Ni

• P 840

fi 301 RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES 1

OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

60VERNMEN'i 

Storage

HEARING

11J BEFORE THE

2D 1 COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

ISE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 5369 and H.R. 5377

BILLS TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE REtIREMENT ACT IN

ORDER TO CORRECT AN INEQUITY IN THE APPLICATION OF

SUCH ACT TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AND THE

EMPLOYEES OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 14, 1963

I'rinted for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

98365 WASHINGTON: 1963

oluvekt").

JUN 11 963

1411101rin;"
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

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

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN. Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West Virginia

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania

DON EDWARDS, California

JOE R. POOL, Texas

ALBERT W. WATSON, South Carolina

EDWARD R. ROYBAL, California

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

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

HOMER E. ABELE, Ohio

SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED To CONSIDER H.R. 5369 AND H.R. 5377

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas, Chairman

JOE R. POOL, Texas JOEL T. BROYHILL, Virginia

ALBERT W. WATSON, South Carolina GEORGE M. WALLHAUSER, New Jersey

II
CONTENTS

Statement of— Page

Henderson, Hon. David N., of North Carolina 2

Henlock, Charles A., Administrative Officer, Architect of the Capitol_ 9

Macy, Hon. John W., Jr., Chairman, U.S. Civil Service Commission;

accompanied by Andrew E. Ruddock, Director, Bureau of Retirement and Insurance 2

Vinson, Hon. Carl, a Representative in Congress from Georgia 8

UI

RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1963

HOITSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMErrEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL 

W ashington,D.0 SERVICE,

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m. in room 215—A,

House Office Building, Hon. Lindley Be,ckworth (Chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. BECKWORTH. The subcommittee will come to order.

This subcommittee was appointed to consider H.R. 5369 and H.R.

5377, identical bills to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act in

order to correct an inequity in the application of such act to the

Architect of the Capitol and employees of the Architect of the Capitol.

The members of the subcommittee are Mr. Pool, Mr. Watson, Mr.

Broyhill, and Mr. Wallhauser, and I was designated chairman.

(H.R. 5377 follows:)

[H.R. 5377, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A. BILL To amend the Civil Service Retirement Act in order to correct an inequity in the

application of such Act to the Architect of the Capitol and the employees of the Architect

of the Capitol, and for other purposes

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

States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 1(c) of the Civil

Service Retirement Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2251(c) ), is amended by inserting

"the Architect of the Capitol and the employees of the Architect of the Capitol,"

immediately following "official duties,".

(b) Section 2(c) of such Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2252(c) ), is amended

by inserting "(other than the Architect of the Capitol and the employees of

the Architect of the Capitol)" immediately following "congressional employee".

(c) Section 2(d) of such Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2252(d) ), is amended by

inserting ", except as provided under subsection (f)," immediately following

"temporary congressional employee".

(d) Section 5(d) of such Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 2255(d) ), is amended by

striking out "to the Architect of the Capitol or any employee under the office

of the Architect of the Capitol,".

SEC. 2. The provisions under the heading "Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund" in title I of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1959 (72

Stat. 1064; Public Law 85-844), shall not apply with respect to benefits resulting

from the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall not apply

in the case of employees retired or otherwise separated prior to the date of

enactment of this Act. The rights of such persons and their survivors shall

continue in the same manner and to the same extent as if such amendments had

not been enacted.

Mr. BECKWORTH. The first witness this morning is our colleague,

Hon. David N. Henderson, of North Carolina.

1
2 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID N. HENDERSON, OF NORTH CAROLINA,

A MEMBER OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the promptness with which you have scheduled hearings on H.R. 5377, which I

introduced, and the companion bill, H.R. 5369, which was introduced

by our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Broyhill.

This legislation is identical in purpose to an amendment which was

unanimously approved by our committee last year as a part of H.R.

10706, reported favorably to the House of Representatives September 14, 1962 (H. Rept. 2374). Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I believe

you offered the amendment in subcommittee.

