« PreviousContinue »
made actuarially sound, without having Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Without Having qualified and earned pensions to lean on the other for support. I do consulting him.
under two systems of retirement as renot believe in making one system atone I want to say this further: Just pre- quired by law they were entitled to refor the sins of the other, yet that is what sume that a man who had been in the ceive a small pension from both railroad we did in 1951, when we tied the two railroad work for a number of years then retirement and social security which together. Can there be any justice in gets a job that comes under the social they did. saying to a man, “Now you pay in your security system provided he could get
security system provided he could get. This arrangement had the blessings share of these funds down through the a job-if he got more than $75 a month of Congress when it passed both laws. years, and when you reach 65 you can he would lose the benefits under the so Railroad retirement checks began comretire at a specific stated amount”; cial-security system and he would also ing through monthly and social-security then, when the time comes for him to lose his benefits under the railroad re checks began coming through simulretire, you find he has become entitled tirement system. Is that fair? Does taneously. In fact when the pensioner to retirement compensation on the basis that appeal to your sense of honesty and received his first railroad retirement anof services performed on another job, equity?
nuity check a letter accompanied it you break your contract with him? No, We made a mistake. We have in- telling him that a check in such and as far as I see it, the dual-benefits re jured 30,200 railroad men, and they are such an amount is enclosed and that striction in the Railroad Retirement Act coming to us, they are pleading with us: during his lifetime each month he would is morally indefensible. Certainly you "Won't you please correct it? Just cor receive a check for not less than that can defend it on actuarial grounds. By rect it so if we do happen to retire from amount. the same token, you could defend the the railroad system and get a little job Then suddenly in 1951 he received a proposition of denying benefits to red out here we are protected. We are pay check from the Board and found it had headed people. That would be actu ing for both systems; we paid for the re been reduced by the amount of the check arially sound, too, but it would be wrong. tirement benefits, we have paid for the he received from social security. If the railroad retirement system can social-security benefits. Are you going Mr. Chairman, I ask in all seriousness, not meet the test of this bill, it should be to take them away from us?”
is it fair to collect by force a tax from rewritten entirely, or repealed.
If that is your idea of justice, if that a worker for his pension when he is not Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, will is your idea of dealing with your fellow now eligible for that pension according the gentleman yield? man, God help you.
to the law we passed in 1951? Let us Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. I If a person pays taxes into two re review this whole thing today as yield.
tirement systems such as the railroad thoughtful, responsible representatives Mr. HESELTON. Is it not also true and social-security systems he should be of the people keeping in mind our duty that under no other pension scheme of permitted to draw benefits from both. to those who are so vitally affected as the Federal Government does the same Related to this criticism is the as well as our duty to the interest of the situation exist, as exists under the Rail sertion that it is unfair, unfair to re public. road Retirement Act, and which we seek quire a retired railroad annuitant to We should not in my opinion collect to correct today?
take a job covered by social-security, and a tax for a specific purpose when our Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. If I pay the social-security taxes when he own law prohibits the money collected thought so, I would be introducing bills has no hope of receiving benefits under from
from being used for
for that purpose. to repeal.it. that system.
