Y4

, P

su. 7)21966

SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

GOVERNMENT

Storage

1

HEARING e 

4414 BEFORE THE

rn COMMITTEE ON MANPOWER sivo

Cr

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

-0 FFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

-‹ SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 10498

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL GS-16, GS-17, AND GS-18

POSITIONS FOR USE IN AGENCIES OR FUNCTIONS CREATED

OR SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDED AFTER JUNE 30, 1965

FEBRUARY 9, 1966

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

59-467 WASHINGTON: 1966
•t*

a .1

641.z\,t; .11 a

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana, Vice Chairman

THADDEUS DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

PAUL J. KREBS, New Jersey

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

ROBERT J. CORBETT. Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, Staff Director

B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director

JOHN H. MARTINY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

THEODORE J. BAZY, Senior Staff Assistant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

JOHN V. TUNNEY, California

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

EDWARD J. DERWINSICI, Illinois

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama

Ex Officio Voting Members

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee ROBERT I. CORBETT, Pennsylvania
CONTENTS

Statement of—

Long, Hon. Clarence D., a Representative in Congress from the State Page

of Maryland 14

Macy, Hon. John W., Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission,

accompanied by Seymour S. Berlin, Director, Bureau of Inspections, and Asa M. McCain, Chief, Classification Division, Bureau

of Inspections 2

Mumford, Dr. L. Quincy, Librarian of Congress 22 Weitzel, Hon. Frank H., Acting Comptroller General, accompanied

by Lawrence J. Powers, assistant to the Comptroller General and

Robert F. Keller, General Counsel 15 Communication received from—

Mumford, Dr. L. Quincy, Librarian of Congress, to Hon. David N.

Henderson, chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower; letter dated

February 8, 1966 26
N.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room

215, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning we are to begin public hearings on the requirement

for supergrades, that is GS-16, 17, and 18 positions under the

Classification Act of 1949, as amended, for various departments and

agencies of the Federal Government.

The subcommittee has for consideration two bills, H.R. 10498,

introduced by Hon. Clarence Long of Maryland, and an identical bill,

S. 2393, which passed the Senate on September 1, 1965, and was referred to the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. These

bills provide for a maximum of 100 supergrades for the President to

use for agencies or functions created or substantially expanded after

June 30, 1965.

We are today, however, beginning a review of top-level job requirements for all departments and agencies. The Chairman of the Civil

Service Commission, Hon. John Macy, who is currently charged with

the allocation and control of a majority of the Federal Government's

supergrades, has been invited to speak on the requirements for the

executive branch.

The Acting Comptroller General of the United States, Hon. Frank

H. Weitzel, will discuss the needs for the General Accounting Office,

and the Librarian of Congress, Dr. L. Quincy Mumford, will present

the requirements for the Library.

Our colleague, Hon. Clarence D. Long, of Maryland, who is the

author of H.R. 10498, has advised us he will be in later and as soon

as he comes in, at his convenience, we will hear from him.

At this point I am delighted to welcome my good friend, Hon.

John W. Macy, Jr. Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

It is always good to have you before the subcommittee, Mr. Macy.

You may proceed.

1
2 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. SEYMOTJR S.

BERLIN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INSPECTIONS, AND MR. ASA

M. McCAIN, CHIEF, CLASSIFICATION DIVISION, BUREAU OF

INSPECTIONS•

Mr. MACY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Seymour Berlin, the Director

of the Bureau of Inspections, and Mr. Asa McCain, Chief of the Classification Division of the Bureau of Inspections. Both of these men are

daily dealers in grades 16, 17, and 18 and will make sure we are fully

responsive to your questions on this legislation.

Mr. HENDERSON. You are all welcome.

Mr. MACY. I appreciate the opportunity to give our views on S.

2393. The bill would authorize an additional 100 positions in grades

GS-16, 17, and 18, but would limit their availability to agencies or

functions created or substantially expanded after June 30, 1965. It

would also require the approval of the President for the allocation of

the additional 100 positions.

When I testified in favor of the bill before the Senate committee on

August 25, 1965, the 100 additional positions were viewed as a temporary number pending further identification of the administration's

needs to establish its new programs. Since that time, requirements for

top positions in these programs have been further clarified.

In the light of present conditions, I would like to recommend that

the Congress now authorize 300 additional positions instead of 100 as

specified in S. 2393. Let me discuss, Mr. Chairman, the reasons for

this recommendation.

The military buildup in southeast Asia places heavy demands upon

the Defense Establishment. This will make it imperative that a few

more high-level positions also be authorized. The Department has

entered upon a program of replacing military personnel with civilians

in as many positions as possible. Some of these positions are now

occupied by general officers and as civilian positions will certainly

justify GS-16 or higher.

The last session of Congress approved many important pieces of

legislation. For example, the Social Security Amendments of 1965,

the Water Resources Planning Act, the Water Quality Act of 1965, the

Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Act, and the Drug Abuse Control

Amendments. The Congress also established the National Foundation

on the Arts and Humanities. These activities are in addition to the

economic development programs and the establishment of the new

Department of Housing and Urban Development. All of these

programs will require some positions in the three highest levels provided by the Classification Act.

We have made estimates of the requirements of all of these programs

for high-level positions. Keeping in mind the President's desire for

economy and efficiency of operation, we estimate that our most urgent

needs can be met if the Congress will make 300 additional positions

available in grades GS-16, 17, and 18.

I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the language of S. 2393,

restricting the availability of the new positions to the President and

to programs created or substantially expanded after June 30, 1965, be
SITPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 3

eliminated. Such a restriction would prevent us from making the

most efficient use of the new authority and would make it difficult, if

not impossible to approve positions in some agencies which are

intimately concerned with the Great Society programs, but which

were not created after June 30, 1965, and whose expansion cannot be

tied to a specific date. It would also make the additional positions

available to the Civil Service Commission for allocation to agencies

and would make it unnecEssary for the President to be concerned

with each and every position.

I can assure the committee that the Commission will allot the positions to agencies in full cooperation with the President's desire for

economy and effective operation, and with due regard for the prevention of grade escalation.

The simplest way to make the additional positions available would

be to amend subsection (b) of section 505 of the Classification Act of

1949, as amended, so that the 2,400 positions authorized by that

section is changed to 2,700. We suggest that this method be used to

make the positions available.

In discussions with officials of the Department of Defense, we

have determined that the National Security Agency needs to have

its authority for higher level positions amended slightly. This

agency is not subject to the Classification Act, but is authorized by

section 2 of the act of May 29, 1959 (73 Stat. 63; Public Law 86-36),

to have 65 positions at rates equal to the basic compensation contained

in grades GS-16, 17, and 18 of the general schedule of the Classification Act. After discussion with Defense officials, we suggest that

this authority be changed so that the agency can have 75 positions

at these salary levels.

In addition to the National Security Agency's special authority,

the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been authorized 75 positions

by Public Law 85-462. This was in June 1958. Since that time, the

FBI has operated within that allotment. During this same period,

the Bureau's responsibilities have been increased by the passage of

additional legislation. It has had to open additional field offices in

order to cope with increased work volumes. The FBI believes that

it needs an additional 50 positions at grades GS-16 to GS-18 in

order to accomplish its work most effectively.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to bring

our views to the committee. If there are questions, I shall be glad

to answer them with the assistance of Mr. Berlin and Mr. McCain.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Macy, for

a very pointed and a very full statement.

Before we do have questions, I would like to say that your presentation takes in not only the request of 300 throughout the agencies of

the Government's executive department, but the request for NSA.

and the FBI, and certainly follows on the procedure that this subcommittee has long been interested in, so we could have before us at

one moment the full request. Of course, the exceptions for GAO and

the Library of Congress are understandable, inasmuch as they are

legislative agencies. We will hear directly from them.

With regard to the advice of the subcommittee members, I would

like to say any detailed questions we might have with regard to the

need of 10 new grades for NSA or 50 for the FBI, could be determined

by requesting spokesmen from those agencies to come before the

subcommittee.
4 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

I am sure that Mr. Macy is able to speak generally, but if the

members have more detailed questions, if you would prefer we ask

those two agencies to appear, we will certainly understand and proceed

that way.

Mr. Macy, would you briefly tell us what has been the experience

of the Civil Service Commission in the allocation of the supergrades

that were provided at the last action of the Congress? Generally,

how has it worked and what have been your problems?

Mr. MACY. The experience of the Commission in allocating these

positions and distributince

6

them to the departments and agencies, I

believe, has been successful during the 5 years of my direct experience

as Chairman. There are constant demands from departments and

agencies for the allocation of additional spaces. There is obviously

unhappiness in some quarters because the Commission is not able,

either through limitation of spaces or because of judgment on grading,

to give agency management all it feels it needs in order to carry

out its job.

I believe—and I hope I am not deluding myself—that the agencies

are reasonably well satisfied with the manner in which the Commission

has handled these jobs during this period of time. The Congress has

assisted in this process by the additional positions that were authorized in the act that was passed in 1961, not only in terms of additional

positions, but by bringing the authorities together in one category and

establishing the overall limitation of 2,400.

Further, the Congress assisted the Commission in its operation by

including in the 1962 Pay Act a provision for excepting from the

numerical quotas those positions in research and development and in

medicine. During the intervening period of time, the Commission

has alloted 1,207 jobs to the area known as the nonquota area in order

to meet the rising needs of programs for professional personnel.

Further, the Congress in the 1964 Pay Act provided assistance to

the Commission in allocating a special quota at these levels for hearing

examiners. The hearing examiner group was performing increasingly

difficult work but because of the uniform nature of their work and

because of their large number it had been extremely difficult to accommodate them within the limitations that existed previously.

