Financing the District of Columbia policemen, firemen, and teacher retirement systems


Material Information

Financing the District of Columbia policemen, firemen, and teacher retirement systems
Physical Description:
Library of Congress -- Congressional Research Service
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the District of Columbia
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025825728
oclc - 02304397
System ID:

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Legislative history
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction and background
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Establishment of D.C. policemen and firemen's relief fund--1916
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Origin of teacher's retirement system--1920
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Nelsen Commission
        Page 15
    Exploration of financing alternatives
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Hearings before Subcommittee on Education
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Office of management and budget opposed to Federal participation in financing
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Back Cover
        Page 26
Full Text
b, J/



~:FEB 97






MARCH 18, 1976

Serial No. S-8

Printed for the use of the Committee on the District of Columbia





CHARLES C. DIGGS, JR., Michigan, Chairnmn

W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, JR., Georgia
THOMAS M. REES, California
District of Columbia
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina
DAN DANIEL, Virginia
JAMES J. F7LORIO, New Jersey

STEWART B. McKINNEY, Connecticut
EDWARD G. BIESThR, JL, Pennsylvania

EDWARD C. SYLVESTER, Jr., Staff Drector
RuBm G. MARTIN, General Counsel
MARK MATIS, Mnority Counsel



Early origin------------------------------------------------------2
Equalization of Policemen and Firemen's Retirement Benefits6--------- 6
"Sixty-Forty Sharing"6---------------------------------------------6
Abolishment of Fund-19357----------------------------------------7
Treasury Department Study-1941]---------------------------------- 7
1957 Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability Amendments- 7
ORIGIN OF TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYsTEm-1920 -------------------------11
Teacher's Retirement System Placed on Funded Basis-1946---------11
1970 Modification to Method of Financing Teacher's Retirement
System --------------------------------------------------------12
NELSEN COMMISSION---------------------------------------------------15
EXPLORATION OF FINANCING ALTERNATIVES -------------------------------16
IN FINANCING-------------------------------------------------------21
APPENDIX ------------------------------------------------------------23




M1ARCH 18, 1976

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013-


In a letter dated December 22, 1975, the Chairman of the House
Committee on the District of Columbia requested the Congressional
Research Service to do background research on the legislative history
of the financing of the District of Columbia's policemen, firemen, and
teacher retirement systems. As requested by the Chairman, particular
attention was directed to any mention of the unfunded character of
the policemen and firemen's system, together with any references to
potential responsibility of Congress to ultimately authorize a special
Federal contribution to a fund for the program. Similar information
was requested for the teacher's retirement system, but in this case
attention was to be directed to the funded nature of the program. The
Congressional Research Service was also requested to note any refer-
ences to the evolution of the disability features of each program.
Included as an Appendix is an index of citations to legislation,
reports, and hearings that the Congressional Research Service exam-
ined, which were directly or indirectly relevant to the information
requested by the Chairman. Since we found very little discussion of
the question of financing retirement benefits over the 60-year period
studied, we have included all pertinent comments in the body of this
Congress established the Metropolitan Police Department for the
entire District of Columbia in 1861 as part of a move to consolidate
the several municipal serVices that had existed at that time (see 12
Stat. 320). This act shifted the control of the law enforcement appa-
ratus in the District of Columbia from the locally-elected municipal
governments that existed to the President and the Congress. Prior to
this act, the municipalities of Washington and Georgetown had their
own police forces. Thus, after 1861 the law enforcement apparatus in
the District of Columbia was run by a presidentially-appointed police
board. the members of which were subject to the advice and consent
of the Senate.* The Act also provided for a major financial commit-
ment of Federal funds for the operation of the Metropolitan Police.'
The District of Columbia is a unique governmental unit in the
United States. It is not a State or territory, but has certain political
characteristics of both. From 1878 to 1967 the District operated under
a commission form of government comprised of three presidentially
appointed commissioners. In 1967, a reorganization plan replaced the
three-commissioner form of government with one presidentially
appointed commissioner popularly called "the Mayor," and a nine-
*In the Act of June 11. 1878 (20 Stat. 102), Congress abolished the Metropolitan Police
Board and transferred all powers and duties to the District Commissioners.
I'Nelson F. Rimensnyder. The Political Evolution of the District of Columbia : Current
Status and Proposed Alternatives. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
Apr. 30, 1975: 7.

member presidentially appointed city council. All appointments were
subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.2
Under a new Congressional character (District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, Public
Law 93-198,.87Stat. 774), the District of Columbia Government was
given broader "home rule" authority effective January 2, 1975. Yet,
Con&ess still remains the ultimate constitutionally-established legisla-
tive authority in the District of Columbia. Congress retains the prero-
gative to enact legislation for the District on any subject, whether
within or-without the. scope of legislative power delegated to the Dis-
trict Council. Furthermore, the Charter Act provides that annually
the Congress, through the appropriations process, determines the
amount for a Federal payment to the District, and finally approves
and enacts the District budget into law in the form of an appropria-
tions act.3
Although the present D.C. policemen and firemen's retirement and
disability system was established in 1916, its origins go all the way back
to 1885. In the D.C. appropriations act for fiscal year 1886 (23 Stat.
316-317) passed in February 1885, disability retirement provisions
for policemen and firemen were included. This bill did not provide
any retirement benefits on account of age or years of service. Indeed,
if a policeman or fireman was not disabled he would be expected to
work indefinitely. The lack of retirement provisions other than for
disability caused situations such as one cited in 1910 during hearings
before the House Committee on the District of Columbia. In reference
to a, bill (H.R. 2232-2) which would have provided for retirement of
members of the police and fire departments, the superintendent of
police stated:
Major SYLVESTER. We have a man detailed to the White House today who is
84 years of age.
'The CHAIRMAN. Eighty-four years of age?
M\Iajor SYLVESTER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRM AN. And unless a provision of this kind is enacted you cannot
retire him at all'?
The official replied that the only way a person was eligible to retire
was on account of disability.
The '1885 act mandated that one dollar each month be deducted from
the piy of each policeman and fireman land be deposited to the credit
of the lapproprmate fund (at that time the policemen and firemen
funlds were kept separately). The a:sets of each fund were to be ised
for the relief of any policeman or fireman who. because of "injutr
receivedd or diseasee contracted in the line of (luty, or having -served
not less than fifteen years," became so permnentlv disabled as to neces-
sitate his discharge from service. Also, if a policeman or fireman died
from duty-incurred injury or disease, his widow and children under
sixteen, year of age were entitled to benefits. The maximum monthly
aiinuity jtavment was $50.
Al.hough disability and death benefits were not funded in advance
on un acuarial baisis, those assets not immediately used for providing
1. 1. 1, 1204. 1
a Ibid., Pl). 15, 1G, 20 .21.

