Suggested Technical Changes in S. 3263, 93d Congress

1. In section 6, page 5, line 25 and page 6, lines 1 through 5, clauses (A) and (B) of section 8339 (d) are unnecessary. Subsection 8339 (d) should read:

2.

"(d) The annuity of an employee retiring under section 8335 (g) or 8336 (c) of this title is 2 1/2 per centum of his average pay multiplied by his total service."

Section 6, page 6, line 6, should be renumbered "SEC 7."

Senator BURDICK. Our first witness this morning is Senator Charles H. Percy of Illinois.

Senator Percy, welcome to the Committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES H. PERCY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator PERCY. Chairman Burdick and Senator Dole, I am delighted to be with you this morning.

I believe these hearings are extraordinarily important because they deal not only with the most effective possible law enforcement and firefighting we can have at the Federal level, but also the question of equity and justice and fairness.

These two propositions and the matters before the committee this morning, I think, are extremely important.

I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to testify on S. 3263, legislation which I have introduced with Senator Javits as principal cosponsor, to increase the retirement benefits for Federal law-enforcement and firefighting personnel.

This bill is similar to the House passed bill, H.R. 9281, introduced by Congressman Brasco, who will also be testifving this morning. Both of these bills recognize and recommit this Nation to the policy which was set 26 years ago by Congress to provide a favorable retirement differential for Federal law enforcement officers as compared with other Federal Government employees.

In 1947, the computation multiplier for retirement purposes for Federal employees was 11% percent of the average salary for each year of service. That year, the Congress enacted legislation providing for a 2-percent multiplier for Federal law enforcement personnel-a differential of 33 percent.

In the years since 1947, the computation formula has been upgraded for regular government employees to almost 2 percent, while the initial 2 percent for law enforcement personnel remains unchanged.

As a result, today the differential, after 20 years of service, is only 33 percent.

The legislation we are discussing today is simply an effort to restore the necessary differential which the Congress enacted in 1947, which I think was wise at that time.

The years intervening have proven the value of this, and now the narrowing differential has presented us with the kind of problem that we are dealing with this morning.

The manner in which S. 3263 would accomplish this is as follows: First, the bill would change the method of computing retirement annuities for law enforcement and firefighting personnel. It would increase the computation rate from the present 2 percent to 216 percent for 20 years service.

In addition, the computation rate would continue at 212 percent for every year after 20 years service.

Second, the bill includes uncontrollable overtime worked by law enforcement officers and Federal firefighters as part of their base pay credited to them for purposes of computing their annuities.

At present, for example, many long hours are spent on surveillance. As a result, agents often work 80-hour weeks. Yet, there is a certain number of hours of overtime after which an agent is not compensated.

This provision of the bill would allow the compensation they receive for uncontrollable overtime to be credited for purposes of computing service time.

Third, the bill requires mandatory retirement for an otherwise eligible law-enforcement officer or firefighter at age 55, or upon completion of 20 years of service, whichever occurs later.

However, the agency has the option of retaining an employee until he or she reaches the age of 60 if it so desires.

I think, in comparing this with the private sector, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dole, if we look at companies like IBM, some of the most vigorous companies of America, they have a requirement that personnel retire at age 60. IBM's chief executive officer Tom Watson, has just given up his position under the mandatory requirement system.

My own experience in the private sector is that we gradually work down in age so that an employee could retire at age 60.

These are not employees in hazardous occupations or where youth is necessarily at a premium, but overall it seemed best at least to offer the option to the employee and to the company to have full retirement benefits available at age 60.

So this is not a radical position at all. The private sector seems to be working in this direction as well.

Fourth, the bill gives the Federal agency or office employing law-enforcement and firefighting personnel the authority to set minimum and maximum entry ages.

The cost of this legislation is $778 million. By amortizing this cost at the rate of $48.2 million a year over the next 30 years, any growth in fund deficiencies attributable to this legislation is precluded.

In addition, the employee contribution to the fund is increased from the present 7 percent to 712 percent.

The impact on the budget would be $48.2 million a year.

There are several reasons why this legislation is necessary. Perhaps, most realistically, we need this legislation in order to help make employment as a Federal law-enforcement officer or firefighter more competitive with non-Federal employment, and even some Federal employment.

Many States have very attractive financial packages to entice able young men and women into law-enforcement and firefighting service, while the Federal Government has generally lagged behind. However, even in some parts of the Federal Government, benefits for some law-enforcement officials have been increased.

