crime in D.C. during February, tabulated by the average daily number of offenses, hit a five-year low.

I commend the D.Č. Police Force and the D.C. firemen for the outstanding job they are performing.

By promptly enacting this well deserved pay raise we will be demonstrating in a tangible way how much we appreciate their sacrifices and their service.

Mr. CABELL. We have a number of witnesses this morninug, representing both the Policemen's Association and the Firemen's Association. I believe that first on the list is Sergeant Everett Cooper, President of the Police Association.

Sergeant Cooper, would you come forward?

Do you have anyone with you that you wish to use as a backup witness?

Sgt. COOPER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CABELL. Will you bring them up and introduce them to the hearing in order that the reporter can get them in the record.

Before you start, Chairman McMillian has a statement.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I would like to speak to the members of the Police and Firefighters Association and to the Policemen and Firemen in general.

We would have begun these hearings two months ago had we not been waiting for the District Government to furnish us a copy of their bill. We want to conduct all the hearings on all the pending bills on this subject bills introduced at the same time. However, I think we have waited long enough. We are beginning these hearings today. And Mr. Cabell has been good enough to take the time to conduct the hearings. Mr. CABELL. Sergeant Cooper.

STATEMENT OF SERGEANT EVERETT L. COOPER, PRESIDENT, D.C. POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY SERGEANT GEORGE DUNPHY, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE; BENJAMIN GREENSPOON, ATTORNEY; AND CAPTAIN DONALD R. RANDALL, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE BOARD

Sgt. COOPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of Bill H.R. 12710, a bill to provide salary increases for the members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Park Police, the Executive Protective Service and the D.C. Fire Department.

For the record, I am Detective Sergeant Everett L. Copper, President of the Policemen's Association. On my left is Captain Donald R. Randall, Assistant Chairman of the Legislative Committee. On my right is Detective Sergeant George Dunphy, Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Policemen's Association. And on my far right is Attorney Benjamin Greenspoon, attorney for the Association, who will be testifying for the Association with me this morning.

It is our intention to present to you facts and figures which clearly show what the police officer who is daily locked in a battle with crime is fighting an equally difficult battle to provide his family with a decent. home, adequate food and clothing and the barest of necessities. These

facts and figures will also clearly show that, while the police officer is slowly but surely winning his battle with crime, he is rapidly losing his battle for financial security.

We are here today to speak for this police officer, and because we speak for him, we would like to tell you something about him.

He is young, he is dedicated. He has a family. You will find him in a scout car, a helicopter, on a motor scooter or on foot. He is a man of patience, well acquainted with verbal abuse, accusations and insults. He is the natural target of rocks, bottles and bullets. Wherever he goes his constant companion is death.

He is responsible for the protection of the lives and property of those who live and work in our Nation's Capital, as well as the hundreds of thousands of visitors who annually stream in and out of this city. Foreign embassies and visiting dignitaries are another area of his many and varied responsibilities.

In addition to being a police officer, he is from time to time called upon to be a judge, a diplomat, an arbitrator, a doctor, a lawyer, a psychiatrist, a social worker, a sage, and of course, a genius.

Between February 1970 and December 1971 this officer has coped with 68 major demonstrations. It is a matter of public record that both the President of the United States and the United States Senate have commended this officer for the manner in which he performed his duties during the so-called May Day demonstrations.

Since July of 1968 8 members of the Metropolitan Police Department and one member of the United States Park Police have been killed in the line of duty. The "National Crime Statistics" released in December 1971 by the FBI show that Washington, D.C. is the only major city in the United States to have a decrease in overall crime. The FBI compiled these statistics. This officer wrote them with his dedication, his bravery and, all too often, his blood.

With your indulgence, gentlemen, I would like now to call upon Detective Sergeant George Dunphy, Chairman of the Legislative Committee, who will go into a bit more detail in another phase of this bill.

Thank you.

BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

Sgt. DUNPHY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McMillan and members, for the record, my name is George W. Dunphy, I am a Detective Sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Department and the Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia.

In past years, it has been the unfortunate burden of Congress to be placed in the position of arbitrator between the Police and Firemen's Organizations and the District Government.

In order to avoid this problem, the Policemen's Association of D.C. and the Fire Fighters began negotiations with the District Government in February of 1971. These negotiations continued through November 1971 and into December, and resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties in December of 1971.

The memorandum brought the Association and the D.C. Government into full accord on all issues. Shortly thereafter, the D.C. Gov

ernment advised that it could not honor the January 1, 1972, effective date of the pay bill. The D.C. Government then stated that it supports the bill in all other respects but due to its financial problems, would have to request an effective date as of enactment of the bill. Also included in our testimony is a letter dated February 7, 1972, wherein the Government assured the Association that it is moving with all speed to send the negotiated bill to the Office of Management and Budget and have promised to appear before the Congress to urge it to give prompt attention to the Legislation and to work for early

enactment.

The need for such a salary increase is imperatve. The last increase for D.C. Police and Fire personnel took place 30 June 1970 and was retroactive to 1 July 1969 (P.L. 91-297). Although retroactive, this increase was based on our competitive pay position in 1969 and was, for all intents and purposes, out of date when it became effective. Between August 1969 and November 1971 the cost of living in the Washington, D.C. area has risen 10.6 percent. Present indications would lead us to believe that the figures due out this month will show an increase of approximately 13 percent since August 1969.

Between November 1969 and November 1971 the District's 8,000 "Blue Collar" employees have received increases averaging 19.2 percent. District and Federal classified employees have, since January 1970 received increases averaging 17.7 percent.