The 1964 act, by further amendment, made it possible to place all

the hearing examiner jobs that were classifiable at GS-16 and 17

into those grades.

Our problem, at the present time, is a problem of meeting the needs

of new and expanding programs that call for top level professional and

administrative leadership. Actually, the 2,400 ceiling in the Classification Act has existed since 1962. It's been possible for it to exist

because of these two modifications that I have described.

The time has come now, in the wake of the Legislative Act of 1965,

to return to you and make this presentation on these needs. I would

like to add, although this is a round figure, that this was not casually

or capriciously arrived at. The Commission staff made a careful

review of each of the departments and agencies to ascertain their hard

core need and the bulk of the need is reflected in the new programs or

in the Vietnam or military-civilian transition in defense.

We believe that this is a sound and moderate request and that the

need is clearly supported for these additional jobs based upon our

evaluation of statements and briefs filed by the departments and

agencies concerned.
SUPERGR,ADE REQUIREMENTS 5

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say that

I personally feel that the Commission has done an excellent job in

carrying out the intent, particularly of this subcommittee, and the

action of the full Congress in the 1961 act, and I want to say that I

have been greatly impressed as I have talked with heads of the agencies

with regard to how this has been working.

I have been impressed with the interest that I understand you and

the Commission have taken in this, and your staff has done an able

job. While we all realize all are not satisfied, we are satisfied that

you have done a most excellent job in using the slots.

Frankly, while it has been 4 years now since we have acted, I am

sure that you and the Commission know that the timing is not necessarily this long. We hope you won't come back in the next few

months for additional slots, but that you know as problems do arise

in this area the subcommitteee will give you prompt hearings and

prompt action at any time.

Mr. MACY. Thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, how many supergrades of the

GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 are now allocated out of the 2,400? Or

you might say, how many are not allocated?

Mr. MACY. I have rather detailed information on that.

At the present time the Commission has allocated 2,384 positions

out of the 2,400. This is as of the close of business last night. We

almost need a stock ticker to keep this on a current basis. There

is a good deal of traffic in this area.

This does not mean that every one of these positions is occupied

at the present time. We run, I would say, about a 10-percent vacancy

rate on this because the agencies are in the process of dealing with

turnover or in building new jobs, but we have allocated all but 16

of the positions as of last night.

Mr. HENDERSON. It is very obvious that it is time for immediate

action in Congress and I assure you that this subcommittee will

proceed, in an orderly manner, but we will be very prompt in reporting

our decision and action to the full committee and urge that this matter

be brought for full consideration at the earliest possible date.

Mr. MACY. Fine.

Mr. HENDERSON. Coming back to a point passed over, assuming

the Congress would grant the total 300-supergrade request, over

what period of time would you anticipate that this would satisfy the

operating needs of the executive branch?

Mr. MACY. I believe that the great bulk of the 300 would have to

be distributed to meet the need in the next few months, and it would

be my view that if additional programs are authorized by Congress,

that we would come back following the enactment of such programs to

ask for further amendment, in the event that these new programs call

for jobs that fell under the quota.

A portion of the expansion has been absorbed in recent years through

this nonquota group and some of the significant growth has been in

the space program, for example, where the nonquota provision has

been extremely useful to meet the needs of expansion.

I would be hesitant, not knowing what the action of the Congress

will be on various programs, to predict how far in the future this

number would be valid.

59-467-66-2
6 SUPERGRADE REQUIRRAPINTS

Mr. HENDERSON. Would it be possible to say how soon—say July 1,

when we would have some fair estimate of the appropriation process

as well as the legislative process—for you to give us a report on the

position that we would then find ourselves in?

Mr. MACY. I believe we could give you a report within 30 days

following the completion of legislative action.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would suggest it would be very helpful if you

would do that. If you find that time period too short, and would

notify us of the anticipated date we could expect your report, I think

it would be very helpful. We would like to have a little more leadtime than we had last year, and we could perhaps do a little better

job of scheduling our hearings.

I would like also to ask both your staff and the subcommittee staff

to insert at the end of the testimony any tables that you have regarding

the distribution of the supergrades.

Mr. MACY. Distribution by agency?

Mr. HENDERSON. I will leave that decision to our staff, but I think

it would be helpful for this discussion.

As I understand, Mr. Macy, all the 300 that were requested and in

the manner you have requested them, would come under the quota

control of the Civil Service Commission if we amend the bills before

us as you have suggested?

Mr. MACY. That is correct. This would be an increase in the

ceiling limitation now in the Classification Act, section 505(b). The

Commission would be responsible for the distribution of the jobs and

the allocation by grade. The way the bill, as it passed the Senate, is

written, in each instance it requires action by the President. Our

belief is that we would act in accordance with the President's objectives. We would keep him posted on the action, but to require his

personal imprint on each and every section seems to us excessive

control.

Mr. HENDERSON. At the risk of being repetitious, I would point

out, if we do not do it, there could be an interpretation by some, of

the legislative intent, that the block of 100 would automatically go

to the various grades in older agencies—it could be both good and

bad—but the Commission will, out of this number allocated, consider

the new agency requests?

Mr. MACY. In fact, the bulk of the need will be in the new agencies,

in staffing the new programs.

Mr. HENDERSON. On that point, I would like to have you tell us how

you staff the new agencies. We have had some inquiry and some

comment from some of the new agencies that it takes too long for them

to really find out what their supergrade allocation might be.

Mr. MACY. The ideal process, Mr. Chairman, and we are hoping

to follow this in 1966, is to meet with the Bureau of the Budget and

the agency sponsors of any new program in advance of the legislative

process and endeavor to ascertain what the need will be, not only for

these jobs but for positions in the executive levels specified by the

Executive Pay Act of 1964, so that we have some indication before a

plan goes forward as ta what the demands will be for these top-level

jobs.

Then upon enactment, the usual process is for the Commission to

assign a senior staff member to work with the agency representatives

who are working on the new program.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 7

For example, in the Office of Education the number of new educational programs call for a redesign of the top jobs in the Office of

Education. A team, including a Commission representative and a

Budget representative, worked with Commissioner Keppel in the redesign and from the new approved design the top jobs in these

grades were identified. The Commission participated in not only allotting the jobs throughout the classification process but in finding

the candidates for those positions. That is illustrative of the process

we try to follow.

I am sure there are feelings that at times this process takes too

long but the Commission needs to be convinced under the terms of

the statute that the positions approved are required and that they

are required in competition with Government-wide needs, and that

the grade levels proposed are fully justified.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me commend you for this statement and just

say that we hope, not only you, but I feel sure that the Commission

will, on its part, make this work. I feel that what we envision is if

the agencies or the sponsoring agencies of new programs would comply

with Public Law 801—you know this committee does its best to see

that there is compliance—so that the legislative committees as they consider the legislative programs, as well as the members of this subcommittee, can know what the requirements are, we would afford

every opportunity to the Bureau of the Budget, the Commission, and.

the people directing the legislation to anticipate what the responsibilities under the legislation would be, and certainly some tentative

plans ought to be developed so when Congress acts you would be able

to give a tentative allocation.

Mr. MACY. We are very conscious of Public Law 801, which I

believe originated in this committee, and have endeavored to work with the departments to develop the kind of program that that

statute requires. Also flowing from this committee was a requirement,

I believe in 1955, that the majority of the Commissioners must

approve every action in this particular area. These actions run to as much as a thousand a year. This is a requirement that means that

of the three Commissioners at least two Commissioners must agree on allocating and distributing of GS-16, 17, and 18.

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe the committee would want you to con- tinue not only with that authority but the responsibility, and if we make the allocation of the 300 in the manner you have requested,

the Commission would still have that authority?

Mr. MACY. That is right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Have you found that an undue burden?

Mr. MACY. No; I don't feel it is. In fact, it is under the President's direction that more attention be given to these jobs and par- ticularly the people that are assigned to these jobs. We believe that this requirement is an appropriate one, that there should be a review

by the Commissioners of these actions, because they determine the

structure of the top levels of government, particularly in the career

service, and the appointment actions involving those who are ap- pointed to the top of the career service. But it does, on occasion,

represent some additional time in the processing of cases.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one other

question in a general area and then I will yield to my colleagues.
8 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

While we are discussing legislation as to the requirement of additional supergrade positions, would you have any recommendations

for other legislative action—changes that would in any way consolidate and improve the control of the administration of these top

positions in the Federal Government?

Mr. MACY. No; my view is the reform in the 1961 statute brought

about a centralization of approval action for the Federal service, and.

I see no call at this time for making a change. I think that naturally in the executive branch there is always a desire to loosen some

controls, to have a broader discretion.

I think I testified in 1961 that I felt it would be desirable, ultimately, to eliminate the numerical controls. I think one of our proposals was to eliminate them at least as far as GS-16 and 17 is concerned. The Congress has seen otherwise, and I don't anticipate

they would move in this direction, so I have no recommendation

to make.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to say, as chairman of the subcommittee having interest in this area, if you find there are legislative recommendations you feel should be made, you should not wait

until you make a numerical request.

One other question that fits into this category. I believe that the

subcommittee in 1961, in consideration of the request at that time,

satisfied itself with regard to the NSA operation and the requirement

generally for space,. I would not expect that we would go into that

in great depth at this time, or if we would, it would certainly be with

the proper people here, but do you feel it would be proper for the Civil

Service Commission to exercise the same control and allocation and

authority over spaces for the FBI?

Mr. MACY. No; I believe the FBI system as a separate system is

warranted. The FBI is something special. They have their own

personnel system and even though their jobs are covered by the

Classification Act, I believe that their judgment is the appropriate

judgment to follow and I support their recommendation for this

addition and support continuing the special authority as it now stands.