Ladies and gentleman, I humbly submit Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chair Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman, the at this time that we should make any man, I move to strike out the last word. Committee on Interstate and Foreign changes necessary to make this legisla
Mr. Chairman, while this is a very Commerce is performing a service to the tion fair to all concerned but certainly technical bill—that is, this railroad re Congress and those interested in the we should correct the obvious inequities tirement and social security legislation Railroad Retirement Act by bringing out that have been pointed out here today. the amendment that we are considering H. R. 356 for debate at this time. This
Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I today is very simple. It does not do any gives us a chance to clear up inequities ask unanimous consent that all debate thing except to correct the mistake or and misunderstandings about this leg
on the bill and all amendments thereto the error that was made in 1951 when islation. I have been worried about this end in 15 minutes. we passed the law restricting what we for some time since there seems to be Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, reseryrefer to as dual benefits. We provided something morally wrong about the way ing the right to object, how many amendin 1951 that when a railroad man re the basis act as amended has been work ments are there at the desk? tired, after having worked for the rail ing and I hope we can find the right
The CHAIRMAN. There are two road a number of years, he could draw answer today. As I understand it, un amendments at the desk, the Chair is a certain annuity. We further pro der the operation 3 (b) of the act as it informed. vided, after he retired and it became now stands we have a situation where Mr. HARRIS. And the gentleman necessary for him to work again, to get a man in good faith pays taxes as re
from New Jersey is asking that the dea job, and he came under the social quired by law under two systems of re
bate be limited to 15 minutes ? security system, whatever retirement tirement in anticipation of the day when
Mr. WOLVERTON. I was. benefits he was entitled to under the he will be too old to work that he will
Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. social-security system, could not be be entitled to receive a small pension Chairman, I object. added to what he had earned under the from each system and be able to afford
Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I Railroad Retirement Act. In other the necessities of life. In most cases the move that all debate on the bill and all words, he could not claim one. In other thousands of persons who are affected amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. words, we penalized him for going out, by the social security offset provision
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on after retiring from the railroad retire had no choice about the retirement sys
the motion. ment system and getting a job that came tem under which they fell and were com
The motion was agreed to. under social-security. We said to him pelled to pay taxes. Many of them be
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any that his benefits under social security gan working in the railroad industry and amendments to the committee amendmust be deducted. We said to him that after many years of service during which
ment? it must be deducted irrespective of time they paid railroad retirement tax Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. whether he got it or not.
as required by law they were forced out Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, will of the industry because of reductions in committee amendment. the gentleman yield? force, abandonment of their railroad or
The Clerk read as follows: Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield. other causes.
Amendment offered by Mr. KERSTEN of Mr. VAN ZANDT. Did not the Con Being unable to obtain similar em Wisconsin to the committee amendment: On gress of the United States just arbitrarily ployment with another railroad, many of page 2, line 9, strike out the period and add alter a contract this man had with the them in their later years drifted into
the following: "Except the term 'widow' Railroad Retirement Board? employment covered by the social-secu
shall also include the widows of employees · Mr. ROGERS of Florida. There is no
who, prior to death, had not less than 30 rity program. After working for years question about it.
years of service as defined in section 1 (f) under this system during which time
of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as Mr. VAN ZANDT. Without consult they also paid tax for social-security amended, and who died in the period being him?
benefits as required by law they retired. ginning August 29, 1935, and ending June
30, 1938, shall be deemed, solely for the pur- state and Foreign Commerce of the road employees who worked before 1937, pose of a widow's age 65 annuity, to have
House to continue those studies into that they have not paid the assessments died fully insured, within the meaning of section 5 (1) of such act: Provided, however,
every phase and I can assure the gentle that should have been made. However, That any annuity awarded under this sec
man that the question he has raised will that is not the position that is taken retion shall be computed in the same manner
have the consideration of the committee. garding those railroad employees who as if such annuity had been awarded under
Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. have not accepted employment and have section 5 (a) of such act: Provided further, Chairman, may I say to the distinguished not received social-security protection. That this section shall apply only with re gentleman from New Jersey that, this It is admitted that a railroad employee spect to widows who are not receiving amendment was drafted with the assist who worked before 1937 or after 1937, monthly pensions (whether under public or
ance of Mr. Schreiber 2 years ago and when he retires, is entitlel to benefits private plans) based on the railroad service
was considered by both sides to be a under the Railroad Retirement Act. So, of their deceased husbands."
meritorious amendment at that time. I then if he is, certainly there is no reason Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I would request the gentleman to withdraw for us to say to the employees who have reserve a point of order against the his opposition to it or his hesitancy about worked and paid for protection that they amendment.
it at this time for the reason there might are not entitled to retain these benefits, Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin.
