law, this bill will increase the rates on second-class mail in 3 increments of 10 percent, effective April 1, 1955, April 1, 1956, and April 1, 1957. These increases are based on the rates in effect prior to Public Law 233, 82d Congress, and are applied on the portion of publications for delivery outside of the county of publication. The increases do not affect publications of nonprofit religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, labor, veterans', or fraternal organizations or associations.

Second. The publication, or portions thereof, delivered outside the county of publication on which rates are increased as explained in paragraph (1) aboye, will be subject to a minimum charge of one-fourth cent per copy, compared to the present charge of one-eighth cent. The one-eighth cent minimum remains the same as at present for publications of the nonprofit associations or organizations listed above.

INCREASED REVENUE

Following is the estimated total increase in postal rates when all the rates

are in effect:

Estimate of revenues from each section of H. R. 6052 (as reported)

[Based on 1953 volume and assuming no loss in volume due to higher rates]

Section

1. 1st-class mail (1st ounce of nonlocal)

2. Domestic airmail

3. 2d-class mail (publishers' 2d class)

Transient 2d-class at 3dand 4th-class rates__--

4. 3d-class mail:

Increase in piece rates---
Increase in pound rates 14

to 16 cents____
Bulk fee $10 to $50 year or

$15 quarter

Pieces of odd size or form_ 2-cent minimum on unaddressed 3d class_---

Total.

THIRD-CLASS MAIL

First. The rate for individual pieces of third-class mail is increased from 2 cents for the first 2 ounces, plus 1 cent for each additional ounce or, in some cases, 12 cents for each 2 ounces-to 3 cents for the first 2 ounces, plus 11⁄2 cents for each additional ounce or fraction thereof.

Second. The rate on third-class matter mailed in bulk is increased from 14 cents per pound and 12 cents minimum per piece to 16 cents per pound and 12 cents minimum per piece.

Third. The fee for a permit to send third-class mail under the bulk mailing rate is increased from $10 a year to $50 a year, with the privilege of purchasing a 3-month permit at $15.

Fourth. Odd-sized pieces of thirdclass mail will be subject to a minimum charge of 5 cents, representing an increase of 2 cents per piece.

Fifth. The minimum charge on thirdclass matter mailed at bulk rates with

out individual addresses, for delivery under regulations prescribed by the Postmaster General, will be 2 cents per piece.

Sixth. No increases will be made in bulk rates on third-class mailings of books and catalogs of 24 pages or more, seeds, cuttings, bulbs, roots, scions, and plants not exceeding 8 ounces in weight, or on mailings of nonprofit religious, educational, scientific, philanthropic, agricultural, veterans', or fraternal organizations or associations.

CONTROLLED-CIRCULATION PUBLICATIONS

Controlled - circulation publications will be subject to a rate of 11 cents per pound, with a minimum charge of 12 cents per piece.

BOOKS

The committee struck from the bill the provision which would have increased postage on books by $4 million, or approximately 25 percent.

lication (up to 8 ounces) –

Total increase

$159, 000, 000 15, 600, 000

900,000

are required to be set by present law by a procedure between the Postmaster General and the Interstate Commerce Commission at rates which will return handling. Under this procedure, fourthsufficient revenue to pay the cost of

class mail has had a tremendous increase in rates as compared to other classes of mail. In fact, no other single class of mail has experienced as great an increase as fourth-class mail.

May I summarize the provisions of these two bills, while at the same time, 13, 500,000 I urge you to listen to this summary to evaluate it and I am sure you will come to the same opinion as our committee, the leadership, and of the President. I know you will find that this is the only solution to the problem involving the financial structure of our entire Government and, at the same time, providing a desirable cost of living increase to postal employees.

29, 000, 000

3,200,000

8, 000, 000 1,000,000

3, 000, 000

44, 200, 000

80,000

233, 280, 000

The major postal rate increase in this bill is first-class mail. First-class mail has not been increased since the depths of the depression in 1932 when a Democratic Congress raised the 2-cent rate to 3 cents and it should be noted that firstclass mail was more than paying its way then. Since that time costs have nearly tripled in the postal service. We have rolled up a collective deficit in the postal service of nearly $4 billion. Meanwhile, we have placed substantial increases on other classes of mail.

