[Senate Hearing 105-641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 105-641


 
      FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

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

                                HEARING

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION


                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARING

                              D.C. Courts
                          D.C. Public Schools
      Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
                     Metropolitan Police Department

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


                               



 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 senate

                                 ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINING OFFICE
48055 cc                    WASHINGTON : 1998

_______________________________________________________________________
            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402



                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                     TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington             DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina      BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
                   Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                 Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
               James H. English, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

               LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina, Chairman
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          BARBARA BOXER, California
TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)     ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex 
                                         officio)
                           Professional Staff
                          Mary Beth Nethercutt
                        Terry Sauvain (Minority)



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

      FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

                                                                   Page
Statement of Andrew F. Brimmer, chairman, Financial 
  Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.............     1
Statement of Stephen Harlan, vice chairman, Financial 
  Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.............     1
Statement of Margaret Moore, director, D.C. Department of 
  Corrections....................................................     1
Opening statement of Senator Lauch Faircloth.....................     1
Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer...............................     1
Supplemental request.............................................     1
Closing of schools...............................................     2
Additional funding for public schools and Metropolitan Police....     2
Grade ``F'' for school system....................................     3
Decay of schools.................................................     3
Memorandum of understanding......................................     3
Statement of Eleanor Holmes Norton...............................     4
Additional appropriation request.................................     5
Emergency repairs to public schools..............................     5
Criminal justice system needs....................................     5
Prepared statement of Andrew F. Brimmer..........................     6
Questions submitted by Senator Faircloth.........................     9

                          D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Statement of Julius W. Becton, Jr., general, U.S. Army (retired), 
  chief executive officer/superintendent, D.C. Public Schools....    11
Statement of Charles Williams, general, U.S. Army (retired), 
  chief operations officer, D.C. Public Schools..................    11
Emergency capital improvement needs..............................    11
Emergency Board of Trustees......................................    12
Chief operating officer..........................................    12
Facility master plan.............................................    12
Funds from Connie Lee privatization..............................    12
Prepared statement of Julius W. Becton, Jr.......................    13
Questions submitted by Senator Faircloth.........................    16

                     METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

Statement of Larry Soulsby, police chief, Metropolitan Police 
  Department.....................................................    21
Request of $8.8 million for police pay raise.....................    21
Performance management programs and systems......................    21
Enhanced enforcement efforts.....................................    22
Random drug testing..............................................    22
Salaries of police officers......................................    23
Prepared statement of Larry D. Soulsby...........................    23
Questions submitted by Senator Faircloth.........................    27

                              D.C. COURTS

Statement of Chief Judge Eugene Hamilton, D.C. Superior Court....    29
Criminal filings.................................................    29
Prepared statement of Eugene Hamilton............................    30
Failure of the President to forward request......................    37
Funds for Bosnia.................................................    37
Position of the Office of Management and Budget..................    38
Additional request's relationship to President's plan............    38
Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison........................    38
Categories of repairs............................................    39
Fire code violations.............................................    39
Air-conditioning request.........................................    39
Court order......................................................    40
Per pupil cost...................................................    42
Contingency plans................................................    43
No reprogramming opportunities...................................    43
The procurement system...........................................    44
Review of contracts..............................................    44
Police procurement...............................................    44
Bullet-proof vests...............................................    46
Vehicle purchases................................................    47
Use of consultants...............................................    48
Court order......................................................    48
Emergency and necessary repairs..................................    48
Electrical distribution systems..................................    49
Modernization of schools.........................................    49
Designing an academic plan.......................................    50
Medicaid payment.................................................    50
Repairs of schools being closed..................................    52
Why pay increase emergency.......................................    52
Number of officers making no arrest..............................    53
Personnel rules..................................................    53
Number of arrest doubled.........................................    53
Redeployed officers..............................................    53
Recommendation of the MOU group..................................    54
No pay raise for 7 years.........................................    54
Code enforcement to help revitalize..............................    55
Code enforcement legislation.....................................    56
Prioritizing requests............................................    56
Emergency route for supplemental.................................    57
Cost of training police officers.................................    57
Court's taken very few cuts......................................    57
Rate of disposition of cases.....................................    58
Increase in number of prisoners..................................    58
Out-source of prison beds........................................    59
Special appropriation of $15 million for police..................    59
Pay raises to individuals........................................    60
Pay raises tied to performance...................................    60
Performance and standards........................................    60



      FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997

                               U.S. Senate,
          Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lauch Faircloth (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Faircloth, Hutchison, and Boxer.
    Also present: Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

STATEMENT OF ANDREW F. BRIMMER, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        STEPHEN HARLAN, VICE CHAIRMAN
        MARGARET MOORE, DIRECTOR, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUCH FAIRCLOTH

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you for being here. The meeting 
will come to order. And rather than opening it in the normal 
way and recognize the people, Senator Boxer is with us, and she 
has an emergency meeting of the appropriations committee and 
has to leave, so I am going to give her the opportunity to make 
an opening statement that she wanted to get done before we get 
started.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

    Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your 
graciousness, and to Congresswoman Norton, whom I know and have 
loved for years. Let me begin by apologizing to you and the 
assembled witnesses. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and 
we have been called to an emergency meeting. Actually, there is 
one today and one tomorrow. And, without a budget, we cannot 
appropriate anything for any function of government. So I think 
it is crucial that I go there. I will try to come back.

                          supplemental request

    I wanted to say that the Control Board, I am aware, is 
proposing a supplemental budget request in the amount of $52.4 
million for capital improvements to D.C. public schools and for 
public safety. We have some problems with this, in terms of the 
fact that the President has not put that request in his 
supplemental budget, and perhaps he will be taking another look 
at that. We will find out.
    We do not believe the House is going to include this. But I 
still feel it is crucial that we find out the details of this 
request, because it is never too late to change minds and to 
move forward if this is indeed an emergency.
    My staff, Mr. Chairman, Kimberly Miller, will be here 
throughout, and I look forward to working with you to try and 
solve the District's problems. Because this is the greatest 
country in the world, and we need to make this Capital function 
the best that it can.
    Thank you very much.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
    And I, too, want to welcome Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton. She has worked very closely, and I have worked with her 
so far in what we are trying to do with the District. And I 
thank her for her cooperation in everything we try to do.
    I also want to recognize Dr. Bruce MacLaury, who is the 
chairman of the emergency school board. Dr. MacLaury, thank you 
for being here. And Steve Harlan, who is a member of the 
Financial Control Board. We thank both of you for your presence 
this morning.

                           closing of schools

    I want to say, before I got into an opening statement, that 
one of the most difficult decisions that any governing school 
board, or city for that matter, has to make is the closing of 
schools. And it is always an unpopular issue. But I want to 
stress that that is not what this hearing is about this 
morning. The purpose of this hearing is to talk about the 
supplemental appropriation, the emergency money, that we are 
talking about to open the schools in the fall, and also an 
emergency appropriation for the police department.
    So I hope that anyone in the audience that feels strongly 
about school closing or whatever will understand that we will 
have no response from the audience. This is an opportunity for 
the people that are on the panel to testify and for us to hear 
their testimony. And any outspoken response, well, we will have 
to ask you to leave if that were to happen. So this is strictly 
on the emergency appropriation.
    This is the first hearing of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. And I am especially 
pleased that Barbara Boxer could be with us this morning. And I 
hope that Senator Hutchison will be here before we finish. And 
I am delighted, as I said earlier, to have Congresswoman Norton 
with us.

     additional funding for public schools and metropolitan police

    Today we are going to hear testimony on the Control Board's 
request for additional funding for the District of Columbia 
public schools and the public safety agencies. These funds are 
related to the two most glaring problems the city faces--there 
are many, but these are the two most important right now. The 
Control Board was created in 1995. And since that time, it has 
conducted an extensive review of the public schools and the 
Metropolitan Police. And I think the Control Board has done a 
good job. They have made the tough decisions to overhaul both 
of these departments in the face of a lot of criticism.

                     grade ``f'' for school system

    The people of the District of Columbia deserve no less than 
one of the finest school systems and public safety systems in 
the Nation. The Control Board has determined that it is broken. 
And if you graded the District of Columbia school system, it 
would come up with an ``F.'' It simply is not working.
    The District's children lag behind in every measure used to 
evaluate educational performance. In addition to that, the 
physical condition of the District schools has reached a crisis 
level. Twice in the last 3 years, the schools have not opened 
on time because of fire code violations. In fact, just a few 
months ago, several schools were temporarily closed. Unless 
further repairs are made immediately, some schools will not be 
allowed to open in September.
    We simply cannot allow this to happen. In this country, 
providing our children with a solid, basic education is one of 
the most important responsibilities we have. In our Nation's 
Capital, that right has been undermined. The Control Board has 
given the city a wake-up call, and it is time for the Congress 
to prepare to work with the District to solve the problem.

                            decay of schools

    But equally disturbing as the decay of the schools is the 
condition of the Capital streets and neighborhoods. Conditions 
in the shadow, literally, of the Capitol are deplorable. We 
have to stop the drug dealing and the chaos that has developed. 
It is time to stop it throughout the country, but it is 
particularly important that we stop it here in the Nation's 
Capital.

                      memorandum of understanding

    The Control Board has just joined forces with the city by 
entering into a memorandum of understanding with the Mayor, 
Chief Soulsby, City Council members, Judge Hamilton, and 
others. Because of this step, the chief was given more 
authority. And he has placed an additional 400 police officers 
on the street. This is the first step in the department's crime 
reduction effort. But it is only a step. We cannot begin to 
solve the problem facing the city until residents and visitors 
feel free to walk the streets at any time without fear of their 
lives.
    We look forward to the testimony on behalf of the emergency 
funds for the District's public schools and public safety. 
While I understand that many parents are concerned about the 
school closing, I want it again understood this hearing is 
about the funding.
    Before we begin, I would like to--Senator Hutchison has not 
come--I was going to recognize her for a statement. But I will 
also recognize Congresswoman Norton, if you would like to make 
a brief statement before we begin.

                   STATEMENT OF ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Only to say, first, how much I appreciate your holding this 
hearing under fairly unusual circumstances. It certainly is 
consistent with the great help you have been to the District 
and to me since you have become chair of this subcommittee.
    I want to thank you as well, once again, for the gracious 
and generous way in which you heard residents from the District 
a few weeks ago. I think everyone left the room understanding 
that there was a thoughtful chairman, who had gone all the way 
to the grassroots to learn about the District.
    May I finally say that I strongly support this request. I 
think it meets the standard of an emergency supplemental. I 
understand that to be the stricture under which you must 
operate. And I thank you for hearing these representatives from 
the District of Columbia.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind all of the 
witnesses that your entire statement will be made part of the 
record. And I would like to ask, if I may, that you limit your 
opening statement, the spoken part, to 5 minutes. We want to 
hear all of the opening statements, and then we will throw 
questions to the witnesses.
    I would welcome our first witness today, Dr. Andrew 
Brimmer. Dr. Brimmer is chairman of the D.C. Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. That is a 
long name, Dr. Brimmer.
    Dr. Brimmer has a distinguished career in both the public 
and private sectors. He is currently president of Brimmer & 
Co., and a former member of the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve.
    It is a pleasure to have you here, Dr. Brimmer, and I thank 
you. And you may begin.

                     statement of andrew f. brimmer

    Dr. Brimmer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 
of the subcommittee. Good morning.
    My name is Andrew F. Brimmer, and I am chairman of the 
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
Assistance Authority.
    Mr. Chairman, because the name is such a long name for the 
organization, we have gotten into the habit of referring to it 
as the Financial Control Board. So I might, if you do not mind, 
I might do that from time to time in my own comments.
    Senator Faircloth. I hope you will. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Brimmer. The Authority appreciates this opportunity to 
testify on the additional appropriation for fiscal year 1997 
for the District of Columbia. The Authority is convinced that 
the support of the President and the Congress, which is 
critical to the revitalization of the Nation's Capital, is 
vitally necessary to the immediate efforts of stabilizing 
public safety and public education in the District.
    The Authority, since its inception, has recognized these 
two areas, along with capital improvements, as the core of 
fundamental improvements required to build a better future for 
all of Washington's residents and visitors. As you know, in 
December 1996, the Authority issued a strategic plan to guide 
our work in revitalizing the District. The Authority issued a 
mission statement, articulating our intention to create high-
quality, low-cost core services and facilities, such as 
education, public safety, and public works.

                    additional appropriation request

    I am here today, formally, to request that the Congress 
approve an additional appropriation to the fiscal year 1997 
budget for the District of Columbia. On Monday, April 14, 1997, 
the Authority formally transmitted to the President of the 
United States and to the President of the Senate and to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives a request for $52.3 
million in additional Federal funds in fiscal year 1997, to aid 
public education and public safety in the Nation's Capital.
    Our comments today in support of the additional funds are 
based on the best available information from the District 
agencies responsible for programs making these requests.

