    [Senate Hearing 105-345]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 105-345

       FIGHTING CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: CAPITAL
                           PUNISHMENT AS A DETERRENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF

                     GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING,

                          AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 30, 1997

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     40-459 cc                   WASHINGTON : 1998
    _______________________________________________________________________
               For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
    WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware       JOHN GLENN, Ohio
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
    DON NICKLES, Oklahoma                MAX CLELAND, Georgia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
                 Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
                     Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff Director
                        Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk

                                     ------

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
                            THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                        SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
    WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware       JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          MAX CLELAND, Georgia
                            Ron Utt, Staff Director
          Laurie Rubenstein, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                          Esmeralda Amos, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Brownback............................................     1
        Senator Lieberman............................................     3
        Senator Cleland..............................................     4

                                   WITNESSES
                           Wednesday, April 30, 1997

    Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas     5
    Tracie Gibson, Widow of District of Columbia Officer Brian Gibson     7
    Stephen D. Harlan, Vice Chairman, District of Columbia Financial
      Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.............    11
    Gary Mather, Senior Vice President, Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.
      accompanied by James Stewart, Principal, Booz-Allen and
      Hamilton, Inc..................................................    14
    Larry D. Soulsby, Chief of Police, District of Columbia Police
      Department.....................................................    16
    Hon. Eugene N. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the
      District of Columbia...........................................    18
    Robert Moffit, Deputy Director for Domestic Policy Studies, The
      Heritage Foundation............................................    29
    C. Stephen Wallis, Washington, D.C. Area School Administrator....    31
    Carol Schwartz, District of Columbia City Council Member.........    37
    Rev. H. Beecher Hicks, Jr., Senior Minister, Metropolitan Baptist
      Church.........................................................    39

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Gibson, Tracie:
        Testimony....................................................     7
    Hamilton, Hon. Eugene N.:
        Testimony....................................................    18
        Prepared statement with attachments..........................    89
    Harlan, Stephen D.:
        Testimony....................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    50
    Hicks, Rev. H. Beecher, Jr.:
        Testimony....................................................    39
        Prepared statement...........................................   156
    Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Mather, Gary:
        Testimony....................................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    61
    Moffit, Robert:
        Testimony....................................................    29
        Prepared statement...........................................   125
    Schwartz, Carol:
        Testimony....................................................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................   153
    Soulsby, Larry D.:
        Testimony....................................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
    Wallis, C. Stephen:
        Testimony....................................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................   149

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements of witnesses in order of appearance..........    47
    Article in The Washington Post,'' by Stephen D. Harlan, dated
      April 27, 1997, page C07, entitled ``We Can Cut Crime.''.......    58
    Senator Paul Strauss, Shadow U.S. Senator elected by the Voters
      of the District of Columbia, prepared statement................   161
    Senator Florence Howard Pendleton, U.S. Senator/ns District of
      Columbia, prepared statement...................................   166

                       FIGHTING CRIME AND VIOLENCE IN THE
                         DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: CAPITAL
                           PUNISHMENT AS A DETERRENT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1997

                                           U.S. Senate,
           Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
                           and the District of Columbia Subcommittee,
                              of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam
    Brownback, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Brownback, Lieberman, and Cleland.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWNBACK

        Senator Brownback. We will go ahead and start this hearing.
    It is the fourth in our series of oversight hearings on how
    Congress can effectively work with the District of Columbia to
    help solve some of the major problems facing our Nation's city,
    Washington, DC.
        I would like to start this hearing off, if I could,
    recognizing a terrible tragedy that has taken place in this
    city with the death of three police officers this year in the
    District of Columbia, which I hope causes us all to pause and
    to think just what has happened here, of what has occurred. We
    will hear testimony from Ms. Gibson, her husband of course
    involved in one of those tragedies earlier this year.
        But I would hope we could just pause and reflect and think
    about these three officers killed in the line of duty. Officer
    Brian Gibson, survived by his wife, Tracie Gibson, who has
    joined us here today, with her two children, Brian Gibson, aged
    14 months, and Ashley Gibson, aged 11 years old. Officer Oliver
    Wendell Smith, survived by his wife, Shandra Smith, and Oliver
    Wendell Smith, II, 5 years old. Officer Robert Johnson, Jr.,
    survived by his wife Yvette, Robert Johnson, III, 4 years old,
    and Ryir Johnson, 5 months old. Of course, he was just killed
    over the weekend in a terrible incident that took place that I
    hope we will hear some more about.
        I hope everybody in the crowd would be willing to join me
    in a moment of silence and, for people of faith, if they would
    join me in a moment of silent prayer for these three patriots
    of our country that have fallen in the line of duty.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Brownback. Thank you.
        This is perhaps the District's most serious problem--
    exceptionally high crime rate--that has cost hundreds of
    citizens their lives, the three police officers that we just
    recognized, two of which were people that were actually pursued
    by criminals that went after them to shoot them, and to do them
    harm, and to kill them. We have had a crime wave in this city
    that has affected thousands of residents and businesses, that
    have fled the city, further weakening the city's economy and
    financial well-being.
        I have to tell you, on another personal note, that three of
    my staff members have been victimized, two of them burglarized
    and one a car broken into, during this past year in Washington,
    DC.
        Now I do take heart in some of the impressive recent
    actions that happened by the Control Board and what they have
    stepped in with, and their partners in the Memorandum of
    Understanding that has occurred. Still, you look at the overall
    factual situation of crime in the District of Columbia since
    1985, homicides have risen 169 percent, robberies up 50
    percent, and auto theft by a staggering 500 percent.
        I hope and pray we are at the Nation's high water mark for
    the amount of violent crime taking place in our country and in
    our Nation's capital because it hurts our citizens, and it
    hurts our schools, it hurts our communities unbelievably.
        I am heartened by some of the initiatives undertaken by
    mayors like Mayor Guiliani of New York City. We are now seeing
    a recent example of very successful urban crime fighting that
    has proven results as Mr. Harlan noted in a recent op-ed piece,
    New York City has reduced major crime by 39 percent since 1993
    and homicides have been cut in half.
        There has been a successful implementation of the District
    partnership in a Memorandum of Understanding. There has been
    some immediate and decisive action that has happened in the
    District of Columbia which I am very pleased to see. They have
    targeted high crime neighborhoods, and put an additional 400
    police officers on the streets. The results have been equally
    swift and decisive. March arrests are up 72 percent. Some
    measures indicate that crime rates are falling.
        This is a good start, but much more needs to be done.
        Today we will be looking at additional steps that can
    dramatically reduce the District's crime rate, including an
    increase in the penalties for committing crime--particularly
    crime towards police officers.
        I have to pause once again. This is almost unimaginable to
    me, that people would go out and actually pursue police
    officers to do them harm, to kill police officers. What has
    happened in this society that we actually have that occurring--
    and in our Nation's capital. We have got to take decisive
    action to move forward on that. I hope the city does. We will
    be hearing from the city about that.
        The first panel of witnesses have such a proposal in front
    of us, I wanted to have them here to speak to us on the Officer
    Brian Gibson District of Columbia Police Protection Act. We
    will also hear from other members of the City Council and from
    the Police Department. But I hope we pause and we thank the
    people that have served and we ask, What can we do now?
        I would like to turn it over for an opening statement from
    Senator Lieberman, the ranking minority, who has an equal
    passion and care for what is happening here, as well. Senator
    Lieberman.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

        Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks and
    congratulations to you on the leadership that you have shown
    through this Subcommittee in trying to focus the attention of
    the Senate and Congress more generally on the problems of the
    Nation's capital in a way that is constructive, that is open to
    new ideas in responding to these problems, and, most of all,
    that tries to build a sense of partnership with the people who
    live in and govern, and in this case, police our Nation's
    capital, to see if together we cannot make all of this better.
        As you indicated, the numbers here on crime, except for the
    recent statistics, are not good. We all have an interest, those
    who live here permanently and those of us who live here part of
    the time, in seeing those numbers improve. From 1985 to 1996
    homicides in the District rose 169 percent. Robbery increased
    by 50 percent. Assaults were up 39 percent, and motor vehicle
    theft skyrocketed by 490 percent.
        Mr. Chairman, for too long residents of too many of the
    District's neighborhoods have lived in fear. And for too long,
    these residents have watched that crime rate rise, even as it
    has decreased in most of the Nation's other major cities.
    Something has happened to many people here in the District to
    cut them from the ties that bind most of the people of the
    District--and most of the people throughout the country--
    together in a sense of community and shared values.
        To me nothing demonstrates this problem more than the
    disproportionate, devastating rate with which this city has
    watched its police officers targeted and senselessly murdered.
    Since late 1994, eight D.C. law enforcement officers have been
    slain. That is a number that is so riveting that the beginning
    of a response to it is just the moment of silent prayer that
    you called for, Mr. Chairman, and then the continuation has to
    be a collective cry to stop this from occurring.
        To say the obvious--and maybe I am getting to a point where
    I am old-fashioned--but we must never lose the sense that we
    are all together in this, that the police officers are
    representing us, that every morning that a police officer puts
    on his uniform as Officer Gibson did, that officer is going out
    to represent us. He or she is protecting us.
        The idea that someone would turn on them use to be
    unthinkable. But for too many people, the police officer has
    become them as against their ``us.'' The truth is, we are all
    together, and we have got to revive that fundamental sense that
    the laws are adopted to protect all of us, that police officers
    are sent out there every day to do a job for us. And when they
    are assaulted or murdered, it is as if we have been assaulted
    and part of us has been murdered.
        That is why we cry out with the kind of anger that people
    in the District have, that those of us who live here have, live
    here as Members of Congress, and why I understand very well the
    feelings that motivate Senator Hutchison in bringing this
    legislation before us today.
        So we look forward to hearing her testimony, and I thank
    Ms. Gibson for her courage in honoring her husband's memory by
    coming forward and speaking to us from her heart and her own
    history and experience. I look forward to the witnesses who
    will discuss the recent Booz-Allen report, which made some very
    bold suggestions about how to improve law enforcement here in
    the District.
        The recent statistics, as the Chairman indicated, have been
    encouraging. That is for a 5- or 6-week period most recently
    reviewed. Our hope and prayer is that we stick with this and we
    hang in there and that we, in Congress, give you as much
    support as we can to make this happen.
        I note with some admiration the statement made by Senator
    Faircloth earlier in the week about his own willingness to
    support a significant increase in the compensation for District
    police officers, as a way not just to express our fair
    gratitude and express it with fair compensation, but also to
    hopefully build the kind of morale and the continuation of
    service here by officers, too many of whom have gone on to
    other police departments where the pay is higher.
        This is an important afternoon for the District of
    Columbia. It is also very important for Congress. And because
    this is America's city, it is important for our whole country.
    So I look forward to the testimony and thank all of you who
    have taken time to be with us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Senator
    Cleland.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLELAND

        Senator Cleland. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
    much. I would like to make an opening statement.
        It is a pleasure to be with you here. I am sorry it has to
    be on the subject of crime that has taken the toll of the lives
    of actual people. As someone who has worn the uniform in the
    military, I can say to you that it is not fun being a target. I
    think more and more of our law enforcement officers around the
    Nation feel that they are.
        Ms. Gibson, we are delighted to see you here and maybe
    something positive can arise out of this tragedy. Senator
    Hutchison, nice to see you, and nice to be with all of you.
        I have no magic answer for solving crime in the country or
    in D.C. I will say that, as a State Senator in my home State in
    the early 1970's, I supported the death penalty and still do. I
    support the death penalty for killing of police officers.
        I think the question of crime is probably a lot deeper than
    that. I notice that with testimony that will be delivered to us
    later today, I do not want to steal anybody's thunder, but the
    Heritage Foundation indicates that between 1988 and 1992, one-
    fifth of all persons arrested for killing a police officer were
    on probation or parole at the time of the offense. So I think
    we have to look at our parole policies, and probation policies.
        I also note that the recent New York Times article said
    that a group of criminologists at the University of Maryland
    reported to Congress, after evaluating the effectiveness of
    various crime prevention programs, they found that many popular
    approaches to crime, including expanded prison construction,
    have had little impact in reducing crime, that most Federal
    programs have been undertaken with minimal evaluation.
        It did indicate some promising results from programs such
    as intensified police patrols--which has been recommended by
    more than just that group, intensified police patrols in high
    crime areas; drug treatment programs in prisons; and early
    intervention on behalf of infants in troubled families.
        I would just say, Mr. Chairman, there are some good
    testimony to be offered today before this Subcommittee. I have
    read some of it. We just appreciate you convening this group
    and this Subcommittee, so hopefully the actions that we take
    can mitigate crime not only in D.C. but around the country, and
    that hopefully we can find some links between criminal behavior
    and the killing of police officers that hopefully will save the
    lives of police officers in the future.
        Thank you for your testimony today and we thank you for the
    time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Senator Cleland. Senator Kay
    Bailey Hutchison, thank you for your interest in this topic,
    and the floor is yours.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR
                        FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you for calling this hearing because I think it is important
    that we do everything that we can to protect the police
    officers who put their lives on the line for all of us every
    day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison appears in the
    Appendix on page 47.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After the senseless tragedy in February that cost Officer
    Brian Gibson his life, I introduced this bill and named it in
    his honor, the ``Officer Brian Gibson District of Columbia
    Police Protection Act.'' I introduced this bill because I
    believe it is of utmost urgency that we let the officers know
    that they are going to have every protection that we can give
    them.
        Right now 38 States have the death penalty. Virginia has
    it. Maryland has it. The Capitol Police Corps has it. The only
    people in this entire area who do not have the protection of
    the death penalty for an assailant are the District of Columbia
    police officers. I do not think that is right. I think it is an
    inequity that must be changed.
        I want to read to you, just briefly, the circumstances of
    the three police officers who have been killed since February
    of this year. Brian Gibson was in his patrol car in uniform.
    The killer had been bounced from a bar by an off-duty
    policeman. He walked up to Mr. Gibson's patrol car and shot him
    in the head in cold blood.
        D.C. Officer Wendell Smith was killed at his home in Prince
    George's County, Maryland in February. He was in civilian
    clothes. His murderer was laying in wait and killed him as he
    got out of his car.
        D.C. Officer Robert Johnson, who was killed just last
    Saturday, was waiting outside the police station with another
    officer after work. The officers identified themselves to the
    murderer as policemen. The murderer then attacked both of them,
    killing Mr. Johnson and injuring the other officer.
        My point, Mr. Chairman, is that none of these three
    officers were killed in a crime of passion. These were
    premeditated murders of people because they were police
    officers. Now I think if you can ever make the argument that a
    death penalty is a deterrent, it is in a case where someone is
    assailed in cold blood just because he is a police officer.
    That is why I think it is so important that we look at this
    protection for our D.C. officers.
        Now I think that the other point that we must make about
    this bill is that there is a disagreement about whether it
    should be Congress that does this. I talked to the Mayor of the
    District of Columbia and to Council Member Schwartz about this
    issue. They believe, as I would expect them to, that they
    should have the right to do this.
        I agreed to step back. I want to go forward with the
    process so that I will not lose the ability to do this if the
    District does not act first. But I will give them the
    opportunity to act first. I am happy to do that.
        But if they are not able to do it in the next couple of
    months, before they go out of session in the summer, I do
    believe it is our responsibility as Congress, as it was given
    to us specifically in the Constitution, to make sure that this
    city functions and that we have a safe city for the people who
    live here, and for all Americans. This is our capital city. It
    belongs to all of us. We fund part of it as well, and it is
    only a minor part of our responsibility that we would make sure
    that this city runs well.
        That is why I am joining with others to increase the
    District officers' pay. I think that is another step that we
    must take. I questioned the Chief very closely about whether
    the officers have the bullet proof vests that they needed and
    whether they have the cars in operating condition. I think we
    have got to assure that they have all of the protections,
    including the death penalty for someone who would shoot them in
    cold blood, as the last three officers have been murdered.
        So I am willing to work with the District in every way. I
    applaud the Mayor and Ms. Schwartz for coming forward and
    agreeing with me on the merits of this bill, though not
    agreeing that it should be Congress' prerogative. Nevertheless,
    I believe the buck stops with us.
        So, if the District is not able to act, I think it is our
    responsibility to give these officers the protections that they
    so richly deserve. Furthermore, it will be in all of our best
    interest because public safety will be better if they do have
    those protections.
        I truly believe, in my heart, that some of these officers
    would not have been killed if someone had known that they would
    face the death penalty. That is why I am going to pursue this
    from my heart.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am most pleased that, since I
    have named this bill in honor of Officer Gibson, that his widow
    is with us today to also provide testimony for the record.
        Just as a personal aside, I want to say that I watched this
    whole process after the killing of Officer Gibson, and I was
    moved by the dignity that Tracie Gibson showed. She was
    poignant in her grief, and I think that she has shown much
    courage and much commitment to be with us today to show her
    support so that no other woman or man in this city will ever
    have to face what she did.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison,
    and for your interest in this issue.
        Ms. Gibson, I do not know if anybody could have introduced
    you any better than what Senator Hutchison did, nor think of
    you any higher. Thank you for your courage and your willingness
    to be here in front of us today. The floor is yours.

