/.002,2-) --t,-10exl

ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS —r-z,- Y4 

. P 94/10 

P 19141965

GOVERNMENT

Storage

A11600 740639 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

TTEE ON RETIREMENT, INSURANCE,

AND HEALTH BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

OFFICE A

JSE OF

EIGHTY-

.fr4

RfENr?

TH CtiONGR

FI ESSION 41,

voist ,

H.R.-97

A BILL TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT

WITH RESPECT TO ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP

PILOTS

SERVICE

TI YES

JUNE 22, 1965

Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

49-750 WASHINGTON : 1965
*IA

,

C( MINTITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SEliVI,CE.

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona

DOINIINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas ...„......

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West..V•frgiat;

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvlbkia

JOE R. POOL, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, PeniNvania

SPARK M. MATSUNAGAIrawaii

PAUL J. KREBS, New JOSzy

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGtiMichigati '

JAMES M. HANLEY, New\ rk

JOHN V. TUNNEY, Califorria

CHAR..

B. BENTON

ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

ROBERT F. ELLSWORTH, Kansas

ALBERT W.- JOHNSON, Pennsylvania

JOHN H. BUCHANAN, JR., Alabama,•

AMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

Joii*Fs Staff Director

sociate Staff Director

JOHN H. MAIrrINY, Counsel

WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director

1011

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT, INSURANCE, AND HEALTH BENEFITS

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey, Chairman

LINDLEY BECKWORTH, Texas

WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

H. R. GROSS, Iowa

JOHN H,. BUCHANAN, Ja., Alabama

Ecc Officio Voting Members

TOM MURRAY, Tennessee ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania

IT

:

*

i

IN4111

1 4.

? t

.•(;°? 'JP S‘i

•
CONTENTS

Statement of— Page

Christian, Capt. Joe Y., president, Canal Zone Pilots Association;

accompanied by Capt. Charles H. Taylor, trustee 5

Lawton, David F., Deputy Director, Bureau of Retirement and

Insurance, U.S. Civil Service Commission; accompanied by Richard

M. Cody, Technical Adviser, Bureau of Retirement and Insurance_ 20

Hon. James H. Morrison, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Louisiana 5

Hon. Arnold Olsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Montana 17

III
,
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1965

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBC03IMITTEE ON RETIREMENT, INSURANCE,

AND HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., room 219,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. DANIELS. The subcommittee will come to order.

The subcommittee is meeting this morning to consider H.R. 97, a

bill introduced by our colleague, Mr. Morrison, to amend t ivil

Service Retirement Act with respect to annuities of

ship pilots. Without objection, the bill and letter 1 be ma

part of the record at this point.

(The bill and letters follow:)

[H.R. 97, 89th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to liou: ities of Pan

Canal ship pilots

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives ed

States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6 of the Civil Service

Retirement Act is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as

follows:

"(g) Any employee while serving as a ship pilot in the Panama Canal Zone

who attains the age of fifty-five years and completes twenty years of service,

not less than fifteen years of which has been as such a pilot, shall, upon separation from the service, be paid an annuity computed as provided in section 9."

SEC. 2. Section 9(e) of such Act is amended by inserting after "6(c)" the

following: "or 6(g)".

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect on the first day of the first month which

begins after the date of its enactment.

HOD. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This refers further to your requests for Commission

report on H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791, bills to amend the Civil Service Retirement

Act with respect to annuities of Panama Canal ship pilots.

H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791 each propose to amend the Retirement Act, effective the first of the month following its enactment, to permit employees serving as ship pilots in the Panama Canal Zone to retire on immediate full annuity at or after

age 55 after a minimum of 20 years' Federal service, at least 15 of which must have been as a Panama Canal ship pilot. Annuity in each case would be comU.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1965.

1
V

2 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

puted under the special 2-percent formula in section 9(e) of the Retirement Act

provided for and restricted to hazardous duty law-enforcement officers retiring

under section 6(c) of the act.

The present bills somewhat follow a prior bill (H.R. 4000) introduced in the

85th Congress as a result of a study made by former Senators W. Kerr Scott

and William R. Laird III, of the conditions of employment confronting some

90 to 100 ship pilots in the Panama Canal Zone. Following this study, these

Senators on October 15, 1956, recommended that "any ship pilot in the Panama

Canal Zone who has attained the age of 55 and has completed 15 years of such

service be permitted to retire voluntarily on an immediate annuity equal to

2 percent of his high 5 years' average salary times his years of such service."

H.R. 4000 embodied this recommendation but failed of enactment.

The special benefits proposed for ship pilots are similar to those currently available only to employees who are engaged in criminal law enforcement work.

Preferential retirement provisions for law enforcers were enacted by Congress

not in consideration of hazardous or arduous duties, but to help assure a staff

of active, vigorous, and capable men to carry out police operations involved in

the enforcement of Federal criminal laws. Congress established and has maintained a precedent as regards these preferential retirement provisions. Originally they were available only to agents and similar employees of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation. Later Congress extended them to cover other similar

law-enforcement officers; but always the express purpose has been to restrict the

preferred treatment to personnel in the field of law enforcement. We cannot

concur in the departure from congressional precedent here proposed, with resultant disruption of the retirement system's basic structure of age-and-service

retirement conditions and benefits.

We have consistently opposed extension of the concept of special benefits to

(

any 2,tiditional groups, and are firmly of the opinion that all Government on-

. deg/14be atr.tite,d alike for retirement purposes. Special retirement benefits

not an apPOoNriate form of compensation for hazards or arduous duties.

ny necessary comrsation for such job elements should be reflected in activeuty pay; 4, the ex nt that basic pay is increased, the retirement benefit is also

increased betauselir amount of annuity is related to pay as well as to length

_of service. iii 1

4 Our objection lat principle to legislative proposals like H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791

lould not be c trued as a failure to understand or an attempt to minimize

importanc 'the ship pilots in the operations of the Panama Canal. No

bt engaged in piloting vessels through the Panama Canal are exds not incident to more sedentary types of Federal employment.

But the lazards involved in ship piloting are not such as to set these employees

,in a special preferential category different from all other employees of the

United States. They are clearly outside the purpose for which Congress has

,consistently reserved the special retirement provisions applicable to lawenforcement personnel; namely, that of strengthening the Federal criminal law

enforcement instrumentality. The creation of a new preferential benefit provision for Panama Canal ship pilots could only establish an undesirable precedent

and result in various other groups, equally meritorious as to duties and hazards,

urging Congress to accord them the same special privilege.

The Commission accordingly recommends that adverse action be taken on

H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791.

It should be noted that neither bill provides an exception to the restriction on

the use of the retirement fund imposed by the paragraph headed "Civil Service

Retirement and Disability Fund" in section 101 of title I of the act of August 28,

1958, Public Law 85-844, 72 Stat. 1064.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission.

'Sincerely yours,

I . t

JOHN W. MACY, JR., Chairman.
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 3

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., June 18, 1965.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,

House of Representatives, Cannon Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the

Bureau of the Budget respecting H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791, identical bills to amend

the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to annunities of Panama Canal

ship pilots.

H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791 would grant special retirement privileges to Panama

Canal ship pilots, providing annuity, computed at full 2 percent, at age 55

after 20 years' service, of which 15 must have been spent as ship pilot. Thus,

the subject bills would extend early retirement and higher benefit provisions,

patterned after those provided under section 6(c) of the Civil Service Retirement Act, exclusively for employees engaged in criminal law enforcement and

investigative activities, to a select group of employees not so engaged.

Section 6(c) of the Civil Service Retirement Act now provides a special

retirement benefit for employees whose duties are primarily the investigation,

apprehension, or detention of persons suspected or convicted of offenses against

the criminal laws of the United States. Such law-enforcement employees may

retire at their own option, with approval of their agencies and the Civil Service

Commission, at any time after reaching age 50 and completing at least 20 years

of such service. These age and service requirements are lower than those applying generally to other employees for optional retirement. The annuities of

these law-enforcement employees are computed at 2 percent of their highest

5-year average salary multiplied by their total years of creditable service, not

exceeding 80 percent of average salary—a formula which provides a higher benefit than the graduated percentage factor used to compute the annuities of

other employees in the executive branch. This benefit is more liberal than the

normal retirement benefit in three major respects:

(1) The 2-percent factor itself provides a higher benefit for the same average

salary and years of service;

(2) Payment beginning before age 60 without reduction for early retirement

is a further relative increase in the benefit; and

(3) Payment beginning at an early age provides a correspondingly longer

benefit term and increases the average value of the annuity—an annuity payable at age 50 has a present value on the average of about one-third more

than the same annuity payable beginning at age 60. The added cost to the

Government of providing this special benefit is the price of maintaining a young,

vigorous, and effective law-enforcement staff.

