for no reason except for that fact, be given 22 percent based on all previous service.

Under the bill the same would apply to all service thereafter.

I am willing to have the legislative employees-including the committee employees of the House and the Senate and the employees in our individual officestreated generously and fairly, and perhaps a little more generously than we might think justified, so long as they are employees of the legislative branch. But, Mr. President, why should we provide an added benefit for their service performed before they became employees of the legislative branch?

I shall not make an extended speech, but I repeat that this amendment will take nothing away from legislative employees, as such. It will allow such employees to continue to receive from the civil-service retirement system the retirement checks to which they were entitled before they became employed by the legislative branch. I want them to have those checks; they are entitled to them. But if one of them becomes an employee of a Senator, should he then be entitled to 22 percent, whereas the employees with whom he formerly worked in an administrative agency, and who have not been so fortunate as to become employees of a Senator, receive only 12 percent?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield?

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee has submitted an amendment which merits our consideration and support. I should like to note that under section 603 of the bill, subsection (g) provides that

(g) Any officer or employee in the legislative branch of the Government within the classes of officers and employees made eligible for the benefits of this act by the act of July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947, retiring under this act on or after the date of enactment of this subsection and after having rendered at least 6 years of service as such an officer or employee shall, if he so elects at the time of retirement, be paid, in lieu of an annuity computed under subsection (a), a life annuity equal to the sum of the following:

That means he has to conclude his service as a legislative employee. I simply want that to be clarified. In other words, when he retires, he must retire as a legislative employee, as an employee of the legislative branch of the

Government.

On page 2, that is what paragraph (A)-the one relating to "22 percentum of the average salary, pay, or compensation" refers to, namely, the years of service as a legislative employee.

The amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, as I understand it, would strike out paragraph (B), which applies to the years of service in the classified civil service, and under that retirement system, prior to becoming a legislative employee, or at any time when there may have been a change of jobs.

If paragraph (B) is eliminated, then I think we should recognize the retirement standards and should take into consider

ation the peculiarities of the legislative employment, as well as those of the administrative employment.

ment of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE].

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. GORE. That is correct.

Mr. HUMPHREY. During the period of employment in the administrative branch, the employee would fall under the regular civil service retirement system, and would receive the benefits established under it and under that law. Mr. GORE. That is my understand

ing.

Mr. HUMPHREY. So at no time would there be a separate category of potential beneficiaries in an administrative agency. For instance, if we assume that a legislative employee left employment in the legislative branch and went to the State Department, under the bill as it now stands it would be possible for that employee in the State Department to receive a different benefit from the one received by a State Department employee at the desk next to his.

But with the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, when the employee left the legislative branch and entered employment in the executive branch, his benefits would be the same as those of other employees in the executive branch. In other words, he would then leave the special category of the legislative branch, and would move over into the category of those who receive the retirement benefits applicable to employees of the executive branch.

Mr. President, I shall support the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee because I think it makes sense and will answer much of the criticism the Senator from Oklahoma has brought to our attention, in the course of his discussion.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, let me say that I appreciate the support of the distinguished Senator from tinguished Senator from Minnesota. Let me remind the Senate that with the passage of this bill, the legislative-retirement system will mushroom considerably, for at that time the Members of Congress will constitute only a small part of the system. So if the bill is to be passed, I plead with the Senate to pass it on a sound basis.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield

to me?

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Will the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee advise the Senate whether the testimony is that the 22-percent provision

will be on a basis of 22 percent for legislative employees and 12 percent for employees under the civil service?

Mr. GORE. That is correct.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I have no objection to that amendment, Mr. President.

AT 10 A. M.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield to me at this point?

Mr. GORE. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. While there are a

large number of Senators in the Chamber-some of whom may not have been present when the previous announcement was made-let me say that I have been asked by a number of Senators when the Senate will meet tomorrow.

