The CHAIRMAN. Very well, the committee will adjourn to meet at 2: 20 p. m.

(Thereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the committee took a recess until 2:20 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee met, pursuant to the taking of the recess, at 2:30 p. m., Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Harrison, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, CINCINNATI, OHIO-Resumed

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I had concluded submitting my testimony on the bill, except the filing of the amendments in written form that I had suggested during the course of the testimony this morning.

I shall have those available for the committee now very shortly. Unless some member of the committee wishes to ask me some questions, I shall retire, and I understand that Judge Fletcher is to be the next witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. He will appear in support of the legislation.

QUESTION OF OVERPAYMENTS

་

The CHAIRMAN. Under section 12, would the exemption from tax and so forth prevent an offset by the Federal Government for any claim that might be due it by reason of overpayments?

Mr. HARRISON. I do not think, should there be an overpayment, that it would be handled under section 12. In section 9, there is provision for recovery of erroneous payments. It reads:

There shall be no recovery of payments of annuities, death benefits, or pensions from any person who, in the judgment of the Board, is without fault and where, in the judgment of the Board, such recovery would defeat the purpose of the benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience.

I think that section 9 covers that in the event there was an overpayment and that such overpayment could be adjusted.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; there might be a case where error in computation was made.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That would usually be a small matter.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Or sometimes there might be a mistake of fact. as to the period of employment or something of that kind, and I believe, as I recall, there is a general provision some place in the bill providing that the Government may offset against such payments, and I was wondering how or if that would be permissible under this bill.

147969-37—6

Mr. HARRISON. I think so, and if the bill does not directly provide for that, I am sure we would be glad to give consideration to whatever might be necessary to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. I have not studied the bill sufficiently to know. It was just suggested here a while ago and I made a note of it before noon.

Mr. HARRISON. Well, we will look into that. Mr. Chairman, and see about it.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Following the line of questions under section 12 that the chairman asked you-I might say to you, that in order to protect the Board there should be a provision there like there is in the Veterans' Act, not allowing the publication of how much is due each man.

For instance, we will say, some person will start writing in to the Board wanting information as to how much he is going to get, and when he is going to get it.

I have had considerable experience in veterans' affairs, and we had to do that or otherwise employ quite a number of people there in the office to help answer those letters and to work that out.

I am just calling that to your attention so that you may consider it. You might think about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Later on, in section 10, at the top of page 21, referring to the 6 months' provision before the employee is covered into the civil service, if he has that opportunity, would this language sufficiently guard against recurring appointments with the idea of evading this 6 months' provision; that is, a man might be employed for 5 months and at some later period be employed for another period and by breaking the employment, could they possibly evade this provision?

Mr. HARRISON. I think the way that it reads now, for at least 6 months, that could be either intermittently or consecutively. The CHAIRMAN. Probably that is correct.

RELATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT

Have you satisfied yourselves about any possibility of conflict with the Social Security Act?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, to the extent that we had satisfied ourselves under the present legislation. We had excluded all persons and employees subject to the proposed act from title II of the Social Security Act.

The CHAIRMAN. So there is not any danger or uncertainty there because there is a lack of definite definitions of those who are included in this bill ?

Mr. HARRISON. There undoubtedly will probably be some borderline cases come up, I take it; but in those cases the Treasury undoubtedly will rule and let the court decide which law they come. under.

The CHAIRMAN. Who would decide that, the Board?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, the Board in determining whether the individual was eligible to the benefits, I think that the Retirement Board would decide that in the first instance.

The CHAIRMAN. And then if someone claimed to come under the retirement fund, as a result of the Social Security Act, the Treasury would pass on that, too, would they?

Mr. HARRISON. Well, in the first instance I am not entirely familiar with that, but I presume the Social Security Board would pass on

that.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the only thing I had in mind was to have determined as definitely as we could to avoid that conflict. We might have such a thing as two boards holding adversely so that a man would be out entirely on that question.

I am not finding fault with the language. I am just inquiring. Mr. HARRISON. We will try to look into that, Mr. Chairman. Have you any particular views on the question?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not have. This is just a note that I made here while you were talking this morning, and I have not studied the question.

What is the status of the pension fund under the existing legislation? How is that worked out? Mr. Latimer can tell us about that, I presume.

