make the same reduction in maximum overtime pay for Sunday and holiday assignments after 8 hours of duty on such days.

Any change in the language of the existing body of customs premium-pay laws on the order of the changes proposed in sections 19 and 20 should be made the subject of a separate bill which is considered fully in context and on its own merits.

NCSA urges deletion of the provisions of sections 19, 20, and 22 from H.R. 18403 primarily because the matter of premium pay for overtime, night, Sunday, and holiday work by inspectional employees of the Customs Service is a subject which is so complex and controversial, and so far-reaching in its effect on earnings and working conditions, that it should be approached, in our opinion, only as separate legislation. And we think such separate legislation should be considered only in the course of full hearings which are openly addressed to the need to justify on the merits every proposed change in the existing basic statutory premium-pay structure.

Certainly consideration of the extensive and detailed alterations in existing customs and other inspectional statutes and regulations which sections 19 and 20 propose for the inspectional groups involved, is not feasible in connection with a bill such as H.R. 18403-which is broad-gage legislation aimed at basic pay systems for Government employees in general.

The existing customs premium-pay statutes are coherent, fully integrated provisions which have been developed over more than a half century to meet the particular needs of the Customs Service in performing its functions. The language of these basic statutory provisions and the Treasury regulations implementing them have been refined and modernized by a long line of judicial decisions and administrative interpretations. The result has been to maintain into the contemporary period, the balance which the public interest demands between the cost to the general taxpayer of customs services and the cost to private interests directly benefited by the special services provided them, and at the same time, to preserve the right of customs employees to be compensated for the extra services required of them at the premium-pay rates fixed by the statute.

It is self-evident that the language of the statutes which are the basis of the customs premium-pay structure thus evolved should not be disturbed except for the most compelling reasons, or without thoroughgoing appraisal of the consequences. In our view, it would verge upon the irresponsible to accept wholesale changes in the language of the basic customs statutes in the nature of the changes proposed by sections 19 and 20 without a full-dress appraisal of that kind. We are confident that, under the circumstances, H.R. 18403 does not provide a suitable vehicle for such an appraisal.

Although there is no doubt that any proposal to change the language of the customs premium-pay laws raises questions of a highly controversial nature, we are advised that this subcommittee has not had the benefit of the views of officials of the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Customs. These are the officials who are charged with administering the customs premium-pay laws involved. Their opinion with respect to the proposals contained in sections 19, 20, and 22 would seem to be essential. The fact that the record is being made without an expression of their views as the implementing agencies is but an added reason why the proposals in question should be deleted from H.R. 18403 by this committee.

CALLBACK LIMITATION

It is pertinent to note in this connection the consequences of the obvious lack of informed evaluation of the effect of but one of the changes in the existing customs regulatory pattern which is proposed by section 19 of H.R. 18403. This is the proposed limitation on overtime pay to "a minimum of 2 hours overtime pay" for being recalled. This restriction is stated at page 32, lines 20-26, of the bill. Such a limitation would destroy the 4-hour "rollback" for certain extra services to which customs employees have been entitled by regulation since 1944. We have estimated, on the basis of a nationwide survey of overtime earnings in 1969, that this provision would reduce by 25 percent the average overtime earnings of customs inspectors who are called back for extra duty at all hours of the night and often for only short periods of actual service. The inequity of the particular proposal is particularly glaring in view of the emphasis elsewhere in H.R. 18403 on comparability with private industry where the minimum rate of 4-hours overtime for duty on recall is virtually a standard provision in these times.

It is neither desirable nor necessary to change the existing statutory framework of the basic customs laws and regulations in order to achieve the professed objective of uniformity in premium-pay for inspectional forces.

The proposed provisions in sections 19 and 20 of H.R. 18403 go far beyond anything that would be required to bring about uniformity in premium-pay rates and earnings for the six inspectional groups with which these proposals are concerned.

We concede that it would be desirable for the relatively small groups of employees in other agencies who perform inspectional services similar to the services performed by the two major groups in customs and immigration to be paid at the same premium rates for the same hours of special duty at night and on Sundays and holidays. But we emphatically do not agree that an acceptable solution would be to obtain such uniformity by lowering in any respect established customs premium-pay rates or methods of computing compensable time and earnings.

Manifestly, it would be neither equitable nor consistent in principle to view the objective of uniformity as properly achieved by a measure which would have an adverse effect on the earnings and working conditions of almost 5,000 customs and immigration employees in order to provide uniformity for fewer than 1,000 employees in the small inspectional groups of the other four agencies.

The equitable solution and the right one, we believe, would be to accomplish the desired uniformity by bringing the lower groups up to the customs level. It is clear, moreover, that the cost to the Government of bringing the premiumpay rates and earnings of the smaller groups up to the customs level would be minimal. We respectfully point out that this could be done quite readily - without tampering in the least with the underlying customs statutes and regulations, it could also be done without superimposing still another regulatory authority upon the discretion of the Treasury, which is the administrative agency with the most experience and expertise in such matters and could for this reason properly be designated the source of uniform regulations.

