catch all the technical men it can find at an early stage. Practically all seniors and postgraduate students will have full-time jobs by commencement day.

Bowdoin College: Business is hunting "general practitioners" as well as specialists. More industrial firms than ever are canvassing the campus for adaptable liberal-arts students to be trained as junior executives. Jobs are being offered in advertising, accounting, banking, insurance, sales, production, manufacturing, research, teaching and Government service. Starting salaries for liberalarts graduates are running about $400 a month-$20 above last year and almost twice the level of 1947.

University of Connecticut: Placement in technical and scientific jobs continues to exceed all other demands, but there is a rise in recruiting of bachelors of art with nontechnical training. Technicians completing their junior years are in big demand for summer jobs. Starting salaries in almost all fields are higher than last year.

University of Maryland: Engineers are almost all placed before graduation at average pay of $465 a month, $30 over 1956. Other fields show the same kind of rise in pay. Pay for graduate nurses is about 10 percent above last year; 6 could be placed in jobs for each one available, at salaries ranging from $335 to $415 a month. Public-relations firms are recruiting journalism graduates straight from school. Journalism students can choose among 5 to 10 offers apiece at salaries of $312 to $540 a month. Pharmacists are scarce, can command starting pay of $435 to $475 a month, 5 to 10 percent more than a year ago. Law graduates can expect a minimum of $300 a month. Most recruiting dates for 1958 already are filled.

Randolph-Macon Woman's College: Of 108 girls graduating in June, more than one-fourth plan to marry soon-but a majority of those who will marry also are taking jobs. Juniors are being sought for summer jobs and most recruiters are interested in interviewing undergraduates for long-range planning of employment, particularly in the retail-merchandising fields. Demand for teachers appears to be higher than last year.

Georgia Tech: Industry's demand for engineering and scientific graduates is 50 percent above last year, reports Georgia Institute of Technology. Approximately 800 companies are holding 28,000 individual interviews with 1,100 graduates. Range of salaries is $400 to $600 a month, an increase of $25 over last year. Tech's telegram says: "By May 15 will be sold out of all graduates in 1957 including those of next December. Interviews for 1958 graduates already scheduled through April 29, 1958, with average of five companies per day. Shortage of engineers and scientists seems indefinite, exclusive of depression or cutback in defense contracts."

University of Tennessee: Recruiting is heavier than last year and some firms' talent hunters are expressing anxiety that they may fail to fill employment quotas. About 95 percent of engineering and science graduates will be hired before June at starting salaries of $375 to $525 a month. Demand for liberalarts and business-administration graduates is strong, especially in accounting and sales fields, at pay of $300 to $450 monthly. Assuming business prosperity and defense activity remain at today's levels, it appears that demand for college graduates will remain greater than the supply for some years to come.

University of Texas: Summer jobs for undergraduates, as well as work-study programs, are on the increase. Demand for liberal-arts graduates is increasing. Hiring before graduation ranges from 50 percent in law and pharmacy to almost 100 percent in engineering, science and journalism. Salaries: $400 to $685 for engineers and scientists, $280 to $435 for journalists, $315 to $415 for lawyers, around $390 for liberal-arts students, $400 for business students, $450 for pharmacists. Demand is as much as 20 percent higher than a year ago.

Indiana University: Recruiting demands are three times as great as the supply of graduates in physical sciences, teaching, journalism, radio and televisionprogram production, business administration. Liberal-arts graduates are in great demand as executives, salesmen and junior engineers. Government agencies, especially those dealing with defense, diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement and tax collection, are recruiting heavily at salaries of $300 to $440 a month. Lawyers are in demand at pay ranging from $300 to $450 monthly, graduate nurses are being snapped up at salaries of $300 a month and up. Three times the number of available graduates in journalism could be placed at starting salaries of $300 to $435 a month.

Antioch College: Increasing numbers of graduates are taking advanced degrees, and practically all science seniors will go to leading postgraduate schools on fellowships. Number of fellowships available is greater than last year. Anti

och has a work-study program in which 360 employers participate, and about 40 percent of Antioch graduates will become permanent employees of these firms. University of Kansas: Trend is growing for scouts to hire juriors and sophomores for summer jobs-especially prospective engineers and business administrators. There is great demand for those holding masters' or doctors' degrees in an increasing number of scientific fields. Almost all engineering and business graduates will be hired by June at pay of $400 a month up.

