that such annuity for any month shall be not less than one-half of the individual's average monthly compensation for the 5 years of highest earnings. I have long felt that it was an injustice to compel railroad employees to wait until the age of 65, regardless of the length of service. It seems to me for a great many reasons that while we realize full well that many men, and women may I add, can give valuable service after the age of 60, yet they should be given the right of retirement at that age. I feel particularly strongly on that because in most legislation women are given the right to retire at the age of 60, and it therefore seems an injustice that male employees should be discriminated against. I do not know if any of you gentlemen have studied insurance statistics, but those statistics show that women have a better chance of longevity than men. They show the average longevity of men to be 63 years, and of women 68 years; and I have long been a believer in the saying that the female of the species is more deadly than the male. I also think for the good of the service it might be an excellent thing if some of the older employees might be permitted to retire at the age of 60, thus making room for the employment of younger people. I have discussed this bill with many of my railroad friends, and I find most of them are very strongly in favor of it. I therefore hope it may receive consideration by your committee, and I hope for its ultimate passage. I do not think there is anything more I can say. The bill is very simple, and it just takes up that one question. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. St. George. Mr. HARRIS. The next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Alvin M. Bentley, of Michigan, in support of H. R. 6833 and H. R. 4555. Mr. Bentley, we will be glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. ALVIN M. BENTLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present my feelings regarding my bill, H. R. 6833. This bill would amend the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social Security Act to eliminate those provisions which restrict the right of a spouse or survivor to receive benefits simultaneously under both acts. In 1954 I was happy to see passage of a bill identical to one I introduced which removed these restrictions as far as the retired railroad worker himself was concerned. I feel now, that in all fairness, the wife or survivor of the railroad man should be entitled to her share of the railroad pension in addition to the benefits she earned under social security. In many cases, the wife may have worked for years building up her own benefits under the social security covered employment only to find that the amount she is entitled to is deducted from her railroad pension. In some cases under the present law, the husband may have worked under social security covered employment after retiring from the railroad in order to entitle himself to these benefits only to find that his wife's benefits are eliminated. I cannot help but feel that legislation to remove these restrictions upon dual benefits is badly needed and, if enacted, would eliminate many cases of real hardship, particularly among widows. I urge you, gentlemen, to report this bill out favorably. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will now go on to the testimony in support of my bill, H. R. 4555, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 so that survivors of certain deceased employees who had 30 years' service or more at the time of their deaths shall be entitled to survivor's benefits under that act. As the law now stands, survivors of uninsured railroad workers who died before retirement without having worked in the railroad industry for any length of time after 1936 are not entitled to any insurance benefits. On the other hand, a completely insured status is enjoyed by pensioners and other individuals with 10 years of service, including a sufficient number of covered quarters, who retired before 1948. (The quarters of coverage requirement will be explained later.) Thus a man could have serve the railroad industry and worked diligently for more than 30 years, but if he was unfortunate enough to die without filing for a pension or an annuity, or without having at least 6 calendar quarters of coverage after 1936, his widow gets nothing. This is patently inequitable, and should be corrected. I am offering my amendment as a corrective solution. At present, survivor benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act are payable to the qualified survivors of properly insured employees. But in order to be considered properly insured, the employee must have met one of the following conditions (sec. 5, subsec. (1), par. (7), Public Law 572, 79th Cong.): 1. A current connection with the railroad industry; and a number of quarters of coverage, not less than 6, and at least equal to one-half of the number of quarters, elapsing in the period after 1936, or after the quarter in which he will have attained the age of 21, and up to but excluding the quarter in which he will have attained the age of 65 years or died, whichever occurs first. The employee must have had this coverage in employment under the Railroad Retirement Act or in such employment combined with employment under the Social Security Act. It is my understanding from correspondence with the Railroad Retirement Board that is section quoted above would require the employee to have had at least 1 quarter where his wage was $50 or more for every 2 calendar quarters worked after January 1, 1937 (or after reaching age 21, if later), and through the quarter before the one in which he reaches age 65, retires, or dies. 2. A current connection with the railroad industry; and 40 or more quarters of coverage. 