Y4 , 0'; "73 0,it

04/1° Ho utS Poo 

ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION

GOVERNMENT AND CONSERVATION EMPLOYEES

Storage

—\ HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

9 ;a USE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 3059 AND RELATED BILLS

BILLS TO AMEND SECTION 2(H) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

RETIREMENT ACT WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES OF

THE AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION

COUNTY COMMITTEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JULY 21, 1961

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

NT E • ,

•

REFERENCE 'if) •

LIBRARY ---<" 1. DEPARTMENT C.

N,

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

7',,()S3 WASHINGTON : 1961
4

t (

Ct AIMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

JAMES C. DAVIS, Georgia

JOHN LESINSKI, Michigan

KATHRYN E. GRANAHAN, Pennsylvania

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

RICHARD H. 'CHORD, Missouri

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

CATHERINE D. NORRELL, Arkansas

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York

KATHARINE ST. GEORGE, New York

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Iffinois

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 3059 AND RELATED BILLS

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Chairman

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

RICHARD H. ICHORD, Missouri

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

CATHERINE D. NORRELL, Arkansas

II

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

AUGUST E. JOHANSEN, Michigan

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

ROBERT R. BARRY, New York
CONTENTS

Statement of— 

Page Abernethy, Hon. Thomas G., Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi 

Baldwin, 15 Hon. John F., Jr., Representative in Congress from the State of California 

Dorson, 4

C. L., president, Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the United States Government 

Jones, Woodrow, 23 vice president, National Association of ASC County Employees 

Lasseter, 19

ASC 

Dillard, Washington representative, National Association of County Office Employees 

Matthews, 11 Hon. D. R. (Billy), Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 

Morrison, Hon. 6

James H., Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 

Norris, 2

C. T., president, National Association of ASC County Office Employees, Marks, Miss 

Payne, 12 Clyde R., secretary-treasurer, National Association of AgriRuddock, 

cultural Stabilization and Conservation Service County Employees_ 20 Andrew E., Director, Bureau of Retirement and Insurance, Civil Service Commission 8

UI

ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION EMPLOYEES

FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMIrrEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 215,

House Office Building, Hon. David N. Henderson (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

This subcommittee was appointed to consider H.R. 3059 and related

bills to clarify and correct certain legislative provisions affecting the

civil service retirement, group life insurance, and health benefits of

agricultural stabilization and conservation county committee employees.

The members of the subcommittee are Mr. Olsen, Mr. Ichord, Mr.

Hagan, Mrs. Norrell, Mr. Gross, Mr. Johansen, Mr. Cunningham, and

Mr. Barry, and I was designated chairman.

H.R. 3059 was introduced by Representative James H. Morrison,

ranking majority member of the House Post Office and Civil Service

Committee, who also sponsored the legislation which originally extended our Federal retirement, group life insurance, and health benefits programs to the ASC employees. The bill is designed to correct

an inequitable situation which has developed, under existing law, with

respect to the crediting for retirement purposes of service rendered

by these employees before they were brought within our retirement

system. As I understand it, very real hardships will result in a number of instances—and particularly in cases of mandatory retirement—

if this legislation is not enacted.

I think it appropriate to note, at this point, that the U.S. Civil Service Commission, in its official report, states that: "Should the Congress believe the amendments proposed by H.R. 3059 are warranted,

the Commission would interpose no objection to the bill's enactment."

The Commission estimates that approximately 11,900 persons currently employed by the county committees will have 5 or more years

of creditable civilian service by July 10, 1962, and thus be eligible to

make the deposits required for the crediting of service rendered before they were brought within our Retirement Act. Up to the present, nearly 7,000 employees have filed service credit applications and

4,100 of these have been completely processed.

1
2 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

The major changes in existing law, proposed by H.R. 3059, are

as follows:

(1) Retirement credit would be allowed for service performed

from and after May 12, 1933, as an employee of a committee or an

association of producers described in section 10(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 37).

(2) Deposit in the retirement fund would no longer be a condition

precedent to crediting service before July 10, 1960.

(3) A covered employee desiring to make deposit covering his

service before July 10, 1960, could do so whether or not he had completed 5 years' service at the time.

(The bill H.R. 3059 follows:)

[H.R. 3059, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 2(h) of the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to

employees of the agricultural stabilization and conservation county committees, and

for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2(h) of the Civil Service Retirement Act, as amended (74 Stat. 302; 5

U.S.C. 2252(h) (2) and (3) ) are amended to read as follows:

"(2) The Commission is authorized and directed to accept the certification of the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee with respect to service,

for purposes of this Act, of the type rendered by employees described in

paragraph (3) of this subsection.

"(3) Subject to the provisions of sections 4(c) and 9(f) of this Act,

service rendered prior to July 10, 1960, as an employee of a county committee established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and

Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b) ) or of a committee or an

association of producers described in section 10(b) of the Agricultural

Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 37), shall be included in computing length of creditable service for the purposes of this Act."

SEC. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, annuity benefits under

the Civil Service Retirement Act resulting from the operation of the amendment

made by this Act shall be paid from the civil service retirement and disability

fund.

Mr. HENDERSON. We have with us this morning our distinguished

colleague, Mr. Morrison, who is the author of H.R. 3059. We will

be glad to have a statement from you at this time, Mr. Morrison.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MORRISON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcomittee I

deeply appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this very

equitable and desirable legislation, H.R. 3059, which I had the

pleasure to sponsor early this year.

I may say that it is also a somewhat novel, though pleasant, experience to appear on this side of the table where I will be subject to

interrogation by my distinguished colleagues on the subcommittee. I

will endeavor to be completely responsive.

As the chairman has so ably pointed out, H.R. 3059 will remove a

serious inequity in the Civil Service Retirement Act as it relates to

the crediting of prior service by agricultural stabilization and conservation county committee employees. It will remove the major remaining obstacle to ASC employees being brought under our Federal

retirement system on the same basis as applies to all other Federal

civil service employees. This will be accomplished under the bill, by
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

striking from the present law certain provisions which require ASC

employees to meet very harsh terms in order to be credited with service they have rendered in the agricultural stabilization and conservation program prior to the time when the Civil Service Retirement Act

was extended to cover them last year.

I thank the chairman for noting, too, that I sponsored the 1960

legislation to extend our Federal retirement system to these ASC employees, who are and have been truly outstanding Federal employees

in every sense of the word for many years. The extension of basic

retirement rights to ASC employees was provided for by an amendment to last year's general pay raise measure, Public Law 86-568.

Under that provision, however, ASC employees—unlike all other Federal employes subject to the Retirement Act—may be credited—for retirement purposes—with service they rendered before Public Law 86-

568 only if, within 2 years after that act, they pay up the total amount

of retirement deduction allocable to their prior service, plus interest.

This provision constitutes an unnecessary and unjust discrimination.

against ASC employees. Other Federal employees subject to the Retirement Act are allowed to pay up retirement contribution for similar periods of prior service at any time up until they retire.

Moreover, under present law, ASC employes have no right, if they

find they are unable within 2 years to make the required deposits for

past service, to accept reduced annuities in lieu thereof. Other Federal employees subject to the Retirement Act do have the right to

accept reduced annuities in lieu of any required deposits which they

have not made.

These obviously discriminatory and unjust restrictions on the ASC

employees would be struck out by my bill, thus making the formula

for crediting prior service of ASC employees substantially identical

to the formula for other Federal employees.

It is important to emphasize two major facets of the bill:

First, it grants the ASC employees no preference or advantage over

other Federal employees. It merely places them on equal terms with

their fellow workers under the Retirement Act so far as concerns

crediting of prior service.

Second, it will result in no material additional cost to the retirement fund. The employees now have the right to pay in back deposits, but within a limited term that creates severe hardship. There

would be very little difference in cost to the retirement fund as between

payment of the deposits within 2 years and payment of the deposits

up to time of retirement.

The provisions for accepting reduced annuities in lieu of payment

of deposits for prior service actually may result in some savings to

the retirement fund. In other words, any ASC employee who elects

a reduced annuity instead of paying in required deposits for prior

service will draw less, in aggregate retirement benefits, than he would

have drawn had he made such deposits.

Therefore, based on general experience with respect to the making

of deposits for prior service and the election of reduced annuities in

lieu thereof, it is fair to say that no additional cost to the civil service

retirement fund should result from enactment of H.R. 3059.

Mr. Chairman, I plan to offer a brief amendment which I am now

preparing. The amendment, which does not alter the basic provisions
4 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

for ASC employees, will be presented to you in time for consideration

when the subcommittee acts on this legislation. I am also recommending approval of this brief amendment that I will submit.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

On behalf of the subcommittee, I would like to express our thanks

for your appearance and taking the time to prepare and support this

legislation.

Are there any questions, Mr. Gross?

Mr. GROSS. No questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Barry?

Mr. BARRY. No questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ichord ?

Mr. 'CHORD. Congressman Morrison, you say that the formula for

crediting prior service is substantially identical. What differences

are there?

Mr. MORRISON. Well, now they only have up to 2 years. A Federal

employee has a much longer period and this just puts them on the

same basis as every Federal employee.

Mr. IcHoRD. They will be identical?

Mr. MORRISON. Identical.

Mr. ICHORD. No difference?

Mr. MORRISON. No difference.

Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you so much.

We also have with us this morning our colleague, the Honorable

John F. Baldwin from the State of California.

We will be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Baldwin.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. BALDWIN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here in support

of the Morrison bill, H.R. 3059, and I believe there are copies before

the• committee of H.R. 4298 which modifies the Retirement Act. I

hope very much that the committee might consider approving that

bill and possibly approving it as an amendment to the Morrison bill

since they both apply to the Retirement Act.

I might say that I do not think my bill applies to more than five

or six employees in the whole country and it does exactly what the

title of the bill says. It says:

To extend certain retirement benefits under section 11(h) of the Civil Service

Retirement Act to employees who were separated from the service prior to July

12, 1960, but who continued in the service after July 12, 1960, without break

in service.

As the subcommittee knows, Public Law 86-622 which modified the

Retirement Act last year was approved on July 12, 1960, and therefore

those employees who retired after July 12, 1960, received their retirement on the basis of the new computations. There is one man in my

district—which has caused me to introduce this bill—who is the chief

master of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and he has been in

service 53 years. He retired because he reached age 70 on April 30,

1960, but under Civil Service Regulation 2.401, the commanding

officer of an installation has the right to retain such a person in em-
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 5

ployment if the commanding officer makes a special determination

that it is for the benefit of the civil service to do so. The commanding

officer made this determination and this chief master was reemployed

the following day, May 1, 1960, with no break in service. He has

been reemployed up to the present time without a break in service but

technically he was discharged on April 30 and reemployed on May 1.

Technically, he is barred from receiving a recomputation of his

annuity under Public Law 86-622, because he was technically discharged before July 12, the effective date.

As I say, I do not think there are six people in the country who

fall into this classification, but I have submitted this bill to the Civil

Service Commission and it is my understanding—I have talked with

Mr. Ruddock this morning—that the Civil Service Commission has

filed a report saying they have no objection to this bill. I do think

it corrects an inequity because, as a matter of reality, this man has

been in service consecutively from 1908 up to now, not April 30, 1960.

That was just a technicality, the fact he was discharged that day

and reemployed the next day. Therefore, I think he has as much

right as any other persons in consecutive service up to now and should

receive the computation of his retirement annuity on the date the

act became effective, July 12, 1960.

I hope very much that your subcommittee might consider this bill

favorably and I would be very pleased if you would adopt it as an

amendment to the Morrison bill so they might go forward together

since they both amend the Retirement Act.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, MT. Baldwin.

The committee has at hand the report of the Civil Service Commission referred to and it is a favorable report.

It is without objection to your bill and the subcommittee will consider your bill at the proper time when we go into executive session.

Are there any questions of our colleague?

Mr. GROSS. You say he was discharged and actually retired, or was

actually being retired is that correct?