Mr. HENDERSON. I want to say that I do agree with you, generally,

on this position and I wanted, by way of the question, to get into the

hearing record and perhaps in the report, we would make it clear that

it is their responsibility, if we allocate these 50, to exercise the control

over the actual putting of the 50 spaces into their operation, as you

would do if the 50 spaces were allocated in a block 

Mr. MACY. As far as the NSA is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the

Commission did allocate jobs at these levels to NSA prior to the

enactment in 1959 of special personnel authority for NSA, and we had

great difficulty in doing it because these jobs were very highly classified

and it was extremely difficult for us to make the judgments that were

necessary in order to properly grade them.

Mr. HENDERSON. For the benefit of the new members, the full

committee in its last consideration of NSA requirements listened to

the personnel people and the agency head at an executive session in

which we afforded him proper security on their testimony and, of

course, we would do that again if there were any question with regard

to that.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand Mr. Macy's

answer. Does the Civil Service Commission review that so we see

what happened?
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 9

Mr. MACY. No, sir. This is a special authority under Public Law

86=36. It sets up a special system in the NSA.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Do we have any oversee, actually, between their

standards and yours?

Mr. MACY. No, sir.

Mr. CLEVENGER. There is no one in the Civil Service Commission

that could pass the security so there could be?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Clevenger, I think the best answer is the

subcommittee felt that we could bestoversee the allocation of those

positions, and we did that previously. As I say, we would do it on

this allocation if we would determine that it would be wise to do it.

Perhaps it is best, for the record, to say let the staff brief you on

the operation and perhaps if you have a real interest on this you

could get our record of the last hearing.

Mr. MACY. These are the only two special authorities not under

the Commission review within the executive branch, and the reason

I tried to give you the total requirement in the executive branch.

Mr. HENDERSON. And the subcommittee had indicated we would

be glad it be done this way.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Chairman, do you have an estimated cost of

these 300 additional positions?

Mr. MACY. No; I don't. The cost will be, of course, covered in the

appropriations of the individual departments and agencies that have

these jobs. I think we could roughly estimate that would represent

an increase of about $2,000 a job, so we are probably talking about

$2,000 times 300. This is $60,000. This is about what we are talking

about.

Six hundred thousand. I always drop a cipher trying to keep the

cost down. Six hundred is proper.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Mr. Chairman, I assume we pay our grades 16,

17, and 18 more than $2,000?

Mr. MACY. Let me be a bit more explicit. My quick calculation is

based on the bulk of these jobs constituting upgrading from lower

grades rather than additional.

Mr. CLEVENGER. This is interesting because the overall question

I have is whether we use our supergrades and higher grades as means

of giving pay increases to employees? For example, I am told that

in 1955 there were 1,257 GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 positions in the

Federal Government and 158 scientific and engineering types of

Public Law 13. Now in 1965 I am told there were 4,449 supergrade

positions and 1,306 scientific and engineering, making a total of

5,755 positions, which in a way is mixing apples and oranges. Let's

take out the scientific.

Mr. MACY. There are a large number of scientific types in the

supergrade figure also.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Does that account for the increase?

Mr. MACY. No; not the great bulk of the increase. This is the

major factor—the growth of the scientific and technical establishments within the Federal Government. In fact, we can identify

the fact that since the exception was established in 1962 of all positions

that are of a research and development and medical nature, that

there has been an addition of 1,207 jobs in that category within

the total of the supergrades. That's over and above the 2,400.

Let me give you the full picture today. Under the general quota

there are 2,400 jobs. This is what we are talking about amending.
10 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

The Defense Department has a separate quota of 407. The nonquota,

the scientists, engineers, and doctors is 1,207. And there are special

authorities of 436. • This gives a total in the supergrade group of 4,450.

In addition, there are what are known as Public Law 313 positions

which number 1,301, so that the grand total is 5,751, which is, I believe,

approximately the figure you cited.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Yes.

Mr. MACY. There has been a growth since 1955 of about 3,000

additional jobs. More than half of that growth is attributable to the

scientific and engineering program. The balance of it is attributable

to increasing growth of programs of a professional nature in other

fields which has called for additional high level lawyers, economists,

social workers, and so on in the professional programs of the

Government.

Thirdly, this is attributable to the institution of new programs

during this period of time, new programs most of which call again for

high level professionals. So the increase over this period of time is

attributable primarily to those three broad categories of operation.

Mr. CLEVENGER. How does the increase of supergrades compare

with the increase in number of Government employees on an overall

basis?

Mr. MACY. It is at a faster rate than the increase in total

employment.

Mr. CLEVENGER. To get back to my basic question: Is this raise in

level for a person a means of giving him a raise in pay?

Mr. MACY. Let me answer that precisely by saying that about 80

percent of the appointments to these jobs are appointments from

within the service. In other words, the individuals selected to fill

these higher jobs are people already on the Federal payroll. Another

20 percent come from the outside to fill these positions.

So the answer to your question is that yes, these additional positions are staffed from within the Government and, therefore, the

action is a promotion action.

Mr. CLEVENGER. In fact, some of the figures we have on supergrades filled, and that is only a sampling, showed that in a variety of

agencies filling supergrade positions in 1964, out of 952 that were

filled, 856 were those who had come from within the Government and

96 were coming from outside the Government, so that in some cases—

for example, when you go into the Department of Agriculture—they

filled 28 supergrade positions and all 28 were filled within the Government.

Commerce, 84 filled; 64 from within the Government. In many of

the cases here—and I won't encumber the record with detail—I would

say in most of the cases none or very few of the positions were filled

from outside of the Government.

Does this cause you any concern?

Mr. MACY. Not at all. I think this is fine.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Why?

Mr. MACY. This is recognition of the level of the work that is

being performed and an advancement of the individual who is performing that work in these jobs.

Mr. CLEVENGER. And almost a guarantee that fresh blood and

fresh thought would not enter at a high level?

Mr. MACY. No; I believe that you generate innovation and new

ideas within the organization, as well as the outside, that tends to be
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 11

even more knowledgeable if it comes from experience within the

Government.

Mr. CLEVENGER. This is true and I am not suggesting you could

have it either one way or the other, but at what point do you get the

best music out of the strings?

Mr. MACY. I have .a table of what this has been in 1962, 1964, and

to date in 1966, and generally the spread is that the actions from

within the Government run from 71 to 88 percent and the appointments from the outside run from 10 to 22 percent.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Of those from the Government, how many are

within the existing agency?

Mr. MACY. The great bulk are. I don't have a precise breakdown.

The great bulk come from within the agency and are professional jobs

that are directly related to the mission of the agency.

Mr. CLEVENGER. So if one were seeking to establish a means whereby a person is a supergrade in Government, Government executive,

but that you would expect to move him around to the various agencies

every 3, 6, or 10 years, this would run counter to what we have been

doing, even though we fill most of the positions from the Government,

we put them on a track and they stay on that track?

Mr. MACY. It's difficult to generalize. There are some jobs that

are on a track in a given organization. We endeavor to move those

in the professional field that have an application across agency lines,

encourage them to move. We are endeavoring to step that up. This

is one of our objectives. Such movement is not going to be appropriate to every profession. As I pointed out, the great bulk of these

people are in the scientific and engineering fields.

I think another table would help respond to this. In looking at the

actions in recent years, we do find that transfers between agencies

ran 2 or 3 percent. Reinstatements, which means the individual has

left the Government and then returned into one of these positions,

runs another 3 to 4 percent. The great bulk of the actions are actions

of promotion within the organization.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Let me ask one final question, Mr. Chairman,

for now: What sort of figures do you have on supergrade positions

that have been abolished?

Mr. MACY. That have been abolished?

Mr. CLEVENGER. What sort of figures do we have?

Mr. MACY. The answer is that the Commission is at all times analyzing vacancies as they occur in the GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 levels.

In many cases the Commission will pull back into the pool a job that

has remained vacant and reassign it out to meet a new need. You also

have the dynamic situation where the character and the substance of

these jobs is changing with some effect so we have new requests from

an agency to eliminate one job and set up another.

The result is we have, out of this pool, about a thousand actions a

year that come to us without necessarily increasing the number of jobs.

In the past year we added in the nonquota area about 100 additional

jobs and the other 900 actions were, for the most part, changes.

So there are shifts due to organizational changes and changes in

program and this does result in the elimination of positions. I would

not be able to specifically say that a given number has been eliminated

but there are these changes.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Wouldn't it be easier to increase these changes if

you were not concerned about abolishing good old Joe's job, who has
12 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

been with the agency 28 ysars, if you had cross movement across the

Government service?

Mr. MACY. It certainly would and it is our desire to stimulate a

greater degree of movement across agency lines. Under our system

the appointing authority, and I think properly, is vested in the department and agency head, so these movements are brought about by their

decision rather than by fiat.

Mr. CLEVENGER. In fact, it is very difficult for a person who has

not gone into Government and made it a career to enter the Government service in a position commensurate with his outside experience,

except in a few agencies?

Mr. MACY. The great bulk of entrants has been at the scientific and

professional level.

Mr. CLEVENGER. There are some who would suggest it is easier to

be elected to Congress than to get these top level positions?

Mr. MACY. I have heard that said but I don't see a rush of candidates.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Hanley?

Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the nonquota category, who determines the necessity?

Mr. MACY. The necessity for the job? The process is this: Presumably the manager of a particular scientific, research, engineering,

or medical establishment determines that a given task has to be performed and he organizes for that task. He may conclude that this

calls for a job at this high level. He then sets forth the description of

the job and this goes through the agency management and comes to

the Commission as a request.

The Commission then reviews the description to see if it meets the

criteria for the nonquota group. There has to be clear evidence that,

by the nature of the work, the job calls for scientific or medical talent.