police and fireman's relief were to be invested in United States and
District of Columbia bonds. However, the cost of the disability and
death benefits, even in the earliest years, were such that each year the
funds on hand were never sufficient to pay the disabled employees
who were entitled to an annunity. As a result, the funds solvency relied
on the "charitable public of the District of Columbia" to buy tickets
to annual excursions as well as donations from "some kindhearted
citizen. '
In 1895" 1896, 1901 and 1907 Congress passed bills to make up fund
deficiencies (see 29 Stat. 755, 29 Stat. 404-405, 29 Stat. 820. 34 Stat.
1003). The first two of these acts allowed the allocation from police
court receipts of sums necessary to meet deficiencies in both the police-
men and firemen's funds. The 1901 and 1907 acts made dog license
receipts also available to meet fund deficiencies. However, the sources
of income still proved to be insufficient. On March 4, 1909, Congress
)assed an act (35 Stat. 1066) authorizing the payment of pension
deficiencies that existed 15 years earlier for the period between June 1,
1894 and May 31, 1896. The sources of income to the fund were again
insufficient to pay benefits due over the period January 1, 1911 to
July 30, 1915. It was not until April 13, 1926, over ten years later,
that Congress approved an act to provide for the payment of the
benefits due the retired members of the police and fire departments
but unpaid over this four and one-half year period.
Thus, the policemen and firemen's disability system resembled a
"pay-if-you-could" system prior to the establishment of the policemen
and firemen's relief fund in 1916.
4 Report of the Commissioners of District of Columbia, 54th Congress, 2nd Session: 464.


The policemen and firemen's relief fund originated in the D.C.
appropriations act of 1917 (enacted September 1, 1916). The section
dealing with policemen and firemen's relief (reproduced below) com-
bined the two separate funds into one which became known as the
"Policemen and Firemen's relief fund, District of Columbia." It also
provided for appropriations to be made from the general revenues of
the District of Columbia to cover deficiencies which might occur in
the fund.
The 1916 Act provided for payment of medical and hospital services
for temporary disablement from service-connected injury or disease.
In addition, a policeman or fireman could retire at the discretion of the
District Commissioners at 50 percent of the salary he received at the
date of his retirement if he had reached 60 or if he (1) became perma-
nently disabled through a service-connected injury or disease, or (2)
became permanently disabled for any cause after having served 25
years and having reached age 55.
The way Congress set up the financing of the policemen and fire-
men's retirement and disability system in 1916, the only time the Dis-
trict of Columbia was authorized to contribute to the fund out of
general revenues was if the fund was insufficient to defray the ex-
penditures for that year.
Section 12 established a combined policemen and firemen's relief
fund as follows:
SEC. 12. That from and after the passage of this Act the funds now authorized
by law and known as the "police relief fund" and the "firemen's relief fund"
shall be designated and known as the "policemen and firemen's relief fund,
District of Columbia."
The said fund shall consist of all fines imposed by the Commissioners of the
District of Columbia upon members of the police and fire departments of said
District by way of discipline; all rewards, proceeds of gifts, and emoluments
that may be received by any member of said departments (for extraordinary
services), except such part thereof as the said commissioners may allow to be
retained by members of said departments; a deduction of one and one-half per
centumn of the monthly salary of each member of said departments; donations;
and the net proceeds of sales of unclaimed property in the custody of the property
clerk of the police department; all of which shall be paid into the Treasury of
the United States to the credit of the "policemen and firemen's relief fund,
District of Columbia," herein provided for; and should the said fund at any
time be insufficient to defray the expenditures hereinafter provided for, the Com-
missioners of the District of Columbia, in that event, are authorized, and it shall
be their duty, to direct the collector of taxes of said District, and it shall be
the duty of the said collector, pursuant to such direction, to pay into the
Treasury of the United States, out of the general revenue of the District of
Columbia collected by him, to the credit of the said "policemen and firemen's
relief fund, District of Columbia," such sums as may be necessary from time to
time to meet deficiencies in said fund. The moneys to the credit of the said fund
shall be available for appropriation by Congress annually only for expenditure
on requisitions of the said commissioners for the purposes set forth in this Act,

and all expenditures from said fund shall be made and accounted for in the same
manner as other expenditures of the government of the District of Columbia are
iade and accounted for.
[39 Stat. 718]
It is interesting to note the January 20, 1926 House District Com-
mittee Report accompanying H.R. 5010 (House Rept. No 127, 69th
C onrless. 1st Session) which led to the appropriation of $68,425.06
to pay the deficiency over the 1911-1915 period discussed above, where-
in it was stated:
Septeniber 1, 1916. Congress, by the provisions of the District of Columbia
appropriation act, abolished the then existing relief funds for the police and
fire department and consolidated them into one under the title of the "Police-
men and Firemen's Relief Fund, District of Columbia." This act of Congress
placed the pcni8ion system of these departments on a sound financial basis, and
(ill deficietcies are taken care of. [Emphasis supplied.]
Similarly, in the letter to the Chairman of the House District Com-
mittee which was included in House Report No. 1,7, the Commissioner
of the District of Columbia commented in regard to the 1916 Act that:
Under this law Congress for the first time placed the pension system of the
police and fire departments on a sound and stable financial basis. In its practical
operation the amounts necessary to be credited to the policemen and firemen's
relief fund to prevent deficiencies therein become a first lien on the general
revenues of the District of Columbia collected by the collector of taxes.'

On February 17. 1923, Congress approved an act to equalize pen-
sions of retired policemen and firemen under which all persons re-
ceiving benefits were entitled to "all pension benefits resulting from
any crease in pay that has or may hereafter be granted by Con-
gress." (Existing law had limited the amount of pension upon retire-
Inent to 50 percent of the salary received by the member at the date
of retirement.) The 1923 act also set the maximum relief payment to
any widow of a policeman or fireman at not more than $60 per month.