I have heard it said that this increase for first-class mail is another tax which

places the cost of this class of mail on individuals to pay for the other classes of mail. It tells you categorically, that a piece of first-class mail sent outside the office of mailing costs more than 3 cents to handle. This first-class mail, sent nonlocal, will be carried at a substantial loss if we approve a postal employee pay bill without approving an increase in first-class mail.

cents to handle. This first-class mail,

May I point out further that the salary increase in this bill will go into effect 5 to 6 months in advance of the increase in the first-class rate which this bill schedules as January 1 of next year.

This bill provides a second series of three 10-percent increases for secondclass mail following a similar series of 10-percent increases authorized by the last postal rate increase bill. Even with this increase, second-class mail will still be carried at a substantial loss.

With respect to the advertising matter that is sent by third-class mail, in the last postal increase we increased the minimum rate per piece by 333 percent. We are not increasing that particular

rate by this bill but we did increase the rate on mailing which do not have a

specific address. We recommended that rate be increased to 2 cents per piece as compared to the present rate of 12 cents per piece.

Fourth-class mail does not appear in this bill. The reason is that the rates

Before completing my statement, I want to pay tribute to each and every member of our committee who worked on the problems of postal employee pay and classification and the problems of postal rates. In my judgment, no committee in this Congress, or in any other in an attempt to bring to the floor a bill Congress, has worked harder or longer which would receive a vote of confidence from the membership.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, a point of order parliamentary inquiry,

whichever is proper.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I find that the bill which is presently before us, H. R. 9245, has the title and the enacting clause of the bill which I introduced and which was passed out of the committee.

I also find that it deals not merely with

postal salaries but contains an entirely different title on postal rates, which action was never taken by the House committee. I do not believe that this bill can properly be before the House; certainly not with my name on it.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is before us is an amended bill, that is true. But all the legislation that we are considering was considered by the committee and reported favorably by our committee.

The SPEAKER. The business before

the House is a motion of the gentleman

from Kansas [Mr. REES].

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, the bill was never reported from the committee as amended and I was not even notified

that my name would be on the legislation.

The SPEAKER. The Chair knows nothing about that. That is of no concern to him except as an individual Member of the House.

The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. REES] has made a motion to suspend the rules and to pass the bill with an amend

ment. That is what the House is considering.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the short time that we have, this bill, of course, cannot be properly debated. There are some facts which I wish to bring to the attention of

the membership regarding these postal rates. It is true that we have a deficit in the Post Office Department. But if you look at it from the deficit standpoint, we have a deficit in all the other departments of our Government.

The deficit in the Post Office Department for 1954 was estimated at $437 million.

I should like to state where these deficits exist.

In second-class mail the estimated deficit is $232 million. Does this bill propose to change the rates on secondclass mail sufficient to take care of the deficit? It does not. It would provide an increase on second-class mail not of $232 million which is said to be the deficit, but of $14,400,000, leaving still a deficit on second-class mail of over $200 million.

The third-class deficit is said to be $153

million.

This bill would increase the third-class revenues only $44,200,000, leaving a deficit there of $109 million.

In first-class mail there is no deficit whatever. First-class mail now pays a profit. It pays its own way and pays a profit of $105 million. This bill proposes to add 1 cent to the postal rate on nonlocal first-class letter mail running up the rate on nonlocal first-class mail for the first ounce from 3 cents to 4 cents. That will provide an additional profit of $159 million on first-class mail, which already pays a profit of $105 million. The effect of this bill is simply to transfer the deficit in second- and third-class mail to the users of first-class mail, which is not equitable, which is not fair, and which I do not think we, as Members of Congress, ought to enact into law.

I think the post-office organization is a service organization. It has been considered so throughout the years. There is not another department of our Government which is called upon to finance its own operations. That is not done in Health, Education, and Welfare; that is not done in Labor; that is not done in Agriculture or any of the departments. The Post Office Department is a service department, and I think should be so treated.

