affected with a national public interest; that such transactions are carried on in large volume by the public generally and by persons engaged in the business of buying and selling grain and the products and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce that the prices involved in such transactions are generally quoted and disseminated throughout the United States and in foreign countries as a basis for determining the prices to the producer and consumer of grain and the products and byproducts thereof and to facilitate the movements thereof in interstate commerce; that such transactions are utilized by shippers, dealers, millers, and others engaged in handling grain and the products and byproducts thereof in interstate commerce as a means of hedging themselves against possible loss through fluctuations in price; that the transactions and prices of grain on such boards of trade are susceptible to speculation, manipulation, and control, and sudden or unreasonable fluctuations in the prices thereof frequently occur as a result of such speculation, manipulation, or control, which are detrimental in the producer or the consumer and persons handling grain and products and byproducts thereof and render regulation imperative for the protection of such commerce and the national public interest therein." The evidence that pension payments are not gratuities and are of benefit and advantage to the employer railroads and are a necessary part of the requirement that employees be retired, is so overwhelming that Congress will have no difficulty in so finding. In fact, in every governmental activity extending over a considerable period, especially where employment is continuous under a civil-service system, it has been found necessary to provide for pension payments in connection with the retirement of aged employees. This has been found equally necessary by religious, social, educational and other quasi-public organizations. The very general adoption of pension systems by private organizations has been made necessary for the same reason. It is my belief that a reenactment of the Railroad Retirement Act with a proper finding of facts by Congress will be upheld. It is certain that no decision can stand long of which it can be solemnly said, as was done by Chief Justice Hughes in this case, when he effectively summarized the majority opinion of Justice Roberts as follows: Congress may, indeed, it seems to be assumed compel the elimination of aged employees. A retirement act for that purpose might be passed. But not a pension act. The Government's power is conceived to be limited to a requirement that the railroads dismiss their superannuated employees, throwing them out helpless, without any reasonable provision for their protection. The State courts throughout the United States have repeatedly upheld State legislation under a constitutional provision that money can only be appropriated for a public purpose and taxes can only be levied for a specific purpose and these plans that have been upheld have provided for payment out of taxes by appropriations out of public treasuries. If it is a fact, as is urged in the majority opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts that there is no benefit whatever to the employer as indicated by the language I read from a pension system and that the only thing that can be done is to fire the man, take away his compensation, and send him out as Mr. Chief Justice Hughes said, to starve, if that is the rule, then every State pension system is subject to challenge on the question of constitutionality. Mr. CROSSER. I have a rather wholesome respect for my oath of office. I would like to know who made the statement about the violation of one's oath of office. Mr. EKERN. Well, the witness will testify here and undoubtedly will tell you about it. I merely adverted to that because I think it is wholly unjustifiable as a position. Mr. MONAGHAN. I want to say, Mr. Ekern, if we could not, as Members of Congress, advocate legislation that is for the betterment of mankind, I would rather not be a Member of Congress. Mr. EKERN. I am sure that every Member of Congress takes that position. I thank you. Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Ekern, you got down to section 8, could you follow along now and just check over the remaining sections and let us know how you and Mr. Krauthoff stand. I am marking them. Mr. EKERN. If you will return to page 4 of Judge Krauthoff's mimeographed copy, there was one correction there that I think I omitted to note. That is down in the middle of the page, the sentence reading "An annuity shall not be due or payable until the first day of the fourth month after the effective date thereof." I think it was agreed that the first day of the fourth month should be stricken and the words "90 days" should be inserted. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. That is correct. It means practically the same thing, but avoids the technicality. Mr. MARTIN. So it will read until 90 days after the effective date hereof. Mr. EKERN. We are agreed on section 8. We are agreed on section 9. We are agreed on section 10. We are agreed on section 11, which are all the same as in the printed bill, with a clerical correction in one section. Now, we are agreed on section 12 as it is given in the mimeographed copy and section 12 is a change from the printed copy. Mr. MARTIN. So that we will have this all perfectly clear, I wonder if you would go back to section 1 and we can just take that paragraph by paragraph, (a), (b), (c), and so on, and let me make a marginal notation of how you gentlemen stand on the paragraphs of that section. Mr. EKERN. Section (1). We are agreed on (a). Mr. MARTIN. All right. Now you propose an amendment on (b)? Mr. EKERN. We are agreed on (b) exactly as in the mimeographed copy. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. Do you not want "representative" left? Mr. EKERN. Let me make a reference to the printed copy where we come to it. I want to do that, Mr. Chairman, because of the number of changes. Mr. MARTIN. This is different from the printed copy. Mr. EKERN. It is. Mr. MARTIN. That is the case where it is provided about the interurban and electric lines, and so forth. Mr. EKERN. We are agreed on that change. That is in (a). Mr. MARTIN. Now (b) differs with relation to the power Mr. EKERN (interposing). Yes, sir; and we are agreed on that. Mr. MARTIN. Will you run right on down to (c), (d), and so forth? Will you state how you stand on that? There was a change in one of those paragraphs. Mr. EKERN. Judge Krauthoff calls my attention to the fact we asked to have an insert in (b). You are referring to the printed bill, or the mimeographed bill? Mr. MARTIN. I am on the mimeographed bill. Mr. EKERN. In the mimeographed bill on page 2, following the word "employee" in the third line, insert the words "for the purposes of this act." That amendment, Mr. Chairman, is one that objection is made to here. It is one which would permit organizations such as the Railroad Employees' National Pension Association to get this benefit of this act for their representatives. It is not one that we want to quarrel with them about. Mr. MARTIN. Wha goes in there then? Mr. EKERN. "For the purpose of this act or." Mr. MARTIN. You are agreed on that? Mr. KRAUTHOFF. We have not agreed to that insertion. Mr. MARTIN. You are not agreed? Mr. KRAUTHOFF. That is our difference. Mr. MARTIN. All right. I will just make that note. You are agreed now as to paragraph (c)? Mr. EKERN. We are agreed on (c) and (d). We differ on (e). I have already indicated that. Mr. MARTIN. You differ on (e)? Mr. EKERN. On (e), (f), and (g). We are agreed on (h) and (i). Mr. MARTIN. Wait a minute. You differ on (f) and (g)? Mr. EKERN. (e), (f), and (g). Mr. KRAUTHOFF. We do not disagree on (g). Mr. EKERN. I bring them together. That is the only difference as to (g). Mr. MARTIN. All right. Mr. EKERN. And now, the rest of them we are agreed on. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. You want that survivorship annuity. Mr. EKERN. That does not go in there. I mean the rest of these paragraphs. Mr. MARTIN. The rest of section 1? Mr. EKERN. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. All right. Mr. EKERN. I think that covers all of section 1. Mr. Chairman, returning to the bill, we think that it would materially strengthen this bill for the purpose of the court if there were put into this bill a definite finding of fact that there is a relationship between the retirement of the man, the discharge of the man, and the payment of a pension to him. There is ample evidence to sustain that, of which the court in my judgment will take judicial notice and which can be produced in case it is questioned. I want to submit that as a part of this record, a section for that purpose for the consideration of the committee. It has not been agreed to by Judge Krauthoff. I would like to leave it to the judgment of the committee after the hearing is completed, as necessarily we do on all of these matters. Mr. CROSSER. Have you copies of it for each member of the committee? Mr. EKERN. Yes; and I will submit copies of all this to the committee in the morning, including these specific amendments, all worked out so they fit into the printed bill. Mr. CROSSER. Please indicate very clearly the points in the printed bill where you would like to offer amendments. Mr. EKERN. I think, if it please the committee, there are only five members, I will fix up five copies of the printed bill in that form, if you wish it. Mr. CROSSER. All right. I urge that you consider very carefully