       TESTIMONY OF TRACIE GIBSON, WIDOW OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                          OFFICER BRIAN GIBSON

        Ms. Gibson. I would first like to thank, from the family,
    Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for introducing the bill in my
    husband's name. I would like to thank you.
        My name is Tracie Gibson. On February 5, 1997, the date of
    my fourth wedding anniversary, will forever be etched in my
    mind as one of the worst days of my life and the life of my
    family and my friends. When my husband left for work on the
    evening of February 4, nothing could have prepared me for that
    dreadful awakening that I was to receive at 3 a.m. that
    morning.
        My husband, Master Patrol Officer Brian Theodore Anderson
    Gibson, and I had laid out plans for our future and the future
    of our two daughters and our other plans for other kids. These
    plans will never be realized. My life and the life of my family
    members were traumatized to the extent that I doubt that we
    will ever be the same.
        His parents were left without their son, his sister without
    her only brother, his daughters without their father, and me
    without my husband. My youngest child will never know the love
    that her father had for her. She will only know what we tell
    her about her dad. Our oldest daughter will continue special
    counseling until it is felt that she can again function day-to-
    day in a normal fashion.
        Life is precious and each and every human is entitled to
    live his or her life to the extent that is granted by God. No
    human should be murdered the way that Brian was murdered. He
    was doing the job that he had dreamed of doing and he was an
    outstanding officer. He exhibited pride and honor in his chosen
    career.
        My husband realized that his job was hazardous and
    dangerous. However, he was doing what he wanted to do in life.
    He was proud of the protection that he was providing to the
    citizens of this city. His family and friends were also very
    proud of him.
        Any human found guilty of murder in the first degree must
    face the death penalty, especially if the murder caused the
    death of a public servant who is providing protection for the
    citizens of any municipality.
        I cannot understand how citizens could feel that one public
    servant's life carries more importance than another public
    servant's life. Had my husband been a Federal officer murdered
    on the exact same street that Brian was murdered on, we would
    not be here today asking that justice be done in that instance,
    and in two similar instances since Brian was murdered.
        No one should feel that he or she can walk up to another
    human being, take his or her life, and feel that there is a
    possibility to walk the streets as a free person again. There
    is something that is not human about this current process.
        A message must be sent that there is a price and a penalty
    to be paid when you take a person's life and that victims are
    indeed given consideration when preyed upon by criminals.
        I thank you for offering me this opportunity and time to
    express some of my feelings as I attempt to go on from here
    with what is left in my life. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Ms. Gibson.
        Senator Hutchison, I have supported the death penalty in
    the most heinous of crimes and I certainly consider it to be
    applicable in this situation, where police officers would be
    stalked and hunted by others in this society. But I have to
    back up and just wonder, what is going on when over a period of
    4 months in our Nation's capital, if the allegations are
    accurate and it certainly seems like the factual basis is very
    strong, three known police officers defending the rest of us
    were stalked and hunted down for representing the safety of the
    rest of us.
        What is going on here that would cause that sort of
    mentality?
        Senator Hutchison. I think that is what makes this the most
    heinous of crimes. You know, it is one thing when there is a
    shoot-out where there is a crime of passion. But these were
    cold-blooded, premeditated murders. I think that does make us
    pause, and I think it means that we must address the issue that
    someone would be so cavalier that they would, in a cold-blooded
    way, murder police officers because they are police officers.
        I think that it means we have got to address that issue.
    And I think the fact that there is the death penalty in every
    other part of this area, and that only the D.C. police officers
    are in this situation, adds to the urgency that I have to make
    sure that they have the protection. You do not see this kind of
    statistic with the Capitol Police, who have this protection; or
    in the near areas of Virginia or Maryland. It is something that
    I think we must address and it is why I am pursuing this after
    the District has its opportunity.
        I am going to go right up through the process, until we can
    go to the Senate floor, if this Subcommittee will vote out the
    bill. I do not want to lose my rights and my time, although I
    will defer to the District if they would like to move forward
    first. But I do not think we can leave these people hanging out
    there without their protection. It is not right and it is an
    abrogation of our responsibility.
        Senator Brownback. So you would like to see us vote this
    bill on forward and keep it moving forward in a timely fashion,
    even though you are willing to agree to some time frame for the
    District itself to decide? Have you articulated a time frame
    that you would like to see the District of Columbia act by?
        Senator Hutchison. I believe if the District turns this
    bill down sometime between now and July, when they go on their
    summer recess, then I want to be able to act immediately to go
    forward on this bill. If they are still in the process right up
    until July 5 or July 6, or whenever they go out, and they have
    not acted at that time, then I want to pursue this bill with
    great urgency.
        I do want to give them a reasonable amount of time, and
    they certainly have been on notice of what I wanted to do since
    February. I will give them that deference. But after that, I
    think our responsibility takes precedence. And it is our
    responsibility to assure that this city runs and I want to work
    with the city in every possible way.
        But I think the fact that the Mayor and Council Member
    Schwartz at least are sponsoring this, shows that they, too,
    see that this is something that is just right. And I hope that
    we can come together, if they are not able to do it at the
    District level, and move forward.
        Senator Brownback. Ms. Gibson, do you have any thoughts on
    this, whether it should be done in the Senate or the City
    Council?
        Ms. Gibson. No, I think that the Council should be given
    the opportunity and it depends on what they do with that
    opportunity, but I agree with the Senator.
        Senator Brownback. Good. Senator Lieberman
        Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Your question to Senator Hutchison, of course, is just at
    the heart of it all, your first question, which is why would
    people do this? I tell you, we had a hearing a week or so ago
    about the District's school system. Just before that hearing,
    tragically, there was an incident with sexual activity among
    kids in the third and fourth grade.
        And I think we both had the sense that this is a sign of
    accumulation of the many ways in which we are victimizing our
    children and that, in some measure, it is just civilization
    hitting the bottom. I think that happens when a police officer
    is targeted, too, because a police officer is the symbol of
    authority.
        And as you pointed out, Senator Hutchison, we are not
    talking here about a police officer in pursuit or a crime of
    passion. These murders, in some measure, were assassinations.
    These were intentional acts of murder directed against
    individuals either because they were police officers, in the
    case of Officer Gibson, or knowing that they were police
    officers. That is why we all, in some sense, have become numb
    to crime.
        I have a neighbor at home in Connecticut who said if this
    many people were killed by a foreign enemy, we would be on the
    verge of dropping nuclear weapons on them. It would be that
    devastating to us. And yet in some sense, because this happens
    day after day throughout our country, we get numb to it.
        What we are saying here, because of the extremity of these
    acts against police officers, that it stuns us and it stuns us
    in a way that all other crimes should, but this one really
    stuns us so we try to react.
        Incidentally, as far as my staff can determine, the numbers
    here for these intentional murders of police officers are not
    approached by any other major city in the country. There are
    other cases where police officers have been killed, in the last
    decade--nowhere near this number because they were a police
    officer.
        Senator Hutchison, let me just clarify----
        Senator Hutchison. Senator Lieberman, I really want to just
    reinforce what you said. They are assassinations, and that is
    what makes them so much more unbelievable.
        Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Let me clarify, and I am sure
    you believe this, your hesitancy about moving forward now has
    nothing to do with a concern about the legal authority of
    Congress to adopt the proposal you are making? It is your own
    sense of, if you will, comity or deference to the District, to
    give the District Government an opportunity to do this first?
        Senator Hutchison. That is exactly right, Senator. I think
    Congress has the absolute power. I think there is no question
    that it does. The framers of our Constitution wanted the
    capital city to be everyone's city. They wanted it to be
    America's city and they gave Congress the authority to make
    sure that it runs.
        Congress has granted home rule and therefore I want to give
    the Council every opportunity. But like every city has a State
    that sometimes the city does not agree with, we have much the
    same relationship. We are the State to the city and I think the
    city has some legitimate grievances against us, the State. But
    we also have some responsibilities that we must meet.
        So, I think we need to work together in everyone's best
    interest and only because I would like to give the city the
    opportunity to exercise home rule in this instance, I am going
    to step back. But I absolutely will not wait beyond that first
    part of July to move forward if it is not the will of the
    Council to do so.
        Senator Lieberman. I agree with you, and the analogy to the
    State is a good one, particularly now because we do have the
    Federal Government, in various forms, coming forward with
    reform proposals to assume some of the financial
    responsibilities that States have normally assumed for local
    city Governments which the Federal Government has not fully
    assumed previously for the District.
        Ms. Gibson, let me just ask you one question. Again, you
    are a very strong woman, and it gives us a sense of what your
    husband was like, although I did not have the honor to know
    him. He was a hero.
        We are going to hear from a lot of experts for the rest of
    the afternoon on ideas for what we might do to help to improve
    the quality of law enforcement and safety of citizens here in
    the District. You live here in the District. You have lived--
    your husband was a police officer.
        If you want to now, or if you want to later by submitting
    something in writing, I am interested just to see whether you
    would have any thoughts for us as to what Congress or the
    District Government might do to protect police officers and
    improve the safety of residents in the District.
        Ms. Gibson. Well, one thing that comes to mind is to make
    sure that every police officer has all of the equipment that
    they are supposed to have, at a minimum, all the support. I do
    not think that they should have to reach back for anything. I
    think that everything should be right there at their
    fingertips.
        Definitely, the pay increase would help the morale, I would
    think. There are a few other things, and I would not mind
    putting them in writing, but something like the death penalty
    bill, I think, would make the officers feel as if they have the
    support there from the Council and the Senate.
        I have a few other things----
        Senator Lieberman. That is a very helpful answer and I
    would welcome, and I am sure the Chairman would, any additional
    thoughts you would have in writing after the hearing. Thanks
    very much for being here.
        Ms. Gibson. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you both very much, and we
    appreciate it.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a
    statement. I did not read it, but I would like for it to be in
    the record.
        Senator Brownback. Without objection, it will be. Thank you
    very much, both of you.
        The second panel will be Stephen Harlan, the Vice Chairman,
    District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
    Assistance Authority; Gary Mather, Senior Vice President, Booz-
    Allen and Hamilton, Incorporated; James Stewart, Principal of
    Booz-Allen and Hamilton; Larry Soulsby, Chief of Police,
    District of Columbia Police Department; and the Hon. Eugene N.
    Hamilton, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of
    Columbia.
        We have had some studies done on the District of Columbia
    police officers by the Control Board. We will hear information
    on them, and also from the Chief of Police and the Chief Judge.
        Thank you very much, gentlemen. I know you have a great
    deal of interesting information. I have been previously briefed
    on this. I believe Senator Lieberman was at the same briefing,
    on some of this information.
        What I would like to do is run the time clock on you at 5-
    minute intervals. Can we keep it to 5 minutes, because we have
    such a large panel and I have a number of questions, and I
    think Senator Lieberman will, as well. So if you can take your
    comments, if you need to boil them down, we will take the
    written statements so that we have them in the record, and then
    have plenty of time for some question and interaction.
        Mr. Harlan, if you would care to start off, I hope you do
    not mind those parameters. If it is too strict, we will try to
    accommodate, but if you can, we would appreciate that. The
    floor is yours.

      TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN HARLAN,\1\ VICE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF
      COLUMBIA FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
                               AUTHORITY

        Mr. Harlan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
    here. My name is Stephen Donald Harlan. I am Vice Chairman of
    the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
    Management Assistance Authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Harlan appears in the Appendix on
    page 50.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In December, 1996, the Authority released a strategic plan
    that we had developed. Public safety was one of the two main
    critical concerns in the plan, along with others, but public
    schools and public safety were right at the top of the priority
    list.
        In December, also, the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the
    Chairman of the District Council, the Chief Judge of the
    Superior Court, and the Corporation Counsel, the U.S. Attorney
    and the Authority entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
    that you referenced in your opening remarks.
        One of the things that we decided to do early on was to
    work together as a group. Reducing crime, the fear of crime,
    and general disorder is something that requires a lot of
    coordination and a lot of interaction with other parts of the
    city, not just the police. But the police have a very major
    role in that.
        In December, we searched and identified a number of
    possible consultants to help us in this Memorandum of
    Understanding effort. On December 31, we hired Booz-Allen and
    Hamilton to be the consultant to the Memorandum of
    Understanding partners, the MOU partners. Booz-Allen started
    its work on January 6, 1997 and the task was such that we
    expected a report at the end of March.
        Because of the escalating crime, the defining event being
    the murder of Officer Gibson, the MOU partners decided not to
    wait until March. So, we encouraged Booz-Allen to bring forth
    the recommendations that it had at that time, and this was mid-
    February, 1997. On February 26, based on the consultants
    recommendations, we implemented several changes in Metropolitan
    Police operations.
        What the consultant had found was many of the points that
    you raised. Crime and the fear of crime are unacceptably high
    within the District of Columbia, one of the highest if not the
    highest in the country. Less than 10 percent of the officers
    were working in scout cars. Two-thirds of the officers on the
    force had made 10 or fewer arrests in a year, and half of all
    officials made no arrests at all.
        Salary levels were extraordinarily low when contrasted to
    the surrounding jurisdictions, 14 percent below the average.
    Not the high point, but the average salary paid in the
    surrounding jurisdictions. The Police Department really was not
    organized effectively to deliver the necessary police services
    to the District of Columbia.
        The MOU partners concluded that bold action was required
    and must be taken immediately. We could not wait on further
    studies and things of this nature. One of the main points was
    empowering the Chief of Police. The Chief must have control
    over promotions and demotions. He must have the ability to
    remove non-performing officers and civilian employees. To that
    end, on February 26, 1997 the Mayor delegated his personnel,
    his purchasing, and his budgetary authority to the Office of
    the Chief of Police.
        The MOU partners also agreed that several crime fighting
    strategies should be implemented immediately. These strategies
    focused on the elimination of open air drug markets,
    elimination of violent crimes, the violence and disorder
    associated with some of the night clubs, and quality of life
    crimes, such as urinating in public and drinking alcohol in
    public, and traffic violations.
        Gary Mather of Booz-Allen and Chief Soulsby will report on
    the consultants baseline findings and some of the details of
    what has occurred since the police began the initiatives.
    However, I would like to report that the Chief has developed a
    new mission statement for the Police Department which calls for
    the Department to eliminate crime, fear of crime and general
    disorder, while at the same time establishing respect and trust
    for the police within the community.
        Before our work began, I had personally gone to each of the
    District commanders, all seven of them, and I asked what are
    you trying to accomplish. I had seven different answers. The
    Department needed a central core theme, or mission that
    everyone could understand; that could be repeated and repeated
    and repeated, and set that as the goal that we are trying to
    accomplish. The Chief has done that.
        He has established a new leadership team within the Police
    Department. He has promoted 39 sergeants, 21 lieutenants and 6
    captains. He has redeployed 400 sworn officers to deal with
    crime and the fear of crime and formed a Police Department
    internal team to work with Booz-Allen, the consultants to
    develop a new policing model.
        Already the Police Department has achieved several positive
    results, including a significant increase in the morale
    throughout the Department; an improvement in the community's
    perception of the Police Department's ability to target crime,
    the fear of crime, and general disorder; an increase in the
    number of arrests which you alluded to, which have more than
    doubled in the areas where we are targeting crime; and a
    decrease in the number of homicides for the first quarter of
    the calendar year, the lowest quarter reported in the last 10
    years.
        Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not take this
    opportunity to discuss the importance of the pay raise for the
    police officers. As I noted earlier in my testimony, police
    officers are paid an average of 14 percent less than the
    officers in the surrounding jurisdictions. Some officers in the
    surrounding jurisdictions are paid as much as 22 percent more
    than Metropolitan police officers.
        And yet the police officers in the District, the Nation's
    Capital, work in a difficult and dangerous environment, much
    more difficult and dangerous than some of the surrounding
    areas, placing their lives on the line every day. As we heard,
    in the first 4 months we have had three officers murdered.
        Chief Soulsby has proposed, and the MOU partners have
    agreed to a 10 percent pay raise for the police officers. The
    10 percent pay raise, costing a total of $8.8 million for the
    second half of fiscal year 1997, would bring the officers
    closer to the average pay of the surrounding jurisdictions.
    This pay raise, which would be tied to performance standards
    and work rule changes agreed to by the union, by the FOP, is
    important to sustain improved performance within the
    Department.
        All MOU partners are carrying out responsibilities of their
    own, though, to reduce crime and the fear of crime. We have all
    undertaken certain tasks. The Authority has the task of not
    only working with the consultants, and being the coordinator
    for this MOU group, but the Mayor has delegated his power; the
    Council has agreed to pass certain laws, for instance
    considering bail reform, laws to fund the cost of closing
    abandoned houses, and removing abandoned automobiles; the
    Superior Court is streamlining their processing procedures; the
    Corporation Counsel is training police; and the U.S. Attorney
    is providing training and considering night papering which
    requires prosecutors and judges to work at night.
        Senator Brownback. If you could, I hate to do this to you,
    Mr. Harlan, but if you could summarize the rest of your
    comments, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Harlan. That is fine. These other gentlemen will focus
    on what has happened. But let me also say that we traveled to
    New York, Boston, and Chicago, I have personally, along with
    some of the other MOU partners, and I am convinced that this
    terrible crime crisis that we have right now can be fixed. It
    is doable. Other cities have done it. We can do it.
        I wrote an article that was published last Sunday in the
    paper, that you alluded to, and I am absolutely convinced that
    this can be done, and that we will do it with your support, and
    with the support of the Congress, and of the White House on
    various things that are needed.
        So with that, I will close summarize and take your
    questions when you are ready, sir.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Harlan.
        I would like to now turn to the Booz-Allen and Hamilton
    group, which did the investigation, appraisal, statistical
    gathering regarding the Police Department and its functioning.
    I do not know, Mr. Mather or Mr. Stewart, who would care to be
    the principal presenter? I am just going to lump you both
    together and still give you 5 minutes, so we are not going to
    give you 10.
        Mr. Stewart. I would yield my time to Mr. Mather.
        Senator Brownback. You will yield your 5 minutes, and
    together that is 5 minutes. If you could, just because both
    Senator Lieberman and myself have been briefed on this study so
    we have some good understanding on it. If you could, I think,
    hit the high points on it, then we will go to some questions.

    TESTIMONY OF GARY MATHER,\1\ SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BOOZ-ALLEN
      and HAMILTON, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES ``CHIPS'' STEWART,
                   PRINCIPAL, BOOZ-ALLEN and HAMILTON

        Mr. Mather. I am Gary Mather, Senior Vice President of
    Booz-Allen and Hamilton. I have overall responsibility for our
    firm's efforts to help transform the Metropolitan Police
    Department of the District of Columbia. With me is Chips
    Stewart, a former police executive and official of the
    Department of Justice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Mather appears in the Appendix on
    page 61.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I think the Control Board recognized from the beginning
    that reducing crime involved more than just the Police
    Department and, as Steve talked about, the first step was the
    formation of a Memorandum of Understanding. I think the
    decision by the Board to include all these players was one of
    the key reasons why the current effort has been successful.
        Booz-Allen began work about 3 months ago, and let me just
    spend a few minutes summarizing the highlights of our progress.
    The initial phase of our project sought to do two things.
    First, we wanted to understand, from the MOU stakeholders,
    their objectives and points of view. Second, we wanted to
    develop a baseline or profile of the Department as it existed
    early this year.
        I think what we found was that the greatest concern of the
    stakeholders were the numbers of crimes committed in the
    District versus the Department's relative effective in reacting
    to crime. The purpose of the baseline survey was to delve into
    the Department and gather detailed and extensive data on how it
    was operating.
        First, the Department's mission. We recommended that the
    Department's mission should shift to concentrate on crime
    prevention and reduction and, as important, reduction of the
    fear of crime.
        Relationship with the community. We recommended that MPD
    needed to work proactively with the community in the
    development and execution of crime control strategies, much as
    many of the Nation's leading police departments are doing.
        Crime analysis. We recommended that crime control
    strategies must be a primary product of crime analysis at all
    levels of the Department and headquarters to the District
    level, and right down to the beat.
        Patrol deployment. At the time of the baseline survey about
    16 percent of the Department's sworn officers were available
    for patrol. The remaining officers were being used for a range
    of other activities, thereby being diverted from the core
    police function of street patrol. We recommended a massive
    reallocation of resources to triple the number of officers
    focused on patrol beats.
        Organization and staffing. We found many administrative
    jobs being performed by officers that could just as easily be
    outsourced or performed by civilians.
        Information and technology, infrastructure, equipment and
    facilities. We found that the Department had been
    undercapitalized for some time. We found that much of an
    officer's time is spent filling out reports. It takes 4 hours
    to book in this city, versus 15 minutes in some other areas,
    just because of information technology.
        Facilities have not received attention in years. They are
    in shambles and are a demoralizing factor for the officers.
        Performance management. We found that performance review of
    officers had not been done for 11 years and suggested that that
    be done immediately.
        The Department budget. The District of Columbia is our
    Nation's capital. In one sense, the city belongs to the
    citizens who live here, but many feel it also belongs to our
    country. We feel a vital question surrounds how the budget for
    the MPD is determined. Should it be determined by the economy
    and tax base of the local community or by what it takes to make
    the Nation's capital a safe place to live? We think it's the
    latter.
        Let me finish my testimony by reviewing a few key issues
    that have recently received public attention.
        First was the empowerment of the Chief's position, which
    Steve talked about.
        Next was building a team. The Department leadership team we
    encountered on day one was dysfunctional, riddled with politics
    and in basic disagreement on future directions for the
    Department. We recommended that the Chief choose a team that
    would share a common vision of the future and he did, and put
    that team in place. There had to be a clear demonstration that
    if the Department headed in the recommended direction it would,
    in fact, make a difference.
        Third, the Chief responded by assembling 400 officers,
    deploying them to the most crime-ridden sections of each
    district. As you will hear from the Chief, violent crime
    dropped dramatically and quickly.
        The fourth was compensation. Booz-Allen compared the
    compensation of MPD officers with that of officers in
    surrounding jurisdictions and the result was surprising, as
    Steve talked about. The job of the MPD officer is probably the
    most difficult in the region. The question arises, how can the
    Department possibly attract the best talent necessary to combat
    crime when potential officers can go to neighboring communities
    and make more? We recently appealed to the Office of Management
    and Budget for a $200 million infusion of capital to make up
    for failures to invest in the Department for many years.
        In discussing these deficiencies with Congressional
    staffers, we have been told the District of Columbia has no
    constituency when it comes to allocating money, except perhaps
    at the White House. It is said that there is very little
    mileage in spending money on the District, in contrast to back
    home where the votes are.
        The reply has to be someone has to take ownership, such as
    this Subcommittee, of the importance of our Nation's capital
    and how its condition affects the way the rest of the world
    perceives the United States.
        Let me close by noting where we are going. For the past 2
    weeks, Booz-Allen has hosted a working session at our McLean
    office for a team of 20 officers and civilians from the MPD. In
    about 2 weeks, the Department will begin a massive shift of
    resources to a deep focused operating model that will
    concentrate on crime prevention as the Department's No. 1
    priority. The number of street officers who work with the
    community on patrol will grow quickly from about 570 to more
    than 1,700.
        This major redeployment comes at the right time. We are
    about to enter the summer months when crime rates tend to be at
    the highest.
        It is also noted that the Department has been receptive to
    our recommendations for change and Chief Soulsby is clearly
    leading implementation. His dedication to this change has
    captured the attention and support of his colleagues in the
    ranks, as well as Booz-Allen.
        I would just like to close by saying the Control Board has
    made a delightful client. Thank you very much, Chips and I
    would be glad to answer any questions.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. I appreciate that a
    great deal, and your timeliness, and it sounds encouraging with
    some of these things taking place.
        Mr. Soulsby is the Chief of Police. I know you have had a
    very, very tough few months here. Please tell us what you are
    planning for the future.

