Mr. WEINBERG. The equalization of annuities for retired members, of course, is one which our police and firemen have, we think, a certain advantage over our other retirees. It is a benefit which we feel, of course, enhances our ability to recruit. It provides an outstanding difference, I think, in any other retirement system we now have.

However, again to project to the survivors would be providing an advantage well above the treatment that we give-and I have to keep going back to this equity and comparability. The House has just recently passed a bill for teachers retirement. Our testimony before the committee at that time provided again that a similar treatment of teachers or survivors be provided as we had in civil service.

Now, what we are saying here is that we want to again provide the equity, but not establish a competition between retirement systems, treating one survivor different than another. Now, we do notice there is a difference in basic retirement systems which we feel is justified. Senator EAGLETON. All right. Mr. Weinberg, we have a few statistical type questions remaining on S. 2695, and we will probably submit them to you in writing and you can supply us with the statistics and figures in writing.

Mr. WEINBERG. All right, sir, thank you. (The information follows:)

Mr. TED MAEDER,

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Washington, D.C., September 28, 1970.

Committee on the District of Columbia,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR TED: The following are answers to your questions regarding the proposed Police and Fire retirement legislation:

1. The costs of the proposals are indicated in the attached charts.

2. Chart III shows the costs for new and old adult survivor benefits under the compromise proposal. See (k) (2) and (k) (4).

3. The cost of raising the percentage for current survivors' annuities from 35% to 40% is indicated in Chart IV. See (k)(4).

4. There are currently 885 adult survivors on the rolls. Of these, 322 receive the minimum of $150 per month. Based on this proportion (36%) and a random sample of adult survivor annuities, it is estimated that 43% of current adult survivors (376) receive more than $150 but less than $248 per month ($2,975 per year); and 21% or 187 receive more than $248 per month.

5. Since increases in survivor benefits under Civil Service and Teachers' Retirement are generally enacted on a prospective basis, applicable only to new survivors, there are distinctions between annuities received by new survivor annuitants and those previously on the rolls.

6. Under Civil Service and Teachers' Retirement, other District survivor annuitants receive 55% of 40% of the deceased employee's high-3 average salary or 55% of the deceased retired employee's annuity.

After reviewing the new cost breakdowns the retroactive provision for widows would cost $494,500. The District cannot support this provision and we have so indicated to the associations. They have tentatively agreed.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours.

DONALD H. WEINBERG,

Chief, Pay Systems and Labor Relations Division.

CHART 1.-ESTIMATED COST OF BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 10599 AND ORIGINAL S. 2695

CHART 11.-COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED 1ST YEAR COSTS OF PROPOSED POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT LEGISLATION (ASSUMING NOV. 1, 1970, ENACTMENT DATE)

CHART III.-ESTIMATED COST OF BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 10599 AND ORIGINAL S. 2695 IF AMENDED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2 Increase of $92 per year for each 4-percent increase in cost of living, plus $23 per year for the additional 1-percent increase provided by the District's proposal.

CHART IV.-ESTIMATED COST OF BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 19384 AND NEW S. 2695 IF PERCENTAGE FOR CURRENT SURVIVORS' ANNUITIES WERE RAISED FROM 35 TO 40 PERCENT

1 No significant cost.

* Increase of $92 per year for each 4-percent increase in cost of living, plus $23 per year for the additional 1-percent

ncrease.

Senator EAGLETON. Now, with respect to H.R. 4183, we have already covered the facts that there is no similar program existing in the District government, other than perhaps the CIA.

Mr. EHRLICH. Senator, I believe also the Veterans' Administration. Senator EAGLETON. All right.

Now, directing your attention to H.R. 4184, in terms of historical background, why is there a difference, or why was there a difference. in retirement benefits for those who retired before October 1, 1956, and those who retired subsequent to that date?

Mr. WEINBERG. To my knowledge-and I think Mr. Sullivan from the association can give you expert testimony on the system at that time but it was based primarily on ratings of disability. Instead of at the present time the person who is eligible for retirement under disability in line of duty would be out at 66% at that time they were percentage disabilities possibly bad back was 30 percent and so forth. That was the major difference. Now, all disabilities are provided the same adjustment up between 66% to a maximum of 70. At that time, they were varying based on the rating, similar to what the Veterans' Administration does regarding its percentage of disability to veterans. Senator EAGLETON. It is our understanding that some years ago a couple of bills passed Congress that would have provided for equalization but they were vetoed. Can you tell us why these bills were vetoed and when, for my information, did that occur?

