The 11,714 divided by 206 equals 56.86-average age of death. Now, gentlemen, these are facts. These are not actuarial figures. They are facts right from the Machinists Journal. Only 52 members-one-fourth or 25 percent were over 65; 154 members-threefourths or 75 percent-were 65 and under; 25 members-one-eighth or 12 percent-were in their seventies; 11 members-one-twentieth or 5 percent were in their eighties, and two members-.009 percent or less than 1 percent-reached 90.

Surely these 206 male and female workers truly "represent averages applicable to large groups or individuals."

The bill will permit railroad men to retire at the age of 60, after 30 years of service. This provision is intended to meet the needs of many employees who are subject to occupational hazards, severe weather conditions and the like. For example there are many switchmen and yard employees who are unable to work after they reach the age of 60. Lowering the retirement age to 60 will not endanger the solvency of the fund since the white-collar worker will not retire at 60 if he is in good physical condition. As a matter of fact, the rolls are now occupied with numerous employees 70 years of age, and even older, who would like to retire if they could possibly live on the small pension they would receive. Because they are deprived of an adequate pension there are many engineers, over 70 years of age, who are holding runs on some of the streamline trains. The risk to the public riding trains manned by men approaching their dotage cannot be too greatly emphasized.

The scale used to arrive at the pension basis is increased 25 percent to take care of the added cost of living which statisticians and economists warn us is here to stay. The method of computating the pension is based on 50 percent of the average salary, not to exceed $300 a month, for the highest 5 years of employment. This is similar to the plan presently enjoyed by members of the armed forces, who can retire after 20 years of service. It eliminates the basis of arriving at pensions under the old act which called for estimate earnings for the years 1924 to 1931. It is significant that these were depression years, when the railroads were trying to keep their employees on the pay roll by spreading the work. Some men worked only 2 days a week during that period. To use this plan for employees who were hired after 1924 or who had service prior to 1924 is manifestly unfair. It was this system that dragged the pensions down to an average of $61.10 per month.

The bill also permits the employee to name his own beneficiary in the event he would die before reaching the retirement age and insures protection at least equivalent to the amount paid into the fund with interest. The present law does not give the employee the right to

name his beneficiary. It allows a small burial amount which is not even large enough to cover the burial expenses. As a matter of fact, in many cases, if there is specific insurance to take care of the burial, the Retirement Board does not grant the burial fund. In some cases the Board even deducts small burial amounts donated by organizations such as the American Legion, service clubs, and so forth, and then pays the balance. An investigation by our committee of 14 pension systems revealed that none deprived the employee of at least what he had paid into the fund in case of death. Some-for example, the Federal Reserve banks-gave a lump sum in addition to all that was paid in at least equivalent of 1 year's salary. The refund of this lump sum is very important to all railroad workers.

Another excellent clause in bill H. R. 6397 permits a widow to take a pension in lieu of the lump sum benefit.

Section 5 of the bill increases by 25 percent the amount of allowances presently received by those people now on pension. It is admitted that this increase does not adequately meet the high cost of living but it is a step in the right direction. We have on record the names of 17 former employees on pension who are unable to live on their allotments and who, as a result, are wards of charity. It is a sad commentary on the present pension system that people who have reached the twilight of their years, after laboring for so long a time for the railroads, are compelled to depend upon the charity of strangers and become wards of society.

The National Railroad Pension Forum, Inc., has now become a militant organization to protect the railroad employee, both union and nonunion. Never again will we permit the railroad worker to be singled out as a guinea pig for the experimental purposes of a cradle-tothe-grave philosophy inspired by some irresponsible party. We are now united into a strong organization, the leadership of which I am proud to exercise. Members of our organization, including myself, have put a great deal of effort and time into this enterprise without compensation. I, therefore, appeal to you as Americans to hear the plea of the National Railroad Pension Forum, Inc., in the interest of the common good of the railroad employees, the forefathers of whom were the pioneer builders of our country. We appeal to you to pass H. R. 6397 in this session of Congress. God willing, you will not fail us.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few remarks in connection with your H. R. 6766.

I would not attempt to criticize our good chairman or the members of this committee for putting through a bill of this type, because we realize the sincerity of their effort. Therefore this is not a criticism; but we would ask you to take into consideration in your executive session a few points that we would like to add into this bill, and I would ask you to take those few points into consideration too. It might help you in arriving at the just decision on this bill, and I have just seen it since this hearing started, as it came out June 1.

It still resorts to the old antique method of arriving at pensions, that is, using the years 1924 to 1931 estimated earnings. No railroad employee today-and I do not care who he is in the 1,350,000 railroad employees, could actually tell you under the present system how much pension he would get. The only recourse he has is to go to the Railroad Retirement Board to find out what the record says.

Now, if we had a pension system that was based on 50 percent of the highest paid salary for 5 years, you would have something that any railroad man could figure out at home as to how much pension he got without resorting to the Railroad Retirement Board or to figures that were not compiled by himself.

Now, another great feature I think, gentlemen, that you ought to take into consideration in your executive session is the age limits for railroad retirement.

I have pointed out to you here in my brief, and I brought this in from a labor magazine, so that you would not think that I was prejudiced. I have produced for you the facts and figures and the page of the magazine to show the average life of the railroad man today is

58.6.

Now, if the man lives until he is 60 years old-only a small portion of them live that long-and I think the age ought to be reduced to 60 years for benefits. Any man who gives his life, 60 years to any industry is entitled to a pension and I do believe there that 60 years today is given to women under this Crosser Act, and why discriminate as to the male employees? They should be entitled to the same privileges.