This legislation is necessary to remove an inequity that has existed

for quite some time in regard to employees of the Architect of the

Capitol. All of the duties and responsibilities of these employees are

devoted exclusively to the Congress of the United States, and they are

truly congressional employees in the full sense of the words. Yet,

through a quirk in the development of the laws providing retirement

benefits for all other congressional employees those congressional

employees under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol have

been left out.

When. one of these employees of the Architect of the Capitol retires, his annuity is computed at 11/2 percent of 5-year high average

salary multiplied by 5 years of service

'

plus 13/4 percent of such salary

for the next 5 years of service, plus 2 percent for all service over 10

years. His fellow congressional workers, on the other hand, receive

annuities computed at 21/2 percent of 5-year high average salary multiplied by the first 15 years of service, plus 2 percent of such salary

for all service in excess of 15 years.

I supported the amendment of the gentleman from Texas last year,

because it is time this inequity is removed, and strongly urge the subcommittee to favorably report my bill.

Thank you.

Mr. BECKWORTII. In view of the other calls on the time of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, we will permit you to proceed,

Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION, ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW E. RUDDOCIC,

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE

Mr. MACY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement can be very

brief before your subcommittee.

The Civil Service Commission has filed with Chairman Murray

of the full committee a report on H.R. 5369 and H.R. 5377, dated April

26, 1963. This statement embodies the Commission's views with respect to these two bills.

It has been the Commission's customary- position in commenting

upon legislative actions relating to congressional employees to merely,

set forth the action that will result from the enactment of the proposed legislation, without taking any position in support of or in opposition to the legislative proposal. This is the position that the

Commission has taken with respect to this legislative proposal as well.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 3

The bills, as you pointed out in your opening statement, would

apply a liberalized annuity formula to the employees of the Architect

of the Capitol. The formula proposed would conform with the

formula presently applied to congressional employees. The number

of employees involved would be approximately 1,100, based upon the

current strength report of the Architect of the Capitol. This is out

of a total of 1,373 employees as of March 31 of this year. The formula

that is proposed now applies to those employees on the payroll of the

Congress, who numbered as of March 31 of this year 7,703. The

legislation is proposed to permit the retirement conditions of the employees of the .Architect of the Capitol to conform to those conditions

that currently exist for congressional employees.

The Congress provided a more liberal formula for congressional

employees a number of years ago in amending the Civil Service Retirement Act. This liberalization was based upon the view of the

Congress that the lack of assured tenure of office on the part of congressional employees made it difficult for them to develop an adequate

retirement program under the career-type annuity formula that exists

for the balance of the Federal employees covered by the Civil Service

Retirement Act.

The basic difference in the formula is that for regular employees 11/2

percent of the high-5 average salary is applied for the first 5 years,

1% percent for the next 5 years, 2 percent for 10 years and above.

The congressional formula is 21/2 percent of the high 5 up to 15 years.

This latter formula is the one that would be extended to the employees

of the Architect of the Capitol.

Mr. Chairman, the view of the Commission is that this is a matter

for the Congress to decide with respect to their own employees. The

purpose intended is that of conforming these benefits under the Retirement Act to those of congressional employees. The legislative proposal would accomplish that purpose, and in our judgment this is a

matter for the Congress to decide.

Mr. Ruddock and I would be happy to answer any questions with

respect to these bills that you or members of the committee may wish

to present to us.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Pool, do you have any questions?

Mr. POOL. How does this affect your overall retirement fund? Has

anybody objected to it? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. MACY. To my knowledge, Mr. Pool, there has been no objection. The increase in cost would be very small in relation to the size

of the retirement fund. There are about 1,100 employees involved.

This would mean a larger annuity for those that retire, an annuity

that would be computed in the same fashion as the annuities for

employees retiring from service with the Congress.

Mr. Poor,. There is no objection from any other congressional

employees?

Mr. MAGI% None that we have heard of. This would put the Architect's employees on the same basis as congressional employees.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Macy, do you think it might be desirable to consider the possibility of one overall retirement formula rather than

these separate formulas for legislative employees, for civil service

employees in the executive branch, those in hazardous duties, such as
4 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

the metropolitan policemen and firemen, and for the District of

Columbia schoolteachers? We are talking about American citizens

.who are all employees in one way or another of their National Government. What do you think about the general thought of studying all

of these systems and the possibility of one retirement system?