On May 27, 1924, Congress approved an amendment to the 1916
act which increased deductions from the salaries of members of the
police forces to 21/2 percent of pay and specified that "on nd after
July 1, 192, ppropritins to pay relief and other allowances author-
ized by said section 12 of the Aet of September 1. 1916, shall be paid
60 per centum from the revenues of the District of Columbia and
4 per centumn from the revenues of the United States." (43 Stat. 176)
Shortly thereafter on June 7. 1924. contributions were also set at
211 percent of pay for firemen (43 Stat. 560).
Feuding deficiencies after July 1. 1924. were thus shared on a
"sixty-forty" basis with the District of Columbia picking up the
bigger share of the deficiency. rhis continued until 1957 when the
provision was repealed. Section 6 of the 1957 amendments authorized
to be appropriated such sums as were necessary to reimburse the Dis-
trict of Columbia for benefit payments made from the revenues of
Letter dated February q. 1924. to lion. Stuart F. Reed. Chairman, Committee on the
Dflitrit of Columbia from Cuno If. Rldnph, PresddIent Board of (Commnissioners. District
of Columbia. See If. Rept. No. 127, With Cong., 1st Ses. to accompany IIR. 5010.

the District of Columbia under the provisions of the Policemen and
Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act, to the extent that such
benefits exceeded the deduction from the salaries of the employees.
The maintenance of the policemen and firemen's relief fund was
abolished in the D.C. Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1936 (ap-
proved June 14,1935). It provided:
That commencing with July 1, 1935, and thereafter, all moneys now required
to be deposited to the credit of the policemen and firemen's relief fund, District
of Columbia, under section 12 of the Act approved September 1, 1916 (39 Stat.
718), as amended, shall be paid to the collector of taxes of the District of
Columbia, and deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the revenues of said
District. [49 Stat. 358]
While this did not affect the payment of benefits, monies were no
longer maintained in a separate fund.

In 1941 Congress approved a provision requiringtheTreasury
Department to make a study of the policemen and firemen's program
"to determine the proper proportionate contributions of the members
of the participating forces and the District of Columbia, including
necessary legislative recommendations." (Report included in Appen-

As far as can be determined, over forty years transpired before any
mention was found in the legislative history concerning the adequacy
of the pay-as-you-go method of financing policemen and firemen's
retirement and disability benefits. The Senate District Committee
remarked in its 1957 report that:
As far back as can be determined, this retirement system was not of a funded
nature. The. method of appropriating annually to meet the expenditures of the
pension system has been continually in effect. There were never enough funds
in the system to create any specific funded retirement plan. Therefore, as the
term is generally understood to mean, since the inception of the police and fire-
men's retirement system, there was never an invested fund.6
The first time that financing retirement benefits was discussed in any
depth was during the hearings leading up to the passage of Public
Law 85-157 (H.IR. 6517) 'enacted on August 21, 1957. The main thrust
of the act known as the "Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and
Disability Act Amendments of 1957" was to increase disability bene-
fits for service-connected injuries. Prior to passage there -"as a maxi-
mum limit oi service-connected disabilities of 50 percent of salary.
This was increased to a new maximum limit of 70 percent. At the
same time, the legislation specified that the minimum service-connected
disability benefit would be 662/3 percent of salary. Some of the other
major features of the legislation were that it increased the rate of
6 Senate Report No. 699 to accompany H.R. 6517, 85th Congress, ast Session: 4.

menmtlber contributions from 5 percent of saIary to 61 pe t; p
v ded for nonserv ice -connected disability after- 5 Ve of service;
and provided that age -0 was the minimum age a policman or fire-
nmn would be eligible to retire after v0 years of Service.
Senate Report No. 699, dated July 2:3. 1957. which accompanied
c.R. 6517 addres-ed itself to the question of financingretirement
benefits. It states in pertinent part:
Under existing law, if the retirement fund at any time is insufficient to dfray
the exp.enditures required of it, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
in that event, are authorized to direct the Collector of Taxes of the District of
Columbia to pay into the Treasury of the United States out of general revenues
of the District of Columbia, to the credit of the Policemen and Firemen's Relief
Fund of the District of Columbia, the sums necessary to meet the said deficiencies.
Under H.R. 6517, the aforementioned authorization would still be in effectexcept
that the employees' contribution to the fund is raised 1.5 percent from a 5 per-
cent retent, to a 6.5 percent retent.
The system presently in operation is known as a pay-as-you-go system, mean-
ing that the District of Columbia pays those expenditures above the amount of
the annual recent as these expenditures arise.
The Fisi-al Affairs Subcommittee held hearings on the companion bill, S. 1770.
,,n May 2 and June 12, 1957, at which time the testimony of the District of
Columbia officials indicated that they would prefer to continue on a pay-as-you-go
basis. The logic presented was based on the history of the system (a pay-as-you-go
system since the latter 1800's), the great number of cities in the country of com-
liarable size that use such a system (cities such as Los Angeles, Calif., Mil-
iukee, Wis., Philadelphia, Pa., and New Orleans, La., have policmen and fire-
iuen's pensions that are not of a funded nature), and that the use of a pay-as-you-
go system has been quite satisfactory to the District of Columbia since its
In. the unpublished report of the proceedings, the then.Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs (Senator Bible) of the Senate
0 committee on the District of Columbia asked the Director of General
Administration of the District of Columbia (Mr. Schuyler Lowe)
to develop for the record whether the D.C. Policemen and Firemen's
Pension system was a trust fund retirement system or whether it was
a pay-as-you-go system. Mr. Lowe replied as follows:
Mr. LOWE, This system in the District Government is a pay as you go system,
and it has been, as I understand it, from just about the very beginning. Our
other retirement systems in the District Government are funded. Mostly our
employe-,are under the Civil Service Retirement System. As you know, that is
a funded operation to which the District Government as employer contributes its
pre-cribed amount each year, in addition to turning over the deductions withheld
from the employee's salary. The Teachers' Retirement System is funded sepa-
rately. We, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, administer the funding
provisions of the Teachers' Retirement System.
eator BiBL. How does that work by comparison with the police? One is a
trust fund and the other is pay as you go, is that correct?
Mr. LoNwE. That is correct. In the case of the teachers, we have a trust fund
into which the employee contributions are deposited as they are withheld each
pay day and into which once a year the District Government deposits a lump
sunm to cover the estimated cost and requirements to keep the fund current.
Now. the Commissioners had not considered the fact serious that the Police
and Firemen's Retirement System is not funded. It represents, as you perhaps
know, aout one-sixth of our employees by number. By cost of retirement sys-
stems it runs somewhat more than that. But out of our overall operating lbdget
for the District of Columbia Government the difference between maintaining
this police and freemen's retirement system on an unfunded basis as distinguished
from cfmmencing to funded would not either way create a major financial

Senate Rep.ort No. 699,. dated July 23, 1957, pp. 3 .

complication for the District. We cannot any rea i% why i the future we
would run intu any serial difficulie1 by reason of n + having this system funded.
Senator Bible went on to ask Mr. Lowe whether or not the District
of Cohwibia had given any conlideration to creating a trust ftuid
insofar as the police and firernens fumd was concern-eL
Mr. L-owE. We have not up to this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BIBLK. And why? I mean. you say the teachers have a trust fuid.
Politv do not. Police and firemen do not. Why?
Mr. LowE. Principally the matter has ben one of our available finances for
a trust fund to assist materially in financing the cost.