Mr. BALDWIN. He reached the age at which he would normally be

discharged, on April 30, 1960, but under Civil Service Regulation

2.401, a commanding officer of an installation has the right to make a,

determination that even though a person has reached the normal retirement age, for the benefit of the civilian service he should be continued in service. The commanding officer made that decision and,

therefore, he was reemployed under this particular regulation the

following day with no break in service. He just reported to work

the next day without interruption and because of that technical discharge on 1 day and reemployment the next day, he is technically

barred from the provisions of the Retirement Act that became effective July 12, even though everybody else working alongside of him

that came to work each day qualified under the new act.

The purpose of this is to just make sure he has the same privileges

that the people working alongside of him day after day would have

under the act that became effective July 12, 1960.

Mr. HENDERSON. I believe that it would be a "mandatory retirement," as we refer to it, because of his age, 70?

Mr. BALDWIN. That is correct.

73083-61----2
6 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Mr. GROSS. His discharge does not have the connotation it might

have otherwise?

Mr. BALDWIN. No; he reached mandatory retirement age, 70, but

the commanding officer under this particular regulation has the right

to make a special determination for the good of the civilian service

that a man should be continued on • duty, which was done in this

case. This man is the chief master of Mare Island Naval Shipyard

with 10,000 civilian employees under his jurisdiction. He worked

there over 50 years and he is an amazing person.

Mr. GROSS. You say there are only five others?

Mr. BALDWIN. I do not think there are six people in the United

States that would fall in a similar classification. The Civil Service

Commission said, conservatively, there are not over 20.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Olsen?

Mr. OLSEN. No questions.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BAir_Dwirr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. We also have with us this morning the Honorable

Billy Matthews from the State of Florida, who has introduced H.R.

2542 and who is a distinguished member of the Agriculture Committee of the House.

We are glad to hear from you on this bill, Mr. Matthews.

STATEMENT OF HON. D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,

this morning I want to appear to support the bill by our distinguished

colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Morrison, H.R. 3059.

Then I would like to make some comments, if I may, about my

bill, H.R. 2542.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my interest in the legislation that this

committee passed last year to help our ASC employees was inspired

by my knowledge of these ASC county employees as a result of my

service on the Committee on Agriculture.

As you know, our committee is concerned with the authorization

legislation which sometimes gets very complicated, and I know I

do not need to state to this distinguished committee that these ASC

county employees are the action committee, who carry out the policies

of this legislation.

I wish I had time today to tell you of some of the terrifying incidents they have had in trying to point out to a farmer that he has overplanted his tobacco or that he has planted an undesirable type of

tobacco. Needless to say, you gentlemen have recognized the fact

that they are on the firing line and last year I think you took a

tremendous step forward in giving them the equity that they deserve.

For many years I was connected with the Agricultural Extension

Service and I was the assistant State 4—H Club agent for Florida.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for our Agricultural

Extension Service. Through the years, I have seen the development

of the ASC work on the same type of Federal basis and it seems to

me on a comparable basis with our Agricultural Extension Service.

So, you took this progressive step last year to give the ASC employees
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 7

comparable benefits and I hope you will go this other mile of the way this year and pass H.R. 3059 submitted by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Morrison.

As has already been pointed out in the legislation passed last year,

our ASC county employees were given certain civil service retire- ment benefits. They were given health insurance benefits and life insurance benefits, but that legislation did not give them the benefits that H.R. 3059 seeks specifically to grant them that is, adequate time to pay into the retirement fund for service prior to July 10, 1960. As has been stated, they were only given a period of 2 years, and I

have had called to my attention several ASC county employees who would have to pay $6,000 or $7,000 into the fund.

Mr. Chairman, as a Congressman it would take me about 50 years, I am afraid, to raise that amount for my own retirement fund.

H.R. 2542 corrects this problem and would give the ASC county employee, until retirement date, the alternative of repayment in full for his full retirement, or no repaying with a 10-percent reduction in annuity.

Mr. Chairman, my bill, H.R. 2542, would go another mile of the

way and the purpose of my bill would grant ASC county employees, in computing length of credible service, all benefits that other civil service people get where length of service affects the employee. I

have in mind particularly retention benefits and leave benefits.

I sincerely hope the subcommittee will look into this subject matter

of my bill to see if the provisions contemplated might still be liberalized.

Let me say that if you do not feel the time is propitious to go that second mile, I would gladly join with my colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Morrison, and say we are so grateful for your going the first mile. Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I would like to acknowledge the

presence here of my dear friend, Mr. Clyde Payne, who is the secre- tary-treasurer of the National Association of ASCS County Em- ployees and who is from my district, one of the great gems in the

crown of my area from Hamilton County and the city of Jasper, Fla., where they produce some fine flue-cured tobacco and many other commodities.

Mr. TTENDERSON. Thank you Mr. Matthews.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you, 

you,

Chairman.

Mr. GROSS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record).

Mr. GROSS. On the record.

Mr. Matthews, are you suggesting we put ASC employees under civil service? The Government now has nothing to do with the hiring and firing of these people • is that correct?

Mr. MATTHEWS. If I had my "rathers," Mr. Gross, I would rather

we just put them under civil service for all of these retirement benefits.

Mr. GROSS. That is what I thought.

Mr. MATTHEWS. As a States rights man, I would like to keep the hiring of them as close to the local level as we could.

Mr. GROSS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Johansen?

Mr. JOHANSEN. I have no questions, but it is always a pleasure to

see the gentleman from Florida before the committee.
8 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

MATTHEws. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Barry?

Mr. BARRY. I just want to say that the Congressman from Michigan

echoes my sentiments.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. MArrHEws. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

Mr. HENDERSON. At this time we will hear from Mr. Andrew Ruddock, Director, Bureau of Retirement and Insurance, U.S. Civil

Service Commission.

Mr. Ruddock, it is good to have you before the committee.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. RUDDOCK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. RUDDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I do not have a prepared statement but with the permission

of the chairman I would like to ask that the Commission's report of

June 6, 1961, on H.R. 3059 be made a part of the record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, it is SO ordered.

(The report follows:)

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., June 6, 1961.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Conum,ittee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives, House Office Building.

DEAR Ma. MURRAY: This refers further to your request of January 27, 1961,

for Commission report on H.R. 3059, a bill "To amend section 2(h) of the Civil

Service Retirement Act with respect to employees of the agricultural stabilization and conservation county committees, and for other purposes."

By section 115 of Public Law 86-568, approved July 1, 1960, over Presidential

veto, Congress accorded coverage under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the

Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act, and the Federal Employees'

Health Benefits Act to employees of agricultural stabilization and conservation

county committees. This provision became effective July 10, 1960, the first day

of the first pay period beginning after its enactment date.

These committees were created under authority contained in section 8(b)

of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of February 29, 1936 (16

U.S.C. 590h (b) ). Public Law 86-568 accorded retirement credit for service

performed by employees of such committees, that is, from February 29, 1936,

forward. As conditions precedent to actual allowance of this credit, an employee must, prior to July 11, 1962, (a) have to his credit at least 5 years'

civilian service (including committee employee service) and (b) complete deposit in the retirement fund to cover his committee employee service between

February 29, 1936, and July 9, 1960.

H.R. 3059 proposes the following changes:

(1) Retirement credit would be allowed for service performed from and

after May 12, 1933, as an employee of a committee or an association of producers

described in section 10(b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933

(48 Stat. 37).

(2) Deposit in the retirement fund would no longer be a condition precedent

to crediting service before July 10, 1960.

(3) A covered employee desiring to make deposit covering his service before

July 10, 1960, could do so whether or not he had completed 5 years' service at

the time.

The Commissioners have no definite recommendation to make respecting item

1. Commission adverse report of May 20, 1959, to your committee on seven bills

then pending in the 86th Congress to accord agricultural stabilization and

conservation county committee employees retirement and insurance coverage,

explained in detail why such persons were not Federal employees and should

not be granted these Federal employee benefits. The report also discussed at

length the status of producers' associations formed under the Agricultural
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 9

Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933. In short, the Commission noted that either

employees of producers' associations or of county committees, who were and are

hired and supervised by non-Federal officials, did not meet any of the tests of

Government employment. Accordingly, since the Congress saw fit to legislate

as creditable county committee employee service from 1936, the Commission

can only comment that service for the producers' associations from 1933 to 1936

appears no less deserving.

As regards items 2 and 3, the Commission sees the problem as mainly ad- ministrative. With the one exception of service performed by these county committee employees, the Civil Service Retirement Act now credits all nondeduction

civilian service whether or not the employee makes deposit in the retirement

fund to cover same; failure to make the deposit results only in the employee's

annuity being reduced by 10 percent of the deposit figure. The exception as regards county committee employee service with its time requirement which places

a hardship on many such persons created additional work in this office and in employing agencies. Since the legislative body has determined that this service

shall be treated as Federal employment for retirement purposes, no reason is

apparent why distinction in the deposit area should be made between it and

other creditable service.

During the consideration of H.R. 9883 (86th Cong.), and based on data furnished by the Department of Agriculture, we estimated that about 11,900

persons currently employed by the county committees would have at least 5

years of creditable civilian service by July 10, 1962, and thus be eligible to make

the deposit required for crediting county committee service. It was further

estimated that the cost to the retirement fund would be $7,600 per employee

electing to deposit. The estimate of eligibles was later revised upward to include as many as a possible 40,000 Federal employees not currently employed

by the county committees but with past county committee service of varying

lengths.

To date nearly 7,000 employees have filed service credit applications for county

committee service, and 4,100 have been completely processed. Deposit records

are not maintained by the Commission separately for these persons, and we

do not know what portion of this group has made complete or partial payments.

The cost of H.R. 3059 depends on the number of eligibles who would not have

made deposit when it became effective, and who would not elect to deposit under

the present law. We have no basis for estimating this number, but for each

1,000 cases in this category the cost to the retirement fund of H.R. 3059 would be

about $7,600,000.

Should the Congress believe the amendments proposed by H.R. 3059 are warranted, the Commission would interpose no objection to the bill's enactment. It

should be clearly understood that (1) our comments on this proposal do not

constitute any change in the Commission's consistent view that retirement

coverage or credit for non-Federal employment should be denied, (2) lack of

definite recommendation as to crediting producers association service results

only from inability to distinguish between their status and that of county committees, and (3) congressional action in this area will not be considered as a

precedent regarding other outside employment proposals.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission:

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. RIIDDOCK. As has already been pointed out to the committee,

H.R. 3059 would do, basically, three things:

No. 1, it would permit the crediting of service as an employee of

a producer's association between 1933 and 1936, and on that particular point the Commission makes no definite recommendation. We

are unable to find any basis for distinguishing between producer's

association service under the 1933 act and the A SC county committee

service under the 1936 act.

On the next two points, making the changes of deleting (1) the requirement that the employee make deposit within 2 years in order to

receive credit for his past service, and (2) the requirement that he
10 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

have completed 5 years' service before he be eligible to make a deposit, we would go along with those changes.

If these three changes were made, the county committee employee

would be put in the same position, so far as his past service is concerned, as any other employee under the Civil Service Retirement

Act.

One of the related bills which has not been mentioned this morning, H.R. 3936, would accomplish the same three purposes as H.R.

3059, plus one further purpose of making prior county committee

and producer's association service creditable for other than retirement purposes. This would be primarily for leave and retention.

The Commission would object to extension of credit for these purposes primarily on the ground, as I think Mr. Matthews pointed out

pretty clearly, these people are not considered to be Federal employees in the full sense because of the method of their hiring. They

are not currently under the leave and retention laws and regulations

which apply to Federal employees. Crediting of past service for

those purposes would become valuable to the county committee employee only if he leaves the service of the county committee and

becomes a Federal employee, in which case he is subject to the leave

and retention laws and regulations.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Gross.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Ruddock, are H.R. 3059 and H.R. 3936 identical?

Mr. RUDDOCK. H.R. 3936 has this one provision for crediting the

service for other purposes, which is not in H.R. 3059.

Mr. GROSS. For other purposes?

Mr. HENDERSON. That language is the same as the language in the

Matthews bill?

Mr. RUDDOCK. I believe it is; at least, the same purpose is served.

