overcrowded cities is given slight consideration. We feel that he is entitled to substantial compensation in keeping with the risks and requirements of the job. We ask that a minimum extra compensation of $3,600 per year be considered.

For myself and on behalf of our Committee I wish to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for their kind attention and consideration to my testimony.

Mr. CABELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL No questions.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Fauntroy.

PRESENT RETIREES

Mr. FAUNTROY. Mr. Sullivan, do I understand that if the bill should pass in its present form retirement benefits would not be effective for those retired from 1957 to date?

Mr. SULLIVAN. What it really does, Mr. Fauntroy, is that it creates the same kind of donnybrook that happened in 1957, because it has in there that anyone that retires on and after December 31, or January 1 of 1972, will be entitled to receive this so-called increase in pension. And it leaves out the retired man in its entirety in that scale.

Now, we think this is unfair. We have retired men, Mr. Fauntroy, who are drawing 50 percent of their salary. It is a very easy for one to get up here and say, like myself, who was an Inspector, and say, we took half a loaf. But we have got men who are in homes, rest homes, that are costing them more than their pensions, their hospitalization, and so forth. And what we are talking about really in increasing these people is about approximately $70 a month.

It is ridiculous not to give them this, give them this chance to pay their way today in comfort. I can give you a case right now of a man and wife, both of them are in a rest home. And the pension lacks about $60 or $70 or $80 paying for the rest home. Of course, there is no provision for the doctors and no provision for the others. For those of us who are at 66, that is one thing. But for those that went out on 50 percent, it is an entirely different thing. And we don't want to see this occur again.

Now, we want to go along with the cost of a bill like anybody else. But we want to do what is fair. And it is not fair to leave the retired men off, and especially those who are drawing the 50 percent. And considering the great effort that this committee has made to correct it, to begin creating the same situation would be unfortunate. That is what I am saying, Mr. Fauntroy.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Broyhill.

COST OF LIVING INCREASES

Mr. BROYHILL. Inspector Sullivan, the retired policemen do not get the automatic cost of living increases in their annuities that retired civil service employees do?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, we are at the mercy of this committee, just as the police department is.

Mr. BROYHILL. Under the existing law, you have been receiving the same percentage of increase that the active members have?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right.

Mr. BROYHILL. You have not received an increase since the active. policemen and firemen received one back in 1969, have you?

Mr. SULLIVAN. 1970, yes.

Mr. BROYHILL. And you have not received a cost of living increase since that time?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right.

Mr. BROYHILL. And therefore if you exclude such increase from this bill, you will not have received any cost of living increase at all since that time?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right.

UNIFORM ALLOWANCE

Mr. CABELL. Just as a matter of information, the uniformed officer gets a uniform allowance, does he not?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, he is furnished his uniform; it is given to him. I think that answers the question.

Mr. CABELL. He is not chargeable for an income tax on that, is he? Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir.

Mr. CABELL. What about the $500 that is presently being allowed the non-uniformed officers?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I was a detective sergeant in 1944 sometime from July, I think July 6 or the 7th. And at that time a private drew $240) a year. And he got $600 additional compensation for being a detective sergeant.

Now, what is additional compensation? We went to the Internal Revenue. A pay bill was passed here in the Congress, a 10 percent bill. And they started paying us on a $600 and 10 percent basis. And then they came along and said, "No, we can't pay that." And we had to come back to you gentlemen and get it straightened out, and it became a part of salary. But the Internal Rvenue would not give us any tax benefits for the additional compensation. As you say, if everybody goes in plain clothes, and we given them $300, it might well be if you say under certain circumstances there might be some consideration. But we have found it to be a very appalling thing, and it doesn't work. And it does deter from this man's retirement, and also his insurance, and the annuity, in case of his death to his wife. So we think it should be in the pay scale, and the additional $300 should not be handed out.

When I ride the streets today, Mr. Chairman, and I see the numbers of individuals in automobiles and we are by and large the finest police department in the world, bar none-but I sometimes wonder, when I see so many people and so many cars sitting around the precinct, and so few policemen on the street, are we really doing the right thing. So I think that if we are going to make him a plainclothesman, let's pay him, let's put him in the pay scale, or let's put him out on the street in that uniform to be a deterrent to crime.

Mr. CABELL. May I have a little further clarification?

This allowance that the non-uniformed man gets, that is just an allowance; it does not form a part of his basic salary?

Mr. SULLIVAN. In one case it is and in one case it isn't. Where the detective sergeant is concerned is that, say, he will get $500 more, if you read the bill a little further, and that they will take out the tax

and insurance, and so forth on it. But then when you get down to the question, does he retire on what is in the scale, plus the $500, or does he not, or does the retired sergeants who are already retired, the detective sergeants, get the benefit of the $500. And I say it is another trick to deprive the man of this income.

Mr. CABELL, During that period

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is salary, the detective sergeants' salary.

Mr. CABELL. That $500 becomes salary, on which he pays withholding?

Mr. SULLIVAN. He is supposed to.

Mr. CABELL. And he pays his seven and a half percent retirement, which the District matches.

To go back into the uniformed service, then his income is decreased by that allowance, is that correct?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That would be correct. But there would be no reason that I can see for him wanting to go back into the uniformed service. There has been talk here today, they say, well, they are going to eliminate detective sergeants over a period of time. How do you eliminate those that are on retirement until they die? How do you eliminate a detective bureau? Because in our makeup of law there are two phases, the prevention and the detection of crime. And, Mr. Chairman, I will say to you, I don't care what the name, there is going to be a detective force in that police department, or the crime is going to be greater than it is now.

