Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

We respectfully request that section 11 of H.R. 11865 which would remove the exemption from inclusion in social security of firemen and policemen which is now provided in section 218 (d), be canceled and nullified. Respectfully submitted.

NICHOLAS ZELESKO
PETER F. CITERA,

Secretary.

President.

Senator HARTKE. Carl C. Bare, National Fraternal Order of Police.

STATEMENT OF CARL C. BARE, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

Mr. BARE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deputy inspector of police in Cleveland, Ohio, and legislative chairman for the National Fraternal Order of Police, an organization representing policemen from departments of all sizes over the entire United States.

I speak also for over 2 million other public employees who are members of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems. A large proportion of the conference membership is composed of police and fire groups. The conference reaffirmed its opposition to the general inclusion of policemen and firemen under social security at its last annual meeting, on March 15, 1964.

The work of both firemen and policemen is hazardous. Mr. Kabachus has spoken eloquently on behalf of the firefighters, and we concur with his statements as they apply to policemen.

A policeman's job is to protect society and society's property; to apprehend those who would harm society or injure its property. To do this job well under present-day conditions, policemen must be physically alert. Policing is a young man's occupation. A police administrator would not send a 60-year-old man to grapple with a young hoodlum. If he did, the taxpayers would raise a loud cry of inefficiency.

So, what happens when a policeman reaches an age when he can no longer do effective police work? A few are given desk jobs; but, there are not enough desk jobs to take care of all. We must be able to retire these men shortly after they reach age 50 in order to maintain the efficiency of our departments.

During their working careers policemen contribute to their retirement systems and the public pays its share of the cost of pensioning older policemen because the taxpayers feel it is less expensive to support an adequate retirement system than to support a decrepit police force.

We feel very sincerely that if policemen were covered by social security the inducement to remain on the until they qualify for benefits would be great. The earliest they could retire would be 62 and then at reduced benefits. This is not for the general welfare.

Furthermore, we feel certain that the taxpayers cannot afford to support both a retirement system which meets the needs of the police department and social security coverage. Hence, if policemen were covered by social security many municipalities would alter the retirement benefits.

One of the biggest difficulties of police departments today is the recruitment of qualified men at the salaries the municipalities can afford to pay. An important inducement is a sound retirement pro

gram. If there is danger of this program being weakened this attraction will be lost and consequently the difficulty of recruiting satisfactory personnel will be greatly increased.

What would be the result at time of retirement if the police retirement benefit is reduced to accommodate social security coverage? A policeman would retire in his 50's, receiving a lesser retirement benefit than he can now look forward to, and when he reaches age 62 or 65, his social security benefit would be reduced because his average monthly wage would include maybe as much as 10 years of noncoverage after retirement. He would be compelled to seek other employment and there are few other types of work for which policemen are qualified.

We object particularly to the application of the divisional procedure for coverage of policemen. Especially in small communities where the police force is not large, pressure brought on one or two men might influence them to vote for coverage and all newly employed policemen are then automatically covered.

We have suggested legislation to correct this deficiency in this particular section but we are not pushing for action on it here.

When social security coverage was first made available to public employees in 1950, those who were members of a State or local retirement system were excluded. When the 1954 amendments permitted coverage of members of State and local retirement systems after a referendum, policemen were excluded from those provisions.

Thereafter, in certain States it was felt that social security coverage could be used to the advantage of policemen and special legislation was enacted permitting their inclusion in named States where it was requested. This has worked satisfactorily.

În most States it is still felt that social security coverage would not be beneficial to policemen and, in general, policemen remain excluded. We believe this exclusion should be retained.

Even though elimination of the exclusion would provide under the referendum provisions an opportunity for the policemen to vote for or against coverage, local pressures could be applied inducing them to vote for what their better judgment deems unwise.

I call your attention to the riots in New York City, Jersey City, Rochester, St. Augustine, and other cities. This is no time to create a feeling of insecurity among police and if section 11 of H.R. 11865 is retained, such insecurity will be created.

With us today is Richard Lis, the national trustee from Illinois, and Joseph LeFevaur, president of the Chicago Lodge. The Fraternal Order of Police have asked me to especially call your attention to the unrest in Chicago and other police departments in Illinois as the result of passage of this section.

This also applies to many other police representatives who are present in the room.

Thirteen of the 17 members of this committee represent States where policemen are presently excluded. These policemen do not desire coverage. We strongly urge each of these 13 Senators to support the position of the policemen in his own State.