In summary, if the Congress were to decide to enact H.R. 3059, there

would be no objection on the part of the Commission. We would

object to an extension of credit for leave and retention purposes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you Mr. Ruddock.

Are there further questions, Mr. Gross?

Mr. GROSS. Yes, at the expense of repetition, your opposition, or

your first opposition to the bill, is what? Would you restate that

briefly?

Mr. RuppocK. We have not stated any objection to H.R. 3059.

Mr. GROSS. Yes; but you stated an objection at the start of your

testimony, I thought.

Mr. RUDDOCK. I said that the Commission would make no definite

recommendation with respect to crediting of producer association

service from 1933 to 1936.

Mr. GROSS. I see.

Mr. RUDDOCK. Would you like for me to amplify that?

Mr. GROSS. If you care to

Mr. Ruppocx. Neither service for the county committee nor for the

producer's association is Federal service and the Commission has consistently opposed extension of retirement coverage or retirement credit

to any service which is not Federal. So, to be consistent, we cannot

recommend that credit be given for the producer's association service.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 11

However, it is now the law of the land that county committee service

is creditable for Retirement Act purposes.

We can make no distinction between county committee service and

producer's association service.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Ruddock.

Mr. RUDDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

Mr. HENDERSON. At this time, we will hear from Mr. Dillard Lasseter, Washington representative, National Association of ASC County Office Employees.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GROSS. Before Mr. Lasseter starts his testimony could I ask

Mr. Ruddock a question about H.R. 4298?

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes.

Mr. GROSS. Did you comment on the Baldwin bill?

Mr. RUDDOCK. No, I did not.

Mr. GROSS. What would be your reaction? You heard his testimony?

Mr. RUDDOCK. Yes, sir. The Commission has also submitted a report on Mr. Baldwin's bill, H.R. 4298, in which we state we would have

no objection to its enactment. It would apply to a very few people.

It would apply primarily to people who reached mandatory retirement age before July 1960 and who were retired because of the provision of the Retirement Act which requires mandatory retirement at

the end of the month in which the person reaches age 70 if he has then

completed 15 years of service.

The bill would also require that the employee be immediately reemployed. We estimate conservatively that there cannot be more

than 20 such people in the United States. The reason we think the

number is so small is that the bill would only benefit a person whose

total service is more than 41 years and 11 months. There are not too

many people who had 41 years and 11 months of service, who had

reached the age of 70, were retired mandatorily, and whose services

were in demand to the point they were reemployed without a. break in

service.

Mr. GROSS. The Commission would have no objection to that?

Mr. RUDDOCK. No objection.

Mr. GROSS. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Ruddock.

Mr. GROSS. I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr. Lasseter.

Mr. LASSETER. Quite all right.

Mr. HENDERSON. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF DILLARD LASSETER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASC COUNTY OFFICE

EMPLOYEES

Mr. LASSETER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for

the sake of time I have no statement but I would like to introduce

the gentlemen who represent this organization in the field. I regret
12 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

they will not have the same distinguished introduction as the gentleman from Florida has had, but I will say this: If their Congressmen were present, I am sure that they would say the same thing

about them.

I would now like to present Mr. C. T. Norris of Marks, Miss., who

will follow me here. He is president of the National Association of

Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Committee Employees; Mr.

Woodrow Jones, vice president, New Boston, Tex., who will also

have a brief statement.

You have heard about Mr. Payne from the gentleman from Florida.

Then we have Mr. Nelson Barker from Trenton, N.C., who is president of the North Carolina association as well as Mr. Warren Greer

from Franklinton, La., who is president of the Louisiana organization and southeastern director of NASCOE.

Mr. HENDERSON. In that connection, Mr. Lasseter, I would like to

add to your introduction of my constituent, Mr. Barker, that he is

certainly known in our State as an outstanding office manager of the

ASC. I might say I am glad to have him present with the other

gentleman this morning.

Mr. LASSETER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. MT. Norris, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF C. T. NORRIS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF ASC COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES, MARKS, MISS.

Air. NORRIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my

name is C. T. Norris. I am the county office manager of the Quitman

County, Miss., Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.

I am also the president of the National Association of ASCS County

Office Employees. This organization represents the approximately

15,000 employees of county ASCS offices in the 48 States in which

there are ASCS county offices, in matters concerning general welfare

of these employees.

Our appearance before you today is in the interest of H.R. 3059,

and other similar bills, which are to amend section 2(b) of the Civil

Service Retirement Act with respect to employees of the agricultural

stabilization and conservation county committees. The 1960 bill

passed by Congress to adjust the rates of basic compensation of postal

and other employees, including ASCS employees, also amended the

Civil Service Act in regard to placing these ASCS employees under

the provisions of the Retirement Act. The 1960 Pay Act would, however, require employees of ASCS county offices to purchase all backtime credit by July 1962, or lose said back-time credit toward retirement. These employees were not permitted to deposit deductions

toward retirement credit during this period prior to July 1960.

The new bill removes the remaining obstacles to ASCS employees

coming under the Federal civil service retirement system on the same

basis as applies to all other Federal civil service employees.

I might mention these county employees are no more county ASCS

employees or civil government employees than the postmaster of New

York City is a New York City employee. They are Government

workers altogether and this bill would accomplish these things.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 13

This will be accomplished, under the bill, by striking from the law

certain inequitable provisions which required ASCS employees to

meet very harsh terms to gain retirement coverage.

Under existing law, which recognizes ASCS employees as Federal

workers, ASCS employees may be credited—for retirement purposes—

with service rendered before the 1960 act only if within 2 years after

the act, they pay up the total amount of retirement deductions allocable to such prior service, plus interest.

Other Federal employees under the Retirement Act are allowed to

pay the amount due as retirement deductions for such prior periods

of service at any time up until they retire.

Moreover, under present law, ASCS employees have no right, if

they find they are unable within 2 years to make the required deposits

for past service, to accept reduced annuities in lieu thereof. Other

Federal employees subject to the Retirement Act do have the right

to accept reduced annuities in lieu of any required deposits which they have not made.

These obviously discriminatory and unjust restrictions on the

ASCS employees would be struck out by this bill, thus making the formula for crediting prior service to ASCS employees substantially identical to the formula for other Federal employees.

It is important to emphasize two major facets of the bill. First, it grants the ASCS employees no preference or advantage

over other Federal employees. It merely places them on equal terms with their coworkers under the Retirement Act so far as concerns crediting of prior service.

Second, it will result in no material additional cost to the retirement fund. The employees now have the right to pay in back deposits, but within a limited term that may create severe hardship. There would be very little difference in cost to the retirement fund as between pay- ment of the deposits within 2 years and payment of the deposits up to time of retirement.

The provision for accepting reduced annuities in lieu of payment of deposits for prior service actually may result in savings in costs to the retirement fund. In other words, any ASCS employee who elects

a reduced annuity instead of paying in required deposits for prior service will draw less, in aggregate retirement benefits, than he would have drawn had he made such deposits.

We are informed that the Civil Service Retirement Act is based on a life expectancy of 10 years beyond retirement which has now risen to 13 years. The civil service fund would gain those additional 3

years if it were not paid. Therefore, based on general experience with respect to the making of deposits for prior service and the elec- tion of reduced annuities in lieu thereof, it is fair to say that no addi- tional cost to the civil service retirement fund will result from enact- ment of the bill.

If this bill is enacted into law, we believe that most employees will elect to buy their back time and pay the required interest if given this extra time to pay it.

Mr. Chairman, we have conducted a survey, which covers 13,797 employees—or approximately 99 percent of the county employees— which shows that only 3,405 of these employees can buy their back time before July 1962.

73083-61----3
14 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

(The survey is as follows:)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASC COUNTY OFFICE EMPLOYEES

1. State: National. Counties 3, 000

2. Employees service record:

Less than 1 year 789

1 to 5 years 4,943

5 to 10 years 4, 134

10 to 20 years 2, 762

Over 20 years 1, 169

Total 13,797

3. Number who will buy back time by July 1962 3, 405

4. Number who must borrow money to buy back time (18.89 percent) 2,788

5. Average interest rate to be paid (percent) 6. 5

6. Bind of collateral to be used for loan:

Home 

Farmland 

Other 

7. Number who cannot buy back time by July 1962, but who would

buy if given until retirement at 3 percent 7, 021

8. Average years service of employees in item 7 (years) 10. 1

9. Approximate average amount owed by each employee in item 7_

Total 

10. Number of employees not interested in buying back time:

Less than 1 year service 

$2,

$14, 996,

136

856

486

1 to 5 years service 1,541

5 to 10 years service 755

10 to 20 years service 210

Over 20 years service 46

Total 3,038

Reasons: Various; 13,464 employees accounted for. The difference

is those ineligible to pay back time, but who wished to, if possible.

Analysis:

1. Employees would like to buy back time 10,426

(a) Will buy before July 1962 (32% percent) 3,405

( b) Would take advantage of proper legislation 

2. Those buying back time by July 1962 would have to borrow

7,021

the money (81.89 percent) 

3. Employees who cannot buy back time unless the law is

changed (owe an estimated $14,996,856 to the retirement

2,788

fund 

4. Note small number of long-time employees who are not inter7,021

ested ( only 46 with over 20 years service). These are

probably facing immediate mandatory retirement.

Mr. NORRIS. A lot more than that have applied for their service

credit but have not bought it. Of these 3,405, only 617 have the money

to buy this back time and 2,788 say they have sufficient collateral to

borrow the money to buy this back time. The interest to be paid would

average 6.5 percent. The number who say they would take advantage

of an opportunity to buy this back time if given until retirement is

7,021. These employees have an average of 10.1 years of service,

1,169 of whom have over 20 years of service. These 7,021 employees

now owe an average of $2,136, or a total of $14,996,856. The 3,038

persons who state they could not, or would not, buy their back time are

short-term employees who do not plan to continue a career as Government employees, or older employees facing immediate retirement under
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 15

social security, or persons who did not understand the retirement program available.

Briefly then, of the 10,426 who would like to buy back time, only

32% percent can, and 7,021, or 51 percent, would like to. Eighty-one

and eighty-nine one-hundredths percent of those who can would have

to borrow the money at almost twice the interest that civil service employees pay.

We believe we made a good case in proving that ASCS county office

employees were in fact Federal employees when we appeared before

your full committee last year, since they included our group in their

legislation. We will not again burden you with a lengthy discussion

on this since you may refer to your hearing of Tuesday, March 15,

1960. We would like to close our discussion by saying that since we

have been so recognized, we earnestly petition you gentlemen to consider our plea and grant us equal consideration for retirement with

other Federal workers.

We ask, also, that since there will be a few of the 31 people who

face mandatory retirement on July 31 of this year, who cannot pay

their back time, but have served from 25 to 28 years for the Government, that you approve Mr. Morrison's amendment to this act which

would make it effective July 1, 1960, which is prior to the mandatory

retirement date of July 31.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Norris.

Before we have questions, we recognize the Honorable Thomas Abernethy from the State of Mississippi who has come in. He, too, has

introduced a bill before the subcommittee for consideration, H.R.

3936. He is a distinguished member of the House Agriculture Committee, also, and at this time we would like to recognize our colleague

for any comments he would like to make on the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the privilege you have

given me and I want to apologize to the committee, and particularly

to Mr. Norris my fellow Mississippian, for not having been here earlier

and having had the privilege of presenting him to the committee.

He has done a tremendous job in this field and has made a great contribution to eliminating what I have always felt to be some inequities

visited upon the ASC employees of the country. As a member of the

Committee on Agriculture for a good many years, I have been very

close to the ASC program and particularly those who carry out the

work of the program. While not in the slightest belittling or casting

any reflection on the services rendered by other agricultural agencies

of the Government, certainly none has surpassed the ASC in the tremendous contribution it has made to American farmers, to agriculture

in general, and to the consumers. The people who have accomplished

this work are those who work in the offices out in the field with the

ASC.

They have been seeking legislation along this line a number of years

and I believe it was last year the first step was taken sometime during

the last Congress, which very materially improved their status and
16 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

gave them a character of security that was somewhat comparable to

those of other Federal employees.

