director, engineers in Government section, National Society of Professional Engineers; Dr. Lewis P. McCann, president of the Organization of Professional Employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mr. Patrick Lawson, vice president of the Patent Office Professional Association; and Mr. Richard Hughes, public affairs director, Society of Real Estate Appraisers.

There are four other organizations whose officers live outside of Washington. They could not be here with us today.

Mr. UDALL. You brought an impressive group representing a large number of important groups of Government employees. I am happy to have them.

Mr. HENDERSON. You made quite an impression on us the last time we testified before your committee. We remember the talk you made to us. It has been a real stimulus to us and I want to thank you again for it.

Mr. UDALL. I was glad you had such a large group that day. I must say some people misunderstood what I had to say. I received some critical letters and even an editorial, but I stand on what I said.

Mr. HENDERSON. We agree with you. Now I will call on Mr. Lawson, if I may.

Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, we wish to express our appreciation for your excellent leadership and the committee's progressive action in helping to make full pay comparability a reality.

The full implementation of the pay comparability principle is of utmost importance to the efficient conduct of Government business. Thus, we urge that continuous efforts be made, first, to achieve pay comparability, and then, to maintain comparability. Current authorization of a catchup pay comparability step in July 1969 will substantially fulfill the intent of Congress that Federal salary rates be comparable with private enterprise salary rates. However, we would suggest several improvements in the administration of future comparability pay scales.

First, we strongly urge that action be taken to correct the inequities, as compared to the private sector, in the salaries of the supergrades, the appointed executives, and the Congress. Arbitrary ceilings on pay have compressed salaries in the upper levels of the classified salary system. The congressional and Federal executive salary levels are low compared with high-level management and executive positions in industry. On this point, we recommend that the President's Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries report its findings. sufficiently early so that the necessary reforms could be presented to the Congress coincident with the next annual comparability recommendations early in calendar year 1969. This will allow an enactment date of July 1969.

Second, under the present system for determining Federal classified salary rates, fully current comparability is not achieved, since the BLS survey data are at least a year old when incorporated into Government salary increases. This could be corrected by projecting current trends to a given target date or possibly by revised data collection and processing techniques that would facilitate more timely summations.

Third, we are encouraged by the Civil Service Commission's recently announced plans to give employee organizations opportunities for

consultation and review of BLS comparisons of Federal salary rates with private enterprise salary rates. A continuing review of the BLS survey procedures is needed in order to insure incorporation of procedures and data that will refine the basis for comparison of Government jobs with their private enterprise counterparts. Employee organizations should be consulted on all changes in scope, coverage, and procedures used in establishing salary levels, and should have the opportunity to suggest improvement. To most Federal employees and, parenthetically, to most personnel officers, the procedures used in establishing a given salary level for a given job classification are inexact and questionable. On this point, job classification procedures and standards should not escape the review of employee organizations. Fourth, we suggest the adoption of a cost-of-living differential for employees in high-cost areas of the country similar to that now provided to employees stationed in foreign countries and noncontinental States and possessions. Many of our members in those cities have cited the relatively high cost of living and the burdensome time involved in getting to and from work. A cost-of-living allowance, or "post" differential for certain high-cost mainland areas is justified and could be administered in the same manner as those allowances currently available for employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the Virgin Islands. This is not only done in justice to the employees in high-cost areas, but is needed by the Government, as an employer. Some agencies have difficulty in inducing employees to transfer to large cities, because of the cost of living.

Such differentials for mainland areas could be based on BLS standard budgets, but these and other determinations should be made only after comprehensive analysis and review by the Civil Service Commission and employee organizations.

Mr. Chairman, on this particular point I would like to turn to Mr. Henderson for a little elaboration.

Mr. UDALL. All right, Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, since this testimony was prepared I have a letter from an employee, a member of one of our organizations in New York City. Here is what this employee says about New York City.