Senator BIBL. Well. do I understand simply to sum up this phase of the
question, do I understand the position of the City Commissioners to be that they
are perfectly satisfied with the unified system under which you are operating
now insofar as the police and firemen are concerned?
Mr. LOWE. At least they have been up to thds point, Mr. Chairman- We did
feel as a result of these questions that we ought to explore the matter in
considerable detail, but we have not had a chance to do so as of today. We have
discussed it very tentatively with Mr. Jones [the Treasury 'Department Actuary]
and until we can develop more facts
Senator BIBLE. I am not trying to preclude further consideration.
Mr. LoWE. That is right. but they have not heretofore been concerned alout it.
Senator BEALL. There have been several different groups of commi-sioners
over a period of years.
Mr. LOwE. This lack of a fund in the police and firemen's retirement system
dates back approximately forty years.
Senator BEIi. And there would 1e eight or ten groups of Commissioners in
that forty years.
Senator BIBLE. All of them, I assume by the fact that we have an unfunded
system. a pay as you go system. have concurred in that method of handling the
retirement of police and firemen in the District of Columbia. I think that is a
fair assumption.
Mr. LoWE. That certainly would Ie the logical inference.
Senator BIBL, The Chair would certainly suggest that this might be a field
in the future that you can make further study on and probably give it sOme
increased attention.
Senator BALL. Mfr. Chairman, isn't it a fact that a great many of the other
cities work on a pay as you go basis, too?
Senator B I understood Mr. Lowe's statement to be that it was his im-
pression that most cities did work on a pay as you go system.
Mr. LowE. Substantially. They do have elements of funding. One thing that we
have also discussed is the posibility as future increases take place in this
retirement system that we might partially fund, those on a funded basis from
the outset
When the Chairman asked the witnesses whether they had anvthin_
else to offer.the District's Director of General Adnisttraion replied
that itdwould require special legislation to place the policemen's and
firemen's retirement system on a funded basis. The Chairman replied
that he recognized that but thought that the matter sholfld be studied
by the District Government.
Senator Bir.x- Does the City Government have anything more r offer up
and down the table?
Mr. Low F-Mr. Chairman, one thing that was just s ugested to me i that it
would take special legislation for us to place this particular retirement system
on a funded basis The present legislation contemplates an unfunded system.
Senator BIrBL. Yes, I reoznize that, but I do commend to your study the
possibility that it would be on a different basis. Maybe it isn't desirable., but I
think it should be studied
Mr. LOWL. What we wanted to get together was a projection in dollars and
cents under several possible combinations, either continuation as it stand 'r
efforts to, shall I say, fully funded [sic], or partially funded basis.


The District Government had apparently been studying the possi-
bility of funding the policemen and firemen's retirements system be-
cause they mlade available for the hearing record cost figures showing
the estimated level of cost of the pending legislative proposal expressed
a )ei'centage of uavroll on a funded basis (normal cost plus interest
on the unfunded liability) as well as on an unfunded pay-as-you-go
Subsequent to the June 12th hearings, the Director of General
Administration for the District of Columbia sent a letter to Senator
Bible. In his letter dated June 26, 1957, Schuyler Lowe stated that at
the hearings on June 12th, information concerning benefits and costs
of Police and Firemen Retirement systems in other large cities was
requested. He informed the Senator that the District had obtained
this information in 18 cities having a population of more than 500,000.
The data indicated that pay-as-you-go financing of retirement benefits
was prevalent in other cities and that actuarial studies to determine
the costs had not been made in most of the cities:
It should be pointed out, however, that a review of the data obtained by a
U.S. Treasury Actuary shows that valid conclusions concerning the true ac-
tridv:It costs of the systems are difficult or impossible to determine. It is clearly
apparent however that a great majority of these municipal retirement systems
~Jr~61e on a pay-as-you-go basis. Even when retirement trust funds are reported
to oxit. it is further reported that these funds are not at the level that would
be fully funded on an actuarial basis. It is clear that most of these cities have
not determined their future obligations even on the assumption that their
present systems continue to operate without change.
The letter from the Director of General Administration went on to
The, current (most recent fiscal year) cost to the employer in other cities is
somewhat less than in the District Government (16-35 percent versus 20.33 per-
cent). However, such comparison is misleading and should not be used because
virtually all of these cities including Washington, D.C. are operating on a
i -o-1 you-go basis and are not making provisions for future obligations. Low
current pay-as-you-go costs are often more indicative of a recently established
or fast growing system than of low individual benefits, and vice versa. Increases
in current payroll often automatically decrease piy-as-you-go retirement costs
expressed as percentages of such payrolls. If such payroll increases are permanent,
it take[s] many years before the full effect on retirement costs is shown. Gen-
erally, then, actuarial analysis would be required for proper cost comparisons,
and such analysis is generally unavailable. Current pay-as-you-go costs, for the
obvious reasons listed above, are poor substitutes for such actuarial analysis.
During the 13-year period from 1957 to 1970, there is no discussion
by Congress in the legislative history with regard to the adequacy of
various methods of financing retirement benefits.


