I think it would be in order if we would keep the record of the hearing open for 1 week in the event that those who may already have testified would like to amend their testimony for any reason, or those who were unable to testify may supply statements for the record.

It is important that the committee have the fullest possible testimony in the measurement of the refinement of this proposed legislation.

That you all for particpating again this morning.

And this hearing is now concluded.

(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was concluded.)

APPENDIX

(At the direction of Mr. Gulledge, staff director and counsel, the following statements and communications were ordered printed:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. BRADY, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am John G. Brady, chairman of legislative committee of the National Association of Internal Revenue Employees, accompanied by George Bursach, executive secretary-treasurer. Our association of over 27,000 members strongly urges and recommends the enactment of this bill S. 176 to grant civil service employees full annuity at age 55 after 30 years of service.

We believe that many of our employees with 30 or more years of service would avail themselves of the opportunity of retiring at an age earlier than now possible, and that 30 years of service is universally accepted as a period of full and complete service.

The Congress of the United States recognizes retirement on age and length of service.

NAIRE urges the enactment of this legislation for the following far-reaching benefits to the Federal service.

1. It will attract the young men and women to embark upon a career with the Federal service, knowing they will be assured of promotional opportunities during their years of service.

2. It will enable older employees, who have given their years of loyal hard work, to retire, if they so desire, with a reasonable economic security.

3. It will be in keeping with private industry, where early retirement is available for older employees who, for health reasons, cannot carry on the strenuous pressure of their present position.

4. If this bill is passed, it would create employment and promotional opportunities for younger and more vigorous personnel, and reward long service. 5. We think that, with the progress we are making in industry and government through automation, improved methods of production, and the scientific progress through medicine, the retirement period has become more and more important. 6. Our Government should look to the future with a view toward the everincreasing problem of maximum employment, in light of the steady increase in this country's population. This bill would create many opportunities to employ individuals in job openings that do not exist under the current retirement law.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, with the needs of the Nation as they are, with relation to the employment situation, the passage of this legislation would not only be timely, but would be extremely wise. Our association believes that an Internal Revenue employee, who has worked 30 years and has reached the age of 55, should be entitled to the option of retiring at full annuity.

We do not expect this legislation to cause abnormal turnover in the Federal service, but it would serve as a morale stimulant to those already in the service, as well as those contemplating a career in the Government service.

We believe it would be both wise and just to pass this legislation, and we respectfully request this committee to give it early and favorable consideration. I thank you for your interest and I appreciate the opportunity of endorsing this important legislation.

71

STATEMENT OF DILLARD B. LASSETER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

My name is Dillard B. Lasseter. I represent the Organization of Professional Employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (OPEDA). We have some 7,000 members who are located in the 50 States, various territories and possessions, and in a number of foreign countries. They do scientific, professional, technical, and administrative work and are all in the classified service. This organization wishes to endorse strongly the objectives of S. 176, the socalled 30-year retirement bill.

The precise effect of this bill, if enacted, upon the ages at which employees would retire is a matter of speculation. We venture the opinion, however, that it would have very little effect upon the average age at which employees retire and very little effect upon the average length of service of those who retire. Certain facts relating to age and service of retirees provide some evidence in support of this opinion. For example, of 50,524 who retired during fiscal year 1962, only 2,980 exercised their option to retire after 30 years' service with reduced annuity below age 60; on the other hand, only 6,780 exercised their option to retire with 30 years' service after age 60 without reduction in annuity; while 4,075 were forced to retire at age 70 because of the mandatory provision of the retirement act. Moreover, the average length of service of retirees has increased about 1 year since 1956 when the law was liberalized to permit optional retirement after 30 years' service with only moderate reduction in annuity between the ages of 55 and 60 and no reduction after age 60. Also, as is well known the average life span has increased materially during the past several decades. We believe this will be a factor in causing the great majority of employees to elect not to retire at 30 years' service and age 55, even though the privilege were available to them without limitation or penalty.

We believe the overall concept of retirement has changed, and will change even more, from the basic tenets which have been a fundamental part of the civil service retirement law. Today there is less emphasis on retaining employees for extended periods of service. In fact, many industries have mandatory retirement requirements at age 65 or perhaps younger. We know there will be an increasing trend in the number of persons entering the labor force each year. Our economy and our rate of economic growth will be tested severely in providing gainful employment for these new employees. Therefore, we believe those who wish to retire after 30 years' service and age 55 should be permitted to do so without penalty; this will help to create new opportunity for younger employees desiring to enter the civil service.