Mr. HARRISON. There is no special account under the present legis. lation; it provides for an appropriation by Congress annually tc meet the disbursements.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps I should ask Mr. Latimer that question. I was wondering what their experience has demonstrated as to the accuracy of the estimates made at the time the original legislation was enacted? I can ask you that when you come on, Mr. Latimer, if that is all right.

Now, some one has suggested a question as to the status of the present employees of the board under that section 10, on pages 20 and 21. That is as to whether or not the civil service employees now in the employ of the board might be replaced by those who would be qualified as provided for in this section.

Mr. HARRISON. No; I do not so understand it. If they are now working for the board and have a civil service status, they have all that goes with that status. There is no intention by this language here to displace those who have been appointed according to the civil-service regulations. This only gives the Board the freedom when engaging new staff to engage the new staff or the additional staff, without regard to civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing in this section that would interfere with the civil-service regulations so far as discharges are concerned?

Mr. HARRISON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HARRISON. Does any other member have any questions? Mr. MAPES. Is there anything in this section which provides for taking over the employees of the present retirement board?

Mr. HARRISON. Directly, no; It simply gives the board the authority to appoint such staff as it may require. There is not anything here providing for that. Perhaps there ought to be. I know that in our railway labor act we did insert a provision to that effect.

Mr. MAPES. I think that some such provision might well be inserted as a matter of safety.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes; I had overlooked that, and I am sure that the others did.

Mr. MAPES. I do not know whether your attention has been called to the question raised by the language appearing on page 24, line 15. Mr. HARRISON. Page 24, line 15?

Mr. MAPES. Yes.

Mr. Harrison (reading):

There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the railroad retirement account.

Mr. MAPES. And "There is hereby appropriated to the account for each fiscal year."

The rules of the House of Representatives provide that no committee, except the Committee on Appropriations can report a bill carrying appropriations.

The usual practice for the legislative committees is to authorize the appropriation. My judgment is that if anybody raises a point of order against that sentence in the consideration of the bill the chairman of the committee will have to sustain the point of order. Mr. HARRISON. Well, we will check that matter up, Mr. Mapes. We have checked it up and we find that in a number of instances the Congress has passed legislation with that exact provision in it and it did not originate in the Appropriations Committee.

Now, that is language I think appears in the Social Security Act. Mr. MAPES. It must have been done under a special rule reported by the Rules Committee waiving all points of order. That`sometimes is done.

(After informal discussion off the record, the following proceedings were had :)

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any more questions? Well, we thank you very much, Mr. Harrison.

Mr. HARRISON. Thank you, sir, for your courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fletcher, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes, Mr. Chairman."

(After informal discussion off the record, the following proceedings were had:)

The CHAIRMAN. Then, we will go over until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. We will try to get through if we can by noon. If we cannot, we will finish later.

The committee will then stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 3 p. m., the committee adjourned as above indicated.)

RAILROAD RETIREMENT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE And Foreign COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. Clarence F. Lea (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. Fletcher, you may proceed.

Mr. FLETCHER. I think that Mr. Harrison has another word to add.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, CINCINNATI, OHIO-Resumed

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I have two or three additional slight amendments that I would like to offer.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. HARRISON. And before doing so, I would like to make the statement that the amendments which I am about to offer represent an agreement between the Treasury Department, the railroads, and the reprsentatives of the railroad employees.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Harrison, have you extra copies of those amendments?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. I am going to furnish for the benefit of each member of the committee a copy of the bill with all of the amendments inserted. The first I have to offer this morning is on page 2, section 1, line 9. Amend by inserting in the parentheses after the word "service", the following words: "Casual service or the casual operation of equipment or facilities."

At yesterday's session I offered an amendment on page 4 in the nature of a redrafting of section (c). Since that time we have made a further change in the redrafted section, and it will be noticed by referring to the revised amendment, by using the expression "within or without the United States" in place of the words "wherever the service is rendered."

And, on page 6, paragraph (h), last word in line 8, "wages" should be changed to read "remuneration." Page 9

Mr. BULWINKLE (interposing). Where was that?

Mr. HARRISON. Page 6, line 8, the word "wages" should be changed to "remuneration."

Mr. BULWINKLE. Just a minute, for my own information, at the bottom of page 4, and top of page 5 you struck out something.

81