Page images
PDF
EPUB

made actuarially sound, without having to lean on the other for support. I do not believe in making one system atone for the sins of the other, yet that is what we did in 1951, when we tied the two together. Can there be any justice in saying to a man, "Now you pay in your share of these funds down through the years, and when you reach 65 you can retire at a specific stated amount"; then, when the time comes for him to retire, you find he has become entitled to retirement compensation on the basis of services performed on another job, you break your contract with him? No, as far as I see it, the dual-benefits restriction in the Railroad Retirement Act is morally indefensible. Certainly you can defend it on actuarial grounds. By the same token, you could defend the proposition of denying benefits to redheaded people. That would be actuarially sound, too, but it would be wrong. If the railroad retirement system cannot meet the test of this bill, it should be rewritten entirely, or repealed.

Mr. HESELTON.

the gentleman yield? Mr. WILLIAMS yield.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Without Having qualified and earned pensions consulting him.

I want to say this further: Just presume that a man who had been in the railroad work for a number of years then gets a job that comes under the socialsecurity system-provided he could get. a job-if he got more than $75 a month he would lose the benefits under the social-security system and he would also cial-security system and he would also lose his benefits under the railroad retirement system. Is that fair? Does that appeal to your sense of honesty and equity?

We made a mistake. We have inWe have injured 30,200 railroad men, and they are coming to us, they are pleading with us: "Won't you please correct it? Just correct it so if we do happen to retire from the railroad system and get a little job out here we are protected. We are paying for both systems; we paid for the retirement benefits, we have paid for the social-security benefits. Are you going to take them away from us?"

If that is your idea of justice, if that
Mr. Chairman, will is your idea of dealing with your fellow
man, God help you.

of Mississippi. I If a person pays taxes into two re-
tirement systems such as the railroad
and social-security systems he should be
permitted to draw benefits from both.

Mr. HESELTON. Is it not also true that under no other pension scheme of the Federal Government does the same situation exist, as exists under the Railroad Retirement Act, and which we seek to correct today?

If I

Mr. WILLIAMS of Mississippi. thought so, I would be introducing bills to repeal.it.

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, while this is a very technical bill-that is, this railroad retirement and social security legislation the amendment that we are considering today is very simple. It does not do anything except to correct the mistake or the error that was made in 1951 when we passed the law restricting what we refer to as dual benefits. We provided in 1951 that when a railroad man retired, after having worked for the railroad a number of years, he could draw a certain annuity. We further provided, after he retired and it became necessary for him to work again, to get a job, and he came under the socialsecurity system, whatever retirement benefits he was entitled to under the social-security system, could not be added to what he had earned under the Railroad Retirement Act. In other words, he could not claim one. In other words, we penalized him for going out, after retiring from the railroad retirement system and getting a job that came under social-security. We said to him that his benefits under social security must be deducted. We said to him that it must be deducted irrespective of whether he got it or not.

Related to this criticism is the assertion that it is unfair, unfair to require a retired railroad annuitant to take a job covered by social-security, and pay the social-security taxes when he has no hope of receiving benefits under that system.

Mr. BATTLE. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is performing a service to the Congress and those interested in the Railroad Retirement Act by bringing out H. R. 356 for debate at this time. This gives us a chance to clear up inequities and misunderstandings about this legislation. I have been worried about this for some time since there seems to be something morally wrong about the way the basis act as amended has been workthe basis act as amended has been working and I hope we can find the right answer today. As I understand it, under the operation 3 (b) of the act as it now stands we have a situation where a man in good faith pays taxes as required by law under two systems of retirement in anticipation of the day when he will be too old to work that he will be entitled to receive a small pension from each system and be able to afford the necessities of life. In most cases the thousands of persons who are affected by the social security offset provision had no choice about the retirement system under which they fell and were compelled to pay taxes. Many of them began working in the railroad industry and after many years of service during which time they paid railroad retirement tax as required by law they were forced out

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, will of the industry because of reductions in the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. I yield. Mr. VAN ZANDT. Did not the Congress of the United States just arbitrarily alter a contract this man had with the Railroad Retirement Board?

force, abandonment of their railroad or
other causes.