I have to get up at 5 a.m. to leave the house at 5:45. My wife drives me to the station which is about 11⁄2 miles away. I usually catch the 5:52 train to the city where I arrive between 6:55 and 7:15. I walk to the subway and usually wait 2 to 5 minutes for a train. I then ride about 10 minutes to the stop nearest the office. I walk from the subway station to the office (about one-third mile) where I arrive between 7:15 and 7:25. I work until 3:55 and usually catch the 4:15 train, arriving at my station between 5:20 and 5:30. I reach home between 5:30 and 5:40. Roughly, I spend about 12 hours a day away from home.

This, of course, is extended during times of breakdown, delays, slowdowns, and storms. These are by no means infrequent. I estimate the cost of commutation at about $65 a month. This consists of $44.35 railroad fare, about $8 subway fares, between $4 and $5 city taxes (income and sales) and about $8 car expenses. I thought it would be interesting to have that in the record as evidence of some of the problems they are having in New York City. Mr. UDALL. He puts in about as long a day as I do.

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. Unfortunately, a large part of it is riding and moving from one place to another.

I have here a reference bulletin of the U.S. Department of Labor entitled "City Worker's Family Budget for a Moderate Living Stand

ard," published in 1966. It is about 2 years old but I would like to quote two or three figures from it as to the difference between the family budget cost in New York City and some of the other cities. These are all urban figures, either metropolitan or nonmetropolitan.

New York City has a cost of $10,568. The average for urban United States, which includes metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, is $9,390.

For the metropolitan areas it is $9,580, and for the nonmetropolitan areas, $8,506.

Comparing New York City's cost of $10,568 with, say, Washington, $9,585, it costs almost exactly $1,000 more to live in New York City than it does to live in Washington.

Mr. UDALL. Tucson, Ariz., would be $1,000 less than that.

Mr. HENDERSON. The cost in Dallas, Tex., is $8,544; $2,000 less.

I thought I would mention these figures because I was surprised to find such a difference between New York City and some of the other cities. That concludes our presentation.

Mr. UDALL. I am glad you raised this other question because it is a recurring problem that comes up in the course of these hearings. The argument is always made that no doubt there are inequities. A man in Tombstone, Ariz., receiving the same pay as a man in New York City might be middle class or well off while the man in New York City may be on the poverty line. But someone has to draw a line between a low-cost and a high-cost area, then you have the commuter problem. A member of my staff, for instance, has a farm 40 miles out in Virginia. Should his salary be based on the city where he works, Washington, D.C., which is relatively high cost, or should it be based on where he lives? Who will draw the lines? What would be your comment on these problems?

Mr. HENDERSON. The Civil Service Commission has some rather detailed regulations on how to handle this for Alaska and Hawaii and the U.S. possessions. They arrive at this from the same information. used in determining the cost-of-living data which is furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. UDALL. It is no problem to draw a line around the Hawaiian Islands or Puerto Rico or Alaska, but in Texas, for example, around Dallas and Houston, which are high-cost areas, you have the boondocks area. How far outside the city lines of Dallas will the low-cost area begin?

Mr. HENDERSON. There must be criteria established as a basis for doing this. As I understand it, the District of Columbia is the standard for determining what it should be in Alaska. New York City costs $1,000 more than Washington. Would it be possible for the Civil Service Commission to also determine when the cost is, for example, $1,000 more than the standard, the increase would be granted? Mr. UDALL. I like the part of your approach which says there is an additional bonus for those in the high-cost areas because one of the objections we have always received in the postal service is they feel there should be one standard for the whole country. They fear jealousies would arise and they don't want it. But if you said we would have one standard postal rate for clerks and one for engineers but those who live in the areas designated as high-cost areas would receive a bonus-is that what you are saying?

20-409--68- -7

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. UDALL. We had a witness here a couple days ago from another organization who suggested the Federal salary system be revised to set up one separate professional schedule. It was suggested that about one-third or one-fourth of those in the classified service would be transferred to the professional schedule. What is your thought on that?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this has been discussed several times in our council meetings and no definite decisions have been arrived at. However, I believe I am not certain I am stating this correctly-as a general rule our organization feels it would not be realistic to do it.

