CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT FINANCING AND BENEFITS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: July 23, 1969
• Content Type: OPEN

July 23, 1969 Approved FoCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8000500160004-2
"(d) Section 1902 of the Social Security Mr. Speaker, section 1903 (e) has been
Act is amended by adding at the end thereof of concern to many States in considering
the following new subsection:
'(d) Whenever any State desires a modi whether or not they should establish a
fication of the State plan for medical assist- medical assistance program. There has
ance so as to reduce the scope or extent of been some question since this provision
the care and services provided as medical as- was enacted as to just what it requires
sistance under such plan, or to terminate any of the States.
of such care and services, the Secretary shall, `The amendment adopted by the Sen-
upon application of the State, approve any r ate provides an opportunity for the Con-
such modification if the Governor of suol
gress to further consider the type of re-
tifi
t
th
t
th
t
t
e Secre
ary
o
a
-
Sta
e cer
es
" '(1) the average quarterly amount ,f
non-Federal funds expended in provi ng
medical assistance under the plan for ny
consecutive four-quarter period after/the
quarter in which such modification tak s ef-
fect will not be less than the average uar-
terly amount of such funds expended i pro-
viding such assistance for the four -q aster
period which immediately precedes the quar-
ter in which such modification is to b come
'(2) the State is fully complying with
the provisions of its State plan (relatin to
control of utilization and costs of servi es)
which are included therein pursuant to e
formula for determining payments for those
types of care or services which, after such
modification, are provided under the State
plan,
and if the Secretary finds that the State is
complying with the provisions of its State
plan referred to in clause (2); except that
nothing in this subsection shall be con-
strued to authorize any modification in the
State plan of any State which would termi-
nate the care or services required to be in-
cluded pursuant to subsection (a) (13). Any
increase in the formula or other standard for
determining payments for those types of
care or services which, after such modifica-
tion, are provided under the State plan shall
be made only after approval thereof by the
Secretary.'"
quirement of this nature which should
be in the law and if necessary to modify
the requirement, to take into account the
experiences that have been gained so far
under the medical assistance program.
The second Senate amendment re-
lates to section 1902(c) of the Social
Security Act. This amendment is more
in the nature of a clarification of ori-
ginal Congressional intent than a modi-
fication of the provisions of the section.
Section 1920(c) of the law states that
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare shall not approve a State pro-
gram for medical assistance if he deter-
mines that the plan will result in a re-
duction in aid or assistance provided for
public assistance rec'igicnts than were
provided prior to that tim~.in the form
of medical vendor payments fo y cash
assistance recipients. This was n the
H62103
XIX in the form of section 1902(d)
which would require that whenever a
State desires to reduce the scope or ex-.
tent of care and services provided under
its medical assistance plan, such modi-
fication must be obtained on the basis of
an application submitted by the Gov-
ernor of the State and approved by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. In such cases, the Governor of
the State would be required to certify
with respect to three important matters.
First, he would have to certify that
the amount of funds expended in pro-
viding medical assistance from State and
local sources in the year after such mod-
ification takes effect is not less than the
amount of such funds expended in the
year prior to the quarter in which such
modification is to become effective.
Second, the Governor of such State
must certify that the State is fully
complying with the provisions of its
State plan relating to control of utiliza-
tion and costs of services. The Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare would
also be required to make a specific find-
ing that the State is complying with its
plan requirements concerning utilization
and costs.
Third, the Governor must certify that
the modification is not made for the
purpose of increasing the standards for
determining payment to doctors, nursing
homes and other providers of services
under the State plan. Provision is made
in the amendment, however, that if there
is a demonstrated need to increase the
intention of section 1902(e). As spe ed formula or standard for determining
out in the 1965 House and Senate corn=' payments under a State plan after a
mittee -reports on this legislation, the in- modification has been adopted in the
tention of this section of the law was to Skate's plan, such increases may be pro-
cash vi d but they shall be made only after
prohibit the States from reducin
g
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to payments to public assistance recipients the proval of the Secretary of Health,
the request of the gentleman from Ar- at the time they adopted their title XIX Educ ion, and Welfare has been ob-
nd
tiny,
funds
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr.
`
""
"'
far medical care. Mr. Baker, these three amendments
Speaker, reserving the right to object, I This intention was clearly stated in are very pertinent to the concern of Con-
do not intend to continue the objection the following language from the House gress ove the sharp and unanticipated
except for the purpose of asking the gen-
increases in the cost of operating the
Report on the 1965 amendments:
tleman from Arkansas to make an ex- medicaid program. They do not con-
planation of the Senate amendment, and In addition, the Secretary, is directed not stitute a 4etrenchment in the medicaid
then be able to answer any inquiries that to approve any State plan for medical as-
other en beat able to answer House inquiries have . sistance if he finds that the approval and program, ut they will allow the States
th
operation of the plan will result in a reduc- great free om in determining the dimen-
with respect to the amendment to the tion in the level of aid or assistance provided sions of Sheir own programs in the, light
legislation, and I yield to the gentleman for eligible individuals under title I, IV, X, of thei own individual needs and
from Arkansas. XIV, or XVI. An exception is provided allow- resoure s.
Mr. MILLS. I thank the gentleman for ing States to reduce such aid to the extent The amendments were adopted on
that assistan
n
id
d . .
d
_
yi
ce
ow prov
e
n
er titles
lding
5833 as it passes the House were not recommends the inclusion or this provision ea er met with some opposition in the
changed in any way. The Senate is to make certain that States do not divert ate and had held up action on the
amended the bill by adding three amend- funds from the provision of basic mainte- e bill for a number of days. The third
ments to title XIX of the Social Security nance to the provision of medical care. amendment which was added to the bill
Act which provides grants to the States the Secretary should find that his apps al after it was reported out of the Finance
for medical assistance programs. of a title XIX plan would result in. re- Committee, however, along with a mod-
The first of these amendments would duction of aid or assistance for pery6ns re- ification of the amendment to section
suspend the application of section assistg basic maintenance
under cfie public 190~3(e) gained complete support for the
1903(e) of the act which requires the (except eas specified titles of the above) Social al tl$6 Security not ap- Act entire set of amendments from those
States to have in operation comprehen- ti
prove such a plan under title e X IX. Your Senators who had opposed the amend-
sive medical assistance programs by committee recognizes the fieed and urgency ments as they had been reported.
July 1, 1975. Under the Senate amend- for States to maintain,, if not improve, the I urge that the House accept the Sen-
ment, this provision would be suspended level of , basic maintenance provided for ate amendments.
in application until July 1, 1971. This needy people under the public assistance Mr. BURTON of California. Mr.
means that the States would not be re- programs. The provision is intended to pre- Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
quired to take any action pursuant to the from basis vent baymaintenance e t to medical of care.
funds Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. I yield to
requirements of section 1903(e) prior to
that time. In addition, the Senate The amendment adopted by the Sen- Mrthe. gentleman
BURTON from of f Califor Calif rnia
amendment would postpone the date ate clearly spells out this intention in . M
Speaker, I had intended to reserve my
y
when the comprehensive care require- section 1902(c) of the act. right to object, so I could make a few
ment would finally apply from July 1, The third amendment adopted by the points with reference to the pending
1975, until July 1, 1977. Senate would add a new provision to title matter, but I will accept the time yielded
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160604-2
 H'M
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE Jjdy 23, 1969
to me by the gentleman from Wisconsin
to achieve the same objective.
Title XIX, when enacted, provided a
meaningful hope for the American
people that comprehensive medical, care
would someday soon become reality. Also
of importance, it provided a mechanism
to obtain meaningful data for all of us to
weigh when we consider to who extent
we should move ahead to pro a com-
prehensive medical care under 41C social
security mechanism.
I must respectfully completely dis-
agree with the view of our vcfr distin-
scond amendment relating to section
1902(c). The amendment before us will
not be a clarification of the original in-
tent of Congress with respect to the
States being required to maintain not
only their level of cash benefits, but,
more importantly in the health field, the
level of health services provided to pub-
lic assistance recipients.
The fact of the matter is that when
title XIX was approved there was the
dual requirement on the States to main-
tain effort both on.the cash aside as well
as on the health side to public assistance
recipients.
The modification proposedby the Sen-
Ian to be
terms of the health care that we require
the States to provide in order to receive
Federal funding under title XX. Its sig-
nificance is not so much toda as it will
become If we are ever to reach the trig-
gering date of 1975 wherein Otate plans
were supposed to be comer pensive In
terms of providing health services.
So we have here two nterrela.ted
amendments. I do not like, ibut under-
stand, the background tha4 led up to
for 2 years, from 1975 to
the States further time to
ling a delay
977, to give
;amply with
that there
care and
to a rollcall,
believe the
realities of the situation are that this is
reasonably well considered, but none-
theless clearly a step backward in terms
of our meeting the national objective to
provide comprehensive medical care to
the American people.
I would hope that we will not find our-
selves in future sessions agreeing to fur-
ther retrenchment and relaxation of the
objectives to provide comprehensive
medical care for the rican people,
at least through the in hanism pro-
vided under title XIX, by 1977.
I thank the distinguishid gentleman
from Wisconsin for yielding this portion
of his time to me.
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak-
er, I withdraw my reservation.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
karisas?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment was concurred
in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
FINANCING AND BENEFITS
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee, on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 380 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
H. Has. 380
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
9325) to amend subchapter II of chapter
83 of title 5, United States Code, relating
to civil service retirement, end for other
purposes, and all points of order against
section 103 of said bill are hereby waived.
After general debate, which ! shall be con-
fined to the bill and shall continue not to
exceed two hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking mi-
nority member of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, the bill shall be
read for amendment under the live-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the ljill and amend-
ments thereto to final passa a without in-
tervening motion except one: motion to re-
commit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
New York is recognized for i hour.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. LATTA), pending which I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill
is to save the civil service retirement
fund. If it were to drift the way it has
been going, by 1975 the outgo would ex-
ceed the income,
This legislation is long overdue.
The rule provides the waiving of points
of order on section 103, an open rule
with 2 hours of general debate.
The purpose of the bill is to improve
the financing and funding practices of
the civil service retirement system so as
to maintain Its soundness and to assure
that the necessary moneys are available
when needed to pay the annuities of our
Government retirees and survivors' an-
nuities in the full amount.
It is also the purpose of this legislation
to provide certain limited but needed
improvements in the benefit structures
of the system within the. limits of the
new financing approach.
The waiver of points of order, of
course, is a restriction of the power to
report appropriations. There are two
sections which I will refer to of this bill.
The first section is on page 5 of H.R.
9825, beginning on line d, where it is
stated that the civil service retirement
and disability fund is appropriated for
the payment of benefits and administra-
tive expenses and is made available sub-
ject to the annual limitation by the
Congress for the expenses incurred in
connection with the administration of
the retirement and armbity statutes.
Then further on, on page 6, beginning at
line 17, a new subsection of section 8348
requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
credit annually the civil service retire-
ment and disability fund i s a Govern-
ment contribution in an amount of
money equal to a specific percentage of
the amount of interest on the unfunded
liability of the fund.
It is clear, therefore, that this waiver
is necessary on section 103 so that the
heart of the bill not be destroyed by a
point of order.
Mr. Speaker, a greet deal of study
has been put into the revision of this
retirement fund. It has been put off
year after year until new we are down
to a point where we are near a crisis.
The bill has been covered in the com-
mittee hearings and will be covered on
all points during debate. It is long over-
due, and I urge adoption of this rule so
that we can get to the consideration of
the bill.
Mr. HALL. Mr, Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. DELANEY. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. Did I understand the gen-
tleman to state in his preliminary re-
marks that the waiver of points of order
also applied to section 102?
Mr. DELANEY. No. Section 103.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman for
that clarification. I obviously misunder-
stood him. I listened with unusual at-
tention to his subsequent explanation of
the waiver of points of order pertaining
to section 103. 1 disapprove heartily of
a waiver of points of order even under
such a circumstance. I think the indi-
vidually elected Members should not be
precluded from their elected responsi-
bilties by even the distinguished Com-
mittee on Rules waiving such points of
order, but in line with the new policy
of the Committee on Rules wherein the
distinguished gentleman from New York
has explained on a line-by-line basis
everything within the bill applicable
thereto, I, for one, wish to state that I
appreciate this method- I recognize the
inevitable in House Resolution 380, and
compliment the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentle-
man yielding to me.
Mr. DELANEY. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
(Mr. LATTA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, the main
purpose of the bill is to increase the cur-
rent funding provisions of the retire-
ment system to assure that the neces-
sary money will be available to pay bene-
ficiaries. The bill also improves some of
the benefits now existing.
The retirement fund is in trouble un-
less something is done. While Federal
employees have fully met their share of
the cost, the Government has not met
its obligations. By the end of the fiscal
year the deficiency of the fund will
amount to about $57,700,000,000 in un-
funded future obligations. By 1975, as
fund disbursements exceed income paid
In annually, a serious problem will arise.
It is estimated that by 1987 the current
$20,500,000,000 fund will be exhausted.
To forestall such a result, the unfunded
liability, resulting from the Govern-
ment's arrears in making payments to
the fund must be reduced and finally
eliminated.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 My 723, 196-Approved For FB1$ Ii b"nkb$ A1L: O -MI j7'l.B
The bill will increase the. employee- everybody-especially the Members of
employer contribution from 61/2 percent Congress.
each to 7 percent. Congressional em- I.propose to make a further statement
ployees will have their contribution rate under general debate, but I would like at
increased to 71/2 percent, the same as this point to read a letter which I re-
Members. These increases become ef- ceived this morning from the Executive
fective in January 1970. Office of the President, Bureau of the
The existing unfunded liability is to Budget:
be eliminated over a 30-year period by DEAR MR. GRoss: This is in response to
-payment of annual installments by the your letter of July 15, 1969, in which you
Government. Permanent appropriating asked whether the Bureau of the Budget
authority language is contained in, the would recommend to the President that he
bill. Beginning in 1971 payments will approve H.R. 9825 if it were enacted in its
begin from the Treasury to reduce the current form. Title I of H.R. 9825 would pro-
unfunded liability now existing and the vide for full funding of the Civil Service
interest thereon. The committee believes retirement system and Title II would provide
this system of payments will insure a a number of benefit liberalizations.
In our letter of March 16, 1969, to the
sound, healthy' retirement system for Chairman of the House Post Office and Civil
civil service employees. Service Committee, we stated that "retire-
Title II of the bill improves several of went legislation enacted this year should be
the, benefits now available, These are confined to improving the financing and
more than covered by the increase in 'funding of the retirement system...... In
contributions, addition, in our report of July 10 to the
First, the current formula for arriving Chairman of the Senate Post Office and Civil
Service Committee, we stated that enactment
at a retiree's annuity is modified. Now, it of the liberalizations contained in Title II
is based on a high 5-year average. This would not be consistent with the Adminis-
has caused some to remain on the job tration's objectives and that the Congress
longer than they should. The new base should limit its action this year to enactment
period will be a high 3=year average. of the Title I financing provisions.
For, congressional employees the 15- We believe the Administration's position
year period upon which to apply the year on H.R. 9825 is clear. Thus, in view of the
average rate te is removed, legislative history, the Bureau of the Budget
average is leave is recompensed by 2 would have to seriously consider recommend-
Increasing the total actual work service 998 to the President that he disapprove its
825 if it were passed by the Congress in its
credited to an employee by the length of current form.
service represented by the calendar value Sincerely,
of his unused sick leave. One calendar
month will be added for each 22 days of
unused leave.
ROBERT P. MAYO,
Director.
We believe the Administration's position
for annuitants is increased by adding 1 an H.R. 9825 is clear. Thus, in view of the
percent to all such future. increases. legislative history, the Bureau of the Budget
It is estimated that the 1-pereent in- would have to seriously consider recommend-
crease in contributions will increase ing to the President that he disapprove
fund income to $220,000,000 per year, H.R. 9825 if it were passed by the Congress
which covers both normal costs and the in its current form.
benefits increased by the bill. It is also Mr. Speaker, I propose at the proper
estimated that by 1980 the amount to be time to offer an amendment to strike
transferred by the Treasury to the fund title II from the bill. In that event I can
to cover the interest on the unfunded -support it. I am not opposed to the rule
liability will be about $2,700,000,000 an- for, as I said previously, we do some-
nually. This figure is to be reached in 10- thing about the chaotic condition of the
percent increments during the 1970's retirement fund, but that does not mean
until full annual funding is achieved in that to accomplish that end it is neces-
1.980. sary for us to stage another unwar-
The administration supports the bill. ranted raid on the Federal Treasury.
A waiver of points of order is needed Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
for two sections of the bill as in two of my time.
places appropriation language is pro- Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
vided for the Government-funding pro- minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska
visions. These occurs on page 5, lines 18 (Mr. MARTIN).
to 22, and page 6, lines 17 to 25, and
page 7
lines 1 to 7
Both of these sec- (Mr. MARTIN asked and was given
,
.
Members of Congress and the answer, as
tions violate rule XXI, clause 4, which permission to revise and extend his re- I recall it, was that the 71/2 percent cur-
prohibits appropriation language to be in marks.) r
end
Ii 6205
in the following ways:_
1. Gross earnings, rather than basic pay,
would be used in determining retirement
benefits and deductions.
2. Average salary for annuity computation
purposes would be determined on the basis of
3 rather than 5 years.
3. Unused sick leave would be added to
the actual length of service in computing
annuities.
4. An extra 1 percent would be added to
each annuity increase resulting from changes
In the Consumer Price Index.
And I quote further:
In summary, if the bill is amended to de-
lete those financing provisions which we con-
sider unnecessary and to delete the liberal-
izing amendments proposed in title II, we
strongly urge enactment of H.R. 770.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote
from the letter to the chairman of the
committee from the Executive Office of
the President, Bureau of the Budget,
written by Mr. Wilfred H. Rommel:
Title II of H.R. 770-
And that H.R. 770 was the original
bill sent down to the Department-
Title II of H.R. 770 would provide a num-
ber of liberalizations primarily designed to
enhance the value of annuities earned by
long-service employees. In the aggregate,
they would have the effect of increasing the
unfunded liability by more than $3.7 billion.
We believe It would be incongruous to in-
clude in a bill designed to halt the growth
of the unfunded liability of the retirement
system, provisions which would of them-
selves increase the existing unfunded lia-
bility by more than 6 percent.
And I quote further:
Therefore, we recommend that the liberal-
izations contained In title II be deleted.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has set a
limitation an expenditures for the fiscal
year 1970 by the executive branch of
the Government and here we are in
legislation proposing today under title
II to increase further the cost of the
operation of our Federal Government.
Title II will probably pass the Con-
gress today, but it seems to me the
height of irresponsibility to propose
setting this fund up on a fiscally sound
basis, and then on the other-hand in
title II to eliminate the good that is be-
ing done by the provisions of title I.
I would like to direct a question to the
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. DULSKI).
In the Rules Committee hearing I
asked the question whether there would
be any changes in the retirement for
' I -- approve ' of Mr. DULSKI. That is correct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the sections. - Title - I of the bill -
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS). heartily, because it would result in fiscal Mr. MARTIN. The bill last year in-
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given responsibility in the operation of our creased that one-half of 1 percent-but
permission to revise and extend his Civil Service Retirement System and put this remains the same?
-remarks.) it on a sound basis, but on the other Mr. DULSKI. That is correct.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I doubt that hand title II offsets the benefits derived Mr. MARTIN. Let me ask one other
there is a Member of Congress, either in from title I of the legislation, because it question of the chairman of the com-
the House or the other body, who does increases the liability under its provi- mittee.
not want to do ;something about the cha- sions to the tune of $3.7 billion. In reducing the basis for retirement
otic condition of the Government em- Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from from the high 5 years to 3 years, would
-ployees' retirement fund, but what has the report on page 28 in a letter from this apply to the retirement of Members
happened is that this bill, has been con- the U.S. . Civil Service Commis- of Congress as well as civil service em-
verted into a Christmas tree with a lot of sion, written by Mr. Robert E. Hamp- ployees?
tinsel and ornaments-something for ton, and I quote from that letter: Mr. DULSKI. Yes, it would.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6206 Approved For ii91 f't : $7 4 OOO5OOl60004 ul;y 23, 1969,,.
Mr. MARTIN. It would apply to Mein- A motion to reconsider was laid on the study and consideration by the House
bers of Congress as well? table. Subcommittee on Retirement, Insurance,
Mr. DULSKI. Yes, it would. Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I move that and Health Benefits in conducting ex-
Mr. MARTIN, Mr. Speaker, I am also the House resolve itself into the Com- tensive public hearings, executive ses-
opposed to that, because it increases mittee of the Whole House on the State sions, and conferences wi;h official repre-
benefits without any increase in the of the Union for the consideration of the sentatives of agencies oi the legislative
amount paid in. bill (H.R. 9825) to amend subchapter III and executive branches: namely, the
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr. of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Honorable Robert E. Hampton, the pres-
Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Code, relating to civil service retirement, ent Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service
Mr. MARTIN. I am glad to yield to and for other purposes. Commission; the Honorable John W.
the gentleman from New Jersey. The SPEAKER. The question is on the Macy, J., the former Chairman of the
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. The gen- motion offered by the gentleman from U.S. Civil Service Commission; the Hon-
tleman made a statement referring to New York. orable Philip S. Hughes, Deputy Director
the report of the Bureau of the Budget IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the Bureau of the Budget; the Honor-
in which he stated that the bill would Accordingly the House resolved itself eral able of the Elmer B. United Staats, States, Gen-
add over $3 billion to the unfunded lia- into the Committee of the Whole House , and others.
bility. on the State of the Union for the con- This three-pronged rmancing ap-
I believe that report had reference to sideration of the bill H.R. 9825, with Mr. preach-dealing with normal cost, fu-
the bill, H.R. 770, which was the bill I McFALL in the chair. ture unfunded liabilities, and the present
originally introduced on the opening day The Clerk read the title of the bill. unfunded liability-contains the recom-
of this Congress. Do you know there is By unanimous consent, the first read- m dations, ns, the unanimous recornmen-
a substantial difference in one important ing of the bill was dispensed with. dhowsof the honorable gentlemen
feature of H.R. 770 and the bill, H.R. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the whose names I just mentioned. Also, I
9825, the bill presently under discussion? gentleman from New York (Mr. DULSKI) think the Members of this House should
Do you not know that the bill, H.R. will be recognized for 1 hour, and the know that this bill was cosponsored by
9825, does not, include provisions as in- gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coe- 25 Members, 24 of whom serve on the
eluded in the bill, H.R. 770, relating to BETT) will be recognized for 1 hour. Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
the inclusion of overtime, premium and The Chair recognizes the gentleman ice; that an identical bill, H.R. 10219,
differential pay of employees as basic from New York, has been cosponsored by 14 other Mem-
pay for retirement purposes? Because Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield bers, several of whom previously served
that particular provision would cost over myself such time as I may ;consume. on the committee; and that all of the
$21/2 billion, in the judgment of our com- ylr. Chairman, before yielding to the members of the Subcommittee on In-
r.
we deleted that and it is not in- chairman of the Retirement,Subcommit- dependent Offices Appropriations co-
eluded in the bill, H.R. 9825, the bill we tee, the gentleman from Net Jersey (Mr. sponsored a bill embodying the basic
are presently considering. DANIELS), I will say that the bill before financing proposals contained therein,
Mr. MARTIN. I would like to ask the us is a special tribute to Min and every H.R. 8608. It is worthy of note, also,
gentleman why he did not- member of his subcommittee, as well as that H.R. 9825 was reported favorably
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. If I may the fine bipartisan support ;given by the by the Subcommittee on Retirement,
have the gentleman's attention, I will minority side of the committee. Insurance, and Health Benefits and the
tell you exactly what the increase- This landmark legislation has been full Committee on Post Office and Civil
Mr. MARTIN. I will not yield further carefully worked out through diligent Service without a dissenting vote. Of
to the gentleman to make a speech. He and unceasing effort over a period of 2 further significance is the fact that Sen-
can do that on his own time. years. It has been developed, refined, and ate bill S. 2326, which is identical to this
chair-
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I am go- tested through hearings, conferences, and man of legislation, the and Senate introduced by Committee the on Post
ing to make a speech later. executive deliberations that were among
Mr. MARTIN. I would like to ask the the most intensive in the history of our Office and Civil Service, Senator MCGEE,
gentleman a question: Why were not the committee. was the subject of public hearings by
departments downtown requested to give H.R. 9825 achieves a delicate, yet ideal, the Senate Retirement Subcommittee on
their opinions on the bill which we have balance-a balance that should not be July 10 and 11.
before us instead of the bill which you disturbed-in coupling together long- Therefore, H.R. 9825 is the product of
introduced last January, and why were overdue retirement financing and a very the common effort of the officials of the
t of
not their letters included in this report? moderate updating of the benefit strut- the Budget, Service the General the Accounting
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Repre- ture-the first major benefit changes in the dg, thhe mene
Re-
sentatives of the departments appeared 13 years. Office, and by the members
whose the devoted
before the committee. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to tirement Subcommittee whose devoted
Mr. MARTIN. That does not answer attention and energies have been di-
my question. Why did You not have let- give this excellent bill the overwhelming rected to a most involved and complex
approval it so richly deserves. subject.
ters from the departments that would I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman This body demonstrated its concern
pertain to the legislation we have before from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS), the for the financial integrity of the civil
us instead of some other bill that was chairman of the subcommittee.
reported out by your committee? service retirement pro?-^;ram in the last
not The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Congress by passing a similar measure,
Mr: DANIELS of New Jersey, This Is a New Jersey is recognized for 15 minutes. H.R. 17682. While the bill was passed on
clean bill, sir. (Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey asked October 1, 1968, unfortunately, time did
Mr. MARTIN. This does not look like and was given permission to revise and not permit the Senate to act thereon.
a very clean bill to me. The committee extend his remarks.) i want to publicly commend the mem-
has the responsibility to write a report Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr. bers of the subcommittee, our ranking
and include letters from the proper Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues majority and minority members-the
bureaus which accurately reflect their on both sides of the aisle, Democrats gentleman from Nortsi Carolina, Con-
thinking on the bill before us. I note that and Republicans, to give their strong gressman HENDERSON, and the gentleman
the two letters from which I quoted, were support to the legislation before you to- from Virginia, Congressman ScoTT-and 19, written last March although the letter day, H.R. 9825, the major purpose of the chairman and ranking minority
from the Bureau o of f the Budget shows which is to improve the financing and member of the full committee, Congress-
March 19, 1968. funding practices of the civil service re- men DULSKI and CORBETT, for their tire-
I yield back the balance of my time. tirement system, and to provide certain less efforts and contributions toward the
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I have limited, but needed, improvements in the development of a good and sound piece
no further requests for time. benefits structure of the pystem within of legislation, H.R. 9825.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques- the framework of the new financing ap- The Committee on Post Office and Civil
tion on the resolution. proach. Service believes that the civil service re-
The previous question as ordered. It is a good bill, a sound bill, and The tirement system is one of its most im-
The resolution was agreed to. product of many months of intense work, portant responsibilities, It is an essential
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 1@11000500160004-2
1969 Approved For-6t1?MJ44j
-part of a modern employment system
ddesigned to attract and retain employees
of the caliber to conduct the complex
'business of government. It clontributes
importantly to the financial security of
millions of past, present, and future Fed-
eral employees and their dependents.
There should never exist the slightest
doubt of the system's ability to meet its
commitments to these people.
The results of an in-depth study con-
ducted by our standing Subcommittee on
Retirement, Insurance, and Health Bene-
fits over an extended period of time most
assuredly attest to the fact that any
doubt which exists as to the system's
ability to meet future commitments is
attributable to funding practices which
have been grossly inadequate since the
program's very inception in 1920.
Federal employees have always con-
tributed the full amount set by law.
While the Government has contributed
substantial amounts to the trust fund, it
has failed to appropriate regularly and
systematically, on a concurrent basis,
sufficient funds to meet the ultimate cost
not covered. by employees' contributions.
Retirement system financing has been
a problem of continuing concern to the
Congress, to its respective committees,
and to officials of the executive branch.
The history of actuarial reports has indi-
cated successively for a long time past
an increasingly pessimistic view with
'respect to actuarial costs and liabilities
under the escalating benefits and other
liberalizations in the specifics of the
retirement programs. In past years,
several methods for determining appro-
priations to meet the Government's obli-
gation to the system have been consid-
ered, and some have been adopted. How-
ever, the attitudes of various administra-
tions, Congresses, and respective con-
gressional committees has changed from
time to time, but facing the problem
realistically has been long delayed.
At the end of the fiscal year 1969 the
unfunded liability of the system ap-
proached $57.7 billion. Full implementa-
tion of the 1967 salary statute in the
fiscal year 1970, beginning this month,
Is expected to increase that deficiency
to $61.1 billion. Under present financing
practices, the unfunded liability will con-
tinue to grow by more than $2 billion
every year, sometimes much more. By
1975 the disbursements will begin to ex-
ceed annual income of $3.8 billion. There-
after disbursements will continue to esca-
late appreciably under a relatively static
income, and result in a declining fund
balance. Consequently, to meet benefit
payments, all disbursements in excess of
current income will have to be met from
the fund balance. Without additional
funding, that balance will be totally
exhausted by 1987. Immediately there-
after, disbursements will exceed income
by $3'/Z billion, and will require direct
appropriations to meet benefit payments.
During ensuing years, progressively
higher amounts would be required un-
til, at the turn of the century, the neces-
sary direct appropriations will approach
$5 billion. These substantial sums, it is
emphasized, will be an addition to the
approximate $3?/a billion income received
by the trust funds from then active em-
ployee and agency contributions.
The historical pattern of employee-
employer contributions to the retirement
fund supports the conclusion that de-
ficiencies-that is, accrued liability for
which contributions, to the fund have not
been made-are the responsibility of the
Government as the employer. The major
causes of such deficiencies have been:
First. Creditable service for which
neither the employee nor the employer
contributed-such as free credit for mili-
tary service, and for Federal civilian
service during which the employee was
not currently subject to the program.
Second. General wage increases which
result in benefits based on a higher pat-
tern of salaries than that upon which at
least a portion of contributions is based.
Third. Liberalizations applying to
benefits based on past and/or future
service without a commensurate increase
in contributions.
Fourth. Loss of compounded interest
income which would have been earned if
the. accrued liability had been fully
funded.
The Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service feels strongly that,. in fur-
therance of theh objective of prudent
management of the Government's finan-
cial affairs, it is important that Con-
gress provide a definite plan to improve
the system's financing.
The major purpose of the legislation is
to improve funding practices so as to
maintain confidence in the soundness of
the Civil Service Retirement and Dis-
ability fund, and to assure that the nec-
essary money is available when needed
to pay the annuities of Federal retirees
and survivor annuitants-in full and on
time. The legislation also provides cer-
tain limited, but needed, improvements
in the benefit structure of the program
within the limits of the new financing
approach.
The bill contains a three-pronged ap-
proach, as follows:
'First. Normal cost financing through
equal employee-agency contributions is
retained. Because of the inadequacy of
current contributions, implementation
of normal cost financing of the existing
benefit structure-including the legisla-
tion contained in title II-requires an
immediate 1-percent increase in the
combined contribution rate from 13 to 14
percent of payroll, in the case of em-
ployees, and from 13 to 15 percent of
payroll in the case of congressional em-
ployees, effective in January 1970.