Being unable to obtain similar em-
ployment with another railroad, many of
them in their later years drifted into
employment covered by the social-secu-

• Mr. ROGERS of Florida. There is no rity program. After working for years question about it.

under this system during which time Mr. VAN ZANDT. Without consult- they also paid tax for social-security ing him? benefits as required by law they retired.

under two systems of retirement as required by law they were entitled to receive a small pension from both railroad retirement and social security which they did.

This arrangement had the blessings of Congress when it passed both laws. Railroad retirement checks began coming through monthly and social-security checks began coming through simultaneously. In fact when the pensioner received his first railroad retirement annuity check a letter accompanied it telling him that a check in such and such an amount is enclosed and that during his lifetime each month he would receive a check for not less than that amount.

Then suddenly in 1951 he received a check from the Board and found it had been reduced by the amount of the check he received from social security.

Mr. Chairman, I ask in all seriousness, is it fair to collect by force a tax from a worker for his pension when he is not now eligible for that pension according to the law we passed in 1951? Let us review this whole thing today as thoughtful, responsible representatives of the people keeping in mind our duty to those who are so vitally affected as well as our duty to the interest of the public.

We should not in my opinion collect a tax for a specific purpose when our own law prohibits the money collected from being used for that purpose. Ladies and gentleman, I humbly submit at this time that we should make any changes necessary to make this legislation fair to all concerned but certainly we should correct the obvious inequities that have been pointed out here today.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto end in 15 minutes.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how many amendments are there at the desk?

The CHAIRMAN. There are two amendments at the desk, the Chair is informed.

Mr. HARRIS. And the gentleman from New Jersey is asking that the debate be limited to 15 minutes?

Mr. WOLVERTON. I was.
Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin.
Chairman, I object.

Mr.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the committee amendment?

Mr.

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin.
Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin to the committee amendment: On page 2, line 9, strike out the period and add the following: "Except the term 'widow' shall also include the widows of employees who, prior to death, had not less than 30 years of service as defined in section 1 (f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended, and who died in the period beginning August 29, 1935, and ending June

30, 1938, shall be deemed, solely for the purpose of a widow's age 65 annuity, to have died fully insured, within the meaning of section 5 (1) of such act: Provided, however, That any annuity awarded under this section shall be computed in the same manner as if such annuity had been awarded under section 5 (a) of such act: Provided further, That this section shall apply only with respect to widows who are not receiving monthly pensions (whether under public or private plans) based on the railroad service of their deceased husbands."

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment applies to a very narrow and a very small group of individuals who are perhaps the most worthy group of individuals involved in the entire railroad employee setup. This group is composed of the widows of those employees who died during the period between 1935 and 1938 and who were not covered by anything; employees who had a minimum of 30 years' service who died during that period leaving widows who had no benefit whatsoever, and it applies only to those widows who do not receive social security or any private pensions from railroad benefits of any kind whatsoever. These are the widows of the employees who built the railroads of this country.

I offered this amendment 2 years ago. I recall that the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. HARRIS] looked upon it favorably at the time and said it was going to be studied, but, actually, the committee never got around to it. Mr. Matscheck reported at that time it would not increase the rates whatsoever. There were only several hundred people involved. The elderly widows of these long-time employees should be included within the definition of "widows."

Mr. WOLVERTON. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman,

Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I have asked the gentleman to yield in order that I may bring to the attention of the committee the fact that this amendment has never been offered to the committee. It has a lot of ramifications I am not sure of; in fact, I do not think it is germane, but I do not intend to press that point. I would rather have the Committee vote on it, believing that with the small amount of information we have the Committee would prefer probably to vote the amendment down.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.

(By unanimous consent, the time allotted Mr. WOLVERTON was given to Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin.)

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey withdraw his point of order?

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order. I think that the gentlemen should bear in mind the committee realizes that there are many inequities of one kind or.another that probably should be corrected, but we must do it in a careful, sound way. I was disappointed that the joint committee appointed previously did not come to any conclusions as they should. It is the intention of the Committee on Inter

state and Foreign Commerce of the House to continue those studies into every phase and I can assure the gentleman that the question he has raised will have the consideration of the committee. Mr. KERSTEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey that this amendment was drafted with the assistance of Mr. Schreiber 2 years ago and was considered by both sides to be a meritorious amendment at that time. I would request the gentleman to withdraw his opposition to it or his hesitancy about it at this time for the reason there might be some ramifications because this only affects a very few people. It is limited to those widows whose husbands died during this period between 1935-38 and whose husbands had 30 years of service.