We also earnestly request that the committee members where police may be covered recognize that their own policemen would not be affected by retention of the exclusion and that the entire committee support amendment No. 1174, by Senator Ribicoff, which would delete section 11 of H.R. 11865.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you. I am advised that the chairman has received a number of statements from police organizations and unions also. These statements will be placed in the record following the testimony of the next witness who represents the National Conference of Police Associations.

Senator HARTKE. Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. No questions.
Senator HARTKE. Senator Bennett?
Senator BENNETT. No questions.

Senator HARTKE. Thank you, sir, I appreciate your testimony. (At the request of the chairman, the following telegram of Hon. J. D. McCarty, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the State of Oklahoma, is made a part of the record:)

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., August 10, 1964.

Senator HARRY BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Vital to exclude Oklahoma from H.R. 11865, an amendment to Social Security Act of 1964. Police officers have unanimously voted to request Oklahoma be excluded from said resolution. As member of House of Representatives I have authored practically every police pension bill for 24 years. We have a fine system and will continue to strengthen it. Our State statutes allow policemen to retire after 20 years. The proposed legislation would definitely impair the recruitment program for young officers entering police profession. Better working conditions to attract the highest caliber of men, plus a good pension plan is essential. Don't let Oklahoma down. At least amend bill giving those cities and towns an option. Respectfully requested.

J. D. MCCARTY,

Speaker, House of Representatives, State of Oklahoma. Senator HARTKE. The next witness will be Mr. John Cassese, National Conference of Police Associations who is accompanied by Mr. Royce Givens.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CASSESE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY ROYCE GIVENS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Mr. CASSESE. My name is John J. Cassese. I am president of the National Conference of Police Associations, and with me is Mr. Royce Givens, executive secretary of the National Conference of Police Associations.

In the room are many police representatives of many States. Senator HARTKE. We will be glad to recognize them and we are delighted that they are here.

Mr. CASSESE. Thank you.

My presentation is brief, concise and to the point, and because of that, I think if you have any questions that you would like to ask later, I will be glad to answer them as best I can.

My name is John J. Cassese; I am president of the National Conference of Police Associations, which represents about 250,000 police officers throughout the United States and Canada.

The National Conference of Police Associations wholeheartedly endorses the amendment to H.R. 11865 introduced by Senator Ribi coff; this amendment would allow police officers and firemen, covered by State and local retirement systems, to continue their total exclusion from social security coverage.

Our members face unusual hazards in performance of their duties

because of the nature of their employment, and are forced in many cases to retire at an earlier age than other local, State, and Federal Government employees. Therefore, our retirement systems, which have been developed for over the past hundred years, have been with regard to our special needs, particularly, the likelihood of early retire

ment.

Mr. Chairman and members of your committee, at our 12th annual conference in Los Angeles, Calif., during the month of July of this year, we sent a telegram to this committee opposing section 11 of H.R. 11865 which I would at this time like to read into the record of this hearing.

The National Conference of Police Associations, representing 250,000 policemen, is strongly opposed to that section of the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1964 which would remove the general exclusion of police officers from social security coverage. Police representatives from throughout the United States now assembled in Los Angeles are unanimous in their opinion that the contemplated amendment poses a serious threat to existing retirement systems by opening the door to local legislation that could impair hard-won retirement benefits.

Accordingly, we respectfully ask that you exert every effort to retain section 218D of the current law and delete those portions of the new bill designed to liberalize police participation under the Social Security Act, but which would, in fact, be contrary to the best interests of all law enforcement officers.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, we of the National Conference of Police Associations greatly appreciate the time afforded us and the courtesy extended by this committee in permitting us to voice our views and feelings in connection with section 11 of H.R. 11865. Thank you, sir.

Senator HARTKE. Senator Bennett?

Senator BENNETT. No questions.

Senator HARTKE. Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. No questions.

Mr. CASSESE. Thank you.

(The following statements received from police organizations and unions were inserted in the record by order of the chairman.)

STATEMENT OF SGT. ALBERT A. APA, REPRESENTING THE COMBINED POLICE ORGANIZATIONS OF CHICAGO, IN OPPOSITION TO SECTION 11 OF H.R. 11865 AND SUBCOMMITTEE IN LIFE THEREOF, SENATE AMENDMENT 1174

The combined Chicago police organizations, representing patrolmen, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in the Chicago Police Department, desire to place on record their strong, unequivocal opposition to the provisions of section 11 of H.R. 11865 (Social Security Amendments of 1964).

