The only difference is the area involved. We cover 176 acres, but the arrest procedures are the same. The duties are comparable.

Over the years we feel, if you will check our arrests and the size of our force, the arrests per man are comparable to those of the U.S. Park Police.

Mr. BROYHILL. If you would like to elaborate on that for the record, it would be helpful to us. It would help in this legislation in the event something happens to the legislation pending before the Rules Com

mittee.

From what committee did that come?

Mr. SADLER. House Administration.

If we may, we would like to submit for the Committee's perusal the information that we have concerning the arrests and the comparative analyses we have.

Mr. BROYHILL. I ask unanimous consent that that material be included.

Mr. Dowdy. That may be done.

Mr. ADAMS. Having received these statements, who is the head of the National Zoological Park Police? In reading these I gather you gentlemen are represented by the American Federation of Government Employees and not whatever hierarchy there is.

Mr. SADLER. These are all members of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Mr. ADAMS. Do you have a director?

Mr. SADLER. The Smithsonian.

Mr. JORDAN. We come under the Secretary of the Smithsonian.

Mr. ADAMS. And is there an Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian in charge of the police?

Mr. JORDAN. The Director of the Zoo and the National Zoological Park.

Mr. ADAMS. Your immediate superior is the head of the Zoo, or the director of the Zoo?

Mr. JORDAN. That is right.

Mr. ADAMS. Has he taken a position on this at all? What is his name? Mr. JORDAN. Dr. Theodore Reed.

Mr. SADLER. As a matter of record the American Federation of Government Employees has exclusive representative rights for the Zoological Police. This is the reason we are here together.

Mr. ADAMS. That is fine, but I was trying to check this out. Do you represent either the White House Police or the Park Police or the Capitol Police or the Metropolitan Police?

Mr. SADLER. Not exclusive representation.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, gentlemen.

At this point we shall insert the letter of the acting secretary of the Smithsonian Institute to Chairman McMillan. The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1968.

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Please refer to H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, identical bills "To establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia."

Section 2(5) of these bills would transfer to the proposed Police Commissioner the functions, powers, and duties of "the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with respect to the National Zoological Park Police Force."

The duties and responsibilities of the Zoological Park Police differ from those normally expected of a police officer and thus require special training and experience. The Smithsonian Institution therefore considers that direct control over the police enforcement responsibilities attendant with the National Zoological Park is in the public interest.

It is incumbent upon the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to assure public safety for the millions of visitors. This responsibility encompasses measures of enforcement including a 24-hour vigilance over a large park area with some 3,000 wild animals.

The National Zoological Park Police also serve as information guides and continuously assist the visitors to this wildlife habitat.

The Smithsonian Institution accordingly does not favor this legislation.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the presentation of this report to the Congress.

Sincerely yours,

JAMES BRADLEY,
Acting Secretary.

Mr. Dowdy. The North Washington Council of Citizens Associations, Mrs. Ernest Howard.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ERNEST HOWARD, PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS

Mrs. HOWARD. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, since the vilification of the policemen has become the order of the day and since policemen are the protectors of our lives and property, we are glad to endorse H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that there is an organized conspiracy at work in the nation to discredit the law enforcement officers of this land, and especially in our city. This is a technique that is directed toward the discrediting of the police in the eyes of the public.

Groups are trained in crushing police opposition, to discredit police officials among the rank and file, and to check and rifle administrative and security units. Even on routine calls, their lives are now endangered.

The police officer is now always on the defensive, both from City Hall and the criminals.

We can hold meetings, approve commissions, create new positions, create more committees, and we can make speeches in other cities and quote statistics ad infinitum but this will not solve the problem of crime and disorder in the Capital of the United States, which is Washington, D.C.

These attacks are dangerous for two reasons: One, they are fanatical, disciplined, and skilled in the underground method.

Two, their strategy and technique is to centralization, a campaign against the police in one state being a campaign in another, and so on throughout the other countries of the world.

We believe the police officer in our Nation's Capital should not put himself in a defensive position every time he responds to a call. We can no longer afford to allow the police officers to be dealt with or relegated to the same level as the criminal. There is only one way to

remedy this deplorable and disgraceful situation, and that is for the Congress of the United States to retrieve and exercise the prerogatives given them in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, and which each member has sworn to defend. That is to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases in the District of Columbia. We believe that you have the tools, Mr. Chairman, and we implore you to use them.

Thank you.

Mr. Dowdy. Thank you, Mrs. Howard.

We have the White House Police here now. We have Mr. Charles Humpstone, Acting Special Assistant to Treasury Secretary for Enforcement, Mr. James J. Rowley, Director, Secret Service, and Major Glennard Lanier, Chief, White House Police.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HUMPSTONE, ACTING SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO TREASURY SECRETARY FOR ENFORCEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES J. ROWLEY, DIRECTOR, SECRET SERVICE AND MAJ. GLENNARD LANIER, CHIEF, WHITE HOUSE POLICE

Mr. HUMPSTONE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for allowing me to express the views of the Treasury Department with regard to pending bill H.R. 14430 and its identical companion H.R. 14448.

As to the essential purpose of the bill, which is to establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia, we make no comment, on the ground that this relates to a subject which is outside Treasury's professional jurisdiction. We do want to comment, however, as to one item in the bill which reads as follows:

SEC. 2. (a). There are transferred to the Police Commissioner the functions, powers, and duties of—

(3) the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the White House Police;

Our position is that subsection (3) should be deleted from the bill.