Second. The costs of future incremen-
tal unfunded liabilities which will result
from benefit liberalizations for the active
work force are to be fully financed by the
Government through direct appropria-
tions to the fund, in equal annual in-
stallments, over 30-year periods.
Third. Direct appropriations, under
.,permanent indefinite authority, will be
made to meet the Government's obliga-
tion for the presently increasing un-
funded liability which arises from legis-
lation already enacted, including that
created in title II of this legislation, in
amounts equivalent to interest on the
future accrued deficiencies. This respon-
sibility will be fulfilled by transfers of
moneys from the Treasury, beginning on
a modest scale in 1971 and progressively
increasing by 10 percent each subsequent
116207
year. In 1980 and thereafter, the amounts
will equal the full equivalent of interest
on the unfunded liability.
In the committee's judgment, this ap-
proach, while somewhat new in concept
and mechanics, is sound and will ac-
complish the desired results by provid-
ing in full for the permanent financing
of the civil service retirement system.
The legislation also provides for these
limited improvements and remedies in
certain areas of the benefit structure of
the retirement. program:
First, Annuities, of employees and
Members would, be computed upon the
average of the 3 highest years of earn-
ings, in lieu of the existing provision of
computing benefits upon the 5 high years
of average pay.
Second. The 15-year limitation im-
posed under the congressional employee
computation formula would be remedied
by removal of such limitation.
Third. A new provision would be in-
corporated into the program to include
for service computation purposes the
value of unused sick leave to the credit
of an employee upon death in or retire-
ment from Federal employment; thus,
allowing credit of one additional month
of service for each 22 days of accrued
sick leave in computing his annuity, or
that of his surviving spouse.
Fourth. An additional 1 percent would
be added to future cost-of-living adjust-
ments payable to retirees and survivor-
annuitants, so as to compensate for the
5-month waiting period which elapses
between the Consumer Price Index at-
taining a rise of 3 percent and the even-
tual belated payment of the annuity in-
crease.
Fifth. The remarriage provisions of
present law with respect to the surviving
spouses of the active work force would
be extended to any surviving spouse
whose remarriage occurs on or after
July 18, 1966, the date that existing law
was so amended.
Mr. Speaker, these minimal changes
provided by title II of this legislation are
attainable within the framework of the
increased normal cost and incremental
financing provisions of title I of the bill.
The normal cost of present benefits, 13.86
percent of payroll, would be increased
by thirteen one-hundredths of 1 percent,
to 13.99 percent of payroll. The combined
agency-employee contributions of 14 per-
cent required by title I will not only cover
those present benefits which are under-
financed by eighty-six one-hundredths of
1 percent, but the thirteen one-hun-
dredths of 1 percent of those normal cost
items provided herein, The additional
unfunded liability incurred by all of title
II will be stabilized by the payment of
interest thereon, under the permanent-
indefinite appropriations authority pro-
vided in title I.
Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the
problem of retirement financing is such
that it is imperative that Congress take
action toward a prompt and positive
solution. While the budgetary impact of
this legislation will be sudden and sharp,
it will, nevertheless, be far less drastic
than if present financing practices con-
tinue unchanged.
In view of the urgency to enact a defi-
nite program of action to insure the sys-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6208
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 23, 1969.
tern's ability to fulfill its future obli-
gations, I strongly urge the adoption of
H.R. 9825, without amendment.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CORBETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, this is
not only a good bill but, title I of the bill
is an absolute must.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not properly
finance this retirement program, we as
a Congress are going to be in serious
trouble come 1975 when the payments
out of the fund are expected to exceed
payments into the fund. And, by approx-
imately 1987 the fund could be without
any reserves whatsoever. So, I simply be-
lieve that there is no argument possible
regarding title I. We simply have to pay
the bill. We have ordered the meal and
have consumed it. Now the check has
come.
As a matter of fact, in approximate
figures, we estimate that every day that
this bill is not enacted into law is cost-
ing the fund $500,000-$500,000 a day.
Therefore, it becomes increasingly clear
that we have to have this part of the
bill.
Now, then, regarding title II, there are
those who raise some sincere objections
to it. To these objections we can only
say that if we are going to charge our
employees one-half of 1 percent more of
their salaries, they are entitled to any
benefits for which their money pays.
Now, then. very definitely the amount
of money which will be coming into the
fund, new money, will more than offset
the cost of the additional benefits that
are provided for in the bill. As the gen-
tleman from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS)
pointed out, the most costly benefit that
might have been included was stricken
from the proposal. Consequently, this
bill provides for an actuarially sound
program and should, as the gentleman
says, be adopted without amendment.
I think it only fair to say also that
if title II is continued in this bill with-
out change, I propose and shall offer a
recommittal motion to require that the
Members pay 8 percent instead of their
present 71/z percent.
I noticed on the news sheet being cir-
culated in the cloak room yesterday that
the business of the House today was to
liberalize employee's and congressional
pensions. This is absolutely misleading.
This bill is primarily to properly fund
the retirement program, and only very
incidentally to improve the ultimate an-
nuities. Consequently, I join in congratu-
lating the members of this subcommittee
for the fine job they have done, and I join
with most of them, if not all, in urging
that the bill be passed as it came from
committee. It is complicated and in-
volved, and in the event that we start
mixing up certain phases of it we are
apt to get the whole thing out of balance.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that admoni-
tion to the House that we pass this bill,
I will conclude my remarks.
(Mr. CORBETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, at this
time I yield 15 minutes to the ranking
minority member of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
SCOTT), who worked on this bill with the
Congressman from New Jersey (Mr.
DANIELS).
(Mr. SCOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not pres-
ent.
The CHAIRMAN, Evidently a quorum
is not present. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the toll, and the
following Members failed to answer to
their names:
[Roll No. 1171
Adams Hanna Ottinger
Anderson, Hansen, Idaho Patman
Tenn. Hansen, Wash. Powell
Ashley Harsha Preyer, N.C.
Baring Hastings Price, Ill.
Belcher Hawkins Purcell
Biaggi Hebert Randall
Boland Henderson Reid, N.Y.
Brock Horton Riegle
Brooks Howard Baylor
Brown, Ohio Joelson Sebelius
Broyhill, Va. Kastenmeier Sisk
Carey Kirwan Staggers
Clark Landrum Stanton
Clay Lipscomb Stephens
Conte Long, La. Stratton
Culver McCarthy 5raylor
Daniel, Va. McCiory Teague, Calif.
Davis, Ga. MacGregor !Teague, Tex.
Diggs Mann Thompson, N.J.
Evins, Tenn. Mayne !Udall
Feighan Mollohan Weicker
Flynt Moorhead Widnall
Fountain Murphy, N.Y. Wilson, Bob
Frey O'Konski Winn
Fuqua O'Neal, Ga. Wolff
Coldwater O'Neill, Mass. Wydler
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. McFALL, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Commit-
tee, having had under consideration the
bill H.R. 98825, and finding itself without
a quorum, he had directed the roll to be
called, when 352 Members responded to
their names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees to
be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed'its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. At the time of the
quorum call, the gentleman from Vir-
ginia (Mr. SCOTT) had been recognized
for 15 minutes.
(Mr. SCOTT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 9825. In my opinion, it
is a much better bill than that approved
by the House last year. In this bill, the
Congress retains control over the set-
ting of contributions to the civil service
retirement fund by both the Government
and the employee. Under the measure
'we approved last year, this function
would have been transferred to the Civil
Service Commission. This seems to me
to be a legitimate legislative function of
the Congress and one that should not be
transferred and I feel the bill is strength-
ened by the elimination of h' provision.
The primary purpose of: the bill is to
stabilize the civil service retirement fund.
The distinguished chairman of the sub-
committee has already explained in de-
tail the way in which the financing pro-
visions will work. But I do want to en-
dorse what he has said and to assure
the Members that title I of the bill will
vastly improve our retirement system
and assure that the necessary money is
available when needed to pay -the an-
nuities of the Government's retirees and
survivor annuitants. Let me add, how-
ever, that this bill will not eliminate the
present unfunded liability in the civil
service retirement fund. As I understand,
if all liabilities should suddenly become
payable at one time, the Government
would be obligated to pay $78.3 billion;
but, of course, not all Government em-
ployees could retire at the same time and
demand complete payment of all obliga-
tions on the same day. Their right to re-
tire does not accrue in this manner.
There is a balance of approximately
$20.6 billion in the retirement fund and
an unfunded obligation of $57.7 billion.
Perhaps we should emphasize that this
unfunded deficit is $57.7 billion. What
this bill does do is to tend to stabilize the
unfunded liability by providing for pay-
ment of interest on the deficit in an in-
creasing percentage over a, period of
years, as shown in table B on pages 10
and 11 of the committee report, so that
by fiscal year 1980 the Government will
be paying 100 percent of the interest on
this deficit. I might mention, however,
that this table is not entirely accurate
in that it was prepared in connection
with last year's bill rather than the cur-
rent one. Interest alone at that time and
each year thereafter will be $2,690
million which, of course, is a sizable
amount even for the Government to pay,
but the consequence of bankruptcy of
the fund and payment to Government
employees out of direct appropriations
each year is so undesirable that, in my
opinion, we must stabilize the retirement
fund in the interest of both the Govern-
ment and the employees.
In an informal conversation with a
Civil Service Commission official knowl-
edgeable in this field, he indicated that if
the Government would appropriate the
entire $57.7 -billion represented by the
unfunded liability, there would not be
any immediate need for the appropri-
ated funds, but the funds would be
placed in interest-bearing obligations of
the Government. In other words, the un-
funded liability is presently an obligation
of the Government upon which the in-
terest would be paid in full annually be-
ginning in 1980, and the same situation
would exist if this money were appro-
priated. This is brought to the attention
of the Committee so that no one will be-
lieve the passage of this bill will elimi-
nate the unfunded liability of $57.7
billion.
I think the Members should also be
aware of two provisions in the bill which
were the subject of some controversy
during committee consideration. One
provision will permit retirement service
credit to be allowed for the calendar
value of unused sick leave of Federal
employees. Under this provision, an em-
ployee who meets the age and service
requirements for immediate retirement
will be able to add to his years of service
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 10y 23, 1969 Approved Forele~~~a~/~1RP71jq8R000500160004-2 H6209
1 calendar month for each 22 days of time when salaries are increasing, this I do not think we can find greater au-
sick leave for the purpose of computing will, of course, result in higher axunui- thority than that for the efficacy and
his annuity. This sick leave would not, ties.. However, employees will have 7 per- worthwhileness of this bill'.
however, be counted in determining cent deducted from their salaries for re- The three steps-in combination-
average pay or in attaining eligibility tirement purposes rather than 61/2 per- that I have mentioned provide sound
for retirement. cent; congressional employees and Mem- and permanent financing of this impor-
As is pointed out in the committee re- bers will have 71/2 percent, all matched tant program, cover the full cost of all
port and in the supplemental views, this with an equal Government contribution. future changes in the program; ease
is a departure from the historic philoso- Our committee has been assured by the their budgetary impact; control growth
phy of the sick leave system. But the Civil Service Commission that these con- of the deficiencies; keep the fund sol-
committee believed that the provision tributions will be sufficient to cover the vent, and at the same time avoiding ex-
was justified and would be beneficial to benefits received by the employees. You cessive buildup of the balance before
the Federal service. ' may be interested in reading the discus- the money is actually needed, and re-
Another provision of the bill relates to sion of this matter on page 12 of the store confidence in the program's ability
the computation of retirement annui- report. to make benefits available promptly and
ties for congressional employees. These The chairman of our subcommittee has in full.
employees are defined in section 2107 of been very fair in permitting all points Such remedy is full and complete.
title 5, United States Code, as follows: of view to be presented. We have adopted Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
First, an employee of either House of a number of amendments to the meas-,gentleman yield?
Congress, of a committee of either House, ure as originally introduced and as Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman
or of a joint committee of the two passed the House last year. In my opin- from Iowa.
Houses; ion, we have a much better bill. I hope Mr. GROSS. Did the gentleman say
Second, an elected officer of either the Committee will see fit to act favOr- that the Executive supports this bill?
House who is not a Member of Congress; ably on the bill. Mr. CELLER. I did not hear the gen-
Third, the Legislative Counsel of either Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield tleman.
House and an employee of his office; 5 minutes to the dean of the House of Mr. GROSS. Did the gentleman say
Fourth, a member of the Capitol Po- Representatives, the gentleman from that the executive branch of the Gov-
lice; New York (Mr. CELLER). ernment supports this bill?
Fifth, an employee of a Member of (Mr. CELLER asked and was given Mr. CELLER. I took the words that
Congress if the pay of the employee is permission to revise and extend his re- I just read from the report itself. If the
paid by the Secretary of the Senate or marks.) gentleman has any opinion to the con-
the Clerk of the House of Representa- Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and Mem- trary, it might be well to let the House
tives; bers of the Committee, I am pleased to know that there are contrary views on
Sixth, the Architect of the Capitol and rise in strong support of the legislation that subject.
an employee of the Architect of the Cap- before this House today and of our col- Mr. GROSS. I would say to the gen-
itol; and leagues on the Committee on Post Of- -tleman that I have already let the House
Seventh, an employee of the Botanic face, and Civil Service and particularly know, but for the gentleman's informa-
Garden. the members of the Subcommittee on Re- tiori, the executive branch does not sup-
Presently, congressional employees tirement, Insurance, and Health Benefits. port title II of this bill.
have their annuities computed by multi- Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the bill Mr. CELLER. I heard the gentleman's
plying the average pay times 21/2 percent primarily is to protect the retirement remarks. I usually have great respect for
times so much of their congressional, fund. This fund to my mind is a sacred his remarks, but I do not think the state-
military, or Member service as does not trust. It must be protected from any and ment he read before is unconditional. It
exceed 15 years. Any service above 15 all factors that might in the slightest de- was in futura. The gentleman does not
.years is computed at the rate of 2 per- gree militate against its integrity. know exactly whether the Bureau of the
cent. The amendments in this bill would We must keep the faith-the faith to Budget will or will not finally approve
eliminate the '15-year ceiling for com- the thousands of Federal employees who this legislation. The assistant who wrote
putation at the higher percentage and years after faithful toil retire from their that letter himself is not sure as to what
would also limit the years of creditable labors and enter into the deserved age of action the Bureau of the Budget would
military service to 5 years. This provision slippered ease and comfort. All em- take.
will bring congressional employees on ployees look anxiously to this period of Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
a par with Members of Congress in these leisure. How frightening to them it would tleman yield further?
respects. However, it would also increase be if they had any doubts about the re- Mr. CELLER. Yes, I yield to the gen-
their contribution to the retirement fund tirement fund which we are under ob- tleman from Iowa.
from 61/2 to 71/2 percent, with the Gov- ligation to protect. They would remain Mr. GROSS. The letter was signed by
ernment matching this contribution. The in fear constantly if there were the slight- the Director of the Bureau of the Budget,
increase in contribution should more est danger of impairment of that fund. Mr. Mayo, not an assistant.
than offset the cost of the enlarged ben- We must keep that fund impervious Mr. CELLER. That may very well be,
efits as pointed out on page 19 of the to all dangers. The fund, unfortunately, but it might be also that enlightenment
committee report. is now in danger and we must address will strike between now and the passage
. Mr. Chairman, the various provisions ourselves forthwith to erase that danger. of the bill and the time the President
of thi9 bill have been thoroughly dis- I am not going to go into all of the may have an opportunity to sign it, and
cussed in both the subcommittee and the ramifications and convolutions of the fi- I doubt very much, sir, whether the Pres-
full committee. We have not been unani- nancial aspects of this problem, particu- ident will take upon himself the grave
mous in our feelings toward all of the larly with reference to title I. responsibility of vetoing a bill of this
provisions: However, in my opinion, it is Suffice to say that there is involved character. The President will think many
a good bill, one long desired by Govern- herein a solution to the difficulties. The times over before he would follow the
ment employees and one that should relief is through a three-faceted fund- Bureau of the Budget in advice to veto
eliminate their concern for the continued ing program that first, increases em- a bill of this nature.
worsening conditions of the retirement ployee-employer contributions from 61/2 Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the
fund. Passage will assure them that nec- to 7 percent of payroll to cover normal gentleman yield?
essary funds will be available when costs; second, provides payment of all Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman
needed to pay all obligations of the fund, future increases in the unfunded liability; from Virginia.
Let me add one more thing: concern and third, provides for the stabilization Mr. SCOTT. I appreciate the gentle-
has been expressed by several Members 'of existing unfunded liability. man yielding. Since he is the dean of the
of the House because title II of the bill This funding approach, as I under- House, I wonder if. he could recall back
provides that annuities will be computed stand, is fully endorsed by the Bureau over the years whether, during the time
on the basis of the highest 3 years of of the Budget, the Civil Service Commis- the gentleman has been in Congress, the
average earnings of Government em- sion, the General Accounting Office and executive branch has not usually had
ployees rather than the highest 5 years the House Independent Appropriations some objection from a monetary point of
under existing law. During it period of Subcommittee. view to improvements or liberalizations
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
A 6210 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE July 23, 1969
in the Government employees retirement
fund.
Mr. CELLER. As I very quickly search
my own memory, I do not recall any such.
incident where the Chief Executive took
upon himself such a responsibility. I
doubt very much whether the President
of the United States would deign-and
I use the world "deign" advisedly-to
veto a bill of this character that seeks, in
the main, to put the fiscal house with
reference to the retirement fund in order.
I cannot conceive how the President
would do such a thing. The President is
too shrewd, too conversant with the po-
litical repercussions of his actions to veto
this bill.
Reference has been made to title II. I
will say that perhaps there may be some
objections to some of the forms involved
in title II. You cannot get a perfect bill,
gentlemen. In my long experience, I do
not know whether we have ever had a
perfect bill. Even the diamond has its
flaws. Our experience always tells us that
worthwhile legislation is always the re-
sult of compromise, and I take it that
within the confines of this committee the
intelligence of the members thereof has
dictated some sort of compromise, so they
have given us the best of their endeavors.
I think we must have great confidence in
the members of this committee, and if we
would try to subvert and upset the labors
of the committees of the House, we would
get nowhere. We have neither the ex-
pertise nor the opportunity to learn all
there is to be known about a given sub-
ject. In a word, the members of the com-
mittee must know everything about
something, but we outside the committee
must content ourselves to know some-
thing, be it ever so little, about every-
thing.
So I cannot offer myself as an expert
against the experts of this committee. I,
therefore, hope this bill, a very salutary
bill which requires attention of a very
extreme nature; namely, the stabilizing
of this fund, will pass-and pass over-
whelmingly.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. GROSS).
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I sin-
cerely want to support the main purpose
of this legislation, which is to save the
Federal employees' retirement fund from
disaster and complete bankruptcy. But, I
take vigorous exception to several pro-
visions in the bill.
This measure is brought to the floor
of the House under the guise of legisla-
tion needed to refinance the retirement
fund. However, included in this bill is
title II which grants over $1 billion in
retirement liberalizations. The admin-
istration opposes the provisions con-
tained in title II because of the increased
cost and has served notice as I stated
earlier today that it will give serious
consideration to a veto if those provisions
remain in the legislation.
I shall offer an amendment to strike
out title II of the bill which provides the
following liberalizations: First, sick leave
credit for retirement purposes; second,
a 1-percent cost-of-living adjustment for
retired employees; third, an Increase in
survivor annuities; fourth, computation
of retirement based upon the high 3-year
average salary.
Another provision to which I take
serious exception is the language of the
bill, exempting the liberalizations it pro-
vides from the financing provisions of
title I which provide that such liberaliza-
tions in the future shall be financed by
equal annual appropriation installments
over a 30-year period.
Believe it or not, the added liberaliza-
tions, or the liberalizations in this bill
are not included in the unfunded liabili-
ties which this bill seeks to correct.
I will offer an amendment to make
any retirement liberalizations effective
after July 1, 1969, as well as the retire-
ment cost of the pay increase which be-
came effective earlier this month sub-
ject to the 30-year financing provisions
of title I.
There is another financing provision
in this bill which provides that the Gov-
ernment shall assume responsibility for
present retirement fund deficiencies by
payment of interest on the unfunded li-
ability created by past legislation which
now amounts to over $60 billion.
It should be pointed out that the Sec-
retary of the Treasury was not invited
to submit his views with respect to this
section of the bill. It seems to me that
where the Treasury Department is called
upon to credit the retirement fund with
tremendous Government payments be-
ginning in fiscal year 1971 and each year
thereafter, the Secretary of the Treas-
ury should have been afforded an op-
portunity to submit his views in person.
In case anyone believes this is a minor
matter, I call attention to the fact that
this provision requires the Treasury De-
partment to credit the retirement fund
with $230 million in fiscal year 1971,
which will gradually increase each fiscal
year thereafter until fiscal year 1980.
From that year on an amount of $2.69
billion annually will be required, merely
to pay the interest on the unfunded li-
ability to keep the fund at the same
level.
This bill originated last year when it
took the form of a Johnson administra-
tion recommendation containing only
the financing provisions which are in
title I of H.R. 9825.
Thereafter, the bill was amended and
the retirement liberalizations were added
by the Post Office and Civil Service Conr-
mittee, which are now in title II. That
bill passed the House of Representa-
tives last year on October 1, 1968, but the
Senate did not consider it
The former administration and this
administration both opposed the liber-
alizations contained in title II. But, in
order to get favorable action on this leg-
islation, I strongly suspect the former
administration was willing to accept the
provisions of title U. However, there is
no assurance that the President this year
will approve the legislation in its pres-
ent form, for the administration has
opposed the enactment of title II in this
bill.
As I stated earlier, the amendment
which I shall offer is to make the pro-
visions of the bill consistent by fully
complying with the financing sections
to prevent the retirement fund from ab-
solute depletion. I believe this amend-
ment is necessary if we are to approve
sensible legislation today.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen-
tleman from Montana (Mr. OLSEN).
(Mr. OLSEN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 9825.
The testimony presented to the Sub-
committee on Retirement, Insurance,
and Health Benefits most assuredly at-
tests to the fact that it is of the utmost
urgency that we in the Congress ad-
dress ourselves, promptly and positively,
to this alarming situation. It is the re-
sp3nsib1lity of the Congress to insure
th?t the civil service retirement fund
will have-the ability to fulfill the Gov-
ernment's obligation to its present and
future retirees, and to their families.
I would Invite the attention of this
House to the "Statement of Operating
Receipts and Disbursements from the
Retirement Fund from 1920 to 1968,"
appearing on page 6 of the committee
report. You will observe that from the
system's inception until the early 1960's,
that annual disbursements approxi-
mated, on the average, about one-half of
the annual income.
It will be noted, however, that in the
present decade the percentage of dis-
bursements has gradually increased in
proportion to the income. It will be ob-
served that disbursements In past sev-
eral years, and during the last fiscal year,
are equivalent not to 50 percent-but to
more than 60 percent of current income.
In the present fiscal year it is estimated
that receipts will total about $3.6 bil-
lion, whereas disbursements will total
$2.3 billion-or 65 percent of current in-
come.
Under existing funding practices, dis-
bursements will continue to gradually
exceed this 65 percent of annual income
by an additional average of 5 percent
each year, and eventually equal total
receipts by 1975. Thereafter, outgo will
continue to progressively exceed income
over the following 12 years, and will be
twice as great as income by the year
1987. In order to pay out more than 100
percent of current income during that
12-year period, it would be necessary to
spend the entire assets of the retirement
fund.
Since the entire fund is appropriated
for the payment of benefit.,,,, those bene-
fits would be paid as long as there is a
dollar in that fund. supplemented by
whatever comes into it by then-current
employee deductions and agency con-
tributions, plus interest thereon. The
situation that H.R. 9825 proposes to pre-
clude is the necessity of relying upon di-
rect appropriations of billions of dollars
each and every year to meet disburse-
ments estimated to exceed $61/2 billion in
1987, and $8 billion by the end of this
century.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this body's
unanimous support of H.R. 9825.
Mr. HICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. OLSEN. I yield to the gentleman.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 1969 Approved
For&M1AJ1 1WJ71 C#R000500160004-2 H 6211
Mr. HICKS. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
(Mr. HICKS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks,)
Mr. HICK. Mr. Chairman, I am very
pleased that the House is considering
today the long-delayed legislation to im-
prove the financial condition of the civil
service retirement fund in an effort to
assure that necessary funds will always
be available to pay annuity benefits.
I am particularly interested in this
measure because there are nearly 25,000
Government employees in my district,
the Sixth District of Washington State,
who have rightly become increasingly
apprehensive over the rapidly mounting
level of the unfunded liability of the re-
tirement fund. This results from the fact
that many are just becoming fully cog-
nizant of the great amount estimated to
be needed to fully finance all benefits
due employees and former employees,
less money to the credit of the fund and
that to be placed in the fund in the
future. This amount of potential deficit
has doubled since 1961. These employees
realize that this trend cannot be al-
lowed to continue or the fund balance
will ultimately be depleted, possibly as
early as 1987. Action. must be taken to
forestall this contingency.
Judging from the correspondence and
inquiries I have received, the workers in
my district favor the limited improve-
ments in the retirement benefits this
legislation would provide and are willing
to pay for them with the increased con-
tributions required by this bill.
Thinking that retirement annuities
determined under the high 3 years pro-
vided in this bill would be more in line
with today's cost of living, many people
postponed their retirement when Con-
gress began considering this retirement
legislation. They have now been waiting
nearly 2 years. As I understand H.R.
9825, it provides for adequate funding for
this and the other benefits provided in
title II.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the Gov-
ernment employees in my district, there
are thousands of people receiving retire-
ment and survivor annuities. The people
are having great difficulty keeping
abreast with the continual increases in
the cost of living. Although the pro-
cedure adopted in 1965 for providing
cost of living adjustments helped con-
siderably in solving this problem, the
most recent round of inflation has dem-
onstrated an additional gap in this proc-
ess. The committee's bill should narrow
this gap and provide a mechanism which
will keep annuities more nearly in line
with prices.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to commend the subcommittee and its
chairman, the gentleman from New
Jersey, Congressman DomiNicK V.
DANIELS, for the excellent job they have
done on this legislation. In my own view
H.R. 9825 will restore confidence in the
retirement system and correct the more
glaring problems presently facing the
system.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. DERWINSKI).
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, be-
fore addressing myself to the details of
this issue, I would first wish to inform
the Members who are here hard at work
that the National League is leading in
the all=star game 8 to 2. If someone
thinks that this is quite a departure
subject-matterwise from the bill before
us, I believe that it is not so at all, since
you might note the big league baseball
pension fund is in very excellent financial
shape, which is not a description that
could be applied to the fund of the Fed-
eral employees.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I sup-
port title 1 of this bill along with the
illustrious members of the subcommit-
tee and the full committee who are writ-
ing such a fine, impressive, eloquent, and
determined history of legislation this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, as I see it, title II of the
bill represents a backward step. Having
developed at progressive approach in
title 1, the committee starts to chip away
at it in title II. However, the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa and myself are
very concerned over this. We intend to
aid the majority of the subcommittee and
the full committee by helping to correct
the innocent little items that have crept
into this bill through the vehicle of title
II. Once we do it title I will serve its real
purpose.
If I may have the attention for a
moment of the floor manager of the bill,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
DANIELS), in an effort to help clarify the
record, could the gentleman explain to
the House or define for the House the
Congressional employees as covered by a
provision in title II? Just whom are we
covering or for whom are we providing
under the term "Congressional em-
ployees"?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Any em-
ployee of the House or Senate in the
employ of the Architect and the
Architect.
Mr. DERWINSKI. And I presume also
the Capitol Police.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. They are
employees of the House and the Senate.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Are any of these em-
ployees presently entitled to annual or
sick leave or other fringe benefits?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I under-
stand and am reliably informed that the
employees of the Architect are.
Mr. DERWINSKI. What about the
Capitol Police? My recollection is they
have their own administrative benefits of
some sort. Do they not?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I am ad-
vised by my chief staff assistant that they
are entitled to such benefits also.
Mr. DERWINSKI. It would seem to
me, then, that we in the House are add-
ing a dubious additional fringe benefit for
these employees who are presently cov-
ered in some form for sick leave and
annual leave.
I am concerned that there is unneces-
sary controversy over this bill basically
because of the little goodies that have
crept into title II. This is why the gen-
tleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) and L are
trying to be helpful this afternoon in
straightening up this bill.
If I may refer the Members to a letter
that should have reached the office of
everyone yesterday, from the chairmen
of the full committee and of the sub-
committee and ranking minority mem-
bers of the full committee and of the
Subcommittee on Retirement-and these
are all outstanding Members of this
body-these gentlemen in their letter
stated, and I quote:
Because of some earlier confusion and
misunderstanding we think it is most im-
portant that the record be set straight con-
cerning this vital piece of legislation.
Then the letter goes on to discuss title
I and the provisions to which we evi-
dently all subscribe, but it does not really
provide any explanation for the so-called
confusion and misunderstanding which
is contained in title II.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I were cynical,
I would be led to believe that perhaps it
is impossible to clarify the misunder-
standing and confusion which is con-
tained in title II of the bill, because this
letter from the four distinguished Mem-
bers never really did it.
I wonder if we would not solve this
whole problem by accepting the amend-
ment to be offered by the gentleman
from Iowa to strike title II and then send
it over to the other body and thereby
avoid this confusion and misunderstand-
ing.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to point
out that there is a provision contained
in the bill that the amendment to be
offered by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Gxoss) to strike title U would cor-
rect, but if it does not prevail, I have an
amendment to strike the provision for
credit for unused sick leave. The reason
for this amendment is that I am greatly
disturbed at this departure from the
basic provisions for which sick leave was
intended. Sick leave was intended to pro-
vide for a situation under which an em-
ployee who was legitimately ill would
have this sick leave to use under circum-
stances whereby he would be endanger-
ing his health or endangering the health
of his'associates if he were to continue
working while he was suffering from an
ailment which poses a problem for him-
self and his associates. This is the inten-
tion. The argument that sick leave is
abused, as I see it, is no argument for
scrapping sick leave as such.
However, this is what we would do if
we provide credit for unused sick leave.
We would encourage employees who are
sick to continue to work anyway This is
hardly practicable. We would create a
complete departure in philosophy from
the concept of .sick leave. If it is impos-
sible to administer sick leave, then the.
committee should adjust the administra-
tive provisions so that sick leave cannot
and will not be abused. In my opinion
that would be a logical step, and I am
sure if it becomes necessary for me to of-
fer that amendment, I would receive
some interesting support for it.
I also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we
have a few other items contained in title
II that require consideration. One is the
matter of the present highest 5-year
average for annuity which the committee
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6212 Approved For Rq+Mg M AL W lBqq&?W00500160004-2j cry 23, 1969
pro-nosed to be lowered to the highest
3-year average. Unfortunately, as I read
the report, especially the major portion
prepared by the committee itself, I find
very few statistics to back up the claim
that this would cause only a minor dent
in the fund. I am concerned over the
possible abnormal costs which are not
calculated and which are not clarified in
any way in this bill.
