[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S10209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 2459. A bill for the relief of Paul G. Finnerty and Nancy Finnerty 
of Scranton, Pennsylvania; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                       private relief legislation

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, although it is late in the 
session, I am introducing legislation to rectify a problem facing one 
of my constituents, Mr. Paul Finnerty of Scranton, and his wife 
concerning his federal retirement benefits. It is necessary for 
Congress to become involved in this case because Mr. Finnerty has 
exhausted administrative relief and lost an estoppel claim in the 3rd 
Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which ruled that ``regardless of the 
possibility of agency error in this case, we have no authority over the 
disbursement of funds that has been assigned by the Constitution to 
Congress alone.''
  I am advised that Mr. Finnerty and his wife are entitled to employee 
and spousal annuities based on his more than 30 years in the railroad 
industry. They were misinformed by federal employees as to the actual 
retirement benefits they would receive and relied to their detriment on 
the higher figure in deciding that Mr. Finnerty should retire in 1993. 
Specifically, there is documentation which reflects the failure of the 
Scranton Field Office of the Railroad Retirement Board to advise Mr. 
Finnerty appropriately regarding the impact of a statutory maximum of 
$1200/month in retirement benefits if he remained in the federal CSRS 
pension system instead of switching into the FERS system. I have 
enclosed an example of such documentation for the Record.
  While the private relief legislation is a last resort used sparingly 
by the Congress, the Finnertys have provided enough documentation to 
suggest that their request merits careful review by the Labor 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over such bills. Accordingly, I am 
introducing this bill today to begin that review process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Railroad Retirement 
Board letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         United States of America,


                                    Railroad Retirement Board,

                                  Chicago, IL, September 26, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph M. McDade,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McDade: Your letter on behalf of Mr. Paul 
     G. Finnerty has been forwarded to me for reply.
       Upon investigation of the circumstances described by Mr. 
     Finnerty in his letter dated August 20, 1994, to you, I have 
     determined that our Scranton field office repeatedly 
     overestimated the amount of railroad retirement benefits that 
     Mr. Finnerty could expect to receive upon his retirement. I 
     regret this mistake.
       The Scranton field office failed to consider the effect of 
     the railroad retirement maximum provision of the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974 each time they furnished an estimate 
     to Mr. Finnerty.
       The railroad retirement maximum provision limits the total 
     amount of railroad retirement benefits payable to an employee 
     and spouse at the time the employee's annuity begins to a 
     maximum based on the highest 2 years of creditable railroad 
     retirement or social security covered earnings in the 10-year 
     period ending with the year the employee's annuity begins. 
     Since Mr. Finnerty's Federal employment for the previous 10 
     years was covered under the Civil Service Retirement System, 
     his railroad retirement maximum amount could not be based on 
     the highest 2 years of creditable railroad retirement or 
     social security covered earnings. Therefore, Mr. Finnerty's 
     railroad retirement maximum amount is set at the statutory 
     limit of $1,200 in accordance with section 4(c) of the 
     Railroad Retirement Act.
       Unfortunately, the effect of the railroad retirement 
     maximum in Mr. Finnerty's case is the reduction of the tier 
     II component to zero in both the employee and spouse annuity. 
     Since the Scranton field office included a tier II amount in 
     the employee and spouse annuity computation, an overestimate 
     of benefits resulted.
       I sincerely regret any problems we have caused Mr. 
     Finnerty. We strive to furnish the best service possible to 
     our beneficiaries. When seeking our assistance during the 
     important time of planning for retirement, our beneficiaries 
     certainly have a right to expect that accurate annuity 
     estimates are provided. Although we have failed Mr. Finnerty 
     in that regard, the Scranton field manager has counseled his 
     staff to consider the effect of the railroad retirement 
     maximum provision when calculating estimates in the future. 
     We will continue to stress the importance of accurate service 
     to the public and, in an effort to prevent future mistakes, 
     will issue a reminder to all field employees on this issue.
       I am sorry a more favorable response cannot be made in 
     regard to your constituent as we are required to pay benefits 
     according to the law. If you need further information, please 
     do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kenneth P. Boehne,
                Director of Administration and Operations.
                                 ______