It is the intention of the acting majority leader to request that the Senate meet tomorrow at 10 a. m., to have the calendar called, so that we shall be able to conclude the session by the early afternoon. Then we shall take a recess until Monday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, when the Senate completes its business this afternoon, it take a recess until tomorrow at 10 a. m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING CALL OF THE CALENDAR ON SATURDAY

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, various Senators, both on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, have asked me and have asked the distinguished minority leader about the bills which will be included in the call of the calendar tomorrow.

Let me announce at this time that the calendar call will begin at the point where the last calendar call ended; in other words, the calendar call tomorrow will begin with Calendar No. 523, Senate bill 2137, a bill prohibiting the blending of certain wheat, and will terminate at the end of today's calendar, because obviously Senators will not have an opportunity to study bills which are reported today and are not yet on the calendar. So the calendar call on tomorrow will terminate with Calendar 596, House bill 4302, relating to bridge construction in Michigan.

Therefore, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that during the call of the calendar on tomorrow, the call include the measures to which I have just referred, namely, beginning with Calendar 523, Senate bill 2137, and ending with Calendar 596, House bill 4302, in the case of bills on the calendar to which there is no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (S. 2175) to amend title VI

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amend

1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement of employees in the legislative branch.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I offer the following amendment: On page 2, in line 10, in paragraph (A), after the word "during", strike out the words "any five consecutive" and insert the word "the", so that at that point the paragraph will read as follows: "21⁄2 percent of the average salary, pay, or compensation received by him during the years of allowable service," and then strike out the words "at his option" and then resume with the words, "multiplied by the years of service as an employee described in this subsection."

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield? Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Will the Senator from Oklahoma advise the Senate whether this amendment will place the legislative employees on exactly the same basis as that of Members of the Senate?

Mr. MONRONEY. They will be on exactly the same basis on which Members of the Senate calculate their retirement, namely, on the basis of the average salary earned, which in some cases will be as low as $7,500; in others, $10,000; and in others, $12,500.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I have no objection to the amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] on page 2, in lines 10 and 11.

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I offer another amendment, which I send to the desk and ask to have stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. At the proper place in the bill it is proposed to insert the following:

Provided further, That this act shall not apply to employees who were not employed in the legislative branch on the date of the passage of this act.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, this amendment will correct one of the other defects of the bill, for as the bill is now written it would cover employees of 20 years ago if they had had 5 years of service in the legislative branch.

This amendment would provide a definite cut-off date, so that the bill would apply only to persons who were employees of the legislative branch at the time of the passage of this act.

I should like to state some of my fears regarding the proposal in connection with this bill to give to legislative employees the same program as provided for Members. Our own retirement provisions were designed to take care of the peculiar circumstances applicable to Members of Congress who enter the Government service late in life, and generally do not have a long period of service during which to build up retirement benefits.

XCIX- -569

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me at this point?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Would the Senator advise the Senate whether this is what is known as the cut-off date, which was applied in the case of Senators?

Mr. MONRONEY. That is exactly the case, as under the Legislative Reorganization Act as passed. No one who was not then a Member of the Congress was entitled to receive any benefits whatever under the act, and that position has been maintained since 1946. Members having 25 years of previous service who were not Members at that time some had resigned only a month or two previouslysigned only a month or two previouslyhave been denied the retirement benefits. Mrs. SMITH of Maine. The Senator from Maine has no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY] is agreed to.

Mr. MONRONEY. In conclusion, Mr. President, it has been the desire of the junior Senator from Oklahoma to preserve the solvency and the actuarial integrity of the Congressional Retirement Fund. Even with the corrections which have been made in the bill with the multiplying by some 8 or 10 times the number of legislative employees now covered, and the prospects of their early retirement after long periods of service, I am still fearful that the withdrawals will mitigate against the actuarial soundness of the fund.

My reason for feeling so strongly about this is that I recall that when the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 was under consideration, and when the subject of retirement for Members of Congress was being considered, we were reminded that the year before we had been accused of voting ourselves pensions, and we heard the slogan “Bundles for Congress."

The late distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Bob La Follette, and I had made a pledge to the country that we would do everything possible to maintain the solvency of the retirement fund, even though it might require an increase in the amounts we were required to pay from year to year in order to prevent its becoming a liability to the Government.

