In some cases, in a relatively smaller number of cases, the agency does know that a transfer has taken place.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You do not know of any source of statistics that would show that?

Mr. NOLDA. The Civil Service Commission might have something. Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you check into that? If you have that by next Monday you may put that table in evidence.

Mr. NOLDA. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Could I follow up a little on that?

You gentlemen have had wide experience in the service. In your opinion are there a great many transfers to go to other governmental positions or is that largely a question of quitting Government service? I realize your answer will have to be an empirical one.

Mr. OWEN. I think quitting the Government service. small number transferring to other Government agencies.

I think a

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that that quit rate for January of 18,672 quit and transfer rate compares with 16,883 the previous January-January 1956.

Senator CLARK. Do you have the total quits and transfers for 1956? Mr. OWEN. I do not think we have those here.

Mr. NOLDA. The total figures for 1956?

Senator CLARK. Yes.

Mr. NOLDA. The total separations in

Senator CLARK. I am talking about an actual experience for 1956 as opposed for a projected experience for 1957.

Mr. OWEN. I am sorry; we do not have that with us.

Mr. OWEN. Our estimate would be a very rough estimate.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.

(The information requested follows:)

Mr. KERLIN. I can assure the Senator that we are not going to rely completely on the estimates of the Commission. They have been asked to submit cost figures but staff is also preparing estimated cost figures. Senator CLARK. You have not done that yet?

Mr. KERLIN. That has not been completed yet.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Paschal?

Mr. PASCHAL. Mr. Owen, you have a very fine and detailed statement. I believe your statement carries out the thought of eliminating 4 grades, cutting from 18 to 14.

Now, in doing that do you feel, that the setup as you mentioned there, that the lower grades are stressed enough in comparison to those of the upper grades on this salary scale?

Mr. OWEN. I think they are, Counsel. We took in consideration the low population of the grades that we eliminated and if you look

at table 1 you will see that seven-tenths of 1 percent of the employees are in grade 1; only 4.2 in grade 6; only 2.2 in grade 8, and only 1.5 in grade 10.

Senator CLARK. One other question. Have you made any computation of the additional cost to the Treasury of the enactment of S. 734! I see your figure of about 70 million, or 1 percent, but that really is not very helpful.

Mr. OWEN. We have made some calculations, but they are just tentative on the basis of increases for the lower grade-first step. We came up with a figure of cost of $564,619.

Senator CLARK. But you have not been able to project that across the board for S. 734?

Mr. OWEN. I have not done that. It would be somewhat larger than that. It would probably be around $700 million.

Senator CLARK. Of course that is a question which I am sure the committee and the Senate will be very much interested in and I would hope that we would not have to rely entirely on estimates from the Commission.

Now, there must be some reason for that and generally the promotions are from 5 to 7, 7 to 9, and 9 to 11.

Mr. PASCHAL. Just one more question to get your thinking on this particular line. Did I gather from your statement that it was your thinking that the SPS which would be so set up as a new schedule under another bill should be incorporated in this particular setup of the 14 grades rather than creating a new schedule?"

Mr. ÖWEN. That is definitely our view; yes.

Mr. PASCHAL. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Owen, for this clear statement and for the documentation which accompanies it. It will be of great assistance to the subcommittee.

Mr. Stephens.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL M. STEPHENS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO

Mr. STEPHENS. Senator Yarborough, members of the committee, for purposes of identification my name is Russell M. Stephens. I am president of the American Federation of Technical Engineers affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. Our organization being one of those affiliated with the Government Employees Council of the AFL-CIO.

I am indeed grateful to have been afforded the opportunity to testify on behalf of the organization which I represent, on a matter of such vast importance as is being considered here today.

Mr. Chairman, representing as I do the scientific, engineering, and technical employees of the Federal Government, there are two Senate bills on which I wish to urge the favorable report of this committee. These bills are S. 910 introduced by the distinguished ranking minority member of this committee, Senator William Langer, and S. 1326 introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee, Senator Olin D. Johnston.

With respect to the first measure, that which would grant a general salary increase to all classified employees of the Federal Government, I would like to repeat a phrase which has become the byword of all classified and postal employees during the past week or so. While somewhat slangy, it most emphatically expresses the thoughts of the rank and file nephews and nieces of Uncle Sam, "One small pay raise in 6 years 'ain't' enough."

Mr. Chairman, the Federal classified employee has seen his real earnings gradually reduced through the years to a point where he is no longer on an economic level with other members of his community. The value of his 1939 dollar has, because of insufficient salary increases through the years, been cut to 49.6 cents. This has been allowed to occur during a period when employees of private industry have been afforded annual increases, which have not only kept them abreast of the cost of living, but have recognized their right to a share in their increased productivity.

The administration contends that to grant a pay raise for its classified employees at this time would be inflationary. That just does not make good commonsense to me. The total Nation's work force, computed in mid-February of 1957, is set at 63,200,000. The total number of classified employees who would benefit under S. 910 is only 950,000 or 112 percent of the total work force. To bring 12 percent of the workers up to the living standards of the other 9812 percent would, under no circumstances, result in an inflationary trend.

The constant resignations from Government employment are testimony to the fact that Government employees are growing weary of subsidizing the rest of the Nation. I do not intend in this statement to add further statistical or moral justification, as it would be repetitive of the testimony of other witnesses and create a redundancy in the record.