Mr. WOLVERTON. The gentleman has more knowledge of the subject than any member of the committee has. In the first place, I did not know Mr. Schreiber drew it and that would not necessarily recommend it to me, anyway. But the facts are that the committee has never had this matter before it, and I think you will agree with me that it should have.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. KERSTEN].

The amendment was rejected.

(Mr. McCORMACK asked and was given permission to yield the time allotted to him by Mr. CARLYLE.)

(Mr. MACK of Illinois asked and was given permission to yield the time allotted to him to Mr. BENNETT of Michigan.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CARLYLE].

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARLYLE. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. I simply wanted to say that I consider this bill to be very meritorious, and it will be a pleasure for me to vote for its passage.

Mr. CARLYLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I shall support I shall support this bill in the form that it was reported by the committee, because it received careful study, and we heard from many important witnesses from many sections of this country. I think the opponents of this bill are taking a position that is difficult to defend. Their purpose is to take from certain railroad employees their monthly benefits under the Social Security Act. Now, it is not contended by anyone that any of the railroad employees have failed to pay for their retirement under social security from the date they accepted employment until the date they were retired, so how can we, in good faith, say that we are going to withhold from these retired employees, who have worked under social security, their benefits, when it is admitted by every person who is familiar with this subject that such employees have completely paid for their retirement benefits.

There has been some little suggestion here that perhaps there are some rail

road employees who worked before 1937, that they have not paid the assessments that should have been made. However, that is not the position that is taken regarding those railroad employees who have not accepted employment and have not received social-security protection. It is admitted that a railroad employee who worked before 1937 or after 1937, when he retires, is entitled to benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. So, then if he is, certainly there is no reason for us to say to the employees who have worked and paid for protection that they are not entitled to retain these benefits, when we are not alleging that they have not completely paid for them. This is good legislation, and I ask the members of this Committee to support it. Ordinary fairness would not permit us to deprive employees of a benefit to which they are clearly entitled by reason of the fact that they have paid for such benefits.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. THORNBERRY].

(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to yield the time allotted to him to Mr. PRIEST.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. PELLY).

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I want to say I am going to vote for this bill. I think it is only a matter of fairness and justice to these 30,000 workers who have been discriminated against. I hope the committee will so vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HESELTON].

(Mr. HESELTON asked and was given permission to yield the time allotted to him to Mr. PRIEST.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. VAN ZANDT].

(Mr. VAN ZANDT asked and was given permission to yield the time allotted to him to Mr. PRIEST.)

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT).

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BENNETT Of Michigan: Page 2, after line 9, insert the following:

"SEC. 3. (a) The last sentence of subsection (f) of the first section of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended (defining the term 'years of service'), is hereby amended by striking out 'one hundred twenty-six' and inserting in lieu thereof 'fifty-four.'

"(b) Section 2 (a) of such act (relating to eligibility for annuities) is hereby amended

"(1) by striking out 'and shall have completed ten years of service,' in the first sentence; and

"(2) by striking out 'regular employment.' in paragraph 5 and inserting in lieu thereof 'regular employment and who (i) have completed ten years of service, or (ii) have attained the age of sixty.'

"(c) The last sentence of section 5 (f) (2) of such act (relating to lump-sum payments)

is hereby amended by striking out the fol-
lowing:, except that the deductions of the
benefits which, pursuant to subsection (k)
(1) of this section, are paid under section 202
of the Social Security Act, during the life
of the employee to him or to her and to
others deriving from him or her, shall be
limited to such portions of such benefits as
are payable solely by reason of the inclu-
sion of service as an employee in "employ-
ment" pursuant to said subsection (k) (1).'
"(d) The first sentence of section 5 (k)
(1) of such act (relating to crediting of rail-
road service for the Social Security Act in
certain cases) is hereby amended to read as
follows: For the purposes of determining
under title II of the Social Security Act en-
titlement to, and the amount of, (i) any in-
surance benefit for the survivor of an em-
ployee, or (ii) any lump-sum death payment
with respect to the death of an employee, and
for the purposes of section 203 of the Social
Security Act, section 15 of the Railroad Re-
tirement Act of 1935, section 210 (a) (10)
of the Social Security Act, and section 17
of this act shall not operate to exclude from
"employment," under title II of the Social
Security Act, service which would otherwise
be included in such "employment" but for

such sections.'