If we are going to undertake to put it on a paying basis and make it pay for its operations, then I do not think it is fair and just to saddle the entire cost, or practically the entire cost, upon the users of one class of mail.

Whatever may be said about tying the two bills together, the real purpose of tying them together is to make the pay raises of postal employees contingent upon the passage of this rate bill. No other bills have been tied together in this way. I think the pay bill is entitled to come to the floor on its own merits. It has been said here today that if we vote down the suspension, then we will have killed the chance of the postal em

ployees to get a pay raise. If that is the case, then the responsibility for that will rest upon the leadership and it will not rest upon us who are opposing this motion. This pay bill can be brought up either on a rule or under a motion to suspend the rules, and it will pass overwhelmingly by either method.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. HAGEN].

Mr. HAGEN of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say it is difficult to oppose the leadership of any issue or legislation. However, I believe I am right and that it is my obligation as a Republican to speak out on this matter.

In the few minutes that I have there will be little opportunity to discuss the provisions of the two bills. The postal pay bill-H. R. 9836-provides a small pay increase for postal employees and they are happy to accept and to receive it, although it is long overdue and it is not sufficient. But they do not approve or like this procedure.

In a letter to me today, E. C. Hallbeck, legislative representative of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks, wrote me as follows:

We believe it is unfair to bring those questions before the House in a single package and consider it a subterfuge to defeat adequate postal salary legislation at this session of Congress.

In a telephone telephone conversation with Jerome Keating, executive vice president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, he stated:

The postal organizations have always opposed coupling postage rate increases with postal pay.

However, the postal rate bill is not acceptable in my opinion. Postage rate increases at this time would upset our economy, now back on the road to a stable prosperity. It is completely discriminatory and I would suggest, if time were available, many pertinent questions.

There are a lot of discriminations and bad features in this postal-rate bill and it certainly should be discussed fully and freely before it is voted on. Many of you will be voting for this so-called package bill because you like the postalpay part of it. However, you are now pressured into accepting the postal-rateincrease bill along with it.

It has been reported to us that this is the only way that this postal-pay bill can come up in the House for a vote. Why is this so? There are many other ways in which this postal-pay bill can be brought up. I, for one, do not like a whip or club over my head with the threat that if we do not approve of this motion there will be no postal-pay legislation, even though 90 percent or more of this House favor a postal-pay bill.

It might be said by some that it is a lack of leadership to admit there is no other way to bring up a postal-pay bill which would pass on its own merits by a vote of 20 to 1 or more. Some even would say it leans toward a dictatorship policy. I cannot agree to these state

ments. I have every confidence in our House leader, CHARLIE HALLECK, one of the strongest, aggressive, and able leaders in the history of this House. I am sure he can, if he wants to, give the Members of the House an opportunity to vote on a postal workers' pay

Yet why are these two bills brought up this way? I would like to know the

answers.

The postal-rate bill has been resting in the Rules Committee since early this year. Are those who are anxious to get a postal-rate bill approved afraid that their measure will not pass on its own merits?

I ask, is this going to be a new technique for legislating?-that is, to couple up a popular bill with one which is not popular? Is it going to be a policy, henceforth, to handle any pay adjustment or pay increase for postal workers only when rate-increase bills are considered? This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a pay bill and a rate

bill have been combined on the floor of the House.

There have been 31 postal-pay bills of some kind or another since 1920. None were vetoed by the President. In 1948 our Post Office Committee reported a combined pay raise and postal-pay increase measure.

At any rate, there are other ways in which this bill or any bill can be brought up if the leadership so desires.

First, there is a policy or rule whereby the chairman of the Rules Committee can put it on his agenda and ask for consideration.

Secondly, my discharge petition No. 9 can be signed, and perhaps it will be later today. By adding six additional names, it will assure consideration of the Corbett pay bill, H. R. 9245, later on this session, if we are here long enough.