Occasionally we have some degree of discussion with the agency if

the job is properly in the nonquota field.

A brief response in the initial determination is made by the officer

responsible for the operation, subject to his agency head, and a final

authorization by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. HANLEY. Do we have a guideline or control that is applicable

here, for instance, within the framework of the agency, to consistently

determine new requirements? Do we arrive at a point where we have

to say, "I'm sorry, but we can't move in this direction"?

Mr. MACY. The agency has imposed upon it, by the budget process,

a space limitation on the number of jobs it can have in GS-14 through

18. This was imposed a year ago to make certain there was not an

excessive use of higher level jobs, so the agency must accommodate its

requirements within that figure or go back to get it increased, based

upon some new program or new workload that has been sent to it.

Mr. HANLEY. The report here indicates in a 2-year period the number of nonquota positions doubled?

Mr. MACY. Yes; it started from a standing in 1962 at zero and it

has gone to 1,207. It peaked in the first year and a half. As I indicated a moment ago, there are only slightly over 100 such authorizations in the last calendar year. I think the needs have been met and

it has leveled out, but you are perfectly right, there has been this increase and this is reflective of the tremendous increase in dollars ap-
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 13

propriated by the Congress for research and development. Not that

the Government is spending all of those dollars in its own laboratories,

but it needs to have professional personnel to supervise the expenditure of those dollars by contract or grant.

Mr. HANLEY. Generally speaking, would the new allocation increase

the number of new people brought in?

Mr. MACY. In the nonquota category, in a good many agencies

such as the Bureau of Standards, positions have been filled by advancement within the organization. There was a belief on the part of the

management there that there had been a tight ceiling on grade 15 for

quite a number of topflight professional people. The availability of

the nonquota authorization made it possible to compensate those

people properly, and hopefully to retain them in competition from

higher salaries being paid outside.

Mr. HANLEY. On higher salaries, has a study ever been made by

the Commission or any other group in the executive branch with

respect to the ratio of top jobs as opposed to private industry?

Mr. MACY. It is very difficult to make these comparisons. Even

with the Government it is difficult to do it with any validity. We

are frequently faced with the request from a given agency saying,

look, we have only 1 high-level job to 150, whereas another agency

has roughly the same mission and has 1 to 110. Then we try to point

out they are not identical, that the mission of the agency tends to be

reflected in a mix of jobs. Some agencies have a lower level of jobs,

others higher, and, because of their character, have to have a great

many more.

One thing we know, the industrial trend is very similar to the

Government trend in that there is an increasing number of professional and subprofessional jobs calling for higher salaries and a shrinking of the number of lower level jobs, part of this due to automatic

data processing and elimination of clerical work and part of it due to

more complex operations in which industry is involved.

So our own study of grade distribution compared with information

that is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and private

groups shows, generally, we are in pace with outside organizations,

with one basic exception: we don't have the same high salaries at

the top.

In 1960 and 1962 the Commission conducted a study of jobs in

industry with a content similar to Government jobs in GS-16, 17, and

18 in a group of about 20 corporations. It found that on a job-for-job

matching basis in the corporations, they were paying 50 to 100 percent

more for these particular jobs. We found in comparing these, 2 years

later, that on the average the pay of these jobs was increasing at the

rate of 5 to 10 percent a year. We know that we are behind big

industry insofar as the pay rate for these jobs is concerned. We

feel this is one place where we are never going to achieve full comparability, because if we were to match industry these salaries would

be above Members of Congress and top salaries of the members of the

executive branch.

Mr. HANLEY. Assuming that this legislation was amended, would

the Commission have the authority to pass on the qualifications of all

the appointees?

Mr. MACY. Yes; under another statute the Commission has

responsibility to pass on the qualifications of every proposed appointee

59-467-643----8
14 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

that is entering on a job as a GS-16, 17, or 18. This includes not only

those jobs under civil service but those excepted from civil service,

the schedule A, B, and C jobs as well as those in the competitive

service.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. To follow on with Mr. Hanley's question, in the

discussion that we had while you were responding, do you review the

request of CIA for supergrades?

Mr. MACY. No, sir. I am unaware of the number of positions

they have and of even their total strength.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for a very

fine statement and a very lucid response to our inquiries.

Mr. MACY. If there is further information that you require on this

subject as a result of subsequent witnesses, we will be glad to furnish it.

Mr. HENDERSON. Our colleague, Hon. Clarence D. Long, of Maryland, was not able to stay and personally present his testimony and I

would like unanimous consent that his statement be placed in the

record.

(The prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE D. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Distinguished Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I appear before

you today to urge favorable action on my bill, H.R. 10498, which would authorize

additional GS-16, 17, and 18 positions for use in agencies or functions created or

substantially expanded after June 30, 1965.

My bill would increase by 100—from 2,400 to 2,500—the total number of positions that may be placed, in grades GS-16, 17 and 18 for Government-wide use.

The need for this legislation is made apparent by the vital new responsibilities

that have been thrust upon the Federal Government in the last few years.

Since the headquarters of the Social Security Administration is in my district, I

of course have been particularly mindful of the situation of that agency. I have

followed the tremendous growth in the social security program and am familiar

with the problems the Social Security Administration has faced in its efforts to

maintain its high standards of efficiency And service. The Social Security Administration has taken on one new challenge after another over the years. I have

had a growing concern, though, because its need for supergrades has, in my judgment, not been met. I believe that there is a serious risk in continually increasing

the responsibilities and scope of operations of an agency without making available

to it supergrades that can attract and hold key officials—officials who are in short

supply and for which there is great demand by private industry and other Government agencies.

Let me point out what I consider to be a matter of vital concern.

Even before the enactment of the medicare program in 1965, the Social Security

Administration had grown to the point where it was operating the biggest insurance

program of its kind in the world. It now pays almost $18 billion a year in cash

benefits, to 1 out of every 10 Americans. It serves tens of thousands of people

daily through a nationwide network of over 700 district and branch offices and

requires a current staff of 43,000 people to conduct its operations.

In establishing medicare, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 created two

completely new national programs of hospital and supplementary medical insurance affecting immediately more than 19 million of the Nation's senior citizens.

At the same time the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program was

broadened and improved. These additions to, and changes in, the social security

program have presented to the Social Security Administration a series of imposing

and unprecedented administrative challenges of a demanding and sensitive nature.

They are requiring administrative and management abilities of even broader scope

and complexity than those required in the past. Broad-scale and extensive

consultation and almost daily contacts are, and will be, required with professional

organizations and with organizations representing the Nation's hospitals and

others who furnish reimbursable health services. New operating policies and

recordkeeping procedures, including those governing the huge task of establishing

•
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 15

the entitlement of 19 million aged people for the hospital insurance program, are

of a scope never before undertaken in the health field.

And believe it or not, the Social Security Administration still has only 16

supergrades.

The top level executives of the Social Security Administration who have over the

years met the challenges of this large program have consistently exhibited the

ability to deal with large-scale and complicated administrative tasks with foresight

and ingenuity. Successive major amendments to the Social Security Act have

been effectively, efficiently, and economically implemented. Yet, considering the

scope of their roles in program administration and its effect on the welfare of the

people, these key officials have not been adequately compensated for their ability

or for their efforts and accomplishments.

I hope that the legislation that will result from your committee's deliberations

will be broad enough and complete enough to be of material assistance in the administration of the greatly expanded social security program.

Mr. HENDERSON. We will be happy to now hear from the Acting

Comptroller General of the United States. Mr. Weitzel, may I

welcome you.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. WEITZEL, ACTING COMPTROLLER

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY

LAWRENCE J. POWERS, ASSISTANT TO THE COMPTROLLER

GENERAL, AND ROBERT F. KELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. WEITZEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

it is a pleasure to be here and testify before you this morning. As

you know, we in the General Accounting Office are your agency, the

agency of the Congress, and we are required by law or our policy is

to serve many committees, including this committee and subcommittee, which we have always been happy to do.

I am accompanied this morning by Mr. Robert Keller, General

Counsel, and Mr. Lawrence Powers, Assistant to the Comptroller

General.

The General Accounting Office was set up by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 in the legislative branch of the Government to

check on all financial transactions of the Federal Government and to

assist the Congress in performing its fiscal and operational oversight

functions of the executive branch of the Government.

In the debate on the Budget and Accounting Act it was made clear

that Congress expected the General Accounting Office to do more

than mere bookkeeping, that it expected the Comptroller General to

come before Congress at all times and keep Congress advised as to

what was happening to public funds, not only the receipt and disbursement of funds, but, more importantly, the application, and to make

reports to Congress concerning matters of economy and efficiency.

The act directed him to investigate all matters relating to the application of public funds; that is, what the Government was getting for

its money.

The debate on this act made it clear that Congress expected that the

Comptroller General's auditors would be able to go to the head of an

agency and discuss with him matters relating to these areas in his

department.

The act opened up the books and records of the agencies, their

records as to financial and related transactions and, as was cited on

the floor of the House, if a Cabinet officer was not master of his

department, the Comptroller General's people were supposed to come
16 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

and tell what was going on, and also to come to the Appropriations

Committee. If he found too many people in an agency, he would

so report and they would make the appropriate reductions.

I have to say this was an idealistic approach at that time. It took

many years to bring it to fruition, and still it is not perfect, but we

are proud of the fact that this committee and the Congress have come

to rely not only on the information furnished by the Comptroller

General in his reports, which amount to several hundred a year, but

on the help and assistance of our personnel in the performance of their

duties. In the appropriations hearings alone the last 2 years there

are nearly 250 references to the reports of the Comptroller General.

