[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina, Chairman
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
California JULIAN C. DIXON, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Americo S. Miconi, Staff Assistant
________
PART 1
(Pages 1-1014)
Page
Budget for FY 1999............................................... 1
Public Schools (including Public Charter Schools)................ 97
Corrections and Related Functions................................ 215
Public Safety and D.C. Courts.................................... 313
Public Witnesses................................................. 493
Appendix......................................................... 742
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-921 O WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
HENRY BONILLA, Texas NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi ED PASTOR, Arizona
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N TS
__________
PART 1 (PAGES 1-1014)
1. Thursday, June 18, 1998, Room H-144, Capitol
Page
D.C. Budget for FY 1999.......................................... 1
Mayor Marion Barry, Jr.
Council Chairman Linda W. Cropp
D.C. Control Board
2. Wednesday, June 24, 1998, Room H-144, Capitol
Public Schools (Including Public Charter Schools)................ 97
Corrections and Related Functions................................ 215
Public Safety and D.C. Courts.................................... 313
Public Witnesses................................................. 493
Appendix......................................................... 742
PART 2 (PAGES 1-2160)
3. Budget Justification Material.................................1-2160
(iii)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
----------
Thursday, June 18, 1998.
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET
WITNESSES
HON. MARION BARRY, JR., MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HON. LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW F. BRIMMER, CHAIRMAN, D.C. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. I am pleased to call to order
this first hearing of the House D.C. Appropriations
Subcommittee for the second session of the 105th Congress to
receive testimony on the fiscal year 1999 budget for the
District of Columbia. We are pleased to hear this afternoon
from Mayor Barry, District Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and
Financial Management Board Chairman Andrew Brimmer.
I would like to apologize for having to reschedule this
from yesterday but we had an 8-hour appropriations meeting, and
then they had to reschedule the Interior Subcommittee meeting.
So I appreciate your coming today.
Before we begin, I want to thank Dr. Brimmer and the other
control board members, Joyce Ladner, Steve Harlan, Connie
Newman, and Ed Singletary for their service to the Nation's
Capital and the Congress.
Now while we have not always agreed, I want you to know
that we appreciate your service and the fine attitude that you
have had, even in our disagreements. I want to also welcome the
Mayor and to say we appreciate our relationship with you in the
last year and a half.
control board projections $500 million in error
During this Congress, the Nation has seen significant
changes in the Nation's Capital, not all of them for good.
First the city and control board submitted a fiscal year 1997
budget with a $99 million deficit, which turned out to be a
$186 million surplus. Then the city had a fiscal year 1998
budget in balance, which is turning out to have a surplus of
$254 million. Half a billion dollars off in just 2 years. Not
bad for government work.
Had the fiscal year 1999 budget, which you bring to us
today, held the line on increased spending, it would have shown
a surplus of $508 million instead of the $41 million now
proposed. And yet, the budget increases spending, and you are
asking for new massive doses of Federal funds for
infrastructure. We will be reviewing that very carefully.
accumulated deficit
This year's budget does make strides in eliminating $254
million of the accumulated deficit. However, while the budget
shows a surplus of $41 million, there remains $37 million worth
of accumulated debts. We will look closely at why this
accumulated deficit--the results of years of overspending--is
apparently carried on for another year when the budget shows an
operating surplus.
revitalization act impact $1 billion
Last year, in the D.C. Revitalization Act, the American
taxpayers relieved the city of a billion dollars in annual
spending. Congress took over the pension system, the courts,
prisons, and increased to 70 percent the Federal share of
Medicaid payments. Although there is no longer a--and I put
this in quotes--a ``Federal payment'' to the city, you may be
assured that this Chairman is very much aware of the vast
amount of Federal tax dollars poured into the city daily, and
he takes seriously the constitutional charge of the Congress to
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital. In
that spirit, we will review this proposed budget.
opening statement of congressman moran
I will now call upon our Ranking Member, Jim Moran, to make
any opening statement. Jim.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad
that you have had this hearing and I am pleased to see the
leaders of the District of Columbia before us. I do want to
say, since this is apparently the last hearing we will have
with Mayor Barry, I want to thank him for his many years of
public service to the city and to the country.
I also want to thank Dr. Brimmer. I understand that even
though you will be continuing for a few months, that you intend
that to be a relatively short period of time. I think you have
done a very fine job and I want to thank you for your judgment
and leadership as well, Dr. Brimmer, particularly if we don't
get another opportunity to do this for the record.
And I am looking forward to working with Chairwoman Cropp.
The areas of interest that I hope that we can cover will
include what, in addition to the Revitalization Act, the
Federal government can properly be doing to help the District
develop its tax base. One thing, for example, in the original
bill, we had a provision where the Federal government would pay
for 400 miles, I think it was, of roads within the District;
there was some provision in the recent highway bill, and I
would like for you to address that. I think that maintaining
the Metro system throughout the entire region, particularly
since it is a radial system that originates in D.C., is
critical to the financial health of the District, and I hope we
will address that because we have $100 million per year now in
maintenance costs that are going to have to be gotten
throughout the region.
tax reform and business regulatory relief
The D.C. tax reform measures are measures that this
committee felt quite strongly about, in addition to the
regulatory relief that we had proposed, and if you have any
comments on that, I would like to hear them; because in looking
at the difference, for example, between Northern Virginia, my
district, and the District of Columbia, it made it a pretty
easy decision for a lot of businesses to locate in Virginia.
Now with those changes, it is a tougher decision and I think
that is in the best interest of the entire region. We want to
play fair.
commuter tax
There is a matter of a commuter tax that we are undoubtedly
going to disagree on, but I would like to understand the
ramifications of that and your planned implementation date, if
you feel that is going to go forward. I suspect the Congress
may want to assert its role in thatissue because it is
something that we don't feel is in the long-term best interest of the
region as a whole.
residency requirement for employment
We don't think we ought to have residency requirements in
our own suburbs. I don't think it should be in Alexandria,
Arlington or Fairfax County that I represent; I don't think it
should be in the District of Columbia either. I think we want
to get the very best people and leave it to them to decide
where they want to live. But I would like for you to address
that.
Beyond that, I think enough has been said, probably more
than needed to be said, about the proposal. Dr. Brimmer ran up
the flag pole on three managers or commissioners to manage the
District and apparently you have perhaps taken that down from
the flagpole after it got shot up a lot, I don't know; I will
leave that to you to address.
public safety and other issues
But we are going to talk with the Police Department. I
understand we are going to have a separate hearing, so we won't
get into that specifically. We have a lot of issues, obviously,
on public safety in the schools. But I am looking forward to
your testimony and I am looking forward to continuing with your
leadership, Madam Chairwoman. And, again Marion, thank you for
all the time and effort and energy and personality and
everything else that you have contributed to the District of
Columbia. And thank you, again, Dr. Brimmer.
Mr. Brimmer. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Do other Members have statements? Mr.
Cunningham.
opening statement of congressman cunningham
Mr. Cunningham. Just a very short one. I join with my
colleagues in welcoming you, and I think that whether you have
a tax, whether it is a city, a State, or at a Federal level, I
guarantee you the bureaucrats will spend it. And the efforts
that your group, Mayor, have made on doing it better and doing
it smarter has been noted. And I think that is the direction we
should go, because what we found is a higher tax usually means
more work and more problems on your constituents, and then it
just is not effective. There is a curve where that is a point
of diminishing return, I realize. But I want to thank you for
that.
I look forward to working with you, and I think in the last
meeting, you will find that the Committee is willing to bend
over as much as we can and work with you, within the limits of
the Constitution.
waterfront issues
I live in DC when Congress is in session, and I would like
to talk to you individually about some infrastructure down on
the waterfront, and the law enforcement problem that we had,
where they drew down a lot of law enforcement in the wintertime
because they said there would be ice on the water. But there
was no ice, and yet we still had the same problems. And I want
you to know, your chief of police worked with us and did a very
good job and limited the number of law enforcement that moved
away. He realized we need sound policies on law enforcement on
the job which is very important. But I would like to work with
you in talking to you about some issues on the waterfront, and
I think where the infrastructure can help all of us, realizing
there are limited funds, especially after I said no new taxes.
waiving Davis-Bacon for school repairs
Another area I would like to work with you on is education.
We support children and they support helping children. By just
waiving Davis-Bacon for school construction and repairs, with
your 60-year-old schools--which the majority, up to 70 percent
of union members wish to do--can save you 30 to 35 percent on
school construction and repairs. Those are ways in which I
think that we can make investments and give a little ground on
each side. It doesn't mean we have to waive Davis-Bacon across
the country, but they have done it in some States. But for the
schools and education and considering the shape they are in, it
is one area I would ask you to take a look at, realizing the
political pressures in doing that. Other than that, I welcome
the control board and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Mr. Tiahrt.
Congressman Tiahrt's Remarks
Mr. Tiahrt. I want to welcome the panel to the committee
and I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearings. I
want to congratulate Mayor Barry on his new venture and I wish
him the best. I am ready to proceed.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Congressman Aderholt's Remarks
Mr. Aderholt. I don't have anything to add. I just thank
you for being here today. And of course being a new Member not
only to Congress but to this committee, I have enjoyed working
with this committee over the past year, and I look forward to
another year. So thank you for being here today.
residency requirement--congressman moran
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, can I make a slight correction in
my statement? I mentioned the commuter tax, but I didn't
discuss that; what I discussed was the residency requirement,
which was the second thing. I don't want to confuse people. The
residency requirement is actually on track here from D.C.'s
perspective. I don't think that the Congress is in full
agreement with that, and I would like to hear from you. I think
we discussed the commuter tax in depth, but really the
residency requirement is something I know you are taking very
seriously. But, again, I think there is a lot of discussion
about that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Certainly. The Congress on the residency
requirement cannot be in full agreement, but many of us
appreciate that.
We will proceed with the Mayor first and then Chairman
Cropp and then Dr. Brimmer.
swearing in of witnesses
It is our procedure to swear in all witnesses before the
subcommittee, at all times. If the witnesses will stand and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
We have written statements that will be included in the
record. I would suggest that you summarize as much as you can,
and if it's agreeable, we will hold questions until all
witnesses have testified.
Mr. Mayor.
opening statement of mayor barry
Mayor Barry. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. First of all, let me thank the members of the
committee for those kind words in terms of my own departure
from my 40 years of service. It has been a labor of love during
this period and I intend to be not doing the same thing but I
will be around. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
share my views on District finances and to place in the
appropriate context the 1999 financial plan. I would like to
ask that the entire 20 pages be entered into the record.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection.
Mayor Barry. The committee has it.
new chief financial officer--earl c. cabbell
First, I would like to introduce my newly appointed interim
chief financial officer, Mr. Earl C. Cabbell. Stand up. He is
our interim CFO. He is a certified public accountant. He has
served as deputy chief financial officerof financial operations
and systems since 1996. He was previously the deputy director of
finance and chief accounting officer for the City of Detroit. He
brought them into an unqualified audit for the first time in the
history of that city. He has also served as director of finance for the
State of Maryland's Department of Transportation, a position he assumed
in 1992 after serving as the accounting systems director for the City
of Baltimore. In the past 2 years, he had successfully handled the
challenge of helping to bring financial stability to the District, so I
would like to welcome him here. I am in the process of looking
nationally for a candidate that I can recommend to the Financial
Management Systems Authority, but Mr. Cabbell has full authority to
move ahead, and he will continue to keep us financially disciplined and
carry on the work that was carried on by his predecessor, Tony
Williams.
Budget Development
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the development
of a budget provides an opportunity to reflect on the past, to
measure progress, and to plan for the future. The fiscal year
1999 budget is the last budget I will present to the executive
and legislative branches of the Federal Government.
Problems Confronting the District
Before I comment on the fiscal year 1999 budget request, I
would like to present a contextual framework relative to the
inherent problems confronting the District.
Many of us may have forgotten about the fact that more than
25 years ago, we were given a home rule charter that was
structurally and fundamentally flawed. I think the Revenue
Commission has come to the same conclusion and Carol
O'Cleireacain came to the same conclusion about the
disfunctionality of that structure. We were so enthusiastic
about getting any kind of representation that we did not look
as carefully at the structure as we should have, and we have
now learned.
In fact, the Revitalization Act of 1997 was a clear
indication there was a relationship that had to be changed
between the Federal government and the District government. No
other city has a municipal, county, and State function. These
are real: 41 percent of our budget goes to a State function,
and more importantly, there are 40-some agencies reporting to
the Mayor, and all of us know that is a span of control that is
almost impossible for anybody to effectively manage. With the
restructuring of our government, the Revitalization Act sort of
lessened that management span of control.
Federal TakeOver of Health System/medicaid
More needs to be done and we need to look further at the
Federal Government taking over for the financing and operation
of our health system, which is clearly a State function, and
some other changes in the Medicaid. We still pay 30 percent
over the other cities in America. New York City only pays about
15 percent and California and Los Angeles and San Francisco
don't pay any; the county pays 2 percent and the State pays 98
percent.
Tax Base Constrained
Also, when we came into the office in 1979, as indicated on
page 3 of my statement, Carol O'Cleireacain clearly stated in
her book that the District's tax base is severely constrained
because it is the Nation's Capital. Forty-one percent of the
property tax is exempt from property taxes. Sixty-five percent
of the people who work in the city live elsewhere and do not
contribute to the income tax base. Congress has not allowed the
District to impose a nonresident income tax to pay for the
services provided to commuters during their work day. The
District does not collect taxes on the income of a large number
of military personnel. I happen to agree with her as we look at
the structural relationship.
Financial Management--Dismal Record
Also, Mr. Chairman, on the view that the District really
wasn't interested in financial management or was not interested
in balancing the budget prior to the Control Board, nothing
could be further from the truth.
In 1979, when I first took office, the finances of the
District were in total disarray. We had not been audited in 100
years. In 1976, Arthur Andersen had called the District's
financial management system unauditable. I say that to show
that we have been committed to balancing the budget and working
hard, as clearly indicated on page 6. You will find starting
with 1981 up until 1988, there were balanced budgets and
smaller surpluses every year under my previous administration.
You also will find that in 1990, there was a $118 million
deficit. But at that time the Council refused to reduce
spending and so we ran up a deficit. But the point I am making
is we have been committed to balanced budgets for a long time.
Police Department
On page 7, we talk about some of the things that have been
done in the last few years. Let me also say there is great
program turnaround, Mr. Chairman, in the District of Columbia.
The police department is working better. You will hear from my
chief later. Crime is the lowest in 20 years. Twenty years.
Murders are lowest in 10 years. You can get a driver's license
now in about 25 or 30 minutes, as opposed to the 3 or 4 hours
it used to take sometime back. The streets are cleaner, alleys
are being cleaned, the environment is better.
Public Schools
The only point that we have to do a lot more work in our
public schools. We had 18 months of downhill. Ms. Ackerman is
here now. She brings to bear, I think, a lot of ideas on
reform, a lot of finesse and a lot of energy, and we are going
to see major changes. In fact, we have seen test scores going
up this year compared to last year. And I predict they will be
higher again next year and the next year until we get to the
point where they are the national average. In fact, one of our
public schools, Benjamin Banneker, an academic high school, had
105 graduates, and all 105 of those graduates are going to
college, and they had scholarships totalling $5 million, which
means there are a number of things happening, even in spite of
the change of superintendents and the back and forth. We have
enough people getting out of here with a lot of the skills and
who want to become America's outstanding members.
Municipal Services
So the quality of services in our city are greatly
improving. Our employees are being awarded for that in the
sense that this budget contains a pay increase. We all know
that if employees are not paid commensurate with the rate of
inflation, the morale goes down and they don't work as hard as
they would ordinarily be working, so I would just point that
out.
Deficit of $335 Million in FY 1994
Also, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, when we
came into office in 1995--and some of you were here, when we
had a deficit of $335 million from 1994. And that deficit,
quite frankly, was a trigger to Congress to impose this Control
Board on us. We were not allowed to go to the Treasury to
borrow money, and the Control Board was put into place.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--Regarding the preceding statements by Mayor Barry,
the following excerpts of testimony presented by former Mayor Sharon
Pratt Dixon Kelly and former Council Chairman John A. Wilson provide a
perspective of conditions in the District after Mayor Barry's 12 years
as mayor and include Chairman Wilson's remarks that the City Council
had a hard time getting information because ``* * * the (Barry)
Administration was not forthcoming with the Council in most situations.
We have a hard time getting information''. The excerpts are taken from
hearings before the House Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations:]
FY 1992 House Hearings on D.C. Appropriations
Part 1, pages 8 and 9
May 21, 1991
Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon
``When I took office on January 2, 1991, (after former Mayor
Barry's 12 years as mayor) my first order of business was to
drastically cut this city's budget, Faced with a $316 million deficit I
had no choice but to act * * *''
* * * * * * *
``Much more needs to be done. I remain determined to change the
work ethic that now dominates our government. This government can no
longer be seen as the employer of first resort. And, attitudes that
lead a few workers to believe that every job is permanent and every
task is at their leisure have got to go * * *''
* * * * * * *
``We must restore financial discipline to the District's budget * *
*''
FY 1993 House Hearings on D.C. Appropriations
Part 1, pages 37 and 768-770
May 27, 1992
Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon Kelly (page 37)
``When I took office almost 17 months ago the District budget had
hit an iceberg. We were sinking in red ink. The 1990 $118.2 million
deficit (Mayor Barry's last full fiscal year in office prior to his
sabbatical) had brought the accumulated deficit to over $331 million
and we were facing an operating deficit for 1991 of over $316 million
(based on budget prepared by Mayor Barry prior to his sabbatical).
Council Chairman John Wilson (pages 768-770)
``We have tried every way we know to identify and cut vacant funded
positions * * * I do not know what happened to them. That is my
business * * * It is difficult, because the Administration (referring
to the Barry Administration) is not forthcoming with the Council in
most situations. We have a hard time getting information.''
``* * * in the previous Administration (referring to the Barry
Administration), they hired about 3,000 people a year, and the
escalation would go up around 4,000 on the fourth year of the term. So
you added over that period of time almost 10,000 people to the (D.C.)
government in what we called the good years.''
``Mr. Dixon. From 1981 to 1990, the average increase in revenue
over the previous year was roughly 10 percent.
``Mr. Wilson. That is right.
``Mr. Dixon. In one year it was 19.6 percent higher.''
* * * * * * *
FY 1995 House Hearings on D.C. Appropriations
Part 1, page 101
May 11, 1994
Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly
``Part of cleaning house has got to be to ferret out corruption.
And I was very quick to forge a partnership with the FBI and other
Federal authorities * * *''.
* * * * * * *
``There was no training in this government. None. There were no job
descriptions. None. No automation. None. And when you have a massive
government in desperate need of it and you look like you have walked
through the door in a time warp, you have got to begin to prioritize
where you can put that effort.''
[CLERK'S NOTE.--Regarding Mayor Barry's remarks on the deficit, see
news article on pages 1619-1620, volume 2, FY 1996 hearings before the
House Subcommittee on D.C. Appropriations, which documents changes in
the District's projected deficit for FY 1995, and then Chairman Walsh's
remarks on page 1544, of the same volume summarizing the inconsistency
of Mayor Barry's deficit numbers as follows: ``According to the press,
District officials told Wall Street investors the City has run a budget
deficit of $25 million to $40 million in fiscal year 1994. The deficit
turned out to be ten times that amount--$335 million. The City also
said it expected a budget gap of $129 million in fiscal year 1995. Then
the estimate jumped to $500 million, then $531 million, then $600
million; and finally, in February 1995, the Mayor said it would be $722
million. It went from $129 million in December to $722 million two
months later''.
Alleged Reduction of 9,000 Personnel or 27 Percent
Mayor Barry. And also there is a view that we have had this
big government and have not done much about it. Let me just
saythat since 1995, we reduced almost 9,000 people off of the D.C.
government's payroll, a decrease of 27 percent. Dr. Brimmer talked
about this before the Senate and we all agree that is unprecedented.
New York took 5 years to get down to about a 16 percent reduction. And
Philadelphia didn't lose anyone off the payroll because they just made
changes in the way the union operated. But I think we ought to be
commended for taking the bold initiative to do this, and in some
instances, it did lessen service in the area because you can't have
9,000 people off a payroll without impacting services in someplace or
another. Either they weren't working or something was happening, so we
were seeing a decrease and now we made some adjustments and the service
area is increasing.
surplus of $186 million in fy 1997
Also, there was some growing pains with the Control Board
and with the CFO that I think you will find now they are
working very, very closely together. We had a vision plan that
is working. As the Chairman pointed out, we went from a $99
million projected deficit to a $186 million surplus, which is a
$250-some million turnaround. That is no small achievement.
That took the work of the District working awful hard, being
disciplined, making tough decisions on the part of the
policymakers and implementing those decisions, and so I want to
commend our workers for being that disciplined to achieve this.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--The FY 1997 surplus resulted from the Chief
Financial Officer collecting additional revenues and the
turnaround in the national economy; very little, if any, of the
surplus was due to ``tough decisions'' on budget reductions.]
new mci center
Also, the economy is growing. We have a new MCI Center, as
you probably know, and unfortunately, the Washington Caps
couldn't beat the Detroit Red Wings, but they did beat Ottawa
and Buffalo and I predict they are going to win the Stanley Cup
next year. I go out and cheer them on. Downtown is moving
ahead. You will have before you sometime some of the
legislation bills of our Convention Center. So a lot of things
are happening for our economy as we go forward.
fy 1999 consensus budget
Let me just say that the 1999 budget is a consensus budget.
It took a lot of work on the part of the Council, the Financial
Management Assistance Authority and the Mayor's Office to come
to this conclusion because in some instances, we had
philosophical and program differences, and where you stand in
some instances, also depending on where you sit, you looked at
those policy areas and spent about 7 days, almost 5 or 6 hours
a day going back and forth with those, on page 17, and we
talked about what those were.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--The FY 1999 budget is by no means ``an
austere budget''; it reflects increases of almost $400 million
in new/enhanced operating programs.]
eliminate accumulated deficit
And one of our main focus points was to eliminate the
accumulated deficit to budget surpluses, reduce it, reduce the
cost to government, and you will find we have gone to a
potential $500-and-some million deficit, a real deficit, to $41
million. Now I think that we won't find that happening anywhere
else in America, whether it is at the State level, the county
level, certainly not at the Federal level where the turnaround
has been that drastic in 1 year to go from a $500-and-some
million accumulated deficit down to $41 million. I think that
is tremendous.
special education
At the same time as we did that, we still funded some very
priority programs, such as our summer job program, gave our
employees wage increases and we gave the schools an $81 million
increase. I am sure that you all recognize that special
education is driving the school board crazy. An $81 million
increase. We have 1,400 young people in special education, in
schools, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, outside of
Washington, averaging a cost of $48,000. We had a court order
to do this in 50 days. The evaluation of the judges placed
these young people in these very expensive places outside of
our city, and we in some instances don't know exactly whether
or not those young people are getting the kind of care they
need and we are working awful hard to try to bring a number of
those young people home by having programs in the city and in
the suburbs that could take care of those young people. Forty-
eight thousand dollars is a lot of money to be paying for the
education of one person.
special education--transportation costs
Our transportation system has cost us $10,000 per student
to transfer these students for the school year. There are
instances of one bus and one attendant with one student. So we
wanted to try to meet with the judges and others to try to get
that changed. That is $105 million we have spent this year on
special education, another $145 million for next year. So I
hope you are able to work with us in trying to figure out a way
to keep these judges from imposing these unreasonable standards
on us. We believe our young people's special needs ought to be
adequately taken care of, but not at this cost and in this
manner.
consensus budget
This is truly a consensus budget. Last year was a
functionary consensus budget. The Council had a budget, along
with the Mayor, the Control Board had a budget. As a tactical
move, we decided to go with the consensus budget so we could
work together, so it is safe for you to see this is truly
something we all believe in. And when you have a consensus
budget, each person gives up something they want. I lost a few
things I wanted, but it worked well, and I would commend Dr.
Brimmer, Ms. Cropp and the Board for putting that time in and
doing that.
infrastructure needs
In terms of infrastructure, you will hear some discussion
about a need there. As you all know, there are 1,100 miles of
streets in the District and we only qualify for about 400 in
Federal funds. A lot of these streets are beat up by the
300,000 cars that come into our city. Three hundred thousand
cars come into our city every day--I won't go into the taxes--
and don't contribute to the infrastructure. We get the same
kind of Federal funds other States get, so we are not getting
anything special by being in the District now.
street repair--deferral of local match
What the Congress did that was special was allow us to
spend the Federal money for the last 2 years, 1995 and 1996,
without a match, without abating that match back, and we spent
over $235 million on infrastructure. Some of you may come down
Constitution Avenue, which was full of potholes but it has been
fully repaved now. In fact, we filled to the tune of about
65,000 potholes; there are about another 9,000 or 10,000 to go,
so our streets are less bumpy now. There is still a lot of work
to be done because the streets have been neglected for years.
water and sewer authority infrastructure
The water and sewer side of the role, the good news is that
the Water and Sewer Authority would issue bonds where they are
going to do a major amount of work on our infrastructure in
terms of cleaning these pipes out and other kinds of things and
making this possible for our water to be safe. And
incidentally, the Water and Sewer Authority is working very
well to find representatives from the suburbs and they have
gotten an A bond rate for their bonds, so things are happening
in that regard.
conclusion of mayor's statement
I want to thank the committee for allowing me to testify.
We are not out of the woods yet financially. Certainly we have
made great progress between this time last year and this time 2
years ago or this time in 1995, January 22nd, my first
appearance before Congressman Davis' subcommittee when we
talked about a $722 million potential deficit. Now we aredown
to $41 million. This is truly a successful budget.
And, finally, members of the committee, I would urge you
all to practice as much democracy--well, practice full
democracy to honor and respect this budget. As you know, last
year we had some differences about these amendments that were
attached to the House side of the budget. Our own view is these
amendments ought to be taken through the regular process,
through the authorizing committees, hold hearings and let that
be the process for any amendments, because many of those
amendments we did not agree with. So I urge you all not to
attach any amendments to this budget. Look in depth at this
budget and ask all the questions you want, demand all the
answers we are supposed to give to you, and in the final
analysis, respect these local elected officials and appointed
officials and adopt the consensus budget. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
prepared statement of mayor barry
[Mayor Barry's prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Chairwoman Cropp.
Opening Statement of Chairwoman Cropp
Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Chairman Taylor and other
members of the House Appropriations Committee. I am here to
testify on the District's fiscal year 1999 budget and financial
plan. This is done on behalf of the citizens of the District of
Columbia, who happen to be residents of the number one city on
the East Coast, and it is with great pride and pleasure that I
can say that.
work done on budget
This budget, balanced and unanimously approved by the
Council, was a result of months of hard work, tough decisions,
and protracted negotiations. It is no small feat that this
consensus budget, bargained by the Council with the Mayor and
the Financial Authority, illustrates the story of how District
stakeholders can get together to design something good for our
city. This $5.2 billion spending plan, with tax relief
increases, funding for the schools, a $41 million accumulated
deficit reduction, and pay adjustments for city employees,
proves that the District's fiscal condition is improving and it
can now focus on more rehabilitation and service delivery.
We worked many hours, Saturdays, Sundays, weekends, all of
us, from the Council, the Mayor, and the Financial Authority,
to come together on this consensus budget. I also have a copy
of the Council's committee reports that I would like to submit
for the record.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--The reports referred to have been retained
in the Committee's files.]
Ms. Cropp. I will not go through all of them, but I think
that you will find and see the hard work that the committees of
the Council did in order to reach our decisions with regard to
the
budget.
council's four basic priorities
Prior to receiving the fiscal year 1999 budget in early
March, the Council had already developed its platform to
achieve a balanced budget--premised upon four basic priorities
espoused by the Council at a retreat that we held in January:
The four priorities are to improve service delivery to the
citizens in the District of Columbia; to eliminate the
accumulated deficit; to invest in our work force with
appropriate compensation; and to also begin our process for tax
relief and restructuring.
financial audits/infrastructure/service delivery
The financial audits show that we ended 1997 with an
operating surplus of $186 million. However, this is not a true
surplus. And I caution us, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, we still have much more work to do, and we must
succeed because it is the rehabilitation of our financial
position that becomes the underpinning for service delivery
efforts, and then these efforts will provide the foundation for
economic growth. We don't have a true surplus until our
infrastructure is repaired, until our buildings for our schools
are done, until the service delivery for our citizens have been
done properly.
In addition, we anticipate $254 million available for a
deficit paydown for this fiscal year, although the numbers are
not final yet. This new-found prosperity is not just because of
our strong economy, but more important, it demonstrates how the
District can get back on its own two feet financially, by
adopting sound budgeting procedures, conducting stringent
fiscal oversight, and exerting prudent control over our
spending.
impact of revitalization act (public law 105-33)
And I want to say to you that while I think the
Revitalization Act certainly will have an impact on helping the
District move to recovery, I want to remind you that the $186
million surplus that was found in the District's budget for
last year was pre-Revitalization Act. So what we see from the
Revitalization Act will be growth, more growth. What we saw
last year was due to other efforts that had been done prior to
the Revitalization Act.
y2k projects
Let me also say that the Council has taken the initiative
to finance some long-term capital projects, for example, the
Year 2000 compliance that certainly everyone is going to be
dealing with. Besides saving the District's money in years to
come, this action reflects our determination that no financial
good fortune will be squandered unwisely.
deficit savings due to not borrowing to fund
Likewise, when we decided not to borrow $110 million to pay
down our accumulated deficit as initially planned, the District
saves $16 million in annual debt service costs.
performance management hearings
In this budget, the Council and its standing committees
devoted many hours to discussion and spent much time and effort
in judiciously reviewing the agency's performance and numerous
budget and legislative oversight hearings, and in fact, we had
performance management hearings earlier, prior to the regular
budget hearings we held, because we wanted to make sure that
our work force is kept to certain standards with regard to
performance measures. The Committee of the Whole proceeded to
take more revisions in order to bring the budget into balance.
But be it program enhancements for the schools or young
people, or net reductions, let me reiterate the Council has
supported additional funding for the schools and directed $2.3
million for youth programs. We were able to discipline our
spending by allocating some $41 million for deficit reduction.
Prompted by this first unqualified audit or clean bill of
health in several years, the Council took steps to jump-start
the rehabilitation of our city.
public works projects
For example, we pushed for $7 million worth of public work
projects to transform our neighborhoods and enrich our living
environment because we care about houses lined up on smooth
streets without potholes. We don't care for unsightly garbage
and recycled trash littering our corners. We care about a
better community, and better community policing. We don't care
for criminals and prostitutes lurking around our residences. We
care about spaces for our kids to play andfrolic in. We don't
care for violence and drug markets.
In sum, we care about building an idyllic district, because
as one of the most overburdened taxpayers in America, we
deserve it.
Tax Relief Reflected In Budget
And for the city employees who have labored to produce the
surplus and contributed directly with layoffs and benefit
reductions, I am pleased to say that we want to invest in our
work force, who have been without a pay raise since 1994.
In this budget package, we have offered $11 million worth
of tax relief to the residents and businesses and hope to
encourage people to move back to the District by eliminating
motor vehicle excise tax for our new residents.
Public Schools--$62 million Deficit
We originally intended to give more tax reductions, if not
for the news in late April that the schools had a $62 million
deficit, and the escalating special education and
transportation cost that could not be ignored, due to court
orders, and had indicated some $12 million worth of pre-
kindergarten programs might have to be cut.
This tax relief, however, is just one small step in our
joint efforts to resuscitate the Nation's Capital. It is, I
believe, a down payment on the future tax reform program
because we have to make the District a friendlier and more
welcome place to live and do business in.
Tax Revision Commission
Last week we had a public hearing with the D.C. Tax
Revision Commission, which the Council had the foresight to
create in 1996. It presented its proposal, ``Taxing Simply,
Taxing Fairly'', for the city. Because we cannot tax Federal or
foreign-owned properties, which accounts for 41 percent, 41
percent of our property base, we inflict a high 10 percent
gross receipts tax on utilities. Because we cannot tax non-
residents' District income, we burden D.C. taxpayers and
businesses with higher tax rates. If we don't do anything about
this onerous taxation, we will lose more businesses and
taxpayers.
Revamping Tax System
The Council is not close to making any decisions on how to
revamp our tax system, but we are examining a good tax system
that will pay for government services by taxing broad bases at
lower rates. And I have a copy of ``Taxing Simply, Taxing
Fairly,'' that was produced by the tax commission that the
Council brought about, and I would like to introduce that and
submit that for the record.
[Clerk's Note.--The document referred to has been retained
in the Committee's files.]
Ms. Cropp. The Council also hopes to be making
recommendations on that issue fairly soon.
New Economic Initiatives $100 million federal funds
To further recharge the District, we need to install a new
economic engine. In other words, we need to invest the $100
million as promised by the President in new economic
initiatives. More specifically, we need a locally charged
corporation to lure more businesses into the District. We
envision a new Convention Center that the Council passed
yesterday, so that the District can compete with other cities
across this country and stop the exodus of businesses, which in
turn hurt our hospitality industry and ourselves.
You know, government is the number one business in the
District, but the hospitality industry is the number two
business and it is extremely important for us to have our
Convention Center, so we can strengthen our hospitality
industry, because that is in fact a strong, strong, part of our
economy. We need to upgrade some of the city's most
deteriorated buildings and streets. We need to improve the
quality of life for the District, period. All of these needs
cost money.
Given the present improved financial situation, this money
should be given to us so that we can transform the District
into a thriving metropolis, and this goal cannot be achieved
without these funds. Let's face it, economic development is
going to be an antidote that propels this city to a fiscal
veracity and physical wellness. No doubt, we are in better
economic times, but we must be prudent and strive to find other
resources to establish an accumulated surplus to cushion us
against the next economic slowdown.
What I have described in our process is akin to what your
budget process in the House will be. While you strived to fund
your priorities, the Council did likewise. While you agonized
over the budget reductions, the Council endured the same. While
we empathize with your considerations, we implore you to
recognize the fact that we need more Federal funds to help
change this city. This request is a fine line in the Federal
budget item. We besiege you to consider favorably the Federal
fund portion of our budget request, as you successfully approve
a balanced budget for our Nation.
Request for $254 Million in federal funds for Infrastructure Fund
We urge the Congress to grant our $254 million
infrastructure request. This fund is intended to support the
city's existing infrastructure needs of over $3 billion. This
fund can further alleviate our financial and structural burden
so that the District can provide and perform efficiently all of
the State, county and city functions.
Residency Requirement for Future Hires
Congressman Moran asked about specific issues, one was the
residency requirement. The Council did recently pass
legislation asking for residency requirement on all future
hires in the District of Columbia. More than 50 percent of
those people who work for the District of Columbia Government,
and I am not talking about the Federal Government nor the
private sector, but people who work for the District of
Columbia Government, live outside of the District of Columbia.
There is some sense of inequity there. We are talking about
people who work for the government. They should leave some
money back in the city. They take the city's money, and some
money should be left in the city. It imbalances our economy
considerably.
You know, when you live in Chicago or work in Chicago, and
you live outside of Chicago, the State of Illinois still gets
part of those dollars, and it helps Chicago in their
infrastructure. If you work in Richmond, but you live outside
of the City of Richmond, Virginia still helps with the
problems, the urban problems of that city, of Richmond.
Washington, like every other city in this Nation, has a
population that is older, sicker, and poorer, and because of
that, it costs us more to deal with that population. We have
some of our suburban jurisdictions who actually bring some of
those people to the District of Columbia for us to pay the cost
of their needs. We become like every other urban center, the
place to send your older, sicker and poorer population who is
in need. Yet, at the same time, we cannot even tax those people
who work for the District to help pay the cost. That is
problematic.
If you work in Philadelphia, you still pay taxes to
Pennsylvania, and they can help Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.
But if you work in Washington, D.C. but you live outside, then
we pay for the people who live in Baltimore and Richmond, and
that is wrong.
commuters--Use of Roads and Highways
With regards to the roads and highways, I believe the Mayor
stated there were about 300,000 cars that come into this city
every day. That type of burden--very few other urban cities
have that type of burden. Because we are the Nation's Capital,
and I am proud that we are the Nation's Capital, we are
overburdened. That is the bitter sweetness of being the
Nation's Capital because people want to come to the capital of
the best Nation in the world. But when they come, they tear up
our streets, and when they tear up our streets, the burden is
on the taxpayers of the District of Columbia to pay for them.
That is why you see in our budget a request for infrastructure
costs, so that we can keep the streets of the Nation's Capital
beautiful, the way we would all want them to be.
Regional Transportation Problems
I recently attended a regional conference on
transportation. Congressman Moran also asked us to address that
issue, and the transportation issue certainly is an issue of
great concern to us in this entire region.
It is my belief that we must take a regional approach to
address that issue. We have the Council of Governments working
on it, there is a special committee within the Board of Trade
who is working on it, and you may hear back from us as we talk
about our regional transportation problems.
I am going to put it on another level for us in the
District, why it would be important for us to improve our
transportation problem. As we deal with welfare reform in the
District and as we look at trying to get individuals who were
on welfare back to work, the unemployment rate in the District
is still unreasonably high. It is much, much too high. I
believe it is 9 percent. And while our employment rate is
extremely high, there are jobs to be had in Maryland and
Virginia. However, these same welfare recipients don't have the
transportation to get to these jobs. So it is extremely
important for more reasons than one for us to resolve our
transportation problems that are there.
Tax Issues
The tax issue that was asked that we talk about, I did
submit that to the committee, the tax issues, our report. It is
our hope we will be looking at the way to restructure our taxes
in the District.
I want you to take note that the District of Columbia, even
during our worst and most crucial and critical financial times,
we did not increase taxes because we very clearly understand
that, when we increase taxes, it truly exacerbates the problem
and, in the long run, we end up sending more people out of the
District of Columbia.
We do believe and understand----
Restructuring of Taxes
Mr. Cunningham. I knew you were a Republican.
Ms. Cropp. Not really. But we do believe that we need to
restructure our taxes so that we can come up with a way to help
our economy grow, and you will see more restructuring of our
District taxes in the very near future.
Conclusion of council chair cropp's statement
I want to say, in conclusion, that I join with the Mayor in
his request that the committee please do not add any
attachments or riders to this budget. Please do not deal with
the social issues that impact the District of Columbia and our
citizens. We work very hard in the District to give our
citizens access to their local elected leadership so that we
can meet their needs. And while we are meeting their needs, I
think you will see by our budget, by our financial condition,
by the fact that we are improving in the city, that we have
done this without overspending.
So we ask that the Committee not attach riders. Let us
handle our social issues in the District. We do ask, we do
implore, that you join with the Mayor, the Financial Authority,
and the Council and support this consensus budget that we have
worked extremely hard to accomplish. It is a good budget that
will keep us moving towards the path of financial stability and
financial health. I truly believe that, for the District of
Columbia, if we stay on this track, the best is yet to come.
Thank you so very much.
Mr. Cunningham [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Prepared Statement of Council Chairman Linda Cropp
[Council Chairman Cropp's prepared statement referred to
follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
prepared statement of control board chairman
Mr. Cunningham. Dr. Brimmer, we will place your prepared
statement in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Opening Statement of Control Board Chairman
Mr. Brimmer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the Committee.
My colleagues have described the process by which this
budget was put together. I will not repeat that. Let me say
that, in terms of the mandate given to the Authority with
respect to the budget, this budget meets all of those
standards. It also puts us further on the way of achieving the
financial stability, which went beyond the size of the budget.
Above all, we were mandated when we dealt with the financial
affairs of the city to seek to re-establish access to the
capital markets. That was achieved last year. With respect to
that mandate, it is already a goal that has been achieved.
$254 Million in federal funds for Infrastructure Fund
What I would like to do is to review a brief summary of the
report which indicates some places where additional material
will be supplied to the Committee. I also want to address
somewhat more fully the reasons why, among other things, we end
up asking for an appropriation of Federal funds of $250 million
for infrastructure. My colleagues have mentioned that the
physical infrastructure is one of the most critical priorities
facing the city.
Mr. Chairman, I have summarized the financial dimensions of
the budget in two tables in my remarks.
On page 6, you will note there is a table on revenues.
There are a couple points I would like to make and call the
committee's attention to this table.
growth in Revenues
First, you will note that there is very, very little
revenue growth embedded in this budget. Moreover, if you look
at tax revenue, you will note that there is even less growth.
I also call the committee's attention, specifically, to the
individual income taxes. There is some growth in 1998. Compared
with 1997, there is a sizable amount of growth. For 1999, much
less growth.
That reflects the fact of the yield of the income tax. Not
that incomes are not rising. Quite to the contrary. Personal
income earned in the District has been rising significantly at
a substantial rate. The projection is that it will rise at a
substantial rate through 1999. The point is that only between
30 to 33 percent of any growth in income in the District
accrues to District residents. And I want to say something
about that later.
What it means is that, as economic growth takes place in
the District, that we are growing, income is being generated,
but a substantial fraction of that income is received by
persons who work here, earn here, but live outside the city. So
revenue growth is a serious problem facing the city, and the
income tax yield also is a problem facing the city.
expenditure profile
Mr. Chairman, the expenditure profile in this budget is
described in table 2 on page 9 of my statement. I will call the
committee's attention to several features.
First, you will note that the expenditures for government
direction, financing, safety and justice--in other words,
substantially bureaucratic functions--that those expenditures
grow virtually not at all, very, very little. The substantial
growth is in public education, I want to stress that, and in
human support services.
special education expenditures
I will call the committee's attention particularly to
public education. Virtually all of that growth that is
projected here reflects the mandated expenditures for special
education. For example, in 1998, the public schools are
spending about $105 million on special education. For 1999, the
level of expenditures for special education is projected at
just under $160 million. That is mandated. It is a problem that
is very serious. Much of that expenditure, much of that
activity, is under court orders, we see this, and it is
imposing substantial inflexibility. In terms of budget making,
it is the Court who decides on that. It is a serious problem,
you need to look at it, and we will talk more about it.
reduction in personnel
I would now like to mention, Mr. Chairman, with respect to
what we have done in terms of personnel. As the Mayor said,
over the last several years, there has been a substantial
reduction in personnel. When we assumed office in the summer of
1995, we were handed a budget, for fiscal year 1995 with a
full-time equivalent position count, of 43,000. A projection in
the proposed fiscal year 1996 budget that would rise to 45,000.
That was a number which we found unacceptable, and we ordered a
reduction of 5,600. We actually achieved a reduction of 5,200.
As the Mayor said, there have been further reductions over
time, and my numbers suggest 25 percent reduction. The Mayor's
numbers are 27 percent, but those are just rounding
differences.
The point is, in substance, there has been a substantial
reduction in the number of employees. Nevertheless, this
government still has some way to go. As productivity improves,
as training improves, there can be further reductions in the
number of employees.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--Virtually all of the personnel reductions
are illusory and have been achieved by (1) transferring the
function ``off budget'', e.g., the Water and Sewer Authority;
(2) ``privatizing'' the function, i.e., the service is still
being provided by the District government but payment is made
to a ``contractor'' instead of to District government
employees; or (3) eliminating authorized positions that were
vacant. See also page 92, this volume, for personnel increase
of 1,330 in FY 1999 budget.]
department of corrections budget
Also, I want to mention a problem that is left over from
the Federal Government's assumption of responsibility for the
prisons. The Committee might recall the Federal Government took
responsibility for sentenced felons, and there is a trustee who
is already responsible for their oversight. That trustee
prepares the budget, the component of the Federal government's
budget covering corrections in the District.
The trustee has recommended a budget for 1999 of $185
million. However, the Authority has determined that this amount
seriously underfunds the projected cost of running the system.
The District's budget office has indicated that the true cost
of running the system for 1999 is approximately $204 million,
leaving a funding gap of $19 million. In addition, other direct
and indirect costs to the District associated with the
sentenced felon population totals $25 million, for a total
underfunding of $44 million.
Now, as part of the city's 1999 financial plan and budget,
the Authority is asking the Federal Government, which is now,
as I said, responsible for the system transfer, to assume the
proper cost by appropriating an additional $44 million. The
function has to be before--and if the Federal Government does
not reimburse the District, then the city has to cover that
extra cost, and that is an effective budget cut of $44 million.
If we do not get assistance this budget is going to be much
bigger, and I wanted to stress that.
infrastructure fund--$254 million federal funds
I also want to stress for a moment the infrastructure
question. A detailed description, illustrative description, of
the kinds of projects on which the funds will be spent is
provided in the operating budget on page VII-6.
[The exhibit on page VII-6 referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
roads and bridges
Mr. Brimmer. In addition to public school and public safety
facilities the roads and bridges have deteriorated.
Now the Federal Government will permit the city to use a
substantial part of its Federal highway system to shore up many
of the bridges, but not all. There are local matching
requirements. Let me assure you, there are far more bridges in
this city that are not just in danger of collapsing but are
already exposed to a substantial deterioration, and the traffic
over them, is adding substantially to the problem.
Mr. Chairman, there are other parts of this government that
are decrepit. In particular, in the schools where there are
dozens of boilers, that simply have to be replaced. There are
numerous buildings and other facilities in this city that are
so ancient that they cannot accommodate basic systems--the
wiring systems cannot accommodate the new computers and so on.
Communications must be improved. Many of these needs are
identified on page vii-6 of the operating budget as well.
I once thought of asking staff to get some pro bono
assistance so we can make a video of these conditions in this
city. The Committee would be quite taken with what they would
see. This city's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
residency requirement
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the court orders, and I won't say
any more about that. But let me take up the one question
Congressman Moran asked about, about the residency. I have the
results of an analysis I have asked our staff to undertake with
respect to residents versus nonresidents and city employees,
and this has a direct barring on the measure that is now before
the Congress that the Council passed, and we are sending it
forward to you without objection.
where d.c. employees live
This analysis shows the status of District employees of the
last pay period. There were 39,000 employees--these are not
FTEs, but employees, people who get paychecks--39,000 employees
in the last pay period. 18,000 lived in the District; almost
the same number, 17.6 in Maryland; 3,000 in Virginia. But, the
District accounted for only 47 percent of those employees. 45
percent lived in Maryland, 8 percent in Virginia, and the rest
in West Virginia or some other place.
salaries received by Non-resident employees
The total annual salaries received by those employees in
the District was $609 million. $691 million went to employees
who lived in Maryland, $139 million to employees who lived in
Virginia, for a total of $1 billion, 442 million. About 42
percent of their salaries, of the salaries paid, went to
District employees, 42.2 percent. Forty-eight percent of the
salary amounts were received by employees who live in Maryland.
average salaries of nonresidents
The thing I found particularly striking is the District
employees have lower average salaries, $33,000. Employees in
Maryland have $39,000 average salaries and, in Virginia,
$42,000.
Mr. Chairman, as I look at these facts, I was taken with
the disparities. So, as Ms. Cropp said, what this amounts to is
that taxes are being levied on District residents, some of
those taxes are used to pay salaries and compensation to people
who live outside of the District and who return nothing to the
District.
``common'' tax revenue
I asked the staff an additional question. I said, what if
the employees who live in Maryland and Virginia were subject to
the same tax rate as residents of the District? What would the
impact be? I was told that the amount of District income tax
paid by District residents was 7 percent. Using that
percentage, if the District employees who live in Maryland and
Virginia and other States paid income tax--paid District income
taxes, the amount of any common tax revenue generated would be
$59 million. That is a significant fraction. That would be a
significant fraction of the total income tax receipts in the
District.
So, Mr. Chairman, those figures, I believe, go a long way
to demonstrate that careful consideration needs to be given by
the Congress to the measure that the Council sent to the
Congress.
I will stop at this point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Brimmer.
Mayor Barry. Mr. Chairman, could I speak to something in my
opening statement?
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
residency requirement in other cities
Mayor Barry. Congressman Moran, in terms of residency, let
me point out that if you work for the City of Chicago every
employee has to move into the city within a 6-month period or
not work for the city. The same is true for the City of Boston.
The same is true for the City of Detroit. The same is true for
the City of New York. And there has been no evidence that any
cities have had any great difficulty attracting the right
employees. In fact, our Police Chief, Chief Ramsey, came from
Chicago, and that system works very well.
taxing non-resident dc employees
We need to turn this around. And then it is compounded by
the fact, as these numbers point out, the fact we can't tax
non-D.C. residents. These persons are getting taxpayers' money
and taking it to Maryland and Virginia, mostly Maryland, and
spending almost $700 million primarily in Maryland. Where you
live usually determines where you buy your food, where you buy
your clothes. So we would urge you to do that.
exceptions to residency requirement
On the other hand, this measure allows for exception in
hard-to-fill positions. Which means if we are looking for a
computer specialist, et cetera, and you find you can't fill it,
the measure allows the Mayor to make a determination thisis a
hard-to-fill position.
So you get this example all over the country where
residency has worked, and you all may know we had it at one
point, before the Congress moved us away from it. Most of the
positions found qualified people to do work. It is working well
in those cities where you have it. It does not mean you don't
get the brightest and the best. It means that once you decide
you are going to work for the District, you have 6 months to
move in. And in many of our neighborhoods the price of housing
is substantially lower.
residency of new police chief
Mr. Taylor. You and I agree on that. Where does the Chief
live, by the way? Our new Police Chief?
Mr. Brimmer. The Chief is in the process of moving in. He
is living temporarily in an arrangement, but the Chief has
assured me that he will live in the city.
Mr. Taylor. Within the 6 month time period?
Mr. Brimmer. Oh, he will be in the city in a much shorter
time than that.
residency of school superintendent
In that regard also, Mrs. Ackerman, the CEO/Superintendent
of public schools, who came in from outside, is already living
in the city and will remain in the city.
So, at that level, it is clearly understood that living in
the city is the thing that is preferred. On the other hand, I
should say, what the Mayor just said, about flexibility, they
recognize that.
chairman's position on residency issue
Mr. Taylor. Well, the employees you need can come from
anywhere in the country, but I agree, within a reasonable
period of time, which you are providing, they should reside in
the District. I maintained that same position last year, and I
think it is important for not only the revenue but for the
community. If you are losing half of your employees, it looks
like, to the suburbs, it is difficult to build a city together.
That is important. But we will get into that debate, I am sure,
in a moment.
Mr. Moran. Let me join this debate a bit here, too, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Let me do this. Jim and I probably have--we
have a difference of opinion on this issue, but we will take
that up at another time. I will focus my questions in other
areas.
gao opinion on overpaying control board's executive director and
general counsel
First of all, the GAO has found that the Board has been
overpaying two employees--your executive director and the
general counsel--in violation of the Control Board Authorizing
Act, Public Law 104-8.
We will insert a copy of the GAO report in the record at
this point.
[The GAO report referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
status of efforts to correct salary overpayments
Mr. Taylor. Now, does this budget contain provisions to
reduce the pay of those staff who are being paid more than the
law allows and to secure from these individuals a repayment to
the taxpayer of the excess salary?
Mr. Brimmer. I will address that, Mr. Chairman.
First, the GAO report is not reflective of the actual
situation. There were two main points made by the GAO, the
general counsel of the GAO, in his opinion to this Committee.
First, it asserts that the Authority had no legal basis for
appointing a chief management officer or for paying the chief
management officer compensation in excess of the rate for the
executive level rate four.
That is an interpretation that is in error. I have
responded to those comments in some detail.
The key point is that--and I will submit a copy of my
statement for the record, along with some additional material.
need for chief management officer
It was clearly understood when Congress transferred to the
Authority the oversight of the nine departments and the four
governmentwide functions that we would need administrative
assistance in carrying out those responsibilities. I said so in
hearings. I said so on the day of the signed order and said we
would proceed promptly to recruit such a person.