OPPOSE INCLUDING WHITE HOUSE POLICE

The Treasury Department is strongly opposed to the transfer of the functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, with respect to the White House Police, to the Police Commissioner.

The White House Police force protects the White House, Executive Offices and grounds, and the President and his immediate family. The Secretary of the Treasury is charged with the supervision of the force and he has delegated his functions to the Director of the Secret Service as it has the statutory responsibility for protection of the Chief Executive and his immediate family.

The responsibilities of the White House Police are interwoven with those of the Treasury Department and particularly the Secret Service in every aspect of its operation and administration. To fragment the direction and supervision of the existing protective system could compromise the effective coordination of the efforts of the Secret Service

and the White House Police to guarantee the physical security of the President of the United States.

The White House Police force is a highly specialized unit whose duties are related to the physical security of the Chief Executive, his family, and certain property as defined by statute. Their responsibilities are not as broad as those of the municipal police force. The officers receive special training from the Secret Service in addition to basic police training. Once on board they work under experienced senior personnel carrying out their functions as a security force under the most trying circumstances.

Hundreds of thousands of people, each capable of committing some grievous act, must be scrutinized in a continuous effort to secure the home and offices of the President. The White House Police force's responsibilities do not permit a single failure in communication or coordination with the efforts of the Secret Service. I believe it would be an egregious error to divide protective responsibility between separate commands instead of continuing control in one organization.

The Treasury Department position is that the consolidation of the White House Police under the Commissioner of the District of Columbia Police would segment existing efficient line authority.

Mr. Chairman, Director Rowley, Major Lanier or I will be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the Committee may have pertaining to the White House Police force and the Treasury position regarding the legislation.

Mr. DowDY. This is the one area of the bill where I have no questions because of the peculiar responsibilities of your group.

Mr. Adams?

Mr. ADAMS. To what degree do you coordinate the operations in and out of the White House with the rest of your network? I think your key point here is the fact that in this particular area you need to have control of the White House where the President starts his trips.

Mr. HUMPSTONE. One is the control of the physical admission of the people to these specific 18 acres. It is a clearly defined area with a fence around it. Our jurisdiction is inside the fence.

There are two aspects-one is the control of people who either as part of the tourists are moving through the museum tour, if you might call it that, and people who might try and jump the fence, people who might try and break in through the gate, and controlling those people, those who have permission and those who do not. The other is working through the intelligence network of the Secret Service, as you all receive mail from time to time from mentally disturbed and deranged persons who have some desire to express indignation with various circumstances surrounding them, so too the President receives such mail. We get information daily from various parts of the country, people who have announced a declared intent to come and kill one or another person either now in the White House, formerly in the White House, or perhaps will be in the White House. That information has to be relayed immediately to the Secret Service and White House Police.

Mr. ADAMS. Chief Lanier, the men who are physically at the gates of the White House, are those part of your force?

Chief LANIER. Yes.

Mr. ADAMS. At what point do you meet the people from the Department of the Interior? Where do you have the split? Do they watch over the sidewalks, and you take from the fence inside?

Chief LANIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. I take it it is your position, as expressed here, that you feel your operation should continue as it is? Chief LANIER. It should, yes, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. How many men do you have?

Chief LANIER. On board at the moment we have 213 officers. Appropriated strength is 250.

Mr. ADAMS. Are you having a problem recruiting or is that a normal turnover gap that you simply always have because people move in and out?

Chief LANIER. Limitation by Congress under this recent Act.

Mr. ADAMS. The question I am asking is this: We have had recruitment problems in the District. I want to know whether recruitment problems exist for the White House Police or whether this is because of the statutory limitation or turnover.

Chief LANIER. At one time we did have because basically most of our men come from the Metropolitan Police. They had a problem and in turn we had one.

We have the availability of men, but we are restricted by Executive and Congressional Acts.

Mr. ADAMS. You have not had a recruitment problem?

Chief LANIER. No.

Mr. BROYHILL. I cannot speak for all the co-sponsors of the legislation, but I would offer the observation that their feeling about this legislation is much the same as most of us have. We draft legislation and introduce it with a certain objective, in order to solve different problems. None of us feels we have all the answers.

Originally, the basic idea was to consolidate the separate police departments.

Some of the supporters of the legislation suggested bringing into the bill the jurisdiction of the Airport Police, which overlaps to some extent with the Park Police. Some suggested that the police guards up here at the Supreme Court be brought under the legislation. That would draw objections from other members, but my point is that there is a lot of give and take when we try to bring about solutions to problems.

I say that because as a sponsor, I am willing to work out some adjustment or correction or change so far as the White House Police are concerned.

I have talked with the Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Barr, about this and also with some members of the White House Police force. I recognize that there is a close coordination with the Secret Service in the protection of the life of the President.

I also bear in mind that until recently, Major, all of your recruits had to come from the Metropolitan Police Deaprtment. Is that correct? Chief LANIER. Metropolitan or the U.S. Park Police.

Mr. HUMPSTONE. That is by statute.

Mr. BROYHILL. Do you have that same limitation now?
Chief LANIER. Yes, by statute.