"(e) Section 5 (1) (7) of such act (defining 'completely insured' employees) is hereby amended by striking out 'will have completed ten years of service and.'

"(f) Section 5 (1) (8) of such act (defining 'partially insured' employees) is hereby amended by striking out 'will have completed ten years of service and.'

"(g) The amendment made by this section shall take effect with respect to benefits accruing under the Railroad Retirement Acts and the Social Security Act after the last day

of the month in which this act is enacted, irrespective of when service or employment occurred or compensation or wages were earned. All recertifications by the Railroad Retirement Board required by reason of the provisions of this section shall be made without application therefor."

Mr. HARRIS. Did not the gentleman support this viewpoint 2 years ago and insist that the 10-year men be transferred?

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Yes, and so did the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. HARRIS. No, I did not.

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. The gentleman from Arkansas supported this provision as it was finally adopted.

Mr. HARRIS. No; the gentleman knows I did not support that.

The

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. gentleman supported the view I am advocating here in the first instance. But he was a member of the conference committee which required men with less than 10 years of railroad service to transfer to social security. Certainly I supported it, and I supported the dual benefits provision because we were providing millions of dollars in benefits and we had to provide some revenue. We did not increase the taxes, and so these two methods were devised. Now, you say one of these methods has been found to be inequitable. If it is inequitable in the case of 3,500 people under this dual-benefits provision, certainly it is inequitable for these 5 million people, who have been transferred to social security, without their consent, and at a great loss to them.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PRIEST).

Mr. PRIEST. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware at this hour after a hard day-and, indeed, a hard week-the Members are just a little weary-so am I. But in these last few minutes of debate on this bill I hope to bring to the attention of the Committee a few points which I believe are worthy of our consideration. First, with reference to the amendment offered by my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT], let me make this statement very clear: Two years ago on the floor of the House I made a speech opposing that 10-year provision. I just read that speech in the RECORD of October 4, 1951. I opposed it then, and I opposed it vigorously, just as I oppose the same provision we are seeking today to repeal. I sion we are seeking today to repeal. I do believe the provision is an inequitable one and I opposed it on that ground. But on this occasion I cannot conceive of the Committee of the Whole or of the House approving an amendment on which there have been no hearings. If the amendment should be adopted, I can visualize a situation developing that visualize a situation developing that would create as much or more confusion would create as much or more confusion than was created last fall when this dualbenefits provision caused in many instances the Railroad Retirement Board to overpay annuitants for many, many months, and then all at once have to cut off their checks completely until that overpayment was made good. We do not wish here on the spur of the moment, without any committee hearings, to adopt an amendment such as has been proposed by my good friend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT). man from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT]. This amendment, if adopted, also would result in the throwing out of balance of the railroad retirement fund at the rate, I believe, of $63 million a year. My good friend earlier in the day made a very forceful argument on the soundness of Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. I yield. the railroad retirement fund. By this

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a complicated amendment but is as a matter of fact a very simple one. What it does is to correct the greatest inequity that presently prevails in the railroad retirement system. The committee bill deals with an inequitable situation that affects at most about 3,400 employees. This amendment affects 5 million employees. They were taken out from under the Railroad Retirement Act by the 1951 amendments, by the requirement that is now in the law and which this amendment would repeal, that any railroad worker who has less than 10 years service on a railroad automatically goes to social security whether he wants to or not. The money he has paid for the 91⁄2 years or whatever time it may be that he has worked under the railroad retirement system, less 12 percent which is transferred to social security is taken away from him. In many cases it amounts to as much as $1,800 If you want to correct inequities, and that is what you are talking about here-everybody in cpposition to this says this is not a question of keeping the retirement fund solvent, what we are trying to do is to correct inequities—as I say, if you want to correct inequities, let us do it for the 5 million people who were arbitrarily and unlawfully transferred to social security without their permission.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

amendment, of course, if there is any question of soundness, he would propose now to make it even more unsound.

With reference to the dual-benefits provision, it has been well discussed and I believe the issue is clear before the House. With reference to the cost of the amendment, I want to say that if 0.15 of 1 percent of the payroll is going to jeopardize the railroad retirement fund, then this Congress had better rewrite the entire bill and not proceed with it for another day. If the fund is on ground so shaky that 0.15 of 1 percent of the estimated actuarial evaluation will throw it completely into jeopardy, then the Congress had better do something about it.