The Congress took note of that, of the need for such a
person. In the Appropriations Act for fiscal 1998, adopted by
the Congress in September, 1997, there is a statement which
said that up to $8 million of appropriations was to be used to
cover part of the cost of management reform and the activities
of the CMO. And that has been documented. And at least on the
Senate side last week I asked the Chair of the Appropriations
Subcommittee whether our recollection and our reading of the
record was correct. He said, yes, and he invited me to provide
a recommendation for legislation to make certain that it is
done, and we were asked to supply drafts of that legislation,
and we are doing it.
I have also said that we would recruit nationally for that
position and we would be prepared to pay competitive
compensation. That is exactly what we did. That is exactly what
we had to do, and so that is the position with respect to the
CMO.
locality pay for executive director and general counsel
The GAO also made the statement that said, we,
theAuthority, did not have any basis for providing locality pay which
resulted in a payment to the executive director and to the general
counsel at rates above the rate four. Actually, the reference made by
the GAO, in effect, amounts to modifying the reference in section 102
of the statute, which reads, the executive director shall be paid at a
rate to be determined by the Authority, except that the rate--that it
may not exceed the basic rate of pay that is payable to level four.
Actually, what the GAO did, in effect, was to take ``basic
rate of pay'' and read it as ``aggregate compensation,'' and
that is not correct. If you look at the ultimate source of the
reference which the GAO adopted in its letter, you will notice
that--and this is from the civil service regulations--that
``aggregate compensation'' is composed of several components,
of which basic pay is only one. It is the most important piece.
It is the first piece cited. But locality-based comparability
pay--you must read the whole thing. Locality-based
comparability pay--that is the second item, sir--then a whole
list of others.
So in administering the compensation of employees at the
Authority--and this is my responsibility. I have administered
that compensation policy on the basis of providing competitive
compensation, compensation necessary to enable us to attract
the level of skills and competence which we feel are needed to
help carry out our responsibilities.
compensation for executive director and general counsel
So when I reviewed the position of the executive director
and the general counsel with respect to compensation I focused
on aggregate compensation, not just base pay. And in that
regard--and the documentation shows it was entirely in keeping
with the best, not just good, but the best of compensation
practices, not only in this neighborhood but nationally.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the GAO's argument. I
feel in both cases, with respect to the CMO and with respect to
comparability pay and notice, comparability pay was to narrow--
the purpose of it in the Federal statute was to narrowly get
between compensation for comparable positions in the private
sector and positions in the Federal Government. It had nothing
to do with geography. It had to do with the gap between the
compensation in Federal--the Federal job and in the private
sector.
In that regard and in that framework, the decisions I made
were entirely in keeping with, and help to carry out the
purpose of the statute.
Mr. Taylor. It is your case and you are sticking to it, I
know.
not first time control board ignored law
This is not the first time that the law has been ignored
since I have been on this Committee, and I can appreciate the
fact that it may be changed in the future and that it might be
competitive. But I am going to ask our Committee to investigate
it. I would like to ask your counsel to appear with the GAO and
this Committee and look at it, and we will take whatever action
we think is appropriate. Because all of us take an oath to obey
the law, and if we interpret it in a way that flaunts it, then
that is a serious consideration.
Mr. Brimmer. May I add one point? In my written statement,
which I will share with the Committee, we also had not just the
view of our inside counsel but the matter was referred to an
outside law firm, and there is an opinion.
What I would like to do is to offer the Committee the
entire package of the legal position, our counsel's opinion
with substantial documentation and the outside counsel, our own
outside counsel's opinion.
outside counsel opinion requested after decision made
Mr. Taylor. Did you get that opinion before you broke the
law or was it after?
Mr. Brimmer. I did not break the law.
Mr. Taylor. I will keep that in parentheses.
Mr. Brimmer. The outside counsel opinion came later.
The basis on which I made my decision, not only the written
opinion but the documentation, and I want to stress this, this
was not a frivolous, spur-of-the-moment decision.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--High level government officials such as
Assistant Secretaries, Chief Financial Officers, Inspectors
General and Chief Information Officers of the major departments
of the Federal government are paid at Executive Level IV. The
General Counsels of the executive departments of the Federal
government also are Executive Level IV positions. They do not
receive locality pay because there is no explicit statutory
authority for those positions to receive locality pay.
Similarly, there is no explicit statutory authority for control
board personnel to receive locality pay.]
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Brimmer, we have a lot to move ahead on,
and I will certainly withhold judgment until we get the report
from your counsel as well as any reports you have here as well
as GAO and anything else on that issue.
management improvement--poor returns
While the budget does make some progress, it seems that
increases in spending are automatically categorized as
``management improvements''. Is this a euphemism for we are
going to spend a lot more? Because, in looking at the
improvements, which, by the way, are piled on many years of
improvements since we have been here in the last 3 years, and
yet the returns versus what we spent for management
improvements are minuscule compared with what is being spent
for that efficiency.
One thinks you can put a dollar in and get a hundred times
or ten times or something, but when you put a dollar in and you
get 10 cents for efficiency, it is going the wrong way, isn't
it?
Mr. Brimmer. I would not characterize the process as you
do.
First, I would ask the Chair to recall while we were
already engaging in a series of efforts to improve management
and productivity we were mandated by the statute in the summer
of 1997 to engage outside consultants to undertake a program of
management reform using consultants. We carried out the law, as
required by the Revitalization Act. We did that.
surplus for management improvement and deficit reduction
As a result of that, we got a series of recommendations
from the consultants. The mandate to us was take actions to
implement the management reform plans and that is what we have
been doing. And let me assure you--and we said that if you
permitted us to use some of the net benefit from the
Revitalization Act which had been forecast, we would use some
of it to improve management and use some to reduce accumulated
deficit. That is going forward.
financial management system
Mr. Taylor. Let me ask you--and we had this conversation
last year--you are asking for $43 million for financial
management computer systems. Against my better judgment and
others, we allowed the control board to go forward last year
with $26 million for the District's financial management
system. At that time, we were told everything was set and that
it would be--that was all of the money that was required.
Now, have you spent the $26 million? And what is this $43
million? Are we going back over the same tier?
I am for efficiency, but you all are running it into the
ground, it seems like.
Mr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, you recall our discussion of the
Financial Management System. That is the FMS system. That is a
separate operation, and it is already under way. The plans are
under way.
I have a report here on the status of those. I will submit
that report for the record.
[The information follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
fms on ``very close schedule''
Mr. Brimmer. Let me summarize it quickly to say that that
part of the plan with respect to the Financial Management
System is under way. It is being prosecuted very vigorously,
and it is on or very close to the schedule.
Mr. Taylor. Does that mean that you spent all $26 million?
Mr. Brimmer. The expenditures are being made as the program
proceeds.
Mr. Taylor. When did you find that you were $43 million
off, when you said that the $26 million was all that was
required, that it would fix the problem?
management reform for computers
Mr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, the money for the management
reform for computers and so on are not the same project that
you and I have just been discussing.
Remember, this applies to all of the departments and all of
the cost-cutting functions. In virtually every one of the
management reform recommendations the consultants found
efficiencies with respect to computers, communication
equipment; and the money for management reform is being used to
finance those activities.
funding for y2k problem
Let me give one example which was clearly not focused on
here last year, the so-called year 2000 problem with
information systems. The District is far behind with respect to
trying to resolve that problem. It is going to cost a lot of
money. We have something in here now, at least $10 million. Mr.
Chairman, these systems permeate the whole District. There is
virtually no aspect of management that can be implemented today
without adequate systems. We have to spend money on that.
Mr. Taylor. Our investigation showed last year that it
would be pouring money down a rat hole because the invoice and
vouchers were being stuffed into drawers. It wasn't a computer
problem at that time.
And what you are saying now, ``we spent $26 million, and we
have another $43 million for the financial management computer
systems, and we don't know whether that will bring us any
closer.''
If you follow the investigation that we had last year, it
won't. Next year, it will be $70 million. That is something
that we want to get more information on certainly, and you can
send it at another time because it is difficult for us to
analyze all of it here at one sitting.
Mayor Barry. In that regard, conceptually to separate out
the Financial Management System, which is a calendar-keeping
track of money and the control system from the technology
infrastructure, we have a number of computers that are old,
antiquated. They don't talk to each other. A lot of the money
is going to hardware.
Mr. Taylor. It is not a Financial Management System, it is
for anybody else that has a computer?
Mayor Barry. Not anybody. What happened is we had
aManagement Reform Committee on IT, the technology, and the Chair will
recall Council Chairman Ambrose went through in great detail. And,
believe me, no one is as critical about this money as I have been, and
we do have a need to move into the 21st century, and it does include
the delivery of services.
training for employees
Mr. Taylor. I can tell you from personal experience, you
can spend whatever you want to and you can't make me productive
on a computer because I missed that generation and I am just
hunting and pecking on the computer keyboard. So if we spend
$43 million and we have not trained the people, we have the
same procedures, the same systems, and then expect that we are
going to be having efficiencies. It would be futile.
Ms. Cropp. That is the issue. That is the management reform
that we are talking about. That is the very crucial part that
we are talking about. When we did the management reform, if you
look at that, one important element that goes through
everything, we had to retrain our work force if necessary in
order to improve the service delivery. You are absolutely
right. It is a component of it, and all of that is included in
the management reform. We haven't had training.
Mr. Taylor. Then you wouldn't be against my sitting on this
for another year, the $43 million, while you trained the
employees on the existing computers?
y2k problem
Ms. Cropp. We have another problem, Mr. Chairman. We have
that year 2000 problem that is coming up, and all of the
dollars that are invested in the IT--quite frankly. I was
shocked to find the amount of dollars that needed to be
invested for us to deal with that. If we sit off of that, if we
don't do anything with that, not only, quite frankly, will the
citizens suffer, but so will our whole transportation system
with all of our streetlights. That will all be impacted when
none of our streetlights work.
I would like to refer you, and if we have another
opportunity even beyond this hearing, to the management reform
that we did--and, again, this was a consensus effort between
the Mayor, the Council and the Financial Authority. I submitted
our committee reports for the record. I would like the staff to
look at the committee reports, and it will show how the Council
even reduced it because of those things that could not be done
that were needed in management reform. But this is for service
delivery, for us--to bring us into the world so we can do those
things that you have always said that we need to do in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Taylor. I need to go on with this. I want to recognize,
though, the Delegate from the District of Columbia,
Congresslady Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I would also like to
recognize City Council member, Hilda Mason.
Ms. Mason. Right here.
residency requirement for employees
Mr. Moran. Should we start with the residency requirement?
We have been trying to develop, in perception and reality, a
constructive, cooperative relationship with the District of
Columbia, particularly among the suburban members, whether it
be Tom or Stephanie, Al, Connie, Frank. And this is the kind of
thing that erodes that constructive relationship.
Now, if you were going to get it, it still might make
sense. But I will buy you lunch, the three of you, if you can
get this residency requirement enacted. I feel that strongly. I
know that you are not going to get it. In fact, we will let
Marion pick the restaurant because he knows the restaurants,
the most expensive ones. But it is not going to happen, and
that is really the problem with it.
I think it sets a very bad precedent, in addition to
eroding the kind of constructive relationship that we are
trying to establish.
The numbers that you read off, Dr. Brimmer, of the number
of people who have left the District who were working for the
District and where they went, that correlates exactly with what
has happened to the middle class in the District of Columbia.
And as you know, they are leaving because they want better
schools and safer streets, and that is what it is all about.
And for the most part they are going to Prince George's County.
Some are going to Virginia but not so many that it is going to
have any real impact on us or our society.
I don't want to represent their interests, and I believe
people should be able to live where they want, and it is not
going to make that much difference. But it is going to make a
difference to the District of Columbia, because our principal
objective, it seems to me, has got to be to get the best
possible people working for the District of Columbia. And every
time you foreclose their options, you make it more restrictive,
more difficult to work for the D.C. government, you limit the
number of people, the pool from which you want to attract the
best people.
I am sure that there are a lot of people that have now
bought homes in the suburbs who are going to look for
alternatives to working for the D.C. government if this is
passed. I don't really blame them, and I don't argue with your
ultimate objective. We have that objective.
I will use Alexandria for example. When we approve a major
residential project, we get the developer to set aside a
certain number of units at subsidized sales prices I am
suggesting it to you, but we do it in Alexandria.
For people who work for the Alexandria Police Department,
if you live in one of these residential developments, you can
buy a home for $100,000 versus $160,000. A great deal. The
developer is happy. We made it as part of the contract anyway,
so we have the same objective. We want people working within
our jurisdictions, but we feel very strongly it would be
counterproductive if we use the stick approach rather than the
carrot.
residency proposal applies to future employees
Mr. Brimmer. First, the legislation grandfathers everybody
currently on the payroll. It would apply only to future
employees. It would be so that those who are currently employed
and living outside of the District would not be required to
move into the City.
Next, I shared with you the result of the first piece of
the puzzle. I asked staff to examine this question. The other
piece was practices in the surrounding jurisdictions. I have
not gotten all of the results. But the first permutation, and
it ought to have some variation with a new mayor, what was the
requirement in Alexandria? Did the city have a residency
requirement?
no residency requirement in suburbs
Mr. Moran. Absolutely not. We had incentives like I just
described, but no residency requirement. And none of the
suburbs have a residency requirement. So you would be the only
one with a residency requirement. Just like when you put
restrictions on housing, you discourage people. You limit the
number of people that you are able to recruit from, and that is
why I oppose it, really. It is not going to affect my district.
district employees who live in district
Mayor Barry. Congressman, one thing is when you look at the
numbers of people who live in Maryland and Virginia, without
being scientific, the great majority have never lived in the
District.
Mr. Moran. How do you know that? It seems to correspond
with residency.
Mayor Barry. Because I have looked at a number of records.
Police officers have the lowest numbers; 31 percent live in the
District. I know that from following it over the last 16 years.
We had residency, but there were police officers who never
lived here, and once it was taken off and new ones came in,
they never lived here. Chicago----
Mr. Moran. But Chicago is a much bigger city.
Mayor Barry. It has to do with people's interest in
working. When we had it, we did attract the best and brightest.
You may not think so, but----
Another thing, Congress would have to pass it in the House
and the Senate and be signed by the President, and we certainly
shouldn't allow the President to veto this. So somebody should
lose this bet.
Mr. Moran. I would be shocked if it goes through.
state assistance to cities
Ms. Cropp. Congressman, if I may add, when you talk about
Alexandria and you were saying that Alexandria did not have
workers there, a residency requirement, and they may live in
Fairfax. When I talked about this issue, when they live in
Fairfax, they are still paying taxes to the State of Virginia.
So Alexandria still benefits from those workers.
People who may live in Baltimore, if they don't have--work
in Baltimore, they may not have a residency requirement if they
live in Baltimore County or Howard County or Montgomery County,
but they still pay taxes to the State of Maryland and,
therefore, Baltimore City benefits.
The same with Richmond. I bet in Richmond you will find
many people who work in Richmond and live outside Richmond, but
they live in Virginia and Richmond benefits, and Richmond has
an urban population that is older, sicker and poorer.
And Philadelphia, if you work in Philadelphia and if you
live outside of Philadelphia, you have to pay part of your
taxes to Philadelphia to offset their cost. You pay part of it,
and you can still live where you want, but you have to pay
something where you work.
More than 50 percent of our workers live outside. And when
they move outside, unlike these other jurisdictions, they are
not moving into a State that still gives the city money. They
move into the Commonwealth of Virginia or the State of
Maryland, and we get absolutely nothing, and that is what it is
all about.
Mr. Moran. They should be paying taxes where they are
sending their children to school and where they are most
reliant on public safety, because those are the greatest public
expenditures.
Mayor Barry. Do you support a tax on D.C. employees?
Mr. Moran. I think the argument is less compelling in
opposition to that. I think the principle still holds. I don't
want to Balkanize the metropolitan region.
per capita expenditure--mismanagement
[See Appendix, pp. 743-897, this volume, for copy of report
``The Necessity and Costs of District of Columbia Services.]
You have a $5 billion expenditure. You have 500,000 people.
That is $10,000 a person--per capita. You say we are
maintaining a State and local government. The $10,000 per
capita is more than any other jurisdiction requires. It is the
greatest infusion of public funds. And not only do I not think
that either a residency requirement or commuter tax is a silver
bullet to the problem, but I think they expose you to further
criticism that the money isn't being well spent. And that is
the principal reason that you are not going to get a commuter
tax, because the suburbs don't trust that the money is going to
be spent effectively, at least at this point in time.
transportation tax
I think you would be better off with a regional
transportation tax. A gas tax would benefit the District of
Columbia, because you can rely on the Metro system, and the
Metro system would greatly alleviate your other expenditures if
we can find a regional source to pay for that.
Also roads--roads are a service that people outside the
District of Columbia use. There was a proposal to pay for
those. I think you can justify doing that. This 400 miles of
main roads out of a total of 1,100--you could make a legitimate
case that there ought to be more Federal compensation for the
maintenance of the District's road and bridge system.
But you are going up--these aren't going to work, the
residency requirement and commuter tax. I know that we have
taken up a lot of time. I had a lot of other issues. I had a
suspicion that if I brought this one up, it would take more
than 5 minutes.
philadelphia residency requirement
Mr. Taylor. We asked the mayor of Philadelphia last year
when he was here if he had a residency requirement, and you
mentioned it is not exactly that. He said yes.
One of the things that he said, if your city police go home
and they experience the same things, such as crime, it will
serve as a motivation for them to protect their own kids at the
same level that we want all of our kids protected. That is what
I was saying. It is more than just money. I think it helps
build the city, but we will have this debate, Jim and I and the
whole committee, and we will act on the issue.
I would like to yield to Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an interesting issue. I am surprised that there isn't
a constitutional problem with that kind of requirement, as they
have in other cities. Maybe there is not.
reasons people move from cities
But Mr. Moran made a statement which I happened to agree
with. When we take a look at a lot of different inner cities--
Los Angeles, Chicago, New York--a lot of times people flee out
of the area because the schools have declined. And the crime
and drugs also forces businesses out, which forces your jobs
out, which means that there are more crimes and more poverty.
And that is a self-contained system that I think we have tried
to eliminate in the welfare reform bill. But let me speak to a
couple of things that I think can help.
special education plan
I sat as chairman on the K through 12 education two
Congresses ago, and I puffed out my chest when the President
signed the plan for special education. But I did that in
parentheses because--I don't know if you have ever tried to
take two cats that don't like each other and put them in a hot
car together. That is kind of like it was, taking the parent
groups and the school groups together to try to bring together
a compromise to get through a special education bill.
We know that special education costs the schools too much.
The problem is that every day a parent, thinks they are going
to have a little homecoming queen or a football star or
academic champion, all of a sudden is forced into a situation
where their child is physically or mentally handicapped. And
that is a very emotional thing.
special education--attorney fees
The special education issue is very contentious. The intent
of the bill was for better education. I didn't want lawyers to
be there whenthe parents met with the school for the first
time.
What I wanted is a parent group to come to the school for
the first time and sit down and talk and say, can you help my
child without a lawyer, and see if they could work it out. But,
unfortunately, that doesn't work. And I found out since we
signed the bill that the lawyers are presigning them up with
the activists and circumventing the whole issue. I don't know
how we can help you, but it is not just your problem, it is a
national problem.
Mayor Barry. We all want the best education for our
children, regardless of their condition. But after the
evaluation, after the 50th day, on the 51st day they are lined
up at the door requiring the expenditure of thousands of
dollars in legal fees----
Mr. Cunningham. And they usually sue for five or six items,
and they usually only qualify for one. I understand.
Ms. Cropp. They go to the school. They are waiting outside
of the school.
21st century classrooms act--upgrading computers
Mr. Cunningham. I know. There is an area where I think you
can help yourself. I also puffed up my chest--the President
signed in his budget the 21st Century Classrooms Act which
allows businesses to give computers to the school.
But what we do in California, we use a nonprofit; and it
serves two purposes. The business gets a tax break. The school
computers go to Detweiler. They use the prison labor to upgrade
those computers, so it teaches the inmates a skill, and then
the school receives that computer ready to plug in.
I understand that you have a problem with the
infrastructure, the wiring and the cables. That is something to
look at. We have the Detweiler program now in 29 States, and it
is working well, and it will enable us to give upgraded
computers. I am trying to get California on a rotational system
where business turns it over every 2 years so we keep upgraded
computers in our school system. That might be something that
you want to look at for your schools.
davis-bacon--steals from children
Something else I would recommend--maybe in your politics,
just like Mr. Moran says, you can't do this. But Davis-Bacon
steals from our children. Here is my wallet. Without Davis-
Bacon, there is 35 percent more money in there for your schools
to build them and repair buildings. I think you would grab it.
If I offered you two wallets, one with 35 percent more and one
with 35 percent less, if you can help us waive Davis-Bacon just
for school construction you get the wallet with 35 percent
more. That will help. The unions will hate it and fight us.
offer to visit schools
I will help you. I live right down on the waterfront. I
offered in the past to visit your schools, and I have yet to
get a single request to do so. My wife is a principal. I was a
teacher in high school and college and a dean of a college, and
I would love to go into those schools and sit with the
children.
Let me empathize a little bit. And I say the $10,000 per
capita, when you have a system that you are building from the
ground up, you need a certain amount of money. But when you
have a system that you have to tear down and build up, you may
need a little more money, if you understand what I mean,
because of the neglect. Not a lack of investment, but a lack of
wise investment. It is the same reason why we have a concern
about putting brand new computers in without trained people to
use them. They are going to sit there, and they are not going
to bring the productivity and the better investment. I think we
have come a long way in the last 2 years.
training and computers
Mr. Brimmer. May I say quickly, the funding says computers,
but it also includes training. A substantial part of all of the
management reform expenditures we are making reflects
accumulations of human capital and training.
Mr. Cunningham. Let me say two things. One, if I hire
somebody, I am going to make sure that they are computer
literate so I don't have to make that investment.
Secondly, I supported Eisenhower grants to bring teachers
up to a higher level. Because if I want a teacher to teach a
child in the 21st century, she can't teach at her present
level. But my wife does it on her own nickel. She says I want
to be more professional, so there is a curve there also.
Mr. Brimmer. Aside from the physical infrastructure is
training the teachers. So we are supplying substantial detail.
Mr. Cunningham. My time has run out, but one of the issues
before the Senate right now, which I saw in the papers, is, in
some ways, unfortunate, the tobacco legislation. We see it as
an increase in tax and making trial lawyers rich.
drug and smoke-free zones in schools
But is the school system--Mayor Barry, are you doing things
to make sure that you have tobacco--I see young kids smoking
around the schools. I don't smoke. My family doesn't smoke. You
don't smoke in my house or car. I believe in the right to smoke
but not in the schools or around kids.
Are they doing anything for drugs and tobacco, and I
include tobacco as a drug, in those free zones? If we want to
focus as a nation on things, I remember when we used to throw
papers out as a kid. The country was shrouded with paper. Now
you throw a piece of paper out, and I bet somebody is going to
honk their horn and scream an obscenity. It is an attitude
change.
I would like to see the schools focus on drug and smoke-
free zones, and I include tobacco. I don't want tobacco ads or
alcohol ads that focus on kids.
Ms. Cropp. We have legislation before the Council now--and,
in fact, I introduced one piece of it that deals with that
issue that you are talking about. We hope to have hearings
fairly soon, and we are working with children's groups and with
the schools in order to get the appropriate information. We
have had a lot of research done on that, and we hope that the
legislation will be passed fairly soon.
Mr. Cunningham. I thank the Chairman.
Mayor Barry. Just yesterday I was at a press conference in
southeast Washington where the community had gotten the
majority of merchants to voluntarily agree not to sell
cigarettes to anybody and cigarette papers and other things,
butts of cigars that they make cigarettes out of, and we
launched a major campaign last fall against smoking among
teenagers.
Also, we have a moratorium on certain classes of liquor
licenses. We have tried to stop the proliferation of Class B
licenses.
Mr. Cunningham. The San Diego Chargers talk to kids at
every event about staying away from drugs and smoking to the
sports athletes--and not just the sports athletes but the
academic athletes as well. I support those kinds of programs
that go into the schools, because kids listen to them better
than they listen to their parents. I know that with my own two
daughters.
Ms. Cropp. Teenagers are God's way of helping us let go of
our children.
1,330 increase in number of employees in fy 1999
Mr. Taylor. It is my understanding that the District
continues to employ far more employees per capita than any
other city or county and State in the Nation. We have 30,000
more or less. And, in fact, our numbers show that most of the
reductions have been as a result of transferring functions to
the Federal taxpayer or off-budget to enterprise funds. I am
astounded that the District's population is dropping and you
come to us with a request to increase city employees by 1,300.
How can you bring that before us?
Ms. Cropp. We will do a tag team here.
The D.C. public schools--in the Mayor's testimony, he
talked about the significant increase in the schools, $81
million. A lot of it is court mandated, and what you will see
is a herculean share of the increased positions being in the
schools, and we don't have choices, to some extent, to that.
I would like to also state the Mayor has also suggested in
his testimony that we have reduced--and I think Dr. Brimmer
also, that we have reduced our work force significantly over
the past several years. We are now trying to readjust that and
make sure that we have the appropriate workers in the
appropriate areas.
disproportionate increase in school population and employees
Mr. Taylor. If I am correct, the city population from last
year is 248 increase and the increase in employees is 1,330, so
the great proportion is not inside the schools, although we
could get into that. What we seem to have is a bottomless pit,
and I haven't broken those down, but still it is a small
percentage increase in the number of students.
Ms. Cropp. Most of it is going into special education for
the schools; and, in fact, the school system is reducing the
number of administrators.
Mr. Taylor. 248. I don't know how that----
Mayor Barry. I respectfully disagree with you on the
numbers about per capita. I have seen some studies, and I don't
know where they are now, but if you take Baltimore, take all of
the functions that the City of Baltimore, take all of the help
that the county gives, add the State, and you find that you
will find more people per capita for the City of Baltimore than
you do in Alexandria or Richmond.
So just take those raw numbers without looking at----
police officers per capita (see report on pp. 846-847, this volume)
Also, I can refer you to a study that the Greater
Washington Research Center did, and I can give it to your
Committee staff tomorrow, but it talks about the level of
employees per capita compared to other places, and the only
area that we are really down in is police. We have almost four
times the police officers per capita than any other city in
America. Almost seven police officers per 1,000 people.
employees--increase for schools
More importantly, if you look at the budget, the actual
employees in the city schools are 9,374, and we are asking for
10,000 for the school. So if you look, the school asked for a
thousand more people. I think the basic premise is wrong. It
really is.
Ms. Cropp. But the thousand--the people that the schools
are asking is mandated. So, in many instances, we don't have
the choice with regard to increasing the budget actually. It is
court mandated.
employees increase for corporation counsel
Mr. Taylor. The 232 employees that you are adding to the
Office of the Corporation Counsel, that sounds excessive, and
that has nothing to do with the schools nor is it court
mandated. I could go through and break it down more, but what
about----
You have a declining population. The Mayor and I were
talking about the city and county functions. We could also get
into questions of the maintenance of that 41 percent Federal
property. Those employees are paid for by the Federal
Government, and so there are a lot of people working here in
form and functions that most cities do not have.
But without getting into the particulars, can't we make
further reductions rather than adding? If we get in and look at
the schools and put those aside for a moment, can we not go
down in the number of overall city employees?
Mayor Barry. A major part of the increase is transferring
the child support function. There are over 130 positions where
the Corporation Counsel this year is administering the child
support function in the District, as in Texas, and you will
find that the great majority of those increases are transfers
from the Department of Housing.
Mr. Taylor. There is still an increase in employment, but
we will be glad to----
Mayor Barry. It is the FTEs.
Mr. Taylor. I would love to have any defense you have and
here again spend a little time on it, because it is going to be
hard for us to increase employment, especially after this
enormous amount of burden that the Federal taxpayer has taken
over for the city in the Revitalization Act.
Ms. Cropp. Mr. Chairman, if you have issues like that such
as the Mayor pointed out where there were transfers, contact us
and let us know.
contracting out costs
Let me tell you another place where you may see some
increase in our employment. I am trying to remember from a
couple of years ago when we had the ceiling that was imposed on
us and we had to do some contracting out. What we found out was
that, in some instances, it actually ended up costing us more
dollars in the long run where, as we reduced our number of
employees, not all, but in some areas it ended up costing us
more money, and we were forced to reduce our employees, and I
could share with you some of that.
So you may see instances where we may have increased
employees, but in doing that it makes it more cost-effectivefor
the District to run the government and, overall, it is much cheaper. So
I would ask for that opportunity to share that also.
Mayor Barry. Those specific budgetary increase kinds of
questions, would you submit questions and we will do the
research?
Mr. Taylor. Sure. We will operate with the best facts. I
would like to end since we are probably going to have another
vote.
Mr. Dixon, do you have any questions?
Mr. Dixon. Thank you very much.
I don't have any questions; but, in listening to the
conversations, it doesn't seem that I missed anything. These
discussions have been going on for 18-20 years. The lines of
questions and the line of responses seem to be just about the
same.
salary overpayments--executive director and legal counsel
Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, I did read with interest the GAO
letter and report on the salaries, and although I wasn't here
for Dr. Brimmer's testimony, he was kind enough to send it to
me, and I have read it. The staff tells me that you intend to
have a special hearing on that issue, and so I don't have any
questions today. Is that correct?
Mr. Taylor. Yes. We would like to go into that some and ask
the counsel from the committee and GAO.
Mr. Dixon. So we will have a hearing on that issue?
Mr. Taylor. It may be just bringing in all of the members
of the committee rather than a public hearing, but we would
like to get to the bottom of the legalese.
Mr. Dixon. I suspect that there is more to this than the
GAO report and more to this than the response, and I think we
have to get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Congressman Moran.
special education--rip-off of 50-day rule
Mr. Moran. Let me say that this 50-day rule on special ed;
it is a rip-off. People are gaining from the system. If you are
living in the District of Columbia, middle or upper class, and
you claim that your child is in some way challenged, you know
that the D.C. government doesn't have the ability to review it
within 50 days. So you end up sending them to a very expensive
school at public expense. They are getting away with it, and it
should not be done. It is depriving the other children of
needed resources. The stupid 50-day requirement----
Ms. Cropp. We changed that. We passed emergency
legislation.
Mr. Moran. So it is now 120 days which is uniform with the
rest of us?
Ms. Cropp. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Good.
tax and regulatory changes
The other thing that I hope that you can get through are
these tax and regulatory changes. I understand that a lot of
them have bogged down at the D.C. Council level, is that true?
The recommendations that were made on the professional license
tax, the unincorporated business tax, corporate franchise?
Mr. Brimmer. Those are recommendations. You might recall
that Congress mandated that the control board--
Mr. Moran. We wanted you to do more than just look at them.
Mr. Brimmer. There were a number of orders and
recommendations that were made. The Council Chair and I were
discussing that.
Ms. Cropp. They were in the document that I passed out to
the committee. The Council is reviewing it. We wanted to wait
until we got the report of the tax revision commission. We had
a hearing last week, and they just reported back to us, and we
wanted them to have an opportunity to make their
recommendations.
Mr. Moran. That bolsters your case substantially. Because,
right now, as you know, D.C. is so uncompetitive when
businesses are trying to decide where to go, given the tax
situation.
medical malpractice issues (see pp. 898-966, this volume)
The last thing, I hope you look at some of the medical
malpractice issues. There are other ways to deal with it. For
example, we have a Federal liability scheme that you may be
able to employ. There is virtually no OB-GYNs in the
neighborhoods that need them the most, and that is not fair to
the citizens.
I don't want to get into issues that will prolong the
hearing, because we do have a vote.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brimmer. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. We may have you back or we may personally
correspond with you.
The hearing is adjourned.
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
(INCLUDING PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS)
WITNESSES
MAUDINE R. COOPER, CHAIR, EMERGENCY TRANSITIONAL EDUCATION BOARD OF
TRUSTEES
WILMA HARVEY, PRESIDENT, D.C. BOARD OF EDUCATION
ARLENE ACKERMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JOSEPHINE C. BAKER, CHAIRPERSON, D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
GLORIA L. JARMAN, DIRECTOR, HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES
ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES; ACCOUNTING AND
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Opening Remarks of Congressman Cunningham
Mr. Cunningham [presiding]. Good morning. I'm Duke
Cunningham. For the second year that I have been on the
committee, the chairman has allowed me to chair the education
issues in Committee. I was a former teacher in high school and
a coach. I was a teacher and coach in the college level, and I
was dean of a college. My wife, who has her doctorate degree in
education, is an elementary school principal of two different
schools. So you can imagine what workload she has. My sister-
in-law has just been named a principal in a special education
school. So we have got education in our family throughout, and
it is a personal interest of mine and has been for a long time.
I think, not just in D.C. but across the country, if you
want to take over a business, instead of taking over a good
business, if you can take over a business that was not doing
well and make it a good business, then I think you can really
make your mark. And I think that that is what all of us are
trying to do here is restore a school system. Let me say first,
I have been through D.C. and I have seen some very good
teachers. I have seen some very good schools. But if you look
across the country and overall, I think we would all agree that
we would not give our school system an ``A.'' And I think that
that is the only direction that we can go is give our schools
an ``A.''
We have got a lot of testimony today. We have got not only
education, but corrections, public safety, and on down the
line.
increase of $85 million for public schools
The D.C. school budget request for $545 million for fiscal
year 1999 is an $85 million increase over fiscal year 1998. So
three-quarters of the increase, or $69 million, is identified
as mandatory increases, the result of court orders and mandates
for special education.
special education and attorney fees
Now, when I was K through 12 chairman on the Education
Committee--I do not know if you have ever tried to bring a
Siamese and a Persian cat together, but that is what it was
like trying to bring together parents of special education
children and the schools. It was a very difficult bill to get
through. And where both sides were not completely happy, we got
a bill through that we thought was an improvement. It lacked
some of the improvements that the schools wanted. We found also
that the lawyers are trying to circumvent the system, in many
cases costing the schools, not just in D.C. but across the
country, too much money that should be given to other children.
We are going to try and fix that too.
children first
We have got to put children first. That is more than just a
statement. Your commitment shows that you do. And I would hope
that throughout the year that we can get more of our colleagues
and allies to put away the politics and sit down and take a
look and say, ``What is really good for each individual child
within the school system?'' Because they are all different. I
have got three children and I guarantee you they are different
critters. Each and everyone of them. [Laughter.]
test score improvements
The good news is that D.C. school children are scoring
better on the Stanford 9 standardization reading and math
tests. That is fantastic. When you take a look at the move and
the general direction that the city is making itself, and then
the education system, any positive move, that is good and you
can take credit for that. But we have got a long way to go. I
think all of you agree with that.
public/private partnerships
One of the recommendations that I would wish you would take
a look at, the President signed the bill that I put forward.
It's called the 21st Century Classroom Act. And what that does
is encourage some businesses to donate more quality computers
to schools. But, in some cases, when a school got a donated
computer, it didn't have the right software. It may be a
computer from a bank. The teachers and the professional people
did not know how to upgrade them. So they basically sat in a
corner, useless. What we do in California and 29 other States,
we give it to a nonprofit organization called Detweiler.
Detweiler takes the computer from business. It has to be within
two years old. They then let prison labor upgrade it, which
teaches the prisoners a skill so that maybe they are not going
to end up back there in the prison. And then they upgrade those
computers with the software ready to plug into the school. Now
the business gets an expanded tax break. So it is a benefit.
You teach the prisoners. And then the school gets a computer
ready to use, upgraded for that year. And we are trying to get
California schools and businesses on a two year cycle, all
businesses. So that that way we have upgraded computers in our
school system from private sources. And it has been a big
success. And it is one area in which I think you can take a
look at.
president vetoed scholarship act favored by d.c. residents
Last month, the President vetoed legislation that would
have given many school children real hope, The D.C. Opportunity
Scholarships Act. The day after the President's veto, the
Washington Post published a poll indicating that D.C. citizens
supported these opportunity scholarships by a 56-to-36 margin,
and especially the African-American community which supported
it 2 to 1. And these are scholarships for children that if you
have a child in an area that just has no hope in that school,
then as a parent you want that child out of that area. Last
October, the Washington Scholarship Fund did announce monies
available, $1,000 scholarships for children of low-income
families. The Fund received applications from 7,573 children.
So there is a need out there and I think that when we take a
look at whether you support vouchers or what, there are some
children in areas that we need to reach out to and help.
charter schools--budget not fair
I think the budget does not treat the charter school
students fairly and equally. You may want to take a look at
that. It has been a big success in California where I am from,
and supported by the Governor.
special education--attorney fees
We want to make a real difference. But that difference,
especially in special education, again, should take the money
out of the lawyers' pockets and put it into the schools'
pockets.
davis-bacon--waiver would save 35 percent
Let me give you a couple of other examples in which I think
we can save money, and where I am talking about where people
really put children first instead of politics. For school
construction, you can save 35 percent in school construction if
we can waive Davis Bacon. Now, it is a big union issue. It is a
powerful issue. But if we really want to focus on the children,
here is a chance. I am not asking the unions to waive Davis
Bacon across the United States. I am talking about D.C.
schools, just for the construction and maintenance of our
schools systems that are over 60 years old. If I was going to
offer you 35 percent more money for your grocery bill or to go
to Nordstroms, I think you are going to take it. And I think
that we can do the same thing for our children.
electrical power deregulation
With respect to electrical power needs, by putting those
out to bid, we can save money and be very successful. And I
think it is supported by many of you. It has been estimated we
can save up to $2 million in that. And that money would go into
the school system.
So I am here to listen to your ideas, and to offer some
ideas that we have found in different school districts that can
help. We call it D.C. Power for Children, and I think we all
support that as well.
I see Mr. Moran is not here yet, but when he comes, I will
ask if he would like to make a statement.
electricity pilot program for d.c. schools
At this time, I would like to enter into the record this
D.C. Power for Children information and you'll get copies if
you would like.
[The material referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
DC Power for the Children: Selected Congressional Testimony From School
Administrators Showing How Choice for Power Works Well and Saves
Schools Money, House Commerce Committee
statement of michael vanairsdale
Mr. Vanairsdale. Yes sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Mike
Vanairsdale, I am the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services for
Fulton County Schools. I am pleased to be here today to represent the
American Association of School Administrators and school districts
across the country who believe that deregulation of the electric
utility will allow them to spend more money in the classroom and less
on electricity.
Please allow me to give you a brief overview of the average school
district's budget. The largest line item in the budget is personnel--
the people who teach the students, feed the students, get the students
to and from school, maintain school facilities, coordinate all these
activities. Public school personnel are called upon to do a lot of
things and consequently their salaries and benefits consume a large
portion of our budgets.
The second largest budget item, right after personnel, is utility
costs, primarily electricity. That is why we are interested in
deregulation. Electricity is a significant expense for us, there is
real money to be saved. In fiscal year 1998, my school system will
spend approximately $9.5 million on utilities. Approximately 70
percent, or $6.5 million of that will be spent on electricity. If we
could save only 15 percent each year as a result of deregulation and
the ensuing competition for our business, that would mean nearly $1
millionthat could be spent in the classroom to help kids, rather than
on electricity. A million dollars would provide salaries and benefits
for 20 teachers in Fulton County schools. And because of our size, my
system's bill is relatively low. In Chicago, a city I understand you
will be visiting next month, public schools spend approximately $40
million every year on electricity. A 15 percent savings for them would
mean $6 million each year they could spend on programs to help their
students.
Mr. Chairman, certainly you can do the math, but allow me to
provide you some additional data. Nationwide kindergarten through 12
public schools spend about $42.5 billion each year on electricity. If
we could save 15 percent each year through deregulation, the result
would be a nationwide savings of more than $635 million, which local
districts would be able to spend to address classroom needs.
In Georgia, because of the Georgia Territorial Electrical Services
Act of 1973, utilities compete for the business of new schools as they
come on line. To demonstrate the savings that competition can provide,
let me give you a comparison between recent rates recorded under this
limited competition and our average rates of Fulton County Schools. Our
lowest rate on an elementary school we opened last fall is about 3.5
cents per kilowatt hour, while our average rate is about 7.5 cents per
kilowatt hour. The highest rate we pay, among seven different
suppliers, is almost 10 cents per kilowatt hour. As you can see, even
this limited competition results in significant savings as we bring
these schools on line. Furthermore, we have not encountered reliability
problems, as I have heard used as a barrier to competition.
A second obstacle mentioned is the assertion that no one will want
to market to schools and other small consumers. I have found the
opposite to be true. As I mentioned, we are served by seven suppliers.
Further more, as I understand the situation, utilities and power
marketers, including giants like the Southern Company, Enron and
UtiliCorp are actively marketing themselves to secure the business of
school districts even though competition is currently allowed only in a
few States. As I stated earlier, school districts nationwide use more
than $4 billion in electricity annually, so I am not concerned that we
will be left out.
But Mr. Chairman, we will not see these savings or opportunities
nationwide without Federal action. As I mentioned, right now in
Georgia, schools enjoy a small degree of competition for their
business, however, most of my colleagues across the country cannot shop
around and find out who will give them the best deal on their
electricity. School districts can buy everything from chalk to school
buses to natural gas competitively, but not electricity. And based on
my understanding of the issue, without Federal action, including a date
certain for competition to begin, it will never come.
Mr. Chairman, I spent 26 years in the United States Army before
retiring as a Colonel last July. One of my responsibilities was to
develop efficient means to save money and them implement those plans.
Now, as an assistant superintendent for support services for Fulton
County Schools, I do the same thing. But, I cannot implement savings on
electricity without your help. I believe that if we leave the decision
about whether to implement competition to theStates. Many or my
colleagues around the country will never be able to take advantage of
the opportunities that competition offer. But, with Federal
legislation, I believe deregulation can be implemented in a way that
benefits all customers.
In closing, I am reminded of a remark that Willie Sutton once made
when asked why he robbed banks. Sutton responded that he robbed banks
because that is where the money is. As someone who is charged with
saving my school system money, I need to look for where they money is.
In my area, that money is in high utility costs. We could be spending
the money saved on kids and not on electricity.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before
your subcommittee. If I can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to call on me.
[The prepared statement of Michael Vanairsdale follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Vanairsdale, Assistant Superintendent for
Support Services, Fulton County Board of Education
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to represent The American Association of School
Administrators and school districts across the country who believe that
deregulation of the electric utility industry will allow them to spend
more money in the classroom and less on electricity.
Please allow me to give you a brief overview of the average school
district's budget. The largest line item in that budget is personnel--
the people who teach the students, feed the students, help keep the
students healthy while they are at school, provide services to the
students, get the students to and from school, maintain school
facilities, and coordinate all these activities. Public school
personnel are called upon to do a lot of things, and consequently their
salaries and benefits consume a large portion of our budgets.
The second largest budget item, right after personnel, is utility
expenses, primarily electricity. That is why we are interested in
deregulation--electricity is a significant expense for us--there is
real money to be saved. In fiscal year 1998, my school system will
spent approximately $9.5 million on utilities. Approximately 70
percent, or $6.5 million of that will be spent on electricity. If we
could save 15 percent each year as a result of deregulation and the
ensuing competition for our business, that would mean nearly $1 million
dollars that could be spent in the classroom, to help kids--rather than
on electricity. In Fulton County, a million dollars would provide
salary and benefits for 20 additional teachers. And, because of our
size, my system's bill is relatively low. In Chicago, a city I
understand you will be visiting next month, the public schools spend
approximately $40 million every year on electricity. A 15 percent
savings for them would mean $6 million dollars each year that they
could spend on programs to help their students.
Mr. Chairman, certainly you can do the math, but allow me to
provide you additional data. Nationwide K-12 public schools spend about
$4.25 billion each year on electricity. If we could save 15 percent
each year through deregulation the result would be a nationwide savings
of more than $635 million annually which local districts would be able
to spend to address their classroom needs.
In Georgia, because of the Georgia Territorial Electrical Services
Act of 1973, utilities compete for the business of new schools when
they come on line. To demonstrate the savings that competition can
provide, let me give a comparison between recent rates recorded under
this limited competition and our average rates. Our lowest rate on a
school we opened last fall is about 3\1/2\ cents per kilowatt hour
while our average rate is about 7\1/2\ cents per kilowatt hour. The
highest rate we pay--among 7 suppliers--is almost 10 cents a kilowatt
hour. As you can see, even this limited competition has resulted in
significant savings as we bring on new schools. Furthermore, we believe
this competition results in better service; we have not encountered
``reliability problems'' as I have heard used as a barrier to
competition.
A second ``obstacle'' to competition that I have heard is the
assertion that no one will want to market to schools and other small
consumers. I have found the opposite to be true. As I mentioned, we now
receive service from seven suppliers. Furthermore, as I understand the
situation, utilities and power marketers, including giants like
Southern Company, Enron, and UtiliCorp are activity marketing
themselves to secure the business of school districts even though
competition is currently alloweddegree of competition for their
business, however, most of my colleagues around the country can't shop
around and find out who will give them the best deal on electricity.
School districts can buy everything from chalk to school buses to
natural gas competitively, but not electricity. And, based on my
understanding of the issue and my experience working in this area,
without federal action including a date certain for competition to
begin, it will never come.
Mr. Chairman, I spent 26 years in the United States Army before
retiring as a Colonel last July. One of my responsibilities was to
develop efficient means to save money and then implement these plans.
Now, as an assistant superintendent for support services for Fulton
County Public Schools, I do the same thing. But, I cannot implement
savings on electricity without your help. I believe that if we leave
the decision about whether to implement competition to the states, many
of my colleagues around the country will never be able to take
advantage of the opportunities competition offers. But, with federal
legislation that includes a date for competition to begin, I believe
deregulation can be implemented in a way that benefits all customers.
In closing, I am reminded of a remark that Willie Sutton once made
when asked why he robbed banks. Sutton responded that he robbed banks
because that's where the money is. As someone who is charged with
saving my school system money, I need to look for those savings where
the money is. In my area the money is in high utility costs. We could
be spending the money saved on kids and not on electricity. Again, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before your
subcommittees. If I can be of further service, please do not hesitate
to call on me.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you very much, Mr. Vanarisdale. Mr. Smith.
statement of charles d. duffy
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Bliley, Representative Crapo and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to represent
the American Association of School Administrators and school districts
across the country who believe that deregulation of the electric
utility industry will allow them to spend more money in the classroom
and less on electricity.
I am the executive director of an educational service agency in
West Virginia. Basically, educational service agencies, or ESAs, asthey
are commonly called, provide services and take advantage of economies
of scale for groups of school districts. My agency provides services
and educational experience to eight school districts in West Virginia.
As you know, electricity is the largest nonlabor item in most
school system budgets. In fact, utility costs are generally the second
largest item in the average school budget. That is why school
superintendents and educational service agency directors like me are
interested in deregulation. Electricity is a significant expense for
us. And we believe that there is real money to be saved.
In fiscal year 1996, the eight school districts that I represent
spent over $3 million on electricity. Three million dollars may not
seem like much for eight districts, but if you could save just 15 per
cent as a result of deregulation, it would be nearly a half million
dollars we could spend on students instead of electric bills. For small
districts like ours, that would mean enough money to buy 21 new
computers for each of our 16 high schools and help give the students
the technological skills that they need in the workplace. Or a half
million dollars would be enough for us to hire at least 12 additional
teachers. And the examples I am offering you are just 1 year's savings.
Fairfax County Public Schools in the northern part of Virginia
spends about $30 million each year on electricity. Therefore, a 15
percent savings would mean $4.5 million each year to spend in their
classrooms rather than on electricity. Fairfax County is about to
embark on an ambitious capital improvement plan to accommodate their
increasing enrollment and aging buildings. I am sure that $4.5 million
extra, each year, could be an important tool for solving these
problems.
Here around Richmond, the Richmond and Henrico public schools spend
more than $5 million a year on electricity. A 15 percent savings would
give these two school systems more than $750,000 each year to spend on
the students from this area rather than on electricity.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are aware of this, but allow me to
provide the subcommittee a little additional information. Nationwide,
K-12 public schools spend about $4.25 billion each year on electricity.
That is more than the Federal Government, Chairman Bliley. A 15 percent
savings as a result of deregulation would mean a nationwide annual
savings of more than $635 million, which local districts would be able
to spend in their classrooms rather than on their electric bills.
There is some concern that under deregulation no one will want to
sell power to schools because we have an unusual load factor. We use
electricity at unusual times compared to normal electric load. I do not
believe that this will be the case. Right now, with competition
existing in only a few States, utilities and power marketers are
already actively courting the business of schools. As I said earlier,
the school systems nationwide use more than $4 billion in electricity
annually, so I don't think that we will be overlooked.
But, Mr. Chairman, without Federal action, most school systems will
never be able to take advantage of the savings that deregulation
offers. Right now, school districts can join together and pay forthings
like pencils and paper, to computers, cooperatively to save money, but
we can't do that with electricity.
My job, and the job of other ESA directors, is to provide
efficiency and savings to the school districts I represent. But we
cannot achieve savings on electricity without your help. We should be
spending money on kids and not on electricity.
Again, Mr. Chairman, it has been my honor and a pleasure to appear
before your subcommittee. If I can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to call on me.
[The prepared statement of Charles D. Duffy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles D. Duffy, Executive Director, Regional
Education Agency VIII
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to represent The American Association of School
Administrators and school districts across the country who believe that
deregulation of the electric utility industry will allow them to spend
more money in the classroom and less on electricity.
I am the executive director of an educational service agency in
West Virginia. Basically, educational service agencies, or ESA's as
they are commonly called, provided services and take advantage of
economies of scale for groups of school districts. My agency provides
services and educational expertise to eight school districts in West
Virginia.
As you know, electricity is the largest non-labor items in most
school system budgets. In fact, utility costs are generally the second
largest item in the average school budget. That is why school
superintendents and education service agency directors like me are
interested in deregulation--electricity is a significant expense for
us--and we believe that there is real money to be saved.
In fiscal year 1996, the eight school districts I represent spent
over $3 million on electricity. Three million may not seem like much
for eight districts, but if we could save just 15 percent as a result
of deregulation, it would be nearly a half-million dollars we could
spend on students instead of our electric bills. For small districts
such as ours, that would mean enough money to buy 21 new computers for
each of our 16 high schools and help give the students the
technological skills they will need in the workplace. Or, a half
million would be enough for us to hire at least 12 additional teachers.
And, the examples I am offering you are from just one year's savings.
Fairfax County Public Schools in the northern part of Virginia
spends about $30 million each year on electricity, therefore a 15
percent savings would mean $4\1/2\ million each year to spend in their
classrooms rather than on electricity. Fairfax County is about to
embark on an ambitious capital improvement plan to accommodate their
increasing enrollment and aging buildings. I am sure that $4\1/2\
million extra--each year--could be an important tool for solving these
problems.
Here around Richmond, the Richmond and Henrico public schools spend
more than $5 million each year on electricity. A 15 percent savings
would give these two school systems more than $750,000 each year to
spend on the students from this area rather than on electricity.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you are aware of this, but allow me to
provide the subcommittee a little additional information. Nationwide,
K-12 public schools spend about $4.25 billion each year on electricity.
A 15 percent savings as a result of deregulation would mean a
nationwide annual savings of more than $635 million, which local
districts would be able to spend in their classrooms rather than on
their electric bills.
There is some concern that under deregulation no one will want to
sell power to schools because we have an unusual load factor--we use
electricity at unusual times compared to the normal electric load. I
don't believe that this will be the case. Right now, with competition
existing in only a few states, utilities and power marketers are
already actively courting the business of schools. As I said earlier,
school systems nationwide use more than $4 billion in electricity
annually, so don't think we will be overlooked.
