RAILROAD RETIREMENT LEGISLATION

THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman) presiding. Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order.

The committee resumes hearings this morning on the various bills to amend the Railroad Retirement Act. We have heard a number of our colleagues in the last 2 days and we have more here this morning. We are glad to welcome them."

First, in order to complete the record of yesterday, we asked for certain information from the Railroad Retirement Board. That information has been submitted, showing the total railroad payroll and taxable payroll of 1954 and 1955 and other information which had been requested.

It will be filed for the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

Hon. OREN HARRIS,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Chicago, Ill., January 25, 1956.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroad Retirement,
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR MR. HARRIS: The data you requested this morning of the Railroad Retirement Board are as follows:

The data for 1955 are partly estimated since exact information for the last few months of the year will not be available until about 2 months from now. I trust that this gives you all the information you desired on these points.

The total number of employees in a year represents the number of individuals with some creditable earnings in the year regardless of the amount of their earnings or length of time worked. The average number of employees is an approximation to the number of full-time jobs during the year. In many instances, more than one individual had worked on the same job during the year and that is why the total number of employees is considerably larger than the average number. Sincerely yours,

RAYMOND J. KELLY, Chairman.

Mr. HARRIS. Our first witness this morning will be our colleague from Maryland, Mr. DeWitt S. Hyde. Mr. Hyde is the author of H. R. 5426, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act.

We are glad to say to our colleague, as we have to our other colleagues who have already been here, that we are glad to welcome you and to have your testimony in support of your bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. DeWITT S. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning to testify on my bill, H. R. 5426. The major part of this bill would correct the hardships placed on those railroad workers with service prior to January 1, 1937, by amending the Railroad Retirement Act to change the base period for computing annuities from the 7 years between 1924 and 1931 to the 7 years between 1940 and 1947, whichever is greater. This would mean, of course, that those employees with service dating back before 1937 would receive retirement income more nearly in line with presentday wages and would be much more equitable.

I have had letters from all over the country indicating interest and approval for this change in existing law, and as far as I have been able to find out, it would not place too great a burden on the railroad-retirement fund, although I have not received exact figures on that.

This would, as I said, straighten out one of the existing inequities and in many cases give an increase in annuity to the older retired worker.

The other section of the bill allows individuals who have completed 40 years of service, even though they have not attained the age of 65 years, to retire. Of course, the great majority of those with 40 years have reached age 65, but in some cases it would mean retirement at an earlier age.

There again I doubt if this would be too great a burden on the trust fund because the figures show that the average retired worker is over 65 and it is very doubtful that a great many workers would be affected by this. It would give an opportunity of retirement to a man who has had that number of years of service, for whose interest it would be best that he did retire, and in many cases it would be best for the railroad interest too. It would give him an opportunity to retire even though he had not attained the age of 65.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that both of these amendments are salutary ones and would be of great help to many of the railroad workers without placing too great a burden on the trust fund or without, I am told, requiring any increase in any payments into the fund.

That is the substance of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and again

I thank you for the opportunity to appear.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Rogers, do you have any questions?

Mr. ROGERS. No questions.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Hale?

Mr. HALE. No questions.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Hyde, do you know whether or not there are any other bills that are identical with the one you propose here?

Mr. HYDE. I cannot say that I know there are bills exactly identical. There are other bills aimed at the same thing. I am sure some are aimed at the base period and I know there are bills to allow individuals to retire after 35 years of service and before 65. Mine is for 40 years. Whether there is any other bill exactly like this one I do not know.

Mr. HARRIS. So many of the bills provide for retirement at age 60, with 30 years' service, or retirement with 35 years of service regardless of age on a voluntary basis.

You do not subscribe to the view of compulsory retirement?

Mr. HYDE. No.

Mr. HARRIS. Is there some particular case that you had in mind that brought this bill to your attention?

Mr. HYDE. Well, there have been a number. I cannot give you names but I could supply them if the committee wanted them. There have been several cases in my district up in Cumberland where men have had 40 years and more of service.