It does not make a logical argument to me that that is the case. This provision should be repealed. I am thoroughly willing to go along with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT], when we can have some hearings, toward repealing that 10-year provision. I said 2 years ago that if we placed 10-year men under social security this year, in a few more years they will want to put 15-year men and 20-year men under social security, and you will have no railroad retirement.

I made that speech in my district, and I told the nonoperating brotherhoods of that district who were then in favor of it that I opposed it then. I do not believe it is a good provision, but certainly let us not confuse the issue today and adopt that amendment creating what I believe would be utter confusion as far as the administration of the Railroad Retirement Act is concerned, during the next 6 months or even the next year.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PRIEST. I yield.

Mr. HARRIS. There is one thing that has not been brought out. Is it not a fact that the railroad-retired employee may qualify under civil service, and he would draw full civil-service retirement and at the same time railroad retirement? In other words, he would not be penalized if he were drawing under another system and civil service?

Mr. PRIEST. That is true. While there has been a great deal of theoretical discussion about prior service this afternoon, I think we should recognize, in one last word, that the excessive rate paid by railroad employees and their employers in comparison with social security, has been high in order to help take care of prior service. So let us not confuse that particular issue. The question before us is simple. It is whether a person who has retired from railroad employment and entitled to railroad employment benefits, may supplement his meager benefits under some employment covered by social security, and then receive whatever he may be entitled to under that law. They are two separate acts. I believe we must, in fairness and justice, adopt the bill reported by this committee; repeal that dual-benefit provision. I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT] will be voted down and we may look into it perhaps in another year and bring it back here, because I think it is an inequity, and I am for taking out

all of the inequities from this bill. Today we can begin with the dual-benefit provision, and I hope we shall vote down this amendment and then approve the bill with the overwhelming vote I believe it deserves.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the The time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PRIEST] has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, [Mr. HINSHAW].

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce would like to bring to this House always measures that are carefully considered. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT], is a member of the committee, but he did not offer this amendment in the committee for its

consideration.

The pending bill deals entirely with persons who are already on the retirement rolls. They are annuitants. They are old people, over 65 years of age. The amendment which has been offered deals with those who have worked less than 10 years, and I doubt if any of them are on the retirement rolls at this time. For those reasons we ask that you vote down the pending amendment and then approve the bill.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I have received statements in opposition to this bill from A. E. Lyon, executive secretary, Railway Labor Executives' Association, and Ernest H. Benson, national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, which

follow:

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES'

ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D. C., July 6, 1953. Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, Member of Congress, United States House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The Railway Labor Executives' Association, which represents some 80 percent of the Nation's organized railroad employees, is opposed to any amendments to the Railroad Retirement Act at this time.

We hope that you will have an opportunity to read the attached statement which outlines our position in this important matter. Sincerely yours,

A. E. LYON, Executive Secretary.

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYEES,
Washington, D. C., July 15, 1953.

Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,

United States House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On July 13, 1953 a rule was granted on H. R. 356, known as the 'dual-benefits bill, which would amend the Railroad Retirement Act.

For your information it is stated that the

railroad brotherhoods favoring this legisla

tion represent about 225,000 of the railroad

employees in the United States. The total number of such employees is 1,500,000 and about 30,000 of them would benefit by the passage of H. R. 356. Of this small number at least two-thirds have never paid anything into the Railroad Retirement Fund.

Railway Labor Executives' Association, representing 80 percent of all the railroad employes, is very much opposed to any change in the Railroad Retirement Act at this time, as proposed by H. R. 356. Social Security and Bureau of the Budget officials, as well as the Association of American Railroads, are, all opposed to H. R. 356.

It is my earnest hope that you will vote may be both willing and anxious to do against the passage of H. R. 356. Very truly yours,

ERNEST H. BENSON, National Legislative Representative. The rank-and-file opposition to this bill from the great proportion of those who are concerned with the railroad retirement fund demonstrates that we should give attention to this pronounced view and at least recommit the bill to the committee under these circumstances for a complete appraisal of the situation and a determined effort to look after these rank-and-file interests appropriately. This is my conclusion after hearing the debate today.

Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation now pending. The measure should, in my opinion, be approved without opposition. Unfortunately, it does not go as far as it should. It could be in some respects more liberal without adding injury to those affected by reason of its approval. There are additional additional amendments pending before the committee that ought to be included that would further take care of inequities in the present law. H. R. 5065 that I have submitted to the committee would clear up a further inequitable situation presently. existing with respect to disability retirements.

This legislation will entitle the spouse of a disability annuitant under the Railroad Retirement Act to receive a spouse's annuity in the cases where the spouse is 65 years of age or older, and the disability annuitant is under age 65. The provision for payment of an annuity to the spouse would be subject to all of the conditions and limitations imposed by the present law on other spouses' annuities, plus additional conditions to insure that such new spouses' annuities will start and stop with the disability annuities upon which they are based.

This legislation will clear up an inequitable situation which exists with respect to these disability retirements. Under present law, for example, as the committee knows, a railroad worker may retire on account of age while in perfectly robust health. If his spouse also has reached age 65, she is entitled to an annuity equal to one-half her husband's annuity or pension, but not more than $40 a month. The husband may then proceed to obtain gainful employment elsewhere, if he desires to supplement his annuity, without affecting his spouse's entitlement to her annuity. I have no I have no quarrel with that; indeed, I think it is a wonderful thing and hope every annuitant may have such outside employment just as long as he so desires. Our retired people who have worked long and faithfully should have all possible comforts of life, especially when they earn them by their own work.

But yet, in the case of a fellow railroad worker who retires on account of total disability under the act, at say age 62, and whose spouse is 65 or older, the spouse is entitled to no annuity under present law. Financial distress and even severe hardship result in some of these cases.

This fellow worker generally is precluded by his disability from obtaining gainful outside employment, although he

so.

Moreover, it is very likely that such life savings as this fellow worker and his spouse have been able to accumulate by careful management throughout his working years are seriously depleted or exhausted by medical and other expenses incident to the cause of his total disability. Doctor bills and hospital bills and medicines do not stop, either, with a worker's retirement. In view of all of these factors, it seems obvious that here, in the case of the disability retirement, is where an annuity for a 65-year-old spouse is needed far more urgently than in many other situations.

It is recognized that the present law which permits the spouse of a disability annuitant to receive an annuity only if both the spouse and the annuitant are age 65 or over, conforms, in respect of these specified minimum ages, to the ages established under the old-age and survivors' insurance law. It is understood that this was done to bring the age requirements in line with those of the social-security program. However, the social-security program has no provision for disability retirement. There is no parallel in that program for the disability annuitants and their spouses who would be covered by this legislation now before the committee. There are a great many other differences between social security and railroad retirement, not the least of which is the higher contribution. These railroad workers are entitled to a fair return in relation to their contribution.

I feel that the committee will particularly appreciate my deep interest in the matter of retirement annuities of all kinds because as chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Federal employee retirement is my special concern. I may point out that under the Civil Service Retirement Act, benefits otherwise payable are not reduced just because either a wife or a husband happens to be under age 65. While the wife of an annuitant receives no separate annuity in her own name, the husband's annuity is sufficient in amount to provide for her as well. In no case-whether retirement is at any of the ages provided for by law or is for total disability-can an annuity be denied because one of the parties is younger than the other. one example of the treatment of an annuitant's spouse under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the annuitant may elect to provide an annuity for his surviving spouse by voluntarily reducing his own annuity during his life. The spouse's annuity is equal to 50 percent of the original annuity. It cannot be reduced simply for the reason that the spouse or the annuitant was or is under 65-regardless of the significance of that age in the social-security program.

As

The cost of this legislation would be relatively insignificant when compared with the total expenditures being made under the railroad-retirement program. According to the 1951 annual report of the Railroad Retirement Board, nearly $369 million were paid in railroad retirement and railroad unemployment insurance benefits in the year 1950-51. The preceding year's benefits totaled $444.8 million. Cumulative benefits

were $2,861,000,000. The same annual report shows that 72,307 disability annuitants were receiving an average monthly payment of $81.52, which is $1.23 below the average of all annuities. Assuming, from this average annuity, that an

ADJOURNMENT OVER

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection

There is also a bill from the Senate: (S. 2417) to establish a commission on Judiciary and Congressional salaries.

This has been referred to the Judiciary Committee and I trust action can be had on that.