We are all familiar with the details of this bill and I shall not go

into that. I introduced one of the bills and I might more or less say

I copied somebody's bill, as we frequently do here, but I am interested

in the program and the employees and I hope that the committee will

see fit to report Mr. Morrison's bill in the form in which it was

introduced.

I thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you SO much, Mr. Abernethy.

Are there any questions of Mr. Abernethy before he leaves?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to have our colleague here with us.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any questions of Mr. Norris?

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman I would like to ask one question. I

supported legislation last year and I intend to support this legislation.

I am not sure whether this question should be directed to you or should

have been directed to Mr. Ruddock, but I think it might contribute

something to the record. If it is feasible, could you give some indication of the dollar value of benefits involved here? I have a little

problem in knowing just how to phrase my question, but basically it

is this: Could you give, either in dollars or in percentages, some understanding of what a person who had been employed for 20 years would

gain? How much additional percentage of retirement benefits would

he gain by being able to reinstate, let us say, 18 of those 20 years

which he might not be able to do without this legislation? In other

words, in terms of monthly benefits he would draw on retirement, how

much of an increase would this sort of reinstatement involve as against

what he would receive without it?

Mr. NORRIS. I am not sure I can give you the exact figures except to

say this: I have now almost 27 years of service and by the time I

am 60 I will have had 40 years of service. I owe just a little over

$6,700, according to my computation in back-time credit payments

as of last September, but should I buy those back-time credits, my

retirement annuity would be somewhere around—by the time I am

60—$4,800 to $5,000. If I should not get credit for this back time,

and only have 13 years more service, my annuity would not be very

much over $100 a month.

Mr. JOHANSEN. That serves to illustrate the point I am trying to

make, that in terms of benefits for any employee with 10 years or

more of service, it is a substantial percentage increase?

Mr. NORRIS. Yes, sir. There is a considerable amount of money

involved.

On my last page, it states that 7,021 people said they would like to

buy their back time and they have an average of 10.1 years' service

and owe an average of $2,136. That is just a little less than $15

million they owe. That is a lot of money for a group of ASC county

employees whose salaries in the past 3 years have progressed to a

reasonable status, to have saved, and most of the people just absolutely

cannot buy their back time at present.

Many a them may be able to before retirement but if they do not,

and took the reduced annuity, they would pay for it by reduced

annuity.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 17

Mr. JOHANSEN. I want to ask one further question. Do the mechanics of the process permit of catching up on these back payments

through payroll deductions?

Mr. NORRIS. No, sir; they do not through payroll deductions. I do

not know whether Mr. Ruddock could tell us if they could make

private arrangements with the Civil Service Commission to pay it in

installments or if they must make a lump-sum payment.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I should be glad to hear what Mr. Ruddock has

to say about that.

Mr. RureocK. They do not have to pay in a lump sum. When the

person files his application we figure out the amount due, with interest

to the month in which we make the calculation. We advise the applicant of the amount due and he can either pay it in a lump sum or he

can make partial payment at such times and in such amounts as he

chooses.

Let us say in a 5-year period he makes partial payments until the

first amount calculated is paid up. Then when he pays that we calculate the interest due up to the time of his final payment and send

him a bill for the interest then due. In other words, interest continues to accrue on the unpaid amount until it is paid, but it is not

set up so that he has to pay so much a month every month. He can

make partial payments at such times and in such amounts as he

chooses.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Do I understand the employee who completes this

catch-up process does thereby become eligible to benefit from the

Government's share of the contribution to his ultimate retirement for

that back period?

Mr. RUDDOCK. That is the effect of it.

Mr. JOHANSEN. And conversely, therefore, if by reason of this situation due primarily to oversight he is not able to do so, he forfeits that

Government-niatching portion?

Mr. RUDDOCK. He forfeits all annuity in regard to the prior service.

Mr. JoHANsurr. Including that which the Government as employer

would have contributed?

Mr. RUDDOCK. That is right.

One of the most important items in computing annuity is length of

service. In general terms, the value to the employee of this past service at the time he retires will be 2 percent of his average annual salary

for a 5-year period for each year of past service. If his average

salary at retirement is $10,000-1 use that figure because it is an easy

one to work from—each year of prior service for which he buys credit

will increase his annuity by $200 or 2 percent of the $10,000 salary.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I appreciate having that in the record because I

think it supports rather tangibly the importance of this legislation.

Mr. RUDDOCK. If his average salary is $5,000, the value of each year

of prior service is $100 added to his annuity.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. HENDERSON. MT. Barry.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I, too, was on this committee last year

and I supported the changes that were put through.

I would like to ask, if I may, what is the final date when someone

could pay up in order for the past service to be included for full

retirement?
18 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Mr. NORRIS. Under this bill, up until the individual's retirement.

Hr. HENDERSON. What is it under the present law, Mr. Norris?

Mr. NORRIS. Under the present law ASCS employees have until

July 10, 1962, but under this bill he would have until retirement.

Mr. RUDDOCK. It is actually more liberal under the bill as amended.

He does not have to make the payment before the day of his final

separation. He can be separated and file his application for annuity

and indicate he wants to pay it at that time and then, as part of

adjudicating his claim, we will advise him of the amount due. He

can be separated and need not pay it on or before the day of separation but he must pay it before we draw the first annuity check.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ichord.

Mr. ICHORD. When and how will the Government make contributions?

Mr. RUDDOCK. Is the question addressed to me?

Mr. ICHORD. Yes.

Mr. RUDDOCK. With respect to past service, the Government does

not match on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Actually, the way the Retirement Act is constructed the benefit schedule is spelled out in the

law. The obligation of the employee to make certain payments is

spelled out. That part of an individual's retirement benefit which

is not paid for by his own contribution is paid for by the Government. It is not done on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. We do

have the matching basis for current contributions as a means of

getting income into the retirement fund. Since July 1957, for each

dollar an employee puts in the fund through deductions from his

salary, his agency pays in a dollar from the agency appropriation.

Mr. BARRY. Are you familiar with the amount in the fund today?

Mr. RUDDOCK. $11 billion is the balance in the fund at the present

time.

Mr. BARRY. And what would be the extent of the guarantees?

Mr. RUDDOCK. The estimated deficiency is $32 billion. In terms of

these amounts, what we are talking about this morning would be

pretty difficult to calculate.

Mr. HENDERSON. A very small amount?

Mr. RUDDOCK. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any further questions?

Mr. ICHORD. If I understand you correctly, the estimated deficiency

is $32 billion?

Mr. RUDDOGK. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. Any further questions?

Mr. BARRY. I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. It is alarming to me

to learn we have contingent liabilities of that size.

Mr. Ruppocx. You can get a debate at any time on the question

of whether it should be fully funded; in other words, whether instead of having a balance of $11 billion in the fund we should have $43

billion. If this were a private employer who might go out of business, we would really have something to worry about, but as long as

the Federal Government continues, as it will, this is not particularly

alarming. If the Federal Government should go out of business it

would not make any difference how much money were in the fund.

Mr. BARRY. It is a claim on the public purse that must be met.

Mr. RUDDOCK. That is right, sir.

Mr. BARRY. How many other funds such as this are there?
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 19

Mr. RUDDOCK. This is, of course, the primary staff retirement fund

for Federal civilian employees. I cannot answer your question

intelligently.

Mr. BARRY. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Norris.

Mr. Norms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jones and Mr. Payne have testimony that covers different areas

than I have covered.

Mr. HENDERSON. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Jones at this

time.

STATEMENT OF WOODROW JONES, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF ASC COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Mr. Jos. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name

is Woodrow Jones. For the past 18/12years, I have been the office

manager of the Bowie County, Tex., Agricultural Stabilization and

Conservation Service office. Prior to that time, I had worked for

3 years for the Upshur County ASCS office where I served in all

capacities from chairman in the field to chief clerk in the office. I

am appealing to you, as vice president of our National Employees

Association—NASCOE--in behalf of the ASCS employees in over

3,000 field offices who administer the agricultural programs formulated

by USDA and the Congress.

First, I want to say, we are deeply grateful to this committee and.

the Congress for the enactment of Public Law 86-568 which. recog- nized the eligibility of our people to participate in the civil service retirement program and also made available to us some of the other benefits accorded other Federal employees. We appreciated the op- portunity to begin contributing to the retirement fund on July 10,

1960. It had been our desire all through the years to be making systematic contributions to a retirement program. Even though the

Federal Government, through the Department of Agriculture, has maintained our offices in each agricultural county in the Nation since

1933, we, the employees, were not permitted to contribute toward civil service retirement until you enacted the legislation referred to above. Had we been permitted to do so, the condition that now creates hard- ship would have been averted.

Today, we are asking you to give favorable consideration to H.R. 3059 with which you are familiar. As you know, other Federal em- ployees under the Retirement Act are allowed to pay the amount due

as retirement deductions for prior periods of service—except ASCS service—at any time up until they retire and they also have the right

to accept reduced annuities in lieu of any required deposits which they have not made. We only hope that we can be given these same privileges.

As you noted from Mr. Norris' testimony, many of us have worked for what is now ASCS all of our adult lives, and if we avail ourselves of the opportunity you have extended us in Public Law 86-568 to "purchase" credit for our past service it will require a relatively large

sum of money—in many individual cases from $5,000 to almost $7,000 plus interest. Under the present provisions, the total amount includ- ing interest must be paid within the next 50 weeks. We have not been
20 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

able to save this amount of money. Neither will many of us be able

to borrow it without undue hardship. Also, a great number of these

same employees, and myself among them, find ourselves at the stage

in life that our expenses are probably relatively higher than they

should be at any other period during our lives barring unexpected

illnesses or disaster. At the same time that we are facing the expense

of our children's education, meeting our home payments, and other

current expenses, we will be required to raise enough ready cash to

make this necessary deposit with the Civil Service Commission to cover

all our past service in less time than 1 year. For many of us, this will

be impossible. So, it is apparent, that unless the members of this

committee act favorably on this legislation, we will have to forgo

credit for our past service, thereby making it necessary that our retirement benefits be based on the period of our employment beginmng

July 10, 1960, and continuing until retirement age.

We sincerely petition you to act favorably on H.R. 3059 which will,

if enacted, prevent undue hardship on many people who have given

long service as career employees.

Again, I wish to express my gratitude for permitting me to impose

on your busy schedule.

Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

I might say for the purpose of the record that the suggestion made

by Mr. Norris with respect to the technical amendment relative to the

few who will be mandatorily retired, that suggested amendment by

Mr. Norris will be considered by the committee, and I understand from

counsel it is a matter of technical language he will furnish the committee when the committee meets in executive session.

Any questions of Mr. Jones?

Mr. BARRY. No. I think all the witnesses have given us a very complete story and we have the matter well in mind.

Mr. HENDERSON. At this time we will be glad to hear from Mr.

Payne.

STATEMENT OF CLYDE R. PAYNE, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND

CONSERVATION SERVICE COUNTY EMPLOYEES

Mr. PAYNE. I am Clyde R. Payne, Hamilton County ASCS office

manager, Jasper, Fla., and secretary-treasurer of the National Association of ASCS County Employees. I might add I live in the

next county to the man who had trouble in his ear that Congressman

Matthews talked about.