It may well be that the overall logic
which has been emphasized by the gen-
tleman from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) will pre-
vail. I think the manner in which we all
could be of help to the chairman of the
subcommittee and to the full committee
as well as the ranking Members is to
sipport this position, is to reconsider and
strike out title II. Then we would have
a fine bill which would restore at long
last fiscal responsibility to this retire-
ment fund.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
There is one phase in this matter that
puzzles me, and that I would like to
have clarified, and if the gentleman can
do so I would appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, if one were to deposit
money in the bank he gets compound in-
terest. Does the gentleman know whether
or not the moneys that are contributed
by the Members as part of this annuity
fund earn compound interest, or straight
interest?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Theoretically-and
I will crosscheck with the chairman of
the subcommittee-theoretically the in-
terest should be compounded. Is that
correct?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman,
would the chairman of the committee
join in this, if the gentleman does not
mind?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, in response to the inquiry, as
I understand it, the funds are invested
in Government securities. This morning
I reported to the Democratic caucus that
the funds are invested according to re-
strictions imposed by law, and which
produce a return of 3.5 percent. And in
speaking to the chief of our staff I am
told that the entire portfolio today is
now being broadly invested, end cur-
rently has a return of 4.6 percent.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Compounded or reg-
ular interest?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I believe
it is compounded annually.
Mr. DERWINSKI. I believe this would
require further clarification. The previ-
ous year's interest income would be re-
invested which, In effect, means that it
is compounded.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois has again ex-
pired.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
additional minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. I thank the gen-
tleman for the additional time, and I
now yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, on
the basis of compound interest, money
earning 4.5 percent would double within
14 years. Does the gentleman know
v:hether cr not the funds contributed by
the membership have been given credit
in the fund for this compound interest,
or normal doubling over a period of 14
years for these members who have been
in this system more than 14 years?
M DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, it is
my understanding that the contribution
cf members throughout the history of
t7iis retirement fund, so far' as the Mem-
In :s of the House are coficerncd, has
been adequate to meet the necessary
contributions to the fund, including the
crrned interests on the funds deposited.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, t3 give a direct answer to the
gentleman from New York; if I may, I
would say if you take a specific sum of
many and put it out at interest, com-
pound it annually at 41/2 percent that
in a period of 14 years it would double
itself. However, in the case of contribu-
tions of Federal employees to the retire-
ment fund they make the contributions
in small semimonthly installments. They
are not investing the total amount of
money in one lump sum at interest for a
full period of 14 years.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Then the real ques-
tion is for their small sum that they de-
posit, does that draw compound inter-
est? Because if you were to take that
small sum, irrespective of how small it
was, and deposit it in a bank, it would
get compound interest, would it not?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. If I may
answer the question posed by the gen-
tleman from New York, and I believe I
answered that question before, it is that
the present practice today of investing
the funds is for it to earn compounded
interest.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. It would appear,
therefore, to me-if the gentleman would
yield further-
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield further to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. It would appear that
the funds contributed by the member-
ship under these circumstances are not
being adequately compensated, so that
in effect the membership in getting their
pensions are not being equitably treated.
Mr. DERWINSKI. We need a tech-
nical clarification that should be pro-
vided for the record--
The CHAIRMAN.. The time of the
gentleman from Illinois has again ex-
pired.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2
additional minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
again thank the gentleman for this ad-
ditional time.
As I understand it, when the funds are
invested, any interest earned accrues to
this fund. This in effect is compounding
the interest. This is the point of the gen-
tleman's question.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Dr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. GROSS. I read from section 8342
of the United States Cede wherein it is
stated:
(h) Amounts deducted end withheld from
the basic pay cf an employee or Member
from the flout Coy of the 11.rst month which
begins after he has perfcrn.od sufficient serv-
ice (excluding service wk ich the employee
or Member e'_ects to eliminate for the pur-
pore cf anne?it?r comput-, i-n under recticn
8339 of t'-is titled to entitle him to the maxi-
mum annuity provided by section 8330 of
this title, together with interest cn the
amounts rt the rate cf 3 percent a year
compounded cnnually from the date of The
deductions to the data ci` retirement or death,
shall be epplicd toward any deposit due under
section C334 cf this title, and any balance nct
so required is deemed a vcliintarv contribu-
tion for the purpose of section 8343 of this
title.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Has the gentleman
analyzed that section which you just
read?
Mr. GROSS. No, I have not. But I
simply cite that section of the code for
the edification of the gentleman, for
whatever it is worth.
Mr. FARBSTETN. Does the gentleman
mean the contribution of the Members
to the pension fund is given credit for
compound interest?
Mr. GROSS. I think it does-at the
rate of 3 percent.
Mr. DERWINSKI. If I may comment
on that point, that furnishes another
argument for possible confusion and mis-
understanding about this bill and rer-
haps further study by the committee
might be in order. All the controversy
revolves around the provisions of title II
and if we go ahead and sass only title I
of the bill, as the gentleman from Iowa
recommends, it would solve these prob-
lems?
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I nc ?ed that nuestlon
to the head of the Civil Service Commis-
sion. I think it. was last year or 2 years
ago when the question was raised in con-
nection with the bill that came out of the
Foreign Affairs Committee dealing with
this subject, insofar as Foreign Service
officers were concerned. I inquired then
whether compound interest was paid and
I was told, no. It was only given simple
interest. This is the reason I pose the
question I would like to have clarified as
to whether only simple interest is being
paid.
Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentle-
man that the Foreign Service retirement
is a different retirement system.
Mr. DERWINSKI. The passage read
by the gentleman from Iowa clearly
states that interest is compounded sub-
ject to other conditions of the act.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. I thank the gentle-
man very much.
Mr. DANIELS of Now Jersey. I would
like to respond to the question or the
statement made by the r entleman from
Iowa with respect to the passage he read
from the United States Code dealing
with compounded interest.
My chief of staff informs me that the
section to which the gentleman from
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For. Release 2001/11/01 ? CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
July 23, 1969
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE H 9213
Iowa referred provides for an amount
of interest charged to employees for` pe-
riod of service not covered by retirement
deductions.
In other words, if you pay-into the
fund for periods of service that were
previously not covered or refunded, then
you have to pay a specific sum of money,
with interest compounded at 3 percent
per annum.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Of course, that puts
.a different phase on the matter, do you
think not?
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minues to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Nix).
(Mr. NIX asked and was given permis-
sion to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NIX. Mr, Chairman, the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Retirement, In-
surance, and Health Benefits, the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS) , in-
deed deserves the gratitude of all Fed-
eral employees and annuitants who have
a vested interest in their retirement sys-
tem, for the deep concern and great cour-
age he has displayed in dealing with a
serious and complex matter which has
been neglected far too long. Our colleague
has described in detail the features of the
committee's proposal for the future fi-
nancing of the civil service retirement
system, and the modest improvements in
benefits proposed therein.
The real problem of retirement financ-
ing, as I see it, is primarily one .of budg-
etary and legislative responsibility. Re-
sponsible procedures require that the full
retirement system costs involved in Fed-
eral program and legislative actions be
fully disclosed and the necessary steps be
taken to cover those costs when program
and legislative decisions are made.
It is useful, I believe, in considering the
budgetary and overall financing aspects
of H.R. 9825, to think of it in three basic
parts.
First, current service liabilities. Each
year's service by each Federal employee
adds to the future benefits which the re-
tirement system must eventually pay out.
Since the employee only contributes part
of these benefits through a payroll de-
duction, the remainder must be paid by
the Federal Government.
Each man-year of Federal employ-
ment, therefore, has a retirement cost
attached to it which is just as truly an
employment cost as the wages and sal-
aries currently paid out. To the extent
that the sum of the Federal and employee
current contribution rate covers actuarial
costs, the retirement benefits covered by
each current man-year of employment
pay for themselves and add nothing to
the unfunded liability of the retirement
fund.
Second, the potential increase in un-
funded liability for past service, caused
by pay raises and liberalizations of `re-
tirement benefits. Every time a Federal
pay raise is enacted, the retirement
value, and. the cost, of the past service
of Federal employees is increased. After
a pay raise all the past years of service
will be multiplied. against a new and in-
creaseli.highyaverage salary in, determin-
ing retirement benefits:_ Automatically,
the cost to .,thQ ederal Govei-mnentof
future retirement payments increases,
and none of the increase is covered by
employee contributions. Similarly, when
benefit liberalizations are enacted, or
current annuitants given a benefit in-
crease, or new groups blanketed into the
'retirement system, the value of future
retirement payments increases. Unlike
the first category-currently accruing
liabilities-these costs are not related to
current level of employment, but simply
reflect the impact of pay raises or benefit
liberalizations on past service. It is
worthy of noting that each $1 of general
pay increase entails a retirement cost of
$2.55.
Third, the unfunded liability which
now exists because the civil service re-
tirement system was not adequately
funded in past years. Even if the Federal
and employee contribution rates were
sufficient to cover fully the currently ac-
cruing liabilities, and even if appropria-
tions were made to cover the increase in
unfunded liabilities due to future pay
raises or benefit liberalizations, the re-
tirement system would still have a large
and growing unfunded liability. This
arises from the fact that in prior years
the retirement system was not funded
to cover its full actuarial costs. And since
the fund is far below the full actuarial
level, it foregoes interest payments each
year which add still further to the ac-
tuarial deficit.
There, then, are the three major fi-
nancing aspects of the retirement fund,
and each of these aspects is covered by
this legislation, in the light of sound
budgetary and financial principles.
It is ess' ntial to good budgeting that
each Federal program be judged and
evaluated in the light of its full costs.
Each man-year of civil service employ-
ment represents a cost to the Federal
Government, not only in terms of direct
wages and salaries, but also in terms of
what that man-year of employment
adds to the cost of the retirement sys-
'tem. Federal agency contributions, to-
gether with employee contributions,
should therefore cover the full amount of
what each current year's service by a
`Federal employee adds to retirement
costs.
At the present time, the normal cost
of each year's service by a Federal em-
ployee amounts to 13.86 percent of his
salary. Further changes in the system
recommended by the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service will raise normal
cost to 13.99 percent. The combined
agency-employee contribution amounts
to ,13 percent, almost a full percentage
point lower than full-cost coverage
would require. As a consequence, the
bill specifies a contribution rate of 7 per-
cent for Federal agencies and 7 percent
for employees, to cover the full normal
cost of present benefits and those con-
templated in this legislation, beginning
'in January 1970.
It is emphasized that requiring em-
'ployees to share the normal cost on an
equal basis does not mean that employees
are paying half the cost of the retire-
ment system. Continuing improvements
in salary rates and benefit liberalizations
have increased-and undoubtedly will
continue to increase-the retirement
value of past service, whose. cost the
Federal Governmentbears fully.
The principle of full-cost coverage for
currently accruing service liabilities is
not so much a matter of financing, but
of full-cost disclosure. We ought to
know what the full costs of any Federal
program are. Even if the entire Federal
retirement system were on a pay-as-
you-go basis, principles of good budget-
ing would require that in making evalua-
tions of Federal programs we "impute"
a retirement cost of each Federal em-
ployee hired.
Of equal importance is that aspect of
funding which relates to increases in
past service liabilities. Here again, full-
cost disclosure is important. When the
Executive considers, for transmission to
Congress, and when the Congress itself
considers pay increase or benefit liberal-
ization legislation, these considerations
should be based on a full awareness of
the future costs to the taxpayer of the
increased retirement payment which will
result from the proposed actions. Every
pay raise and benefit liberalization has
a price tag for increased retirement pay-
ments on past service. Those additional
payments will be a cost to the taxpayer.
The price tag should be known and ac-
tion taken to meet it each time legisla-
tion is proposed and enacted, H.R. 9825
makes provision for handling this situa-
tion by amortizing such additional costs
by appropriation payments into the fund
scheduled to relatively coincide with
outflow from the fund.
Of paramount importance is that
aspect re'i ting to the unfunded liability
which has already been incurred, and
to be further incurred, by failure to prac-
tice full-cost funding in prior years. As
pointed out in the committee's report on
this legislation, the system's existing
multibillion unfunded liability; while be-
ing substantially affected by consistent
liberalizations, recurring salary in-
creases, and annuity adjustments, is
largely attributable to the loss of interest
on the deficiency-an amount that today
approximates $2 billion annually.
The board of actuaries of the civil
service retirement system has repeatedly
recommended that the Government,
with respect to the system's deficiency,
do no less than appropriate the amount
of accruing interest thereon. The com-
mittee does, indeed, concur with the
actuaries that the existing unfunded
liability should not be allowed to continue
to soar by reason of the system's not
being fully funded in terms of complete
actuarial costs. H.R. 9825 provides for
minimizing further loss-of-interest
growth, and for the stabilization of those
deficiencies within the next decade.
Mr. Chairman, the Government's
financial obligation is clear. The Govern-
ment's recognition of, and action to meet,
that obligation is imperative. The situa-
tion has been studied intensively during
the past few years by the Civil Service
Commission, the Bureau of the Budget,
the Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff
Retirement Systems, and the board of
actuaries and has been discussed exten-
sively with congressional committees. It
is.time, now, that Congress face the prob-
lem realistically and adopt a definite
program to meet that problem. Such a
program is offered in this bill. I urge this
body's full support and unanimous adop-
tion of H.R. 9825.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6214
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE July 23, 1969
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Mary-
land (Mr. HOGAN).
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, as a mem-
ber of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee and the Subcommittee on Re-
tirement, I am pleased to rise in support
of H.R. 9825. I am also privileged to be
a cosponsor of H.R. 9825. I support. it
fully and urge its prompt passage here
this afternoon.
In brief, Mr. Chairman, what we are
doing here today is finally facing up to
the unpleasant fact that a most vital
Federal employee fringe benefit-one
which holds the promise of the future
for many millions of persons-faces com-
plete bankruptcy.
The civil service retirement fund is
now $58 billion in the red. This unfunded
liability is growing automatically by
more than $2 billion every year, and by
1975 expenditures from the fund will ex-
ceed annual income. If the action we
contemplate here today is not taken, the
cash balance in the fund will be totally
exhausted by 1988, and, thereafter, in
order to meet our responsibilities and
obligations under the retirement program
we will have to make direct appropria-
tions beginning with $31/2 billion a year,
escalating upward to $5 billion a year
at the turn of the century.
The present fiscal crisis facing the re-
tirement fund is the result of many
years of inadequate financing, neglect
and mismanagement. While Federal em-
ployees have always paid their full fair
share of retirement costs set by law, the
Government itself has not done so.
It is true that monies have been ap-
propriated to the fund from time to time
in the past; but the Government's share
of retirement costs has not always been
paid regularly and systematically, or in
amounts sufficient to meet its share of
operating the program. And, in addition,
over the years the Congress has enacted
many benefit liberalizations which were
never adequately financed.
Consequently, it is extremely impera-
tive that we now act to put the retire-
ment fund on a sound financial basis as
contemplated, by the provisions of H.R.
9825. If we do not, the situation can only
get progressively worse and become even
more difficult to resolve.
Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, the remarks
the gentleman is making are so extremely
important and germane to the bill as to
require me, for the first time in my serv-
ice in Congress, to make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum
is not present. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the
following Members failed to answer to
their names:
[Roll No. 1181
Addabbo
Conte
Hanna
Alexander
Culver
Hansen, Idaho
Ashley
Daniel, Va.
Hastings
Baring
Diggs
Hawkins
Belcher
Evins. Tenn.
Hebert
Biaggi
Fallon
Henderson
Blackburn
Fedghan
Howard
Blanton
Fish
Joelson
Boland
Flynt
Kastenmeier
Broyhill, Va.
Fountain
Kirwan
Carey
Frey
Landrum
Geller
Fuqua
Lipscomb
Chisholm
Gray
Long, La.
Clark
Gude
Long, Md.
Clay
Halpern
Moclory
MacGregor
Randall
Stanton
Mahon
Rees
.Stuckey
Mayne
Reid, N.Y.
Taylor
Minshall
Riegle
Teague, Calif.
Moorhead
Rooney, Pa.
Teague, Tex.
Murphy, N.Y.
Rosenthal
Thompson, N.J.
O'Konski
Ruppe
Weicker
O'Neal, Ga.
Scheuer
Widnall
O'Neill, Mass.
Sebelius
'Winn
Ottinger
Sikes
Wydler
Powell
Sisk
Price, Ill.
Smith, Calif.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. McFALL, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee,
having had under consideration the bill
II.R. 9825, and finding itself without a
quorum, he had directed the roll to be
called, when 353 Members responded to
their names, a quorum, and he submitted
herewith the names of the absentees to
be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. HOGAN), has 7i/2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the distinguished gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. KEE) for his generous re-
marks.
I attended the hearings on this meas-
ure and, from the expert testimony I
heard, it was clearly evident that there
is an immediate need to overhaul and
improve the funding and financing prac-
tices of the civil service retirement sys-
tem.
The urgency of prompt enactment
was best attested to by th6 distinguished
Chairman of the Civil Service Commis-
sion, Robert E. Hampton, during the
hearings, when he said that the retire-
ment fund is now losing $2 billion in
interest each year due to the failure of
the Government to make 'all of its au-
thorized contributions.
Mr. Chairman, this is admittedly a
very complex piece of legislation. How-
ever, I think it is extremely important
to point out that the major financing
proposals contained in the bill were care-
fully worked out with, and have been ap-
proved by, the Bureau of the Budget, the
Department of the Treasury, the Comp-
troller General, and the Civil Service
Commission. These are the agencies
which will be committed to any financing
plan which we enact and their complete
and unequivocal support and endorse-
ment are imperative to the successful
implementation of the bill.H.R. 9825 is a
giant step forward in fiscal responsi-
bility. It would solve the finance prob-
lem by a three-step method:
First. The full normal costs of pres-
ent and future benefits which would be
paid currently through matching agency
and employee contributions would be in-
creased from 61/2 to 7 peeent.
Second. The Government would be au-
thorized to cover in 30 equal annual in-
stallments all increases in the Govern-
ment's obligations created by new leg-
islation, such as pay raises and benefit
Third. The Government would fulfiill
Its obligations created by laws already in
effect by gradually increasing appropria-
tions which would eventually replace the
Interest being lost by the retirement
fund.
In essence, H.R. 9825 represents our
commitment that the integrity of the
civil service retirement system will be
maintained and that there will always be
enough money in the retirement fund
to permit payment of all benefits-in full
and on time-to all past, present, and
future Federal employees.
In addition to the financing changes,
there are several proposals in the bill
that would result in improvements in
benefits for civil service retirees. An-
nuities would be computed on the high
3 years, rather than the current high 5
years, of average earnings. The calendar
value of unused sick leave would be in-
cluded for the purpose of determining
length of Federal service. At the present
time, unused sick leave goes down the
drain when an employee leaves the Gov-
ernment service.
An additional 1 percent would be ad-
ded to all future cost-of-living increases
to compensate for the usual 5-month de-
lay in granting these increases. To me,
this is only fair.
Finally, certain inequities would be
removed regarding the annunties of sur-
viving spouses.
Mr. Chairman, I support these benefits
because I feel that the Government
should lead, rather than follow, private
industry in providing such benefits to
employees. I think these benefit increases
are absolutely warranted and will fill a
legitimate need of Federal employees.
While I enthusiastically support H.R.
9825, I would like to take this opportunity
to point out to the Members that a very
serious inequity in the retirement cover-
age of many thousands of our dedicated
employees remains uncured by this bill.
I refer to the exclusion of overtime and
premium pay for the purposes of comput-
ing annuities.
H.R. 9743, which I introduced on
April 1 of this year, would correct this
deficiency. Provisions similar to my own
bill were in the retirement bill which
passed this House last October and in the
original bill, H.R. 770, which our com-
mittee considered earlier this year. It is
a source of disappointment to me that
the provisions were not included in the
bill before us today.
At the present time, Mr. Chairman, we
have large numbers of Federal employees
who, because of the very nature of their
employment are required to work a con-
siderable amount of overtime. Some of
these employees are the customs inspec-
tors, border patrolmen, Weather Bureau
employees, FAA traffic controllers, and
Government Printing Office employees.
These employees receive overtime pay
and premium pay for their overtime, but
the amounts of such overtime are ex-
cluded from their total gross pay when
computing retirement annuities. The
consequence is that an employee ap-
proaching retirement who has estab-
lished a certain standard of living by rea-
son of his consistent overtime, finds that
he goes into retirement at an annuity
which is much lower in relation to his
final salary than do other Federal em-
ployees whose occupations do not require
that they work a consderable amount of
overtme. The employee who has worked
long enough to earn the maxmum an-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
July 23, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
nutty of . 8"0 percent of base pay finds
that his standard of living is not reduced
by 20 percent, but a much larger per-
centage due to the fact that the. 80 per-
The crediting of overtime and pre-
mium pay does not entail any additional
normal cost in view of the fact that both
the employee and the agency would be
contributing the customary 61/2 or 7
percent into the retirement fund. I sin-
cerely believe, and I know that many who
have studied the retirement program
share my view, that total gross pay
earned by an employee for his personal
services should constitute the basic com-
pensation for retirement purposes.
While the bill before us today does
nothing to correct this serious inequity,
I am hopeful that my own bill, H.R. 9743,
will be acted upon separately by the com-
mittee and the Congress in the very near
future.
Sometimes there seems to be a pre-
valent attitude which considers the Fed-
eral employee as a "stepchild" of Ameri-
ca's work force. Yet, the very structure of
government would cease to function if it
were not for these loyal and devoted
civil service employees. Having been a
long-time Federal employee myself, I can
attest to the work done and to the con-
tributions made by our Federal workers.
These employees are an integral part of
America's productive strength and they
play a vital role in our progress.
Therefore, I believe that we would be
remiss in not voting for.this measure
which would recognize the contributions
of these employees, correct inequities in
the current system, and avoid potential
hardships which would result from the
financial chaos which will occur if the
financial problems inherent in the sys-
tem. at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
do what is right and equitable for our
Federal workers by enacting H.R. 9825
without amendment.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. HANLEY).
(Mr. HANLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to support this measure designed
to strengthen the financial condition of
the civil service retirement system-a
program in which all Federal civilian
employees and retirees, and their fam-
ilies, have a vital stake.
All of the Government's several staff
retirement systems are costly and, even
without the liberalizations advocated by
employees and retirees, costs are soaring.
Benefits already earned but not yet pay-
able will, in a few years, require addi-
tional appropriations amounting to bil-
lions of dollars annually. Rising costs of
living, to which benefit adjustmenks are
now tied by law, will add billions more to
the future liability. So will future salary
adjustments. Retirement, system financ-
ing has, therefore, become a major prob-
lem to executive branch officials and to
Congress, as well as a matter of serious
concern to thousands of individuals who
fear that the economic security they have
been counting on for their old age is
slipping away.
Against this general, background, fac-
Ing the need for decision on a specific
financing proposal is. imperative. Meth-
ods of financing and funding Federal
retirement systems vary : Some are con-
tributory, some-technically at least-
are noncontributory; some are fully
funded, some partially funded, and some
are pay as you go. While disagreement
continues unresolved over the extent to
which the individual employee should
share retirement costs, and over the best
approach to financing, methods of resolv-
ing these problems will have a tremen-
dous impact on the budget of the Govern-
ment.
Clearly, no one social or economic
philosophy can adequately explain all of
the changing currents of the retirement
movement. The society in which the civil
service retirement system. was originally
designed was relatively static; today's
society is characterized by a dynamism
that we have not yet learned to assess
adequately, much less cope with, and the
system shows the strains of the con-
tinuing effort to accommodate to this
dynamism.
It attempts to cope with a particular
set of employment conditions specific to
most, but not applicable to all, who serve
the Nation's largest and most diversified
employer; it must continue to meet those
special conditions if retirment is to serve
its purpose for these employees and
make a positive contribution to the Gov-
ernment's missions.
It attempts to balance divergent inter-
ests, accommodate conflicting values,
and adjust to continually changing man-
power needs and policies; it must con-
tinue to do so because that is what our
democratic system demands of its public
institutions.
It is costly because, despite its various
Inadequacies, it is essentially generous;
it must remain so if the Government is
to be a responsible employer.
The public hearings held by the Sub-
committee on Retirement, Insurance,
and Health Benefits, together with the
considerable volume of correspondence
it received, presented an opportunity to
give appropriate consideration to a num-
ber of topics for study. Our major find-
ings and recommendations are sum-
marized in the committee report ac-
companying this legislation.
The provisions for financing and fund-
ing the civil service retirement system
has been designed so as to first, require
Government and employees to share
normal costs, including those resulting
from the liberalization of benefit pro-
visions; and, second, to identify clearly
and recognize Government's responsibil-
ity for other costs, including those for
past service liability and those for post-
retirement adjustment of benefits; and
also to provide for maintenance of the
retirement fund at a level sufficiently
high to assure that all retirement bene-
fits can be paid promptly as they fall due.
This legislation will completely cover
normal cost, will automatically neutral-
ize prospective causes of future financial
deficiencies as they occur, and ultimately
will stabilize the existing unfunded lia-
116215
bility of the program. The mechanics of
the legislation will require virtually full
disclosure of retirement costs and ex-
plicitly allocate, responsibility for. such
costs to, first, employees and agencies
jointly;"second, agencies only; and third,
Government, as distinct from agencies.
Mr. Chairman, in order that there is
no question as to the ability of the civil
service retirement system to fulfill its
future obligations to Federal employees
and annuitants, I urge the adoption of
H.R. 9825.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. BRASCO),
a member of the committee.
(Mr. BRASCO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 9825. First, I wish to
commend.the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Retirement, Insur-
ance, and Health Benefits, the gentle-
man from New Jersey, Congressman
DOMINICK V. DANIELS, for the leadership
he has demonstrated in bringing before
the House a bill which embodies the sub-
committee's major legislative effort of
the last session of the 90th Congress, and
its initial legislative endeavor of the 91st
Congress. The bill was reported by both
the subcommittee and the full Commit-
tee on Post Office and Civil Service with-
out a dissenting vote.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize
that within 6 years, we will be paying
out more than present financing meth-
ods bring in. I emphasize that within 18
years the fund balance will have
dropped from the pros nt $201/2 billion
to zero. Unless appropriations of billions
of dollars are then made in full, and on
time, each and every year thereafter,
we will be unable to pay retired employ-
ees and their survivors the benefits they
have earned through years of dedicated
service, and upon which they are count-
ing for support in their old age.
Nonrecefpt, or even delayed receipt,
of their annuity checks would be ex-
tremely serious for thousands of these
elderly persons, many of whom have no
other source of income.,-We would be
delinquent in our responsibility, I say
to the Members of this Congress, if we
did not insist upon timely and effective
congressional action to assure that such
a situation does not occur.
During the course of this debate I
have heard title II of this bill described
as controversial and described as a
Christmas tree ornately decorated with
light bulbs and tinsel. Now, I have great
respect and admiration for the integrity
and intelligence of both of the members
of the committee who described title II
of this bill in that manner. Certainly it
is with great trepidation that I pursue
a path which would be directly opposite
to their line of thinking. I do not know
of any Federal employee who is living
high on the hog today. I do not know of
any Federal employee who has been able
to bring his family up in dignity and
decency. I certainly do not know of any
retired Federal employee who can main-
tain that retired status in the manner we
ought to want them to have in their twi-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
H 6216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE . July 23, 1969
light years. Among the Federal employ-
ees I know are those from New York,
among them the post office employees,
clerks and carriers, who start out at less
than $6,000 a year and after a long per-
iod of 21 years make less than $8,000 a
year. I think it is certainly fitting that
some of the benefits in title II which are
due to these dedicated employees be
granted in this legislation.
I would like, if I may, now to go over
what these benefits consist of. We heard
one distinguished member of the com-
mittee concern himself with the fact that
unused sick leave would be used in the
formula to arrive at one's annuity pay-
ments. We have had testimony before the
committee from the Civil Service Com-
mission in which they stated that about
one-third of those retired are retired by
virtue of disability. That means they are
directed by the Civil Service Commission
to take all of their unused sick time. That
means also that they are on the payroll
for full salary and during that period
they are charged against the agency's
service list, so that no other manpower
can be provided for that slot. We find-
and the Civil Service Commission has so
testified-that the difference between
the one-third and up to 50 percent of
those people who are not disabled but are
retired are at a stage in their life when
they are sick. So they are in the same
position.
The last 50 percent forfeits, yes, for-
feits some of its unused sick time. But
I think that this legislation would repre-
sent a great deal of incentive in marginal
cases to have Federal employees preserve
their unused sick leave.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we come to the
1-percent cost-of-living increase. I do
not believe there is any Member of Con-
gress who would disagree that this is
necessary for our retired civil service em-
ployees today.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from New York 2 addi-
tional minutes.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, then we
come down to the next great benefit and
I guess this one is the one with all of
the tinsel, to restore to widows their
rights of survival annuities. During the
course of any man's employment when he
is married, one of the foremost thoughts
in his mind is to provide for his sur-
viving spouse, and he pays for that. In
some instances many men will retire at
reduced benefits only to continue the
survivorship benefit for their wife. Are we
going to take that away from him be-
cause a woman decides to remarry and
perhaps remarries a man who is earn-
ing only a meager income? Mr. Chair-
man, do we say that this is tinsel and
a type of a Christmas tree provision?
Then, Mr. Chairman, we have the next
provision in which we take the 5-year
average on which we basically compute
retirement down and reduce it to 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that
may cause some controversy and that is
the fact that Members of Congress may
be included in this provision. I under-
stand there is going to be an amendment
offered today to have Members of Con-
gress taken out of this 3-year provision.
You know something, I have been around
here not very long, but long enough to
be sort of tired, respectfully so, but tired
of listening to that old song, "Your Lips
Tell Me No, No, But There ]s Yes, Yes,
in Your Eyes."
Mr. Chairman, Members come here
constantly and vote against benefits for
Members, but as soon as such benefits are
voted, run to the disbursing office to col-
lect their benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I think there should be
some kind of distinction between those
who are voting against these benefits for
Members, not because they are not en-
titled to them, but vote against them
only because they may receive the ben-
efit in the end.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has again ex-
pired.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman one-half additional min-
ute.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I was
going to suggest that anyone who has
such an amendment might draft the
language in this way so that we will
once and for all dispense with this kind
of demagoguery and do away with the
national pastime of "let us kick the
Members of Congress around." I suggest
that we could do this through an amend-
ment by providing that any Member of
Congress within 31 days after this act
becomes effective may just write a letter
to the disbursing office authorizing them
to compute his retirement benefits on a
3-year period instead of 5, so we can
honestly separate those who favor the
provision and those who do not.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield to
me?
Mr. BRASCO. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, H.R. 9825 is a most impor-
tant piece of legislation, for until the
refinancing provisions of this bill go into
effect, we do not have a sound financial
base for the civil service retirement fund.
I have, in the past, indicated my sup-
port for this vital legislations by intro-
ducing an identical bill, H.R. 10219. A
major reason for my interest in gen-
erating support for this bill is because
the legislation provides for an additional
1 percent to each future cost-of-living
increase and, as my colleagues in the
Congress well know, the way things are
moving now it appears another cost-of-
living increase will soon be due. We
simply cannot afford to allow our Federal'
employees and public service workers to
fall further behind in the inflationary
spiral we are presently experiencing.
tirement and Disability Fund continues to
increase. The deficiency is estimated at $57.6
billion at June 30, 1969, and the fund will be
paying out more than it is taking in by 1975
unless sound financing is provided for.