I sat in this room with Lindsay C. Warren back in 1950 when this

committee was considering the Post Office Department Financial

Control Act, which furnished the legislative authority to put the

Post Office under modern financial management and gave it a truly

independent audit by the Comptroller General comparable to the

audit he was directed to perform under the Budget and Accounting

Procedures Act of 1950, another legal landmark in this field. Since

that time we have expanded the comprehensive audit so as to give

Congress and its committees more information as to what was happening to the taxpayer's dollars.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Weitzel, let me commend you for such a

clear statement of your fine record that I am sure you could talk on

for quite some time, but from the viewpoint of the subcommittee

chairman, I commend you for the splendid cooperation that you have

always given this subcommittee and all the other committees of the

Congress, and tell you that I think you are doing a fine job at the

present time of carrying on in the great tradition of your predecessors.

We assure you of the continuing cooperation of our subcommittee.

Mr. WEITZEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, it's a pleasure to cooperate with this subcommittee.

If I may mention it, without the subcommittee feeling that they

might still be too attached to the GAO, we are rather proud of the

fact that your subcommittee staff includes several GAO staff members

or alumni and the main committee likewise has GAO alumni on its

staff.

I was glad to read your talk down at Langley Field on manpower

issues in the Federal Government and to see the reference you made

to the help our office had given as to the use of contractor instead

of military service persons by the Department of Defense; also, our

report where we commended to the executive branch consideration of

using existing laundry facilities in Veterans' Administration hospitals

rather than sending out the laundry. We felt the Budget Bureau

should reexamine its directive 60-2 for revising the factors that should

be considered in determining when to use private business and when

to use the Government's facilities and services.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me again thank you for your comments, but

to say in all honesty that some of the little gems we use we pick up

from your work. We hope some of the work is helping you.

Mr. WEITZEL. I have.to say, in all honesty, the direction we are

taking in civil service personnel versus contractor personnel was given

great impetus by your committee and we will continue to work with

your subcommittee.

Now I know you want me to get down to the subject and I will

proceed with the statement.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 17

In our letter of January 20, 1966, to the Honorable Tom Murray,

chairman, Post Office and Civil Service Committee, we requested

that section 505(d) of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, be

further amended to authorize the Comptroller General of the United

States to increase from 39 to 70 the number of positions in the General

Accounting Office in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the general schedule.

In our letter to the chairman, we pointed out our need for an increase

of 31 positions over the 39 positions authorized by section 2 of Public

Law 87-322, approved September 26, 1961, approximately 4% years

ago. Currently we have filled 35 positions. Approvals given this

week by the Civil Service Commission will result in 36 of our 39

positions being filled. We have not acted upon the remaining three

positions since it would create serious imbalances in positions of

significant collateral responsibilities. Of the 36 positions, 24, or twothirds of the total, are in grade GS-16; 7 are in grade GS-17; and

4 are in grade GS-18.

Of the 36 positions, 26 are for the performance of our accounting,

auditing, and investigative operations in Washington and the field,

and 10 are for the performance of our legal, policy, and other technical

and administrative functions. If our request for additional supergrade positions is granted, we contemplate that 47 of the 70 positions,

or approximately 67 percent, will be authorized for the performance

of our accounting, auditing, and investigative operations in Washington and the field, and that 23 of the positions will be authorized

for the performance of our legal, policy, and other technical and

administrative functions. As we advised the chairman in our letter

of January 20, most of the additional positions would be in grade

GS-16.

Within the past 4 years, we have added considerably to the technical and managerial responsibilities of our regional offices. We

have approved available supergrade positions at the GS-16 level for

the regional managers in Atlanta, Ga., Denver, Colo., Detroit,

Mich., Kansas City, Mo., Los Angeles, Calif., New York, N.Y.,

Philadelphia, Pa., and San Francisco, Calif. The authorization of

additional positions for other regional offices in this important area

is urgently required to satisfactorily carry out our responsibilities.

Our letter of January 20 did give you some examples of the work done

in some of the regional offices.

We also plan to use nine of the additional supergrade positions, if

approved, for the Assistant General Counsels in our Office of the

General Counsel. These positions are presently classified in grade

GS-15. We think this would bring their grades to positions comparable to many other agencies of the Government as shown by the

Budget document.

The Office of the General Counsel is responsible for all legal work

of the General Accounting Office. This includes the preparation of

formal decisions of the Comptroller General, the preparation of

instructions to the heads of offices and divisions of the General

Accounting Office on legal matters arising in their day-to-day operations, the preparation of reports on legislation and advisory opinions

to Members of Congress, congressional committees, and the Bureau

of the Budget, and the furnishing of legal advice on litigation involving

suits by and against the Government. A total of 5,442 decisions,
18 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

reports, legal memorandums, and other legal matters were prepared

during fiscal year 1965.

I might say that the importance of our legal work was recognized

by this committee when it authorized a salary of $27,000 for the

General Counsel of our Office.

•We believe that the highly technical aspects of the legal work

performed by the Assistant General Counsels and the responsibility

they must assume justifies the positions held by them being placed in

grade GS-16. Also, we would point out, as I mentioned, that such

a grade classification would not be out of line with the classification

of Assistant General Counsels of other agencies.

Additionally, our current and projected accounting and auditing

responsibilities in civil, defense, and international areas require an

increase in the number of supergrade positions. Of the available

supergrade positions, 16 have been authorized for the 3 principal

operating divisions having Government-wide program responsibilities

for our accounting, auditing, and investigative activities.

For example, in the civil departments and agencies, certain of our

Assistant Directors, GS-15, have accounting and auditing program

responsibility for a major department, or two or more major agencies.

During fiscal year 1965, we accelerated our efforts so as to provide

the Congress with adequate and timely information on 178 selected

activities and programs in this area. We have expanded our reviews

on a selected basis to cover every major department, some 33 independent agencies, and various other major areas of congressional

interest in both the legislative and executive branches.

I would like to point out that Mr. Macy, in his statement, referred

to some of these new programs which we are going to have to audit

as they start out and get into full operation, all the way from medicare to the antipoverty program and some created more recently.

As a result of the special interest of both the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees, as well as other standing committees,

we have also expanded our work in both defense and international

activities. During 1965, we made over 1,000 reviews of selected defense activities and 224 reviews of selected international activities

and programs. The responsibilities placed upon our staff have been

accomplished under severe limitations and a sincere dedication to

effective accomplishment of our work in these important areas. As

a result of congressional interest, we have initiated action to make

broader reviews of significant programs and major activities in research and development, procurement, supply management and distribution, manpower, program performance, and other significant

international financial and operating programs.

Mr. Chairman, we are mindful of your and the subcommittee's tireless efforts in keeping supergrade positions within the general intent

of the Congress, that they be used to attract and keep the necessary

talent and ability in the Federal Government. We have rigid standards for recommending to the Civil Service Commission the allocation

of positions in grades GS-16, 17, and 18. As you know, we are

under the same requirement that other agencies are to have these

supergrades approved by the Civil Service Commission. We have

no special allocation authority and also come within their authority

to approve the qualifications of the personnel selected.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 19

We have endeavored to increase our professional capability and

productivity to meet the needs of the Congress and more effectively

discharge our statutory responsibilities.

I have some statistics here with me which you might be interested

in, showing the present status of the recruits we have obtained in the

professional accounting area and brought along in the last 10 years

or so under our development program.

While we recognize that due to our unique role and the experience

attained by our staff we will be unable to prevent the loss of extremely

competent personnel to other agencies of the Government and to

fields of private endeavor, we believe that with our workload increasing

in nearly every category of government activity we must keep our

organizational and administrative arrangements on a sound basis to

keep pace with our changing needs. This includes the allocation

of positions commensurate with the responsibilities our professional

staff must assume.

As pointed out in my letter to the chairman, while our senior and

professional staff in grades GS-15 down through GS-12 has increased

from 983 on June 30, 1961, to 1,236 on June 30, 1965, we have, during

the same time, been able to reduce our overall staff from 4,990

employees to 4,278, or a net reduction of 712 employees. As pointed

out in our letter, this represents overall annual savings of approximately $5.4 million at current salary rates. We believe that we have

fulfilled our obligation to the Congress for developing and maintaining

a highly competent and qualified staff.

We respectfully urge that favorable consideration be given to our

request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. May I compliment you on a very fine statement,

Mr. Weitzel.

On your last point in regard to a net reduction of 712 employees,

how were you able to do this with the recognized workload you have?

Mr. WEITZEL. I might say that we have been aided by several

factors. One is the legislation that Congress has given us to enable

us to approach our accounting and auditing responsibility on a more

modern and professional basis. Instead of being responsible for

auditing every voucher paid in the executive branch, we are now able

to do a selective audit after making an overall survey of the agency

accounting system and observing its actual operation by the people in charge. If we can determine they do a good job and have good internal controls, including an internal audit staff, we can raise the

level of our audit. This was provided in the Budget and Accounting

Procedures Act of 1950, and other legislation.

Even before that, Comptroller General Lindsay Warren, in 1945,

began the modern approach to our work with the aid of the Government Corporation Control Act. In 1949 he initiated the comprehensive audit concept, which we have now extended to every department of the Government. It gives the Congress more information

on how the money is being spent without having to concentrate on

every voucher. We had the famous Westfall survey in the early fifties on which we testified before this committee. I believe this

committee placed some reliance on this study in recommending the

same approach to other Government agencies. We found we could

abolish some activities and rely on what other agencies were doing in

the financial management area. This concept was continued under
20 SU PE R GRADE REQUIREMENTS

Comptroller General Campbell, who retired last July after over 10

years' distinguished service in the Office.

So overall we have been able to reduce our personnel from nearly

5,000 in 1947 to a little over 4,000 as of December 1965, even though

Government expenditures were increasing.