Mr. be some ramifications because this only · when we are not alleging that they have Chairman, this amendment applies to a affects a very few people. It is limited not completely paid for them. This is very narrow and a very small group of to those widows whose husbands died good legislation, and I ask the members individuals who are perhaps the most during this period between 1935–38 and of this Committee to support it. Ordiworthy group of individuals involved in whose husbands had 30 years of service. nary fairness would not permit us to the entire railroad employee setup. This Mr. WOLVERTON. The gentleman deprive employees of a benefit to which group is composed of the widows of those has more knowledge of the subject than they are clearly entitled by reason of the employees who died during the period any member of the committee has. In fact that they have paid for such benebetween 1935 and 1938 and who were not the first place, I did not know Mr. fits. covered by anything; employees who had Schreiber drew it and that would not The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recoga minimum of 30 years' service who died necessarily recommend it to me, anyway. nizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. during that period leaving widows who But the facts are that the committee has THORNBERRY). had no benefit whatsoever, and it applies never had this matter before it, and I (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given only to those widows who do not receive think you will agree with me that it permission to yield the time allotted to social security or any private pensions should have.
him to Mr. PRIEST.) from railroad benefits of any kind what The CHAIRMAN. The time of the The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recogsoever. These are the widows of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. nizes the gentleman from Washington employees who built the railroads of this
The question is on the amendment of - [Mr. PELLY). country.
fered by the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, as a memI offered this amendment 2 years ago. [Mr. KERSTEN].
ber of the committee, I want to say I I recall that the gentleman from Arkan The amendment was rejected.
am going to vote for this bill. I think sas (Mr. HARRIS] looked upon it favor (Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given it is only a matter of fairness and jusably at the time and said it was going to permission to yield the time allotted to tice to these 30,000 workers who have be studied, but, actually, the committee him by Mr. CARLYLE.)
been discriminated against. I hope the never got around to it. Mr. Matscheck (Mr. MACK of Illinois asked and was committee will so vote. reported at that time it would not in- given permission to yield the time al
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recogcrease the rates whatsoever. There were lotted to him to Mr. BENNETT of Mich
nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts only several hundred people involved. igan.)
[Mr. HESELTON). The elderly widows of these long-time
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog
(Mr. HESELTON asked and was given employees should be included within the nizes the gentleman from North Carolina
permission to yield the time allotted to definition of "widows." [Mr. CARLYLE].
him to Mr. PRIEST.) Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. McCORMACK. will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog
Mr. Chairman, Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. I yield will the gentleman yield?
nizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. VAN ZANDT). to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. CARLYLE. I yield to my good
(Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was given Mr. WOLVERTON. I have asked the friend, the gentleman from Massachu
permission to yield the time allotted to gentleman to yield in order that I may setts.
him to Mr. PRIEST.) bring to the attention of the committee
Mr. MCCORMACK. I simply wanted
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the fact that this amendment has never to say that I consider this bill to be very
the committee amendment. been offered to the committee. It has a meritorious, and it will be a pleasure for
The committee amendment was agreed lot of ramifications I am not sure of; in me to vote for its passage,
to. fact, I do not think it is germane, but I
Mr. CARLYLE. Mr. Chairman, I
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recogdo not intend to press that point. I thank the gentleman. I shall support
I shall support nizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. would rather have the Committee vote this bill in the form that it was reported
BENNETT). on it, believing that with the small by the committee, because it received
Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. amount of information we have the careful study, and we heard from many
Chairman, I offer an amendment. Committee would prefer probably to vote important witnesses from many sections The Clerk read as follows: the amendment down. of this country. I think the opponents
Amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT of The CHAIRMAN. The time of the of this bill are taking a position that is
Michigan: Page 2, after line 9, insert the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. difficult to defend. Their purpose is to
following: (By unanimous consent, the time al take from certain railroad employees "SEC. 3. (a) The last sentence of subseclotted Mr. WOLVERTON was given to Mr. their monthly benefits under the Social tion (f) of the first section of the Railroad KERSTEN of Wisconsin.)
Security Act. Now, it is not contended Retirement Act of 1937, as amended (defining The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman by anyone that any of the railroad em
the term 'years of service'), is hereby amendfrom New Jersey withdraw his point of ployees have failed to pay for their re
ed by striking out ‘one hundred twenty-six' order? tirement under social security from the
and inserting in lieu thereof 'fifty-four.'