The many reports, telegrams, letters,
and personal conversations I have had on
this matter requesting a favorable vote
leave me in no doubt as to what course
the Members should take this afternoon
on this bill.
I stress the great need for our prompt
enactment of H.R. 9825 today in order to
strengthen and maintain the viability of
our civil service retirement system.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii
(Mr. MATSUNAGA).
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 9825, a dual-pur-
pose bill which would strengthen the
financial condition of the civil service re-
tirement system and at the same time
provide certain needed improvements in
the employee benefits structure of the
retirement system. H.R. 5831, a bill that
I introduced, is similar to the one we are
now considering.
As a former member of the House Post
Office and Civil Service Committee, I am
keenly aware of the fact that the fi-
nancing of the civil service retirement
system has been a continuing problem
for many years. For too long a period, the
reports of the actuary have been pes-
simistic. In 1958, for example, the un-
funded liability of the program was about
$18.1 billion, and over the inswing years
it has risen so that by the end of this
month, upon full implementation of the
latest salary statute, the deficiency will
exceed an estimated $61 billion. The dire
prediction has been made that if no
changes are made in the law, the civil
service retirement and disability fund
will have a zero balance in about 18 years.
It was in this climate that the House
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
considered and reported out a predeces-
sor bill, H.R. 17682, in the last Congress.
On October 1, 1968, the House passed
that bill without a dissenting vote. That
bill was the result of careful and extend-
ed study by the committee in conjunc-
tion with the Civil Service Commission,
the Bureau of the Budget, and the Gen-
eral Accounting Office. I regret that the
other body did not have an opportunity
to consider the bill. Like the bill we are
now considering, H.R. 17682, presented
a rational approach to financing the
civil service retirement program. In addi-
tion, it would have made several worth-
while improvements in the benefits pro-
vided.
No one can honestly deny that the fi-
nancial reforms provided in H.R. 9825,
the bill now under consideration, are
urgently needed. In the current fiscal
year the unfunded liabilities of the pro-
gram will rise by about $1.9 billion due
to the interest that accrues. If enact-
ment is put off for another year, there
will be a similar increase in fiscal year
1971. Now is the time to put a stop to
this unwanted growth in needless cost to
the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, in the current budget-
conscious year, we have heard from some
It is interesting enough, and I would We simply cannot afford to delay this
agree with the gentleman from Penn- measure any longer. In reporting the
sylvania (Mr. CORBETT) when he says fiscal 1970 independent offices bill, I re-
that all of this is being paid for by the mind my colleagues that the House Ap-
Federal employee when we increase their propriations Committee declared:
rates paid into the fund from 61/2 to 7 The committee again calls attention to the
percent. I agree that is accurate. fact that the deficit in the Civil Service Re-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 196 proved For Re::U kOffiJ6NA~,CaC8RD1 BOHOUSE 0500160004-2
quarters that we ought to preserve the
financing features. of H.R. 9825 while
dropping the employee benefit improve-
ments. I would like to point out that
title I and title II of the bill supplement
each other and are integral parts of he
whole legislative package. The employee
benefits provided under title II are long
overdue. The cost of their enactment will
be fully covered by the new combined
employee-employer contribution rate of
14 percent of payroll provided under title
1.
The employee benefit provisions, en-
compass such improvements as the re-
duction in the average pay computation
period from 5 to 3 years, the credit for
unused sick leave, the one percent in-
crease in future automatic cost-of-living
percentage adjustments, the deletion of
the 15-year limitation from the congres-
sional employee computation formula,
and the reinstatement of , a remarried
widow's annuity without regard to the
time her husbad died or retired. These
are all needed modernizations that do
not in any way thwart our effort to
strengthen the financing provisions.
Mr. Chairman, there is very little need
to engage in lengthy debate today over
these provisions of the bill. The need is
present and clear. The House in the 90th
Congress demonstrated its understand-
ing of these problems and recognized the
worth of the proposed solutions. There
is no reason why we should not take the
same course today with respect to this
long overdue legislation.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. DENT) .
(Mr. DENT asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DENT. Mr, Chairman, there has
been.a great,deal of interest in this leg-
islation, and any legislation dealing with
pensions in the last 3 or 4 years, and as
chairman of the General Subcommittee
on Labor, I have had the responsibility
of the Welfare and Pension Funds, Re-
porting and Disclosure. Act. This act
covers the affairs and trusts and the
operations of approximately 1,255,000
separate pension funds in the United
States.
I have not had an opportunity to look
at the whole million or so funds, but I
can say to the Members that the highest
H6217
First of all, anybody who conceives
the idea or who thinks you can make a
Government plan actuarially sound using
the private insurance company basic
figures is just simply out of any rational
mind that he may have. It is impossible
because any contract that is made with
a private insurance company for an-
nuities is based upon a contract that is
not changeable during the lifetime of
that contract.
You cannot compare the Federal pen-
sion to a regular pension system, simply
because in the Government pension sys-
tem we increase the benefits without add-
ing contributions because all of those
who are already retired receive benefit
increases and do not contribute into the
fund.
We have changed this fund in such a
way that we have added enough extra
cost to it so that even if we were to triple
or to quadruple the amount of the con-
tribution, it would not be actuarially
sound in future years, as the private in-
surance companies figure it out.
It is also true that Insurance companies
as a group have greater earnings, more
holdings, and more money in mortgages
than any other business enterprise.
On the other hand the Government is
not in the business of exploitation for
profit and the Government fund should
only be self-sustaining, not profitable.
The reason I make that statement is
because it proves itself out mathemat-
ically and it proves itself out practically.
For example, in 1947 we started this
fund, and during that period of time the
Federal Government was supposed to
contribute its matching fund with ours.
However, for the first 91/2 years the
Federal Government did not pay 1 cent
into this fund, and at the 91/2-year mark,
it paid a half a year. Then it paid
the next 10 years, according to the fig-
ures received from the Bureau in 1967.
During that period of time our average
annual income from investments, or
parts of it, averaged less than 3 percent
per year. If this money had been put
out at 41/2 percent under a prudent in-
vestor's rule, and if the fund were run
like any other intelligently run fund, the
fund for the Members of Congress would
have over $26 million over and above
the amount of money that was required
to pay out all claims.
In respect to claims, a Member of Con-
change.
the funds we have studied is the con- y ` a?` w zay `'11b, uus a great number month in 1955. To be accurate, so that
the funds
made by the Members of the of Members of this Congress who were there will be no question of the facts that
Congress into e congressional fund. here back in 1932 and 1933 and 1934 and Member-and I will give you his name
1936 are still fighting the old depres- if you so desire-now receives $259 a
The trouble with this fund is that it sion. There has been so much water over month. Mind you, if you had an actu-
is mixed up in the whole general funding the dam since then and they are still arially sound plan, and you based it upon
picture of the GSA, or the regular civil talking about trade relations of the days the idea of being actuarially sound, you
service employees retirement, but the of the horse and buggy when we just could not pay him $259 a month. He
truth of the matter is that the soundest flew men to the moon the other day. would still have to receive $180 a month.
pension fund that has come to our notice In other words, we become creatures of But we have generously added widows
is the ? pension fund of the Members of habit and form habits and opinions and and others without funding. We have
the Congress of the United States. we follow them-and we follow them generously added other benefits for non-
I can understand why certain Mem- more so in our later days when we do not contributing Members into the fund, and
bers harbor a false premise on this par- have that vim and vigor or the notion to the Members of Congress have paid for
ticular situation of the pension fund in do any new thinking. it.
the Congress, because of a great deal of Let me just give you some facts that Federal judges pay nothing into the
misinformation on pension funds in gen- are very important. I want these facts to fund but get full retirement benefits. The
eral, and especially those that attach be understood for what they are. These military has the same setup.
themselves to Members of the Congress are the actual facts of the pension plan As of 1967 the facts were clear. Pre-
in this instance. of Congress. liminarily, I would like to point out that
There is a serious problem that we
ought to be looking at. We ought to be
looking at it because in the days when I
was investigating this particular pension
fund of ours, in line with other pensions,
I received a great number of letters from
former Members of Congress who in
detail gave me the problems they faced
after they left the Congress, after having
served here for 10 or 20 years or 15 years,
and they found themselves completely
away from whatever profession they may
have had or whatever business they may
.have had..
If that was true in those days-10, 12,
or 15 years ago, how much truer is it
today when the Congress finds itself in
the position of being a fulltime job,
practically.
I do not know how the rest of you may
be able to carry on your affairs at home,
but I have not been able to and I have
had to give up all my other business and
activities, I am strictly a Member of the
Congress of the United States 7 days a
week. For that matter I doubt if onyone
could actually say that he is not called
upon, at all times like a good general
practitioner in medicine.
However, I want to get down to the
basic fundamental principle of pension
legislation-not this particular legisla-
tion-but legislation dealing with pen-
sions for the Members of Congress.
First of all, because of the fact that
you have to serve 32 full years in the
Congress to get the maximum pension
allowance under the law, it forces the
Members of Congress who, after being
here for 10 or 12 years, have to stay to
the end of their endurance and the will
of the people. Many of us know that
Members of Congress reach a certain age
where I am sure they ought to be retired
and should be retired and should have
the inducement to retire.
Some of us worked out what we
thought was a reasonable plan. There
would be no less paid into the pension
fund by Members but it would be paid
in a shorter number of years and would
allow retirement after a shorter number
of years of service.
It is not- a question of whether a person
is able to serve when he is 78 or 79 years
of age-it is a question as to whether he
ought to be serving. We are all creatures
of habit and we form certain habits and
policies and opinions over the years-and
they never
Approved For Release 2001111/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 1-16218
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- IIOUSZ, July 2_ , 1969
there is one thing you must always re-
member. Political expediency and com-
mon justice seldom sleep together. They
are very strange bedfellows.
We have added all of these extras. We
are paying for them out of the fund, with-
out matching contributions, or contribu-
ti;;ns being made out of the general fund.
That is where these added benefits should
come from since they are not benefits for
ths contributors. We are paying for
them out of our pension fund. We are
paying enough in our pension fund, as of
the last figures available, to take care of
the original program, but I would like to
point out that the facts simply put are as
follows:
First. The Members' pension is sound
and is solvent as a pay as you go with a
surplus as of the end of 1967 of over
$12,900,000 over and above all charges
and costs against it, since its inception
in 1947.
Second. The Federal Government
never met its matching requirements for
the first 10 years and in the 11th year,
1957, it met only 50 percent of its match-
ing and yet the Members' contributions
were high enough to meet all. claims
against the fund and still have a reserve
of $3,227,000 for the 11-year period.
Third. During all these years-1947
67----the fund earned less than 31iz per-
cent interest per year for a total of
$3,114,000 as against a total of!$10,508,000
if the Government had met its matching
requirements and the fund had earned
5-percent anmlal interest.
Fourth. The fund would have a sur-
plus of over $25,008,000 Instead of
$12,915,000 if the Government had paid
its share as all other employers do on a
matching basis.
This shows the amount of surplus over
costs for the full retirement system of
the Federal Government with the excep-
tion of free pensions to Judges, and spe-
cial categories:
As of Dec. 31, 19136, invest- As of Dec. 31, 1967, investment
ment (at par) (in thousands) (at par) in thousands)
-- -- Rate of -
Special,2i'------_----------------------- -- $585,000
Special,2ig------ ------------------------ 3,677,140
Special,2%---------- ----------- 1, 009, 576
Special, 39/------------ ---------- i 1,295,200
Special, 37 --------------------------------- 22,21104,888
204,888
Special, 4h------- --------------------
------------
Special, 4%---------- ----
' 1, 907, 132
Special, 4,.--` ------- ------------ -----------
Special,5______________________------------ 163,072
Special, 5''b--------- ----------- ------------ 117,876
Special,s'/a -- 1 -----
Special, 5%-------- . ------------------ ---- 279, 199
Special, 5i's--------- -------- ----------- -----------
Percent
3.46
21.73
5.97
7.65
12.44
25.07
11.27
37
.
.70
1.65
Total, 2 3.681- _ _ _ 15, 282, 937 90.31
Public, various '4.246-------- .-- 1,640,403 9.69
----- ------------ _ 16,923,340 100.00
Grand total 23.736----
interest
Amount
Percent
,
ber 1, 1956.
2~L
$200,0010
1.11
12. Act of June 29, 19
liberalized the comme
57, Public Law 85-65,
ncing date of annui-
2h
3,148,359
17.43
4
81
ties for survivors of M
embers who died on
27.
3?
869,010
r 1
234
224
.
6.83
or after January 1, 1957.
1
37,
,
,
r 2, 024,661
11,21
13. Act of June 25,
1958, Public Law 85-
4tx
r 1, 400, 711{0
22.71
465, provided annuity
increases to retired
43.1
r 1, 758, 17:1
9.74
Members or their survi
vors who were receiv-
47
r 1, 867, 0410
10.34
in or ntitl d t
i A
----- ----------------- ---------
g e e o rece ve
annuity on ug-
-----------_ -- -- - -------
ust 1, 1958, based on s
ervice terminated
514 r 43,009 .24
prior to October 1, 1956.
----------------------------------
468 2 87
5/ 1517
14. Act of August 14,
1958, Public Law
,
,
85-661, provided for payment of Member's
2 3.885
15, 762, 721
87.29
voluntary contribution accounts prior to re-
24.463
2,295,953
12.71
ceipt of any additional
annuity resulting
00
100
therefrom.
23.959
18,058,674
.
15. Act of August 27, 1958, Public Law
I Amounts invested since Oct. 4, 1')61, under the 1961 Law.
2 Average rate, weighted by face amount at each rate.
Note: Public Law 87-350, approved Oct. 4, 1961,changed the basis for future investment of the retirementfund with respect
10-year pe iodides for the redemption otinvestments made
old basis and thaverage eir reinvestment under the n new basis yield basis.
to s under the issues
The calls and letters to Members by
retirees-voluntary and otherwise-at-
test to the willingness of Members to pay
more to get more in pensions and insur-
ance plans. The following is quoted from
one of many letters from former Mem-
bers:
As you know, I was elected to Congress in
1934 and served until 1947, with the ex-
ception of 1943 to 1945.
It was my privilege to be a Member at the
time the so-called Congressional pension or
annuity was adopted in 1946. Our salary was
then $10,000 per year. We should have had
an increase in salary long before that time,
but we were thankful for the passage of the
pension act.
Even though we former Members are not
on the payroll, as such, we are called upon
to render service because of our former
Membership. Our opinions are sought after
because of that standing. One does not real-
ize, the number of times this happens. We
are happy to render such service; however, I
feel that our pension or annuity is inade-
quate.
Of course, I fully realize that our contri-
bution of 5% of our salary, based on our
basic salary of $10,000, was voluntary and
was paid back to the time of our entry into
Congress, and it was the best we could ex-
pect to pass at that time. My pension or
annuity began in May 1955 when I became 62
years old at the rate of $180 per month or
$2,160 per annum and has rise;l to $259 per
month or $3,108 per year because of the in-
crease in the cost of living.
You will note that his pension has in
creased 331/3 percent without any con-
tributions. The serving Members of Con-
gress paid for this increase out of their
contributions since no appropriations
were provided for the increases.
This is another reason we cannot make
the fund actuarially sound.
Following .is a list containing the his-
tory of retirement legislation:
HISTORY OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING RETIRE-
MENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
1. Act of January 24, 1942] Public Law
77-411, extended retirement ' coverage to
Members of Congress.
2. Act of March 7, 1942, Public Law 77-490,
removed Members of Congress from coverage
under the retirement system.
3. Act of August 2, 1946, Public Law 79-
601, extended retirement coverage to Mem-
bers of Congress.
4. Act of June 19, 1948, Public Law 80-707,
allowed a Member leaving his office to enter
the armed forces during a war or national
emergency, upon returning as a Member,
to have the time spent in the military
credited toward retirement, with no con-
tribution to the retirement fond.
5. Act of April 4, 1953, Public Law 83-18.
ciiminated the 30-day waiting period for
:>int-and-survivorship-annuity elections by
;.Members.
6. Act of March 6, 1954, I'ullic Law 83-303.
liberalized Member's retirerent provisions
with respect to creditable service, cond_-
t ons for retiring, amount o- annuity, and
death benefits.
7. Act of August 31, 1954, Public Law 83--
730, provided that Member's annuity title
z,uld arise only if at least 1 year within the
1-year period next preceding Member's sep-
aration was served subject to the retirement
l sw.
8. Act of August 11, 1955, Public Law 84--
569, added a benefit for Members, separated
,ruly 1, 1955 or later, who had prior Govern-
ment service other than as Member. Also
permitted use of prior Member service in
computing annuity upon retirement from
non-Member employment.
9. Act of June 4, 1956, Public Law 84-556,
waived 1-out-of-2 requirement in case of
Member's death in service.
10. Act of July 31, 1956, Public Law 84-854,
completely liberalized, revised and re-enacted
the civil service retirement law with respect
to all types of covered personnel, including
Members.
11. Act of June 21, 1957, Public Law 85-58,
liberalized the commencing date of annui-
ties for survivors of Members who died sub-
:;equent to April 1
1956 and prior to Octo-
85-772, provided annuity pn;toction for sur-
vivors of employees who are elected or ap-
pointed as Members of Congress.
16. Act of July 7, 1960, Public Law 86-604,
liberalized Members retirement benefits with
respect to refund rights, annuity elegibility,
deferred annuity and re-employment of for-
mer Members.
17. Act of ,July 12, 1960, Public Law 86-622,
liberalized Members retirement benefits with
respect to excess contributions, deferred an-
nuity, immediate reduced annuity upon in-
voluntary separation and survivor annuity.
18. Act of September 6. 1960, Public Law
86-713, accelerated the commencing date of
Members annuities and the annuities of their
survivors.
19. Act of July 31, 1961- Public Law 87-
114, made permanent authorization for pay-
ment of annuity increases authorized for
Members and their survivors by the Act of
June 25, 1958.
20. Act of October 4. 161, Public Law
87-350, liberalized the restoration to earning
capacity provision of thereiirement law rela-
tive to Members who retire on account of
disability.
21. Act of October 11. 1962, Public Law
87-793, liberalized Members' survivor bene-
fits and provided annuity adjustments to re-
tired Members and survivors of Members.
22. Act of September 27, 1965, Public Law
89-205, as amended by the Act of November
1, 1965, Public Law 89-314, provided cost-of-
living annuity adjustments to retired Mem-
bers and to survivors of Members.
23. Act of July 18, 1966, Public Law 89-504,
liberalized Members' survivor benefits for
student-children and provided survivor an-
nuity increases.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Jul ~3 proved for Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
July 9 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
24. Act of December 16, 1967, Public Law Executive Salaries and it is true here tributed th
90 206
liberalized Member'
i
f
,
s max
e
mum basis today.
ull amount set by law, but,
annuity at 80% of the final pay of an ap- while the Government has contributed
pointive position in which the Member serves While I fully support improving the substantial sums to the trust funds, it
after termination of Member service. financial condition of the civil service has failed to appropriate regularly and
[Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania ad- retirement system, I cannot, in good systematically, on a concurrent basis,
dr[Md the Committee. His remarks ad will conscience, believe that our actions here sufficient funds to meet the ultimate
desse the Comr in the s remarks of today will be construed as improving the costs not covered by employees' con-
Remarks.] critical problem of properly financing tributions. In past years several methods
the system by improving benefits for for determining appropriations, to meet
Mr. CORBETT, Mr. Chairman, I yield Members of Congress which, in my judg- the Government's obligation to the sys-
to the gentleman from California (Mr. ment, are adequate at present. tem have been considered, and some
DON H. CLAUSEN). While some may disagree, I believe were adopted. However, attitudes of
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and that, over the years, Congress has just various administrations, Congresses, and
was given permission to revise and ex- not provided sufficient funds or adequate committees have changed from time to
tend his remarks.) "machinery" so that our civil service time, but facing the problem realistically
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair- retirement system is capable of keeping has been long delayed.
man, I rise today In support of H,R. 9825, pace with the cost of living or rising The significance of expected continual
the Civil Service and Retirement Financ- price index. Nor, in my judgment, has deficiency increases is that the fund will
Ing and Benefits Act, proper attention been payed to surviving ultimately be depleted unless action is
The House Committee on Post Office widows. taken to forestall this contingency.
and Civil Service has done an excellent This, then, Is the problem that we Thereafter, direct appropriations would
job in the area of drafting legislation should be. addressing ourselves to here be required each year, in addition to em-
intended to improve both the financing today. ployee, and employing agency contribu-
and funding practices of the civil service Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I tions, in order to meet benefit payments
retirement system in order to maintain yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gen- as they fall due. Unless steps are taken
confidence in the soundness of the retire- tleman from West Virginia (Mr. KEE). to eliminate, or at least halt the growth
ment fund. In addition, this legislation, Mr. BURLISON of Missouri. Mr. of, the unfunded liability, the fund bal-
in my judgment, provides certain limited, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ances will be drawn down and substan-
but necessary and needed, improvements Mr. KEE. I yield to the gentleman tial direct appropriations will be required
In the benefits structure of *the system from Missouri. to meet future obligations.
within the confines of the new financing (Mr. BURLISON of Missouri asked In the committee's judgment and
approach. and was given permission to revise and mine, its recommended approach, while
Certainly, we in the Congress must extend his remarks.) somewhat new in concept and mechan-
insure that the necessary money is avail- Mr. BURLISON of Missouri. Mr. ics, is sound and will accomplish the de-
able when needed.. to pay the annuities Chairman, the major purpose of this leg- sired results. Its impact on future
of Government's retirees and survivor islation is to improve the financing and budgets will be considerable, but the im-
annuitants in full and on time. funding practice of the civil service re- pact will nevertheless be far less drastic
Essentially, this bill provides four basic tirement system, so as to maintain con- than if present funding practices con-
improvements in our Civil Service Retire- fidence in the soundness of the retire- tinue unchanged. The longer action is
ment Act. ment fund and to assure that the nec- delayed, the larger will be the problem
First. An additional 1 percent will be essary' money is available when needed to be dealt with. The committee believes
added to all future annuity cost-of-liv- to pay the annuities of Govermmnt's re- that this bill will provide in full for the
Ing increases. This, I believe, is abso- tirees and survivor annuitants in full permanent financing of the civil service
lutely essential. Thus, if the cost of liv- and on time. retirement system, so as to assure that
Ing is increased by 3 percent, annuities It is also the purpose of this legisla- there will always be enough money in
would be advanced by 4 percent to offset tion to provide certain limited, but the fund to permit the payment of all
the increase. needed, improvements in the benefits benefits due-in full and on time. I fully
Second. Annuities of surviving spouses structure of the system within the limits concur with the committee on these
who have remarried since July 18, 1966, of the new financing approach. matters.
will be continued or restored under During the past 11/2 years, the Sub- The annuity computation formula is
certain conditions. committee on Retirement, Insurance, an all-important technique of express-
Third. Retirement service credit will and Health Benefits of the Committee ing basic policy decisions as to how much
be allowed for unused sick leave. While on Post Office and Civil Service has de- annuity to award specified groups of
this provision may be debated, it should, voted its full time and attention, in ex- employees, and how much recognition or
nevertheless, be recognized as a valuable tensive public hearings, executive ses- weight to give to length of service, level
incentive for faithful service. sions, and conferences with the official of earnings, and other relevant factors
Fourth. And, last, annuities will be representatives of agencies of the execu- in arriving at the amount of annuity.
computed on the high 3 years rather tive and legislative branches, to a Substitution of the final salary, of the
than the high 5 years of average earnings. searching review of the financial con- salary in the last full year of employment,
On this latter provision of pay aver- dition of the civil service retirement sys- of a high-2 average, or of a high-3 aver-
aging and, in order to be consistent, it tem-a program which is a vital part age have all been urged as remedies. Each
is my understanding that a motion to of the Federal employment system, and of these would be more alvantageous
recommit will be offered on the basis that one of paramount importance to the than the high-5 average from the view-
this provision includes Members of Con- Government's millions of retired, active, point of most employees, of course, in
gress. If the 3-year averaging provision and future employees and their families. that each would produce more favorable
15 limited to Federal employees and ex- The subcommittee's aim was to at- annuities.
cludes Members of Congress, I will sup- tempt to recognize the problems result- On balance, it is my judgment that the
port it. If it includes Members of Con- ing from past and present funding prac- high-3 average appears to be the best
gress, however, I shall be compelled out tices, to resolve any doubts of the sys- available alternative from the stand-
of conviction to support the motion to tem's financial integrity, and to develop point of both the Government and the
recommit on that basis. a definite plan of action to insure its employees. Normal costs will be increased
Increasing the salary and benefits for ability to fulfill its obligations. by 0.07 percent of payroll-from 13.86
Members of Congress, as I see it, is not The results of the indepth study most Percent to 13.93 percent-or $15.4 mil-
the answer to the problem and, whenever assuredly attest to the fact that any lion annually-$7,7 million each from
I have had.the opportunity to cast my doubt which exists as to the system's employees and agencies-but will be
vote on this question, it has been against ability to meet future commitments is fully covered within the normal cost
increasing Members' salaries and bene- attributable to funding practices that financing provision of section 102 of this
fits. This was true during the last ses- have been grossly inadequate since the legislation:
sion on the question of establishing the program's every inception in 1920. A continuing concern has been ex-
so-called Presidential Commission on Federal employees have always con- pressed over the years that, while some
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
H 6219
 1-1 6220
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R00050016000 2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 271J 23, 1969
employees are heavy sick leave users Federalstaff retirement systems repre- creased and wages and salaries in indus-
toward the end of their careers, many sent a mixture of insurance and humani- try continued upward. Annuitants who
others retire with substantial balances tarian principles. In the matter of ad- had retired before the effective date of
accumulated by virtue of conscientious jesting annuities after retirement, in- the 1956 act received a 10-percent cost-
usage of the sick leave privilege. While surance practice would guarantee that of-living raise. Those retired later re-
one-third of all retirements are for dis- whatever annuity an employee had ceived nothing under that act.
ability-and such retirees are properly earned at the time of retirement should In 1962 a major effort was begun to
entitled to the full protection provided be preserved without change. On the establish annuity adjustments on a sta-
by their sick leave-the leave problem other hand, humanitarian considerations ble basis. The act of October 11, 1962,
is brought within the scope of this legis- would urge that the welfare of the re- first established the principle that Fed-
lation because the use of sick leave by tired person is the major concern, and eral civilian salaries should be eompara-
employees otherwise planning to retire that annuities should be adjusted to ble with industry salaries for similar
is creating difficulty for Federal agencies. changing needs. The latter theory has work, and new salary schedules took
Recent studies indicate that there is a prevailed through congressional action; steps toward effecting the principle. The
growing tendency, particularly among but putting theory into practice has act lsoies palishedithe annuitiespolicy t atd he
State and municipal governments, to pro- proved difficult.
vide some form of recognition for unused The level of benefits at the time of maintained by adjusting benefits auto-
sick leave' at the time an individual re- retirement is established by a formula matically whenever the Consumer Price
tires or dies while employed. In instances based on service and salary. The needs Index for a year exceeded the base year
where a lump-sum payoff is provided, and desires of annuitants are influenced by 3 percent. At the same time, annuities
this recognition frequently equals 50 per- by the cost of living and also the general for 1962 and earlier years were raised by
cent of the cash value of the unused level of standards of living. When these 5 percent; and to supplement the effect
leave. Statistics disclose that, since the variables are stable or declining, annuity of the 1962 increases on high-5 averages,
adoption of such plans, overall sick leave adjustments are no issue; this was essen- annuities for 1963 were raised by 4 per-
usage has declined from an average of tially true from 1920 to 1945. When the cent, for 1964 by 3 percent, for 1965 by however
b
ent, and
roblems
2
t. Fur 8 to 7 is days not quite unique is demonstrated eases were
that by th no the practice ie n practice in the Canadian ian Govern- continuously since the end of World ality retirees got thelbernefit of pre-
ment's a retirement system of WThe Congress has tried a variety of vious increases.
pay a salary and employee the e equivalent t of the The Consumer Price Index had in-
period full seqequal to des ano his annuity ens sued sick benefits for leave. the theyCivil Service ltRetiem nteActAwas creased 118 percent from 1939 to 1962,
T
e bill provides a limited measure of passed in 1920, civilian salaries were ad- and while the Consumer Price Index
recompense for unused sick leave by in- justed by the Classification Act of 1923 formula
on d sa welcom i nn vat ts, its
creasing the total actual service per- and a subsequent increase in 1925; but an auto formed by an employee-who retires on a retirement recomputation principle fell
rbabarely n short of forcing them omat it 1965 and left wa
an immediate annuity or dies leaving a was never adopted. In 1926 and 1930 new another year.
survivor or survivors entitled to annuity formulas for computing benefits were
ibenefIts-by the length of service repre- ntroduced.
a of the calendar value of his un- retired were Increased tot he levels pro- n w The legislation Congress 1965. The bConsumer
e
used sick leave. An employee who has vided by the new formulas. Under the P ice index formula was increases orpro-
met the age and service requirements for 1930 act the maximum benefit was $100 vid
immediate retirement, such as one who a month, and most employees retiring Consumer s, foIndex rose by r ex- base period for months. The new formula guc-
ample, will have his service increased by During the 1930's salary schedules were cessive
erated an automobile increase of 4.6
calendar month for each 22 days of stable except for temporary flat percent- percent an all annuitants c 1965. In 4.6
unused leave; or a retired or deceased age cuts, and no changes were made in dition, the Congress arms provided 1965. non ad-
employee who has accrued sufficient annuity formulas. The cost of living and increases of onz percent for clad service
leave to be carried in a paid-leave status general standard of living declined. An- retirement annuitants who had retired
for 1 year will be given retirement serv- nuitants were relatively well off and , ti
who retired 19t an and a den percent cred
ice credit of 1 calendar year. Conse- therefore annuity adjustments were no b efor re e October
ent
would would quently, the latter employee's annuity issue. those be computed upon 31 years of During World War II, wartime con- and December 31, 1965-an average of
service. The additional service so trols ruled out any general action on justments percent of S3 9s qu n autom tic ad-
granted, however, shall not be counted salaries and annuities alike. However, the $100
January 1,
effective
1967 in determining for pay in attain- mone change was onth lid on annuities as removed in Mhave ay 1, 19 8, and as rec ntly March 1,
ing eligibility for retirement. 69, This legislation embraces a change in favor of benefiting ntagerof hi employees average, 19If the present Consumer Price Index
paid -
eff
ing the historical lea philosophy urly-thus
.the
ct since ing the sick leave ve system, and grants a which at the time meant those paid over it presumably wouldTha, eebeen suspend-
e ion
limited recognition to those employees $2,800 a year. In 1946 this provision was employees who
of warti
perio
the
during
who have prudently utilized the sick had retired beforectheramendment was as a result of wa tiime controls. Af ter the
leave ing privilege. It i s expected that by y war, however, it would have provided a
centive an n additional in- passed' guide more effective than any then avail-
be to benefit
to conserve nserve sick leave, there will As a result of inflation during and the of
to a bringing
ea son able relation with the and b
ploy es, generally,rto the use of the leave employees found themselves in a new back for
Con
rest of
The
world.
the as it is oearned. cot will be fug such rther n- umerlPrice Indexrinc1946 stood 40 per- regained the roriiginal purchasing power,
cruals, normal
by 0.06 percent of payroll-from cent above the 1939 level. In 1951, with the formula would have maintained them
13.93 to 13.99 percent-or $13.2 million, a boost from the Korean conflict, it by prompt and equitable action when
and living costs
1 better balance
but will be fully covered within section an pr d production recovered civil-
are in
10I of f this bill. action was taken to restore lost values, now, on the whole, than at any time in comttee that It is th such e additional onal of costs the will be sig- at least in part. the past, a notable deficiency continues
nificantly offset by the savings gs resulting By 1956, pay schedules for most ac- to exist. A period of 5 months elapses
from a reduction in the number of days tive employees, and annuities for new between the initial month in which the
of average sick leave usage throughout retirees, had pretty well caught up with Consumer Price Index rises by 3 percent since
. over the
cost of-1 ving
the Federal service. Again, I concur with the
ever, national productivity still9in- month month
the committee.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 1969
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE
adjustment is reflected in the annuity
checks, During that elapsed period the
Consumer Price Index continues its up-
ward trend, generally attaining a level
in excess of 1 percent of the actual per-
centage rate of adjustment.