                  emergency repairs to public schools

    Now, Mr. Chairman, I could go into considerable detail, but 
my colleagues here on the panel will be able to provide 
additional detail on specific pieces of the program. Let me 
say, basically, that as far as the schools are concerned, the 
work has to be done and it has to be done in a timely fashion, 
so that the schools will open in September.
    Let me repeat. The repairs for which we are requesting 
funds today are known. General Williams and his associates have 
already identified those. They have plans to implement and 
carry out the work, but they need the money. And they need to 
receive the authority in a timely fashion, because they cannot 
wait until summer to get underway. So we need an early 
decision. They will document why that is the case.
    With respect to public safety, the MOU which you mentioned 
and for which, at the Control Board, my colleague, Steve 
Harlan, the vice chairman, has responsibility on our behalf--as 
a result of that stepped up policing effort, the courts and the 
Corrections Department are swamped. The policing effort has 
produced more arrests, and these persons are moving through the 
system. So we need additional funds to take the load that is 
now being imposed on the courts and other criminal justice 
agencies in the system.

                     criminal justice system needs

    We also are requesting an increase in funding in order to 
meet the requirements of a pay increase for the police. Chief 
Soulsby will provide the details and the documentation required 
for that request. That, too, is a vital part of the increased 
stress on public safety, and that, too, is a part of this 
emergency.
    Mr. Chairman, as I said, we need these additional funds. We 
have taken a good, hard look at the existing budget. There is 
no way that this additional amount can be found in the existing 
budget. That is why we are asking for an additional 
appropriation at this time.

         prepared statement and additional committee questions

    Mr. Chairman, those conclude my opening comments, and I 
will be delighted to respond to specific requests later on. 
Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Andrew F. Brimmer
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good afternoon. My 
name is Andrew F. Brimmer, and I am Chairman of the District of 
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
    The Authority appreciates this opportunity to testify on the 
additional appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for the District of 
Columbia. The Authority is convinced that the support of the President 
and the Congress--which is critical to the revitalization of the 
Nation's Capital--is vitally necessary to the immediate efforts of 
stabilizing public safety and public education in the District. The 
Authority, since its inception, has recognized these two areas, along 
with capital improvements, as the core of fundamental improvements 
required to build a better future for all of Washington's residents and 
visitors. As you know, in December, 1996 the Authority issued a 
Strategic Plan to guide our work in revitalizing the District. The 
Authority issued a mission statement articulating our intention to 
``create high quality, low cost, core services and facilities, such as 
education, public safety, and public works.''
    I am here today formally to request that the Congress approve an 
additional appropriation to the fiscal year 1997 budget for the 
District of Columbia. On Monday, April 14, 1997, the Authority formally 
transmitted to the President and to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives a request for $52.3 million in supplemental Federal 
funds in fiscal year 1997 to aid public education and public safety in 
the Nation's Capital. Our comments today in support of the additional 
funds are based on the best available data from the District agencies 
responsible for the programs making these requests.
    Let me note at this time, that while the Authority strongly 
supports the District in its request for additional funds--and that we 
believe the funds are necessary to continue important public policy 
objectives--we remain convinced that the issue of improved management 
is at the heart of a better District Government. The Authority, as 
stated in its Strategic Plan, is committed to ensuring that the 
District provide effective, efficient, and low-cost public services to 
residents and visitors.
                         public schools capital
    Mr. Chairman, the first item included within this amount is $36.85 
million for the District of Columbia Public Schools. These funds will 
be used to make emergency repairs at various schools to ensure that 
those schools are ready to open for the 1997-98 academic year. General 
Becton and his staff have informed us that there are $86.6 million in 
emergency capital improvements needed to school buildings, and that the 
school system has identified $49.75 million in potential funding to 
date to meet these emergency needs. This amount includes $11.5 million 
in capital borrowing executed in October 1996, and $18.25 million from 
the proceeds of the privatization of Connie Lee. An additional $20 
million comes from the District's anticipated capital borrowing later 
this Spring.
    In the conference report on the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 
1997, House report 104-863, the conferees placed under the Authority 
all funds for school capital repairs, and instructed us to use the 
funds made available for repairs and capital improvements at those 
schools identified by the Authority, in consultation with the General 
Services Administrations (GSA) and the District's public schools. The 
estimates for this work have been completed, and verified by GSA. The 
conference report went on to express the commitment of the Congress to 
ensuring that school children in the District attend schools that are 
safe and clean, and which do not disrupt the educational progress. The 
Authority was empowered to seek a reprogramming of capital funds, and 
Congress indicated it would consider additional funds in a supplemental 
appropriation.
    In recent months, District officials have also examined a variety 
of options to increase the funds available to improve schools, 
including a more effective disposal or utilization of surplus school 
property, reducing operating costs, and leveraging volunteer efforts. 
While these options offer the potential of providing additional 
revenues starting in fiscal year 1998, they will only generate modest 
amounts, if any, this fiscal year, and they will not make up the 
projected shortfall needed. The only recourse if the District is to 
make the necessary emergency repairs that will allow all schools to 
open in September is to obtain an additional appropriation of federal 
funds from the Congress for fiscal year 1997.
    The Authority believes that, unless we end the practice of allowing 
identified fire code violations to dictate how we manage facilities, 
the District appears likely to repeat last fall's experience where 
schools did not open because they put the health and safety of school 
children at risk. The quality of the District's public schools has a 
direct bearing on the financial recovery of the city. There is no 
question that the quality of public education in the District must be 
improved. The continued deterioration and neglect of facilities, which 
the Authority documented last December in its report ``Children First'' 
makes clear that significant repair and construction are required for 
the District's schools to be safe and secure, and conducive to a 
superior learning environment. While we recognize that facilities are 
just part of what must be changed at the schools, the Authority is 
committed to making facilities improvement a priority. Without adequate 
education for our children, there can be no adequate recovery for the 
District.
                        public safety initiative
    Mr. Chairman, public safety is the subject of our second request. 
The public safety agencies that make up the criminal justice system in 
the District are integrally connected. A change in the activities of 
one agency, typically, will impact all the criminal justice agencies. 
This is particularly true in the case of the Metropolitan Police 
Department (MPD), which usually is the entry point for the criminal 
justice system.
    In December, 1996, the Authority, along with the Mayor, the 
Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, the Chief of 
Police, the U.S. Attorney, the Corporation Counsel and the Chief Judge 
of the Superior Court signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 
help reduce crime and fear of crime in the Nation's Capital. On 
February 26, 1997, the MOU partners announced the first steps and 
initial findings of their on-going work.
    Initiatives of the MOU partners, which range from concentrating 
police activity on open-air drug markets, to placing an additional 400 
officers on the street, have resulted in a substantial increase in 
arrests. Between March 1, 1997, and March 24, 1997, arrests have 
increased by 72 percent above the same period last year. This increase 
in arrests has had a significant impact on the entire public safety and 
criminal justice system, and has contributed to the need for additional 
resources throughout the public safety cluster for the remainder of 
fiscal year 1997.
    In addition, the initiatives are saving lives, homicides in the 
first quarter of this calender year at their lowest level in a decade.
    In order to sustain the momentum of the new policing initiatives, 
additional funding is needed, not only for the MPD, but also for the 
Courts, the Corporation Counsel, the Department of Corrections, the 
Pretrial Services Agency and the Youth Services Administration.
    Based on the experiences of other major cities that have undertaken 
major crime reduction efforts, arrest rates will remain high in the 
first several months of the new policing initiatives. However, after 
several months, the arrests should begin to decline, and then 
stabilize.
    The ultimate goal of the new crime reduction effort is not to 
increase arrest rates, but to prevent the occurrence of crime. It is 
our expectation that, by fiscal year 1998, arrests will begin to 
decline and then stabilize. As such, many of the additional resources 
needed to leverage the new policing initiatives in fiscal year 1997 may 
not be needed in fiscal year 1998.
                           mpd and the courts
    The request we are making today includes $8,800,000 in order to 
grant the officers of the Metropolitan Police a 10 percent pay raise. 
The District's officers are paid, an average, 14 percent less then 
officers in the surrounding jurisdictions. Some officers in the 
surrounding jurisdictions are paid as much as 22 percent more than the 
District's officers.
    The pay raise would be tied to performance standards and changes 
work rules. The Police Chief has informed us that, ultimately, those 
officers whose performance is below specified standards would be 
discharged. The MPD has determined that it can not fund the pay raise, 
or even a portion of the pay raise, within its current fiscal year 1997 
budget.
    Mr. Chairman, the public safety initiatives are having an impact on 
reducing crime in the District of Columbia. All of us should be proud 
of the steadfast commitment to making our streets safer, but this 
success has created complications for law enforcement and related 
agencies that are handling the increased influx of cases. For instance, 
the D.C. Superior Court anticipates the need for an additional $1.36 
million in fiscal year 1997 to fund fully the additional costs directly 
attributable to the new policing initiatives.
    Based upon the recent increase in the number of case filings, 
which, on average, have risen by 40 percent, the Courts estimate that 
the added cases will result in additional overtime costs of $30,000 to 
process the filings, and $710,000 for Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 
expenditures to provide private counsel for indigent defendants in the 
remaining six months of fiscal year 1997.
    Furthermore, the Courts estimate that the increased police activity 
will result in 225 additional jury trials. Clearly, there are costs 
associated with this increase: the Authority has been informed that 
there is likely to be juror fees and administrative costs in excess of 
budgeted amounts totaling $78,000 for the remainder of fiscal year 
1997; witness fees are expected to increase by $62,000.
    The Courts have highlighted other costs, as well. The additional 
arrests and prosecutions will also result in significant increases in 
cases being referred to the Social Services Division of the D.C. 
Superior Court. Based upon information provided by the courts, every 
one thousand additional cases will require an additional team of one 
supervisory probation officer, 10 probation officers, and a probation 
assistant.
    The ratio of adult probationers to probation officers is 100 to 1. 
With an anticipated increase felony in misdemeanor filings, it is 
expected that many defendants will be placed on probation. As such, the 
Social Services Division expects to require 22 additional probation 
officers and 2 additional probation assistants to handle the expected 
increase in workload that will be generated over the next year. 
Salaries for the additional probation services staff would total 
approximately $500,000 for the remainder of fiscal year 1997.
    Other agencies are also seeing the impact of the greater emphasis 
on crime reduction. The Pretrial Services Agency and the Office of the 
Corporation Counsel have found it necessary to request additional funds 
to offset significantly higher workloads. Moreover, the Youth Services 
Administration (YSA) anticipates the need for an additional $302,000 
for fiscal year 1997 to cover overtime costs related to the new 
policing initiative. The YSA has little control over its caseload and 
must serve those youth sent to it by the court.
                              corrections
    Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Department of Corrections (DOC), 
the agency estimates that it will need an additional $4.9 million in 
fiscal year 1997 to cover costs associated with the new policing 
initiatives.
    The Authority and the District Government are concerned that, as of 
April 17, 1997, there were only 16 vacant secure male beds and 4 vacant 
secure female beds at the D.C. Jail, the Correctional Treatment 
Facility, and the Lorton facilities. Between March 1, 1997, and April 
7, 1997, DOC's inmate population increased by 277. Data from DOC's 
information system confirm a significant upswing system admissions 
starting March, 1997. The DOC is planning to give additional scrutiny 
to the current information, with the focus on studying arrest dates, 
lengths of stay, and detention data.
    In anticipation of the projected increase in inmates, the District 
has decided that it can not yet close the Medium Security Facility at 
Lorton. The District informs us that it intends to proceed with plans 
to move inmates to a facility operated by a private contractor, and to 
use the additional space to absorb the increase in inmate population. 
It should also be noted that DOC anticipates a seasonal increase in the 
incarcerated population to occur during the spring and summer. The 
extent to which the policing initiatives may influence this seasonal 
increase can not be estimated with precision. A rise in conviction and 
admission numbers is anticipated, but the magnitude of the impact on 
DOC's population can not be precisely estimated at this time.
    Let me add that these projections are consistent with the recent 
experience of New York City. The New York City Police Department 
implemented a major narcotics initiative in Brooklyn, New York 
beginning in April, 1996. Additionally, in September, 1995, New York 
City implemented an overall crime reduction program similar to the one 
recently begun in the District. The Corrections Department was impacted 
by both initiatives--particularly the Brooklyn initiative, which 
focused on felony offenses.
    New York's Corrections Department needed additional capacity during 
the height of the crime initiatives. The increase in admissions 
continued for approximately five months, and then stabilized. In order 
to meet the space requirements for the new admissions, the Department 
had to delay planned fire safety projects that would have closed a 
facility and reduced capacity. Without the additional capacity, the 
initiatives would not have been successful.
    The District's DOC is faced with the same situation as New York 
City. The DOC is nearly at capacity at most of its facilities. And, as 
mentioned, it had planned to close the Medium Security Facility and 
Zone 2 of the Occoquan Facility in fiscal year 1997. According to DOC, 
it can not close both facilities and absorb the additional inmates.
    To meet the need for additional inmate beds, the DOC must keep the 
Median Security Facility open in fiscal year 1997. The additional 
inmates resulting from the new policing initiatives would not be housed 
initially in the Medium Security Facility. However, to avoid 
overcrowding at the D.C. Jail, which is operating under a court-ordered 
population cap, DOC has indicated that it will have to move some of the 
inmates at the D.C. Jail to the Lorton facilities. The cost associated 
with maintaining the facility approximates $4.9 million.
    Mr. Chairman, that completes my testimony. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions that you have regarding the additional 
appropriation request.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
    Question. The Control Board has requested funds to continue to 
operate a medium security facility at the Lorton complex.
    What is the current inmate population of that facility?
    Answer. As of April 25, 1997, the inmate population at the Lorton 
Complex is 6,019. The total Department of Corrections population is 
8,928. There are additional inmates at the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
(542), the U.S. Marshal's Service (61), and various other detention 
facilities around the country (205), for a total of 9,736.
    Question. What is the capacity of Lorton?
    Answer. The operating capacity at the Lorton Complex is 6,449. 
However, the rated capacity, which adheres to American Correctional 
Association standards for detention and correctional facilities, is 
between 4,231 and 4,778. The low rated bed capacity assumes single 
occupancy cells in each facility. The high rated bed capacity assumes a 
mix of single and double occupancy cells.
    As illustrated in the chart below, 340 of the vacant beds are at 
the Minimum Secure Facility. Inmates housed in the Minimum Security 
Facility must meet the following criteria: (1) within 24 months of 
parole eligibility or mandatory release; (2) no pending charges, 
detainers, or outstanding warrants; (3) no crimes of violence, (4) no 
escape history; (5) no parole denials; (6) good conduct record; (7) 
favorable psychological assessment, and (8) no medical needs/
impairments which cannot be addressed at the facility. Additionally, 
the Department of Corrections is under court order to do a complete 
diagnostic report before placing inmates at the Central Facility. A 
diagnostic report is not required to place inmates at the other Lorton 
facilities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Rated      Rated
                                                         Operating   capacity   capacity  Population    Current
                                                          capacity     high       low      peak \1\   population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central................................................      1,373      1,400      1,200       1,348       1,346
Maximum................................................        626        633        633         625         625
Minimum................................................      1,073        466        466         744         733
Youth center...........................................        838        561        465         826         810
Medium.................................................        866        738        487         859         852
Occoquan...............................................      1,673        980        980       1,672       1,653
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total capacity...................................      6,449      4,778      4,231       6,074       6,019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The week of April 21, 1997.

