CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

So the conference report was agreed

to.

The Clerk announced the following

pairs:

Mr. Keogh with Mr. Jackson.

Mr. H~bert with Mr. Mason.

Mr. Buckley with Mr. Miller of New York.

Mr. Alford with Mr. Younger.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the first amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate Amendment No. 17: Page 6, line

15, insert ": Provided further, That the

Army National Guard shall be maintained

at an average strength of not less than

400,000 for the fiscal year 1961".

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate Amendment No. 26: Page 12, line

25, strike out "$174,726,000" and insert

"$180,296,000".

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment with an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede

from its disagreement to the amendment of

the Senate numbered 26, and concur in the same with an amendment as follows: In

lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment

Insert "$174,686,000".

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 28: Page 14, line 24, strike

out "$4,172,404,000" and insert "$4,240,-

732,000".

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment with an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede

from its disagreement to the amendment of

the Senate numbered 28, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In

lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert "$4,243,398,000".

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 51: Page 36, line

5, after "materiel," insert "and for all ex- penses of production of lumber or timber

products pursuant to section 2665 of title

10, United States Code,".

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 52: Page 43, line

11, insert "Provided however, That none of

the funds appropriated in this Act shall be

used except that, so far as practicable, all

contracts shall be awarded on a competitive

basis to the lowest responsible bidder."

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 58: Page 47, line

13, insert:

"SEC. 534. During the current fiscal year,

the Secretary of Defense, should he deem it

advantageous to the national defense to ac- celerate any strategic or tactical missile or satellite program, may transfer under the

authority and terms of the Emergency Fund, an additional $150,000,000 for the acceleration of such missile or satellite program or programs: Provided, That the transfer au- thority made available under the terms of

the Emergency Fund appropriation con- tained in this Act is hereby broadened to

meet the requirements of this section: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense

shall notify the Appropriations Committees

of the Congress promptly of all transfers

made pursuant to this authority."

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House recede and concur in the

Senate amendment with an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. MAHON moves that the House recede

from its disagreement to the amendment of

the Senate No. 58, and agree to the same

with an amendment, as follows: In line 1

of said amendment, strike out "534" and

insert "535".

The motion was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider the votes by

which action was taken on the several

motions was laid on the table.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask that

all Members speaking on the conference

report be permitted to revise and extend

their remarks, and that all Members be

permitted to extend their remarks in the

RECORD on the conference report just

agreed to.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Texas?

There was no objection.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to take from the

Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 10495) to

authorize appropriations for the fiscal

years 1962 and 1963 for the construction

of certain highways in accordance with

title 23 of the United States Code, and

for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate

amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from

Maryland? [After a pause.] The Chair

hears none, and appoints the following

conferees: Messrs. FALLON, DAvIs of Tennessee, BLATNIK, SCHERER, and CRAMER.

SALARIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-VETO MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (H. DOC. NO. 442)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 9883, a bill to increase the

salaries of Federal employees.

Whenever I have been presented with

legislation providing for increases in Federal salaries that were justified and war- ranted, I have unhesitatingly given my

approval to such legislation-and I would

gladly do so again.

H.R. 9883, however, is indefensible by

any light. This hastily drawn bill violates every concept of fairness, every rule

of reason and logic. Were this measure

to become law, the already conspicuous

unfairness and discrimination in our

antiquated Federal pay system would be

greatly intensified. Instead of making

progress-by improving the Federal pay

structure-we would actually be taking a long step backward.

The money cost of all this retrogression-not to mention its intangible

costs-would impose an annual burden

on the American taxpayer of three quarters of a billion dollars, and the money

would not be wisely spent. Such fiscal

and legislative irresponsibility, and particularly the bill's basic unfairness and

the discrimination it would perpetuate,

offend all thinking citizens, Federal employees among them, and make this

legislation entirely unacceptable.