The National Association of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Employees, commonly called NASCOE, is a voluntary

organization of county Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation

Service employees, hereafter referred to as ASCS employees. The

sole purpose of this organization is to promote the welfare of its members. Each State of the United States, except Alaska and Hawaii, has

formed a State organization of ASCS county employees, and each

State organization pays into the NASCOE treasury $3 per member

from their respective State. All officers of NASCOE and the State

organizations are full-time employees and receive no salary and any
ANNVITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 21

time they are working on organization affairs they are on leave at no

expense to the Government. Each State affiliated with NASCOE

has two members on the board of directors of NASCOE. NASCOE

has national officers and an executive committee representing the five

ASCS geographic areas of the United States. They are: Don Rapp,

northwest area; Ervin Duncan, southwest area; W. L. Jones, northeast area; Thelma Sutter

'

midwest area; W. P. Greer, southwest area;

C. T. Norris, president; Woodrow Jones, vice president; and Clyde

R. Payne secretary-treasurer.

As stated previously, no member of NASCOE receives any salary,

but each member does receive actual out-of-pocket expenses. NASCOE has, on a retainer basis, Dillard B. Lasseter, Post Office Box 381,

Washington 4, D.C., and he keeps us advised on. legislative activity

and assists us in legislative work.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service people

carry out various Federal programs assigned to them by the Congress,

Secretary of Agriculture, Executive orders, and so forth. The headquarters for ASCS is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Building, Washington, D.C. Then, there are State ASCS offices and county

ASCS offices—all administering only Federal programs with county,

city or State governments having no connection with the National,

State, or county level of ASCS.

ASCS employees on county level administer directly to farmers

of the United States a great number of the gigantic USDA farm

programs, such as the soil bank, agricultural conservation marketing

quotas—tobacco, cotton, wheat, peanuts and rice—Commodity Credit

loans, wool incentive payments, sugar

'

feed grain, and so forth. This

is practically all the action programs of USDA.

Last year, and we shall always be deeply grateful, this committee

and the Congress determined that ASCS—at that time were ASG—

employees on the county level should have the retirement benefits of

the civil service retirement system. This action which was part of

the Federal pay bill of 1960, or H.R. 9883 (amended), placed us under

the purview of the Civil Service Retirement Act, and we were allowed

credit for service prior to July 10, 1960, toward retirement, providing

we paid for this service by July 10, 1962. This is a severe hardship,

and Mr. Norris has already given you some facts and figures on these

hardships. H.R. 3059 will give us until retirement date to pay for

this service time earned prior to July 10, 1960, or not repay but count

this prior service in computing the number of years worked, and take

a 10-percent reduction in computed annuity. These provisions, as

you know, are in the Civil Service Retirement. Act and cover all

Federal employees—including State and Washington ASCS employees—but does not apply to ASCS county employees.

H.R. 3059 will also clear up some service for a few employees during

the 1933-36 years. Mr. Chairman, we sincerely request that you give

favorable action to H.R. 3059 so as to give the hardworking, conscientious, career employees of ASCS county offices the benefits described above, and to equalize them with other Federal workers.

The question of whether we are Federal workers is probably pertinent in this consideration. Therefore, let me give you some reasons

why we feel we are Federal workers, for all practical purposes, and
22 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

have earned the right to the enactment of H.R. 3059—and we hope

you will feel the same.

Some of the reasons are:

(1) Appointment subject to approval of Federal officers and personnel must meet requirements of USDA.

(2) Hours of duty, salary schedule, leave earnings, and supervision

of work in accordance with Federal regulations and instructions.

(3) Personnel management in accordance with standards for Federal employees.

(4) Performing only those functions authorized and/or directed

by acts of Congress or Executive order.

(5) Salary scales determined by USDA.

(6) Considered employees under USDA incentive awards program.

(7) Covered under U.S. Employees' Compensation Act of 1916.

(8) Salary compensation received from Federal funds authorized by

Congress.

(9) Restrictions on private business and political activity similar to

civil service workers.

(10) May be removed from employment by Federal officers.

(11) Afforded legal assistance by Federal attorneys in case of suit

against a committee or employee when acting in their official capacity

on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture in the performance of assigned duties.

(12) Space is provided free in U.S. Post Office buildings and other

Federal buildings for ASCS offices wherever such space is available.

(13) Agricultural conservation program funds are used, up to 5

percent of each county's allocation, to pay salaries of Soil Conservation Service employees, who are registered civil service employees, to

carry out a part of the agricultural conservation program on a local

level. The major part of this same program is administered by county

ASCS employees.

(14) Excused from duty on other than legal holiday when the holiday falls on Saturday, by Executive order applicable to certain Federal employees. (Example, July 3, 1959—Executive order of June

12, 1959.)

(15) Purchase all available supplies from General Services Federal

depots.

(16) Have no connectimi whatsoever with city, county, or State

governments, and not paid with any funds from these sources.

(17) Employees in county ASCS offices actually write drafts for

millions of dollars on the Commodity Credit Corporation under various programs such as soil bank, feed grain, and price support.

(18) Supervised by Federal officers.

(19) Act as agent for Secretary of Agriculture.

Let me hasten to add we fully agree with the committee system in

administering farm programs and in no way desire to infringe on any

of the committee's privileges, and so forth. All we ask is equalization

with other Federal workers.

Again I think you and I feel I speak for all the other approximate,

14,500 ASCS county employees when I earnestly solicit you to favorably report out H.R. 3059. Mr. Norris had 15,000, I think, in his statement. There is some question about how many employees we have,

but it is in that order.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 23

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony.

Any questions of Mr. Payne?

Mr. BARRY. No, I think not.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. We also have, this morning, Mr. C. L. Dorson, president of the Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the U.S. Government. Mr. Dorson, it is good to have you before this subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF C. L. DORSON, PRESIDENT, RETIREMENT FEDERATION OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Mr. DORSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To conserve the time of the committee, I have a brief statement in the hands of the committee which I will submit for the record.

I would like to add that we endorse the amendment proposed by Congressman Baldwin here this morning. We did not include that endorsement in our prepared statement because we did not know about it, but we do endorse that amendment.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you. Your prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF C. L. DORSON, PRESIDENT, RETIREMENT FEDERATION OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is C. L. Dorson. I am president of the Retirement Federation of Civil Service Employees of the U.S. Government, an organization of about 95,000 members most of whom are presently employed in the Department of Defense.

The bills under consideration, H.R. 3059 and H.R. 3936, propose elimination of the present requirement that a deposit be made, equal to salary deductions plus interest, before service rendered as an employee of certain agricultural committees or associations may be credited under the Civil Service Retirement

annuities 

Act. The effect is to make such service fully creditable in the computation of

The 

with a penalty deduction of 10 percent of any deposit remaining unpaid.

the same 

proposed amendment would make the service in question creditable on

long advocated 

basis, with regard to contributions, as other types of service. We have

on an 

that benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act be provided

the 

equal basis and at the same cost to all beneficiaries. Therefore, we favor enactment of these provisions.

views.

Mr. Chairman, we thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to express our

have 

Mr. HENDERSON. I think that concludes the list of witnesses we this morning.

Are there any other gentlemen here who would like to testify? Mr. Barker, would you like to say something for the record? Mr. BARKER. No, Mr. Chairman. I think everything has been covered.

you 

Mr. HENDERSON. I want to express my personal appreciation to

the 

for coming with the gentlemen who are here, and on behalf of

say I 

subcommittee and everyone who has cooperated with us I want to

the record, 

think you have done an excellent job of preparing the facts for

need to 

and we feel at this time we have all the information we give this legislation prompt consideration. We especially
24 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

want to thank Mr. Ruddock for staying throughout the hearings this

morning and giving us the benefit of his testimony.

Is there anything further? Mr. Barry?

Mr. BARRY. Again I think the facts have been covered satisfactorily.

I think the testimony presented has been very thorough.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Ichord ?

Mr. 'CHORD. I also wish to say I think the facts were covered very

thoroughly.

Mr. HENDERSON. For the benefit of the witnesses who have appeared,

I think you can all see that the colleagues who were here and had to

leave are vitally interested in the legislation. I would like to say

our colleagues who were not able to be here this morning were so interested they did not want the hearing postponed and assured us of

their interest in this legislation.

We appreciate your being here and being as thorough as you have

been in your testimony.

I would like to say to my colleagues that I have received a number

of letters sent to me as chairman of the subcommittee favoring H.R.

3059 and showing typical examples of employees, and how much they

owe for their past service. I would like to ask unanimous consent to

insert in the record such of those letters as will be beneficial.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I think they should be made a part of the record.

(The letters follow:)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,

Lexington, N.C., June 22, 1961.

COIlgreSSMILB DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: We are asking your consideration and support of H.R. 3059 and any bills which may be proposed for the helping of ASC

employees regarding paying back for retirement.

In Davidson County, N.C., two of the seven regular employees each have

worked 20 years or more. A third one has approximately 7 years service.

Each have made application to repay the amount they owe, which will be several thousand dollars. Also, each has dependents and with having to repay this

by July 1962 will certainly cause a hardship on their part.

Your support to any bill that will help us will certainly be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

DAVIDSON COUNTY A S C PERSONNEL,

DONNIE M. CURRY,

Office Manager.

LEXINGTON, N.C., June 30, 1961.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 3059.

Below is shown figures regarding the employees in our office who are concerned

regarding this because of length of service and amount to be paid back.

Miss Donnie M. Curry: Worked from March 18, 1938, until present time. Will

be required to pay from March 18, 1938, until July 9, 1960. I have an 81-year-old

mother who is dependent upon me for support. Being unmarried and having the

responsibility of a home and dependent, it will cause a hardship to pay this back

by July 1962. My salary to be paid on is $64,111.09.

Miss Mary L. Conrad: Worked from February 29, 1936, until present date.

Will be required to pay until July 9, 1960. She is unmarried and has the responsibility of a home and sister. Her total salary is $49,375.50.

R. F. Tate: Worked from May 1, 1939, to January 31, 1941; from January 1,

1944, through October 31, 1944; March 1, 1955, through present time. Would
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 25

pay until July 9, 1960. Total salary $21,782.61. He is married, has home and

wife to support.

All have applied for the amount due but have not had report. However, from

information received from some who have received report, this would figure

several thousand dollars each, which would be a hardship.

If possible, we would like to see a bill passed that would require not repaying

but take a 10-percent reduction in annuity. If this is not possible, a longer

period of time to repay without interest will not only help us, but many employees. Your cooperation and support will be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

DONNIE M. CURRY,

Davidson County ASC Manager.

CLINTON, N.C., June 30, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Rouse of Representatives,

W ashi/ngton, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. HENDERSON: Your interest in the employees of the county ASC'

committee is appreciated. We have 13 regular employees and 1 full-time performance supervisor who would benefit from H.R. 3059. These employees have'

had from 5 to 24 years with ASC and predecessor farm programs.

I have been manager of the Sampson County ASC office since September 1956.

It would be necessary for me to pay into the civil service retirement fund $2,436"

to cover previous Federal employment. Other employees in the Sampson County

ASC office would have to pay similar amounts since a number have been here

more than 12 years.

I plan to send you a more complete report concerning the status of each

employee soon.

I hope that this information will help you in securing passage of this bill, since

it would be almost impossible for our employees to pay the amount of money

that would be necessary under existing law.

When I may be of service to you, please advise me.

Very truly yours,

C. MARION BUTLER,

Office Manager, Sampson County ASC.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,

Clinton, N.C., July 13, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I had hoped to give complete status of each of the

14 regular employees of the Sampson County ASCS office, but have received

information from the U.S. Civil Service Commission for only 4.

It would be necessary for all employees to pay into the civil service retirement

fund an average of about $2,000 per individual. This would work a hardship

on all ASCS employees, if it is necessary to pay by July 11, 1962.

The following is a list of our employees and the years of service ending

December 31, 1961.

Years

J. B. Alderman 6

Sudie T. Britt 18

C. Marion Butler 51

T. MeLeon Carr 15

Kay F. David 7

Mildred Daughtry 19

Hazel Fann 81/2

Hattie J. Honeycutt 23

Pauline Shipp 131/2

Luther Stewart 13

Anna Sumner 10

Margaret Underwood 14

Edna L. Ward 131/2

Vermeil Ward 18
26 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

As you recognize, our employees worked several years at very low salary and

just do not have the money to pay for previous time employed.

Our employees come from all parts of Sampson County and appreciate your

interest in behalf of H.R. 3059, which would permit office employees of the

county ASCS committee to pay into the civil service retirement fund sums to

cover previous Federal employment without any limit as to cutoff date.

If we can be of further help at any time, please advise us.

Very truly yours,

C. MARION BUTLER,

Office Manager, Sampson County ASCS.