    Question. Will the entire inmate population be transferred to 
contract facilities in May 1997?
    Answer. The entire inmate population at the Lorton Complex mill not 
be transferred to contract facilities in May 1997.
    Question. If not, how many will be transferred?
    Answer. Based on current plans, 900 inmates will be transferred to 
contract facilities.
    Question. What is the estimated cost of the contract care for the 
remainder of fiscal year 1997?
    Answer. The estimated cost of the contract is $7 million. This 
estimate is based on the assumption that a contract will be awarded by 
May 15, 1997 at an estimated per inmate, per day cost of $55.
    Question. What is the estimated cost of caring for any inmates who 
are not transferred to contract facilities?
    Answer. Based on fiscal year 1996 actual expenditures at the Lorton 
Complex, the average cost per inmate, per day is approximately $65.
    Question. How many additional inmates are expected to be housed in 
D.C. correctional facilities through the end of fiscal year 1997 as a 
result of the police initiatives begun in March 1997?
    Answer. The Department of Corrections estimates that the total 
inmate population will increase by 680 by the end of fiscal year 1997 
as a result of the new policing initiatives.
    Question. The Control Board reports that recent efforts to crack 
down on crime have strained our judicial system. The supporting 
material that accompanied the Control Board's request for emergency 
funds assumes an increase in the overall conviction rate for offenders 
of about 10 percent--from 65 percent to 75 percent or more.
    On what facts is this assumption based?
    Answer. According to the April 3, 1997 Baseline Report on crime 
fighting efforts in the District of Columbia, the District's overall 
conviction rate for arrestees who are charged with a crime is 65 
percent. According to Booz-Allen & Hamilton, the consultants currently 
reviewing the District's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), it is 
reasonable to expect that once the reengineering of the MPD is 
complete, the conviction rate, at a minimum, will be in line with the 
national average of 75 percent.
    Question. Of those additional offenders convicted in 1997, how many 
are expected to be sentenced to prison?
    Answer. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia estimates an 
additional 400 felony cases, in fiscal year 1997, as a result of the 
policing initiative, and the conviction rate in felony cases is 
estimated between 65 percent and 75 percent. Those convicted of 
felonies are likely to receive prison sentences of one year or more. 
Based upon this information it is likely that a significant number of 
those convicted of a felony will be sentenced to prison.
                          D.C. Public Schools

STATEMENT OF JULIUS W. BECTON, JR., GENERAL, U.S. ARMY 
            (RETIRED), CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/
            SUPERINTENDENT
ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES WILLIAMS, GENERAL, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), CHIEF 
            OPERATIONS OFFICER

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Dr. Brimmer.
    The next witness we will hear from is Gen. Julius Becton. 
General Becton is the chief executive officer and 
superintendent of the D.C. public schools. He served our 
country for 40 years in the U.S. Army. General Becton also 
served 4 years as Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
    I want to welcome General Becton and hear what he has to 
say.
    General Becton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Congresswoman Norton.

                  emergency capital improvement needs

    I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss our request for supplemental funds to meet the 
emergency capital improvement needs of our public school 
facilities. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff, 
for the interest in the D.C. public schools, and the 
willingness you have shown in meeting with us and discussing 
our situation.
    I am accompanied today by my chief operating officer, Chuck 
Williams, who will be able to discuss in detail our emergency 
capital improvement plan. I will summarize my prepared 
statement and ask that the full text be submitted for the 
record.
    Senator Faircloth. Very well.
    General Becton. Mr. Chairman, to understand where we are 
now and where we are going, it is important to consider the 
tremendous change that has occurred within the last year in the 
governance and direction of the school system. On April 25 of 
last year, Congress passed the District of Columbia School 
Reform Act of 1995.
    Among other things, this act requires the design and 
implementation of a comprehensive, long-term program for the 
repair and management of public school facilities. It also 
requires the designation of a new or existing agency or 
authority within the District of Columbia to administer that 
program.
    On September 28 of last year, as part of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Congress transferred 
all available operating funds and capital financing authority 
provided in fiscal year 1997 and previous appropriations acts 
from the school system to the D.C. Financial Authority. Thus 
far, in 1997, these and other actions have provided $49.7 
million in total potential funding for emergency capital 
improvement.
    Congress took these steps after concluding that a breakdown 
in oversight and accountability had occurred at the expense of 
the children in this city, and that the D.C. public school 
system had demonstrated that it was unable to effectively 
manage school facility improvements. As you know, on November 
15 of last year, the Financial Authority issued its order to 
restructure the D.C. public schools. This order appointed me as 
chief executive officer, and established the Emergency 
Transitional Education Board of Trustees.

                      emergency board of trustees

    In this order, the Financial Authority also delegated to 
the Emergency Board of Trustees the power and responsibilities 
over school facilities provided to the Authority in the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997.

                        chief operating officer

    On December 31 of last year, I brought on board Gen. Chuck 
Williams as chief operating officer and director of facilities 
for the D.C. public schools. Chuck's prior experience in the 
area of facilities was as a Major General in the Army Corps of 
Engineers, where he served for 29 years. More recently, he led 
a $4 billion school facility program, as president and chief 
executive officer of the New York City School Construction 
Authority. Prior to that, he led a $1.3 billion program as 
program manager of the rebuilding of Fort Drum in New York.

                          facility master plan

    To meet the requirement of the School Reform Act of 1995, 
we have developed a long-range facility master plan, which we 
believe will allow us to return our school facility inventory 
to a safe environment that is conducive to teaching and 
learning. The long-range facilities master plan has three 
implementing phases.
    The first phase is contained in the fiscal year 1997 
Emergency Capital Improvement Program. Without these critical 
envelope-type repairs, we cannot assure that schools will open 
and stay open during school year 1997-98. This plan requires 
the obligation of $86.6 million in fiscal year 1997.

                  funds from connie lee privatization

    Within these requirements, GSA is currently executing $11.5 
million in contracts, and the $18.25 million in proceeds from 
the Connie Lee privatization is being obligated and work is 
commencing. Another $20 million in funds from a forthcoming 
bond sale for the District of Columbia will be obligated by 
July. This leaves a shortfall of $36.8 million for fiscal year 
1997, which is the basis for the supplemental appropriation we 
are seeking from the Congress.
    To summarize our situation, we need to obligate a total of 
$86.6 million by October 1. We presently have commitments for 
$49.7 million, which means we need an additional $36.8 million 
to ensure that all of our schools are ready to open in the 
fall, and remain open.
    To execute our plan, we have developed a solid management 
approach and system for quality control. The hallmark of our 
new organization is the quality of staff and management focus 
for the fast-track work, using the design/build method of 
delivery on most projects. The D.C. public schools is now in a 
superb posture to effectively administer the comprehensive, 
long-term program for the repair and management of public 
school facilities required by the School Reform Act.
    Our execution plan for fiscal year 1997 ensures that funds 
will be used only for schools with the most immediate facility 
improvement needs, and that are necessary to retain an 
inventory of public school buildings. Any minor adjustments to 
our plans that are necessary as a result of the school closings 
will be backfilled with critical requirements that have already 
been identified.
    In addition, our in-house program management will be 
coupled with prequalified construction management firms. The 
interest for participation from top private sector firms has 
been encouraging, a function of the integrity and 
accountability we have built into our operations. The 
prequalification process we are using ensures that we know what 
the market can handle and that firms are qualified. 
Prequalified firms agree to performance and financial bonding.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that our long-term 
plan is dynamic and can address both present and future needs. 
We are keenly aware that the 21st century will bring new 
challenges to the D.C. public schools. Being prepared for this 
future requires continuous planning and attempting to maintain 
control over those variables that are within my reach.
    Our new organization and the long-range facilities master 
plan are the cornerstone of this effort. Our capital 
improvement team ensures quality and accountability. The plan 
represents the first step to responsible, effective stewardship 
of resources vital to educating our children.

                           prepared statement

    I would like to conclude by restating my guiding principle 
that I have used ever since I have been here: Children first. 
All of our efforts in achieving fundamental improvements in the 
school system must be weighed in terms of their impact on 
children. Failure to meet the needs of the children of this 
city is not an option.
    I thank you, sir, for the opportunity, and I will be 
prepared to respond to your questions as appropriate.
    [The statement follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Julius W. Becton, Jr.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I welcome the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our request for 
supplemental funds to meet the emergency capital improvement needs of 
our public school facilities. To understand where we are now and where 
we are going, it is important to consider the tremendous change that 
has occurred within the last year in the governance and direction of 
the school system.
   changes in the governance and direction of the d.c. public schools
    On April 25, 1996, Congress passed the District of Columbia School 
Reform Act of 1995. Among other things, this Act requires the design 
and implementation of a comprehensive long-term program for the repair, 
improvement, maintenance, and management of public school facilities. 
It also requires the designation of a new or existing agency or 
authority within the District of Columbia to administer that program.
    On September 28, 1996, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1997, Congress transferred all available operating 
funds and capital financing authority provided in fiscal year 1997 and 
previous appropriations Acts from the school system to the D.C. 
Financial Responsibility and Management Authority. This Act also 
privatized Connie Lee and Sallie Mae, with proceeds to be used for 
school facility repairs. Thus far in fiscal year 1997, these actions 
have provided $49.75 million in total potential funding for emergency 
capital improvements. In addition, the General Services Administration 
(GSA) was directed to provide program management services to assist in 
short-term management and repairs and capital improvements. The GSA 
continues to carry out this role.
    Congress took these steps after concluding that a breakdown in 
oversight and accountability had occurred at the expense of the 
children in this city, and that the D.C. Public School System had 
demonstrated that it was unable to effectively manage school facility 
improvements.
    On November 15, 1996, the Financial Authority issued its order to 
restructure the District of Columbia Public Schools. This order 
appointed me as Chief Executive Officer and established the 9-member 
Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees. The Financial 
Authority took this action after concluding that `` * * * in virtually 
every category and for every grade level, by virtually every measure of 
performance, the public school system has failed to provide a quality 
education for all children and a safe environment in which to learn * * 
*.'' In this order, the Financial Authority also delegated to the 
Emergency Board of Trustees the powers and responsibilities over school 
facilities provided to the Authority in the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1997.
    On December 31, 1996, I hired Chuck Williams as Chief Operating 
Officer and Director of Facilities for the District of Columbia Public 
Schools. Chuck's prior experience in the area of facilities was as a 
Major General in the Army Corps of Engineers, where he served for 29 
years. More recently, he led a $4 billion school facility program as 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York City School 
Construction Authority. Prior to that, he led a $1.3 billion program as 
Program Manager of the rebuilding of Fort Drum in New York.
                          where we stand today
    To meet the requirements of the School Reform Act of 1995, we have 
developed a Long Range Facilities Master Plan which we believe will 
allow us to return our school facility inventory to a safe environment 
that is conducive to teaching and learning.
    The Long Range Facilities Master Plan has three implementation 
phases. The first phase is contained in the fiscal year 1991 Emergency 
Capital Improvement Program. Without these critical, envelope-type 
repairs, we cannot assure that schools will open and stay open during 
school year 1997-98. This plan requires the obligation of $86.6 million 
in fiscal year 1997. Within these requirements, GSA is currently 
executing $11.5 million in contracts, and the $18.25 million in 
proceeds from the Connie Lee privatization is being obligated and work 
is commencing. Another $20 million in funds from a forthcoming bond 
sale for the District of Columbia will be obligated by July. This 
leaves a shortfall of $36.85 million for fiscal year 1997, which is the 
basis for the supplemental appropriation we are seeking from Congress.
    The second phase of the plan, pertaining to immediate needs, is 
encompassed in the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 1998 
and 1999. During this period needed repairs, replacements and 
improvements will be accomplished, and planning will begin for the 
modernization of existing schools and some new school construction. By 
this time, significant progress will have been made on the disposition 
of the school system's portfolio of excess space, which now totals more 
than 4 million square feet. Decisions as to school closings, swing 
space, modernizations and new construction will be accomplished and 
planning will begin in earnest for the full revitalization program. The 
capital budget request for fiscal year 1998 school facilities 
improvements totals $182.6 million.
    The third phase, slated for fiscal years 2000-2007, is when we 
intend to undertake the full modernization and revitalization of our 
school facilities. Current estimates for the complete repair and 
modernization of school facilities in the District of Columbia are in 
the $1.5 to $2 billion range.
                management approach and quality control
    To execute our plan, we have developed a solid management approach 
and systems for quality control. The D.C. Public Schools is now in a 
superb posture to effectively administer the comprehensive long-term 
program for the repair, improvement, maintenance, and management of 
public school facilities required by the School Reform Act of 1995.
    The hallmark of our new organization is the quality of staff and 
management focus for ``fast track'' work using the design/build method 
of delivery on most projects. Leading the capital improvement program 
team under General William's direction is Terry Hernson. He brings 20 
years of Corps of Engineer facilities management experience, a two year 
stint as project control manager for the Kennedy Airport expansion, and 
six years with the New York City School Construction Authority Capital 
Improvement Program. This will be the third occasion he has worked 
under General William's leadership where ``fast track'' project 
delivery techniques were employed. Terry will manage a team of 24 top 
flight project managers, program planners and estimators, and design 
review managers. All of these individuals will have ``fast track'' 
project execution experience and understand the design/build project 
delivery concept.
    Our execution plan for fiscal year 1997 ensures that funds will be 
used only for schools with the most immediate facility improvement 
needs and that are necessary to retain in the inventory of public 
school buildings. Any minor adjustments to our plan that are necessary 
as a result of the school closings will be back-filled with critical 
requirements that have already been identified. In addition, our in-
house program management will be coupled with pre-qualified 
construction management firms. The interest for participation from top 
private sector firms over the past 60-90 days has been very 
encouraging, a function of the integrity and accountability we have 
built into our operation. The pre-qualification process we are using 
ensures that we know what the market can handle and that firms are 
qualified. Pre-qualified firms agree to performance and financial 
bonding. Performance bonding implies a warranty of the job with a 
schedule guarantee. Financial bonding implies a surety back-up for 
contractor failure.
                               conclusion
    We believe that our long-term plan is dynamic and can address both 
present and future needs. We are keenly aware that the 21st century 
will bring new challenges to the D.C. Public Schools. Being prepared 
for this future requires continuous planning, and attempting to 
maintain control over those variables that are within my reach. Our new 
organization and the Long Range Facilities Master Plan are the 
cornerstones of this effort. Our capital improvement team ensures 
quality and accountability. The plan represents the first step to 
responsible, effective stewardship of the resources vital to educating 
our children.
    I would like to conclude by restating my guiding principle for all 
that we do: Children First. All of our efforts in achieving fundamental 
improvement in the school system must be weighed in terms of their 
impact on children. Failure to meet the needs of the children in this 
city is not an option.
    This concludes my prepared statement. I will be glad to answer any 
questions that you and the other Subcommittee members may have.