But, Mr. Chairman, without federal action most school systems will
never be able to take advantage of the savings that deregulation
offers. Right now, school districts can join together and pay for
everything from pencils to personnel cooperatively to save money, but
we can't do that with electricity.
My job--and the job of other ESA directors--is the provide
efficiency and savings to the school districts I represent. But, we
cannot achieve savings on electricity without your help. We should be
spending money on kids and not on electricity.
Again, Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor and a pleasure to appear
before your subcommittee. If I can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to call on me.
Mr. Schaefer. The Chairman thanks the gentleman very much for his
testimony. We will now turn to Mr. Lepinsky, who is with the United
Homeowners Association in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
statement of cheryl h. wilhoyte
Ms. Wilhoyte. Good morning, Chairman Schaefer and honored members
of the subcommittee.
I bring you greetings from Madison, Wisconsin, Money Magazine's
Number 1 city this year and the home of high achieving schools and high
achieving students.
I represent the American Association of School Administrators and
school districts across this country. We believe that customer choice
of electric power will allow us to spend less on electricity and more
on improving our classrooms and producing productive citizens for the
21st Century.
School superintendents, like other CEOs, seek to improve quality.
In Congressman Hall's words, that make it good.
We also seek to lower cost. Again quoting Congressman Hall, cheap.
We like to maximize our return on investment for not only our taxpaying
customers, but most importantly, for our student customers.
We believe customer choice for electric power will lower costs and
allow us to focus those resources on the classroom, where they belong.
Electricity is the highest non-labor costs for public schools. It
takes a lot of money to run schools these days, and children at risk
are only transformed into children of promise when they have the
opportunity to excel and the resources to match student needs.
Superintendents are not just looking for more money. We are
committed to being quality stewards of the moneys we have. However,
archaic laws in the electric industry are barriers to our working
smarter.
Cooperative and collaborative buying power for electricity is an
essential win-win for school districts across the country. Right nowI,
and other superintendents, can purchase just about every service or
commodity we need in volume. We can take advantage of economies of
scale and bulk discount. That is everything from pencils to desks, to
computers, to special services, and even natural gas, but we cannot do
that with electricity, and that just does not seem right.
Let's talk a minute in terms of a practical example. Right now a
school district cannot even aggregate their load. This means a huge
district like Chicago that uses over $40 million in electricity
annually pays for each of its 600 schools based on individual usage.
That is just about as absurd as my telling 46 Madison principals to go
out and buy 46 school buses one by one instead of having our business
manager and transportation director buy about 20 buses and share the
runs between home and school.
With electricity being our highest non-labor cost, in most school
district budgets we figure that K-12 public school districts use about
$4.25 billion annually to buy electricity. If we could save only 15
percent nationwide, and as I understand it, the pilot programs
currently underway are generating even greater savings, 15 percent
savings would yield over $635 million to be returned to today's
classrooms.
We could help youngsters read and write and compute and think and
resolve conflicts and problems at the high standard that we are going
to need for our 21st Century graduates.
That sort of savings would mean different things certainly to
different school systems. In rural West Virginia, my colleague Dr.
Charlie Duffy estimates that he could save enough in 1 year to outfit
15 high schools with 21 new computers to help his students become
technologically literate.
In Madison, we have success for our goal. It means we leave no
child behind. We do not accept failure. For us, that savings could mean
five more reading recovery teachers to teach between 60 and 70 6 to 7
years olds how to read because increasingly Madison's children are
poor, and while they once know few letter-sound relationships.
And while I appreciate the value of volunteers to share a love of
reading, it takes a highly skilled professional to interrupt
predictions of school failure and allow those youngsters to become
successful readers.
Electric rates in Madison are really not too bad. The most our
district pays is about 4 cents a kilowatt hour, and we pay a little
less off peak, and yet here in Chicago, 120 miles away, the school
system pays an average of 9 cents per kilowatt hour. Their average
rates are more than double any in Wisconsin.
Chicago's public schools spend about $40 million annually. If they
paid what I paid, they could save $20 million a year to redirect
students services.
School districts across the country would benefit from choice.
Savings would perhaps not be a dramatic as they might be in Chicago. If
we only saves 10 percent in Madison, or $140,000 a year, those reading
recovery teachers would have a significant impact on our achieving our
100 percent success rate for our third graders to read above the State
standard on the third grade reading test.
There are a number of compelling arguments for Federal action, and
as Congressman Shimkus reminds us, we are in the Land of Lincoln, so I
will reference his perspective. Where you stand depends on where you
sit, and I see public schools everywhere in every State, in every
community seeking revenues to meet student needs.
Because my colleagues and I believe Federal legislation is
necessary to restructure this vital industry, we cannot move schools to
take advantage of savings in different regions or States. They have got
to be where the youngsters are. Without Federal action, I do not
believe the savings will come to all school districts.
All districts should have this opportunity, and that is why the
rules and the regulations that you must decide upon must assure the
equity and fair play much like we do at the play yard at recess each
day.
Being our largest non-labor cost, cutting for us is not an issue of
profit or price. It is quality stewardship in tax dollars that we are
seeking. It is our students who will profit because we can devote more
resources to them and less to electric bills.
In closing I want to share with you that in Madison we judge
student performance at four levels: emerging, developing, accomplished,
and exemplary. We are looking to your leadership to develop the
safeguards and rules that will provide equity of access, reduced costs,
and good electrical service while helping superintendents work smarter
and giving us a choice in electric power to be sure that we achieve
accomplished and exemplary high school graduates.
We thank you for this opportunity to speak before you, and I wish
you well in your deliberations on customer choice for electricity.
[The prepared statement of Cheryl H. Wilhoyte follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl H. Wilhoyte, Superintendent, Madison
Metropolitan School District
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to represent the American Association of School
Administrators and school districts across the country who believe that
deregulation of the electric industry will allow them to spend more
money on services that help students in the classroom and less on
electricity.
Mr. Chairman, superintendents all over the United States are
interested in deregulation because electricity is a significant cost
for us. Let me be frank. It takes a lot of money to run schools these
days--especially in urban districts like mine or Chicago. This is not a
popular reality, but it is a reality nonetheless. We need resources
from both the government and the private sector to help us serve the
diverse student body we are serving today. Our children are children of
promise if the learning opportunities and resources are available. But,
we are not only looking for additional resources, we want to spend the
funds we have now in the most effective way possible but because of
archaic laws concerning the electric industry, we cannot do that with
our electrical service.
Right now, I can, and superintendents across the country can,
cooperatively purchase just about every service or commodity we use.
This allows school districts or groups of districts to buy in volume
and take advantage of economies of scale and bulk discounts. We do this
with about everything we use, from pencils and desks to special
services and even natural gas--but we can't do it with electricity.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, right now most school districts in this
country can't even aggregate their load within a district. This means a
hugh district like Chicago that uses about $40 million in electricity
annually pays for each school based on its individual usage rather than
the total usage of the more than 600 buildings in the system. If this
sounds a little absurd, it's because it is. It would be like me telling
eachof my principals to figure out how many new school buses they need
each year and to order them independently from all the other schools in
Madison. Rather than my business officer going to the bus company and
working out a deal for 15 new buses, there would be 15 principals each
negotiating a price for one bus. You don't have to be an economist to
see which way would garner a better price.
As I mentioned, electricity is a major cost for us. It is the
largest non-labor item in most school district budgets. Nationwide, K-
12 public school districts use about $4.25 billion annually in
electricity. If we could save only 15 percent nationwide--and as I
understand it, the pilot programs currently underway are generating
savings greater than that--15 percent would give school districts
nationwide $635 million that they could spend in the classroom to help
students rather than on electricity.
Mr. Chairman, these sort of savings would mean different things to
different school systems. In rural West Virginia, my colleague, Dr.
Charles Duffy, who I understand you know, estimates that he could save
enough in one year to outfit each of the 16 high schools he serves with
21 new computers to help his students become more technologically
literate.
In Madison, each year we could hire five more Reading Recovery
teachers to assure basic literacy competency for 60 more six and seven
year-olds who have yet to learn to read. Learning and mastering the
tools of reading are major factors in reducing the dropout rate and
ensuring a high graduation rate. With over 96 hours of graduate and
post-graduate study and research in reading and learning disabilities,
I appreciate the value of volunteers to reinforce and share a love of
reading and learning. However, it takes highly skilled professionals to
teach children who are not only coming to school not reading and
writing, but coming to kindergarten and first grade with few, if any,
letter-sound relationships. Unfortunately, these skilled professionals
don't come cheaply.
My point, Mr. Chairman, is that various school systems across the
country could be spending money on a variety of proven programs and
services related to raising student achievement, but right now they are
spending that money on electricity.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as electric rates in this country go,
Madison's are not too bad. The most my district pays per kilowatt hour
is about 4 cents, and we pay less off peak. Here in Chicago, only 120
miles away, the school system pays an average of 9 cents per kilowatt
hour. This average rate is more than double my district's highest rate.
As I said, Chicago public schools spend about $40 million annually--if
they paid what I pay, that would be more than $20 million dollars--each
year--that they could spend in their classrooms rather than on their
electric bills. Twenty million dollars! If that is not an imperative to
act on this issue, I don't know what is.
Mr. Chairman, there are school districts across this country that
would benefit as a result of deregulation. For most, the savings would
not be as dramatic as they could be for Chicago, but they would save
money nonetheless. Even if we only saved 10 percent in Madison, that
would still be more than $140,000 each year that we could spend in the
classroom rather than on electricity. This is not an insignificant
amount of money. Five more Reading Recovery teachers would have a
significant impact on achieving our goal of 100% success for every
third grader to read above standard on their grade reading test.
There are a number of compelling arguments for federal action on
this issue, but as Lincoln once said, ``where you stand depends on
where you sit'' and from where I sit, I see public schools everywhere,
in every state, and every community. Because of this, my colleagues and
I believe that federal legislation is necessary for restructuring this
vital industry. When people talk about businesses and industry
relocating to find cheaper power, it reinforces the belief of my
colleagues that federal action is necessary. We can't move schools to
take advantage of savings in different regions or states. Schools have
to be where the students are. Without federal action, I don't think the
savings will come to all school districts. Power marketers and
utilities are actively courting the business of schools in states where
deregulation has taken place. All school districts should be able to
take advantage of these opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, electricity is the largest non-labor item
in most school district budgets. For us, cutting this cost is not a
profit or price issue as it is for many other consumers. If we can save
on electricity, it is our students who will profit because we can
devote more resources to them and less to our electric bills.
In Madison, our parent hotline is 608/266-HELP! I hope we can count
on your help to most effectively realign more of our available dollars
away from electricity and directly toward improving student and school
achievement.
Thank you very much for inviting me to testify before your
subcommittee. If I can be of further assistance, I hope that you will
not hesitate to contact me.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you very much, Dr. Wilhoyte.
The next witness, Ms. Drummond.
statement of jim jeffrey
Mr. Jeffrey. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Jeffrey, and I am
president of Power Ed Corporation in Houston, and I am an elected
member of the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District
Board of Trustees in Baytown. PowerEd was recently formed to assist
public schools in obtaining the lowest possible prices for electricity
through aggregation and power purchase coordination.
The problems that face our country's school systems, such as
shrinking budgets and work forces and increasing student populations,
are well-known. As an elected official on the school board, I have
experienced these problems firsthand; however, many people don't stop
to think about what financially strapped schools are forced to spend on
electricity.
During the years that I have spent working with Goose Creek School
District, I realized that utility companies were taking advantage of
school systems throughout Texas, and indeed throughout the country.
Because of their favorable regulatory status, the utilities were
completely inflexible when it came to the possibility of giving schools
a break on rates, and the public schools had neither the resources nor
the manpower to explore their options.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen the electric bills, and, in fact, after
teachers' salaries, the monthly electric expenses are the second
largest item on most school budgets throughout the country. The numbers
are eye-opening. In Goose Creek, which has a district consisting of 23
facilities serving 18,000 students, last year our electric bill totaled
$3.1 million, and that is a fairly small district. Much larger Houston
Independent School Direct spends close to $20 million annually.
Many people assume that because school districts are heavy users of
electric power, they can negotiate better rates with the utility
companies. This is a false assumption. The Goose CreekDistrict actually
approached Houston Light & Power to attempt to negotiate better terms
for the schools. We asked if we could purchase in bulk to cut the
electric bills. We were told nothing could be done.
Nothing could be done, Mr. Chairman, because HL&P, like all the
other local utilities in Texas, faces no competition. These companies
advise schools to lower their electricity costs by sealing windows and
installing more efficient lighting and air conditioning. This most of
the schools have already done. That advice is what passes for
innovative service in today's noncompetitive environment.
Our schools cannot shop around for a better price. In fact, our
current laws prevent an independent power provider or other utility
coming into the market to offer lower cost electricity or enhanced
services. HL&P told us that the current price and service levels were
the best that they could do.
At that point I realized the electricity situation in Texas had
gotten completely out of hand. Schools were crying for a change, and
yet the local monopolies refused to do anything to help. I knew they
could make changes, but without the threat of competition, why should
they?
Most estimates suggest that electric power rates could drop by 20
to 30 percent if the system were competitive. Even if every public
school in the country achieved a relatively modest 15 percent cut in
utility bills, the savings would be larger than the amount President
Clinton proposed spending in fiscal year 1998 on his Goals 2000
education initiative. That is in excess of $600 million.
Something obviously had to be done to meet the needs of Texas
public schools as well as schools around the country. In the spirit of
American entrepreneurship, I took my experience from unsuccessful
dealings with an inflexible government-sanctioned monopoly to formulate
a common-sense solution. The result of these experiences was the
formation of PowerEd, my own aggregation company, to take on the
monopolies.
I want to prove just how easy and uncomplicated it is to provide
our children the benefits of cheaper electricity. PowerEd is a power
purchasing consultancy targeted at public schools. We have begun
approaching public schools to let them know that they will soon,
hopefully, have a choice in electricity providers and the simple option
to save a substantial amount of money.
Although the company is still in its infancy, there is already a
demand for our services. We have partnered with and are endorsed by the
national organization, the American Association of School
Administrators, in DC PowerEd, to my knowledge, is the only company
that is concentrating on providing schools with specialized services
aimed at lowering public schools electric bills.
We hope PowerEd will be growth company, and we don't hide the fact
that we are in business to give our eventual investors a return on
their capital, but as we continue to add jobs to meet consumer demand,
I am overwhelmed by the sense of personal fulfillment. The idea of
helping public schools came from my commitment to helping schools. I
have chosen to work with public schools because when these schools
operate more efficiently, at a lower cost, our kids, or future are the
ones who benefit the most. And it is my hope that this Congress will
provide a date certainto allow, sooner rather than later, all
consumers, including our public schools, the choice about their
electricity provider.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for allowing me to
share my views on this important issue.
[The prepared statement of Jim Jeffrey follows:]
prepared statement of jim jeffrey, board member, goose creek
consolidated independent school district
The problems that face our country's public school systems, such as
shrinking budgets and workforces and increasing student populations,
are well known. As an elected school board official, I've experienced
these problems firsthand. However, many people don't stop to think
about what financially-strapped schools are forced to spend on
electricity.
During the years I've spent working with the Goose Creek
Consolidated Independent School District, I've realized that the
utility companies are taking advantage of school systems throughout
Texas. Because of their favorable regulatory status, the utilities are
completely inflexible when it comes to the possibility of giving
schools a break on rates. And our public schools have neither the
resources nor the manpower to explore other power options.
Mr. Chairman, I have seen the electric bills. Page after page after
page of bills. After teachers' salaries, the monthly electric expenses
are the second largest item on most school budgets.
The numbers are eye-opening. The Goose Creek School District has 23
facilities serving 18,000 students. Last year, our electric bill
totaled $3.1 million--and it is a fairly small district. The much-
larger Houston School District spends close to $20 million annually.
Many people assume that because school districts are such heavy
users of electric power, they can negotiate better rates with the
utility companies. This is a false assumption.
The Goose Creek District actually approached Houston Lighting &
Power to try to negotiate better terms for the schools. We asked if we
could purchase in bulk to cut the electric bills. But we were told that
nothing could be done.
Nothing could be done, Mr. Chairman, because HL&P, like all of the
local utilities in Texas, faces no competition. These companies advise
schools to lower their electricity costs by sealing windows and
installing more efficient lighting and air conditioning, for example.
That advice is what passes for innovative service in today's non-
competitive environment.
Our schools cannot shop around for a better price. In fact, our
current laws actually prevent an independent power provider or other
utility from coming into the market to offer lower cost electricity or
enhanced service. HL&P told us that the current price and service
levels were the best they could do.
At that point, I realized that the electricity situation in Texas
had gotten completely out of hand. Schools were crying for change, and
yet the local monopolies refused to do anything to help. I knew they
could make changes, but without the threat of competition, why should
they?
Most estimates suggest that electric power rates could drop by 20
to 30 percent if the system were competitive. Even if every public
school in the country achieved a relatively modest 15 percent cut in
their utility bills, the savings would be larger than the amount
President Clinton proposed spending in fiscal year 1998 on his goals
2000 education initiative.
Something, obviously, had to be done to meet the needs of Texas
public schools as well as schools around the country. In the spirit of
American entrepreneurship, I took my experience from unsuccessful
dealings with an inflexible, government-sanctioned monopoly to
formulate a common-sense solution. The result of these experiences was
the formation of Powered--my own aggregation company--to take on the
monopolies. I want to prove just how easy it is to provide our children
the benefits of cheaper electricity.
Powered is a power purchasing consultancy targeted at public
schools. We approach public school districts to let them know they will
have a choice in electricity providers and a simple option to save
money.
Although the company is still in its infancy, there is already a
demand for our specialized services. We have partnered with, and are
endorsed by, a national organization--the American Association of
School Administrations (AASA). Powered is the only company I know of
that is concentrating on providing schools with specialized financial,
accounting, technical and risk management assistance tailored towards
crafting the most efficient lowest cost electric bill.
Powered is a growth company, and we don't hide the fact that we're
in business to give our investors a return on their capital. But as we
continue to add jobs to meet consumer demand, I am overwhelmed with a
sense of personal fulfillment. The idea of helping schools came
directly from my heart, because I know of their desperate needs, and I
can provide common-sense solutions. I have chosen to work with public
schools, because when these schools operate more efficiently and at a
lower cost, our kids--our future--are the ones who benefit most.
Mr. Schaefer. The committee thanks the gentleman.
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
introduction of public school witnesses
Mr. Cunningham. At this time, I am pleased to introduce
today's public education witnesses. Maudine Cooper is Chair of
the Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees; Wilma
Harvey chairs the elected D.C. Board of Education--I know what
a job that is--Dr. Arlene Ackerman is the new superintendent of
D.C. Public Schools; Josephine Baker chairs the D.C. Public
Charter School Board; and Gloria Jarmon--being from California,
I always look to see if it should be Harmon, but it is Jarmon--
is a director of Health, Education, and Human Services
Accounting Issues with the U.S. General Accounting Office, who
will provide us information about the roof replacement project
for D.C. public school facilities.
[Witnesses sworn.]
There is another young lady in the audience, a shadow
Senator, Florence Penelton, and I would like to welcome you.
Thank you, Ms. Penelton. We had our superintendent of schools
is named Bertha Pendelton and who has left San Diego, and I
worked--as a matter of fact, she made me Education Man of the
Year. Now, go fish. I am a conservative Republican and she is a
Democrat, and she made me Education Man of the Year.
With that, I do not think there is any real set order. If
you have a set plan, then I will do that, otherwise I will go
right down starting with Maudine Cooper, Chair of the Emergency
Transitional Education Board of Trustees.
opening statement of maudine cooper
Ms. Cooper. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
good morning. I am Maudine Cooper, Chair of the Emergency
Transitional Education Board of Trustees, and in my other full-
time job, I am also president of the Greater Washington Urban
League.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you the
Fiscal 1999 budget request of the D.C. Public Schools. And I
also ask, Mr. Chairman, that my entire statement be put into
the record. I will be brief.
I also appreciate your comments and I can assure you that
the trustees will look very closely at those recommendations
that you have made.
[Chart.]
accomplishments of transitional board
Since this is my first appearance before this Committee in
my new role as Chair of the trustees, I would like to begin by
saying what I have seen so far and where we are headed. If you
look at the charter we were given by the Control Board in
November of 1996, you will find that substantial progress has
been made. These range from new principal evaluation systems
based on student achievement to new promotion policies that
have begun eliminating social promotions. And in my written
testimony, there is a list of other accomplishments.
Of course, the bottom line is student achievement. And the
recently reported gains in the city-wide test scores justify
optimism. But we know that parents, taxpayers, and members of
this Committee are watching for very tangible results in the
following areas, and we have identified only a few:
Number one, for all of its logical challenges, summer
school has got to run smoothly and produce strong academic
progress so that retention in grade is held to a minimum.
Number two, schools must open on time.
Number three, when schools open, textbooks and supplies
have to be ready.
Number four, the food served in our schools must be safe,
nutritious, and appetizing. And we know that children's view of
``appetizing'' may be very, very different. [Laughter.]
Number five, we have to have decisive improvements in the
performance of school personnel. That means ample professional
development.
These will be visible, immediate signs of progress that
will further bolster the confidence of our community that DCPS
is on the right track. The trustees have every expectation that
Superintendent Ackerman will deliver on these points. She knows
what a good school system looks like, and she is providing
strong, effective leadership in getting us there.
superintendent needs help
But she will need our help and especially yours in some
critical areas, and each has important budget implications.
First, we need massive, rapid improvement in personnel and
finance systems.
Second, the same applies to student information systems.
Third, we continue to face a critical facilities problem.
special education--need 120 days
Fourth, and most significant, we must get control of
special education spending. On the issue of special education
spending, we also need your support for a legislative change
already endorsed by the D.C. Council, that will put us on the
same footing as other jurisdictions and give us 120 days in
which to complete evaluation and referral processes.
charter schools--relationship and Problems
I would like to say a few words about the complex
relationship between charter schools and D.C. Public Schools.
You mentioned that earlier, Mr. Chair. I am proud that the
National Urban League is helping to create charter schools in a
number of cities. And as Chair of the trustees, I believe
Superintendent Ackerman and her staff deserve praise for
helping to improve the working relationship between charters
and DCPS. But I must report that my colleagues and I share some
misgivings about the unexpected impact of the new charter law
on our public schools. And, more importantly, on children. We
have already seen one charter school fail; and while the adults
argued, politics prevailed, and children were scattered to
different sites. In the final analysis, thosechildren became
the responsibility of D.C. Public Schools.
Superintendent Ackerman and her staff, at the request of
the Board of Education, spent long hours trying to straighten
out the mess.
charter Schools--Need Greater Fiscal accountability
This episode illuminated some gaps in the framework of
fiscal accountability for charter schools. It was the clear
intent of the D.C. School Reform Act that dollars should follow
students. But in its current form, the law is a one-way street.
When a charter school receives 75 percent of its annual payment
in October, then collapses in mid-year, it is not clear who has
the power to recover funds that may be misspent, or even
whether this is an exercise in futility.
Given the extraordinary length to which DCPS has gone to
establish credible enrollment numbers, now confirmed in a
recent audit by Thompson, Cobb, Bazillio and Associates, we
should expect routine scrutiny of charter enrollments just as
we have of the DCPS. We suggest that some dialogue is in order
about how to ensure greater accountability in charter funding.
But I think we also need to catch our breath and take stock of
this entire phenomenon. With the best of intentions, this city
is about to launch more than a dozen new charter schools.
Several charters have prudently decided to wait a year before
opening but we are concerned that others may be opening
prematurely. We ask that you consider a pause in the rush
towards charters. Let's make sure that accountability is clear,
that the fiscal issues are resolved, and that we are on the
same page with regard to the knotty questions, especially
special education.
budget increase for public schools
Finally, I know that this budget appears to reflect a large
increase from fiscal year 1998. In raw numbers, that is true,
but as Superintendent Ackerman will detail, a substantial
portion of this increase is court-mandated and the rest is
essential to our reform efforts.
I hope that you will consider our proposals in light of the
remarkable early progress already achieved. And I hope you will
agree with me that pursuing our Superintendent's vision of an
exemplary school system is the best investment that we can make
in the future of our children.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Ms. Cooper.
prepared statement of maudine Cooper chair, Transitional board
[Maudine Cooper's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Harvey?
Ms. Harvey. Good morning.
Mr. Cunningham. You are president of the D.C. Board of
Education.
Opening Statement of Wilma Harvey, Board of Education
Ms. Harvey. Good morning. My name is Wilma Harvey. I am the
president of the District of Columbia Board of Education, and
the representative from Ward 1, which covers the Adams Morgan,
Mount Pleasant, Rock Creek Park, and Columbia Height area of
northwest Washington, D.C.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you on behalf of the members of the elected Board of Education.
I will give highlights of my testimony, and ask that my entire
testimony be submitted for the record.
budgetary process in disarray at local level
First of all, let me indicate that the Board of Education
has some serious concerns about the budgetary process used this
year. The Board of Education has not been able to enter into
the type of dialogue it normally does when we are talking about
the budget in relationship to our communities throughout the
city.
For the record, the Board of Education has always conducted
public reviews of its budgets, and has gotten input and impact
back from the constituents throughout Washington, D.C. The
Board of Education has also worked with school administrations
in the past to produce a defensible budget and to produce it on
time. However, the 1999 budget is not the product of a
structured budget process. To be honest, the Board of Education
has little documentation to justify the mark of the 1999
budget. I am a little uncomfortable in making this statement
but I believe in the reality in how the Board has perceived
working through the 1999 budget.
For the first time in the history of my tenure on the Board
of Education, the process of developing the budget is in
disarray, and some of it is due in part because of the
situation that exists in the District of Columbia.
First, the roles of the appointed and elected Board of
Education are not clear. The communities of the District of
Columbia were left out of the process. Our charter schools have
two separate boards that are operating this year, and, as
indicated, up to 12 schools will be funded. This will have a
great impact on funding requirements. The current chief
financial officer has been on the job only a few weeks. For the
last 19 months, we have had four different CFO's. As a result,
the budget before you is only, in my opinion, an approximate
and preliminary and incomplete document.
I take seriously my responsibilities to consult with my
fellow colleagues and with the parents and citizens of the
District of Columbia. Therefore, it is impossible for me, as
the president of the Board of Education, to view the budget in
the same light as the unelected Board of Trustees. This budget,
although I have serious concerns about the process, is a budget
that is needed for the children in the District of Columbia to
help with the education reforms and initiatives for our
children.
We must provide comparable pay for our teachers and
administrators. We must create a personnel and financial
system, excuse me, I have an allergy. We cannot break----
Mr. Cunningham. Would you like some water?
Ms. Harvey. I have some here. Thank you. We cannot break
our commitment with the long overdue payments of maintenance
and staff support. We cannot neglect our buildings and our
special needs children.
I will pause and ask to come back after I deal with my
allergy, after Ms. Ackerman, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--See p. 171, this volume, for continuation
of Ms. Harvey's statement.]
Opening Statement of Superintendent Arlene Ackerman
Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Ackerman, Superintendent of D.C. Public
Schools.
Ms. Ackerman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cunningham. Good to see you again.
Ms. Ackerman. Good to see you. We come from similar family
backgrounds--educators.
Good morning to you and to other members----
Mr. Cunningham. Probably so. My mom and dad are Democrats.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ackerman. I am Arlene Ackerman, superintendent of the
District of Columbia Public Schools. And I would like to thank
you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning to
give you an update on the reform efforts that are currently
underway in the District of Columbia public schools, and to
discuss the schools' portion of the District's Fiscal Year 1999
budget.
I joined General Becton in the Washington, D.C. schools
last December and became superintendent on May 1. When I
arrived, we set a clear goal for the District. We said and
believed that the District of Columbia Public Schools can be,
should be, will be exemplary. We know that this will not happen
overnight and this is not going to be easy. We certainly have
our challenges. But I sincerely believe that this is a doable
process, and we are putting together an experienced staff at
all levels, which share our vision and have the experience to
make this happen.
progress during 10-month tenure
In the 10 months since I came to Washington, D.C., we have
made real tangible progress towards that goal of exemplary
status. I am pleased to report good news on several fronts:
We recently received our Spring 1998 test scores on the
Stanford 9, and our students showed solid progress in both
reading and math district-wide between last spring and this
spring. And I did attach a copy of the test scores to the
statement.
We put a singular focus on improving student achievement.
We put in place intensive reading instruction, before and after
school tutoring programs, and ``Saturday Academies,'' we
enlisted the entire community in a reading campaign, and we set
academic standards and provided special instruction materials
to help support teachers and students. We targeted our second-
grade, third-grade, and fourth-grade teachers with special
reading instructions. This is all to say that this improvement
in test scores was not an accident. It was strategically
putting in place strategies that we knew would ensure that we
would be successful. We told our students, our parents, aunts,
uncles, the entire community, as well as our teachers and
principals, that we all have a role to play to help ensure that
our students will succeed.
promotion guidelines
Finally, we built accountability into the system by
establishing promotion guidelines for students and telling them
they would not be promoted to the next grade without first
achieving grade-appropriate skills, and by revising our
principal evaluation system to make student achievement 50
percent of their annual performance rating.
gains in test results
And we did get results. We made gains in every grade where
students were tested in both 1997 and 1998. We saw fewer
students scoring in the below basic range and more students at
the basic and proficient levels. We are moving in the right
direction.
summer school program for 20,000 students
Now, we are putting in place the necessary programs to
ensure that we can continue to see improvements in student
achievement. Next week, we will launch the largest summer
school program in the District's history. We are planning for
up to 20,000 students, and as of yesterday, over 17,000 had
registered and more registration forms are coming in every day.
I am also pleased to say, that many of the students who are
now registering are not students who have to go, must go, but
rather students who are coming because they ``should'' or
``may'' come, under our guidelines. And that is what we want:
we want summer school to be an opportunity for children to get
extra help and enrichment.
Eighty of 146 schools will be open for summer school from
June 29 to August 7. The program will be focused on the basics:
2 hours of reading with a phonics base and 2 hours of math
everyday. Instruction will be highly structured. We will have
daily lesson plans for every teacher. In fact, I was over at
one of our schools yesterday and teachers were coming in,
picking up their supplies. They will have their supplies and
curriculum on hand on the first day. Classes will be small,
with 15 students per reading class and an aid in the reading
class also.
increases for professional development and staffing
In addition, we have included funds in the 1999 budget for
professional development for teachers and administrators to
support additional improvements in our instruction.
Finally, we have included additional staff in the fiscal
year 1999 budget staffing formula for schools that continue to
show low performance.
enrollment count--credibility problem
Before I discuss the budget, I want to mention one more
piece of good news. Over the years, there have been serious
questions about the credibility of our school systems'
enrollment count. As you may know, the General Accounting
Office did a study of our enrollment process in 1997 and
pointed out weaknesses in that area. In response to the study,
we did make some changes to our process last year to ensure
that we would provide Congress and the Control Board with a
credible number. That number, 77,111, was audited by an
independent auditor, as required by Federal law, and the
auditors found that our count was fairly stated. In fact, while
their estimate was within 1 percent of our official enrollment,
their number was actually higher than ours.
In order to address the issue that non-residents may be
attending our schools, we will substantially strengthen our
rules next year for establishing District residency, and we
started that process this Spring. A letter has been sent to all
DCPS parents explaining the requirements of the new rule. And
an early enrollment period has been scheduled in August so that
we can begin this process early. Over the summer, we will work
with the news media, churches, social service organizations,
recreation centers, our libraries, all of those who come in
contact with our parents so that we can ensure that our parents
know the new rules.
Now, I would like to talk a little bit with you about our
1999 budget. I recognize that you may also have questions about
the 1998 deficit, but since my time is limited, I would like to
focus on the 1999 budget and answer those specific questions
that you may have on FY 1998 a little later. A detailed
explanation of the steps we are taking to close the 1998
deficit is also attached to my statement.
increase of $85 million for public schools
The city's consensus budget includes $545 million in local
funds for the District of Columbia Public Schools. This funding
level represents an increase of $85 million from last year's
Congressionally approved funding level of $460 million. The
majority of the increase is required to fund either increases
in the scope of services DCPS must provide orcourt-mandated or
otherwise legally required budget increases.
special education--$48,000 average cost
Special education, as you know, is our larger budget
driver. The budget for special education was substantially
increased to cover the growing cost of private school tuition.
Our average cost is $48,000 per student for students who go to
a private, out-of-district program. In addition, transportation
costs approximately $10,000 per student to transport our
students who receive special education transportation. And
these costs are all resulting from the Mills Decree and orders
of the Special Master in the Petties case. In this area, we
budgeted for an increase of almost $44 million over last year's
budgeted level. However, spending could be even higher since we
have no way of gauging what other costs these court mandates
will generate over the course of the next year.
DCPS has undertaken a major effort to reform our special
education programs. We are reorganizing, and we are putting in
place a community task force to take a look at this, with
parents and community representatives, and asking them put
forth recommendations to reform our special education program.
special education--120 days needed for assessments
We also are trying to put in place an infrastructure to
support a more timely assessment and placement of students.
Since my arrival we have gone from 50 students being assessed
and placed a month to over 300. We will also focus on expanding
special education programs so that we will have programs within
the District to some children.
However, we believe that legislative relief is needed to
extend the time frame for assessing and placing our children in
special education under the Mills Decree. As Chairman Cropp
mentioned here last week, the City Council has endorsed our
proposal to extend the time line from 50 calendar days to 120
calendar days so that we can achieve parity with the
surrounding jurisdictions. I am hopeful that Congress will
include legislative language to this effect in this year's D.C.
appropriations bill.
other budget increases
Other legally required spending increases in our FY99
budget include water and sewage charges, previously paid by the
city, rent increases, back-pay for our employees who are
members of the Teamsters Union, and step increases required by
collective bargaining in our agreements.
increase of $17 million for reforms
The remaining spending increases, which total approximately
$17 million, are necessary for our reform efforts. We intend to
spend $4 million to increase our starting salaries to $30,000 a
year for teachers so that we can compete with the surrounding
school districts for the best new teachers. Today, DCPS'
starting salary for teachers is at or near the bottom in the
region. As a result, we have had severe difficulty recruiting
new teachers, and are placed at a competitive disadvantage in
reaching the most talented candidates. I believe raising the
salary for our new teachers, will help make us be more
competitive and that, with higher starting salaries we will be
more successful with our recruitment efforts.
We also intend to invest $3 million in professional
development as we move forward next year in putting in more
standards in other content areas. We also have included $8
million for next year's Summer Stars program because we know
there are no quick fixes and summer school will be just as
important next year.
Finally, we are investing in an additional $2.5 million in
textbooks in the 1999 budget. We are trying to address the
chronic problem of outdated textbooks in our classrooms. We
have spent this year $5 million preparing for next year so we
will have textbooks, K-12, in reading and math in all of our
schools. And they will be in schools in time for the beginning
of the new school year.
budget categories and comparisons
In order to put DCPS' budget in perspective, I asked our
budget office to break down the system's spending into
functional areas. We looked at instruction, instructional
support, non-instructional support, building administration,
and central administration, and we looked at the shift in
spending in these areas from 1998 to 1999.
I also asked them to compare our budget to the Seattle
Public Schools budget. They may not appreciate that but we
needed to have some basis of comparison that I was familiar
with. The analysis shows that DCPS spending on instruction will
increase this year, while the percentage of funds used for
central administration will decrease. So we are increasing
classroom spending and decreasing spending in the central
office. It also showed that we will spend the greater portion
of our budget on instruction than they did in Seattle, which
they like to brag about and we can brag a little bit more. We
will be spending a substantially smaller amount on central
administration, about 3.3 percent.
bloated central bureaucracy
I know that there is a strong belief that DCPS has a
bloated central bureaucracy, which is another reason I wanted
to break it out in a way that we could look at actually what is
in central office.
I want you to know that the reduction-in-force implemented
in May has reduced our central administration now by another 25
percent. We have gone from 646 to now 445. In addition, we have
closed the budget deficit by releasing approximately 400 school
custodians and other non-classroom based school personnel. We
expect to eliminate an additional 200 positions over the
summer. In total, we will reduce our staff numbers by
approximately 790 positions.
conclusion of superintendent's statement
In summary, Mr. Chairman, and I know it has been a while,
my statement has taken a while, but there is a lot that I am
trying to get in. We do have a clear vision and a mission for
the District of Columbia Public Schools, and we are making
steady progress toward our goal of exemplary status. We know it
won't happen overnight but we believe by instituting clear
standards for performance, and by implementing accountability
systems for the school system, its employees, and our students,
we have begun moving toward results. We have a long road ahead
of us but I am firmly committed and I do believe that one step
at a time, school by school, classroom by classroom, we will
reach our targets.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement and I am
happy to respond to questions.
prepared statement of superintendent arlene ackerman
[Superintendent Ackerman's prepared statement referred to
follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Ms. Ackerman. Ms. Josephine
Baker, Chair--
Continuation of Board President's Statement (see p. 146, this volume)
Ms. Harvey. Excuse me. Can I just finish my few remarks?
Mr. Cunningham. Briefly, yes.
Ms. Harvey. Thank you. I will be very brief.
Mr. Cunningham. Are you okay now?
Ms. Harvey. Yes, I have these allergies that are acting up
this morning. I do apologize.
I would like to leave with you, Mr. Chair, and members of
the Committee, the following questions:
What resources would be available in the schools?
How much discretion will be given to local schools in using
these resources?
The elected Board of Education strongly believes that the
1999 budget must provide parents with the assurance that their
children will have well-qualified teachers and administrators
who are paid accordingly, that well planned instructional
programs are in place with support required such as textbooks,
instructional materials, and computers, and that all schools
are safe for children to learn in and to attend. These must be
the major priorities in the budget.
In short, parents will measure the budget by its means and
what happens in the local schools. The parents and the citizens
of the District of Columbia want the same thing for their
children as other communities throughout the country. Taxpayers
of the District of Columbia expect the same level of
accountability that is demanded by taxpayers elsewhere. And I
am confident that this can be accomplished because the children
of the District of Columbia deserve no less.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Wilma Harvey, School Board President
[Ms. Harvey's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Ms. Harvey.
Opening Statement of Josephine C. Baker, Public Charter Board
Mr. Cunningham. Our next witness is Ms. Josephine Baker,
Chairperson of the D.C. Public Charter School Board.
Ms. Baker. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, and distinguished colleagues. I am Josephine
Baker, chairperson of the District of Columbia Public Charter
School Board. I am delighted to have been asked to testify on
behalf of public charter schools this morning. And, yes, we are
working to make schools better.
During my testimony today, I will cover four topics:
One, the fiscal year 1999 budget request for public charter
schools in the District of Columbia;
Two, the fiscal year 1999 budget request for the District
of Columbia Public Charter School Board's operations;
Three, recommendations for possible changes in the District
of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995; and
Fourth, a summary of what the D.C. Public Charter School
Board has accomplished over the past year, particularly in the
area of accountability.
FY 1999 Budget for Charter Schools
The fiscal year 1999 District of Columbia budget request of
$12,235,000 for public charter schools falls far short of what
is needed to support the number of students who will be
enrolled in public charter schools when public schools open in
the Fall of 1998. At a base rate of $5,500 per student, with no
allowance made for grade levels or students with special needs
requiring higher funding levels, the amount requested will
support only 2,225 students.
The Board anticipates that in September, 1998, 2,275
students will attend schools we recently chartered. If you add
this number to the number of students who will be enrolled in
the 11 schools chartered by the D.C. Board of Education, the
problem becomes frighteningly clear.
All of us have promised alternatives to the families and
students in Washington, and have raised hopes and expectations
among communities. We look to the Congress to ensure that
promises are kept and that public charter schools are fully
funded.
Increase for Charter Board
The D.C. Public Charter School Board is requesting an
increase of $80,000 in its appropriated funds for fiscal year
1999, from $400,000 to $480,000.
number of charter schools
In Fall 1998, 8 of the 10 schools the Board recently
chartered will be in operation and the Board anticipates
awarding up to 10 new charters this year.
Suggested Changes In Charter School Legislation
We have learned much during the past 15 months about the
District of Columbia School Reform Act and how to work within
the framework it provides. However, there are two provisions of
the law that if changed would strengthen efforts to charter
schools that will be successful. The law requires that public
charter schools admit students using a random selection process
when there are more students than there are spaces available.
The law should be changed to make it more family friendly. The
random selection provision for new public charter schools should give
preference to siblings, just as that preference is given for existing
public or private schools that convert to public charter school status.
The authorization of the D.C. School Reform Act should be
extended beyond the current April 2001 expiration date.
Stability and consistency in governance and oversight are
critical in the success of any new venture, especially one that
makes the kind of break from tradition that public charter
schools do. It is imperative that the structure and direction
provided by the D.C. Reform Act remain in place for enough
time, 10 years, to permit real change to occur and to take
hold.
charter board's application review process
As a Board, we have been consistent in our determination to
ensure that attention to accountability is evident in the
operations of the schools we charter and in our own work.
Accordingly, we have focused our resources over the past 15
months on building and strengthening what we believe to be the
four pillars of charter school quality and accountability.
First, the Board created and managed a carefully designed
and rigorous application review and decision process to be sure
that the applicants approved for a charter offer an
exceptionally strong educational program and have a high
probability of success.
Second, the Board is structuring comprehensive and legally
sound charter agreements that are individually tailored to each
school's structure, mission, goals, and educational programs.
Third, we are working in partnership with our first cohort
of public charter schools, providing them with guidance and
technical help in the development and implementation of school-
based accountability procedures that will enable them to: (1)
set challenging but achievable goals; (2) track their progress
toward goals; (3) make program adjustments when needed; and (4)
report to parents, the community, and the Board on their
performance progress.
Fourth, the Board is completing its own procedures for
monitoring each school's progress.
ensuring accountability (see p. 185)
Mr. Chairman, I have attached a document to my written
testimony explaining our efforts to ensure accountability and
ask that it be submitted for the record.
And, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, on
behalf of the D.C. Public Charter School Board, I thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today. I will be happy to
provide more information about our schools and our joint
efforts to ensure success and accountability.
prepared statement of josephine c. baker, charter school board
[Ms. Baker's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have
been joined by my colleague, Congressman Jim Moran. Jim, do you
wish to say anything before----
Mr. Moran. No, that's okay.
Mr. Cunningham. Next we have Ms. Gloria Jarmon, a director
with the U.S. General Accounting Office, which we rely on a
lot.
opening statement of gloria l. jarmon, gao
Ms. Jarmon. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
I am pleased to be here today to update you on the status of
the D.C. Public Schools' roof replacement. This really updates
you on a report that we issued in March this year.
I would like to briefly summarize my statement and ask that
the full statement be made part of the record.
I am going to update you on four issues: First,
availability of funds; secondly, the current status of roof
repair process for 1998; the estimated cost of the roof
repairs; and, fourth, the additional capital improvement plans
for Fiscal Year 1999 through 2004.
school roof replacements--$84 million available
First, on the availability of funds, again, funding is not
an issue, at least $84 million has been designated for roofing
and other capital improvement project work during fiscal year
1998.
On the current status of the roof repair process, 38
schools are planned to have roof replacement work done during
Fiscal Year 1998, five of those roof replacements have already
occurred. They occurred in the Fall of 1997. For the remaining
33, the plan is to start sometime in early July. Of those
remaining 33, 8 of them will be managed by GSA. And the
remaining 25, by DCPS. And of the remaining 25, most of those
contracts were awarded last week, for 23 of the 25 schools.
Estimated cost of the roof repairs, the cost of those 38
roof repairs are estimated at $34 million for fiscal year 1998,
and $28.4 million of that $34 million is for the construction
contract, and about $5.8 million is for design work, contract
management fees, DCPS salaries, and 8 percent for a
contingency.
The fourth area, additional capital improvements for fiscal
year 1999 and beyond, in the capital improvement budget
indicates that about $27 million will be spent on roof
replacements during the next six years with about $14 million
designated for 1999.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, this
concludes my brief summary of my statement, and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
prepared statement of gloria l. jarmon, gao
[Ms. Jarmons prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Cunningham. It was a very brief statement. Thank you.
Mr. Moran, would you want to make any opening statements?
Mr. Moran. I do not need to make an opening statement, Mr.
Cunningham, as much as I do have a number of questions that I
want to ask of, particularly the school system themselves, so
probably, Ms. Ackerman. Have you asked those questions?
Mr. Cunningham. Not yet. We will just start here.
Mr. Moran. We were under the impression that the hearing
started at 10:00 so I will try to catch up to where we are. Can
I go ahead Mr. Chairman? You are in charge here so shall I ask
some questions of Ms. Ackerman?
Mr. Cunningham. Go right ahead.
special education--restrictive 50-day limit
Mr. Moran. Okay. Let's talk about special education first.
I understand that you have gotten some relief for the
restrictive 50-day limit imposed by the court decision, I
believe it was the Mills decision?
Ms. Ackerman. The Mills Decree.
Mr. Moran. The Mills Decree, but you are no longer limited
by that 50-day requirement?
Ms. Ackerman. No, we are still very much limited.
Mr. Moran. Well, somebody told us in the last hearing we
had, that that has been fixed. I think it was Dr. Brimmer or
Council Chairman Cropp. So that is no longer a problem. We have
addressed that? The City Council made a decision to extend, the
time period.
Ms. Ackerman. Yes, the City Council did pass, endorse the
release that we asked for. But we need Congressional approval.
Mr. Moran. So you are still operating under the 50-day
limit?
Ms. Ackerman. On the 50-day, yes.
Mr. Moran. And the 50-day limit obviously does not work. It
is too restrictive. It is the most restrictive in the Nation.
Ms. Ackerman. Right.
Mr. Moran. And it is one of the reasons we have so many
families gaming the system----
Ms. Ackerman. Yes.
Mr. Moran [continuing]. From what we understand. You are
requesting a total of 120 days, though?
Ms. Ackerman. Right.
Mr. Moran. Which would take it from the shortest time
period to the longest period. Sixty days for setting up a plan
and then another 60 days for actually placing the students.
Ms. Ackerman. Right.
Mr. Moran. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it say 30
days for placing the student? Two months seems to be a long
time to place the students. How about a little compromise,
maybe 60 and 30?
Ms. Ackerman. No, but we are certainly willing to
compromise here. I think what we were looking at was the
average in the surrounding school districts, but 50 is----
Mr. Moran. Is it the average?
Ms. Ackerman. It is around 120 days.
Mr. Moran. Because I am told that 120 would be the longest
time period that any school system would have. That is not the
case?
Ms. Ackerman. I am sorry. I am hearing something in the
back. Virginia is 121. So we just looked at----
Mr. Moran. Virginia is 121?
Ms. Ackerman. One hundred and twenty-one.
Mr. Moran. Do you know what Maryland is, off-hand?
Ms. Ackerman. One hundred and five.
Mr. Moran. Okay, I was not aware that Virginia was 121.
Okay, apparently the issue is placement, the 60 days to place
the student after you determine what the education plan should
be, would be the longest. So Virginia must take more time to
develop the education plan and do the review, determine the
need.
Ms. Ackerman. Right.
Mr. Moran. It just strikes me that, I do not want you to be
the longest. I would rather you fit in, right in themiddle
someplace. But 50 days, that was another in what seems to be a series
of court decisions that reflected poor judgment on the part of the
court, as far as I am concerned. Why this would not have been fixed
before now boggles the imagination. And, given the fact, it is such a
financial burden to the school system and given the fact that we have
so many families that apparently are gaming the system through clever
lawyers taking advantage of the situation, knowing that you do not have
the ability to review special education needs in that time frame, it is
surprising we have not done anything. But I am glad that something will
be done. And I would like you to check on if it is consistent with
Virginia or Maryland, or if it fits right within what the rest of the
region is doing, that would be fine.
duke ellington school--question of excess teachers
Let me ask you about the Duke Ellington School. I
understand that whereas Duke Ellington has a graduation rate of
over 90 percent going on to college, that 18 teachers are going
to be let go, six were going to go anyway, but you are
essentially firing another 12?
Ms. Ackerman. No.
Mr. Moran. Is that not true?
Ms. Ackerman. I do not know where that number is coming
from. I am now in the process of looking at the final number of
excess staff at Ellington and trying to verify that. I do not
think there are 18 teachers, though. In the last month we have
looked at excess teachers in schools across the system. As we
were trying to close this budget deficit, we looked at areas
where we were spending and where dollars were not allocated in
the budget for that spending. And one of them was excess staff
in the schools. We found $7 million was being spent on excess
staff in the schools. I do not know any school that lost 18
teachers. But I think Ellington lost about 10 percent of their
total staff. It should have been about 10 teachers but I am
looking in to that now and I expect to have that information
soon. And nobody was fired. None of the teachers were fired.
All of the teachers have an opportunity to seek placement in
other schools, and I believe we will find jobs for them. I was
trying to make sure we are holding schools accountable for
their staffing standards, which we have not done in a very long
time.
competent, qualified teachers should not be fired
Mr. Moran. Well, I read the articles about the measures you
have taken. And they seem terrific. They have been very
positive articles. Obviously, there is a lot of public approval
of what you are doing, particularly, since it is eliminating
administrative layers which seem to be excessive, particularly
compared to other school systems. But I do not think anyone has
been pressuring you to get rid of teachers, unless they are
clearly non-performing. But to reduce teaching staffs just to
reduce the number of personnel in the school system is not
something anybody wants. If you are finding that teachers are
not certified or, more importantly, if they are not producing,
then that should be done, but I would hope you would never feel
compulsion to fire teachers that are performing just to get
down to some kind of personnel level.
Ms. Ackerman. No.
Mr. Moran. Certainly not to meet a level that was
occasioned because of high administrative staff.
Ms. Ackerman. No, even with reducing Duke Ellington and
some of the other specialized schools, they are still above the
staffing for other schools, due to the fact that they have
special areas of emphasis. But we had some schools that had as
many as 20 teachers over the staffing allocation. Now, those
teachers will not lose their jobs. They will be absorbed in the
system. So no teachers are losing their jobs. We are not firing
any teachers. We are, though, shuffling the teachers so that
they are appropriately placed. But I will look at Duke
Ellington because I have heard the 18.
support for low student-teacher ratio where warranted
Mr. Moran. Good. This is just a personal comment but as far
as I am concerned, I do not want you to be reducing teachers
that are producing, even if they are above the norm in terms of
teacher-student ratio. I think if we want to get excellence out
of our school system, the smaller the student-teacher ratio,
the better. And I know you have limited resources but there are
other places where I would hope you would look. If Ellington or
Banneker or any of these schools are consistently getting 90
percent of their kids into college, whatever they are doing is
worth the expense as far as I am concerned. I would like it to
be replicated in other schools rather than drawing their
resources to put into other schools. I have no problem with
pushing for more money for the school system as long as it is
money that is going most directly into teaching and improving
the outcome. I do not want to see--and I am sure you would not
want to leave any kind of a legacy that was associated with
reducing the quality of any of the best performing schools.
When we want to promote D.C. schools, it is the few schools
that we can really use to do that. I hope that we continue to
have that opportunity.
I have taken up my time, and I will let us move on. And we
have other questions that I want to ask you for the record,
particularly with regard to facility maintenance.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Jim.
special education--concern over advocate attorneys
I would look at a couple of different areas. As I mentioned
in my opening statement, we understand that the monumental
burden that special education places on the schools, not only
monetarily but in the training of teachers themselves, is not
limited to D.C. My sister-in-law is one of those teachers, a
principal now. And when we were doing the special education
bill, like I said, there are certain things that we wanted to
come through.
For example, the first time a parent comes to the school, I
think it is unreasonable that an advocate lawyer accompanies.