“(b) Section 2 (a) of such act (relating Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr: Chairman, I date they accepted employment until
to eligibility for annuities) is hereby withdraw the point of order. I think the date they were retired, so how can
amended, that the gentlemen should bear in mind we, in good faith, say that we are going “(1) by striking out 'and shall have com. the committee realizes that there are to withhold from these retired employ- pleted ten years of service,' in the first senmany inequities of one kind or another ees, who have worked under social secu tence; and
“(2) by striking out 'regular employment.' that probably should be corrected, but rity, their benefits, when it is admitted we must do it in a careful, sound way. by every person who is familiar with this in paragraph 5 and inserting in lieu thereof I was disappointed that the joint com subject that such employees have com
‘regular employment and who (i) have com
pleted ten years of service, or (ii) have atmittee appointed previously did not come pletely paid for their retirement benefits. tained the age of sixty.' to any conclusions as they should. It is There has been some little suggestion "(c) The last sentence of section 5 (f) (2) the intention of the Committee on Inter- here that perhaps there are some rail- of such act (relating to lump-sum payments)
is hereby amended by striking out the fol. Mr. HARRIS. Did not the gentleman amendment, of course, if there is any lowing: , except that the deductions of the
support this viewpoint 2 years ago and question of soundness, he would propose benefits which, pursuant to subsection (k)
insist that the 10-year men be trans- now to make it even more unsound. (1) of this section, are paid under section 202 ferred?
With reference to the dual-benefits of the Social Security Act, during the life
Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Yes, and provision, it has been well discussed and of the employee to him or to her and to others deriving from him or her, shall be
So did the gentleman from Arkansas. I believe the issue is clear before the limited to such portions of such benefits as
Mr. HARRIS. No, I did not.
House. With reference to the cost of are payable solely by reason of the inclu Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. The the amendment, I want to say that if sion of service as an employee in “employ- gentleman from Arkansas supported this 0.15 of 1 percent of the payroll is going ment” pursuant to said subsection (k) (1).' provision as it was finally adopted. to jeopardize the railroad retirement "(d) The first sentence of section 5 (k)
Mr. HARRIS. No; the gentleman fund, then this Congress had better re(1) of such act (relating to crediting of railknows I did not support that.
write the entire bill and not proceed road service for the Social Security Act in
Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. The with it for another day. If the fund is certain cases) is hereby amended to read as follows: 'For the purposes of determining
gentleman supported the view I am ad on ground so shaky that 0.15 of 1 perunder title II of the Social Security Act en
vocating here in the first instance. But cent of the estimated actuarial evaluatitlement to, and the amount of, (i) any in he was a member of the conference com tion will throw it completely into jeopsurance benefit for the survivor of an em. mittee which required men with less than ardy, then the Congress had better do ployee, or (ii) any lump-sum death payment
10 years of railroad service to transfer to something about it. with respect to the death of an employee, and
social security. Certainly I supported it, It does not make a logical argument for the purposes of section 203 of the Social
and I supported the dual benefits provi- to me that that is the case. This proSecurity Act, section 15 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935, section 210 (a) (10)
sion because we were providing millions vision should be repealed. I am thorof the Social Security Act, and section 17
of dollars in benefits and we had to pro- oughly willing to go along with the of this act shall not operate to exclude from vide some revenue. We did not increase gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BEN"employment,” under title II of the Social the taxes, and so these two methods were NÉTT], when we can have some hearings, Security Act, service which would otherwise devised. Now, you say one of these meth toward repealing that 10-year provision. be included in such "employment” but for ods has been found to be inequitable. If I said 2 years ago that if we placed such sections.'
it is inequitable in the case of 3,500 peo- 10-year men under social security this : "(e) Section 5 (1) (7) of such act (de- ple under this dual-benefits provision, year, in a few more years they will want fining 'completely insured' employees) is
certainly it is inequitable for these 5 mil to put 15-year men and 20-year men hereby amended by striking out 'will have completed ten years of service and.'
lion people, who have been transferred under social security, and you will have “(f) Section 5 (1) (8) of such act (defin
to social security, without their consent, no railroad retirement. ing 'partially insured' employees) is hereby and at a great loss to them.