Thirdly, the postal bill can be brought leadership so desires. up on a suspension of the rules, if the

Fourthly, the Senate can and probably will add a postal-pay bill to some bill already passed by the House.

Now, we have just voted here for a 5percent increase in veterans pensions. Our committee has reported out and this House will no doubt approve a 5-percent pay increase for Federal employees and workers. The leadership apparently feels that the money is available for these two bills.

Furthermore, this House just yesterday deducted and saved from so-called administration supplemental budget requests a total of more than $765 million. In other words, the administration believes that they had $765 million more that could be spent, than that which was voted by this House. Cannot $150 million of that be used to pay this postal pay increase bill without some arbitrary rule or policy which insists on a postal rate bill to pay for the postal pay increase?

Here is another picture of the situation.

We were asked to support a revised version of the veterans pension increase bill with a 5-percent increase. I gladly

voted for it.

This administration, according to all reports, endorses a 5-percent pay increase for all Federal workers. I supported it in our committee.

So now will the postal workers be told? No; we will give everyone 5 percent or

more, but you cannot have anything at all.

Now the statement has been made, or will be made, perhaps, that the responsibility lies with the opposition to this motion in case there is not a postal pay bill approved. The only ones you could convince of that false charge would be morons or one who does not know that 2 and 2 makes 4. Anyone knows that the postal pay bill can be brought up in this House at any time if the leadership so desires.

This method of legislating is certainly a bad policy, and I would believe that every chairman of this House would be unhappy and would join me in this fight if the two major bills of this committee were suddenly brought up under a sus

class mailing charges. This is not at all true. The so-called subsidy is one to the people of the country-the subscribers to the magazines and newspapers. It is they who get the benefit of the low rates-it is the American people. SupSupporting my statement on this is the National Education Association which in its report to the Senate study committee on postal affairs stated as follows:

Benefits derived from the use of the mail consist primarily in benefits to the consumer or recipient of the mail rather than to the producer.

If postal rates are increased, subscription rates will be increased and most of the increases will go to the small weeklies, small dailies, small magazines, farm publications, etc. It won't be so harm

the two together, and recognizes an important principle, and if I had my chance I would vote tomorrow either to cut all appropriations or to raise taxes to balance the budget because I say to you that the greatest danger which confronts this Nation is the growing deficit of our Government. You are literally destroying the middle-class people. The organized groups can come in here and get increases every year or two because they have the votes. But what about the people who put their money in Government bonds? They have already lost 50 percent in purchasing power. Does anyone propose to make good that loss? Does anyone propose to take care of the

unorganized fixed-income groups of this country who day by day are suffering

opportunity for discussion of the merits

or demerits of the legislation.

Our Post Office and Civil Service Com

mittee had 14 days of hearings on the postal rate bill and also 10 executive sessions. We spent 24 days of hearings on the postal pay bill and held 7 executive sessions.

Therefore, the number of days of hearings on postal rate and postal pay bills totaled 55 days.

This legislation is now going to be disposed of in 40 minutes.

Now as to the postal employees, as bad as they need a pay raise, they do not want to be a party to setting a new policy in putting a yoke around their necks which would deny them in the future any salary adjustments until postal rate increases were voted.

I would like to ask this question? Will the Postmaster General come up here next winter with a program of increasing postal rates to pay for the increased cost of his new reclassification program which would liberally increase the pay of postal employees in the higher brackets?

It was reported here today, contrary to previous statements, that the Post Office Department now wants a postal rate increase tied in with a postal pay bill. However, this new policy is apparently only directed to the House since I understand that the Senate is not, and will not, tie a postal rate bill to a postal pay bill.

Yes, I say this is no way to legislate. Each of these bills should have a minimum of 4 hours of discussion, consideration, and debate. Here should be available the printed hearings on both bills four volumes with hundreds of pages of testimony. You won't even have time to read the reports on these bills, and there is an excellent majority and minority report on the postal rate bill. The postal pay bill was approved unanimously by our committee.

It is my prediction that this motion will fail, and it should.