Mr. MACY. A study was made back in 1953-54 in response to congressional action, which I believe was initiated by this committee in

1952, of all of the issues relating 

i

to retirement, and the recommendation you suggest was included n that report, but recognizing that

there had been a number of actions taken to give preferred treatment,

if you will, to certain groups of employees.

The several categories are these. The great bulk of employees are

covered by what we call the regular formula. Probably 2,400,000 are

covered by that. Then there is the hazardous-duty formula that has

been applied to law enforcement officers. The House has passed Mr.

Wallhauser's bill, which would provide a special benefit in terms of

premium pay rather than retirement, which I think is entirely appropriate for an extension of the hazard view. There 

are, 

however,

a number of bills pending that would also apply the liberalized provision.

Mr. BROYHILL. There are bills pending to raise or increase the

hazardous-duty employment formula.

Mr. MACY. Well, largely to extend coverage of the hazardous-duty

formula to additional groups.

Mr. BROYHILL. There are bills to increase the formula to 21/2 percent, I believe, trying to restore the differential between regular

employees and those hazardous position which existed prior to the

'most recent liberalization of the retirement formula. Those bills

have been pending for some time, and I understand the Commission

does oppose them.

Mr. MACY. That is right. The Commission's view has been that a

liberalization of the retirement formula in recognition of special

employment conditions is inappropriate. We oppose doing it for the

law enforcement group when this occurred, and as I testified on Mr.

Wallhauser's bill.

Mr. BROYHILL. You mean when they originally had the separate

formula?

Mr. MACY. Yes. I did not testify, but one of my predecessors testified in opposition.

As far as the congressional formula is concerned, this was an action

taken by the Congress with respect to its own employees, and as I

indicated earlier the reason given for that was the uncertain tenure

and the difficulty of accumulating sufficient service, so that a more

liberalized formula was applied for the first few years of service.

Let me say in general response to your question that, yes, I think it

would be desirable if we had a single system, but I do not see the

possibility of uniformity unless the formula was to be liberalized

across the board, and this would be extremely costly to the fund.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Wallhauser.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Mr. Macy, just for history's sake, the statement

is that since 1920 the employees of the Architect have been subject to

the same benefits as employees of the executive branch.

Mr. MACY. That is correct.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 5,

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What is the major reason for wanting to change

their benefits?

Mr. MAcy. The principal reason advanced by those that support the

legislation is that these are employees working with employees of the

Congress, and that like conditions relating to retirement should exist

for both groups. Therefore, this is an effort to correct an inequity.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Does this group of employees; namely, the group

of employees of the Architect of the Capitol, enjoy any benefits or,

privileges that the other employees do not?

Mr. MACY. I do not believe so. They have a separate personnel system. They are outside of civil service.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. So actually they are penalized as of now to some

extent by not being under the same system?

Mr. MA.CY. They are penalized in contrast to congressional employees. They are receiving the same retirement formula that is applicable to the executive branch and to such agencies of the legislative

branch as the General Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. You say the cost to the fund would not be very

large?

Mr. MACY. It would be negligible.

• Mr. WALLHA17SER. Thank you.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Would you have a figure there, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MACY. No. Mr. Rud.dock and I were talking about that. We

do not have enough in the way of experience as to the retirement pattern of employees of the Architect of the Capitol to indicate that to

you. Do you have a rough shot on that, Mr. Ruddock ?

Mr. RUDDOCK. Not cost in terms of dollars. I do have a comparison

of what this would do to the annuity of the individual.

Mr. BECKWORTH. If you can conduct any kind of study of a brief

nature that you might need in order to give us a reasonably sound

estimate of cost—and we will call it an estimate—before we go to

the floor of the House, it would be helpful. Many of the Members

undoubtedly will be very interested in having at least an outside estimate. I surely would appreciate your trying to help us on that, even

if it involves asking a few questions of the Capitol people here.