Chaos of the kind that existed prior to the Myers decision in 1944 would follow in the wake of ill-considered substantive changes in the language of existing customs premium-pay laws.

There may be members of this committee who will remember the chaotic conditions which existed in the administration of the customs premium-pay laws in the long period after 1920 before the Supreme Court settled the key questions of statutory interpretation by its decision in United States v. Myers (320 U.S. 561) in 1944. Throughout that 25-year period of controversy and litigation, the carriers and the Treasury refused to recognize the mandatory character of the customs premium-pay rates which were originally fixed by amendments to the 1911 act in 1920, and thereafter extended and reenacted in 1922 and 1930 and again in 1938 and 1944. The carriers used every means at their command to block application of the pay provisions; the Treasury gave the provisions only partial effect. The statutes were construed narrowly in every particular. Practices in scheduling regular tours and assignments to extra duty which were hit-and-miss-split shifts, scattered broken periods of extra duty, time off in lieu of payment-were employed so as to avoid or minimize the extra compensation actually paid.

By suits which they initiated, the customs employees finally succeeded in enforcing the statute after years of litigation.

The cornerstone of the employees' vindication at long last, was then and is today the Supreme Court's Myers decision in January 1944. The Court held, after a comprehensive review of the history of the provisions and careful analysis of the statutory language, that the premium-pay rates fixed initially by the 1920 act were mandatory and must be paid. It also held that the Treasury has no power to make assignments to duty on regular tours or otherwise which could deprive the inspectors of the extra compensation to which the statute entitles them.

In the face of the changes in the language of the basic customs laws which are proposed in the provisions of sections 19 and 20, we are constrained to point out to the members of your committee that the chaos which existed in the pre-Myers period from 1920 to 1944 could be expected to return in the wake of any such cavalier rewrite of the basic customs laws. We would forsee another long round of litigation by the carrier industries in a renewed effort to find a basis for relief from reimbursement-possibly even another extended, expensive, morale-destroying series of litigations by the customs employees themselves— before the law would again be clarified and stabilized.

There is no valid basis for a claim that customs is operating under premiumpay provisions which are out of step with the times.

Within the statutory framework made clear by the Supreme Court's decision and subsequently confirmed as correct by the Congress when it wrote the Meyers decision into the basic law by citing the case in the "Bridge" bill amendment enacted in June 1944 (19 U.S.C. 1451), Treasury has regularly exercised its limited authority to define compensable hours and to determine methods of computation. In so doing it has kept the premium-pay practices in the Customs Service fully abreast of the times and sensitive to the changing needs of the Service and the character of international travel and transportation.

We have heard it said by persons who, for reasons of their own, would like to scrap part or all of the existing premium-pay provisions, that because these laws date back to 1911, when the original Customs Overtime Act was passed, they are antiquated, outmoded, archaic, designed for ocean-going travel, etc. It is of course not correct that the Customs Service operates today under laws unchanged since 1911. Reliance on any such contention is equivalent to predicating argument on an assertion that the Federal Government now operates under a 1789 Constitution designed for the horse-and-buggy age.

Obviously, the activities of the Customs Service have been kept current with every modern development in the international traffic which it serves, and the premium-pay provisions, which are a closely integrated part of these activities, remain wholly viable pieces of contemporary law. One bit of recent evidence of this fact is that the premium-pay rates and regulations, complex as they are in operation, have been found suitable for computer programing for the rapid billing and paying of customs overtime charges.

We emphasize our contention that the best interests of the Customs Service and the employees of all the inspectional agencies would be served by eliminating sections 19, 20 and 22 from the bill and if review is deemed desirable that it be considered in a separate bill.

Mr. UDALL. Our next witness is Mr. Raymond Vanderhorst, president, National Association of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service County Employees (NASCOE), accompanied by Clyde R. Payne, secretary-treasurer, NASCOE.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND VANDERHORST, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE COUNTY EMPLOYEES (NASCOE); ACCOMPANIED BY CLYDE R. PAYNE, SECRETARY-TREASURER

Mr. VANDERHORST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very short statement. I don't know how much time I have. Mr. UDALL. You have plenty of time to read your statement. Mr. VANDERHORST. First, I might add that Mr. Payne has a short statement that he will file for the record.

Mr. UDALL. Very well.

Mr. VANDERHORST. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I am Raymond D. Vanderhorst, president of the National Association of ASCS County Office Employees, better known as NASCOE. We certainly appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today in support of a pay comparability system for Federal employees.

NASCOE is a voluntary organization of county office employees who carry out various Federal farm programs, assigned to them by the Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture. The headquarters for ASCS is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture here in Washington, D.C. There are also State and county ASCS offices in each State that administer only these Federal farm programs.

There are approximately 3,000 county ASCS offices in the U.S. employing in excess of 14,500 employees, of which over 14,000 or 97 percent belong to NASCOE. So you can see why we are proud of our membership and organization.

