ness and attentiveness to duty, which I felt saved some lives through that engineer's prompt action. I do not know whether he is now living or dead, retired or still active, old or young, But I do feel that you and I are at the throttle of his affairs right now and that we can take prompt action to help keep down distress among all our retired railroad people in all of our districts through granting to them some cost-of-living increases that they deserve and that now seem to be dictated by mounting indexes of their daily burdens as shown by the Bureau of Labor. I feel that this move on our part will destroy no actuarial soundness of the big fund that railroaders themselves helped create, but I do feel that this move will aid the vast economy of our Nation and will render real help where help is most needed in any humble American homes, of droqqe; vai

The railroad retirement fund is said to have reached a total of $312 billion last year in its overall reserve, which means the fund would last almost 10 more years even if it supposedly lost a million dollars per day, including each Sunday, over and above its net receipts pouring in daily over the same period. As a director in some small companies down in Kentucky, I have always favored the policy of very liberally distributing company income after company surplus or reserves have been built up to sizeable sums, since the stockholders themselves really own their companies and have built up their surpluses and should be entitled to the full fruits of their own endeavors when the business orchards and vineyards of those companies have been put in fair condition of safe operation. And so, with the accomplishment of a $31⁄2 billion reserve fund last year for railroad retirement, why not now put a little more "jam on the lower shelf" for the railroaders who have built the fund and who really own it as proportionate shareholders therein and ton rad 99dintatoo add to glubodne odd day »A rld sti Proverbs 26:13 tells us, "The slothful man saith, there is a lion in the way; a lion is in the streets."And that verse of Biblical wisdom clearly indicates that there are men who will not, because of their sloth, do anything about a lion running around the town. They recognize it! but do nothing about it. Now we all recognize the prevalence of inflation, seeing it ourselves in the way as we buy a load of groceries, but we certainly should do more than just say 'fit is in the way."We should, in my opinion, take the equalizing halter of some granted increase and put on the inflationary lion in the way for the benefit of our retired railroaders across the land. 1 1 noqoodW) Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Siler. (riad) add To Hao sid The next witness is our colleague from Florida, Mr. Sikes, who introduced H. R. 8399. Mr. Sikes, we are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced H. R. 8399 which proposes to amend the Railroad Retirement Act so that wives of railroad retirement annuitants may receive all the retirement benefits due them as contingent beneficiaries under the Railroad Retirement Act and in addition receive the full social security retirement benefits they earn in their own right. There is now a $40 per month limitation on the combined social security and railroad retirement benefits which they may draw.

This is unrealistic and it denies to these annuitants, in many cases, the greater part of the retirement money they themselves have earned. I intend to work earnestly for the enactment of this measure. It is unfortunately true that the Railroad Retirement Act seems always to be behind the times. Retirement benefits paid under it seldom keep pace with those in other social security programs. Annuitants do not receive adequate compensation for livelihood under today's steadily increasing living costs. My bill reaches only one phase of this problem but I hope that the entire railroad retirement field will be liberalized.

I sincerely hope that your committee will in its wisdom approve H. R. 8399 or a similar measure designed to correct an obvious injustice. I would like also to add my support to measures introduced by Congressman Bennett of Florida and others to liberalize the entire railroad retirement field.

Mr. HARRIS. May the Chair inquire if there are any other colleagues present here this morning? If not, this concludes the initial hearings. I might say that our colleague on this subcommittee of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, has a bill pending. Mr. Williams, do you want to submit anything for the record on your legislation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not think that is necessary, Mr. Chairman. It has been pretty well covered by others who have the same provisions. It repeals restrictions and is very similar, I believe, to the third bill listed on the schedule. The same provisions are incorporated in quite a number of these other bills and I do not see anything to be gained by repeating and rehashing what has already been said.

Mr. HARRIS. This concludes the hearings then by the sponsors of the bills. As yet the schedule of the committee has not been determined as to when we might resume hearings because of other hearings that have already been set. I will meet with the chairman of our committee on the program in the very near future and determine a date on which we might resume hearings. Other witnesses vitally interested in these bills and their proposals to amend the Railroad Retirement Act will have the opportunity of being heard.

I should like to ask the members of the subcommittee if they would remain a few moments in order that we may discuss the matter. The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)

RAILROAD RETIREMENT LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 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 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Oren Harris (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HARRIS. The committee will come to order.

This subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is meeting this morning to resume hearings on railroad retirement bills pending before this committee and the Congress.

As you recall, on January 24-26, 1956, we held hearings at which time we heard the sponsors of the various bills pending before the committee. Due to other scheduled business before the committee, the hearings were postponed until today.

We observe that 71 bills have been introduced to amend the Railroad Retirement Act since that time.

The list of these bills, together with the reports of the executive departments and agencies thereon, will be made a part of the record at this time.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

BILLS TO AMEND THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT, INTRODUCED SINCE

JANUARY 25, 1956

H. R. 8828 by Mr. Byrd of West Virginia; H. R. 8862 by Mr. Williams of Mississippi; H. R. 9065 by Mr. Harris of Arkansas; H. R. 9066 by Mr. Dolliver of Iowa; H. R. 9068 by Mr. Wolverton of New Jersey; H. R. 9145 by Mr. Klein of New York; H. R. 9174 by Mr. Dollinger of New York; H. R. 9175 by Mr. Granahan of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9187 by Mr. Moulder of Missouri; H. R. 9190 by Mr. Staggers of West Virginia; H. R. 9204 by Mr. Clark of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9213 by Mr. Mack of Illinois; H. R. 9231 by Mr. Taylor of New York; H. R. 9232 by Mr. Withrow of Wisconsin; H. R. 9239 by Mr. Ashley of Ohio; H. R. 9245 by Mr. Sheppard of California; H. R. 9256 by Mr. Burdick of North Dakota; H. R. 9274 by Mr. Metcalf of Montana; H. R. 9276 by Mr. Madden of Indiana; H. R. 9281 by Mr. Roosevelt of California; H. R. 9316 by Mr. Aspinall of Colorado; H. R. 9317 by Mr. Beamer of Indiana; H. R. 9326 by Mr. Byrd, of West Virginia; H. R. 9327 by Mr. Carrigg of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9334 by Mr. George of Kansas; H. R. 9345 by Mr. Miller of California; H. R. 9355 by Mr. Rhodes of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9404 by Mr. Murray of Illinois; H. R. 9408 by Mr. Rogers of Texas; H. R. 9450 by Mr. Hale of Maine; H. R. 9456 by Mr. Perkins of Kentucky; H. R. 9501 by Mr. Bennett of Michigan; H. R. 9507 by Mr. Hayworth of Michigan; H. R. 9538 by Mr. Abernethy of Mississippi; H. R. 9541 by Mr. Burnside of West Virginia; H. R. 9542 by Mr. Chenoweth of Colorado; H. R. 9564 by Mr. Polk of Ohio; H. R. 9583 by Mr. Addonizio of New Jersey; H. R. 9587 by Mr. Baker of Tennessee; H. R. 9596 by Mr. Flynt of Georgia; H. R. 9597 by Mr. Friedel of Maryland; H. R. 9598 by Mrs. Green of Oregon; H. R. 9599 by Mrs. Griffiths of

Michigan; H. R. 9602 by Mr. Herlong of Florida; H. R. 9611 by Mr. O'Konski of Wisconsin; H. R. 9616 by Mr. Reuss of Wisconsin; H. R. 9621 by Mr. Shelley of California; H. R. 9623 by Mr. Siler of Kentucky; H. R. 9624 by Mr. Smith of Mississippi; H. R. 9625 by Mrs. Sullivan of Missouri; H. R. 9627 by Mr. Williams of New Jersey; H. R. 9628 by Mr. Zablocki of Wisconsin; H. R. 9645 by Mr. Bailey of West Virginia; H. R. 9655 by Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9656 by Mr. Mollohan of West Virginia, H. R. 9657 by Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota H. R. 9659 by Mr. Rodino of New Jersey; H. R. 9662 by Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9663 by Mr. Thompson of New Jersey; H. R.. 9666 by Mr. Winstead of Mississippi; H. R. 9682 by Mr. Colmer of Mississippi; H. R. 9685 by Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania; H. R. 9686 by Mr. Garmatz of Maryland, H. R 9694 by Mr. Gregory of Kentucky; H. R. 9697 by Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts; H. R. 9698 by Mr. Natcher of Kentucky; H. R. 9702 by Mr. Spence of Kentucky; H. R. 9724 by Mr. Matthews of Florida; H. R. 9727 by Mr. Sisk of California; H. R. 9730 by Mr. Whitten of Mississippi; and H. R. 9731 by Mr. Tumulty of New Jersey.