And now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to say a few words in support of S. 1326.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, under the present Classification Act all classified or graded civil service employees have their salaries established in accordance with a single salary table. I am, of course, referring to the general service schedule establishing salaries for all grades of positions, GS-1 through GS-18. This in effect results in a situation whereby the Congress, who alone establishes pay levels for each of the 18 grades, has no latitude whatsoever to take into account the ever-present economic situations generated by the supply and demand factor.

The knowledges and talents of the scientist, engineer, and technician are as much a commodity subject to competitive bidding as are short supply materials. The serious national shortage of engineers, scientists, and technicians is apparent to all. One need only to scan the classified ad section of any newspaper to note the frantic competition existing today for the services of these highly and uniquely skilled workers. One need only to scan the records of the Civil Service Commission to note the poor success it has had in its attempt to recruit these people for its essential Government needs. One needs only to listen to the Government agency engineering administrators, as I have, to be cognizant of the absolute need of those agencies for an ever

92764-57-13

increasing supply of engineers and technicians to meet their workload requirements.

Mr. Chairman, this is especially true in the manufacturing, research, and development activities of the Department of Defense. This situation creates the economic circumstance which makes the engineer and technician one of the most valuable commodities, whose retention or recruitment are subject to the age-old law of supply and demand. You may inquire at any college or university and be told by the placement officers that their engineering and scientifice graduates have a varied choice of jobs at ever-increasing salaries. It is only in recent years that it has been necessary for employers to apply to the Federal-State employment service system for recruitment of engineers and technicians, but since January 1955, the number of engineering jobs in clearance has doubled. This is in only 2 years.

In November of 1956, there were demands upon this service for 6,500 engineers. This, of course, is in addition to the thousands of engineers who have entered industry through college and university recruitment.

Mr. Chairman, the major factor in this present shortage is an increase in the demand, rather than simply a shortage in the training processes. An ever-increasing number of persons have been trained but the demand for their services has increased much more rapidly. The demand for scientists and engineers was greatly accelerated by the Federal Government's research and development expenditures. The Federal Government's research and development expenditures have increased to a total of about $22 billion or about 25 times the expenditures in the year 1940, and that, Mr. Chairman, is only for the research and development program. It does not include any productive program in national defense. As a result of that $211⁄2 billion expenditure some ninety to one hundred thousand scientific and engineering jobs are created, to say nothing of the magnitude of engineering and scientific technician requirements.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with the need for the services of these people, inspired by the necessities of Government operation, does it make any sense at all for the Government to be tied to a horse and buggy pay policy that prevents its own establishments from being in a successfully competitive position?

We most sincerely believe, Mr. Chairman, that in S. 1326 you have the answer to the problem. The engineer, scientist, and technician being tied to the single classification scale has had his salary adjusted, in accordance with the across-the-board increases, too infrequently granted by the Congress. This just does not make good sense. There should be complete flexibility, whereby the Congress has a method by which it can adjust specific classifications of positions when required to do so because of prevailing private industry trends. This flexibility is insured by the establishment of a separate classification schedule within the broad framework of the Classification Act as is provided in title III of S. 1326. This schedule would be known as the scientific and professional schedule. The per annum rates for the new schedule and the conversion table provided in section 302 were arrived at as a result of studies of comparative private industry practice.

Mr. Chairman, again I need not go into a statistical analysis as to what prompted the sponsor of this bill as far as drafting specifics are

concerned. Complete justification of not only the need for this legislation but the specific salary rates may be taken from the reports of the Defense Advisory Committee on Professional and Technical Compensation, better known as the Cordiner Committee, the White House Committee on Engineers and Scientists for the Federal Programs, the Young Committee; and the National Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers, the Bevis Committee. I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that the reports of the above committees be made a part of the records of these hearings.

While I have no direct knowledge, statements have been circulated in the press that the report of the Young Committee may not be made public. I am certain that if that is true that this committee has ways and means of bringing to light that valuable study. And from the standpoint of solving a critical recruitment problem facing the Federal Government as an employer, disclosure of the report would be a public service.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal local unions of our federation have made a diligent study of S. 1326 since its introduction. It is our earnest belief that for ultimate success all segments of the engineering team should be considered as a team in the initial enactment of this bill. Therefore, in order to complete the team, I earnestly suggest and recommend that the following classifications of positions be incorporated in the list appearing in title IV, section 401 (a) (6): GS-1020-0-Illustrator (technical equipment). GS-1102-0-Contracts specialist. GS-1150-0-Industrial specialist.

GS-1152-0-Production specialist.
GS-1672-0-Ordnance technician.

And there are an additional two classifications which I recommend be added to the list, those being:

GS-1946-0-Ship surveyor and inspector; and
GS-1875-0-Shipbuilding inspector.

The reason that they were omitted from my original recommendations was because of a misunderstanding of their duties caused by a misnomer of their title. The word "inspector" added to their title is very misleading; these are not material inspectors, there are the folks who write specifications for shipbuilding and repair. They are responsible for providing private shipbuilding and repair contractors the specific aspects of the work on which they are bidding and they are people who maintain liaison with the contractor for design and technical information during the period of their contract.

I wish, also, Mr. Chairman, to confirm the recommendation of Mr. George Riley, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO who testified yesterday in favor of adding the GS-803 series, safety engineering to the list of classifications.

Now I would like to make a few observations as a result of previous testimony. I would first like to clear up what I believe to be an inadvertent defect in the earlier record.

During interrogation, the Honorable Albert Pratt, after he had presented his most excellent statement the other day, was asked at what levels of compensation the Cordiner Committee addressed its studies. Mr. Pratt's reply was that the studies and recommendations included those grades of GS-7 and above. As the starting level for the engineering and scientific employee, and I believe all professional