less and less effective. The legislation and the discussion would expand the number of doctors on the commission.

Do you have any specific examples in mind as to past policies and procedures which might have been different had there been representation provided for in the legislation?

Dr. KORENGOLD. Yes; I do. I think, to go back to some of the comments I made, I think a committee of physicians might have taken a different attitude in the area of licensing. For example, one of the world's leading brain surgeons-they would determine his qualifications to perform his particular area of expertise. They wouldn't ask has he been out of medical school for more than 10 years and therefore have to follow certain prerequisites; however the rules that exist preclude him from being able to be considered for this position.

We are interested in getting the best possible people here in this community. We are interested in getting more people in this community. We are interested in keeping people in this community in order to practice. I think this is merely one example.

There is another example that occurred about a year ago. I don't know whether it came to your attention or not at the time. But two nonphysicians were given licenses to practice medicine on the basis of fraudulent applications. Once this was discovered the question of taking the licenses away from these people came up and according to the way the Commission was set up and the law that was provided for, it took a time of some 3, 4, or 5 months, somewhere from January to May or June, before action could be taken. In the meantime the papers continued to be filled with material about people who were still practicing medicine, even though it had been determined clearly that they were not physicians because of the delays that were set up and the legal mechanisms and the delays in the Commission itself. We feel that if the Commission has the kind of medical input that it should have, these things can be dealt with more expediently and perhaps not occur in the first place. I think there are a number of examples where a change in the composure of the Commission would improve and upgrade the kinds of care and treatment that is offered in our community. We happen to be a very unusual community, a small geographic area with three major medical schools located here, a center of training. We happen to have Walter Reed, Bethesda Naval, NIH, all centers of great excellence, attracting great specialists. Many of these people after they serve a period of time choose to remain in this community and some of our rules and regulations keep some of these good people from staying in the District so they settle in Maryland and Virginia or else move away. I think if we can have a board that is medically oriented we could do something to help the health needs of our community.

Senator BUCKLEY. The bill under consideration provides that the Commissioner would have to make his appointments from nominees provided him. Would you prefer a system whereby he was limited by only the classification and qualifications written within the bill and have a greater freedom of choice in appointing members of the Commission?

Dr. KORENGOLD. If I understand you correctly, would I prefer to have him limited by the categories as proposed in the bill?

Senator BUCKLEY. As I understand it, he has to select his appointees from the nominees presented to him, specific individuals, which it therefore necessarily restricts him to those names. Would you rather broaden his ability to reach out and find ones in his judgment that are better qualified?

Dr. KORENGOLD. It is my understanding the nominations from various categories are presented to him so he can make a selection. If he doesn't like the nominees he can reject them all and ask for a new set of nominations that would really give him an opportunity I think for the selection. I think that if you are going to have medical representation from a medical society, from a medical school, that it would be desirable that the people in the know in these schools might have some opportunity to provide those with the greatest knowledge and interest in this area and by providing two names and his selecting one-it gives an option. If he doesn't approve of these names he can ask for new names. I think this would give him basically a wider choice if for any reason he was unhappy with the nominees. But, at the same time, I think it would help protect the schools and the medical community and the people at large that responsible nominees were being made as seen through the eyes of the various medical schools and the medical societies.

Senator BUCKLEY. Do you see any danger in a proposal of temporary licensing of residents? Any danger that this would loosen the ability to control doctors in prescribing drugs and so on?

Dr. KORENGOLD. No; I don't. I don't at all. I think this would be most desirable, new changes in the narcotics regulations, broaden the number of drugs involved. At the present time, according to the current regulations, a third- or fourth-year resident doesn't have the right to prescribe phenobarbitol to help a patient in a hospital fall asleep at night without having it countersigned by someone who has a D.C. license. This becomes a most difficult task for hospitals to carry on their daily work.