I might say that the postal pay bill is quite acceptable. It is of course a compromise and no one is too happy about it. But at least, it is a small increase for the postal workers and it should be and will be approved by a big vote if the House is given an opportunity to vote

on it.

It may be reported here that some of the magazines and newspapers of the country get a subsidy on their second

which use their own distribution system and the newsstands, and do not use the mails to the extent or degree as the smaller magazines and the smaller newspapers do.

Finally, my appeal is that we decide here today that henceforth we legislate in a proper and normal manner on these important bills. Our House leadership will lose this fight and I will be unhappy about it even though I will be on the winning side. It is so unnecessary to do things this way when the right way would be better.

The membership of this House can hardly say that they know what they There will be no opportunity to debate or will vote for in this postal rate bill.

discuss it.

This motion should be defeated. I shall vote against it.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES].

Mr. DIES. Mr. Speaker, I have said upon several occasions that I am deeply concerned about the deficit of this Government. We owe $275 billion and we are continuing to increase that deficit. That means inflation, and inflation means millionaires become billionaires, and in the end the poor man pays the bill. This House is determined to raise the salaries of postal employees. The Post Office Committee has conducted extensive hearings and they say that the employees are entitled to a 5-percent increase. So far as I am concerned, if I had my way, every time we appropriate money, I would provide for the money not only with reference to postal employees, but I would do it in the case of veterans and everyone else because I think the time has come when the people of this country ought to understand when money is spent, it has to be raised by taxes. The practice of adopting and pursuing the dishonest and destructive policy of passing on the deficit to our children and to their children means that in the end democracy will be dethat in the end democracy will be destroyed in the United States. Since 1945, we have accumulated a deficit of $4 billion in the operation of the postal system-a complete monopoly-and yet the Government cannot operate it and break even. And the interest on that deficit since 1945 is $100 million annually. Therefore, I am going to vote for this legislation because it does couple

organized. They do not send representatives to Washington to buttonhole Members. They do not flood Congress with telegrams and letters. They are unable to exert organized pressure. Consequently they are the forgotten people.

I am supporting this legislation because the principle of coupling the method of raising the money with the pay increase is right and sound. If we are going to raise postal salaries, we ought to have the courage and the honesty to provide some means to pay for the increase. It is dishonest and dan

gerous to borrow the money to pay the increase. There is no reason that the postal system should not earn enough money to pay its way and provide for necessary increases in salaries and other costs. I do not like the way this bill seeks to raise the additional revenue. I am convinced that if Congress would

stop the abuse of the franking privilege now enjoyed by the various branches of Government, we could reduce materially the cost of operating the Post Office Department. Every branch of our Government is flooding the mails with franked matter, much of which finds its way into wastebaskets and incinerators. I believe that there is more justification for increasing second- and third-class mail than there is to increase the rates on first-class mail, because the record shows that first-class mail is paying its way and, in most instances, showing a profit. You know why this is not done. The second- and third-class mail is protected by a strong lobby. However, Mr. Speaker, I had rather vote for the rate increase provided in this bill than to authorize the salary increase without providing any way of paying for it.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentelman from Texas has expired.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moss].

compliment my very eloquent colleague Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to from Texas [Mr. DIES] for being concerned with those who are not organized in their appearance before Congress. I refer to the people who use first-class mail, the only group of mail users who were not represented before our committee, a group which today pays a profit of $105 million. Yet it is proposed by this legislation to saddle them with an

additional burden of $159 million, because they do not have the voice or the representatives to come here and lay their case before the Congress.

You say there is a deficit in the Post Office Department. Certainly there is, a deficit for which the Congress itself is responsible; a deficit arising because the Congress has chosen, over the years, to create subsidized classes of mail. There have been subsidies since 1945 of $3,800,000,000, subsidies which make aid to agriculture insignificant. Yet it is proposed today to continue that subsidy and to say to the postal workers that because of our policy you are going to suffer the consequences for any failure of this House to live up to its responsibility.