On January 15, 1920, Congress enacted legislation to provide for the
retirement of public school teachers in the District of Columbia.
Deductions were made from the salaries of every teacher in the public
schools that were to be sufficient to purchase "an annuity equal to 1
per centuni of his average annual basic salary ... for each year of his
whole term of-se vice, payable monthly throughout life, for every such
teacher who shall be retired..." The deductions were to be varied yearly
to correspond to any change in the basic salaries of the teachers but
in no case were to exceed 8 percent of salary or be based on salary in
excess of $1,500. The amounts so deducted were to be deposited in
individual accounts for each teacher and credited with interest at 4
percent per annum compounded annually. The funds thus created
were to be held and invested by the Secretary of the Treasury until
paid out and the income derived from such investments was to con-
stitute part of each fund.
A teacher could retire at the age of sixty-two. Any teacher having
reached the age of forty-five or who had taught continuously for 15
years could retire by reason of accident or illness if incapable of satis-
factorily performing duties as a teacher. Retirement benefits in either
case resulted in an annuity equal to (1) 1 percent of salary for each
year of service and (2) an additional sum of $10 for each year of
service. The minimum annuity on account of retirement for age was
$480 and $420 for disability retirement.
If the deductions from teacher's salaries (together with any interest
earnings) were insufficient to finance that 1 percent of salary benefit,
the District Government was to pay the deficiency. The District was
also directed to finance the additional benefit of $10 for each year of
The Secretary of Treasury was directed to prepare and keep all
tables, records, and accounts required for carrying out the provisions
of the 1920 Act. The Secretary was further directed to make a detailed
comparative report annually to Congress showing all receipts and
disbursements and have an actuarial valuation made every third year
which would show the financial condition of the fund, and to report
the findings of such investigation to Congress.

The D.C. teacher's retirement system operated since its inception
on a different funding basis than the policemen and firemen's system.
In 1946, Congress passed P.L. 79-624 to improve the teacher's retire-
ment system by placing retirement benefits on essentially the same
basis as the Civil Service Retirement System. The law also authorized
the Treasury Department to prepare estimates of annual appropria-
tions that would be needed by the District of Columbia to be made to
the teacher's retirement fund.


Section 2 of the law specified that amounts deducted from the sal-
aries of each1 teacher and ally additional voluntary deposits were to
be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the
teacher's retirement and annuity fund. Also transferred and credited
to the f 1111 were the balances of funds held for the retirement of
teachers under the provisions of section 2 and 7 of the Act of January
15. is), as amended. The fund assets were to be invested by the See-
retary of the Treasury.
The 1946 Act required that the teacher's retirement system operate
on a funded basis. Specifically. section 7 required the amount of each
year's appropriation to be calculated on an actuarial basis:
As a level percentage of the payroll of all participants which shall be adequate
to cover the liability normally accrued plus a further level amount computed to be
sufficient to liquidate the unfunded accrued liability within a period of approxi-
mately twenty years after the effective date of this Act.


On May 22, 1970, Congress enacted Public Law 91-263 (IR. 15980)
which made certain revisions to the retirement benefits of D.C. public
school teachers. It also changed, at the request of the District Govern-
ment, the method of financing the retirement system from a funded
basis to an unfunded basis.
Report No. 91-849 of the House District Committee which accom-
panied IL.R. 15980 explained the modification to the financing formula
for the District of Columbia Government's annual contribution to the
D.C. Teachers Retirement Fund as follows:
Under existing law, the income to the D.C. Teachers Retirement Fund is
derived from three sources, as follows:
1. Teachers' contributions.
2. Interest earned by the reserve funds, which are invested.
3. Contribution from the D.C. government.
Section 7 of the D.C. Teachers' Retirement Act (D.C. Code, sec. 31-727)
requires an annual appropriation from the D.C. General Fund into the D.C.
Teachers Retirement Fund. Each year's appropriation shall be calculated, on an
actuarial basis, as a level percentage of the payroll of all participants sufficient
to cover the liability normally accrued, plus a further amount equal to interest
on tlie unfunded liability.
Prior to fiscal year 1968, the appropriation estimates were prepared in accord-
ance with this provision of law, and your Committee is informed that they were
substantially met, although some discrepancies occurred because the estimates
were necessarily prepared well in advance and thus were based upon projected
payrolls which sometimes proved to be too low. In some instances, also, the
appropriation was not increased by the Congress in accordance with the estimate
At the beginning of fiscal year 1968, the reserve in the Teachers Retirement
Fund amounted to $58.1 million, and the unfunded liability stood at $138.6
million. The District of Columbia government felt that the condition of this fund
was a healthy one, and that further accumulation of substantial amounts of
money in the funds' reserve was not warranted in view the city's need of
revenues for other purposes. Hence, in submitting its budget for fiscal year 1968
to the Congress, the city requested permission to adjust its contribution to
the Teachers Retirement Fund so that the amount appropriated would be suf-
ficient only to provide for the normal cost to the fund for that year, less the
sum of the teachers' contributions and the interest earned by the fund's reserve.
In considering this request, the House Committee on Appropriations took the
position that inasmuch as the District of Columbia government's proposal would
involve a smaller appropriation of funds than would the formula imposed by
existing law, the request was a proper one and within their authority to grant


Accordingly, the D.C. Appropriations Act for 1968 included the appropriation of
funds for the District's contribution to the Teachers Retirement Fund lv
in the amount requested.
For fiscal yeai- 1t8, the contributions to and expenditures from the Retirement
Fund were as follows:
Teachers' contributions---------------------------------------------3.6
Interest earned by reserve funds-------------------------------------2. 0
District of Columbia Government contribution-----------------------8

Total contributions-------------------------------------------9. 4
Cost to the fund (including refunds, benefit payments, and actuarial ex-
penses)---------------------------------------------------------9. 0

Net balance to fund------------------------------------------o. 4
1 Had the District government's contribution been computed on the basis of the formula
provided in Section 7 of the D.C. Teachers' Retirement Act, the amount of the contributions
would have been some $12 million, which would have resulted in a net balance to the
Retirement fund of $8.6 million which would have accrued to the Fund's reserve.
This same formula was included in the District of Columbia appropriations
for fiscal years 1939 and 1970 and has been requested in the District's budget as
submitted for fiscal year 1971 as well.
The bill H.R. 15980 includes a provision, requested by the Commissioner of
the District of Columbia, which will amend Section 7 of the D.C. Teachers' Re-
tirement Act so as to substitute this modified "pay as you go" plan for the "nor-
mal cost plus interest" formula specified in the present law. This plan requires
that the Teachers Retirement Fund be pegged at its level as of June 30, 1969 or
at an amount equal to the employees' equity in the fund, whichever is the larger.
For active teachers, employee equity is simply the total of their contributions.
For retired teachers, it is the total of their contributions which have not been
returned to them in the form of annuities.
To accommodate this recommended change, the law was revised to
The amount of each year's appropriation shall be such amount as is necessary
to maintain during such fiscal year a balance in the teachers' retirement fund
approximately equal, to the nearest million dollar as is necessary to maintain the
equity in such fund of all teachers active and retired, which ever amount is
greater. If at any time the balance in the Teachers' Retirement Fund is not
sufficient to meet all obligations against such fund, the fund will have a claim
on the District of Columbia revenues to the extent necessary to meet such