Mr. MACY. I am certain that we can produce some kind of estimate,

but I can assure you that this will not be of such a magnitude that it,

would change our approach to retirement financing.

Mr. BECKWORTH. We will call it an estimate as we undertake to

carry the bill forward.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Would it be well if Mr. Ruddock put on the

record what it would do to the retirement of the individual?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I did not mean to interrupt to the point of precluding that being answered. Go ahead.

Mr. RUDDOCK. Assume two employees, one who is subject to the

regular formula for computing annuity and another subject to the

formula applicable to congressional employees. Let us assume thel

same length of service at retirement and the same average salary.

If the total service is 5 years the annuity computed under the

congressional formula is 66.7 percent greater; if the service is

10 years, the congressional formula is 53.8 percent greater; after,

15 years it is 42.9; after 20 years it is 31; after 25 years it is 24.3

98365-68--2
6 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

after 30 years the congressional formula is 20 percent greater after

35 years it is 17 percent greater after 36% years of service the congressional employee has reached maximum annuity, which is 80 percent of average salary. Any service he performed beyond that point

would entitle him either to a refund of the deductions made during

the service or he could have the amount of those deductions applied

toward the purchase of additional annuity as a voluntary contribution. After 40 years of service the congressional formula produces

an annuity only 4.9 percent greater, and if the service is 41 years and

11 months or greater the annuity is 80 percent of average salary for

either an executive branch employee or a congressional employee. So

this ranges all the way from an increase in annuity of 66.7 percent

down to the point where the annuities become equal.

• Mr. MACY. The maximum remains the same, 80 percent, so they are

equal at that point.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Macy, you said a moment ago the congressional

employee or legislative employee has a formula of 21/2 percent for up

to 15 years' service. Then it drops to what?

Mr. MACY. Two percent.

Mr. BROYHILL. From there on?

Mr. MACY. Two percent from there on, up to the maximum of 80

percent.

Mr. BROYHILL. How about his other Federal service and military

service?

Mr. MACY. His military service is brought in as 

Mr. BROYHILL. At 21/2?

Mr. RODDOCK. Two and one-half percent would apply to service as

a congressional employee and military service, up to a total of 15 years.

Mr. BROYHILL. How about other Federal service?

Mr. R-crnpocK. This depends on how much congressional and military he has. If he has at least 1.5 years of congressional and military

combined, then his downtown service would be at 2 percent.

Mr. BROYHILL. Say 5,5, and 5.

Mr. MACY. Five congressional, 5 military, and 5 in the executive

branch.

Mr. BROYHILL. With the legislative branch being the last 5.

Mr. RUDDOCK. The sequence would not make any difference. He

would get 21/2 percent for his congressional employee service, 21/7

percent for his 5 years of military, and he would get 2 percent for his

downtown service because that is service in excess of 10 years in the

total. If he had 5 years congressional and 2 years military, he would

get 21/2 percent for 7 years, he would get 134 percent for 3 years of his

downtown service.

Mr. BROYHILL. His executive branch service is at the top of the heap

to get the formula for downtown.

Mr. Ru-ni)ocK. Always off the top.

Mr. MACY. You can understand, Mr. Chairman, why we have to

have a computer in order to arrive at these annuities.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Watson, do you have any questions?

Mr. WATSON. No, sir.

Mr. BECKWORTH. If you have not already done this, I would appreciate a memorandum that would take the salary of $4,000, the

salary of $6,000, the salary of $8,000, and show the difference in what
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 7

these employees get under the present law and what they would get

under the congressional formula.

Mr. Ruppocii. In 5-year periods?

Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes, so that any person who might want to

check it out could do so.

• Mr. MACY. We will do this computing on the regular formula and

the congressional formula.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I recognize you have to leave.

We have about four questions. I am not going to take the time to

ask them but I will furnish them to you and you can give us answers.

Mr. 1VIAcY. I have the questions right here.

(The questions and answers follow:)

MAY 20, 1963.