At this point I may say that the best information I can get from the experts on matters of civil service, with respect to the handling of the fund, is that there is a 22-to-1 ratio of reserves in the Congressional Retirement Fund. There has been paid out slightly over $1 million since 1946, a period in which there have been many changes in the membership of both Houses, and control of the Congress, as a result of political changes. There has been paid out slightly more than $1 million, but there has been collected $2,250,000, paid in by Members of Congress as their contributions.

Eventually, as more become eligible for retirement, the margin will decrease. I do not know how many years it will be— it might be 10, it might be 20, or it might be 30 years before this fund, measured

by what is paid in and by that which is withdrawn, looked at as a mutual fund, as in the case of a mutual insurance company, might be threatened with insolvency.

For that reason I am fearful about what will happen when the system is expanded 10 times over, and when persons are taken in who are not in the peculiar situation of wishing to attain the age of 70, 75, or 80 years before retirement, because we all like to serve as long as our health permits. The amendments have greatly improved the bill, and have removed many of the technical objections, but I still wish to be released from the pledge the late Bob La Follette and I made in 1946, that we would take the floor to insist upon additional contributions by Members of the Senate and House whenever the fund became actuarily unsound.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

an

Mr. HUMPHREY. There is no commitment on my part against increasing the withholding contribution if the size of the fund, an actuarial point of view, necessitates increase. I voted against the amendment of the Senator from Delaware because I did not think facts were presented which necessitated an amendment of that kind and such an increase in the contribution. However, the retirement contribution has been increased on several occasions because of the necessity of keeping the fund solvent and actuarily sound. I want to assure the Senator of my position, which is that, if it becomes evident that we must do it, we shall have to proceed to make whatever increase is necessary.

Mr. MONRONEY. I would say to my distinguished friend that what he says emphasizes the difference between the civil service retirement fund and that which the late Senator La Follette and I tried to create, and had the hope of creating for the Congress. It is an anticipated actuality that the Government will continue to add money constantly to the civil service retirement fund. Almost 50 percent of the civil service retirement fund is made up of contributions to the fund by the Government. What we had hoped to do with respect to the congressional retirement fund was to provide for mutuality, so that the Members of Congress would contribute the money necessary to offset the amount that was withdrawn from it.

The pending bill, I may say, would make that impossible, because with the addition of about 5,000 or more people, or 3,000, whatever the number is, the fund will travel the same route taken by the civil service retirement, and will require about 50 percent of contributions from the Federal Government.

If that should happen, it will cease to be what I know every Member of Congress has been proud to acknowledge that it has been, namely, a self-supporting fund, placed on deposit by the Congress, to be withdrawn by Members who are covered by the retirement fund.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ANDERSON. Would the Senator be willing, provided the Federal Government made a contribution toward it, to. include in the retirement benefits the members of the legislative staffs? I think the Senator from Oklahoma has covered the situation when he says that so far as Members of the Senate and House are concerned, they pay their own way. Congress at one time passed a bill for retirement, which caused people to send bundles to their Congressmen. I took the records of hundreds of Congressmen, reduced them to the form of tabulating cards used by the insurance companies, and sent them out to be tabulated, as any experience record might be handled by an insurance company. I checked and discovered that it had not cost the Government of the United States anything.

I am glad now, 10 or 12 years later, to have the Senator from Oklahoma confirm what was then established, and which I cited in letters addressed to the Speaker of the House and others. It does not cost the Government anything to have this mutual fund for Members of the Senate and House.

I voted to refer the bill to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, because I wanted to see certain changes made. I am happy to say that the distinguished senior Senator from Maine has accepted certain amendments which I think make of the bill a fine piece of legislation. I do not believe any Member of the Senate ought to vote against it. Senators have their own right, of course, to do as they see fit. But I think the important and significant thing is that the retirement fund for the Senate

the House of Representatives is selfsustaining. The contributions take care of the system, so it should not cause anyone to be shocked if the Treasury of the United States should pay a small sum of money to committee employees and legislative staffs, so long as we are always able to pick up the individual experience figures with respect to Members of the Senate and House. I am sure those figures will show that that part of the fund is in the black. I think this is all important. It preserves the idea advanced by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. I believe his position will be supported by anyone who examines into the facts.