I made that speech in my district, amended by striking out 'will have completed The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- and I told the nonoperating brotherten years of service and.'
nizes the gentleman from Tennessee hoods of that district who were then “(g) The amendment made by this sec [Mr. PRIEST).
in favor of it that I opposed it then, tion shall take effect with respect to benefits
Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I am I do not believe it is a good provision, accruing under the Railroad Retirement Acts
well aware at this hour after a hard but certainly let us not confuse the issue and the Social Security Act after the last day of the month in which this act is enacted,
day—and, indeed, a hard week—the today and adopt that amendment creirrespective of when service or employment
Members are just a little weary-so am ating what I believe would be utter conoccurred or compensation or wages were
I. But in these last few minutes of fusion as far as the administration of earned. All recertifications by the Railroad debate on this bill I hope to bring to the the Railroad Retirement Act is conRetirement Board required by reason of the attention of the Committee a few points cerned, during the next 6 months or even provisions of this section shall be made with which I believe are worthy of our con
the next year. out application therefor."
sideration. First, with reference to the Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. amendment offered by my colleague the gentleman yield? Chairman, this sounds like a complicated gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BEN Mr. PRIEST. I yield. . amendment but is as a matter of fact a NETT), let me make this statement very Mr. HARRIS. There is one thing very simple one. What it does is to cor clear: Two years ago on the floor of the that has not been brought out. Is it rect the greatest inequity that presently House I made a speech opposing that not a fact that the railroad-retired emprevails in the railroad retirement sys
10-year provision. I just read that ployee may qualify under civil service, tem. The committee bill deals with an speech in the RECORD of October 4, 1951. and he would draw full civil-service reinequitable situation that affects at most I opposed it then, and I opposed it vigor- tirement and at the same time railroad about 3,400 employees. This amend ously, just as I oppose the same provi- retirement? In other words, he would ment affects 5 million employees. They sion we are seeking today to repeal. I not be penalized if he were drawing unwere taken out from under the Railroad do believe the provision is an inequitable der another system and civil service? Retirement Act by the 1951 amendments, one and I opposed it on that ground. Mr. PRIEST. That is true. While by the requirement that is now in the But on this occasion I cannot conceive there has been a great deal of theoretlaw and which this amendment would of the Committee of the Whole or of ical discussion about prior service this repeal, that any railroad worker who the House approving an amendment on afternoon, I think we should recognize, has less than 10 years service on a rail which there have been no hearings. If in one last word, that the excessive rate road automatically goes to social secu- the amendment should be adopted, I can paid by railroad employees and their emrity whether he wants to or not. The visualize a situation developing that ployers in comparison with social securmoney he has paid for the 912 years or would create as much or more confusion ity, has been high in order to help take whatever time it may be that he has than was created last fall when this dual care of prior service. So let us not conworked under the railroad retirement benefits provision caused in many in fuse that particular issue. The quessystem, less 112 percent which is trans stances the Railroad Retirement Board tion before us is simple. It is whether ferred to social security is taken away to overpay annuitants for many, many a person who has retired from railroad from him. In many cases it amounts to months, and then all at once have to employment and entitled to railroad emas much as $1,800 If you want to cor cut off their checks completely until that ployment benefits, may supplement his rect inequities, and that is what you are overpayment was made good. We do meager benefits under some employment talking about here—everybody in cppo- not wish here on the spur of the mo covered by social security, and then resition to this says this is not a question ment, without any committee hearings, ceive whatever he may be entitled to of keeping the retirement fund solvent, to adopt an amendment such as has been under that law. They are two separate what we are trying to do is to correct proposed by my good friend the gentle acts. I believe we must, in fairness and inequities as I say, if you want to cor man from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT]. justice, adopt the bill reported by this rect inequities, let us do it for the 5 mil- This amendment, if adopted, also would committee; repeal that dual-benefit prolion people who were arbitrarily and un- result in the throwing out of balance of vision. I hope the amendment offered lawfully transferred to social security the railroad retirement fund at the rate, by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. without their permission.
I believe, of $63 million a year. My good BENNETT) will be voted down and we may Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the friend earlier in the day made a very look into it perhaps in another year and gentleman yield?
forceful argument on the soundness of bring it back here, because I think it Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. I yield. the railroad retirement fund. By this is an inequity, and I am for taking out
all of the inequities from this bill. Today It is my earnest hope that you will vote may be both willing and anxious to do we can begin with the dual-benefit pro against the passage of H. R. 356.
so. Moreover, it is very likely that such vision, and I hope we shall vote down
Very truly yours,
life savings as this fellow worker and his this amendment and then approve the
ERNEST H. BENSON,
spouse have been able to accumulate by bill with the overwhelming vote I be
careful management throughout his lieve it deserves.