In terms of the prescribing of narcotics and for that matter all drugs, all of this is under supervision and review. But from the pure day-by-day, or for that matter, night-by-night operation, 2 o'clock in the morning Mrs. Jones can't sleep and the house officer is called and doesn't have the authority to write, say, for a drug. It imposes restrictions on vital aspects of hospital operation.

Senator BUCKLEY. The bill speaks of allowing the temporary licensing of doctors for practice in hospitals. Would the medical society object to broadening that authorization so that temporary licenses could operate in free clinics, for example?

Dr. KORENGOLD. We would like to see the temporary licenses not permit these doctors to practice in areas where they would not be under supervision. In other words, if you give them a temporary permit that permits them to practice in Georgetown University Hospital and you say, well, you can do all the work in Georgetown and any related work Georgetown may have, out of the hospital itself, any of their subsidiary clinic operations, this is fine. Now, does this license also permit him to work for Dr. Smith on weekends and cover his responsibilities? I think we want to avoid that sort of thing. On the other hand we are most eager, even prior to the presentation of this bill, to get temporary licensure for not only the house officer but for physicians in the sur

rounding areas. Primarily those in the military and service hospitals and government who aren't licensed in the District to have a temporary license specifically for working in narcotic treatment centers, specifically for working in free clinics.

We need all the help we can get and we've got to reduce this need. Senator BUCKLEY. In that general connection, Doctor, I read, what to me, was an interesting article in a recent issue of the National Observer about the problem of many Americans who for one reason or another cannot have access to medical schools in this country so they go abroad. When they come back to this country they find that there are impediments that increase the internship and all that they are required to take. I know it is perhaps not relevant to this particular piece of legislation but I would be interested in your views on that problem.

Dr. KORENGOLD. Well, I can speak personally about this issue. From my point of view as president of the Medical Society, I feel that it is not so important where you came from as where your education was obtained-any more than Abe Lincoln from the front stoop in his log cabin. I think that it is important, what kind of education you received there and to say that all people coming from certain geographic areas, or for that matter even certain schools, are to get certain advantages or have disadvantages, doesn't seem as fair to me as to test them, give them an examination, and there is such an examination, the EFMG for medical graduates. To be a house officer in the city of Washington you must pass this particular examination. I think it is the quality of the physician and the knowledge that he has that should be considered, not what school he came from.

There are a lot of Americans trained in Scotland, England, Ireland, Switzerland, and Mexico, because they couldn't get into American schools. Not because they are not bright enough-but because there aren't places enough. An example of this is Georgetown University. This current selection time, there are 12,000 applications for 175 positions. Now, these people are going to have to go somewhere if they want to be doctors. If it is not in this country it will be elsewhere. I think we should consider the fact that we want doctors that can do the job and we should be able to examine them, test them, and if they pass that should be our criteria, too.

Senator BUCKLEY. One last question, Doctor, in terms of the Commission. My understanding is that you feel the medical input has to be increased so that we can get the benefit of the broad representation of the medical profession in this community. If it were the position of this committee to recommend a reduction of some of the nondoctor memberships would you have any comment on the desirability of maintaining the numbers of nonmedical participation?

Dr. KORENGOLD. At the present time, I think, according to the composition of the recommended 11-there are two laymen, plus the Corporation Counsel would be the total of three-the rest are all medically oriented, either osteopaths or physicians. I think that in the interest of current thinking in medical areas, that lay input has value. I think that whether one talks about reducing the numbers, one has to consider that fact and particularly in Washington, D.C., which I think is a more sensitive area about consumer interest. Having lay members is a sort of protection in a sense and can be valuable input to the physician. I would favor continuing lay input, whether it be one, two,

or three is another story. I think the number of physicians as selected encompasses the fact that there are three medical schools in this area. To say one medical school representative or two would in some way, I think, be unfair to all three schools. I think we can only benefit by this kind of participation.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming here to give us this testimony.

