« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
forfeited. It is suggested, therefore, if the bill receives favoragle consideration that it be amended by substituting the name of Rose Schiffer for that of Hyman Schiffer, both in line 5 and in the title of the measure.
Whether or not the bill if amended as suggested above should be enacted involves a question of legislative policy concerning which I prefer not to make any suggestions. Sincerely yours,
FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D. C., July 27, 1944. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to your oral inquiry relative to the bill (H. R. 299) for the relief of Hyman L. Schiffer, who was surety on a departure bond given by Frieda Schiffer to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
You requested information as to the status of the proceedings against Frieda Schiffer. I take pleasure in informing you that pursuant to the authority conferred on men by title II of the act of June 28, 1940 (54 Stat. 671; 8 U. S. C. 155c), I suspend deportation in this case.
In accordance with the requirement of the statute, the case was reported by me to the Congress on July 1, 1944. Sincerely yours.
FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General.
STATE OF New York,
County of Kings, 88:
That he resides at 90 Maujer Street, in the borough of Brooklyn, city and State of New York That deponent is making this affidavit for the purpose of having the Committee on Claims act favorably on bill H. R. 4801.
That your deponent is extremely desirous of obtaining a release upon a bond in the sum of $500, which deponent executed and filed with the Department of Labor, Immigration and Naturalization Service, for the safe departure of alien, Frieda Schiffer.
That deponent is not a professional bondsman, nor has he acted in this capacity before. That the reason deponent filed this bond was because of the fact that the alien is a relative of your deponent.
The circumstances which brought about your deponent filing this bond are as follows:
On October 1, 1938, I received a letter from this alien informing me that she was being held at Ellis Island for the purpose of deportation. Upon visiting her at Ellis Island, I discovered that she was a second cousin of mine. Up to this time I had no knowledge of her intentions to come to this country.
She informed me that she had obtained a visitor's visa and had made reservations at the Wellington Hotel in New York with the expressed purpose of staying in New York for 2 weeks and then visiting her brother in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She also told me that she did not know that a $500 bond was required and had therefor made no preparation to advance this money.
She gave me several addresses of relatives and asked me to speak in her behalf to raise this sum of $500. After repeated attempts, the money could not be obtained, and I was compelled to place a bond out of my own funds rather than to have her deported after having arrived in this country.
She was then released, after the placing of this bond, but made no effort whatsoever to leave the United States and contact her brother in Argentina.
After the lapse of 2 weeks, she made an application with the Department to extend her stay in this country, against my objections. The Department informed me, when these extensions were made that unless she departed voluntarily I would have to consent to these extensions or else forfeit the bond.
In the month of June 1939 I again communicated with the Department of Labor at Ellis Island and informed them that I could not remain on the bond
because of my financial circumstances, and could not consent to any further extensions. Despite this effort on my part to withdraw from the bond, the Department extended her visitor's visa until September 1939.
In September 1939, which was the expiration date of the last extension, the alien made no effort whatsoever to obtain any further extensions and did not appear at the Department of Labor until she was arrested under a warrant issued by the Department.
Upon information and belief, a number of hearings were held and she was then released upon a new bond, which was placed with the Department of Labor in her behalf by some person unknown to me. At no time was I requested to appear at these hearings.
After her release under this new bond, deponent made repeated efforts to obtain the $500 which deponent had placed as a bond for her voluntary departure. These efforts were carried on for 6 months and deponent was then informed that my bond had been forfeited, but up until the expiration of this 6 months' period the bond was still in effect and had not been forfeited. I was then informed by the Legal Division of the Department of Labor that though there was considerable merit to my case and they were in favor of turning over the $500 to me, they could not do so because of the existing law which prohibited such an act. I was informed by them that my only remedy was to make an application to Congress and have them pass a bill restoring the bond to me.
My bond had been forfeited despite the fact that I had refused to consent to any extensions; that I had cooperated with the Department in all their efforts to locate the alien by keeping in constant touch with the alien and forwarding all new addresses to the Department. That on numerous occasions I had contacted the alien and insisted upon her appearing at the Department and to have ber depart voluntarily from the country.