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, General Becton.
    General Williams, we are delighted to have you here. I do 
not believe we have you listed as wanting to make an opening 
statement, but if you have anything to say we would be 
delighted to hear from you.
    General Williams has served a distinguished career in the 
Army, and has supervised the study of the emergency repairs 
needed for the schools. I thank you for being here. If you 
would like to make a statement, we would be delighted to hear 
it.

                     Additional committee questions

    General Williams. Mr. Faircloth and Ms. Norton, I do not 
have a prepared statement but I am delighted to be here in 
support of our effort and I will be waiting to respond to your 
questions.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
    Question. Who prepared the cost estimates for your capital 
improvement request?
    Answer. The estimates DCPS forwarded as part of our fiscal year 
1997 Capital program emergency needs were prepared and compiled 
utilizing costs provided by General Services Administration (GSA) 
through their consultant Architectural/Program management firm Daniel, 
Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall (DMJM). DMJM updated to current cost, an 
existing comprehensive study of DCPS facilities conducted by 3DI and 
assisted in prioritizing areas of major needs. In conjunction with 
those costs, the roof costs were compiled using a comprehensive roof 
survey conducted by Service Master.
    Question. Did GSA participate in preparing these cost estimates?
    Answer. GSA participated in the preparation of these budgetary cost 
estimates. GSA cost estimators and engineers provided the DCPS with 
technical cost estimating assistance in major work categories such as 
the boiler projects, the air handling/condensers/cooling tower cost, 
and the average underground storage tank removal cost, (GSA submitted 
estimates to Congress for the underground storage tank removals in 
October 1996).
    Question. How can the Subcommittee be assured you will receive a 
competitive price for the goods and services needed to repair these 
schools?
    Answer. We have researched the prevailing prices for this work 
planned (i.e., Fairfax and Montgomery counties) and will use them as 
benchmarks. We will have a contract that is ``fast track'' with a 30-
day prompt payment to serve as an incentive to the private sector. Our 
procurement process will dictate competitive bids.
    Question. What responsibility does the Control Board have over the 
charter schools?
    Answer. The Emergency Board of Trustees, as agents of the Control 
Board has certain responsibilities for charter schools that derive from 
the status of charter schools as public schools in the District of 
Columbia and the status of the Board of Trustees as a state educational 
agency (SEA) of the District of Columbia, having jurisdiction over the 
schools. Therefore, DCPS and the Emergency Board of Trustees has the 
same responsibilities for charter schools that it has for other public 
schools as SEA under federal law. DCPS, as a local educational agency 
(LEA), also has certain responsibilities for charter schools in the 
area of special education as prescribed by federal law, if a charter 
school elects not to be considered an LEA under the Charter School 
Provision of the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995.
    Question. Is the Control Board currently responsible for 
maintaining or making improvements to the charter schools?
    Answer. The Control Board does not have responsibility for 
maintaining or making improvements to the charter schools, nor does 
DCPS have such responsibilities as agents of the Control Board. DCPS 
could have responsibility for the facilities of a charter school if the 
use agreement negotiated between DCPS and a charter school included 
such services.
    Question. How much excess capacity currently exists in the D.C. 
public school system?
    Currently, inventory is 15,854,700 s.f., giving an excess capacity 
of 4,076,851 s.f.
    Question. How many square feet do you need to educate the children 
attending the D.C. public schools?
    Answer. Total square footage needed for current student enrollment, 
using the Goals 2000 standard, is 11,777,849 for a total student 
population of 78,648 as counted in the fiscal year 1996-97 Office 
Membership Report, which was conducted on October 3, 1996.
    Question. Please provide the Subcommittee with a breakdown of 
schools on the repair list by elementary school, middle school, and 
high school. If there are other categories of schools, such as 
preschools or junior high schools on the repair list, please list these 
schools also.
    Answer. Attached under exhibit 2 is the breakdown of the school on 
the repair list by type.
    Question. The Control Board's request for additional emergency 
funds for capital improvements to certain D.C. public schools proposes 
an aggressive amount of construction in a short period of time. How 
does the D.C. Public School System and the Control Board intend to 
monitor and manage this large amount of capital work?
    Answer. The accountability and oversight of all capital work will 
be accomplished through a blend of in-house professionals (project 
construction managers, construction inspectors, cost estimators and 
design review engineers) led by a skilled Capital Improvement manager 
and we will use construction management firms from the private sector 
to handle the on-site construction supervision. GSA will be available 
as back-up in any of these areas.
    This oversight will be comprehensive covering design review, 
construction placement, construction inspection and quality control and 
assurance for each project. (See Management scheme attached at Exhibit 
1).
    Question. Accessibility requirements for the disabled have been in 
force for over 20 years under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973. Why are these modifications now considered an emergency?
    The new DCPS administration considers all ADA projects an emergency 
due to the past administration's delays in implementing and enforcing 
the requirements of Section 504. These delays have led to complaints 
and court actions being filed against the D.C. Public Schools. It is 
the position of this new school administration to ensure that all 
schools over the course of our capital program are accessible to all 
our students, parents and community. The work that has been identified 
in this report is considered to be the most urgent.
    Question. What schools will have work done on underground storage 
tanks, miscellaneous asbestos abatement, major window replacements, 
electrical modifications, and ADA compliance work? Please breakdown the 
list by school with the respective repairs proposed for each school.
    Attached under exhibit 3 is the breakdown of schools where work 
will be done in each above listed category.
    Question. According to the capital improvements cash flowchart, 
some roof replacement, asbestos abatement and major window replacements 
are scheduled to take place during the September-December 1997 
timeframe. How can these take place with children in the building?
    The cash flow chart shows when we estimate payments will be made to 
contractors, not necessarily when the work will be accomplished. Some 
payments may require 30 days process time after the work is completed 
and inspected. Replacing roofs is the major emphasis of our fiscal year 
1997 program. We intend to replace roofs as long as weather permits. In 
the September-December 1997 time-frame, roof sections with physical 
barriers (e.g. concrete decks) that separate the roofing work from 
children will be replaced. Most asbestos abatement should be complete 
by September. Any asbestos work under way will typically be in support 
of other projects and we will ensure that necessary safety and health 
precautions are taken. Major window replacement work will be phased to 
ensure classroom windows are installed before the start of the school 
year. The only window work we estimate to be going on after September 
is exterior work outside the classrooms (e.g. hallways).
                                 ______
                                 
                               Exhibit 1
                 capital improvement programs division
Organizational Notes--Planning/Control Team--10 Personnel
    Central ``interface'' for project development, planning and 
scheduling, cost control and budget management and contract packaging 
and administration
  --Supervised by an experienced Construction Manager/Planner
  --Budget Analyst
  --Project scheduler
  --Procurement Analyst
  --Contract Administrator (for Facilities Group)
  --Program Planner
  --Two estimators (change orders, work orders)
  --Database Manager
  --Administrative Assistant (Office Manager)
    This is the nerve center for the Facilities Group--capturing and 
relating activities and inflation within and beyond the Facilities 
group, for projects in scope development, design and construction.
                 capital improvement programs division
Organizational Notes--Design Review Team--6 Personnel
    Central Resource of Technical Expertise for all types of Projects--
Supervised by PE/RA Team Leader
  --Review all designs (Plans and Specs) for bidability and 
        buildability
  --Maintains spec library
  --Establishes CADD standards (with CSR Division)
  --Consults with PM Team on ``changes''
    Functional Responsibility
  --Electrical
  --Mechanical (HVAC)
  --Civil/Structural
         management oversight for capital improvement projects
    Each PM has a Construction Inspector and will be in close 
coordination with the Design Team.
    Program Control will be handled by our Planning and Control Team 
consisting of (Planning, Estimation, Budgetary and Scheduling).
    Project Quality Assurance will be performed by our Program Analysis 
and Evaluation Division.
                                 ______
                                 
