Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-02-18
LEHLDACH REPLIES
TO CRITICS OF BILL
Opponents Charge Him With
Being Double Crossing
LIAR" He Asserts.
Continued From First Page.>


bills, the employees contribution would
go up as the salary goes up, but under
the Dale bill, the increase in the en-
ploye's contribution would go to reduce
the cost to the Government, while I'M
der the new Lehlbach DILL, it would 60
toward increasing the employees an
nuity.
The witness went into a detailed and
complicated explanation of the method
OF computing annuities IN the two
measures. Replying to a question by
Representative Ramspeck of Georgia,
the witness said that an employe now
receiving a salary of 81 200. IL he re-
tired today would get greater annuity
under the Lehlbach bill than under the
Dale bill. Several examples were cited
by members OF the committee ana the
witness was asked to explain them.
In one case reference was made to a
letter carrier who retired some years
ago when he was receiving a salary of
only $720. The witness said that under
the present law his retirement pay VAS
$2T0 year and under the new Lehlbach
bill 1t would be $3.50 year.
Questioned by Representative Mac
Cormack Of Massachusetts. the witness
admitted that the percentages of benefit
under the proposed new bill would be
greater for the higher-salaried en-
ployeS.
Isn't that the primary purpose of
the bill?" asked Mr. MacCormick.
The witness replied in the negative
and explained how 1t also would benefit
/ low-salaried employees.
viii not the Government pay $50
year up to a maximum of 5000 a year,
depending upon length Of service, no
matter whether an employees salary Is
high or low?" asked Mr.. Lehlbach.
Yes" replied the witness.
And the employe can buy an addi-
tional annuity from his own contribu-
ton, can't he?" asked Mr.. Lehlbach.
LehIbach Pictures Other Benefits.
THAT is correct" replied Mr.. Nc
Reynolds.
In answer to other questions the wit
ceiving $720 year would get 5000 a
year under the new Lehlbach bill, pro-
vided he had served 80 years.
Mr.. Lehlbach asked II 1t were not
true that for those who are retired, the
smaller their present annuity the
greater will be their benefit under this
new bill?"
That is correct" said the witness.
Answering further questions by Rep
reSentative Mccormack. the witness
said that II an employe dies under the
present law before he has received In
retired pay sufficient money to use up
his contributions to the Government,
his estate would get the difference.
Under the new bill. would not this
amount to loss both to the employee
and his estate?" asked Mr.. McCor-
mack.
The witness said that this appeared
to be true, but that IL would be easy
to change the bill to correct it In that
respect.
Members of the committee and the
witness engaged in technical discus
sion OF the method of computing the
annuity under the Dale and Lehlbach
bills.
LAS matter of fact" remarked
Representative Dallinger of MaSsachu-
sets, lis 1t not true that what the re-
tired employees will receive will depend
entirely upon what the Government
actuaries say?"
Mr.. McReynoldS said that was true,
but the actuaries would be guided by
experience.
Ramspeck Comments ON Figures.
Suppose we are not satisfied with
the figures OF the actuaries?" ques-
toned Representative RamSpeck. II
suppose the only way we can change
their figures Is by enacting a new bill?"
Yes" replied McReynolds.
Several times the witnesses referred
to what retired employees with varying
salaries would receive ultimately" He
and members of the committee then
engaged in q passage In an effort to
make clear what ultimately" meant
in connection with the Lehlbach bill
The witness said that ultimately"
meant after 80 years service"
Questioned by several members, the
witness said that q man receiving q
81 100 salary would begin TO benefit un-
der the new Lehlbach bill In l946.
5000 salaried man in 1910 and a $4,000
salaried Ian In 1885. There was a
point in the salary grade, the witness
said, where there would be no differ
ence in the benefits derived from the
two bills. He said the lower salared
employes-those receiving less than
81 200 a year-would benefit by the new
bill more quickly than those receiving
$1,000.
After lengthy discussion delegates
or the several Government employees
unions affiliated with the Central Labor
Union last night voted to support both
the Dale-Lehlbach retirement bill, al
ready passed by the Senate, and the
new Lehlbach substitute, recently In
troduced by Chairman Lehlbach Of the
House civil service committee.
The Central Union had previously
Endorsed the Dale-Lehlbach bin, but
when the question arose last night of
indorSing the new Lehlbach bill instead
debate started that ended in O conn