The days when a clerk was thought to be typical of the civil service are gone. Today the civil service is more aptly characterized by science, research and development, and the skilled administration of laws, programs, and policies which are of tremendous impact to the public interest on both the national and international scene. The functions of many of the Departments of Government and the daily decisions associated with their operation have a public impact which transcends the largest industries and corporations in this country. This means that the scientist, the specialist, the skilled administrator entering the civil service must have higher levels of training than was characteristic two decades ago. Such persons may average 25-28 years of age when they enter the service and will be in their mid fifties when they reach 30 years of service. There is much in favor of a philosophy that after 30 years of meeting the rigorous requirements of today's Government service, a person wishing to retire should be permitted to do so without penalty.

While it is anticipated that S. 176, if enacted, would have minor effect upon the average age or average length of service of those who retire, the option of retiring under the provisions of the bill would be of great importance in individual cases in addition to those just mentioned. This would be especially true in situations where reorganization, changes in leadership, policies or methods, abolition of programs, or other unexpected adjustments may force drastic changes upon employees with long years of service. Under such circumstances they might exercise their option to retire. The availability of this flexibility to such employees would help solve potentially vexing administrative problems.

A less tangible, but probably very real, benefit of the proposed law would be its effect upon general morale. Everyone, from the newcomer to the veteran in service, would have a heightened sense of security and freedom in the knowledge that retirement legislation is void of rigidities and penalties which, in effect, would force him to continue employment longer than he would prefer,

and perhaps after his work productivity or health had declined. This would make the Federal service a more attractive place to enter and a more attractive place to remain for a full career.

The OPEDA, therefore, endorses S. 176 and requests that its statement be included in the official hearing record of the committee.

STATEMENT OF EVERETT G. GIBSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE MOTOR VEHICLE EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Everett G. Gibson. I am the president of the National Federation of Post Office Motor Vehicle Employees, affiliated with the AFL-CIO and the Government Employees Council of the AFL-CIO, with offices at 412 5th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your committee, for permitting me to appear before you today and fully support S. 176, introduced by Senator Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina, the chairman of the full committee. We would like, also, to express our appreciation to Senator Hiram L. Fong, of Hawaii, for introducing S. 620, similar to S. 176.

The delegates attending our national convention, for many years, have mandated our organization to seek legislation that would provide a 30-year optional retirement for our members, with full retirement benefits and without a reduced annuity.

It has been our experience that only a few of our members retire at age 55, with a reduced annuity, and that the removal of the reduced annuity at age 55 would not increase that number to any great degree. It is also our opinion, that the enactment of S. 176 would be an incentive, not only to our present employees, but to those who are seeking a career appointment into our service.

On behalf of the employees whom I have the honor of representing, I support S. 176 and sincerely hope that this committee will report favorably this important legislation. I thank you.

STATEMENT OF PEGGY HODGSON, SECRETARY, PATENT OFFICE SOCIETY

The Patent Office Society, which comprises 973 professional employees of the Patent Office, desires to be on record in support of the retirement provisions of S. 176 for the following reasons.

The Patent Office employs approximately 1,050 engineers and scientists, whose training as examiners is accomplished only at great expense to the Government, estimated in excess of $7,000 per employee. A large percentage of this Government investment is lost as the Patent Office has been long plagued with an extremely high turnover in its professional personnel. As in the Armed Forces where voluntary retirement is permitted at a reasonable age it is believed that the attractiveness of classified Government service would be materially enhanced by acceptance of the 30-year retirement provisions of S. 176 and would convert many "early resignations" into career employees. An early retirement plan without penalty would appeal to the younger trained examiner with several years of service.

Furthermore, a reason frequently given by examiners upon resignation is "frustration" due to the fact that many of the superior positions are occupied by senior personnel. It is believed also that the retirement provisions of S. 176 will do much to alleviate this condition, thus permitting the senior employees to retire advantageously and simultaneously providing advancement potentials for qualified examiners.

The Patent Office Society is appreciative of the opportunity to express its views in support of the retirement provisions of S. 176.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD MCAVOY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POST OFFICE MAIL HANDLERS, WATCHMEN, MESSENGERS, and Group LEADERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Harold McAvoy, national president of the National Association of Post Office Mail Handlers, Watchmen, Messengers, and Group Leaders. Our office is located at 900 F Street NW., room 916. We are members of the AFL-CIO and the Government Employees Council.