101ST CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT 101-123 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE AUTHORIZATION AND EXPANSION ACT OF 1989 SEPTEMBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 6), 1989.-Ordered to be printed Mr. GLENN, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, REPORT [To accompany S. 1502] The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 1502) to authorize the appropriation of funds to the District of Columbia for additional officers and members of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and to provide for the implementation in the District of Columbia of a community-oriented policing system, having considered the same, reports thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY In order to augment law enforcement efforts in the Nation's Capital, H.R. 1502 authorizes the appropriation of funds over a fiveyear period to provide for the salaries and expenses of 700 additional officers and members of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. Section 2 of the bill amends the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (the "Home Rule Act") to provide the foregoing authorization, which is in addition to the authorization for the annual Federal payment to the District of Columbia presently contained in the Home Rule Act. H.R. 1502 authorizes $23,190,000 for fiscal year 1990 and slightly larger amounts in succeeding years, culminating in $28,367,000 for fiscal year 1994. The expenditure of these funds is conditional upon the Mayor's notification of Congress that a community-oriented polic ing system has been planned and implemented by the District of Columbia. Section 3 of H.R. 1502 requires the District of Columbia, with the assistance of the Bureau of Prisons and the National Institute of Corrections, to develop a criminal recordkeeping and classification system which will facilitate the monitoring of the District's prison population and the processing of criminal cases in the District. Section 4 of H.R. 1502 amends the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981 to provide that the proceeds of property forfeited thereunder, after expenses, will remain available to finance law enforcement activities of the District's Metropolitan Police Department. Finally, Section 5 of the bill repeals the District's "Duncan Ordinance" in order to allow the Metropolitan Police Department to share adult arrest records with members of the court and law enforcement agencies, including the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION During the late 1980's, this Nation has experienced a dramatic upsurge in the drug trade, particularly involving "crack," a powerfully addicting derivative of cocaine. This drug epidemic has brought in its wake an alarming increase in homicides and other drug-related crimes. While not confined to one geographic area, the increase in drugrelated crimes has achieved particular notoriety in the District of Columbia. The number of homicides in the District reached an alltime peak in 1988 and appears likely to set a new record in 1989. These statistics, the city's position as the Nation's Capital, and the Federal role in governing the District have focused public scrutiny on the District's drug-related crime and have led to several Congressional hearings on the problem. In the Senate, in 1989 alone, the Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs; and the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, have all held hearings on drug-related crime and violence in and around the District of Columbia. In the House of Representatives, the Committee on the District of Columbia, Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health, and the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control have held numerous hearings in the last several years on this same issue. Many of the witnesses at these hearings pointed out the need for increased manpower for law enforcement purposes in the District. The steady decline in the ranks of the District's Metropolitan Police Department was noted particularly. The Department has decreased from a peak strength of 5,100 officers in the early 1970's, to under 4,000 officers at present. Despite efforts at improved coordination between Federal and District law enforcement agencies in combating the drug epidemic, the need for a significant increase in the sheer number of local law enforcement officers remains critical. For example, at the hearing on "Federal-State-Local Solutions to Crime and Drug Abuse" held on May 9, 1989 before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, and the District of Columbia, this exchange occurred between the Subcommittee Chairman and the incoming Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, Isaac Fulwood: Senator SASSER. Chief, let me get your reaction to the frequent call for additional police officers. Is there a shortage of police officers in the District of Columbia? * * * Mr. FULWOOD. I certainly think that we need more police officers. And I think in the demonstration project that the Mayor put into effect over the last two months by permitting us to have people on overtime clearly demonstrates that high visibility and an aggressive profile can have an impact on crime and violence in the city. I would certainly like to see us get more police officers *** I would like to see that happen right away. The Federal Government has a history of intervention to augment the Metropolitan Police Department in this type of situation. In 1971, in response to a crime emergency in the District of Columbia, the Nixon Administration requested and secured passage of legislation adding 1,000 officers to the District's force. In addition, the Federal Government shares general responsibility for law enforcement activities in the District. The Federal government provides Federal officers such as the Park Police and the Capitol Police. The Metropolitan Police Department itself is funded through the District of Columbia's budget, seventeen percent of which is provided by the annual Federal payment to the District. Another law enforcement problem discussed at Congressional hearings has been the effect of what is known as the District's "Duncan Ordinance," codified at D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 1, §§ 1000 et seq. (1986). That regulation was adopted in the late 1960's to prevent the routine dissemination of minor arrest records, such as those of civil-rights protesters, whcih might end up in the hands of potential employers and other private parties. However, as interpreted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Utz v. Cullinane, 520 F. 2d 467 (D.C. Cir. 1975), the Duncan Ordinance prohibits the District's Metropolitan Police Department from transmitting arrest records, including fingerprints, to the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This has impaired the District's participation in national criminal data collection systems, resulting in the apprenhension of suspects in other jurisdictions by authorities who cannot access the arrestees' criminal records in the District. In effect, the Duncan Ordinance renders the District a "safe haven" for individuals who can be reasonably assured that thier criminal activities here will remain unknown elsewhere. In summary, public concern over escalating drug-related crime in the District of Columbia, and the testimony received at numerous Congressional, have made clear the need for legislation to assist the District of Columbia in meeting its present law enforcement emergency. III. HISTORY OF H.R. 1502 1. ACTION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES On March 20, 1989, Delegate Walter Fauntroy of the District of Columbia introduced H.R. 1502. As introduced, the bill amended Section 502 of the Home Rule Act to authorize appropriations for the salaries and expenses of 700 additional officers and members of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia during fiscal years 1990 through 1994. This authorization was in addition to the annual Federal payment provided under Section 502. As a precondition to the expenditure of the additional funds, H.R. 1502 required the District to increase its police force to the 4,055 officers and members currently authorized by law. H.R. 1502 also specified that no funds authorized thereunder could be expended until the Mayor of the District developed, and certified to Congress the implementation of a community-oriented policing system "modeled after such a system in Houston, Texas." The House Committee on the District of Columbia, Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health, conducted a hearing on H.R. 1502 on April 13, 1989. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Honorable Marion Barry, Jr.; the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, Maurice Turner; the Chairman of the City Council of the District of Columbia, the Honorable David Clarke; and representatives of the District's police officers' union. The full Committee on the District of Columbia voted on April 27, 1989 to report an amended version of H.R. 1502 to the House for consideration. That same day, the Committee also voted to report to the House H.R. 2109, a "clean" version of H.R. 1502. H.R. 2109 incorporated a number of amendments to the original bill, relating to, among other things, prison construction in the District; the use of local police officers as deputy United States Marshals; the use of judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to reduce the District's local criminal trial docket; and studies of the resources and projected needs of the District's judiciary and prosecutorial systems. Subsequently, under a suspension of the rules, the House called up H.R. 1502 as amended by the Committee, but without the provisions concerning federalization of local police or reassignment of Federal trial judges to local criminal cases. H.R. 1502, as amended, passed the House by a vote of 289-105 on June 13, 1989. 2. SENATE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1502 On June 14, 1989, the Senate received H.R. 1502 which was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The House bill was further referred to the Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, and the District of Columbia. On July 10, 1989, the Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, and the District of Columbia, by a vote of 5-0, polled out H.R. 1502 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The subcommittee substitute made the following changes in H.R. 1502 as received from the House. |