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. If it is the understanding of the Senate, and, I hope, the understanding of the country, that by the passage of this bill Members of the Senate and of the House do not become responsible for maintaining in our retirement fund the liability that the additions which we are making today will incur, then I do not think the passage of this bill will be too damaging. It will create demands for an expanded system of retirement for all civil-service workers.

So I would be inclined to support the bill with the amendments with the understanding that it is not to be confused with the self-sustaining, self-supporting congressional retirement system, which, as I have said, is today well in the black.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to the to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG. At the present time is the retirement fund for Senators and Representatives separated from the fund for our employees?

Mr. MONRONEY. These funds are not separated from the overall civilservice retirement fund. But we have persuaded the Civil Service Commission to give us accurate reports from time to time on the status of the amounts collected from Members of Congress and the amounts paid out for retirement. This gives us a chance to determine the solvency of the fund and to provide for increases in the fund, if that be neces

Mr. LONG. Is it not possible and even desirable that we ask that the retirement fund for Senators and Representatives be set up differently from that of employees, because the nature of the funds is entirely different? If Senators funds is entirely different? If Senators do not desire to retire-for the most part, they are retired without their consent it would be well to reflect that this is a solvent fund and the contributions are more than the payments year by year.

Mr. MONRONEY. It is $1,250,000 in the black, after 7 years of operation, and during 2 swings of violent changes in both the House and the Senate. The fund is consistently built up year by year. There will be a point, I am forced to admit, if a large number of annuitants live to an extremely old age, or if they retire before the age of 62, where the fund will be in danger. But in the 7 years of its operation it has collected $2,250,000 and paid out slightly more than $1 million.

Mr. STENNIS. Is it the Senator's opinion that if we include the new group in the system the fund is not going to be self-sustaining?

Mr. MONRONEY. That was the basis on which I raised the question. If it is definitely understood that by its action the Senate does not accept the responsibility for the self-sustaining nature of our employees' fund, if we can put a "whereas" into the provisions so we can maintain the integrity of the fund, then I would think the bill should pass, and I would have no objection.

Mr. STENNIS. If we have a system which is sound and is in the black, and we broaden it under conditions whereby it will not remain sound, but will go into the red, why not say so and establish a

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Louisiana has made a statement which reflects my feeling that we have to understand that the retirement fund in the Senate is like that of employees retirement funds in private life. Employees in shops and private life. Employees in shops and factories throughout the Nation receive contributions for their retirement funds from their employers, so they are not necessarily dependent entirely on contributions by the employees. If I correctly understood the statement of the Senator from Louisiana, it seems to me it would be well to bring to the attention of the conferees, or the House, which is to consider the bill, at least the establishing of an autonomous unit within the legislative retirement fund, with separate bookkeeping, and with an acknowledgment that the Government may have to make a contribution, just as any good employer makes a contribution.

Let us not complain about it. Congress insists that employers in private industry shall make contributions. It is done under social security, and the with the same generosity and in the least we can do is to treat our employees same spirit.

Mr. MONRONEY. I thank the Senator.

would favor that, rather than mixing together something which people will not understand.

Mr. MONRONEY. I say to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that all are included in the civil service retirement fund. Our retirement, our employees' retirement, and the retirement of the employees of the executive departments are all included in the general civil service retirement fund. In the case of the fund for Members of Congress we insist that they keep track of the income derived and of the money paid out. I will add that the amount I mentioned as having been collected represents only the money paid in and does not include the interest earned, which would add perhaps 3 or 32 percent to the fund each year for the 7 years it has been in operation. So it is entirely possible that it might become a continually increasing fund.

The point I am trying to make is that if we include these additional employees, we should still insist on bookkeeping being done to maintain the integrity of

the congressional retirement fund and not charge us with the additional liabilities which will be created.

Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator has made a valuable contribution. Could not an amendment be written now which would meet the situation head-on

Senator from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.

Mr. STENNIS. I desire to be sure that I correctly understand the situathat I correctly understand the situation. I think the Senator from Oklahoma is the best-informed person on this phase of the subject.

If I correctly understand the retirement plan for Members of Congress, it is self-sustaining; it is not supported by the Federal Government, and it is over $1 million in the black.

different funds?

Mr. MONRONEY. I think the record could be shown in reports or in some other way. Possibly it would have been well to put in a "whereas" amendment. Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield to my distinguished colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. ANDERSON. Reference could be made to a number of cards, and, in a few minutes, the amount paid in and the amount paid out could be ascertained. I

think the figures will remain in the black, so long as we have taken the action we have. I predict that the legislative employees will not throw the fund very far into the red, if they throw it into the red at all; but if they do, it is a perfectly just expenditure of the Federal Government. We should have no difficulty whatever in keeping separate accounts, so long as the figure stays in the black, when we are on a very sound basis.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If I understand correctly, it is provided that no legislative employee can retire until he reaches the age of 62.

Mr. MONRONEY. That is correct under the Russell amendment just adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Suppose there is an employee who has dual service. Suppose he has had 10 years' service downtown and 20 years service as a legislative employee. Under the terms of the bill, he cannot retire until he reaches the age of 62, whereas, under the 30year retirement policy, he might be able to retire before that age.

Mr. MONRONEY. That illustrates one of the reasons why we asked to have the bill referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. But my horseback guess is that he could take his choice of working until he is 62 years of age under the new plan or he could retire at the age of 55 under the civilservice features.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The other alternative would be that if he were eligible for retirement, he could retire and sit around and cool his heels for a number of years. When we deal with a man's retirement fund, it is a delicate subject. We should know what we are doing, not guess.

I should like to point out another thing which comes to my mind. This bill provides that an employee must have 6 years under the legislative-retirement system. Suppose he works 5 years as a legislative employee, or suppose he comes here with a new Member of Congress and most of us hire our legislative employees within a matter of a week or two after we get to Washington, so they do not put in the full 6 years-suppose the Member of Congress by whom he is employed, is defeated. I see no provision in the bill that will handle a case of that sort. It looks like he will lose that time-if not then how will it be computed? No one here has the answer. I think it shows the absurdity of trying to write a piece of legislation of this kind on the floor of the Senate. If you are not careful we will hurt someone.

Also the bill contains a ceiling of 75 percent. How will this affect an employee who now has more than 50 years' service under the old act. Does he lose? Someone should be able to answer the question.

Mr. MONRONEY. The distinguished Senator from Delaware has raised the same doubts I had. Let us suppose the case of a clerk who began to work for a Senator a month after the Senator took office. Then suppose the Senator either retired or was defeated, and the clerk had only 5 years and 11 months of

constructive service. The clerk could be employed for 1 month at $10 a month, and would then become eligible for the average pay he received, which would make little difference in the retirement benefits.

On the other hand, if a Senator or a Representative were defeated, he could not join the retirement fund for an extra not join the retirement fund for an extra month to become eligible. I believe former Senator NIXON who is now the President of the Senate, resigned his poPresident of the Senate, resigned his position as Senator a little short of the time required under the Retirement Act, so he was not eligible. He could not be employed as a Senator or a Representative for a few days.

So let us not deceive ourselves that the bill still is not a better bill for the legislative employees. I think most of the objectionable features have been removed, and perhaps before the bill completes its course through the House of Representatives, other deficiencies may be shown to exist. However, I believe the committee and the distinguished chairman of the committee have done a very constructive job in helping to improve the bill on the floor. Mr. WILLIAMS.

the Senator yield?

Mr. MONRONEY. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma will agree with me that there is a conflict with respect to the retirement rates when employees may become eligible. If a person was planning to retire next year at the age of 60, under the bill, he will now have to wait 2 years, doing nothing, in order to qualify.