Rates of pay for District policemen and firemen must be in a favorable competitive position with those major cities having over 500,000 population. Presently we rank last in both minimum and maximum salaries paid in comparison with the six local jurisdictions in the Washington Metropolitan Area and in thirteenth place (below the median) in comparison with the 23 other cities having over 500,000 population for entrance salaries.

Gentlemen, since this testimony was drafted, the city of Detroit has concluded their negotiations, and we have dropped now to 14th place. Mr. MCMILLAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Where do you get those figures from? It seems that we have some different figures in the committee. (See p. 29.)

Go ahead. We just have a little different figures.

Sgt. DUNPHY. The fact that our competitive position is so low has greatly affected our ability to recruit new members. In addition, the need for recruitment has increased due to loss by attrition of seasoned members of these departments who find the road to their professional future a dead-end street.

In the 2-year period from July 1969 to July 1971, 1,042 men resigned from the Metropolitan Police Department. This figure does not include terminations during probationary year, terminations due to disciplinary action, or disability and optional retirements.

Gentlemen, the Worker Family Budget issued in the spring of 1970 showed that a family of four (father, mother unemployed, and two children) required a budget of $11,047 to maintain an intermediate standard of living. It is now 1 year later, and it is obvious that the budgetary needs of that family of four have not diminished, but have most assuredly increased.

Thus, one cannot exclude economics as a major reason for the large number of resignations.

PAY PROVISIONS

We come before you today seeking a two-phase salary increase. The first phase would increase our starting salary to $9,500 per annum; the second phase would bring this starting salary up to $10,000 per annum, an amount that is still over more than $1,000 below the required budget needed to maintain an intermediate standard of living in 1970.

We believe that Washington, D.C., by reason of its national and international prominence, as well as its need for excellence, should rank at the top of the other major cities in salaries paid to policemen and firemen.

We believe that there should be a reasonable alignment in the rates of pay for policemen and firemen with the rates of pay for classified employees of the Federal and District Governments, not only with regard to duties and responsibilities, but with consideration of the dangers involved in urban law enforcement and fire fighting.

We believe the pay rate for D.C. policemen and firemen should be above the pay rates for the surrounding jurisdictions if we are to successfully compete in the areas of recruitment, as well as the retention of experienced personnel.

For example, comparing the entrance salaries for police privates between 1969 and 1971 in the 23 other major cities having a population of over 500,000 we find that the police officers in these cities have received an average of three salary increases in that period; their average percentage of increase of starting salary in that period is 22 percent.

By the same token, between 1969 and 1971 in the five other local jurisdictions, their police officers received an average of three salary increases and the average percentage of increase of starting salary for this period was 18.5 percent.

If you are wondering where the D.C. policemen and the firemen fit into this picture, it is very simple; between 1969 and 1971 we received zero increases, with a percentage of increase at starting salary at zero percent.

Gentlemen, in 1969 the Metropolitan Police and Fire Department ranked first locally in starting salaries in the Metropolitan area. And today we are dead last of the six local jurisdictions.

The legislation before you gives, in our opinion, fair, equitable and necessary salary increases to the members of the police and fire departments.

PROVISIONS OF BILL

The are some areas of this legislation which we would like to cover in some detail.

CLOTHING ALLOWANCE

Title I, Section 112(b) provides a clothing allowance of $300 per year for those officers assigned in plainclothes. In the recent past no provision has been made for those officers who wear their own clothes while on duty. Needless to say, $300 per year will not totally cover the cost to the individual officer. Further, many surrounding jurisdictions

provide this type of allowance for their officers. Therefore, we believe it is only fair to provide our officers with this clothing allowance.

DETECTIVES

Within Sec. 106 (c) of H.R. 12710 there is an error, which can only be attributed to oversight on our part. This section contains a provision for additional compensation in the amount of $500 per annum for each officer assigned as a Detective Sergeant prior to the effective date of this legislation. Officers on the current Detective Sergeant promotional list should also be included. The additional compensation is not new, but the situation is. Once those officers on the current promotion list are promoted to that rank, no future promotions to Detective Sergeant will be made and the rank itself will be phased out. Therefore, it is only just that the officers on the promotional list should receive the same additional compensation as those attaining that rank prior to the effective date of this legislation.

This additional $500 does not increase the cost of the pay bill because these men are currently receiving this additional compensation pursuant to Public Law 91-297.

SICK LEAVE CREDIT

Title II, Sec. 201(a), (3) of this legislation would amend the Policemen's and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act to allow the crediting of unused sick leave at time of optional retirement to the same extent as such unused sick leave is credited to District and Federal classified employees and District teachers and school officers. This then would bring policemen and firemen completely in line with regard to all sick and annual leave laws applicable to the aforementioned employees.

LONGEVITY STEPS

You will find that in Title I, Sec. 110 amending Sec. 401(a), the present "longevity steps" have been eliminated in favor of the establishment of longevity differentials based on continuous service at 15, 20, 25 and 30 years. This provision is applicable to active members only.

The present longevity steps are, on the most part, unattainable. Each time an officer receives a promotion the road to that "longevity step" becomes longer. It is somewhat like taking one giant step forward and two steps backward. However, longevity differentials based on service in the department will provide an incentive for recruitment, and most important, an incentive to remain in the department. In addition, the cost of recruitment and training, which is extremely high, can be reduced. The need to search out recruits will be diminished by potential members seeking us out, and the need to replace those lost by attrition will be sharply reduced.

Therefore, we believe that this longevity differential is essential to a strong, dedicated and professional department. Does this longevity differential come within the scope of the equalization clause, Title 4, Sec. 518 of the D.C. Code. We do not believe it does.

At this time I would like to have Mr. Benjamin Greenspoon, Attorney for the Policemen's Association to elaborate.