    TESTIMONY OF LARRY D. SOULSBY,\1\ CHIEF OF POLICE, DISTRICT OF
                       COLUMBIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

        Mr. Soulsby. Good afternoon, Senator Brownback and
    Subcommittee Members.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statementof Chief Soulsby appears in the Appendix
    on page 79.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I appear before this Subcommittee at a time of great trauma
    from the loss of our officers and a genuine promise of
    transformation within the Metropolitan Police Department.
        For many years the Department has not been structured to
    productively combat the forces of crime and violence in the
    Nation's capital, but I am pleased to testify that the
    Department now is in initial stages of transformation that will
    enable it to provide safe and secure neighborhoods throughout
    the city. Crime rates have begun to fall and will fall further.
        The transformation of the Metropolitan Police Department
    depends on the contributions of many parties. You have heard
    about the MOU partners, the key stakeholders who have set aside
    and laid down basic groundworks and set aside their
    personalities to help us achieve these goals. You have heard
    from the Booz-Allen and Hamilton consultants who have diagnosed
    many problems in the past and are helping us work our way
    through these problems.
        There is an initial role for Congress to play, I think,
    also. As I requested, in testimony last week before the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee, the Department must have a 10
    percent pay raise for the officers. There are many reasons I
    can go into this, but quite frankly, we are changing the entire
    dynamics of almost everyone in this Department. We have changed
    a lot of things and we are asking them to do tremendously more,
    and we need something to give back to them.
        I believe that obtaining--I am trying to skip through here
    to save time, sorry.
        We are at a juncture where all factors seem to be in
    alignment to propel us to the future are there. We think we can
    achieve great success but we need help. We need help on many
    areas. These factors include political will, citizen's demand
    for crime control reduction, the prospects of financial
    resources needed to obtain equipment and a pay raise are things
    that we must have to keep us moving forward.
        Let me describe briefly some of the transformation that we
    are going through. The process of transformation began when we
    signed the MOU partnership. The Department has always
    demonstrated a willingness to put aside their turf
    consideration, which in this city is a major accomplishment in
    and of itself.
        The most significant area of support provided the
    Department has been the Mayor's empowerment of the Office of
    Chief of Police. By delegating personnel, budget and
    procurement authority to the Chief, the Mayor has enabled the
    Chief to establish the foundation for transforming the
    Department. This role is pivotal if we are going to improve for
    the future. I have to have the ability to make key decisions,
    to deploy resources, to hire, fire, promote personnel based on
    demonstrated competence. Without the necessary authority and
    autonomy, it would be impossible to transform the Department
    and to ensure the citizens are achieving adequate police
    service.
        Second only to the Mayor's empowerment of the Chief is the
    authority to remove the Department's sworn and civilian
    employees who do not meet the high standards of integrity and
    performance that we expect in the new Metropolitan Police
    Department. For the first time, we will now have Department
    employees accountable to the same degree as employees in
    private industry. Employees who cannot or will not meet
    established standards will be fired.
        With my new authority, I have been able to appoint a new
    leadership team which I think has everybody moving in the same
    direction. For the first time, we are focused on crime and
    violence in the city.
        The new team is supported by a cadre of managers dedicated
    to fulfilling the Department's new directive, reducing crime,
    fear and disorder. They are also committed to empowering all
    Department employees, down to the beat level, so that we can
    accomplish things in a timely fashion. We are installing a new
    organizational culture, one of professionalism. We have been
    able to improve our administrative process and to remove old,
    archaic ways of doing things.
        We are asking the citizens to measure our performance. Our
    performance will be based on reduction of crime and reduction
    of fear of crime. We have high expectations of all our
    officers. I have reviewed the Department's conduct and
    disciplinary rules and procedures. We have set up numerous
    committees to look into performance standards, to also set new
    professionalism standards across the board. We will make
    accountability the key word of the day, accountability for
    integrity, performance, control of crime, accountability for
    reducing crime and fear, accountability to citizens on all
    issues.
        As we moved forward in the last month, and I am skipping
    through quickly, we have seen crime, specifically homicide, go
    down 29 percent this year, robberies down 23 percent,
    burglaries down 21 percent. But as we move through the
    empowerment period, over the last 45 days, we have seen crime
    go down 21 percent, homicides down 50 percent. We have seen the
    productivity of the officers go up 100 percent in many areas,
    almost every measurable area.
        At the same time, the one thing that has gone down besides
    crime is citizen complaints.
        I think there is a sense of great hope in this city and a
    great hope in this Department. We have a Department that is
    committed to professionalism, committed to change, working with
    Booz-Allen, working with the MOU partners, we say and have a
    new sense of direction, a new sense of commitment from all of
    the partners in law enforcement in this city and the criminal
    justice system.
        I think with some support from this Subcommittee and the
    Hill, we will have successes in the future.
        Senator Brownback. Good, I am glad to hear that encouraging
    testimony. Next will be Chief Judge of the Superior Court of
    the District of Columbia, the Hon. Eugene N. Hamilton. Judge
    Hamilton, the floor is yours.