In order to correct this serious de-
ficiency in the adjustment formula and
thereby compensate retirees and survivor
annuitants for , the intervening incre-
mental rises in the cost of living. H.R.
17682 will add 1 percent to all future
percentage adjustments. For example, if
the highest level attained during the 3-
month measuring period equals 4 per-
cent, an additional 1 percent will be
added thereto and result in an auto-
matic adjustment of 5 percent. Annual
costs would be increased by approxi-
mately $23 million on each occasion.
Mr. Chairman, the above constitutes a
synopsis of the views of the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, with
which I am pleased to join.
Mr. Chairman, this bill (H.R. 9825)
vigorously attacks a number of inequities
presently existing in the civil service re-
tirement system. I strongly feel that the
Congress must meet its obligations to
the millions of dedicated workers in the
Federal service, I urge passage of this
essential legislation.
Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, I take this
opportunity to thank my very dear
friend of many, many years standing
(Mr. CORSETT of Pennsylvania) for his
courtesy in yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend
Chairman DANIELS, and the members of
the Subcommittee on Retirement, Insur-
ance, and Health Benefits, and all of the
members of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service for reporting H.R. 9825,
sound legislation now under considera-
tion, which was cosponsored by 24 of 26
members of the committee.
Under the wise and able leadership
of our distinguished colleague (Mr.
DANIELS), of New Jersey, we have before
us legislation that deserves the unani-
mous support of every Member of the
House without amendment. This meas-
ure was reported unanimously by the
subcommittee, and by the full committee
it was supported by a vote of 22 yeas and
1 present, and with not a single nay.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to the Members
of the House, this is an excellent example
of bipartisan support.
For 11/2 years, the subcommittee
chaired by Mr. DANIELS has devoted full
time and attention in extensive public
hearings.
Title I improves the financial condi-
tion of the civil service retirement fund.
Title IZ provides moderate liberaliza-
tion, which will amply be covered by title
1. This is sound fiscal legislation.
I should note that the employees of the
executive branch of Government are by
law required, to contribute to the fund.
The members of the legislative branch,
including Members of Congress and con-
gressional employees, are the only Gov-
ernment-employees who have the choice
of choosing to participate or not to par-
ticipate. Some do, and some do not. The
choice is up to the individual alone.
I might point out at this time that
members of the executive branch, once
they are appointed, even on a temporary
basis, do contribute. But when they stay
and they are qualified, for permanent
civil service status, they have their jobs
for their lifetime, as long as they per-
form their assigned duties in an accept-
able fashion.
The Members of the House, however,
have to go before the electorate, before
the voters of our districts, twice every
2 years. We have to report to our people
in our primary elections and in our gen-
eral elections. Our congressional em-
ployees are dependent upon our success.
Without them, of course, none of us
could be successful.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to
add that our Nation was founded with
the idea that our Nation would survive or
fall upon the performance of the U.S.
House of Representatives.
This legislation is designed to fulfill
this sacred obligation. As we look to the
future, this measure, when approved,
will serve to help attract some of the
most capable and qualified citizens into
public service. Because of this fact, our
country will benefit.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this legis-
lation is an investment in the future of
America.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfuly, there-
fore, urge every Member of this House,
and I strongly beg and plead with every
Member of this House, let us pass this
measure unanimously, without a single
amendment.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr.
PELLY).
(Mr. PELLY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, this legis-
lation to provide proper financing for
the retirement fund is long overdue.
Mr. Chairman, the question here, to
my mind, is whether the good outweighs
the bad. No one opposes the objective
of H.R. 9825; namely, to improve the
financing and funding practices of civil
service retirement. For years I have
called for legislation to eliminate the
$57 billion deficit in the system. This
title I of the bill would accomplish. But,
by the same token title II of the bill
would increase the unfunded liability,
and I oppose that.
Since I have been in Congress-which
is more than 16 years-I have contrib-
uted to the retirement fund almost
$30,000. That fund for Members of Con-
gress has a substantial surplus, I am in-
formed. So I do not feel obligated to
vote against more benefits for Members
of Congress. But this is a civil service
retirement for all Federal workers, and
I feel constrained to look at it in that
way.
So, Mr. Chairman, when a vote
comes-as I believe it will-to raise the
employment from 71/2 percent to 8 per-
cent I intend to support that effort to
eliminate more deficit financing. I am for
higher benefits but I want the program
to be fully financed. I hope that amend-
ment carries. I will pay 8 percent of my
salary willingly for the liberalization of
the program.
Also I will support a reduction in bene-
fits, if that is necessary to bring the fund
into balance.
But I support the objective of the bill.
It is long overdue and its passage espe-
cially title I is most desirable.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs.
MAY).
(Mrs. MAY asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mrs. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I find it
most objectionable that this bill contains
provisions which would liberalize the
retirement financing and benefits for
Members of Congress. I submit that the
people of this Nation will view this sec-
tion of the bill as further special benefits
which Members of Congress bestow upon
themsleves.
Mr. Chairman, can anyone doubt that
the American people are upset about the
41-percent increase in pay that the
House of Representatives allowed them-
selves this year? And just before asking
the people to submit to an extension of
the income tax surcharge?
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Chair-
man, the provisions for Members of
Congress In this bill are just as untimely
as was the pay increase for Members
earlier this year.
It is possible that my opposition to
benefits for Members of Congress may
be construed by some as opposition to
retirement financing improvements and
benefits for civil service workers. This Is
not so. I fully recognize the need to im-
prove the situation of civil service em-
ployees, and I have always supported
those provisions of the bill. But I cannot
in good conscience support a bill that
retains these benefits for Members of
Congress.
It would be wonderful if our national
economy _ and budgetary situation were
such that we could do anything we
wanted to do. We tried that for the past
few years, Mr. Chairman, and as a result
we are faced with economic catastrophe.
To survive we must realign our na-
tional priorities and a good place to start
is right here in this Chamber.
I will not vote for any bill that contains
any monetary benefits for Members of
Congress. Not with the taxpayers of this
Nation being asked to tighten their belts
and pay high taxes at the same time.
Mr. FARBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in wholehearted and enthusiastic sup-
port of H.R. 9825, legislation to liberalize
and reform the civil service retirement
system.
This bill takes a series of much needed
steps in the direction of directly improv-
ing benefits for recipients. The program
currently computes retirement benefits
on the basis of the average of the high-5-
year salary. H.R. 9825 would substitute a
high-three average computation for the
present high-five; the cost of the in-
creased benefits are taken into account in
the financing provided by the bill. The
high-three substitute is an especially
welcome provision of the bill because it
would assure that retirement benefits
more closely resemble a person's final
salary-which is generally also his high-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
H 6222
est salary than does the present high-
five computation.
The civil service retirement program
now increases retirement benefits to
match cost-of-living increases 5 months
after the consumer Price index rises by 3
percent. In order to compensate for this
5-month lag in providing retirees with
increased benefits, H.R. 9825 provides
that the cost-of-living increase paid to
retirees would be 1 percent higher than
the rise in consumer price index.
Under present law, widows and widow-
ers of Government employees may re-
marry after age 60 and still receive an-
nuities if their deceased spouses were
employed after July 18, 1966. The bill
under consideration would extend these
benefits by applying this provision to all
widows and widowers whose remarriage
took place on or after July 18, 1966.
H.R. 9825 makes an additional im-
provement in the program by giving
credit for unused sick leave. Presently,
employees seem to use an inordinate
amount of sick leave during their last
year of service. In order to encourage
them to accumulate it rather than use it
unnecessarily, this bill would provide that
accumulated sick leave would be given
credit In the computation of retirement
benefits. The cost for this provision, too,
Is covered by the bill's financing provi-
sions, though the committee reports that
it believes that the savings resulting from
the decreased use of sick leave would
greatly offset the increased costs.
This legislation would also put the
civil service retirement program on a
much sounder financial footing. The
need for this legislation has been sorely
felt for a number of years. If no changes
are made in the benefits or the financing
.of the program, it is forecast that the
civil service retirement funds will have a
zero balance in 18 years.
Thousands of men and women have
chosen to serve their country in one of
the most direct possible ways; by work-
ing for their national Government. As a
legislator and also as a citizen, I am
grateful to them. And I am anxious for
them to have advantages similar to those
they would receive In the private sector.
The level and type of employee retire-
ment benefits without doubt present one
of the areas where the good Intentions
and the ultimate fairness of the Govern-
ment can be clearly judged. Up to this
time, the judgment on the matter of
equitable and sound retirement benefits
would have gone against the Govern-
ment. The Congress now has an oppor-
tunity to reverse that judgment; I urge
that we make use of that opportunity by
passing H.R. 9825.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I sup-
port H.R. 9825, which has tremendous
significance for all Federal employees,
legislation that will vastly strengthen
and renew our confidence in the civil
service retirement system. This bill will
greatly Improve the financing and fund-
ing practices of the retirement fund.
Federal employees have consistently
contributed to the Government's retire-
ment since its inception in 1920 with the
assumption that their contribution
would be supplemented with allotments
from the Government, thereby enabling
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --HOUSE July 23, 1969
then to live comfortably in their golden
years. Now it seems that this hope for a
comfortable retirement may be endan-
gered due to a lack of sufficient moneys
in the retirement fund. While the Gov-
ernment has contributed substantial
sums to the fund since 1920, It has failed
to appropriate regularly and' systemati-
cally, or on a concurrent basis, sufficient
funds to meet the ultimate costs not cov-
ered by employee contributions. Unfor-
tunately, none of the several methods of
financing proposed from 1920 through
1957 provided for an automatic reflection
of the Government's share of retirement
costs in annual appropriations. As the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice pointed out in its report:
The stabilization of employment during
the early fifties, combined with sporadic and
inadequate employer contributions, made it
apparent that as the system matured, annual
trust fund revenues would soon be less than
benefit payments.
For these reasons, the deficiency, or
the unfunded liability in the fund when
computed for fiscal year 1969 is expected
to have reached a level of $57.7 billion.
To meet this deficiency, three major
provisions are contained in H.R. 9825,
which will dramatically alter the financ-
ing of the system. The bill would raise
Government and employee contributions
to the civil service retirement fund from
6.5 to 7 percent and from 7 to 7'/2 percent
for congressional employees. A second
provision calls for costs of future un-
funded liabilities from benefit liberali-
zations, salary increases, and extensions
of coverage to be met by the Govern-
ment through appropriations to the fund
in equal annual installments over a 30-
year period. Third, the bill provides for
appropriations to meet the Government's
presently increasing unfunded liability in
amounts equal to the interest on future
accrued deficiencies.
The possibility that the fund even-
tually may be depleted demands our
prompt action today. It is up to us now
to take the necessary steps to insure a
viable fund for the hundreds of thou-
sands of dedicated Government em-
ployees who comprise our federal system.
Along with the above provisions, H.R.
9825 is designed to increase substan-
tially the retirement benefits available
to Government employees by computing
retirement annuities on the highest 3 in-
stead of the present 5 years of average
salary and granting civil ~ ervice employ-
ees credit at retirement for unused sick
leave.
It was disclosed during the commit-
tee's consideration of H.R. 9825, that
there is a growing tendency, particularly
among State and municipal governments,
to provide some form of recognition for
unused sick leave at the time an individ-
ual retires or dies while' employed. Such
a policy has acted as an Incentive to
employees to conserve their sick leave
in anticipation of applying this unused
time to their length Of service when
computing retirement benefits. The bill
provides that unused sick leave shall not
be counted in determining average pay
or in attaining eligibility for retirement.
This provision has long been a goal of
the Government employee unions and
would guarantee that those employees
who have judiciously utilized their sick
leave will receive adequate compensation
in their retirement years. ti
Federal employees nationwide are
eagerly awaiting congressional action on
this bill and are universal in their hopes
for prompt passage of comprehensive
reform legislation. I urge my fellow
Members to give their full support to the
provisions of this bill,
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr, Chairman, as a
matter of fiscal integrity and common-
sense, the House should pass H.R. 9825.
This is a very well-structured bill that
both puts the civil service retirement
trust fund on a fiscally sound basis as
well as providing increased benefits for
retired personnel.
Title I of this act proposes a positive
plan of action to solve the problem of
financing the system by improving past
and present funding practices which
have proven to be inadequate. It is not
the employee contributions which have
caused the present troubles, but rather,
the method of computation of agency
contributions. By the end of this fiscal
year, the unfunded liability of the sys-
tem will be over $48 billion. Under the
present financing system, the unfunded
liability will continue to grow by more
than $1.5 billion each year. If the sys-
tem is continued disbursements will out-
strip revenues by 1974. At the present
time there is a balance of somewhat more
than $17.1 billion in the trust account.
This balance willl be totally depleted by
1987 under the current contributory sys-
tem.
Although total collapse of the civil
service retirement system is still 18 years
away, it is incumbent upon us to take
remedial action now so as to avert the
consequences which are so clearly indi-
cated.
While Government employees have al-
ways contributed their share to the fund,
the Government has not appropriated
sufficient sums with any regularity, and
the sums so contributed. have not been
sufficient to meet the portion of accrued
costs attributable to the Government
contribution account.
While I have already pointed out that
the fund is still sufficient to meet pres-
ent and immediately future obligations,
the laxity in Government contribution
has resulted in a loss of possible interest
which now amounts to $1.7 billion per
year.
This is not the whole story however.
While the fund can meet existing obli-
gations, acturisl studies indicate that at
the present time-right now-no funds
exist in respect of nonretired persons,
whether to their accrued annuities or as
to their own accumulated contributions.
A private insurance company certainly
could not operate in this manner and re-
tain its license. I see no reason why the
Federal Government should be auto-
matically entitled to a stance of fiscal
irresponsibility.
It is contended, however, that modern
economists generally accept that Federal
retirement systems, backed by the "Full
Faith and Credit of the United States"
need not accumulate reserves to the same
extent that are required of private pen-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 -Approved For Release 2001/11/01 CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160Q04-2
July 23, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 6223
sion plans. This concept may be valid,
and is certainly necessary when we are
involved with mandatory spending pro-
grains in which deficit financing is the
only alternative to no program at all.
Here however, we are presented with a
financial package which will go far to
reduce the expected deficit in the trust
fund without dislocating any other op-
tions. The ultimate conclusion is clear.
If title I is not passed, the future defi-
ciencies will have to be met by annual
appropriations in addition to employee
and agency contributions. Title I offers a
solution which must be-accepted.
Title II of this bill provides for certain
limited increases in benefits, both cash
and otherwise. It is the title II programs
which have generated an enormous
amount of mail to my office. This mail is
overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, and
I am sure that most of my colleagues
share this experience. I fully support that
section of the bill providing that the re-
tirement annuity be based on the high
3-year average rather than the present
high 5-year average. The present 5-year
standard tends to keep Government em-
ployees on the job beyond the age when
they would normally retire, is not con-
sistent with retirement schedules now
becoming prevalent in industry, and does
not necessarily reflect the rationale be-
hind the program-which is to reward
the Federal employee in a manner com-
mensurate with his contribution to the
Government.
Equally valuable is the section of the
bill providing a credit for unused sick
leave. This section is the most morally
justifiable provision in the bill, for it
rewards those persons who have shown
a 'competence and responsibility far
above that of the average civil service
employee. At present, unused sick leave
is forfeited if not used. It has been com-
mon for many employees to use up their
accrued sick leave prior to retirement.
This, of course, results in long absences
from work, and in the case of agencies
jln-Ller hiring curbs, work not completed.
Many of the conscientious and often high
level ,employees recognize their responsi-
p.bilities however, and do not take advan-
'- take of their accrued sick leave. When
the retirement date arrives they must
.forfeit this leave. In essence, the present
system penalizes the competent employee
and rewards the irresponsible employee.
It 15. argued that inclusion of this sec-
tion will set a bad precedent, and that
inclusion of this, section implies that the
present sick leae policy is being abused.
I think t4 e- pesent policy is being
abused. Agency reports confirm this.
While .th purpose of sick leave is to
provide income for a certain amount of
time for l qse employees who are absent
from worr*, ue to illness, experience
clearly shos that as many employees
reach retirement, they go through long
periods of "illness" and then experience
a quick recovery upon separation. Con-
trary to the supplemental views in the
committee report, I do not feel that in-
elusion of this section will result in em-
ployees reporting for work if they are
sick in order to gain the credit.
Crediting unusued sick leave will in
all.. Probability result in increased effl-
ciency as the long-term employee will
have the incentive to continue active
work up to the time of official separation.
in conclusion, I am convinced that
H.R 9825 is a well thought out package
which will stabilize the present chaotic
system and provide the necessary bene-
fits that have been lacking and which are
certainly due the Federal employee.
Mr. F{ILBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is
with a great deal of pride and a sense
of relief that I rise today to give my
support of H.R. 9825. I am sure all my
colleagues will agree that the bill was
a long time getting to the floor and those
of us who have cosponsored the legisla-
tion are just plain glad it is here now,
I am hopeful that we will pass this
bill again this year as we did at the end
of the 90th Congress. When it is enacted,
it will insure the solvency of the civil
service retirement system and make
some improvements in that system
which are long overdue so that it. will
be more modern and capable of meeting
the present and future needs of our re-
tired civil servants.
I believe that maintenance of the civil
service retirement system is one of the
most important responsibilities of the
Congress. It is an essential part of the
modern employment system which we
have tried to develop to attract and keep
employees of the highest caliber to con-,
duct the complex business of Govern-
ment. Enactment of H.R. 9825 will con-
tribute greatly to the financial security
of the many past civil servants and their
families as well as to future retirees.
It will represent a landmark in our ef-
forts to maintain the system and remove
any doubt as to the retirement fund's
ability to meet its commitments to our
Federal civil servants.
The results of a comprehensive study
conducted by the Committee's Subcom-
mitt?e on Retirement, Insurance, and
Health Benefits testifies to the need for
this legislation. Federal employees have
always contributed the full amount to
the fund but, while the Government has
contributed substantial amounts, it has
failed to appropriate regularly and sys-
tematically sufficient amounts to meet
the ultimate cost of the system which are
not covered by employee contributions.
At the end of the 1968 fiscal year, the
unfunded liability of the system had ap-
proached $55 billion. If we do not pass
this bill, under current system funding
practices, this unfunded liability will
continue to grow at the rate of $2 billion
per year. When the latest salary statute
was implemented and Federal salaries
at last in most cases came within strik-
ing distance of comparability, this
coupled with cost-of-living increases for
annuitants increased the unfunded lia-
bility to about $60 billion. The need for
action is evident and I am confident that
we will decide overwhelmingly to take
that action today and approve this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am alarmed that the
Bureau of the Budget recommended
against enactment of some provisions
of this bill specifically those which would
liberalize existing benefits in the follow-
ing ways: First, gross earnings, rather
than basic pay should be used in deter-
mining retirement benefits and deduc-
tions; second, average salary for annuity
computation purposes would be deter-
mined on the basis of 3 rather than 5
years of service; third, unused sick leave
would be added to actual length of serv-
ice in. computing annuities; fourth, an
extra 1 percent would be added to each
annuity increase resulting from changes
in the consumer, price index; and fifth,
amendments which permit continuation
for the annuity when a surviving spouse
remarries after reaching age 60, and
restoration of annuity upon termination
of a remarriage which occurred before
age 60, would be made applicable to all
cases in which remarriage occurs after
July 17, 1966.
I support all these provisions and I
hope that my colleagues feel likewise.
Enactment of this legislation is abso-
lutely necessary to the continued effi-
ciency of our Government.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, today
we consider what I am sure will be one
of the most worthy bills to come before
this session of Congress. Basically, it is
legislation to provide just retirement
benefits for our Federal employees, and
improve the funding of the civil service
retirement program.
I am sure that there will be general
agreement on the objectives of this leg-
islation. I have cosponsored a bill, H.R.
10219, identical to the measure before us,
and so have many other Members. The
need for this type of improvement is clear
and compelling, for it is imperative that
we provide adequately for the retirement
of career Government workers who have
devoted their lives to public service.
H.R. 9825 is a "clean bill" in that it is
a final version of similar legislation
which has long been studied by this body.
It incorporates refinements and improve-
ments which reflect the extensive consid-
eration devoted by the Congress to this
field. No Senate action was taken on the
similar bill passed unanimously by the
House in the last Congress, but in view
of the increasingly severe hardship
caused on retirees by inflation, I feel con-
fident that the other body will be in a .
more receptive mood this year.
One of the best elements of this bill is
its provision reducing the average pay
computation period to 3 years from the
present 5 years. This provision is strongly
endorsed by employees and their profes-
sional organizations, and it deserves our
wholehearted support. It is needed in
part because of the recent pay increases
we have enacted to bring Federal em-
ployee salaries into closer comparability
with private enterprise salaries. It would
do little good for thousands of valuable
Government employees if we raised their
pay briefly before retirement, then com-
puted their retirement income based on
5 years of previous salaries that were
admittedly inequitable. Justice demands
that we at least reduce the computation
period to 3 years so that the pay increases
which we found to be justified are taken
into better account.
During this period of rapid escalation,
those whose pay has finally been brought
to comparability with the rest of the
Nation should not be penalized by con-
tinuation of the 5-.year base period. This
long a period overlooks the rapidly
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 23, 1969
changing nature of the Government pay
structure and our efforts to upgrade Fed-
eral salary levels.
The other provisions of this measure
are also sound. By adding unused sick
leave to the length of service of an em-
ployee who is retiring or has died while
employed, for example, we are justifiably
rewarding the employee's good work and
attendance record. This provision will
add a significant incentive for employees
to not "use up" all of their allowable
sick leave during their years of service
and should result in large savings to
the Government.
To help pai? for the increased benefits,
the bill adds an extra 1 percent to the
rate of employee and agency contribu-
tions to the retirement fund. This con-
tribution would rise to 71/2 percent from
the present 61/2 percent, but I feel that
the overwhelming number of our Govern-
ment employees will be happy to share
this additional burden in view of the
higher benefits they will eventually re-
ceive.
As one who has supported an ade-
quate civil service retirement program
throughout his congressional service, I
enthusiatiscally endorse this legislation.
I hope and expect that we can win its
final enactment in the current Congress,
thereby meeting our responsibilities to
our faithful Federal employees.
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to express my complete and enthusi-
astic support for H.R. 9825.
This bill will effectively ameliorate our
present civil service retirement system.
That this program needs improvement
Is quite obvious. The unfunded liability
of the system was $18.1 billion in 1958,
and jumped to $57.7 billion at the close
of fiscal year 1968. At this terrifying rate
of increase, it is anticipated that if no
changes are made in the law, the civil
service retirement trust fund will have a
zero balance in about 18 years.
To preclude such a dire financial crisis,
H.R. 9825 utilizes a three-pronged ap-
proach to the problem. First, and of
greatest importance, the bill provides for
payment of the interest accruing on the
$57.7 billion. This would be accomplished
by paying 10 percent of the interest in
1970, 20 percent In 1971, 30 percent in
1972, et cetera, until 1980 when all of the
interest would be paid up. In such a man-
ner, the astronomical growth of the un-
funded liability would be stopped since
the interest Is what is responsible for
the major increase of this deficit.
Second, the bill would assure any in-
crease in principal that may occur
through further liberalization of the
program would be paid for by the Gov-
ernment in 30 equal annual installments.
In order to fund the above two fi-
nancial improvements, H.R. 9825 would
raise employee and agency payroll con-
tributions one-half of 1 percent, from
6'/2 to 7 percent. This contribution in-
crease would be effective January 1970.
In addition to promoting a health fi-
nancial situation, H.R. 9825 would also
considerably improve the benefits derived
from the civil service retirement pro-
gram. There are four of these major im-
provements.
First, the bill calls for an increase in
benefit payments 1 percent greater than
the rise in the cost of living. 'this would
alleviate the present lag in the timing of
the benefit increase since it takes at least
5 months before the increase takes
effect. Since the cost of living generally
goes up month by month, this 5-month
lag in increase can sometimes be most
serious.
Second, the bill will provide for the
restoration of benefits to certain remar-
ried widows who are denied 'them only
because their spouse died or retired be-
fore July 18, 1966.
The third benefit improvement which
II.R. 9825 would make is to change the
number of years of high salary from 5 to
2 on which retirement benefits are based.
In this way, the retirement benefits
would be more closely related to the sal-
ary at time of retirement-normally the
highest-and would lessen the tendency
of employees to postpone retirement In-
definitely.
Finally, the bill would provide that in
the computation of annuities credit
would be given for unused sick leave ac-
cumulated by an individual at the time
lie retires. This would of course encour-
age employees to accumulate sick leave
rather than to use it unnecessarily, par-
ticularly as some do during their last
year.
For all of these important and signifi-
cant reasons, I heartily endorse H.R.
9825. Thank you.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of legislation
being offered to the House today by my
disinguished colleague DOMINICK DAN-
IELS and the hard-working members of
the Subcommittee on Retirement, Insur-
ance, and Health Benefits.
It is a special pleasure to support H.R.
9825. Chairman DANIELS and his col-
leagues have engaged during the last
year and one-half in the sore of con-
scientious and thorough preparation of
legislation that is a credit to all of us
in the Congress. The subcommittee has
conducted a searching examination of
the civil service retirement program, and
the result of that study is an admirable
piece of legislation which deserves the
wholehearted support of everyone in this
Chamber.
The Federal Government must be able
to attract and retain the most dedicated
and best prepared people in the Nation.
And those people who enter Government
service have every right to expect ade-
quate retirement payments in return for
their years of service. Thus, this legisla-
tion is another investment ! in efficient
government and in dedicated people.
Moreover, I cannot emphasize enough
that the Congress must be more respon-
sive to the needs of our senior citizens
generally. There are thousands of older
Americans who live in real poverty. And
there are millions of older Americans
who subsist on the most meagre of re-
sources: budgeting themselves rigidly
so that they may take an afternoon bus
ride, or buy a Sunday newspaper, or a
new pair of shoes. This is an unaccept-
able living situation; and I contend that
the poverty of the aging in, America is
assuredly the most unnoticed-but in
many ways the most compelling. Theirs
is the worst poverty of all, for it is com-
panion to the loneliness of silence.
If the House would take an important
step toward reassuring the American
people that it will not tolerate economic
deprivation among the elderly, this body
will authorize the provisions of H.R.
9825, which will make our retirment pro-
gram for Federal employees financially
secure, adequate in payments to retirees,
and equitable in structure. Specifically,
the House will have addressed itself to
the financial necessities of Government
employees in their later years. But in the
larger framework, the House will have
indicated its concern and determination
to insure financial security for all of our
older citizens.
This bill puts the retirement fund on
a sound basis through an improved pro-
gram of financing and funding. In meet-
ing the need for resources, H.R. 9825
increases the rate of employee and em-
ployer oontributians from 6'/2 to 7'/a
percent.
Important improvements are made in
retirement benefits. The average pay
computation period is reduced from 5
years to 3 years. The bill takes a realistic
approach to the rise in the cost of living
and the inadequacy in the adjustment
formula. Unused sick leave is added to
length of service of an employee who is
retiring.
H.R. 9825 was thoughtfully prepared.
It is a practical response to the retire-
ment needs of Federal employees. H.R.
9825 deserves the immediate attention
and support of both House.
Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment offered by
my colleague from Alabama, Mr. JOHN
BUCHANAN.
I think his bill would completely elimi-
nate the controversy which surrounds
this piece of legislation. I do not think
that we should do anything at this time
that would lead the citizens of this cour-_
try to believe that this body is voting spe_
cial privileges for themselves, so t'nere-
fore, I favor Congressman BUCHANAN'S
amendment to base the retirement for
Congressmen on 5 years of service in-
stead of at the 3 highest salaried years as
is proposed in the bill.
The purpose of this legislation should
be to strengthen and improve the retire-
ment for civil service employees and not
special benefits for Congresmen. I urge
the passage of this amendment which
I think would greatly improve the bill
and make it more acceptable.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to
state my strong support for H.R. 9825,
to strengthen the civil service retirement
system. This bill which sets new and lib-
eralized retirement benefits is, in my
opinion, absolutely necessary.
At a time when we must, more than
ever, attract and hold competent indi-
viduals in the civil service, we must build
a retirement fund that is on a par with
the best of labor unions and private in-
dustries. Certainly, we cannot allow Gov-
ernment employees to suffer from sub-
standard pension programs,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 1969 Approved For R(:OEOSOSIONAL:gR~71 B d6U 000500160004-2
The report of the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee noted that the defi-
ciency in the retirement fund will reach
$57.7 billion this year. By 1975, the dis-
bursements, because of the increased
number of eligible people, will skyrocket
beyond the income level, which will re-
main relatively static over the next 6
years. If we would allow such a situation
to develop, the soundness of our civil
service system would reach a low point.
I also would like to express special sup-
port for that provision of the bill which
provides for an adjustment of the bene-
fits to the cost of living. The inflation
we are currently experiencing has made
us painfully aware of the suffering of
those living on fixed incomes and pen-
sions. Is this a proper reward for years
of faithful Government service?
The Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee has worked long and hard in pro-
ducing such a fine piece of legislation. I
urge the immediate adoption of this bill.
Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia. Mr.
Chairman, I rise to endorse with all the
vigor at my command and to urge pas-
sage of the legislation we are considering
today, to improve both the financing and
benefits of the civil service retirement
On March 13, 1969, I urged the Con-
gress to give the earliest consideration to
H.R. 770, predecessor of H.R. 9825, in-
troduced on the first day of this Con-
gress by the distinguished gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS). On that
same day I introduced a companion bill,
H.R. 8924, to add to -my verbal support
for this legislation.
When the bill under Consideration to-
day, H.R. 9825, was reported by the
Subcommittee on Retirements, I again
added my support to this revised bill by
cosponsoring another companion bill,
H.R. 10219, on April 16, 1969.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I am
very much interested in this Congress
taking the necessary steps to insure the
financial soundness of the civil service
retirement fund and to improve benefits
to annuitants under the civil service re-
tirement system.
