Mr. WHITENER. Let me ask you this: Suppose Judge Hyde would like to participate under the congressional retirement fund on the basis of the six years that he paid in and whatever military time he had and also wants to participate under the Judicial Retirement?

Judge GREENE. He could not do that, Mr. Chairman. I believe there is a specific provision in the statute which prohibits double counting for these services.

Mr. WHITENER. What is the situation now in that case?

Judge HYDE. If I may, sir, I can still draw under the present law, I can still draw what I have earned in Congress. Incidentally, to be further personal, I have left the money in, but I can still draw my retirement for that at age 62 in addition to the Judicial Retirement Law.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, if this proposal goes into effect where would you stand-where would you be? Would you still do that?

Judge HYDE. Yes.

Mr. WHITENER. If you did elect, then, to draw on those sources you could not then use your congressional time to beef up your retirement under the judicial plan?

Judge HYDE. That is right. I couldn't do both.

Mr. WHITENER. Under the proposed law you couldn't. I think this is a rather important thing to have in the record.

Now, suppose-let's say Mr. Moyer-how long have you worked for the District Government?

Mr. MOYER. Almost 11 years, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Suppose that he is under a civil service retirement. Again, perhaps we shouldn't use individuals, but suppose Mr. Moyer went on the bench, served for 10 years or 20 years, whatever the case would be, what would then be the effect of this taking into account. that he had built up some 11 years of good retirement years under the Civil Service Act?

Judge GREENE. Mr. Chairman, under the present retirement lawtake that first-he would not get credit at the time of his retirement from the bench. He would not get credit for this 11 years. He would eventually get credit for the 11 years, that is, when he reaches the age of 62 by way of a so-called deferred annuity, but if at the time he completes his judicial service he happens not to be 62 years old, he would then receive only his judicial annuity and he would not be able to count the 11 years at that point. Under the proposed law if a judge is eligible to retire under the Judicial Retirement Act, he would, at that point, receive credit not only for his judicial time but also for his prior civil service or congressional time.

I might add, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the most graphic illustration that I can give of what the effect of this dividing up of these various retirement systems is, which we are trying to join together concerns disability. Under the Ciivil Service Retirement Act, which members of Congress and congressional employees and civil service employers are subject to, the person can retire on disability after having served five years. Likewise, under the Judicial Retirement Act, a judge is eligible to retire on disability after he has served five years.

Now, if, taking Mr. Moyer as an example again, supposing he served 11 years in the civil service, and prior to his retiring from that service

or resigning from that service he became disabled, he would be entitled to annuity at that very minute. But if he is appointed to the bench and becomes disabled one year later, he would be entitled to no annuity whatever, because the service under the Civil Service Retirement Act and the service under the Judicial Retirement Act may not be added up together. This division of retirement systems really works a considerable hardship on those who are appointed to the bench and who subsequently, for one reason or another, retire on disability or because they are not reappointed or because they simply retire. But our proposal would do, or what really the bill 15678 would do would be to join together these various systems and permit them, with the various years of Federal service, including judicial service, to be added up together, civil service, congressional service and military service for specific purposes. The civilian service would be computed in accordance with the proposed statute.

MILITARY SERVICE

Mr. WHITENER. Let's take another example and see how it works now. As a Member of Congress as of this term I will have served 12 years I have had 38 months of active military duty in World War II. I paid nothing into any retirement fund as a member of the military during the war, but as a member of the Congressional Retirement Fund or the Civil Service Retirement Fund, if I were in Mr. Moyers' situation, I get the 38 months added even though I paid nothing in.

Now, let's take me as an example. Now, and I go on to the Court of General Sessions on this proposed retirement plan. I serve my 10 years or my 20 years. Do I then, under this bill, get credit for that 38 months of military service where I paid nothing?

Judge GREENE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You would just as you would if you retired under the congressional retirement system or the civil service retirement system.