For instance, the President signed into law Public Law 91-509 on October 26, 1970. This law established retirement benefits for the Washington Metropolitan Police and Fire Departments, the U.S. Park Police, the Executive Protective Service, and certain members of the U.S. Secret Service.

Under this law as I recall, it overwhelmingly passed the Senate— a member of those departments and services can retire after 20 years of service, regardless of age, with an annuity computed at the rate of 22 percent for the first 20 years of service and at a 3-percent rate for all service over 20 years.

It also provides other benefits to these individuals, such as a $50,000-lump-sum payment to the widow of a member killed in the line of duty.

Thus, not only do some law enforcement and firefighting individuals in the Federal Government lag behind many State and local services, some of which are partly financed through Federal LEAA funds, but they also lag behind other Federal employees, with whom they may be working side by side.

S. 3263 does not fully close this gap, but it does make Federal service more competitive.

I served on the appropriations subcommittee for Washington, D.C. for a period of time. I know, in working closely with the police in the city, that the favorable trend in crime rates in Washington, and the fact that Washington is not today the same city of fear that it was 3 years ago, is because of the upgrading and quality of the men and women that we can hire in the service here in the District. As a result, the quality of that police force and firefighting force is constantly being upgraded.

It is a result of the policy clearly established by the Congress in

1970.

Let's face it. We are only going to get the service that we are willing to pay for.

If we want to continue the reputation of the FBI and other similar agencies as the very best there is, we are going to have to provide the type of benefits which attract and hold the best people. Very simply, it is the cost of excellence.

We are and will be lagging further and further behind local State government, county government and so forth, and other areas of the Federal Government unless we move now.

We should also consider the fact that law enforcement and firefighting are occupations which are not only hazardous, but which require physical ability and stamina, as well as mental alertness.

It is the intent of this legislation to help Federal law enforcement and firefighting agencies maintain a relatively young, vibrant, and effective work force, both for the safety of the individual officers, and for the society which they serve.

This legislation will help attract young men and women, and will make it economically feasible for older employees to retire from Federal service at a relatively young age.

Finally, we should be mindful of certain inherent differences between the regular Federal employee and the Federal employees covered under this bill. Whereas the former performs necessary governmental tasks, the latter are daily putting their lives on the line, and sometimes tragically even the lives of their loved ones.

One must also keep in mind that normal Federal service, and normal State and local service, do not require constant family relocation. However, in Federal law enforcement and firefighting, agents are often required to move to new sections of the country with their families. This is just another factor which, when added to the current inequities of the retirement system, further burdens Federal law enforcement and firefighting service.

This legislation is not designed to reward our law enforcement and firefighting men and women for performing their duties well. Rather, it simply acknowledges that the everyday physical and psychological stress which they must endure all too often result in fatalities and serious injuries not ordinarily encountered by other dedicated public servants.

We live in a very violent society. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting ours are the front lines in our Nation's efforts to maintain order, safety, and justice.

Each year, the figures relating the jeopardy in which they willingly place their lives become more grim.

Mr. Chairman, I ask to have inserted in the record at the conclusion of my remarks a recent FBI report which lists the assaults on Federal officers. The number of assaults on Federal personnel has increased alarmingly.

In 1970, the number of FBI agents assaulted was 77. By 1973, that number had climbed to 173. In 1973, 174 Treasury agents were assaulted, 47 agents of the U.S. Postal Service were assaulted, 80 U.S. Bureau of Prison Correctional Officers were assaulted, 33 U.S. Marshals were assaulted.

In the first nine months of fiscal year 1974, 31 narcotics and dangerous drugs enforcement officials were assaulted, compared with a total of nine assaults on these officials in 1969. And the list goes on. I ask that this report be incorporated in the record, Senator BURDICK. No objection, so ordered.

Senator PERCY. What these figures dramatically illustrate, far better than any words can, is that Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters cannot be casually lumped together with other Federal employees. By the nature of their work, and the risks they face every day, they are different. And different provisions need to be made for

them.

The Congress realized that in 1948. The House reconfirmed its commitment to this principle on September 20 of last year when it overwhelmingly passed the Brasco bill, H.R. 9281.

The opportunity and the challenge are now the Senate's.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation which I have introduced differs from the House passed bill in three respects.

33-427 O-74-3