If we want to deal with the question of the deficit in the postal establishment, let us then proceed in an orderly fashion. Let the Department recommend the amount of that deficit which is properly chargeable to public service. After that determination has been made, then let us require each and every class of mail to pay its own way. Then we can say to the employees that we must have an efficiently operated department. We must make a profit. But today that is not their responsibility. It is ours. We considered this bill on postal rates and reported it to the Rules Committee on the 25th of February, under great pressure. Why was it not acted upon? Perhaps Perhaps it is because the majority does not want to acknowledge to the people that they are asking for something which is eminently unfair. They moved the effective date from before the fall elections up to the first of the year so they would not have to explain to the people before the election why they increased the rate on the first-class mail. They were not proud of what they had done. There was no reason why it could not have been brought to the floor in an orderly fashion, brought to the floor with time for debate and opportunity to offer amendments. But no. It remained in the Rules Committee for some 5 months. Then, after great consideration of the salary increase legislation, a compromise was worked out-a compromise where the proponents of an increase gave in on every single point, and at no point did the administration give one iota. We would not have made that compromise if we were told that the bill would be considered on this floor under suspension of the rules, with a gag upon Members and a gag upon the House to work its will. I think it is a reprehensible manner of handling legislation to which the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee has given such diligent attention. I personally have been in attendance at very single session of that committee. I have tried to act responsibly, but I cannot say that you are acting responsibly today. When you are considering a rate increase of $233 million and a salary increase of $122 million, you are not acting responsibly when you

act in 40 minutes.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE).

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite abundantly clear that there is a great difference of opinion in the committee on both sides of the aisle; in other words, this is not a partisan matter, it is a matter of theory; it is a matter of whether the Post Office Department has got to run on bigger and bigger deficits-the last one it checked up was $700 million-or if this legislation takes effect it will not only give a very necessary raise to the postal employees, but the Post Office Department may get by with a $300 million deficit. I say that, to those who seem to feel that the Post Office Department should be more or less of a charitable or eleemosynary institution—that is a $64 word, by the way. I would like to point out to the House at this time that this is the only country in the world where the Post Office does not pay its way. Canada, our neighbor to the north, has recently raised first-class rates. recently raised first-class rates. There has been no trouble about it at all, yet before they raised those rates they were already showing a profit every year. England does the same, so does Belgium, so does France, so does every other member of the International Postal Union. We are the only ones who have gone on this opposite theory.

Of course we know that the postal employees deserve and need a raise, and employees deserve and need a raise, and we want to see them get it. we want to see them get it. For that reason I certainly hope that at this time the House, regardless of some of time the House, regardless of some of their feelings about the postal rates will their feelings about the postal rates will pass this bill.

I, too, am one of those who would far prefer second- and third-class mail to be made to pay their way. They certainly are not doing it. Great newspaper empires and great magazine empires have been built up on the secondand third-class rates charged and maintained by law in our Post Office Department.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. MORRISON].

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of this committee, I am sure that in urging you to vote down this suspension of the rules it will be the best thing as far as the postal workers themselves are concerned and as far as the taxpayers of this country are concerned. I have supported all pay increases for postal employees for the many years I have been on this committee. This present attempted consolidation of both bills has caused confusion even among the members of the committee. As the distinguished gentleman from California said, the postal rate increase bill could have been brought up here and acted on or amended at any time since last February, but that has not been done. Why, then, lump the two together when even the committee is not in agreement and is split wide open? You

the way of postal pay raises to which cannot get what you are driving at in the employees are entitled by such method as you are voting on today. Vote this down and you will get the postal workers the pay raise that they want and that they are entitled to.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. CORBETT).

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Speaker, I took this time because I wanted to make it abundantly clear to the Members of this House, and certainly to the 212 who have signed the discharge petition on H. R. 9245, that the bill presently before us under the number H. R. 9245 is not that bill.

This present procedure, I am sure, is parliamentarily in order, but I must point out that when all of the features of this bill are added to the salary features they are very decidedly changed.

Very frankly, I was flabbergasted to find my name and the number of my bill on this particular this particular compromise. However, having said that, I do believe that the most expeditious procedure that we can use to get this necessary legislation moving on toward final enactment is to send this particular bill over to the Senate. I am afraid we have been operating too much on the theory that this is a single House legislature. The Senate can and I think will make the proper corrections.