CLINTON, N.C., June 21, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I would like to express to you my appreciation of your interest in

the people of the United States and the stand you have taken on issues which

affect their welfare.

It is my understanding that hearings are to be held on House bill No. 3059 in

the near future which will affect ASC employees.

Your support of this bill will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

HATTIE J. HONEYCUTT,

Administrative Clerk, Sampson County ASC.

CLINTON, N.C., June 28, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sin: Thank you very much for your reply of the 22d to my letter in reference to H.R. 3059.

I welcome the opportunity to make a statement of facts on how this bill

affects me as an employee of the Department of Agriculture under the ASC

programs.

(1) I have been a regular employee of the Department of Agriculture under

AAA, PMA, and ASC since 1938 without a break in service.

(2) On January 1, 1962, I will have 24 years' service.

(3) Amount of salary received from January 1, 1938, to July 10, 1960, inclusive, $48,213.81.

( 4) Approximate cost to purchase retirement on this past service will amount

to $4,500.

(5) I am now 65 years of age and my earning years are about past. I need

the civil service retirement for security in my retirement.

(6) I do not have $4,500 to buy my past service. I will have to borrow this

money to pay for it and you can readily see that at my age, this would be impracticable and too expensive. Therefore, I believe it would benefit me more

and at the same time be an advantage to the Government Civil Service Commission for me to take the 10-percent cut in retirement payment.

For your information, there are 13 other eligible employees in our office who

are vitally interested in this bill No. 3059, who join me in urging you to give your

full support toward its passage with its recent amendments.

May we as ASC employees thank you again for all the help you can give us.

Sincerely yours,

HATTIE J. HONEYCUTT,

Administrative Clerk, Sampson ASC County Committee.

CAMDEN, N.C., July 19, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Member of the Congress,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. HENDERSON: I am writing to request your influence in the passage

of bill H.R. 3059, which will be discussed in the House subcommittee this week.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 27

Miss 

Here 

Dorothy 

in Camden ASCS county office there are two employees. These are E. Williams and the writer.

predecessor 

Both Miss Williams and I have 21 years of eligible service with ASCS and its

ship on 

agencies but to purchase the credit for that time will work a hard- both of us if such purchase has to be made prior to July 1962.

would 

In computing the required deposit, plus accumulated interest, both our deposits

a house 

amount to in excess of $2,500. On August 1, 1961, next month, I move into which I have purchased and that's actually drained my finances. Maka 

ing the purchase of back time with the USDA would be impossible with me unless loan or loans could be arranged.

Your effort in behalf of the employees of ASCS in North Carolina is sincerely appreciated. Your influence in our behalf in the future will be a considerable favor to us.

Yours very truly,

FURMAN H. SOUTHER,

County Office Manager, Camden ASCS County Office.

Re bill H.R. 3059.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Charmer" House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: Referring to bill H.R. 3059 now being con- sidered, I would like to cover briefly the reasons I think such a bill should be considered. I have worked 18% years for ASCS, PMA, and AAA. To become eligible for a retirement annuity at age 62, it would be necessary that I repay $3,014 by July 1, 1962. Such an amount to be paid in so short a time will create a hardship for me. If I am required to make this refund, the money will have to be borrowed. In this case a great amount of interest would be involved in addition 

time 

to the interest added to the refund money. I would like to have more in which to make refund, but, my preference would be to take a reduction of 

years.

10 percent on my annuity, since I would be eligible to retire in a little over 3

cause 

Thank you for your interest and support, and please do all you can in the

many 

for ASCS employees who have been pushed into the background for so years.

Ligain, thank you.

Sincerely,

CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 18, 1961.

(Mrs. R. F.) MARY E. KIMBALL.

JACKSON, N.C., July 18, 1961. Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: I am very much interested in the passage of House bill H.R. 3059 which deals with retirement benefits for ASCS employees.

ployees 

The provisions of this bill, if passed, would certainly aid me and other em- in qualifying for previous employment under the Federal retirement system.

1962, 

If this bill is not passed, I will have to pay $1,607 plus interest by July 10, in order to qualify for my previous time. This would definitely be a hard- ship, as my husband is totally disabled, and we have two children aged 14 and 9 years of age; in fact it will be almost an impossibility for me to repay this retirement in the time given.

Your earnest consideration of this bill and any favorable action on your part will be greatly appreciately by me, and I'm sure other employees in the same situation feel the same way.

Sincerely yours,

AGNES W. GARRISS,

Administration and Price Support Clerk,

Northampton County ASCS Office.
28 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

WADESBORO, N.C., July 17, 1961.

CONGRESSMAN DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HENDERSON: We wish to take this opportunity to express our appre—

ciation to you for the support given ASCS employees and to bill No. 1683.

In our county office we have four employees eligible to purchase retirement.

Two of the employees have 22 and 24 years service. The cost of pay back would

be $3,600 and $4,477. Two other employees have 12 years and 5 years service

with a payback of $2,400 and $1,060. One of the employees is a widow and the

other a divorcee. Both have dependent children. At the present time they see

no way of being able to make the payback by July 1962. Salaries a few years

back were so low that they were not able to save and the only solution now

would be obtaining a loan which would be hard to do.

Unless bill 1683 passed we are afraid quite a few employees will not be lateto purchase the retirement which they are entitled to.

Anything you can do on behalf of ASCS employees and the passage of bill

1683 will be appreciated.

MARGARET BENTON, Anson County ASCS,

IRmA T. RATLIFF,

RUBY H. HANNAH,

CHARLIE BELLE CURRAN.

ROCKINGHAM, N.C., July 17, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. Congressman„ Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: I want to thank you for the many hours yott

have given to bill H.R. 3059 and I hope you will continue to make every effort

possible to see that this bill is passed.

I have been with AAA, PMA, and ASCS for 19 years and it would really put

a financial strain on me to pay this deposit for back service, to be eligible for

retirement.

I feel that it would be much better to have a 10-percent reduction from my

annuity in the end.

Many thanks for your time and effort.

Yours very truly,

Mrs. JUNE C. HOOVER.

ROCKINGHAM, N.C., July 17, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. Congressman, Washiagton, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: I take this opportunity to thank you for the

effort that you have given in regards to bill H.R. 3059 and hope that you will

continue to make every effort possible to get this bill passed.

I have been with AAA, PMA, and ASCS for 21 years and it would put a

financial hardship on me to pay this deposit for back service, to be eligible for

retirement, as it would run approximately $5,000.

I feel that it would be much better to have a 10-percent deduction from my

annuity in the end.

With many thanks,

Yours very truly,

JOHN W. THOMAS, Jr.

ROCKINGHAM, N.C., July 17, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. Congressman,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: I wish to take this opportunity to thank you

for what you have done on bill H.R. 3059 and would encourage you to make

every effort that you possibly can to see that the bill, H.R. 3059, is passed. If

this bill is not passed, it would put a severe financial handicap on me as an

individual to pay this deposit for back service to be eligible for retirement. I
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 29

feel that it would be much better to my benefit to have a 10-percent deduction

from my annuity in the end.

Thanking you very much for your time and effort.

Very truly yours,

H. HAMPTON MARTIN.

CLINTON, N.C., July 18, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I am an employee of the Sampson County ASCS

office and have been for the past 8/12years. I am very much interested in the

outcome of H.R. 3059, as it would work a hardship on me to pay into the civil

service retirement fund sums to cover previous Federal employment. I, along

with all other ASCS employees, would appreciate any support you can give this

bill.

I join with other North Carolinians in thanking you for the interest you have

in them.

Very truly yours,

HAZEL FANN.

CLINTON, N.C., July 18, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: This is with reference to H.R. 3059, a bill with which I am concerned. I have been an employee with the Sampson County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service for 13/12years.

We, of this section of the ASCS, were denied civil service rating until July of

1960; that is, the county-level employee. We do have the choice of payback for

this retirement time. However, with the cost of living in recent years and at

the present time, it would be impossible for me to make this payment in the

time limit as now specified.

This retirement could mean a great deal to me and to my family should I find

a way in the future to make this payback.

I sincerely hope that you will support this bill and I feel sure you will since

so many people would benefit from an extension of time as specified in H.R. 3059.

Your very truly,

PAULINE W. SHIPP,

Clerk, Sampson County ASCS

CLINTON, N.C., July 18, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I am employed with the Sampson County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service at present and have been employed for 12 years

with this branch of Government work. I am concerned with the passage of H.R.

3059.

The county office employees of ASCS were not under civil service until July

of 1960. Even though we are privileged to pay our back retirement it would

work a hardship to make the payback.

I believe that you will support this bill. It will benefit thousands of employees of the U.S. Government.

Yours very truly,

MARGARET H. UNDERWOOD,

Clerk, Sampson County ASCS.

CLINTON, N.C., July 18,1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: This is in reference to H.R. 3059 concerning the paying of retirement for previous years when I, as an ASCS employee, was not covered under

civil service.
30 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

I have been an employee with the Sampson County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, as it is now known, for 181/2 years. I would

like very much to be able to have these years credited toward my retirement.

At the present time I am unable to make this payback in order to receive

credit. I would certainly appreciate this legislation with the provision for

extension of time for the payback or for reduced retirement payments to me

later.

Thousands of employees of this organization need your support for this bill.

I feel sure you will see a fair consideration for all of us.

Yours very truly,

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

VERMELL WARD,

Clerk, Sampson County ASCS.

CLINTON, N.C., July 18,1.961.

DEAR SIR: I am employed with the Sampson County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. I am concerned with the passage of H.R. 3059

which will allow an extension of time to make a payback of my back retirement time which would cover the 19 years I have worked with this branch of

ASCS.

I am unable to make this payback at the present time but in future years

I might see my way clear to do something about it if the way were cleared

through legislation to give me this extension. Since we have been put under

civil service now I would certainly like to take advantage of the 19 years I have

worked previous to the time ASCS employees were put under civil service.

I hope that you will support this bill.

Yours truly,

MILDRED MCDAUGHTRY,

Clerk, Sampson County ASCS.

NASHVILLE, N.C., June 14, 1961.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: Of special interest to me and other N:1,11

County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service employees is

3059 on which hearings will be held within a few days.

Last year ASCS employees were given fringe benefits as other Government

employees and were eligible for service years on retirement provided back

retirement was paid by July 1962. There are in this office employees who have

filed for credit on past service and who anticipate or have already received a

statement of amounts they will have to repay as follows:

Name and address Years Amount

Mrs. Imogene Weaver, Spring Hope, N.0 23 $4,500

Mrs. Minnie L. Bunn, Nashville, N.0 16 2,600

Mrs. Delphia G. Vaughan, Nashville, N.0 4 915

Mrs. Frances T. Cooper, Nashville, N.0 13 2,400

Miss Imogene Short, Nashville, N.0 9 1,55(1

Mrs. Joyce Hinton, Nashville, N.0 9 1, 37°-

Miss Virginia B. Bridgers, Nashville, N.0 24 6,500

Mr. J. M. Skinner, Nashville, N.0 4 1,250

Mr. John Brantley, Middlesex, N.0 15 2,500

We are naturally very interested in obtaining credit for previous years;

however, it will be a hardship and burden on each of us, and practically impossible for some, to repay the amount owed within such a short period.

I would like to assure you that none of us wish to receive any free credit.

We would like, however, to be able to repay these amounts over a period of years

or receive a deduction at time of retirement.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 31

We appreciate the interest you have taken in our organization, North Carolina Association of ASCS County Office Employees and your support in the

past on legislation for our benefit. We will be grateful for any support you

can give to this new legislation.

With many thanks and best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

VIRGINIA B. BRIDGERS,

Office Manager, Nash County ASC.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABrLIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,

Pittsboro, N.C., June 30, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Chairman, House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We are very much in favor of H.R. 3059. The following employees

are all program clerks: Mrs. Margie T. Poe, 8 years, $1,334; Mrs. Elizabeth M.

Mason, 10 years, $1,800; Mrs. Jo Ann B. Kirkman, 7 years, $1,400. It will be virtually impossible for these clerks to repay for prior service by July 1962. Anything you can do to insure H.R. 3059 becoming law will be greatly ap- preciated.