The chairman and members of the
Committee on Post Office and Civil Serv-
ice are to be commended for the more
than 2 years of work they have done in
formulating this legislation and bringing
-H.R. 9825 to the floor of the House. The
modifications of the original bill have
been minor, and I believe they insure its
passage by both Houses of the Congress.
The soundness of the fund is insured
by raising the deduction from an em-
ployee's base pay from 61/2 to 7 per-
cent for classified employees and from
61/2 to 71/2 for Members and employees
-of the Congress. With the fund now over
$55 billion in the red, the need for this
increase is obvious, as is the like in-
crease in the_ Government's employer
contribution.
The high 3-year average in de-
termining base pay for annuity compu-
tation purposes rather than the previ-
ously enacted high 5-year average is
completely justified and long overdue, as
is the provision that unused sick leave
can be added in computing the employee's
total actual, service performed for an-
nuity computation. Finally, a 1 percent
addition to all future automatic cost-of-
living adjustments will go a long way
toward bringing Federal annuities up to
the level we would hope to provide for our
retired civil service employees.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9825 provides for
urgently needed improvements in our
civil service system, and I urge our col-
leagues to support it.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, we
have no further reuqests for time.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I rise at this time merely to
state I have no further requests for time,
and to take this opportunity to express
to Members ' who have participated in
this debate my gratitude, and also the
gratitude of the subcommittee for their
serious concern over this very vexing
problem we face here today.
The budgetary impact of solving the
problem has resulted in congressional, as
well as Executive, hesitation; so we have
gone much further today in trying to
solve this problem than, we ever have
done before.
I think we have before us a program
for the financing of the Retirement Fund
which is very sound and businesslike. I
urge all Members of the House on both
1I 6225
ployees and Members currently subject to
this subchapter and of future agency contri-
butions to be made in their behalf; plus
"(B) the present value of Government pay-
ments to the Fund under section 8348(f) of
this title; plus
"(C) the Fund balance as of the date the
unfunded liability is determined.".
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last worst.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I should
like to outline an amendment which I
shall offer to this bill. It is not a crip-
pling amendment; it is a perfecting
amendment. It is one recommended by
the U.S. Civil Service Commission.
(Mr. BENNETT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of this amendment is to provide
for one case I know of, which, has been
brought to my attention, of a constitu-
ent of mine who received advice in writ-
ing from an employee of the Civil Serv-
ice Commission, acting for the Commis-
sion, that she would not forfeit her pen-
sion if she remarried. She has a letter
to that effect. The Civil Service Commis-
sion regrettably acknowledges that now
she has had her pension cut off, since she
remarried relying on this statement. The
ments.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-
ther requests for time, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 9825
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I-CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
FINANCING
SEC. 101. Section 8331 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended-
(1) by striking out "and" at the end of
paragraph (15);
(2) by striking out the period at the end
of paragraph (16) and inserting a semicolon
in lieu thereof; and
(3) by adding immediately below para-
graph (16) the following new paragraphs:
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the bill be con-
sidered as read, printed in the RECORD,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Vir-
ginia?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
"(17) `normal cost' means the entry-age
normal cost computed by the Civil Serv-
ice Commission in accordance with generally
accepted actuarial practice and expressed as
a level percentage of aggregate basic pay;
"(18) `Fund balance' means the sum of-
"(A) the investments of the Fund calcu-
lated at par value; and
"(B) the cash balance of the Fund on the
books of the Treasury; and
"(19) `unfunded liability' means the esti-
mated excess of the present value of all
benefits payable from the Fund to employees
and Members, and former employees and
Members, subject to this subchapter, and to
their survivors, over the sum of-
"(A) the present value of deductions to be
withheld from the future basic pay of em-
Notwithstanding the prohibition con-
tained in the first sentence of this section on
the payment of annuity for any period prior
to the enactment of this section, in ,any case
in which the Civil Service Commission de-
termines that-
(1) the remarriage of any widow or
widower described in such sentence was
entered into by the widow or widower in
good faith and in reliance on erroneous
information provided in writing by Gov-
ernment authority prior to that remarriage
that the then existing survivor -annuity
of the widow or widower would not be ter-
minated because of the remarriage; and
(2) such annuity was terminated by law
because of that remarriage;
then payment of annuity may be made by
reason of this section in such case, begin-
ning as of the effective date of the termina-
tion because of the remarriage.
As I have already mentioned, the Civil
Service Commisison has passed on this
matter. Despite the fact that I have in-
troduced a private bill to accomplish this
same result, they feel it ought to be rem-
edied in this bill. They prefer it be rem-
edied in this bill. So, at a later time,
when we reach the proper point in the
discussion, I shall offer the amendment.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I hap-
pen to be in possession of a report of the
U.S. Civil Service Commission with re-
spect to the private bill. the gentleman
introduced, H.R. 10356, and in substance
the Civil Service Commission states that
this lady acted like a reasonable and
prudent person, that she made inquiry of
the civil service examiner and received
an opinion in writing.
I further understand that an aide in
the gentleman's office who was consulted
by this lady, Mrs. Hicks, also made in-
quiry of the Civil Service Commission and
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71 B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Ju
likewise was advised that if she remarried
her annuity would not be cut off.
Under those circumstances, since she
remarried and under the law lost her
annuity, I believe it not more than fair
and reasonable and in justice to this
woman that we should make an excep-
tion in this case for this particular in-
dividual, who received an opinion in writ-
ing from a governmental agency. In such
a case what more could one expect a
private individual to do?
She did what I think is a far, reason-
able, and sensible thing, and in justice
to her we ought to allow this amendment.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the gentleman
very much. I will offer the amendment
at the proper time and at that time I
will ask the minority to accept it,
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 102. (a) Section 8334 of title 5, United
States Oode, is amended---
(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as
follows :
"(a) (1) The employing agency shall
deduct and withhold 7 percent of the basic
pay of an employee and 71/2 percent of the
basic pay of a Congressional employee and a
Member. An equal amount shall be con-
tributed from the appropriation or fund used
to pay the employee or, in the case of an
elected official, from an appropriation or fund
available for payment of other salaries of
the same office or establishment. When an
employee in the legislative branch is paid
by the Clerk of the House of Representatives,
the Clerk may pay from the contingent fund
of the House the contribution that otherwise
would be contributed from the appropriation
or fund used to pay the employee.
"(2) The amounts so deducted and with-
held, together with the amounts so con-
tributed, shall be deposited in the Treasury
of the United States to the credit of the Fund
under such procedures as the Comptroller
General of the United States may prescribe.
Deposits made by an employee or Member
also shall be credited to the fund' ; and
(2) by amending subsection (c) to read as
follows:
"(c) Each employee or Member -credited
with civilian service after July 31, 1920, for
which-retirement deductions or deposits have
not been made, may deposit with interest
an amount equal to the following percentages
of his basic pay received for that service:
Service period
"Percentage of basic pay:
Employee:
21/2-August 1, 1920, to June 30, 1926.
31/2-July 1, 1926, to June 30, 194:2.
5-July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948.
6-July 1, 1948, to October 31, 1956.
61/2-November 1, 1956, to De-ember 31,
1969.
7-After December 31, 1969.
Member or employee for Congressional
employee service:
21/2-August 1, 1920, tc- June 30, 1926.
31/2-July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1942.
5--July 1, 1942, to June 30, 1948.
6-July 1, 1948, to October 31, 1956.
61/2-November 1, 1956, to December 31,
1969.
71/2-After December 31,1969.
Member for Member service:
21/2-August 1, 1920, to June 30, 1926.
31/2-July 1, 1926, to June 30, 1942.
5-July 1, 1942, to August 1, 1946.
6-August 2. 1946, to October 31, 1956.
71/2-After October 31, 1956,
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of
this subsection, the deposit with respect to
a period of service referred to in section
8232(b) (6) of this title performed before
January 1, 1969, shall be an amount equal
to 55 percent of a deposit computed in ac-
cordance with such provisions.
(b) The amendment made by subsection
(a) (1) of this section shall become effective
at the beginning of the first applicable pay
period beginning after December 31, 1969.
SEC. 103. (a) Section 8348 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended-
i1) by amending subsection (a) to read as
follows:
"(a) There is a Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund. The Fundw-
"(1) is appropriated for the payment of--
" (A) benefits as provided by this sub-
chapter; and
"(B) administrative expenses incurred by
the Civil Service Commission In placing in
effect 'each annuity adjustment granted
under section 8340 of this title; and
"(2) is made available, subject to such an-
nual limitation as the Congress may pre-
scribe, for any expenses incurred by the Com-
mission in connection with the administra-
tion of this chapter and other retirement and
annuity statutes."; and
(2) by striking out subsections (f) and
(g) and inserting in lieu thereof:
"(f) Any statute which authorizes-
(1) new or liberalized benefits payable
from the Fund, Including annuity increases
other than under section 8340 Of this title:
"(2) extension of the coverage of this sub-
chapter to new groups of employees; or
11(3) increases in pay on which benefits are
computed;
is deemed to authorize appropriations to the
Fund to finance the unfunded liability
created by that statute, in equal annual in-
stallments over the 30-year period beginning
at the end of the fiscal year in which the
statute is enacted, with interest computed it
the rate used in the then most recent value-
tion of the Civil Service Retirement System
and with the first payment thereof due as of
the end of the fiscal year in which the
statute is enacted.
"(g) At the end of each fiscal year, the
Commission shall notify the Secretary of the
Treasury of the amount equivalent to in-
terest on the unfunded liability computed
for that year at the interest rate used In the
then most recent valuation of the System.
Before closing the accounts for each fiscal
year, the Secretary shall credit to the Fund,
as a Government contribution, out of any
money in the Treasury of the United States
not otherwise appropriated, the following
percentages of the amounts equivalent to in-
terest on the unfunded liability: 10 percent
for 1971; 20 percent for 1972; 80 percent for
1973; 40 percent for 1974; 50 percent for 1975;
60 percent for 1976; 70 percent for 1977; 80
percent for 1978; 90 percent for 1979; and
100 percent for 1980 and for each fiscal year
thereafter. The Commission shall report to
the President and to the Congress the sums
credited to the Fund under this subsection.".
(b) (1) The provisions of subsection (g)
of section 8348 of title 5, United States Code,
as contained in the amendment made by
subsection (a) (2) of this section, shall be-
come effective at the beginning of the fiscal
year which ends on June 30, 1971.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall
not be held or considered to continue in
effect after the enactment of this Act the
provisions of section 8348(g) of title 5,
United States Code, as in effect immediately
prior to such enactment.
SEC. 104. Section 1308(e) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking out "on
a normal cost plus interest basis".
SEC. 105. The proviso undet the heading
"CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION" and under
the subheading "PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE
RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND" in title
I of the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act, 1962 (75 Stat. 345; Public Law 87-141),
is repealed.
TITLE II--CIVIL SERVIOE RETIREMENT
BENEFITS
SEC. 201. Paragraph (4) (A) of section 8331
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
?3, 1969
striking out "5 consecutive years" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "3 consecutive years".
SEC. 202. Subsection (g) of section 8334 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended-
(1) by striking out the word "or" at the
end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking out the period at the end
of paragraph (4) and inserting in lieu
thereof a semicolon and the word `or"; and
(3) by adding the following new para-
graph immediately below paragraph (4) :
"(5) days of unused sick leave credited
under section 8339(m) of this title.".
SI:c. 203. Section 8339 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out of subsection (b) the
words "so much of his service as a Congres-
sional employee and his military service as
does not exceed a total of 15 years" and in-
serting in lieu thereof "his service as a Con-
gressional employee, his military service not
exceeding 5 years,".
(2) by amending subsection (c) (2) to
read as follows:
"(2) .his congressional employee service;":
and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(m) In computing any annuity under
subsections (a)-(d) of this section, the total
service of an employee who retires on an im-
mediate annuity or dies leaving a survivor
or survivors entitled to annuity includes,
without regard to the limitations imposed
by subsection (e) of this section, the days
of unused sick leave to his credit, except
that these days will not be counted in de-
termining average pay or annuity eligibility
under this subchapter.".
SEc. 204. Subsection (b) of section 8340 of
title 5, United States Code, Is amended by
inserting "1 percent plus" immediately after
the word "by".
SEC. 205. The provisions of subsections
(b) (1), (d) (3), and (g) of section 8341 of
title 5, United States Code, also shall apply
in the case of any widow or widower-
(1) of an employee who died, retired, or
was otherwise separated before July 18, 1966;
(2) who shall have remarried on or after
such date; and
(3) who, immediately before such remar-
riage, was receiving annuity from the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund;
except that no annuity shall be paid by rea-
son of this section for any period prior to
the enactment of this section. No annuity
shall be terminated solely by reason of the
enactment of this section.
SEC. 206. (a) The amendments made by
sections 201, 202, and 203 of this Act shall
not apply in the cases of persons retired or
otherwise separated prior to the date of en-
actment of this Act, and the rights of such
persons and their survivors shall continue
in the same manner and to the same extent
as if such sections had not been enacted.
(b) The amendments made by section 204
of this Act to section 8340 of title 5, United
States Code, shall apply only to determina-
tions of amounts of annuity increases which
are made under such section 8340 after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey (during
the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that further reading of
the bill de dispensed with, that it be
printed in the RECORD and be open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. DERWINSKI
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I of-
fer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DERWINSKI: On
page 3, line 9, strike out the word "and" and
insert in lieu thereof a comma,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 196'`'..,...w "yC(~SNGRESSIOIVAL RECORD -HOUSE w-- - v
On page 3, line 10, strike out the word
"and" and, insert in lieu thereof a comma
and the following: "and 8 percent of the
basic pay of".
On page 4, immediately below "71/2---- Af-
ter October 31, 1956." insert the following:
"8____After December 31, 1969.".
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment is fairly simple and self-ex-
planatory. It would merely raise to 8 per-
cent the figure upon which the basic pay
of a congressional employee or Member
shall be subject to deduction and contri-
bution to the fund.
We have had all sorts of statements
made this afternoon by Members wish-
ing to have this fund as strong as pos-
sible and also to make the most equitable
contribution possible.
I understand that this amendment is
supported by the ranking member of the
full committee on the minority side, and
therefore I hope it will be accepted by
the floor managers of"the bill and that
we can move on expeditiously to other
items.
Would the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania care to comment on this?
Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I will in just a mo-
ment, but first I would like to get the
attention of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. CORBETT), because I un-
derstood him earlier to support such a
provision.
Mr. CORBETT, Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes. I am glad to
yield.
Mr. CORBETT. The gentleman from
Virginia was going to ask if your amend-
ment did not include congressional em-
ployees as well as Members.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, it does.
Mr. CORBETT. I can inform the
gentleman that the amendment I spoke
in support of earlier only included Mem-
bers. Now, I will go that far with the
gentleman from Illinois but not the
whole way.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Well, then, perhaps
the gentleman could offer a substitute to
my amendment to strike the congres-
sional employees from my amendment
and then we would be in perfect harmony
and could accept it and go on from here.
Mr. CORBETT. If the gentleman will
yield further, I believe that this proposal
only becomes fair if the 3-year formula
is continued in the bill for Members. So
at this particular time, with the possibil-
ity that the 3 years might be stricken
from the bill, I could not support the
amendment. I will take a position on the
matter when I find out that the fate is
of title II. I think the .gentleman's
amendment comes just at the wrong
time.
Mr. DERWINSKI. May I say I believe
the gentleman from Pennsylvania is an
excellent tactician even though I may not
necessarily concur in his strategy. But
I think this is, an amendment which as I
stated earlier is self-explanatory by mak-
ing the contribution for congressional
employees and Members 8 percent in
order to alleviate a great deal of criticism
that might come from what I might say
the fourth estate.
I, therefore, hope the amendment will
have the quick support of the member-
ship.
H 6227
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen- Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa. tleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman have Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman for
a copy of his amendment at hand? yielding.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes. I have in hand a letter from Mr. An-
Mr. GROSS. Would the gentleman drew Ruddock, Director of the Bureau of
read the copy of his amendment which, Retirement of the U.S. Civil Service
I believe, refers to page 4, between lines Commission, in which he says this:
7 and 8. We estimate the total cost of the present
Mr. DERWINSKI. At page 4, immedi- retirement provision for Members of congress
ately below "71/2-After October 31, will be about 25 percent of payroll.
1956," insert the following: "8-After In other words, if the Members of
December 31, 1969." Congress were to pay what the Civil
Mr. GROSS. That does not include Service Commission says is their share
legislative employees. of the cost of payroll, they would be
Mr. DERWINSKI. Let me review the paying 12.5 percent.
language in the bill on page 3, line 10- Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
that Is right. The gentleman is correct- innocently, of course, added a new con-
ing me properly. troversy to this bill, and that is why I
Mr. GROSS. Yes; this is the amend- would think we were at the point now
ment that the gentleman from Pennsyl- where the members of the subcommittee
v'ania (Mr. CORBETT) said he wanted to and the full committee, having recog-
introduce and wanted to support. nized for months the problems that they
Mr. DERWINSKI. Excuse me. I mis- have, and presumably because of those
read the amendment. It was my inten- problems have withheld floor action on
tion, in order to help the gentleman from this bill, might not just drop title II and
Pennsylvania, to offer the very amend- solve the whole controversy.
ment that he has said he would support. Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
That is why I wanted the gentleman's Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
attention. You may say this is a "Corbett amendment offered by the gentleman
proposal misinterpreted by DERWINSKI." from Illinois.
It does the very thing that the gentle- Mr. Chairman, as I stated originally
man from Pennsylvania will do and at when I took the floor today, the Sub-
this time I presume I have his support. committee on Retirement Insurance and
Mr. HAYS. Does the gentleman not Health Benefits made an in-depth study
think the request of the gentleman from of this legislation. It conferred with the
Pennsylvania (Mr. CORBETT) was a rea- heads of the governmental agencies such
sonable request? You are increasing the as representatives of the Civil Service
contribution in title I. Title II is wiped Commission, the Bureau of the Budget,
out. Why should we pay more into a fund and the General Accounting Office, not
that is already stable, one where we are only in the present administration, but
paying sufficiently into it now for Mem- in the prior administration, and they
bers of Congress? fully endorse the financing approach
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- undertaken by this bill, the three-
tleman from Illinois has expired. pronged approach, one of which is the
(By unanimous consent (at the request increasing of the employees' contribu-
of Mr. HAYS) Mr. DERWINSKI was allowed tion from 6.5 to 7 percent, with a like
to proceed for 2 additional minutes.) increase on the part of governmental
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the agencies, making a total of 14 percent.
gentleman yield? It was reported to our committee, and
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, certainly. it is undisputed, that the normal cost
Mr. HAYS. I think the gentleman for carrying the retirement benefits
should withdraw his amendment and comes to 13.86 percent. So by virtue of
offer it at a later time when we see what each employee and his employing agency
happens to this 3-year thing. He might contributing a like sum, we have a total
get an acceptance of it. of 14 percent, resulting in a surplus of
I made a study of this, as the gentle- fourteen one-hundredths of 1 percent,
man knows, in connection with the For- It was for that reason we have had
eign Service retirement last year, and the problem in title II. I am assured
found that, although the members' pen- by all the witnesses who have appeared-
sion fund is not separate, it has made a and there is not a bit of testimony in
profit of about 100 percent since it has the record to contradict this statement-
been put into effect. In other words, there that the financing under title I is not
is about 100 percent more there now than only adequate to take care of the sec-
has been paid out. You are, in effect, in- tions of title I to put the fund on a sound
creasing contributions by more than has economic and businesslike basis, but in
been paid out. addition thereto we have provided for
I have no objection to your amend- those benefits provided in title II of this
ment, but if you are going to continue to bill.
base it on 5 years, I do not see why Mem- For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I rise
bers of Congress should be taxed to the in opposition to the amendment,
extent of building up a surplus more than Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
they have already. In other words, we are gentleman yield?
now more than carrying our own weight
in this matter. Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I yield to
I think this would be the thing to do. I the gentleman from Iowa.
commend the gentleman for what he has Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, does mem-
done, and I think it is eminently fair. ory serve me correctly that there was an
Mr. DERWINSKI. I thank the gentle- 8-percent contribution provided for
man from Ohio for his contribution. Members of Congress in, last year's bill?
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 CIA-RDP7.1B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6228
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 23, 1969
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. In last
year's bill this Is absolutely true. But
when we continued hearings it was the
judgment of our committee that in view
of the testimony that had been adduced
that it was not necessary to increase the
contribution of the Members. There is no
reason why we should overcharge the
Members of Congress.
Mr. GROSS. But the Director of the
Bureau of Retirement in the Civil Serv-
ice Commission says that the Members
of Congress should be paying in 12.5 per-
cent. In other words, a total payroll cost
of 25 percent.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. The
Members of Congress would be required
to pay 12.5 percent, and with the Gov-
ernment picking up 12.5 percent, as re-
quired by law, would make a total of 25
percent; yes, that amount of money
would be necessary if we were picking up
the debt. But I see no reason why Mem-
bers of Congress have to pick up the
debt. If we do, then we should compel
Federal employees to do so. In that case
you would need 24 percent with the em-
ployee contributing 12 and the Govern-
ment contributing 12. So why should We
make an exception with the Members of
Congress?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Ruddock predicated
this on normal costs.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. No, nor-
mal costs are an entirely different mat-
ter.
Mr. GROSS. That is what I am talking
about.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. No. When
you refer to 25 percent you are referring
to Members of Congress picking up the
debt.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. DERWINSKI).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
Mr. GROSS. Mr, Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: Strike
out all of title II beginning with line 1, page
8, and ending with line 17, page 10.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of my amendment to strike out
title II of H.R. 9825 which contains pro-
visions opposed by the administration.
The announced purpose of this legis-
lation is to refinance the civil service
retirement fund. This administration
and the prior administration, urged the
Congress to eliminate the liberalization
of retirement benefits contained in title
II of this bill-
If we are to take any constructive ac-
tion toward eliminating the $61 billion
One provision in title II would permit
computation of annuities based on the
high-3-year average salary rather than
on the basis of the high-5-year average
salary. This will increase the obligation
of the retirement fund by $337 million.
Retaining this provision in the bill is
even more costly to the Federal Gov-
ernment if we consider the fact that it
will encourage many experienced and
competent employees to leave the Federal
service before their productive and useful
years of service are completed. The Fed-
eral Government has invested many
millions of dollars in training experi-
enced and knowledgeable employees. I
do not believe we should unwisely waste
this investment.
Also, to be considered is the fact that
in the past several years substantial pay
increases have been granted to Federal
employees on the theory that we must
attract and retain the best qualified per-
sons in the Federal service. To 'encourage
these employees to leave Federal em-
ployment prematurely is a disservice to
the American people.
I need not remind my colleagues that
this extreme liberalization in H.R. 9825
also provides benefits for Members of
Congress which are, in my opinion, out
of all proportion to their retirement
needs. Under the provisions of title II
of this bill, if adopted, Members would
be voting to give themselves greater re-
tirment benefits right on top of an ex-
horbitant pay increase.
Another provision in title TI proposes
to give Federal employees retirement
credit for unused sick leave at the time
of their retirement at a cost of $329.5
million to the retirement fund.
The underlying basis for laws granting
sick leave benefits is that such benefits
are a privilege granted by the Govern-
ment to its employees for the purpose
of time off with pay during periods of
legitimate illness. They were never in-
tended to be converted into retirement
benefits. Sick leave is a protection for
the employee and whether it is used or
not, its existence creates an attitude of
confidence for the employee to know that
it is available if necessary.
The principal argument in support of
crediting unused sick leave for retire-
ment purposes is the contention that it
would prevent sick leave abuses and
therefore save payroll costs for the Gov-
ernment. This is a spurious allegation.
The sick leave provision in title II will
have the effect of encouraging employees
to come to work when they are ill. Ef-
ficiency will decrease and the exposure
of coworkers to illness in turn will create
greater loss to the Government.
During the debate on this: legislation
on October 1, 1968, we were told that
the sick leave provision in this bill would
increase Federal payroll retirement costs
retirement fund deficiency we cannot at by $22 million annually. This year we
the same time provide liberalizations in are told that such costs will be increased
retirement benefits which amount to by $13.2 million. I am unaware of how
over $1 billion. this payroll cost could be reduced by al-
The retirement benefits provided in most one-half in less than a year, but
title II are unnecesary at this time. The it remains a fact that such provision is
present retirement benefits for Federal costly because it will increase the un-
employees are most generous and such funded liability of the retirement fund
benefits are equal to If not better than by $329.5 million.
similar benefits provided employees in Another inequity created by this pro-
private industry. vision is the clear discrimination against
those employees who, through no fault
of their own, are forced to take legiti-
mate sick leave for serious operations or
catastrophic illness.
The sick leave provision in the bill
completely reverses the basic concept of
such leave which has governed its uses
from its inception.
The other two retirement liberaliza-
tions proposed in title II are equally un-
meritorious and will add $393 million to
obligations of the retirement fund.
The addition of 1 percent to all fu-
ture percentage adjustments in annui-
ties is an outright gift and cannot be
justified on any objective basis. This
provision costing $243 million does not
belong in this legislation.
The adjustment in survivor annuities
for spouses who remarry provided in title
II costing $150 million does not belong
In legislation primarily concerned with
refinancing the retirement fund.
The record of the Congress is far from
encouraging to millions of Americans
who are experiencing the pressures of
inflation in the form of higher taxes
and higher costs of living with no relief
in sight.
The examples that are being set in
Congress provides the people with little
confidence in a Government that con-
tinues to give its top officials record-
breaking increases in salaries and retire-
ment benefits.
We point with grave alarm to the in-
flationary pressures in our economy. We
tell our constituents we cannot long
survive if we continue on this path. We
should reduce appropriations, but we
increase them. Industry and labor are
asked to hold the line. We point to the
fact that some economic Indicators sug-
gest a slowdown in business, while at
the same time interest rates continue to
soar.
And in the first 6 months of 1969 we
in Congress have done nothing except
to encourage every inflationary pressure
in our economy, and this bill is one of
the worst examples.
I urge the Members to adopt my
amendment striking out the unneces-
sary provisions in title II of H.R. 9825
and thereby save over $1 billion in Fed-
eral funds.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from Nebraska.
Mr. MARTIN. I wish to commend the
gentleman for his remarks. I agree with
him completely. I understand that the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee
is currently considering legislation which
would increase further the pay of postal
employees to the tune of approximately
$300 million a year, and that favorable
consideration of this legislation is very
imminent. Is that correct? Is that legis-
lation in your committee?
Mr. GROSS. The bill, I assume, will be
brought before the committee tomorrow.
The estimate of its cost is $300 million. I
could not say to the gentleman whether
it is more or less, but the preliminary
estimates I have heard are close to that
figure.
Mr. MARTIN. And that would further
increase the amount of retirement bene-
fits eventually, of course.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDF571B00364R000500160004-2
July 23, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE
Mr. GROSS. That is correct, and I
thank the gentleman from Nebraska for
his timely observations.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition" to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS).
Since the new combined contribution
rate of 14 percent of payroll will actually
exceed the present normal costs of bene-
fits-now at 13.86 percent of payroll-
the committee decided, in-the interest of
equity and fairness to Federal employees,
to provide certain limited, but needed,
improvements in the benefits structure
of the retirement system.
Every single benefit proposal that had
been introduced in the Congress in the
past several years was carefully con-
sidered in both the subcommittee and
the full committee. All were eliminated-
primarily on the basis of cost-except
the moderate liberalizations which are
contained in title II. The normal cost of
these improvements is fully covered by
the new combined employee-employer
contribution rate of 14 percent of pay-
roll. The Civil Service Commission has
assured the committee that the other
'funding provisions in title I will ade-
quately take care of any increase in the
unfunded liability which may result from
the enactment of these benefits.
In brief, then, title I and II of the bill
supplement each other and are integral
parts of a total package that will not
only put the Federal employees' retire-
ment program on an actuarially sound
basis but, also, make limited, but long
overdue, improvements in the program.
Therefore, I urge the defeat of the pro-
posed amendment.
I would also like to read from a letter
from the U.S. Civil Service Commission,
dated May 22, 1969,' addressed to me as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Re-
tirement, Insurance, and Health Bene-
fits:
Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Retirement, in-
surance, and Health Benefits, Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, House
of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. DANIELS: This is in reply to your
letter of May. 13.
In my opinion, Title I of H.R. 9825, as
reported by the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, does make adequate pro-
vision for financing the additional normal
cost and the "unfunded liability that would
result from the enactment of Title II of the
bill.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the
defeat of the proposed amendment.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Iowa is not an attempt to get Congress-
men out out of this, which would also
hurt all other Federal employees as well.
As I said earlier, I made a little study of
this Federal pension system. It all de-
pends upon whose figures 'We want to
take. We can get all the actuarial fig-
ures we want, but these are all supposi-
tions. I am not going to deal with ac-
tuarial figures, but I am going to tell
Members when this congressional pen-
sion fund was set up in 1946, everybody
who was in the Congress was blanketed
in as though he had been paying into it
all the time he had been here. Members
with 20 years of service, with 30 years,
with 5 years or 10 years, whatever it was,
they all started paying into it as of the
beginning of the fund.
If we have that clear, let me tell Mem-
bers what happened. Over the years, with
all those people blanketed in, and with
some of them retiring immediately, with-
out contributing anything, I imagine,
and some of them retiring after 2 years
with 25 years of service and contributing
only for 2 years, in spite of that, if the
fund were separate, and if we had sepa-
rate figures, the fund would show $7 mil-
lion more was paid in than was paid out.
I proposed to increase contributions to
10 percent and increase benefits by 2.5
percent, because 7.5 percent is to 2.5 as
10 percent is to 3.3, but the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) and others said
we would destroy the fund. I remind
Members the fund started with no pay
in, nothing, and it has made money.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I com-
mend the gentleman from Ohio for the
statement he is making.
I certainly agree with the gentleman
that one of the troubles I found in my
studies of this, one of the places,where
people get misled is they take nice actu-
arial figures which deal with all kinds
of typical industrial employees who look
forward to retiring and are forced to quit
then by the rules of the company and do
retire at 65. Then they apply those fig-
ures to the people who serve in Congress.
But in this institution many Members
serve into their seventies and into their
eighties and do not retire as soon as
typical industrial employees.
The figures given by the gentleman
are correct.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
.gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on
the actuarial figures which are used by
the insurance companies. They charge
people money and pay people on retire-
ment, but who has all the money in this
country? Which are the richest people in
this country? Which are the richest cor-
porations? I am not running them down,
but it is the insurance companies, and
they operate on actuarial figures. They
figure not only what we pay in and what
is taken out, but the profit they make.
That is taken into consideration.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield
to the gentleman from Iowa, but be-
fore I do, I want to comment on the
statement about the exorbitant salaries
for us. I assume the gentleman is ac-
cepting his salary increase, as he indi-
cated to me the other day?
Mr. GROSS. As long as the gentle-
man voted it, I will take it.
Mr. HAYS. The gentleman voted
against it, but he will take it.
Does the gentleman have a question?
H 6229
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I expect
I am worth about as much as the gentle-
man.
