is a little more than
$5 billion.
It can be seen that if we continue to
spend money-and $750 million is pro-
vided in this bill-an estimated and
much-hoped-for surplus of $4.2 billion,
when the budget was submitted, is
rapidly and gradually and constantly
going down the drain.
Congress may still do something about
it, but I would be remiss in my duty if
I did not say that in proportion as we
spend $1 billion over the budget esti-?
mate in the Defense bill, and $750 mil-
lion in this bill, somewhere, if we are to
have a balanced budget, we shall have
to find revenues, instead of chopping
revenues out of the budget and then,
denying a Presidential request for reve-
nue. That is all I have to say on this
subject.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. CURTIS. I shall support the
Senator's amendment. I shall do so be-
cause I feel, as the Senator has stated,
that as a matter of fiscal policy that
must be done.
In doing so, I am aware that we do
not have the benefit of any hearings
or a committee report on this amendment
or on the bill itself.
Although I wish to go on record as
being in favor of increased postal
revenues, I likewise wish the RECORD to
show that I do not adopt in detail the
provisions of the Senator's amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Illinois yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Can the minority lead-
er tell us the answer to a question which
I shall now submit? It is charged that if
the amendment of the minority leader is
added to the bill, it will result in killing
the bill; it is said that the House will not
accept the amendment, and that the re-
sult will be to destroy the bill.
On the other hand, a number of Sen-
ators, including myself, are perfectly
willing to vote for increased postal rates,
in order to meet our responsibilities.
Can the Senator from Illinois tell us-
and the majority leader is also in the
Chamber, and I also direct this question
to him-whether, if we defeat this
amendment at this time, we shall have
an opportunity to vote on the question
of increasing the postal rates?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I can only say that
the effort has been made over a period
of time, but it has not succeeded. We
have a terrific deficit-nearly $600. mil-
lion-in the Post Office Department
alone. If we add $236 million for the
postal workers, by means of this bill,
the postal deficit will be more than $836
million, which must be taken out of the
general revenue; and, therefore, this
deficit in the operations of,this Govern-
ment agency will become a charge against
the taxpayers and against the Treasury
generally. I do not believe that is a
sound way to run a Government depart-
ment, and I do not believe it is sound
financing.
Mr. President, I shall not request a
yea-and-nay vote on the question of
agreeing to this amendment. I simply
say to the Senate and to the country that
not long ago we were greatly inspired by
the hope that there would be a $4 billion
surplus and that there might be a tax
reduction for the beleaguered taxpayers
of the country; but I am afraid all that
is going down the drain.
I may add that perhaps yet today we
shall consider the Health, Education,
and Welfare Department bill; and I
think the amount it calls for is in the
neighborhood-according to the version
reported by the Senate committee--of
$400 million over the budget. Perhaps
we can chop all of it out of the mutual
security funds; I do not know. But I
doubt it.
Mr. JAVITS. I should like to ask the
majority leader that question. Will we
have an opportunity-if this amendment
is defeated at this time-to vote at this
12099
session of the Congress on the question amendment by a show of hands, or for a
of increasing the postal rates? year-and-nay vote on the amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I am in. But I shall not do so.
formed that the House committee yester- I am quite content to let the RECORD
day killed a proposal on postal-rate in- stand as it now is.
creases, by a vote of 14 to 7. I am fur- Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall
ther informed that the proposal offered support the amendment of the Senator
by the distinguished minority leader is from Illinois, because I think he is do-
the first program of the administration, ing the only thing that can be done in
and is not its revised plan. I think it order to demonstrate that we are willing
has a new plan, which is different from
the one he offered in January.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I revised this, in or-
der to make it conform.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I think the
Senate should consider a rate bill; and I
am prepared to vote for a rate bill of that
type, although at this time I do not wish
to go into the specifics. I do not know
that it will be reported before we leave
for the conventions, if we do. I think
it should be considered on its merits. I
do not think it fair to the employees to
make the fate of the pay bill for them
dependent on the success of a measure .of
the sort referred to, which already has
been defeated in the House committee;
and in view of the fact that the House
committee defeated it by a 2 to i margin,
certainly it is unlikely that the House
as a whole would do otherwise.
But I should like to see the committee
begin to evolve a formula which would
provide us with more revenue.
Mr. JAVITS. Of course, that situation
puts me in the position of believing that
this is the only chance we shall have to
vote to make the income meet the outgo.