University of Michigan: Total of interviews with nontechnical graduates is double that of last year; persons hired are getting $350 to $425 a month, up about 10 percent from 1956. Summer employment on a "get acquainted" basis is spreading from technical jobs to nontechnical fields. Many firms are hiring juniors, some are taking sophomores. Summer jobs pay $280 to $325 a month. University of Colorado: Compared with last year, there is a one-third increase in recruiters' demands for technical graduates, with an increase of approximately $50 a month in starting salaries. Demand for geologists, however, is greatly reduced. A marked increase is noted in the hiring of liberal-arts graduates. Hiring for summer jobs is jumping 30 percent over last year.

University of New Mexico: All available graduates in engineering and accounting are being placed in jobs before graduation. Demand for engineers is 5 percent above 1956, and average starting pay of $475 monthly is $50 above last year. Demand for accountants is 10 to 15 percent ahead of a year ago. and starting salaries range from $425 to $450. No end in sight to rising demand for college-trained employees.

University of California: Industrial and business firms are pressing to set earlier interview dates with students. Requests to interview those who will be graduated in 1958 began arriving in December 1956, and one company wants to set dates for recruiting interviews for the next 5 years. For the class of 1957, starting salaries are $15 to $50 a month above last year. Strongest demand continues to be for engineers, physical scientists, mathematicians, accountants and sales trainees. Liberal-arts graduates, if oriented toward merchandising, insurance or banking, are in demand.

Occidental College: Demand for graduates in all fields is stronger than last year. The most vigorous recruiting is in scientific and technical fields, with starting salaries advanced about $75 a month. Calls for liberal-arts graduates to be trained for management jobs are increasing significantly. Also notable: More graduates are looking for positions offering on-the-job training and more employers are stressing this aspect of job offers. To many students this is a more important consideration than the immediate starting salary.

University of Washington: The number of companies engaged in campus recruiting is higher than in 1956, but there is some decline in job listings in the Pacific Northwest area. Recruiting of underclassmen for summer training is mainly limited to engineers and accountants. Salary averages for graduates: engineers $465, up $30 a month from 1956; accountants $375, up $25; generalbusiness trainees $365, up $25.

Mr. PRATT. Then we took a look at the fringe benefits which are always supposed to be so very good in Government. Now, that was true back in the 1930's. In those days, by and large, the Government had a better retirement system than most private industry had. But, it is not true today.

Now, I know a good deal about this matter because of my private business; industry has been making very, very fast strides to improve its retirement benefits, health benefits, insurance, savings plans of all kinds. The fact of the matter is that industry has in many respects overtaken Government with respect to the generosity of the fringe benefits that are given. In our committee's very extensive survey, which forms a part of the study which I referred to earlier, the conclusion was very clear that Government service no longer offers superiority in terms of reasonable security for old age. In other words, we find the man who is considering private employment as opposed to

Government employment is faced not only with a materially lower salary now, and no chance ever to reach the top in compensation (which he never had and probably never should have in Government service), but also, a lower security for the future which used to be one of the great attractions of Government service.

Now, there are a number of other areas, Mr. Chairman, that we looked into. We did not think pay was the whole problem. The Federal worker has lost in prestige. There are some obsolete personnel practices that can be cured administratively and we made a number of recommendations on those points. Most of those administrative recommendations, I believe, will be put into effect by the Department of Defense and there is no need in going into them here.

To pass on then to our recommendations, our first and most important recommendation was that a really comprehensive study be made of the compensation systems throughout the Government. There are, as you know, not 1 or 2, but 91 or 92 different systems of compensating civilian employees in the Federal Government. Perhaps we need more than 1; I seriously doubt if we need more than 90.

We feel that while the Defense Department employs something like half of the civilian employees throughout Government, nevertheless there are other agencies that have problems which are perhaps different from those of the Defense Department and that therefore a governmentwide study would be desirable.