It is hard to see, gentlemen, where I work in an office, where a man and a woman work as voucher clerks, work in the same position for years and after these many years a woman can go out on full pension at 60 and if the man is unable to work he goes out on pension, he losses one-eighth part before he is retired, because he was retired before he was 65.

I was rather surprised here today-in fact, I can hardly believe it. It seems like a fairy tale that labor executives and management have kissed and made up. But, if the railroad men get any benefit from Mr. Wolverton's bill, in lieu of Mr. O'Hara's bill, I will be very glad to give you all the support possible, and I thank you gentlemen for giving me the privilege of appearing before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stack, you have presented a statement with some energy and I believe sincerity.

It is impossible for any committee or any group of individuals representing labor or representing an industry to do all of the things that their heart would impel them to do.

The bills to which you have referred were given very careful consideration by our staff and members of the committee and we came to the conclusion, as much as we would like to increase benefits to the point of these bills, yet we realized that to do so, would strike at the very stability of the fund which is of concern to all of us. I am certain that you would not want to intentionally advocate something that would mean the disruption of this very worth-while fund.

Now, these are all matters that have had the continuous consideration of the committee and the results that we have arrived at in this bill that has the joint approval of the railroad executives and the labor executives, does not, of course, represent everything they would like; but we must give primary consideration to the stability of the fund.

If there is one thing that I have stood for as a member of this committee, it is to do nothing that will destroy the stability of the fund. That is a primary importance and that is what we have in mind in this bill today, and while you may have some feeling with respect to Mr. Harrison that you expressed in the early part of your

statement, which, of course, has nothing to do with the legislation that is before us, yet I can only speak for myself-but I am sure that I speak the thought that is in the mind of others, that those who have had the opportunity to be associated with Mr. Harrison over the period of years know that he is intensely interested in the welfare of the railroad worker and I would not want that this statement be taken as any indication of any lack of interest on his part.

I know how sympathetic he is. I know how anxious he is to be helpful and while you may not agree with all that he has said or done, neither do I agree with some of the most estimable Members of Congress in all that they have said or done; but I do recognize that the sincerity that prompts suggestions must be taken into consideration, and for that reason, I could not be in accord with what you have said, if it is meant to imply any lack of interest or sincerity upon the part of Mr. Harrison.

Mr. STACK. I just wanted to give a background of this organization, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hale.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Stack, you made a statement which I did not quite understand about the average age of the railway workers being 58 years.

Mr. STACK. That is 56.86.

Mr. HALE. Now, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that that is their expectancy?

Mr. STACK. That is the expectancy. That is taken from the Machinists Journal for October 1947 and November 1947. There in the brief is given page and it shows the number who died, 206 was the number and it shows the total number of years that they lived, 11,714, and that divided by 206 gives you 56.86.

Mr. HALE. Was that their general expectancy; do you know?

Mr. STACK. We were told during the hearings of the Crosser Act that it was 77 years; but that was an actuarial figure there. This is a fact. This is right from the magazine.

Mr. HALE. Well, I note what you say. Is that your figures as to the expectancy, the life expectancy of railroad workers? You give it as 56.86?

Mr. STACK. That is 56.86.

Mr. HALE. You do not know what the corresponding figure for some other industries might be?

Mr. STACK. Well, they all give different figures. They all give figures on the expectancy, but this is in the railroad. This is just.

one line.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Hale, will you yield?

Mr. HALE. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. I think that Mr. Stack is only using the dead ones. There are a lot of live ones. As an insurance man I like to count the live ones as well as the dead ones. I like to count them in connection with life expectancy. That is the average of just a small number, 206 that happened to die in those 2 months.

Mr. STACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. They might have been bad months.
Mr. STACK. That is the average.

Mr. MILLER. I do not think that Mr. Stack wants to leave in the record a statement that the average life of a railroad worker is only 56 years. That may be true of the 200 dead ones. How about the 400,000 who are still alive?

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. HASELTON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haselton.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Stack, I have listened to your statement very carefully. I want to get this one point cleared up in my own mind. In analyzing the bill before the committee, which was introduced before, it is not your intention that the bill does not actually present some very desirable improvements?

Mr. STACK. It does; it is very, very good. I compliment Mr. Wolverton on his bill. It is very, very good.

Mr. HESELTON. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harris.

Mr. HARRIS. Are you in favor of it?

Mr. STACK. Yes; I will be in favor of it. I would rather have the O'Hara bill, but I will go along with Mr. Wolverton's bill and support him in any way that I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions, gentlemen?
We thank you, Mr. Stack.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. BYRNES, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT
OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PENSION FORUM, INC., BALTI-
MORE, MD.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. Robert B. Byrnes, regional vice president of the National Railroad Pension Forum, Baltimore, Md.

Mr. Byrnes, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: My name is Robert B. Byrnes, clerical analyst, employed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. in the general offices at Baltimore, Md., and I represent, as regional vice president of the National Railroad Pension Forum, Inc.-serving without pay-a total of 9,000 members employed in various fields of the railroad industry who have contributed over $9,000 to the fight to have the highly discriminating Crosser bill which amended the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, either repealed or amended. The present bill seems to be popular only with the officials of the union. The majority of the railroad employees have always, since 1946, been opposed to this law.

I was a member of the Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks for a period of 8 years until my suspension from the organization by the grand president, Mr. George M. Harrison, for organizing opposition in my local lodge, Baltimore, Md., to the Crosser amendments, and for acquainting Members of Congress with the true feelings of railroad workers toward the unjust features of the amended railroad retirement law. During the year 1946 to 1947, a former officer of local lodge No. 567, Baltimore, Md., Mr. Charles J. Weidman, my assistant, was instrumental in circulating a petition throughout the Baltimore & Ohio system calling for the repeal of the Crosser amendments, and this petition was subsequently distributed to many