This special early retirement provision of the Retirement Act has been limited

since its inception in 1947 to positions involving investigation, apprehension,

and detention of suspected or convicted criminals, and even the most recent

extension of this provision, in the Retirement Act Amendments of 1956, limited

its application to persons whose duties involve "frequent direct contact" in

connection with detention of such criminals.

These bills would extend an extraordinary and costly special benefit to an

occupation whose primary duties have no relation to "investigation, apprehension, or detention" of suspected or convicted criminals, and where there is no

demonstrated need for the Government to retire personnel at earlier than normal retirement age, before completing a full career. The Bureau of the Budget

has long opposed use of the special retirement benefits as a form of compensation for undertaking hazardous or arduous duties. It should be noted, moreover, that pilots who become disabled for the performance of their duties are

not without resources, as both the Civil Service Retirement Act and the Federal

Employees' Compensation Act make provision in such cases.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Bureau of the Budget opposes

enactment of the subject bills and recommends against their favorable consideration by the committee.

Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.
4 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

J-crisTE 21, 1965.

Hon. Tom MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of

Defense for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 97, 89th Congress,

a bill to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to annuities of

Panama Canal ship pilots. The Department of the Army has been assigned

responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense on this

bill.

The bill would amend section 6 of the Civil Service Retirement Act (5 U.S.C.

2256) to provide that a Panama Canal ship pilot who attains the age of 55 years

and completes 20 years of service, not less than 15 years of which shall have

been as a ship pilot in the Canal Zone, would upon separation from the service be

paid an annuity computed as provided in section 9 of the act (5 U.S.C. 2259).

This would reduce from 62 to 55 the age requirement for voluntary retirement

without reduction in annuity (or from age 60, with 30 years of service) and

would reduce from 30 years to 20 years the length of service required to qualify

for voluntary retirement prior to reaching age 60 without reduction in annuity.

The bill would also amend subsection 9(e) of the Retirement Act to provide

that the annuity of a Panama Canal ship be computed in the same manner

in which the annuity is computed for an employee "the duties of whose position

are primarily the investigation, apprehension, or detention of persons suspected

or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws of the United States" (subsection 6(c) of the act) ; namely, at the straight rate of 2 percent for each year of

creditable service rather than at the lesser, progressively scaled rates applicable

generally under subsection 9 ( a) of the act.

The Department of the Army on behalf of the Department of Defense is opposed to the bill.

The bill would extend preferential retirement benefits to ship pilots who are

employed by the Panama Canal Company. Inasmuch as the Panama Canal

Company is not a part of the Department of Defense, but rather is an independent agency of the U.S. Government, the Department has no direct interest in

the legislation. However, the Department believes strongly in the principle of

uniformity in the matter of retirement benefits for Federal civilian employees.

Therefore, it views the creation of new preferential benefit provisions for Panama

Canal ship pilots as undesirable, not only for the adverse effect it would have

on the morale of other employees, but also as a precedent for additional employee groups who might deem themselves similarly entitled to special retirement privileges.

For the foregoing reasons, the Department of the Army on behalf of the

Department of Defense recommends that the bill not be favorably considered.

The fiscal effects of this legislation are not known to the Department of

Defense.

This report has been coordinated in the Department of Defense in accordance

with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the

consideration of the committee.

Sincerely yours,

STEPHEN AILES,

Secretary of the Army.

Mr. DANIELS. A bill similar to H.R. 97 was approved by the Senate

in the 85th Congress, following a study concerning the employment

conditions of approximately 100 ship pilots of the Panama Canal.

It provided more liberal retirement benefits for this particular group

of employees in view of the extraordinary conditions under which

they perform their duties.

Hearings were held in the 87th Congress on H.R. 3557, a bill very

similar to that presently before us. In the 88th Congress a special

subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 2030, a bill identical to H.R. 97.

The bill we have under consideration today would permit Panama

Canal ship pilots to retire on an immediate annuity, provided they
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 5

have reached age 55 and have rendered 20 years of service, at least

15 of which have been served as a pilot. It would further provide

them more liberal annuity benefits by allowing all service to be computed at 2 percent of their 5-year-high-average salaries.

We have with us today the author of the bill, the distinguished

gentleman from the State of Louisiana, our esteemed colleague, Hon.

James H. Morrison, a man who has established for himself a wonderful reputation in the Congress. The man is doing a yeoman's job.

It is my privilege now to call upon our distinguished colleague, Hon.

James H. Morrison, who will introduce our first witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. MORRISON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

I am deeply grateful to this subcommittee, which has been burdened

with a tremendously heavy program of considering essential retirement and employee benefit legislation, for the opportunity of having

this bill which I introduced before it for consideration this morning.

In 1957, a proposal similar to H.R. 97 was approved by the Senate

as a result of a study made by former Senators Scott and Laird. The

Senate approved more liberal retirement requirements which would

have permitted the Panama Canal ship pilots to retire at earlier ages

and with a more favorable method of computing their retirement

benefits.

In both the 87th and 88th Congresses I introduced similar or identical bills to accomplish the purpose that H.R. 97 proposes to attain.

During the hearings on those measures we acquired a knowledge of

the responsibilities of these pilots, and of the hazardous conditions

under which they must operate. The hearings established evidence of

long and irregular hours of duty, the effects on their health by reason

of exposure under tropical conditions and constant tension, and various unusual hazards incident to their service.

I believe that the record has shown, and will further show, that the

Panama Canal ship pilots should be afforded special consideration by

the Congress, similar to that which has been given to other classes of

employees engaged in hazardous occupations, some of which are predicated on less meritorious grounds.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the members of this subcommittee to provide

these pilots with the modest recognition that my bill proposes, by including them in the category which permits retirement at an earlier

age.

Here representing the Canal Zone pilots is Capt. Joe Y. Christian

and Capt. Charles H. Taylor.

Would you take the witness stand and present your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. JOE Y. CHRISTIAN, PRESIDENT, CANAL ZONE

PILOTS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. CHARLES H.

TAYLOR, TRUSTEE

Captain CHRISTIAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Joe Y. Christian.

I am president of the Canal Zone Pilots Association.

Mr. DANIELS. We are glad to have you with us.

49-750--65-2
6 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

Captain CHRISTIAN. We are glad to see you sitting there since you

have taken our testimony before and we feel like we have a very good

sponsor, Congressman Morrison. We appreciate the opportunity to be

here again.

This is our fourth hearing and we certainly hope by the end of this

meeting that we will have convinced each one of you that this case does

merit serious consideration. I turned in my statement yesterday to

Mr. Devlin. With your permission I would like to have this statement

made a part of the record.

Mr. DANIELS. Without objection, it is so ordered.

You may proceed with your testimony.

Captain CHRISTIAN. With your permission, I could either read this

statement, or since I handed it to the members, I am ready to answer

questions at any time.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, he has a very excellent statement

here. This is not too long and I suggest he read it.

Mr. DANIELS. You may read the statement, sir, if you so desire. I

would like to point out that this year the Post Office and Civil Service

Committee reorganized and divided the work into eight subcommittees. We have on this subcommittee sitting here today to hear the testimony new Members of Congress who have never heard your testimony.

Even though you may have testified three or four times previously, it

would be in order for you to testify here today and give all of the members of the committee, including the new members, your views.

I think Mr. Morrison has made an excellent suggestion. You may

proceed to read your statement. The new members will hear your

testimony for the first time and it will afford them a better opportunity

of questioning you then.

Captain CHRISTIAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, reference is made

to the subcommittee hearings scheduled for the first session, 89th Congress

'

with regard to H.R. 97, a bill to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act with respect to annuities of Panama Canal ship pilots.

The history of this bill and of its similar predecessors is voluminous

in that the Pilots of the Panama Canal have tried for some years now

to have enacted an amendment to the present Civil Service Retirement

Act permitting a more liberal retirement law for the members of our

organization. I should like to refer the committee to the House committee hearings entitled "Implementing a Treaty With the Republic

of Panama" commencing on page 175; to Report No. 824 of the 85th

Congress, 1st session, at which time the U.S. Senate passed S. 821 (a

bill similar to H.R. 97) ; to the subcommittee hearings of the 87th

Congress, 2d session, conducted on May 29, 1962, with reference to

H.R. 3557 (a bill similar to H.R. 97) which resulted in the subcommittee reporting favorably on same • and to the subcommittee hearings

of the 88th Congress, 1st session, conducted on April 2, 1963, regarding

H.R. 2030 (a bill similar to H.R. 97) .
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 7

With regard to the merits of H.R. 97, we would like to make the

following points:

1. Our life experience shows that, due to the nature of our work, we

cannot reasonably expect to live long enough to benefit from retirement

at age 62 as is now provided. Statistics covering all career Panama

Canal pilots separated from the service from June 1949 through May

31, 1965 (attached hereto for your reference) show that only 12 men

out of 62, or 19 percent were able to stay on the job until age 62 and

many of these were in poor health and were on reduced or light duty

during the latter part of their careers. Eight-one percent of the men

leaving the Panama Canal Pilot Force during this postwar period of

time were unable to get maximum retirement benefits. Seventeen men.,

or 27/12percent, resigned or took voluntary early retirement with reduced or delayed annuities. Twenty-five men, or 40/12percent, were

discharged for medical disability. Eight men or 13 percent died while

employed as Panama Canal pilots. Three of the pilots who left with

medical disability and three who left with voluntary early retirement

(a total of 10 percent) died within 1 year after leaving the canal.