Some steps we have taken recently have resulted in personnel

reductions. We have transferred a limited number of our people to

the operating agencies—to the General Services Administration and

the Department of Defense—on the theory that the work transferred

should be done by those agencies, hopefully, with a net savings. We

made some further reductions due to refinement of procedures.

Those are some of the ways that we have been able to reduce the

staff. We have tried to take a more professional approach to our

work, to reduce the area of clerical audit and to increase our professional staff.

Our professional staff has increased during the past 10 years very

substantially. I would like to give you a few figures on that.

We had 1,141 comprehensive auditors and 76 systems accountants—

a total of 1,217—at the start of fiscal year 1956. Also, we had a

number of investigators. By recruiting top-quality accounting

graduates from all over the country, giving them on-the-job training,

and special courses of training in the Office, we have raised the number

of accounting, auditing, and investigative personnel to a total of 2,184

as of January 31, 1966. We expect to employ 196 additional accountants and auditors from the colleges and universities by June 30, 1966,

and also expect 30 additional ones to return from the military.

We will lose about 110 during that period. We hope to end up at

June 30, 1966, with about 2,400 accountants and investigators on our

professional staff. So that represents about a hundred percent increase from, say, June 30, 1955, to January 31, 1966. It hasn't been

easy. It's been a constant struggle to get these men from the colleges

and universities and to bring them along to assume positions of greater

responsibility.

I also mentioned some figures I had on the retention. We have

appointed 2,577 in the professional accounting and auditing area

since 1955. We still have 1,477 of the men recruited on the rolls

as of December 1965, or a total retention rate of 57.3 percent. We

have about 23.3 percent of the 1955 trainees appointed still with us.

We have 84 percent of the 1965 trainees.

It might be of interest to the subcommittee that one of the trainees,

whom we originally appointed in 1957, reached grade 15 in 8 years,

and we have a total of six that have reached grade 14.

Mr. HENDERSON. What percentage of those you have lost have been

lost to other than Government agencies?

Mr. WEITZEL. I have some figures on our losses. During the fiscal

years 1962-65, we lost 1,098, and the largest percentage, roughly

40 percent, were to other Government agencies. Outside of that,

these employees left for private industry, for public accounting, to

return to school, or retked, died, or other miscellaneous reasons.

As I said, about 60 percent of our losses have been to other than

Government agencies, but the losses to other Government agencies

is a significant figure. As you know, our auditors are exposed to the

people in the other agencies, make recommendations as to their finan-
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 21

cial management and auditing, and the other agencies make them quite

attractive offers.

I think that includes the number we have lost to the Post Office

Committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. We will all agree that your loss has been our gain.

Mr. WEITZEL. We feel in a sense it's been a gain to us, because

we feel when they have had the General Accounting Office training

they retain it a long time.

Mr. HENDERSON. No doubt about it, we have long recognized this

is fine training ground for people in Government service.

Mr. Hanley?

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I simply want to commend you, Mr. Weitzel, on your excellent

and comprehensive report and to further commend you and the

agency on your ability to reduce the personnel figure by 712 people.

I think this is especially commendable.

On the basis of your report, I would find it very difficult to differ

with whatever recommendation you might offer.

I might pose one question that is with respect to the Vietnam

problem. Has that had an impact on your workload?

Mr. WEITZEL. It has, Mr. Hanley, and I do appreciate your kind

remarks. We are right now getting ready to send a team out to

South Vietnam. We had performed work there as late as 1964 and

sent some reports to the Congress on this work in which we made some

findings remarkably similar to the instances being brought out today.

We did withdraw from Vietnam after 1964 although we have kept

close contact with the buildup through our relations with AID and

military assistance people in the Department of Defense in Washington—as well as in the periphery, Okinawa, and other places in

southwest Asia. However, after discussions with groups here in

Congress we have decided to reenter the field in Vietnam. We are

working now on an AID evaluation, that AID itself is making, and

we are going to send a team out. Our Director of International

Operations Division is going to be leaving for South Vietnam in a

few weeks. Preceding his departure, we are sending a team of several

people to make surveys in South Vietnam and see what more we need

to do.

We have been examining procurement, the personnel situation,

and we have had reports on what you might call irregularities involving

pilferage and dissipation of U.S.-owned material and black-market

operations and so forth that we are going to check on out there. This

is one area where we must increase our audit coverage.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you again. I congratulate you.

Mr. WEITZEL. We do appreciate that. Mr. Keller and Mr.

Powers, and others of the staff who are not here today, are the ones

responsible for this.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you have a question?

Mr. CLEVENGER. No. I apologize for not being here and only

reading the statement. I never, as a lawyer, attempt to argue with

an accountant.

Mr. WEITZEL. We have both in the General Accounting Office

and you might be surprised to know that occasionally they argue

with each other. That is where we have to have arbitration.
22 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

We are very sensitive, Mr. Chairman, sincerely, to our position

with this committee and we will continue to be responsive to you.

Mr. HENDERSON. I think the record should show you are asking

for a substantial increase in supergrades and we certainly recognize

that numerically it is a substantial increase, but likewise, if the Congress increases the requests of other Federal agencies there will be

something over 6,000 supergrades throughout the Government, and

if we grant your request you would have something over 70 supergrades or slightly above 1 percent of the total.

I am sure that you would agree that statistics and charts and such

could be slightly misleading and it has been the strong feeling of this

committee on allocation of supergrades that it ought to be done on a

case-by-case need basis. I think it is interesting to note the statistical

situation that we would find ourselves in and I don't think this makes

our job any more difficult in selling your request to other Members

of Congress.

I commend you on a very fine statement. Nice to have you

before us.

Mr. WEITZEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a

pleasure to be here.

Mr. HENDERSON. The next witness is Dr. L. Quincy Mumford.

We are most appreciative of your appearance this morning and

certainly we want to commend you for the splendid job as a librarian

for us, and we know you do your job as we give you the tools to do it.

STATEMENT OF DR. L. QUINCY MUMFORD, LIBRARIAN OF

CONGRESS

Dr. MUMFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate very much

the opportunity of appearing before you and to present a statement

of our needs for additional supergrades.

I do not have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, because I did

not know until late yesterday that I would have the opportunity of

personally appearing before you, but I would like to make a brief

statement and, if it is desired, I should be glad to file for the record a

longer statement.

Mr. HENDERSON. So the record will be complete, let me say we

were a bit late in being sure we would have a comprehensive hearing

and certainly we would not overlook the responsibility that you have,

and recognize that you are an arm of the legislative branch.

We want you to feel that it is not necessary for you to wait until

the executive agencies move in this area. We are certainly very

glad to have you and want you to feel we are doing our job by listening

to you and hearing what you need.

Dr. MUMFORD. Thank you.

The Library of Congress, while it may be considered a rather small

agency, has a staff of some 3,500 people. It carries on complex

programs and activities of national and international importance and

in order to direct and implement these programs, we need, we have

to have, people of high caliber, not only in librarianship but in many

fields of subject and technical specialization.

In other words, our operations are very complex.. As the scope

of the responsibilities of Congress are expanding to cover the world—
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 23

even outer space, as congressional legislation seeks to improve libraries

and education throughout the Nation and the Library of Congress

is given an important role in this, as the research and information

needs of the entire country intensify and the Library must try to be

responsive to them, our need for the highest caliber personnel and for

supergrade positions to attract and hold that personnel becomes more

and more urgent.

I have given the committee's staff a list of some of our immediate

needs. I would like to say that of those listed, a very large part

consists of positions which we have previously sumbitted to the

Civil Service Commission. Some of them have been approved by

the Commission at the level requested but there are no slots available

to us. On others, no action has been taken.

On the list you have are only a few new positions—those most

urgently required. We have other important administrative and

technical needs which we must also meet.

I would like to mention some areas in particular in which our

expanding needs require higher level people. The Higher Education

Act, title 2, part (c), places upon the Library of Congress the responsibility of acquiring so far as possible all library materials currently

published throughout the world which are of value to scholarship,

of providing catalog information for these materials promptly after

receipt, and of distributing bibliographic information by printing

catalog cards and by other means. This legislation enables the Library of Congress to use for exchange and other purposes such of

these materials as are not needed for its own collections.

• It is highly desirable to achieve centralized cataloging for the United

States. The committee which heard the testimony on the Higher

Education Act recognized this and the Congress gave the authorization. But it does place a tremendous new responsibility on the

Library of Congress to implement this worldwide program. For it

we have listed two supergrade positions but we will very soon need

more.

Another area which is developing and expanding in our work is

that of automation.

Mr. HENDERSON. On that first point, could you tell us in collecting

this material under the Higher Education Act, whether you, as of

this date, had any requests from the Office of Education and the

Defense Department with regard to how they might use this collection

that the Congress authorizes?

Dr. MUMFORD. The Office of Education is the instrument for the

transmission of any appropriation which the Congress may make for

the centralized acquisitions and cataloging program. The Office of

Education would not be one of the major users of the cataloging information; it is the libraries throughout the country, and the research

libraries in particular, that would make use of the cataloging, the

bibliographic information that we would produce.

Mr. HENDERSON. At the invitation of former Gov. Terry Sanford

of North Carolina I met with a very informal group in .HEW, in

the Office of Education recently, and one of the things they were discussing was the problem of disseminating educational methods, techniques, research, material that is available in the Federal Government,

and it just struck me that here is one source at least of a great deal of

this material, and I am very hopeful that they will provide adequate
24 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

appropriations not only for you to do your job, but to render the services that would be needed by all the colleges and universities 

Dr. MUMFORD. And all the Federal libraries, Mr. Chairman, would

benefit in some degree from the additional cataloging material. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I may say as I continue my interest in what they

may be doing, it might be we would like to ask you to sit down and do

some coordinating with HEW. One of the things that impressed me

in this conference was the tremendous amount of need, and availability

within the Department of Defense to disseminate some of the research

and learning that they have, and I understand that they have quite an

extensive operation over in the Department of Defense. If it is

properly coordinated, that would be available to colleges and universities and other governmental research organizations.