       TESTIMONY OF THE HON. EUGENE N. HAMILTON,\1\ CHIEF JUDGE,
               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Judge Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee, for the opportunity to be present and testify
    this afternoon on fighting crime and violence in the District
    of Columbia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Hamilton with attachments
    appears in the Appendix on page 89.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we all know, crime and violence and the perception of it
    at this time in the District of Columbia regrettably is at an
    unprecedented high level. At the end of 1995, there were over
    8,000 cases pending in the Superior Court's criminal division,
    and by the end of 1996, there were over 9,000 cases pending in
    the criminal division. This represents a 13 percent increase in
    the Court's end of the year inventory of criminal cases. There
    were 45,000 cases filed in 1995 compared with 47,309 cases
    being filed in 1996.
        Neither the figures for 1995 nor 1996 represent the true
    extent of crime actually in the community, either in 1995 or
    1996, and this is because the figures for criminal case filings
    and criminal case inventories were severely depressed due to
    reduced police action beginning in 1994.
        The last year of non-depressed police activity was 1993 and
    in that year there were over 58,000 criminal cases filed. In
    the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, filings fell to 53,000, 45,000,
    and 47,000 respectively, as shown in my figure 1, which has
    been attached to my statement.
        On March 1 of this year, the Metropolitan Police Department
    commenced its enhanced enforcement activity in the District of
    Columbia. On March 1, 1997 the Court received 118 cases from
    arrests made, for the most part, on February 28, 1997. Then on
    March 3, 1997, the Court received 252 cases from arrests made
    on March 1 and 2, 1997. This trend of greatly increased arrests
    has continued throughout March and April specifically. In March
    and April the average daily arrestees processed in the Court
    were 189 and 180 respectively, as shown in my figures 2 and 3,
    which have also been attached to my statement.
        If the trends of March and April continue, we expect to see
    a total of over 64,000 criminal cases filed in the Superior
    Court by the end of 1997. As I stated previously, the criminal
    case filings hit a low in 1995 of 45,000.
        The entire criminal justice system in the District of
    Columbia is now functioning and the rates of crime are going
    down substantially. The system, however, is very fragile at
    this point. It will require a lot of attention by the criminal
    justice leadership and commitment from the community and
    government support agencies, including the Federal Control
    Board, the Congress, the administration, the Mayor, and the
    Council to sustain this present level of functioning by the
    criminal justice system.
        We must pay close attention to and support to make certain
    that the criminal justice system continues to function in a
    very effective manner, that it presently functions. The systems
    that we must pay attention to, of course, are the courts. The
    judicial and fiscal independence and the well-being of the
    District of Columbia Courts must be provided for and maintained
    because the hub which supports all of the spokes of the
    criminal justice system is a Court system that depends on
    independent, fair, objective, competent, efficient,
    professional and well-trained judges and Court staff.
        The District of Columbia Court system is such a Court
    system for it has earned and enjoys respect not only in the
    District of Columbia but also across the Nation and in many
    foreign countries. Many of the judges are so respected that
    they lecture as instructors in the leading law school programs
    across the country and seminars and training courses that are
    held throughout the country.
        In addition, the Courts of the District of Columbia are
    creators of many innovative judicial programs that seek to
    treat offenders when this can be done efficiently and
    consistently with reasonable safety to the community. The Court
    has a state-of-the-art domestic violence unit which integrates
    all domestic violence cases in the Superior Court except the
    felony cases. The Court has a state-of-the-art urban services
    program, which is a comprehensive rehabilitation program which
    starts with a 30-day boot camp. The Court has a state-of-the-
    art family and child services center which has intensive
    services that are provided to children and families.
        In short, the Court system must be supported because, in
    short, it makes no sense for the Metropolitan Police Department
    to make the new arrests, and the U.S. Attorney and the
    Corporation Counsel to file new cases if the District of
    Columbia Courts are not given the judicial independence and
    financial support to efficiently and effectively manage and
    enter dispositions in these cases resulting from those new
    arrests.
        As a MOU partner, I fully support the recommendations of
    the partners, that the officers desperately deserve--an
    immediately 10 percent pay adjustment. I urge that be done
    immediately and, in my judgment, it is crucial to sustaining
    the current law enforcement momentum on the streets. I say this
    because we must all show these officers that when we say: ``We
    appreciate your efforts,'' we really mean it. In other words,
    at this point, these officers have been treated so shabbily we
    need to reinforce and support our words with action.
        As I stated initially, the Metropolitan Police Department,
    as of March 1, 1997, is no longer dysfunctional but became a
    very viable and effective law enforcement agency. This occurred
    because the Chief of Police was empowered to command the
    Department and make budgetary and personnel determinations for
    the Department. This empowerment occurred due to the strong
    recommendation to do so that was made to the Mayor by the MOU
    partners, which was accepted and implemented by the Mayor.
        The consensus to make this change came from the outstanding
    scientific research done by Booz-Allen and Hamilton and the
    leadership of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
    and Management Assistance Authority. The results that have been
    obtained teach us that the independence of the Police
    Department and the authority of the Chief to command the
    Department must be assured. The Chief must be assured of the
    authority to make budgetary and personnel determinations, as
    well as direct procurement of the Department.
        In addition, the MOU partnership should be made permanent
    and it should be given the authority to retain a research
    resource such as Booz-Allen and Hamilton.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would request that my full
    statement be made part of the record.
        Senator Brownback. Without objection, it will be contained
    in the record.
        Thank you all very much for participating in this and I am
    going to put the same 5-minute clock on both Senator Lieberman
    and myself, so you can see how well we do up here.
        I have to back up to how we opened this hearing. It is
    beyond comprehension to me to think that we would have three
    police officers stalked and hunted down in our Nation's capital
    in a period of 4 months. That is just incredible to me. If the
    Iranians had done this, we would be dropping bombs. And yet,
    this has happened in our Nation's capital.
        I hope we--and we have many of the major players involved
    here--take a pledge that we will not tolerate this situation
    continuing. We will tolerate zero assaults towards police
    officers because they are us. They are the representation of
    the people of a civilized nation. They are the representation,
    just as our soldiers are in war. And we will tolerate zero
    assaults towards police officers.
        If a police officer is assaulted, there will be a price
    paid. If one is killed, there will be a penalty extracted,
    period, and it will be equivalent to the crime.
        I hope we can all move forward on that. Mr. Soulsby, I hope
    you can convey that to your police officers who must feel like
    they are in a war zone and being targeted. How are they
    reacting to what is taking place?
        Mr. Soulsby. Well, first of all, I appreciate your comments
    and certainly it causes them great concern. Many of them are
    wondering should they remain in law enforcement. Many of their
    spouses are pressuring them to leave. That is why it is so
    important that we support them.
        But they are professionals and they are going out there
    every day. They are upset about it. And I think it has
    everyone's attention. Any time an officer dies it is very
    tragic for everyone involved. Every single police officer
    hurts, and many members of the community.
        But we have people in society, in this city and others,
    that have no value for life, have no concern about getting
    caught, do not care about going to jail. They do not care
    whether they live or die. They should not be allowed to walk
    the streets of any city.
        Senator Brownback. We will back you up on that. I do not
    know if the police officers have taken a position on the Brian
    Gibson Act, on the death penalty towards killing police
    officers. If you would like to articulate that, if you can?
        Mr. Soulsby. The death penalty is such an individual thing
    for most people, but I am totally in support of the act. I
    think we need a death penalty in Washington, DC.
        Senator Brownback. I think we need to renew our culture,
    too, to think that people would actually do this.
        Towards the Booz-Allen folks, you did a very good study.
    How did we get to a point where, by your numbers, you are
    saying 16 percent of the police officers were involved in the
    beat activity and half of the badged police officers, if I have
    that number correct, made zero arrests last year? How did we
    get to that point and what instructiveness do we have on how do
    we get out of that? Or maybe you feel like we are very much on
    the way of getting out of that type of situation?
        Mr. Mather. I think when you look at the numbers, you start
    off with a fairly high number of people. And then as you go
    attriting down, as they keep getting diverted to administrative
    tasks and other kinds of things, specialty functions and
    whatever, by the time you get down to patrol it is a 16 percent
    number. And so there is--I think the Department, when we
    started, was almost an administrative report-taking kind of
    Department, and the officers were more reacting to crime than
    really trying to prevent it.
        So, I think that the massive shift that you will see is a
    shift in the use of people, what it is that people do at any
    given point in time.
        I think the other thing, on the arrest rate, I do not know,
    I think that there has been a real change of the paradigm under
    the Chief's leadership since this all began. I mean, there is a
    sense of momentum out there and there is a sense of
    accountability and you are going to be held responsible for
    what is happening. And that signal went out loud and strong,
    particularly when the new team was formed and it sprinkled on
    down in the organization.
        I think that signal said, ``Hey, you have a job to do, and
    you are going to do it. And if not, you are going to be done.''
    I think that signal went out there. And as a consequence,
    people stepped up to the challenge and the arrests started to
    happen.
        With the new paradigm that comes in and this massive shift
    to resources, I think a lot of people will step up to the
    challenge and some will not. But we think that the whole model
    is being tipped on its ear. I mean, it is a whole different
    scheme that is being put in place, and we think the impact on
    crime will be substantial.
        Chips, I do not know if you have any additional comments.
        Mr. Stewart. Very quickly, you had a problem with structure
    and you had a problem with strategy and you had a diffuse,
    fractured mission. You had a bunch of people being hired and
    put in small details to handle specific problems and act like
    Band-aids. It did not take a comprehensive approach and needs
    to be completely restructured. You cannot get there from here
    unless you fundamentally change the vision of the Department,
    the operating model of the Department, and you restructure it
    to put the officers where the crime, the fear, and the disorder
    are. And you have the other part of the system work.
        Senator Brownback. Is that taking place in your estimation?
    That restructuring?
        Mr. Mather. That is where we are headed.
        Senator Brownback. So you are satisfied that we are now
    headed in the right direction, that we are on the right track?
        Mr. Mather. The Chief did the first 400 and the impact of
    that was pretty dramatic, in terms of the impact on the
    numbers. We just spent 2 weeks with 20 officers that were
    picked by the leadership team. They started off in lots of
    different places, but 10 hours a day, 9 days, very intense. By
    the time we were done this whole group, from lots of different
    places in this Department, had coalesced around the idea that
    their job was basically to reduce crime and the way to do that
    was in the street. It was not at headquarters, it was not in
    the District buildings, it was out there on patrol, interacting
    with the community, proactive, crime strategies, executing
    those strategies, figuring out what was going on on the beats,
    and proactively dealing with those kinds of situations.
        So my sense is that there is a real momentum that is
    building here that I did not see when we first showed up. That
    is why I think this raise ends up being so important because
    these officers are looking for symbolic signs that the people
    are behind them, that they are not out there by themselves
    alone, that the Congress is behind them, that the citizens are
    behind them, that they are not just going this alone.
        I think the 10 percent raise would create a real slug of
    not just the financial benefit of it, but just in terms of the
    momentum and the movement and everything. It is just a critical
    thing. We have to do it.
        Senator Brownback. Senator Lieberman.
        Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just pick up briefly, Mr. Mather, on what you said
    about the response of the officers in the MPD and looking for a
    signal of the public's appreciation for what they are doing. A
    pay raise is obviously part of that.
        From your contact with the police officers, do you have any
    indication about how they feel about the proposal to impose the
    death penalty on those convicted of----
        Mr. Mather. I do not have any data on that, except what I
    have heard anecdotally.
        Senator Lieberman. Mr. Harlan, let me thank you and
    Chairman Brimmer and the Control Board for the leadership that
    you have exercised here. This really was a crisis and you have
    stepped in and brought in Booz-Allen and got great response
    from the other signatories to this Memorandum of Understanding,
    particularly the Chief and the officers, and you can begin to
    see the turnaround. So I do not want to rush forward too soon
    without thanking you for the leadership that you have shown.
        Mr. Harlan. Thank you.
        Senator Lieberman. In a way, my first question has been
    anticipated. I was going to ask you, Chief, and Mr. Harlan--
    well, two things. First off, can we draw a line, as far as you
    can determine, between the actions that you have taken, the
    first reform actions if you will, and this remarkable change in
    arrests and statistics and citizen complaints?
        I guess what I am asking is: This is just not accidental,
    is it?
        Mr. Soulsby. No. Actually, you could draw a line in the
    hallways, you can see it on the faces of the officers from day
    1. When this MOU was signed and the discussions in the first 24
    or 48 hours, the whole attitude of officers changed. The judge
    could tell you the attitude, he sees hundreds of officers in
    Court every day and he could see the way they acted around the
    building.
        We had become a Department that was politicized from the
    standpoint of people politicking constantly for promotions,
    externally and internally. We had become a Department that was
    almost, in some senses, like police welfare. Once you got the
    job it was almost impossible to fire you. We had cases where we
    had fired someone four times only to have administrative
    appeals overturn it outside the Department.
        If you have a Department like that, where you cannot fire
    even the worst behavior, I am not talking about criminal
    behavior but just worst behavior, then what happens after a
    period of time is the minor violations are not enforced. There
    is no sense of discipline.
        You had officers that just would not work on the street and
    you would have other officers who would stop working, stop
    looking for things to do, because they would look around and
    say why should I take all the chances? These other officers are
    not doing anything.
        Senator Lieberman. Right, bad morale begets worse morale as
    it goes on.
        Mr. Soulsby. Absolutely.
        Senator Lieberman. Have you taken any action yet? Obviously
    the whole thrust of this hearing is to give every possible
    support we can to the police officers. But as you point out,
    not every police officer is doing his or her job. Have you
    taken action yet against any police officers who you feel are
    not performing up to the standards?
        Mr. Soulsby. So far the action has been taken at the
    highest ranks. There has been five senior people removed. We
    are working with the U.S. Attorneys Office in identifying
    people that they have identified as potential problem people.
    We are looking through it with Internal Affairs pulling every
    case jacket for the last 5 to 7 years, looking at all prior
    actions. We are deciding should this person stay on the
    Department, or should this person.
        So it is an orderly process but we intend to get it done
    this spring.
        Senator Lieberman. We have a lot of hope and a lot of
    confidence in you, and to the extent that you do carry out that
    mission it will make it that much easier--I hate to use that
    word--to get the support for the Department generally from
    Congress and for the individual police officers. I hope this 10
    percent increase is not the last of it.
        If there is a feeling that you are weeding out the people
    who are not doing their jobs, and you have a force out there
    that you are confident in, then I think you are going to find
    Congress willing to continue to reward those people for the job
    they are doing.
        Mr. Soulsby. This Department, the leadership of this
    Department, the entire force has been given an opportunity to
    show its ability. Can it become a professional Department? Can
    it once again be a leader? We are not going to waste this
    chance.
        Senator Lieberman. Good. Judge, you made a very important
    point here, that we ought to all, in the sense of partnership,
    think about how we can respond to which is that if--those
    numbers you gave were dramatic. And if those numbers continue
    there is obviously going to be a different kind of crisis in
    the criminal justice system, both within the Courts and, I
    presume, within the jails.
        In a lot of jurisdictions, including my own in Connecticut,
    we went through this a while back and what ends up happening is
    that you are putting more people in the front door, and yet you
    are letting more people out the back door because you do not
    have room inside the jails. And you have the same kinds of
    problems, if this is not done right.
        I wonder if you could give us some idea of how you see this
    and what, if anything, the District Government is doing or what
    Congress can do to help you with this? Do we need more jails,
    for instance?
        Judge Hamilton. Well, we do need more detention facilities,
    both for arrestees and people who have been committed on
    sentences. I do not think we need as much prison space as one
    would think offhand. I think the challenge now is to weed out
    those people who can be supervised in the community with safety
    to the community in a very cost efficient, effective way, so as
    not to use jail space to house those people. That is what we
    are--we have to focus on that, as well as being certain that
    those people who cannot be supervised in the community are, in
    fact, incarcerated. We have to pay close attention to both.
        Senator Lieberman. Thank you all. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Brownback. Thanks, Senator.
        Mr. Soulsby, have there been other attacks targeting
    District police officers that we have not heard about?
        Mr. Soulsby. Yes, daily. You have a lot of officers that
    are assaulted frequently and at different events. But we have
    had other cases where officers have been assaulted but not
    killed, but if you go back a couple of years, an officer on H
    Street in 1995. The officer and his partner were assisting a
    motorist and the person could not speak. An individual comes up
    behind him and shoots the officer in the back of the head.
        We have had cases where an officer was walking a beat down
    on Martin Luther King Avenue, about 2\1/2\ years ago, and he
    stopped and talked to this young kid. And after the officer
    walked on, the young kid decided he wanted the officer's
    plastic gun. We had Glock guns that are made of space age
    plastic, partially. So after the officer walks on, he shoots
    the officer in the back of the head and the officer survived,
    just to try to get his gun. He just wanted his gun.
        I mean, that is absurd, but again, we have a lot of people
    that commit crimes, commit murder, intimidate witnesses, that
    commit murder in front of 30, 40, or 50 people, and people are
    intimidated to the point that they do not--they have a total
    lack of respect for the entire criminal justice system, I
    think. So witnesses are afraid to come forward. In some cases,
    we have had witnesses killed, and many witnesses who have been
    intimidated.
        There is a culture out there--I do not care whether I get
    caught or not, I do not care whether I go to jail, I do not
    expect to live to be 21 or 25 or 30. They just do what they
    want, when they want. There is just a lack of sense of respect
    for this society as a whole.
        And the officers, being the ones that represent the
    community, are the ones that have to deal with those people on
    a day-to-day basis and it is very difficult.
        Senator Brownback. You are using terminology I use to
    describe a Third World country situation of a judicial system,
    being intimidated in that nature.
        Mr. Soulsby. What you have, and let me make it perfectly
    clear, the vast majority of the citizenry in Washington are
    decent, law-abiding citizens in every community. But there are
    a few in a lot of these community areas, that are just
    terrorizing these communities. And they have no sense of
    society.
        Senator Brownback. You were saying earlier that police
    officers are being assaulted on a daily basis, did I hear that?
        Mr. Soulsby. Yes, we have many assaults on police officers
    cases that go to Court almost on a daily basis.
        Senator Brownback. Maybe we ought to publicize and publish
    that, so people can know just how difficult the duty is of what
    police officers are having to do.
        I understand and I hear you clearly about the need for the
    salary increase, and I appreciate that. Are we providing the
    tools that your officers need for their safety?
        Mr. Soulsby. What we have, and really for the last 15 or 20
    years the Department--as Booz-Allen has indicated--they have
    sent together a package to the White House asking for almost
    $200 million for equipment needs and infrastructure needs. We
    have a lot of needs.
        They have the tools necessary for basic safety, to
    basically do their jobs. But most area Departments have much
    better equipment than we do. They have more modernized
    equipment.
        Senator Brownback. If you could be more specific?
        Mr. Soulsby. It is a combination of--for instance, we have
    an old radio system and we are in the process of trying to get
    a new radio system. We finally have the money, in large part
    thanks to Congress and Senator Hatch, where we can do a lot of
    technology pieces. But we need equipment for our cars.
        For instance, just making sure that we have sufficient
    fingerprint equipment, sufficient equipment to process crime
    scenes across the board. A lot of things that you would have in
    a police car in many other jurisdictions we do not have. We
    have to lend them back and forth.
        So we provide basic equipment, but we have a long way to
    go. And I would certainly be very pleased to submit to you a
    list of our needs.
        Senator Brownback. I would appreciate you doing that, of
    saying if we are going to ask this police force to put their
    neck out on the line every day to defend us, and we are asking
    them to step up the pace because we do not feel safe and we do
    not think you are either, then what equipment do you need to do
    it? So that we can know with clarity that we are not going to
    send our troops into the field without them being sufficiently
    armed.
        Mr. Soulsby. I will submit to you a request or a list of
    those needs this week, sir.
        Senator Brownback. I will look forward to being able to
    have that. Just let me say, as a closing statement for myself,
    I appreciate what all of you are doing and each piece of the
    puzzle that you operate. Particularly, Mr. Soulsby, your
    officers are out there on the front line and I am looking
    forward to the additional ones hitting the streets.
        I am encouraged about the optimism that each of you state
    towards this and about some of the preliminary results. I am
    hopeful that that can continue. We have to do much better for
    your officers. We have to do much better for this community.
        It sounds like to me, from each of you, you are saying we
    can do much better. We clearly can do much better. Other major
    metropolitan areas have done it. You have studied those models
    and you are going along those models and you are moving on that
    path.
        We will look forward to having you back sometime, I would
    hope later this year, to assess progress as we move along this
    issue. And I hope and pray you do not have another headline
    where we have officers killed in the District, hunted down.
        Senator Lieberman.
        Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, two quick
    questions. Chief, let me just draw you out for a minute on
    something you said in your opening statement. Obviously what
    you are in the process of now is leading change and it is a
    natural human reaction to resist change. You have been given
    more authority, more independence. Are you getting cooperation
    from the city administration, the Mayor's office, and from the
    police that are serving under you?
        Mr. Soulsby. We are getting basic cooperation from the city
    and many of the MOU partners have been outstanding. But the
    officers, the men and women of the Police Department, for the
    most part are ecstatic about the change. We cannot make it
    happen fast enough. I brought in most of the--certainly, all of
    the senior officials, all of the lieutenants and above in the
    Department, a lot of the sergeants, and talked about--we sent
    video tape statements out to all of the officers. I have sent
    people, senior managers, to every roll call.
        One of the questions we asked all of them, no matter what
    your rank, do you know people of your rank in this room that
    should not be here? And almost every officer would raise their
    hand, or every sergeant or every lieutenant. They are
    frustrated. In large part, they have been stagnant by the fact
    of why should I do anything if these other individuals do not
    and nothing ever happens to them?
        The gloves have come off now, across the board. And that is
    why I told you within 24 or 48 hours, you could see a
    difference. People, instead of frowning walking the hallways,
    were smiling and actually enjoying their jobs.
        When we put this new enforcement effort out in these areas,
    the seven areas of the city, the 400 officers, you had officers
    going in and talking about I have not been out here for 6 or 7
    years doing this. I am absolutely enjoying it. We have had
    officers who have gone to Court and made cases that have not
    been in Court for 10 years.
        The dynamics of this whole Department has changed, is
    changing. We have a long way to go but there is a great sense
    of hope.
        Senator Lieberman. That is great. There is something to be
    said for a culture in an organization, or an attitude in an
    organization, and it sounds to me like you have changed it.
        A final question, Mr. Mather, in response to what you have
    done, obviously, there are some very significant and hopeful
    changes going on. From your perspective, what do we have to do
    to keep this going? What are the key indicators here of
    continued progress in law enforcement in the District?
        Mr. Mather. I think what you said earlier is organizational
    change is a fragile thing and I think momentum is very
    important. I think when we made the recommendation to the
    Control Board on the empowerment of the Chief, it was with some
    trepidation because we did not know how it would turn out.
        Senator Lieberman. Right.
        Mr. Mather. I think we all look back now and think that we
    are very fortunate that the Chief has stepped up to it the way
    he has and has delivered so well. I mean, I think we all felt
    that if that did not happen, it would have set back the whole
    thing a ways. So I think we should all be grateful that we have
    a Chief that is really doing this. I think he has a team behind
    him and his momentum and so on.
        I guess my feeling is that we are on the right course. I
    think the Department is committed to this business of crime
    prevention. I think when we first got started, we said, you
    guys are talking about arrests and 911 response time and the
    rest of the world is talking about body count.
        Senator Lieberman. Right.
        Mr. Mather. People are thinking about the number of crimes
    committed, not what your response is to crimes committed. So
    crime prevention, if you really want to feel safe in this city,
    has got to be the critical thing that is focused on and I think
    it takes time for a Department to come around and embrace that
    idea, and that Department has.
        This group of 20 that has been out there, we have asked
    them to be evangelists, to go out, almost like you drop a stone
    in a pond and it starts to sprinkle out and, slowly but surely,
    this whole thing starts to take.
        So, I think during this transformation process, it has to
    take. It has to have a life of its own and it has to have
    perpetuation at the grassroots level, and as you keep pushing
    this thing to the grassroots level, people are now doing
    things, not because they were told to from on high. They are
    doing it because they have embraced the new idea and they are
    doing what they need to do.
        I have seen a lot of these transformations. I have been
    involved with a lot of them in the corporate world and this one
    has the feel of something that is really going to happen, and I
    think the only thing we have to do to make that the case is to
    stay behind it and keep this momentum going, and I think it is
    going to be--every so often, you get all the things line up.
    Part of it is just luck and part of it is hard work and part of
    it is just the way it turned out.
        But some very good things are happening and I think it is
    fundamental and I think it is structural and all we need to do
    is keep this momentum going and I think we will have a
    different Department and a different city.
        Senator Lieberman. Great. I hope we in the Senate and
    Congress generally can do our part to support that change.
    Thank you all very much.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you all very much. We appreciate
    it.
        Our next panel will be Dr. Robert Moffit, the Deputy
    Director for Domestic Policy Studies, the Heritage Foundation,
    and C. Stephen Wallis, Washington, D.C. Area School
    Administrator.
        We are going to do with this next panel just like we did
    the last one. It will be a 5-minute presentation, gentlemen, if
    you can. Sorry to keep you limited so tight, but we have a lot
    of people that want to help us out with a tough problem here,
    so we will try to keep it to 5 minutes, as well, if you can.
        We will take the full statement in the record, so if you
    can summarize that, that would be appreciated.

      TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MOFFIT,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR DOMESTIC
                POLICY STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

        Mr. Moffit. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Moffit appears in the Appendix on
    page 125.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Robert Moffit and I am the Deputy Director of
    Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. I supervise
    a staff of analysts in the areas of health, education, welfare,
    and urban policy, including urban crime.
        Mr. Chairman, at the outset, words cannot express the honor
    that I feel at having the opportunity to testify before this
    Subcommittee of the Senate on this issue. The reason is that
    for me, personally, the problem of the police and the problem
    of crime is not at all abstract. I come from a family of
    Philadelphia police officers. My father was a detective in the
    Philadelphia Police Department, with 25 years of service. I
    feel deeply about the welfare of the police and their struggle
    with the problem of crime.
        I should also point out, before I get into the depth of my
    testimony here, that for my colleagues at The Heritage
    Foundation, crime is not an abstract policy question. Over the
    past 36 months, Heritage staff have been victimized by violent
    crime on more occasions than we care to count. So our interest
    in the success of the Police Department is not an object of
    metaphysical interest.
        In our own way, my colleagues at the Foundation have
    encouraged the serious discussion of the future of the
    Metropolitan Police Department. Back in October of 1996, The
    Heritage Foundation sponsored a public policy lecture by
    William J. Bratton, who was the former Police Commissioner of
    the City of New York on the topic, ``If New York City can
    reduce violent crime, why can't D.C.?''
        You all know the reason. Over the past 4 years, New York
    City has witnessed an overall reduction in crime by 50 percent.
    During Bratton's 27-month tenure alone, New York City saw a 36
    percent reduction in serious crime, including a 44 percent drop
    in auto theft and a 45 percent drop in murder.
        The purpose of the Heritage initiative was to determine
    how, precisely, this was accomplished and what policy makers
    here in Washington, locally and nationally, could learn from
    the New York City's stunning success.
        Larry Soulsby, the Chief, was a panelist. He was invited to
    discuss ways that he could improve the Department at the time.
    Eric Holder was also invited, as were representatives of the
    local neighborhood associations. I am proud to report it was a
    positive, encouraging, and very productive meeting.
        I am going to confine my remarks this afternoon to the
    question of the police and how public officials can help the
    police. I noticed at the top of this conversation, we were
    talking about the tough job facing the police. It seems to me
    and my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation that perhaps the
    basic problem is that most of us simply do not think about the
    police enough. More precisely, we do not give the police enough
    thought about what kind of job they do.
        That has certainly been true in the District of Columbia.
    The Memorandum of Understanding describes a Metropolitan Police
    Department plagued by deep cynicism, ``low morale for
    management, a lack of clear vision and common purpose,'' but it
    then further notes, ``that many of these conditions existed for
    the last 10 years.'' From the standpoint of public policy,
    ignoring the police can be catastrophic.
        The job that Congress and local officials have to undertake
    first is to rethink the job of the police officer. It is our
    first task. We have to ask ourselves a fundamental question:
    What public official exercises more direct, concrete, and
    immediate authority over every citizen of the United States,
    regardless of their class or condition, than a police officer?
        If you think about it, the authority of the police officer
    is awesome. There is nothing else like it. He can stop you and
    he can question you under a given set of circumstances. He can
    arrest you and take away your personal liberty. And, indeed,
    under another set of circumstances, he can even deprive you of
    your life.
        He is bound by rules and regulations, as is every other
    public official, but as James Q. Wilson and others observed,
    these rules tell him what he cannot do. They tell him nothing
    about what he can or should do. There is a reason for this, and
    it is inherent in the job of the police officer as a
    profession.
        The police are, as Wilson and others have noted, the
    supreme paradox of personnel management. In virtually every
    other public or private institution you can imagine, the
    discretion of an official, what he can do under a broad charter
    of responsibility increases as one goes up the hierarchy. At
    the very top of the pyramid, whether it is running Microsoft
    Corporation or the Department of Health and Human Services, the
    discretion of your top officer is enormous.
        The police are the exception to this otherwise iron rule of
    management. Indeed, in the case of the police, the discretion
    in the exercise of authority increases as one goes down the
    hierarchy. So in the case of the police, you have a unique role
    reversal that exists nowhere else in either public or private
    management. The police are operationally independent, they
    operate alone, they have to depend primarily on their own
    judgment, weighing the circumstances in every case, and they
    operate without direct supervision.
        In effect, they are authorized to make split-second
    decisions in matters of life and death within the confines of
    the law and the Constitution. This is something that is beyond
    the experience of most Members of the Senate or the House or
    even the Supreme Court. This kind of discretionary authority is
    for most of us, simply beyond imagination. Public officials
    should think about that. They should think about it a lot. They
    should think about what kind of person they want in that kind
    of a job.
        We have to also rethink the standards for police personnel.
    The problem of the police is ultimately a problem of personnel
    management. Specifically, it is a matter of adopting
    appropriate standards in recruiting and hiring and firing and
    promoting and deploying police officers. As my colleague at The
    Heritage Foundation, Bill Bennett, once remarked, no personnel
    decision in government is more important than the hiring of a
    police officer. If you make a mistake in hiring a police
    officer, the consequences can be catastrophic.
        We also have to rethink the role of the police in
    combatting and preventing crime. It looks like we are on the
    way to doing that. I am very grateful to see that the D.C.
    Police Department and the Booz-Allen team and the signatories
    to the Memorandum of Understanding are doing precisely that.
        We can do a lot of other things. I have specified in my
    testimony 10 different items. It has a central theme: Getting
    serious about personnel investigations, serious about
    recruiting standards, and at the same time, giving the police
    the recognition they deserve.
        One thing I want to close with, Mr. Chairman. Beyond the
    pay raises, one thing that we may want to think about is to
    have the President, the leaders of Congress, the
    representatives of the business community and the labor
    community, the press corps, once a year in this city honor
    outstanding police officers. It would go a long way to boosting
    the morale of the police, to let them know that the highest
    officials of this country are behind them 100 percent.
        Thank you. That ends my initial statement.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Dr. Moffit. I
    appreciate that.
        Mr. C. Stephen Wallis, Washington, D.C. Area School
    Administrator, thank you for joining us.

    TESTIMONY OF C. STEPHEN WALLIS,\1\ WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA SCHOOL
                             ADMINISTRATOR

        Mr. Wallis. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today, Senator Lieberman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Wallis appears in the Appendix on
    page 149.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My focus over the last several years has been on the
    pivotal role that school environments play when we examine
    American public schools, and it seems to me that a discussion
    of crime, adult and juvenile, in any of America's communities
    would be rather incomplete without an equal examination of the
    community's schools.
        Frankly, too many of America's public school teachers
    perform under combat conditions, Senators. Worse, teachers too
    often have little support from local boards of education or
    school administrators, and yet despite the barrage of
    disrespectful behavior on the part of unruly students and the
    lack of action from school authorities, these teachers daily
    make heroic efforts to educate this country's youth.
        State and local legislators can take a strong hand in
    reforming public education through school choice, charter
    schools, and other measures designed to increase
    accountability. Today, I want to lay out before you how it is
    that legislators can also play a vital role by restoring
    discipline and, frankly, civility and a traditional level of
    popular literacy.
        The District of Columbia is no exception in this regard,
    sadly played out with frightening regularity in too many of its
    schools, most recently at Ballou regarding the stabbings just
    within the last day or two and with the Winston Elementary sex
    incidents within the last 2 weeks.
        And while urban, suburban, and rural school administrators
    continue to fret for more funds, and money is awfully
    important, I humbly contend that money is the wrong focus. The
    most pivotal reason for this country's lackluster educational
    performance continues to revolve around the utter lack of
    civility in our schools, and, worse, it is tolerated on a daily
    basis.
        We can no longer assert the need to set rigorous standards
    and then ignore the very reason why this is unachievable. The
    number of classroom disruptions interfering with teaching and
    the number of threats and injuries to teachers and students
    grow exponentially, and it appears to me that many of the
    schools have lost their sense of culture, of just what is
    important for students completing their K-12 public school
    education.
        A school's success is due, in major part, to its
    philosophical foundation, its norms and its beliefs, academic
    and social. So if the climate exudes achievement for everyone
    and if the school emphasizes educational goals and what I call
    the 4 Rs, including respect, then the grounds themselves, the
    building itself is thought of as a place for learning. It is of
    paramount importance, and then this becomes infectious.
    Teachers will also project to all students that they can and
    are expected to achieve.
        But that is not the case that we have in most of our
    schools, gentlemen. When a school system is fraught with
    disruption and rampant disrespectful behavior and where
    policies governing behavior are weak or poorly written, then
    the mission is at best amorphous and allows for an erosion of
    sensible expectations. In effect, the school's culture is
    subverted by a kind of silent chaos.
        You have to be in a public school, in many of them, to see
    the repeated sundry of ill behaviors, from disrespectful
    comments to peers and adults, the pushing, the fighting, the
    rudeness, the open alcohol and drug activity in school
    corridors, lateness to class, the truancy, being unprepared,
    foolish disregard for policies, sleeping in class, fondling one
    another, wearing clothes emblazoned with drug, gang, and often
    demeaning expressions to one or another's gender, ad nauseam,
    often with no correction and no consequences.
        I have stated repeatedly that this has a negative
    cumulative effect. It is as though we are waiting for
    youngsters to run to the edge of the cliff before they decide
    that leaping off the edge, in this case, a knife cutting in a
    cafeteria or a violent assault or a gun incident, is really
    inappropriate. It is very similar to the broken window
    syndrome.
        As a Nation, we can be appalled, but we ought not be
    surprised at the level of violence being played out in our
    streets. It is being played out in our schools, elementary,
    middle, and high. Youngsters continue to graduate from the
    schools with barely a tenuous grasp of right and wrong. They
    will continue to play the system, and sadly, too frequently, be
    in and out of the justice system and still many what I call
    educrats and others still do not get it.
        An effective school system, one that focuses on stressing
    achievement, wholesome involvement in the total school program,
    emphasizing respect and integrity, emphasizing also a shared
    parent partnership, cannot be sustained under conditions where
    there are endless excuses for intractable defiant behavior and
    no moral or ethical consequences.
        There are some things I think legislators can help us do.
    First of all, there are four principles that must characterize
    certain actions. Disruptive and violent behavior receives zero
    tolerance. Discipline be even-handed with due process,
    regardless of ethnicity, gender, or socio-economic background.
    An acknowledgement that substantive discipline is a kindness
    that contributes to personal growth and freedom. And last,
    there must be a return to the appropriate mission of schools,
    refocusing efforts on teaching youngsters to read, for God's
    sakes, to compute, to write, to speak, and to think critically.
        We can encourage involvement by use of parent contracts. I
    would ask legislators to encourage the Washington, D.C. school
    system to establish community service for those students on
    suspension, gaining an understanding of compassion, respect,
    and humility and responsibility that might be learned and might
    be gained by helping someone in a nursing home, tutoring
    another youngster, cleaning up a park; establishing school
    time-out rooms with a para-professional and community agency
    staff to work with disruptors, if only temporarily,
    establishing transitional schools for the habitually disruptive
    student; establishing afternoon auxiliary centers with
    supervised open classrooms and gymnasiums after the regular
    school day for those students wishing to take in academic
    assistance or participation in cultural activities; insisting
    that school officials review and rewrite, if necessary, student
    discipline codes; making character education a part of the
    curriculum; hiring retired military staff as a resource of
    talent and training; ensuring that adequate security personnel
    are in the schools and on school grounds; ensuring that high
    schools employ reading specialists; and the last two, cutting
    off funds, if you will, to those districts or those schools
    tolerating disruption; and examining school staffing and
    assigning staff to our schools with community-specific at-risk
    needs and really departing from the rigid formula that assigns
    staff on the basis of student numbers.
        I would add that I think the more students think and learn,
    the more active they will become in the instruction. And when
    respect, self-discipline, and character are rewarded, student
    motivation to learn will increase, Senators.
        I will tell you that I think there is a continuing active
    role for legislators, for employers and communities, for that
    matter, in the effort to move our children to world class
    standards, but it has to be recognized first and foremost that
    disrespectful behavior and disruption steals learning and
    smothers instruction, and in the process, steals the future
    from far too many students.
        Last, I would like to say that we might begin improving the
    conditions under which too many American public school teachers
    work and teach if the end result is improving the education of
    our country's children. I would thank you all very much for the
    time and effort that you give to the District's children and
    their parents and their teachers.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, and thank you for your work
    on the front lines in the schools and with the children.
        With three police officers being, we have even heard the
    term here today, assassinated in the District in the first 4
    months, does any of that surprise you, being a school
    administrator and some of the comments that you've made about
    lack of respect in the school system, of kids growing up and
    being willing to engage even in the mental processes of
    thinking about actually going out and killing a police officer?
    Does any of that surprise you?
        Mr. Wallis. It does not, Chairman Brownback. Recently,
    talking in San Antonio and Detroit, Michigan, I have said
    nationally that far too many of the criminal element, frankly,
    have been cultivated in our public schools. They at one time
    were in our public schools.
        And the fact of the matter is that an atmosphere that is
    rife with disruption simply cannot produce kids who know
    something about self-respect and integrity and regard for the
    sanctity of life. I am not surprised at all. I think we are
    reaping 25 to 30 years of what we have sown.
        Senator Brownback. And you have stated in your testimony,
    and I appreciate that, some of the things you think that we can
    do here to try to turn that tide. I know it is both Senator
    Lieberman's and my hope that we have reached the bottom of the
    barrel and we are going to start turning this around, but we
    have a lot of years to go.
        Mr. Wallis. I am sure we do, Chairman, but I would humbly
    insist that before legislative bodies appropriate a single
    dime, that those vested with the responsibility to educate our
    youngsters ensure that these schools are safe, that they have,
    in each one, an atmosphere that is conducive and contributive
    to academic study consistently and extracurricular involvement.
        Senator Brownback. Is that happening now in the District of
    Columbia schools? We now have the Control Board involved. There
    has been a lot of hope and promise being put forward there. Is
    it happening now in the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Wallis. Generally speaking, it is not, Senator, which
    is why you have had occur just within the last couple weeks
    some of the problems that we have had in the schools. It
    certainly is nothing indigenous to Washington, D.C. This is
    pervasive and we all know the violence statistics. But I would
    contend that the disruptive and disrespectful behavior that we
    see is far more pervasive than the violence.
        Senator Brownback. You cite charter schools, and choice.
    What else can be done within the school system today to try to
    reinstill some of that respect and reduce the disrespectful
    activity?
        Mr. Wallis. I think it is going to take a legislative body,
    such as this, and the community working towards the effort of
    really renewing schools and doing it in a substantive fashion,
    because we can talk about increasing test scores, we can talk
    about incorporating technology in different schools, but the
    fact is that we need to emphasize very, very substantively the
    importance of a shared partnership with the community, and
    frankly, as I mentioned earlier, the complete sanctity of the
    schools, where schools are places where the parameters are such
    where kids must achieve.
        It takes dynamic leadership. The faculty have to know how
    much they are appreciated and kids have to know that each and
    every one of them can succeed, and it is true, but it is
    utterly impossible when schools are run as they are today. It
    is fundamentally flawed to think that we can talk about these
    kinds of things regarding achievement and then stand by and
    allow the kind of behavior that steals dignity and smothers
    instruction every day.
        Senator Brownback. So set standards and absolutely adhere
    to those?
        Mr. Wallis. I think so. I believe in my heart, Senator
    Brownback, I think we need to declare a war on incivility and
    it takes setting standards. There are too many constituencies
    who have supported me on that. I have talked to minority youth.
    I have talked to various schools, their faculties, and I am
    telling you, across the Nation, kids are hungering for this.
    They have indicated in recent surveys that they would feel a
    lot better about themselves, they would learn a great deal more
    if they just felt safer.
        So, if you are talking about crime in any one community,
    you have got to discuss the schools and they have to be
    examined and they have to be run, I would humbly suggest, as I
    am outlining today.
        Senator Brownback. Senator Lieberman.
        Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        You both gave excellent testimony, both in terms of the
    attitude, the values that you bring to it, which I appreciate a
    lot, and the specific recommendations that you have made.
        If I may, not to take too much time, but this whole notion
    of incivility is so critical, and it has been an interest that
    I have shared with the Chairman, to examine or to do something
    about the effect that the entertainment culture--television,
    music, movies--have on kids with the decline of some of the
    other sources of authority, traditional civility.
        Take a look at television. Part of what is wrong with the
    trash talk TV shows is not just the dominance of the sexually
    perverse behavior that is described, but it is the way the
    discussion goes on. It is yelling at each other, it is pushing
    each other around.
        Take a look at some of the TV shows, some of them that seem
    pretty funny. You could take a look at ``The Simpsons'' and, in
    one light, it is sort of funny, or ``Married With Children,''
    which is now going off the air. But what is involved in both of
    those shows is a profound lack of civility and respect for
    authority, parents, for instance. So we all pay the price for
    this. I apologize for the sermon on your time, but----
        Mr. Wallis. You are preaching to the choir.
        Senator Lieberman. Thank you.
        One of the other things you have said, just in response to
    the Chairman and just to punctuate it, we are accustomed to
    having people say that prisons are schools of crime, that often
    people go in a prison, come out more schooled in crime. It is
    an awful thought, but it is true in too many schools in our
    country today, that schools can also be breeding grounds for
    criminal behavior and we have to stop that.
        Let me ask a specific question. I missed asking this both
    last week or 2 weeks ago when the school folks were in and
    today. Are the D.C. police responsible for security in the
    public schools or is there a separate school security force?
        Mr. Wallis. I am not absolutely sure of that, Senator. I
    know some schools have hired separate security, private
    security, and I know some Washington, D.C. officers have
    patrolled some of the schools. I am not sure if there is an
    actual formal contract for that.
        Senator Lieberman. OK. We can pursue that. I just am
    curious as to whether you have seen a reduction in crime within
    the schools in the period of time that we have heard described
    in the previous panel, by the Chief and others in which this
    new approach is going into effect. We are seeing more arrests,
    a drop in serious crimes. Have you seen any change within the
    schools that you are involved in?
        Mr. Wallis. I am sorry to say I have not. No, sir.
        Senator Lieberman. Dr. Moffit, thanks for your testimony
    and the specificity of your suggestions. I am very interested
    to just ask you to talk a little bit about No. 4 of your 10
    items, which is to anchor the police in the community.
        Mr. Moffit. Right.
        Senator Lieberman. I am real interested in what you said
    about going beyond putting the cop on the beat, community
    policing, but have some other ideas, and this really goes to
    the heart of what I was saying at the outset, which is when I
    grew up, not only did we have respect for the cop, but he was
    our friend, if you will.
        Mr. Moffit. Right.
        Senator Lieberman. I am afraid there was a whole generation
    or maybe more than one that came along where the cop was almost
    like the invading army and an outsider in a car, almost like a
    tank. You never saw him, but whatever he was, he was not on our
    side. Talk a little bit about that.
        Mr. Moffit. I would like to talk a little bit about that. I
    mean, there are a lot of reasons why. Some of them are
    technical. Some of them are social.
        But when you were growing up, and, frankly, when I was
    growing up, in my young life, I spent a fair amount of time in
    Center City, Philadelphia. The neighborhood policeman was an
    institution. The key thing was that the neighborhood policeman,
    the neighborhood cop, knew the people in the neighborhood, and
    even better, all the people in the neighborhood knew the
    neighborhood cop.
        This had a profound effect on law enforcement. Because what
    it meant was that any time a crime was committed, the
    neighborhood policeman had an immediate access, in effect, to
    an informal intelligence service.
        Senator Lieberman. Right.
        Mr. Moffit. We lost that. My view is that we have got to
    get back to that and there are a number of ways of doing it. I
    mentioned Charleston, South Carolina, in my testimony, and
    Portland, Oregon, where the local officials are trying to get
    the policemen to become members of the community that they
    serve. One way to do that is housing vouchers or low-interest
    loans, literally giving the police the opportunity--it is a
    voluntary program--to go back into the communities they patrol
    and become part of the community.
        The key value of that, once again, is that the people in
    the community then have a stake in that policeman and that
    policeman has a stake in the community. It is an excellent
    idea. I do not think we ought to order the police to do this,
    but I think we ought to make it an option, and in Washington,
    D.C., this is something we may want to consider or pursue.
        Senator Lieberman. And this is being used in some
    communities, like Charleston, with some positive effect?
        Mr. Moffit. Yes. That is right.
        Senator Lieberman. I appreciate that. You make an
    interesting point, actually, about the way in which the old cop
    on the beat had his built-in intelligence network.
        Mr. Moffit. Immediately.
        Senator Lieberman [presiding]. Most police I talk to will
    tell me, at home, certainly, in Connecticut, that the way that
    most crimes are solved is by getting cooperation, today, often
    paid for with cash, which is an acceptable form of law
    enforcement, but it is a cost that law enforcement did not have
    in the old days because the cop knew everybody in the
    neighborhood and was already able to break through and get
    information.
        I thank you both very much. The Chairman has had to step
    out, but he has asked me to move on and call the next panel. We
    appreciate very much your testimony and your written testimony,
    and it will be helpful to the Subcommittee as we go forward.
    Thanks very much.
        Mr. Moffit. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Wallis. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Lieberman. Stay strong.
        The final panel is the Hon. Carol Schwartz, District of
    Columbia City Council, and Dr. H. Beecher Hicks, Jr., Senior
    Minister of the Metropolitan Baptist Church. Thanks to both of
    you for your patience and for your willingness to be here. We
    are going to run the clock again at the 5 minutes, I guess.
        Councilwoman Schwartz, you are first. It is good to see you
    again.