I have one particular case where a man has 45 years of service and has not reached the age of 65. He went to work as a youngster in his teens for the railroad. Actually he is not so disabled that he is eligible for disability retirement but his health is such that it would be best for him and best for the railroad is he could retire.

Mr. HARRIS. Did he not retire? You said he was disabled?

Mr. HYDE. He is not disabled to the extent that he would be able to retire on disability, but his health is such that it would be best for him and, in his opinion and mine too, best for the railroad if he did retire, but he has not reached 65, although he has this length of service.

There have been several instances of that sort which have been called to my attention which prompted me to introduce this piece of legislation providing for this.

Mr. HARRIS. Do you subscribe to the principle that the railroad retirement fund has to be maintained on a sound basis?

Mr. HYDE. Oh, yes, I do. As I say, I do not think this provision would affect it because there will not be enough men who will take advantage of it. We have had this experience that I think the average

age is well over, I mean the age of retirement that the men actually

come to retire, is over 65 and most of them, if they can work, do not want to retire. A man that is abled bodied and able to work, most such men want to keep on.

Mr. HARRIS. That is the thing that we have inquired about from our colleagues. The facts show that the average age of retired railroad employees at the time of retirement is about 68 or 69.

Mr. HYDE. That is right.

Mr. HARRIS. We cannot see just how much could be accomplished by lowering the retirement age so that certain individuals, in one way or the other, could get into some other work that would be highly beneficial to them, and then at the same time drain the retirement fund. The average railroad employee seems not to be retiring at 65.

Mr. HYDE. That is right, but a provision such as this would take care of not a huge number of cases, but cases where men really should be retired but cannot do so because of the 65 provision.

Mr. HARRIS. I am somewhat impressed with the gentleman's proposal here, as I have been with other proposals, but we have a problem

also. I think we had about seventy-odd bills in this Congress introduced to extend additional benefits in many, many ways.

Now it is true that many of these bills are identical. But there are also many, many proposals. Each one of them, according to the proponents, will drain the fund very little. However, if you put a lot of these little proposals together, you are going to make a big one, and that is the problem we have.

Mr. HYDE. Of course that is the problem that the committee has to solve, as to which one they are going to pick and I, of course, would be very flattered if you pick the one I suggest.

Mr. HARRIS. I appreciate that, and I want you to know that every member of this committee is sympathetic to any inequity that exists. Mr. Hale?

Mr. HALE. Have you any figures on the number of people who do have 40 years of service?

Mr. HYDE. No, I do not have, but I imagine I could get those figures for the committee if they would like to have them.

Mr. HALE. I would think it was quite a lot of service.

Mr. HYDE. You mean that it would be your guess that there would be quite a few men in this category?

Mr. HALE. I should not think there were a great many in this category.

Mr. HYDE. Of course a man goes to work in his twenties or late teens, like many of them do in the Cumberland area of my district; they have 40 years by the time they are 60.

Mr. HALE. We have several bills that would give retirement to anybody with 35 years of service, irrespective of age. I think some of the bills, such as the Van Zandt bill, go to 30 years of service, irrespective of age. I guess maybe some people would go as low as 25.

Mr. HYDE. Well you can see then that mine is very conservative, Mr. Hale.

Mr. HALE. It is conservative; I am almost shocked.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hyde.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. HARRIS. We are glad to welcome to this committee at this time our colleague from Georgia, Mr. James C. Davis. Mr. Davis is the author and sponsor of H. R. 8338 and H. R. 8339.

We are very glad to have you come before this committee this morning on behalf of the bill to amend the Railroad Retirement Act.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committec. I appreciate very much indeed your courtesy and consideration in extending me the privilege of appearing before your committee in behalf of these two bills.

I would like to say at the outset that your committee has acted so expeditiously during this session of getting down to the bills that I was not expecting to come before you so early and I have, therefore, not prepared a full statement in behalf of these bills and I would like to ask permission to file a more comprehensive statement a little later on.