We wanted that parent to be able to come to the school in good
faith and say, ``My child has a problem. Will the school work
with my child?'' without having to pay a lawyer. And that was
the incentive of legislation. The lawyers have tried to
circumvent that by signing up the parents.
And what I will do is promise you that we will revisit the
IDEA bill. I was very proud of it when the President signed it.
Did it make all the changes that we wanted? No.
Another problem area we had was in the area of discipline.
For example, if a sight-impaired child was caught selling
drugs, you could not treat that child as a normal child even
though it had nothing to do with the problem. These are some of
the changes that we tried to make.
special education--120 days for assessment and placement
Also, the IEP, I think it is very reasonable that a school
have 120 days to complete the assessment and placement process.
There are certain children, for example, that have dyslexia
that you do not know have dyslexia because they cannot read in
the first place. You have the time to identify these children
andto put them in quality programs. We are very familiar with
the different issues of that.
Unfortunately, in our government, things take too long.
Just like in your own system, transformation will not happen
overnight. But I will guarantee you that we will work in that
direction to try and help.
I think maybe with regard to placement, once you decide
what are the problems of the child after the IEP, Individual
Education Program assessment, then maybe you could place that
child a little quicker.
Tension Between Elected and Appointed school Boards
I sense a turf battle in some of the statements from the
elected Board to the appointed Board to the superintendent.
Maybe there was not a direct link. Basically, I think the D.C.
school system was put in Chapter 9 and that is why there was a
board appointed to take over. And I think sometimes--I am an
elected politician myself--but I also know that sometimes
private could probably do it better than our elected
politicians because private enterprise does not have such a
political environment.
For example, we are going through a vigorous campaign
finance reform right now addressing the influences of outside
interests. And I think we could appoint a board to do that and
to take charge of that and make a recommendation. But at the
same time, I would recommend that the board incorporate, and
encourage and listen to, the elected officials that reach out
there and touch the citizens. There is an advantage and a
disadvantage. The advantage is that in an appointed body you
can be more business-like in your business practices in running
the school. The disadvantages of an appointed board is that
they do not have the sense and the pulse of the constituents to
add into that. And if you do not work together, then I think
there is going to be a conflict. And I sense that from the
testimony. Maybe I am wrong.
Ms. Harvey. Could I just respond to that?
Mr. Cunningham. Yes.
Elected Board Supports Superintendent Ackerman
Ms. Harvey. As president of the Board of Education, I just
would like to really make the record extremely clear, that the
Board of Education is 100 percent in support of Ms. Ackerman
and her administration. We have worked closely with Ms.
Ackerman since she has come on board. Ms. Ackerman has been
very supportive to the Board of Education, especially when we
had to revoke the charter of one of our schools.
I am the president of the Board and I sit on the Emergency
Board of Trustees. I have sensed a different atmosphere and
tone recently on the Board of Trustees that makes me feel as a
representative of the Board of Education a sense at least we
can carry forth a concern that is raised by the constituents
that we serve. I do agree with you, sir, that because I am
elected, as an elected official, we do have to respond to those
needs of the community. And what I was trying to say in my
opening statement is that because of the concerns raised in the
community around the budget process with the various
constituency not being able to have dialogue, then that was the
way in which we needed to improve the budget process for the
next coming years.
Mr. Cunningham. I agree. I do not disagree with that at
all. As a matter of fact, our Speaker says you have got to be
able to listen before you can learn before you lead.
Ms. Harvey. Right.
Mr. Cunningham. And I think that is the problem with a lot
of things is that people do not listen enough and they try and
lead without incorporating that. All I am saying is I recommend
a little closeness even on the budget. My wife, as I said, is a
principal of two schools and I see her wringing her hands
sometimes with the parent groups, and the teachers. I know
those battles very well. It is like I am in the principal's
seat because I hear all the problems between the students, the
parents, and the different interest groups.
Another thing I would recommend is if I was a
superintendent, just like I am maybe a CAG or a commanding
officer in a fighter squadron, I gave my department heads
authority. I said, ``Here is the rudder. You do it. You are
responsible for your department.'' A little guidance, but hands
off. You make them break or make their own schools and give the
power to the principal. A lot of that does not exist in the
State of California. The superintendent controls a lot of the
things. And I would think that the lower the level that you can
reach down to the students, the better the schools can be.
Charter Schools--Accountability
I am interested in the charter schools. I appreciate the
example of a charter school failing in the spring that has all
of its funds from the past October. I can understand that. What
happens to the funds once a school fails? But if you are mixing
apples with oranges, take a look at the D.C. school system and
its record versus losing one charter school in a new system.
You have got one charter school that failed but I know across
the country charter schools are blossoming. And it is a welcome
relief to the system.
I believe personally most of the children go to public
education. My wife is in public education. As I say, I was in
public education. And that is where we need to bring up the
level of education, not just in D.C. but across the country.
But we also have to be able to support these new initiatives
that cut the cost per student, that drive in a positive
direction.
Testing of Principals
And I was very, very happy to see that you have testing
programs for principals. We have some teachers in California
that are retired on active duty. They do not improve
themselves. That is why I supported the Eisenhower grants to
upgrade the teachers' skills. If I wanted a teacher that could
teach computers in 21st century technology, how is she going to
do that if she went to school 40 years ago, or 30 years, or
even 10 years ago?
Charter Schools--inadequate Funding
So I do not disagree with you. But I would also say that
although I am a very strong proponent of charter schools, with
12 additional charter schools, the responsibility is monumental
for accountability and direction. And also we have got the
responsibility to make sure we fund them so that they are not
under-funded. We must not give you a course in the wrong
direction that sets you over the edge of the world before you
ever start.
Public Charter Board--Process For New Schools
Ms. Baker. That is a statement well received. I would just
like to say, and I think I alluded to it in my comments, that
the D.C. Public Charter School Board started up front, at the
very beginning of its application process, dealing with
accountability, and using technical assistance provided by
experts in business and finance in the city who came and looked
at every application and made comments about the business and
financial plans of those applications. Their comments were used
by peer reviewers, who came from many walks and many
professions. And now accountability plans are being developed
with each individual school that did indeed get approval. So
that before they open their doors, there will be a substantial
accountability plan in place. And that isthe way we are
working----
Mr. Cunningham. Even though I am a strong supporter, we
will hold you to that.
Ms. Baker. Well, we want to be held to it. We want to be
held to it. And we want to be sure that in the process the
funding that is necessary for these schools to be successful is
not something that we will have to wonder about.
Mr. Cunningham. I see I have gone over my time but what I
will do is extend my time and then I will come back to Mr.
Moran so he can go. And I will just take mine up front.
Charter Schools--Elected Board's Process
Ms. Harvey. I just have to say one point because the D.C.
Board of Education is also the other chartering agent, and as
the other chartering agent, we, too, have put in place an
extremely stringent monitoring process, and a schedule, and we
work very closely with the two running charter schools and we
work very closely with the nine remaining charter schools that
will come on board in September. So the Board of Education is
truly trying to work with the charter schools on the issues of
accountability, standards, and educational concerns and et
cetera.
Charter Schools--Comparison With Public Schools
Mr. Cunningham. How do you see the charter schools, any of
you, doing compared to the public school system?
Ms. Harvey. My honest opinion is that in some of the
monetary reports that we have gotten on the remaining three
that are working, we have one that is very outstanding, is
doing an excellent job. There is some work that needs to be
done. It is a new area. There needs to be some training for
boards of charter schools so they can understand what
``boardsmanship'' is, what the policies are, and how they
interface with the chartering agent, being in this instance,
the Board of Education or the other chartering board.
Now, what the Board of Education has tried to do is work
collectively with the chartering board so that we cannot
duplicate efforts in relationship to our responsibility and
oversight of the chartering boards of education.
But to be very honest with you, we do need to look at how
we can modify and adjust some of the issues around charter
schools to give us the flexibility to work with them more
effectively.
Transition Board--Charters Will Continue to be Awarded
Ms. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, my testimony was so specific
today. We did not ask for a cessation of the awarding of
charters, we simply asked for a pause while we look and address
some of these various issues. We keep bringing the schools on
and no one is stopping to put in all the processes that are
needed to make sure that they are working.
And I started, also, by saying in my testimony, that as a
national organization, we support charters. That is not the
issue. The issue is with 19 schools under our wing as charters,
we need to make sure that the processes are in place so that
the superintendent does not get called by the Board of
Education who say, ``Can you help?'' Or something does not
happen with one of the charter board's schools, God forbid, and
she is once again called to try to straighten it out. We need
to just take maybe a year and the two boards working together,
with the superintendent, to make sure that if those schools
close or have a problem, then the impact and the role of the
superintendent is clear and manageable.
Mr. Cunningham. Are you working together--is the dialogue
there today between the boards and the superintendent?
Public Charter Board--Relationship With Charter Schools
Ms. Baker. A dialogue with the Board of Education's
Committee on Education was established almost immediately by
this Board when we were authorized to become a Board. I have a
strong relationship with Mr. MacLaury, had a strong
relationship with Robert Childs, and had made contact with
General Becton I am in the process of making contact with Ms.
Ackerman. So that we are continually working toward maintaining
good communication and dialogue.
In relation to finance and how that is to work, that is a
key element of our charter agreements which require that
schools give the Board a monthly financial report. We are
setting up a system where each of our schools will be
electronically linked to our office. They will electronically
send us financial reports and other reports that they are
required to send on a monthly basis. So that when we go out to
monitor, we will already have financial and statistical data
that will enable us to assess a school's programs and identify
potential probelms. And there are other safeguards that are
built into our charter. It is unlikely that a school would be
able to completely fall off without our knowing it. All kinds
of red flags will go up before us because we are asking for
that kind of information.
Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Harvey are you in agreement?
Ms. Baker. Well, they are not familiar with our process.
That is the process that has been developed by the D.C. Public
Charter School Board for the schools it charters.
Charter Schools--Impact on Superintendent When Charter Revoked
Ms. Harvey. I think the issue that really lies is the
revocation process. The Board of Education, the law says that
if the Board of Education, or any chartering board, revokes a
charter, then the Board of Education takes over the
responsibility for the operation of that charter. At the
current time, we do not have the capacity to do that. So, as a
result, we have to go to the administration. So that is why I
am saying that something needs to be worked so we do not
overload the superintendent. But we do monitoring with the
charter but it comes to the issue of a revocation, when a
charter is in crisis, as a chartering agent, what role does the
chartering board play and what capacities are provided for us
to carry that role.
Student-Teacher Ratio and Per Pupil Costs
Mr. Cunningham. Let me ask one last easy question, a quick
one, before I go to Mr. Moran again. Now that you know that
there are 77,111 students, plus or minus 1 percent--I will take
that in a poll any day--do you think you can get a handle on
the cost? First of all, if you have 15 students per classroom
in summer school, what number does that place in the normal
school year per classroom, on average? And the cost per
student? You can provide that if you do not have those figures
available. But I would like to see.
One of the driving factors for better education is smaller
classrooms. If you have 30 students and a teacher with no help
in that classroom, it is very difficult. Just for my own
information, I would like to see what your average classroom
size is and what the cost per student is. I know it cannot help
when you have got to invest and do roofs and infrastructure.
That all fits into the budget.
But I would like to thank you personally. These are always
educational for me even though you deal with these issues
everyday.
Education--Interference of Interest Groups
The only problem I have is so many times I see politics
interfere with what we really need to do for children, from
outside interest groups, like the unions, and some private
groups as well. So I hope we can set thoseaside and push on and
do what we actually do is provide for children instead of interest
groups.
Jim?
Remarks of Congressman Moran
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am reading through
Maudine's statement. I have known Ms. Cooper for some time in a
number of capacities. Welcome, aboard. I am happy having you
chairing the Board of Trustees, although I did not have as much
of a problem with the Board of Trustees as a lot of people did,
I am happy to see you where you are.
And this is an excellent statement. I could not take issue
with anything. I do not take issue with anything that anybody
else has said.
NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES--LEASE/PURCHASE ARRANGEMENTS
But let's talk about some of the implementation. First of
all, we have got to build a whole new physical school system.
We have got far too many buildings, as you know, that have
outlived their useful life. I do not think we are going to get
the public funds we need to do that. Would you look into the
possibility of having private developers build the schools and
lease them back to the school system so that you did not have
to put up the money up front, nor did the Federal Government?
But since we have to educate kids every year, there has to
be an annual amount going to pay for their education and the
use of their buildings. It seems to me that if you could lease
them, with private ownership, and there would be some tax
advantages for the private sector to undertake that, that it
could become an attractive opportunity for the private sector
to build some of these schools, leasing them back without the
front-end costs. You would probably get some very good schools
at lower costs, perhaps, than it would cost the public sector.
And I think it is the kind of thing that we might be able to
better help you with. So I would like for you to look into that
possibility. I think they have tried that in other places. I
know that we have done it in other circumstances. We build lots
of Federal buildings--the private sector does and then the
Federal government simply gives them a determinant amount of
time and lease costs so that they are guaranteed a lease and it
becomes a profitable venture on both sides. We have this arcane
scoring system where we have to find an offset in the year in
which the school is built instead of paying for the school over
its useful life. So I would hope that we could look at
something like that. The D.C. school system might be a good
place to start.
SUMMER SCHOOL--IMPACT ON CRIME REDUCTION
I am just elated that you have got 20,000 kids in the
summer school system, not only for academic reasons but I think
it is going to help a lot in terms of peace in the
neighborhoods, and reduce crime. I know in the suburbs crime in
every area has gone way down except from the hours of 2 to 5
o'clock. That is where the crime is increasing and we know
exactly why. It is young people with nothing to do. Putting
20,000 kids in productive activity in summer school is just
wonderful.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION--IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED
Let me address vocational education a bit because I think
that is one area where the D.C. school system has dis-served
much of its population. There are a lot of jobs out here. You
pick up the Washington Post, and there has got to be 50,000
jobs available on any given week in the area. And a lot of
those jobs, at least half of them, do not require a college
education. They require some specific skills. And many of those
skills can be taught in high school. But when I ask about
vocational educational, it seems as though we have very little
going in the way of vocational education. We are starting some
charter schools I understand that are focused on specific
skills training. And I have been involved in some of that. I am
excited about that.
But we ought to be doing more within the traditional school
system in that respect. And we ought to bring in more teachers,
more people with career experience in that area to do some
teaching. Not having sufficient certified teachers from the
teaching schools should not be too much of an impediment. We
ought to be able to find people in the private sector. And
there are a lot of companies that are just begging for
workers--who I know because they have told me--would love to
lend people to the school system to teach those specific
schools. And one in particular is construction. We have tried
unsuccessfully in the past to do that.
But I do not know why we cannot have a vocational training
school that teaches specific trades, whether we bring in labor,
we can have union and non-union teachers. That has got to be
worked out and that should not be the obstacle. But we have
skilled tradespeople who I know construction companies would
pay just to teach those specific skills to high school
students. And we can be doing that in the summer too. I know
that you agree that if a child is not going to go on to
college, it should not be the end point of our responsibility
to see that they are going into the workforce when they get out
of high school or going to some kind of advanced training.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM IN DISTRICT INADEQUATE
The community college system is also deficient in the
District compared to what we offer in the suburbs, it, again,
is a disservice to our young people.
So I would like for you to tell me a little about what you
are doing in the area of vocational education, and maybe--I
don't know who can address what we can do in terms of community
colleges? But let's talk about vocational education?
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION--SUPERINTENDENT ACKERMAN
Ms. Ackerman. Okay. It is certainly an area that we are now
revisiting. We have gone through, as we do in education, sort
of trends where we move away and then we come back. We have now
come, I think, full circle, around vocational education. We
realize that not all of our students go from high school to
college. Many of them may eventually get to college but in
between there are some work-based experiences that they must
have. So we are looking at that and folding into our new
School-to-Work Program a new vocational educational emphasis.
Some of the finest vocational education programs, I think,
in the country were here in Washington, DC, for a while, and
they have been dismantled.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION--IMAGE PROBLEM
Mr. Moran. Well, we cannot reform schools it seems. It
seems as though other school systems were just dumping kids
that were disruptive into the vocational education schools. And
it was a stigma to even go to those schools. But they started
out as wonderful opportunities.
Ms. Ackerman. But I think we should be folding vocational
education into the comprehensive high school so that it is not
seen as coming from the outside. It has got to be built into
the comprehensive program which is what we are doing now so
that students have opportunities to get those kinds of work-
based experiences and skills.
Personally, I went on to college but I did take business
education classes in high school that helped me throughout my
college career to have summer jobs. So I think there is away to
build them into our comprehensive high schools which we are trying to
do as we set up the career academies in our high schools and also
partner with some of our area businesses. I think you will see us now
moving in that direction but putting programs in our high schools,
instead of outside them, in alternative schools. And we can still have
a couple of those. But its better to put them into our comprehensive
high schools and make those programs available knowing that all
students are eventually going to get to the world of work, but some get
there sooner than others. And some take detours and go to college. But
even with that they need those work-based experiences and they need to
develop the skills that they can fall back on.
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Mr. Moran. Do we have businesses offering apprenticeship
programs during the summers, for example?
Ms. Ackerman. We do and we are getting more of that. We
just wrote a $9 million School-to-Work grant and it looks very
hopeful. We are using the School-to-Work initiative to put back
in place some of the vocational educational programs in all of
our high schools so that there are some experiences that all
students will get. So we are where you are and unfortunately it
has taken us a while in education to come full circle. And
there are students who have sort of been lost in that black
hole because they were not going to college and they did not
get the skills. But we are there now and we are in partnership
with the businesses here. So we are there and I want you to
know that we have revisited this. It is one of the things that
we have put in place in the new initiatives.
Mr. Moran. I would like for us to publicize some of those
businesses that are reaching out and providing that kind of
opportunity----
Ms. Ackerman. Okay.
NEED TO BRING VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMS CLOSER
Mr. Moran [continuing]. In collaboration with the school
system.
Ms. Cooper. If I could just add a little personal note on
that. I am a product of the St. Paul-Minnesota school system.
We had a system whereby you could get your certificate in
vocational educational and still get the curriculum in the
public school system. It allowed me to go to school and to work
while I was there. I think somehow with the divorce of
vocational education and the academic programs, you do have
that stigma. So I think that as we go along in this planning
process of bringing those closer together we remove the stigma.
It will also remove the dumping ground mentality that goes into
the thinking of some around vocational education. I have the
greatest respect for vocational education and some exciting
things are happening. And as we get those functions going, we
should provide you with a list. We will keep you posted because
some things that were talked about the other night in one of
our sessions suggests that the superintendent is heading in the
right direction not only in terms of vocational education but
in alternative education for those who dropped out or felt
themselves pushed out. So I think you are going to hear some
very exciting things.
ADULT BASIC EDUCATION
Mr. Moran. Are we doing some things in terms of adult basic
education as well? When you say they dropped out, essentially
they become adults once----
Ms. Cooper. Exactly.
Mr. Moran. So it really is an adult basic education; and we
are using the schools in the evenings?
UDC PICKING UP SOME ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Ms. Ackerman. Well, we have those programs now and adult
education is also going to be available through UDC. They are
going to be taking over some of those programs. But we do have
students who are older students who have dropped out and they
are back in, and we are providing them with alternative ways to
get their high school diploma, other than at a traditional
school. But I believe the academic process and the vocational
education process should be linked, because it is another way
to keep students in school.
Mr. Moran. Wilma wanted to say something.
BELL MULTI-CULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL
Ms. Harvey. I just wanted to add, we just finished the
graduation season here in the District of Columbia. And I just
wanted to bring up one example of where we do have currently in
place at the Bell Multi-Cultural High School in the ward in
which I have had the honor of representing for the last 12
years where students actually receive a diploma from the D.C.
public schools where they have met the academic requirements
but they were also given a certificate for an accomplishment in
vocational area. And there was a young lady that graduated and
got a certificate in cosmetology, but also met the academic
requirements. And I think, as Ms. Ackerman said earlier, we are
doing it school by school. And if we continue to move the
process, we can rebuild the vocational educational programs
within the D.C. public schools.
Mr. Moran. Terrific. Charter schools?
CHARTER SCHOOLS--ADULT EDUCATION COMPONENT
Ms. Baker. Charter schools, yes. We do have, of course, the
Rosario School, which serves particularly the immigrant
population. So that is certainly an adult education component.
Also, a number of our schools, at least two of them, are
dealing with young people who have been involved in the
juvenile justice system, some who are drop-outs who are now
coming back into small settings where they will get the kind of
support that they need so that they can indeed graduate with
high school diplomas or with GEDs. So charter schools are in
another way filling an important gap. We are trying to make
sure that we can close that gap and keep these young people
moving forward.
CHARTER SCHOOLS--AUTO MECHANICS PROGRAM
Mr. Moran. George Stark was trying to develop a couple of
charter schools. I think he has. Are those going okay? Are they
getting the basic education in addition to these skills?
Ms. Baker. Stark is not one of my applicants.
Mr. Moran. No. But I think it is within the----
Ms. Harvey. The public school that you are referring to is
a part of an academy school model, which is headed by Ken Amos.
And Mr. Stark's program, the auto mechanics program, will be
starting in September of this particular school year.
Mr. Moran. September of 1998?
Ms. Harvey. Of 1998. Yes, we approved that charter, and we
have met, on several occasions, with the entire group that is
going to be working with that particular charter. They have an
auto mechanic program and then they have a campus approach, an
academy model approach. And that will be an academy model. The
youngsters will go through the auto mechanics aspects of that
charter school.
CHARTER SCHOOLS--HOSPITALITY HIGH SCHOOL
Ms. Baker. There is one other and that is the Hospitality
High School----
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Ms. Baker [continuing]. That is being sponsored by the
hospitality industry. They will not open until 1999, at their
own request. They want to make sure that they have everything
all lined up. Students will get a full academic high school
education and will also have an opportunity to move intothe
hospitality industry here in the District of Columbia, which, of
course, is----
Mr. Moran. So it will be one of the charter schools. That
is all very positive, Good.
Thank you.
Roof Replacements--Completion in time For School Openings
Mr. Cunningham. Let me ask a question on looking at the
last term. When you were putting the new roofs on the schools,
the problem came that there was no slack time, that the roofs
were not ready when the school opened. If you are going to
build a car for Indy 500, you want the car there for the
preliminaries, not just the race. With these 38 roofs that you
are going to put on, is there some slack time in there to make
sure that we have them finished by the time the school starts?
And also last year, I remember that a couple of the schools
were broken into because they did not have security. When you
have them open for maintenance or something, someone finds an
opening. They are going to get in there and steal computers and
things. So we have a need for security. Do you have a plan to
have the schools open on time?
Ms. Jarmon. The contract we looked at, one of the contracts
that was awarded and the plans we have looked at show that the
work will be substantially complete by August 15 and finished
by the end of August and the school is scheduled to open
September 1.
Ms. Baker. But you do not have it locked----
Mr. Cunningham. Okay, I would hold the contractor
accountable. ``Oh, well, my dog had to take it to the market,
had to do this and that.''[Laughter.]
Let's just make sure we ``hold their feet to the fire,'' as
we say.
Communities Support Successful School Systems
I have a prediction. Do you know who Jaime Escalante is?
And I would ask you how many of the parents supported Jaime
Escalante when he first started? How many of the students? They
thought he was nuts.
The school boards thought he was crazy. He insisted
``Dammit, I am going to teach kids math. I can do that. I do
not care if they are minority kids or what.'' And after he
started, the first thing is he got the kids behind him; then he
got the parents. Was a rejuvenation. And then the parents
started volunteering. But when you have a system that people
perceive as not doing well, people are not going to support
that system. But when they can see positive change, which you
all are bringing around, people will support you. I want to
commend you for that; I can see glimmers of this. I'd say we've
got a long way to go.
I think that you're going to have a better and better
system. It's not going to happen overnight, but I think that
constant positive change, working together with charter
schools, with elected officials, the board, the GAO, I think
you're going to have that. I think that's very, very important.
You probably know who Bishop McKinney is. He is in San
Diego. Bishop McKinney has a black private school that only
deals with at-risk kids. And it is privately funded. I give
money to it every year. But 97 percent of those children go to
college.
Now, I agree with Mr. Moran, college is not the only
direction. We need to focus on vocational education too. But
there needs to be educational opportunity in between where you
can go back and forth, and have real choices.
Vocational Education Programs For Women
I have two daughters--who are college-bound. I've very
proud of them. They are A-plus students. I want to be sure we
have vocational education for our women, our females. In
vocational education programs, too many times, the women have
not been taken care of. Not all women are going to go to
college and they need these skills.
I lived down here on Water Street, on the waterfront, and I
met a lady, I bet she weighs 90 pounds dripping wet. You know
what she does? She drives Caterpillars. Yes. And so, there are
construction jobs out there, too, for women, so don't rule them
out.
Job Applicants Lack Reading and Writing Skills
But I would like to make one other recommendation. In your
summer schools, you have reading and you have math. Well we had
eight different hearings in the Education Committee in the last
Congress. They said that a large portion of children did not
qualify for entry-level jobs. That was not in D.C.; that is
across this nation. These are CEOs of major companies that
testified, at eight different hearings. They said applicants do
not qualify because they cannot read and they cannot write.
They cannot write a declarative sentence. They cannot speak the
English language. They do not have the high-tech skills.
And that is where it is important for you to have computers
and the writing skills, and the reading, which is very, very
important--and the math All of them belong in a summer program.
Or maybe you would make it optional for them. Something for you
to take a look at.
Ms. Ackerman. No, we want you to know that daily writing
exercises are a part of our summer school program.
Mr. Cunningham. Good.
Ms. Ackerman. We have it under the umbrella of reading, but
every day there are writing exercises for our young people, K-
12, as a part of the summer school program. I do agree with
you.
Mr. Cunningham. Good.
Effort To ``Link'' Classes For Basics
Ms. Cooper. Could I just raise two points? One of the
things that Arlene is also doing and we, the trustee board,
certainly applaud is linking class work. You know, sometimes in
schools you'd have reading class. There's absolutely no
relationship to any other class in the curriculum. So she's
beginning to do that which will get the youngsters, perhaps,
reading in one class, in a math class, then writing in the math
class. And somehow there's a linkage. Maybe there's some
discussion in the reading class of the history of math and what
it means. But she's beginning to link those things together.
And, hopefully, by September, that will be in place.
Roof Replacements--Contract With Corps of Engineers
The second point is on the roofs. The superintendent has
entered into a contract with the Corps of Engineers and I'd
like for her to speak to that, briefly, to give you a sense of
how that oversight on the major maintenance activities will
occur.
Ms. Ackerman. Well, I think that that collaborative
partnership that we have with the Corps is one that's certainly
moving our facilities program forward, and moving our capital
improvements program forward. And we have been working with
both the Army Corps of Engineers and the city procurement
office to ensure that the program goes smoothly.
Procurement Now Centralized
Procurement is now centralized with the city, it is out of
D.C.PS and part of a centralized city procurement office. And
everybody's represented here today.
corps of engineers--legislative language needed
We meet weekly, sometimes more than once a week, but at
least once a week to coordinate activities. I think we're going
to need some help, though, some additional assistance from
Congress. With the Corps, we'd like for them to play a larger
role in this procurement effort and we're going to need some
legislative language to accomplish that. What we need is
language allowing them to exercise some contracting authority
in our non-Federal projects. Right now they don't have it. GSA
does have. The Army Corps does not. But it would make it move a
lot quicker if we could have that kind of same authority given
to the Corps. So we will send forward to you, for your
consideration, some language that would help that happen.
Vocational Education--Use of Experienced Professionals As Teachers
Mr. Cunningham. One other area that you might take a look
at. I don't use the term, ``senior citizen,'' I use the term,
``chronologically gifted.'' [Laughter.]
My mom likes that. But you have vast reserves of people
that are very, very talented. When you bring them into
vocational schools--not just babysitters, but the people that
can actually contribute to the education system--they are
delighted. They set up student programs where the students,go
into the senior homes on a volunteer basis, at the same time the
seniors pay back to the education system. It helps their quality of
life in the homes and it helps the children too.
Union Resistance
And we had a problem with the unions. They did not want the
non-union people coming in. And that is where I say sometimes
we need to set aside some of these things and look at what is
really best for the children.
So I want to thank the panel. We have a large
responsibility to----
Mr. Moran. Could I just ask----
Mr. Cunningham. Sure.
Security Officers In Schools--contract
Mr. Moran [continuing]. One question on violence in the
schools. There was a contract let to--I believe it was--MVM
Security Systems in 1996. You brought in--what was it?--222
security officers and you let the police that were assigned to
the schools go back into community policing. What are the
results of that? Has that been successful?
Ms. Ackerman. There have been mixed reviews about that. We
have one more year on that contract. What we are doing, though,
is looking at reviewing that whole issue of school safety,
creating, next year, a department of school safety. We have, on
loan to us from the Department of Ed, Sidney Yeldell, who will
be coming and working with us. He has been on loan to a lot of
school districts across the country. But he will be working
with us to create this school safety department, to look at the
issue of the MVM contract that we have and determine whether or
not we want to continue with that.
I also have been working closely with Chief Ramsey to
develop some other measures around safety, not only in our
schools, but in and around our schools. When we look at the
serious incidents that we've had this year, they have not been
in school, they have happened as our students are on their way
home. So we have got to do some things differently to create
safe passageways for our children to get from school to home.
This area is under review and we will have, in place, a plan
beginning with the new school year, to address this issue and
to determine, very early on, whether or not we want to continue
with that contract.
Mr. Moran. You know, good. I am glad you are doing that.
When you get 360 weapons being brought into school, you have a
very serious situation and, from the papers, even though they
may seem like isolated instances, they have an enormous
detrimental impact on the schools when you do have situations--
tragic violence at the schools. That has got to be stopped. No
parent should have to send their child to a school where they
do not think that child is safe and so I hope that we are going
to work that out so that we can guarantee that security.
But, thank you, and I want to thank all the members of the
panel. I didn't have any questions for GAO, but GAO does a good
job. [Laughter.]
And I see your reports----
Vocational Education--Gavel Used to Open Republican Congress
Mr. Cunningham. I brought this gavel for a special reason.
Students at Scripps Elementary made this gavel for me. It was a
school that was a model school, that has computers. They have a
vocational education system where the students build modular
units. The unions come in and help them with OSHA rules and,
make sure that they are following the law. They sell these
units to other schools that need space and then they add money
into their own computer systems and education systems. And they
made this for me. This is the gavel that opened the Congress
after Republicans took the majority--it was used by the
Speaker. [Laughter.]
But it was also very personally given to me by the
students, a vocational education group where some of the
students make woodwork. Some of them are in construction. But
others go on with those computers that design and actually
build the modular units in homes and architecture and so on.
Conclusion of Hearing on Public Schools
So I want to thank the Board. I think we are going to have
a lot of positive times ahead in D.C. thanks to your efforts.
The last thing I would say is I miss General Becton. I
thought he did a good job. He was in a very difficult position,
but I am sorry to see him leave. Mr. Tiahrt is here. Do you
want to ask any questions about schools or do you want to go
on?
Mr. Tiahrt. Not at this time.
Mr. Cunningham. At this time I will ask Congressman Tiahrt
to assume the chair.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
CORRECTIONS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS
WITNESSES
MARGARET A. MOORE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
JOHN L. CLARK, CORRECTIONS TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN A. CARVER, TRUSTEE, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Tiahrt [presiding]. I call this meeting to order. I am
very pleased to welcome our next panel to discuss the District
of Columbia's corrections functions for fiscal year 1999. We
want to welcome our witnesses: Margaret Moore, director of the
D.C. Department of Corrections; John Clark, D.C. Corrections
Trustee; and John Carver, Trustee for Court Services and
Offender Supervision. The Committee's policy is to swear in all
witnesses.
[Witnesses sworn.]
We have your written statements and they will be included
in the record and we would ask that each of you summarize your
statements. If it is agreeable, we will hold questions until
all three of the witnesses have made their comments. Ms. Moore,
we would be pleased to hear from you first.
Opening Statement of Margaret A. Moore
Ms. Moore. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman members of
the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
this committee today, along with Corrections Trustee John Clark
and Offender Supervision Trustee Jay Carver to discuss the
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the D.C. Department of
Corrections.
The fiscal year 1999 proposed budget for the Department of
Corrections is based on the requirements of the National
Capital Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act of
1997, which mandates that the District's sentenced felon
population be transferred into the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and that the correctional complex in Lorton, Virginia, be
closed by December 31, 2001. I'm sure you know, Mr. Chairman,
that the proposed gross budget for the Department of
Corrections for fiscal year 1999, including the Medical
Receiver's budget, is $270,313,000 and 3,022 FTE's of which
$203,500,000 and 2,217 FTE's represents our proposed Federal
government reimbursement.
As you're aware, Mr. Chairman, the task of closing an
entire prison complex is unprecedented. And, although my
correctional experience is broad-based, the actual closure
process, including the transfer of approximately 5,000
prisoners and the displacement of more than 2,000 employees
presents many formidable challenges. It will require the
collective work and cooperation of many Federal and local
agencies as well as frequent collaboration between the
corrections trustee and the trustee for offender supervision.
progress in closing lorton complex
Now we have already demonstrated our capacity to work
together and I'm confident that we will continue to do so over
the next three and a half years to ensure the safe and orderly
closure of Lorton. Substantial progress has already been made
in that regard and I'm pleased to report that the following
tasks have been completed, as evidence of the progress that
we've made. First, over a 135 sentenced female felons have been
transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, resulting in the
closure of the minimum security annex in January of 1998,
consistent with the Lorton closure plan.
Second, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has trained over 60
Department of Corrections case managers in the application of
the Federal classification instrument. To date, more than 1,500
inmates have been reclassified and, by the end of this Fiscal
Year, we expect that the entire population will be
reclassified, preparing for eventual transfer into the Bureau
of Prisons system.
Approximately 2,500 District of Columbia prisoners are
already in private-sector prison beds. As a result of that, the
medium security facility was closed and the population at
Occoquan has been reduced from 1,651 in 1997 to 1,195 today,
which represents approximately a 28 percent reduction in the
population at that very troubled institution. The overall
inmate population at Lorton has reached an all-time low. Today
the count is 4,250 compared to 5,445 at this time last year.
contract with virginia and closure of occoquan facility
The proposed fiscal year 1999 budget will enable us to
maintain our very aggressive efforts to close Lorton and to
carry out other requirements of the Revitalization Act. And
I'll mention just a few of them. You are probably aware that
we're currently in negotiations with the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Corrections for 1,200 prison beds. Those
negotiations are progressing well. We anticipate having a fully
executed contract by no later than the end of the first quarter
of 1999. Execution of this contract will enable us to close the
Occoquan facility by the third quarter of 1999.
2,000 prisoners to private sector beds
We have reclassified and identified--or we have in process
the ongoing reclassification and identification of low-and
minimum-security prisoners for transfer to the Bureau of
Prisons. Consistent with the Revitalization Act, we anticipate
that 2,000 prisoners will be moved into private-sector prison
beds by the end of fiscal year 1999, consistent, again, with
the Revitalization Act.
We've entered into a partnership with the corrections
trustee and the trustee for offender supervision to provide a
program of intensive supervision for inmates in the community.
There are currently over 124 inmates in Lorton who have been
recommended for parole by the D.C. Parole Board and the U.S.
Parole Commission that we believe could be benefitted by this
program, thereby further reducing the population at Lorton.
capital repairs of lorton complex
We're real pleased that capital funding in the amount of $6
million of the total $7.1 million identified for the Department
of Corrections in the corrections trustees budget has been
received from the trustees to assist us in much-needed repairs
of the wall at the maximum security facility and other security
enhancements throughout the complex to enable us to reasonably
ensure the safety of staff, inmates, and the general public as
we move through this unprecedented closure of the Lorton
complex.
career transition center at lorton
Mr. Chairman, prison work, under the best of circumstances,
is difficult and stressful. But the imminent closure of Lorton
and the displacement of thousands of employees have exacerbated
the challenge for correctional workers. And, therefore, we have
worked collaboratively with the corrections trustees to open a
career transition center on the grounds of Lorton. At that
center, employees have access to employment assistance,
individual and family counseling, financial planning
assistance, crisis intervention, as well as other support
services. The transition center is staffed by D.C. Department
of Corrections staff, staff from the Office of the Trustee, and
additional support services and workshops are provided by the
Department of Employment Services, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the D.C.
Office of Personnel, and others, and will be open to
corrections employees throughout the transition and until the
year 2002.
stabilizing correctional workforce
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the 1999 budget will enable us to
complete the following tasks. First, to stabilize the
correctional workforce. Our ability, our capacity, to complete
this transition, to do the very difficult work ofcorrections is
contingent upon the presence and the availability of correctional
workers. This budget includes a number of incentives that will enable
us to retain and recruit corrections personnel.
internal audits and controls
Second, with the assistance of the corrections trustee, we
will update policies and procedures and put in place systems
for internal audits and controls that will enable the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of our system to be significantly
improved.
health care delivery system
With the cooperation of the Bureau of Prisons, we have
appointed a senior correctional health administrator, under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, also known as IPA. We intend
to restructure the Department's health care delivery system to
improve the efficiency of that operation, as well as the
effectiveness of our management structure.
contract monitoring program
In conjunction with the chief management officer and the
corrections trustee, we have begun to develop a comprehensive
contract monitoring program. As we move additional prisoners
into contract prison beds, the need for enhanced monitoring is
quite evident.
lorton closure--schedule adjustments
Also, along with the trustee and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, we're in the process of revising the Lorton closure
schedule to make necessary adjustments in the schedule, for
contract changes, as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons
construction schedule. But it's important to note that we are
firmly committed, firmly committed, to ensuring that all
facilities at Lorton are closed by December 31, 2001,
consistent with the Revitalization Act.
strategic plan development
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, along with the chief management
officer, the corrections trustee, and the courts and as well as
other members of the criminal justice system, such as offender
supervision, trustee Jay Carver, we're in the process of
developing a comprehensive, strategic plan and implementation
strategy that will enable the D.C. Department of Corrections to
transition from an integrated prison system to a municipal jail
system.
I'm happy to respond to any questions you have at this
time.
prepared statement of margaret a. moore, director
[Ms. Moore's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. We will wait and ask our questions
after we have heard from all those who have testimony. I
appreciate it very much, Ms. Moore. Mr. Clark, we would be glad
to hear from you next.
Opening Statement of John L. Clark, Corrections Trustee
Mr. Clark. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I'm pleased to have my first opportunity to appear
before you as the Corrections Trustee for the District of
Columbia. It's certainly an honor and a pleasure to appear here
with Director Moore and Mr. Carver, whose offices worked so
closely with us on the current transition.
responsibilities of corrections trustee
As you know, this office was established by the National
Capital Revitalization Act of 1997. The primary
responsibilities of my office are threefold. First, the
financial oversight of all aspects of the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections. Secondly, to facilitate the closure
of the Lorton complex and the transfer of sentenced prisoners
from the District to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by 2001.
Third, to assist the DOC in its own reformation and long-term
stabilization. The 1999 request of $184.8 million will meet the
requirements of the Revitalization Act to assist the District
of Columbia in housing those felons who will not have been
transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
reduction in number of prisoners
Progress has been made in the transition. Director Moore
pointed out a number of the areas of progress. I'll reiterate
just a couple. The total number of prisoners held in the
facilities directly operated by the DOC, including Lorton and
the D.C. jail, has been reduced from over 9,500 3 years ago to
about 6,000. Under the present closure plan, that number should
be reduced to well under 5,000 during fiscal year 1999.
At the Lorton complex itself, one facility was closed last
September and two are scheduled to be closed in the next year.
At the 5 facilities currently in operation at Lorton, the
overall count is about 4,200, down from 6,000 1 year ago, and
from about 7,700 3 years ago. So there's progress in downsizing
the numbers.
However, to be clear, planning for the next steps of the
closure in fiscal year 1999 presents an unusual challenge,
because the pace of the transition depends upon the DOC's
ability to secure suitable contract bids outside the system.
With the assistance of our office, the District is working
diligently with several jurisdictions. Director Moore mentioned
one of those options in Virginia. And we're hopeful of a
favorable outcome in the very near future.
impact on 3,000 corrections employees
I must say that possibly the most difficult aspect of this
transition is the impact on the almost 3,000 employees of the
DOC. The Lorton closure will require that the number of staff
be reduced to under 1,000 by the end of 2001. There's ample
evidence that the staff, because of all of these changes,
primarily, has become dispirited, confused, and the attrition
in the workforce has increased significantly. In this regard,
as Director Moore mentioned, the DOC, in cooperation with our
office, is participating in an interagency taskforce that is
working aggressively to provide an array of resources to assist
staff who are facing separation.
inadequate internal controls
Another major concern of our office is that the DOC does
not yet have an adequate system of internal controls and
accountability at the operational level, which would ensure
that policies are carried out as written or that the
performance of contractors is closely monitored by DOC staff.
Our request includes funds targeted to the development of such
a system of internal controls. In my estimation, a successful
long-term reformation of the Department requires this resource.
joint efforts with corrections department
Finally, on the positive side, Director Moore and I, as
well as our staffs, communicate regularly. We're working
jointly on a number of fronts to accomplish the required
transition and to improve the efficiency of the Department's
operations. I've seen improvements in a number of vital areas
in the DOC operations in recent weeks and months, including
short- and long-term planning, inmate classification, financial
record keeping, and community release procedures, to mention a
few.
With Director Moore and other leaders in her department, I
have seen, in the months that I've been in this office, a great
desire on their part to succeed, a great desire to repair the
problems of the system. In that regard, I havegreat hope for
the long-term success of our difficult joint ventures. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my remarks. I'd appreciate if you would include my full
statement for the record. Again, I'd be glad to take any questions that
you and the committee might have.
prepared statement of john l. clark, corrections trustee
[Mr. Clark's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. Mr. Carver,
please proceed.
Opening Statement of John A. Carver, Trustee
Mr. Carver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moran. It's a real
pleasure to be here today, invited to testify on our budget.
This is my first appearance before this Committee in my
capacity as trustee of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, but it's not my first visit before the
Committee. There have been many times, in another life. But
it's good to be back.
My function as Trustee of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency is to oversee the reorganization and the
transition to the Federal government of the Pretrial Services
Agency, the Adult Probation function, and the D.C. Parole
Board, as well as the Public Defender Service. I really view
this as a unique opportunity--perhaps unique for the entire
country, but certainly unique in the District of Columbia--to
build a truly effective system of offender supervision that
will serve our community in ways that we've never been able to
in the past.
I sincerely believe that, by putting in place this system,
we will have a significant effect in cutting crime; certainly
cutting drug use, which of course is very much associated with
crime; and generally providing a much safer environment for the
citizens of our community and those who come to visit. I am
optimistic about this, and, given the nature of the problem,
you might wonder why I am so optimistic that these ambitious
goals can be accomplished. But I think they can be
accomplished, based on what we know from a lot of empirical
evidence that underscores the fact that most of the crime being
committed is committed by people who are repeat offenders; who
are, by and large, already under the supervision of the justice
system; and for whom we have very poor mechanisms for providing
effective levels of intervention, treatment, and sanctions-
based supervision.
So I think when you look at the fact that we already have,
in effect, a captive population of folks under criminal justice
supervision, the real challenge is to make that supervision and
those interventions effective. I'm convinced that it can be
done not just out of some pie-in-the-sky, optimistic belief,
but because I have seen it done on small scales in this
jurisdiction, and in other jurisdictions and I see it as my
challenge to take what works on a small scale and to make that
the norm across the board.
I'm here to address our FY99 budget request. I would also
like to transmit a separate budget request from the Public
Defender Service. I believe the Committee has that.
[CLERK'S NOTE.--See pp. 301-306 this volume, for prepared
statement of the Public Defender Service.]
budget request for offender trustee
Mr. Carver. I'll turn straight to the budget figures. The
initial President's budget requested $59.4 million for fiscal
year 1999 for the new agency. This budget was prepared, Mr.
Chairman, at a time shortly after I took on this new
responsibility and, to a certain extent, it was based on data
that was not fully developed at that time. It was based on some
assumptions that, upon further refinement of the data, rounding
out the picture of what we're dealing with as a base, proved to
be completely inadequate to the challenge we are facing in this
city at this time in developing an effective system of offender
supervision.
30,000 individuals under criminal justice supervision
I'd like to just give you a sense, Mr. Tiahrt, of the
nature of the problem that we're facing. Right now, we have
over 30,000 individuals in this city theoretically under
criminal justice supervision. If you can just picture this. If
you've ever been to RFK Stadium, that would basically fill
every seat in the upper deck at RFK Stadium. That's how many
people we have right now theoretically under supervision. It's
about 1 in 20 D.C. residents, given the size of our community.
Now a lot of those folks are heavily involved in drugs. We
know this because we do have a comprehensive drug testing
program at intake. We know this and the experience in the
District is similar to that in other jurisdictions. Basically,
we have two-thirds to three-fourths of the individuals under
supervision with either active drug use or a history of
addiction.
arrest record for parolees
We also know that this group has extensive criminal history
records. We recently pulled a sample of drug-involved offenders
and defendants from Pretrial Services, Probation, and Parole,
and the mean number of arrests for parolees was 9.6 arrests and
10.2 for probationers. Now that's arrests. When you look at the
number of----
Mr. Moran. Excuse me, each person on probation has been
arrested 10 times? This is on the average?
number of convictions per parolee
Mr. Carver. Mean number. That is exactly right, Mr. Moran.
And when you look at convictions, the mean number for
probationers was 4.8 and the mean number for parolees was 4.5.
Now this, as I say, is not, perhaps, a representative sample,
because we are in fact in the process of gathering across-the-
board, baseline data. This was a sample of the most troublesome
folks, those that have documented histories of substance abuse.
And the point I'm trying to make is that our system just cycles
people through without effective intervention and without good
supervision.
In fact, John Clark and I were, just a couple of weeks ago,
over at the community transition center that Director Moore
described. We had about 30 inmates there that had just been
released from Lorton and they're coming into this strict
residential transition housing before they go back to the
community. We asked for a show of hands of all those who had
been through the system before. And every hand went up with, I
think, 1 exception, out of about 30 people. So we are cycling
people over and over through this system.
parolees--inadequate supervision and lack of sanctions
And the reason for that, Mr. Moran, and the reason that we
have so many parole violators in jail right now--I think it's
600 or 700--is because we just don't have--and historically
have not had--adequate supervision for when they do come back
to the community. We don't have immediate and graduated
sanctions. We don't have the ability, right now, to intervene
at the first sign of drug relapse. And without the ability to
do that, without the ability to bring somebody back and put
that individual in a structured, residential setting where you
can deal with the relapse, what you see happening is that
relapse intensifies, it leads to criminal behavior, eventually
the individual picks up a new criminal offense, and, of course,
then you've got him back in prison on a parole violation.
So the goal here, Mr. Tiahrt and Mr. Moran, is to build a
system that can first of all provide effective
supervisionthroughout the course of criminal justice oversight and then
have the ability to move very quickly, within a day, ideally, and
provide certain predictable, intermediate, and graduated sanctions when
people start to slip. The fact that we can't do that now is, I'm
convinced, a major factor in this endless recycling. It contributes to
a deterioration of public safety and we know how to fix it. We have
fixed it in small areas, but we need additional funding to be able to
apply the benefits and apply the knowledge to a much broader segment of
the criminal justice population.
$38 million budget amendment
And that is why the administration is now supporting a
budget amendment to the initial Presidential request in the
amount of $38 million which would bring the total request, with
this budget amendment, to $97.6 million. This is set forth in
both the budget and the written statement that I submitted for
the record.
[The information follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
amendment redirects funding from department of justice
Mr. Carver. Basically, it redirects discretionary funding
from within the Department of Justice, so it doesn't affect the
allocations of this Committee.
Mr. Moran. Do we have a problem with 302 (b) allocation for
this money? We better get into this in depth. I do not want to
interrupt his----
Mr. Tiahrt. Yes. Let him finish his testimony and we will
get into it in depth.
Mr. Moran. Okay.
opportunity to ``enhance'' public safety
Mr. Carver. Okay. I'll summarize very quickly so you can
get into questions. But the main point I want to make is that
the Revitalization Act does far more than just federalize
former D.C. government agencies. There's an opportunity here to
make a significant enhancement to public safety in this
community. And then when you look at what's going on and what
Director Moore has described and what other witnesses will
describe throughout the day, I think you can see that the real
direction here is not just to do more of the same. More of the
same would mean just continuing to nibble around the edges of a
very large problem.
We need, right now, a massive effort to build a better
supervision infrastructure in order to intervene effectively
and reverse this downward spiral of drug abuse and crime. We
know this has worked.
drug count
In my previous capacity as Director of the Pretrial
Services Agency, I worked very closely with Chief Judge
Hamilton to establish a drug court that provided a foundation,
a model for the kind of sanctions-based intervention, coupled
with plenty of drug treatment and social services, delivered in
this framework of accountability. And we have seen, from this
example, that effective supervision can substantially cut drug
use, which has a corresponding reduction in crime. And we know
what works. The challenge before us is to take what works on a
small scale and apply that across the board.
Now this, I recognize, is a very large, very ambitious
goal. It's not going to happen overnight and it certainly can't
happen without the support of Congress. Fortunately, the
administration is on board and fully supports this effort and I
believe has found a way to structure this budget amendment in a
way that addresses the 302(b) issue. And with that I will be
happy to conclude.
Prepared Statement of John A. Carver, Trustee
[Mr. Carver's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you for your testimony. I am sure we are
going to have some questions.
budget amendment not officially transmitted
Before I yield to Mr. Moran, I would like to know when you
think you are going to formally transmit the amendment of the
$38.3 million? You noted it in your testimony. Will there be a
formal request submitted?
Mr. Carver. Yes.
Mr. Tiahrt. And when will that be?
Mr. Carver. I believe it has been approved, as I understand
it, by OMB and is going through the final sign-off procedure to
be formally transmitted by the President.
$38 million budget amendment to reduce caseload ratios
Mr. Tiahrt. Now you have talked about the need for the
additional funding, but how will you expend the additional
funds, if they are received?
Mr. Carver. First of all, we will change the ratios of
supervision. Right now, we have a situation where parole
officers and probation officers, no matter how committed they
are--and there are a lot of highly committed and dedicated
folks--they are dealing with caseload ratios of, in many cases,
from 1 to 200. In the case of one agency, it's 1 to 900. So one
of the first things that would have to be done is--and that's
where most of the new positions are--to get those caseload
ratios down to Federal standards, best practice standards. And
that's where most of the positions would go.
Mr. Tiahrt. What is that caseload approximately? Some
supervisors are, I believe, up to 900 cases.
Mr. Carver. Right. And in Pretrial Services, when you look
at the number of Pretrial Services officers providing direct
supervision, the caseload ratios are 1 to 900. Now that is the
agency where there's a very high level of automation and a very
high level of drug testing, so it is in effect, not as bad as
it is in the other agencies where it's routine to have caseload
ratios as high as 1 to 200. So that has to be addressed.
information technology infrastructure
There's another major initiative, and I'll be happy to
spell out for you the actual numbers--but just in some general
terms, information technology infrastructure is absolutely
essential. You've got to have information on compliance and on
status instantly available to those in a position of making
decisions and actually implementing a system of graduated
sanctions at the first sign of trouble. So there's an
initiative to continue work that's already well along the way
in one component of the overall agency, to make sure that this
is available throughout the agency.
sanctions center
Another very important initiative, and this is something
that we've worked closely with Director Moore and John Clark
on, is to develop a sanctions center. We have $7.5 million
identified from discretionary DOJ funding from the Truth-in-
Sentencing Prison Construction Grant program that would fund
the renovations necessary, or the development necessary, to
establish the kind of combinationresidential, halfway-back
option, sanction center where, when people start to slide, you can
address that slide before it turns into crime and get them back into a
residential, structured, secure setting.