Sincerely,

A. N. TATUM, Jr.,

Office Manager, Chatham County ASCS.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTRAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,

Goldsboro, N.C., June 30, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We, of the Wayne ASCS office, are vitally interested in H.R.. 3059,

which is a bill designed to permit office employees to pay into civil service

retirement funds to cover previous Federal employment without any limitation

as to cutoff date.

I have talked with the employees of this office and they indicate that it will

be impossible for them to raise the funds necessary for deposit with Civil Service by the deadline of July 9, 1962. Attached is a schedule of the amounts

needed to purchase prior service for each employee in this office who has

received a notice from the Civil Service Commission.

Since ASCS county employees have received recognition as Federal employees,

it seems only right and fair that they be afforded the same opportunity as other

Federal employees in regard to the purchase or refund of retirement deductions

for past employment. It is the feeling of the employees of this office that with

the opportunity to repay up until retirement date, many of us will be able to

purchase this prior service before retirement. If not, we are willing to take

a reduction in annuity based on the amount owed, provided credit is given for

the service.

We appreciate your interest in the welfare of ASCS county employees in this

matter and your support last year when we gained recognition as Federal

employees.

Very truly yours,

SAMUEL T. BROWN Jr.,

Office Manager, Wayne County ASCS.
32 ANNT T TY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Wayne ASCS county office employees

Below are listed the employees of this office showing the amount to be paid

to the Civil Service Commission for retirement credit for previous ASCS service.

Rachel T. Bullock, Mar. 4, 1957-July 9, 1960 $771.00

Marie 0. Herring, Aug. 24, 1953-July 9, 1960 1,458. 00

Ruby P. Porter, Sept. 1, 1954-July 9, 1960 1,100.00

Louise W. Hathaway, Nov. 18, 1940-July 9, 1960 3,419. 00

-Hansford T. Ricks, June 1, 1956-July 9, 1960 840.00

Myrtle H. Summerlin, May 1, 1956-July9, 1960 845. 00

Samuel T. Brown, Jr. May 1, 1956-July 9, 1960 1,720.00

Elizabeth Hooks, Jan. 3, 1946-July 9, 1960 (1)

Wilbert L. Pate, July 9, 1960 (1)

1 These employees have not heard from CSC on amount due.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE.

Dallas, N.C., June 22, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House Post Office and Civil Service Committee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: We have discussed the proposed bill, H.R.

bill 3059, with all leave-earning employees of the Gaston County ASC office.

All ASC employees in Gaston County agree that the bill is good legislation and

that the bill will relieve the hardship that will come about from having to repay

the retirement payments by 1962.

We are enclosing a résumé of the position of each employee in the Gaston

County ASC office.

Sincerely yours,

May T. New_

Viola D. Dame

Ruth R. Davis

Betty B. Rayfi

Violet C. Bum

HORACE B. HoRD,

County Office Manager, Gaston County ASC.

Gaston County ASC employees in retirement status

Position of

employee

Employee's name Years of Approved relative to

service cost payback being able

to make the

back payment

28 $6, 000 Fair.

ron 11 ..i 2, 100 Poor.

. 9 1,690 Do.

31d 8 1,500 Do.

;ardner 7 1,289 Do.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE,

Lincolnton, N.C., June 22, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Member of Congress,

TVashington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: This is to thank you for your interest and efforts concerning proposed legislation affecting county ASC office employees with past

service as Federal employees.

I am particularly concerned with this legislation since I began work June

22, 1933, with the old AAA and have worked continuously since that time. My

service back to 1936 has been established and I am presently working on that

back to the beginning—June 22, 1933. I have received notice that the cost of

purchasing my established service was $5,481 as of November 1, 1960. To purchase this by July 1962 is certainly going to be a big financial burden. There are

six employees in this office including myself. I have two employees who have in

excess of 15 years' service, one in excess of 10 years, and the other two have

almost 10 years. It will work considerable hardships on every one of us to
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 33

purchase this service. Four of the six are helping their husbands pay for their

homes. The other two, including myself, are trying to send our children to

college which is quite a costly item. At present, five of the six employees are

wondering if they will be able to buy back this service and at the same time feel

that they will be making a great sacrifice if they don't.

We would all love to see legislation enacted whereby the 10-percent deduction

in annuity could be made and not purchase prior service. Secondly, of course,

if that is not possible, then we would be most grateful for the opportunity of

having until retirement to purchase this past service.

Again, let me say, we are most grateful to you and others who are "going

to bat" for us.

If at any time we can be of service to you, please let us have the opportunity.

Sincerely,

NANNIE R. SIGMON,

Office Manager, Lincoln ASC.

OXFORD, N.C., June 26, 1961.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON : We are writing you in regard to H.R. 3059.

and Senate bill 1683 that are now being considered as legislation.

We would like very much to have the option of not paying the payback and

wait until retirement to repay for our prior service or take a 10-percent reduction in annuity at retirement.

As ASC employees, we are grateful to you Congressmen for the wonderful

legislation that has been approved in our favor.

In order for us to get credit for our past Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation service we would have to pay approximately $9,000 for the five of us.

We have all worked together approximately 47 working years. The employee

with the fewer years is 5 and the most is 15 years.

With the cost of living, educating our children, financing homes, and many

other expenses, it would be a great hardship for us to pay this money back in

such a short time.

Please give us all the support possible in this matter. Again, we thank you

and others for your loyal support.

Sincerely yours,

GARLAND L. CATLETTE,

Office Manager, Granville ASC County Committee.

KATHRYN B. WATSON,

Chief Clerk.

SYBIL S. CUTTS,

ACP and CR Clerk.

MARY H. HUGHES,

MQ Clerk.

GWENDOLYN W. NORWOOD,

Pert. Clerk.

TILLERY, N.C., June 24, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Chairman of House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON : As an ASC employee, I would like to ask for

your consideration on bill numbered H.R. 3059 when it is presented to Congress.

I have been employed by ASC and its predecessor agencies for 231/2 years

and would like to get credit for these back years under the retirement program

now in effect for ASC employees.

I feel that it will be impossible for me to pay the amount due for this re- tirement for these back years since it will amount to approximately $3,000.

to $4,000. It will be a great help if the bill could include that back retirement pay need not be paid, and in lieu of this, that an employee at time of re- tirement might take a 10 percent reduction in annuity.

Your consideration of these facts will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

LOUISE C. COOKE.
34 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

WEST JEFFERSON, N.C., June 26, 1961.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

TVashington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: We have been advised that you have been appointed chairman of a

House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee. We understand that bill

H.R. 3059 has been scheduled to be heard before your committee in the near

future.

The employees of the Ashe County ASC Committee feel that this bill is greatly

needed because of the fact that it will be sch a hardship to purchase credit for

past service. Most of these employees have financial obligations that make it

almost impossible to purchase credit at this time. However, they feel that

since they are no longer covered by social security, that if something isn't done

to preserve this retirement credit, they have no security for retirement years.

Listed below are the employees in this county who would be affected by this

legislation:

G. M. Campbell, 18 years' service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$5,000; Edna L. May, 18 years' service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$4,000; June S. Woodruff, 16 years' service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$3,500; Alma J. Childers, 9 years' service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$1,600; Joan K. Weaver, 4 years' service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$900; and Elmo Powers, 1 year service, approximate amount to be repaid is

$250.

None of these employees have money available to make payment for this

credit for past service, and most of them feel that with their present obligations, it would be impossible to repay loans for this purpose. In view of the

above facts, we respectfully request that you support this legislation.

Very truly yours,

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HENDERSON: We understand that you are the chairman of the House

subcommittee before which hearings will be held on H.R. 3059 involving certain

retirement benefits of ASC office employees, among which is extending the

time until retirement to repay for prior service or take a 10-percent reduction

in annuity and not repay.

We feel that the enactment of this bill would be of great assistance to a

large number of ASC employees. For example, take this office; the office

manager, M. L. Shepherd, will be at the age of retirement February 1, 1962.

He has about 20 years of service for which he would like to have credit. The

approximate cost of the payback is about $4,000. He does not have this amount

and it is doubtful if he could borrow it. And, even if he did, it would take some

time to pay this back and thereby create a hardship for him during the time.

Another employee, Forrest Smith, has more than 20 years of service and it

would require more than $3,000 to repay the amount required. She does not

have the funds and is not in position to make this payment by July 1, 1962.

She could repay this amount easily from her salary by the time she would retire, or take the 10-percent reduction in annuity.

Another employee, Mildred Saunders, could easily repay her amount, which

is considerably less, in the same manner.

In view of these local situation, as well as many others we know of in this

State, we earnestly request that you give this legislation your support in every

way possible.

Sincerely yours,

JUNE S. WOODRUFF.

ELMO POWERS.

EDNA L. MAY,

JEAN K. WEAVER,

ALMA J. CHILDERS.

BOONE, N.C., June 22, 1961.

WATAUGA ASC COUNTY OFFICE,

M. L. SHEPPERD, Office Manager,

FORREST SMITH, Clerk,

MILDRED SATJNDER, Clerk,

ALBERT 0. HARMON, Clerk,

ROY ISLEY, Office Manager Trainee.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 35

DANBURY, N.C., June 28, 1961. CONGRESSMAN DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We are writing you regarding H.R. 3059 to amend section 2 ( b ) of the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to employees of the agricultural stabilization and conservation county committee.

We have five employees who are interested in this bill: One employee 24 years service; two employees, 23 years service; one employee, 10 years service, one em- ployee, 5 years service.

The approximate cost of the payback will range from $1,000 to $5,000. With the cost of living, house payments, children to educate, and other proj- ects in which we are involved, we feel that it will create a hardship if we have to pay this money back by July 1962.

A poll of employees indicated that they would have to borrow money to pay back. Inquiries have been made of loans and it will be almost impossible to borrow the amount needed to pay up in full at one time.

We appreciate your stand on this matter and hope that the bill will pass in order that the county office employees may have the same right as Federal em- ployees to purchase credit for the past service at any time up to retirement.

Yours truly,

HAZEL F. BOWLES,

FRANCIS P. MARTIN,

BESSIE J. FLINCHAM,

HALLIE M. MARTON,

ELLEN P. TILLEY,

Stokes County ASC Employees.

BREVARD, N.C., June 23, 1961. 'Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: We would appreciate it SO very much if you would support the legislation which would permit employees of ASC county offices to have until retirement to repay for prior service and should they desire to not repay have the option of the 10 percent reduction in annuity.

We wish to advise you that it would place a great hardship on the employees of the Transylvania ASC county office should they have to repay for prior

years of service. One employee, Jewell Reed, has a period of 16 years of serv- ice. The amount she would have to repay is approximately $2,300. I have 26

years of service with the ASC county office and would have to repay approxi- mately $4,500. It would be necessary for each of us to borrow money to repay for this service.

Again we urge you to support this legislation. Thank you very much.

Yours very truly,

JULIA WESTWOOD,

Transylvania ASC County Office Manager.

YANCEYVILLE, N.C., June 28, 1961. Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Chairman, House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: We would like to take this opportunity to request that you support House bill 3059 which has to do with changing the law requiring ASC employees to purchase their back time prior to July 10, 1962, allowing them until retirement to purchase such back time or take a 10-percent reduction in annuity.

We have both had about 25 years service and we would be unable to purchase such back time at this time. We feel that we should be given the same oppor- tunity as other Federal employees in this connection.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

HILL BARTS, Office Manager,

IDA L. ALDRIDGE, Administrative Clerk,

Caswell County ASC.
36 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

LITTLETON, N.C., June 24, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Chairman, House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: As an ASC employee, I would like to ask for

your consideration on H.R. 3059 when it is presented to Congress.

I have been employed by ASC and its predecessor agencies for 16 years and

would like to get credit for these back years under the retirement program now

in effect for ASC employees.

It will be an impossibility for me to pay the amount due for this retirement

for these back years since it will amount to approximately $3,000. It will bea great help if the bill could include that back retirement pay need not be paid,

and in lieu of this, that an employee at time of retirement might take a 10--

percent reduction in annuity.