Dr. MUMFORD. I think, perhaps, the major benefit there would be

is the distribution of report literature, materials that have not been

published. The Library of Congress acquires report literature, but

this new program includes printed materials both in this country and

abroad.

I might add that we have already begun to make arrangements

with officials of some of the national bibliographies abroad to obtain

printer's proofs of their catalogs which we could use as catloging copy.

This we might receive, say, 6 weeks in advance of publication and

thereby have cataloging information available much earlier. Our

promptness in providing cataloging information is a very important

matter. It is essential in making research materials available

promptly.

Mr. CLEVENGER. One of the things, Mr. Chairman, I was interested

in finding out—because I have a small college just starting in my

district with a very primitive library—I find the Library disposes of

the surplus material, and particularly you have no way of sorting

this out to see if there is any gold it it. Apparently you have no way

of distributing this material on the basis of need. Of course the people

here in Washington get it—a hundred thousand books—whereas a

school library outside with 9,000 books has no way of getting it, so

the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Dr. MUMFORD. This is what we call the congressional donation

program. We distribute over 300,000 pieces of material a year from

our duplicate material, but when you realize we receive anywhere

from 6 to 8 million pieces a year, it is impossible for us, after we have

selected what we need for the national collections, to arrange it and

to send out a list to any library that wanted to know what we had

available. We do not have the manpower. It would require a great

deal of manpower to list it although I realize it is difficult for the person

in the small place to know about and to get hold of this material.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Dr. Mumford, because of the time I don't want

to pursue this, but I would like to meet with you sometime.

Dr. MUMFORD. I would be very glad to.

Mr. CLEVENGER. The point I have is you must at one point evaluate materials.

Dr. MUMFORD. For our needs, but this wouldn't apply to the small

school library or small college library.

Mr. CLEVENGER. Let's you and I discuss it sometime.

Dr. MUMFORD. I will be glad to discuss it f rther with you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Go right ahead, sir.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 25

Dr. MumFoRn.rVIr. Chairman, in essence that is the gist of my

remarks. The committee has our list, largely of positions we have

previously requested. If there is any information you would like to

have about them, I will be glad to provide it. Also, I would like to

emphasize that what we really need is a block of supergrade positions,

a certain number authorized for the Library as a legislative branch

agency so that we would not have to compete with program priorities

established in the executive branch.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to ask unanimous approval that the

request received from Dr. Mumford by the full committee be inserted

in the record immediately following his testimony this morning and

also, in view of the time limitation that we have this morning, that I

would ask that the staff confer with you personally with regard to

your request so we may be as responsive as we can.

Dr. MUMFORD. Mr. Chairman, I neglected, when we began to

speak of the donation program, to describe other areas that are

expanding and developing. One is the area of automation. We are

attempting, based on a survey report of a team of experts, to apply

computer technology to our bibliographic apparatus so promptly to

provide access to and service on materials. This is an enormous

undertaking, which eventually will involve millions of dollars and it

takes people of high level not only to handle the machine applications but also to do research and development work on, for example,

subject classification in relation to automation.

Another area is the planning of the new Library building which

the Congress has authorized. We need an experienced, high-level

person to coordinate the Library's work on this large, complex and

costly undertaking.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wonder if it would be possible for this coordinator to be employed on a somewhat temporary basis?

Dr. MUMFORD. I think it is a full-time job, Mr. Chairman, for the

duration. To work with our department and division chiefs on

requirements and to apply his specialized knowledge. We need a

person who has consulted on many buildings and knows structural

problems, layouts, materials, and equipment. I considered very

carefully as to whether this could be done on a consultant basis. I

don't think it can. I think it is a full-time job for several years. I

think this person would need to live with the operation, working with

the architects selected to design the building, the staff of the Architect

of the Capitol, and our own staff, and applying his expertise to the

problems.

Mr. HENDERSON. I can certainly appreciate the construction period.

Do you feel you would be able to use the coordinator after the construction period?

Dr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. I can say I have an experienced person

in mind who would be a talented addition to the top-level administration in the Library when we no longer needed him for work on the

new building.

I have already mentioned, and I should stress, our responsibilities

for meeting the expanding needs of the Congress, which call for experts at supergrade levels in a number of fields, and our corresponding

responsibilities to the research community.

Mr. HENDERSON. That is very helpful, Dr. Mumford, and we will

do our best to be responsive to your request.
26 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Hanley?

Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.

I appreciate your appearance here this morning, Dr. Mumford.

Dr. MUMFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and other

members of the committee.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I appreciate the opportunity to present to you the needs

of the Library of Congress in respect to supergrade positions. .

The Library of Congress, which currently has a staff of about 3,500 persons, has

at present only 18 staff members in supergrade positions that have been allocated

from the Government-wide quotas by the Civil Service Commission. Four additional positions in the Library have been approved by the Commission, but they

have not been certified because there are no spaces for allocation to us at the approved grade levels; one of these positions is a GS-18 and the other three are

GS-16 positions. In addition, we have had a request pending for some time before

the Commission to allocate four positions in the Legislative Reference Service to

GS-16 to replace four other GS-16 positions in LRS that were allocated by the

Commission but that were vacated when the incumbents were reassigned. We

have also made a number of other requests to the Commission for the allocation

of supergrades—chiefly for GS-16's for specialists having large collections and

reference services of national importance to administer—on which there has been

no action. Some of these requests have been in for 3 or 4 years, and the most

recent allocation of a supergrade to the Library was made 15 months ago.

The Library has what are probably the world's largest collections and certainly

the most comprehensive ones in the United States, now numbering more than

44 million items and including not only books but manuscripts, music, maps,

photographs, motion pictures, and every other kind of material on which man's

knowledge is recorded. It is an old and complex institution encompassing far

more than traditional library services. Established by act of Congress in 1800,

the Library was designed then to serve Congress only but Gongress itself has long

since extended the Library's services to other branches of the Government, the

scholarly community, the library world, and the public. The Library's activities

range from providing research and consultative services to the Congress, involving

analysis and evaluation of legislative proposals of the highest importance to the

public welfare and national security, to giving reference service of a highly specialized nature on collections in every language and in every field, including science and

law as well as the humanities; providing national technical services, such as

centralized cataloging; producing bibliographic works that constitute national

and international standards; administering the copyright law of the United States

and doing the research and analysis necessary for the revision of this now outmoded

law; developing subject classification systems and cataloging codes that are

accepted and utilized in the United States and abroad; creating and managing

a worldwide network of purchase arrangements and international exchanges;

administering the national books-for-the-blind program; conducting cultural

programs in the fields of literature, music, and the graphic arts; and cooperating

with other national libraries and international professional organizations to

achieve standardization and advance common aims.

To plan, administer, and carry out these diverse programs the Library of

Congress must have experienced hands and exceptionally well trained and creative

minds—nationally, and even internationally, recognized authorities in many

fields. It always has had such experts. From such a staff, as well as from its

collections, has the Library's world-renowned reputation as a library, information

center, and cultural institution been derived. But it is becoming more and more

difficult to keep the specialists we have and to recruit others, despite the rise in

the Federal salary scale in recent years, because of the competition from industry,

the academic world, and even the executive branch. Topflight library administrators and technical and subject specialists, whose knowledge and experience

are almost unique and are certainly at a premium in the job market, are well paid

in the United States. Even where salaries are comparable, the academic world

offers many fringe benefits—long vacations, sabbatical leaves, and often grants

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,

Washington, D.C., February 8, 1966.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 27

for travel and research, free tuition or other aids toward the college education of

faculty children, etc.—which the Library cannot, of course, match. We have

consequently found our recruiting task increasingly difficult because of the restrictions imposed upon supergrades by the present quota system. To obtain

supergrade Slots we must now compete with the needs of the executive branch

of the Government and with program priorities established for that branch by

the Chief Executive. I believe that the needs of the Congress and of the legislative branch, to say nothing of the needs of the research community, both public

and private, could best be met if we had, not the haphazard and the highly

competitive allocation we now have (based on Government-wide numerical

limitations and the happenstance availability of slots), but a block—a total

number—of supergrade positions set aside for the use of the Library as a

legislative branch agency.

Not only are our current needs for supergrades not being met under the present

system, but it offers little likelihood that it will be adequate for the immediate

future. The Library's responsibilities and programs are changing and expanding

as legislation gives it, more and more, a central role in the improvement of the

level of education and of library service throughout the country. For example,

the Higher Education Act of 1965, which was passed during the last session of

Congress, provides that the Library of Congress shall acquire every publication of

research value issued anywhere in the world and that we shall provide cataloging

information about these materials promptly by distributing bibliographic information to college and university libraries through printed catalog cards and other

means, perhaps in time by magnetic tape. Research libraries should thus be able

to obtain catalog cards promptly on every publication they acquire and to avoid

the needless duplication in cataloging that has been so prevalent and so costly in

the past. In order to execute this program properly, the Library of Congress will

have to maintain close liaison with other national libraries and national bibliographical enterprises, with international book publishers and dealers, with institutions with which exchange arrangements can be made and maintained, and, in

some cases, where these other avenues are not open, we shall have to establish

book procurement centers abroad. This will require personnel of the highest

technical quality and with area and language specializations.

The Library is currently involved in a program to automate its bibliographic

apparatus by using computer technology to make the contents of the Library's

vast catalogs quickly available to users throughout the Nation. At present we

are preparing for an experimental program of distributing to a selected group

of university, public, and special libraries and research institutes magnetic tapes

or punched cards containing bibliographic information on current LC acquisitions.