The rank-and-file opposition to this working years are seriously depleted or The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
The time of the bill from the great proportion of those exhausted by medical and other expenses gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PRIEST] who are concerned with the railroad re- incident to the cause of his total dishas expired.
tirement fund demonstrates that we ability. Doctor bills and hospital bills The Chair recognizes the gentleman should give attention to this pronounced and medicines do not stop, either, with from California, (Mr. HINSHAW].
view and at least recommit the bill to the a worker's retirement. In view of all of Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, the committee under these circumstances these factors, it seems obvious that here, Committee on Interstate and Foreign for a complete appraisal of the situa
in the case of the disability retirement, Commerce would like to bring to this tion and a determined effort to look after is where an annuity for a 65-year-old House always measures that are care
these rank-and-file interests appropri- spouse is needed far more urgently than fully considered. The gentleman from ately. This is my conclusion after hear- in many other situations. Michigan [Mr. BENNETT), is a member of ing the debate today.
It is recognized that the present law the committee, but he did not offer this
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, which permits the spouse of a disability amendment in the committee for its I rise in support of the legislation now annuitant to receive an annuity only if consideration,
pending. The measure should, in my both the spouse and the annuitant are The pending bill deals entirely with opinion, be approved without opposition. age 65 or over, conforms, in respect of persons who are already on the retire Unfortunately, it does not go as far as it these specified minimum ages, to the ment rolls. They are annuitants. They should. It could be in some respects ages established under the old-age and are old people, over 65 years of age. The more liberal without adding injury to survivors' insurance law. It is underamendment which has been offered deals those affected by reason of its approval. stood that this was done to bring the age with those who have worked less than
There are additional amendments requirements in line with those of the 10 years, and I doubt if any of them pending before the committee that ought social-security program. However, the are on the retirement rolls at this time.
to be included that would further take social-security program has no provision For those reasons we ask that you vote
care of inequities in the present law. for disability retirement. There is no down the pending amendment and then
H. R. 5065 that I have submitted to the parallel in that program for the disabilapprove the bill.
committee would clear up a further in- ity annuitants and their spouses who Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I have equitable situation presently existing would be covered by this legislation now received statements in opposition to this with respect to disability retirements. before the committee. There are a bill from A. E. Lyon, executive secretary,
This legislation will entitle the spouse great many other differences between Railway Labor
Executives Association, of a disability annuitant under the Rail- social security and railroad retirement, and Ernest H. Benson, national legisla- road Retirement Act to receive a spouse's not the least of which is the higher contive representative, Brotherhood of annuity in the cases where the spouse is tribution. These railroad workers are Maintenance of Way Employees, which 65 years of age or older, and the disabil- entitled to a fair return in relation to follow:
ity annuitant is under age 65. The pro- their contribution. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES'
vision for payment of an annuity to the I feel that the committee will particASSOCIATION,
spouse would be subject to all of the con- ularly appreciate my deep interest in the Washington, D. C., July 6, 1953.
ditions and limitations imposed by the matter of retirement annuities of all Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, Member of Congress, present law on other spouses' annuities, kinds because as chairman of the Post United States House Office Building, plus additional conditions to insure that office and Civil Service Committee, FedWashington, D. C.
such new spouses' annuities will start eral employee retirement is my special DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The Railway Labor and stop with the disability annuities concern. I may point out that under the Executives' Association, which represents some 80 percent of the Nation's organized upon which they are based.
Civil Service Retirement Act, benefits railroad employees, is opposed to any amend
This legislation will clear up an in- otherwise payable are not reduced just ments to the Railroad Retirement Act at equitable situation which exists with re- because either a wife or a husband hapthis time.
spect to these disability retirements. pens to be under age 65. While the wife We hope that you will have an opportunity Under present law, for example, as the of an annuitant receives no separate anto read the attached statement which out- committee knows, a railroad worker may nuity in her own name, the husband's lines our position in this important matter. retire on account of age while in per- annuity is sufficient in amount to provide Sincerely yours, A. E. LYON,
fectly robust health. If his spouse also for her as well. In no case—whether reExecutive Secretary.