2. Favorable action on H.R. 97 is becoming more and more urgent

because the difficulties and pressures of piloting in the Panama Canal

are steadily increasing, causing the already alarming death and disability statistics of the pilot force to grow much worse. The number

of super tankers and other large vessels calling at the Panama Canal

increased 614 percent between 1955 and 1960 and has continued to increase since. Other vessels are arriving in ever greater numbers also,

The canal is now operating both day and night. Former standards:

and operating procedures regarding sizes and types of vessels that

can transit at night, pass in narrow channels, etc., have been drastically reduced. Large ships that used to go only in daylight now go in

complete darkness. One reason for this is the tremendous increase in

traffic. This causes much more strain and nervous tension on the pilot.

The large increase in traffic has made close timing in presenting ships

at the canal locks more and more necessary, often under difficult and

dangerous conditions. Older men cannot stand up physically to the

strain and responsibility of this work in the tropical climate of

Panama. Only 1 man out of the last 10 pilots to leave the canal, a

mere 10 percent, was able to stay on the job to age 62.

3. Upon retirement, we are dependent upon civil service retirement

and in our case this is presently inadequate. We get into the civil

service retirement system at the relatively. late age of about 35 years

due to the.prior requirements for our job. Upon leaving the private

maritime industry at this age we fail to qualify for a pension under

the industrywide masters, mates, and pilots pension plan and, therefore, all previous payments made toward same are lost to the individual. Our social security pension is vested at its value at the time

we leave private industry and is furthermore not payable until age

65, and, as our mortality rates show, very few of us will live to collect it.

•
8 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

4. The Civil Service Commission has in the past opposed passage of

bills similar to H.R. 97 as a matter of principle because they fear that

amendment of the Retirement Act to give Panama Canal pilots optional early retirement will in turn open the way for other groups to

also get early retirement. The passage of this bill would no more

open the Retirement Act up for other groups than did the amendment

to the act that gave law enforcement officers optional retirement at age

50 with 20 years of service. The aforementioned amendment was

passed many years ago and did not open any Pandora's box. We are

asking this subcommittee to judge our case on its own merits alone

and any subsequent cases likewise.. Mr. Chairman, we have a sad

situation existing there in the canal so far as pilot's life expectancy

is concerned.

5. The Panama Canal Company has in the past officially opposed

bills similar to H.R. 97. Officials of the Panama Canal Company have

assured the Canal Zone Pilots Association that their only objection to

this legislation is the part which states "not less than 15 years of which

has been as such a pilot" and that if the bill were changed to require

"20 years' service as a Panama Canal pilot" they would support it if

allowed.

Here I would like to say our bill has been discussed previously on

this point in H.R. 2030 and H.R. 3557. We want that changed to

read "20 years as a pilot". The bill now reads "20 years of service,

15 years as a pilot".

We, therefore, propose that H.R. 97 be so changed to remove the

objection raised by the Panama Canal Company. Officials of the

Panama Canal Company also assured me, as president of the Canal

Zone Pilots Association, the last of February of this year2 that a

letter was being written at that time for the Governor/President of

Panama Canal Company's signature that would endorse this bill for

20-year retirement and age 55, providing it read 20 years as a pilot.

We, therefore, propose that H.R. 97 be changed to read "20 years as a

pilot".

6. The cost of this legislation is negligible as was conceded by testimony of the Civil Service Commission in the 1963 hearings referred

to in the second paragraph of this letter. The number of men involved is small. Today we have 138 pilots.

A further point is that the pay and pension contributions of Panama Canal pilots, as well as the Panama Canal Company's pension

contributions, are derived from revenue from ship's tolls and not from

the U.S. Treasury.

I would like to say here also, Mr. Chairman, that the revenue the

Panama Canal Company grosses is about $105 million a year; $55

million of that comes from Panama Canal tolls.
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 9

While the Retirement Act provides that all money paid into the

civil service retirement fund by an individual will be paid back either

to that person as retirement benefits or to his heirs, it makes no such provision for the additional funds provided by the Government agency for his retirement. In our case, we cannot expect to live long

enough to collect in our lifetime the money that we contributed, much less the additional funds provided by the Panama Canal Company

for our retirement.

7. The operation and efficiency of the Panama Canal would not suf- fer but would on the contrary gain by passage of this bill. As you

know, we are asking for voluntary retirement at age 55 with 20 years of service as a pilot. Since June of 1949, as shown by the attached

statistics, the Panama Canal Company has only averaged 19.3 years

of service from its pilots, and they have left canal service at the average age of 55.9 years. With a more obtainable goal (20 years' service,

55 years of age) in sight, some who are able may stay a little longer

on the job. But what is more important, passage of H.R. 97 would

prevent the situation where a pilot finds it financially necessary to continue working in the canal (due to the present inadequate pension plan) past the age when he can remain on his feet and alert throughout a transit with the high degree of concentration that our work re- quires. Under these circumstances a bad accident is very likely to occur, possibly causing loss of life and serious damage or loss of property and could even result in temporary blockage of the canal. Fur- thermore, if an accident is caused by a pilot's mistake, the Panama

Canal Company is liable for the damages. The cost of one major

ship accident would be more than the cost of earlier retirement for a

great many Panama Canal Pilots.

8. There would be no great exodus should H.R. 97 become law. At

present there are only 3 pilots out of a total of about 140 who would

be immediately eligible for optional early retirement.

I would like to add there, Mr. Chairman, that since the canal

opened in 1914, we have averaged about three pilots a year retiring so this is not any change in the number of pilots that would retire.

A 12-year projection shows that an average of 3.1 men yearly will qualify under the provisions of H.R. 97 (as amended to require 20

years of service as a pilot). Even if all accept, which is unlikely,

they would be replaced by further hiring.

9. Our overall compensation is not excessive and is certainly not

so high that we do not require a sufficient pension at retirement.

The piloting profession throughout the world is highly regarded and well paid. While we are among the most highly regarded profes- sionally, we are not among the best paid. While other U.S. citizen

employees in the Canal Zone are paid 15 percent to 25 percent (plus a

tax differential) more than their counterparts in the United States,

we actually make a great deal less than the pilots at the major ports
10 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

in the United States. This is in spite of the fact that we are channel

pilots, docking pilots, and lock pilots and assume complete control and

responsibility and must work on a close time schedule.

For the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, where I say that

the pilot assumes complete control, it is the only place in the world

where a pilot is in complete control of the navigation and movement

of the vessel and completely responsible. Pilots in the States act in

an advisory capacity whereas in the canal we cannot be relieved by the

master of any ship, no matter what the size.

10. At past hearings regarding bills similar to H.R. 97, some Congressmen suggested that, as an alternative to this legislation, Panama

Canal pilots either be compensated additionally in active-duty pay

or else the Panama Canal Company purchase private endowment type

policies for its pilot force. The first alternative is impossible because

the Panama Canal Company does not permit our pay to get "out of

coordination" with other employees of the Panama Canal Company

who are in a supervisory category, in spite of the fact that these other

employees do not have the mortality or disability rates that the pilots

unfortunately have. Also, additional pay now in lieu of retirement

would place us in higher tax brackets and would thereby be largely

depleted. The second mentioned alternative with regard to the Company purchasing private endowment type policies would, of course,

be satisfactory with us but from a practical standpoint would be unobtainable. It is without precedent and our small group, which has

labored so long and hard to advance H.R. 97 and its predecessors,

would be unable to get same approved. Our only salvation is the

passage of H.R. 97.

You probably wonder why, in the light of all of these disadvantages,

we take employment as Panama Canal pilots. Being master mariners

and having spent most of our lives at sea, we naturally want to continue to work with ships and the maritime industry. At the same

time, most of us are family men and want to be home with our wives

and children. This job enables us to continue to work in our chosen

field and at the same time have a nearly normal home life. We are,

of course, very concerned about our mortality and disability rate but

this proposed legislation (H.R. 97) offers us hope that we can retire

with an adequate pension at a favorable time.