the question of inserting this finding of fact, if you find that finding of fact is satisfactory. If you do not find it satisfactory, either make it such or do not insert it. Mr. CROSSER. Reverting to that first suggestion of a moment ago, about severability and the finding you suggest; you have no doubt in your own mind about the constitutionality of H. R. 8651 as it stands? Mr. EKERN. I think you have a right to appropriate money. I do not think there is any question about that. Mr. CROSSER. You do not think that that right will be reinforced by attaching a tax section to this bill, do you? Mr. EKERN. Why, frankly, I want to say this: I agree with Judge Krauthoff that you cannot tell what view the Supreme Court is going to take. Mr. EKERN. I think that that is all I have to offer at this time. Mr. CROSSER. Are there any other witnesses for the bill? It is 5 o'clock. I did want to finish with the proponents today if possible. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. Mr. Corbett is here. Mr. CROSSER. Will you require much time, Mr. Corbett? Mr. CROSSER. Proceed. STATEMENT OF JOHN T. CORBETT, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEERS Mr. CORBETT. My name is John T. Corbett. I am the national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engineers. I wish to be recorded as in favor of the provisions of the original bill. Mr. CROSSER. You had better use the number, Mr. Corbett, so that we shall not make mistakes. Mr. CORBETT. Well, I want to refer briefly to one amendment that has been proposed in the substitute or mimeographed copy, and while I do not object to it, I wish to call the committee's attention to it as it has been changed from your bill as originally introduced and that is that portion on page 4 in which the words "not exceeding 30 years" have been introduced. The bill as introduced by you has no limitation of 30 years and in the mimeographed copy those four words do appear. Mr. MARTIN. That is paragraph (c) on page 4 of the mimeographed copy? Mr. CORBETT. It is paragraph (c). Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. CORBETT. And it is 10 lines from the bottom of the page. Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir. Mr. MARTIN. Not exceeding 30 years? Mr. CORBETT. Yes, those four words have been but in. And, on page 7 of the printed bill there appears the sentence "No annuity shall be awarded in excess of $120 per month." That has been removed in the mimeographed copy. Now, I would prefer to have the bill as in the original bill and as printed if it could be left as it was, and also the $120 sentence removed, and I wish to Mr. MARTIN. Are you opposed to $120 limitation? Mr. CORBETT. I would not oppose it, Mr. Martin, but I would prefer the bill, if the committee would give consideration to it, with the removal of it. Mr. MARTIN. I thought that you said it was removed from the mimeographed copy. Mr. CORBETT. It is removed from the mimeographed copy. Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir. I wish to also insert Mr. CROSSER. Where is that on the mimeographed copy? Mr. CORBETT. It appears on page 4 and the $120 limitation has been removed. It would be about the third or fourth line from the bottom of the page and if you have the printed bill, I believe it is on page Mr. MARTIN. I have the mimeographed copy here. Mr. CORBETT. If you have the mimeographed copy. Mr. KRAUTHOFF. You would take out of the mimeographed copy the words "not exceeding 30 years.' وو Mr. CORBETT. I would leave that out. That is all. I do not know which copy the committee is going to give consideration to, but I would prefer it without either of them in. I do not want to have my remarks interpreted as in opposition to either of the provisions. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, I believe, are the oldest of the employees, and probably affected by the provisions of the pension act more than any other class of employees. I have met thousands of them. I have attended the conventions with the delegates from practically every division in the United States and Canada represented, and, if I might, I would like to insert at the close of my remarks the resolution that was adopted by the Brotherhood of Engineers' convention in 1933 in which they went on record in endorsing the provisions of a retirement act. Mr. CROSSER. Is that the last pronouncement of your organization? Mr. CORBETT. That would not be; no. The bill that was introduced by you has been referred to the national legislative board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and they have endorsed the principles of that bill. Mr. CROSSER. Well, of course, you realize that all persons cannot have exactly what they want in any bill passed by Congress. Mr. CORBETT. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 3797-35- -4 |