Wherefore, deponent prays that the Committee on Claims act favorably upon the bill. Sworn to before me this 12th day of March 1942.
HYMAN L. SCHIFFER
FEBRUARY 13, 1945.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
Mr. McGEHEE, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 1396)
The Committee on Claims to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1396) for the relief of Anne Loacker, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventy-eighth Congress.
The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 1463 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report.
IH. Rept. No. 1463, 78th Cong., 2d sess.) The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Civil Service Commission to pay out of any money in the civil service retirement and disability fund, to Anne Loacker, of Spokane, Wash., the widow of Leo G. Loacker, formerly a railway-mail clerk, an annuity equal in amount to the annuity which she would have been entitled to receive had the retirement of the said Leo Ğ. Loacker become effective on November 1, 1941, and had he elected in writing, at the time of such retirement, to receive a reduced annuity equal to such reduced annuity payable after his death to the said Anne Loacker, as surviving beneficiary.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It appears that Leo G. Loacker was a railway postal clerk assigned out of Spokane, Wash., and had reached the age of retirement. This date was apparently at the close of business on October 31, 1941. Under the Retirement Act an employee who makes application for retirement is asked which of the two plans he prefers. There is the regular retirement and also the survivorship plan, where if accepted the annuities are divided between the wife and her husband. The law requires the retiring person to make application for the survivorship plan if he desires it and he is then furnished a statement of just how much each will draw in annuities. He must sign a statement that he desires or rejects this plan.
Mr. Loacker, according to the record, made, through the proper channels, application for retirement on August 11, 1941, as he was due to officially retire on November 1, 1941. In the annuity application in answer to the question with respect to type of annuity desired, Mr. Loacker stated: “Desire to defer election of annuity until I receive information of the amount due under each option." It is apparent that the application for annuity, including the questions relating to option, was sent to the Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service on August 5, 1941, but was not forwarded to the Commission until October 31, 1941, at the time of certification to the Commission of the retirement account, as shown in the Post Office Department records, a necessary proceeding in the settlement of an annuity account.
It is further noted that nothing further was heard from this matter until on December 16, 1941, Mrs. Loacker received a letter addressed to Mr. Loacker under date of December 12, 1941, at Washington, D. C., which gave the desired information. Mr. Loacker had been officially retired November 1, 1941, taken to the hospital on November 3, and passed away on December 4, 1941, 8 days before the letter was written him from Washington, 12 days before the letter was actually received by Mrs. Loacker.
There are two reports from the Commission on the case in which they state that they had no knowledge that there was any emergency in the case of Mr. Loacker until November 28, 1941, when a letter was received from the chief clerk of the railway mail district advising the Commission of Mr. Loacker's physical condition. They stated it takes a lot of time to compile the information and to give the information which was requested. They admit that perhaps there was some delay unnecessarily because of the fact that they did not have any knowledge of the emergency and the case was submitted in the regular way and handled as in the usual procedure, but, after the letter describing the condition of Mr. Loacker on November 28, it would have been practically impossible to get the desired information to him so that he could have inade a decision before his death on December 4, 1941.
The Commission in a letter dated January 31, 1944, states: “The Commission recognizes considerable merit in the relief proposed by H. R. 3659, but without authorization from Congress cannot make an annuity award to Mrs. Loacker. It may be that this is a case where special legislation is warranted and the Commission offers no objection to the bill should Congress decide that enactment of the law is justified.”
Therefore, your committee recommends favorable consideration to the proposed bill. Appended hereto is the report of the Civil Service Commission, together with other pertinent evidence.
UNITED STATES Civil SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D. C., January 31, 1944. Hon, Dan R. McGEHEE,
Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. McGEHEE: Receipt is acknowledged of your communication of January 26, 1944, transmitting copy of H. R. 3659, a bill for the relief of Anne Loacker, and requesting the views of the Commission thereon.