                               Exhibit 2
Elementary schools on repair list
    Adams Elementary School; Aiton Elementary School; Bancroft 
Elementary School; Barnard Elementary School; Beers Elementary School; 
Benning Elementary School; Birney Elementary School; Blow/Pierce 
Elementary School; Bowen Elementary School; Brookland Elementary 
School; Bruce-Monroe Elementary School; Burrville Elementary School; 
Cleveland Elementary School; Cook, J.F. Elementary School; Cooke, H.D. 
Elementary School; Davis Elementary School; Drew Elementary School; 
Eaton Elementary School; Emery Elementary School; Fletcher-Johnson EC; 
Gage-Eckington Elementary School; Garfield Elementary School; Gibbs 
Elementary School; Giddings Elementary School; Goding Elementary 
School; Grant-School w/o Walls Elementary School; Green Elementary 
School; Harris C.W. Elementary School; Harrison Elementary School; 
Houston Elementary School; Hyde Elementary School; Janney Elementary 
School; Ketcham Elementary School; Key Elementary School; King, M.L. 
Elementary School; Lafayette Elementary School; Langdon Elementary 
School; LaSalle Elementary School; Leckie Elementary School; Lee, M.D. 
Elementary School; Lewis Elementary School; Ludlow Taylor Elementary 
School; Marshall, Thurgood Elementary School; Mann Elementary School; 
Maury Elementary School; Merritt Elementary School; Meyer Elementary 
School; Miner Elementary School; Montgomery Elementary School; Moten 
Elementary School; Murch Elementary School; Nalle Elementary School; 
Orr Elementary School; Parkview Elementary School; Payne Elementary 
School; Peabody Elementary School; Petworth Elementary School; Powell 
Elementary School; Randle Highlands Elementary School; River Terrace 
Elementary School; Ross Elementary School; Rudolph Elementary School; 
Seaton Elementary School; Shadd Elementary School; Shaed Elementary 
School; Shepherd Elementary School; Smothers Elementary School; 
Stoddert Elementary School; Terrell M.C. Elementary School; Trudell 
Elementary School; Turner Elementary School; Tyler Elementary School; 
Van ness Elementary School; Watkins Elementary School; Webb Elementary 
School; Wheatley Elementary School; Whittier Elementary School; Wilson 
J.O. Elementary School; and Young Elementary School.
Middle schools on repair list
    MacFarland Middle School; Roper Middle School; and Stuart/Hobson 
Middle School.
Junior High schools on repair
    Backus Junior High School; Browne Junior High School; Deal Junior 
High School; Hart Junior High School; Hines Junior High School; 
Jefferson Junior High School; Johnson Junior High School; Taft Junior 
High School; and Terrell R.H. Junior High School.
Senior High schools on repair
    Anacostia Senior High School; Ballou Senior High School; Cardozo 
Senior High School; Coolidge Senior High School; Dunbar Senior High 
School; Ellington, Duke Senior High School; McKinley Senior High 
School; Roosevelt Senior High School; Spingarn Senior High School; 
Washington M.M. Senior High School; and Wilson W Senior High School.
Other schools on repair list
    D.C. Street Academy; Fletcher-Johnson EC; and Sharpe Health.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             School                                Windows  Electric    ADA      UST    Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AITON ES........................................................         1  ........  ......  ........  ........
ANACOSTIA SH....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
BACKUS JHS......................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
BALLOU SHS......................................................  ........  ........       1         1  ........
BANCROFT........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
BARNARD ES......................................................         1         1  ......  ........  ........
BEERS ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
BENNING ES......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
BIRNEY ES.......................................................         1  ........  ......         1  ........
BROWNE JHS......................................................  ........  ........  ......  ........         1
CLEVELAND ES....................................................  ........         1  ......  ........  ........
COOLIDGE SHS....................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
DREW ES.........................................................  ........         1       1  ........  ........
FLETCHER-JOHNSON EC.............................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
GIBBS ES........................................................  ........         1  ......  ........  ........
JEFFERSON JHS...................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
JOHNSON JHS.....................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
LUDLOW TAYLOR ES................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MACFARLAND MS...................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MARSHALL, THURGOOD ES...........................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MANN ES.........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MAURY ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MCKINLEY SHS....................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
MERRITT ES......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MEYER ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MINER ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MONTGOMERY ES...................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MOTEN ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
MURCH ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
ORR ES..........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
PARKVIEW ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
PAYNE ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
POWELL ES.......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
RANDLE HIGHLANDS ES.............................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
REED............................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
RIVER TERRACE ES................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
ROOSEVELT SHS...................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
ROPER MS........................................................  ........  ........       1         1  ........
ROSS ES.........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1         1
RUDOLPH ES......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SCHOOL W/O WALLS................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SEATON ES.......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SHADD ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1         1
SHAED ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SHARPE HEALTH...................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SHEPHERD ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SMOTHERS ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
SPINGARN SHS....................................................  ........  ........       1         1  ........
STODDERT ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
STUART/HOBSON MS................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
TERRELL M.C. ES.................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
TERRELL R.H. JHS................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
TRUESDELL ES....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
TURNER ES.......................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
TYLER ES........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1         1
VAN NESS ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WASHINGTON M.M. SHS.............................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WATKINS ES......................................................  ........         1  ......         1  ........
WEBB ES.........................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WHEATLEY ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WHITTIER ES.....................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WILSON J.O. ES..................................................  ........  ........  ......         1  ........
WILSON W SHS....................................................  ........  ........       1  ........  ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1 represents scheduled work in category.

                     Metropolitan Police Department

STATEMENT OF LARRY SOULSBY, POLICE CHIEF, METROPOLITAN 
            POLICE DEPARTMENT
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you. Our next witness is Police 
Chief Larry Soulsby of the Metropolitan Police Department for 
the District of Columbia. I am delighted to see Chief Soulsby 
here. I have had a chance to visit with him on several 
occasions, and to hear and to see some of the problems that he 
faces.
    Chief Soulsby has recently been given expanded authority to 
redeploy the city's law enforcement resources in his effort to 
crack down on the crime that permeates the city. Chief Soulsby, 
we thank you for taking the time to be with us here today to 
testify, and we would be delighted to hear your statement.
    Mr. Soulsby. Good morning, Senator Faircloth, Congresswoman 
Norton. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
committee and discuss the supplemental budget request for the 
Metropolitan Police Department.

              request of $8.8 million for police pay raise

    I am here today to request an additional $8.8 million to 
fund a 10-percent pay raise for our police officers in the last 
one-half of fiscal year 1997. I have spoken very candidly in 
recent weeks about the problems confronting the department, 
crippled by significant problems lasting at least a decade, a 
stagnant organizational culture, unempowered leadership, 
insufficient funding for salaries and resources, and a lack of 
accountability at all levels.
    Working with our MOU partners, we are now establishing a 
new Metropolitan Police Department, one that serves the 
community effectively. We are setting high expectations for our 
officers and their conduct. MPD personnel will be held 
accountable, to the same degree as employees in private 
industries. If employees cannot meet the higher standards, they 
will be held accountable, and their employment will be 
terminated.
    Department recruiting processes are in the process of being 
changed. We must attract higher quality applicants. We are 
developing entry level standards that include higher 
educational requirements. The Metropolitan Police Department 
will not tolerate individuals who would abuse their power and 
authority. Any member who engages in unlawful or unethical 
conduct will be swiftly removed from the force.

              performance management programs and systems

    I have two working committees that are examining 
performance management programs and systems. We need to capture 
a meaningful performance tied to activities, to productivity. 
One of the committees is working on departmentwide activities 
for all uniformed officers. A second committee is working on 
very specialized units like detectives' positions and what 
standards should be for them.
    Meaningful performance standards are the key to 
establishing accountability. The empowerment of the police 
department requires members be held accountable for integrity, 
for performance, for the elimination of crime, and the 
elimination of the fear of crime and disorder.
    I will demand the highest level of performance and 
accountability from my new leadership team and from all the men 
and women, both sworn and civilian, within the department. I 
will encourage the community to do the same for everyone. 
Results visible to the community will be the most important 
measurement of our success. We want the community, the Nation 
to tell us that we are succeeding. Our citizens, the entire 
community must be proud of the performance of the police 
department in our Nation's Capital.

                      enhanced enforcement efforts

    The most significant achievements in the results since the 
establishment of the enhanced enforcement efforts have shown 
that a decrease in crime of 23 percent for the month of March, 
which includes decreases in every police district ranging from 
15 to 34 percent. Homicides are down 28 percent for the year, a 
significant reduction. All measurable police activities have 
increased significantly. It is also important to note that 
citizen complaints for the year are down.
    The men and women of this department are working hard to 
maintain these decreases and to bring a lasting sense of safety 
and security to our communities. In negotiations and 
discussions with the FOP, Fraternal Order of Police, they have 
tentatively agreed to the following issues in regard to 
negotiating and trying to lead to a more professional police 
department.

                          random drug testing

    We are going to implement random drug testing. We are going 
to have comprehensive educational requirements at all levels. 
We are going to have recertification of our police officers in 
our procedures and laws. We are going to increase emphasis on 
the bearing and deportment of all the officers. We are going to 
have a more professional-acting, responding police department.
    We are having flexibility on the current 28-day schedule so 
that we are able to move officers around to address needs on a 
moment's notice. We are not going to have outside employment in 
ABC establishments in the future. Background investigations 
will be done every 5 years on every employee to keep them up 
with standards, and we will also use the polygraph voice stress 
analyzers for hiring new recruits.
    The Metropolitan Police Department's valuable resource is 
our personnel. Without quality personnel, our attempts to 
rebuild will fail.

                      salaries of police officers

    For too long, the Metropolitan Police Department has been 
forced to pay lower salaries. On average with the surrounding 
areas, we pay our officers 14 percent less. Many of our 
officers make up to 22 percent less than surrounding 
jurisdictions. This hurts our recruiting, because it is very 
difficult to recruit people at lower standards when the 
activity demands on the Metropolitan Police Department are much 
greater than in surrounding jurisdictions.
    It is also difficult to retain our best officers. They come 
here, receive the training, receive the experience in short 
order, and then are recruited into other surrounding 
departments. To attract and to keep our personnel, the 
Metropolitan Police Department must be competitive in pay and 
benefits.
    With my new authority and with my new management team, we 
will in short order develop a more professional police 
department. Crime and the fear of crime will decrease, is 
decreasing as we speak. I have the faith in our officers that 
they will be up to the task, but I must have highly motivated 
officers to meet those steps.
    We are changing their dynamics. We are changing their day-
to-day roles. We expect a lot from them. We are going to hold 
them higher accountable, but they have to receive pay. Many of 
them have not received pay increases since 1989.

