This proposition is one which must be faced up to realistically by the Congress if we are to achieve a sound and workable solution to the problem. In our complex modern civilization technological personnel are a key group, and the Government must be able to attract and retain qualified employees in that group to meet its defense and other essential needs. În the face of this well-accepted fact we cannot continue to pretend that there must be uniformity among all classifications for the sake of uniformity. Specialized professional personnel cannot be treated in the context of being just another element of the overall picture without coming to the present unhappy situation we now face. We suggest that the Government cannot have it both ways that professional skills are an indispensable element, the lack of which imperils our Nation's security and progress, and at the same time insist that this same group be treated in the same manner and under the same conditions as general employees in other categories. There is nothing startling or new about the concept of classification and pay according to specialized knowledge and ability. The only question now posed is whether the Congress is prepared to recognize the emergent role of engineers and scientists as coming within that category of persons who, because of their unique place in our technological age, require a specially developed system of identification and compensation. We think the Government agencies have over the past few years made the point crystal clear that such a time has arrived. As we have stated earlier in our testimony, we believe the Federal Government is entitled to the very best engineering and scientific talent which is available. To assure that the engineers in Federal service are fully qualified for their positions by reason of education, training, and experience, we believe their competence should be certified by qualifying as professional engineers as established by law in all the States, territories, possessions, and the District of Columbia.

The National Society of Professional Engineers believes that where a professional field is clearly delineated by law, the Federal Government should accept and follow the line of demarcation between those who are legally qualified to practice the profession and those who are not so qualified. This principle is accepted in the case of the medical and legal professions, but not in engineering. With the extensive amount of Federal moneys to be expended under the direction of engineering supervision and responsibility, the Federal Government has the duty to the taxpayer of assuring him of the competency of the engineering personnel involved. The State engineering registration laws have been adopted in order to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare. This principle has induced the State legislatures and the Congress of the United States to recognize as a matter of public interest and concern "that the profession of engineering merit and receive the confidence of the public and that only qualified persons be permitted to engage in the practice of engineering" (quoted portion from Public Law 789, 81st Cong., 2d sess.) It would seem imperative that the executive branch of the Federal Government likewise recognize these principles for those in responsible engineering positions.

The national society would be among the first to recognize the impracticability of the imposition of an across-the-board requirement of registration under a State law to qualify for an engineering posi

92764-57-20

tion with the Federal Government. However, a start should be made in that direction and it is suggested that the first step should be the institution of a registration requirement for new employees or promoted employees to engineering positions at the level of Federal classifications which would require as a prerequisite approximately 4 years of broad and progressive professional engineering experience. We feel this would constitute a logical starting point as State engineering registration laws generally require 4 years of similar responsible experience to qualify for licensure as a professional engineer.

For this reason we recommend that the point at which registration as a professional engineer would be required, should be the proposed SPS-5. We have suggested this grade as the starting point for registration primarily for two reasons: First, it appears unlikely that a young engineer would progress through SPS grades 1 to 4, inclusive, in less than 4 years (at the end of which he would generally be eligible for State registration), particularly if it is realized that much of the rapid promotion in recent years has been due to the current low salaries in relation to those in industry, and that the only way to increase the compensation in order to hold these engineers in the Federal service has been through a more rapid than normal promotion rate. Second, the responsibilities associated with classifications of SPS-5 and higher are such that it would be reasonable to require that persons in these grades prove their competency for holding such engineering positions by meeting requirements similar to those established by State law. Since State licensure is required for persons performing the duties of, and occupying the positions of doctors and lawyers in the Federal service, it would operate to the benefit of the Government, the public, and the profession to insist that engineers meet similar requirements.

This suggestion that a registration or licensure requirement for engineers be incorporated into Senate bill 1326 is not unique. The Federal Government for many years has insisted on State licensure as a requirement for certain doctors, nurses, and lawyers in the Federal service. For example, section 202 of Public Law 603, 84th Congress, 2d session, providing appropriations for the Justice Department declares that:

None of the funds appropriated by this title may be used to pay the compensation of any person hereafter employed as an attorney *** unless such person shall be duly licensed and authorized to practice as an attorney under the laws of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia.

Furthermore, the act of 1946 establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery in the Veterans' Administration requires that persons appointed as doctors, dentists, nurses, or pharmacists in the Department be either licensed or registered in one of the States or Territories or in the District of Columbia. (See 38 U. S. C. 15d.)

To give practical effect to our recommendation that a registration requirement for engineers be incorporated into S. 1326, we expressly request that the following be added as subsection (e) to section 401 on page 22 of the bill:

(e) For positions in the engineering series, on and after the effective date of this Act, no person shall be appointed or promoted to SPS-5, or a higher grade, unless such person is registered in accordance with the engineering registration law of a state, territory, or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia: Provided, That persons holding positions in the

engineering series on the effective date of this Act may continue in their present grade (as converted to an SPS grade by section 302 (a)), without complying with the above requirement.

We respectfully request that the committee favorably consider this proposal.

The National Society of Professional Engineers sincerely believes that the adoption and implementation of the basic recommendations made here today will considerably enhance the position of Federal agencies in achieving a professional engineering force which will be not only adequate in numbers, but outstanding in efficiency of planning and operation. Adequate salary increases, in and of themselves, will not afford a complete solution to the existing problem. In addition, and might we add, in conjunction, federally employed engineers must be afforded that degree of recognition as professionals to which they are entitled. For this reason, the National Society strongly endorses and supports S. 1326 as a logical program for the effective securing and retaining of an adequate professional engineering force in the Federal Government. Senator Johnston's bill is sound in that it combines appropriate pay increases with recognition of professional employees by placing them in a separate professional classification schedule.