I think most Senators wish to do the
things which need to be done, whether in
regard to research or in regard to paying
the Government employees properly or
in regard to foreign aid. Of course, I
very much favor foreign aid. I also wish
to have the Government pay its bills.
I respectfully submit that if we do not
receive those opportunities from the
committees, then. we have to do what
the minority leader is doing; namely,
utilize the rules of the Senate to attach
such proposals to any bills that are avail-
able.
Mr. DIRKSEN. First, let me assure
the Senator from New York that this
proposal is not designed to kill this bill.
I am opposed to this bill, and I have been
opposed to it from the beginning. I
shall do my best to get the President to
veto it, if he will listen to me; and I may
have something to say about it-I do not
know. But that is not the design of this
amendment.
We know that, as the bill now stands,
its cost, if it is enacted into law, will be
$750 million.
I suppose the bill will be passed. I
am reasonably confident that the House
would override a veto of the bill. I hope
the Senate would sustain a veto.
But the record must be made, and I
want to make it as we. proceed. I do
not want anyone in the country to be
able to say, at any time, "If you were
interested in fiscal sanity and fiscal re-
to pay the bill if we wish to provide bene-
fits for the people whom we think need
to receive benefits.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That is well spoken.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I am ready to vote.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, I should like to say to the
Senate that we find ourselves in this po-
sition because we have always considered
this a revenue matter, and we always
wait until the House sends us the
revenue bills.
It may be news to some Senators to
know that the money which is raised
from the Post office operations does not
go into the Post Office Department
funds, but goes into the general fund;
and then the Department goes to the
general fund, as does every other de-
partment, for the money it needs.
We once passed such a bill, and sent
It to the House of Representatives. But
the House sent it back to us, with a note
saying: .
We in the
measures.
For that reason, we find ourselves in
this position at the present time.
I realize that something should be
done. But I wish to call attention to the
fact that in the case of second-class mail,
the increase in rates will go into effect
on July 1.
As regards third-class mail, another
increase in rates will come next January.
That will result from the original bill
which we passed in 1958, which at that
time increased the revenue for the Post
Office Department approximately $547
million.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, when
the Congress passed the Postal Pay
Raise Act of 1958, it said-and it was
recorded as clearly as print could set it
forth-that after making allowance for
the things that can be charged to the
postal service, there shall be a rate ad-
justment in order to provide the reve-
nues with which to meet the expendi-
tures of the Department. But we have
been remiss in the duty of carrying out
the very thing we solemnly wrote into the
law only 2 years ago. The words are so
clear that they cannot be mistaken. I
take that responsibility pretty seriously,
and it is the reason why I have offered
this proposal.
I am grateful to my distinguished
friend the chairman of the committee
for not making a point of order. I am
not going to ask for a record vote, but I
shall ask for a division, and I will let
sponsibility, why did you not concretely it go at that.
offer something to offset the expenditure Mr. BUSH. Mr. President, will the
of $750 million?" Senator yield 1 minute to me?
The amendment is offered in the ut- Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes.
most good faith. Mr. BUSH. I commend the Senator
If I were to undertake to embarrass for bringing up this amendment, and I
anyone, I might ask for a vote on the wish to associate myself with the Sen-
Approved For Release 2004/05113 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
12100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE , June 17
ator from New York in approving the when we must stop embarrassing the to be passed at this session of Congress.
proposal and declaring, in view of the American people? I urgently suggest to my colleague that
fact that there is not to be a record vote, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The he make a part of his motion the re-
that I wish to support the Senator's Senator from Illinois. quirement that the committee separate
amendment. Mr. DIRKSEN. -I am prepared to yield the bills and report them to the Senate
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will back my time. by next Monday, so that the bills can
the Senator yield? Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. -I be enacted at this session of Congress.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes. yield back my t-:me. Then we shall have the issues separated.