The Commission on the Organization of the Government of the
District of Columbia (Nelsen Commission) was established on Sep-
tember 22, 1970 (P.L. 91-405) to determine ways to promote economy,
efficiency, and improved services for the District of Colunihia. The
Nelsen Commission made a number of observations and recomnmenda-
tions in its report concerning the financing of the D.C. policemen and
firemen's retirement system, as well as the Teacher's Retirement Sys-
te It commented that "The Fiscal relationship between the District
of Columbia and the Federal Government has always been difficult to
define, let alone quantify." .
In regard to pay-as-you-go methods of financing retirementbeiefits,
the Commission stated that .. it is considered by the actuaries and
professional retirement fund administrators to be fundamentally un-
sound and to be avoided whenever possible." ,
The Nelsen Commission report went on to state:
Unsoundness in a retirement program develops when the long range cost is
not recognized and provided for. Generally; the retirement benefits paid in-the
early years of a program will be very small compared to the level of benefits to
be paid when the program has been in operation for 20 or 30 years. This is a
direct result of the fact that the number of annuitants on the retirement-rolls is
quite small in the early years.'10
As far as the Teachers' Fund was concerned, the Nelsen Commis-
sion report commented:
Starting with the budget submission for the fiscal year 1968, the -District's
pressing requirements for revenues for other purposes led to a District-request
for permission to move away from a funding method that would-have avoided
increases in the unfunded accrued liability. Congressional acceptance of this
approach was reflected in appropriation action on the District Government's con-
tribution to the Fund since the fiscal year 1968. and was formalized by legislation
(requested by the District Government and enacted in 1970 as Public Law 91-
263), establishing the present method of financing which provides only for fund-
ing the annual costs of the systemnY
The Nelson Commission pointed out that although the Teacher's
system was subject to an actuarial valuation by the Secretary of the
Treasury once every five years, there was no similar provision in regard
to the policemen and firemen's retirement system. The report stated:
Because of its seriousness and the urgency of corrective action, the financial
situation of these retirement programs was brought to the attention of the Mayor-
Commissioner by a letter of December 3, 1971 from Chairman Nelsen. The Chair-
man recommended an actuarial study to determine the actual status of the P & F
and Teachers' Retirement Programs and to see what must be done to put them on
a sound financial basis. The Chairman also proposed full disclosure reporting.
Also, on December 3. 1971, Chairman Nelsen asked the Secretary of Treasury to
provide actuarial assistance to the District Government, to which the Secretary

Report of the Commission on the Organization of the Government of the District of
Columbia, Volume II (House Document No. 92-317), 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 509.
9Ibid., p. 526.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., p. 528.


responded affirmatively. The Mayor-Commissioner establlished a project team to
develop propo sals for putting the two programs on a sound actuarial basis; and
on November 30. 1971. the Deputy Mayor-Comnimissioner requested the Treasury
department t0 conduct a study of the funding practices associated with these
rogra ms.'e
The Nelsen Commission recommended in part:
RM-ommendation No. VI-54.-The Commission recommends that the Mayor-
Commissioner, immediately upon completion of the actuarial evaluation initiated
as a result of the Coimlission's iterim recommendation of December 3, 1971,
initiate request for Congressional action to place both the P & F Retirement Pro-
gram and the Teachers' Retirement and Annuity Fund upon a sound actuarial
basis. The following measures as a minimum are deemed neessary:
a. Establishment of the P & F Retirement Program financially as a Fund, i.e.,-
(ledicated funds specifically earmarked for P & FRetirement Program purposes,.
with provision for investment of monies not required for current operations and
for periodic Treasury Department actuarial evaluation.
b. Initiation of action to reverse the present increasing rate of unfunded
accrued liabilities in the P & F Program and the Teachers' Retirement and Aumu-
ity Fund, and to provide a means of financing any liberalization of benefits that
may be approved in the future.'"


Following the Nelsen Commission recommendations, the District
Government began studying various financing alternatives to place the
City's retirement program on a sound actuarial basis. In a report pre-
pared by the District's Office of Budget and Financial Management
entitled "Financing Alternatives for the Police and Fire Retirement
System" dated April 25, 1974, it was stated:
This issue of retirement financing centers on two closely related fiscal respon-
sibilities: (1) meeting a City obligation to provide retirement benefits for former
employees, and (2) establishing a fiscally responsible and actuarially sound
financing plan to cover the cost of these commitnients,. The current method of
pension financing, the pay-as-you-go approach, does not offer amens of funding
future retirement benefits in advance. Under this method, the full burden of
pension annuities is placed on the annual budget after employee retirements take
Place. In contrast, actuarially funded retirement systems create reserves during
periods of active employment to offset the cost of pension payments when retire-
nIent eligibility is ultimately reached. Thus, funded alternatives offer a way of
financing at least a portion of future retirement benefits while employees are
working in,4ead of deferring the entire obligation until pensions fall due.
The report went on to state:
The approaches under consideration provide for varying degrees of Federal
participation in the establishment of the retirement fund over fixed periods of
time. They recognize the 1)istrict of Columbia's unique portion in the Federal
structure and the close Federal-District partnership that has been an intrinsic
p11rt of the 1 egis late history of the Police and Fire Retirement System. More-
over, in relying upon Federal support to create a retirement fund, these ap-
proaches parallel earlier commitments made by the Federal Government involv-
ing the transfer of jurisdiction over existing retirement systems to other govern-
mental 1inits. In addition to these preedents, Congress has provided substantial
support for the Civil Service and Foreign Service retirement systems when earlier
Financing arrangements failed to satisfy minimal funding requirements. In fiscal
year 1974, for example, ti federall Gvernment will make available more than
$2 billion above the normal matching contributions to maintain the financial
p'isition of these retired en t funds.