I was party to an agreement trying to get the best salary legislation that we possibly could get with some assurance of passage and because of that and despite this rather unusual procedure, I feel compelled to vote in the affirmative. Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker,

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. RHODES).

Mr. RHODES of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and most unfair that a motion of this kind is made to rush through two very important bills with no opportunity for amendments or ample discussion and debate.

I have sponsored and supported payincrease legislation for postal employees. Federal salaries are lagging behind the cost of living, and there is a dire need, particularly among the lower income groups, for more adequate income to meet their everyday needs. I believe there is justification for increasing postage rates, and I believe that reclassification is necessary in the postal service. But I am opposed to the unfair procedure to force through the Congress this bill, which includes provisions over which there has been sharp controversy and a wide difference of opinion.

It is quite apparent to me that the chief objective is to give the Postmaster General the excessive power he seeks and to increase postage rates in such classifications which would put an additional burden on those who now pay more than their proportionate share. I am frightened at some of the things that have been happening in the past 2 years. It makes me wonder how far we can go in yielding to the pressure of the executive department without grave consequences to follow.

This is not a partisan matter. Some of the victims of unfair pressure, abuse, and even smear were prominent and outstanding members of our committee on the other side of the aisle.

The pressure of the Department for this legislation has created tremendous discord and dissension in the postal service. The test of loyalty, and whether or

not jobs are secure, depends, not on service that is performed but whether employees conform and "heil" the man at the top. It matters not whether one be a Republican or a Democrat, so long as he is willing to accept without question the philosophy of the man on top.

This reclassification attempt, in my mind, is nothing more than a clever gimmick to give excessive power to a man who believes he has all the answers. The provision on reclassification is a modified version of the first reclassification bill proposed. The other was much worse, but it reflects the thinking behind this legislation.

The Post Office Department propagandists have said for the past 2 years that rates should be adjusted so that those who use the service will pay for a greater share of the cost.

What the rate provision in this bill does is to put a heavier burden on those who already pay more than their proportionate share of the postal service.

I have personally favored adequate salaries for Federal employees. Never have I been influenced by those who see national bankruptcy and disaster whenever a proposal is made to lift the level of living for the average citizen. Nothing justifies the increase in living standards for postal and Federal employees, and for the average American citizen at this time, more than the tremendous surpluses, not only of food but of other essentials of life which fill the Nation's

warehouses.

If this motion is defeated as I hope it will be, and it is the will of the majority and of the administration to grant a modest increase for postal and Federal employees, then it can and will be done. It is the responsibility of the administration. Even though I wholeheartedly favor pay increase legislation, I feel I would be unfaithful to my trust to postal employees, and to other Federal workers, and to my own conscience if I voted for this package which contains

so much evil. Postal workers need and

want a pay increase, but they don't want it if they must yield to the lash and sacrifice self respect and dignity. They know that under such conditions all that is gained and more will be lost. I hope the motion will be defeated and that a proper rebuke be given to those who want to make Congress a rubberstamp and to force conformity, regardless of its consequences.

Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have permission to extend their remarks at this point in the RECORD on the bill under consideration.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection.

Mr. WITHROW. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as Congress is planning to adjourn August 1 or shortly thereafter, it must be apparent to all that the only realistic approach to the question of giving relief to the postal employees and to other Federal classified employees is to pass the compromise measure under consideration at this time.

The lodestone under which the Civil Service System is now laboring is a wage

scale that keeps employees living on a marginal basis year in and year out. Unless and until the Congress gets squarely behind specific legislation to increase all Federal salaries any statement about strengthening the civil service system is nothing more than another meaningless promise. meaningless promise. It is my belief that a majority of the Members of Congress are in favor of such an adjustment. Thinking varies, however, as to the amount and application.

During the present hearings on this legislation, 32 Congressmen have appeared before the committee in support of pay legislation, and 112 have filed statements in favor of the legislation. This is the largest number that have actually participated in any hearings I can remember of, and indeed, is symbolic of the terrific interest and the necessity for this type of salary relief.