Mr. LATJSCHE. I subscribe to the The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Those of us who feel as the distinguished
comments made by the Senator from on the amendment has been yielded Senator from North Carolina and I feel,
New York. I received a letter from a back. that the postal pay raise Is fully justified,
citizen of Ohio who said, "I have been The question is on agreeing to the , and that the other pay raise is not, will
your friend all your life. Viewing amendment of the Senator from Illinois. have the opportunity to vote for the in-
things as they are going, I have a rec- (Putting the question.) The "noes" crease we feel is justified, and will have
ommendation to make to you. While seem to have 1;. The "noes" have it. the opportunity to vote against the in-
you are in the Senate, vote for every Mr.,DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask crease we feel is not justified. Thus we
spending program, against every taxing for a division. shall not be put in the position of penal-
bill, and for every tax repeal bill." Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- !zing those who deserve the pay raise
I pondered his advice, and I wondered dent, I move to reconsider the vote by by denying the raise in order to vote
whether that was the glorious path to which the amendment was defeated, against that part of the bill which we
eternal membership in the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The feel is not justified-two thirds of the
Let me point out that in this session we chair states to the Senator from Illinois bill in money value-and for which the
have acted on several money bills. We that the result was announced. case has not been made.
repealed the cabaret tax. It is now be- Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, In conse-
ing proposed to repeal the excise tax on dent, I move to reconsider. quence of the suggestion made by the
telephone use and other taxes. We in- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able and distinguished senior Senator
creased the subsidy to the merchant ma-
tine. question is on 1 he motion to :reconsider. from Arkansas, I amend my motion to
in the tax field, we hgone only in Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. recommit so as to provide that the coin-
on of field, we have
reducing revenues, even Mr. President, r: move to lay the motion mittee shall forthwith report back two
the dtrectfax
though we know that in 24 out of the to reconsider on the table. bills of the nature specified by me.
ho g9 years know that had deficits. But Mr. KUCHEL.. Mr. President, a divi- Mr. -President, I ask for the yeas and
t
last 2 we have
what are we doing in regard to spending? sion. nays on the motion.
Every spending proposal that has been The PRESIDING OFFICER. A divi- The yeas and nays were ordered.
offered has received approval. Every sion has been requested on the motion to Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, unless
proposal to attempt to set the budget in table the motion, to reconsider. the able and distinguished chairman of
balance has been rejected. Mr. Presi- Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Then, Mr. the committee or some other Senator
dent, it just cannot be. There must President, I withdraw my motion to re- desires to speak, I yield back the re-
come an eventual accounting. consider. mainder of my time.
I shall vote for the postal rate increase, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mo- Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
although I do not like to connect it to a tion to reconsider is withdrawn. dent, we havebeen in session since early
salary bill. However, under the condi- Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. this morning. These issues have been
tions which prevail, I must do so. I withdraw my motion to table. resolved. Senators who have been for
Instead of having a $4 billion sur- The PRESIDING OFFICER. -Both the raise for the postal workers have
plus-provided the postal rate increase motions have been withdrawn. had an opportunity to indicate it. Sen-
and gasoline tax increase were adopted- Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I -rise for ators who have favored the increased
I want the citizens of Ohio to know now the purpose of making a motion to re- for all workers have had an opportunity
that we cannotcontinue to repeal taxes commit. to indicate it. -
and increase spending without further I am satisfied, from my study of the I hope we shall not spend all day
cheapening the dollar, without further subject matter of this bill, that Congress working on the bill and then recommit
putting tax burdens upon our children should enact the proposed pay increases the bill. I hope the motion to recommit
and grandchildren, and without further for the postal service. I do not feel will be defeated, and that we can pan;
robbing holders of U.S. bonds and thrifty justified on the acts, however, in voting the bill, to give equity and justice to peo??
people who put their money in the banks for the increases totaling about half a pie who are entitled to receive it.
for their future. billion dollars a year which this bill pro- Mr. President, I yield back the re-
Mr. DWORSHAK. Mr. President, will vides for those In other Government mainder of my time.
the Senator yield? employment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
Mr, DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield For those reasons, I move that the bill has been yielded back. The question is
to tSenator fIdaho, and then I be recommitted to the -Committee on on agreeing to the motion of the Senator
to the da Post Office and Civil Service with in- from North Carolina, to recommit with
time for from
I have back the amendment. ofI an th n structions that it divide the provisions instructions to report forthwith two bills.
Mr. Dve the President, the of this bill into tvo bills, and report back on this motion, the yeas and nays
Mr
di Mr. DWORSHAK. t distinguished minority reader to the Senate one bill containing the have been ordered, and the clerk will.
he hesitates to ask for the yeas has and nays said present provisions respecting the postal call the roll.
employees, and a second billcontaining The Chief Clerk called the roll.
on his amendment because he does not the provisions of this bill relating to. Mr. MANSFIELD. _I announce that
want to embarrass Members of this body. other Governme at employees. the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
Does not the distinguished minority lead- ROLL], the Senator from California [Mr.
er agree with me that this body, by its Mr. n will
actions day in and day out, Is embarrass- HART], the e Senator tor yield? yield? 9N. Mr. President, R, the the Senator Senator from from Georgia a [Mr.