has reached age 65, she is entitled to an tirement is at any of the ages provided annuity equal to one-half her husband's for by law or is for total disability-can
annuity or pension, but not more than an annuity be denied because one of the BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES,
$40 a month. The husband may then parties is younger than the other. As Washington, D. C., July 15, 1953.
proceed to obtain gainful employment one example of the treatment of an anHon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
elsewhere, if he desires to supplement his nuitant's spouse under the Civil Service United States House of Representatives,
annuity, without affecting his spouse's Retirement Act, the annuitant may elect Washington, D. C.
entitlement to her annuity. I have no to provide an annuity for his surviving MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On July 13, 1953 a quarrel with that; indeed, I think it is a spouse by voluntarily reducing his own rule was granted on H. R. 356, known as the wonderful thing and hope every annui- annuity during his life. The spouse's dual-benefits bill, which would amend the tant may have such outside employment annuity is equal to 50 percent of the Railroad Retirement Act.
just as long as he so desires. Our re- original annuity. It cannot be reduced For your information it is stated that the
tired people who have worked long and simply for the reason that the spouse or railroad brotherhoods favoring this legislation represent about 225,000 of the railroad faithfully should have all possible com- the annuitant was or is under 65—reemployees in the United States. The total forts of life, especially when they earn gardless of the significance of that age number of such employees is 1,500,000 and them by their own work.
in the social-security program. about 30,000 of them would benefit by the But yet, in the case of a fellow railroad The cost of this legislation would be passage of H. R. 356. Of this small number' worker who retires on account of total relatively insignificant when compared at least two-thirds have never paid anything disability under the act, at say age 62, with the total expenditures being made into the Railroad Retirement Fund.
and whose spouse is 65 or older, the under the railroad-retirement program. Railway Labor Executives' Association, rep
spouse is entitled to no annuity under According to the 1951 annual report of resenting 80 percent of all the railroad employes, is very much opposed to any change present law. Financial distress and even the Railroad Retirement Board, nearly in the Railroad Retirement Act at this time, severe hardship result in some of these $369 million were paid in railroad reas proposed by H. R. 356. Social Security cases.
tirement and railroad unemployment inand Bureau of the Budget officials, as well This fellow worker generally is pre- surance benefits in the year 1950–51. as the Association of American Railroads, are, cluded by his disability from obtaining The preceding year's benefits totaled all opposed to H. R. 356.
gainful outside employment, although he $444.8 million. Cumulative benefits
were $2,861,000,000. The same annual
There is also a bill from the Senate: report shows that 72,307 disability annu
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask (S. 2417) to establish a commission on itants were receiving an average monthly payment of $81.52, which is $1.23 be adjourns today it adjourn to meet at unanimous consent that when the House Judiciary and Congressional salaries.
This has been referred to the Judilow the average of all annuities. Assum
ciary Committee and I trust action can noon on Monday next. ing, from this average annuity, that an average spouse's annuity under H. R. The SPEAKER. Is there objection be had on that. 5065 would be the maximum of $40 Indiana? to the request of the gentleman from
Then we will proceed if bills are re
ported and rules are granted, with: per month, it would appear that there
H. R. 6052, postal rates.
There was no objection. are about 2,600 individual cases in which
H. R. 6016, foreign relief bill;
Mr. HALLECK. I might say that as the spouse of a disability annuitant
S. 15, Additional Judges Act; and would be eligible under this legislation things have worked out I think that we
Three investigative resolutions: House to receive a much-needed annuity. This probably can take care of all the rules
Resolution 217, foundation investigafigure is reached on the basis of the that are outstanding providing for the
tions; House Resolution 296, Texas City Railroad Retirement Board estimate of consideration of legislation Monday that
investigation; and House Resolution 346, the cost of this legislation as set forth would be in order on Monday. I had Lithuanian and other nationalities. in the printed hearings before the Joint hoped that some matters that must be
It is my understanding that the other Committee on Railroad Retirement Leg- disposed of before we adjourn might body proposes to take up the emergency islation on Senate Concurrent Resolu- have been reported and rules granted to- immigration bill on Monday and that tions 51 and 56, 82d Congress.
morrow so that we could dispose of them they hope to take up the mutual secu
The cost of granting this additional annuity Monday, but that has not developed. would be paid out of the railroad-retire
We may have a conference report If they dispose of it on Wednesday that
We may have a conference report rity appropriation bill on Wednesday. ment fund. ready for filing tomorrow.
will leave the matter only for conferOf course, I shall support the pending
ence action. I think we can all see measure. I hope the Committee will give COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS from that that while we have a numfurther consideration to other inequities
ber of matters to dispose of, by a willthat ought, by all means, to be corrected.