Mr. WHITENER. Let's take another example. Suppose instead of being a reservist I had gone into the military service upon graduation from law school and served the 20 years or whatever is required for military retirement. Under these proposals, assuming I had 20 years of honorable service in the legal branch of one of the branches of the service, then I would start out with 20 years military service, which at the end of 10 years judicial service would give me 30 years of retirement; is that right?

Judge GREENE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't answer it exactly, because I am not entirely certain as to what the effect of that 20 years of military service would be under the Civil Service Retirement Act. This bill provides that military service will be continued to the same extent and to the same number of years as it would be under the Civil Service Retirement Act.

Mr. WHITENER. Maybe we had better go to some of the civil service retirement acts first.

Judge HYDE. I am not an expert, Mr. Chairman. I think, just like the congressional service, the maximum of five years that you get in the military service.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Eaton, how about that? Do you know anything about that?

Mr. EATON. I am not an expert on it, but if he retires as a military person after 20 years, he could not, obviously, count that on a judicial retirement. Now, if he had not retired and had 20 years in the military service, I assume under this law that it could be counted. Judge HYDE. If I may interrupt-excuse me.

Mr. WHITENER. What about what Judge Hyde said about the fiveyear maximum for military service?

Judge HYDE. Under the congressional retirement, the maximum amount of credit for military service you can get is five years. I think that is the same under

Mr. FARBER. Barney Farber. There is limitation in the retirement act as it affects survivors that they cannot use more than five years military service; but that limitation is not in the part that is the judge's retirement, nor is it effective in a civil service retiree unless he uses that military service for another retirement.

Judge GREENE. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITENER. Let's go to him again.

Mr. Farber, the man with the 20 years military service which entitles him to military retirement-there is no way, is there, under the proposed legislation or under existing law where this individual could draw his military retirement based on 20 years plus civilian retirement which gave credit for the 20 years?

Mr. FARBER. No, sir, this bill makes the military and civil service retirements that apply to a civil service retiree the same as for a judge. So any restriction that would be on a civil service retiree as deals with military service or previous service would also apply under the judge's retirement act.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, I have no other questions specifically to ask now about it.

Mr. STEIGER. Yes, I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO SYSTEM

Judge Greene, you used in your colloquy the figure 612 percent that you currently pay in. It is my understanding it is 312 percent. Where did you get the other 3 percent?

Judge GREENE. Well, we pay 612 percent-just 612 percent is deducted from our salary just as it is from the salaries of civil service employees.

My understanding is that 32 percent goes to the retirement fund and 3 percent goes to the survivorship fund; but the total that is deducted is 612 percent just as it is in the case of civil service employees.

Mr. STEIGER. But on that portion of your pay which you have not contributed on, and which you now have the option of paying on, that amount is only 312 percent, is that correct?

Judge GREENE. Well, that is probably correct with respect to those judges who have elected to participate in the annuity provisions of the Retirement Act, which I would think that probably most of them are, or perhaps all of them. They would have already contributed 3 percent. If they want to participate in the retirement portion of this new statute, they would have to contribute the additional 31⁄2 percent so it would again add up to 612 percent.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Steiger, maybe Mr. Farber could tell us whether there is any difference in the present fee and the allocation of this survivorship and so forth as far as judges are concerned-as far as civil service retirement is concerned.

Mr. FARBER. Sir, under the present judge retirement act the survivor part of that act provides that the 3 percent is a deduction for survivorship to include mililtary up to 5 years and outside service up to 15 years under a certain formula. So they can, and many have, applied their civilian civil service to the retirement fund for survivorship benefits.

Mr. WHITENER. I think what Mr. Steiger is trying to point out is, as I understand it, that there may be a situation where a judge would only pay in 3 percent if he didn't elect to take a survivorship.

Mr. FARBER. Yes, sir. If a judge happened to be not married and did not deduct survivorship, he would only pay 32 percent for his own retirement and for the service that he might purchase.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, that is not true for civil service?

Mr. FARBER. No, sir. Well, the survivorship compilations under civil service and the judges' retirement acts are different. Under the Civil Service Retirement Act it provides the widow's benefits based on the retiree's annuity.