Mr. ERVIN. I-yield. HAeorgia [Mr.
ing the American taxpayer, and em- RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
barrassing our children and grandohil- The PRESID:NG OFFICER. How [Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Texas,
dren, by forcing them to assume the re- much time does the Senator yield? [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the Senator from
sponsibility of our giving them more Mr. ERVIN. I yield to the Senator Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] are absent on
government than revenues will justify from Arkansas, from the time available official business.
at this time? When will we reach the to me, whatever time the Senator re- I also announce that the Senator from
time when we stand up and face our re- quires. Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] and the Sena-
sponsibility to give the American tax- Mr. McCLELLAN. -Mr. President, I tor from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] are
payer only as much government as we - wish to associate myself with the distin- absent because of illness.
are willing to make him pay for? Does -guished Senator from North Carolina. I further announce that the Senator
not the Senator think the time has come I believe the postal pay increase ought from Massachusetts [Mr KENNEDY], the
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 1960 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 12101
Senator from Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER7, Hruska Morse
the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Kefauver Mundt
Mahoney
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Oregon Mc cNNamyara RRuussell ssell
McNamara [Mr MoR E7 d 4-1,
s
S
t
Schoeppel
Stennis
Yarborough
, an a
ena
or from So Mr. ERVIN's motion to recommit
Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHOrrEY] are neees- with instructions was rejected,
sarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
I further announce that, if present and is open to further amendment. If there
voting, the Senator from Colorado [Mr. be no further amendment to be proposed,
CARROLL], the Senator from California the question is on the third reading of
[Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Tennes- the bill.
see [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator from The bill was read the third time.
Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the Sen- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
ator from O
[Mr M
regon
.,-
ORSE] the Sen
ator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS], the
Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBoRotGH],
the Senator from Michigan [Mr.
MCNAMARA], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator from Lou-
isiana [Mr. ELLENDER], and the Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] would
each vote "nay."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. BUTLER]
is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily ab-
sent.
The Senator from Iowa (Mr. HICKEN-
LOOPER], the Senator from South Dakota
[Mr. MUNDT], and the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL] are absent on
official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] and the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. SCHOEPPEL]
would each vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 21,
nays 56, as follows:
[No. 228]
YEAS-21
Bennett
Dirksen
rksen
McClellan
Bridges
Di
k
Morton
Bush
Ervin
Saltonstall
Case, S. Dak.
Goldwater
Talmadge
u r
Ch h
c
Holland
Thurmond
Cooper
Lausehe
Wiley
Curtis
Lusk
Williams, Del.
NAYS-56
Aiken
Gruening
Martin
Allott
Hart
Monroney
Anderson
Hartke
Moss
Bartlett
Hill
Murray
Beall
Humphrey
Muskie
Bible
Jackson
Pastore
Brunsdale
Javits
Prouty
Byrd, W. Va.
Johnson, Tex.
Proxmire
Cannon
Johnston, S.C.
Randolph
Carlson
Jordan
Robertson
Case, N.J.
Keating
Scott
Clark
Kerr
Smathers
Dodd
Kuchel
Smith
Douglas
Long, Hawaii
Sparkman
Eastland
Long, La.
Symington
Fong
McCarthy
Williams, N.J.
Frear
McGee
Young. N. Dak.
Gore
Magnuson
Young
Ohio
Green
Mansfield
,
Butler
Chavez
Fulbright
Byrd, Va.
Cotton
Hayden
Capehart
Ellender
Hennings
Carroll
Engle
Hickenloope!
question is on the passage of the bill. Is
all time yielded back?
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.
Mr. President, -I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is, Shall the bill pass? On this
question the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk. will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. DIRKSEN (when his name was
called). On this vote, I have a live pair
with the senior Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL].- If he were present
and voting, he would vote "nay"; if I
were permitted to vote, I would vote
"yea." I therefore withhold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CAR-
ROLL], the Senator from California [Mr.
ENGLE], the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], the Senator from Mississippi
[Mr. STENNIS], the Senator from Texas
[Mr. YARBOROUGH], and the Senator from
Arizona [Mr. HAYDEN] are absent on of-
ficial business.