And I am not so happy about some of the statistics that I have read on crime being cut and crime going down and so forth, they bring out just about what you want them to bring out. My question would be, did we have more crime in 1966, did we have more in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 or 1972. You can play on percentages all you want to. Not too long ago the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the other side of our Congress brought this question up. And he brought up the recruiting question. I feel that if we are talking about a pay bill-and I think they are putting this in the salary, they are saying that they will get this percentage of five, 10 to 15, the first step of his grade, and so forth-if that is true, that is salary in every sense of the word. And if that is salary, then Congress has passed the law that we, the retired people, are entitled to it.

Mr. CABELL. What I am trying to get at is that the officer pays withholding tax on this uniform allowance?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CABELL. And he makes his contribution up to seven and a half percent on that?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right.

Mr. CABELL. But you are telling me that in the computation of his retirement pay that that is not classed

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am saying to you that in my mind the way the bill is written there is a great question as to whether he will get it. I know there is no question that the retired man will get it.

Mr. CABELL. If he retires he will not get the credit in salary on that increment on which he has paid his income tax and his withholding and his contribution to the income retirement fund?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is what I understand, and we can't get a clearance on it, they say.

Our intention was that he would get it, but it is not clear in the bill. Mr. CABELL. That is what I was trying to get to. If he were not charged with that as income, if that was a deductible item, if he wasn't

paying a seven and a half percent increment into the pension fund, then it would be logical that it would not be computed as salary earned. But it looks to me like it should be computed if he is already paying for it.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Certainly it should be. And the man on the outside, Mr. Chairman, the detective sergeant who is retired, that same $500 should be applied as in the scale of paying salary, because what they have done, they have given the guy in front of the detective sergeant a 11 or 12 hundred dollar raise, and in the back of the detective sergeant in their pay scale maybe another 13 or 14 hundred, but the detective sergeant who is retired under this bill as it is now formed would only receive, if he were on the top echelon, a $570 raise. And the private is going to get 15. The sergeant is going to get a thousand plus. So this is the problem. The problem is two-fold, because it is not clear, and unless you gentlemen put it in the scale, then it is not clear to anyone, because if you put it in the scale and say, this is what the salary should be, this is where it belongs, then there can be no doubt in computing the retirement.

Mr. CABELL. What you are saying is that sometimes the administrative officers don't always pay attention as to what is the intent of the Congress when they enact certain laws.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Administrative people often don't see the trees for the forest. But let me say in all due respect, as a long time policeman, and having come for many years before this Congress, I think that this Committee has done more for the law enforcement officers and for this city than any group of men I know. And they have gone forward with the bills and enacted them into law.

And you asked questions about the no-knock, and you asked questions about the pretrial detention, and things like that. I testified on the crime bill. I think it has been a good tool. I know of no abuse of the law.

And it is your gentlemen that have given us the tools to work it. It is you gentlemen who have given us the raise that we wanted. It is you gentlemen who have fought our battle for us. And I am not one of those who think you don't do anything except what you feel is good or right. And whatever your judgment is I accept it wholeheartedly, because I have a great faith in this committee and all its members. Mr. CABELL. I think that is a beautiful statement. We appreciate. (Subsequently, the following additional statement was received for the record:)

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS,
Washington, D.C., April 24, 1972.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On March 20, 1972, a hearing was held by your Committee on the Police and Firemen's Pay Bill, H.R. 12710.

It was my pleasure to make a statement before the Committee, Chaired by the Honorable Earle Cabell. My statement, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Retired Association of the District of Columbia, states our position as to the feelings of the retired men and widows. I did state we were opposed to the educational incentive, when in fact we are not opposed to this provision in principal, unless the D.C. Government tries to use this as a cost factor, not to pay the retired men for their longevity or retroactive features of this, or any other Pay Bill, that may be introduced.

You may recall in 1968, I asked that members with a minimum of 30 college credit hours in law enforcement or administration, from an accredited college or university, should receive in addition to his basic salary $600.00 per year, and with 60 such college credit hours $1,200.00 per year, in addition to his basic salary. In order to be eligible for the additional compensation, an officer or member must have completed one year's probation in the Police Department.

Mr. McMillan, we oppose any section, or part of any section, in Bill H.R. 12710, or any other Bill the D.C. Government may recommend, which exclude any retired member or widow from receiving full benefits of an increase in their salary, longetive, retroactive, or our widows or survivors benefits.

We stongly feel that any additional compensation should be salary.

One learns to live and plan his budget on his income and when additional monies are loss, you are very likely to find a misguided individual.

Thank you, and the members of your Committee, for the wonderful contributions made over the years to our Nation's Capital, and to the Police and Fire Departments of the District of Columbia.

Sincerely,

JOHN L. SULLIVAN.

Mr. BROYHILL. In all fairness, Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the representative of the District of Columbia to the fact that I made reference to his absence earlier this morning. And I regret his absence during the earlier testimony by representatives of the police association, when they very firmly stated that the no-knock and the pretrial detention provisions of our recent crime bill were very effective instruments in reducing crime. I understand that the delegate had made some statement to the contrary, requesting that these provisions should be repealed. And I felt it would be helpful to him, in view of his keen and just interest in the District of Columbia, that the law enforcement officials had a view to the contrary, which was further affirmed by the statement made by Inspector Sullivan, who has had great experience and knowledge of law enforcement in the nation's capital.

Mr. FAUNTROY. It may be very useful to have this kind of testimony made before the entire Congress, and to have these kind of laws in all the communities in the nation. Perhaps the testimony will be persuasive to those, in communities like this, who feel that this type of law violates basic rights guaranteed in the constitution to know that it has proven effective here. Maybe you could then justify its being in your District.

Mr. CABELL. In the absence of further questions or testimony, the Subcommittee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)