The members of the Canal Zone Pilots Association wish to express

their sincere appreciation to the committee for devoting its valuable

time to the consideration of H.R. 97. Our group is small and may be

politically unimportant, and this effort on the part of our Nation's

elected representatives denotes a high sense of public responsibility

and moral duty.

(The attachments accompanying Captain Christian's statement

follow:)

STATISTICS CONCERNING RETIREMENT, MEDICAL DISABILITY, AND MORTALITY RATES

FOR PANAMA CANAL PILOTS

The following data covers the period of time from June 1949 through May

1965. This is a fair postwar representation and covers the separation from

service of 62 career pilots. Only those who stayed on the job 5 or more years are

included. Many left the pilot force sooner but in an effort to give a fair and
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 11

objective picture only those who tried to make a life career as Panama Canal

pilot are listed in these statistics:

Name Age Service in

years

8 men or 13 percent died at an average age of 49.4 years and with an average

of 15.4 years service as a pilot:

Barrett, J. T 55 20

Campbell, J. F 45 12

Donohue, Leo 43 7

Makibbin, T. C 59 25

Mason, S. F 41 6

McLaren, D M 52 23

Redman, M. C 44 10

Wall, William 56 20

25 men or 40M percent were discharged for medical disability at an average

age of 58.2 years and with an average of 18.1 years service as a pilot:

Bach, Harry S 58 23

Baverstock, Clinton 58 25

Cetti, C. W 60 22

Connard, J. J 61 20

Dear, F. A 55 12

Dietz, Julius 38 7

Ferguson, L. A 59 26

Fort, Roy. 61 18

Jacobs, V K.1 51 15

Johnson, S. E 57 23

Kariger, G. F 41 8

Kolle, G 58 26

Longmore, H K.1 61 23

Martin, Glen 44 10

Meade, George 48 14

Munden, J. S 58 26

Reppa, Frank 58 23

Russell, Frank 1 61 17

Springthorpe, A. H 46 14

Smithies, G. H 56 18

Tawes, G. W 58 19

Tracy, Keith 57 23

Wallace, Allan S 50 17

Wentworth, Howard 55 15

Wilson, C. 0 47 7

17 men or 27M percent resigned or took voluntary early retirement with

reduced or delayed annuities at an average age of 57 years and with an

average of 21.7 years service as a pilot:

Calcutt, William 1 58 23

Grant, Hector 1 53 19

Falk, Henry S _ 58 31

Farrell, Webster 59 23

Ferri, Henry S _ 60 20

Forsstron, A. B 61 27

Ream, R L 56 20

Hearn, Jack 55 22

Hudgins, George 57 26

Hudson, G. F 57 24

Kuhrt, Walter 57 22

Reid, William 60 23

Rowe, H. V 60 22

Skeels, Lucien 60 22

Smith, G. H 61 23

Stoll, J. F 40 5

Terwilliger, Albert 1 57 17

12 men or 19 percent were able to stay on the job until the compulsory retirement age of 62 years. They had an average of 21.2 years service as a pilot:

Duncan, Peter W 62 21

Harrington, Frank J 62 26

Hearon, William C 62 17

Heath, D. S 62 25

Maloney, Hugh 62 17

Nilsen, Jens 62 20

Rennie, Robert G 62 22

Rubelli, R. W 62 18

Small, E B 62 24

Thomas, B. L 62 21

Townshend, Charles 62 24

Wyle, R. A 62 20

1 These 6 men or 10 percent died less than 1 year after leaving the canal.

•
12 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

SUMMARY AND COMMENT

The 62 Panama Canal pilots listed above averaged 55.9 years of age and 19.3

years' service as a pilot at the time of their separation from service.

Thirty-three men or 53 percent were either dead or medically disabled at an

average age of 53 years after an average of 17.4 years' service as a pilot.

Several of the men who were able to last on the job until the age of 62 years

were in poor health and on limited or light duty toward the end of their careers.

Captain CHRISTIAN. The statistics that follow, rather than reading

t hese, the percentages, of course, will add up to 100. We took on our

statistics 62 career pilots. We called a career pilot a man who worked

in the canal at least 5 years, that tried to make a career with the

Panama Canal Company. This period that I would like to talk about

is June 1949 up to the present day. Thirteeen percent of our men died

on the job. The average age of these men who died on the job was

49.4 years with about 15 years of service.

Forty and a half percent of these men since 1949 have gone out on

medical disability. They averaged about 18 years of service and the

average age was about 54.

Twenty-seven percent of these 62 pilots took early retirement. They

did not feel like they could last till they were 62 or to get their 20

years. A lot of these men did not get any annuities immediately.

Some of them had to wait 3 years. Some of them did not get

anything.

Nineteen percent of these men were able to stay on the job until age

62. However, there were 4 of these men-12 in all-4 of them could

not actually pilot in the canal during their last years. Either their

nerves or their feet or stomach or whatever was bothering them from

the years of tension and irregular hours and long hours.

Mr. Chairman, that is the end of my prepared statement. I will be

glad to answer any questions. Before I go into questions, I have a

letter here dated 1962 from our Personnel Director, substantiating the

remarks I made about the Panama Canal Company. They only objected to the clause where we said 15 years as a pilot and 20 years'

service. This letter will substantiate what I said, that if that were

erased they would endorse it.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you desire to offer that for the record?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. If there is no objection, it will be incorporated in the

record.

(The letter follows:)

APRIL 3, 1962.

Personnel Director.

Assistant to Personnel Director.

Re H.R. 3557, pilots' retirement legislation.

1. Capt. Richard A. McLean and Capt. Harold Spinney, president and vice

president, respectively, of the Canal Zone Pilots Association, have informed me

that H.R. 3557 is being amended, State retirement at the age of 55 with 20

years service as a Panama Canal pilot.

2. This amendment is in keeping with the position taken by the previous

Governor in his June 12, 1961, memorandum to the Secretary, Panama Canal

Company. In essence, the position taken by Governor Carter at that time can

be summarized as follows:

"* * * The Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government are

unable to support the feature of the subject legislation (H.R. 3557) which would

permit voluntary retirement at full annuity after only 15 years service as a
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 13

Panama Canal ship pilot; however, if the subject bill were modified to call

for a minimum of 20 years service as a pilot * * * the canal agencies would

have no objection to enactment of the bill."

3. Captains McLean and Spinney are aware that the Governor is going to

the States today and they have been asked by Congressman James H. Morrison,

who has promised them to do everything possible to secure enactment of the

bill, to be certain that the Governor is aware of H.R. 3557 and the position

of the agency on the same.

D. J. PAOLUCCI.

P.S.—Captain McLean: The personnel director briefed the Governor on this

subject, Tuesday, April 3, 1962, prior to Governor's departure for Washington.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Christian, you are the president of the Canal

Zone Pilots Association?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. How long have you served in that capacity?

Captain CHRISTIAN. We are elected once every year. I was elected

in January.

Mr. DANIELS. How many members are there in the association who

are Panama Canal pilots?

Captain CHRISTIAN. We have 138 members and all of them are

pilots. Every member is a pilot.

Mr. DANIELS. Are all 138 employed in the Canal Zone?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Your statistics here relate to 62 men, is that correct?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Sixty-two men that were separated from the

service in the period 1949 to may of 1965.

Mr. DANIELS. What is the average age of the pilots presently employed?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Forty-two.

Mr. DANIELS. You stated in the course of your testimony that when

they become canal pilots they enter upon this work at the approximate

age of 35 years?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Why do they enter the canal pilot service at such

an advanced age?

Captain CHRISTIAN. The requirements to be a pilot are that you

have to be a licensed master mariner and the license is issued by the

U.S. Coast Guard. To acquire this license as a master mariner takes

about a minimum of 10 years, maybe a maximum of 15 years of

sea time.

Another qualification rather is years at sea. That is 365 days at

sea to qualify for that year. If you take a vacation, that much is subtracted from it. To qualify for these licenses that we have to achieve,

the masters, three licenses, third mate, second mate and chief mate is a

year's capacity in each one. Our basic requirement 

Mr. DANIELS. Is that service rendered in private employment or also

in the service of the Government?

Captain CHRISTIAN. No, sir, it is not rendered as part of our employment. The average pilot comes down there at about age 35.

Mr. DANIELS. Prior experience may be acquired in private industry?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. It has to be.