Mr. MONRONEY. The bill does not take away his present civil service retirement rights, which are pretty good. They are not too much better than he would enjoy under the bill, so he can take either road. He can either retire at 60 under civil service, or he can work until he is 62 and retire under the congressional retirement system.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That might be what was intended, but I fail to find such a provision in the bill. In conference with other Senators, I have been advised that it is not in the bill now before the Senate.

Mr. MONRONEY. If the Senator will examine the civil-service law, I believe he will find that it does not require that a person give up his civil-service retirement rights. He can choose the better benefits of either system. The money all is a part of the same fund and is all under the same act. under the same act. We have merely insisted on keeping the books separately so we can tell where we stand with respect to the stability of our own congressional fund. So I do not believe that under the bill we would be denying to a person the civil-service rights he has earned; we would merely give him better rights if he could qualify.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with the Senator. I do not believe it was the intention to deny such rights, but I am inclined to think perhaps there is a question that we might be doing so.

Mr. MONRONEY. That was one reason why I favored referring the bill to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

percent as that which is being sought by the 6 percent put in by congressional employees. I have tried to show, with respect to our own fund, that we are paying more into the fund than is being withdrawn, on the basis of statistics of 7 years.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator is able to cite those figures because at the time the fund was established, certain safeguards were placed around the retirement fund for Members of Congress which were not placed around the retirement fund so far as Government employees are concerned. I think it was proper that Congress should have been a little more lenient toward employees in general than toward Members of Congress. Nevertheless, it is the safeguards thrown around the congressional fund which have resulted in the figures the Senator is able to place before the Senate today. Those safeguards are not placed around legislative employees. The safeguards which are placed around that fund are not placed around the employees' fund. Let us hope we do not regret our decision here today.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I think there were defects in the bill, some of which the Senate this afternoon has corrected. I believe there are still some further problems connected with the bill, and I trust they will be solved before the bill returns to the Senate for final action.

Members of Congress who have had any experience in dealing with retirement and civil service legislation fully appreciate the problems involved. There are bound to arise such questions as have been raised in the Senate this afternoon.

I am delighted with the action which has been taken. I expect to support the bill, and I sincerely hope that when it is returned to the Senate for final action it will be a measure of which we can all be proud.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment, and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 3, after line 11, after the amendment adopted on the motion of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY], it is proposed to insert:

Provided, That all payments by or to Members of the Congress shall be computed separately.

So as to make the section read:

SEC. 2. The amendments made by this act shall not apply to employees who were not employed in the legislative branch on the date of the passage of this act: Provided, That all payments by or to Members of the Congress shall be computed separately.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment, for the sole purpose of having it clear in the RECORD, for anyone to see, that payments by Members of Congress shall be kept separate and apart from all other payments.

Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi is agreed to.

The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 2175) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"SEC. 603. (a) Section 4 of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(g) Any officer or employee in the legislative branch of the Government within the classes of officers and employees made eligible for the benefits of this act by the act of July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947, retiring under this act on or after the date of enactment of this subsection and after having reached the age of 62 years and after having rendered at least 6 years of service as such an officer or employee shall, if he so elects at the time of retirement, be paid, in lieu of an annuity computed under subsection (a), a life annuity equal to the sum of the following:

"(A) 22 percent of the average salary, pay, or compensation received by him during the years of allowable service multiplied by the years of service as an employee described in this subsection;

"(B) 12 percent of such average salary, pay, or compensation multiplied by the years of service other than as an employee described in this subsection.

In no case shall an annuity computed under this subsection exceed an amount equal to 75 percent of the highest average annual salary, pay, or compensation received by the officer or employee during 5 consecutive years of allowable service. No officer or employee shall be entitled to the benefits of this subsection unless there shall have been deducted and withheld from his basic salary, pay, or compensation for the last 5 years of his serv

"(b) The last paragraph of section 3 (a) of such act is amended by striking out 'January 30, 1950' and inserting in lieu thereof 'January 30, 1954'."

SEC. 2. The amendments made by this act shall not apply to employees who were not employed in the legislative branch on the date of the passage of this act: Provided, That

all payments by or to Members of the Congress shall be computed separately.