The National Socity of Professional Engineers appreciates this opportunity of offering suggestions and recommendations on this problem which is of such national significance. The national society offers the committee and its staff and and all cooperation or assistance which may be desired in the study of these recommendations. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins. Are there any questions of Mr. Robbins?

Senator YARBOROUGH. No questions.

Senator NEUBERGER. We appreciate your coming here.

Thank you very much.

The next witness is Dr. John O'Keefe.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. O'KEEFE, ON S. 1326

Mr. O'KEEFE, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to make it clear that I am speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the Army Map Service, the Corps of Engineers, or of the United States Army. I am speaking on behalf of, and strongly recommend enactment of, S. 1326, which would establish a scientific and professional schedule within the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and which would increase the salaries of scientific, professional, and technical employees of the Government commensurate with those paid by private industry.

The primary reason, as I see it, why a favorable report should be adopted on S. 1326 is the high cost to the taxpayer because of the current high turnover rate among professional, scientific, and technical personnel. By the high turnover rate I mean the high rate of hiring and quitting.

The high turnover rate seems to me to be bad for four reasons: 1. Because a new employee must necessarily receive considerable training in order to be of full value to the Government on the job. Most scientific, engineering, and technical positions require at least

a year of training before the employee is really useful. During this time the cost to the Government of having the employee on the job, including overhead costs, is, I should think, approximately $8,000, or about what it would have cost to send the employee for 4 years to an Ivy League college. When the turnover rate reaches 2 percent per month, or 24 percent per year, it means that the employee stays on the job on the average only 2 years, of which at least 1 year was spent in training.

2. The second reason why a high turnover is costly is because of the high frequency of blunders. Many scientific, engineering, and technical employees are consulted by the production people, either inside or outside of the Government. Incorrect advice in these cases can easily lead to the waste of millions of dollars in unproductive effort and scrapping of material. In many cases, long experience is required to give correct advice.

3. The third reason why a high turnover is expensive is that it delays or nullifies the effort to install automation. If we are going to have a more efficient Government with more value for the money, it will probably be necessary to employ machinery, just as is done on production. But it is useless to buy expensive automation equipment without a skilled staff to operate it. Without a competent staff, an expensive piece of automated equipment raises the cost of doing work rather than lowering it, since there are too many mistakes and such inefficient operating that in the end the costs are higher than they would have been had the project been produced by hand.

4. The fourth reason is that of security. It is notorious that a high turnover rate is a menace to security, since it means a flood of workers thrown upon the market with a greater or lesser degree of training in secret information. Although this turnover is serious, I do not believe that the individual employees are to blame. The rising cost of living has made it very difficult for the Government employee to maintain an ordinary standard of living and yet to save enough to send his children to college, and so he offers his services to high-bidding private industry in order to provide for his family. In my house, my wife bakes the bread; we rarely buy it at the store; we never use butter. Nearly all of the children's clothes are secondhand. We have no TV; our radio was given to us in 1942; our car is a 1947 model. 1947 model. We never spend money on liquor or cigarettes. Nevertheless, we are not saving anything toward the children's education, except what is represented by the payments on the house.

The Government scientist, engineer, and technician is constantly offered more money to leave his work, either to go into private enterprise or to take a managerial or administrative post in the Government. During 1956, I received four such offers. Most of my colleagues of the same general grade as myself received similar offers. The present low salary scale means serious hardship to Government employees, especially those with families. Engineering, scientific, and technical employees can readily get larger salaries by leaving Government. Hence, they leave. This turnover is wasteful of the taxpayers' money because new men must be trained at the cost of thousands of dollars; because only experienced men can avoid very

expensive blunders, particularly where production is involved; because high turnover impedes the introduction of automation, which offers the only long-range way of lowering Government costs safely. Finally, the loss of these people constitutes a danger to the national security.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to express my personal views.

Senator NEUBERGER. Dr. O'Keefe, I would like to ask you a question, because I have been scanning your testimony and you talk about your own standard of living.

Dr. O'KEEFE. Yes, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. You say, "We never use butter," your wife bakes the bread, and so on. We do not use butter either, but that is because I watch my cholesterol intake, and I think this ought to be a matter of choice and not an economic necessity as it applies in your statement. I would like to ask you: What is your annual salary? I would not intrude on your privacy if you had not brought up your standard of living.

Dr. O'KEEFE. My pay is $9,850. I have seven children.

Senator NEUBERGER. You have 7 children and you get $9,850 a year?

Dr. O'KEEFE. Yes, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. You find, on a salary of $9,850 a year, with a family of 7 children, your wife and yourself, you are unable to buy a car later than a 1947 model; you are unable to buy butter; your wife bakes your own bread, and so forth?

Dr. O'KEEFE. Yes, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. I think that is very significant. I think it is particularly significant because there must be some people who have very nearly the number of children you have who are getting only $4,400 a year, as has been indicated in some of this testimony on postal pay and, on $9,850 a year, you are unable to afford what many people certainly regard as necessities rather than luxuries because of the size of your family?

Dr. O'KEEFE. Yes, sir.

Senator NEUBERGER. I think that is very significant.

Are there any questions?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. O'Keefe, I want to commend you for staying in the Government service in the face of the four offers that you received in 1956 for employment in private industry at higher wages or higher salaries. I note also that your radio is a 1942 radio and that you have no TV. I want you to know that there are many of us in the Nation that appreciate dedicated service like that. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I was impressed by the last two sentences in the statement by Mr. Whitmore, for the Patent Office Society. His last two sentences read:

Is this a time for appointing more study committees?

Or time for action?

I personally believe it is a time for action, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. O'KEEFE. Of the offers referred to, one came from private industry; the others were managerial or administrative positions within the Government.

Senator NEUBERGER. I, too, believe it is time for action and I want to