       TESTIMONY OF CAROL SCHWARTZ,\1\ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY
                             COUNCIL MEMBER

        Ms. Schwartz. Thank you, Senator. It is nice to see you, as
    well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz appears in the Appendix
    on page 153.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would like to thank the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight
    of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
    Columbia for the opportunity to testify today concerning
    strategies for fighting crime and violence in the District of
    Columbia. I speak to you today as an elected at-large member of
    the Council of the District of Columbia. Although the Council
    is doing much in the area of fighting crime and violence, and I
    hope you will ask me some questions about that at the end of my
    testimony so I can talk about it, I am going to concentrate my
    remarks on the death penalty as it relates to the killing of
    law enforcement officers.
        First, let me begin by stating that I believe that local
    criminal law should be an area in which local communities ought
    to have the right to make their own decisions. My colleagues on
    the Council and I wholeheartedly agree on this issue and have
    not yet signed onto the President's plan for the District
    because of our concerns in this area.
        The 38 States that have enacted death penalties into the
    criminal law have done so based upon local considerations and
    circumstances. There are 12 States, like the District of
    Columbia, who have not enacted a death penalty statute. Yet the
    U.S. Congress has not intervened to impose death penalty
    legislation in any of those States.
        I think it is safe to say that such an intrusion into the
    local affairs of those 12 States would be unthinkable to the
    citizens of those States and to the Members of Congress who
    represent them. Should we not all believe, as President Abraham
    Lincoln did, that ``those who deny freedom to others deserve it
    not for themselves.''
        Members of the Subcommittee, I respectfully ask you to
    consider that the American citizens who are my constituents in
    the District of Columbia are like your constituents. All of our
    constituents possess the rights as citizens of a democratic
    society to determine their own local government affairs
    locally. Just because the Congress has the constitutional
    authority to enact legislation for the District does not mean
    they must exercise it.
        While I personally support the death penalty, I believe
    that the District of Columbia should be free not to enact such
    a law if that is the will of the people. That is the essence of
    a democracy. The author, Eric Hoffer, once said that ``the
    basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do
    than in what we are free not to do.'' I agree with this
    statement.
        I recently returned from Croatia, where I was privileged to
    be a member of the United States delegation that observed the
    elections there. It is a powerful experience to witness a
    people determining their destiny through the vote. The U.S.
    Government supports democracy in Croatia and throughout the
    world. The U.S. support for democracy worldwide contrasts
    sharply with how the District of Columbia is routinely treated
    by its own Federal Government.
        This discussion also reminds me of news commentator Edward
    R. Murrow's observation that ``we cannot defend freedom abroad
    by deserting it at home.''
        I support the death penalty for those who are convicted of
    murdering law enforcement officers. I firmly believe that our
    local law enforcement officers in the District of Columbia
    should have the same protections as other law enforcement
    officers who operate in the District, such as the Capitol
    Police, Park Police, Uniformed Senate Service, the Secret
    Service, and others.
        The death penalty bill that the Mayor and I announced on
    April 21, 1997, is D.C. Bill 12-204, the Law Enforcement
    Officer Protection Amendment Act of 1997. That bill would
    provide for the death penalty in cases of murder of D.C. law
    enforcement officers. I support D.C. Bill 12-204 because I
    believe that it is critically important for the people of the
    District of Columbia to have an opportunity that is locally
    initiated to weigh in through the legislative process on this
    serious and highly complex criminal penalty.
        As you may recall, District voters soundly rejected a 1992
    Congressionally mandated initiative on the death penalty by a
    margin of 2 to 1. I know for a fact that many of the no votes
    were to Congressional interference rather than to the death
    penalty.
        The bill recently proposed by the Mayor and myself will
    permit District of Columbia citizens to express their views on
    the death penalty for the murder of law enforcement officers
    without being required this time to simultaneously register
    their views on the issue of Congressional interference in
    District affairs, but only if Senator Hutchison withdraws her
    bill, you deep-six it, or you vote it down.
        I believe that the will of the people of the District of
    Columbia should prevail on this issue, whatever that may mean
    for the Mayor's and my bill. I am confident that the Congress
    of these democratic United States will respect the democratic
    rights of the over half a million American citizens who make
    their homes and dutifully pay their Federal income taxes here
    in the District of Columbia. Thank you.
        Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz. We will have
    some questions afterward.
        Dr. Hicks, we are honored to have you here and look forward
    to your testimony now.