Mr. Tiahrt. Is that what you mean when you say ``we know
how to fix it''?
Mr. Carver. Yes, that's exactly right.
drug court intervention--frequent testing
When we set up our drug court intervention program--and
this, Mr. Tiahrt, reaches just maybe 200 of the 20,000 drug-
involved folks that are out there--but when we set that up, we
designed it in such a way that people were tested very
frequently, twice a week or three times a week, and the day
they tested positive, a sanction would be applied. The sanction
would be either referral to a secure detoxification program or
a jail-based sanction. The idea is that you've got to move very
quickly when individuals begin to relapse.
Right now, we do not have the capability to intervene
effectively when we detect trouble.
Mr. Tiahrt. Are you saying this because of the number of
employees available for counseling?
Mr. Carver. It's a question of employees.
Mr. Tiahrt. For supervision?
Mr. Carver. It's a question that we don't have the
infrastructure. We do not have the physical facility to put
people on the scale that will be needed. And the other point is
drug testing. Right now we have very good drug testing in one
of the component agencies, Pretrial Services. It's automated.
It does a very high-volume of urine testing, but we are just
beginning to expand the benefits of this automated drug testing
into the larger population of individuals under probation or
parole supervision.
So part of this infrastructure that has to be built is the
capacity to provide regular, probably twice-weekly, drug
testing for anybody that has any history of substance abuse. If
we don't do that at a bare minimum, we are really closing our
eyes and cutting off the opportunity for the most effective
form of intervention. We know that a slide back into drugs is
also associated with a slide back into criminal behavior and
that the failure to act, almost immediately, invariably will
lead to crime and a reduction of public safety for the
community.
budget amendment funded with department of justice funds
Mr. Tiahrt. Why is the administration proposing to go to
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary for funding of this
amendment?
Mr. Carver. Well, as Jesse James said----
[Laughter.]
When they asked why he robs banks, because that's where the
money is.
Mr. Tiahrt. Because that's where the money is. Okay. What's
the impact if we don't have a budget problem?
Mr. Carver. But a more serious answer, Mr. Tiahrt, is the
fact that we already have in Commerce, Justice, State, a number
of Department of Justice discretionary grant programs allocated
to States for very similar purposes. We're in kind of a unique
situation in that we are a transitioning Federal agency
providing what would be a State function in any other State. So
the mechanism there, which is a one-time-only redirection from
discretionary funding, is to take in a number of program areas,
prison construction, COPS program, drug testing, those funds
that would be available to a State and simply direct them to
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the
implementation of this infrastructure that is so necessary
given the extent of the problem.
budget amendment--impact if not approved
Mr. Tiahrt. If we cannot provide this funding because of
our allocation problems, what would be the impact?
Mr. Carver. Well the impact is that we will not be able to
address the public safety issues that face us and we'll have to
continue to work with the administration and with Congress to
somehow find the resources that would be necessary for building
the kind of system that can serve the public.
use of community-based organizations
Mr. Tiahrt. In your strategic plans, have you considered
using private organizations or faith-based organizations for
some of these people who have slipped back into the problem of
drugs?
Mr. Carver. Yes, we have. And, in fact, what we're moving
to much more of a neighborhood-based, community justice model.
It's been my experience that there are many, many organizations
in the community who are doing lots of good work and I think
the entire field is kind of moving to the point where we really
have to form new partnerships with faith-based organizations,
with social service providers, and with other partners in the
criminal justice system. We're working very closely with new
Police Chief Ramsey to develop a new kind of a partnership
between community-oriented policing and community-oriented
offender supervision.
But the answer to your question is: absolutely. We are even
discussing the feasibility of reconfiguring offender
supervision caseloads to match the PSA configuration, that's
the patrol service area geographical reconfiguration of the
police department. So you'd have community-oriented police
officers working hand-in-hand with community-oriented
supervision officers in a partnership that, I think, would be
very beneficial. You'll see in the budget request that one of
the infrastructure items we have is to add eight additional
community supervision centers so that we can move our officers
from downtown locations into the neighborhoods themselves.
availability of qualified applicants for hiring
Mr. Tiahrt. If we can find the money, do you have the
capacity to hire and train qualified people for this job?
Mr. Carver. Yes, we do.
Mr. Tiahrt. The unemployment rate in northern Virginia is
about 1.9 percent. So these people that are available can be
trained?
Mr. Carver. Yes. We haven't even done as much recruiting as
we can do, but right now, for example, we have a stack of
resumes, and about 80 people in the pipeline for community
supervision officer positions. We have the foundation of a very
good training program already in place in terms of about eight
individuals whose sole function is staff training and,
especially, computer training.
So, we see this, Mr. Tiahrt, as something that has to be
done. After all, the statute requires that I certify, by August
5, 2000, that the agency is ready to assume its full functions,
consistent with Federal standards. And so it's really a
situation where we don't have any option butto ensure that we
have the capacity, the pipeline in place, the training in place by
what's really a statutory deadline for accomplishing these objectives.
Mr. Clark. If I could interject. One crossover area here is
that, while he's building a large agency, we're downsizing
Director Moore's agency. So there are a number of well-
qualified caseworkers and others in the Department of
Corrections who might be able to transition into Jay's system
here.
indirect administrative costs of $44 million for corrections
Mr. Tiahrt. I have one more question and then I am going to
change gears a little bit. First the prison takeover cost; the
budget request is $44 million over what was asked for by the
administration for the Federal corrections trustee. Was there
miscommunication in this or is this about not being able to get
our arms around the task? And are there any other
administrative indirect costs that are somewhere in the budget
that we don't know about?
Mr. Carver. I can't speak to the corrections budget, but
with respect to the Offender Supervision budget, I think that's
a very fair question, Mr. Tiahrt. And I have now, since that
initial budget was fairly hurriedly put together and
transmitted last November, done a very lengthy and careful
analysis of who's under supervision, what the level of risk is,
what would be required to build a truly effective system of
offender supervision. I am now confident that we do have our
hands around the problem. We do know the scope of the problem.
Some of this developmental effort has already been going
on. So that gives us a pretty good gauge, for example, of what
it's going to take to build the information technology
infrastructure that will serve this agency. So I think we're
now to the point where I personally have a very high level of
confidence in the budget projections and the implementation
plan necessary to get us where we need to be by August 5, 2000.
Mr. Tiahrt. Ms. Moore, are you familiar with the budget
request for increased support?
Ms. Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiahrt. Are there other costs that are associated with
that or do you think that's the total of the increase?
Ms. Moore. The $44 million, Mr. Chairman, represents
approximately $25 million in external indirect cost that the
chief financial officer believes necessary to support the
agency's transition. It also includes approximately $18 million
for the full cost of housing the number of sentenced felons in
the system as defined by the agency. I will acknowledge right
up front that there is some differing of opinion on this point
between the city and the corrections trustee. But I think the
important point in this discussion at this point is that we are
firmly committed, firmly committed, to moving forwards with the
closure of Lorton by the designated closure date of December
31, 2001.
Mr. Tiahrt. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of
issues that I want to address. Let me address the most recent
one that was brought up. There is a disagreement between Ms.
Moore and Mr. Clark in terms of the $44 million requested. In
your testimony, Mr. Clark, you say that you do not agree with
the conclusion of Dr. Brimmer, the head of the Control Board.
Do you want to just summarize that? I do not want to read this
whole thing, but you are suggesting that the job cannot be done
for $44 million? And that the analysis that went into the
estimate was flawed. Is that true?
Mr. Clark. Well----
Mr. Moran. Because of the pay raise and the definition of
sentenced felons and so on.
disagreement with control board
Mr. Clark. Yes, there are two fundamental issues over which
there's disagreement. Not so much even between Director Moore
and myself, but between District officials and the
administration. The two issues are, as Director Moore
mentioned, in the one case costs which are external to the
Department of Corrections. Costs related to the central
government of the District. And the second would be the
definition of the responsibility between the Federal government
and the District government for a particular number of
offenders.
So most of the $44 million is related to those two issues
and let me say a couple of things in regard to our point of
view on this. First of all, the $184.8 million that we have
requested, I feel, is adequate and fair. It's a 9 percent
increase over the current year funding. It was arrived at after
consultation with the chief financial officer's office and
Director Moore's financial staff. They did not agree with it,
but there was a significant degree of consultation.
Of course, this all happened, as Mr. Carver mentioned, we
had to submit our budgets close upon taking office last fall,
but I still stand by it. I think it was a fair and adequate
figure. And that it provides for $27,000 or $28,000 per inmate,
whereas the national average cost for State systems is around
$20,000 or a difference between, on a daily basis, about $77 a
day that this request would fund versus about $55 a day as the
national average.
But the two issues, the two basic, fundamental issues,
which really arose and were dealt with prior to my coming into
this appointment, are the external costs, which primarily are
costs, as I say, that do not relate directly to the Department
of Corrections. They are depreciation on other governmental
buildings in the District and interest on bonds. I think those
two categories relate to about two-thirds of the cost. There
are some other costs of running the CFO's office and personnel
costs and so on.
And the second issue--and again this was an issue, it's my
understanding from everyone that I've talked to, including
staff on this Committee, that this was an issue that was dealt
with in negotiations leading up to the Revitalization Act.
These were costs that were not agreed by the Administration
would be part of the deal. And the issue has been raised again
in the interim and has kind of been put on our plate here to
try to deal with. The second issue is in kind of the same
category that we thought had been settled through the
memorandum of understanding between District officials and the
Administration, in which inmates, in the long-run, will be a
responsibility of the Federal government versus which will be a
local responsibility.
memorandum of understanding very clear
There's a certain degree of vagueness in the Act because it
talks about sentenced felons, but the memorandum of
understanding that was entered into last May, I believe, is
very clear, a memorandum of understanding signed by city
council, the Chair, and the mayor, is very clear that the
disputed categories would not be a Federal responsibility.
Therefore, in the interim, they would not be a responsibility
of the trustees office and the trustees budget. And most of
those are cases who have been sentenced, have served terms of
confinement as felons, have been out in the community on parole
or supervision, have been arrested for new crimes, are being
held in local detention awaiting adjudication. And it would be
the theory of the consultants of the District that these cases,
because they had been serving a sentence when they committed
their crime, would be a Federal responsibility. That is not
consistent with what was in the memorandum of understanding and
so--that relates to several hundred--some hundreds of inmates
which equates to, I think, over $10 million.
So those are the two issues. I hope I'm making myself
clear, but these are issues that we had thought were settled
before we came into office and have been raised again. And,
quite frankly, have been a matter of some frustration to me and
our office in that it has set up a certain degree of conflict
between our office and the District and I would like to get
beyond this and be able to deal with the transition and the
reformation of the Department and the things that are our real
mission.
So I'm--in that regard--I'm pleased that Dr. Brimmer has
raised the issue before both your Committee last week and the
Senate several weeks ago. But that's my understanding of the
difference between the $44 million. And I, again, bottom line,
am comfortable that the $184 million that we have requested is
adequate and fair.
additional $44 million not likely to be appropriated
Mr. Moran. Well, you are not going to get it. You mean the
$184 million compared to $44 million? What do you mean?
Mr. Clark. No, no, the difference is between $184 million--
this year the amount that was appropriated was $169 million.
The amount that we have requested is $184. The amount that Dr.
Brimmer has suggested is somewhere around $228 million.
Mr. Moran. Oh, I see what you're suggesting.
Mr. Clark. So it's the $44 million on top of----
Mr. Moran. I should say Dr. Brimmer is not likely to get
the additional amount. But it is not clear to me, I do not know
whether it is to you, Mr. Tiahrt, I am not familiar with this
conflict that has been going on. But perhaps Migo can fill us
in. At some point, we need to understand what we are pulling in
here. I do not think you are going to get that extra money if
you do not want it. But I do not know that it is even worth
taking up the Committee's time to get into it in depth. I have
got to understand it better. Does Mr. Taylor understand this
fully? Maybe I should not ask you for the record what is it----
[Laughter.]
That is it. Okay.
Mr. Clark. Your point's well made that we need to perhaps
spend some time outside the hearing----
Mr. Moran. Figuring out what to do. Yes, yes. Okay.
Ms. Moore. Let me suggest, Congressman Moran, for the
record, that Dr. Barnett is here and that we will be happy to
meet with you and you, Congressman Tiahrt, to have a further
dialogue about this issue.
Mr. Moran. Yes, well, apparently a further dialogue is
necessary.
$44 million--letters from delegate norton and omb director frank raines
[CLERK'S NOTE.--The following letter dated March 17, 1998,
to Chairman Taylor from Delegate Norton together with a letter
dated May 14, 1998 from Franklin D. Raines, Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, to Delegate Norton, provide
additional information concerning the $44 million requested for
District government indirect costs:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
30,000 persons under criminal justice supervision
Mr. Moran. Let me ask about, Mr. Carver, some of the issues
that fall into your bailiwick. First of all, the numbers. We
have a, what, an adult male population in the District between
the ages of 18 and 40--I should have figured this before
asking; you're not going to have this number at the top of your
head--but, basically, the people on probation and parole fall
within that category, and they're virtually all male, I would
assume. Are they?
Mr. Carver. All adults. General statistics are that 90
percent of the population is male to 10 percent female. I
actually have the number under parole supervision, 7,941. This
was as of a few weeks ago. Under probation supervision, 10,773.
And under Pretrial Services, pretrial supervision, 12,100.
Mr. Moran. There is no double counting in here, one would
assume.
Mr. Moran. This is the current status.
Mr. Carver. Right.
question of ``double counting''
Mr. Moran. So they would not be under--they would only be
under one status, would they not, at one time?
Mr. Carver. There are some individuals that have multiple
statuses across the system, that's true.
Mr. Tiahrt. So it is not 30,000 people per se.
Mr. Carver. Although I think the way this was done, this
was based on the unique police identifier so as to avoid the
double-counting issue.
number of crimes and arrests involving 30,000 parolees
Mr. Moran. So you have got roughly 30,000. And you say
there is an average of 10 crimes per individual included in
this population? And an average of five arrests?
Mr. Carver. You can't even measure crimes, but as a
surrogate for crime, we look for arrests. And, again, this
gives the general outline of the extent of criminality among
this population. And I don't mean to portray these figures as
representative across the board. We will have that for you
within the next month or two but, as I indicated, what this
sample represents is a sample of individuals with drug use
problems that happen to be in a regimen where we have been able
to do some very extensive data collection. So it's really kind
of a----
Mr. Moran. This 30,000 is not the total of people on
probation, parole, and pretrial detention?
Mr. Carver. It is. I'm sorry, Mr. Moran. I thought you were
turning to the number of----
Mr. Moran. Oh, okay.
Mr. Carver. Mean number of arrests and the mean number of
convictions.
Mr. Moran. Of that group, you did a sample.
Mr. Carver. Correct.
Mr. Moran. But you only looked at the people with drug
problems.
Mr. Carver. In this sample, yes.
Mr. Moran. Which represent what?
Mr. Carver. Two-thirds of the whole sample.
Mr. Moran. Two-thirds. Two-thirds of the sample.
Mr. Carver. Right.
Mr. Moran. And they had an average of 10 arrests----
Mr. Carver. In probation----
Mr. Moran [continuing]. And----
Mr. Carver. 4.8 convictions for probation. For parole, 9.6
arrests and 4.5 convictions. These sound high.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Carver. Again, if you're in any group of----
Mr. Moran. And the arrests are probably, what? After they
did the crimes that they committed.
300-500 crimes per year per offender on drugs
Mr. Carver. Well, actually, Mr. Moran, there have been
studies that show that--and they've been done in Miami and
they've been done in Baltimore--show that among offender
populations, individuals that are heavily involved in drugs
tend to also be heavily involved in crime to the point of
committing 300 to 500 crimes per year. This is somework that's
been done by Professor James Inciardi. I'd be happy to supply more
detailed information to you.
[The information follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
reducing drug use reduces crime
Mr. Carver. But the point is, these same studies show that
if you can reduce the drug use, that the corresponding level of
criminality goes down at the same time. And, finally, that if
you really use criminal justice supervision effectively, you
can reduce the drug use. If you have a sanctions-based system
where you can respond almost immediately any time someone uses
drugs and in such a way that you have an immediate, graduated,
known response, this works.
What we have now is no graduated responses, but the
possibility that at some point in the distant future something
might happen. That does not work to deter drug use and to deter
offending. So the challenge here is to take what we know
empirically, put that into practice, and build the kind of
infrastructure that will permit us to detect the first sign of
trouble, and then to act on it.
Mr. Moran. Okay, well, do you not have drug courts in the
District?
Mr. Carver. Yes, we do.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Mr. Carver. And that's why I describe it as nibbling at the
problem around the edges. The drug use problem is so much more
extensive than that which can be served by the drug court that,
in effect, what we have to do is to take proven techniques and
apply them across the system. We should not be content with the
system that treats a lucky few who happen to end up in one of
these programs.
We have to, I think, Mr. Moran, stop thinking in terms of
programs here that do this or that and reach a tiny fraction of
people. Let's refocus our thinking on changing the processes in
which the criminal justice system actually uses, in an
effective and beneficial way, the power the system already has.
Mr. Moran. To incarcerate, you mean. Take them off the
streets?
Mr. Carver. No.
Mr. Moran. What is the power?
Mr. Carver. The power is to set conditions of release and
enforce those conditions.
Mr. Moran. Well, what is detention? It is if you do not
comply.
Mr. Carver. Right now, we have jail, but jail occurs maybe
six months or a year after the behavior that you're trying to
change. So what we have to get to is a point where, as we're
supervising, as we're monitoring drug use for people already
under supervision, you intervene the first time a person uses
drugs. And that can be with a short sanction.
Mr. Moran. Well, what? What is a sanction? Use some real
terms here.
Mr. Carver. All right.
Mr. Moran. What do you do? Put them in jail. You do not
whip them.
use of sanctions for drug offenses
Mr. Carver. I'll tell you how it works in the drug court.
First time a guy uses drugs, he has to spend three days in the
jury box watching drug court. The second time he uses drugs,
he's got to go to a detox facility. The third time he uses
drugs, he has to go to jail for three days. And then every time
he uses drugs----
Mr. Moran. You check weekly.
Mr. Carver. Twice weekly, at least in that case.
Mr. Moran. Twice weekly. Okay.
Mr. Carver. And so what you have is a situation where the
defendant knows the consequences. It's not like some
theoretical consequence in the distant future.
Mr. Moran. Good. Now that makes a lot of sense. And that's
what you want to do with the $38 million?
Mr. Carver. Exactly. That's the model.
Mr. Moran. But that's all through the court system, right?
Mr. Carver. Not just the court system.
Mr. Moran. So these people out in the community would be
doing the drug testing too?
Mr. Carver. Yes.
Mr. Moran. They do not go to the court. They----
Mr. Carver. Well, right now they do have to come to the
downtown location just to get drug tested. The vision is that
we're going to have these neighborhood community supervision
centers where they can report for drug testing.
Mr. Moran. You cannot do it in the police stations around
the city?
Mr. Carver. We're doing a lot of it now. In fact, I have
here a picture of a lab we have right now.
Mr. Moran. Those are all urine samples, I suppose.
Mr. Carver. Yes. That's more urine than I've ever seen in
one place. [Laughter.]
But it's stacked literally, as you can see from this
picture, from floor to ceiling.
Mr. Moran. And that's downtown?
Mr. Carver. That is downtown. And this, Mr. Moran, serves
only folks, or primarily folks, in a Pretrial status. We are
not yet to the point where we have a lab with this much urine
in it that can serve the public's need to have parolees tested
with the same frequency. Virtually every one of the people
coming out on parole, and you can see from these statistics,
has a history of drug use. Now when they come out, they may be
clean. But unless you get them into a regimen and use support
and with----
Mr. Moran. Twice weekly. But if you have 30,000 people, you
have to monitor the urine sample, right? And then you have to
test it. How many people are you talking--you cannot have
enough now that can perform that task for 30,000 people.
Mr. Carver. That is exactly right.
Mr. Moran. And so you would need to hire how many to do
that task? It adds up to over a thousand something.
second urine lab needed for drug sanctions program
Mr. Carver. That's for the full FTE count. What we propose
to do is to build a second lab. We have one lab and, as you can
see from this picture, it's completely stretched to capacity.
We want to build a second lab. The lab itself can be
centralized and downtown. We have the capacity now to have a
completely automated process for conducting these kinds of
tests. People check in. They're identified electronically. A
bar-coded label is printed. The analyzing machine reads the bar
code label. And right now the result can be done within 20
minutes and available to judges on the bench from a computer
screen. That's fine for that segment of people, but we do not
have that as an infrastructure.
Mr. Moran. And you want to make it available for all 30,000
of the population?
Mr. Carver. That segment of the 30,000 with known histories
of drug use
Mr. Moran. Two-thirds of them. 20,000 people.
Mr. Carver. Correct.
Mr. Moran. 20,000 people or less.
Mr. Carver. And I should say, Mr. Moran----
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Carver, may I see the picture?
Mr. Carver [continuing]. That this isn't just something
that we want to do. This is an administration initiative
throughout the country. There's a lot of evidence and, in fact,
Congress has had a number of witnesses up here talking about
the potential value of setting up exactly this kind of system
where you really can intervene almost immediately.
Mr. Moran. Well if you really can stop 300 crimes, and that
is the conservative figure, in a year times 20,000, then that
would have a sea change--that would dramatically change the
entire criminal justice system and rate of crime and sense of
public safety in the District of Columbia. If you could set
that up and could accomplish that overnight. I do not know
where you are going to put all these people when they violate
it, but I suppose having immediate sanctions and keeping
immediate track of whether they are using drugs would deter the
likelihood.
drug court experience
Mr. Carver. Yes, actually we have some information on that,
Mr. Moran, from our experience with Chief Judge Hamilton in
setting up the drug court.
[The information follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
experience with offenders in sanctions program
Mr. Carver. We actually looked at the number of people that
continued to violate. The first time a sanction had to be
applied, it was applied to two-thirds of the people. But at
each subsequent stage, the sanctions had to be applied to only
half of the people the previous level had been. So what you see
is that if you really can set this up, you eventually have a
situation where people just get tired of the aggravation. First
of all, they know what's going to happen. They get tired of the
aggravation of these short disruptive stints in jail. And that
sometimes is the first time that they decide, well, I've got to
get serious. I've got to really get serious about getting
myself together and getting off drugs.
People don't want to be drug addicts, Mr. Moran, but
sometimes they need the structure the criminal justice system
can provide, or families can provide, if they have good
families. But they need that structure to help them reach a
level of sobriety and function.
$38 million amendment available from department of justice
Mr. Moran. I got you and I agree with you. You have
identified money that all three of us agree will come out of
the Commerce and Justice appropriations bill--that will come
out of the Department of Justice appropriation. Justice agrees
that that should be done. Do we know whether our sister
subcommittee wants to do it too? We have no idea. Does it not
conflict with the allocation? It does not. We could do that. So
we can do it if Justice wants to, if Mr. Roger's subcommittee
wants to. So we would need to make a push to do that, or to
find the money in this bill. Okay. And you would estimate that
that solves or reduces as many as 60,000 crimes? I mean that is
a little reductio ad absurdum with your statistics. But,
anyway, if it is anywhere near what these statistics indicate
it is, it is probably the most important thing we could do in
this budget.
housing prisoners in virginia
I have some questions on housing prisoners in Virginia, but
you have answered them. You have to send them to Virginia and
they have to be done? I mean, we are going to do that, right?
Is that Mr. Clark's issue?
Mr. Clark. Well, we're both on this issue. Ms. Moore and I
are working collaboratively on this. In fact we were just in
negotiations going out within the last few days. There's
nothing signed, but we're very confident that everything's
going in the right direction.
Mr. Moran. All right. Well, the discussion we had with Mr.
Davis--Mr. Davis' office--was not particularly productive, but
you think things are moving along?
Mr. Clark. In the last several weeks.
lorton--sewer overflow and toxic problems
Mr. Moran. Let me ask you another question here. There are
some serious sewer overflow and some toxic problems at the
Lorton facility that have to be cleaned up. Are we moving along
on that so that that land is going to be usable?
Ms. Moore. There is money in the capital budget for Lorton
to address sewer system problems as well as some environmental
clean up. I believe that all of those issues will be corrected
prior to the closure of the----
Mr. Moran. The land is handed over. Okay. Very good.
new prison proposed on national park service land
I have one other question I wanted to ask Ms. Moore about
the prison that would be built privately on the Maryland side
of the Potomac there on National Park Service land. Have you
weighed in on that at all?
Ms. Moore. I know of no definitive plan at this point, Mr.
Moran, to build a facility in the District or on the Maryland
side.
Mr. Moran. Well, it's the CCA.
Ms. Moore. Right. I understand that, that Corrections
Corporation of America has land in the District. I don't know
and in fact I do not believe that the Bureau of Prisons has
awarded the contract to any vendor to build a facility anywhere
at this point, you know. And John may know more about this than
I do. But I am aware of no definitive plan at this point to
build a private facility in the District.
Mr. Moran. So even if they did get the land from the
National Park Service, they're not necessarily assured that a
prison is going to be built on it.
Ms. Moore. You're--that's correct. They're not assured of
that.
Mr. Moran. They are investing an awful lot of money and
resources and time and energy--and a fair amount of emotion
into getting that land. It would be quite a shock if they then
finally get the land and we intervene and help them get the
land, and then they do not have any prison to build on it.
Mr. Clark. Well, if I could speak to that, sir, it is the
Bureau of Prisons requirement to do this privatization of 2,000
beds by the end of next year, so it's not anything that
directly is involved in our responsibility, either Director
Moore's agency or mine, but because of my previous
responsibilities with the Bureau of Prisons and our continuing
contact with them, I'm very familiar with what's going on.
Essentially, they issued a request for proposals early this
year. The bids were due in in April. They expect to--and I'm
sure that this is a competitive procurement where there are
several companies, in the very least, who would be offering
proposals. Of course it's very confidential as to who they are
or where they may have land. There's a lot of publicity about
this one particular site that this one company has. It's not
generally known where several of the other companies have their
sites. The requirement of the RFP was that it be within 300
miles of the District and I think there was going to be a
reward in the evaluation process for proximity to the District.
The Bureau of Prisons has said that they intend to make the
award by the end of the summer. So, within six or eight weeks,
I think it will be known whether this particular parcel of land
is the one belonging to the company that's been awarded the
contract. But it's certainly very much up in the air at this
point.
Youngstown, Ohio Facility--Problems and Concerns
Mr. Moran. Well, if--CCA wants to build it. I know there
has been some adverse publicity about that Youngstown facility
too. Did you see the incident at that Youngstown facility as
being inconsistent with what happens at Lorton? I mean, two
prisoners were killed, right? Does that give you cause for
concern?
Ms. Moore. Any time, Congressman, a prisoner is killed or
staff member or prisoner is seriously injured, it gives me
cause for concern. I am not, however, ready to assume that CCA
lacks the capacity to manage the District's prison population.
D.C. Council Favors New Privately-Operated Facility in D.C.
I will say in response to your initial question, though,
that I'm aware that the Council of the District of Columbia has
voted in favor of the construction of a privately operated
facility in the District of Columbia, insomuch as doing so
represents some fairly significant economic development
opportunities for the city.
Mr. Moran. Well, I understand that CCA has a good
reputation. I was surprised at that article. And it may not be
inconsistent with violence that occurs at Lorton. It seems to
me that we ought to try to build a private correctional
facility in D.C. that would provide jobs to D.C. residents.
Rather than get into any other issues, I will conclude at this
point. Thank you.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being
here and your testimony very much.
Bureau of Prisons Testimony on Lorton Closing
[CLERK'S NOTE.--The following excerpt from testimony
presented March 12, 1998, by Kathleen M. Hawk, Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, to the House Subcommittee on
Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, relates to the
closing of the Lorton Prison Complex as mandated by the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August 5, 1997):]
Department of Justice, Statement of Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons--Kathleen M. Hawk, Before the House Subcommittee on
Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
* * * * * * *
The newest challenge facing the BOP is, and will be, the absorption
of all District of Columbia (D.C.) sentenced felons into BOP custody by
2001.
The 1999 request focuses on adding prison beds to keep pace with
projected inmate population growth, and capacity to meet requirements
of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
Act of 1997. The Act directs the BOP to assume responsibility for
confining or contracting for bed space for all sentenced D.C. felons by
October 1, 2001.
Budget Request
The FY 1999 request for the BOP totals $3.4 billion, including the
following program increases: construction of four Federal Correctional
Institutions (FCIs), and the resources to activate the 200-bed
expansion at the FCI in Loretto, Pennsylvania. The new construction
will add the capacity required for the BOP to meet its responsibility
for the (D.C.) adult sentenced felons by October 1, 2001.
Specifically, for the Salaries and Expenses appropriation, an
increase of $2.8 million and 46 positions is requested for the
activation of the 200-bed expansion at the FCI located in Loretto,
Pennsylvania. The Loretto project is currently out for bid, and a
contract is expected to be awarded shortly.
For the Buildings and Facilities appropriation, the request
includes an increase of $300 million and 28 positions required for new
construction. This level of funding will permit construction of three
additional FCIs and partial funding for a fourth FCI to provide
additional capacity to accommodate the space requirements for the D.C.
sentenced felon inmates in accordance with the D.C. Revitalization Act.
In FY 1998, $294.9 million was provided to the D.C. Corrections Trustee
for reimbursement to the BOP to cover site acquisition and planning of
the four facilities and full construction of two more.Further, a
provision in the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Improvement
Act of 1997 requires BOP to house 2,000 D.C. sentenced felons in
private contract facilities by December 31, 1999. A Request for
Proposals (RFP) was released on February 13, 1998, with responses due
by April 1, 1998.
d.c. revitalization act
The BOP is actively evaluating potential sites within 500 miles of
the District. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for numerous
locations may be necessary to ensure four acceptable sites since the
EIS process is preliminary and does not always result in prison
construction. To date, siting efforts have been concentrated in
Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. In December of 1997, the BOP began the EIS process for
a medium security prison in Gilmer County, West Virginia. In addition,
the BOP is proceeding with the draft EIS process for sites in Ohio/
Tyler and Preston counties, West Virginia, and obtaining additional
technical information to go forward in the EIS process on sites in
Kentucky, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The BOP plans to finish
each EIS related to D.C. capacity this year.
Further, the BOP plans to build a medium security facility at its
existing Petersburg, Virginia, location, and a high security facility
at its Coleman, Florida, location. While the Florida location is
outside the 500-mile radius, the BOP can proceed quickly with this
project because the EIS process completed for the existing institutions
addressed the possibility of adding an additional facility at a later
date. The BOP would then be able to transfer BOP inmates to Coleman and
subsequently place D.C. sentenced felons in the approximately 30
existing BOP facilities that are within the 500-mile radius.
The BOP is currently housing over 600 D.C. sentenced felons for the
D.C. Department of Corrections (DOC). Of this number, 116 are D.C.
sentenced females recently transferred into BOP custody. The BOP
continues to provide administrative/technical expertise to D.C. DOC
personnel in critical areas, such as infectious disease control, BOP
policy and classification of inmates. UNICOR staff are developing plans
to begin transferring relevant industries from the Lorton Complex to
BOP, as appropriate. Human Resource Management Divisions staff are
working diligently with the Trustee's Office on the Priority
Consideration Program for displaced D.C. correctional workers. The
National Institute of Corrections (NIC) developed the Management Reform
Plan for D.C. DOC which covers transition of D.C. Code felons to BOP
and closure of Lorton. The plan will also assist D.C. DOC in redefining
its future role with regard to managing pre-trial, detention, and
sentenced misdemeanants.
Through anticipated reimbursement from the D.C. Corrections Trustee
in 1998, the BOP has adequate resources to construct two FCIs at
existing BOP sites in order to generate capacity to house D.C.
sentenced felons. In addition, 1998 funding from the Trustee will be
used for site acquisitions and planning of four FCIs. In 1998, the BOP
plans to transfer into BOP custody the majority of female D.C.
sentenced felons. To date, 116 female D.C. sentenced felons have been
transferred into BOP custody, and procedures have been put in place so
that all newly sentenced female D.C. Code violators will be designated
directly to BOP custody. The BOP is currently reviewing minimum
security male D.C. sentenced felons in preparation for their transfer
into BOP custody. The projected movement of D.C. DOC inmates needing
mental health, medical/surgical care is targeted for 1999. Absorption
of higher security level D.C. inmates is projected for FY 2000 and FY
2001 as additional BOP capacity (construction funded in 1998) is
activated.
* * * * * * *
privatization
As part of the 1997 Appropriations Bill, Congress directed the BOP
to undertake a five-year privatization demonstration project at the
correctional institution in Taft, California. In July of 1997,
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation was awarded the contract to operate
the Taft facility. The potential contract term is 10 years,
encompassing a 3-year base and seven 1-year options. The first inmates
began arriving in December of 1997. As of March 5, 1998, there were
1,009 inmates housed at the Taft facility, and it is anticipated that
approximately 80 additional inmates will arrive at the facility each
week until the institution reaches its full capacity. Taft will house
1,536 low security and 512 minimum security Federal inmates when fully
operational. This project will help the BOP evaluate the potential
effectiveness of privatizing further BOP facilities. BOP staff prepared
and forwarded a technical proposal to evaluate Taft to the National
Institute of Justice, and a meeting is scheduled this spring for
feedback from other experts in the field.
summary
Mr. Chairman, the FY 1999 request addresses the major challenges
facing the BOP and provides funding for increases necessary to add
Federal inmate capacity and meet requirements of the law.
The increase requested for 1999 will allow the BOP to activate the
expansion at the Loretto, Pennsylvania, prison and enable expeditious
closure of the Lorton, Virginia, Complex by adding capacity to absorb
sentenced D.C. felons into the Federal Prison System.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the
Subcommittee for your continued support. This concludes my prepared
remarks, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you or your
colleagues may have.
conclusion of corrections hearing
Mr. Tiahrt. The committee will stand in recess subject to
the call of the chair
[Recess.]
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. The committee will please come to
order.
I would like to thank Congressman Cunningham for chairing
the education panel today and Congressman Tiahrt for chairing
the corrections panels.
public defender service
[The following prepared statement of the Public Defender
Service was referred to by Mr. John A. Carver, Offender
Trustee, on page 239, this volume. Inserted following the
prepared statement of the Public Defender Service are two
letters which are self-explanatory concerning the Public
Defender Service from the Independent Public Defender Bar
Association of the District of Columbia.]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURTS
WITNESSES
CHARLES H. RAMSEY, CHIEF OF POLICE, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
DONALD EDWARDS, CHIEF, D.C. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
ROBERT E. LANGSTON, CHIEF, U.S. PARK POLICE
STEPHEN D. HARLAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, D.C. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
EUGENE N. HAMILTON, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS,
AND CHAIR OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Taylor. We will go into our third panel, public safety,
and we have with us the Metropolitan Police Chief, Charles
Ramsey; Fire Chief Donald Edwards of the D.C. Fire Department;
Chief Robert Langston of the U.S. Park Police; and Steve Harlan
of D.C. Financial Control Board. Also, Ms. Wagner, the Chief
Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, is with us.
We have your written statements and they will be included
in the record without objection. I would suggest we dispense
with any reading of your written statements so you will have as
much time for personal comments. If it is agreed, we will hold
questions until all four witnesses have made their comments.
witnesses sworn in
We do swear in all witnesses. If you could stand----
[Witnesses sworn.]
Metropolitan Police Department
Chief Ramsey, your budget request totals $300.4 million, an
increase of $29 million above fiscal year 1998. If you would
like to go ahead and make your comments, we will go from there.
Chief Ramsey. Yes, sir. First of all, thank you very much
for giving me this opportunity to appear before you. I ask that
the original testimony, which you have a copy of, be included
in the record.
prepared statement of police chief charles h. ramsey
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Chief Ramsey. I would just like to hit a couple of
highlights there.
budget increases
You are correct, the total budget is $300 million--$277
million of that is appropriated funds; another $23 million is
grant funding. That represents an 8 percent increase over
fiscal year 1998. That is due to salary increases both sworn
and civilian members negotiated with the various unions,
increased costs for contracts and things of that nature that
are passed along from year-to-year--more or less a cost-of-
living type of situation--and so have increased
civilianization.
3,600 sworn officers--no increase requested
I have chosen to hold the line on the budget basically
during this fiscal year. We are holding the line at 3,600 sworn
members. That actually represents a reduction of 100 in terms
of numbers, but in actual strength that we have had over the
past couple of years, it is basically holding even at 3,600
police officers.
increase of 100 civilians
We are asking to increase by 100 civilians--from 722 to
822--so that we can put more officers into the field. That
gives us a total force of 4,422 members in the Metropolitan
Police Department.
chief not asking for more resources--assessing current use
Now the reason I have chosen to hold the line, rather than
ask for more, is simply because I am not really certain how we
are using the resources that we currently have. I am new in the
Department. I have been here for 2 months now, but the
Department does suffer from some problems. In many ways,
mismanagement that has occurred over the years in many areas.
We need to know exactly where we are before we can begin asking
for more resources. Once we are clear--certain that we have a
sufficient number of police officers to provide protection to
the citizens of Washington, D.C. and we have the technology we
need--all those different aspects of equipment that are needed
to efficiently run a police department--then I will have a
better sense for what I need in the budget. Future budgets will
reflect actual needs.
But the first thing I want to do is take a serious look at
the Department and eliminate any waste that we might have, and
make sure that our resources are being used effectively. I am
not confident that is occurring now, that is why I am not
asking for more. Some of the things, just very quickly, that I
would like to do or I have already begun doing--just to inform
you, even though I have only been in position for 2 months, I
have already begun some new initiatives. I am still in the
process, however, of assessing the needs of the organization.
recruitment--serious concerns
Recruitment, that is an area of very serious concern for
me. Right now, we are barely keeping up with attrition. We lose
approximately 20 to 25 officers per month. That is a net loss
of about four when we figure in our hiring that occurs monthly.
So we are having difficulty maintaining our current level of
sworn members. Despite that, however, weare being very
aggressive in going out and trying to recruit new members.
college requirement for new recruits
Effective January 1999, I am raising the education
requirements for entry into the Metropolitan Police Department
to 2 years of college or 60 semester hours. By year 2002, I
would like to raise that once again to a 4-year college degree.
Again, I think that it is time that we raised the bar, bringing
in a higher quality individual into our ranks; work with those
that we currently have and also encourage them to go back to
school. That point will also include, by the way, different for
promotion, a certain kind of grade, as well as an educational
requirement that is going to be necessary to advance within the
Metropolitan Police Department.
Our job is becoming more and more complex. With the
sophisticated technology and so forth, we need to look at
different types of individuals to come into policing. I think
we can accomplish that and maintain our diversity at the same
time.
need to put police officers back on street
Another issue that is of great concern to me is the
visibility of police officers. In Washington, we have the
highest per capita ratio of police and citizens anywhere in the
country. Yet people constantly complain that they do not see
the police. Well we need to do a better job of allocating our
resources. Too many of our officers are still in positions that
are not street duty, they are administrative positions and so
forth. We have got to hire more civilians. We have got to put
police officers back in the field where they belong because
that is what they were hired to do--not be secretaries--but be
police officers out there in the field. So we are looking very,
very carefully at our allocation of resources.
street roll calls
You may have just recently become aware of a new initiative
called street roll call. Taking police officers out of stations
during that period of time; putting them out in the community,
and letting people see them. Also targeting hot spots--areas
where we had a lot of criminal activity whether it is gangs,
drugs, or whatever it might be--putting our officers in the
roughest areas that we have in the city. We are taking the city
back block-by-block, if we need to. But police officers are
going to be doing that all summer long.
bicycle patrols
We also have increased the number of bikes that are out
there. Again, this gives us another way of getting out to the
community, being somewhat mobile.
$15 million federal grant--difficulty in spending
I know you are concerned about the $15 million that we got
a couple of years ago and there were a lot of concerns about
our not having spent it. That money is all spent or obligated--
in fact, I just spent the last $277,000 to purchase additional
bicycles. So we are going to get a total of 187 bicycles in
July with all the equipment that we need, and uniforms to go
along with it. So we will be able to put additional bicycle
patrols on the streets, in addition to the vehicular patrols
that we have out there now.
lack of accountability for getting things done
There are some concerns that I have still in the Department
that we are working on. One of the things that I have noticed
since I have come here, is an overall lack of accountability in
many areas. Things such as not getting firearms qualifications
done on time; not having equipment in districts that people
need--from xerox paper to toilet paper--it is alleged that we
do not have those kinds of things available. It is been
documented in the press. Those are just breakdowns of systems
within the organization and there is absolutely no excuse for
that. People need to be held accountable for seeing to it that
these kinds of things are taken care of. We are taking a look
at that and we are correcting those kinds of situations.
technology--adequate training required
We are taking a look at technology. I recognize that
technology is not indicated or a solution to every problem that
we have. However, it is necessary because it does reduce the
number of man hours we use to take care of many of those kinds
of tasks. We need to apply technology wisely. But with that we
have to be prepared to provide adequate training to our members
so they know how to properly use that technology.
education and training neglected
That raises another issue around education and training of
the Department that has been neglected for a long period of
time and we are going to move very aggressively to enhance
that, as well. Going back to that recruitment effort of
bringing in people with some college background, we will be
bringing people into our ranks that are familiar with
information systems and technology, and not afraid of
computers. That is going to be an asset to us in the future.
police performance and physical standards
Developing performance standards is another area that we
are taking a look at within our new contract with the Fraternal
Order of Police--both performance and physical standards. We
are working with this now to hammer out exactly what those
standards are going to be. But we need to hold people to
certain standards and have certain expectations for them. In
terms of their performance, right now we are in a situation
where the Department lacks any real performance standards. We
just simply have to give people something so they know what
they are supposed to be doing, and then we can start holding
them accountable.
outside employment by police officers
The issue of secondary employment--I have already taken
that on right now. We have police officers working in bars. We
have police officers that are allowed to work, in my opinion,
in locations that are really inappropriate. Working with the
D.C. Council to have legislation put in place that will be
stricter for people to work in establishments whose primary
source of income is the sale of liquor, or anything with a
sexual orientation. There are just certain jobs I do not think
it is proper for police officers to be working in--let alone in
uniform. Right now, our D.C. Code allows them to do both, and
that means change. So we will have a more restrictive policy in
place so that our police officers are not involved in those
kinds of things.
too many officers on administrative leave
Then finally, the issue that was also in the paper around
administrative leave, not having people available for duty--
well we have not established administrative leave with pay.
Those people on administrative leave with pay--with very few
exceptions--need to be put back to work somehow. If it is in
the 911 center, which was in the paper just yesterday,
answering calls; if it is in the records section--I do not care
where it is, but if they are drawing a paycheck, they ought to
be doing something to get that paycheck. If the conduct is such
where we need to separate them, then we need to be aggressive
in moving toward separating them from the Department and not
having them in that status for too long a period of time.
police facilities neglected for years
There are numerous other areas and issues. I have brought
along with me something that I will leave with you, sir, around
the facilities that we have that are in terrible shape. They
have been neglected for years. We have raw sewage leaking from
pipes in the women's locker rooms in 4D--it is simply
appalling. I brought this because at somefuture point and time
I would like to come back and try to work with you to come up with
creative solutions to try and solve some of those problems over the
long term. I know you cannot do it overnight, but if we work together
maybe we can come up with something creative to try to really improve
conditions there. That is basically all I would like to say in opening.
I will answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Fire Department
Opening Statement of Fire Chief Donald Edwards
Mr. Taylor. Chief Edwards, please proceed.
Chief Edwards. Good afternoon, Mr. Taylor. Once again
echoing Chief Ramsey's sentiments, it is my pleasure to be here
to hopefully answer any questions that you may have about the
D.C. Fire Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
BUDGET FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
The recommended local budget for the Fire Department for
fiscal year 1999 is $101,577,000 and that includes a total of
1,754 full-time positions. This represents an increase of about
$360,000 and one additional full-time position over the fiscal
year 1998 budget. The bulk of that increase is for pay raises
that were granted as a result of the passing of the 1998
Appropriations Act that was requested contingent of funding of
those pay raises into the next fiscal year.
Our proposed fiscal year 1999 capital budget includes
$2,106,000 for financing capital-related items for these
programs. That represents a slight increase over our previous
years for budget requests. In an effort to achieve the goals of
this agency, which is to have a positive impact on the quality
of life for everybody in this community, I think I have
established major goals that I would like to achieve with the
passing of this budget. That would be the improving of customer
service--which is that we are a customer service agency.
We provide a direct service to the citizens and businesses
and those who choose to do business in the city. This can be
done by providing a timely and efficient fire and emergency
medical service department. I am seeking optimal response time
and all requests for emergency services. This will be achieved
through increased use of technology, as well as increase and
reinforce employee accountability.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM
The Department has taken a more proactive role since my
appointment as Chief in our interaction with the community. One
of the programs that I have instituted, that I feel is
extremely successful, is the community outreach or open-house
policy that I have established in various fire facilities
throughout the area. This program entails our fire stations
being open to the community on a monthly basis and we provide
such services as CPR instruction, smoke detector information,
and give away childhood immunizations. Basically what I want
these fire stations to become is a service center for the
communities that they serve. Traditionally, the fire service
has been a basically closed society. The only time that people
would see us was when the doors arose and we came out
responding to a call for an emergency.
However, I feel that if we take a more proactive role in
providing some of the other services that I know we can
provide, it will lessen the demand for our reactive responses.
It will also lessen the demands for some other services--from
police services such as Chief Ramsey provides, public health
service, and those entities. We have entered into a cooperative
agreement with several of the city agencies to help me
facilitate this particular program. It was instituted at the
beginning of the fiscal year and it is a very successful
program--very well received by the community.
INCREASE IN BUILDING INSPECTIONS
I also intend and we have increased the number of building
inspections by changing our building inspection hours at our
fire inspections bureau. This provides increased and added
service to people who need those services on a more
approachable--or I would say acceptable type timeframe.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION--TERRORIST INCIDENTS
My next goal, in an effort to ensure that we provide the
services that we are required to do, is to increase our
efficiency in all phases of our operation. We can no longer
defer the pursuit of improvement in our specialized areas of
population. For instance, this is the Capital of the free
world. As we all know, the political climate that exists
throughout the world, this city is a target for various
extremist groups. Fortunately, it has not occurred. As a first
response agency, I feel it is mandatory that my agency prepare
itself to respond to any unfortunate incidents of this type. In
doing so, I have created a special operations division that is
focusing on responding to terrorist incidents with the
cooperation of several other city agencies to include the
Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of Emergency
Preparedness.
Any entity within the city that would respond to such an
incident must be involved. I think my agency being the initial
agency to respond must be the leader in providing the needed
service in the event of something of that nature. My workforce
must be equipped with the necessary tools to carry out their
duties. This budget hopefully will get us to that point. I am
increasing training for everyone--special Operations, my fire
inspectors.
ARSON CASES--CLOSURE RATE
I am utilizing the resources available with the National
Fire Academy, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of
the Treasury Department. Heretofore, this city has had a
horrendous closure rate for arson cases. I have sought and
received police power for our arson investigations. This was
achieved through full cooperation with the Metropolitan Police
Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as the Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the Treasury Department. All
of those individuals who were selected for that program are
long-time employees. They have completed or are very close to
completing the police department's full training program so
that when they complete the program, they will have undergone
the exact training that all police officers in the city will
have undergone to become sworn police officers.
I do believe this will result in a seamless process asfar
as dealing with our arson investigation. We definitely need to improve
our closure rate and I believe that this is the way to go with this
particular program.
INFORMATIONAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PLAN
Technology, as we enter the new millennium, and everyone
realizes it is going to be a very integral part of the
operation of all city agencies. We have developed an
informational systems technology plan that hopefully will help
us go into the new millennium utilizing all available technical
resources to improve our delivery of services. This budget
plays a very important role in that endeavor.
RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT
Lastly, meeting our established budget target. Although
enormous strides have been made in improving the physical
stability of the city, the Department must and will continue to
contribute to the financial recovery of the city. Sound and
responsible management on my part, or whomever is the chosen
leader of this agency, is mandatory for the success of that.
CAPITAL BUDGET
Our capital funding devoted mainly to apparatus replacement
and increasing or enhancing, improving, renovating, replacing
of some of our dilapidated facilities. I, too, suffer from the
same problem that Chief Ramsey mentioned about our facilities.
I have fire stations that need roofs replaced, plumbing
replaced, electrical work replaced--all of these problems have
been ID'ed. I have in place a work plan to do that, provided
that this particular budget is approved by this panel, by the
Senate, and the House as part of the new fiscal year 1999
budget.
I feel together with the increased accountability that I am
demanding of my people, proper funding to maintain the programs
that I have ID'ed, and any additional programs that may be
ID'ed in the future. I believe we can meet the needs of the
citizens of this city. I am prepared to answer any questions
that you may have specific to our budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FIRE CHIEF DONALD EDWARDS
[Fire Chief Edwards' prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chief Edwards.
U.S. Park Police
Chief Langston.
opening statement of chief robert e. langston, u.s. park police
Chief Langston. Good morning--excuse me, good afternoon,
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Moran. Good to see you. It is good to be here
and I appreciate the opportunity again to appear before you. I
appreciate the support last year that this Committee gave to
the U.S. Park Police. I will be kind with your time. I have a
prepared document that has been presented to you and I would
appreciate it if there are any questions, I certainly would be
more than pleased to help answer.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF ROBERT E. LANGSTON, U.S. PARK POLICE
[Park Police Chief Langston's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
BACKGROUND OF U.S. PARK POLICE
Chief Langston. We, the U.S. Park Police, have been around
since 1791 and we are integral part of the protection within
the District of Columbia. We have concurrent jurisdictions
throughout the entire city of the District--as does the
Metropolitan Police in the park areas. It flows back and forth
very well--extremely well.
Approximately 12 percent of all the cases that we make
within the city are what we would call on city streets or
within the city itself. The rest are in the park areas. Just as
a point of interest, just the last couple of years, I think we
wrote over 180,000 traffic violation notices and parking
violation notices. The revenue from those tickets goes to the
District of Columbia, not to the Federal government where
revenue goes for tickets we write on the George Washington
Memorial Parkway or other places. So there is a uniqueness
about our interaction within the District of Columbia.
QUALITY-OF-LIFE CRIMES
Obviously, what we have been concentrating on the last
couple of years are quality-of-life type of crimes. We have a
philosophy, that if you take care of the little things, the big
things disappear. It really has proven to be so. Commissioner
Bratton up in New York City focused on the quality of life
crimes, also. You have seen a dramatic impact in the City of
New York. We do that by uniform officers, by our contact with
the community or plain-clothes officers.
ALCOHOL-FREE JULY 4TH
An example of what we did last year was at the 4th of July.
We made the downtown parks alcohol-free. Prior to that, we were
having some serious problems with the Independence Day
celebration--with knifings, gang problems, assaults, and
drunkenness. Last year we made not one arrest, where normally
toward the end of a 4th of July celebration, our officers were
really fatigued and they had been dealing with a lot of
disorderly conduct.
We will continue that again this year. The only problem we
had last year, of course, was disposing of all that alcohol.
This year we have worked an agreement with Arlington County,
Virginia over the disposal of all that confiscated alcohol. We
appreciate the Virginia folks. [Laughter.]
Mr. Moran. How do you dispose of it? [Laughter.]
Chief Langston. It is destroyed. When it is destroyed it is
put in a drain that goes into a proper sewer system to be
treated.