Then we will proceed if bills are re

average spouse's annuity under H. R. to the request of the gentleman from ported and rules are granted, with:

5065 would be the maximum of $40 per month, it would appear that there are about 2,600 individual cases in which the spouse of a disability annuitant would be eligible under this legislation to receive a much-needed annuity. This figure is reached on the basis of the Railroad Retirement Board estimate of the cost of this legislation as set forth in the printed hearings before the Joint Committee on Railroad Retirement Legislation on Senate Concurrent Resolutions 51 and 56, 82d Congress. The cost of granting this additional annuity would be paid out of the railroad-retirement fund.

Of course, I shall support the pending measure. I hope the Committee will give further consideration to other inequities that ought, by all means, to be corrected.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 4 minutes to answer two statements that I think should be cleared up.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, there was a limitation on time. The gentleman from Ohio has spoken. Many Members are anxious to get away. I certainly do not want to be discourteous, but I do feel constrained to object, in view of the limitation of time.

Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. I might say that as things have worked out I think that we probably can take care of all the rules that are outstanding providing for the consideration of legislation Monday that would be in order on Monday. I had hoped that some matters that must be disposed of before we adjourn might disposed of before we adjourn might have been reported and rules granted tomorrow so that we could dispose of them Monday, but that has not developed. We may have a conference report ready for filing tomorrow.

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until midnight tomorrow to file reports.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I have talked to the leaders in the other body; we have discussed our program; at the White House this morning we discussed it, and among ourselves during the day; and I predict with very high confidence that if we are ready to work next week, and that means some night sessions, and we get the proper sort of cooperation which I am quite sure we shall have, that we can adjourn sine Under the rule die by the end of next week.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT). The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN.

the Committee rises.

Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. CANFIELD, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 356) to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended, pursuant to House Resolution 336, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

PROGRAM FOR WEEK OF JULY 27

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for recognition in order to announce the program for next week.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. I might say, Mr. Speaker, and to the Members that I prefer to make the announcement now because if there is a rollcall-there may not be, but if there is the Members will be wanting to get away after their names are called.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that today we adjourn over until Monday next.

Monday is District day, and I have said also that we would call the Consent and Private Calendars again.

CONSENT AND PRIVATE CALENDARS Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Monday next to call the Consent and Private Calendars.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. HALLECK. We hope then to take up the conference report on H. R. 5141, which creates a Small Business Administration.

H. R. 6131, loan of naval vessels; H. R. 5741, Trading With the Enemy Act;

H. R. 5976, to amend the Natural Gas Act.

There is not a rule on this, so that could not come up Monday, I might say for anybody who is interested.

S. 2097, appropriations for the Eklutna project, in Alaska.

If a rule is granted, and it is hoped that a rule can be granted on Monday, that a rule can be granted on Monday, we will take up then on Tuesday H. R. 6481, dealing with emergency immigration.

H. R. 6052, postal rates.

H. R. 6016, foreign relief bill;

S. 15, Additional Judges Act; and Three investigative resolutions: House Resolution 217, foundation investigations; House Resolution 296, Texas City investigation; and House Resolution 346, Lithuanian and other nationalities.

body proposes to take up the emergency It is my understanding that the other immigration bill on Monday and that they hope to take up the mutual security appropriation bill on Wednesday. If they dispose of it on Wednesday that I will leave the matter only for conference action. I think we can all see from that that while we have a number of matters to dispose of, by a willingness to work rather long hours I am confident we can dispose of the matters next week that are before us.

If there is any other program, we will announce it as quickly as possible. Night sessions might well be necessary. So I trust any dinner engagements that might be made will be left a little flexible.

Conference reports, of course, are in order at any time.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Mr. WOLCOTT submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 5141) to create a Small Business Administration and to preserve small business institutions.

AMENDING AN ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED MARCH 4, 1915

Mr. MILLER of Nebraska submitted a conference report and statement on the bill (H. R. 1802) to amend the act of Congress approved March 4, 1945.

AMENDING THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937, AS AMENDED The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. The Chair has served notice that he would recognize a Member on the Democratic side to offer a motion to recommit if they so desired.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Speaker, I defer to the gentleman from Michigan.

The SPEAKER. The Chair seeing no one rise on the Democratic side recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BENNETT).

Mr. BENNETT of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

« PreviousContinue »