Mr. DANIELS. I note in your statment you make a recommendation

to this committe, to make this bill more palatable, that it should apply

to the pilot having reached the age of 55 and having rendered 20 years
14 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

of service as a pilot, whereas the bill would require only 15 years of

service. So it is satisfactory to your association to modify the bill to

provide for 20 years of service as a pilot?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Hanley, do you have any questions?

Mr. HANLEY. I want to commend you on your very comprehensive

presentation and I think that you have offered some very interesting

statistics with respect to the mortality and disability aspect of your

chosen field. To me this has been very enlightening and highly

interesting.

I am assuming that you attribute this basically to the tension involved and perhaps the climatic conditions that exist in the zone?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANLEY. Would this be the fact?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. Also, along with that we work very

irregular hours. Whenever we once go to work, our average period

of working now is about 13 to 14 hours.

Mr. HANLEY. I think aside from the point of this meeting that it is

highly unjust that any group of people be called upon to jeopardize

their normal and natural longevity. I wonder if the Panama Canal

Company has ever worked in the direction of correcting this situation

which exists by perhaps employing more people, doing other things to

correct this obviously gross inadequacy.

It seems unfortunate that those of you who chose to ply this field

should not be allowed normal longevity insofar as life is concerned.

I wonder if any steps have ever been taken in the direction of

correcting or persisting in the correction of this defect?

Captain CHRISTIAN. No, sir. As I mentioned earlier, this is our

fourth try at this bill.

Mr. HANLEY. I mean aside from this bill itself, the obligation of

the Canal Company with respect to the welfare of its employees.

Captain CHRISTIAN. You said "hire more people." We have been

hiring people but the world traffic keeps increasing. We had Stanford

University make an extensive study of world traffic in 1958 to predict

the traffic pattern in about 1980. In about 3 years we had 1980 traffic.

It is steadily increasing now.

Mr. HANLEY. Obviously they do not make the required adjustments.

It would seem to me this would be an area of correction, aside from the

intent of this legislation.

You indicated in your testimony that there is a possibility that this

legislation might open the door for other groups. Specifically, can

you mention other groups that might be encouraged to introduce this

type of legislation in their own behalf

Captain CHRISTIAN. There I was saying that the reason the civil

service had always opposed it is because they have groups such as firefighters and air traffic controlmen that have asked for similar passage.

The Civil Service Commission was the one who fought this out in previous testimony.

Mr. HANLEY. I see. The Panama Canal Company obviously is

derelict with respect to an obligation here and what is the reasoning

here? Why are they not sympathetic toward your requirements, your

proposal?
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 15

Captain CHRISTIAN. Their previous objection was because in 15

years a pilot was more or less getting up to his top qualification as a

senior pilot, and the company was not getting enough service out of

the training they had given the pilots.

Mr. HANLEY. What type of retirement program do they have?

Captain CHRISTIAN. We have the same as the regular civil service

worker. However, our pilots' average life expectancy since 1914—and

actually it is going down—was 56.4 years. If we have to wait until

age 62 to qualify or else become disabled, then there is something wrong

with your retirement act. Also we cannot start service until about age

35 because we cannot qualify for the job.

Mr. HANLEY. Personally, I am sympathetic with you and I would

support the legislation. I merely ask these questions to enhance my

knowledge of your specific problem.

Captain CHRISTIAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

you and Mr. Hanley for asking two questions that intrigued me the

most.

Captain, I must say that if the life expectancy was as low and the

mortality rate as high in this service as in the Congress—apparently,

this is true in being a pilot—we might upset the whole political process of this Nation. I am intrigued and concerned that this is the

case. I must agree with Mr. Hanley that there must be some way to

improve this situation of the high mortality rate and rather high

disability rate among people in your classification.

I think this is a separate problem which bears going into because

this is something that ought not to be, it would seem to me. You

mention tension, irregular and long hours. If the Panama Canal

Company hired a greater number of such pilots, is there a shortage of

supply of these men?

Captain CHRISTIAN. The qualifications to become a Panama Canal

Pilot are very hard to acquire at that age.

The previous limit, maximum age, was 35 years. As of January

of this year they had to raise that age limit to 40 because today with

our American merchant marine as small as it is, in comparison with

times when Captain Taylor and I were coming up as mates. We

got in on the end of World War II and in part of the Korean war

when ships were more plentiful. It gave us a chance to serve in the

necessary capacity to raise our license.

Mr. Bum NNAN. You said this must be private service. Could it

not be in the Navy?

Captain CHRISTIAN. No, sir. I would say 98 percent of our pilots

are out of the American merchant marine. The other 2 percent might

come from such as the Military Sea Transport Service, a Federal

agency. You can acquire time in certain capacities of the Navy providing you are aboard a naval ship. You could not qualify serving

over here in Arlington Annex.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand. You testified that your salaries

are lower than that of pilots on the west coast of the United States.
16 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

I think the proper principle in all such legislation is that we attempt

to keep people in an equitable and comparable position to what they might be earning in private enterprise. I think this is a reasonable principle for us to follow in drafting legislation covering people covered by civil service.

In this connection you stated that your salaries were lower than other people of like qualification in other areas. Would this be sub- stantially lower?

Captain CHRISTIAN. I would estimate, without stepping on my brother pilots here in the States, maybe a third less.

Mr. BUCHANAN. On this retirement thing, you testified that you had to give up your retirement to which you had been contributing

up to age 35. Assuming your average canal pilot in the industry- wide pilot pension plan contributed during so many years of service, he lost that upon leaving private service at age 35. Is that correct? Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Assuming you were 35, and you had stayed from then until age 55 and retired, do you have any idea what your benefits would be under the industrywide pilot pension plan?

Captain CHRISTIAN. It is set at $300 a month, a set figure.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Could you retire at age 55 after 20 years' service?

Captain CHRISTIAN. The maritime industry today is 20 years' service.

Mr. BUCHANAN. It would be $300 a month?

Captain CHRISTIAN. $300 a month.

Mr. BUCHANAN. What would this be in terms of dollars and cents for that man if this legislation should pass?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Would you repeat that question? I did not

get the first part.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I am wondering what the annuity might be if this legislation passed. I do not know what the thing represents in dollars and cents.

Captain CHRISTIAN. I would say that we would get about 40 percent as a rough figure. Not more than that.

Mr. BUCHANAN. What would that average salary be?

Captain BUCHANAN. Our salaries range from $9,276 to $10,668. We have 15-percent differential because we work in Panama. That would increase those ranges equally from $10,668 to $18,100. That is a junior pilot and a senior pilot. Today we only have about 18 pilots on that

18,100 figure.

Incidentally, Mr. Congressman, along that line I would like to men- tion that the Panama Canal Company policy recently had been

changed to where it takes 13.5 years to get on top pay.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I believe that answered my questions, Mr. Chairman.

Captain, thank you for your testimony.

Captain CHRISTIAN. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Captain, what is your average work week?

Captain CHRISTIAN. We are paid on a 40-hour-week basis.

Mr. DANIELS. You did testify that some days you work 12 to 13

hours?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you get time and a half for over 8 hours per day?
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 17

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. Excuse me. We get paid time and

a half for any time after 40 hours.

Mr. DANIELS. Regardless of the number of days you work in any

one week?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. I can work 14 hours and I get paid

a straight 14 hours. However, at the end of the week if I have 42

hours we get paid for 2 hours overtime.

Mr. DANIELS. When you testified that the pay of a pilot ranges from

$9,276 to $10,668, that is for a regular 40-hour week?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. I notice on the chart attached to your statement, with

reference to the 17 men or 27.5 percent who resigned voluntarily for

retirement on reduced or delayed annuities, that there is 1 person by

the name of Henry S. Falk, age 58, who had 31 years of service. Am

I correct in stating that he is the only pilot who is eligible to retire

at an early age because of his 30 years' service?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. Captain Falk was born down there.

He went to work at a very early age for the canal, and during World

War II they made him a pilot. He came off the tugboats but some

•of 

Mr. 

those 

DANIELS. 

masters, tug mastersWould the rest of the pilots, the 138, be entitled to

deferred annuities?

Captain CHRISTIAN. No, sir; not all of them.

Mr. DANIELS. The only one on this list of 62 that you have here

who would be eligible would have been Mr. Falk?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Captain. The Chair wants to compliment you for your very comprehensive and interesting testimony here.

Mr. Morrison, do you desire to ask any questions?

Mr. MORRISON. I yield to Congressman Olsen and then after he

makes a statement, I would like to make one other observation.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to go to another meeting of the whole committee, and I want at the same time to testify in

support of this legislation.

In the 87th Congress and in the 88th Congress I introduced this bill which is now H.R. 97, and in both of those Congresses we were success- ful in passing it out of committee, and it died waiting for action on the House floor. I am more strong in support of this legislation each

year, for all of the reasons that have been named by this very able witness, and for additional reasons.