DRUG INTERDICTION
We deal with a lot of interdiction within the city of
Washington and drug addiction. Just last week as we were
getting ready to testify, it was a stop out on the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway, where the officers confiscated 225 grams of
pure, uncut heroin. The BW Parkway is a supply route into the
city. It is a place where even the officers who are not
assigned in the city have an impact on what is coming in town
and what is going out of the city.
Our coordinated efforts with the District of Columbia has
always been good. We have worked with all of you, all together.
It is not anything that is new. We will continue to do that.
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME
This year, we dealt with a lot of environmental crime and
those environmental crime issues were dumping of hazardous
wastes and medical wastes to things such as that. Not only
within the parks, but within the city. As recently as last
week, assistance from Metropolitan Police in establishing an
environmental crime unit. We have had a training course where
not only with the Metropolitan Police but where the city
inspectors have trained them on how to deal with environmental
crimes. Matter of fact this year, we are instrumental in
passing a new bill for the Illegal Dumping Enforcement
Amendment Act of 1998 in the District of Columbia. Now it is a
felony--it is up to felony--up to 5 years in jail for dumping
this type of material within the city. So we concentrate on
these things that really impact the city.
PERSONNEL shortage
We have established--I will speak about personnel a little
bit. But because we have been short of personnel basically, the
last couple of years we have withdrawn people from the task
forces that have always been an important part of the mass
transit task force and DEA. Really we need officersjust to
cover basic beats. We no longer have the luxury of supporting a lot of
the normal task forces that we would normally do. But we did provide a
small 10-officer task force that would just cover the hot spots within
the city's parks and with what we call the impact area surrounding the
city's streets. We have worked well with the Metropolitan Police to
find out those problem areas that they have that we could help
concentrate our personnel on.
drug arrests
Just since March 30, which is about 2 and one-half months
ago, we have made over 150 arrests in those areas; about 39
cases and have confiscated a lot of illegal drugs and weapons.
helicopter aviation unit
Our support services to the District of Columbia this past
year, obviously we have always supported the Metropolitan
Police, with our aviation. But last year, they disbanded the
MPD aviation unit, they shut it down. That has shifted some. It
has had an impact on us in that we had to pick up 205 missions
for the DC Police Department and another 30 from the Fire
Department.
It is not that costly. It has run us probably--when we look
at it--close to $40,000 just to pick up those missions. That
obviously puts additional wear and tear on the helicopters.
critical needs--personnel
I would like to say that some of our critical needs. One is
personnel. Personnel is probably at an all-time low for the
U.S. Park Police. Nationwide, we are not a large force. We are
kind of a lean, mean organization.
officer strength--park police
Nationwide, we are 793 officers. Of that 569 are assigned
in the Washington Metropolitan area. That takes into
consideration Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.
Of those 569, we only have 450 officers. So we are 119 officers
currently right now short in our command in the Washington,
D.C. area.
That is a significant impact, especially when we are
dealing with the major events that we do deal with in the city.
6,000 demonstrations annually
I will give you an example of a normal day when the
Metropolitan Police and the U.S. Park Police handle many
demonstrations. We do it jointly together. It may be a Million
Man March, or it may be just an impromptu demonstration that
occurs. Start in a park in Dupont Circle, march through the
city's streets and end up at the White House, down here at the
Capitol. We have probably close to 6,000 demonstrations a year
that occur. Then we have special events like Marine Corps
marathons and parades--Cherry Blossom parades. All of this we
cooperate with fully and support, but in order to get the
personnel to do that, you have to be fully staffed it makes it
a lot easier. When you have barebones staffing within your
stations, it is hard to pull personnel to cover these major
events.
personnel shortage
The staffing I realize that the personnel staffing is not
under the purview of this committee. I would only ask your
support if you have any influence on the committee. I would
certainly appreciate your consideration in trying to increase
that--not increase--but staff us up to where we should be to
where our vacancy rate is. That will have a big impact on
policing within the city. We feel that our staffing now is at
an all-time low that should be brought up to what our
authorized level is.
helicopter aviation unit
We do have some considerations we would like to put before
this committee and one is on our helicopter unit. We have two
helicopters and we have been flying two helicopters for 25
years. We have had a very efficient aviation unit. We received
a public safety award for the efficiency of the unit. However,
one of those helicopters now is over 15 years old. It is 3,700
hours beyond the replacement time that it should have been
replaced. It is been taken up to Canada on two separate
occasions to have stress cracks welded in the airframe and I am
not comfortable with officers even though that the people say
that these are safe aircrafts, I am not comfortable knowing
that there are stress cracks in those things. There is a need
to replace one helicopter and there is also a need for a second
helicopter. We had asked for some consideration in our
presentation in the document that you received.
equipment shortfalls
Equipment shortfalls like the Fire Department and Police
Department has been underfunded for so many years, we have had
to rob or cannibalize our equipment. We are in much better
shape this year than we were last year, thanks to this
committee. We certainly appreciate it. It continues. Facilities
and equipment is still degraded to a certain extent.
In conclusion, I would like to just say that we certainly
are concerned for the safety of the citizens in the District of
Columbia and the millions of tourists that come here from all
over the United States. Certainly we are an integral part of
the law enforcement program, the public service program here in
the city. We appreciate the opportunity to be here and we
appreciate your support. Thank you very much.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chief Langsten.
Control Board
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Harlan.
Opening Statement of Stephen D. Harlan, Control Board
Mr. Harlan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me be here
today. The Chief has covered the budget and I would like to
take an opportunity to just kind of step back for a second and
talk about where we were, where we are, and where I think we
are going.
As you recall from 1985 to 1996, crime was pretty much out
of control in Washington, D.C. Homicides had risen 150 percent,
robberies were up 50 percent, car thefts were up 500 percent.
Seventeen months ago, we formed then what we called the MOU
Group which was made up of the Control Board, the Mayor, the
Chair as the Council's Judiciary Committee Chair of the D.C.
Council, the Corporation Counsel, the U.S. Attorney and the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court. Three weeks ago, we expanded
that group and renamed it. We included the new Chief Management
Officer and the new D.C. Corrections trustee, along with the
Court Services and Offenders Supervision trustee, Jay Carver.
We renamed the group to the Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council which has a better name and expanded its responsibility
and focus.
It has become apparent to us that it is not only the
Metropolitan Police Department's challenge to reduce crime. We
have a lot of other agencies involved. During that period, we
think we have made some progress. We have come quite a way, but
we have a long way to go yet.
crime rate
In 1997, Part I crimes were down 19 percent and progress is
continuing this year. From January through the end of May, Part
I crimes are now down 22 percent compared to last year. It is,
in fact, the lowest level of crime in our city in the last 20
years, so we have made some progress. Statistics are nice and
they are impressive, but they do not tell the whole story. We
still have a city that is far too sensitive to the fear of
crime and the Coordinating Council is committed to eliminating
that fear.
recruitment of police chief charles ramsey
We have done a lot of different things and initiated a lot
of programs in the last 17 months. The most important one was
the outreach and selection of Chief Charles Ramsey as police
chief in our city. We are delighted that he is here. He has
great experience--29 years with Chicago and where he rose
through the ranks to become one of the top police leaders. The
day after the Mayor of Chicago did not pick him to lead
Chicago, we contacted him, flew to Chicago, and pleaded with
him to apply for this job. We were successful in doing so. So
we are delighted he is here. He is bringing a whole team of
experienced leaders with him that will make a huge difference
in our police department.
Some of the programs that were underway when the Chief
arrived were continued, and you have heard that he is going to
make a lot of additional programs.
open-air drug markets
For instance, we have gotten very good cooperation through
the city on trying to close these open-air drugs markets. Not
only the PoliceDepartment, it is the Department of Public
Works, it is the courts, it is the departments of Human Services and
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs--everybody working together to board up
abandoned houses, and tow away abandoned cars.
Criminal Justice Pilot Program
Another initiative is the criminal justice pilot program
led by Jay Carver in PSA-704, Police Service Area 704, which
really engages the resources of the community, pre-trial
services, defense services, parole and probation to really go
after adult offenders and make certain that we are all working
together to improve safety and reduce crimes in those areas.
Police Presence on Streets and Depoliticizing Department
The Chief has talked about increasing police presence on
the streets. That is truly one of the highest priorities we
have had since we formed our group--that and taking the
politics out of the police department. As you recall that was
probably the first thing we did. But there are several facets
to increasing police presence on the streets. One is just
having more police officers. That involves, as the Chief has
pointed out, recruiting officers which the Chief is committed
to improving the quality of officers as far as the educational
aspects go and putting in performance and physical standards.
But it also means redeploying from civilian ranks, pulling
those uniform officers and putting them on the streets. Then we
need to see that the officers stay on the street. We have too
many officers on administrative leave and other forms of leave.
The Chief has taken the lead in doing that.
Police Health Clinic--Privatized
I am happy to say that within the last year, we have
reported that there was a new police clinic that was
implemented that has had a major impact because officers no
longer can go to the police clinic and be told to go home and
take the day off if they are not feeling well. Now, they have
to go through a rigorous physical examination and that is
working well. That clinic has been basically privatized with
Providence Hospital and Washington Hospital Center taking the
lead.
Arrests and Booking--Reduction In Time and Paperwork
We need to improve arrest and booking procedures. It still
takes 4 to 5 hours to book a crime where it should be either a
paperless crime or an officer-less crime as we call it where
the officer is completing the reports and not having to go to
the U.S. Attorney's office for each arrest to take time off
from the streets. That effort is underway and I am happy to say
that through the good efforts of the U.S. Attorney and the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court, the police department and
everybody working together, we are going to start a pilot
program on July 1, 1998 to move that--primarily on misdemeanor
kinds of crimes and simple offenses.
U.S. Attorney Use of Police Officers
Another area of improvement is that officers spend a lot of
time in court. A control program called the investigative CANs
program which is really a program to help coordinate officer
time with the courts. One of the areas that has become apparent
as our U.S. Attorney is like the State's attorney--here they
function as the state attorney. In virtually every other
jurisdiction the State's attorney had their own investigative
staff--here they do not have the investigative staff. That
confuses lines of authority and responsibility. Police officers
find themselves having to report to more than one boss and that
is not necessarily good.
Police Officers--Better Training for street Officers
The other point to get officers on the street is for the
officers to do the right thing on the street, not just be there
but do the right thing. That requires a lot of training. For
years and years--20 years of training has been eliminated, not
initial training but continuous training. We have a very high
degree of ``deferred maintenance'' in the training of the
police officers in the District.
Community Policing
One of the reasons that Chief Ramsey was so attractive to
us in going through the selection process was that he is
unquestionably the leader in the country on community policing.
Not only the leadership he has provided in Chicago, but working
on the fundamental concepts and models through Harvard and
other organizations. He is just a true leader. We are committed
to community policing to make ordinary problem-solving to get
the crime down, not just make arrests.
All of this is coming together very, very well mind you. We
have a lot of challenges.
Citizen Complaint Process
For instance, the citizen complaint process which is being
changed. The City Council is working on it, the police are
working on an internal model, but we have got to improve the
trust and respect on the part of the citizens to the police
officers and the police officers to the citizens. The fairness
of the citizens complaint process, the impartiality of it, and
for the citizens to believe that if they do have a legitimate
complaint that it is going to be treated properly and fast.
Homicides--Closure Rates Improved
To make good progress in the homicide department. A whole
new homicide model has begun to be implemented last Fall. Right
now homicides are at a 10-year low. The closure rates improved
from about 57 percent or less, to about 70 percent. This rate
is much better, but it needs to go up. The changes--the
implementation of changes in the homicide department are going
to continue, which includes a lot of training.
Infrastructure Allowed to Deteriorate
The Chief alluded to infrastructure and other support
requirements. Gentlemen, committee members, staff, I would ask
you to come with me just to visit those police districts--it is
awful where these ladies and gentlemen of the police department
have to work. We are talking about raw sewage; we are talking
about plumbing that does not work; we are talking about walking
into a police station with wastebaskets on top of desks because
of water from the roof is leaking in a rainstorm--I mean, it is
not a first-class place. It is not even a fourth-class place--
it is a 10th-class place. It needs attention. It is going to
take serious dollars, and we have got to figure out how to do
it.
Field Communications and Technology
The Chief has talked about field communications and
technology. We were not even in the 19th century. We have made
progress, but we have got a long way to go. We are beginning to
put portable computers in cars; there is a long way to go with
training and hardware; and communications. Concerning 911,
there is a new emergency dispatch center being opened--I
believe it will be opened in the year 2000. Some of it is being
addressed, but it is a major battle because it has been
deferred for 20 years, and now we need to get it brought up to
date.
We are working together because one thing that is very
important is to understand that police are the foundation of
the criminal justice system. All of these other agencies have
to link and it all has to fit together, particularly from an
information technology point. The courts are concerned about
this, pre-trial services, all the parole, probation, both adult
and juvenile, corporation counsel--everybody has to be able to
access the database. To understand it, they have to be able to
cross-talk and not only through computers but in
communications. Right now, they very frequently have to get on
the land-line because the radio systems do not talk to each
other.
Conclusion of MR. Harlan's Statement
So I guess in summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe that
sincethe Coordinating Council, formerly the MOU, got involved 17 months
ago. MPD has made a lot of progress, but we have got a long way to go.
Under the leadership of Chief Ramsey and with the cooperation--and let
me say the continued cooperation of all the people that are part of the
Coordinating Council has been excellent. That is where it is going to
be won or lost is that coordination. We are pleased for this
appointment and I would be happy to answer questions when you so
choose.
Prepared Statement of Stephen D. Harlan, Control Board
[Mr. Harlan's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
District of Columbia Courts
Mr. Taylor. Judge Wagner.
Opening Statement of Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner
Judge Wagner. Good afternoon. I thank you for this
opportunity to appear to make this presentation. As you know, I
am Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration, the policymaking body for the District of
Columbia Courts. By statute, we prepare the budget submissions
to Congress for the courts. We have prepared a very detailed,
written statement which we will leave with you and with members
of your staff for review. There are only a few things that I
would like to highlight this afternoon.
First of all, the courts, caseloads remain enormous. The
Court of Appeals experienced records filings again this year--
over 2,000 cases were filed. The Superior Court also had
enormous case filings--over 161,000 cases filed. Nevertheless,
both courts are working very hard to keep pace with the
workload, and in the Court of Appeals for the first time, our
dispositions have exceeded the number of cases that we took on.
We have reduced the amount of time on appeal in the Court of
Appeals and we are addressing these caseloads.
Budget Request for D.C. Courts
Now at the same time, this was an unusual year. Our request
this year is $133,358,000. That amount is about $25 million
over the amount actually approved as an appropriation last
year. However, as you view this, we think you have to view it
against the backdrop of an aberrant year. It was a transition
year. It was the first year that we were under the
Revitalization Act, and there were unanticipated costs for
implementation of the Act. For part of the year, there were
employees who remained with us, and for another part of the
year, there were employees who were transitioned to the new
offender supervision trustee.
We believe that our budget base is somewhat lower than it
would have been had it been a normal year for us. The reason
for that is that there is inherent in any effort to predict how
an organization is going to function with one of its functions
removed and how the new organization is going to function once
it is transferred the new entity. Therefore, it was difficult
to project costs. As a result, we believe that costs were
underestimated for the courts in recognition of the transfer of
adult criminal probation out of the court system by some $8
million. The magnitude of the increase is much smaller when you
consider that the budget was somewhat understated.
The Federal government is supporting a large amount of our
request, and we are appreciative of that. However, there is a
significant amount of our request which is not being supported
or not recommended, and we feel that those items are very, very
important, and we urge you to consider them. They involve the
most critical issues in our system--children, technology,
security, janitorial services, and lawyers who represent
children and indigent defendants. Those are the items that we
urge you to give careful consideration to, in addition to what
we have in the written submission.
Security System
We are in desperate need to revamp our security system and
have requested money to do that. We actually do recover
contraband coming through the doors of the courts on a daily
basis. I do not know how many items of contraband we recovered
this year, but I know in previous years we have recovered up to
4,000 items of contraband. It is very important that we keep
pace with what is going on for security. In addition, when you
have 10,000 people coming and going from your building
everyday, you have to have janitorial services. They are there
for long periods of time, they are using all of the facilities
in the building, and you just have to keep those facilities
sanitary.
Chief Judge Hamilton will elaborate further, I am sure, on
some of these items which do affect the whole court system.
Increase in Fees for Attorneys for Indigents
Really there is not a great deal more that I have to say
except that I do believe that our lawyers--that we are
requesting an increase from $50 per hour to $75 per hour is a
modest increase to ask. It is well below the rates that lawyers
are paid, and they are called upon to represent children who
are neglected and abused in our system. They are called upon to
represent indigent defendants who are entitled, by the
Constitution, to representation. We have to pay them. If we do
not pay for these things, we cannot keep our cases moving.
General Jurisdiction of Courts
As you know, we have no control over the demands on our
system. Our courts have general jurisdiction, and handle
virtually every kind of case imaginable--probate, tax, civil,
and criminal. We have felt the impact of the increased efforts
of the police department on our court system with a substantial
increase in our misdemeanor cases. Thus, the work of one entity
impacts another.
Technology and Y2K
The only other thing I would say is that everyone is
concerned about being ready for the new century and technology.
The courts are somewhat behind in technology, largely because
of fiscal constraints in prior years. We have to be able to
communicate with each other, as Mr. Harlan says. In the Court
of Appeals, we also have to be able to communicate with each
other and with the court system, and we are very dependent upon
computers in order to keep pace with the lawyering that is
going on outside of the courthouse.
Therefore, we would urge you to support funding that would
allow us to be ready to keep our--just allow our courts to keep
up with the pace of the new technology. It is really virtually
impossible, but we do really need to make an effort to meet the
demands for the administration ofjustice. The courts are a part
of the safety valve of the community. People look to us to resolve
their disputes in an amicable way. The community looks to us for
redress of grievances, and to handle criminal cases in the community.
We can only do this if we are able to have adequate funding for the
courts.
Again, our submission will be indexed so that you can look
through it and easily grasp those areas that I have highlighted
and others that are equally important to your consideration of
our budget requests. We thank you for the opportunity to
address you on this matter.
prepared statement of chief judge annice m. wagner
[Chief Judge Wagner's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Judge Hamilton.
Opening Statement of Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton
Judge Hamilton. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
members of committee. Let me express my thanks for the
opportunity to be here this afternoon to speak on behalf of the
superior court of the District of Columbia's budget.
As has been pointed out quite clearly, the crime rate in
the District of Columbia is substantially down. In my judgment,
it is substantially down as a result of a coordinated effort
that began, first of all, by the Memorandum of Understanding
Partners and their efforts of going forward in a consolidated
and collective manner with respect to all criminal justice
agencies within the District of Columbia. That momentum, which
has been started, of course, should be and is expected to
continue.
As a result of that collaborative effort, however, the
criminal caseload in the Superior Court is up substantially.
New case filings in the Superior Court increased in 1997 by
15.6 percent. The disposition of criminal cases in the Superior
Court increased by 17.5 percent. Criminal cases pending have
increased approximately 12 percent overall, considering a
somewhat unusual increase in domestic violence pending cases of
109 percent, which is unusual by virtue of the fact that these
cases were not accounted for previously. But overall, an
increase of approximately 12 percent of pending criminal cases
in the Superior Court.
Now those cases resulted from the police work that was done
on the street and processing a lot of those cases in the police
department. Those cases ended up in the court to be processed
over a longer period of time than it takes the police
department to dispose of those cases. I have included in my
statement, Mr. Chairman, a list of matters that I would very
much appreciate the committee considering. I would request that
my statement be attached to the record.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection.
prepared statement of chief judge eugene n. hamilton
[Chief Judge Hamilton's prepared statement follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
technology--coordinated case management system
Judge Hamilton. I would ask, however, if I could point out
two matters that I think are very, very important as far as the
Superior Court's budget is concerned--keeping in mind that we
are in the trenches, too, you know, we are on the firing line.
We are in the first line of defense. That is our computer
system. It does not do the police department any good to become
high-tech and to be able to move and process their cases
expeditiously if they come to the court and they hit a snag.
The court has to be able to process its cases as quickly and
expeditiously as the police department does.
For that reason, we have requested the funds necessary to
implement a coordinated case management system which will
permit us to expeditiously process all these cases so that we
know exactly what we have. For example, we cannot really know
now whether or not the same person has two or three cases
pending in the court that really might be related to each
other. They ought to be married by an automated process. So we
need this equipment to be able to do that.
juvenile drug court
The second item, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
that I would really draw your attention to and that is the
funds that are necessary to implement and operate our juvenile
drug court. Now we just had a national conference on drug
courts here in the city a couple of weeks ago. The evidence is
in--it is clear. Drug courts do work. As a matter of fact, we
have one of the most successful drug courts operating right
here in the District of Columbia in the Superior Court for
adults. It has substantially impacted the crime rate in the
city by substantially reducing the use of illegal controlled
substances which, of course, is one of the things that drives
criminality beyond any question.
Now if we can operate a drug court for adults, I say we
just cannot avoid the conclusion that we need to at least do
the same for the juveniles. Because I think we can be more
successful in operating the drug court for juveniles, better
than we can for adults. Sixty-five percent of the juveniles
that came into the court last year tested positive for one
drug--65 percent. It is my judgment that if we had a state of
the art juvenile drug court, we could substantially reduce that
number of juveniles coming through the system, thereby reducing
truancy and criminality among juveniles in the city.
So I draw your attention specifically with emphasis on
those two items for your consideration. Thank you very much.
recent death of police officer in north carolina
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I would like to say to Chief
Langston, not as a question, that you lost a member in my
district at the beginning of the week. In fact, we have a
representative at his funeral now.
vests and equipment for police officers
I am also a member of the appropriations subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice and State, which funds law enforcement
agencies. We are going to ask for an inquiry into the type of
vest that is being provided officers. This officer was shot
through his vest and was killed at a distance. I know we have
$40 million in the CJS appropriations request which will be
marked up today. On that end I would like it if you and Chief
Ramsey could give us information in that area, so that when we
are providing our officers with equipment, we have the very
best equipment possible.
chairman applauds chief ramsey's commonsense approach
Chief Ramsey, I am convinced your approach to assessing the
quality of performance before you ask for an increase to your
budget could well be imitated in D.C. [Laughter.]
I am certainly delighted with that type of approach. I
appreciate from all the points you spoke to, especially the
area of administrative leave as well as a number of the other
items that you talked about. I know the lack of education,
especially physical improvements and the condition of police
officers are of serious concern.
physical fitness standards
Would you be able to have your officers in good physical
shape measured by some kind of standard--the Air Force physical
fitness standards or some other standards? We had that
discussion last year. It seems to me that there was going to be
objections from the unions and so forth on that sort of thing.
I think this might be leading to disability claims that really
could be avoided in some cases if the officers were in better
physical condition.
Chief Ramsey. I agree with you, sir. I think that if we can
really work to establish standards throughout the organization
and obviously it would vary because we have people with
different ages and departments. What you would expect a 22-
year-old police officer would be somewhat different than a 55-
year-old police officer. But there are standards that take all
of these things into account. We have to start at some point
and time. We did get the union to agree to sit down with us and
work toward establishing physical standards. We will have a
dual track, if you will, for the veteran police officer there
will be one standard. But we can really have a far more richer
standard for a lot of people that are just coming on that do
not have to adhere to their entire career. So it is kind of
grandfathered in, although there will be some standards for
veteran officers. We do not want to lose half the force either
trying to get them to run a mile and one-half and keel over. So
you have to phase certain types of things in, but we are going
to move very aggressively toward establishing some kind of
standard as it relates to their physical condition.
Mr. Taylor. These are men and women who have to protect the
people of the city and it is better to be in shape to run the
mile and one-half in pursuit of an objective or your formal
duties than it is to try to get into shape when you are
confronted with a real-life situation.
1,500 officers on street in 24-hour period
How many officers are on the streets in a 24-hour period?
Chief Ramsey. When you take a look at days off and the
number of people that would be on administrative leave, I would
say it would be pretty fair to say that at any given time over
a 24-hour period or a given shift.
Mr. Taylor. About 24-hours.
Chief Ramsey. Over a 24-hour period, you would probably
have 3,600 individuals--and this is a ballpark. I think it
would be fair to say somewhere in the area of maybe 2,300; then
you figure days off; those that are on administrative leave,
actually physically available for duty--somewhere in the area
of about one-third of what we would normally have which
certainly would be under that. Two-thirds, I am sorry, one-
third would be unavailable to do.
park police helicopter availability
Mr. Taylor. Chief Langston, what is the process for calling
the Park Police for your helicopter service? I know we worked
in this area last year, but are you reimbursed by the District,
for instance, when your helicopter is needed by the city
police?
Chief Langston. No, sir. There is no reimbursement within
the city unfortunately. We are reimbursed, however, by the
Secret Service when we fly protection for the President.
Mr. Taylor. How many times last year do you recall that the
Park Police responded to non-Federal clearly local matters.
Chief Langston. 205 times for the police and 30 times for
the D.C. Fire Department and 2 times for the D.C. Housing
Department police.
Mr. Taylor. What percentage of arrests are made by the Park
Police--versus the city police--on ``Federal land inside the
city?''
Chief Langston. I cannot give you a comparison on that. You
are asking how many arrests we make per police officer versus a
Metropolitan police officer?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Chief Langston. I do not know their statistics. I could not
compare that. I do know that we have a very high arrest rate
from our officers, but I have not made a comparison.
residency requirement for police officers
Mr. Taylor. Chief Ramsey, I know that in Chicago you had a
residency requirement for police and firefighters, of course.
How do you think that worked and how would that requirement
work here. We have talked about this for some time, so it will
not be something new to the Committee.
Chief Ramsey. Well, sir, in Chicago all city employees had
to live within the City of Chicago--police, fire, streets and
sanitation--it did not matter. That is not the situation here.
However, there are pros and cons to residency like everything
else. My personal feeling, coming into a situation that I am
really not accustomed to, not having a residency requirement
but having the 25-mile radius requirement.
My feelings are that it is very critical that police
officers be close enough to be able to respond quickly in an
emergency. We cannot afford to have officers who live an hour
away from their place of employment--or two hours away because
if we ever needed to assemble people for an emergency, we
simply did not get them. If they live within a reasonable
distance from the city--and 25 miles that is currently
established right now--although I have not been here long
enough and we have unfortunately had to recall people to see
just how that works. It is my feeling that as long as it is
within a reasonable distance, I do not have a particular
problem with some people living outside of the city. If that
had not been the case, and if we were in a situation where
there was already residency, I would be arguing very, very
heavily to have people remain in the city. If we do anything
around residency, in my opinion, we need to maybe look at
future new hires to see if we can impose some kind of residency
requirements. But the costs associated with forcing people to
move back into the city and so forth, and I really do not know
if there is a direct correlation between the level of service
provided by individuals and where they actually reside. My
personal feeling is that I would like to see more people living
in the District of Columbia. I live in the District of
Columbia. My new executive assistant lives in the District, but
I also think that we need to be a little more flexible since
this is something that is been in existence for some time now.
take-home cars--law ignored
Mr. Taylor. Last year's appropriations bill prohibited
take-home cars for officers who did not live in the District,
yet the Department ignored that law and high-ranking police
officials were found to have accidents in official cars outside
the city. In fact, we were getting complaints that disability
claims might be filed by the police officers for those
accidents. What have you done so far to see that that law is
obeyed? Are there any exceptions that you would propose in the
law?
Chief Ramsey. Well, I mean, the law is the law. I believe
it should be adhered to. Let me say that first. I do not care
if it is me, if it is one of my assistant chiefs or whomever.
If the law says you do not take a vehicle out of the city for
personal use, then you just do not take it out of the city for
personal use. However, I think we need to revisit that for one
reason and that is there are some situations where we have
people--and I will give you an example, the emergency response
team for example that are special people with specialized
skills that have to respond to a hostage-type situation. When
they do not have a vehicle available to them what it does is
forces them to leave their residence, go to the headquarters,
pickup their vehicle and equipment and then go out to the
scene. That to me seems like an unnecessary waste of time which
can result in the loss of life.
So I think that we need to be able to carve out limited
exceptions for people--and I do mean limited exceptions. I do
not mean just taking the car home for the sake of taking it
home. A person who is actually on-call that particular evening
who may indeed be called out should have a vehicle at their
disposal. So I do think there needs to be some flexibility, but
I do not have a problem overall with not taking a car out of
the District. I do not really think that we should be paying
for the gas and mileage placed on cars for people who choose to
live outside the District with the exception of something very
narrow as I have just described.
additional d.c. police required if park police were not available
Mr. Taylor. If you, the Metropolitan Police Department, did
not have the Park Police to call on, do you have any idea how
many additional officers you might need? I am not talking about
patrolling the Federal area, I am talking about the city in
general.
Chief Ramsey. Well let me just say this. Of all the
agencies that we have here in the District of Columbia, we rely
on the Park Police more than any others. We have a very, very
strong working relationship with the Park Police. I would just
be shooting from the hip to give you a ballpark figure about
what I think we would need. But I am here to say that if we
lost the Park Police, we would be in serious trouble in a lot
of ways. Not only is it in the downtown areas that we rely on
the Park Police, all the parks throughout the city. We have
constant joint operations. We now utilize their helicopters
since we no longer have that capability.
We rely on the Park Police a lot. But when I talked about
doing some other things such as maybe some joint roll calls and
some critical areas that are problems for both of us. So we
would have to really come to you and ask for a significant
increase in the personnel and equipment if we did not have the
Park Police. Like I said of all agencies, I think we work with
them the most in the District.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Moran?
residency requirement--problems created
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us talk a bit about
the residency requirement. First of all, because it was brought
up. It would seem that police officers have a special concern
with regard to residency requirements. Chicago is a larger city
than D.C. obviously. To some extent, D.C. is divided
economically West of Rock Creek Park, the homes are
considerably more expensive.
Chief Ramsey. I have just experienced that.
Mr. Moran. I will bet. [Laughter.]
I will bet. But on a police officer's pay, there are very
few police officers who can afford to live West of Rock Creek
Park. Thus the homes available are more likely to be in those
neighborhoods that they spend the most time policing, and thus
there is an endangerment consideration that exists for police
officers which does not exist generally for other municipal
employees. The other issue that goes beyond police officers, of
course, is quality of the pool from which you must recruit. It
would be considerably more narrow if you are putting
restrictions on officers that they have to live in the
District, and thus have to depend upon the District school
system. I assume that they would have confidence in the
District's public safety, but one does not know.
residency requirment--use of incentives instead
I know the policy that you have to articulate, but I think
it is useful to bring out those issues. I look for you to look
at incentive programs that might serve as an alternative just
in case this legislation does not actually get enacted. I think
that is a possibility, and if it is not enacted you may want to
come up with a carrot approach that would provide incentives
for officers to live in the District. Mr. Taylor touched
briefly on something that I want to ask a little more about.
too many uniformed officers in desk jobs
We had a extensive hearing--this subcommittee did last
year. Mr. Harlan was there. Some of the statistics that were
brought out that had been done by a good study that I know is
accurate is that we have more police officers per 1,000
residents than any other city in the Nation. We have a police
budget that is considerably larger per capita than
Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Detroit, but they make more arrests
than we do in Washington. What the hearing focused on was the
fact that of the approximately 3,600 officers that we have,
more than two-thirds made fewer than 10 arrests in a year. I
know you were very much aware of these statistics, but I think
that we want to get an update from you on the record as to how
you have addressed some of those statistics. Because they
really are damming in terms of getting the maximum use out of
your uniformed officers. You have 12 out of the 15 employees in
the Human Resources office who are uniformed police officers;
19 uniformed officers were in communications; and 138 uniformed
officers in Personnel Development--it just does not seem as
though we were maximizing use of uniformed officers and
distributing civilian positions in areas where its most
appropriate.
The other issue was overtime. But let me ask you first, in
terms of getting more uniformed officers out on the beat and
filling civilian-oriented positions with civilians.
Chief Ramsey. Well, that is one of the things that we have
been looking at very carefully and really trying to redeploy
our resources. As I stated early on that my sense was that the
Department is not organized in a way that really maximizes the
use of resources. That includes resource allocation. There is
no doubt that we have too many police officers performing
functions that civilians ought to be performing. That is why I
have asked for an increase of 100 civilian positions in this
year's budget--in the 1999 budget, rather, so that we can again
continue to move toward civilianization. Whether or not there
has been an increase in arrest activity. I honestly cannot tell
you. I do not know if there has been or not. That is why we
have got to establish performance standards so that we have
certain expectations of people whatever that might be and then
hold them to it.
too few police carrying the department
But we have too few people that are basically carrying us
as a department, not just police officers, but as you move up
in the ranks you start to see the same thing.
You always have your one or two people who are very, very
good. You burn them out because you tend to then find somebody
that will do it, so you give them everything and then you wind
up burning them out. Rather than having everybody carrying
their fair share of the load. We do have dead weight in the
Metropolitan Police Department. There is absolutely no doubt
about it. We need to weed it out. We need to kick some people
in the tail to make sure they do what they are supposed to do.
Then hire people that are motivated and committed to public
safety. We have got to make this an organization where people
clearly understand what is expected of them, hold them
accountable for seeing to it that for 8 and one-half hours per
day, they give us 100 percent and not 25 percent, not 30
percent, or 50percent--but 100 percent. That is the only thing
that is acceptable.
Managers have to see that their subordinates do what they
are supposed to do. Right now, we really do not have the
systems in place to really have performance standards
throughout the department. We have pockets of standards where
we have very good managers and work very good teams and
motivated people. But then you can just as easily go and find
people that are not motivated at all and be very, very loyal. I
have not solved that yet, sir. I am aware of it and we are
working toward it.
Mr. Moran. Well, this is obviously what we want to hear. We
want to know that you are aware of it. We are not asking for
results overnight, but as long as you make it sufficiently high
priority.
overtime costs of $18 million
The overtime, as well, is costing us $18 million per year.
I think we are more than aware of the overtime situation. Are
you addressing that?
Chief Ramsey. But you know something? You're earlier
question.
Mr. Moran. Yes.
Chief Ramsey. That affects overtime.
Mr. Moran. Sure.
Chief Ramsey. A lot of overtime is because the few people
that are willing to work overtime and do things are the ones
that again, we continue to have in the court system when we are
looking at the conversation with the U.S. Attorney's office--
they need certain follow-up done. Well, they got some
detectives that they know that if they give an assignment, they
are going to go out and do whatever it takes to do it. They
have others that they are reluctant to give things to because
they just are not that committed. So you wind up with people
that have a lot of overtime booked up. You have others that do
not do enough to earn the paycheck they get, let alone
overtime. So there is an imbalance. If everybody carried their
workload, it would have a direct impact on your overtime
because you would not have to use as much overtime in order to
get the job accomplished. So you are right it impacts all that.
helicopters--costs associated with d.c. work
Mr. Moran. I have one last question for the Park Service.
In looking at these numbers, the total cost for the use of the
helicopter by the Park Service in D.C.--the D.C. amount came to
$62,000. I think it is a tough sale----
Chief Langston. Well, let me correct something before you
get on that. There is an area there that I would strike out
that says manpower cost. Personnel manpower costs consist of
officers who would be flying regardless. Why they put that in
there, I am really not sure.
Mr. Moran. Well, I can figure out why they put it in there,
but you are right that is----
Chief Langston. The flight hours of 92.2 figured on the
hours of how much it cost us to operate a helicopter for our--
--
Mr. Moran. Well, let me suggest this. I think, Mr.
Chairman, that instead of buying a helicopter for the Park
Service in this budget, which is far more monitored than the
Interior budget, that we ought to keep the Park Service funded
in the Interior budget and reimburse the Park Service for the
time and resources that are used on supplementing the D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department's responsibilities. I am afraid
we set a precedent there that would be difficult to sustain and
even to justify in this year to take $13 million out of this
budget, or some significant portion of that, and put into a
Park Service helicopter. I think reimbursing the Park Service
will let us deal with the need for another helicopter in the
Interior budget. We can discuss that further.
Mr. Taylor. We will be talking about that. I would like to
recognize that Congresswoman Northup is with us. Thank you for
being here. Mrs. Northup, do you have any questions?
resistance to change
Mrs. Northup. Let me just briefly welcome Chief Ramsey. For
the time I have been here, I am very impressed with your focus
and the fact that you articulate your vision so well. Everybody
will understand. My experience has been that people are afraid
of change. They do not like change. They are comfortable with
what they have had. I just wondered as you talk about making
actual changes and changing the culture and environment of the
police department, what is the resistance?
Chief Ramsey. Well there is a natural--you are absolutely
right, there is a natural resistance to change whether it is a
small change, large change--whatever. I think that what is
important for us to do is to develop good training and
education for people prior to making the actual changes that
need to take place. You have to prepare people for change. A
lot of the resistance is because people are afraid. They just
do not know what their new roles are going to be. They do not
know how they fit into the new system. So you need to clearly
articulate the new roles and responsibilities that go along
with this change.
Once you have prepared for change, then once you implement
it, it is far less threatening. You are always going to have a
percentage of people that are going to argue and complain. But
there are people that argue and complain about what they do
now. So you are going to have that small group. But the vast
majority of people, I think if you prepare them properly and
they clearly understand and you answer all their questions and
are sensitive to the fact that change is very, very traumatic,
I think you could minimize--that was my experience in Chicago.
When people began to see the benefits of it and how it could
actually help them do their jobs more effectively, then you
start to get by in and that is the key to the whole thing.
Mayor's security detail
Mrs. Northup. One other thing. I may have missed it earlier
Have you resolved the problems of the Mayor's security?
Chief Ramsey. That has not come up previously. The Mayor's
security detail was cut from 30 to 15 and that is where it
stands today. We are constantly reviewing to find out what it
is that is actually necessary.
Mrs. Northup. Is there still conflict between----
Chief Ramsey. Not that I am aware of. It is stabilized at
that level. It was cut in half and that is where it has been
for the last 3 or 4 months.
Mrs. Northup. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mrs. Northup. I want to point out
that I have been impressed by Chief Ramsey's remarks. I have
just finished penciling you in, ``Chief Ramsey believes that
laws should not be ignored in the District of Columbia.''
[Laughter.]
You would be surprised how many people would disagree with
us in this Committee.
fire fighters pay raise
I would like to ask Fire Chief Edwards. Does last year's
pay raise bring your department up to the regional pay average?
I think youspoke to that a moment ago about spreading it over a
period of time. Let me ask you, too, about one of the complaints that
our office gets is that you send out a fire truck and sometimes a hook
and ladder truck to respond to medical emergencies. What is the policy
as far as coordinating between EMS and the fire department? Can we
provide safety without those extremes?
hook and ladder trucks used for medical calls
Chief Edwards. Mr. Chairman, due to the large volume of
requests for medical assistance in the city, we utilize a first
respondent-type response, sir. That first response program
allows us to put a trained individual on the scene of a medical
request. Through the use of a--I would say a whole triage-type
of program and communications division, we try to maintain that
presence only on the critical care calls. That would be calls
that would be life-threatening in nature. This is done by a
series of questions that the call-taker asks of the caller. The
determination based upon those answers would tell that
individual what type of equipment to dispatch.
The first response program is a valid program in this urban
setting. We, for whatever reason, have a systemic problem for
medical service and delivery to the citizen in most major urban
areas. This program allows the patient or the requestor for the
service to get the care as rapidly as possible. I think our
problem has stemmed from the fact that we have not educated the
public, educated the user as to when and what to call for. But
I do believe it is a valid program. We have reduced the number
of responses that we put out first response to units. First
response to units meaning engine companies, ladders companies
or heavy rescue squads. They have been reduced somewhat. We are
attempting to keep them only on what those types of responses
that are classified as critical. But I look at it as--Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Miconi and the other distinguished panel member--
you having experienced a medical problem. Mr. Miconi being
trained in CPR or some form of medical training, he then is the
first response to your call. That is the same way that we look
at that. We want you or any patient to get into the system as
rapidly as possible because that they will entail a more
positive outcome for the patient. So it is really a viable
program. This is not the only community that uses it. The use
of it has been reduced compared to what it was a year ago or
two years ago. Two years ago, we were dispatching first
response to every request for ambulance. We are not doing that
now.
impact of commercial helicopter flights in district
Mr. Taylor. I would like all three of the law enforcement
members here to address this question. It is my understanding
that a private helicopter take off and landing operation has
been established about a mile from the Capitol. This site will
apparently serve both for tourist flights to fly about the city
outside of the restricted zone, and for potential commuter
flights to New York. Can you assess what this service is going
to be. Will it in any way conflict with the fire, police, or
park police doing your jobs and responding to emergency
situations?
Chief Langston. Mr. Chairman, we think it is going to cause
a great deal of hazard in the air, especially around the
helicopter corridor which is helicopter corridor number 1 which
is the Anacostia River area. That is where all the helicopters
that are commercial or public aviation fly up and down to get
to--are routed up and down to get to National Airport. Also,
the Marine Corps next month, the Park Police, and aviation are
right in that corridor and they respond to emergencies very
quickly out of that area. Our aviation section is about a mile
from here right on the Anacostia River on the other side of the
South Capitol Street bridge. We have a concern that increased
helicopters are going to cause us problems especially with the
military helicopters that come up and down the Potomac River
and the Anacostia River. It could create an additional hazard
to the folks here. There are restricted areas of B-56 areas
that are in and around the Capitol and around the White House
that they are prohibited from going into. They simply have to
hover over or operate in certain areas. Put those in
conjunction with the news helicopters that are up there now, it
is going to be an awfully congested area above our city. I have
a real concern with that.
Mr. Taylor. Well, I have not seen a report as to whether
they can operate in different kinds of weather and what type of
command station they will have to keep it safe. I do not know.
But it is a concern to us.
conclusion of public safety hearing
Well, I believe that has answered the questions we have. We
may be talking with you again as we get closer to a markup. It
is our contention to mark-up towards the end of next month. We
have talked to Chairman Livingston about that and we will try
to have the subcommittee markup, if at all possible by then, so
that we will be ready long before we leave for August to send
the bill over to Senate.
We have other hearings that will start at 3 o'clock and we
are a few minutes early, so we will be in recess for about 30
minutes.
Thank you, very much.
[Recess.]
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
D.C. BUDGET FOR FY 1999
WITNESS
HON. DAVID A. CATANIA (R) AT-LARGE MEMBER, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Mr. Aderholt. [presiding]. The Committee will come to
order.
We now move to our final panel with Members of Congress,
elected District officials, and the general public. We have a
long list of witnesses and I want to put everybody on notice
that we intend to close the hearing no later than 5:30 p.m.
this afternoon. I want to assure all those who are on the
witness list that they will be able to enter their statements
into the record, and it will be there for full consideration by
the Committee.
We have several Members of Congress who have notified us of
their intention to testify. If they are not here now, we'll
certainly accommodate them when they arrive.
Please note that each witness will have a maximum of five
minutes. And so I strongly encourage everyone if they could to
summarize their testimony in that regard.
Our first witness will be David Catania, an at-large member
of the D.C. Council. We welcome you to the Committee.
Statement of David A. Catania
Mr. Catania. Thank you. Members of the Committee, my name
is David Catania, and I am one of two Republican members of the
D.C. Council. I have come here today to respectfully request
that this Committee approve the District's Fiscal Year 1999
budget as submitted. As you are aware, this budget is the
product of consensus process involving the Mayor, the Council,
and the Control Board. I have participated actively in this
process and can honestly say that this budget represents a
compromise among the various participants.
I firmly believe that every participant in this process can
point to several aspects of the budget that they would change
if the decision were left entirely to them. However, in the
final analysis, this budget--this process produced a budget
with a surplus, which is an extraordinary accomplishment given
the level of need in this city. Simply put, I support this
budget.
Now, after several months of negotiations and debate, the
District's budget is before Congress for approval. I ask that
you honor our work. I am well aware of the power that the
Constitution affords this Congress over the District of
Columbia. I am not asking for this Congress to ignore its
responsibilities to the District. Rather, I am requesting that
this Congress exercise respect for the notion of local
government and democratic principles.
I would like to share a brief passage from Alexis de
Toqueville's ``Democracy in America.'' In the chapter entitled
``Why the Americans Raise Such Insignificant Monuments and
Others that are Very Grand,'' de Toqueville confirms that
``true monuments to American greatness can be found in its
democratic ideas, and not in its granite structures.'' He
writes about the decision to build this capital city and warns
of what will happen if we lose sight of the ideas that make us
great. He explains that ``the Americans have traced out the
circuit of an immense city on the site which they intend to
make their capital, but which up to the present time is hardly
more densely populated than Pointoise, though according to them
it will one day contain a million inhabitants. They have
already rooted up trees for ten miles, lest they should
interfere with the future citizens of this imaginary
metropolis. They have erected a magnificent palace for Congress
in the center of the city and have given it the pompous name of
the Capital.''
De Toqueville continues that ``democracy does not lead men
to a vast number of inconsiderable productions, it also leads
them to raise some monuments on a larger scale; but between
these two extremes, there is a blank. A few scattered specimens
of enormous buildings can therefore teach us nothing of the
social condition and the institutions of people by whom they
were raised. I may add, though, the remark is outside my
subject, that they do not make us better acquainted with its
greatness, its civilization, and its real prosperity. Whenever
a power of any kind is able to make a people cooperate in a
single undertaking, that power, with a little knowledge and
with a great deal of time, will succeed in obtaining something
enormous from efforts so multiplied. But this does not lead to
the conclusion that the people are very happy, very
enlightened, or very strong.''
He continues that ``the Spaniards found the city of Mexico
full of magnificent temples and vast palaces, but that did not
prevent Cortes from conquering the Mexican Empire with six
hundred foot-soldiers and sixteen horses.''
Over 150 years ago de Toqueville wrote these words, the
residents of the District of Columbia are surrounded by
monuments to democratic principles that are far removed from
the everyday lives of Washingtonians. Let us not confuse the
greatness of our strength and wealth with the greatness of our
civilization. We are a great nation because we believe in the
radical notion that individuals should control their destiny.
Yet, in the nation's capital, our residents are still waiting
for this dream to be realized.
I know that the District has been poorly served by its
elected leadership in the past. I am not here to make excuses
for prior governments. I can tell you that the Council is
maturing and improving with experience. We are becoming ever
more rigorous in our oversight and stewardship of the District.
But yes, we have a long way to go before we perfect our local
government. But this is no reason to deprive our citizens of
the right to have their democratic institutions respected.
I am requesting that this Congress respect the notion of
local government. The residents of the District should be
permitted the same dignity afforded every other American, which
includes the right to chart our own destiny. To this end, the
elected leadership of the District has made commitments to
certain issues, including, among others, domestic partnership,
adoption for unmarried couples, and needle exchange for
intravenous drug-users. I support each of these commitments. I
appreciate that members of this Congress may not agree with the
District's elected leadership in these areas. I understand that
you have the right and authority to impose your will on us.
However, legal authority and moral authority are not the same.
At long last, the time has come to respect the decisions of
elected representatives of the District and resist the
temptations of paternalism. As a Republican, I believe in the
concept of local government, and, as a Republican, I am opposed
to intrusive Federal involvement in matters that areundeniably
local in nature. In addition, as a Republican, I firmly believe that
individuals, not governments, can best decide for themselves the proper
course of their own lives. These are core Republican beliefs, and they
should be applied by this Republican Congress in a consistent manner.
I would be happy to answer any questions this Committee may
have about the process. Perfect timing, by the way.
prepared statement of david a. catania
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Aderholt. Perfect timing. That was good. Thank you for
your testimony.
Mr. Moran, do you have any questions?
Mr. Moran. No, I am going to sit down. I am going to hold
on to those quotes by de Toqueville. But I appreciate where
you're coming from, and I hope that we can get there. But we're
not there yet. And until D.C. has a viable tax base to support
a reasonable level of municipal services on its own, I do not
think that you're going to have all of the democratic authority
and powers that you'd like to see.
Mr. Catania. Congressman, I appreciate that but fiscal--
there are two very different issues--between fiscal
accountability and fiscal healthiness, and the right to have
elected leadership. And so, I would submit--tomorrow in the
Council we will be having a hearing on the subject of an
elected Attorney General for the District of Columbia, which
would take the Office of Corporation Counsel out from
underneath the Mayor. It would put it under an elected person.
It would broaden the prosecutorial authorities. I think that
democracy has been hampered in the District by a very poor
system of government. Democracy is a theory of government. It
is not, in and of itself, a system of government. And the
system that we have, where we have no power to enforce our own
laws. We have no power to protect the corpus of our government;
that we are put in a position of our taking our hat and putting
it in our hands, and walking across the street to the U.S.
Attorney's office, and asking him or her, at any respective
time, to please enforce the law against those who would
perpetrate corruption and misconduct against the government.
So, until we have a system of government that is truly
internally consistent and capable of governing with all the
powers that accompany any decent government, we will not be a
more accountable form of--a more accountable local government.
But I do not see that there is any relationship between our
tax base and our ability to have a say over our own destiny.
Mr. Moran. Well, then, you look with clouded eyes--probably
ideologically clouded eyes. I do not fault you for that. But
the reality is that, unless an entity is going to be
economically self-sufficient, it is not going to attain
statehood; and without statehood, you're not going to have all
the democratic powers that you seek. But I do not want to
extend the debate. I am just telling you that that is the
reality of the situation. If you want statehood, you're going
to have to have the kind of economic viability that would
enable you to----
Mr. Catania. And, Congressman, I am not suggesting that I
am----
Mr. Moran [continuing]. Sustain the economy----
Mr. Catania [continuing]. In favor of statehood. What I am
in favor of is a better system of local government, one that
permits the enforcement of local laws by locally accountable
individuals. And what I am here today--and I strayed a bit from
the subject, and I apologize. What I am here today to discuss
is the budget and the fact that through a consensus budget
process with the local elected leadership with the appointed
representatives of Congress and the president, we managed to
put together a budget with a surplus. And so, having said that,
I would hope that we would have--you would--the Congress would
respect the decisions made by the elected and appointed
leadership and not attempt to make a petri dish out of the
District of Columbia for one form of experimentation or
another. Whether I agree or disagree, it is no more morally
defensible for members of Congress from, you know, Alabama,
Arkansas, Virginia or anywhere to impose their will on the
District of Columbia than it would be for us to impose our will
on them.
Mr. Moran. I have used that term on many an occasion to
fight the things that apparently we would agree with. So, I do
not take issue with you. And I do think there will be more and
more incremental reforms as D.C. gets on its feet, both in
reality as well as in perception.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for your testimony Councilman.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
D.C. BUDGET FOR FY 1999
WITNESS
HON. CAROL SCHWARTZ (R) AT LARGE MEMBER, COUNCIL OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Aderholt. The next witness will be Council Member Carol
Schwartz.
Ms. Schwartz. Good afternoon.
Mr. Moran. Good afternoon, Carol.
Statement of Carol Schwartz
Ms. Schwartz. Rather than read a statement, I summarized it
in bullet form. And I heard the end of my colleague's
statement, David Catania, and agree with the consensus budget
request and ask that it be approved.
First, I want to talk about the budget points. And that is
the District's consensus budget was achieved through
cooperation, tough decision making, and hard choices. It is the
result of countless hours spanning seven months of difficult
work, including Council committee hearings, mark ups, and 10
days of budget planning sessions involving the Mayor, the
Council, the Authority, the CFO, and the CMO.
The consensus fiscal year 1999 budget is a product of the
very system established by Congress for the express purpose of
restoring fiscal austerity and discipline to District budgets.
This budget embraces those qualities. It was built by consensus
with your own entities--the Financial Control Board, the Chief
Financial Officer, and the Chief Management Officer.