I also announce +1 4- th
S
a e
enator iram
Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and the Sen-
ator from Missouri [Mr. HENNINGS] are
absent because of illness.
I further announce that the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], the
S
enator frum Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER7,
the Senator. from Michigan [Mr. MINA-
MARA]
,
the Senator from O
gon
re
[
r.
M
MORSE], and the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. O'MAHONEY] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Colorado [Mr.
CARROLL], the Senator from California
[Mr. ENGLE], the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. FULBRIGHT], the Senator from Mis-
souri [Mr. HENNINGS], the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. KEFAUVER], the Senator
from Massachusetts. [Mr. KENNEDY], the
Senator from Michigan [Mr. MCNAMARA9,
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE],
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEN-
NIs], and the Senator from Texas [Mr.
YARBOROUGH] would each vote "yea."
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Maryland [Mr. RruTi.rRI is
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. CAPE-
HART] is absent by leave of the Senate.
The Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. COTTON] and the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA] are necessarily
absent.
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKEx-
LOOPER], the Senator from South Dakota
[Mr. MUNDT], and the Senator from
Kansas [Mr. SCIIOEPPEL] are absent on
official business.
If present and voting,. the Senator
from Indiana [Mr. CAPEHART] and the
Senator from New'Hampshire [Mr. COT-
TON] would each vote "yea."
The pair of the Senator from Kansas
[Mr. SCHOEPPEL] has been previously an-
nounced by the Senator from Illinois
[Mr. DIRKSEN].
On this vote, the Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] is paired with the
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA].
If present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota would vote "yea," and the
Senator from Nebraska would vote
"nay."
The result was announced-yeas 62,
nays 17, as follows:
[No. 2291
YEAS--62
Aiken
Gore
Martin
Allott
Green
Monroney
Anderson
Gruening
Moss
Bartlett
Hart
Murray
Beau
Hartke
Muskie
Bible
Hill
Pastore
Bridges
Humphrey
Prouty
Byrd, W. Va.
Jackson
Proxmire
Cannon
Javits
Randolph
Carlson
Johnson, Tex.
Saltonstall
Case, N.J.
Johnston, S.O.
Scott
Chavez
Jordan
Smathers
Church
Keating
Smith
Clark
Kerr
Sparkman
Cooper
Kuchel
Symington
Dodd
Long, Hawaii
Talmadge
Douglas
Long, La.
Wiley
Eastland
McCarthy
Williams, N.J.
Ellender
McGee
Young, N. Dak.
Fong
Magnuson
Young, Ohio
Freer
Mansfield
NAYS-17
Bennett
Dworshak
McClellan
Brunsdale
Ervin
Morton
Bush
Goldwater
Robertson
Byrd, Va.
Holland
Thurmond
Case, S. Dak.
Lausche
Williams, Del.
Curtis
Lusk
NOT VOTING-21
Butler
Hayden Morse
Capehart
Hennings Mundt
Carroll
Hickenlooper O'Mahoney
Cotton
Hruska Russell
Dirksen
Kefauver Schoeppel
Engle
Kennedy Stennis
Fulbright
McNamara Yarborough
So the bill (H.R. 9883) was passed.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to reconsider the vote by
which the bill was passed.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed - to.
(Senate proceedings continued after
House proceedings of. today's RECORD.)
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
 Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7
House of Representatives
The House met at 11 o'clock a.m.
The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp,
D.D., offered the following prayer:
Luke 6: 12: He continued all night in
prayer unto God.
0 Thou transcendent and immanent
God, who alone can satisfy our mortal
needs and our immortal longings, grant
that in the tragic unrest of our day, we
may have a faith that finds its center
and circumference in Thee.
Inspire us with a fortitude that can
master and dispel all the somber moods
of doubt and despair which are hovering
over - the minds and hearts of so many
membersofthe human family.
May our vision of Thy divine will and
righteous purposes be so clear and com-
manding that we shall feel constrained
to dedicate ourselves wholeheartedly to
bring them to fulfillment.
Hear us in the name of the Captain of
our Salvation. Amen.
FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 1960
House to a join; resolution of the Sen-
ate of the following title:
S.J. Res. 39. Joint resolution proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the
United States to .authorize Governors to fill
temporary vacancies in the House of Repre-
sentatives, to a )olish tax and property
-qualifications for electors in Federal elec-
tions, and to enf?anchise the people of the
District of Columiiia.
