The relevance of citing the comparative salary data referred to above and in the attached sheets to this letter is several fold. First it illustrates what has taken place both in and out of government service with respect to salary increases over the past four years while those executive, legislative and judicial salaries covered by the Federal Salary Act of 1967 have stood still. The figures indicate that generally salaries of others have advanced from 25 to 30%. This is a significant amount. In one sense of the word this is lost salary not to be recouped, to those who received no raise.

Second, it graphically highlights the fact that the cumulative percent increase for those not covered by the Federal Salary Act of 1967 becomes so great in four years that to achieve comparability the Commission is faced with, and in turn so is the President and the Congress, what amounts to a traumatic one-lump adjustment which cannot help but invite criticism, unjustified though it may be. To amend the law as proposed in S. 1989 to require the Commission procedure to function every two years rather than every four will tend to reduce the significance of this aspect of the problem.

Third, the feature of S. 1989 which would require Commission, President and Congressional action in calendar 1973 and every two years thereafter would have a particularly salutary effect in 1973 with respect to the top classified employees in the judicial system who are frozen in their present salaries which are fixed as a percent of the salary of a district judge as long as the salary of a district judge remains static.

As an example, referees in bankruptcy, U. S. magistrates, clerks of court and probation officers who have reached the top of their grades can no longer receive increases in salary as long as the district judge's salary remains at its present level. This of course prejudices this class of employee when compared with other employees not so restricted.

There are enclosed with this letter two tables showing what the salaries of United States circuit and district judges would be today if the cost-of-living salary increases granted other government employees and certain employees in the private sector had been authorized for them.

If there is merit to the concept of comparability, equality, parity, or fair play, then substantial salary increases for members of Congress and other Government officials covered by the Federal Salary Act of 1967 are long overdue and should not be delayed as long again. Under existing law the earliest time at which an increase can be forthcoming would be approximately March of next year 9 or 10 months away. S. 1989 would make it possible to put into effect by October of this year whatever increases may be recommended by the Salary Commission and approved by the President and the Congress.

The federal judiciary heartily supports this bill and hopes that it will be speedily enacted by the Congress.

This report concerns S. 1989, a bill "To amend section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 with respect to certain executive, legislative, and judicial salaries", which is expected to pass the Senate soon and be sent to the House where it undoubtedly will be referred to your Committee.

Section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 provides for a Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries appointed every four years to review compensation of certain government officials. The Commission makes recommendations concerning adjustment of such compensation to the President, who considers them and then submits his own recommendations to Congress. The bill would amend present law by: (1) requiring appointment of the Commission every two years rather than every four years, (2) establishing a mechanism to expedite consideration of the President's recommendations by Congress, and (3) making certain changes with regard to which officials are covered by the statutory procedures.

The Postal Service agrees there is a need to provide expeditious means for making equitable adjustments in the compensation of top Government officials. For this reason, the Service objects to the provision of the bill that would remove the pay of the presidentially-appointed Governors of the Postal Service from the Salary Commission's review by deleting the present reference to the Governors in section 225(f) (E) of the Salary Act. See 2 U.S. C. 356(E).

If the pay of the Governors is excluded from review by the Commission, it will be frozen at the level set by 39 U. S. C. 202 until an act of Congress amends that statutory provision. Although the Postal Service does not necessarily consider their present level of compensation inadequate, there is no apparent reason why the Governors should be denied the benefit of the administrative salary review procedures applicable to other top Government officials.