The records of the Commission show that Mr. Loacker was separated from the service on account of age, effective at the close of business October 31, 1941. His application for annuity, although dated August 5, 1941, was not received in the Commission until November 3, 1941. The Retirement Act states that the benefit allowed thereunder shall be a life annuity terminable upon the death of the annuitant. The law-further provides that an employee at the time of his retirement may elect to receive either an increased annuity with forfeiture of individual account upon death or a joint and survivorship annuity. The election of either of the latter types of benefit requires affirmative action on the part of the retired employee, which was not done in this case. In the annuity application in answer to the question with respect to type of annuity desired, Mr. Loacker stated: “Desire to defer election of annuity until I receive information of the amount due under each option.” Apparently the application for annuity, including the questions relating to option, was sent to the Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service on August 5, 1941, but was not forwarded to the Commission until October 31, 1941, at the time of certification to the Commission of the retirement account, as shown in the Post Office Department records, a necessary proceeding in the settlement of an annuity account.
Following receipt of the retirement account by the Retirement Division of the Civil Service Commission, verification of the service history is made through the Commission's Service Record Division, which maintains the service records of Federal employees. This verification was referred to the Retirement Division on November 14, 1941. The usual course followed in the Retirement Division is to take up the adjudication of a case in the order of receipt unless there is some special reason why a case should be taken up out of order. At the time, the Commission had no knowledge that there was any emergency in the case of Mr. Loacker.
On November 28, 1941, a letter was received from the chief clerk of the railway mail district advising the Commission of Mr. Loacker's physical condition. Apparently the case was then taken up for adjudication, but it takes time to compile the information which was necessary to reply to Mr. Loacker's request. Meantime, Mr. Loacker died on December 4.
The Commission gave careful and sympathetic consideration to this case, but there did not appear any way under the law in which it could do other than make the decision which it did. The law provides that an annuitant must make claim on the joint and survivorship option at the time of retirement. Mr. Loacker had not made a decision and the failure to do so deprived his widow of the benefits she would have otherwise received.
Undoubtedly there was delay between the application for retirement and the request for information as to single and joint survivorship benefits. Although dated August 5, the Post Office Department apparently held Mr. Loacker's communication until the date of his retirement, so that the Civil Service Commission had no knowledge of that request. There was also some delay after the request did reach the Commission which might have been avoided had the Commission known of Mr. Loacker's condition and advanced his application out of the regular order. After information of the condition of Mr. Loacker reached the Commission on November 28, 1941, it was of course impossible to get the desired information to him so that he could have received it and made a decision by the time of his death on December 4.
The Commission recognizes considerable merit in the relief proposed by H. R. 3659, but without authorization from Congress cannot make an annuity award to Mrs. Loacker. It may be that this is a case where special legislation is warranted and the Commission offers no objection to the bill should Congress decide that enactment of the law is justified.
In connection with a duplicate bill, S. 818, the Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of a similar report to the Committee on Civil Service, United States Senate. Very sincerely yours,
HARRY B. MITCHELL, President.
Railway MAIL AssociATION,
Spokane, January 20, 1944. Hon. Dan R. McGEHEE,
Chairman, Committee on Claims, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. McGEHEE: Congressman Horan, of Washington, introduced in the House on November 12, 1943, H. R. 3659, for the relief of Anna E. Loacker, widow of Leo G. Loacker, a former railway postal clerk. Mrs. Loacker lives at West 211 Twenty-seventh Avenue, Spokane, Wash. I will give you some of the background of this case so you have a better understanding of it.
Leo G. Loacker was a railway postal clerk assigned out of Spokane, Wash., and reached the age of retirement. Under the Retirement Act an employee who makes application for retirement is asked which of the two plans he prefers. There is the regular retirement and also the survivorship plan, where if accepted, the annuities are divided between the wife and husband. The law requires the retiring person to make application for the survivorship plan if he desires it, and he is then furnished a statement of just how much each will draw in annuities. He must sign a statement that he desires this plan or rejects it. Mr. Loacker made through channels application for retirement on August 11, 1941, as he was due to officially retire on November 1, 1941. He asked for information about the survivorship annuity or plan and the papers were sent by his chief clerk at Spokane to the division superintendent on August 11, and were forwarded to the Retirement Section of the Railway Mail Service at Washington, D. C., under date of August 13, 1941.