The next witness is Mr. Raeder.
Please proceed, Mr. Raeder.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT 0. RAEDER, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. RAEDER. My name is Albert Raeder. I am the executive assistant of the Fire Fighters Association of the District of Columbia. We are most appreciative, incidentally, that the committee affords us this opportunity to testify. Our statement is very short.

The Fire Fighters Association of the District of Columbia supports H.R. 2600 and urges its passage.

We base our position on the simple fact that there is no particular magic in the date of October 1, 1956. If one retired on September 30 of that year, his annuity was 50 percent; if retired after that date it became 66 percent if the retirement was based on physical disability. We view these disparate rates as inconsistent. If the Congress felt that a more generous retirement benefit was owed to the firefighter of the post-1956 era, is it not also truly a benefit to which the firefighter who retired prior to that date is entitled?

We remind you that death has taken its toll of most of those who would originally have benefited. As we understand it, only 156 members of all forces, average age 73, are presently entitled to the provisions of the bill. In 10 years this number will have been reduced to 41, by actuarial estimate of the U.S. Treasury.

The pensions of all widows are now based on 40 percent of the basic salary of their retiree husbands, with no regard to whether or not their husbands retired prior to October 1, 1956. It seems eminently unfair to us that our retirees prior to that date can only achieve equity after their death.

Again, we support the passage of H.R. 2600.

I might add, Senator, in the interest of time, the Retired Fire Fighters Association, which is Chapter 512 of the National Association of Retired Employees, although in the interest of time they are not testifying, wish to convey through me they ardently support our views on this matter.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much. You have given the number of individuals involved in this. Do you have any figures as to what this would mean in terms of dollars and cents?

Mr. RAEDER. I understand for fiscal year 1972, financial costs would be $336,200. Over a 5-year period, through 1976, based upon present salary levels, the projected cost would be $1,414,200, with a phaseout completely around 1992.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you. If this bill were to be adopted and these benefits extended to those retired before that magic date there

would, of course, be pressures on the part of the other groups of employees, retired Government and city employees, for equivalent adjustments. Do you have any figures that would indicate what this might open up in terms of numbers and costs?

Mr. RAEDER. I wouldn't have any idea, Senator, as to what it would open up as to terms of numbers or cost. But it seems to me that this is not entirely relevant. The name of the game, insofar as police and fire is concerned, is hazard. It is on that fact that our more generous retirement benefits have been granted to us. The point, it seems to me, is this: if it is recognized that this entitles those presently engaged in the pursuit of firefighting and police work, if we recognize that today's hazards entitle our present people to more magnificent pensions than those engaged in more sedentary pursuits, then it seems to me entirely consistent that this more generous attitude could be made applicable to those who retire prior to a certain given date.

Senator BUCKLEY. Well answered. Thank you very much.
Mr. RAEDER. Thank you, sir.

Senator BUCKLEY. The next witness is Mr. Sullivan. John L. Sullivan.

You may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, RETIRED POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY EVERETT L. COOPER, PRESIDENT, POLICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, first, before I start, I would like to introduce to my left the President of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia, Mr. Everett L. Cooper, he represents the Metropolitan, Executive Protective Service, formerly known as the White House Force and the U.S. Park Police.

Members of the committee: My name is John L. Sullivan. I am a retired inspector of the Metropolitan Police Department. I appear here today on behalf of the Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia. I had the honor and privilege of being the chairman of their legislative committee for many years. I am now the chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Association of Retired Policemen of the District of Columbia, representing retired policemen of the Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Park Police Force and the Executive Protective Service (formerly the White House Police Force).

I might add, Mr. Chairman, I am the vice chairman of the National Conference of Police Associations which represents over 150,000 policemen in North America.

I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today on behalf of our Association to present our views on H.R. 2600.

This bill was passed by the House of Representatives on April 27, 1971, to equalize the retirement benefits for officers and members of the Metropolitan Police Force, Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the White House Police Force (now the Executive Protective Service) and the U.S. Park Police Force who are retired for permanent total disability.