         prepared statement and additional committee questions

    All of the MOU partners, the Mayor, the City Council, 
Financial Control Board, the U.S. attorney, and the chief 
judge, recognize the need for a pay raise, and a pay raise now 
for our officers. The MOU partners and I request your support, 
your investment in our department and our officers as we move 
forward in the future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address 
this committee.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Chief Soulsby.
    [The information follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Larry D. Soulsby
    Good afternoon Senator Faircloth, members of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, ladies and 
gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee 
and discuss the supplemental budget request for the Metropolitan Police 
Department.
    The department requests an additional $8.8 million in fiscal year 
1997 to fund a 10-percent pay raise for its officers. The fiscal year 
1998, $18.6 million will be needed to annualize this 10-percent pay 
raise. A 10-percent pay raise would bring the officers closer in line 
with the average salary of the surrounding jurisdictions.
    The Metropolitan Police Department has embarked on a comprehensive 
review of its organization and operations. The stakeholders in this 
project are the Mayor, the Chief of Police, the District of Columbia 
Council, the Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior Court, the Corporation 
Counsel, the U.S. Attorney, and the Financial Responsibility and 
Management Assistance Authority.
    The outcome of the study will be the development and implementation 
of immediate and long term organizational and strategic changes to meet 
the goals of reducing crime, reducing the fear of crime and disorder, 
and improving the quality of life for all who live, work, and visit in 
the District of Columbia. The ultimate goal of the study is a 
department enabled to provide safe and secure neighborhoods in the 
District, while regaining its rightful place as the undisputed leader 
among municipal law enforcement agencies in the Nation.
    I have spoken very candidly in recent weeks about the problems 
confronting the department. I have spoken of a department that has been 
crippled by significant problems lasting for at least a decade. A 
department with a stagnant organizational culture, with unempowered 
leadership, with insufficient funding for salaries and resources, 
without accountability.
    The public's perception is that the crime situation in the District 
is out-of-control, that disorder is rampant, and that there is a 
heightened sense of risk concerning their personal safety. The public 
perceives the department as ineffective in controlling guns, drugs, and 
gangs. These perceptions have become so widespread that the community 
remains unconvinced when the department is able to achieve a success.
    At the same time, as the department's customers, the community, 
although dissatisfied with police services and responses to problems, 
has not been sufficiently involved or empowered to demand changes and 
positive results from its police department.
    Since the release of the initial Booz-Allen & Hamilton report on 
February 19, 1997, the stakeholders have led a major transformation by 
combining the essential ingredients for change. They have individually 
and collectively agreed that the public safety situation in the 
District of Columbia is in need of change. They have indicated a 
willingness to put aside turf considerations and make a commitment to 
partnership in addressing underlying issues.
    The stakeholders have identified key issues and priorities for each 
of their organizations. Each is providing the resources necessary for 
implementing the specific measures agreed upon. They are providing the 
opportunity for the community, as well as their district and federal 
government agencies, to make the necessary contributions.
    The single most significant area of support provided to the 
department is the Mayor's empowerment of the Chief of Police. By 
delegating personnel, budget, and procurement authority to the Chief, 
the Mayor has enabled the Chief to lay the foundation for a new 
Metropolitan Police Department, one that will control crime and 
eliminate disorder in the District of Columbia.
    The position of Chief of Police is clearly pivotal. The Chief of 
Police must have sufficient authority to make key decisions, deploy 
resources, hire, fire and promote personnel based on demonstrated 
competence. Without this kind of authority and autonomy, it would be 
impossible to effect major change within the department and ensure that 
citizens are receiving, proper police service.
    Second only in importance to the empowerment of the Chief of Police 
is the Chief's ability to promptly remove from service sworn and 
civilian employees who clearly do not meet the high standards of 
integrity and performance that will be expected in the new Metropolitan 
Police Department. For the first time, department employees will be 
held accountable to the same degree as employees in private industry. 
If they cannot meet, or do not make the attempt to meet, established 
standards they will be held accountable and their employment 
terminated.
    I have appointed a new leadership team that shares a common vision 
and will make change happen. My team is comprised of individuals 
respected within the department who are able to set aside personal 
objectives in favor of a broader department-wide view. These 
individuals lead a management team dedicated to:
  --Empowering our employees to carry out the department's mission and 
        hold them accountable.
  --Building a team and instilling a new organizational culture that is 
        based on accountability and performance.
  --Fulfilling the department's renewed commitment to reducing crime, 
        fear, and disorder, and obtaining visible results.
  --Improving administrative processes so that officers are freed for 
        street duties and effectiveness is at peak level in all areas.
    This is not a ``business as usual'' team. These are leaders with 
the integrity, the ability, and the tenacity, to carry out a 
fundamental restructuring of the department.
    A common vision has been established and is being institutionalized 
throughout the entire department. For the first time in the 
department's history, we are evaluating our success through the eyes of 
our community. This department's achievement of success in the future 
will be judged by how well we prevent crime; how safe our communities 
feel; by the absence of visible disorder in our neighborhoods.
    Serving the community effectively means setting high expectations 
for our officers' professional conduct and holding them accountable for 
performance. If our officers don't look like professionals, don't act 
like professionals, and aren't trained like professionals, how can we 
expect high levels of deportment, conduct, and effectiveness?
    We are reviewing the department's recruiting process. It is 
critical to the success of our mission that we attract high quality 
applicants for police officer positions. We are developing a program to 
significantly improve entry-level standards and the education level of 
our recruits.
    I have directed my new management team to review the department's 
conduct and disciplinary rules and procedures. Police officers are the 
most powerful individuals in any democracy, able at any moment to 
deprive a citizen of his or her liberty. We cannot tolerate the 
presence of individuals who would abuse their power and authority. We 
cannot tolerate the presence of individuals who have betrayed their 
oath of office. While I am committed to fair and impartial discipline, 
any member who engages in unlawful or unethical conduct will be swiftly 
removed from the force. A committee is currently working to review our 
procedures and reinforce this ethic throughout the department.
    I have established two working committees to examine the 
department's performance management system, with the goal of developing 
meaningful, job-related performance standards. The system currently in 
the pilot stage appears to be too paper intensive and too generalized 
to capture meaningful performance data for individual members. While 
one committee will look at performance management on a department-wide 
basis, the second will develop performance standards for the very 
specialized detective positions. Meaningful performance standards are 
the key to establishing accountability.
    I have established a working committee to address the critical area 
of professionalism. Professionalism includes many factors, including 
some of those which I have already mentioned. An officer's bearing, 
deportment, and dress play an important role in establishing the 
community's confidence not only in the individual officer, but in the 
department as a whole. One officer who is rude; who wears the uniform 
in a sloppy manner, whose conduct is inappropriate to a situation, can 
undo the efforts of a dozen others. The community always remembers the 
one offensive officer, while contacts with the twelve professionals are 
sometimes forgotten.
    While each of these things may seem inconsequential in themselves, 
taken together they form the single most important ingredient: 
accountability.
    The empowerment of the department requires that all of us, from 
myself as Chief of Police, to the newest recruit officer or the most 
recently hired civilian, be held to a high level of accountability. All 
of the changes and improvements that we will make over the next several 
months, to include an entirely new policing model, will help to build 
bridges to our neighborhoods and will bring with them a new sense of 
accountability; accountability for integrity and performance; 
accountability for the elimination of crime; accountability for the 
elimination of fear and disorder in the District of Columbia. I will 
demand the highest level of performance and accountability from my 
leadership team and all of the men and women of the Metropolitan Police 
Department, and will work to encourage the community to do the same.
    Results visible to the community will be the most important measure 
of our success. The department's most immediate visible effort is the 
Enhanced Enforcement Effort currently underway in seven targeted areas 
throughout the city. Feedback from the community indicates that the 
initial impact of this effort has been positive.
    The target areas are crime-ridden locations with long-standing 
concerns about crime, and the fear of crime and disorder. The effort 
takes a geographic approach to make a visible near-term difference in 
the quality of life by reducing crime and violence in the target areas. 
Our efforts in these areas have focused on conducting proactive, 
coordinated, highly visible enforcement activities that are responsive 
to community needs. In addition to the crime focus, officers are 
identifying information on vacant buildings in the target areas which 
require boarding up, as well as vacant lots and other areas needing 
trash removal. The information on vacant buildings and the need for 
trash removal will be forwarded to the appropriate D.C. Government 
agency for action.
    Officers working in the areas are going door-to-door, making face-
to-face contact with residents and business people. There is a new 
community feeling that the department and the city are taking real 
action in neighborhoods suffering from crime, fear, and neglect. 
Residents see increased police visibility, as well as a decline in 
visible drug trafficking, loitering, and general disorder. Crime levels 
have perceptibly decreased.
    Looking at the crime picture for one moment, you will see the 
results that our efforts are beginning to show. Crime from January 1 
through April 20, 1997, is down 16 percent city-wide compared to the 
same period in 1996. Each of the seven patrol districts have achieved 
decreases within this time period; six of the seven districts having 
double-digit reductions. Look for a moment at a few individual 
categories:
  --Crimes Against Persons are down 13 percent.
  --Crimes Against Property have been reduced 17 percent.
  --Homicide, the most heinous, fearsome and destructive of all crimes, 
        is down 28 percent. In the year to date, the homicide total is 
        the lowest number for any calendar year first quarter in the 
        past six years.
  --Robbery, a crime contributing to the sense of fear and 
        victimization in the community, is down 23 percent.
  --Burglary, an invasive crime that makes citizens apprehensive about 
        the safety and security of their homes, is down 22 percent.
  --Stolen Auto, seen at this point last year as a crime that was 
        totally out of control, is down by 33 percent.
    While these achievements are significant, the improvement in the 
crime and public safety picture since the beginning of the Enhanced 
Enforcement Effort in March is even more impressive. Crime in the 
District of Columbia was reduced 23 percent in March 1997, compared to 
the previous year. All patrol districts achieved decreases in March, 
ranging from 15 percent to 34 percent. The men and women of the 
department are working hard to maintain these decreases and bring a 
lasting sense of safety and security to our communities.
    Arrests are up significantly when compared to the same period last 
year, and are the direct result of the Enhanced Enforcement Effort. 
Arrest trends have changed from decreases to increases; crime trends 
from increases to decreases. The results for the month speak for 
themselves. Our challenge is to continue this progress in the coming 
months, while moving to additional areas of the city.
    Each of the Enhanced Enforcement Effort target areas has a seen a 
noticeable difference in the levels of crime and visible disorder. As 
one citizen recently was quoted in the Washington Post, children in his 
neighborhood are playing on sidewalks recently considered the property 
of drug dealers. While this is only a start, I think you can see the 
department's commitment to results and our hope for the future.
    The Enhanced Enforcement Effort is a good faith attempt by the 
department to reassure citizens that we have their personal safety and 
the protection of their property as our foremost objectives. What we 
must now do is remake the department so that high visibility, community 
interaction and participation, dramatic reductions in crime, and 
elimination of fear are realities in every neighborhood in the city, 
not simply in a handful of target areas.
    We need a new operating model for the department. A model that 
strikes the right balance between competing demands for resources; 
crime prevention; 911 and non-emergency response; and support 
infrastructure. We need specific plans for how each of these areas will 
work individually and in conjunction with one another. We need to 
streamline operations. Today, too many of our critical resources are 
tied up with administration, reporting processes, court commitments, 
and other activities that must be made less time-intensive. Most 
importantly, we need to initiate well-conceived crime fighting 
strategies that offer the most leverage in reducing fear and improving 
the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Our approach must be focused; 
it must include the community as active and full participants; and it 
must be executed as a single, city-wide attack on crime, fear and 
disorder.
    It goes without saying that the department's most valuable resource 
is it's personnel. Without the highest quality personnel, the 
department's efforts to rebuild will fall short. For far too long, the 
department has been forced to pay salaries below that of surrounding 
jurisdictions. On average, Metropolitan Police officers are paid 14 
percent less than those working in adjoining jurisdictions. Some 
officers in the metropolitan area make as much as 22 percent more then 
our members.
    It is clear that this department is handicapped in it's effort to 
attract the best and brightest recruits. And, it is not at all 
surprising that our best officers are resigning to seek employment in 
other better paying police departments. One element of the rebuilding 
effort is to set minimum entry level standards that will include 
requirements for higher education. However, if we are going to attract 
the best recruits, we must be in a competitive position regarding pay 
and benefits.
    As a gesture of good faith, the bargaining unit that represents the 
officers and sergeants of the department have agreed to the following 
changes in the work rules:
  --Immediate implementation of random drug testing.
  --Comprehensive enhanced educational requirements.
  --Recertification of officers in police procedures, laws, etc.
  --Increased emphasis on the importance of bearing and deportment.
  --Flexibility on the current 28 day scheduling policy upon requested.
  --Sworn personnel may not work outside employment in ABC 
        establishments.
  --Background investigation every 5 years for sworn personnel.
    Police officers in this city work in an environment unlike any 
other in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Life threatening situations 
occur daily. Our crime profile is the most serious; our drug problems 
the most intractable. We handle more calls for service than any 
surrounding jurisdiction. It seems only reasonable that we at least 
provide them with adequate compensation. Officers in general, do not 
enter law enforcement as a career to get rich. In most cases, it is a 
higher calling which provides an opportunity to serve one's neighbor. 
But given the unique nature of police work in this the Nation's 
Capital, and the far too often dangerous work environment, at least 
competitive pay and benefits is a must.
    Therefore, I come before you today asking that you give favorable 
consideration to this request for additional funding. There are those 
who would question the wisdom of rewarding a department in transition. 
I strongly disagree with that notion, and ask that you view these 
additional funds as an investment in the future. If we are to be 
successful in our efforts to rebuild, we will do so through our 
personnel, not only those currently in the department, but those that 
have yet to be recruited. The future of this department is dependent 
upon our ability to attract and keep the best and brightest people. I 
ask that the Subcommittee help in this endeavor by giving us the 
ability to provide competitive pay and adequate benefits.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the 
committee. I am at your disposal should you need further information.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Faircloth
    Question. The 1997 Booz-Allen & Hamilton report on the Metropolitan 
Police Department states that salary levels for the District's police 
department are lower than surrounding areas by 14 percent.
    How do the District's salaries compare nation-wide?
    Answer. Due to several factors such as cost of living differentials 
and the unique structure of police departments nationwide, it is very 
difficult to compare average salaries. Since the surrounding 
municipalities are competing for the same pool of potential applicants, 
it is only appropriate to focus on the surrounding municipalities' 
average salaries. The average salaries for officers with more than 25 
years of service for these municipalities are:

Arlington.....................................................   $46,347
Fairfax.......................................................    47,122
MNCPPC \1\....................................................    48,686
Montgomery County.............................................    46,371
Prince Georges County.........................................    45,895
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      The area-wide average...................................    46,884

\1\ The Metropolitan Police Department's average uniformed member salary 
is $38,993.

    Question. What percentage of uniformed officers are ``on the 
street'' as opposed to doing administrative activities at the station 
house?
    How has that number changed since the Booz-Allen & Hamilton report 
was issued?
    Answer. The baseline report determined that the department has a 
daily average of 574 uniformed patrol officers on beat patrol. The 
Enhanced Enforcement Effort, which became operational on March 7, 1996, 
added approximately 360 additional officers to uniformed beat patrol 
and direct supporting activities. These officers are responding to 
calls for services and engaging in preventive patrol in the effort's 
targeted areas.
    Question. The Control Board has requested $8.8 million to fund an 
immediate 10 percent pay raise for D.C. police officers.
    Would civilian employees be excluded from this pay raise?
    Answer. The proposed 10 percent pay raise does not include civilian 
employees.
    Question. What would be the effective date of the proposed pay 
raise?
    Answer. The proposed pay raise will be tied to the enhanced 
enforcement effort which commenced on March 1, 1997. The $8.8 million 
request is based on the salary increase with an effective date of April 
1, 1997.
    Question. What is the average salary of the officers who would 
receive the pay raise?
    Answer. The average salary of the officers who would receive the 
pay raise is $38,993.
    Question. It has been estimated that the District of Columbia 
Mayor's police detail costs the taxpayers nearly $4.2 million annually. 
How does that figure compare to the security detail assigned to other 
mayors nationally?
    Answer. The security for mayors in most jurisdictions is a state 
function performed by state troopers, and details of their composition 
are kept confidential for reasons of security. For those of which we 
are aware, the average is five (5) members. Costs of these details are 
confidential. The annual cost of the District's mayor's police detail 
is as follows:

Salaries and Benefits...................................   $1,352,505.44
Expenses................................................       34,384.12
Transportation..........................................       49,834.00
Communication...........................................       50,865.00
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................    1,487,588.56

    However, the Chief of Police is restructuring the unit to reduce 
personnel and other costs.
    Question. Please provide a brief report on how the Metropolitan 
Police Department is implementing the changes to the police department 
recommended in the Booz-Allen and Hamilton report.
    Answer. The department currently has two teams working on the 
development of a new operating model and supporting infrastructure for 
the agency. The teams' objective is the reassignment of several hundred 
sworn personnel to uniformed neighborhood patrol and direct supporting 
activities within the next 90 to 120 days.
                              D.C. Courts

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE EUGENE HAMILTON, D.C. SUPERIOR 
            COURT
    Senator Faircloth. I understand Judge Eugene Hamilton is 
with us this morning, and I would like to give him an 
opportunity to make a brief comment on the impact of what the 
stepped up policing policy has done, and the effect it has had 
on the courts.
    Judge Hamilton. Good morning, and thank you, Senator 
Faircloth and Congresswoman Norton. It is a pleasure to be here 
this morning, and I will be very, very brief in my comments.
    It is very, very crucial to understand that the 
Metropolitan Police Department, beginning in about 1994 as 
illustrated on this chart [indicating], became virtually 
dysfunctional and continued to be dysfunctional up until March 
1997.