        TESTIMONY OF REVEREND H. BEECHER HICKS, JR.,\1\ SENIOR
                 MINISTER, METROPOLITAN BAPTIST CHURCH

        Rev. Hicks. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. I am H. Beecher
    Hicks, Jr., Senior Minister of Metropolitan Baptist Church in
    the District.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Rev. Hicks, Jr. appears in the
    Appendix on page 156.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ordinarily, I would say that I am happy to testify before
    the Senate Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,
    and the District of Columbia Subcommittee, but I am not. I am
    truly saddened by the events which make this testimony
    necessary, and at the same time, I am unalterably opposed to S.
    294 for a number of reasons which will shortly be apparent.
        Let it be clear that I share the broken heart of the entire
    community because of the recent death of three District of
    Columbia police officers and the suffering and pain it has
    caused to their families. More to the point, I am extremely
    sympathetic to the family and friends of anyone who is slain.
    The nature of my ministry causes me to be in a caring
    relationship with all who know the anguish of unredemptive
    grief. My job is to walk weekly to the cemetery, there to bury
    the sad remains of this social insanity.
        Even within that context, however, my position against the
    death penalty is a longstanding one, a position which I trust
    will be taken seriously in this significant body.
        In 1992, Congress tried to impose the death penalty on the
    District of Columbia, but the late D.C. City Council Chairman
    David Clarke, the Rev. Al Galbin, and I organized area
    ministers against the manufacturers of semi-automatic weapons.
    Our group was responsible for the ``Thou shalt not kill''
    posters that were visible throughout the District. Five years
    ago, we mounted this campaign with the help of other groups,
    and by an overwhelming majority imposed economic consequences
    upon the manufacturers of the weapons of death that caused
    blood to run in the streets of our city.
        It is a strange and curious circumstance which leads to a
    discussion of the death penalty before this Subcommittee of the
    U.S. Senate. It is also a strange and curious philosophy which
    posits that by killing killers, we shall stop killing, that one
    act of savagery justifies the next.
        The reasons for my opposition to the death penalty are as
    old as the Mosaic Torah and are the same in the instance of the
    death of a police officer or of a private citizen. The same
    injunction which was placed throughout this community in 1992
    is the same injunction which must be given today, thou shalt
    not kill.
        This entire discussion fails to take into account the
    culture of violence which has given rise to a segment of our
    population which has no value for life. While three police
    officers have regrettably lost their lives and while it is at
    least politically expedient for some to suggest that police are
    being deliberately targeted for death, it is also true that
    similarly innocent persons in the larger populous have lost
    their lives through drive-by shootings, gangland style murders,
    and acts of domestic violence which have literally caused blood
    to run in the sewers of this city. Is one death more important
    than the next? I think not.
        We must respond most forcefully to those conditions which
    occasion irrational thought and unthinkable behavior--
    joblessness, homelessness, drugs, hopelessness, and a whole
    myriad of social diseases which affect this community and so
    many others throughout this land.
        I am opposed to the death penalty because of the frailty of
    our humanity. All of us are fallible, none of us more perfect
    than the other. We do not have a perfect criminal justice
    system. We have only to remember cases of prisoners being
    released after years of incarceration because of DNA tests that
    proved them innocent. The recent allegations of tampering with
    evidence by criminal justice authorities makes it difficult, if
    not impossible, to place total faith in a system operated by
    mere mortals and, therefore, subject to critical flaw. Capital
    punishment leaves no margin for error. Its consequences are
    mortally severe.
        You are aware of the typical arguments against capital
    punishment. There is no credible evidence that the death
    penalty deters crime. States that have death penalty laws do
    not have lower crime rates or murder rates than States without
    such laws. States that have abolished capital punishment or
    instituted it show no significant changes in either crime or
    murder rates. Like it or not, in reality, such laws will do
    nothing to protect the citizens or communities from the acts of
    dangerous criminals.
        The issue at hand, however, is far more compelling and
    enticing. All reasonable persons would argue for the most
    elaborate protection of those who protect us. Nevertheless, for
    death penalty laws specifically imposed for the murder of a
    police officer, there is no evidence that police officers are
    murdered at any lesser rate in States that do not have that
    law.
        In fact, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers
    Memorial Fund, Texas ranked fourth in the Nation in 1996 in the
    number of police officers killed, second in 1995, third in
    1994. According to Law Enforcement News, prior to the
    statistics above, from 1988 through 1993, Texas ranked No. 1 in
    police killings. Therefore, if the death penalty for police
    officers did deter these murders, the statistics for Texas, the
    great State of Senator Hutchison, would be a less striking
    phenomenon.
        The unvarnished truth of the criminal justice system in
    America reveals that the death penalty has a disparate impact
    on African-Americans. Since the revival of the death penalty in
    the mid-1970's, about half of those on death row at any given
    time are of African-American descent. During 1996, of the 3,200
    prisoners on death row, 40 percent were black. These statistics
    are compiled nationwide, where African-Americans are
    approximately 12 percent of the population. It is not that
    people of color commit more murders. It is that they are more
    often sentenced to death when they do.
        Poor people are also far more likely to be death sentenced
    than those who can afford the higher cost of private
    investigators, psychiatrists, and expert criminal lawyers to be
    used in their defense. Some observers have pointed out that the
    term capital punishment is ironic because only those without
    capital get the punishment.
        I personally oppose the death penalty. I am here today
    because I believe the residents of the District of Columbia
    have an inalienable right to make that decision for themselves.
    Only those who are elected and accountable to the citizens of
    the District of Columbia have the moral imperative to make the
    decisions which are so important and so dire.
        That we face a crisis, there is no doubt. This is not a
    foreign enemy invasion. It is an internal pathology, which,
    though unacceptable, is no justification for an exacerbation of
    amoral punishment, the ultimate act of incivility.
        In this time of crisis, we must seize the opportunity to be
    firm and resolute as we deal with crime but sane and civil with
    the treatment of those who are the perpetrators of crime. The
    quality of mercy must not be strained. Let there be no
    equivocation in my position. Thou shalt not kill.
        Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Dr. Hicks, and Councilwoman
    Schwartz. Obviously, you have both spoken against the grain, if
    you will, of previous testimony, but this does not come as a
    total surprise to the Subcommittee. We appreciate that you are
    here. This process works best when we, if you will allow me to
    say this, Dr. Hicks, when we do not only hear a chorus of
    ``amens,'' but when we are challenged to hear all sides, and I
    appreciate the eloquence with which you both spoke.
        Senator Brownback [presiding]. Thank you, Senator
    Lieberman. I apologize. We just had a major issue that I had to
    take care of.
        If I could ask quickly and directly, Councilwoman Schwartz,
    you heard Senator Hutchison testify, saying, ``Look, I am
    willing to allow the city to go forward.'' You are a supporter
    of capital punishment for protection of police officers. You
    heard her say something about somewhere around a July 1 time
    frame. Is that a reasonable time frame to give the city the
    time to act on this issue?
        Ms. Schwartz. Well, it really is not a reasonable time
    frame, and what concerns me about this--if you do not mind, let
    me tell you a true story.
        Senator Lieberman. In your absence, Mr. Chairman,
    Councilwoman Schwartz advised us to deep-six Senator
    Hutchison's proposal.
        Ms. Schwartz. That was a choice. Either vote it down, deep-
    six it, or have her withdraw her bill, which unfortunately, she
    does not seem amenable to doing.
        But let me tell you a true story. In 1992, I mentioned to
    you what happened with the Senate initiative on the death
    penalty, and unfortunately, Senator Brownback, you did not hear
    my testimony, but in my testimony, I stated that defeat of the
    death penalty, which was by a 2-to-1 margin, I do believe it
    would have probably been more like 50-50 had it not been for
    the whole Congressional interference discussion that went on
    around it. I actually know people who voted against the
    initiative even though they favor the death penalty because of
    the Congressional mandate that required us to deal with the
    issue. So you have to realize, in any discussion that takes
    place in D.C., you--the Congress--can make or break it by what
    you do up here.
        Now, here is where I am going to bring in my true story. I
    came back from Officer Gibson's funeral on February 10 and I
    was very emotionally disturbed by that, as I am with each of
    these tragic deaths we face in our city. I walked into my
    office and I said to my staff, I am going to commit political
    suicide in this town, and you have to realize, most of my staff
    are against what I was proposing, but I said, I am going to
    commit political suicide, but I feel strongly enough about this
    issue that I want to propose legislation which would provide
    for the death penalty for those who kill law enforcement
    officers. That was on February 10, right after the funeral.
        About an hour and a half later, one of my staff members
    knocked on my door and said that Kay Bailey Hutchison just
    offered a bill in the U.S. Senate to impose the death penalty
    for those who kill police. I said, oh, shoot. I actually said
    something a little stronger than that, which I will not relate
    here, but I thought, oh, darn. Here goes any chance that I
    might have to get a local discussion going on this very
    important issue without having the whole discussion of Congress
    getting itself involved. So I put it on the back burner.
        Then as the days and weeks went on, I started getting
    really mad, because I hate it when Congress tells me what to
    do, and if you were in our shoes, you would feel the same way,
    and I want to say just one thing on that. You mentioned that
    Senator Hutchison, I think, made a good point today when she
    said that the Congress is the District's State and States tell
    local jurisdictions what to do.
        But the difference is, in States that are telling local
    jurisdictions what to do, those local jurisdictions have a vote
    in their State legislatures, so they have representation. We do
    not have voting representation in our ``State,'' the U.S.
    Congress, and that is a big inequity which has been long, very
    hurtful, and legitimately hurtful in our citizens' feelings
    about you all looking out for us.
        But anyway, I put this on the back burner because I
    thought, there goes any opportunity we will have for this
    discussion, which I favor. I probably favor it as passionately
    as Senator Hutchison or each of you favors it. And yet, I
    wanted to see that local discussion, even though I knew it was
    not a popular one here in my home town.
        As the days and weeks went by, I started thinking, as much
    as I hate Congress telling me what to do, I also equally hated
    it that I was allowing Congress, my feelings about Congress, to
    keep me from doing what I wanted to do. So then I started
    talking to the Mayor and we came out on our own.
        I do think it is interesting that Marion Barry and I, who
    between the two of us, in 1994 got 98 percent of the vote for
    Mayor. He got 56 percent. I got 42 percent. We have come out
    together on this same issue. I wish Congress would back off
    long enough for us to have a real good local discussion on this
    without the hammer over the head of a July date or a blank
    date.
        Senator Brownback. Ms. Schwartz, what length of time is,
    then, reasonable for you to have a real discussion about this?
    What would it be?
        Ms. Schwartz. I understand from the Chair of the Judiciary
    Committee that he does plan to hold a hearing on this issue in
    June. It is possible for the Council to either vote it up or
    down by July, but I doubt if that will be the case because I do
    not think necessarily the votes are there, so it is not going
    to be pushed very strongly.
        I, then, would consider doing an initiative, a locally
    initiated initiative on this issue where the voters could speak
    if the Council does not do it. That does take some time. You
    have to get an initiative on the ballot. You have to get all
    the signatures that are needed and then there would have to be
    an election, and we are having some special elections coming
    up.
        So I would say the end of the year is far more reasonable
    than the July date. But there again, I deeply regret the hammer
    that I felt Senator Hutchison put over our head today, that if
    you do not do this by July, we are going to do it. Now, all of
    a sudden, this good local debate is now going to get refocused
    away from what it should be focused on and back up here to the
    U.S. Congress.
        Senator Brownback. I hope you will go ahead and conduct a
    local debate in spite of the background noise in the U.S.
    Congress, but that you will have a good local debate on it.
        Dr. Hicks, could I ask you, and I understand from your
    written testimony your position and the heartfeltness of that
    position, from you putting that forward in writing in your
    comments. Let me ask you, though, what creates in our culture a
    situation, the same thing I have asked these other people,
    where we have had three police officers stalked and killed in
    the District in 4 months. Is there something that can be done
    to change that culture? You disagree with one answer here. What
    else is there?
        Rev. Hicks. My disagreement is primarily with the death
    penalty as an answer to the pathology. I am not sure that any
    of us have a total solution to it. We heard testimony earlier
    with regard to the change that needs to be made in the
    educational system, which speaks to the issue of trying to
    bring about civility as a matter of changing persons' moral
    behavior.
        I represent a particular philosophy of life which says that
    we are able within the church to shape people's minds and to
    mold behaviors. We also believe that parents in their homes
    have a great responsibility to mold the moral values of
    children, and, therefore, to control their behaviors.
        Nevertheless, the reality is that our culture is of such--
    in fact, we live in a culture of violence. We not only have the
    ``Beavis and Buttheads'' that are on television and ``The
    Simpsons'' and all of the rest which espouse incivility, which
    espouse the kinds of behavior which are certainly anti-social.
    We have developed a whole mindset within this country that says
    that killing and murder and death are something that are to be
    accepted within the society.
        That is why every movie that comes out from Hollywood
    supports it. That is why almost everything we watch on
    television applauds it. That is why we spend billions upon
    billions of dollars within the U.S. Senate and the House of
    Representatives in order to manufacture weapons of war and
    death. And while I understand the necessity to protect the
    land, at the same time, we have sent out another message to the
    entirety of the world that we will be a people who live by the
    instruments of death.
        I say to Council Member Schwartz, we are not in a position
    where we can accept either suicide or homicide. Neither is an
    acceptable alternative. The issue within the District of
    Columbia is that the District residents have already held
    discussions on this issue and have already exercised their
    right to vote by telling us that they are, in fact, opposed to
    the death penalty, that, in fact, they are opposed to the
    manufacture of semi-automatic weapons.
        The reality is that we can debate this ad nauseam and we
    still will come up with the same response, because I thoroughly
    reject the idea that the only reason why the death penalty
    issue was rejected by the citizens of the District of Columbia
    had to do with the fact that Congress was intervening. Of
    course, that was a part of the process, but at the same time,
    underneath everything that you see in Washington, D.C. are a
    people who are civil, are people who are moral, are people who
    are law abiding, are people who are church going and who are
    God believing and who, therefore, reject on a moral ground this
    whole idea of a death penalty as a means of exercising control
    over whatever anti-social behavior there is within the
    community.
        It simply seems to me that we need to find other ways to
    correct the social ills that bring about the problems that we
    have. Do I have a crystal ball that will tell you what that
    will be? Obviously not, but we must work together in order to
    be agents of life and not the agents of death.
        Senator Brownback. You make a very passionate and very
    clear and good response. Studies certainly support the concept
    that capital punishment, while it may be beneficial, it may
    not, I mean, they do go back and forth on it, and I do not hold
    it as the ``be all and end all'' answer to a culture that
    tolerates this sort of situation. Yet, we are all groping. You
    cannot let this type of activity continue.
        Rev. Hicks. Nor can you permit it to be a knee-jerk
    reaction to the fact that we have had three deaths, which are
    regrettable, and we understand that and our hearts go out to
    the families. Nevertheless, there are countless others. The
    body bags are not just of police officers. The body bags are of
    butchers or of bakers, of children, of parents, of grandparents
    who have been taken away to the morgue by the same kind of
    insanity.
        So the solution is not to respond to the needs of one
    segment of the population, but to the entirety of the issue.
        Senator Brownback. Then what do we do?
        Rev. Hicks. We have got to attack it on all fronts. We
    cannot attack it in this one manner. If this one manner were to
    solve the issue, then I would agree with you, but it will not.
    It must be a comprehensive response to the problem and not an
    isolated response.
        Senator Brownback. When you can identify the specifics of
    our comprehensive response, or maybe you will be willing to
    look at the package of ideas that we will put forward for the
    District of Columbia, for the schools and for the areas of
    crime and for the areas of economic growth and development and
    for the overall areas of what we can do to revitalize this
    system.
        But, you know, there is one thing we cannot do here from
    Congress. There are many things we cannot do from here in
    Congress, and that is really work on the soul. That ultimately
    is where we get at, and I hope you are having a great growth
    and revival taking place in your church and throughout this
    community because that is your job and not ours, and----
        Rev. Hicks. It is a matter of soul, but sometimes it is
    also a matter of some real mundane kinds of things. In other
    words, we see that in the District, for instance, that the
    money for the youth program for the summer has been cut out and
    it looks as though we will not be able to have that money. The
    one program that we had in this city that was about the
    business of trying to save the lives of young people in the
    District of Columbia is now being ripped apart, primarily
    because of the initiatives by the Control Board and others to
    bring the city back into line financially. I understand that.
        At the same time, we are being asked in the churches to
    then take the young people and find something to do with them
    in order to give them the kind of support that they will need.
    These children are about to be put back out on the street,
    where they need to be employed, they need to be in churches,
    they need to be in synagogues, they need to be in other kinds
    of agencies where they can be trained and where they can be
    taught the lessons of civility.
        But if the very foundation upon which we are seeking to
    build is destroyed and is taken from us, then I am afraid,
    Senator, that we will find that our problems will be
    exacerbated rather than relieved.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you for your testimony, and both
    of you, as well.
        I thank everyone for attending. I appreciate it and we will
    have further hearings on the District of Columbia. The hearing
    is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.102

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.103

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.104

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.105

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.106

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.107

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.108

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.109

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.110

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.111

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.112

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.113

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.114

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.115

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.116

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.117

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.118

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.119

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH345.120