Hon. LINDLEY BECKWORTH,

Chairman, Subcommittee,

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. BECKWORTH: In the course of the May 14, 1963, hearings on H.R.

5369 and H.R. 5377 before your subcommittee, you requested from the Civil Service Commission three items of information for the record. The information desired is herewith submitted.

The first item deals with specific questions for which answers are desired. In

the interest of clarity the questions are repeated accompanied by the information

requested.

( 1) Question. Mr. Macy, in your testimony last Friday on H.R. 4837 and H.R.

4838 I understand that, in response to a direct question, you stated that employees of the Architect of the Capitol are legislative employees. Is that correct?

Answer. Yes. I did so state.

(2) Question. Is it not also correct, as I have indicated, that certain of the

employees under the Architect of the Capitol—those who work in the House

and Senate restaurants—have been ruled by the Comptroller General to be

subject to the congressional employees' provisions of the Retirement Act?

Answer. There has been a Comptroller General decision relating to House

restaurant employees. Decision No. B-15712, dated April 14, 1941, held that

presonnel of the House restaurant are employees of the United States in the

legislative branch of the Government entitled to the benefits and subject to the

requirements of the Retirement Act applicable to legislative employees. The

basis for this conclusion was that transfer of the operation and control of the

restaurant from the Committee on Accounts of the House of Representatives

to the Architect of the Capitol did not operate to make the restaurant an activity

or function of the office of the Architect of the Capitol, but left it as an activity

or function of the House of Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol being

merely the agent or means through which the restaurant is operated by that

body. Thus, House restaurant employees remained employees of the House of•

Representatives and as such were subject to the Retirement Act provisions for

congressional employees.

Senate restaurant personnel were not involved in decision No. B-15712. Following operation for a number of years on a contract basis, the Senate restaurants

were placed under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol by Public Law

87-82, effective August 1, 1961. This law authorized the Architect to act for

the Senate in this respect and following the reasoning applied in B-15712, Senate

restaurant personnel have been considered employees of the Senate and held

"congressional employees" for Retirement Act purposes.

(3) Question. Do you perceive any reason to keep most of the employees of

the Architect of the Capitol out of the retirement provisions that apply to all of

their fellow congressional employees?

Answer. If Congress determines that employees of the Architect of the Capitol

are subject to the same conditions of employment as those found to warrant the

special annuity formula for congressional employees, I am not aware of any

reason why the special formula should not apply to employees of the Architect.

(4) Question. Is it not inequitable, in your opinion, to include some of the

Architect's employees—and all other congressional employees—in the congres-
8 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

sional employees' retirement plan, but to exclude others who would be covered by

this bill?

Answer. Where the same conditions of employment obtain throughout a given

class and these conditions of employment are found to warrant special retirement treatment, it is inequitable, in my opinion, to extend special retirement

treatment to some members of the class and not to others.

The second item compares the basic annuity available under the regular and

the congressional employee annuity formulas with high 5 average salaries of

$4,000, $6,000, and $8,000 based on service ranging from 5 to 30 years.

High 5 average salary Years of

service

Formula, basic annuity Increase of

congressional

over regular

Regular Congressional

Percent $4,000 5 $325 $600 53.8 $6,000_ 5 450 750 66.7 $8,000 5 600 1,000 66.7 $4,000 10 675 1,000 48.1 $6,000 10 975 1,500 53.8 $8,000 10 1,300 2.000 53.8 $4,000 15 1,075 1,500 39.5 $6,000 15 1,575 2,250 42.9 $8,000 15 2,100 3,000 42.9 $4,000 20 1,475 1,900 28.8 $6,000 20 2,175 2,850 31.0 $8,000 20 2,900 3,800 31.0 $4,000 25 1,875 2,300 22.7 $6,000 25 2,775 3,450 24.3 $8,000 26 3,700 4,600 24.3 $4,000 30 2,275 2, 700 18. 7

$6,000 30 3,375 4,050 20.0 $8,000 30 4,500 5.400 20.0

The final item covers the estimated cost which would result from enactment of

either H.R. 5369 or H.R. 5377. It is estimated that to extend the special retirement formula for congressional employees to the Architect of the Capitol and his

employees, as provided by the proposal, would result in additional costs of about

$315,000 annually. Of this total, approximately $175,000 is required as an

increase in normal costs of the civil service retirement system, while about

$140,000 is required as interest at 3% percent on the estimated $4 million increase

in the unfunded liability of the system.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. BECKWORTH. We want to accommodate you in connection with

your next meeting, and then we, too, have another meeting.