The success of such a program can have worldwide significance. It will, however,

require not only new machine applications but also a new approach to bibliographic control based on research, and this work will have to be done in the

Library of Congress or be directed by it.

The sophistication of modern communications systems has also had its impact

on the Copyright Office in the Library. Specialists in this very technical field

of copyright law are at a premium. They can seldom be recruited, for industry

can pay more than Government. Hence, additional supergrade positions assigned to the Library would enable us to retain our experts and to offset certain

administrative inequities in the Office that have resulted from the lack of supergrade slots.

The increase in the workload of each individual Member and Committee of

Congress and the ever-increasing range of congressional responsibilities have

similarly affected the Legislative Reference Service. Congress showed great

foresight in providing for senior specialists in the Legislative Reference Service in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The law provides that these

senior specialists be appointed at a grade "not less than the highest grade in the

executive branch of the Government to which research analysts and consultants

without supervisory responsibility are currently assigned. This grade has

been set at GS-17, and these positions do not come within the supergrade quotas.

There is, however, a serious need for LRS specialists at the GS-16 level in such

fields as transportation, computer technology and information retrieval, natural

resources, etc.

To meet our responsibilities in these and in other areas, including overall

direction, I would be gratified if your committee would earmark a certain number

of supergrade positions for the Library as an agency of the legislative branch.

I believe, as I have said, that this would serve the best interests of the legislative

branch of Government as well as of the Nation. This would, it seems to me,
28 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

place the Library as a legislative branch agency in a more competitive position

with the executive branch in respect to pay. I hasten to assure the committee

that the Library's screening process for supergrade positions is extremely rigid

and nothing but top-priority positions are proposed, with detailed justifications,

to the Civil Service Commission for approval as supergrades. This review by

the Commission would not be altered even if a certain number of positions were

allocated exclusively for the Library. I estimate that the Library's needs in

the immediate future, involving as they do a variety of specializations of the

highest order and a backlog of requests, will require a total of 60 supergrade positions,

exclusive of the senior specialists, who would not come within such a quota, and

exclusive of 8 positions authorized for the Library under Public Law 313 as

amended. This total of 60 would encompass the supergrades already allocated

to the Library by the Civil Service Commission. We have already requested

a total of 41 supergrades from the quota (18 are at present filled, 4 have been

vacated and are awaiting reallocation, 4 have been approved but there are no

slots available for the Library, and 15 other requests are awaiting action), but this

by no means meets our program needs for the immediate future.

We are aware of the intent of Congress in keeping supergrade positions within

a quota and in using these positions for only the most highly qualified and experienced individuals, and we are, of course, in accord with it. But in order that

we may discharge the Library's responsibilities to the Congress, to the Government, and to the research community, it is necessary that the quota allotted

to this agency be expanded, preferably by setting aside a block for our use. I

respectfully urge that your committee give sympathetic consideration to this

request.

Sincerely yours,

L. QUINCY MUMFORD,

Librarian of Congress.

Mr. TIENDERSON. The subcommittee has been furnished data on

the growth of supergrades in the Federal Government that, without

objection, will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The data referred to is as follows)

\
Growth of supergrades and Public Law 313-type positions authorized by law as of Feb. 4, 1966, furnished by Civil Service Commission

GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 tl 1965

0

General quota 400 400 400 400 400 550 1,200 1, 226 1, 226 1, 513 1,035 1,035 1,989 2, 400 2,400 2, 400 2,400

DOD quota 372 372 407 407 407 407 407 tj

Non quota (0 595 1,014 1,206 td

Special authorities 2 25 25 25 25 28 28 57 57 57 145 146 146 171 177 187 436 436

Subtotal 425 425 425 425 428 578 1, 257 1, 283 1,283 1, 658 1, 553 1,553 2, 567 2,984 3, 589 4, 257 4,449 L'A

Public Law 313 60 DO 90 90 90 90 105 190 190 737 935 935 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,306 1,308

Total 485 515 515 515 518 668 1,362 1,473 1,473 2, 395 2, 488 2, 488 3, 873 4, 290 4,895 5, 563 5,755

I Effective Oct. 11, 1962 (Public Law 87-793).

2 Figures shown in this line take account only of special authorities existing. During

the period many temporary authorities arose and disappeared, some within a single year.

The amounts shown in 1959-60 do not take into account a Treasury special authority of

260 set up in 1959 and dropped in 1961.

Source: Classification Division, Civil Service Commission.
30 SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS

Comparison of full-time employees under the Classification Act of 1949 (all agencies,

all areas), June 80, 1960-65

Grade Number in

1960

Number in

1965

Difference Percent

I I 0 

Cow CO Cl) co co CO co Cl) CO Cl) COO) Cl) Cl) CO CO CO 000000000000000000 

179 313 134 +74.9

460 800 340 +73. 9

1, 084 2,760 1, 676 +154. 6

8, 134 14, 949 6,815 +83. 8

18, 012 31, 236 13, 224 +73. 4

40, 586 65, 048 24,462 +60. 3

62,763 91,713 28,950 +46. 1

85, 787 120, 565 34, 778 +40. 5

14,343 16, 147 1,764 +12.3

100, 320 128, 106 27, 786 +27. 7

25,907 19, 105 6,802 -26. 2

85,915 95,493 9,578 +11.1

48, 618 55,476 6,858 +14. 1

114, 407 133,483 19,076 +16.7

163, 265 169, 328 6, 063 +3. 7

161,342 133,621 27,721 -17. 2

39,334 32,503 6,381 -17.4

2,427 1,809 618 -25.5

972,923 1, 112, 455 +139,532 +14. 3

Source: Reports by Management Systems Division, Bureau of Management Services, Civil Service

Commission.

Comparison of average number of all employees, actual for 1965 with estimate for 1967

Department or agency 1965 actual 1967 estimatedDifference Percent

Agriculture 93, 712 102,949 +9,237 +9.8

Commerce 32, 885 38, 090 +5, 205 +15.8

Office of the Secretary of Defense (other defense

activities) 41,975 66, 277 +24, 302 +57. 9

Army 331, 016 358, 657 +27, 641 +8.3

Navy 328, 552 358,927 +30,375 +9.2

Air Force 291,885 308,983 +17,098 +5.9

Health, Education, and Welfare 82, 217 103, 094 +20,877 +25. 4

Housing and Urban Development 13, 674 15, 681 +2, 007 +14. 7

Interior 63, 537 67, 393 +3,856 +6. 1

Justice 32, 127 33, 072 +945 +2. 9

Labor 8,948 9, 681 +733 +8. 2

State 24, 188 25, 804 +1, 616 +6. 3

Treasury 81, 509 88, 928 +7,419 +9. 1

Federal Aviation Agency 44, 736 43, 330 -1, 406 -3. 1

General Accounting Office 4, 251 4, 300 +49 +1. 1

General Services Administration 35, 017 38, 584 +3, 567 +10. 2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 32, 669 34, 032 +1, 363 +4. 2

Veterans' Administration 154,800 157, 423 +2, 623 +1.7

Source: Budget, 1967, appendix.
SUPERGRADE REQUIREMENTS 31

Comparison of employees in grades GS-1 to GS-15 with those in grades GS-16 to

GS-18 as of June 30, 1965

Department or agency

Number of

GS-1 to

GS-15

Number of

GS-16 to

GS-18

Ratio, GS-1

through 15,

to 05-16

through 18

Agriculture 83, 714 196 427. 1

Commerce 26, 039 292 89. 1

Defense (OSD and other activities) 32, 250 215 150. 0

Army 208, 296 198 1, 052. 0

Navy 134,787 249 541.3

Air Force 154, 549 139 1, 111. 9

Health, Education, and Welfare 70, 992 179 396. 6

Housing and Urban Development 13,297 68 195. 5

Interior 46, 221 150 308. 1

Justice 29, 934 202 148. 2

Labor 8,911 76 117. 2

State 3,996 56 71.4

Treasury.. -. 77, 962 291 267. 9

Agency for International Development 2,473 15 164. 9

Atomic Energy Commission 6,694 284 23.6

Civil Service Commission 3, 557 36 98.8

Federal Aviation Agency 40, 894 128 319. 5

General Services Administration 17, 419 72 241. 9

General Accounting Office 4, 205 35 120. 1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 26,378 249 105. 9

Peace Corps 648 3 216. 0

Selective Service System 983 2 491. 5

Small Business Administration 3, 635 42 86. 5

U.S. Information Agency 2, 483 26 95. 5

Veterans' Administration 91, 117 67 1, 359. 9

Source: Sec. 1310(d), reports.

Public Law 313-type positions and supergrade positions filled, calendar year 1964

Department or agency Filled From within

government

From outside

government

Agriculture 28 28 o

Commerce 84 64 zo

Defense (OSD and other) 77 50 27

Army 79 74 5

Navy 59 53 6

Air Force 92 84 8

Health, Education, and Welfare 32 31 1

Housing and Urban Development 12 11 1

Interior 45 42 3

Justice 24 24 o

Labor 15 14 1

State 6 6 o

Treasury 52 51 1

Agency for International Development 7 7 0

Civil Service Commission 2 2 0

Federal Aviation Agency 35 33 2

General Services Administration 23 21 2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 229 211 18

Peace Corps 1 1 0

Selective Service System 0 0 0

Small Business Administlation 24 23 1

U.S. Information Agency 12 12 0

Veterans' Administration 14 14 0

Source: Reports submitted to Congress pursuant to sec. 505(1) Classification Act of 1949; sec. 503(a)

Public Law 854, 84th Cong.; and 10 U.S.C. 1581 and 1582.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until

the call of the Chair.

(Thereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,

subject to the call of the Chair.)

0