                            criminal filings

    Beginning in March 1997, the monthly average of criminal 
filings began to rise, and ended in March 1997 with an average 
monthly filing of 5,000 criminal filings for March 1997, as 
opposed to 3,500 criminal filings in the months prior to March 
1997. So the Metropolitan Police Department, beginning in March 
1997, became reenergized, and it became reenergized as a result 
of empowering the Metropolitan Police Department and the chief 
of police to operate as an independent law enforcement agency 
here in the District of Columbia.
    This reenergization of the Metropolitan Police Department 
was very obvious throughout the force, throughout the 
department, particularly among the officers in the courthouse 
who visit the courthouse very frequently in large numbers every 
day, of course, to testify in their cases. You could see the 
extent to which their attitude, their demeanor had improved, 
become more positive and more professional.
    We have got to realize, however, that these officers are 
still human beings. They are motivated, they have been 
motivated as a result of the action that has been taken, but I 
think it is crucial at this point that we recognize the 
improvement in the force and move forward very swiftly with a 
pay increase, cost-of-living adjustment for these officers as 
has been requested by Chief Soulsby.
    So I am here to fully support that, and to support the 
public safety request that has been made, as well as the 
request that has been made for public schools. As you know, the 
problems in the public schools so far as their capital 
deficiencies are concerned have been a concern of the courts 
for many, many years.

                           prepared statement

    These capital deficiencies have taken a great deal of time 
and effort on the part of the court in order to monitor the 
situation to make certain that the schools did not present an 
unreasonable risk of harm and danger, so we are very, very 
familiar with the problems that exist in the schools, and the 
time has long since passed that those problems should be dealt 
with very effectively.
    Thank you very much, Senator.
    [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Eugene Hamilton
                          d.c. superior court
      d.c. ranks first among 50 states in case filings per capita
    The D.C. Superior Court had the highest rate of case filings of all 
State trial courts in 1995.
    The filing rate in D.C. is nearly 6 times the national average. 
Specifically, 1 new case is filed in Superior Court for every three 
District residents--compared to the national average of one new case 
filed for every 17 residents. Comparisons of all unified courts in the 
nation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Case filings--  Per capita--
                                                 rank          ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia......................              1            1:3
Connecticut...............................              9           1:10
Idaho.....................................              3            1:6
Illinois..................................              8            1:8
Iowa......................................             12           1:11
Kansas....................................             10           1:10
Massachusetts.............................              2            1:6
Minnesota.................................              7            1:9
Missouri..................................             16           1:12
South Dakota..............................              5            1:8
Wisconsin.................................             15           1:12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D.C. ranked 1st in the nation in both civil and criminal case 
filings per resident in 1995.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Case filings--    Per capita--
                                             civil          criminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia..................         20,978            6,348
Connecticut...........................          4,369            4,274
Idaho.................................            460              976
Illinois..............................          4,160            5,032
Iowa..................................          4,639            3,137
Kansas................................          5,890            1,747
Massachusetts.........................          6,310            5,673
Minnesota.............................          3,456            4,905
Missouri..............................          3,189            2,965
South Dakota..........................          6,108            3,775
Wisconsin.............................          4,372            2,497
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    superior court judges handle more cases than judges in 47 states
    D.C. Superior Court ranked 4th in the nation in the number of cases 
filed per judge in 1995. Superior Court's average caseload per judge 
(2,840 cases) is higher than the average caseload per judge in the 
trial courts of 47 other states. Comparable figures for other unified 
courts are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Per judge--
                                             Case filings--    No. of
                                                  rank         filings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia.......................              4         2,840
Connecticut................................             10         1,810
Idaho......................................             48           464
Illinois...................................             22         1,419
Iowa.......................................             27         1,273
Kansas.....................................             19         1,583
Massachusetts..............................              3         2,846
Minnesota..................................             12         1,788
Missouri...................................             26         1,277
South Dakota...............................              6         2,284
Wisconsin..................................             11         1,802
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  superior court judges handle 7 times more cases than u.s. district 
                                 judges
    D.C. Superior Court's average caseload per judge (2,840 cases) is 
nearly 7 times higher than U.S. District Courts (434 cases). By 
comparison nationally the average caseload per judge for general 
jurisdiction state courts is 3.5 times higher than U.S. District 
Courts.

 District of Columbia Courts Caseload per Judge Exceeds all Article I 
                                 Courts

                        [Case filings per judge]

U.S. Courts....................................................... 3,045
U.S. Tax Court.................................................... 1,337
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces........................   249
U.S. Court of Veteran Appeals.....................................   218
U.S. Claims Court.................................................    54
                    superior court caseload overview
    During 1996, there were over 155,000 cases filed at D.C. Superior 
Court. The District has the highest filing rate in the nation. 
Nevertheless, Superior Court continues to function efficiently--178,000 
cases were disposed by the court in 1996.
    An overview of court activity shows that:
  --Over 92,000 civil actions were filed.
  --Misdemeanor case filings increased 9 percent from 1995, totaling 
        20,446.
  --More than 11,200 felony cases were filed (an increase of 3 
        percent).
  --Nearly 3,500 domestic violence matters were filed.
  --Juvenile case filings increased by 2 percent, to 4,012.
  --Child abuse and neglect cases rose another 7 percent in 1996, to 
        1,616 filings (a 98 percent increase since 1990).
  --Over 15,000 offenders (12,120 adults and 2,920 juveniles) were 
        under supervision during 1996 by the Court's Social Services 
        Division.
                 initiatives of the d.c. superior court
Case Processing Enhancements
    Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).--For the last decade Superior 
Court has led the nation in implementing alternative means of resolving 
disputes. Selected by the ABA as one of three sites to develop the 
``multi-door courthouse'' concept, Superior Court's national model 
Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division has grown from a small pilot 
program to a permanent operation with a full-time staff and over 600 
neutrals who provide ADR services in over 10,000 cases annually. 
Mediation, arbitration, and other dispute resolution techniques are 
provided in small claims, civil, domestic relations, probate, tax and 
other community cases. Half of the cases referred to Multi-Door are 
resolved, representing a tremendous cost savings to the court and 
litigants alike.
    Automated citizen intake and referral.--In December 1995, Superior 
Court's Multi-Door Division implemented an automated information 
database that facilitates citizen referral to over 200 community-based 
resources for assistance in resolving disputes. The automated citizen 
intake and referral system allows court intake specialists to match 
individual client disputes with appropriate services, and greatly 
enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of referral services (which 
have risen 218 percent since 1993).
    Civil delay reduction.--Superior Court launched a major initiative 
to reduce delay in civil case processing by converting to an individual 
calendar system, increasing judicial control over cases, and expanding 
the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques. Since its 
inception in 1991, this effort has reduced the pending civil actions 
caseload by 50 percent, and enhanced case processing efficiency (72 
percent of pending cases are now resolved within one year of filing, up 
from 59 percent at the start of the project).
    Court Improvement Program.--The Court Improvement Program, funded 
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is designed to 
assist state courts with improving court proceedings related to child 
abuse and neglect cases, termination of parental rights cases and 
adoption matters. Superior Court began studying abuse and neglect case 
processing in 1995, and anticipates completing the assessment in April, 
1997. Recommendations and system improvements will be implemented at 
Superior Court during the next three years.
    Domestic violence initiative.--Superior Court is spearheading an 
effort to improve the handling of domestic violence cases in the 
District of Columbia. Operating with the oversight of the District's 
inter-agency Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, this Violence 
Against Women Act grant-funded project has created a centralized 
Domestic Violence Intake Unit at the Court for domestic violence 
victims, improved coordination among the numerous public, private and 
service agencies involved in handling domestic violence matters.
    Drug Court Program.--In conjunction with the D.C. Pretrial Services 
Agency, Superior Court established a drug court for felony drug 
offenders in 1993. Under the District's drug court program, offenders 
are subject to different treatment options including supervision and 
monitoring, frequent and random drug testing, and intensive counseling. 
Special probation conditions are a prerequisite for remaining in the 
community. In March 1997, Superior Court received a planning grant from 
the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a juvenile drug court based 
on this and other national model programs.
Treatment Programs/Alternatives to Incarceration
    ABRAXAS is a three-year Juvenile Justice Advisory Group grant which 
began in mid-1995. From mid-1995 through 1996, 173 juveniles 
participated in the program. The program is an alternative to detention 
at Oak Hill or other shelters, and consists of intensive supervision 
beginning with three daily face-to-face contacts as well as monitoring 
school attendance. The program has saved the District approximately 
$2.5 million since its inception.
    Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP).--This treatment 
program provided by the court's Social Services Division (the 
District's probation department) began operations in 1993 with one 
highly trained and dedicated treatment team. With the establishment of 
the court's Domestic Violence Intake Unit in November 1996, the 
Domestic Violence Supervision caseload today represents the fastest 
growing probation caseload. The DVIP program provides counseling, 
education and treatment for domestic violence offenders; support, 
counseling and referral services for victims; training for court staff; 
and coordination of community-based treatment services from other 
service providers.
    Electronic Monitoring Intensive Supervision Program (EMIS).--Since 
1994, Superior Court has provided pre- and post-adjudication electronic 
monitoring and supervision of adult and juvenile offenders in the 
community. Electronic monitoring promotes public safety, ensures 
offender compliance with court-ordered conditions of probation and 
reduces recidivism. Each day the program has over 100 offenders under 
intensive supervision and approximately 50 offenders hooked to 
monitoring devices.
    Family and Youth Resource Center (FYRC).--Superior Court operates a 
comprehensive community-based center (FYRC) which provides a variety of 
essential services to the court's probation population, including: 
family counseling; domestic violence services; academic and vocational 
training; employment services; electronic monitoring and intensive 
supervision; drug testing and treatment; and dental, health, and 
nursing services.
    Juvenile Diversion Program.--Services 200 status offenders per year 
providing an assessment and comprehensive services to the entire 
family. The program has an 80 percent success rate and has eliminated 
the need to place these respondents in Oak Hill or shelter homes thus 
saving the city approximately one-million dollars yearly.
    Probation and Parole Resource Center (PPRC).--PPRC is a highly 
structured, non-residential, community-based day reporting drug 
treatment center which serves as important treatment option for at-risk 
drug offenders. Each year over 1,000 offenders are referred to Superior 
Court's PPRC, which is often the last chance before more restrictive 
and expensive incarceration. The most recent PPRC evaluation study 
found that PPRC clients had a significantly lower rearrest rate while 
in treatment than the courts general supervision population (3 percent 
v. 18 percent, respectively).
    Sanctions team for addiction and recovery (STAR).--Beginning in 
January 1995, this program offers intensive supervision for recovering 
drug abusers. Currently 180 individuals are under STAR supervision, 
with the anticipated potential to expand this sanction option to over 
800 clients under supervision.
    Urban Services Program (USP).--Superior Court's USP is a highly 
structured, intensely supervised year-long alternative to incarceration 
program for youthful offenders (ages 14-26). USP consists of three 
phases: (1) an urban boot camp (including physical conditioning, 
discipline, team building, and guided group interaction/counseling 
support); (2) Life Preparation (a 5 month probation period at a day-
reporting center, with life skills classes and employment and/or 
academic counseling); (3) Transformation (consisting of probation 
supervision, job placement, and services to help probationers re-adjust 
to community living).
Citizen Access Enhancements
    Child care center for jurors and witnesses.--The court provides 
free, on-site child care for approximately 2,000 children annually 
whose parents serve as jurors, witnesses, or litigants in court 
proceedings.
    Child Support Hotline.--The child support hotline provides parents 
with 24-hour access to child support account information in both 
English and Spanish. Superior Court receives over 1,500 hotline calls 
each day and has assisted over 1.5 million callers since its 
installation in 1990.
    Probate information kiosk.--In January 1995, the court's Probate 
Division installed an interactive kiosk which features user-friendly 
bi-lingual videotapes providing information on procedures and policies 
governing various estate proceedings. The videotapes are designed to 
enhance the ability of pro se litigants and new attorneys involved in 
probate matters at Superior Court.
    Court initiatives for non-English speaking persons.--The D.C. 
Courts have undertaken an initiative to provide bi-lingual directional 
and information kiosks, as well as to publish court forms and brochures 
in Spanish (currently over 50 percent of the courts' 145 forms and 
brochures have been translated). The courts also provide interpreter 
services for proceedings involving non-English speaking persons 
(approximately 6,000 requests made annually), have installed an AT&T 
Language Line in the landlord/tenant branch, and host Hispanic Heritage 
Month activities as well as an annual Hispanic Open House to provide 
members of the Latino community with information on court services. The 
court also provides conversational Spanish language training for court 
employees who regularly interact with the public.
    Assisting pro se litigants.--The D.C. Courts and the D.C. Bar have 
undertaken a variety of initiatives to assist pro se litigants in the 
District of Columbia. For example: Civil Division judges and staff have 
developed a Pro Se Handbook and the division's Landlord and Tenant 
Branch sponsors a volunteer program with AARP (American Association of 
Retired Persons) to improve services to the public and practicing 
attorneys; the D.C. Bar Public Services Activities Corporation (PSAC) 
has developed forms, instruction booklets, and videotapes to assist 
litigants in the handling of uncontested divorce and custody matters, 
and PSAC holds a Pro Se Divorce Clinic on Thursday evenings.
    Assistance for hearing-impaired persons.--The Superior Court's 
Office of Interpreter Coordinators provides hearing-disabled persons 
involved in court proceedings with translation services, as needed. 
Nearly 500 requests for sign language interpreters are received 
annually. Real-time court reporting is also available at the D.C. 
Courts, which enables hearing-disabled persons to participate fully in 
courtroom proceedings by reading ``live'' oral testimony entered by 
court reporters onto computer screens located in the courtroom. 
Hearing-impaired persons also have access to TDD (telecommunication 
devices for the deaf) machines at 6 public telephones and assistive 
listening devices are available for courtroom personnel.
Youth Mentoring Programs
    Elementary baseball.--The D.C. Courts participate in the Elementary 
Baseball Program, a delinquency prevention program for inner-city youth 
designed to enhance self-esteem, teach conflict resolution skills, 
improve school performance, and promote healthy bonding to peers, 
families, teachers, and the community. Many judges and court staff 
serve as volunteers and mentors to the children, and the court provides 
financial oversight for the program.
    Reclaim our youth (ROY).--ROY is a mentoring program which serves 
as a unique sanction alternative for at-risk youth under Superior Court 
supervision for minor delinquent activities, drug involvement, or other 
behavioral problems. Administered by a local coalition of churches, ROY 
matches court-referred youth with trained community volunteers who 
serve as positive role models and assist the youth in locating support 
services which would help them redirect their lives.
    WKAY-100 Life Management and Leadership Development Program.--
Established in 1994, WKAY-100 is an innovative mentorship program for 
boys between the ages of 8 and 14 who have been abused or neglected. 
This cooperative program, which teams the YMCA of Metropolitan 
Washington, the Washington Alumni Chapter of the Kappa Alpha Psi 
Fraternity and Superior Court, pairs youngsters under Superior Court 
supervision with fraternity members who serve as mentors, role models, 
and caring friends. The program offers life skills training, self-
esteem building, cultural enrichment, educational opportunities, and 
values clarification.
Community Outreach Activities
    Adoption Day.--Each year the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. 
Department of Human Services sponsor Adoption Day to provide the public 
with an opportunity to view open adoption ceremonies, thereby gaining 
an appreciation of the critical need for safe, loving homes for the 
District's orphaned and neglected children.
    Cancer awareness campaign.--In conjunction with the D.C. Bar, the 
D.C. Courts have launched a public awareness campaign on reproductive 
cancer. The Courts disseminate information on cancer prevention and 
early detection to judges, court employees, jurors, and members of the 
public who use court services. Other public outreach activities include 
a mammogram sign-up program for employees and an informational video 
available for viewing in the juror's lounge.
    Citizen volunteers.--The D.C. Superior Court supports a number of 
volunteer efforts, from student internships to AARP volunteer 
assistance in the Civil Division. Since 1991, trained citizen 
volunteers have served as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA's) 
for abused and neglected children in pending cases at Superior Court. 
Appointed by judges, CASA volunteers conduct family background 
assessments, identify needed support services, and provide a positive 
influence in the child's life throughout the duration of the case in 
the court system.
    Superior Court also recruits and trains Mental Retardation 
Advocates to assist mentally retarded persons whose cases are under the 
supervision of the Family Division. Advocates regularly meet with 
clients to monitor their level of care and attend court proceedings to 
promote their client's best interests and ensure the protection of 
their civil rights.
    International visitors.--The District of Columbia Courts are 
visited by increasing numbers of visitors from other countries, 
especially those from emerging democracies, who seek to learn about the 
administration of justice in a large multi-cultural urban court system. 
The Courts receive approximately 500 international visitors each year.
    Judicial Exchange Program.--In 1995, the D.C. Superior Court, the 
American Bar Association and the National Judicial College sponsored a 
judicial exchange program with four East African countries. This unique 
program, designed to provide 12 African judges with a broad 
introduction to the U.S. legal system, included a 10-day instructional 
course at the National Judicial College and a two week on-site 
practicum and educational program at the District of Columbia Courts.
    Juried art competition.--In 1994, the Superior Court's Art Trust 
initiated an annual art competition for District of Columbia high 
school students. The student's visual art submissions are judged by an 
expert panel, including artists from the Corcoran School of Art and 
teachers from area secondary schools. Savings bonds for $1,000, $750 
and $500 are awarded to the top 10 winners and the art works are 
displayed in the District of Columbia courthouse.
    Student law day essay contest.--Since 1992, the D.C. Courts and the 
D.C. Bar have sponsored an annual essay contest for District high 
school students on the national Law Day theme of the year, as 
established by the ABA. A panel of senior court administrators and 
members of the bar judge the essays, and $500, $200, and $100 savings 
bonds are awarded to the authors of the top three essays. The winning 
essay is published in the D.C. Courts' newsletter, ``The 
Communicator''.
Administrative Initiatives
    Standing Committee on Fairness and Access.--As an outcome of the 
D.C. Courts' Racial, Ethnic and Gender Bias Task Forces' efforts, the 
Standing Committee On Fairness and Access was established by the Chief 
Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals in 1996 to reduce and ultimately 
eliminate gender, racial and ethnic bias from the District of Columbia 
Courts and to guarantee equal justice for every individual affected by 
the District's judicial system. Special objectives include improving 
court access, monitoring hiring and promotion practices, improving 
treatment of participants by judicial officers, overseeing procurement 
policies to ensure the elimination of bias in contracting and 
purchasing, and communicating progress to court staff and the public.
    Strategic planning.--In March 1996, the D.C. Courts launched a 
strategic planning initiative to better focus court resources and to 
provide guidance for future direction. A Strategic Planning Team of 
court managers, working closely with staff in each of the courts' 17 
divisions, submitted a comprehensive strategic plan for the courts in 
June 1996. The D.C. Courts' Strategic Plan consists of eight courtwide 
goals and a compilation of division based-strategies to achieve the 
courts' goals for fiscal years 1997-2000.
    Task force on families and violence.--Established by the Chief 
Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals in response to the resolution of the 
1994 Judicial Conference, the task force includes judges, lawyers 
representing juveniles, physicians, social workers, community and 
government leaders. The Task Force is currently working to develop a 
project to deliver services to at-risk young people. Interim reports on 
the task forces' activities were issued at the twentieth and twenty-
first Judicial Conferences in June of 1995 and 1996, respectively.
    Quality Service Council.--In November 1994, the Chief Judges of the 
D.C. Court of Appeals and the Superior Court appointed a Quality 
Service Council composed of judges and employees from a variety of 
organizational units and levels within the court system to steer the 
D.C. Courts' total quality management effort. The Council's mission is 
to champion continuous improvement in court service to the public and 
to one another through guiding and initiating TQM activities.
                  zero tolerance for crime initiative
    A recent analysis conducted by the Metropolitan Police Department 
revealed a dramatic increase in criminal offenses in the District of 
Columbia from 1985 to 1996. Some of the most startling revelations were 
the following facts: Homicides have increased 169 percent; Robberies 
have increased 50 percent; Assaults have increased 39 percent; 
Burglaries have increased 13 percent; Motor Vehicle Theft has increased 
490 percent.
    In an effort to combat the current crime in the District of 
Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department redeployed 400 police 
officers to patrol units as part of a new crime fighting drive entitled 
the ``Zero Tolerance for Crime Initiative'' beginning on March 7, 1997. 
While the Superior Court fully supports the MPD effort to reduce crime 
and the fear of crime in the District, the ``Zero Tolerance for Crime 
Initiative'' will have a significant impact on the Superior Court's 
fiscal year 1997 Budget due to a dramatic increase in the Court's 
criminal caseload.
    The following documents details the Superior Court's criminal 
caseload projections and itemized costs for the remainder of fiscal 
year 1997.
    From 1993-95 the Superior Court experienced a yearly decrease in 
the number of felony and misdemeanor filings. In 1996 the Superior 
Court experienced a slight increase in the number of felony and 
misdemeanor filings. The Superior Court projects that the redeployment 
of significant numbers of police officers to the street, coupled with a 
renewed emphasis on arrests, will result in an increase in the number 
of criminal filings to 1993 levels. In the remainder of fiscal year 
1997 this would result in an increase of approximately 1,500 felony 
arrests over fiscal year 1996 levels. These arrests will include new 
felony filings, felony case reactivizations (consisting primarily of 
executed felony bench warrants), fugitive cases, and extradition cases. 
In addition to the increase in felony arrests, the Court projects that 
it will also experience an increase of between 650 to 2,000 additional 
misdemeanor case filings.
    The following chart and graph visually illustrates the Superior 
Court Criminal Division caseload projections for the remainder of 
fiscal year 1997.