Priority was given to critical services such as education,
public safety, and public works--important services which will
help the District in its efforts toprovide quality services to
residents, businesses, and visitors.
The fiscal year 1999 budget provides for much needed pay
raises for non-union employees, whose wages have, over the
years, become sorely out of sync with unionized employees and
certainly the salaries of your own creations--the Financial
Authority, the CFO, and the CMO, salaries as a matter of fact,
which have been found to be excessive in some instances.
Also included are pay raises for employees in the public
safety sector to bring them more in line with surrounding
jurisdictions. The continued loss of employees to those
surrounding jurisdictions, including the Federal Government,
with better pay and benefits weakens the District's ability to
adequately staff and provide essential and vital services like
police, fire, and corrections.
The fiscal year 1999 budget also provides for $11.3 million
in tax relief to city businesses and residents. The Council and
Authority desired to do much more tax relief, but the D.C.
Public School budget pressures prevented that. I know you share
our goal of tax relief on this Committee.
This budget also continues the absolutely critical process
of eliminating the District's accumulated deficit. In October
1996, it was more than $500 million. By the end of fiscal year
1999, if this budget is adopted, the accumulated deficit will
stand at $41 million, a more than 90 percent decrease. A pretty
impressive example which the Federal government would do well
to follow.
This budget includes funds for sorely needed management
reforms and technical assistance, which was called for by
countless consultant studies authorized by the Financial
Authority and paid for with District funds. Is that not what
Congress intended?
The budget is about fiscal austerity, discipline, and
planning. It seeks to provide critical funding for important
city services while continuing to cut the fat out of District
government and bureaucracy.
To reject this consensus budget means to reject the very
system put into place by this body. This budget represents but
another step in the process towards complete fiscal solvency
and growth for the District.
Now I want to talk just a moment about form of governance.
Above all else, the question of governance for the District of
Columbia should remain up to the citizens of the District, and
not imposed by congressional mandate.
Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution
clearly empowers the U.S. Congress to exercise plenary
authority over the District. But because you can does not mean
you should.
And I hope that you will reject the urge to load this
budget with riders. The District of Columbia does not need to
be the guinea pig for 535 individual congressional agendas.
That is not fair.
And speaking of your constitutional authority over the
District, such power should not be used contrary to one of the
very purposes for which the Constitution was drafted--to secure
the blessings of liberty. Are such blessings to be forever
denied the residents of the District of Columbia?
Well, that completes my prepared statement, and I am
available to answer questions that you might have.
Mr. Aderholt. I do not have any right now. We will submit
your statement for the record. And we appreciate you coming and
testifying before the Committee today. Thank you very much.
Prepared Statement of Carol Schwartz
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Ms. Schwartz. Well, thank you. And please be kind.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET
WITNESS
RAYMOND SNEED, PRESIDENT, D.C. FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Aderholt. Our next witness is Ray Sneed, President of
the D.C. Fire Fighters Association. Welcome to the committee.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Statement of Raymond Sneed
Mr. Sneed. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chairman, and members of the D.C.
Subcommittee on Appropriations, and staff. I am Raymond Sneed,
President of the D.C. Fire Fighters Association, Local 36, with
the International Association of Fire Fighters.
And I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to offer
comments on the proposed fiscal year 1999 operating budget for
the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Department.
We are pleased to see that the D.C. Fire and the M.S.
Department is finally receiving the financial assistance that
we so desperately need due to the cuts we sustained from 1989
through 1995.
Despite the lack of fire fighting gear, faulty radios, fire
trucks that barely functioned, unsanitary fire stations and the
prospect of no pay raises, D.C. fire fighters performed their
duties. It could never be said of D.C. fire fighters that 10
percent of the workforce performed 90 percent of the work. My
members labored together in the attempt to make the best of a
bad situation.
If it had not been for this Committee and the support of
the Subcommittee and the full Committee, I shudder to think
where we would be today in the Fire Department.
However, please allow me to respectfully issue a warning to
the elected leaders of Washington, D.C. and the members of this
Subcommittee who will ultimately improve or hopefullyincrease
this budget.
Massive Deficiencies
Just as it took approximately six years for the Department
to get overwhelmed by constant yearly budget reductions, the
massive deficiency cannot and won't be corrected overnight.
Training Academy Condemned
For example, currently the District of Columbia Fire
Department cannot train our fire fighters in their chosen
profession at our Fire Training Academy. Our training
facilities have been condemned since 1988, and its lies in ruin
at the Blue Plains location. It is not only embarrassing, Mr.
Chair, it is an eyesore also. Currently, our rookies have to go
over to Alexandria or Fort Belvoir, Virginia, or Prince
George's County to get the training that we need to perform our
job.
Procurement Problems
And procurement? That is still a problem. We have had two
brand new hook and ladders at $480,000 each sit in the fire
house because the city had not paid for them. And the
frustrating thing about it, the money to purchase that
apparatus was appropriated in the 1997 budget. So the minute
the manufacturer had built that equipment, it should have been
paid for at that particular time. But we still had to wait for
30 days after days after delivery before the city paid for them
because the manufacturer will allow that much time before those
units are paid for.
Leaky roofs on Fire Houses
Last night, Channel Seven did a piece on the Fire
Department, and I was kind of stunned because I thought somehow
the reporter had gotten a copy of my testimony because she
talked about the deplorable conditions of the Fire Department,
the fact that we had leaky roofs and stations that needed
repairs. And that was the same thing that I want to identify
here today.
We have fire stations with leaky roofs. We have station
doors that fail to open. Heating plants that need to be
replaced. We have malfunctioning air conditioning units that
are in modern fire stations that--where the windows will not
open because it really wasn't designed that way. And I noticed
today in the Fire Chief's testimony he is requesting $2,106,000
for repairs for the fire houses. Now, it might sound like a lot
of money, but if you have worked in the D.C. Fire Department,
you will note that that is a long way from what we really need
in order to come up to par.
Clarification of Information
What I have done, Mr. Chairman, in the budget that was
presented to the Congress, there are several areas in there
where they identified instances where it would appear that the
D.C. Fire and Ambulance Department is living the good life. And
they went back and took a study from other cities and compared
us to those. And what I have done--I have identified all of
those areas, and I have also made comments on what we thought
was appropriate and where we thought this body was actually
being misled by those numbers.
While our fire fighters certainly were not pleased over the
budget reduction of the past, accompanied by an increased
workload, with less personnel, they continued to do their job
and what not.
Pay Parity With Police Officers
And that brings me to my final point: There's always pay
parity between the D.C. Police and the Fire Fighters, going
back as far as when pay raises were given to both bodies by
Congress. And our police officers and fire fighters have the
same pension system. However, since the inception of the
Control Board, pay raises in both police--well, in the Police
Department--have been legislated. And we were fortunate enough
to come before this body last year and get--and have a pay
increase legislated. But my point now is our brothers and
sisters in blue have received an additional 10 percent salary
increase, and it is supposed to be effective from the 1999
budget. And I think one of those increases goes back to
February 1 of 1998; and the second will be effective 10-1-98.
So what we did, we went to the District Government. We asked
elected officials, especially the Council's Judiciary
Committee, which is over the D.C. Fire Department, and they saw
the need to maintain pay parity with the police. And there was
a five percent--of the monies included in the budget
originally--for a five percent pay increase for fire fighters.
But once that budget went through the final process, that five
percent mysteriously disappeared. So what we're doing now is
asking this body to understand the needs of the fire fighters
and include that language in the appropriations bill that would
give us the 5 percent pay increase.
Thank you.
I'll try to answer any questions that you might have.
Prepared Statement of Raymond Sneed
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Aderholt. I do not have any questions at the present
time. Of course, your statement has been submitted for the
record. We appreciate your taking time to address the
Committee. And we thank you for being here today.
Mr. Sneed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
BOYS TOWN USA--HOMELESS YOUTH
WITNESS
FATHER VAL PETER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOYS TOWN USA
Mr. Aderholt. Father Peter with Boys Town?
Father Peter. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman, for
giving me a chance to talk to you. You know, I have a boring
report that is written, but I am not going to talk about that.
Mr. Aderholt. Good.
Statement of Father Val Peter
Father Peter. And I just wanted to come, and I want to
thank you for the opportunity. My name is Val Peter. I am the
successor of Father Flanagan, and my job here this afternoon is
very briefly to let you know what we're doing in the District
of Columbia and why we want to do more.
We are in 18 States, the District of Columbia, taking care
of 31,000 kids, and the reason we come to the District of
Columbia--we came five years ago--cause the District's got a
lot of problems. And we're very good at the kinds of problems
that we work on. We work on kids who are extremely troubled--
kids going to prison, coming out of prison, whatever it might
be. We have lots of success. The reason why we have success is
not because we're magicians or anything like that. We have done
for the last 30 years research on the behavior, aggressive
behavior of troubled children. It is called microbehavioral
analysis. We're a bunch of science folks who have gotten into
the behavioral side of things. Eight-two percent success rate
with our kids in the District--and across the--what's does that
mean? It means 82 out of 100 kids who come to us with these
kinds of problems go away and do not have those problems.
Boys Town Facility In D.C.
The reason I am here today is because five years ago we
came to the District. We have a short-term residential: we're
taking care of 300 District kids a year.
In addition to that, we have a long-term residential, which
is small. We're taking care of about 10 or 20 kids. In
addition, we have foster care in the District, and taking care
of 50 to 100 kids. The last thing is we do parent training in
Anacostia and throughout the District.
I do not think there's a day goes by we do not get three,
four, five, ten calls where people can you do more. We would
like to do more. My purpose here today isn't, you know, to ask
for any specific thing. My purpose here is to ask for your
support. We have a terrific program. We'd like to double the
size of it in the District. And I just want you, Congressman,
and the other members of the District to know we're very
committed to this. We are very good at what we do.
Funding From Private Sources and Long Term Commitment
Two other things. Just last things that you ought to know.
And the first one is that two-thirds of all our funding comes
from private sources. Always has. Always will. So we do not
plan to, you know, hook a pipe to the government and ask you to
start pumping our way. And we're going to be here for 30, 40,
50 years. We're not a fly by night.
Boys Town USA Is Nondenominational
The second to last thing you got to know. I am a Catholic
priest. Boys Town is not a Roman Catholic organization. Never
was. Father Flanagan was very wise. He said, let's make it non-
denominational. We do not get involved in anybody's politics
except the politics of children.
So in the end, what I am asking you--I am just here to make
kind of a interim report. Say thank you for what you are doing.
Would you please support us as we try to take care of more kids
in the District. We work real hard with everybody else here.
Story of 9-Year Old Boy
One story, and then I'll quit. Here's a boy, 9-years-old,
he comes to us in the District. He's been in 16 foster homes.
His with us for two years; he's got runaway problems, he's got
violence problems, he's got truancy in school; and he's got
suicide problems. In two years, this kid is now--the anxieties
have diminished and he's ready to get better. Why? Three simple
reasons.
Number one, we teach you skills. I say to him, Cedric, you
want to get your needs met in a way that everybody's going to
applaud to that everybody's going to curse, we can show you
how. So we teach you skills. We help you build relationships,
and we help you take charge of your own life. We say that very
simply. We say, Cedric, you want to get better, you got to shut
up, you got to lighten up, and you got to grow up. And we can
help you do all of those.
So I want to thank you very much. You guys are doing
terrific work. And that is all I have to say.
Mr. Aderholt. thank you for your work through Boys Town and
the work that you do for the at-risk boys and girls over there.
And we thank for your testimony. We will place your written
testimony in the record?
Father Peter. Yes, please.
Prepared Statement of Father Val Peter
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Father Peter. I have tried not to be boring. There's three
rules: be clear, be brief, be gone. I was clear. I have been
brief, and now I am gone. [Laughter.]
Mr. Aderholt. You met all three. Thank you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
FUNDING LEVELS AND POLICY DECISIONS
WITNESS
DAVID J. SCHLEIN, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT 14, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Aderholt. David Schlein? How you doing today?
Mr. Schlein. Good. Good afternoon.
Mr. Aderholt. You are David Schlein with the American
Federation of Government Employees.
Mr. Schlein. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here today.
Prepared Statement of David J. Schlein
Mr. Schlein. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my statement and ask
that it be submitted for the record with our attachments.
Mr. Aderholt. Certainly.
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Statement of David Schlein
Mr. Schlein. My name is David Schlein. I have the honor of
serving as National Vice President for the American Federation
of Government Employees. We represent approximately 5,000
employees who work for the D.C. Government. These are front-
line employees who do the demanding, often dirty, and sometimes
dangerous, and almost always thankless work that keeps the city
running.
Like you, AFGE believes that addressing the urgent and
glaring crisis in management is the long-term key to prosperity
for the city and to ensuring that the city's residents and
visitors to our nation's capital receive excellent service.
The cause of the city's twin financial and management
crises has never been that rank and file city workers are
overpaid or that there are too many people hired to pave the
roads, fix the school boilers and roofs, renew licenses,
maintain water and sewer lines, clean up the parks, or process
the paperwork. Unfortunately, it is the political patronage has
come to mean a management job or a lucrative private contract.
There were, and still are, too many bosses and not enough
front-line workers or equipment or spare parts to get the job
done. There were, and still are, questionable contracting
policies that result in contracts let without proper regard to
the price, the quality, and the experience of the contractor.
As hard working, dedicated employees, our D.C. members are
extremely frustrated when the city government just doesn't
work. Our members are the folks who try to continue to deliver
services to District residents and businesses in an efficient,
professional, and humane way, despite the obstacles and
frustrations caused by layers of redundant management, lack of
training, materials and or equipment. They are the folks who
arrive to work on time and do their jobs, despite untrained,
unprofessional, politically well-connected managers who ignore
ideas on how to make government work better. They are the
skilled workers who keep plugging away at their work, despite
having their salaries cut twice in the past 24 months, their
earned benefits reduced or eliminated, and their pay for
overtime, hazardous duty, and holiday work being severely
reduced. We are proud of our D.C. members. As public employees
for D.C. Government, they truly are the unrecognized heroes and
heroines toiling under exceptionally difficult, demanding, and
often dreary conditions.
Let me be clear. Our members have no stake in the status
quo of management. As the front-line workers, our members have
a keen awareness of the problems with the city's operations. It
is because they are closest to the delivery of services that
our members and their union representatives can offer a clear
perspective on solving these problems. Transforming D.C.'s
governmental system into one that inspires public confidence in
the city's ability to deliver high quality public service in a
cost effective manner is our goal.
We understand that our members' futures depend on resolving
the city's ongoing financial and management crisis. And we know
that it is the front-line employees who do the city's work who
must be the center of any effort to fix the city's delivery of
services.
Grant For Labor-Management Pilot Programs at Public Works
Indeed, over two and a half year, AFGE, AFSCME, and the
city successfully applied for a grant from the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service to establish a labor-
management pilot program at the Fleet Maintenance Division of
the Department of Public Works. The project has already yielded
impressive results in improving efficiency and labor-management
relations.
Furthermore, the grant required that city-wide labor-
management partnership committees be established. Both FMCS and
the Department of Labor have generously donated resources and
expertise to make the project a success. The success achieved
in this project, as well as the historical success in the
Federal Government in other cities, such as Philadelphia,
Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Fort Lauderdale, give us reason to
hope.
In the rest of my testimony, I talk about some of the
highlights that we believe are necessary in management reform.
And we have provided you a copy of project that we did that
responded to the consultants that were hired by the city,
which, of course, came out of last year's appropriations, with
what some of our members thought of their reports. And this has
been shared, of course, with the city leaders, the City
Council, the Authority. And we're working hard to try to
implement some of these changes.
Let me just close by also stating that AFGE also supports
the District's budget request, and we hope that it will be
passed expeditiously.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here today, and
testifying.
Mr. Schlein. Thank you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET
WITNESS
MARY LEVY, PARENTS UNITED FOR THE D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Mr. Aderholt. Our next witness is Mary Levy with Parents
United for D.C. Public Schools.
Thank you for being here today.
Statement of Mary Levy
Ms. Levy. Thank you for having me. I am Mary Levy and I
have studied the school system's budget, staffing, and reform
efforts for the last 18 years. I am going to speak about three
things today.
PER PUPIL SPENDING
The first is per pupil spending in the D.C. Public Schools.
Essentially it is a lot less than what one hears. It is, this
year, Federal and local funds included, the school system is
spending a little under $7,600 a pupil. The reason it is so
much more in earlier reports is explained in the notebook
attached to my testimony.
What the school system is spending this year is less than
in the surrounding suburbs, except for Prince George's County.
And it is a lot less than either Arlington or Alexandria. This
is for a population with a much higher rate of disadvantaged
children. It is also less than we spent four years ago. In most
school systems spending goes up year by year. Ours has gone
down year by year until this year. And I lay all that out in
these papers, in the details.
NEED TO FILE COURT SUIT TO GET FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Second topic is where the money goes. We haven't got a good
account as to where the dollars go exactly because I have not
yet succeeded in wresting that from the school system's
administration or from the Chief Financial Officer, but I am
working on it. And eventually we'll sue them and get the
information. We do, however, do extensive monitoring of staff
in the school system, and because of the way we do it, it is
better than anything the school system publishes. And what I
have laid in the testimony here shows where they have come in
the last three years and where they are today in terms of their
staffing. About six percent of their staff is in central
offices. That is for a rather long list of functions, including
people like payroll clerks and people who do the personnel
processing, communications, management, curriculum, teacher
certification. There's a very long list of central office
functions. And like I said, they have got six percent of their
workers on that. That number is down quite a bit in recent
years. And right now, there's really, with the cuts they have
just announced, no more to go. Non-instructional services have
also been cut, not as much as it looks like, because some of
those services have been contracted out, which means the money
moves over from staff to non-staff. After they get done cutting
the custodians that they say they are cutting, there probably
will not be enough of them to keep the schools clean. But we
will see. About 78 percent of their local staff is in schools,
in school instructional programs. I am not talking about the
cafeteria workers or the----
Mr. Aderholt. Excuse me. Go right ahead.
Ms. Levy. When I say school-based, I am not including the
custodians or cafeteria workers. That is 78 percent of the
locally funded staff. Over the last four years, the school
system has cut almost one-quarter of its locally funded
employees. Central offices and non-instructional services are
down substantially, but they have also cut the classroom. We
now have 1,100 fewer teachers and aides than we used to have.
They come close to matching their current criteria for
staffing, except in one area, and that is special education,
where they are very much short on staff.
BUDGET FOR FY 1999
Third topic is next year's appropriation of $545 million.
With the central office and the custodial cuts that they have
announced, that amount of money will suffice to keep services
in the schools about the same as they are now, although middle
school and high school class sizes will go up a little. They
will have to increase special education substantially in order
to keep up with newly identified students. There will be, I
think, more testimony about that from someone else later. That
leaves them somewhere between $10 million and $20 million to
raise teacher salaries, which are 8 to 14 percent behind those
in the suburbs, and do any reforms and improvements that they
ought to be doing such as extensive staff development.
That is the summary of my testimony.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here today. Of course,
Chairman Taylor has come in now, and I am going to turn it over
to him.
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. We appreciate your coming in and
your entire statement will be included in the record. Thank you
for doing that.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY LEVY
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
WITNESS
TAMMY SELTZER, CO-CHAIR, D.C. SPECIAL EDUCATION COALITION
Mr. Taylor. Let's see. Okay. Tammy Seltzer.
Ms. Seltzer. Just like Alka Seltzer.
Mr. Taylor. Oh, good. Okay. You have been a relief many
times, so maybe I'd like to have you be a relief here today.
Ms. Seltzer. I hope so. I just wish I were a stockholder in
the Alka Seltzer company, but the name doesn't bring all of
those benefits, unfortunately.
BACKGROUND OF SPECIAL EDUCATION COALITION
Good afternoon. I am Tammy Seltzer. I am a staff attorney
at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. And I am speaking
here today on behalf of the D.C. Special Education Coalition,
which is a diverse group of parents and advocates who are
committed to ensuring that children with disabilities in the
District receive the special education services which they are
entitled under Federal law.
I have prepared a written statement, which I would like to
ask be entered into the record.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMMY SELTZER
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Statement of Tammy Seltzer
Ms. Seltzer. And I will just summarize my statements today.
The Coalition has been a very active participant in recent
efforts to rectify some of the long-standing, systemic problems
with D.C. Public Schools' special education services. And to
everyone's surprise, although we normally criticize D.C. Public
Schools, today I am here to support their fiscal year 1999
budget request for special education services.
Denying the request the Coalition feels would jeopardize
the very reforms that are necessary to extricate the school
system from the morass of expensive private school placements
and unnecessary litigation.
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, as you all know, has
inherited a school system that just doesn't have the adequate
infrastructure to provide special education services to all the
children who need them. And the lack of educational services
has led to two particularly worrisome results. One I know that
the Chairman's been interested in, and that is the over-
reliance on expensive private school placements.
But there's also another result, which you may not be aware
of, which is that there's been an incentive to under-identify
children with disabilities who qualify for special education
services.
D.C. Public Schools currently places students in private
school placements at twice the national average, which, as we
know, is definitely draining their budget. They also are
currently identifying students as needing special education
services about nine percent of the time. They are saying nine
percent of the population. And what we know is that the
national incidence of disability is pretty steady across the
country. It is not something that varies that much. And across
the country, the average range is from 12 to 15 percent. In
urban areas, with the similar socio-economic situation that we
have here, the numbers are even higher. Baltimore City, for
example, has an 18 percent identification rate, so D.C. at 9
percent is far below that. They have just been not identifying
students that need services. So the disparity that we end up
with is that a minority of the student population is receiving
a disproportionate share of the special ed budget, while
thousands of children are receiving no services whatsoever,
which is a big concern. And regardless of testimony to the
contrary, D.C. Public Schools is really the entity that created
the problem. There are years and years of U.S. Department of
Education reports showing non-compliance from as back as when
they started monitoring. And we're talking about non-compliance
in the area of 90 to 100 percent in some areas.
So for many years, D.C. Public Schools has wasted their
funds, building this bureaucratic stone wall rather than
building a school system that the children deserve. And Ms.
Ackerman, to her credit, realizes that building a service
capacity of the public schools is the only way to address the
crisis that they find themselves in. Some D.C. government
officials have suggested that she doesn't need additional funds
to rectify this problem; that all she needs to do is bring back
some of these private school kids. Then she can take that money
and build services for the kids that need them. And based on
the information that I have about the law and the way the
system works, I can tell you that that is just impossible for
her to do. And I'll explain why.
The D.C. Public School students are in those private
schools' placements precisely because there are no services
here for them. Until D.C. creates the services, they cannot
legally bring those children back. But until they create the
services, they are going to keep having additional children
that need to go into the private school system. The bottom line
is that Ms. Ackerman does need to make an investment into the
infrastructure, just like you would make an investment into
bridges and roads, before she's going to be able to have a
school system that is efficient and doesn't put an
extraordinary amount of money into these private school
placements.
Given the District's fiscal history, I know that you
probably have a lot of concerns that we not throw good money
after bad. And I think it is a legitimate concern. But our
interactions with Ms. Ackerman have given us reason to be
optimistic in this regard.
For one thing, she seems to be very well informed about the
system's problems and also seems to have a very clear idea of
what needs to happen to fix things. She has signed a historic
three-year agreement with the Department of Education outlining
the specific steps that they are going to take to fix some of
these problems. And it is an agreement, which I brought with
me--pretty hefty--that had months of community input as well.
And although it was executed just three months ago, I think it
is significant to point out that Ms. Ackerman has made progress
toward some of the goals in that agreement.
One of the things that she has been able to do is to assess
several hundred students who were waiting for assessments over
the last months, and last Saturday, D.C. had a Child Find
screening for disabilities which is the first time in anyone's
memory that that has ever happened even though it is required
under the law. So, I would request on behalf of the coalition
that you support the budget request that has been made by D.C.
public schools.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Ms. Seltzer. We appreciate your
remarks. Thank you.
Ms. Seltzer. Thank you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
CONTROL BOARD STAFF SALARIES
AND
LEGISLATIVE RIDERS
WITNESS
HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MARYLAND
Mr. Taylor. I would like to recognize Congresswoman
Constance Morella, my fellow worker in the halls upstairs, for
her statement. Glad to have you with us.
Statement of Congresswoman Constance A. Morella
Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Congressman Aderholt. I am delighted to be here before you, and
I thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to testify on what
I consider to be some important priorities in the District of
Columbia appropriations.
As Vice Chair of the Government Reform Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia and as a representative of the district
that borders the District of Columbia, I have a great concern
and a great interest in making the District a safe and thriving
place that is a source of pride for the Nation.
control board exceeded its authority
Having said that, I want to start off by commending you,
Mr. Chairman, for requesting a GAO study examining the pay
raises provided to certain staff in the city by the D.C.
Financial Control Board. The GAO report confirms that the
Control Board exceeded its authority by granting excessive pay
raises to Executive Director John W. Hill, Jr. and to General
Counsel Dan Resneck and by paying Chief Management Officer
Camille Barnett a salary of $155,000. While I believe that we
must pay the CMO what she deserves and honor her contract, the
raises given to the top executives in the D.C. government are
excessive and should be returned, and I support you, Mr.
Chairman and appreciate your good efforts in looking into the
matter.
residency requirement for employment
Let me turn to another matter, Mr. Chairman, over which we
may have some differences of opinion, and I am referring to the
residency requirement. As you know, last March, the D.C. City
Council overwhelmingly passed a bill requiring new city workers
to live in the District. On May 19th, this act was officially
transmitted by the Council to Congress, and unless rejected by
Congress, the act will go into effect shortly. I believe that
the D.C. appropriations bill would be an appropriate place in
which to repeal the Residency Requirement Reinstatement Act. I
urge you to do so. Requiring new workers to live in the
District would make non-residents second-class citizens and
could endanger public safety and education.
When I first came to Congress in the late eighties, the
District government was already showing signs of the
deficiencies that marked the beginning of a spiraling, economic
crisis. Services in the District were deteriorating; businesses
were relocating; middle-class residents were moving to the
suburbs in search of lower taxes, safer streets, and better
schools. From 1990 to 1995, the District lost more than 22,000
households, most of them middle-class taxpayers.
As Congressman Moran has pointed out, many of the people
who move to the suburbs have homes. If this residency
requirement is implemented, these people will be looking for
alternatives to working for the District, and we may lose many
competent employees.
Mr. Moran also has pointed out that this proposal will not
pass, and it diverts attention from the more important issues
that affect the District. If we work hard to make the streets
safer and improve the schools, those former residents will want
to move back to the District closer to their jobs. I know that
property values already have gone up from my work on the
Cafritz Advisory Board. Just look at the old Woodward & Lothrop
building that was bought by Ms. Casey for about $13 million. It
is now going to sell for about $33 million, and the Washington
Opera that was going to be housed there will now be the Kennedy
Center clients. So this is an indication of a lot of the goods
things that are happening in the District of Columbia.
Many of the workers who do live in the District are
underserved and undereducated at this point, and I think we
need to work hard together to make sure that we have good
training programs for District residents so that they will meet
the need of the changing work force. So, I urge you to include
language to repeal the residency requirement in the D.C.
appropriations bill.
other legislative restrictions
I also understand that this subcommittee may be considering
the inclusion of language prohibiting unmarried couples in the
District from adopting children, preventing the District from
using its own local revenues to fund the city's Needle Exchange
Program to prevent new HIV infections in injection drug users
and their partners, and continuing the prohibition on funding
for the D.C. Domestic Partnership Program.
I think that trying to micro-manage D.C. would be
counterproductive for the Congress and would encroach on the
legitimate roles of the City Council and the Control Board. As
Republicans, we have worked to give back local control to our
communities, and these provisions will run counter to that
objective.
prohibiting adoptions by certain unmarried couples
Most Americans agree that the Federal government should
stay out of the family law decisions. In fact, Americans,
categorically, reject the notion that the Government should
take a greater role in deciding who can and cannot adopt
children. By a margin of nearly 4 to 1, 74 to 19 percent, the
public believes that we should keep the system we currently
have rather than allow the Federal government to take a greater
role. Congress has traditionally stayed out of family law,
recognizing that State and local governments are better suited
to address those issues.
The best interest of the child should be the deciding
factor in setting adoption policy at the local level. That is
best determined by local, trained professionals. Parenting
skills, not marital status or sexual orientation, should be
considered.
The American Psychological Association reports that studies
comparing groups of children raised by gay and non-gay parents
find no developmental differences between the two groups of
children in their intelligence, social and psychological
adjustment, popularity with friends, development of sex role
identity or development of sexual orientation. In fact, in 48
States and the District of Columbia, lesbian and gay people are
permitted to adopt when a judge finds that the adoption is in
the child's best interest.
As of June 22nd of this year, there were 3,600 children in
the D.C. foster care system waiting to be adopted. It is hard
enough to find good homes for children; it would be a travesty
to make children languish in institutions at great cost to
taxpayers when they can have caring, loving homes.
needle exchange drug program
Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia has one of the
highest incidences of HIV infection in the country. Intravenous
drug use is the District's second highest mode of transmission,
accounting for over 25 percent of all new AIDS cases. For
women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than among
men, it is the highest mode of transmission.
Scientific evidence supports the fact that needle exchange
programs reduce HIV infection and do not contribute to illegal
drug use. Despite that, on April 29, 1998, the House voted to
prohibit the expenditure of Federal funds for needle exchange
programs. D.C. has had a local Needle Exchange Program in place
since last year, an important tool in the City's fight against
the spread of HIV and an important bridge to drug treatment
services.
Now, some members want to tell D.C. that it cannot spend
its own funds to prevent new HIV infections. This is simply
wrong. Local jurisdictions should be able to decide for
themselves how best to fight the HIV epidemic in their own
communities. In my State of Maryland, Baltimore has a great
program, and they are allowed to fund it with their own money;
it has resulted in a significant decrease in the HIV infection
rate.
conclusion of congresswoman morella's statement
Mr. Chairman, with so few days on the legislative calendar,
Congress cannot afford to hold up the appropriations process by
politicizing family and public health decisions. I urge you and
the subcommittee to reject such efforts and allow the District
of Columbia to make its own decisions on these local matters.
You have been very patient and kind to give me the extra time
so I could go through those issues of importance to me, and I
do hope that you will consider them. If you have any questions,
I would be happy to try to answer them.
residency language--authorizing committee inaction
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much for your presentation. As a
member of the authorizing committee, do you know whether or not
the authorizing committee is going to act on the residency
requirement?
Mrs. Morella. I do know that if we were to act on it, we
would be against it, I believe.
Mr. Taylor. As I understand it, the D.C. government has
passed it, and the House, either from your committee or ours,
has to reject it and the Senate has to do the same and the
President has to sign the bill with the rejection language.
Mrs. Morella. With the limited period of time, the onus
probably falls more on you, but if I could defer and ask Mr.
Dennis who is a councilman.
Mr. Taylor. It is clearly an authorizing question, and I do
not know that we are going to be involved.
Mrs. Morella. Is the subcommittee planning to do anything
on that that you know of? I would be happy to talk to him right
now.
Mr. Taylor. Well, heaven forbid that an appropriations
committee legislate in an appropriations bill.
Mrs. Morella. Oh, I know, we never do that, Mr. Chairman,
do we.
Mr. Taylor. That's right.
Mrs. Morella. Never.
Mr. Taylor. Well, thank you so much for your presentation.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Mrs. Morella. I will check with the authorizing committee,
but I think it would be an excellent opportunity for it to be
put into the D.C. appropriations bill anyway.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
prepared statement of congresswoman constance a. morella
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP; NEEDLE EXCHANGE; AND PROHIBITION ON UNMARRIED
COUPLES ADOPTING CHILDREN
WITNESS
CARL E. SCHMID, CAPITAL AREA LOG CABIN CLUB
Mr. Taylor. Is Mary Filardo here? Mr. Schmid, we are glad
to have you with us.
statement of carl schmid
Mr. Schmid. Good afternoon. My name is Carl Schmid, and I
am appearing today on behalf of Capital Area Log Cabin an
organization of gay Republicans and the Human Rights Campaign,
the Nation's largest gay and lesbian political organization. We
come before you again to express our concern about the
inclusion of certain provisions in the D.C. bill which would
adversely impact our community.
Our message to you as it was last year is to please, leave
us alone. Specifically, I would like to focus on three issues:
one, a prohibition on implementation of our domestic
partnership law; two attempts to prevent unmarried couples from
adopting, and, three, a prohibition on the use of D.C. funds to
carry out our AIDS Prevention Needle Exchange Program.
While we, like you, are concerned about how our government
is being run and managed, we must ask how involved should
Congress be in dictating social policies for District citizens.
Now that there is no longer a Federal payment, Congress' role
should be decreasing not increasing. I thought we, as
Republicans, believe in less government and individual rights.
So, why do we have to fight each year over these issues? Aren't
there more broader financial management issues to consider than
to delve into such local policy issues?
It appears that certain Members of Congress are trying to
dictate their own personal views to the District all just for
their own political gain.
Our Domestic Partnership Program which has never been
allowed to be implemented by the Congress, allows District
employees to purchase health insurance at their own cost for
their domestic partner. The only benefits the partner receives
are visitation rights at nursing homes and hospitals and,
depending on the employer, other rights such as sick, parental,
and bereavement leave. As you can see, it is very limited.
Private employers around the country such as IBM and Mobile are
establishing these programs; so are numerous cities like New
York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Why then does Congress prevent
the District from implementing its program while other cities
are allowed to implement theirs?
Another area where the Congress has tried to interfere with
local social issues, as Congresswoman Morella mentioned, is in
adoption. Congress has traditionally stayed away from these
family laws issues, because they are best handled at the State
and local level, but the past three years, one Member has tried
to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting. Fortunately,
fairer minds have prevailed, and these attempts have failed,
but it appears that they have not given up. Adoptions do not
happen overnight, but only after careful planning and a lengthy
report is conducted that includes a home study, a financial and
criminal record check are all done to determine if the
prospective parents are fit to adopt. The final decision rests
with the court after they conclude the adoption would be in the
best interest of the child. These are not issues of Federal
legislative concern but decisions best left to local family
court to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, needle exchange. As Congresswoman Morella
mentioned, the District, sad to say, has one of the highest
incidences of HIV in the country. This not only costs precious
lives but precious dollars. IV drug use is the District's
second highest mode of transmission accounting for over 25
percent of all the new AIDS cases. For women, it is the highest
mode of transmission. Unfortunately, the trends do not look
good especially for the black community where 97 percent of
transmission through IV drug use occurs. Last year, the rate of
infection for black women who contract the virus through IV
drug use rose by 23 percent while for black men it rose by 12
percent. These increases are occurring while the transmission
via other modes and other populations are decreasing because of
education and prevention programs. While I am firmly against
illegal drug use, I am also against the spread of HIV. The
District through its locally funded Needle Exchange Program is
seeking to prevent both the spread of drug use and of AIDS, and
by blocking it, you would justbe doing the opposite. There is
no promotion of drug use just the exchange of one used needle which is
already out there on the street and which is most likely already
infected with the AIDS virus with one uninfected sterile one. To
participate in the program clients must be registered and are given
information on drug treatment. Without this program, the spread of AIDS
would increase, and these IV drug users would remain on the street
without any contact with a health care provider.
The introduction of these issues year after year has
significantly delayed passage of the D.C. bill. First, Congress
has blocked our domestic partnership law, and then they tried
to legislate who can and who cannot die, and now they are
thinking about going after our local AIDS Prevention Program.
When will all of this local meddling stop?
As you consider the bill this year, we urge you to resist
adding these extraneous riders. Thank you for the opportunity
this year to present our views, and I will be glad to answer
any questions you may have.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Congress, from the Constitution forward, was determined to have
a District of Columbia, and they were going to govern it, and I
see no change in that contrary to what you were saying. It is
sort of an anomaly in the fact that government is best that
governs least, but there is definitely a responsibility in
Congress to govern the District of Columbia, but I appreciate
your presentation.
Mr. Schmid. And I agree that the Congress does have a role,
and I guess my point is how deeply should the Congress be
involved in local affairs? There are such larger financial
management issues to look at, and I clearly recognize the
constitutional role.
Mr. Taylor. We will be marking up toward the end of this
coming month, so I appreciate your presentation, and we will be
happy to talk with you briefly.
Mr. Schmid. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
prepared statement of carl schmid
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
BOY SCOUTS LEARNING FOR LIFE PROGRAM
WITNESSES
PATRICIA McCRIMMON, PRINCIPAL, NEVAL THOMAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SHIRLEY JONES, TEACHER, KENILWORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Mr. Taylor. We have two witnesses and I would like them to
come forward and both sit here at the table: Doctor Patricia
McCrimmon who is the principal of the Neval Thomas Elementary
School--glad to have you--and Shirley Jones who is a teacher at
Kenilworth Elementary School. What we will try to do is let you
make your presentation first, Dr. McCrimmon, and then we will
go on to Ms. Jones.
I am going to go vote while you are presenting your
statements, because we have a series of votes, and we sort of
have to trade off being chairman here from time to time so we
can make all the votes and not hold you up. We would be glad to
have you make your statement.
Statement of Dr. Patricia McCrimmon
Dr. McCrimmon. I am Patricia McCrimmon, principal of Neval
Thomas Elementary School in the District of Columbia. I would
like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to
testify. On behalf of all teachers and administrators in
District schools, I wish to thank and commend Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Chairman, this is particularly meaningful, because we
teach our students that actions speak louder than words. When
you came to meet with D.C. teachers, you said that you cared
about what we had to say. Then, you told us that we would be
invited to appear before Congress, and here we are. You have
shown your commitment to teachers and to administrators by
keeping your word to us, and we are grateful for your
leadership, sir.
The Learning for Life Program provided by the National
Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America has filled a
void of current curriculum. This program allows students to
deal with issues that are relevant to their everyday lives.
Cooperative learning techniques are utilized throughout the
program. Lessons can be incorporated to involve parents, and
its open-ended approach to problem solving gives all children
an opportunity to actively participate and achieve success. The
program format is flexible in that it can be used as an
individual activity or as a unit. Although the content is
varied at each grade level, there is continuity in its themes.
The activities are engaging, exciting, and child-centered on
every level. The wall chart motivates students to complete
activities in order to earn recognition stickers. The friendly
competition fosters positive relation among the students. The
teacher's guide is helpful; it is informative. It can easily be
used by a seasoned teacher or by a novice.
In general, it is a program valued by teachers and students
at Neval Thomas School. We have used the Learning for Life
Program for the past three years, and it has proved to be an
excellent supplement to our curriculum. We look forward to
using the program once again in our daily curriculum planning.
Although academic achievement is our major goal, our major
focus, the Learning for Life Program enhances all phases of our
school program. The program is value-centered, and it deals
directly with some basic needs of urban youth. Our children
need assistance in character building, personal values, self-
confidence, and decision making. The Learning for Life Program
is designed to provide us with this assistance. It will help us
reduce delinquency and strengthen classroom education.
Congressman Taylor, we applaud your efforts on behalf of
the schools, and we are hopeful that the program will be
expanded to serve all the children of our city. Mr. Chairman,
it has taken political courage to intervene in the District's
schools. While it would be easier to remain on the sidelines,
you choose the more difficult role of true leadership. For
that, you deserve our praise and our heartfelt thanks.
Mr. Aderholt [presiding]. Thank you very much. You are one
of the first groups, I think, of independent teachers to come
before this Committee, and I especially applaud you for your
presentation. Mrs. Jones, would you make your presentation
also?
Statement of Mrs. Shirley Jones
Mrs. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I am Shirley Jones, a teacher at
Kenilworth Elementary School in the District of Columbia. I
wish to echo my thanks to my colleagues and congratulate you
for what you are doing to help youth in our Nation's Capital. I
speak for many when I say that we thank you for coming to meet
with those of us who serve on the front lines of education. We
are very proud of what we do, and it means everything to us
when the chairman reaches out to ask us what teachers believe
is needed in the schools.
The mission statement of the District of Columbia Public
Schools summatively says, ``prepare students for their world
tomorrow.'' The Learning for Life Program for education
provided by the National Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts
of America is in an alignment posture with that statement. Its
statement includes the words ``prepare throughout their
lives''--referencing the students. If we are to make students
ready for life, then the basic foundation of knowledge and
character must be built. If there is positive character and
ownership of knowledge, students feel good about themselves.
Feelings of self-worth and accomplishment generate goal-setting
in a positive direction. Therefore, the deduction is student-
centered education that builds strong character can translate
into greater academic achievement and reduce delinquency.
Paradigm shifts abound. The profession of education,
specifically the District of Columbia Public Schools, is
experiencing change like never before. The paradigm shifts are
noted in societal transition, family structures, the delivery
of information technology, and the impersonalization of life.
We still, however, must equip our children for life. We are
called upon to develop the whole child. The social and
emotional part of each child must have healthy character
development, then this informs our choices.
Teachers are called upon to satisfy many people with many
needs. This requires us to make sound, well informed, focused
decision about the delivery of instruction. All of this must be
done with our client's best interest at the core of all we do.
Our children are and must remain first.
How is this then accomplished? Programs and materials that
are well researched, well written, and curriculum friendly are
sought as a match for the school's mission. The Boy Scouts of
America's Learning for Life Program can help meet the need. It
draws from the best practices in education. Chief among these
practices is research based approaches. It provides attention
to constructivism, cooperative learning, integrations, multiple
intelligences, and facilitative instruction. It provides
connection, authentic situational lessons that involve problem
solving and higher order thinking. It is theme based. It
compliments rather than competes with the existing curriculum.
It presents new learning in chunks and then provides for its
processing. It has a reward system that is immediate as well as
long range. It puts life to practice in equipping students to
make ethical decisions.
We are charged with teaching children what they must know.
They must know how to be productive citizens, so we must teach
them how. We must do it in a way that makes it palatable for
them. The truest test of any program then becomes, do your
children enjoy it? Do children grow by it? Are visible results
generated by it? The answer is yes, yes, yes through the
Learning for Life Program which assists us in realizing all
three.
Please help us to expand this program to all our children.
I have today, then, told my students that the United States
Congress has shown trust and confidence in our teachers. Mr.
Chairman, the work of your committee represents the future of
our youth and the destiny of our Nation's capital. Do not let
anyone stop your efforts to strengthen what we are trying to
do. If they try, just call on us, and the teachers will be here
to support you.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Ms. Jones, for your testimony, and
we will certainly insert your prepared statement in the record,
and, Dr. McCrimmon, we will also place your statement in the
record.
Prepared Statements of Patricia McCrimmon and Shirley Jones
[The prepared statements referred to follow:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Aderholt. We appreciate your attendance here today, and
we look forward to working with you in the future on these
issues.
Dr. McCrimmon. My pleasure, thank you.
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. I would like to ask a question if I
may since I had to go vote, and it is going to be a little time
longer before the next vote.
Number of Students and Schools In Program
I wanted to know how many students have been affected by
this program? Do you have a testament?
Dr. McCrimmon. Yes, sir, 12,500 in 38 schools in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Taylor. And you are interested in our increasing it
based on the success so far. What would be your thoughts on
that? Is there any idea of how much it should be increased as
far as the number of schools? You may want to consult?
Dr. McCrimmon. We want to incorporate the program within
the entire District of Columbia Public School system, all 162
schools.
Mr. Taylor. All right. Well, I was impressed with the
success you have garnered so far. I think that you and
certainly the dedication of the teachers are a factor in it
working. Thank you very much.
Dr. McCrimmon. Thank you for your time.
Mrs. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. We would like to have you--we are voting on the
agriculture bill and would love to have you go upstairs in the
gallery and watch it in a moment if you would like.
Dr. McCrimmon. We will do that.
Mrs. Jones. Thank you, Congressman.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
COMMUNITY-BASED HOUSING FOR MENTALLY ILL RESIDENTS
WITNESS
LISA HAWKINS, CORNERSTONE, INC.
Mr. Taylor. Is Dr. Edward Eyring here? Lisa Hawkins?
Ms. Hawkins. I am here.
Mr. Taylor. All right. Please come forward. Go right ahead
ma'am.
Ms. Hawkins. Hi.
Mr. Taylor. We appreciate your being here.
Ms. Hawkins. No, I appreciate you having me. My name is
Lisa Hawkins, and I have to be completely honest and say that
the President and the chair of the Board of Directors of my
client, Cornerstone, were supposed to come, but I think they
are not here, so I am just going to jump in and give you some
brief information and ask that our testimony be submitted for
the record.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection.
Prepared Statement of Cornerstone, Inc.
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Statement of Lisa Hawkins, Cornerstone, Inc.
Ms. Hawkins. Great, thank you. Cornerstone is a non-profit
organization that started in 1991. I do not know if you
remember when HHS transferred all of the mental health
facilities in the District over to the District, and when they
did so they provided funding, of course, for St. Elizabeths and
related projects but also directed that $5 million be used
through the Commission on Mental Health Services to provide
housing outside of St. Elizabeths. Right now, you have a
situation where you have a lot of people who are in St.
Elizabeths who are suffering from chronic mental illnesses that
could live outside if they had the support, but they do not, so
they remain at St. Elizabeths at a substantial cost to the
taxpayers, and I am sure their quality of life suffers as well.
So, what Cornerstone is, is a financing, housing
intermediary. We work with direct providers, and I think we
have those listed here, a lot that I am sure you are familiar
with like House of Ruth and Green Door, Community Connection,
and we work with them to provide financing for them to build
housing for these chronically, mentally ill individuals.
To give you a sense of our costs, it costs the taxpayers
$100,000 a year to house someone in a mental health facility,
specifically, St. Elizabeths. Our costs, Cornerstone, is
approximately $10,000 a year, and if you see the last paragraph
of our executive summary, $22 million could be saved every year
with this sort of program, with this sort of private-public
partnership, and, again, would allow individuals who are
currently in St. Elizabeths to live in the community.
I just want to give you a few highlights of what we have
done in the last four years, and, again, the testimony will be
in the record, so I do not want to take up too much time. Since
1995, we have funded the construction of 330 units of quality
housing throughout the District, so not only are these
individuals now able to live among the community and not be a
burden to the taxpayers, but the housing itself has been
renovated. Of course, the surrounding communities benefit from
that as the housing that was once tear down or substandard is
now up to par. In addition, Cornerstone has a knack for
leveraging private funds. So, with that $4 million grant that
we received, we have leveraged another $12 million, and we hope
to continue to do that working with organizations like Sallie
Mae, and we have also worked with DHCD in the District, and we
have worked with the--if you give me one second I can tell
you--Enterprise and Public Welfare Foundations and the D.C.
Housing Finance Agency.
I think that about sums it up. Essentially, what we are
here to ask is funding to continue our operations. We were
funded five years ago. If we are not refunded, our funding will
run out, and we will not be able to continue our operations.
So, we are asking the Committee for a sizable grant of $10
million over the next five years to continue, keeping in mind,
of course, that such an allocation would save the taxpayers of
the District a substantial amount of money and allow currently
chronically mentally ill individuals in St. Elizabeths,
homeless individuals, and individuals who are currently living
in substandard housing to now be housed in the community with
support from the direct providers. May I answer any questions
for you?
Mr. Taylor. The $10 million, that is your request for this
year?
Ms. Hawkins. For the next five years.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt?
Mr. Aderholt. I do not have any questions. Thank you for
being here today.
Ms. Hawkins. Thank you for having me.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
TENANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TAP)
WITNESS
JOHN L. ROBINSON, JR., D.C. RESIDENT
Mr. Taylor. Monica Beckham? John Robinson? Christine--okay,
please come up. Mr. Robinson, please have a seat at the table.
Excuse me, and I will come right back.
Mr. Aderholt [presiding]. How are you doing today?
Mr. Robinson. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for being here.
Statement of John L. Robinson, Jr.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you for letting me come. I would like
to take this time to address the House of D.C. Appropriations
Subcommittee on the D.C. Tenant Assistance Program. I am a
single parent with two children ages 6 and 11. I have had to
accept employment with minimal wages and low hours--minimal
hours and low wages in which I had to resign due to difficulty
obtaining adequate child care. I had to apply and reapply for
public assistance so I could care for my children. Without TAP
and public assistance, I would not have been able to care for
my children.
Currently, I am still on public assistance which I really
do not want to be on. I have completed job training programs; I
have been actively seeking employment on a continuous basis
before and after welfare reform. Without the help from TAP I
would not have provided a home for my children. If this program
ends and I do not have decent employment, I, myself, and people
like me would not have anywhere to go and would end up in
homeless shelters which currently are overcrowded, and families
already are on the waiting list for public housing.
Right now, there are 800 TAP services that help house over
200 children and families, the elderly, disabled persons, and
other individuals. So, I am pleading for me and my family and
on behalf of many other children, to help adults and elderly in
the same situation that the TAP not be touched and be extended
at least over the year 2000 so we can continue to make better
lives for ourselves. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you today.
Mr. Taylor [presiding]. Thank you. Did your statement state
how much was it that you are looking for?
Mr. Robinson. Well, I have been keeping up with the news
here lately, and I do not know if you all read the paper today.
Currently, we are at about $2 million for this fiscal year
which I was told--I am a current TAP certificate holder right
now which ends December 1st--and we are looking for
approximately $6 million to maybe carry us on so we can
continue to do what we have to so we can get off the program.
Right now, I am looking to be employed with the Department of
Interior which is good, right now, for me, but other people
might not have the opportunity to work at this time, so they
would still need this help also. Currently, I would not be able
to get off of it right now, but I intend to get off of it as
soon as I become able to take care of myself.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson. Thank you for listening to me.
Mr. Taylor. We appreciate your presentation.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. ROBINSON, JR.
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
D.C. BLACK CHURCH INITIATIVE
WITNESS
REVEREND ANTHONY EVANS, CHRIST LIVING MINISTRY
Mr. Taylor. Christine Warnke, Commission for Women?
Reverend Evans, Anthony Evans?
Reverend Evans. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. You are with the Christ Living Ministry.
Reverend Evans. How are you doing, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Taylor. Good to see you.
Statement of Rev. Anthony Evans
Reverend Evans. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
meeting with us today to share some thought concerning the D.C.
Black Church initiative. The D.C. Black Church initiative, sir,
is a coalition of 800 black and white churches in the District
who have decided to come together to provide some social
justice ministries, because we feel very strongly that the
District government is broken.
We wanted to have an opportunity to comment on the local
consensus budget that you are now considering before your
committee. The budget recently submitted to the Congress by the
District government is not a consensus budget in any sense of
the word, because our voices of 800 churches are not on that
budget. We have tried to talk with the mayor, the City Council,
the Control Board only to be ignored. Within my written
testimony is a letter to Sandy Allen and to Control Board
member Stephen Harlan, many believe that this is an--and, so we
tried to meet with them, and we never had a chance to sit down
to discuss the particulars of a DCBCI plan.
Many believe that our request of $30 million over the next
6 years is unreasonable, but it is not given the fact of what
we are presently doing in this city, and what we wanted to do
is expand the existing services that we are doing and to be
able to make sure that the poor in this city truly have a
safety net.
Mr. Chairman, yourself, you have recognized that this
consensus budget proposed is fully padded. As a matter of fact,
you blankly said, sir, that it is like throwing money down in a
rat hole. So, simply put, Mr. Chairman, we are asking you to
only take $30 million out of that rat hole and give it to the
D.C. Black Church initiative so that we will be able to deliver
the goods and services.
Your mailing, sir, pointed out the fact of management
reform, and management reform means nothing to the three
children in the District that goes to bed hungry every night.