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the further con??
sideration of the bill (H.R. 12619) making
appropriations for mutual security and
related agencies for the fiscal year end.
Ing June 30, 1961, and for other pur-
poses.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the fur-
ther consideration of the bill H.R. 12619,
with Mr. MILis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose an yesterday there was pending
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. TABER]. Without
objection, the Clerk will rereport the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. TABEa. On page
2, line 15, strike out "$1,600,000,000" and in-
sert in lieu thereof "$1,800,000,000."
THE JOURNAL
The Journal of the proceedings of
yesterday was read and approved.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr.
McGown, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed with amend-
ments, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested, -a bill of the House
of the following title:
H.R. 11998. An act making appropriations
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1961, and for other
purposes.
The message also announced that the
Senate insists on its amendments to the
foregoing bill, requests a conference with
the House on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon, and appoints
Mr. CHAVEZ, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. -HILL, Mr.
MCCLELLAN, Mr. ELLENDER, Mr.- ROBERT-
SON, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. JOHNSON of Texas,
Mr. SALTONSTALL, Mr. BRIDGES, Mr. YOUNG
of North Dakota, Mrs. SratTH, and Mr.
BYRD of Virginia to be the conferees on
the part of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
Senate had passed bills of the following
titles, in which the concurrence of the
House is requested:
5.2929. An act to amend the National De-
fense Education Act of 1958 in order to re-
peal certain provisions requiring affidavits of
belief; and
S. 3670. An act to extend and amend laws
relating to the provision and improvement
of housing and the renewal of urban com-
munities, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the
Senate agrees to the amendments of the
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of orc.er that -a quorum is not
present. -
The SPEAKER, obviously a quorum
is not present.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called th`e roll, and the fol-
lowing Member,, failed to answer to their
Ashley
111111
Moulder
Barden
Ik trd
Patman
Butch
Jackson
Powell
Bolling
Krarns
Randall
Bow
Kilburn
Roosevelt
Buckley
Kitchin
Shipley
Burdick
Kowalski
Taylor
Carnahan
Laser
Walter
Celler
MCGovern
Williams
Dorn, S.C.
M,,rrow
Willis
Durham
Mitchell
Wilson
Foley -
M:arris, Okla.
Withrow
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 396
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
LIMITATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION'
DIFFERENTIAL SUBSIDY
Mr. BONNE R. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent ' to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 10644) to
amend title V of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936, in order to remove certain lim-
itations on the construction differential
subsidy under such title, as amended, .
with Senate r mendments thereto, dis-
agree to the amendments of the Senate,
and ask for a c Inference with the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina? [After a pause.] The Chair
hears none and appoints the following
conferees: Me.;srs. BONNER, 7:HOMPSON of
Louisiana, GEORGE P. MILLER, TOLLEFSON,
and VAN PELT.
MUTUAL SEs"URITY AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL,
1961
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Mr. TABER. Mr. Chairman, this, to
my mind, is the heart of the bill, and the
question is, Do you want to carry for-
ward a bill that will do some good and
will help to make this program one which
will be operated in the interest of" the
people of the United States? If we are
going to do something of this kind, let
us do it as near right as we can. I am
only asking to restore to- this item in the
bill 50 percent of what has been cut by -
the committee in writing the bill.
The question resolves itself into how
much money is needed to carry this
thing on and do it in such manner that
it would be of some value to the people
of the United States.
I am going to quote just a word from
General Palmer, the military officer in
charge of this operation, and let me say
that General Palmer has had great ex-
perience for several years as Chief of
Staff under General Norstad over across
the water. General Palmer said on page
2327 of the hearings:
The unexpended carryover will have fallen
to approximately $2 billion by June 30, 1960,
and the program is also falling. The forecast
of expenditure during the current fiscal year
(fiscal year 1960) is $1.83 billion, while it is
forecast that the program in fiscal year 1961
will be marked by an expenditure of $1.79
billion. In these 2 years there is a drastic
drop- of $560 million below the rate of the
preceding 5 years.
Now, we are getting to the point where
there is hardly a 12-month period in the
chain of merchandise being produced
and delivered. We have got to have
these things if we are going to help
those countries across the water and to
keep them in shape so that they can help
us to keep communism from spreading.
Approved For Release 2004/05/13 : CIA-RDP91-00965R000400120007-7