We surely appreciate your being here, and thank each of you for

your statements.

We have a statement for the record from Chairman Carl Vinson of

the Armed Services Committee endorsing this legislation.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CARL VINSON OF GEORGIIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to present a statement in support of the most equitable and desirable

legislation contained in H.R. 5377.

This bill will correct a highly discriminatory situation that adversely affects

a very fine, dedicated, and efficient group of legislative employees-the employees of the Architect of the Capitol-in their retirement benefits. Years

ago the Congress, in recognition of the unique situation of congressional employees, enacted legislation providing a carefully planned and most suitableretirement program for congressional employees-but failed to include employees of the Architect of the Capitol in the program. As the author of the

bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has so well pointed

out-and he certainly is to be commended on introducing this legislation-,

retirement rights for employees of the Architect of the Capitol are markedly

•
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 9

Inferior to those of other congressional employees. There is no justifiable

reason for this discrimination, which would be corrected by the bill before you.

There is no question but that employees of the Architect of the Capitol are

congressional employees. Their entire time, attention, skills, and working lives

are devoted solely to serving the Congress. If there were any last, lingering

doubts on this point, they have been cleared up by Chairman John W. Macy, Jr.,

of the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Mr. Macy just last Friday, in testimony

on bills before another of your subcommittees, stated positively and unequivocally that employees of the Architect of the Capitol are congressional employees and are considered as such by the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I strongly urge early approval of H.R. 5377.

Mr. BECKWORTIL We now recognize Mr. Charles Henlock, administrative officer, Architect of the Capitol.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. HENLOCIC, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

Mr. HENLOCK. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Stewart, the Architect of the Capitol, I would like to present the following statement.

The regular year-round force under the Architect of the Capitol

totals 1,175 employees, of which 282 are part-time charwomen and 121

patronage elevator operators and patronage laborers.

Of this total, 369 are employees of the Senate Office Buildings subject to the control of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (40 U.S.C. 174(c) ; 381 are employees of the House Office Buildings and Capitol Power Plant subject to the control of the House

Office Building Commission (40 U.S.C. 175) ; 64 are employees of the

Senate and House wings of the Capitol subject to the control of the

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Speaker of

the House, respectively (40 U.S.C. 167, 168) . This makes a total of

814 employees subject, by statute, to congressional committee or commission control.

None of these employees is subject to the congressional employee

benefits of the retirement system. Since 1920 they have been subject

only to the same benefits as employees of the executive branch.

The total of 1,175 employees does not include employees of the House

and Senate Restaurants under the Architect of the Capitol who already have been defined by the Comptroller General to be employees

of the House and Senate and consequently are now subject to the

congressional employee retirement system.

Whereas it is true that many of the employees under the Architect

of the Capitol enjoy long tenure of office, yet this is also true of many

employees of the Senate and House, particularly committee employees

and employees of the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, Sergeants

at Arms of the Senate and House, Clerk of the House, and others.

The Senate has recently recognized this fact by establishing a seniority

pay system for such employees of the Senate in the Legislative Branch

Appropriation Act, 1963, passed October 2, 1962.

The _Architect of the Capitol has long been defined by the Comptroller General, in numerous rulings, to be an officer of the Congress,

and the Office of the Architect has likewise been defined to be a part of

the legislative establishment.

Unlike the heads of other agencies under the legislative establishment—such as the Librarian of Congress and Public Printer—the
10 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Architect does not function as an independent officer empowered by

Congress to make and operate under his own rules and regulations,

but actually performs most of his duties, under existing law, under

the direction of committees and commissions of the Congress, who

for many years have been vested by Congress with the authority to

make rules, regulations, and policies governing the Architect in the

exercise of his duties.