Mr. HAYS. That is a matter of opinion.
If the gentleman were to put that to
a vote, he might lose.
Mr. GROSS. It is a matter of opinion.
Mr. HAYS. I said it is a matter of
opinion. The gentleman thinks he is
worth as much as I am, and I think
he is worth about half as much. It is a
matter of opinion.
Mr. GROSS. The gentleman speaks of
actuarial figures. The retirement fund
is actuarially unsound to the tune of
about $60 billion,
Mr. HAYS. I am talking about the
Members' fund and the gentleman is
talking about a fund that is actuarially
unsound, as the gentleman puts it, be-
cause for many years the Government
did not put in its share. That is the rea-
son it is actuarially unsound, and the
gentleman knows it and I know it.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYS. I yield further.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Ruddock has had
many years of experience in this busi-
ness. He is the Director of the Retire-
ment Bureau in the Civil Service Com-
mission, and he says that to meet the
normal costs of this fund the Members
of Congress should be putting in 121/2
percent of their pay.
Mr. HAYS. That is what you say. That
is what the letter to you says. That fellow
is anti-Congress. You know it. I know it.
Again, that is his opinion. I am stating
to you how much money is there, and
how much profit has been piled up by
the Members' contributions. You cannot
deny those facts and those figures, be-
cause if you write him a letter he will
have to tell you that is it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chariman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa to strike title II of the bill.
The present normal cost of all benefits
being earned by employees covered by
the retirement program is 13.86 percent
of payroll. Since title I of this bill sets
a new combined contribution rate of 14
percent of payroll, we would be over-
charging employees unless some limited
benefits were given to them within the
framework of the new contribution rate.
Under this amendment we would raise
the employee contribution from 61/z to 7
percent without any benefit of any na-
ture to them. I believe in fairness we
must admit that the Government, not
the employee, is responsible for ? the
present deficit. The employee over the
years has been putting in his share of
the cost of this fund and the Government
oftentimes has not.
Many proposals have been introduced
in the Congress over the years to liberal-
ize the retirement program in a number
of ways. Our subcommittee and the full
committee carefully considered these
proposals, and all of them except the
moderate liberalizations contained in
title II were eliminated primarily on the
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6230
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE Jv ly 23, 1969
basis of cost. It- is also significant to
point out that the Federal employees'
retirement program has remained rather
static since the retirement act amend-
ments of 1956, and that the moderate
liberalizations contained in title II rep-
resent the first real improvements in this
program in the past 13 years.
Mr. Chairman, in the opinion of the
majority of the members of the com-
mittee, titles 1 and 2 complement each
other and each title is an integral part
of a total package that not only will put
the Federal employees' retirement pro-
gram on a actuarially sound basis, but
also will improve and modernize the
program.
Title 2 will improve the retirement
program and its elimination from the
bill would be grossly unfair to all Fed-
eral employees. The normal cost of all
benefits provided in title 2 is completely
covered under the new combined con-
tribution rate of 14 percent of payroll,
and we are reliably informed by the
Civil Service Commission that the other
financing provisions of the bill ade-
quately take care of any increases in
unfunded liabilities.
If we eliminate title 2 we destroy one
of the principal purposes of this legis-
lation. We will be denying to our Federal
employees certain benefits to which they
are entitled and for which they will be
paying.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the membership
in the interest of fairness and equity, to
vote down this amendment.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my chief objection to
this amendment, as stated by my col-
league, is the fact that we are charging
the employees a half percent more of
their salaries and in return therefor they
should get something.
It is exactly in that spirit. in the event
this amendment is voted down and the
3-year formula prevails, that I will make
the recommittal motion raising the Mem-
ber's contribution. to 8 percent of salary.
I do this because if we are going to get
the benefit, we ought to pay for it. We
are definitely charging the employees a
half percent more. Therefore, they
should get something for their money.
Again, if we raise our own payment to 8
percent, we are maintaining the his-
torical differential of 1 percent between
the employees and the Members.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of
this amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, there is one serious
matter which has not been discussed at
length and of which this body should be
cognizant. We can talk about statistical
tables, economics, and economic laws. We
all recognize that psychological reaction
is an important thing. Perhaps one of
the greatest benefits of last week's scien-
tific achievement is the psychological
effect of the moon shot on the govern-
ments and the people of all the nations
of the world.
The people of this country today are in
a state of unrest. Their paycheck does not
reach from one week, to the next. Living
costs are high. Interest rates are high.
So the people attack the symbol of all
their difficulties, which is taxes, and they
shout loudly for tax reform.
The point I make is this, Mr. Chair-
man: In our present circumstance es-
pecially, it is very important that the
Congress of the United States and es-
pecially this House, which I consider
to be the very heart of our free system
of representative government, must be
aware of public attitudes. If the people
lose faith in this body, then they lose
faith in the fundamental institutions of
this great Nation. Anything which
seems to be a self-serving process en-
gaged in by Members of Congress fur-
ther dissipates the respect and the faith
that the people have for their Gov-
ernment.
1 do not present myself as one
who is more ethical or more moral than
any other in this body, but I do feel very
keenly that we must not only do those
things here which are right and refrain
from doing those things, which are
wrong, but we must also refrain from do-
ing those things which seem wrong to
vast segments of the electorate. Even
if the preponderance of the evidence
makes it logical that the Members of
Congress should have an adjustment in
their retirement program, this is no
time to effect that adjustment. There-
lore, I join my colleague in supporting
his amendment.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman. I rise in op-
position to the amendment,
Mr. Chairman, I listened rather care-
fully to the remarks of the gentleman
who has just concluded. They :nave a
great deal of appeal, but I th'.nk we
should recognize that we have a respon-
sibility here as the directors, for a:.l prac-
tical purposes, of this fund for all of the
employees of the Federal Government
and that we should provide reasonably
competitive working conditions. I believe
throughout the industries of this Nation
the majority of retirement systems would
compare very favorably to, and with a
great deal of advantage over, that; which
we offer to the employees of the l{ederal
Government.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point
out a few facts of the matter of retire-
ment. I am not totally unfamiliar with
it. I worked on the last retirement bill
that made any significant dhange in the
system of the Federal employees retire-
ment system.
What we are talking about here for
congressional Members is 00019 )8 of 1
percent, roughly one-fiftieth of 1 per-
cent or seven-tenths of 1 percent, the
amount that changing the formula from
5 years as the basis for computation of
retirement to 3 years would cost in its
entirety, or $15.4 million a year. That is
what we are talking about with reference
to cost. One-fiftieth of that is attribut-
able to congressional employees. Now,
we are doing this by raising the rate of
employee contributions, a rate of con-
tribution which in my judgement as I
stated previously exceeds that of many
corporate employers today.
In fact, many of the systems require
no contribution from employees, We in
the Federal Government have systems
requiring no contributions from the em-
ployees. We have this procedure in our
judicial system and we have it in our
military system.
This is an attempt for the first time in
13 years to bring a measure of greater
equality to a system which is designed to
provide for the men and women who
render faithful service to this Govern-
ment. I am one of those who believes that
the average employee of the Federal
Government is equal in every respect in
competence and in dedication to the
average employee of American industry.
I think there is an awful lot of fussing
and fuming being made here on the
premise that somehow or other if you
can criticize Congress loudly enough, it is
going to produce votes in your district. I
have pride in the Congress and I have
pride in the Federal service. I have a
deep conviction that I am worth what I
voted for as a salary and I think that
those gentlemen who feel that the salary
was outrageous or unconscionable should
make every effort to return it to the peo-
ple. They have made the judgment and
not I that they are worth less than the
amount they are being paid.
It is difficult for me to understand the
reasoning here today, if it comes, give it
to me, but I am opposed to it."
If I were opposed to it, I would fight it
all out and I would not want the bene-
fits of it. But the great majority of people
concerned with the civil service retire-
ment system have not the privilege of the
floor of this House and they cannot come
here and tell their story. I think we
should listen a little bit to them. They
are our employees.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has expired.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, -I recognize that the
House is in a mood for a vote and I
also recognize from a quick glance at the
membership that this amendment will
probably be rejected. But I would like
to point out that this debate has now
degenerated completely beyond the pur-
pose of the amendment.
I would like to state that the primary
purpose of this bill is to improve the
financial condition of the retirement
fund.
Title II does a disservice to the finan-
cial condition of the retirement fund.
Title II includes little things that are
often referred to as Christmas-tree
items, that type of thing that the other
body loads into many House bills. I do
not believe it would be wise at this point
for the House to accept a title in which
Christmas-tree items are loaded into this
retirement fund. The gentleman from
Iowa is actually performing a great serv-
ice to the House in offering his amend-
ment. The delay of 3 months, and the
concern the members of the committee
have had in bringing this bill to the
floor, could well have been alleviated if
we took this amendment and struck title
II from the bill. We would then achieve
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 -July 23, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
the purpose of strengthening the finan-
cial condition of the civil service retire-
ment fund. There would not be any con-
troversy, any quibbling, or any debate
over the solvency of the fund.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I
would. suggest that we support the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. BRASCO. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
I was curious-and certainly in com-
mittee I respect the opinion of the gen-
tleman, and certainly his intelligence,
and I am wondering whether or not the
gentleman considers the restoration of
the widow survivors' annuity a Christ-
mas-tree decoration?
Mr. DERWINSKI. No, but under the
procedure which we are following we
have no choice but to take this title.
Mr. BRASCO. But the gentleman
would be for that?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes.
Mr. BRASCO. I thought the gentle-
man would.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask an-
other question. I am wondering whether
or not the gentleman considers to be a
Christmas-tree-decoration approach, the
1 percent cost-of-living increase for re-
tired employees, when we know the cost-
of-living index has visen from, say, De-
cember of last year, until now, about 2-
point-something percent. Does the gen-
tleman not think retirees would need
that in order to live?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, and we could
even do better than that in a separate
bill. But that is, the very reason that I
used the term "Christmas tree" ap-
proach, because you lump a few of these
items into a title in order to carry a few
other items, and that is the issue this
afternoon.
Mr. ' BRASCO. Is the gentleman
against that, though, specifically?
Mr. DERWINSKI. No.
Mr. BRASCO. The gentleman would
be for that?
Mr. DERWINSKI. But I am against
the entire title, because of how it is being
used, and therefore it is a Christmas-
tree title.
Mr. BRASCO. Because I, assure the
gentleman-
Mr. DERWINSKI. Just one moment.
.I would hope that the gentleman would
use his abnormal influence on that side
to join with me with regard to the
Christmas-tree items.
Mr. BRASCO. Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest to the gentleman at. this point that
the gentleman's Christmas tree is droop-
ing and that is why I want to find out
just how much of a Christmas tree it is.
Those are two items that the gentleman
seems to, agree with.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Let me just say this
to the gentleman-
Mr. BRASCO. Let me ask about the
third item.
Mr. DERWINSKI. It is not my Christ-
mas tree,
Mr. BRASCO. Well, it is the gentle-
man's description of this bill.
Mr. DERWINSKI. All I am trying to
do is to preserve the portion of title II
which is the guts of the bill, which is the
one thing that we should not purposely
just overload.
Let me say that I did not directly par-
ticipate in the overloading of title II
which the gentleman from Iowa is seek-
ing to correct by his amendment.
Any,item which will stand-on its own
merits we could take up, we do have a
meeting tomorrow, and pass out a new
bill.
Mr. BRASCO. I suggest the gentleman
is for retrenchment, but not for retreat.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I really had not in-
tended to take the microphone, but there
have been some charges made here on
both sides of the aisle by the proponents
and opponents of this particular legis-
lation, having been in the life insurance
business I would like to make a few
comments that might help us to see what
it is we are voting for or against.
In the first place, the profit question
our colleague from Ohio referred to is
not profit, in my view.
It is forward funding to meet the
liabilities that will occur or accrue at
the time we reach retirement age. It is
the reserve to pay the claims when they
mature.
I did a little computing as I was lis-
tening to the debate as to what would
happen if this goes through and how
much a Congressman would get-how
much he would pay in-and how much
it would cost the Federal Government to
pay its share.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KEITH. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HAYS. Will the gentleman deny
that insurance stocks are about the best
buy on the market and that insurance
companies are making the most profit
of any corporations in the country? Of
course, I am not against that. But you
can call that forward funding or what-
ever you want to.
Mr. KEITH. I do not want to waste
the gentleman's time. The insurance
companies are supposed to be good in-
vestments. I was with a mutual insur-
ance company and the policyholders got
dividends and no profits as such.
Mr. HAYS. And I suppose the presi-
dent got a pretty high salary, did he not?
Mr. KEITH. Yes, they certainly did
and they got a better plan than we are
getting.
But if you are interested in what you
are going to get and how much it is
going to cost-at the outset I have done
a little computing on this and it might
be helpful to you.
So If you have a salary of $42,500 and
if you work here for 20 years, we would
have earned a total of $950,000 during
20 years time and when we put in 8
percent and add a little interest to it,
which the total value of that contri-
bution might be somewhere in the
vicinity of $125,000 when you add the
interest portion to it. The benefits when
you reach age 60 will be 50 percent of
H6231
pay-that Is 20 years times 21/2 percent.
Fifty percent of $42,500 Is $21,250 which
divided by 12 means you get about $1,300
a month.
Now-what Is such a pension worth?
How much would it cost to buy $1,300 a
At age 60 It costs about $15,000 to buy
$100 a month so multiplying it out, your
pension works out to be worth approxi-
mately a couple of hundred thousand
dollars.
That is what the insurance company
would charge you roughly if you were
60 years old and were to buy a pension
of $1,300 a month. it is a pretty good
pension-and I happen to think it is a
little generous in this instance. I am
going to vote against the, amendment.
Now as to the provision of a pension
for your second wife-should your first
wife predecease you-if you are going
to get remarried and you want to trans-
fer some pension to your new wife maybe
the insurance company is the best bet,
rather than adding such a fringe benefit
to our own pension system. Are we sup-
posed to take care of ourselves and our
wives and their successors? If we do all
of this through, this pension plan there
wouldbe fewer opportunities for the
private companies to which our colleague
from Ohio referred. I would think we
should patronize the private sector for
our private benefit for our second wife
who may become a widow.
In any event, I just had these thoughts
and I thought I would share them with
you. I think our present plan is generous
enough and we should not in these times
of high taxes vote ourselves,any pension
benefits that will increase taxes.
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike out the last word and rise in op-
position to the amendment.
(Mr. HOGAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Iowa.
The proposed "pay off" for sick leave
is not an expensive benefit: In fact, it
will be paid from the $220 million col-
lected each year by increasing the em-
ployee-employer contributions to 7 per-
cent. The formula prescribed in the bill
would grant 1 month of service credit
for for each 22 days of unused sick leave.
The normal cost of this benefit, esti-
mated at $13.2 million, would be equally
shared by employees and employing
agencies, each contributing $6.6 million
toward such normal cost.
In testifying for this cost, representa-
tives of the Civil Service Commission
also stated that, if this provision served
as an incentive to reduce the overall
usage of sick leave by only 1 day each
year, that savings would exceed $90 mil-
lion annually.
My reading of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD shows that during last year's
debate, and again during committee con-
sideration of this incentive provision, the
opponents argued that, first, there is no
justification for "payoff" or "incentive
legislation" to encourage or motivate
employees to conserve sick leave; and
second, sick leave has been granted by
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 H 6232 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE July 23, 1969
Congress for only one purpose:
tect employees against loss of
during periods of illness.
to pro-
income
The average use of sick leave by State
Civil Service workers declined for the third
straight year during 1966. A, Civil Service
Department study showed that although
full-time classified workers are allowed 13
days' sick leave a year, the actual use last
year averaged 7.61 days. Employees may ac-
cumulate unlimited sick leave and are paid
one-half of the total on death or reti:rement.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman. this is
the amendment I have already dis-
cussed.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Jersey.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. I would
like to ask the gentleman in the well
whether this is the amendment he dis-
cussed previously.
Mr. BENNETT. It is.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. On be-
half of myself and the members of the
committee on the majority side, we ac-
cept the amendment.
Mr. BENNETT. May I hear from the
minority?
Mr. SCOTT. We have no objection to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Florida.
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BUCHANAN
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman. I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BUCHANAN: On
page 8, strike out lines 3 through 6 and in-
sert in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 201. Paragraph (4; of section 8331
of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
"(4) 'average pay' means the largest an-
nual rate resulting from averaging-
"(A) an employee's rates of basic pay in
effect over any three consecutive years of
creditable service; or
"(B) a Member's rates of basic pay in effect
over any five consecutive years of creditable
service;
with each rate weighted by the time it was
in effect; ".
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, it is
frankly with regret that I offer this
amendment to legislation which I do
support. I commend the chairman of the
subcommittee and the other members of
the subcommittee in reporting out-this
bill, and also the embers of the. Post
Office and Civil Service Committee. It
has been my privilege in a previous Con-
gress to serve as a member of that sub-
committee and to become aware of the
need for legislation to improve the fund-
ing of the Federal retirement system. It
does strike me, therefore, as meritorious
legislation deserving of our support, and
a step toward meeting that need of bet-
ter funding.
Because the real problem is the lack
of Federal payment of its share of the
cost of the retirement program through
the years, and because the employees
have paid their share, I feel it equitable
and just that they should receive addi-
tional benefits from adding to this cost
of the retirement system to them. There-
fore, that which they desire, the reduc-
tion from 5 years to 3 years as the years
upon which to figure their retirement,
and the very meritorious provision which
provides for sick leave being counted to-
ward retirement-these, I think, are
equitable.
Nor would I challenge the value of
Members of Congress nor express any
lack of confidence in the worth of every
Member of this body. I believe in the
The reasons used by opponents may
have been valid in the past, but do not
meet the problems of today.
The Congress and most State, county,
and city governments are enacting or
proposing many forms of incentive leg-
islation to accomplish specific objec-
tives. Congress has passed incentive leg-
islation which rewards more than 1,600
prosperous farmers with subsidy pay-
ments of $50,000 or more per year for
not planting crops. Congress has passed
generous incentive legislation to encour-
age or motivate oil companies to con-
stantly expand their search for more oil.
Congress has also passed incentive leg-
islation to encourage or motivate mili-
tary reenlistments, to build highways,
tear down slums, build low-income hous-
ing projects and we also grant subsidies
to railroads and airlines.
All of the Government agencies also
encourage or motivate their employees
with cash awards for adopted sugges-
tions and superior performance of duty.
The cash spent on incentive sick leave
legislation to motivate employees to con-
serve sick leave would return more sav-
ings to the Government than the money
which is now spent on superior achieve-
ment awards.
Incentive sick leave legislation would
also provide some monetary protection
to many conscientious employees who
now forfeit 1,000 to 2,000 hours of sick
leave at time of retirement. and some-
times become seriously ill after retire-
ment.
Many States, counties, and cities now
have effective incentive sick leave provi-
sions for workers. I have some interest-
ing data on the results of these laws. The
following information is based on a sick
leave survey of 67 State, county, and
city agencies taken in 1967:
The average number of sick leave days
granted by these agencies was 131/2 days
as compared to the 13 days granted Fed-
eral employees.
Twenty-four agencies, or more than
one-third of the 67 agencies surveyed,
had some type of sick leave incentive
plan. There is, of course, presently no
incentive sick leave plan in any Federal
agency.
The average number of sick leave days
used annually in the non-Federal agen-
cies was 7.1 days. The average number of
sick leave days used annually by Federal
employees is 8.5 days and 10 to 11 days
per year in some of the larger post of-
fices.
Statistics show that the use of sick
leave increases materially during the last
working year before an employee retires
or resigns from the Federal service. This
use of sick leave by Federal employees is
probably motivated by the use-it-or-
lose-it situation now prevailing.
Most of the non-Federal agencies sur-
veyed claimed that the use of sick leave
was reduced after the adoption of a
practical incentive sick leave plan.
The State of Michigan, which has
42,000 employees, released a report on
July 27, 1967, which stated:
H.R. 9825, which is before us today,
does not provide even 50 percent of the
hourly compensation allowed the State
of Michigan employee. If a Federal em-
ployee lives for 12 years after retirement,
he would receive only 24 percent of the
average salary from H.R. 9825, whereas
the Michigan State retired receives 50
percent of his hourly rate: at t'.me of
retirement, multiplied by all of his un-
used sick leave hours.
Many other States, counties, and cities
now have or are considering incentive
sick-leave legislation to reduce absentee-
ism and thereby save on replacement
costs.
The Ohio State legislators are consid-
ering a bill that would provide a lump-
sum payment for a maximum of 180 days,
or 1,440 hours, of sick leave at time of
separation or retirement. Terminal pay
would be based on the individual's daily
rate of pay at the time of his leaving.
Incentive sick-leave legislation would
benefit the Government and also moti-
vate Federal employees to donser?ie sick
leave. The cost to a Federal agency for
each employee who uses all of his sick
leave before he retires is approximately
$8,000, and this cost factor will increase
each year. Additionally, considerable cost
is frequently involved to replace the sick
employees.
Mr. Chairman, the importance of re-
taining the limited credit' for unused
sick leave in this legislation cannot be
overemphasized. I urge defeat of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by, the gentle-
man from Iowa (Mr. GROSS).
The question was taken; and on a divi-
sion (demanded by Mr. GROSS) there
were-ayes 64, noes 147.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BENNETT
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT: On
page 10, immediately after the; period. at the
end of section 205, insert the following : "Not-
withstanding the prohibition conta'. ned in
the first sentence of this section on the pay-
ment of annuity for any period prior to the
enactment of this section, in any case in
which the Civil Service Commission deter-
mines that-
.1(1) the remarriage of any widow or wid-
ower described in such sentence was entered
into by the widow or widower in gocd faith
and in reliance on erroneous information
provided in writing by Government at.thorlty
prior to that remarriage that the the::a exist-
inzg survivor annuity of the widow or wid-
ower would not be terminated because of the
remarriage; and
"(2) such annuity was terminated by law
because of that remarriage;
then payment of annuity may be made by
reason of this section in such case, beginning
as of the effective date of the termination
because of the remarriage."
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
July 23, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 116233
people of this country, and I believe in
their elected Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the best of
all possible worlds, and even though I
know there is not a Member who spon-
sored this bill and there is not a Member
who reported it out of committee and
there is not a Member who will vote for
it on the floor this day who is doing it
to benefit himself,, we all know it is be-
ing so portrayed, and it can be so por-
trayed, and it will be so portrayed, and
the people in many cases will, in fact,
believe that Members are voting another
benefit to themselves on top of the salary
increase.
Because I share the concern of the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. KYL) that
not only should we be doing right, but
also the people should understand that
this is a responsible body that is con-
cerned about our fiscal crisis, and to
show this is a body that is trying to pass
legislation on its merits and not for the
Members' self-benefits, I cannot in good
conscience fail to offer this amendment
to take the Members out of the provi-
sions of this bill.
. If my amendment is adopted, it will
simply do this: Members at present, like
others in the Federal retirement system,
upon meeting the qualifications for a re-
tiremen't annuity, receive a pension, the
amount pf which is based on the average
of their salary during the highest 5 years
of their Federal servicg, which is taken
into consideration in figuring their re-
tirement. If my amendment is adopted,
this will continue to be the case. If this
is not adopted, we will, with other people
participating in this system, have to
serve only 3 years at our new salary level
in order to retire at the higher retire-
ment figure.
I urge support of this amendment, al-
though I offer it regretfully.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUCHANAN. I yield to the gen-
tlemasl from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Does the gentleman from Alabama not
believe if we change the bill further to
raise our own payment into the fund,
that we will be in effect paying for this
very slight benefit?
Mr. BUCIIANAN, I will say to the
gentleman I will support his proposal
and will vote for it, but we already have
a richer formula than the other people
in the system and, therefore, it seems to
me that putting us on a more equal foot-
ing might well justify a heavier contri-
bution to the,system. Therefore, I will
support both my amendment and the
proposal of the gentleman, and feel that
both are justified.
Mr. CORBETT, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have already been
over all this subject. The fact of the mat-
ter is that the fund has made a profit
from the Congress. That is the shape of
things today. That will continue to be
the fact, So there is nothing at all wrong
with the proposition of our enjoying the
same benefit of retiring on the high 3
years as any other Federal employee will paid out as retirement benefits to retired
enjoy. I submit that there will still be a Members. This is good, but let us keep it
profit in the fund with this new bill. that way. The $7 million now in the fund
Mr. Chairman, I hope we can defeat is the best protection I can think of to
this amendment unanimously. keep the fund strong. I wish other agen-
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given cies of our Federal Establishment were in
permission to revise and extend his re- as good of shape financially. But this is
marks.) no reason to raid the account now.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I move I hope to be able to vote for this, bill.
to strike the requisite number of words. The refinancing feature to build up the
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the account is good. I will find it difficult to?
amendment of the gentleman from Ala- support the bill, however, if it contains
bama. I am not arguing the cause of the provision for, recalculation of time
whether or not Members of Congress are for Members.
entitled to more liberalized retirement This amendment now offered by the
benefits-they undoubtedly are, but this- gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bu-
is not the time nor is this Nation in a cHANAN) does what is needed and I will
fiscal situation to warrant such action, support it.
The administration has just asked the The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
Congress to continue the surtax for an- the amendment offered by the gentleman
other year. In doing so the President has from Alabama (Mr. BUCHANAN).
made it abundantly clear that without The amendment was rejected.
this tax this country would face economic AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GROSS
chaos and inflation that would make our Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
present inflationary spiral look weak by amendment.
comparsion. I cannot, therefore, in good The Clerk read as follows:
co'ns'cience ask the already overburdened Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: On
taxpayer to pay additional taxes and vote page 6, strike out all of line 1 and insert in
to liberalize my own retirement benefits, lieu thereof the following:
The American people expect their Rep- "(f) Any statute which authorizes, effee-
resentatives to exercise prudence and Live on or after July 1, 1969-".
economy in spending their tax dollars. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
Under our present fiscal dilemma I do mission to revise and extend his re-
not consider liberalizing congressional marks.)
retirement benefits. either prudent or Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, the pur-
good economy and therefore must sup- pose of my amendment is to make the
port the amendment. I urge the House to provisions of title II of this bill conform
'accept this amendment and strike from to the policy established under title I.
the bill that provision which liberalizes This simply means that the Government
congressi'o'nal retirement benefits. Let us shall pay costs of every increase in un-
not put any more burden on the already funded liability created in the retirement
fatigued taxpayer. fund by new legislation, including three
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr. liberalizations granted in title II, through
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite equal annual appropriations installments
number of words. over a 30-year period.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to This bill is brought to the floor of the
the amendment offered by the gentle- House of Representatives with a great
man from Alabama, a former and highly deal of fanfare and laudatory comments
We have respected been member
over of this question. is subcommittee,
I think by the proponents who say that at last
every Member of the House understands we are putting the retirement fund on
it. We have gone through it not only dur- a sound financial basis. However, in the
ing the course of debate, but in the next breath they state that the liberal-
course of discussion of previous amend- izations created under the provisions of
ments that have been offered. title II of the bill shall not be subject to
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to the 30-year financing provisions of title
vote this amendment down. I. This is inconsistent and makes the bill
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to a mockery. To millions of Federal em-
strike the requisite number of words. ployees who have invested their retire-
(Mr. MYERS asked and was given ment deductions in the retirement fund,
permission to revise and extend his re- which has a $60 billion deficit, this ac-
marks.) tion and this inconsistency is a cruel
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, in gen- hoax.
eral, I supported the amendment offered I hope the Members will read my coln-
by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. ments on this matter on pages 37 and
GROSS). As it affected-other employees, 38 of the committee report on H.R. 9825,
other than Members of Congress, I was which explain in detail what the com-
not in complete agreement, but I did vote mittee has done.
for the amendment. The need for im- I call attention specifically to the
proving the financing and funding for statement by the Director of the Bureau
the civil service retirement system is cer- of the Budget, who on April 22, 1969,
tainly in order and much needed. In fact stated:
this should have been done several years This administration is thoroughly in ac-
ago. It seems to me that now is the time cord with the objective of fiscal responsibil-
since it was not done earlier to start re- ity which your proposed amendment is
storing the solvency of our Government intended to achieve.
and its agencies. It is unnecessary to debate the ques-
The argument has been made that the tion as to whether the bill actually
funds paid in by Members of Congress creates the inconsistency which my
has been much greater than the amount amendment corrects, I raised this ques-
Approved. For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 116234
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Jul;; 41`13p, 1969
tion during committee deliberations on
this legislation and the author of the
bill agreed that the 30-year funding pro-
visions in title I do not apply to the
liberalizations in title Ii. However, a
quick reading of subsection 103(a) (2)
(f) on page 6 of the bill leads one to the
conclusion that it is intended to cover
the costs of all future liberalizations.
My amendment covers the following
liberalizations and increases in the un-
funded liability contained in title II of
the bill :
First. High 3-year average, $337
million.
Second. Sick leave credit, $329.5
million.
Third. Survivor annuity, $150 million.
In addition, my amendment will apply
to the Federal pay raise effective this
month which will increase the liability of
the retirement fund by $3.4 billion.
The total increase of $4.2 billion in
the unfunded liability of the retirement
fund under my amendment, would be au-
thorized to be paid into the fund in 30
annual equal appropriation installments,
as provided in subsection 103(a)(2)(f)
of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I re-emphasize my deep
conviction that something must be done
to prevent the constant erosion of the
employees' and Government's contribu-
tions to the retirement fund. Title I of
this bill, in some measure, secures this
objective. But, I am certain that we can-
not go on indefinitely into the future
exempting liberalizations from the fi-
nancing provisions of the bill.
The proponents of the bill will argue
that to exempt the liberalizations in this
bill is not of great importance provided
we do not exempt them In the future. I
disagree. If we are going to establish a
policy of the nature contained in title I,
then I think now is the time to adhere to
that principle and not wait until some
Indefinite time in the future.
I urge the Members to support my
amendment.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by my good friend
from Iowa (Mr. Gaols) a member of the
Post Office and Civil Service Committee.
The amendment would add nothing to
the value of the bill as a means to
strengthen the financing of the civil
service retirement system.
The general philosophy of this legisla-
tion is-for very practical reasons-to
eliminate present unsound financing
practices on a gradual basis, spread over
a reasonable period of years because of
the tremendous sums involved, and
thereby preclude excessive impact on any
one or a few annual budgets.
The proposed amendment would de-
part from this policy and, if adopted,
would have an excessive impact on
budgets in the immediate future.
In fact, adoption of this amendment
would most seriously endanger final ap-
proval of this desperately needed legisla-
tion.
The officials of the Civil Service Com-
mission assure the committee that title
I of H.R. 9825, as reported, intakes ade-
quate provision for financing the addi-
tional normal cost and the unfunded lia-
bility which would result from enactment
of title II of the bill.
If the distinguished gentleman's
amendment was adopted, the budget for
the fiscal year 1970 would require a sup-
pl m?ntal appropriation request of $55.6
milion to cover title II benefits, and a
1'731/ million request for the July 1969
sa'aly increases, or a total of $234.1 mil-
lion.
The budgetary impact will be eased by
financing these items as contemplated in
the bill by requiring a $1534 million pay-
ment in 1971-10 percent of the interest
dire thereon-progressing by an addi-
tional $153/4 million each year, until in
1930 and thereafter interest thereon
would entail a payment of $1571/2 mil-
lion yearly.