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask ingness to work rather long hours I am Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I ask
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee confident we can dispose of the matters unanimous consent to proceed for on Appropriations may have until mid- next week that are before us. 4 minutes to answer two statements that night tomorrow to file reports.
If there is any other program, we will I think should be cleared up.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection announce it as quickly as possible. Night The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from sessions might well be necessary. So I to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
trust any dinner engagements that might Ohio?
There was no objection.
be made will be left a little flexible. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, there Mr. HALLECK. Let me say, Mr. Conference reports, of course, are in was a limitation on time. The gentle- Speaker, that I have talked to the lead- order at any time. man from Ohio has spoken.
has spoken. Many ers in the other body; we have discussed Members are anxious to get away. I our program; at the White House this
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION certainly do not want to be discourteous, morning we discussed it, and among ourbut I do feel constrained to object, in selves during the day; and I predict with Mr. WOLCOTT submitted a conferview of the limitation of time.
very high confidence that if we are ready ence report and statement on the bill The CHAIRMAN. The question is on to work next week, and that means some (H. R. 5141) to create a Small Business the amendment offered by the gentle- night sessions, and we get the proper sort Administration and to preserve small man from Michigan (Mr. BENNETT]. of cooperation which I am quite sure business institutions. The amendment was rejected.
we shall have, that we can adjourn sine The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule die by the end of next week. the Committee rises.
Monday is District day, and I have said AMENDING AN ACT OF CONGRESS Accordingly the Committee rose; and also that we would call the consent and
APPROVED MARCH 4, 1915 the Speaker having resumed the chair, Private Calendars again.
Mr. MILLER of Nebraska submitted Mr. CANFIELD, Chairman of the Commit
a conference report and statement on tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Commit- CONSENT AND PRIVATE CALENDARS the bill (H. R. 1802) to amend the act of
Congress approved March 4, 1945. tee, having had under consideration the Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask bill (H. R. 356) to amend the Railroad unanimous consent that it may be in Retirement Act of 1937, as amended, order on Monday next to call the Consent AMENDING THE RAILROAD RETIREpursuant to House Resolution 336, re- and Private Calendars.
MENT ACT OF 1937, AS AMENDED ported the bill back to the House with The SPEAKER. Is there objection The SPEAKER. The question is on an amendment adopted in the Commit- to the request of the gentleman from the amendment. tee of the Whole. Indiana ?
The amendment was agreed to. There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on Mr. HALLECK. We hope then to take the engrossment and third reading of PROGRAM FOR WEEK OF JULY 27
up the conference report on H. R. 5141, the bill. Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask which creates a Small Business Adminis
The bill was ordered to be engrossed unanimous consent for recognition in tration.
and read a third time, and was read the order to announce the program for next
H. R. 6131, loan of naval vessels;
third time. week.
H. R. 5741, Trading With the Enemy Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Act;
Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. the request of the gentleman from · H. R. 5976, to amend the Natural Gas The SPEAKER. The Chair has served Indiana? Act.
notice that he would recognize a MemThere was no objection.
There is not a rule on this, so that ber on the Democratic side to offer a Mr. HALLECK. I might say, Mr. could not come up Monday, I might say motion to recommit if they so desired. Speaker, and to the Members that I pre- for anybody who is interested.
Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I defer fer to make the announcement now be S. 2097, appropriations for the Eklute to the gentleman from Michigan. cause if there is a rollcall—there may na project, in Alaska.
The SPEAKER. The Chair seeing no not be, but if there is the Members will If a rule is granted, and it is hoped one rise on the Democratic side recogbe wanting to get away after their names that a rule can be granted on Monday, nizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. are called.
we will take up then on Tuesday H. R. BENNETT). Mr. Speaker, I propose that today we 6481, dealing with emergency immigra Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. adjourn over until Monday next. tion.
Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.