12 Iid., P. 530.
1 Ibid., pp. ,,"4 ..


In hearings held April 20. 1974, before the Subcommittee on Reve-
nue and Financial Affairs of the House Committee on the District of
Columbia, the Special Assistant to the Mayor-Commissioner stated
that "For nearly three years now, the District Government has been
engaged in exploring alternatives to the present pay-as-you-go method
of financing pension costs." He reiterated:
The approaches under consideration provide for varying degrees of Federal
support over fixed time periods, thus recognizing the unique position of the
District Government in the Federal structure and the close partnership between
the District and Federal Governments in policies affecting city retirement pro-
grams. We believe that options calling for Federal participation in establishing an
actuarilly sound retirement fund are not without precedent. Considerable finan-
cial assistance beyond the normal Federal matching contribution formula has
been provided for the Civil Service and Foreign Service Retirement Systems to
make up for inadequate funding of these programs in the past. Since Federal
appropriations would be required to implement any of these options, the District
must await clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before
introducing proposed legislation. Toward this end, we have contacted appropriate
0MB officials and plan to begin exploring these options with them at their earliest


During hearings on May 30, 1974 before the Subcommittee on Edu-
cation of the House Committee on the District of Columbia on H.R.
14662 and H.R. 14400 to authorize the D.C. Council to provide pay
increases for teachers and H.R. 13970 to increase retired teachers' an-
nuities, the the District Government submitted a written response to
questions of the Education Subcommittee. Following are the first two
questions asked by the Education Subcommittee and the District Gov-
ernment's response:
1. Was the Teachers' Retirement System ever funded in the past?
The Teachers' Retirement System has been funded since 1920. The assets of
the fund, approximately $60 million, are invested in U.S. Treasury securities in
accordance with the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Act. Further
growth in the size of the fund is limited by statute which places a ceiling on the
assets of the Teachers' Retirement System. The retirement financing method
used prior to 1968 took into account the amount of retirement liabilities ac-
cruing each year. The present method, however, does not follow this procedure
and therefore does not provide for full financing.
Why and how did this financing problem arise ?
Prior to 1968, the Teachers' Retirement System was financed on a relatively
strong funding basis with full provision for annually accruing liabilities and
interest on the unfunded liability. Because of the healthy condition of the re-
tirement fund, a more modest financing standard was proposed as a means of
satisfying retirement obligations. Although the proposal reduced the amount
of annual appropriations for building the fund, it guaranteed the payment of
all retirement obligations when they fall due, thereby safeguarding current and
future pension benefits to all eligible employees. The proposed change in the financ-
ing method was authorized by Congress in 1970 with the enactments of Public
Law 91-263. However, since that time, additional salary increases, benefit ad-
justments and unprecedented cost of living pension increases have weakened the
actuarial condition of the fund, thus making it less sound than anticipated when
the financing change was initially proposed. For this reason, the District Gov-
ernment has developed alternative financing options to strengthen the actuarial
position of the fund.
What legal safeguards should be considered to preserve a sound fund herein-
The District Government is firmly committed to improving the actuarial sound-
ness of the Teachers' Retirement Fund. The three financing options presented to
the Committee are intended to accomplish this objective. Legislation along the
lines suggested in the alternative funding approaches would offer practical and
reasonable safeguards to preserve an actuarially sound fund.
2. How long have these options been pending in the Executive Office and when
can the Committee reasonably expect that legislation will be available to act on?
The options were described on a conceptual level for the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) on April 25, 1974 at which time they were presented with
specific cost data on the Police and Fire Retirement System. After actuarial
data on the Teachers' Retirement System had been developed, cost projections
were submitted to OMB on May 22, 1974. Meetings on the retirement financing
issue have already been held between OMB and District Government representa-
tives. We are now awaiting OMB's response to the proposed options. A formal
legislative proposal cannot be submitted by the District Government until the
Executive Branch has taken an official position on this issue.


The Office of Management and Budget reviewed the financing pro-
posals submitted to it by the District of Columbia Government, as
well as other proposals calling for Federal participation in financing
the unfunded liabilities of the D.C. policemen and firemen's retire-
ment system. The Office of Management and Budget strongly opposed
the enactment of legislation providing for Federal appropriations for
all or part of the past unfunded liability in the Police and Fire Re-
tirement Program. Pertinent excerpts of the June 10, 1974 OMB letter
to the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Revenue and Finan-
cial Affairs are as follows:
As a local employee pension program, we believe the issue of appropriate
financing essentially involves a weighing of the various demands of the District's
resources. To the best of our knowledge, the operation of the program on a
"pay-as-you-go" basis arises from past District of Columbia financial decisions.
If, as a result of the current review, it is decided that increased amounts should
be allotted to establishing a P & F pension fund, options would include added
revenues through tax increases, increased contribution rates by employees, pro-
gram level changes in other areas, or some combination of all of these measures.
It is recognized that the District, while a municipal government, bears a
unique relationship to the Federal Government. Because of this relationship,
Congressional enactments have been the means of legislating pension program
benefits for the District. Some have argued that the fact that Congress has
enacted the legislation establishing the P & F program and subsequent benefit
increases, implies a Federal obligation to participate in program financing. In
this respect, we believe that Congress was acting in its local governing capacity
in the case of this program. Moreover, the benefit package of the program, as
passed by Congress, is comparable to similar retirement programs as passed
by State and local governments in other jurisdictions. Therefore, we are unable
to discern a Federal responsibility for explicitly participating in any financing
of the program with respect to future benefit accruals.
In consideration of past service benefit accruals, which have given rise to a
significant unfunded liability the key issue relates to the manner in which the
program has been financed. The question of appropriate financing is and has been
a question of the District's allocation of its resources, part of which are de-
rived from the Federal payment. This payment represents a discharge of the
Federal obligations to the City and is intended to compensate, as indicated in
the D.C. Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act, for, among
other recurring and non-recurring costs, unreimbursed services rendered to the
Federal Government by the District. Thus, any costs of police and fire protection
provided by the District are already compensated for through the Federal pay-
ment. There has been no indication that the decision to finance the program on
a "pay-as-you-go" basis involved Federal participation or endorsement. There-
fore, we see no justification for the Federal Government to assume any re-
sponsibility for unfunded past service liability. To do so, would amount to an
additional Federal payment for services which presumably have already been
paid for through the medium of the Federal payment.