Adoption of the amendment could very
well preclude the bill's final enactment
in this session of Congress.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
oppose the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS),
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. coRBETr
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. CORBETY: On
pace 3, lines 10 and 11, strike :out "and a
Member." and Insert in lieu thereof "and
8 percent of the basic pay of a Member.".
on page 4, between lines 7 and 8, amend
the table headed "Member for Member serv-
ice" by adding the following new lines
-------------- after December 31, 1969.".
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, 1 bad
earlier stated that I was going to put in
a recommittal motion to this same effect.
I thought it better, since title TI has been
preserved, to offer it at this time as a
straight amendment. It would simply
increase the payment by Members into
the retirement fund from 71;2 to 8
percent. There are two reasons for this.
No. 1, it maintains the 1 percent differen-
tial which has existed historically be-
tween what the employees pay and what
the Members pay, but more importantly,
for the very small amount of benefit that
the 3-year formula would give us as op-
posed to the 5-year formula, I believe
that we ought to be willing to pay for it.
As a matter of fact, if our pensions were
raised a great deal more, I, for one, would
certainly be willing to pay a great deal
more into the fund. But in any event I
do hope this amendment will be adopted
in order that we can go to the public
and say that we paid for what we=, are
getting. Now, the psychological effect is
something different. eW, again, are ::aced
with the fact that we must do the right
thing regardless of what someone seems
to think we did.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption
of this amendment.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I believe all Members of the
House understand this amendment very
well, the proposal which has been offered
by the ranking minority member of the
committee because it is one-half of the
amendment that was offered earlier this
afternoon by the distinguished gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. DEawINSKI).
That original amendment provided for
an increase to 8 percent in contributions
not only of congressional staff members,
but also the Members of Congress. So,
what the distinguished ranking minority
member would do, in proposing his
amendment, is to confine his amend-
ment strictly to Members of Congress.
I would like to point out one further
thing: Just bear in mind, gentlemen,
that if you are elected for 3 years beyond
the present session of Congress, it does
not make a particle of difference if we
have the highest 5 years, or the highest
3 years, or the highest 1 year. Our
salaries would be $42,500 under all cir-
cumstances.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. CORBETT).
The question was taksn: and the
Chairman announced that the noes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
man appointed as tellers Mr. CORBETT
and Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey.
The Committee divided, and the tell-
ers reported that there were-ayes 119,
noes 138.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, may I have everyone's
attention for 30 seconds?
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman from Illinois yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey (Mr. DANIELS),
who wishes to make a request to see if
debate may be closed in 5 minutes?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, and hopefully
in 30 seconds. I yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. D"NIELS) .
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, may I ash-are there any
amendment,: pending at the Clerk's desk?
The CHAIRMAN. There are no amend-
ments pending at the Clerk's desk.
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
upon conclusion of the remarks to be
made by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. DERWINsKI) that is, in 5 minutes,
debate on the bill and all amendments
thereto close.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, in
order to provide the utmost possible co-
operation with concern of the majority
and the gentleman from New Jersey
who wish to expedite action on the bill,
I may take just a minute to inform the
Members what will be involved in the
motion to recommit.
May I emphasize that the motion to
recommit is properly designed to help
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 July 23, 196opproved .For R 220p.p11/11/011 ? CIA-'R DP71 B00364R000500160004-2
RESSIONAL RECOR Ti _ T-TnT Tc>r:
the bill and to speed this legislation and read a third time, and was read
through the other body. the third ti
me
. Abernethy
The lliotion to recommit will do just MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED Y Adair
two things. It will strike the provision MR. DERWINSKI Adams
as to the high-3-years average on retire- Addabbo
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I of. Albert
lbert
fer a motion to recommit. Alexander
of Congress and anyone covered by the Anderson,
civil service retirement fund, In other The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op. Calif.
swords, it would leave the law as it id at posed to the bill? Anderson,
present, with the 5provision. Mr. DERWINSKI. I am, in its prey- Andrews,
s.
5-year-high ent form.
The other change it would make is that The SPEAKER. The Clerk will re- Annun io
it would strike line 20, page 8, the lib- port the motion to recommit. Aspinall
eralization provision for congressional The Clerk read as follows: Ayres
employees. Barrett
It does not touch unused sick leave, it Mr. DERWINSKI moves to recommit the Bell, Calif.
bill, H.R. 9825, to the Committee on Post Bennett
does not touch the retirees' annuity. It Office and Civil Service with instructions Berry
does not touch title II as it applies to to report the same back forthwith with the Bester
widows and widowers. It merely elimi- following amendments: Bin
nates the 3-high-year provision and re- On page 3, line 10, strike out "Congres.- Blanton
.moves from the bill the additional lib- sional employee and a". Blatnik
eralization that was to be afforded only On page 4, between lines 7 and 8, strike Boggs
to congressional employees. out the schedule relating to Member or em- Boland
ployee for Congressional employee service. Bolling
Mr. Chairnan, in view of the spirit of On page 8, beginning with line 20, strike Bow
aemas
anxiety in the House and the desire of out all of line 20 and all that follows down Brasco
the House to mo
e
diti
v
expe
ously but thh th
rouge end of line 3 on page 9.
effectively, these are the provisions of On page 9, line 4, strike out "(3)
the motion to recommit. On page 8, strike out all of section 201
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the beginning with line 3 down through line 6
gentleman yield? and renumber the succeeding sections and
Mr. DERWINSKI, I yield to the gen- references thereto accordingly.
tleman. The SPEAKER. Without objection, the
Mr. HATS. Your motion to recommit previous question is ordered on the mo-
ik
st
r
es out the provision for th hih tito
egon recommit.
3 years for all Government employees; There was no objection.
h
is t
at right?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Right, and for all
Members of Congress.
Mr. HAYS. Well, I know that-but I
want the Members -to know what they
are doing to Government employees if
they vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. DERWINSKI. The purpose, of
course, is not to have premature retire-
ment of the affected Government em-
ployees that we have covered by the civil
service retirement fund.
In view of that fact and obviously
from what I see by the expression of the
Members, I got my message across and
they may be rallying to the support of
the motion to recommit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the the
balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the. Speaker. having resumed the chair,
Mr. MCFALI,, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Commit-
tee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 9825) to amend subchapter
III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States
Code, relating to civil service retirement, Collier
and for other purposes, Collins
pursuant to Colmar
House Resolution a80, he reported the con:te
bill back to the House with an amend- C ? ier
ment adopted by the Committee of the Daniel, Va.
Whole. Davis, Ga.
Wis.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the Davis,
Delienbac
ack
previous question is ordered. Denney
The question is on the amendment. Dennis
The amendment was agreed to. Devine
The SPEAKER. The question is on Dickinson
Dorn
Kuykendall Steiger, Wis.
Lan en
Latta Stuckey
Lloyd Talcott
Lujan Taylor
McClure Thomson, Wis.
McCulloch Vander Jagt
Mahon . Wampler
Marsh Watkins
Martin Whalley
Mayne Whitten
Michel Wiggins
Miller, Ohio Winn
Mize Wold
Mizell Wydler
Montgomery Wylie
the engrossment and third reading of the Dowdy Mosher Wyman
bill. Duncan Nelsen Zion
Dwyer O'Neal, Ga.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed Edwards, Ala. Pickle
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion to recommit.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 129, nays 281, answered
"present" 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 119]
YEAS-129
Abbitt Erlenborn Poage
Anderson, Ill. Eshleman Poff
Andrews, Ala. Findley Price, Tex.
Arends Fisher Quillen
Ashbrook Ford, Gerald R. Railsback
Baring Foreman Reid, Ill.
Beall, Md. Fountain Rhodes
Belcher Gaydos Robison
Betts Goldwater Roth
Brock Goodling Roudebush
Broomfield Gross Ruth
Brotzman Grover Satterfield
Brown, Ohio Hall Saylor
Burleson, Tex. Hansen, Idaho Schadeberg
Byrnes, Wis. Harvey Scherle
Camp Hastings Schneebell
Carter Hull Sebelius
Cederberg Hunt Shriver
Chamberlain Hutchinson Skubitz
Clancy Ichord Smith, Calif.
Clausen, Jarman Snyder
Don H. Johnson, Pa. Springer
Clawson, Del Jonas Stafford
Cleveland Keith Steiger, Ariz.
H 6235
NAYS-281
Garmatz Nix
Gettys Obey
Gialmo O'Hara
Gibbons Olsen
Gilbert O'Neill, Mass.
Gonzalez Ottinger
Gray Passman
Green, Oreg. Patman,
Green, Pa. Patten
Griffin Pelly
Griffiths
Gubeer
Gude
Hagan
Haley
Hamilton
Hammer-
schmidt
Pepper
Perkins
Pettis
Philbin
Pike
Pirnie
Podell
Pollock
Hanley Preyer, N.C.
Hanna Price, 111.
Hansen, Wash. Pryor, Ark.
Harsha Pucinski
Hathaway Purcell
Hays Quie
Hebert Randall
Hechler, W. Va. Rarick
Heckler, Mass. Rees
Helstoski Reid, N.Y.
Hicks Relfel
Hogan Reuss
Bray Holifleld Riegle
Brinkley Horton Rivers
Brooks Hosmer Roberts
Brown, Calif. Hungate Rodino
Broyhill, N.C. Jacobs Rogers, Colo.
Buchanan Joelson Rogers, Fla.
Burke, Fla. Johnson, Calif. Ronan.
Burke, Mass. Jones, Ala. Rooney, N.Y.
Burlison, Mo. Jones, N.C. Rooney, Pa.
Burton, Calif. Jones, Tenn. Rosenthal
Bush Karth Roybal
Byrne, Pa.
Cabell
Caffery
Cahill
Casey
Cellar
Chappell
Chisholm
Clark
Clay
Cohelan
Conable
Conyers
Corbett
King
Kleppe
Kluczynski
Koch
Kyl
Kyros
Landgrebe
Leggett
Lennon
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lowenstein
Coughlin McClory
Cunningham McCloskey
Daddario McDade
Daniels, N.J. McDonald,
Dawson Mich.
de la Garza McEwen
Delaney McFall
Dent McKneally
Diggs McMillan
Dingell Macdonald,
Donohue Mass.
Downing MacGregor
Dulski Madden
Eckhardt Mailliard
Edmondson Mann
Edwards, Calif. Mathias
Edwards, La. Matsunaga
Eilberg May
Esch Meeds
Evans, Colo. Melcher
Evins, Tenn. Meskill
Fallon Mikva
Farbstein Miller, Calif.
Fascell Mills
Feighan Minish
Flood Mink
Flowers Minshall
Flynt Mollohan
Foley Monagan
Ford, Moorhead
William D. Morgan
Fraser Morse
Frelinghuysen Morton
Frey Moss
Friedel Murphy, Ill.
Fulton, Pa. Murphy, N.Y.
Fulton, Tenn. Myers
Fuqua Natcher
Galiflanakis Nedzi
Gallagher Nichols
St Germain
St. Onge
Sandman
Scheuer
Schwengel
Scott
Shipley
Sikes
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Staggers
Steed
Stephens
Stokes
Stratton
Stubblefield
Sullivan
Symington
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, Ga.
Thompson, N.J.
Tiernan
Tunney
Udall
Utt
Van Deerlin
Vamik
Vigorito
Waggonner
Waldie
Watson
Watts
Weicker
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Widnall
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wolff
Wright
Wyatt
Yates
Yatron
Young
Zablockf
Zwach
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-1
Brown, Mich.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : B00364ROO0500160004-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE u y 23, 1969
NOT VOTING--21
Aebley Fish Lipscomb
riacc':gi Halpern Lukens
Blackburn Hawkins O'Konski
E. o: hill, Va. Henderson Powell
Burton, Utah Howard Rostenkowski
t' it y Kirwan Stanton
Culver Landrum Ullman
So the motion to recommit was re-
rejected.
The Clerk announced the following
rairs:
Mr. Henderson with Mr. Broyhill of Vir-
gnia.
Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Blackburn.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Lipscomb.
Mr. Carey with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Burton of Utah.
Mr. Howard with Mr. Lukens.
Mr. Hawkins with Mr. O'Konski.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Ullman.
Mr. TEAGUE of California changed
his vote from "yea" to "nay."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 358, nays 48, not voting 26,
Karth Nelsen
Kestenmeier Nichols
Kazen Nix
Kee
Kith
King
Kleppe
Klucry nski
Koch
Ku u> kendall
Kyl
K? roe
Landgrebe
Lar g:ni
Legg' tt
Lennon
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Low, rstein
Lujan
McCarthy
N"", 'Ory -
McCloskey
McClure
MrCUlloch
McDade
Mr'O" aid,
Mich.
Mcfwen
McFall
1v1c Kn ~ ally
McMillan
IN_P.-Iorald,
Mass.
Msici egor
Madden
Mail l i and
Mare
Mathias
M et=unaga
Meeds
M=lciier
Meskill
NS'kva
Miller, Calif.
Mills
YEAS-358
Fountain
Fraser
Frelinghuysen
Frey
Friedel
Fulton, Pa.
Fulton, Tenn.
Fuqua
Galifiar skis
Gallagher
Garmi tz
Gaydos
Gettys
Giafmo
Gibbons
Gilbert
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Gray
Green. Oreg.
Greer., Pa.
Griffin
Griffiths
Grover
Gubser
Glide
Hagan
Haley
Hamilton
Haminer-
scbmidt
Hanley
Hanna
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Harsh a
Harvey
Hastings
Abernethy Celler
Adair Chamberlain
Adams Chappell
Addabbo Clancy
Albert Clark
Alexander Clausen,
Arderson, Don H.
Calif. Clawson, Del
Anderson, Clay
Tenn. Cohelan
A"drews, Collins
N. Dale. Conable
Annunzio Corte
Arends Conyers
A^pinall Corbett
Ayres Corman
B irirg Coughlin
Barrett Cramer
Beall, Md. Cunningham
Belcher Daddario
Bell, Calif. Daniels, N.J.
Bennett Davis, Ga,
terry Davis, Wis,
Betts Dawson
Bevill Delaney
Biester Dellenback
Bingham Denney
Blanton Dent
Blatnik Diggs
Boggs Dingell
B-eland Donohue
Bolling Dorn
Bow Dowdy
Brademas Downing
Brasco Dulski
Brinkley Dwyer
Brock Eckhardt
gooks Edmondson
Broomfield Edwards, Ala. Hathaway
Brotsnaan Edwards, Calif. Hays
Brown, Mich. Edwards, La. Hebert
Brown, Ohio Eilberg Hechler, W. Va.
Broyhill, N.C. Erlenborn Heckler, Mass
Buchanan Eech
Burke, Fla. Evans, Colo. Hicks
Burleson, Tex. Evins, Tenn. Hogan
Burlison, Mo. Fallon Holifleld
Burton, Calif. Farbktein 'Horton
Bush Faseen Roamer
Button Feighan HHun~ate
Byrne, Pa. Findley
;.yrnes, Wis. Fisher JJacobs
arman
Cebell Flood Joelson
Caffery Flowers
Cahill Flynt Johnson. Calif.
e"amp Ford, Gerald R. Johnson, Pa.
Carter Ford, Jones, Ala.
Casey William D. Jone , Neon
Cederberg Foreman
Mink
-hall
Mize
Miz"ll
Mollohan
Mor_agan
Moorhead
Morgan
Tip.
Morton
Mosher
Moss
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
M-rs
Watcher
N_dzi
obey
O'Hara
Olsen
O'Neal, Ga.
O'Neill, Mass.
Ottinger
Parsman
Patman
Pat ten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins
P-ttia
Philbin
Pickle
Pike
Podell
Pollock
Preyer, N.C.
Price, Ill.
Pryor, Ark.
Pucir ski
Purcell
Quie
Railsback
Randall
Parick
Rees
1Z id. Ill.
Reid, N.Y.
Reifel
Reuss
Rhodes
Rivers
)'rb^rts
Robison
odi o
Rogers, Colo.
,Rogers, Fla.
Ronan
Roorey, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Rosenthal
Roudebush
Roybal
R.uone
Ruth
R?an
St Germain
St.O"ge
Sandman
Schauer
r -hwe gel
Scott
i- , h-elius
Shipley
Sh-leer
Sikes
c~k
Skubitz
NAYS-48
Abbitt Goodling
Anderson, Ill. Gross
Andrews. Ala. Hall
A=hbrook Hull
Bray Hutchinson
Cl, veland Ichord
Collier Jonas
Colmer Latta
Daniel, Va. Lloyd
Dennis Mahon
Derwinski Marsh
Devine Martin
Dickinson May
Duncan Mayne
Fehleman Michel
Foley Miller, Ohio
Slack
Smitlh, Calif.
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
Stafford
Staggers
Steed
Steiger, Wis.
Stephens
Stokes
Stratton
Stu$blefleld
Stuckey
Sullivan
Se irgton
Taft
Talcott
Taylor
T a@,ue, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thgmpson, Ga.
Thdmpson, N.J.
Thomson, Wis.
Tiernan
l iulneY
Udall
Utt
Vail Deerlin
Vander Jagt
V arlik
Vignrito
WJa.gonner
Wadie
Wakknnpler
Watkin s
u'atson
wants
1 tepcker
Whalen
Whalley
White
W bitehurst
W idn all
Wiggins
N-P? liams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles H.
Winn
Weld
ivclif
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young
Zablocki
Zion
Zwach
Montgomery
P ilrn ie
P6age
P?ff
Price, Tex.
ill
RRbbthen
Satterfield
Saylor
Schadeberg
Scherle
SchneebeIi
Springer
Steiger, Ariz.
'Whitten
Wylie
Ashley Cowger
Biaggi Culver
Blackburn de la Garza
Brown, Calif. Fish
Broyhill, Va. Halpern
Burke, Mass. Hawkins
Burton, Utah Henderson
Carey Howard
Chisholm Kirwan
Landrum
Lipscomb
Lukens
O'Konski
Powell
Rostenkowski
Stanton
Ullman
Mr. Howard with Mr. Cowger
Mr. Hawkins with Mr. O'Konski.
Mr. Culver Wit" Mr. Burton of Utah.
Mr. Ashley with Mr. Lukens.
Mr. Burke of Massachusetts With Mr.
Stanton.
Mr. Ullman with Jr. Powell.
Mr. de la Garza with Mr. Lan irum.
Mr. Brown of Californi:t with Mrs.
Chisholm.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorde i.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. DANIELS of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members n-ay have 5 i ?;islative days
in which to rcvhe and extcns1 their re-
marks on the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER rro tompore (Mr.
EDMONDSON). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR SELECT COMMIT-
TEE ON SMALL BUSINESS TO
SIT DURING GENERAL DEBATE
THURSDAY AND FRIDAY
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the House
Select Committee on Small Business be
permitted to sit during general debate
on Thursday an 3 Friday of this week,
July 24 and 25.
The SPEAKER pro tenlpore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
THE 91ST CONGRESS-A REPORT
(Mr. HANNA asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to-revise and r xtend his re-
marks and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, it is already
presaged by some statements and easily
predictable in more to follow that the
press will be characterizing this session as
a "do little Congress." In anticipation of
such unjustified categorizing and in an
attempt to place things in their proper
perspective may I suggest a closer view
of what this Congress really is all about.
First and foremost it must be realized
and appreciated that Congress does. not
sit to simply arithmatically score up
a continual enactment of legislation.
Rarely has there been such a disgorging
of legislative bills as was experienced in
the first 2 years of the Johnson admin-
istration, It is discernable by even the
most casual observer that Mr. Nixon has
assumed the stance of caution and de-
liberation for his administration's first 2
years. Following as he does the exuberant
Johnson years of vigorous legislation, his
approach has much to commend it. Now
we need to measure the performance of
these programs; perfect their application,
and to make effective the implementation
of laws already in existence. Congress
plays a dynamic and effective role in this
approach as much as in the more dra-
matic business of passing new laws.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Henderson with Mr. Broyhill of
Virginia.
Mr. Kirwan with Mr. Blackburn.
Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Lipscomb.
Mr. Carey with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Biaggi with Mr. Halpern.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
So the bill was passed.
 July 18, 19694pproved ROg4Mt1/IUC Q'30 X00160004-2
Committee on Public Works: July 24, executive, on S. 7, pro-
posed Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969, 1o a.m., 4110
New Senate Office Building.
Committee on RuZes and Administration: July 23, executive,
on committee business, To a.m., 301 Old Senate Office Building.
Select Committee on Small Business: July 22 and 23, to resume
hearings on cargo theft and pilferage at airline terminals and
waterfront docks, To a.m., 318 Old Senate Office Building.
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs: July 22-24,
to continue hearings on the role of private industry in meeting
the nutritional needs of the American people, To a.m., Tuesday
and Wednesday in 1202 New Senate Office Building, and Thurs-
day in 318 Old Senate Office Building.
Special Committee on Aging: July 25, Subcommittee on Retire-
ment and the Individual, to hold hearings on the Federal role in
economic preretirement planning and new work-lifetime pat-
terns, 1o a.m., 3110 New Senate Office Building.
House Chamber
Monday, Consent Calendar and the following suspen-
sions:
i. H.R. 11651, temporary emergency assistance to pro-
vide nutritious meals to needy children;
2. H.R. 10.987, to extend National Commission on
Product Safety;
3. H.R. 11609, to authorize the construction of an
entrance road, at Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
N.C.; and
4. H.R. 11363, to prevent the importation of endan-
gered species of fish and wildlife into the United States.
Tuesday, H.R. 12781, Department of the Interior and
related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1g7o.
Wednesday, H.R. 9825, Civil Service retirement
financing and benefit's (open rule, 2 hours of debate).
Thursday and balance of week:
H.R. -, Departments of State, Justice, Commerce,
the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill for
fiscal year 1970; and
H.R. 2, separate Federal credit union agency (open
rule, i hour of debate).
NoTE.-Conference reports may be brought up at any
time. Any further program will be announced later.
House Committees
Committee on Agriculture: July 21, to hear Members of Con-
gress on bills pending before the committee which would extend
or amend existing laws on the general farm program, To a.m.,
130.1 Longworth House Office Building.
July 22, full committee, to hear Members of Congress on all
bills pending before the committee which would extend or
amend existing laws on the food stamp program.
July 23, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains, to hold hear-
ing on HR. 485, to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938 with regard to wheat, To a.m., 13o2 Longworth House Office
Building.
July 23, Subcommittee on Departmental Operations, to hold
hearing on H.R. 10236 and related bills, to amend Federal Seed
Act, 1o a.m., 1301 Longworth House Office Building.
Committee on Appropriations: July 21, executive, to consider
the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice and judiciary appro-
priations for fiscal year 1970, 11 a.m., H-140, Capitol.
Subcommittee on Military Construction, executive, 2 p.m.,
B-3oo Rayburn House Office Building.
D 647
Subcommittee on Legislative, executive, 2 p.m., H-302,
Capitol.
Committee on Armed Services: July 21, executive, to consider
H.R. 12171, amended, military construction authorization for
fiscal year 1970, 1o a.m., 2118 Rayburn House Office Building.
July 22, 24, and 25, full committee, executive, to continue
hearings on Army military posture and fiscal year 1970 military
procurement authorization, To a.m., 2118 Rayburn House Office
Building.
Committee on Banking and Currency: July 21, 22, 23, and 24,
Subcommittee on Housing, to continue hearings on housing legis-
lation, 1o a.m., 2128 Rayburn House Office Building.
July 22, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Urban Growth, to continue
hearings on population trends in the United States, 2 p.m., 2222
Rayburn House Office Building.
Committee on the District of Columbia: July 22, executive, to
meet for discussion of revenue legislation, To a.m., 131o Long.
worth House Office Building.
Committee on Education and Labor: July 21, Select Subcom-
mittee on Education, to continue hearings on H.R. 9312, Drug
Abuse Education Act of 1969, 9:45 a.m., 2175 Rayburn House
Office Building.
July 22, General Subcommittee on Labor, executive, to mark
up coal mine health and safety legislation, To a.m., 2175 Rayburn
House Office Building.
July 23, General Subcommittee on Education, executive, to
consider H.R. 866o and H.R. 9065, the Learning Disabilities Act;
and H.R. 4807 and H.R. 12814, to provide for educational assist-
ance for gifted and talented children, 9:45 a.m., 2261 Rayburn
House Office Building.
Committee on.Foreign AbFairs: July 22, executive, 25, open,
to continue hearings on H.R. 11792, proposed foreign aid legis-
lation, 1o a.m., 2172 Rayburn House Office Building.
July 22, Subcommittee on Europe, executive, for briefing on
recent visit to Europe by Hon. Martin J. Hillenbrand, Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs, 2:30 p.m., 2200 Rayburn
Building.
July 22, Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scien-
tific Developments, to continue hearings on the advisability of
a MIRV testing moratorium, 2 p.m., 2255 Rayburn House Office
Building.
July 23, full committee,-to hold hearings on H.R. rr039, to
amend further the Peace Corps Act, as amended, 10 a.m., 2172
Rayburn House Office Building.
July 24, full committee, executive, to markup H.R. 11039
(explanation above), fo a.m., 2172 Rayburn House Office
Building.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: July 21, Subcom-
mittee on National Parks and Recreation, to hold hearing on
H.R. 12578 and S. 1686, relating to age limits in connection
with appointments to the U.S. Park -Police, 9:45 a.m., 1324
Longworth Building.
July 22, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, to
hold hearing on H.J. Res. 81, to provide for the development
of the Eisenhower National Historic Site at Gettysburg, Pa.;
and H.R. 7066, to provide for the establishment of the William
Howard Taft National Historic Site, 9:45 a.m., 1324 Long-
worth Building.
July 23, full committee, to consider H.R. 850 and S. 713, to
designate the Desolation Wilderness, Eldorado National Forest,
in the State of California; and H.R. 6223 and S. 912, to provide
for the establishment of the Florissant Fossil Beds National
Monument in the State of Colorado, 9:45 a.m., 1324 Longworth
Building.
Committee on Internal Security: July 22, 23, and 24, to con-
tinue investigation into SDS activities with examination of SDS
activities at George Washington and American University cam-
puses, To a.m., 311 Cannon House Office Building.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01: CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2
 Approved g4g)RneI%1i(1,1 41? RDFhTAW3bAl?iW00160004 -~uly 18, 1969
Next meeting of the SENATE
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, July 22
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: July 21, 22,
23, 24, and 25, to hold hearings on H.R. 12374, H.R. 12780,
and related bills, airways and airport development, io a.m., 2123
Rayburn House Office Building.
Committee on the Judiciary: July 23, Subcommittee No. 2,
executive, on private claims bills, to a.m., 2226 Rayburn House
Office Building.
July 24, Subcommittee No. 1, to hold hearing on private im-
migration bills, 10:30 a.ni., 2237 Rayburn House Office Building.
July 24, Subcommittee No. 2, to hold hearing on private
claims bills, in a.m., 2226 Rayburn House Office Building.
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: July 22, Sub-
committee on Merchant Marine, to hold hearings on H.R. 210,
to eliminate requirements for disclosure of construction details
on passenger vessels meeting prescribed safety standards, and
H.R. 12605, to amend section 613 of the Merchant Marine Act,
19.36, as amended, 10 a.m., 1334 Longworth House Office
Building.
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: July 22, 23, 25,
to continue hearings on postal reform, ro a.m., 21o Cannon
House Office Building.
July 22, Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service, execu-
ive, to consider H.R. 10247, to amend title 5, United States
Code, to grant court leave to employees of the United States
and the District of Columbia when called as witnesses in certain
judicial proceedings on behalf of State and local governments,
9: o a.m., 320 Cannon House Office Building.
July 22, Subcommittee on Compensation, executive, to con-
sider H.R. 12823 and similar bills, employee pay comparability,
9:3o a.m., 209 Cannon House Office Building.
./ July 24, full committee, executive, to consider action recom-
mended by Subcommittee on Compensation on Federal salaries;
and H.R. 12884, to assure confidentiality of information fur-
nished on the census, 10 a.m., 210 Cannon House Office Building.
Committee on Public Works: July 22 and 23, Subcommittee on
Roads, to continue hearings on H.R. 11870, to amend section 127
of title 23, United States Code, relating to vehicle weight and
width, limitations on the Interstate System; and H.R. 1161g, to
Extensions of Remarks, as inserted in this issue
SENATE
Dole, Robert, Kans., E6109
Javits, Jacob K., N.Y., E6110
HOUSE
Annunzio, Frank, Ill., E6117
Conyers, John, Jr., Mich., E6112
Dulski, Thaddeus J., N.Y., E6111
Farbstein, Leonard, N.Y., E6112
Congussionai Rtcord
Next, meeting of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
12:00 noon, Monday, July 21.
amend section 127 of title 23 of United States Code relating to
vehicle width limitations on the Interstate System in order to
increase such limitations for motorbuses, 1o a.m,, 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building.
Committee on Rules: To continue hearings on H.J. Res. 681,
direct popular election of the President and Vice president, ro:3o
a.m., H-313, Capitol.
Committee on Science and Astronautics: July 22, 23, and 24,
Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, to con-
tinue hearings on centralization of Federal science activities, to
a.m., 2325 Rayburn House Office Building.
Select Committee on Small Business July 22, 23, 24, and 25, to
hold hearings on programs and policies of the Small Business
Administration, 10 a.m., 2359 Rayburn House Office Building.
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: July 23, execu-
tive, on pending business, 2 p.m., 2360 Rayburn House Office
Building.
Committee on Ways and Means: July 21, executive, to con-
tinue executive consideration of tax reform, to a.m., committee
room, Longworth House Office Building.
Joint Committee Meetings
Joint Economic Committee: July 23 and 24, Subcommittee on
Urban Affairs, to resume hearings on industrialized housing,
1o a.m,, G-3o8 New Senate Office Building.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR SATURDAY,
JULY 19
(All meetings are open unless otherwise designated)
Senate
No meetings are scheduled.
House
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Subcommittee on
Compensation, to continue hearings on pending pay legislation,
9:3o a.m., 21o Cannon House Office Building.
Fraser, Donald M., Minn., E6109
Lowenstein, Allard K., N.Y., E6111
Robison, Howard W., N.Y., E6111
Ronan, Daniel J., Ill., E6112
Teague, Olin E., Tex., E6116
The public proceedings of each House of Congress, as reported
by the official Reporters thereof, are printed pursuant to direc-
tions of the Joint Committee
i
P
ti
on
r
n
ng as authorized by
appropriate provisions of Title 44, United States Code, and published for each day that one or both Houses are in session, ex-
cepting very infrequent instances when two or more unusuall
' email con
c
ti
i
y
se
u
ve
ssues are printed at one time. Q The
Congressional Record will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free of postage, for $1.50 per month, payable in advance, Remit
check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, directly to the Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402. For subscription purposes, 20 daily issues constitute a month. The charge for individual copies varies in proportion to the size
of the issue. Q Following each session of Congress, the daily Congressional Record is revised, printed, permanently bound and is sold
by the Superintendent of Documents in individual parts or by sets. Q With the exception of copyrighted articles, there are no re-
strictions on the republication of material from the Congressional Record.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000500160004-2