In the 87th Congress and in the 88th Congress we had another

Member here, Congressman Wallhauser, who is a colleague of the chairman from New Jersey, and he had had occasion to visit in

Panama. He observed firsthand the problems of these Panama Canal

pilots. He could see that theirs is a very difficult task. They are

under terrific tension, they are out under the tropical sun for all of the daylight hours, of course, and they don't confine themselves to an airconditioned cabin; they are out on the bridge of their ship. And they
18 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

are having to calculate distances, and very, very small distances of a

few feet. The tension, of course, can be felt by anyone who is on the

bridge with the pilot.

Congressman Wallhauser was very strong for this legislation.

I might say he was largely instrumental in convincing the committee

to pass it in the two successive sessions.

I very sincerely hope the committee will report this bill favorably,

and I want you to know I intend to strongly support the legislation in

the whole committee and on the floor of the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Captain CHRISTIAN. Thank you, Congressman Olsen.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Morrison.

Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I think this legislation is quite a bit

overdue. I think these gentlemen have made an excellent presentation.

If you are going to be realistic about their problems which they

have so excellently explained, and if they are going to gel fair retirement, you are going to need this bill

What has been happening is that the age limit has been high, higher

than the great majority of them have been able to reach, and for that

reason they just work and contribute to the retirement fund and at

the same time the company contributes likewise to it; but they never

get the opportunity to retire and have the fruits of their labor in retirement as other people do.

If a comparison were made of the average retirement age of the

average Federal employee of the United States, I think it would show

that many thousands of our Federal employees in this country attain

retirement benefits and live many years to enjoy them, whereas these

people work under severe tension in a tropical climate, and work many

hours on some days, and have the same difficult responsibility at night.

And by statistics they show they have never been able to fully enjoy

the fruits of their labor because they have not lived that long.

Their numbers are so small, and the very fact they haven't many

political roots in this country, are reasons why their cause, which I

think they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, has been so long

overlooked.

They have come a long way to testify this morning and have explained their plight, and I think on an equitable basis we certainly

should give this bill favorable consideration.

On the other hand, a person in this country who has hazardous

duties can retire with 20 years at the age of 50, whereas I think a lot

of the pilots duties are more hazardous than some of the employees in

this country who fit into that category. Yet these people have a

reasonable request of age 55, with 20 years of duty. A lot of people

can go in hazardous employment in this country without any training and without the high qualifications required of these people.

They can go in at a much earlier age in life, and they can retire at an

age whereby most of them can live to enjoy retirement, whereas the

majority of these people don't live long enough to ever retire.

So, if this committee sees fit to approve this legislation and bring

it to the full committee, I think the full committee will certainly give

it proper consideration. Then if it is approved there and brought

to the floor, and approved, I think we have sufficient time in this ses-
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 19

sion of Congress to have it become law. It will solve a very serious

problem that means so much to them, notwithstanding the fact that

their numbers are very small.

In other sessions of the Congress it was not that their problem was

an unjust cause. I think it was the time element and Congress having

adjourned without the bill ever being taken up before both the Senate

and the House in respective sessions. I believe we are early enough

this session, with the committee having jurisdiction of this legislation

having been organized this year in this session of Congress.

I certainly want to thank the chairman and other members for having this hearing today and hearing these witnesses, who I think have

done an outstanding job in their testimony.

Mr. DANIELS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORRISON. Yes.

Mr. DANIELS. The witness has testified that officials of the Panama

Canal Company have assured the Canal Zone Pilots Association that

their only objection to this legislation is the part which states "not

less than 15 years of which has been as such a pilot," and that if the

bill were changed to require "20 years' service as a Panama Canal

pilot" they would support it, if allowed.

Do you have any objection, Mr. Morrison, to the amending of your

bill?

Mr. MORRISON. I would certainly accept the amendment that they

recommend. I don't think they are that particular. But it would

read "at the age of 55 with 20 years as a pilot." I certainly accept

that amendment.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you sir.

I desire to direct one further question to Captain Christian. You

say 17 men or 271/2 percent resigned or took voluntary early retirement with reduced or delayed annuities. I note that group has substantial years of service and only one of that group was qualified for

early immediate retirement, having 31 years of service and 58 years

of age. Can you tell me why those men chose to resign and to take

deferred retirement?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Because they didn't feel Mr. Chairman, that

they could withstand the strain during their later years, and they

had rather leave than to stay there and die on the job.

We recently had a man, Capt. Webster Farrell, resign at age 57

with, I think, 23 years' service. It would be 3 or 4 years before he

received an annuity, but he felt he would be able to enjoy the last

few years regardless of money.

Mr. DANIELS. What you are saying is that the strain and tension

would be too much for him to continue working to retirement age?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. At his age he felt like it was better

to quit.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, sir. We appreciate having you here

today.

Captain CHRISTIAN. Mr. Chairman, may I make two more additional pertinent points that Congressman Morrison was discussing

there.

The civil service commissioner testified on H.R. 3557 and H.R. 2030

that the average age of a Federal employee, the life expectancy after

retirement at age 62 was 14 years. We keep track of our widows,
20 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

we send them Christmas cards, and even some of them I send a newsletter about every 60 or 90 days. We have records to substantiate

this, which is that our life expectancy, after leaving the canal at 56,

is 4 years.

Mr. MORRISON. Compared with 14 years at age 62?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Yes, sir. Our pilots live 4 years after they

leave. Federal employees live 14 years, on the average.

Mr. BUCHANAN. You say your age is 56 for leaving?

Captain CHRISTIAN. Our pilots leave the canal about age 56 and

they average about 19 years' service.

The other point I would like to make, which is a little bit misleading, is the hours of work. I would rather not confuse you that we

work 14 hours and then we are off a day, which has been testified

before previous committees. It would appear that we work a day

and off a day, but now, with the canal on 24-hour operation, we might

go to work at 6 o'clock at night, get home at 8 o'clock the next morning, and then have to go back to work about 20 hours later. So there

are our irregular hours, your interrupted pattern of rest. So it might

appear that you only work day on, day off. That is the way they did

in the twenties and thirties, but we don't do that any more.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Captain.

Our next witness is Mr. David F. Lawton, Deputy Director, Bureau

of Retirement and Insurance, U.S. Civil Service Commission, accompanied by Mr. Richard M. Cody, technical adviser, Bureau of

Retirement and Insurance.

STATEMENT OF DAVID F. LAWTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD M. CODY, TECHNICAL ADVISER,

BUREAU OF RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE

Mr. LAWTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, first

of all, I should like to say Chairman Macy and Mr. Andrew Ruddock

both express their regret at not being able to be here this morning.

Mr. Macy has had a death in his family and Mr. Ruddock is out of the

city today.

Mr. DANIELS. We are pleased to have you here to testify on behalf

of the Commission, and I note you have a prepared statement which is

rather short.

Mr. LAWTON. Yes, sir it is not very long and I would like to read it,

if I may.

Mr. DANIELS. You may proceed.,

Mr. LAWTON. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to

present the Commission's views on H.R. 97 and H.R. 4791. The Commission's report on these bills is contained in a letter dated June 18,

1965, to the chairman of the full committee. With your permission,

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that report be made a part of the record of

this hearing.

Mr. DANIELS. The Chair is in possession of the report, and also the

report of the Secretary of the Army, and also the report of the Bureau

of the Budget. Without objection, these reports will be made a part

of the record along with the bill at the outset of the hearing.
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 21

Mr. LAwroN. Either of these bills would amend the Civil Service

Retirement Act to provide benefits for Panama Canal ship pilots which

would be more liberal than those available to employees generally.

The proposed amendment would permit retirement on immediate full

annuity for any Panama Canal ship pilot who has reached age 55 and

who has served a total of 20 years, including at least 15—now 20—years

as a pilot in the Panama Canal Zone. The annuity would be computed

under the special formula of 2 percent of average salary for each year

of service.

The special benefits proposed for ship pilots are similar to those

currently available only to employees who are engaged in criminal law

enforcement work. The Civil Service Commission has consistently

opposed extension of the concept of special benefits to any additional

groups. We are firmly of the opinion that all Government employees

should be treated alike for retirement purposes. Special retirement

benefits are not an appropriate form of compensation for hazards or

arduous duties or for duty at inconvenient or unhealthful locations.

Any necessary compensation for such job elements should be reflected

in active duty pay, and to the extent. pay is increased, the retirement

benefit is also increased because the amount of annuity is related to pay

as well as to length of service.

