SOCIAL SECURITY REVISION TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1950 UNITED STATES SENATE, The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 312, Senate Office Building, Hon. Walter F. George (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators George, Lucas, Hoey, Kerr, Myers, Millikin, Butler, and Martin. Present also: Senator Stennis, Mrs. Elizabeth B. Springer, chief clerk, and F. F. Fauri, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Reporter, please insert this letter in the hearings of the morning, by Senator Burnet R. Maybank, of South Carolina, who expresses an interest in the appearance made here by witnesses from his State, and also an amendment to section 4 of subsection 210 of H. R. 6000. (The letter referred to follows:) UNITED STATES SENATE, March 13, 1950. Hon. WALTER GEORGE, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: Last January I discussed with you a certain section of House bill 6000 and again today. I have a large number of constituents in South Carolina whose business will be adversely affected if section 4 of subsection 210, page 51, becomes a law. It will adversely affect, as I am reliably told, many small industries. You have been good enough to hear these witnesses and I am merely writing you this letter to express my feelings. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, BURNET R. MAYBANK. Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word because I am going to have to leave. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, Senator. Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am not appearing before your subcommittee this morning, but I am intensely interested in H. R. 6000 and the problems that it presents in connection with industries from my area. I am very glad to be here this morning with two of your witnesses, Mr. Wilcox, of Laurel, Miss., and Mr. A. K. Dexter, president of the Mississippi Forestry and Chemurgic Association, Inc., Jackson, Miss. I wish I could stay in order that I may hear these gentlemen, but I feel they will have a fine contribution to make to your committee. 60805-50-pt. 343 The CHAIRMAN. Senator Stennis, we are glad to have your appearance. Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Dexter are both listed for the morning, and I am sure that they will be heard either this morning or at some time during the day. Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might add that I am going to hear some of the testimony myself. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. Congressman Morris, you may proceed now if you are ready. STATEMENT OF HON. TOBY MORRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Representative MORRIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the clerk advised me that I might have about 10 minutes' time this morning, and I think I can present this statement in about that time. My name is Toby Morris, Congressman from Oklahoma. I am deeply interested in the subject of social security and old-age pensions. It is, therefore, a great pleasure to me to know that your honorable committee is giving time for thorough consideration of this subject. It is also a pleasure to present to you some observations I have made to the House of Representatives and also publicly with regard to this matter generally, and to the matter of better security for our aged citizens particularly. My interest in this subject goes back even much further than my temure as a Member of Congress. For many years, the great need for an adequate and dependable income for aged people, and what it would mean to all citizens, has impressed my mind and heart. I am also of the opinion that an adequate, regular, dependable income to our retired elder citizens will constitute a well distributed buying power in this segment of our population that will be a factor in maintaining our high level of national income which is so important to our national economy. If it is possible for our citizens to retire on a reasonable pension at retirement age, job opportunities will be open to younger people, the responsibility of supporting parents on the part of children will be obviated, and the entire population will benefit. While our present legislation, in effect, is not adequately meeting the great needs of our people, the provisions that have been made, are truly a great help. Much good has been accomplished. In many cases, dire suffering and want has been alleviated. Perhaps the dollars that the Congress has made available through old-age assistance have gone as far toward meeting dire needs of many helpless and deserving citizens, as any appropriations that have been made. I want to be understood as in no way attacking or decrying the good work that has been accomplished in this field. Our present legislation falls far short of taking care of the great needs for adequate security for our elder citizens. Many who badly need regular incomes, and who are of retirement age, are not included. Neither is it possible for them to qualify under our present laws. Great inequities exist in the operation of our present system. Different, and in fact, greatly varying payments are being made to recipients in our States. Hardly do we find the same payments, month by month, in any two of our States. Moreover, we also find that the payments may vary in different parts of the same State. These inequalities should have our careful consideration. I wonder if Members of the Congress have stopped to consider the actual_conditions with regard to the operations of our present system. Let me illustrate: Under our present Federal laws, and under "Old-age assistance," as shown by the report of the Federal Security Agency, for the month of October 1949, which is the last report that I have before me, I am taking figures for just two of our large States in population, and also two of our smaller States. I am comparing the payments on the following points: 1. Number of beneficiaries. 2. Amount of monthly payment to each beneficiary. 3. Total amount of payments for the month in each State. These comparisons show clearly what I mean by inequalities. Here they are: Does it not seem strange that the number of recipients should be so much greater in the one State than in the other, when the States are not far from equal in population? Again note the average payment to the individual. Senator MILLIKIN. Are they equal. Congressman, in age brackets? Would you say that there are more elderly people per thousand population in California than in Pennsylvania? Representative MORRIS. I think that accounts for it, to some extent, sir, but not entirely. I think it is the liberality of the law and the administration of the law that also accounts for a large part of it. Your point is well taken and is correct in part. I mean, the point is well taken and it partly explains it. In one State it is over $70 while in the other it is less than $40. Then, look carefully at the total amount received during the month by the recipients. In one State it is over $18,000,000 while in the other State it is only over $3,000,000. Certainly