3. A pension under section 6 of the Railroad Retirement Act will have been payable to him-in other word, a pension would have had to be granted to him by his employer after July 1, 1937, or the employee would have had to file for an annuity. 4. A retirement annuity based on service of not less than 10 years (as computed in awarding the annuity) will have begun to accrue to him before 1948 and have been payable to the employee. My amendment, as I understand it, will have the effect of changing the status of a completely insured employee for purposes of present insurance annuity eligibility for widows over 60 years of age, widows with children under 18 years of age, children, and parents of deceased employees. These persons would become eligible to draw railroad retirement benefits under section 5, subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), as beneficiaries of a completely insured employee if the employee had completed 30 years of service with a railroad prior to his death. Benefits could be received by these survivors regardless of whether the employee had filed for a pension while still alive, and without his having fulfilled other current requirements pertaining to quarters of coverage or current connection with the railroad industry. The case that brought the presently complicated and unfair provision of the Railroad Retirment Act to my attention involves the widow of a railway worker who was employed for 37 years without applying for benefits. Ill health forced him to leave his job in October 1937 and he died in November 1937 with only three quarters of coverage, half the minimum number required. This widow has never received a penny in death benefits because of the complicated and meaningless language in this law. Meanwhile, someone else whose husband only worked 10 years, but at the right time after enactment of the law, and who retired at the right time (before 1948) is entitled to full benefits. Just why continue such a procedure if the purpose is to provide survivors' annuities to those most in need and most deserving? At least, I presume that is the purpose. If not, it most definitely should be. The report of the Railroad Retirement Board presents several fine arguments of a very substantial nature which would lead one to suspect they were in sympathy with my bill. Then in the last paragraph, they reverse themselves and conclude that this is really just a private bill and I only had one person in mind, so they recommend against favorable consideration. Now, it is quite true that this problem was brought to my attention by an individual case, the one cited above. However, many other public bills I have introduced involved problems and provisions in our laws which were originally called to my attention through individual cases. This does not make the problem any less general, the hardship any less real, nor does it make it less public. If every time a public bill that was originally inspired by an individual case was rejected for that reason, I dare say a substantial portion of laws and amendments to laws on the books today, which are clearly needed to correct widespread injustices unforeseen by the original authors, would never have seen the light of day. I might point out to the committee that the Board's report does not reflect any fear of any great additional cost ensuing if the bill were enacted. It is felt that there would be very few applicants for benefits under my proposed amendment, and the cost of paying such proposed benefits would, therefore, not be very great, thus not imposing a substantial financial burden on the railroad retirement fund. The Board also points out that there would be no administrative diffculties involved in carrying out the proposal and the costs of administration would be small. The other argument advanced by the Railroad Retirement Board against my bill, in which they are joined by the Bureau of the Budget in their report, is that the Railroad Retirement Act is already much more liberal in its eligibility requirements for survivor benefits than is the Social Security Act. They compare the provision giving a completely insured status to persons with 10 years of service and retiring before 1948 to the social-security requirement that wage earners must have died after 1939 with at least 6 quarters of coverage after 1936. Therefore, they question the desirability of further liberalization. However, I contend that my amendment is not liberalizing the law; it is designed to make it fair and realistic. Certainly, it is not as liberal as the "10 year--before 1948" provision. I agree that is about as liberal as the law should be. The overly complicated requirements for eligibility are working considerable hardships on certain railroad workers' widows, as I have already pointed out. It certainly would not be "liberalizing" the law to allow a widow whose husband had 30 years of service to draw benefits on the same basis as a widow whose husband worked only 10 years. Without going into the humanitarian or equitable aspects involved, I would say it would just be putting commonsense into the law. For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully urge that the subcommittee accept the favorable portions of the Railroad Retirement Board's report, reject the unfavorable portion, and favorably report H. R. 4555 to the full Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for further consideration. Mr. HARRIS. We appreciate your testimony, Mr. Bentley. Mr. HARRIS. It seems that we have run out of colleagues this morning, and statements. We know how difficult sometimes it is for our colleagues to get away from other committee meetings and pressing problems, but I am encouraged with the progress we have been able to make toward getting an explanation of these various bills. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10:15. (Thereupon at 11:20 a. m., a recess was taken until Thursday, January 26, 1956, at 10: 15 a. m.) |