In other words, up to 55 percent of the retiree's annuity. Under the judges' retirement act, it is based on a formula of 134 percent, I think, of certain factors and 34 percent of other factors, not to exceed 372 percent of their salary. So you can't compare-actually compare the survivor benefits one to the other, but as to the retiree himself, he will, under this act, get the same provisions of using past services as is now possible for the survivor to use under her part of the act.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, may I

Judge Greene, I address this to anyone actually. Obviously our concern is that it is not so much your individual welfare as it is the judicial structure of the District. I am sure that is your concern, too, basically. The table on organizations calls for 20 judges of the General Sessions at this point. Are there any vacancies at this point?

Judge GREENE. No, sir.

Mr. STEIGER. So apparently at least whatever existing salary and retirement is at least it is satisfactory to the point that it is not a cause for a vacancy in the existing number of judgeships available?

Mr. GREENE. That is correct. There are no vacancies, although we believe, and certainly other organizations who are better qualified to speak on that point, than we are, believe that if the salaries and retirement structure were improved, it would be possible to attract constantly well-qualified persons who could go to the bench without sacrifice.

Mr. STEIGER. As a matter of fact, Judge Greene, if the existing structure is upgraded in this rather dramatic fashion, particularly the retirement, is it a fact that it is not going to be able to attract any people, because these people aren't going to leave. The only way we are going to attract any new people is to increase the number of seats on the bench, which I understand is also a recommendation.

Judge GREENE. Congressman Steiger, of course I don't believe, if I may, that the improvements in the retirement act are particularly dramatic.

Mr. STEIGER. Excuse me. Do you yield at that point?

Judge GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEIGER. I would point out that in your own case your retirement would go from some $8,000-I can't verify these tabulationsyou are perhaps more familiar than I am. In your case if you retired at age 62, your retirement would go from $8,975 to $20,994. Now, I would call that a rather dramatic

Judge GREENE. Well, Congressman Steiger, I have not made a computation, and truly I have not in my own case. I have had a computation made of the retirement benefits of older judges, at least I think it is all the judges who are covered under this present law, and I ask that they are designated simply by letter rather than by name so that I wuldn't particularly know who they are. It may well be true, Congressman Steiger, that there would be an increase of the kind that you mentioned in the individual cases, but that omits the fact, omits two which I think are relevant factors.

Mr. WHITENER. May I interrupt you. I think Mr. Farber may have some information on that.

Mr. FARBER. He also has some previous service and under a deferred anuity, he would get $6,252, which would bring his possible annuity up to $15,227. So the difference is not between $8,000 and $20,000. There are factors worked in since we worked the other figures, and we tried to determine what these judges would get as civil service retirees. So there is not a difference of $15,000.

Mr. STEIGER. I want to make it clear, Judge, that I am not quarelling when I selected you. I don't expect you to have to defend your own particular position. I don't mean to do that.

Judge GREENE. I understand.

Mr. STEIGER. It occurs to me that when you have some, for example, in your own court, how big is your backlog now?

Judge GREENE. I wonder, Congressman, if I may answer your first question first and then get to the backlog, if I may be permitted to do so?

I would first want to endorse what the gentleman just said that if you compare the present additional annuity with what it would be under the bill, to be accurate in comparing, one would also have to include any civil service annuity or military or congressional annuity a person will get which he will be entitled to in any event under the present law. If that is counted in the difference between the two in most cases would be relatively small, if any difference at all.

The other point I would like to make about that is that, from what I can gather from the figures that were given to me, and I haven't checked them, but at least those figures were given to me are reasonably accurate, it would show that under present law quite a number of the judges several of the judges at any rate-had they remained for an additional 10 years in the civil service when they were appointed to the bench, they would have at that point been entitled to a far higher annuity than they are entitled to presently under the Judicial Retirement Act so that I think that the purpose of this bill is to remove this penalty which really comes about, a penalty at least insofar as