This budget does not answer the question, but BCI promised that
this job would be done. We are now coordinating over 250
churches to deliver food to the poor. The District government
cannot do that, neither can they promise that they can do that
either. The Washington Post is filled with horror stories as to
the District Government in terms of waste. We estimate
conservatively that there is at least $100 million that can be
attributed to waste, fraud, and abuse, and we are only asking
for $30 million of that budget.
We will ensure that this money is spent strategically,
because we have spent over the past 2 years surveying the 800
churches as to the needs of their congregations, and we have a
plan that will eradicate a lot of concerns in the District. For
instance, under this plan right here, we plan to create 30,000
volunteers. No other city in American can boast the fact that
they have 30,000 volunteers who are willing to roll up their
sleeves and provide services to their cities. Out of that
30,000 volunteers there are over 5,000 people who will provide
volunteer service with the D.C. Public School systems. In terms
of one hand, it is about providing security in terms of kids
not being shot by going to school and on the other hand by
staffing what we hope to do is 450 after-school programs, and
these after-school programs have three purposes: one, that they
will act as a safe house, because we strongly believe that they
still will not enter into the church to shoot anybody but also
to enhance the academic performance.
You recently read in the paper about the test scores from
the DCPS in terms of saying that 46 percent of the students in
11th grade scored below basics in reading, and 83 percent of
those students in the 10th grade scored below the basic in
mathematics. With our 450 after-school programs to enhance
those academic lackings, then what we propose is the fact that
we will be able to uplift those test scores. So, we propose
averting by lifting up 30,000 volunteer, 8 family crisis
centers, 450 after-school programs and also motivate at least
150 churches to offer free day care for the poor, and this is
in reference to the year 2000. As we all know, the 2000 is fast
approaching, and those who have not attained employment from
the welfare rolls will be eliminated, and, then, therefore,
where will they go? They will come directly to us.
And this is in reference to the Year 2000. And as we all
know that the Year 2000 is fastly approaching, and that those
who have not attained employment for the welfare rolls will be
eliminated.
And then, therefore, where will they go? They will come
directly to us. And we do not have the money, not the
management, not the structure in place to be able to
accommodate that large population that will be coming to the
road. And given the fact that the District Government system is
broken, and they cannot efficiently deliver the goods and
services, we are caught in the middle.
And so we propose this plan, and this plan we hope to save
the District $180 million in savings. And in doing so, $50
million of direct savings in terms of the volunteer hours we
put in, the use of the church vans, the use of the church
space, the church facilities. And also, what we are currently
doing now in direct contribution to anybody who walks through
our doors, to take care their rent or light bill.
What we are saying, Mr. Chairman, is that times are getting
extremely tough for the church to do that. And we believe that
the church, and especially the Black church has proven itself
that we can deliver these services, faster, more efficient,
cost efficient, than any other group there is, and proven.
And we have also just demonstrated our will in Jasper,
Texas, where we had that terrible racial incident. It was the
Black church, sir, who kept the lid on everything there. And it
will be the black and white church here in the District who
will keep the lid here on this city right here.
And so, we are giving this city enormous services. And what
we ask for bold and direct leadership coming from you, Mr.
Chairman, as you have demonstrated in the past, you and Senator
Faircloth. And by moving so--you even said, Mr. Chairman, that
at least $500 million in the current D.C. Consensus Budget is
wasteful.
We only want $30 million of that $500 million budget that
you cited in The Post. We only want $30 million. And the
savings that we are going to bring to this district is just
phenomenal. And we have spent the past 2 years putting together
this coalition of 800 black and white churches.
And also, sir, and the last thing as a byproduct of this
whole coalition, is that this city will have better race
relations than any city in America.
Mr. Taylor. Well, I appreciate your presentation.
What type of structure do you have for the D.C. Black
Church Initiative, the 800--are you incorporated? Do you have
petitions from them? Or how would you go about certifying to
the Congress that you have 800 black and white churches in this
initiative?
Reverend Evans. I will have--which we have shared with you
through your personal staff, Mr. Rogers there. We have letters
from every head of the churches, pledging their support to this
coalition. In addition to that, we are a 501(c) status
organization.
And also that money will be accounted for in essence,
simply because one of the big six accounting firms promised us
that they would do volunteer work with us by auditing our
books.
So we are assured of the credibility incident in terms of
the management of that money. We have the churches that we have
been recruiting for the past 2 years. And every head of the
church--a matter of fact, we just got a strong letter from the
head of the American Lutheran Church to join this coalition as
well.
So all of the churches are on board, and they have been on
board for quite a long time.
What we are asking is that, we have a systematic plan to
deliver the goods and services to the poor and the needy of
this city. This city does not have such a plan. And in addition
to that, raising 30,000 volunteers who are able to assist our
local law enforcement agency.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, we have somebody loose in our
community, who has ran a red light and killed a child. He
jumped out of a stolen vehicle, and he is in our community
loose.
With those 30,000 volunteers, if they were in place today,
we could have assisted the law enforcement in identifying that
individual who did that.
Presently right now there are such terrible relationships
between our D.C. Police Department and the citizenry, and we
have been working to improve that. We are the only entity that
has the power to do that.
And we are the only entity that has the numbers. Because we
can take 30,000 right out of our congregations. We do not have
to go searching for these people. These people sit in our
church services every single Sunday.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, if I can make one last
comment. We did not come up to this Committee asking for
something that we were not willing to make some hard choices
for.
We have identified for the Committee offsets in thecurrent
budget that will total $30 million.
Mr. Taylor. That is in your statement.
Reverend Evans. That is in my statement and is in the back
of my statement right there. And we give the committee five
different ways of funding this particular initiative.
Mr. Taylor. Well, thank you, that is most thoughtful. Your
written statement will become part of the record, and we will
be looking over all of this.
Prepared Statement of Rev. Anthony Evans
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Reverend Evans. I certainly appreciate the time. Thank you
so much, sir. And congratulations on the leadership that you
have shown for the District. We are behind you.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
HOMELESS
WITNESS
DR. EDWARD J. EYRING, GOSPEL RESCUE MINISTRIES
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Edward Eyring.
Dr. Eyring, we are glad to have you here.
Statement of Dr. Edward J. Eyring
Dr. Eyring. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate the
opportunity of returning after a year.
The first thing I want to do is thank you for the kindness
of last year, particularly the assistance of your capable staff
in helping us.
I am always stunned when people are talking $30 million,
and we are talking about $200,000. I am really still very
grateful for the help that we get.
I was invited to talk about good news. So I wanted to tell
you some of the good things that are happening in Gospel Rescue
Ministries here in the District, and I have divided my comments
into three areas. One is program, one is facilities, and one is
our operating paradigm.
In terms of the program, our particular emphasis has been
on our school. We have one of the largest adult education
facilities in the District. We are particularly interested in
one in computer literacy. And the second is in a work strategy
called Work Net.
This is a strategy basically based on the giftings and
desires of an individual, with the intent of putting them into
an entry level job and a career track that they choose, what
they want to do. In other words, it is not just survival jobs,
and it is not just go out there and get a job, and then learn
how to read later.
We have some rather significant concerns about the present
strategy on what they call Work First, as a method. And I can
tell you, I have lots of degrees, and I have done a lot of
studying, and I cannot get through an audited course, and I
cannot get through a night course. You know, I am just not one
of those people who can handle an education on the side.
I really do believe that it is important that these people
be educated before they are sent to work. And I think it is
probably a strategic issue that the Congress ought to consider
this whole idea of work force, and shoving people off the
welfare rolls, just to sort of get them off the rolls, rather
than really caring about the individuals.
So we are more into that mode. And I think this Work Net
strategy is an excellent one. We are applying it to all the
people that come either to our school or that come through our
ministries.
In the area of facilities we are hard at work on the
women's facility that you know about, and helped us get funding
partially for. We do not have it underway yet. We are still
going through the permitting and a variety of other
bureaucratic problems, but I think there should be a break in
that soon, and we are encouraged that we will be able to do
that.
We have also opened up a facility called Barnabus House,
which is a transitional living facility for people that
graduated from our other ministries. We have a vision for
taking over the city, one block at a time, or one house at a
time. Obviously, I will not live to be the million years old
that I have to be to get that accomplished. But that is what we
would really like to do.
And we have managed to get the crack house next door
closed, and we have managed to get the abandoned house boarded
up. We have already made a significant change in the District
by working with the police, we get along very well with, to
reduce crime in the neighborhood, and then also move these men
to a facility.
It is interesting. Many people get out of a facility like
ours. They do not have credit. They have not established that
they can work. So we offer them a place to work, and live, and
pay rent, and be able to say, hey, we are credible--we are
creditworthy citizens, and then maybe they can get loans for
homes, that type of thing, when they get through.
So it is a self-sustaining approach, where the people live
there, and they take care of themselves. They support the
facility. So I thought you would be interested in that.
In terms of paradigm shifts, there is an idea that I want
to suggest that might be applicable to the Congress.
We have changed our purpose statement from, providing
rescue services to the poor and the needy of the Washington
area in the name of Jesus, to transforming lives of people
without hope, by modeling the character of Jesus. And the idea
is not service delivery, but transforming lives.
The second idea is that there are plenty of folks without
hope that are not necessarily poor and needy. And poor and
needy is sort of a demeaning kind of a concept, sort of like us
and them. We are looking at people. Lots of people do not have
hope.
And then the third part is modeling the character of Jesus.
We feel we have adopted some core values. The first is
integrity, which means basically doing what we say we are going
to do. Community, which is family, bringing people together.
Compassion, which is love for one another. And fun.
The reason we introduced fun is that we think that Jesus
had a good time. I cannot imagine more fun than standing up in
front of the storm and saying, stop. And the challenges, the
excitement--I think that is probably why a lot of people come
to Congress. It is fun. Even though I know you are tired, and I
know this is a hard job. You still are in the middle of a lot
of exciting stuff. It is not boring, if nothing else.
So, I just thought you would be interested in some of the
good news, and some of the stuff that we are doing. And
naturally, we would like to talk over some of these different
ideas with you and your staff at any time.
Mr. Taylor. Certainly.
I have never thought of Congress as being fun. I know you
are probably right. I have only been here 8 years, so I suspect
I will find it eventually.
Thank you very much. I would like to see how you are doing
with your women's project, and see what is going on.
Dr. Eyring. All right. Well, we will talk to Roger, and see
about that.
Mr. Taylor. Good. Well, thank you very much, Doctor, for
making your presentation.
Prepared Statement of Dr. Edward J. Eyring
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
MUNICIPAL FISH WHARF
WITNESS
T. RODNEY OPPMANN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is T. Rodney Oppmann. Yes.
Please come forward, if you do not mind.
Mr. Oppmann. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Glad to have you, sir.
Mr. Oppmann. Thank you. I am here on behalf of some of the
lessees at the Fish Wharf, which is federal property.
I did not know that I would be appearing until yesterday,
and I wonder if it would be possible to submit a brief
statement for the record within a few days?
Mr. Taylor. Certainly.
Mr. Oppmann. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Without objection, that will be fine.
Mr. Oppmann. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of T. Rodney Oppmann
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Statement of T. Rodney Oppmann
Mr. Oppmann. I just have a few comments that I would like
to make, Mr. Chairman, that relate to some of the previous
testimony that I gave before this subcommittee in the years
1987 through 1992, regarding the fish wharf problems that we
were having at that time.
Some of them have been solved, but I would say the
situation overall at the property at the Fish Wharf has
deteriorated in my opinion.
The current lease is now month-to-month. The lessees would
like to make improvements. They have made some improvements. As
a matter of fact, the previous chairman, Mr. Dixon, lives in
southwest. He complained about the smell. With 2 years left on
their lease, the lessees spent $60,000 to put in a
refrigeration unit to abate the smell from their dumpster unit.
And they have been trying to make long-term improvements, but
on a month-to-month lease it is difficult to do.
One of the problems that exists at the Fish Wharf is they
are really not certain where it is. In 1992 the House asked--
and I have a copy of the report language--for certain
information regarding the Fish Wharf, and that has not been
provided to date by the District of Columbia.
This is the report language. By the way, a needs and
balance survey, and other information, was due January 1, 1993.
In February of this year, the lessees used the Baltimore
engineering firm, RTKL, to determine how much the square
footage of the Fish Wharf was. They are being short-changed by
29.8 percent on what they are paying every month.
This is indicative of the type of problem they have there.
This is Federal property. It is being managed by the District,
but I do not think the District is doing a very good job.
Furthermore, since I last testified, the lessees have had
to spend over $341,000 to obtain a second injunction against
the District for violating its own lease. They tried to put new
people onto the property in violation of their lease. We went
to court. I did not receive this legal fee, a trial law firm
here in town did. But that is how much it cost them.
The District never should have done this. This was the
second injunction in the course of their lease, which expired 2
years ago.
Mr. Taylor. What was the cost?
Mr. Oppmann. $341,000.
Another thing that is very disturbing is that the D.C.
government is refusing to recognize legally formed
corporations, which are lessees at the Fish Wharf. Why they are
doing this, I do not know. They pay their taxes. We have copies
of checks which they have recorded, and so forth. Why this is
happening, I do not know. I have tried to discuss this with the
Corporation Counsel. I have not gotten very far.
Lastly, a recent study of the Southwest Waterfront, which
cost taxpayers $70,000, omitted the lessees of the Fish Wharf
and the lessees of the Washington Marina Corporation, which is
the next witness and he will speak to those points.
We are disturbed by the fact that so much Federal money
went into this study, and yet the Federal property on the
premises was not included, in terms of a chance to participate
in this study.
I am almost done, Mr. Chairman. A few more points.
There are six leases on the waterfront. There are six
leases with 99-year terms, where the Fish Wharf is there month-
to-month. And the next witness, Mr. Stickell, from the
Washington Marina Corporation, will talk about his situation.
He is also month-to-month.
I do not represent Mr. Stickell, but I have shared
information with him.
Several of the individuals at the Fish Wharf are covered by
the same law, that is Public Law 86-736, which created the
long-term leases elsewhere, everywhere else along the
waterfront. We are not sure why the District has this
inconsistent long-term lease policy. Some people get long-term
leases, others are month-to-month.
I think that that is unfair, and it is something thatshould
be looked into.
The main reason these problems exist in my opinion, Mr.
Chairman, is that there is no Federal oversight jurisdiction.
No agency of the United States Government has been assigned
responsibility for looking at the Fish Wharf. Otherwise, I
would not be here taking your valuable time today.
I have had to do this repeatedly because there is no agency
that has been willing to take on the Fish Wharf. And the same
thing with the Washington Marina Corporation. If that could be
worked out so that somebody could be assigned to take over some
sort of responsibility, it would be helpful.
In conclusion, I think the actions of the D.C. officials
are driving small businesses out of the District, or they are
driving them out of business completely. A number of the
clients that I represented when I was last here are now
bankrupt or out of business, I am sorry to report.
The Fish Wharf is the last remnant of Washington's historic
waterfront. It dates back to the days when they came up the
river under sail, and then under diesel. Now they are doing it
with airplanes. They are bringing some of the stuff in. It is
cheaper, it is faster, and so forth.
It should be encouraged and preserved. It is very popular
with the public. We serve a lot of people who are on food
stamps. We are competitively priced. We have the best seafood
prices in town, I think. And I think that the failure of the
D.C. Government to grant long-term leases is hurting the
District and its populace, in that the long-term improvements
cannot be made on a month-to-month lease, and tax revenues that
would be generated with more business are denied the D.C.
Treasury.
I would be glad to provide any information you or your
staff would like in the future.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. We will do that.
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
MUNICIPAL FISH WHARF
WITNESS
ROBERT L. STICKELL, PRESIDENT, THE WASHINGTON MARINA COMPANY
Mr. Taylor. Why don't we have Mr. Stickell come forward now
and make his statement together with you.
Mr. Stickell, we are glad to have you here.
Statement of Robert L. Stickell
Mr. Stickell. Thank you for your time.
I am Rob Stickell, and I am the president of Washington
Marina Company. We are a small, family-owned, third generation
boating business. We have leased property from the District
since 1951.
In the early 1960's, 6 of the 8 lessees on the southwest
Washington waterfront received long-term leases. The Municipal
Fish Wharf, our neighbors, and ourselves, received month-to-
month leases. In our company's 47-year history we have had two
written leases in 5 years.
Obviously, we are not able to make any long-term capital
improvements in our facility as well. We met with District
officials last summer to discuss the District's responsibility
under the terms of its current lease with us, which expired in
1996, the District government has the responsibility for
maintenance and repairs of the facilities, the Marina
facilities, which were built back in the 1930's.
The District said at that time that they did not have any
money to do that, and offered to give us a long-term lease if
we would redevelop those properties and facilities ourselves.
We have since provided them with three proposals to do this
at our expense. We have incurred in excess of $86,000 of real
costs to come up with the proposal, the architectural, the
legal, and the other things necessary to bring this project
forward.
We received a letter recently from the director of the
District's Department of DHCD, Department of Housing and
Community Development, which basically thanked us for
submitting a proposal, but said that they were going to take
and push this off until some undeterminant date.
So we feel that not only is the city in breach of its lease
with us, but we feel that they are acting in bad faith. And we
are asking for reparative leasing that other folks were given.
We need to make a substantial long-term capital investment in
that facility, but we cannot do it without a long-term lease.
And I thank you for your time.
prepared statement of robert l. stickell
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you. I can sympathize with what you are
saying. We must go into it a little more in detail, and we
will. Thank you very much for making your presentation.
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 1998.
THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
WITNESSES
MONICA SCOTT BECKHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C.
KATHY SMITH, PAST PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Mr. Taylor. Our next witness is Monica Scott Beckham, Vice
President of the Board of Trustees of the Historical Society of
Washington, D.C.
Statement of Monica Scott Beckham
Ms. Beckham. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Monica Scott Beckham, and I am the vice president of the
Historical Society of Washington, D.C., member of the Board of
Trustees. And accompanying me is Ms. Kathy Smith, past
president of our Board.
First, I would like to thank you, and we appreciate the
invitation to speak to your subcommittee today on a major goal
of the Historical Society. That goal, as you know from the
testimony that we have already submitted, is to the creation of
a city museum, devoted to the history of the Nation's Capital.
The timing could not be more appropriate. In one and a half
years we will mark the 200th anniversary of the city as a
Federal capital. We believe the positive story of this great
city; a place where local, national, and international history
is intertwined, deserves a place in our revitalizing downtown.
We are in fact about the only world capital among the group
of eight that does to have such a city museum. Major cities
across the Nation have just invested in city museums. The
society in these cities recognize that they are not just about
history, but about defining the unique identity that makes a
city a healthy and interesting place to live and do business.
There is a dynamic link between industry and economic
development, and that is the development that the Society
wishes to participate in, along with a partnership with the
Federal government, and private dollars in the city, to raise
money for the city museum.
We are talking about the potential of millions of new
private dollars for the District of Columbia. The travel
industry worldwide has discovered that what increasingly
sophisticated travelers want is to experience unique places. As
you know, Washington, D.C., is a very unique city.
The city museum will be a gateway to a Washington that
visitors seldom see, and will provide appealing incentives to
leave their dollars behind in our local restaurants, shops, and
cultural attractions.
We have 22 million visitors a year in this city, and most
of them never venture beyond the Mall. Surely everyone will go
to see the museums; the Smithsonian, the Air and Space Museum.
However, after two or three visits people want to know where do
the people live in Washington. What else is there to see in
Washington, D.C. And this city museum will provide that
location for them to go, to discover the great history that we
have here in this city.
And so, on the second visit, if a person stays another day,
it has been determined that if 22 million visitors just stay,
and have one more meal, that would mean $100 million injected
into the local economy. And studies have shown that each
million dollars generates about 39 new jobs.
For example, the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors
Bureau, with $9 million, which is comparable to the city here,
figures that convincing travelers to stay one more day,
visiting their local cultural sites, can mean as much as $3
billion a year. The new city museum will be a destination for
all who want to explore the city.
At this time the Society is working vigorously with the
D.C. Heritage Tourism Coalition, and we are developing new
tours at this moment in this city. In fact, we have provided a
tour at the new MCI Center. So when people come down, and they
want to have an adventure with basketball, ice hockey, or any
other programs that are going on, they can also get a tour of
that particular community, and find out about the history
around the MCI location.
The Society is also working with the Anthony Bowen Y, which
is the oldest black YMCA in the capital. The site that we are
interested in is the Carnegie Library, which is a perfect and
beautiful Beaux Arts building, located on----
Mr. Taylor. Where is--okay.
Ms. Beckham. And this is our gateway. As you know, the
Convention Center will be developed down here at Mt. Vernon
Square. So people will see the City of Washington. And then
they can enter into the Convention Center, go into the
Convention Center, come out, and still see the City of
Washington, D.C.
After careful study, this site is looked at as the perfect
site by the Society. Right now this site is occupied by UDC. We
have had discussions with their president, as well as the
members of their board, and they wholeheartedly support us in
this.
We are looking at them as a partner to continue. They use
the building right now for architectural studies. We have
discussed with them sharing this space for classrooms, for
internships, for exhibits. But we also know that this space,
which only has 35,000 square feet of usable space, it is small.
It is not large in comparison to other sites that other cities
use, that are well over 100,000 square feet. However, the
Society is working with other community-based organizations to
have cultural heritage centers.
So this center will serve for storage space, for much
needed exhibit space, as well as a core exhibit that will be
housed at this particular site.
Congress was a partner with Carnegie in creating this
library, appropriating funds for that purpose exactly 100 years
ago in 1898. This library became the meeting place for all
people in the city. Of course it was one of the very few places
in the city that was never racially segregated. It is the
perfect place, both practically and symbolically, to link the
past, present, and the future of our renewed city.
We are here to ask Congress 100 years later to become a
partner with the city once again in honor of the city's 200th
birthday as the seat of the Federal government. The Historical
Society has never asked for money from Congress, or any other
public source in its 100 year history. Unlike almost all other
local history museums in historical societies, we have no city,
county, or state support. We believe, however, that given this
historic moment in the city's history this project is an
appropriate public-private partnership. A congressional
appropriation would be a springboard for a major capital
campaign for private, corporate, and foundation funds.
The recent feasibility study tells us that we have the
capacity to raise $6 million. Revenues from operating the
museum would come from museum shop sales, admission fees, the
tours, event rentals, and an endowment. Congress' $1 million
would pay for the architectural and engineering plans for
modifications needed to make the library suitable for museum
use, and for the research and development of a powerful core
exhibit.
We have also had conversations with the Washington
Convention Center Authority. They are interested in using the
building in the near term for architectural andengineering
offices during the construction of the new Convention Center, perfectly
consistent with the creation of the city museum which is timed to open
the same time as the Convention Center.
We are here today to ask for your endorsement, your
support, and your partnership in the creation of this state-of-
the-art museum for the Nation's Capital.
Thank you for your consideration of our request, and if you
have any questions I will be glad to answer them.
Mr. Taylor. Would you review the money that you are talking
about here, what is going to be spent by Congress and other
sources. You just mentioned it a few minutes ago.
Ms. Smith. I think you mentioned $1 million from Congress.
We need to raise an additional $6 million to match that for the
capital campaign as well as we will be actively seeking $4
million for an endowment.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Well, thank you very much for saying it.
I do not know what our ability would be. I would certainly
share your history in what you have done so far as an
organization. And if that could be converted into a historical
site and a tour area, then that certainly makes sense. But I do
not know where we are money-wise, but we certainly will give
your request full consideration.
Ms. Beckham. Well, thank you.
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you for coming.
Prepared Statement of Monica Scott Beckham
[The prepared statement referred to follows:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Taylor. Are there any other witnesses in the room? If
not, this concludes oral presentation of testimony by public
witnesses.
Prepared Statements
The Committee has received prepared statements from
Christine Warnke; Mary Filardo; and George Brown and Linda
Bollinger that will be placed in the record at this point.
[The prepared statements referred to follow:]
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
Conclusion of Hearings
Mr. Taylor. That concludes our committee hearings. We will
adjourn subject to the call of the chair.
[The official Commmittee record contains additional material here.]
W I T N E S S E S
__________
Page
Ackerman, Arlene................................................. 97
Baker, J. C...................................................... 97
Barry, Hon. Marion, Jr........................................... 1
Beckham, M. S.................................................... 711
Bolliger, L. K................................................... 732
Brimmer, A. F.................................................... 1
Brown, G. W...................................................... 732
Carver, J. A..................................................... 215
Catania, D. A.................................................... 493
Clark, J. L...................................................... 215
Cooper, M. R..................................................... 97
Cropp, L. W...................................................... 1
Edwards, Donald.................................................. 313
Evans, Reverend Anthony.......................................... 679
Eyring, Dr. E. J................................................. 691
Filardo, Mary.................................................... 727
Hamilton, E. N................................................... 313
Harlan, S. D..................................................... 313
Harvey, Wilma.................................................... 97
Hawkins, Lisa.................................................... 648
Jarman, G. L..................................................... 97
Jones, Shirley................................................... 641
Langston, R. E................................................... 313
Levy, Mary....................................................... 603
McCrimmon, Patricia.............................................. 641
Moore, M. A...................................................... 215
Morella, Hon. C. A............................................... 620
Oppmann, T. R.................................................... 698
Peter, Father Val................................................ 517
Ramsey, C. H..................................................... 313
Robinson, J. L., Jr.............................................. 675
Schlein, D. J.................................................... 523
Schmid, C. E..................................................... 635
Schwartz, Carol.................................................. 500
Seltzer, Tammy................................................... 612
Smith, Kathy..................................................... 711
Sneed, Raymond................................................... 506
Stickell, R. L................................................... 707
Wagner, A. M..................................................... 313
Warnke, Christine................................................ 723
I N D E X C A T E G O R I E S
----------
District of Columbia Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1999
1. BUDGET FOR FY 1999........................................... iv
2. CONTROL BOARD................................................ vi
3. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.................................... vi
4. PUBLIC SCHOOLS (INCLUDING PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS)............ vi
5. SPECIAL EDUCATION............................................ viii
6. CORRECTIONS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS............................ viii
7. PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURTS..................................... ix
8. PUBLIC WITNESSES............................................. xi
9. APPENDIX..................................................... xii
I N D E X
----------
FY 1999 DC HEARINGS--PART 1
BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1999......................................... 1
Accumulated Deficit.......................................... 2
Attorney Fees for Special Education Cases.................... 89
Budget Development........................................... 6
Chief Financial Officer, Earl C. Cabbell..................... 5
Chief Management Officer, Need for........................... 77
Cities, Reasons People Move from............................. 89
Classrooms Act, Upgrading Computers, 21st Century............ 90
Clerk's Note on FY 1997 Surplus.............................. 10
Clerk's Note regarding statements of Mayor Barry............. 8
Excerpts from hearings:
Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon on May 21, 1991............. 8
Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon on May 27, 1992............. 8
Council Chairman John Wilson......................... 9
Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly on May 11, 1994............. 9
Clerk's Note, Regarding Mayor Barry's remarks on deficit..... 9
Commuter Tax................................................. 3
Commuters, Use of Roads and Highways......................... 28
Consensus Budget, FY 1999....................................10, 11
Contracting Out Costs........................................ 93
Control Board, Overpayment of Top Officials.................. 64
Compensation for Executive Director and General Counsel.. 78
GAO Opinion.............................................. 64
Ignored Law, Not First Time Control Board...............78, 967
Locality Pay for Executive Director and General Counsel.. 77
Outside Counsel Opinion Requested After Decision Made.... 79
Status of Efforts to Correct.............................77, 94
Control Board Error in Projection............................ 1
Corporation Counsel, Increase in Employees................... 93
Corrections Budget, Department of............................ 59
Council's Four Basic Priorities.............................. 24
D.C. Employees Live, Where................................... 62
Davis-Bacon:
Steals from Children..................................... 90
Waiving for School Repairs............................... 4
Deficit:
Accumulated.............................................. 2
Eliminate Accumulated.................................... 10
$335 Million in FY 1994.................................. 8
$62 million in Public Schools............................ 26
Drug and Smoke-Free Zones in Schools......................... 91
Economic Initiatives, New.................................... 27
Employees, 1,330 Increase in Number of in FY 1999............ 92
Employees Who Live in District............................... 87
Error, Control Board Projection.............................. 1
Expenditure Profile.......................................... 58
Financial Management System.................................. 79
On ``Very Close Schedule''............................... 84
Report on................................................ 81
Financial management, Dismal Record.......................... 7
Health System, Federal Take Over of.......................... 6
Infrastructure Needs......................................... 11
Infrastructure Fund, $254 Million Request for................58, 60
Infrastructure Fund, Request for $254 Million................ 27
Management Hearings, Performance............................. 25
Management Improvement, Poor Returns......................... 79
Management Reform for Computers.............................. 84
MCI Center, New.............................................. 10
Medical Malpractice Issues..................................95, 898
Mismanagement, Per Capita Expenditure.......................88, 743
Personnel, Alleged Reduction of 9,000 or 27 Percent.......... 9
Personnel, Reduction in...................................... 59
Philadelphia Residency Requirement........................... 88
Police Department............................................ 7
Residency of New Chief................................... 64
Police Officers Per Capita..............................92, 743
Prepared Statements:
Chairman Andrew F. Brimmer............................... 40
Council Chairman Linda Cropp............................. 29
Mayor Marion Barry....................................... 12
Problems Confronting the District............................ 6
Public Works Projects........................................ 25
Residency Requirement for Employment...................3, 5, 62, 63
Chairman's Position on................................... 64
For Future Hires......................................... 27
Of Current D.C. Employees................................ 62
Of Police Chief.......................................... 64
Of School Superintendent................................. 64
Requirement in Philadelphia.............................. 88
Requirement for Employees............................85, 86, 87
Requirements in Other Cities............................. 63
Revenues, Growth in.......................................... 58
Revitalization Act (Public Law 105-33), Impact of............ 25
Revitalization Act Impact $1 Billion......................... 2
Roads and Bridges............................................ 62
Salaries of Non-Residents, Average........................... 63
Salary Received by Non-Resident Employees.................... 62
School Superintendent, Residency of.......................... 64
School Population and Employees, Disproportionate Increase in92, 93
Schools, $62 Million Deficit, Public......................... 26
Schools, Public.............................................. 7
Schools, Offer to Visit...................................... 90
Services, Municipal.......................................... 8
Special Education............................................ 10
Attorney Fees............................................ 89
Expenditures............................................. 59
Plan..................................................... 89
Rip-Off of 50-Day Rule................................... 94
Transportation Costs..................................... 11
State Assistance to Cities................................... 87
Statements:
Congressman Aderholt..................................... 4
Congressman Cunningham................................... 3
Congressman Moran........................................ 2
Congressman Tiahrt....................................... 4
Council Chairwoman Linda Cropp........................... 24
Control Board Chairman Andrew F. Brimmer................. 58
Mayor Marion Barry....................................... 5
Street Repairs, Deferral of Local Match...................... 11
Surplus for Management Improvement and Deficit Reduction..... 79
Surplus of $186 Million on FY 1997........................... 10
Tax and Regulatory Changes................................... 95
Tax Base Constrained......................................... 7
Tax System, Revamping........................................ 26
Tax Revision Commission...................................... 26
Tax Issues................................................... 29
Tax Revenue ``Common''....................................... 63
Tax Reform and Business Regulatory Relief.................... 3
Tax Relief Reflected in Budget............................... 26
Taxes, Restructuring of...................................... 29
Taxing Non-Resident D.C. Employees........................... 63
Training for Employees....................................... 85
Transportation Problems, Regional............................ 28
Transportation Tax........................................... 88
Water and Sewer Authority Infrastructure..................... 12
Waterfront Issues............................................ 4
Y2K Problem, Funding for..................................... 84
Y2K Projects................................................. 25
CONTROL BOARD...................................................39, 378
Administrative Costs of $44 Million for Corrections........277, 279
Disagreement with Corrections Trustee.................... 278
Memorandum of Understanding Very Clear................... 279
Control Board Error in Projection............................ 1
GAO Review of Control Board's Financial Statements........... 983
Independent Auditor's Report--Problems With Control Board--
Withholding of Documents for Bank Reconciliation........... 1009
Letter to Alice M. Rivlin, Chair, D.C. Control Board, from
Hon. Charles Taylor, concerning GAO's Findings Regarding
Control Board's Financial Statements and Nonresponsiveness
in Providing Certain Information........................... 981
GAO Review of Control Board's Financial Statements....... 983
Opening Statements:
Chairman Andrew F. Brimmer...............................39, 58
Stephen D. Harlan, Control Board.......................378, 382
Overpayment of Top Officials of Control Board................ 64
Compensation for Executive Director and General Counsel.. 78
GAO Opinion.............................................. 64
Ignored Law, Not First Time Control Board...............78, 967
Locality Pay for Executive Director and General Counsel.. 77
Outside Counsel Opinion Requested After Decision Made.... 79
Status of Efforts to Correct Overpayment.................77, 94
Testimony of Congresswoman Constance A. Morella........621, 624
Control Board Exceeded it Authority on Pay........... 621
Violation by Control Board of Congressional Intent:
Documents Reflecting Commitments and Directives Relating
to use of Revitalization Act (PL 105-33) Benefits to
Reduce District's Accumulated Deficit.................. 967
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE:
Opinion on Overpayments to Control Board Staff............... 64
Review of Control Board's Financial Statements............... 983
Prepared Statement of Gloria L. Jarmon, GAO.................. 188
Roof Replacements, $84 Million Available for School...... 188
SCHOOLS, D.C. PUBLIC (INCLUDING PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS).......... 97
Accountability of Charter Schools............................ 185
Adult Basic Education........................................ 208
Anti-Deficiency Execution Action Plan for FY 1998............ 159
Assessments, Special Education, 120 Days Needed for.......... 149
Attorney Fees, Special Education and.........................98, 99
Attorneys, Special Education, Concern Over Advocate.......... 200
Auto Mechanics Program, Charter Schools...................... 209
Bell Multi-Cultural High School.............................. 209
Board Supports Superintendent Ackerman, Elected.............. 201
Board President's Statement, Continuation of................. 171
Boards, Tension Between...................................... 200
Budget Increases, Other...................................... 149
Budget Categories and Comparisons............................ 150
Budget Increases for Public Schools.......................... 141
Budgetary Process in Disarray at Local Level................. 145
Bureaucracy, Bloated Central................................. 150
Charter Board:
Application Review Process............................... 179
Budget Increase.......................................... 178
Process for New Schools.................................. 202
Relationship with Charter Schools........................ 204
Charter Schools:
Accountability........................................... 202
Number of................................................ 178
Legislation, Suggested Changes in........................ 179
Inadequate Funding....................................... 202
Relationship and Problems................................ 140
FY 1999 Budget for....................................... 178
Budget Not Fair.......................................... 99
Hospitality High School.................................. 210
Need Greater Fiscal Accountability....................... 141
Impact When Charter Revoked.............................. 204
Elected Board's Process.................................. 203
Comparison with Public Schools........................... 203
Community Support............................................ 210
Community College System in District Inadequate.............. 207
Conclusion of Superintendent's Statement..................... 150
Davis-Bacon Waiver Would Save 35 Percent in Costs............ 99
Duke Ellington School, Excess Teachers....................... 198
Special Education:
120 Days for assessment and Placement.................... 200
$48,000 Average Cost Per Student......................... 148
Restrictive 50-Day Limit................................. 197
Electrical Power Deregulation................................ 99
Electricity Pilot Program D.C. Schools....................... 100
Enrollment Count, Credibility Problem........................ 148
Facilities, Lease/Purchase Arrangements, New School.......... 205
Gavel made by students at Scripps Elementary................. 214
Increases:
$85 Million for Public Schools..........................97, 148
Increase of $17 Million for Reforms...................... 149
Job Applicants Lack Reading and Writing Skills............... 211
Opening Statements:
Congressman Cunningham................................... 97
Remarks of Congressman Moran............................. 205
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman........................... 146
Josephine C. Baker, Public Charter Board................. 178
Maudine Cooper, Chair of Emergency Transitional Education
Board of Trustees...................................... 139
Wilma Harvey, Board of Education......................... 145
Budgetary Process in Disarray at Local Level......... 145
Gloria L. Jarmon, GAO.................................... 188
Roof Replacements, $84 Million Available, School..... 188
Partnerships, Public/Private................................. 98
Prepared Statements:
Superintendent Arlene Ackerman........................... 150
Josephine C. Baker, Charter School Board................. 180
Accountability of Charter Schools.................... 185
Maudine Cooper, Chair, Transitional Board of Education... 141
Wilma Harvey, School Board President..................... 171
Gloria L. Jarmon, GAO.................................... 188
Principals, Testing of....................................... 202
Procurement Now Centralized.................................. 212
Professional Development and Staffing, Increases for......... 147
Progress During 10-Month Tenure.............................. 146
Promotion Guidelines......................................... 147
Reforms, Increase of $17 Million for......................... 149
Roof Replacement:
Contract with Corps of Engineers......................... 212
Completion in Time for School Openings................... 210
$84 Million Available for Public Schools................. 188
Scholarship Act Favored by D.C. Residents, President Vetoed.. 99
Security Officer in Schools.................................. 213
Special Education:
Need 120 Days for Assessments..........................140, 149
Attorney Fees............................................98, 99
Attorneys, Concern Over Advocate......................... 200
Student-Teacher Ratio......................................199, 204
Summer School, Impact on Crime Reduction..................... 206
Summer School Program for 20,000 Students.................... 147
Teachers Should Not Be Fired, Competent Qualified............ 199
Test Score Improvements...................................... 98
Test Results, Gains in....................................... 147
Transitional Board of Education:
Accomplishments of....................................... 139
Charters Will Continue to Be Awarded..................... 203
Union Resistance............................................. 213
Vocational Education:
Programs for Women....................................... 211
Teachers................................................. 212
Improvements Needed...............................206, 207, 208
SPECIAL EDUCATION................................................ 10
$48,000 Average Cost Per Student............................. 148
Attorneys:
Concern Over Advocate.................................... 200
Fees.................................................89, 98, 99
Expenditures................................................. 59
Need 120 Days for Assessment and Placement............140, 149, 200
Plan......................................................... 89
Restrictive 50-Day Limit..................................... 197
Rip-Off of 50-Day Rule....................................... 94
Transportation Costs......................................... 11
CORRECTIONS AND RELATED FUNCTIONS................................ 215
Administrative Costs of $44 Million, Indirect..............277, 279
Control Board, Disagreement with......................... 278
Letters from Delegate Norton and OMB Director Raines on
$44 Million Requested by District...................... 280
Memorandum of Understanding Very Clear................... 279
Applicants for Hiring, Availability of Qualified............. 276
Audits and Control, Internal................................. 217
Budget:
Amendment for $38 Million..........241, 257, 274, 275, 276, 297
Not Officially Transmitted............................... 274
Offender Trustee's Budget................................ 239
Bureau of Prisons Testimony on Lorton Closing................ 299
Capital Repairs of Lorton Complex............................ 217
Career Transition Center at Lorton........................... 217
Caseload Ratios, $38 Million Budget Amendment to Reduce...... 274
Community Based Organizations, Use of........................ 276
Contract with Virginia and Closure of Occoquan Facility...... 216
Contract Monitoring Program.................................. 218
Control Board, Disagreement with............................. 278
Memorandum of Understanding Very Clear................... 279
Controls, Inadequate Internal................................ 227
Correctional Workforce, Stabilizing.......................... 217
Corrections Employees, Impact on 3,000....................... 226
Corrections Trustee, Responsibilities of..................... 226
Corrections Department, Joint Efforts with................... 227
Crimes and Arrests Involving 30,000 Parolees, Number of...... 284
Crimes Per Year Per Offender on Drugs, 300-500............... 285
Criminal Justice Supervision, 30,000 Individuals Under.....240, 284
Double Counting, Question of................................. 284
Drug Court............................................257, 275, 291
Drug Control and the Courts, Report.......................... 286
Drug Use Reduces Crime, Reducing............................. 289
Drug Offenses, Use of Sanctions for.......................... 289
Drug Sanctions Program, Second Urine Lab Needed For.......... 290
Health Care Delivery System.................................. 217
Information Technology Infrastructure........................ 274
Justice, Amendment Redirects Funding from Department o257, 275, 297
Letters from Delegate Norton and OMB Director Raines on $44
Million Requested by District.............................. 280
Letter to Hon. Charles Taylor from Colin M. Dunham, General
Counsel, The Independent Public Defender Bar Association of
D.C........................................................ 307
Letter to Mr. Migo Miconi from Colin M. Dunham, General
Counsel, The Independent Public Defender Bar Association of
D.C........................................................ 310
Lorton Complex:
Bureau of Prisons Testimony on Lorton Closing............ 299
Capital Repairs at Lorton Complex........................ 217
Career Transition Center at Lorton....................... 217
Progress in Closing...................................... 216
Schedule Adjustments in Closing.......................... 218
Sewer Overflow and Toxic Problems........................ 297
Memorandum of Understanding Very Clear....................... 279
New Prison on National Park Service Land..................... 298
Offender Trustee, Budget Request for......................... 239
Opening Statements:
John A. Carver, Trustee.................................. 239
John L. Clark, Corrections Trustee....................... 226
Margaret A. Moore........................................ 215
Parolees:
Number of Convictions Per................................ 240
Arrest Record for........................................ 240
Inadequate Supervision and Lack of Sanctions............. 241
Prepared Statements:
John A. Carver, Trustee.................................. 257
John L. Clark, Corrections Trustee....................... 227
Kathleen M. Hawk, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons.... 299
Jo-Ann Wallace, Director of Public Defender Service...... 301
Margaret A. Moore, Director.............................. 218
Prisoners:
Reduction in Number of................................... 226
Housing in Virginia...................................... 297
Private Sector Beds, 2,000 Prisoners to...................... 216
Privately-Operated Facility in D.C., Council Favors New...... 299
Safety, Opportunity to ``Enhance'', Public................... 257
Sanctions Center............................................. 274
Sanctions Program, Experience with Offenders in.............. 297
Strategic Plan Development................................... 218
Study: Drug Control and the Courts........................... 286
Valparaiso University Law Review, A Theory of Prevention..... 294
Youngstown, Ohio Facility, Problems and Concerns............. 299
PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURTS......................................... 313
Accountability for Getting Things Done, Lack of.............. 334
Administrative Leave, Too Many Officers on................... 335
Agreement of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council....... 402
Alcohol-Free July 4th........................................ 375
Arrests and Booking, Reduction in Time and Paperwork......... 380
Arson Cases, Closure Rate.................................... 355
Attorneys for Indigents, Increase in Fees.................... 408
Bicycle Patrols.............................................. 333
Budget:
Capital Budget........................................... 356
D.C. Courts.............................................. 407
Fire Department.......................................... 354
FY 1999.................................................. 471
Increases................................................ 332
Building Inspections, Increase In............................ 355
Capital Budget............................................... 356
Cars Take Home, Law Ignored.................................. 484
Change, Resistance to........................................ 488
Citizen Complaint Process.................................... 380
Civilians, Increase of 100................................... 332
College Requirement for New Recruits......................... 333
Commonsense Approach......................................... 482
Community Outreach Program................................... 354
Community Policing........................................... 380
Control Board................................................ 378
Courts, District of Columbia................................. 407
Courts, General Jurisdiction................................. 408
Crime Rate................................................... 378
Crimes, Quality-of-Life...................................... 375
Criminal Justice Pilot Program............................... 379
Demonstrations Annually, 6,000............................... 377
Department, Too Few Police Carrying the...................... 486
Desk Jobs, Too Many Uniformed Officers in.................... 486
Drug Interdiction............................................ 375
Drug Arrests................................................. 376
Drug Markets, Open-air....................................... 379
Drug Court, Juvenile......................................... 481
Education and Training Neglected............................. 334
Environmental Crime.......................................... 376
Equipment Shortfalls......................................... 378
Federal Grant, Difficulty Spending, $15 Million.............. 333
Field Communications and Technology.......................... 381
Fire Department.............................................. 354
Fire Fighters Pay Raise...................................... 489
Helicopter Aviation Unit, Park Police......................376, 377
Availability for D.C. Police............................. 483
Costs Associated with D.C. Work.......................... 487
Flights in District, Impact of Commercial................ 490
Homicides, Closure Rates Improved............................ 381
Informational Systems Technology Plan........................ 356
Infrastructure Allowed to Deteriorate........................ 381
Management Responsible....................................... 356
Mayor's Security Detail...................................... 489
Medical Calls, Hook and Ladder Trucks Used for............... 489
Officer Strength, Park Police................................ 377
Officers on Street, Number of................................ 483
Opening Statements:
Chief Robert E. Langston, U.S. Park Police............... 363
Stephen D. Harlan, Control Board......................... 378
Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner............................. 407
Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton.............................. 462
Overtime Costs of $18 Million................................ 487
Park Police.................................................. 363
Park Police, Background of................................... 375
Personnel, Critical Needs.................................... 376
Personnel..................................................376, 377
Physical Fitness Standards................................... 482
Police Department............................................ 313
Budget Request for Metropolitan Police Department............ 313
Police Officers Back on Street, Need to Put.................. 333
Police Performance and Physical Standards.................... 334
Police Facilities Neglected for Years........................ 335
Police Officers, Outside Employment by....................... 335
Police Presence on Streets and Depoliticizing Department..... 379
Police Health Clinic, Privatized............................. 379
Police Officers, Better Training to Get Officers............. 380
Police Officer in North Carolina, Recent Death of............ 481
Prepared Statements:
Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey........................... 313
Fire Chief Donald Edwards................................ 356
Stephen D. Harlan, Control Board......................... 382
Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton.............................. 462
Chief Judge Annice M. Wagner............................. 409
Superior Court Overview.............................. 426
Court System Overview................................ 443
Items in the D.C. Courts' FY 99 Budget Request That
Were Not Supported by the President................ 454
Recruitment, Serious Concerns................................ 332
Recruitment of Police Chief Charles Ramsey................... 379
Residency Requirement for Police Officers..................483, 485
Security System.............................................. 408
Street Roll Calls............................................ 333
Sworn Officers, No Increase Request 3,600.................... 332
Technology, Adequate Training Required....................... 334
Technology and Y2K........................................... 408
Technology, Coordinated Case Management System............... 481
Terrorist Incidents, Special Operations Division............. 355
U.S. Attorney, Use of Police Officers........................ 380
Vest and Equipment for Police Officers....................... 482
PUBLIC WITNESSES................................................. 493
Boy Scouts Learning for Life Program......................... 641
Statements:
Dr. Patricia McCrimmon, Principal, Neval Thomas
Elementary School.................................. 641
Shirley Jones, Teacher, Kenilworth Elementary School. 641
Prepared Statement:
Dr. Patricia McCrimmon, Principal, Neval Thomas
Elementary School.................................. 644
Shirley Jones, Teacher, Kenilworth Elementary School. 646
Boys Town USA-Homeless Youth (Father Val Peter).............. 517
Boys Town Facility in D.C................................ 517
Boys Town USA is Nondenominational....................... 518
Statement of Father Val Peter..........................517, 518
Story of 9-Year Old Boy.................................. 518
Budget for FY 1999 (Council Member David A. Catania)......... 493
Prepared Statement of David A. Catania................... 495
Budget for FY 1999 (Council Member Carol Schwartz)........... 500
Prepared Statement of Carol Schwartz..................... 501
Commission for Women (Christine Warnke)...................... 723
Community-Based Housing for Mentally Ill Residents........... 648
Prepared Statement of Cornerstone, Inc................... 648
Statement of Lisa Hawkins, Cornerstone, Inc.............. 674
Control Board Staff Salaries and Legislative Riders
(Congresswoman Constance A. Morella........................ 620
Adoptions Pay Certain Unmarried Couples, Prohibiting..... 622
Control Board Exceeded it Authority on Pay............... 621
Legislative Restrictions, Other.......................... 622
Needle Exchange Program.................................. 623
Prepared Statement of Congresswoman Constance A. Morella. 624
Residency Requirement for Employment...................621, 623
Statement of Congresswoman Constance A. Morella.......... 621
D.C. Black Church Initiative................................. 679
Prepared Statement of Rev. Anthony Evans, Christ Living
Ministry............................................... 682
Statement of Rev. Anthony Evans, Christ Living Ministry.. 679
Domestic Partnership; Needle Exchange; and Prohibition on
Unmarried Couples Adopting Children (Carl E. Schmid)....... 635
Prepared Statement of Carl E. Schmid..................... 637
Statement of Carl E. Schmid, Capital Area Log Cabin Club. 635
Fire Department (Raymond Sneed).............................. 506
Clarification of Information............................. 507
Deficiencies, Massive.................................... 506
Fire House, Leaky Roofs on............................... 507
Pay Parity with Police Officers.......................... 507
Procurement Problems..................................... 507
Statement of Raymond Sneed............................... 508
Training Academy Condemned............................... 506
The Historical Society of Washington, D.C.................... 711
Statement of Monica Scott Beckham, Vice President, Board
of Trustees of The Historical Society of Washington,
D.C.................................................... 711
Prepared Statement of Monica Scott Beckham, Vice
President, Board of Trustees of The Historical Society
of Washington, D.C..................................... 713
Homeless..................................................... 691
Prepared Statement of Dr. Edward J. Eyring............... 693
Statement of Dr. Edward J. Eyring........................ 691
Municipal Fish Wharf......................................... 698
Prepared Statements:
T. Rodney Oppmann.................................... 698
Robert L. Stickell, President, The Washington Marina
Company............................................ 707
Statements:
T. Rodney Oppmann.................................... 705
Robert L. Stickell, President, The Washington Marina
Company............................................ 707
Policy Decisions and Funding Levels (David J. Schlein)....... 523
Statement of David J. Schlein............................ 523
Vision for the District of Columbia.................. 533
Consultants Assessments:
FGE Response to.................................. 548
City Departments' Response to.................... 555
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.................. 566
Emergency Medical Services....................... 555
Employment Services.............................. 559
Health........................................... 578
Housing and Community Development................ 583
Personnel Management Function.................... 589
Public Works..................................... 570
Prepared Statements 722
George W. Brown--Small Business Incubator Program........ 732
Mary Filardo, Director of the 21st Century School fund... 727
Christine Warnke, Chairperson, D.C. Commission for Women. 723
Public Schools Budget (Mary Levy)............................ 603
Budget for FY 1999....................................... 604
Court suit to Get Financial Information, Need to File.... 604
Prepared Statement of Mary Levy.......................... 605
Statement of Mary Levy................................... 603
Public School Facilities (Mary Filardo)...................... 727
Small Business Incubator Program (George W. Brown)........... 732
Special Education (Tammy Seltzer)............................ 612
Background of Special Education Coalition................ 612
Prepared Statement of Tammy Seltzer...................... 613
Statement of Tammy Seltzer............................... 619
Tenant Assistance Program (TAP).............................. 675
Prepared Statement of John L. Robinson, Jr............... 676
Statement of John L. Robinson, Jr........................ 675
APPENDIX......................................................... 742
Report by the Greater Washington Research Center entitled
``The Necessity and Costs of District of Columbia
Services'' (per capita costs).............................. 743
Report by the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority entitled ``1999 Report to Congress--
Medical Malpractice........................................ 898
Violation by Control Board of Congressional Intent:
Documents Reflecting Commitments and Directives Relating
to use of Revitalization Act (PL 105-33) Benefits to
Reduce District's Accumulated Deficit.................. 967
Letter to Alice M. Rivlin, Chair, D.C. Control Board, from
Hon. Charles Taylor, concerning GAO's Findings Regarding
Control Board's Financial Statements and Nonresponsiveness
in Providing Certain Information........................... 981
GAO Review of Control Board's Financial Statements....... 983
Independent Auditor's Report--Problems With Control Board--
Withholding of Documents for Bank Reconciliation........... 1009