In summary, as noted above, the Office of Management and Budget sees no
justification either in administrative or legislative history for the appropria-
tion of Federal funds to help fund the D.C. policemen and firemen retirement



(1) 1885 (23 Stat. 316-317)-First legislation establishing police and fire-
men's disability retirement funds. Passed February 25:1885.
(2) 1895 (28 Stat. 755) -Legislation allowing deficiencies in relief funds to be
covered by receipts from police court fines; limit set for maximum
amount of fines that could be used to meet deficiencies.';
(3) 1896 (29 Stat. 404-405)-Legislation allowing deficiencies in relief fund to
be covered by receipts from police court fines; limit on maximum
available was removed.
(4) 1901 (29 Stat. 820)-Legislation allowing deficiencies in relief fund to be
covered by police court and dog license receipts; provisions con-
cerning coverage and benefits included.
(5) 1901 (31 Stat. 1020)-Legislation concerning coverage of firemen and their
(6) 1906 (34 Stat. 95)-Legislation extending benefits to dependent mothers
of police and firemen.
(7) 1907 (34 Stat. 1003) -Legislation amends 29 Stat. 820; the use of police
court receipts and dog license receipts dependent on establishment
of maximum benefit allowances for certain officers of police and
and fire departments.
(8) 1908 (35 Stat. 39)-Legislation extending firemen's coverage to the chief
engineer of the fire department.
(9) 1909 (35 Stat. 657) -Legislation extending medical services to firemen
injured in the line of duty.
(10) 1909 (35 Stat. 1066) -Legislation directs commissioners to pay benefits
previously unpaid because of fund deficiencies.
(11) 1916 (35 Stat. 718-721)-Legislation combined the Police fund and the
Firemen's fund into one, The Police and Firemen's Fund, District
of Columbia: (a) S. Doc. 10-Hearings held before the Subcom-
mittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia, April 29,
(12) 1923 (42 Stat. 1263)-Legislation makes pensioners entitled to all benefit
increases resulting from pay increases: (a) S. Rept. 589.
(13) 1924 (43 Stat. 176)-Legislation increases deductions to be made from
police salaries; specifies amount of deficiencies that the Federal
and District Governments are to cover.
(14) 1924 (43 Stat. 560)-Increases deductions from firemen's pay.
(15) 1926 (44 Stat. 245)-Legislation directs commissioners to pay benefits
which had previously been unpaid because of fund deficiencies:
(a) H. Rept. 127.
(b) S. Rept. 426.
(16) 1930 (46 Stat. 840-841)-Legislation increased amount to be deducted
from police and firemen's pay.
(17) 1935 (49 Stat. 358)-Legislation to pay relief allowances provided that
money now paid to the treasury to the credit of the Police and
Firemen's Fund shall, in the future be paid to the credit of the
general revenues of the District of Columbia.
(18) 1940 (54 Stat. 1118-1119) -Legislation provides for retirement not based
on disability; maximum benefits outlined.
(19) 1941 (55 Stat. 515)-Appropriations legislation which required that the
Treasury Department study the proper proportionate contribu-
tions of participating parties.


(20) 1949 (63 Stat. 565-566)-Legislation alters amount of benefits; deductions
from police and firemen's salary increased.
(21) 1953 (67 Stat. 75)-Legislation allows retired police and firemen to re-
ceive increases in benefits as salary of active police and firemen
(22) 1957 (71 Stat. 391)-Policemen and Firemen's Retirement and Disability
Act amendments of 1957. Major revision of the 1916 and 1935 laws:
(a) H. Rept. 530.
(b) S. Rept. 323.
(c) S. Rept. 699.
(d) Hearings held before Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs of the
Committee on the District of Columbia, June 12, 1957.
(e) Letter to Senator Bible from Schuyler Lowe.
(23) 1958 (72 Stat. 686)-Legislation increases amount to be deducted from
police and firemen's pay.
(24) 1962 (76 Stat. 402) -Legislation extends benefits to police or firemen or
their survivors who retired prior to passage of the 1957 Act.
(2-) 1963 (76 Stat. 1133) -Legislation alters disability retirement benefits.
(26) 1970 (84 Stat. 1392) -Legislation amends 71 Stat. 391, subsection (a) (3),
extending benefits to widow of officer who was married after
(27) 1971 (85 Stat. 341) -Legislation provides for the payment of the cost of
medical care services provided certain retired, disabled officers of
the police and fire departments.
(28) 1972 (86 Stat. 634-641)--Increases retirement benefits as salary of active
officers increase.


(1) 1020 (41 Stat. 387-390) -Legislation established retirement system for
teachers in the District of Columbia.
(2) 1926 (44 Stat. 727-731)-Amended 41 Stat. 387-390.
(3) 1946 (60 Stat. 875-882)-Legislation designed to place D.C. teachers' re-
tirement system on a basis similar to Civil Service Retirement,
particularly concerning benefits.
(4) 1947 (61 Stat. 750) -Legislation amends section 7 of the 1946 law (60 Stat.
(5) 1949 (63 Stat. 306) -Legislation appropriated funds to meet teachers' re-
tirement fund needs; provided, that the Treasury Department pre-
pare estimates of annual appropriations to teachers' fund.
(6) 1951 (65 Stat. 156)-Legislation similar to 63 Stat. 306.
(7) 1952 (66 Stat. 17)-Legislation designed to amend 60 Stat. 875, specifically
concerning annuities and annuity computation.
(8) 1956 (70 Stat. 487)--Legislation increases teachers' annuities.
(9) 1957 (71 Stat. 46-48) -Legislation to amend 60 Stat. 875-882; deduction
from teacher's pay increased; retirement eligibility and benefits
(10) 1958 (72 Stat. 1768-1769) -Legislation increases teachers' retirement an-
(11) 1962 (76 Stat. 1235-1238) -Legislation provides for further increases in
annuities; future increases in annuities made dependent on in-
creases in the consumer price index.
(12) 1966 (80 Stat. 266-267)-Legislation increased teachers' annuities.
(13) 1967 (81 Stat. 747-751)-Legislation outlines retirement requirements.
(14) 1970 (84 Stat. 257-260)-Revision of teachers' retirement system.
(a) H. Rept.91-849.
(b) Hearings on H.R. 15980 held on February 27, 1970.
(15) 1972 (86 Stat. 131) -Legislation to authorize the Commissioner of the
District of Columbia to enter into agreements concerning annuity
(16) 1972 (86 Stat. 1012-1015) -Legislation makes revisions in the retirement
benefits of teachers: annuity computation method revised; etc.
(17) Hearings before the Subcommittee on Revenue and Financial Affairs of the
Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, on
H.R. 14212 et al., December 6, 1973; April 25, 1974; June 12, 1974.
(18) Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on the
District of Columbia, House of Representatives, on H.R. 14662, et al.,
May 30,1974.