More specifically, H.R. 9883 is defective

in the following respects:

1. The bill totally ignores the recognized precept that the only sound basis

for setting Federal salaries is reasonable

comparability to rates paid for similar

work in private industry. Judged by this

standard there is reason to believe, from

such information as is now available,

that a number of Federal salaries already exceed private rates of pay for

similar work and, conversely, that other

Federal salaries are below corresponding

private compensation. H.R. 9883 in no

respect addresses itself to these disparities and, In fact, actually perpetuates

and intensifies them.

Furthermore, in the haste to pass some

kind of pay legislation in this particular

year, the national salary survey cur- rently being made by the Department of

Labor to ascertain the comparability of

Federal salaries, grade-by-grade, with

those paid in private business was completely ignored-notwithstanding that

the Congress itself appropriated $500,000

to finance it. This survey, which will be

completed in September, was intended to

provide a sound and defensible basis for

adjustments in the Federal pay structure-and it still will. To that end, such

recommendations as are indicated by the

survey and other relevant evidence will

be made to the Congress in January.

2. The inequities already present in

our Federal pay structure would be

sharply accentuated by H.R. 9883. It

increases by the largest percentages

1960 15183
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

those salaries which are already apparently in excess of compensation rates

for similar work in private industry. On

the other hand, the lowest percentage increases are accorded those who appear

to be underpaid in relation to their

counterparts in private business. To

thus heighten the present distortion

would be grossly unfair and highly discriminatory.

3. Even within itself H.R. 9883 is manifestly unjust. For a large number of

employees it would increase salaries by

nearly 9 percent, but for others performing exactly the same work the increase

would be only slightly over 71/2 percent.

Further, employees in the postal field

service would, in general, be given larger

percentage increases than those provided for nearly twice as many persons

who are compensated under the Classification Act and other statutory pay

schedules.

4. The claim by proponents of the bill

that the pay increases it would provide are justified by a rise in the cost of

living is utterly without foundation in

fact. Since June of 1958, when a 10 percent pay increase for Federal employees was approved, the cost of living as meas- ured by the Consumers' Price Index has

advanced 2.1 percent. More importantly, since the beginning of this administration in January of 1953, Federal

civilian employees have received two

general pay adjustments, increasing

average salaries 171/2 to 20 percent in

the aggregate, while during the same period the Consumers' Price Index has

advanced less than 11 percent. 5. By not providing offsetting revenues

for the $248 million a year it would add

to Post Office Department costs, the bill

stands in complete disregard of the

policy which the Congress itself established in 1958 that postal revenues

should approximately equal postal costs

less those costs deemed attributable to

the performance of public services. The

consequences of this disregard, were H.R. 9883 to become law, would be to

increase the postal deficit, which must

be met by the American taxpayer, to

$851 million a year.

6. The bill would unwarrantedly extend Federal retirement and life and

health insurance benefits to employees

of locally elected county stabilization

and conservation committees who are not Federal employees because not appointed or supervised by Government

officers. The Federal system should

apply only to Federal employees. The

legitimate needs of these people for

such retirement and insurance opportunities should be met and the Department of Agriculture, accordingly, has

for some months now been exploring means by which the Government might

appropriately act. I have asked the

Secretary of Agriculture to expedite

these efforts.

Looking to the future, I urge the Congress, in accordance with my recommen- dation of last January, promptly to

enact legislation which will make permanent the 21/2 percent temporary salary increase accorded postal field service

employees 2 years ago in 1958. That in- crease is now scheduled to expire in

January of next year, so action prior to

adjournment of the current session is

advisable.

With regard to general pay legislation,

I am convinced, as I have indicated, that

it is not presently required and should

not be enacted until we can at the same

time intelligently modernize our pay system. Evidently, however, this view is not

shared by the Congress. In an effort to

resolve the difference, therefore, I would

be willing at this time to approve a modest increase reasonably commensurate

with the percentage rise in the Consumers' Price Index since the last general

pay increase became effective. This is

the only increase that could possibly be

justified under present circumstances.