MM.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; Washington, D. C., March 14, 1956.

Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, SAHAM No House of Representatives, Washington; D. Ở.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1956, requesting a report on H. R. 8828, a bill "To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, as amended, and for other purposes."

The bill would increase annuities and pensions by 15 percent, liberalize eligi bility requirements, revise the provisions affecting past service credits, and maké other changes in the railroad retirement program. The Railroad Retirement Board reported last June that an identical bill, H. R. 2573, would add approximately $235 million a year, on a level premium basis, to the cost of the program. However, no provision is made for financing the increased cost.

This additional cost factor would greatly aggravate the already serious de ficiency of $86 million a year in the financing of the railroad retirement program. In the circumstances, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against enactment of H. R. 8828.

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. PRIEST: This is a report on the bill H. R. 8828 which was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 26, 1956, by Mr. Byrd and which was referred to your committee for consideration.

The bill H. R. 8828 is identical in terms with the bill H. R. 2573, introduced by Mr. Cunningham on Janary 20, 1955, and a number of other bills. Ac cordingly, we respectfully request that you consider our report of June 7, 1955 on H. R. 2573 as a report on the bill H. R. 8828.

For the reasons given in the report on H. R. 2573, the Board recommends that no favorable consideration be given to the bill.

its

The Board's report on identical bill H. R. 2573 has been cleared with the Bureau of the Budget which informs us that there is no objection to submis sion and that the Bureau itself also recommends against enactment of the proposed legislation.

Sincerely yours,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce lovni vbTİS -95 9d 92891903 90 blow lid 900 House of Representatives, Washington, D. JOE' of televiupe 10 9 to Jogits 9dT MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1956, requesting a report on HR 6502-18 bill. To amend the Railroad, Betirement to provide a new method for determining monthly compensation in the computation of annuities thereunder diw be a 997 T The bill would amend the Railroad Retirement Act by revising the benefit formula so as to base annuities upon the 5 years in which earnings are highest, rather than on the entire earnings record as at present. This would have the effect of raising benefits in many cases and thereby increase the cost of the program. However, no provision is made for financing the increased cost.

Sincerely yours,

As indicated in our report of January 25, 1956, on H. R. 8230, which contained a similar provision, the railroad retirement system is operating at an annual actuarial deficit of $86 million a year; and unless corrective measures are taken, the program will eventually deplete its reserves and be unable to meet the annual obligations, 70' by totenatal no estimoniodo In the circumstances, the Bureau of the Budget. trecommends against enactment of the bill. B ai 29 TEC to JOA RAPPÅFORT, Assistant Directore 292001 1900 101 D08219090 atnemyaq mua qul bas einged Jagm19119 926919ui blow Ilid ed) 161999 ol yasm ai bezier ed oals blow atb9a9d arovive bпs 29-oq2 30999 yd 2ncija(9719tai ni NPPED STATES OF AMERICA RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, RIBNI 0212 joods bbs of betsuite 916 aftened beeChicago, Ill., February 29, 1956ilw Honorable J. PERCY PRIEST, id edTm81301q ed to 1200 9d of 1897 & noillim Vsohdirman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, ai doce 1919 House Office Building, Washington, D. C19 MEI of 91T xat beaidmoo This is a report on the bill H.

J29uper og of vigor ai ai aidT: KAMяIAня я YM

Which o was introon January 26 26, 1956 of 52 918 (8 The bill would amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 so that the "monthil compensation” or average monthly pay of an employee used in determining the amount of his annuity would be the average pay for months in the 5 calenda years (consecutive or rotherwise) in which the employee had his highest earns

duced in the House of Representatives by Mr. 2002,
and referred to your com
committee for consideration.

ports made, and all such records and reports reexamined. This would have to be done for every retirement annuity in effect based on more than 5 years service or in practically all cases. Many of these old records are no longer available. Further, the Board would have to make new awards in the cases of practica all these f retiremen annuities in effect at time of enactment. S The Board is opposed to posed to the bill not only because of the administrative dim culties, but also because

11. The bill, if enacted, would increase the cost of the railroad retirenden
system by about percent of payroll, or $80 million a y
a year;

2, The bill makes no provision for financing the additional cost which its enactment would entail;