Our objection in principle to legislative proposals of the type under

consideration today should not be construed as a failure by the Commission to understand or an atempt to minimize the importance of

the ship pilots in the operations of the Panama Canal. We have

acquired some knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the

pilots. We are aware of their long and frequently irregular hours of

duty; of the hazards of the work; and of the possible effects on health

of working in the tropics, under constant tension, and exposed to the

elements over long periods of time.

While no other group of employees may have the precise combination of personnel problems incident to service as a Canal Zone pilot,

other groups do have problems, which, in their opinion, would justify

special retirement provisions.

Stated simply, we do not believe the retirement system is the appropriate medium for solving the special personnel problems of different

occupational groups. We think a chaotic situation could develop

rapidly if the retirement act were amended to provide one set of rules

for ship pilots, another for firefighters, another for aircraft pilots, and

so on through the various occupations which are found in Government

service. Over the years, special retirement provisions have been proposed for the above groups, as well as for customs inspectors, postal

employees who protect the mail, Treasury collection officers, and employees whose occupations subject them to unusual hazards. We have

not favored enactment of any of these proposals.

Although the added benefits in an individual case would involve

additional costs, the Commission's objection to the enactment of H.R.

97 and H.R. 4791 is not for this reason. We understand that the

total number of pilots is about 100 at any given time, 138 as testified

this morning. The group is so small that the bill would not noticeably

affect the total cost of the retirement system, which covers over 2

million employees.
22 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

The Civil Service Retirement Act presently contains a number of

provisions, not limited in application to one occupation, which in

combination go a long way toward meeting the special needs of ship

pilots. For example, retirement on disability is permitted after a

minimum of 5 years of service. An employee is considered disabled

for retirement purposes if he is physically or mentally incapable of

performing the duties of his own job in a useful and efficient manner.

If he retires on disability, his minimum annuity is the smaller of (a)

40 percent of average salary or (b) annuity based on service projected

to age 60.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. DANIELS. It has been testified here that, because of the peculiar

conditions which exist in the tropics, because of the tension and the

long hours of work, this extracts a special toll on the lives of this group

of employees. Do you not think, because of these facts, plus the work

in the heat of the sun, and the judgments that they must exercise in

connection with their responsibility, that they are entitled to some

special consideration?

Mr. LAWTON. We don't believe so, Mr. Chairman. There are other

groups that have to exercise close judgment, have to work under a

great deal of strain. Let me mention coal-mine inspectors, for example, and coal-mine investigators, and air-traffic controllers. The coalmine inspectors, like the Panama Canal ship pilots, don't get into their

chosen line of work until the middle thirties because they have to go

through a lot of experience in working as a coal miner first. On the

average, they also are late starters.

Mr. DANIELS. I know you were in the room and heard Captain

Christian testify. His testimony indicated in the list of names he

submitted, 62 in number, that only one of these during the period of

June 1949, through May 1965, would have been eligible to retire under

existing law, and that Capt. Henry S. Falk had attained the age of

58 with 31 years of service. Do you have any comment to make?

Mr. LAWTON. I believe there were a number of others who retired

for disability. Is that not correct?

Mr. DANIELS. That is true. Do those figures mean anything to you?

Mr. LAWTON. I heard, I think, the figure of something close to 50

percent, 49-something, of those group who had retired on disability.

Of course, that is a small group to take statistical averages on but on

the average each year, going on the total annuity rolls, one-third of all

people who go are for disability. This is for all kinds of occupations.

So, while higher than the average, it is not really that much out of

line.

Mr. DANIELS. One further question. On the overtime or differential pay of pilots, would the benefits be computed on the average salary

of $10,668 or the total earnings of $18,000, assuming he attains that

.bracket?

Mr. LAWTON. I will ask Mr. Cody to answer that.

Mr. CODY. The 15 percent differential is considered part of the basic

salary.

Mr. LAWTON. So after 20 years the pilot would have 40 percent of

his average high five.

Mr. DANIELS. The bill as introduced by our colleague, Mr. Morrison,

provides for an annuity to be paid when the pilot reached the age 55
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 23

and rendered 20 years of service, at least 15 of which had been served

as a pilot. Captain Christian testified that he would consent to an

amendment of such an employee retiring at the age 55 with 20 years

of service as a pilot. Would this have any effect on your testimony

here? I notice your testimony originally was geared to 

Mr. LAWTON. The wording of the bill.

Mr. DANIELS. The bill as introduced.

Mr. LAWTON. No, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry it would not have.

We would have to object as a matter of principle.

Mr. DANIELS. If the committee did amend the bill under consideration to provide for 20 years of service as a pilot, this would not alter

your testimony?

Mr. LAWTON. It would not, sir.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Hanley, do you have any questions?

Mr. HANLEY. Mr. Lawton, the testimony here indicates that all

Government employees should be treated alike for retirement purposes and you are of the opinion this particular bill does not provide

an appropriate form of compensation. In view of the statistics that

have been given us this morning with respect to the mortality aspect

of this problem, what would you consider an appropriate form of

compensation?

Mr. LAWTON. Higher pay, sir.

Mr. HANLEY. Higher pay?

Mr. LAWTON. Yes.

Mr. DANIELS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HANLEY. Yes.

Mr. DANIELS. Is that easily obtained?

Mr. LAWTON. The Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone

Government set their own rates of pay. This is not up to us.

Mr. DANIELS. But you make the recommendation of higher pay.

What would be the position if the pilots were assured higher pay and

the Company refused to pay it?

Mr. LAWTON. This is a question I am sorry I cannot answer.

Mr. DANIELS. Would such an employee have the right to strike?

Mr. LAWTON. No, he would not.

Mr. DANIELS. So he is not in the same category as the other employees, is lie?

Mr. LAWTON. No, they are not.

Mr. HANLEY. In view of your answer, Mr. Lawton, I would have

to think this particular provision would be somewhat of an appropriate form of compensation in view of the fact a more appropriate

form obviously does not exist on the basis of your answer to my question.

You go on further here and you indicate in your testimony that

no other group of employees may have the precise combination of personal problems. I think we are in agreement here. So again this

would further indicate to me the merit of favorable consideration of

this legislation. Certainly, if they are not going to be around to enjoy the retirement benefits, then there is not a provision for them,

they are not being compensated.

With respect to the cost involved, it is my opinion this is going to

be somewhat insignificant insofar as the U.S. Treasury is concerned.
24 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

Mr. LAWTON. Yes, sir I am sure that is true.

Mr. HANLEY. AM I correct in this?

Mr. LAWTON. On the average, about $34,000 or $35,000 extra cost

for each pilot.

Mr. MORRISON. But it does not come out of the Treasury?

Mr. LAWTON. It comes out of the civil service retirement fund.

Mr. HANLEY. It comes out of the retirement fund and not the U.S.

Treasury?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right not out of the Treasury.

Mr. HANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Lawton. I have no further questions.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. In light of the captain's testimony of the life expectancy of this group leaving the department at 56 years of age with

19 years of service being 4 years as compared to the average civil service employee leaving at 62 with 14 years' life expectancy 

Mr. LAWTON. I would like to make a little correction there. I think

that is 16 years, at 62, Congressman.

Mr. BUCHANAN. That makes it even worse.

Mr. LAWTON. I know I am not doing my own case any good.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Would you not say that people, whether Canal

Zone pilots, mine inspectors, whatever they are, are .in a somewhat

special status as compared with the average of the civil service employees if, in contrast to the average leaving the service at 62 with

16 years' life expectancy, those leaving at 56, on.average, have only

4 years' life expectancy? Would you not say this is something of a

special situation?

Mr. LAWTON. Certainly their morbidity is higher and the mortality

seems to be higher on the basis of the figures that have been supplied.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Looking at this from a point of view of hard economics rather than a humanitarian view, it would seem that possibly

this is such a specialized category, these men require enough special

skills and training, that the supply of pilots available for this work

might be somewhat limited regardless of how many you tried to have.

Mr. LAWTON. I daresay that is SO.

Mr. BUCHANAN. This being the case 

Mr: LAWTON. Excuse me. At the hearings 2 years ago, I believe it

was testified they had no difficulty in getting qualified applicants for

the work. That situation may very well have changed since then.

Mr. BUCHANAN. If this is the case, I say by all means we need some

reform in the working hours and in trying to improve this situation if

such men are available. Even assuming they are, nevertheless, their

background, their experience, their training is rather specialized.

Mr. LAWTON. They are highly skilled, yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN. This being the case, to pay the market price for this

kind of personnel, if the captain's estimate is correct, or approximately

correct, would cost a third more on average. At least men in this

classification might well obtain a third more salary on average if they

did not go to work for the Panama Canal Company. If they chose

to work in the United States, that is. This being the case, we will take

an average man2 say at age 35, who went to work as a Canal Zone pilot

rather than taking a job where he would receive one-third more. We

will take the minimum. Say he just received a $10,000 salary. That
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 25

means $13,000 a year if it is true that he could receive a third more

than, say on the west coast

Mr. LAWTON. Right.