REPORT OF NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OPPOSES BRICKER AMENDMENT

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have received from the committee on amendments to the Federal Constitution of the

New York State Bar Association a second report on proposed constitutional amendments. This report was prepared prior to the decision of the Senate Judiprior to the decision of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Senate Resolution 1, as amended.

The New York State Bar report once again opposes constitutional amendments which would cripple the treatymaking power.

So, too, other leading legal sources throughout our Nation object to paralysis of this power at a time in American history when, in the face of the worldwide tory when, in the face of the worldwide Communist menace, we can least afford to have our foreign policy impaired.

I send to the desk now the text of the New York State Bar's report and ask unanimous consent that it be printed at this point in the body of the RECORD.

There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SECOND REPORT ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE MAKING OF TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

The Committee on Amendments to the Federal Constitution reports that the proponents of amendments of the Constitution to restrict treaties and executive agreements have not proved their case. The present constitutional procedures have stood the test of time and the pressures of great events. We should not amend them.

THE CURRENT PROPOSALS

In the present session of Congress, hearings have been held by a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on two proposed resolutions to amend the Constitution, Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced by Senator BRICKER and over 60 other Senators, and Senate Joint Resolution 43, introduced by Senator WATKINS. Both bills are set out in the Appendix. Senate Joint Resolution 1 has the same basic purpose as Senate Joint Resolution 130 which this committee opposed last year. Although many Senators joined in introducing Senate Joint Resolution 1, a number of them, it is believed, did so simply to encourage study of the topic.

Senate Joint Resolution 43 is descended from an amendment approved by a majority of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association over the opposition of its section on international and comparative law. The present version is sponsored by the committee of the American Bar Association known as the committee on peace and law through the United Nations and it states that it has not submitted this text to the house of delegates. In any event, the text is, so far as it affects treaties, similar to the proposal we opposed last year.

The record of the hearings on these proposals has been published. The administra

No report of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been rendered at the time of preparation of our present report.

Important developments have occurred since our last report. Our last report stated that the United States representatives in the United Nations should convert the Covenant of Human Rights from a treaty pledging legislation for immediate adoption of all its

provisions into a document which amounts

to no more than a declaration of approved principles in the form of recommendations. Since then, it has been authoritatively stated for the Eisenhower administration that it does not intende to become a party to the Covenant on Human Rights.

As the prospect of that covenant being adopted by the executive branch has been the principal source of a movement for amending the constitutional provision on adoption of such a treaty is for the present the treaty power, and the danger of the

gone, the argument in favor of hurried adoption of a constitutional amendment has been substantially undermined. Furthermore, the present situation in that respect confirms the view expressed in our first report that to defeat the Covenant on Human Rights, or to convert it into a mere expression of principles, is an easier and wiser procedure than to tamper with the Constitution.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CAMPAIGN TO
CRIPPLE IT

Article II, relating to the powers of the President, provides that

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

And article VI provides:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The agitation on this subject has its source in the decision of the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416). By the act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 847), Congress had attempted to exercise a protective control over migratory wildfowl. That act was held unconstitutional in two district court cases decided in 1914, on the ground that the regulation of shooting wildfowl was exclusively a function of the States (United States v. Shauver (214 Fed. 154); United States v. McCullagh (221 Fed. 288)). Thereafter, in 1916, the United States and Great Britain made a treaty providing for the protection, by closed seasons and in other ways, of migratory birds in the United States and Canada and binding each power to take the necessary legislative measures for carrying it out. The act of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755), prohibiting killing of the migratory birds, except as permitted by regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture, was the measure enacted by Congress to implement the treaty.

The question of the validity of that statute reached the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416). The act was sustained (Justices VanDevanter and Pitney dissenting). The Court held that the protection of migratory wildfowl, transitorially in Canada and in the United States of America, is an appropriate subject of international agreement and that the treaty is valid, and that the statute implementing the treaty is valid because of the provision in article I, section 8 of the Constitution thatto

"The Congress shall have power make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the