This provision of section 11, if enacted, opens the door to inclusion of police under the provisions of social security, and such action will, inevitably, set the machinery in motion to end our local retirement system, as we know it. The men of the Chicago Police Department have been covered by their own local retirement system under State law since the turn of the century. They have worked long and hard to develop a sound, responsible fund based on payments which the police officer could afford and which would be within the financial means of the community he serves. The comprehensive system of benefits which has evolved over many years is designed solely and exclusively for men who belong to a semimilitary organization; who are subject to severe physical demands; and who pursue a dangerous occupation. Certainly, it will be many years in the future, if ever, before social security can offer benefits comparable to those we already have.

We wish to emphasize that we are not opposed to change or progress and that our opposition to section 11 was crystallized only after careful consideration of its possible effects and consultation with police officers from other States and municipalities. It seems clear that once the exclusion provision has been removed, the next logical step will be to have movement initiated to begin social security coverage. If that were not true, there would be no real reason for removing the exclusion section, as any State which so desired could request removal of the exclusion on an individual basis. When the protection we now

At

enjoy has been taken away, the participants in the fund may find themselves subject to the "further division" provisions of the Social Security Act. this point, it is, of course, true that those who wish can reject social security. But it is also true that from that time forward, each person joining the Chicago Police Department will have no choice and must become a part of the social security system and will have no opportunity to participate in the retirement system. This will result in a closed or static fund, which will eventually require large sums of money from the municipality in order to pay out, in full, the benefits granted to the participants who have elected to remain under the retirement system.

It is important, we think, to point out that Illinois, speaking through the Illinois Public Employees Pension Laws Commission, a commission established by the general assembly, has taken the position that when the Social Security Act becomes applicable to any group of public employees, it will be on a combined or cooperative basis. Thus, with regard to Chicago police officers, in arriving at a total pension to be paid, one portion would be paid from the retirement system and another portion would be paid from social security funds. It is a fact that in recent years the employer and employee contributions to social security have been rising rapidly. With constantly mounting taxes in this area, there is no question in our minds that there will be less money available for our own pension fund and again, the inevitable conclusion, that it finally dies out completely or becomes insolvent.

Lest it be thought that our fears are not grounded in reality, we refer the attention of the members of the Finance Committee to the report of the House Committee on Ways and Means on H.R. 11865 to statements such as: "Your Committee knows of no valid reason why this single professional group should continue to be excluded. It runs counter to the general view that coverage should be as universal as possible," (referring to doctors, on p. 10, sec. E. 1.); and "Under a provision of the Social Security Act which is designed to facilitate the extension of social security coverage to members of State and local government retirement systems ***"

We submit to the committee that it has never been the intention of Congress to impose social security provisions on those persons who were already adequately provided for with regard to retirement, disability, or widow's or children's support. We believe that it was rather the intention to provide basic minimal benefits for persons who might not otherwise acquire them. With this idea we have no quarrel. We believe our reasoning is supported by the fact that from the inception of the act, each Congress has seen fit to authorize our exclusion. This action was wisely taken and we know of no reason why it should not be continued.

In conclusion, we request that section 11 of H.R. 11865 be stricken and we adopt, in its entirety, the statement made to the committee by the national representative speaking for police officers throughout the country.

HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

Houson Tex., August 1, 1964.

Hon. HARRY F. BYRD,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: We have just learned that the Congress is presently contemplating amendments to the Social Security Act which would include all policemen and firemen. The House of Representatives has already passed H.R. 11865 in this respect. We have also learned that this bill has now been referred to the Committee of Finance in the Senate, of which committee you are the chairman.

Speaking for the police officers in the largest city in the State of Texas we urge that the Social Security Act remain as it presently exists. Presently police and firemen are allowed exclusion upon making a request to the Congress and their respective State legislatures. This has proven to be very satisfactory in the past and certainly should not cause any difficulty in the future.

We must say that we are certainly opposed to section 11 on page 38 of H.R. 11865 that repeals the total exclusion of police and firemen from the Social Security Act. We are certainly of the opinion that such action on the part of Congress would certainly be detrimental to police and firemen whose retirement programs are presently in existence.

Therefore, we strongly urge that the U.S. Senate delete from the bill the repeal of total exclusion of police and firemen from the Social Security Act.

Respectfully,

J. A. KNIGGE, Secretary-Treasurer.

« PředchozíPokračovat »