Mr. BUCHANAN. He is sacrificing $3,000 a year even if he stays at

that level over a 20-year period, which would be $60,000. If this legislation is passed, at the time of his retirement 20 years thereafter he has

already sacrificed $60,000 in income. According to the provisions of

this, as I understand it, a rather high-level retirement actually would

take him 20 years until he reached the age of 75 to recoup the income

he had lost during this period of active employment by not working

on the west coast rather than the Panama Canal. Would you not

agree that here we have a group of men, even if this is enacted, assuming there was no salary raise, where it would take the man quite some

time to get into an equitable position, taking into account his working

life as well as his retirement life?

Mr. LAWTON. Congressman, if I may answer your question indirectly.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Mr. LAWTON. Our principal fear, very frankly, is of all of those

other groups that are waiting in the wings for one breach in the dike.

There are a number of these other groups who can make very effective

cases for themselves.

Mr. DANIELS. Which ones?

Mr. LAWTON. The ones I mentioned, such as coal mine inspectors,

high-tension linemen, air-traffic controllers.

Mr. CODY. Firefighters.

Mr. LAWTON. Firefighters, test pilots.

Mr. CODY. And all down the line in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you know of any bills pending whereby they seek

benefits?

Mr. CODY. Yes. Two House bills, H.R. 2377 and H.R. 3959, which

are identical bills to extend the law enforcement age to 50, 20 years,

2-percent benefit provisions to customs inspectors, immigration inspectors, admeasurers and appraiser guards.

There is another House bill, H.R. 3049, which would extend such

law enforcer benefits to customs inspectors only. Those are the only

House bills pending this year in this area.

There was a bill in the last Congress, H.R. 9440, which proposed.

law-enforcer-type benefits for coal mine inspectors, coal mine investigators, and poweline men who work on high-voltage powerlines.

Mr. HANLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Mr. HANLEY. We recognize the hazardous conditions of the occupations you have mentioned. I wonder if statistically with respect

to mortality these groups compare in any degree to this particular

group.

Mr. LAWTON. As to that I can't speak with assurance, about all of

the groups. I have met recently with a group of coal mine inspectors

who make just about the same sort of case. They have to crawl on

their hands and knees through very narrow passages, very low passages. They get cracks in the back of the head, bad knees, drop out

very early, and many of them do die.
•

26 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

Mr. BUCHANAN. I might say I think your point is well taken here,

and if it were within our power directly to increase the salaries of

these men to a level comparable to that they might receive elsewhere

and then let their retirement be comparable to what they would have

received with that increased salary in the industrywide masters, mates,

and pilots pension plan, I think it would be a perfect solution to the

problem, and I would absolutely support your conditions. But it

seems to me the limiting factor, as the chairman has pointed out, is

that it is not within our direct control, as I understand it, or the

direct control of the Congress itself to bring about this salary raise

for Panama Canal ship pilots. Is this correct?

Mr. LAWTON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Therefore, this being the case, this is an area in

which we can move, and I don't know beyond this in how many areas 

we could work toward correcting any inequity that might and apparently does exist in the situation.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Morrison.

Mr. MORRISON. The testimony of these gentlemen reminds me of a

fellow lying on the ground with his leg cut and about to bleed to death.

A tourniquet put on the leg would save his life. And the fellow

standing up there said, "Well, I realize the problem, and I realize

your leg is bleeding badly, but if I put the tourniquet on your leg I

might have to put a tourniquet on some other fellow's leg in the same

position. So, rather than approaching it from putting the tourniquet

on and stopping the bleeding of the leg, maybe you ought to have a

transfusion put in your arm and some more blood pumped into your

body to take the place of that which you are losing through your leg."

But the problem here is that we can't put the transfusion in your arm.

That would be the higher pay, of course. I think that would help,

and I think it may keep you from dying, but there is nothing we

can do about it. So you just lie there and the tourniquet is not put on,

and you bleed to death. If we stop one from bleeding to death with

a tourniquet, maybe some other fellows will be bleeding, and we will

have to put tourniquets on them.

The testimony here has shown emphatically that, percentagewise,

very few of these people ever reach retirement under present law, because mortality is too great. In effect you say, "We admit they are

in a terrible fix, but we are afraid others will come in."

What if they do come in? If they can make as good a case as

these people, I think they are entitled to congressional help.

It reminds me of the time I went over to discuss a problem with a

department head and he said, "Why should I do that for your

constituent?"

I said, "Because he is entitled to it."

He said, "Well, that may be true, but if your constituent is entitled to

it, 500 in similar fixes throughout the country will be entitled to it."

• I looked around and I said, "I don't see any 500 Congressmen waiting in line to help their constituents. First things come first. You go

ahead and do this for my constituent and when others come up and

make as good a case as I did, and you admit I got a just cause, go

ahead and do it for them. I have no objection to your helping them.
ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS 27

But since I am first in line I think I should be helped first. If they

come, I think they should be given the same consideration as I have

been given."

So, the very fact that there are other people in almost as difficult a

plight as these people are, is no reason to be against helping them, any

more than you should be against helping the guy lying on the ground

with his leg bleeding, but turning around and putting a transfusion

in his arm. The same person making that recommendation says he

can't bring that about. So, I really don't see how Congress can do

anything about the transfusion in the arm. I think the thing to do

is not to worry about the other people in the same plight or same condition as the Canal Zone pilots. If they have a good case, let them

come before the Congress. We may have hundreds of others to put

tourniquets on—why shouldn't we save a hundred lives even if there

are a hundred others in the same position? Whether they are firefighters or coal mine inspectors, who are going to die before they get

their retirement, then retirement is actually a mockery when you let

them think they are going to get it and yet statistics prove they can't.

So, as far as the departments just being it because others are going

to come in with a like cause, frankly, I think is awful. I do commend

them for recognizing the plight these people are in and saying, by

inference, they should be helped. But then they go a little further and

deviate from that position by saying, "Don't help them because you

are going to have to help some others." Why not help the others if

the others are going to make good cases?

Mr. LAwroN. Mr. Morrison, I certainly don't enjoy playing the role

of skunk at a garden party.

Mr. MORRISON. It is not that. You are performing your job, I

know. This is nothing personal. You are up here representing the

department. But facts are facts, and you cannot get away from your

testimony.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to add anything to the

eloquent and colorful testimony of the ranking majority member of

this committee and the sponsor of the bill.

Because it seems to me you do have a unique thing here, and I am

not sure, let me ask this questi I1lnany of these groups like the

coal mine inspectors who m leek thiNialke thing, for whom there

is no other remedy as far ongress is erned are there? Are

there others in the same ssificatLon that. e do not take care of

through salary increases o.lkeer .:11. benefits tha tirement ?

Mr. LAwroN. Yes. Theare thezhigh-te on linemen for Bonneville, where again their i set bA,I. he Bonneville Power

Administration.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Are there g .1h an this one?

Mr. LAWTON. That is the one t a occurs to me offhand. Do you

think of any others, Mr. Cody?

Mr. CODY. No, I don't.

Mr. BUCHANAN. It seems to me at least in some cases then, this is

the answer for you if the Civil Service Commission desire to play

the role of devil's advocate in other such hearings—that one consideration, in at least some classifications, is there may be some other remedy

than this available to us, whereas in this classification, according to
28 ANNUITIES OF PANAMA CANAL SHIP PILOTS

your testimony, along with the linemen, if we decide there is a remedy

needed this is the sole way in which we can act.

Mr. DANIELS. Our committee counsel for the committee has a question, Mr. Lawton.

Mr. LAWTON. Fine.

Mr. DEVLIN. Mr. Lawton, you have testified that the life expectancy,

generally, of persons who have retired at age 62 is 16 years.

Mr. LAWTON. Yes.

Mr. DEVLIN. Captain Christian has indicated the anticipated life

expectancy of ship pilots who retire at 56 to be approximately 4 years.

For purposes of the record, could you indicate to the committee the

life expectancy and the average age of annuitants who retire on disability, in view of the fact that quite a number of the ship pilots of the

Canal Zone do retire under the disability features of the Retirement

Act?

Mr. LAWTON. The average age of retirement of those who retire on

disability is about 57. I should guess, and this is only a guess, that at

age 57 it would probably be about 15 or 16 years for those retiring on

disability. It would be somewhat less than those retiring on age and

service.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Lawton, for coming here today to

present the Commission's views.

Mr. LAWTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. DANIELS. This concludes today's hearing.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

0