Because of the nature of the Architect's duties and the statutory

setups under which he functions, it has been the practice of the Congress, particularly in recent years, to accord the Architect the same

treatment as the Senate and House under general administrative

laws.

The employees of the Architect do not have civil service or other

protective status.

Laborers of the Architect of the Capitol work alongside of the

laborers of the Sergeants at Arms of the Senate and House, and the

Senate and House Restaurants, and yet are not accorded the same

retirement benefits. This is true also with respect to other classes

of employees.

The Architect of the Capitol urges that existing law be amended

to include the Architect and employees of the Architect under the

congressional employee benefits of the Retirement Act, so that all

employees of the Congress may receive like benefits.

Mr. Chairman, I might add to this statement that perhaps one

misconception is that a great many people do not realize that employees of the Architect of the Capitol are employees of the Congress,

the same as those on your staff, and have been defined as such by the

Comptroller General. The only reason we happen to be under the

executive retirement system is because we went under the act in 1920.

The legislative branch generally did not come under it until 1937, and

at that time there was no particular benefit for us to change over to

the congressional system because the systems were computed on about

the same basis.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Thank you very much. Mr. Watson, do you

have any questions to ask?

Mr. WATSON. No, sir, I have not.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I have no questions.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. These 282 part-time charwomen and 121 patronage

elevator operators—will they come under the new act?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir. They are, however, eligible under the

present act as well, but the point is the turnover among the elevator

operators is so great they rarely take advantage of the benefit of

coming under the act.

Mr. BROYHILL. That was the purpose of my question. Are they

now under the existing formula for legislative employees.

Mr. HENLOCK. No, at present any benefit the patronage employees

receive is the same as the executive department receives and the same

as the rest of us receive, but under this act they would get the same

benefits as other congressional employees. The point is, however,

that the turnover is great and ordinarily they are not interested in

retirement.
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 11

Mr. BROYHILL. Let us take the case of the elevator operator who

may be going to school and working his way through school, which is a

very fine part-time job for him. We can provide that type of employment up here. Assume he has 5 years of that service by virtue of

working his way through school. He comes under this retirement

program to get 21/2 percent of his first 5 years of service?

Mr. HENLOCK. He would under this bill.

Mr. BROYHILL. And yet the job on the face of it is a patronage job,

a temporary job, not meant to be a career proposition. I know we

have some elevator operators that are using that for their full-time

livelihood, but many of them use it strictly as a temporary job.

Mr. HENLOCK. The same as doorkeepers and employees of that type

who are now covered by the congressional retirement system.

Mr. BROYHILL. I am wondering whether or not we are stretching

this type of system too far by covering or by bringing temporary employees under it, which are deliberately meant to be temporaries.

Mr. HENLOCK. I do not. perceive what is the difference, however,

between bringing our patronage employees under the congressional

retirement system and having a doorkeeper or similar employee who

is patronage under it? All your patronage employees of the House

are temporary to the same extent that our elevator operators are.

Mr. BROYHILL. I am asking the question.

Mr. HENLOCK. In our judgment there is no difference.

Mr. BROYHILL. I am not trying to state a position, because I am a

supporter of this legislation, but I want to make sure of the facts as

this goes through the legislative obstacles where these questions will

come up from others. I can certainly appreciate and understand how

the employees of the Architect of the Capitol are people of a career

nature and have these jobs as a main vocation, but there are others,

such as the ones we have mentioned, who are not regular career employees and are strictly temporary. It is a question whether or not we

should have the same kind of system for them as we have for the

others. There must be some difference in our obligations to them.

Mr. HENLOCK. Well, we feel that they are in the same category as

all the other employees of the House and Senate and therefore should

be accorded the same benefit. On the other hand, we know from experience that not many of them stay 5 years, and there are not many

of them that would avail themselves of this retirement benefit.