Your consideration of these facts will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

EDITH F. MYRICK.

HALIFAX, N.C., June 24, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Congressman, Chairman or House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: As an ASC employee, I would like to ask for

your consideration on bill H.R. 3059 when it is presented to Congress.

I have been employed by ASC and its predecessor agencies for 23/12years and

would like to get credit for these back years under the retirement program now

in effect for ASC employees.

It will create an undue hardship for me to pay the amount due for this retirement for these back years since it will amount to approximately between

$3,000 and $4,000. It will be a great help if the bill could include that back

retirement pay need not be paid, and in lieu of this, that an employee at time

of retirement might take a 10-percent reduction in annuity.

Your consideration of these facts will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

MABLE J. JOHNSON.

MARSHALL, N.C., June 26, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As an employee of the Madison County ASC and a member of

NASCOE, I would like to request your support of the recent bill introduced

in Congress regarding the Retirement Act for ASC employees.

I would greatly appreciate your support of this bill (H.R. 3059). It will

certainly create a great hardship on many ASC employees if they are required

to purchase their back time by July 1, 1962. As an employee, I feel that it

would be to our advantage to be given the option of either buying the back time,

or taking a 10-percent reduction in annuity payments.

Your support of this bill will be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Mrs. ANNA MAE TIPTON.

MARSHALL, N.C., June 26, 1961.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As an employee of the Madison County ASC and a member of the

NASCOE, I am taking this opportunity of writing you my desires apd opinions

relative to the bill, H.R. 3059, which has been introduced in behalf of the ASC

employees in regard to making the deposits required of the Retirement Act.

Personally, I would prefer to take a 10-percent reduction in annuity and not

repay for past time. This bill, H.R. 3059. seems to be favorable to our needs.

We would appreciate your support and endorsement of this bill in our behalf.

I received a hearing on June 20 of the amount of deposit which I would be

required to pay if I bought my back time. This deposit amounted to $3,087,

which I cannot pay without having to borrow the money. And, this, I do not

feel, would be justifiable. Since paying my required deposit would create a
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 37

hardship, I cannot see my way clear to carry out the requirements of the Retirement Act as it now stands.

If you can be of any service to the ASC employees in supporting this new bill,

we would greatly appreciate it. I hereby solicit your support in our behalf. Thanking you in advance for your support, I am,

Yours truly,

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERs0N,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: As an employee of the Madison County ASC and a member of the

NASCOE, I would like to take this opportunity to ask your support of bill H.R.

3059, which gives ASC employees the option of buying back time or taking a

10 percent reduction in annuity payment upon retirement.

I estimated that it would cost me between $3,800 and $4,000 to purchase my

back time. In order to do this I would be compelled to mortgage my home to

borrow the money. I would much rather take the 10-percent reduction in annuity payments than to risk losing my home by mortgaging it.

I can assure you that your support of this bill will be greatly appreciated by

me as well as my coworkers.

Sincerely yours,

MINNIE J. RICE.

MARSHALL, N.C., June 26, 1961.

GENELL Fox.

KENANSNILLE, N.C., June 21, 1961.

Hon. Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAVID: Since I feel that you are interested in the welfare

of all working people and particularly those employed in the agricultural

agencies of our Nation, I am writing you to express some of my views and

feelings concerning the bill, H.R. 3059, introduced by Congressman Morrison. My

sincere feelings are that if this bill is not approved, it will work a tremendous amount of hardship on the employees here in my office who would like

to buy back their time. These employees are not able to borrow enough money

to buy back their leave which I think they are entitled to have. Actually none

of these employees have enough security with which to secure this money and

enable them to buy this time back.

These employees, now working with the Duplin County ASC, are no longer

covered under the social security provisions and they have paid in a considerable

amount of money under the social security program, but none have the required

number of quarters in order to even be eligible for any assistance under the

social security program. Therefore, if these employees are not given some

relief on buying back this time that they will need for retirement under the

civil service program, it will just about leave them out of the picture, so to

speak, as far as their retirement is concerned.

For your benefit I will list the employees and the number of years that they

will have to buy back. Frankly, I do not feel that any of these employees are

able, along with their current and necessary present obligations, to borrow

enough money to buy all their time back: Sally B. Tyndall, 15 years; Rufus

Elks, Jr., 11 years; Stacy J. Evans, 5 years; Nancy W. Carr, 5 years; Reba H.

Andrews, 5 years; Isabel J. Murphy, 4 years; and J. L. Lanier, Jr., 4 years.

David, as set out above, I believe you can well see and readily understand

the situation of these employees in my office in regard to their buying back their

time. I know that you understand that these are all career employees devoting

their time to the agricultural program by assisting the people in Duplin County

in every way possible. I will greatly appreciate your giving this bill your

whole-hearted support and every consideration possible.

With best personal wishes to you and your staff, I remain

Yours sincerely,

RUFUS ELKS, Jr.,

Office Manager, Duplin County ASC.
38 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

CLINTON, N.C., June 20, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. HENDERSON: People of North Carolina and the United States 

appreciatethe interest you have in them and the stand that you take on issues.

that affect them.

I would like to ask you to support House bill 3059.

Very truly yours,

T. MCLEON CARR,

Chief Clerk, Sanupson County ASC.

CLINTON, N.C., June 20, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I would like to take this opportunity to express.

to you my appreciation for the interest you have in the people of the United

States.

I understand that hearings will be held in the near future on House bill 3059.

I would appreciate any support you may give this bill.

Yours very truly,

KAY DAVID.

GODWIN, N.C., June 20, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

My DEAR MR. HENDERSON: I am grateful for your interest in the people of

North Carolina.

I understand that hearings are to be held on House bill 3059, which affects

ASC employees. Will you please use your influence in support of this bill?

Sincerely yours,

LUTHER STEWART.

NEW BERN, June 19, 1961.

Hon. DAVID HENDERSON,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

We appreciate your good work as Congressman for this district. We understand you are chairman of Post Office and Civil Service Postal Subcommittee

and will appear before the House committee concerning H.R. 3059. Passage

of bill would mean much to NASCOE members. Your support will be greatly

appreciated.

EMPLOYEES OF CRAVEN COUNTY ASC.

BURGAW, N.C., June 20, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Congress of the United States,

TVashington, D.C.:

We of Pender County ASC Office are urgently requesting your support on H.R.

3059. Your consideration will be highly appreciated.

CASPER WELLS,

Office Manager Fender County ASC Office.

PENDLETON, N.C., July 18, 1961.

Hon. DAVID N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: I am vitally interested and concerned with

the House bill H.R. 3059 dealing with retirement benefits for ASCS employees.
ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 39

in 

Provisions 

qualifying 

of this bill, if passed, would certainly assist me and other employees for previous employment under the Federal Retirement System.

10, 

Without 

1962, 

the passage of this bill, I will have to pay $1,500 plus interest by July

hardship 

in 

for 

order 

my 

to qualify for my previous time. This certainly would be a

same category.

case, and I feel sure that other employees will fall into the

certainly 

I request 

be 

your careful consideration of this bill, and any favorable action will appreciated be me and, I am sure, other employees of ASCS. Sincerely yours,

BEN L MANN.

Hon. DAVID CONOVER, N.C., July 18, 1961. N. HENDERSON,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

county 

DEAR 

office 

CONGRESSMAN 

employees 

HENDERSON: We would like to express our desires as ASCS

Pay Act of 1960, that 

with regard to the present requirement contained in the

within a 2-year 

individuals with past service purchase credit for this service

county office employees 

period from July 10, 1960. This provision is a burden as our

could have until retirement 

cannot possibly make the payback by July 1962. If we

percent reduction in annuity 

to repay for prior service or not repay and take a 10-

We 

it would certainly benefit our employees.

we will 

are 

have 

listing 

to pay 

below the number of years served and the approximate cost back:

Employee Amount to

be repaid

Number of

years service

Employee Amount to

be repaid

Number of

years service

1 

2 

3 

$1,500

1,900

1,250

9

11

7

4 

5 

6 

$800

2,266

2,050

5

10

11

Each employee has

back by July 1962.

We will certainly

necessity if we pay ba

Sincerely,

other obligations to meet that would keep her from paying

appreciate your assistance in this legislation that is a

ck.

CATAWBA COUNTY ASCS OFFICE EMPLOYEES,

IRENE E. WILSON,

County Office Manager.

Re Senate WAYNESVILLE, N.C., July 18,1961. bill 1683.

Representative DAVID N. HENDERSON,

Chairman, House Subcommittee,

Washington, D.C.

age 

DEAR 

length 

SIR: 

of 

We have five regular ASCS county office employees with an avera total of approximately 

service of 10 years. We have been notified that it would cost us

ment purposes 

$8,300 to purchase credit for back service for retire- by July 1962.

possible 

This would 

to 

create such a hardship in all cases for us that it would be imcould not meet 

pay this by July 1962. All of us are paying for homes, etc., and this extra burden.

Therefore, we ask your support in our behalf in removing this requirement that past service be purchased by July 1962.

Very truly yours,

HAYWOOD COUNTY ASCS EMPLOYEES,

A. W. FERGUSON,

EDITH ROGERS,

BOBBIE HALL,

BETTY WYATT,

MARY NELL WIGGINS.
40 ANNUITY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Subject: Support of House bill H.R. 3059.

Congressman DAVID N. HENDERSON,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington., D.C.

HILLSBORO, N.C., July 17, 1961.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HENDERSON: We are writing you as a group rather than

individually in an appeal for your support of House bill H.R. 3059. We know

you are familiar with all aspects of this bill, in that it concerns purchase of

prior retirement service for ASC employees.

We would like to impress upon you the hardships it would impose on any one

of us to purchase this prior retirement service by July 1962.

We would like to sincerely encourage you to take the time to try and place

yourself in the position of a county ASC office employee in a small county like

Orange. We four employees are all working because it is a necessity that we

work. We appreciate the fact very much that since we must work we are

privileged to work with ASC, whereby we feel we are serving the Government

of our country, and the farmers of our county. This within itself is very

rewarding.

Our salaries are mediocre. We are all parents of small children, we are

engaged with our spouses in the process of paying for homes and earning a daily

living.

D. V. Roberts, the county office manager, has been employed with ASC since

November 1956. In order to purchase retirement time from November 1956

through June 30, 1960, it will cost $1,405.

Virginia W. Warren has been employed with ASC since December 1945. Total

amount due to purchase retirement time from December 1945 through June 1960

is $2,550.

Betty Sue Hawkins has been employed with ASC since November 1954. Total

amount due to purchase retirement from November 1954 through June 1960 is

$1,050.

Katherine T. Wilkerson has been employed with ASC since September 1956.

Total amount due to purchase retirement from September 1956 through June

1960 is $860.

We realize that to a great number of people the sums quoted above may seem

very insignificant. However, for people like ourselves they represent a large

sum of money. In all the cases quoted above, in order to buy retirement by

July 1962 the amounts will have to be borrowed.

We as individuals must look to the future and know the time will come when

we can no longer work. It is our desire to be in a position when that day arrives

that we have an income from some source, and we think the retirement plan as

set up by our Government is a wonderful insurance for that day.

We therefore urge you to seriously think about the many ASC employees in

exactly the same status as we have quoted our own to be. Think of thd hardships it will work on so many families if the bill remains as is.

Won't you please help to persuade Congress to give us until the time of retirement to purchase our prior retirement time, or to take the option of not purchasing and taking a 10-percent reduction in annuity at retirement time. Your

support and cooperation will be gratefully felt, appreciated, and known to all

ASC employees throughout the entire 50 States.

Respectfully yours, DONALD V. ROBERTS,

County Office Manager, Orange County ASC.

VIRGINIA W. WARREN,

Clerk, Orange County ASC.

BETTY SUE HAWKINS,

Clerk, Orange County ASC.

KATHERINE T. WILKERSON,

Clerk, Orange County ASC.

Mr. HENDERSON. There being nothing further, the committee will

stand adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Friday, July 21, 1961, the hearing was

adjourned.)

0