Mr. UDALL. I see a lot of difficulties in it myself, not the least of which would be determining who are professionals and who are not. Everybody tends to upgrade and glorify his own occupation. Who is to determine who are professionals and who are not? We can all agree on doctors and lawyers and certain other categories of professionals, but when you get down to draftsmen and subprofessional groups, who is to say which is a professional and which is not? The only criterion given the other day was that after consideration they had agreed any type of employment that went up to grade 13 would be a professional group. It seems this is about as good a standard as you could get if you go this route, but there are all kinds of peripheral arguments.

Mr. HENDERSON. You are so right.

Mr. UDALL. On page 1 of the statement you talk about the supergrades and the problem of raising their pay, the arbitrary ceilings, and so on.

It may comfort you to know that it is my understanding that the President's Commission, which was appointed last July and already has held two meetings, is operating under a time schedule that will permit it to present its report to the President by the first of December of this year.

Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that, sir.

Mr. UDALL. I am making every effort I can to be sure that it is on the President's desk that early so that he can transmit his recommendations to the Congress the first part of January of next year and that the executive, legislative, and judicial increases which are established under that procedure will go into effect in the early part of

1969.

Mr. HENDERSON. Excellent.

Mr. UDALL. This is a great step forward. This whole system has been the result of so much effort I would hate to see it fail in its first endeavor.

Mr. Waldie?

Mr. WALDIE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UDALL. Again, we thank you for coming.

I want to thank all of you from the many important organizations and groups who were present this morning.

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to have the pleasure of presenting to you Mr. Lannon Walker, chairman of the board, American Foreign Service Association, who has been working very closely with us on this problem. He will be the next witness.

STATEMENT OF LANNON WALKER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD WALKER, PRESIDENT, JUNIOR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS CLUB

Mr. LANNON WALKER. I have with me Mr. Edward Walker. He is no relation, but he is the president of the Junior Foreign Service Officer Organization.

Mr. UDALL. We welcome the entire Walker family.

Mr. LANNON WALKER. The American Foreign Service Association represents some 8,000 foreign affairs professionals. We wish to associate ourselves in the strongest fashion with the position of the National Federation of Professional Organizations on full implementation of the principle of pay comparability.

We take this stand not only in the obvious self-interest of our membership but in the firm belief that in these difficult times our Government can and must attract and keep the very best talent for the proper conduct of our domestic and foreign affairs.

Our representatives in testimony before this subcommittee in the past have noted that while the issue of salaries is not the single most important element affecting the recruitment and retention of our personnel it is nonetheless a very important part of our total personnel picture. We continue to maintain that position.

In the current discussion within the foreign affairs community and among those of us who would call ourselves reformers there is a basic contradiction, or seems to have been, between those reforms which are in the national interest as such and those reforms which are directed at improving the professionals' conditions of service.

John Gardner, in his book on "Excellence" said:

If our society is to flourish, large numbers of men and women must be dedicated to the performance of their roles. Dedication is a condition of the highest reaches of performance. It is not possible to buy with money the highest levels of courage, faithfulness or inspired performance. Consider the Foreign Service officer. We must provide ample pay for our Foreign Service officers, but even within the scale of monetary rewards that a wealthy nation can afford it isn't possible to buy with money the qualities and the performance needed; the competence, judgment, willingness to endure hardships, and voluntary exile from the life that Americans love. Pay is important, but only devotion and conviction will insure the desired outcome.

That is the ideal position this association would like to take.

In a situation though, and in a system where job responsibility and the excellence of the organization itself are the most attractive qualities for us, and when that has failed us as it has, then pay does become important; it becomes more and more important.

I would like at this time to have Ned Walker read the results of a recent survey that his organization has taken pertaining to junior Foreign Service officers. I think it is most constructive.

Mr. EDWARD WALKER. In this survey we sent questionnaires to all junior officers in the Foreign Service, grades 6, 7, and 8. We had a 70-percent response, some 555 responses.

Of these, 49 percent would not actively encourage a friend or relative to enter the Foreign Service.