There are some who argue that as long as the Post Office budget shows a deficit, we should be very cautious in raising postal salaries. In their minds there is a direct relationship between postal salaries and the postal deficit, when, as a matter of fact, there should be no relationship. If there was we would apply that same process of reasoning to all the other departments of our Government, namely, the Justice Department, the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department, the Department of State, etc.

It would be well to go back just prior

to the last wage increase, as of July 1, who at that time was Chairman of the 1951. Former Congressman Ramspeck, Civil Service Commission, when testifying on the pay-increase legislation at that time, testified as follows:

From August 1939 to March 1951 the consumers' price index advanced from 98.6 to 184.5, an increase of 87.1 percent. To attempt to meet this rise by a corresponding rise in scheduled rates would require a current average pay increase of about 21 percent.

Commissioner Ramspeck was referring to classified Federal employees. However, during the same hearing Postmas

ter General Donaldson testified follows:

as

It would take a 20 percent increase in salary for postal employees to catch up with the cost of living.

So you can readily see that Federal and postal employees were in the same boat with the same rate of salary lag prior to the pay increase of July 1, 1951.

The pay increase as of July 1951 amounted to approximately 12 percent. It, therefore, must be obvious to anyone with an open mind that at the time the last pay increase was granted postal employees and Government employees alike were at least 9 percent behind the cost of living index. Since 1951, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there has been a 4 percent increase in the cost of living. In addition to that, we must take into consideration the question of productivity. For the 5-year period from 1947 to 1952 the Post Office Department handled an increase in volume of 33 percent in the number of pieces and 29 percent in weight with an increase in personnel of only 9 percent. These figures are from the annual report of the Postmaster General. On page 276 of the

Treasury-Post Office Department appropriation for 1955, the Department proposes to handle an increase of 3.14 percent in mail volume with a 1.4 percent reduction in manpower. Certainly postal employees are entitled to a 6 or 7 percent increase on the basis of this spectacular production record. Other governmental employees have likewise made comparable productivity records.

I believe the Federal employees, in common with our citizens generally, are entitled to the improvements in their own increased efficiency and productivity. This has been continually reflected in increased man-hour output. It is proper that this productivity be rewarded in public employment as it is in private employment. The average employee will need a salary increase of $800 to bring him anywhere near the purchasing power of his salary in 1939. Certainly the measure under consideration is far below that amount.

In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics cost-of-living index ignores one particular item which is of great importance to classified and postal employees. That is the fact that in 1939 the average Federal employee with a family of five paid no income tax. In 1953 that same employee paid a Federal income tax of approximately $385.

It seems rather obvious that today's wage scale is not geared to today's high cost of living and is wholly unrealistic. Such a wage scale adversely affects the morale of this loyal group of employees and in the long run increases the costs of operating the Departments.

May I quote one brief passage from the President's Economic Report, delivered to the Congress on January 28, 1954:

Our economic goal is an increasing national income, shared equitably among those who contribute to its growth and realized in dollars of stable buying power.

A recent study of the McGraw-Hill department of economics makes a contrast in prosperity in nations of the free

world. One of the conclusions reached is that

The real income of the average American has almost doubled since 1939.

This surely does not pertain to Federal classified employees and postal workers.

The tragic results of a substandard wage is probably best illustrated by the poll that was taken by the letter carriers president, William Doherty, of the members. The number of carriers polled was 73,000 plus. Number of answers received was 80 percent or more than 59,000 of those polled. The number of carriers doing part-time work, in addition to regular postal duties, was 26,000 plus or 45 percent. Number of carriers whose wives are working was 22,000 plus or 38 percent of those answering the poll. Number whose debts increased since last pay increase of July 1, 1951, was 41,000 plus or more than 70 percent of those answering polls. The average debt of those polled was $842 plus and this is exclusive of home mortgages.

It is indeed shocking that 81.7 percent of those answering these surveys were forced to report loans on their insurance,