these facts deserve careful consideration. Now, let us look at the figures from two States of small population. Let us look at Virginia as compared with Colorado. Let us remember, also, that Virginia has a population of more than double that of Colorado. Please keep this fact in mind and then study the figures.. Here they are: When we look at these figures, certain very important facts are inescapable. Virginia, with more than twice the population, has less than half as many beneficiaries. The old folks in Colorado received over $75 per person for the month of October; while in Virginia, they received less than $21. The total benefits in dollars paid to recipients for the month was almost 10 times in Colorado what it was in Virginia, notwithstanding the fact that in population Virginia is almost twice that of Colorado. I believe these simple comparisons illustrate clearly what I mean by inequality of our present system among the various States. I shall, however, file with the committee the entire report showing the figures from all the States, from which these figures are taken. I suggest also, that each Member of Congress might watch these monthly reports and study them carefully as they are issued month by month by the Federal Security Agency. A bipartisan group in the House of Representatives, led by my colleague, Representative Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, representing the minority, and myself, for the majority, have been giving serious study to this problem. We have united with us, in this effort, now more than 130 Members of the House. We have our individual opinions as to many details concerning remedial legislation, and each Member is, of course, entitled to his own opinion. However, we do find that there is a definite field of agreement, and there are positive points of agreement, on which we seem to be united. Among these points are the following: 1. We should enact a Federal pension to take the place of "old-age assistance" under the Social Security Act. 2. The pension should be paid uniformly in all the States without regard to what the States pay. 3. Eligibility of recipients should be liberalized. A property owner should be considered as well as those who have no property. 4. Many of us believe the amount of the Federal pension should be $100 per month, but the figure on which we have agreed is "at least $60 per month." I introduced a bill in the House, H. R. 2620, embodying these features and will file a copy of it along with my remarks, with the committee. I hope it will have the careful and full consideration of the committee, and that when your report is made to the floor of the Senate, you will have seen fit to recommend a decided improvement in our provisions for those citizens who are now of retirement age. I am deeply interested in the future of America. It shall be my pleasure to give full and complete attention to the future problems of security for those who are now actively engaged in production. I am anxious, insofar as we can, that we shall anticipate the needs of all of our active workers, and plan for their security, once they are old enough to retire. However, as important as this appears, it is not an emergency that must be met at this moment. Young people, those who are the workers of today, will not need retirement until they retire. For this reason, I do trust that we will put first things first in this matter. I am thinking first of those who have served so well, in peacetime and in war, and have brought us to the proud place we now occupy as the leading Nation, in many ways, in all the world. I am very deeply concerned about those who are now old to the point where there is no hope for them in labor, business, professions, or in industry. They are in need of old-age security now. Young people may be able to wait at least a little while. But unless we do something for those who are now old, we are missing a vital opportunity. If we fail, Mr. Chairman, to meet our obligation to this important segment of our population, I am speaking of those who are now too old to earn it will be disastrous. Many of them are in dire need. I certainly see no depression coming but the specter of unemployment is casting its menacing shadow across our land. We are looking for markets to keep our farms, mines, mills, and factories going. We are facing the problem of keeping money in circulation. Let us consider the matter of American old-age pensions in this light. It will be a very efficient and equitable way to keep money circulating in every section of the land. Should we see that our elder citizens can have just a reasonable cash amount each month, giving the employment they now have to younger people, it should benefit business and strengthen our economy. It will aid in maintaining or increasing our national income. This is very important to our future growth and prosperity. In addition to that, it will perhaps accomplish more in genuine happiness and well-being among those deserving security than any other like amount of money which the Congress will appropriate. Should we fail-then I shall dread to contemplate the position in which we have left the deserving fathers and mothers of our country. Of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I feel sure: 1. America can well afford a reasonable uniform pension to all citizens of retirement age. 2. There is a great and crying need for such a pension. 3. The pension money being spent in our markets month by month, would go a long way toward compensating our economy for the burden of any added tax. 4. While security for our young people, when they become old, is important, it can well wait until the present crying needs of our deserving elder citizens have been provided for. I know of no action that this Congress can take, short of that which deals with our national security, that will yield as much in happiness and general good, as to provide a genuine American pension for our deserving retired American citizens. I trust, and I pray that this Congress will give the matter full and complete consideration; that we may have such a pension enacted as early as possible this year. Most certainly an old-age pension is better than old-age assistance. In conclusion, may I say that the bill I introduced, H. R. 2620, provides, in substance, that every citizen of the United States who is 60 years of age, or older, and who does not have an income sufficient to require him or her, as the case may be, to file a Federal income-tax return, and who applies for same, is entitled to a Federal pension at the rate of $60 per month. I think that this is a simple, moderate, and workable plan. I would do away with the present case-worker system and with much of the administrative cost. It would not be necessary to set up any new boards or bureaus as the question of income tax could be determined under the present law and rules and regulations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. A number of groups in our society now have retirement benefits, such as coal miners, steel workers, Government officials, and employees. |