Mr. WEINBERG. Under two different Presidents, Mr. Chairman. Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, with regard to H.R. 4183, that bill that passed the House recently is identical to H.R. 2824 of the 90th Congress, which was also approved by the House. However, it was deleted by the House and Senate conferees. That was in 1967.

With regard to H.R. 4148, an identical bill was vetoed on September 22, 1961.

Senator EAGLETON. I see from the House report, also, a similar bill was vetoed on September 24, 1959.

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEINBERG. That is correct, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. What were the reasons for those vetoes, as you understand it?

Mr. WEINBERG. There was some modification of the bill. The bill that was vetoed in 1959 provided some differences of 10-percent adjustment. Now, if it is for the same reasons that I would like to present to you, we feel that there is a basis of an inequity and discrimination with regard to how you treat a small segment. This could have been the basis for the veto at the time. It could have been the cause at the time. It possibly was the intent if Congress had passed a new retirement bill and certainly considered the retirees prior to that date, but went ahead and made this thing prospective.

Now, if I can proceed on that, maybe it touches on what happened at the time. We have here a group where we say that in this bill we will treat a segment of the retired force prior to 1956, who are rated 100-percent disabled. Now, that means that it only covers those rated by the Veterans Manual at 100 percent, and who have 50-percent annuity plus equalization, but it excludes, sir, those other annuitants who had been rated less than 100 percent.

Here we have a group that we are saying we are going to treat you differently because you at the time you were rated 100-percent disabled and everyone else would be treated as they are right now, based on the percent of their disability.

There are a number of questions that are raised by this. For example, what happens to the person who since that time, if he were rechecked could find that he may today be 100-percent disabled because of the injury he sustained prior to 1956?

We think that we tried to insure equity with respect to the benefits. provided these employees; however, H.R. 4184 would single out a particular retired group of employees without any compelling reason

other than they were rated 100 percent disabled 14 or more years ago and would ignore those rated less than 100 percent disabled.

We believe the equalization provision that is in our retirement bill has provided most of these people, many of these people, an annuity larger than the salary they were receiving at a time they were greatly disabled and that they are provided-I do not want to use 'adequate❞—but livable annuity under the very fine provisions of equalization in the act.

Now, this is our major reason for opposition.

Senator EAGLETON. As I understand it, in 1962 equalization was extended to the survivors of those who retired prior to October of 1956. If equalization was acceptable for survivors, why would you oppose it for retirees?

Mr. WEINBERG. To our knowledge, sir, the equalization only provides for those retired members who are currently living, and that the problem has been that there has been no major adjustment for survivors since 1956, which is the thing we strongly support, an adjustment.

Mr. EHRLICH. Equalization does not apply to survivors under the present legislation.

Mr. WEINBERG. It is proposed under S. 2695, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. WEINBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. John L. Sullivan, chairman, Board of Legislation, Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia; accompanied by Carl W. Beatty, president, Policemen's Association, and Mr. Royce Givens, executive director, International Conference of Police Associations.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; ACCOMPANIED BY SGT. CARL W. BEATTY, PRESIDENT, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; AND ROYCE GIVENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF POLICE

ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy in allowing us to appear at this time.

Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is John L. Sullivan, I am a retired inspector of the Metropolitan Police Department, and chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia, representing the Metropolitan, U.S. Park Police, and White House Police Forces.

I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today on behalf of our association to present our views on S. 2695.

We believe that S. 2695 does not cover what we desire, therefore, we recommend that the language as contained in H.R. 10599, be substituted for the language in S. 2695. However, we would like to offer some minor amendments to H.R. 10599. We suggest that an amendment on page 12, line 4, by striking out "2" and inserting "2", and on line 9, strike out "50" and insert "40."

Now, the purpose for this, Mr. Chairman, was we had no intentions to increase the disability benefits. We mistakenly put in the