While county ASCS employees are technically employed by the county ASC committee, all of our functions are Federal. The Congress in its wisdom put us under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act, effective July 10, 1960. For this we are eternally grateful.

For the above-stated reasons and the fact we are technically not Federal employees, we respectfully ask the subcommittee to include in bill H.R. 18403 a section applying the provisions of this bill to persons employed by county ASC committees with the proper wording determined by the subcommittee or staff assistant.

We feel there is a great need to establish a permanent pay comparability system for all Federal employees, therefore we support this bill in principle. While the bill is revolutionary in its concept, it does provide the machinery to make the principle of comparability work in actual practice.

Due to the fact that all NASCOE officers are full-time employees administering Federal farm programs at the county level, and not experts in this field, we do not have any detailed recommendations on the content of this bill. For this reason we will leave this area of endeavor to the wisdom of this committee and the Congress as a whole. Mr. Chairman, again let me thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and commend you for your efforts to effect true comparability in the salaries of Federal employees.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Payne, do you wish to supplement those remarks?

Mr. PAYNE. My statement merely supplements his, and I would like to bring to your attention in my statement the fact that, in the last several pay bills the Congress passed, you added specific wording to include us. We hope that you will do that also in this one.

Mr. UDALL. You have always had considerable support on this committee. Amendments to include you in the various bills seem. to pass more often than not. We will take it into account and see what we can do for you here. We appreciate your coming down here today. Mr. Hogan.

Mr. HOGAN. I have no questions.

(Mr. Payne's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLYDE R. PAYNE, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE COUNTY EMPLOYEES (NASCOE)

I am Clyde R. Payne, Hamilton County ASCS executive director, Jasper, Fla., and secretary-treasurer of the National Association of ASCS County Employees. The National Association of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Employees (NASCOE) is a voluntary organization of County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Employees-hereafter referred to as ASCS employees. Approximately 97 percent of the 14,000 ASCS employees are members of NASCOE from every country and State. The Sole purpose of this organization is to promote the welfare of its members. Each State has a State organization of ASCS county employees and is affiliated with NASCOE and

has two members on the board of directors. NASCOE has national officers and an executive committee representing five geographic areas of the United States. All officers, committeemen, etc., are ASCS employees with no salaried personnel, but we do have on a retainer basis Mr. Dillard B. Lasseter, Post Office Box 270, Washington, D.C. 20044, who keeps us advised on legislative activity and assists us in legislative work.

The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service employees administer Federal programs assigned to them by the Congress, Secretary of Agriculture, Executive orders, etc. The headquarters for ASCS is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Building, Washington, D.C. There are also State and county ASCS offices who administer only Federal programs. City, county, or State governments have no connection with the national, State, or county level of ASCS. ASCS employees on the county level administer directly to the farmers of the United States a great number of complex USDA farm programs, such as the soil bank, agricultural conservation, marketing quotas (tobacco, cotton, wheat, peanuts, and rice), commodity credit loans, cropland adjustment, wool incentive payments, suger, feed grain, etc. These are practically all the action programs of the USDA.

As you know, County ASCS employees are not under civil service. However, we enjoy many benefits of civil service employees such as life and health insurance, retirement, severance pay, etc. These benefits have been granted us by your committee and the Congress within the past 10 years.

Our employees are paid entirely by the Federal Government and work entirely under provisions of the Federal Government and are eternally grateful to your committee and the Congress for past action.

We are here today to support the general provisions of H.R. 18403 as we believe passage of this type legislation will cause Federal employees' salaries to be more comparable with salaries of private industry.

Our primary purpose here today in addition to supporting H.R. 18403 is to request you to be sure the final draft of the bill as prepared by your committee is amended to specifically State county agricultural Stabilization employees employed by county ASCS committees are included in the legislation.

The past 10 years you have included county ASCS employees in all pay legislation acted upon by this committee and we are eternally grateful.

In behalf of the 14,000 ASCS county office employees, we thank you for past and future consideration.

Mr. UDALL. We will now hear from Mr. Vincent Jay, legislative director of the Federal Professional Association, and some of his associates this morning.

STATEMENT OF VINCENT E. JAY, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROBERT RAMSPECK AND LUCILE GRAHAM, PRESIDENT

Mr. JAY. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be back before this committee to whom we are indebted for your valuable and laborous work over the years to achieve pay comparability and the machinery to assure continuing comparability. We are deeply grateful to the chairman and to the members of this committee who have continued to work on this task, which is a difficult one. We all recognize that so many imponderables and the diversified interests of various Federal groups make it difficult to arrive at a fair solution.

We have examined H.R. 18403 and H.R. 18603. We feel that H.R. 18603, the administration bill, is more desirable for two very important

reasons.

There are two major points. One is the problem of pay retroactivity. We agree that it is undesirable. It causes a lot of administrative problems and the sooner we can get the pay adjustment in the hands of the people who deserve it the better.

48-859-70--13