Mr. BROYHILL. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. Under

the regular civil service retirement system the employees are required

to pay into the system, are they not?

Mr. HENLOCK. That is correct. The Architect of the Capitol has

the authority to exclude temporary employees if he chooses. Normally we require a temporary or patronage employee to be on thepar.

roll for a year before we begin deductions, unless he has had service m

some other part of the legislative branch or under another Government

agency before coming with us and was previously under the Retirement Act.

Mr. BROYHILL. Then the employee has no option whether he wants

to remain under the system or not?

Mr. HENLOCK. We would not compel such an employee to come under the act. However, with respect to our regular permanent em-
12 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

ployees, which includes the charwomen, they are, by law, required to

be placed under the act from the first day of their employment.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Ruddock, what is the situation in the executive

branch? Do not the regular civil service employees automatically

come under the retirement law?

Mr. RUDDOCK. He comes under it from his first day of employment

unless he is in an excluded category. Generally excluded are employees who are appointed for periods of less than a year, employees

who are part-time or intermittent without a regular tour of duty,

but in the absence of one of these types of exclusions the employee is

under it from his first day of service.

Mr. BROYHILL. Under this legislation would it be mandatory or

optional?

Mr. HENLOCK. It would be optional still with respect to temporary

employees, Mr. Broyhill—and then only after a year's service. There

is a good reason why we ask to have that provision retained in the

Retirement Act. We, of course, employ numerous tradesmen, such as

painters, plasterers, and bricklayers, on an hourly basis for temporary

construction and repair work. They come on for a few weeks or a few

months. We did not want to include them under the act and do not do

so unless they are employed for a year or more and gradually accumulate considerable service and are converted to a per annum basis, in

which case we would eventually bring them under the act. But ordinarily such class of employees do not receive the benefits of the act.

•Mr. BROYHILL. That was another part of my question. I am glad

you brought that up. They would come under the act, if you chose

to bring them under the act, if they become more or less permanent

employees?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir, but only under such condition.

Mr. BROYHILL. But as temporaries you would not bring them under

it?

Mr. HENLOCK. That is correct.

WALLHAITSER. Where does it say this in the proposed legislation?

Mr. HENLOCK. That is in the basic law.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. And you still would retain that?

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes sir. That provision has not been amended.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. ;That section .is not amended?

Mr. HENLocK. No, sir, that is not interfered with at all.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. You said something, I believe, to the effect that

in 1937 there was no reason to request a change because they were then

equal.

Mr. HENLOCK. That is my understanding.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Do you know what year the change occurred?

Mr. HENLOCK. No, but perhaps Mr. Ruddock could answer that

question.

Mr. R ODDOCK. My recollection is 1952.

Mr. JOHNSON. It was during the 83d Congress, Mr. Chairman, if I

may interrupt.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Since then have you made repeated efforts to

have this type of legislation enacted?

Mr. HENLOCK. No, sir. It is only within the past year or two that

we have actually pressed for action. We did make an effort to come
RETIREMENT BENEFITS 13

under the congressional retirement system when the Retirement Act

was rewritten in 1956, but were not successful at that time.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What has caused this request?

Mr. HENLOCK. We have all become more and more conscious each

year as time has gone on as to what the differential is between the

benefits of the two systems and how unjust it is to employees under the

Architect to receive a different retirement from other employees of

the House and Senate that have worked the same number of years side

by side under a different system.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Is this the result of an employee request?

Mr. HENLOCK. I would say it is a combination of both employees

and Members. The employees are very actively interested. So also is

Congressman Vinson

'

who is a member of the House Office Building

Commission. Other Members have also expressed an interest.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Thank you.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Pool?

Mr. Poor,. No questions.

Mr. BECKWORTH. I want to thank Mr. Broyhill for bringing up

these points. They are very important and we will want to give this

thorough consideration. We do not want to do anything that would

bring to the Government undue cost or extend this to any employee

who is not to work here on a career basis. The points are mighty well

taken.

The subcommittee will now meet in executive session.

(Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the subcommittee met in executive

session.)

0


otIVER804.