The Cordiner Committee recommended that this study be made by a joint commission with representatives from the Congress, from the executive branch, and from the public. We feel that such a study is important and that it would produce a modern compensation system which the present one certainly is not.

Our second recommendation related to the difficulty which we find under the present civil-service system and in the legislation passed by Congress on the number of top positions which are permitted to the Defense Department. To give you an idea of how inequitable a situation it is, many agencies have no limitation on the number of top level people they can employ. A great many or most of the Government does. Those that do have a limitation, if you add them all up, come to 1,226 positions in grades GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18 throughout the Government.

Well, the Defense Department, which is responsible for more than half of the budget, has only 269 of those positions. Now, it can be said with great justice that the Defense Department does not have to rely on civilian administrators entirely. It has its generals and admirals, all of whom do a great deal of actual business administration in their respective military services. But, when we add those in the picture, we still get a great disproportion between the number of top level people permitted, on the one hand, and the job that has to be done, the number of people administered and the number of dollars spent on the other hand.

** OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES SUBJECT TO TOTAL CEILING ON TOP

POSITIONS

I would like to refer to chart 7 which has a comparison of the toplevel positions and personnel strength in Defense and other Government agencies. Included in top-level positions are all of the general and flag officers in the military services who might be considered the equivalent of the senior civil servants not in uniform. As you see, the Defense Department has something around 1,650 of these top-level positions as against over 4 million people. In the other Federal agencies, subject to the same ceiling on top positions, there are 1,150 top-level positions for only a little over 600,000 administered.

Indeed, in many agencies of the Government which have missions similar to Defense Department, there is no numerical ceiling whatso

ever on top-level positions. I cite particularly the Atomic Energy Commission, Central Intelligence Agency, State Department Foreign Service, and the National Science Foundation, all of whom have tasks which are similar to one portion of the mission of the Department of Defense.

We, therefore, made a very strong recommendation, Mr. Chairman, that the present ceiling on the number of top-level positions in the Department of Defense either be removed or at least be lifted to a reasonable level. This would really have potent effect on the ability of the Defense Department to attract new talent and to keep new talent, because if there is no room to rise to the top, the good man just plain is not going to stay.

Now our third proposal was that an interim pay adjustment be made pending the time when the joint commission which we recommended should make its report. We are very well aware of the complexity of the compensation systems in Government. We started out expecting to make our study and to complete our report in a period of maybe 4 or 5 months. We ended up by taking 2 days under a year, and we were investigating only one segment of the picture. Any commission formed would inevitably take 2 years, perhaps longer, to complete its recommendations. In the meantime, you have all these people leaving. You have turnover increasing, you have a decrease in quality, you have low output both in quantity and quality. We feel that some interim measure is terribly important in order to stop this trend.

Our proposal does not cover the entire gamut of the civil-service scale. We do not do so deliberately because we found no problem at the lower end of the scale, and we knew there was a problem and a very serious one at the higher end of the scale.

First of all, we thought it was imperative to have competitive rates at the entrance level and so our suggestion was instead of a statutory requirement that college graduates be taken into the level of GS-5, that they be permitted to be brought in at the level of GS-7. This in effect legalizes a practice that is going on now because the GS-5 level for anybody who is worth his salt is nothing but a vestibule through which he passes very rapidly to the next higher level.

We felt that the top pay now with respect to administrators, $16,000, was completely inadequate and we suggested that this top level be raised to $19,000. We picked this figure quite deliberately. It is $1,000 below the annual salary of the lowest echelon of Presidential appointees in Defense who get $20,000 a year. It is also the same as the top salary which is payable to engineers and scientists under the authority of Public Law 313, which, as you know, Mr. Chairman, permits a certain number of people to be hired in top scientific positions at a salary which is based upon the man's individual worth.

Then what we tried to do between a competitive entrance level and this $19,000 top ceiling was to arrange a scale which would correspond to proper pay practices as reflected in industry, with material increases at the top end of the scale.

The precise proposal is set out in tabular form (table IV) on page 49 of the report and is shown in graphic form (chart 12) on page 48 of the report. If I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think page 48 could well be reproduced in your own record as I would like to refer to it. Senator NEUBERGER. It will be included.