In fairness to the American taxpayer,

however, new postal revenues should be

provided sufficient not only to offset the

cost of any such increase to the Post

Office Department, but also to eliminate

the current postal deficit.

I must preface my following remarks

on another aspect of this legislation by

emphasizing that I have an abiding admiration and respect for the great mass

of those who work in the Government

service. It has been my privilege to have

lived and worked with them, in Washington and throughout the world, for

half a century. They deserve and rightfully expect fair and enlightened treatment, in personnel matters, on the part

of the Government. At the same time,

with regard to their remuneration, they

desire only that the accepted principles

of reward for merit, length of service,

and especial competence be followed. I

bear all of this in mind in what I am about to say and I wish to make it clear

that the remarks which follow are directed only to a small minority, and in

particular their leadership, of what are in the main a fine and outstanding group

of public servants.

The other aspect of this legislation to

which I refer is unrelated to its merits

and is to me deeply disturbing. I am informed that the enactment of H.R. 9883 was attended by intensive and uncon- cealed political pressure exerted flagrantly and in concert on Members of

Congress by a number of postal field

service employees, particularly their

leadership.

I fully respect the legal right of every

Federal employee-indeed of all our citizens-to petition the Government.

But the activity of which I have been

advised so far exceeds a proper exercise

of that right, and so grossly abuses it, as to make of it a mockery.

I am further informed that, in anticipation of my disapproval of this bill, it is

planned to resume these deplorable tactics, to an even greater degree.

That public servants might be so un- mindful of the national good as to even entertain thoughts of forcing the Congress to bow to their will would be cause for serious alarm. To have evidence that a number of them in the postal field service, led by a few, have actually sought

to do so is, to say the least, shocking.

Were the pressure tactics surrounding

the passage of this bill, and apparently

further intended in the event of its veto,

widely known to the American people,

their indignation and outrage in all its

power would be quickly felt-and rightly

SO.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 30, 1960.

The SPEAKER. The objections of

the President will be spread at large

upon the Journal, and the message and

bill will be printed as a House document.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I

ask unanimous consent that further consideration of the message of the President be postponed until tomorrow.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to

the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the RECORD and

to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Michigan?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I

earnestly commend to the attention of

my colleagues the following informative,

factual statement regarding H.R. 9883

made by the U.S. Civil Service Commission:

The Civil Service Commission today said

that it greatly regretted numerous inaccurate statements that have been made

about the effect of the 7V percent pay bill on Classification Act salaries. In stating the

Commission's views that the legislation will

have many inequitable results, Chairman

Roger W. Jones said:

"1. Legislation now pending at the White

House is not a flat 7% percent increase for

all grades and steps within grade under the

Classification Act. The raises actually range from 8.3 percent for the top longevity step

in grade GC-1 to 5.7 percent for grade GS18. Furthermore, within all grades through grade GS-10, the average increase is 7.7 percent, with the range running from 7.5 percent to 8 percent or over. The greatest increases, In many cases, will be given In jobs where Government pay already is comparable

to that in business and Industry.

"2. Not only is the effect of the new schedule unequal, but it also further in- creases the lack of consistency among the

different pay systems of the Government.

At the same time discrimination is increased

in numerous types of positions in which the

Government under one of its salary systems already pays salaries in excess of those paid in private industry. A typical example of

this result may be found in the case of gen- eral stenographers. Data thus far collected

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 30 areas show a national average annual salary today for general stenographers of $3,849. Differences already existing are illustrated

by comparing this figure with the Classification Act and postal stenographers whose

average salary is at the fourth steps in

Grade GS-3 ($3,780) and level 4 of the

Postal Field Service ($4,455). Under the

salary bill now pending the GS-3 rate will

advance to $4,075 and the Postal Field Service rate to $4,825, thus compounding existing discrepancies.

"3. A precedent for further imbalance and

inequity under the Classification Act is set

in connection with the application of in- creases in the salary system of Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans'

Administration. A 7%-percent increase is

granted in the top salary for a Chief Medical Director, thus setting that salary above

15184 June 30