                                 COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL DIVISION FILINGS 1993-97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Type case                           1993     1994     1995     1996   1997 \1\  1997 \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felony:
    Total...............................................   14,801   12,788   10,399   10,877     1,677  ........
    Monthly average.....................................    1,233    1,065      866      906       838       987
U.S. misdemeanor:
    Total...............................................   18,298   17,199   14,387   15,461     2,913  ........
    Monthly average.....................................    1,525    1,433    1,199    1,288     1,457     1,947
D.C.--Traffic:
    Total...............................................   14,876   13,339   11,325   11,903     2,005  ........
    Monthly average.....................................    1,240    1,112      944      992     1,002     1,787
Special proceedings:
    Total...............................................    2,802    2,983    3,020    3,217       523  ........
    Monthly average.....................................      234      249      252      268       261       288
Division total:
    Total...............................................   50,777   46,309   39,131   41,458     7,118  ........
    Monthly average.....................................    4,232    3,859    3,261    3,455     3,558     5,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ January through February 1997
\2\ March 1997


                                     COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL DIVISION FILINGS
                                            [Calendar years 1993-97]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      1993     1994     1994     1996   1997 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division total....................................................   50,777   46,309   39,131   41,458    57,784
Felony............................................................   14,801   12,788   10,399   10,877    11,547
U.S. misdemeanor..................................................   18,298   17,199   14,387   15,461    22,383
D.C. and traffic..................................................   14,876   13,339   11,325   11,903    19,875
Special proceedings \2\...........................................    2,802    2,983    3,020    3,217     3,979
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1997 projections based on March 1997 filings.
\2\ Special proceedings are comprised of: Fugitive from Justice cases, Habeas corpus cases and other
  miscellaneous criminal matters.

The Impact of the Zero Tolerance for Crime Initiative on the Superior 
        Court
    Almost 40 percent increase in the number of criminal defendants 
appeared in D.C. Superior Court in March 1997.
    Superior Court forced to operate overtime hours to arraign all new 
arrestees within statutory timeframe.
    Extending hours of court resulted in operational overtime costs of 
$4,192 in March 1997.
    If pattern continues, or accelerates (via additional officers added 
to initiative), court will need $30,000 in overtime costs in the 
remainder of fiscal year 1997.
    Based on March 1997 arrests, the Superior Court estimates that an 
additional 400 felony matters and 650 to 2,000 additional misdemeanor 
cases will be filed in fiscal year 1997.
    Approximately 90 percent of arrestees are indigent. The court is 
constitutionally mandated to pay attorneys to represent indigent 
defendants. Based on the projected arrest rate these mandatory costs 
will increase by approximately $710,000 to $1,200,000 in the remainder 
of fiscal year 1997.
    Approximately 50 cases will likely result in additional jury 
trials.
    Increase in jury trials increases other directly-related costs, 
such as juror fees of an additional $78,000 and $62,000 in witness fees 
for fiscal year 1997.
    Access to justice principles demand a provision of interpreters for 
non-English-speaking defendants. For these additional arrestees, $8,500 
in interpreters costs is projected.
    10 new probation officers and 1 probation assistant will be 
necessary to effectively provide supervision to the additional 
arrestees in fiscal year 1997 at a cost of $500,000.

D.C. Superior Court Fiscal Year 1997 Supplemental Budget Request Due to 
                  Zero Tolerance for Crime Initiative

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) expenditures.......................  $710,000
Overtime costs................................................    30,000
Additional juror fees.........................................    78,000
Additional witness fees.......................................    62,000
Salaries for additional probation staff.......................   500,000
Additional cost for interpreters..............................     8,500
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total additional costs.................................. 1,388,500

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Judge Hamilton. Thank you for 
your statement, and certainly what you had to say is impressive 
as to the needs of the city and what can be done.

              failure of the president to forward request

    Next, I want to turn to Dr. Brimmer. Dr. Brimmer, as you 
know, the fiscal year ends September 30, so your request is for 
emergency funding. Dr. Brimmer, the President has requested $4 
billion in emergency funding, and he included no money for the 
District schools or for the public safety agencies. I would 
like to hear your comment and opinion on that.
    Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, the request we made, as I said, 
was made earlier this month, but the subject of the request was 
known long before then.
    We had talked about this, and I mentioned it to the 
President's representatives, so I was very hopeful that the 
President would be responsive to this one and, frankly, while 
the response has been somewhat uncertain, I am highly confident 
that the matter will be called to the President's attention 
again, and that we will have an opportunity to make our case.
    The request went forward in the way the law says we should 
do it, which is under our statute, Public Law 104-8, a section 
207 request. It is an emergency, so we felt it was critical to 
get this matter before the Congress in a timely fashion.
    The amounts are clear, and I am prepared to make the case 
again, but Mr. Chairman, the fact that it was not included in 
the supplemental really does not mean it is too late. The 
matter is still open, and I would hope we would still get 
support for this recommendation.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Dr. Brimmer. I have been 
given a copy of a letter--I suppose you made it available to 
us--that was to you from Frank Raines, the head of the Office 
of Management and Budget, in which he said he cannot recommend 
the President put it in the supplemental budget.

                            funds for bosnia

    I have great problems understanding how we function as a 
Government, and how the administration thinks, when he has a $2 
billion request in this emergency budget for Bosnia. We will 
have spent $6\1/2\ billion in Bosnia. That is the estimate. I 
am sure we will run over that. He has a $1 billion request in 
here for the United Nations, which is an emergency, and yet, in 
the very Capital of the Nation, in the city he lives in, he did 
not see fit to put in a $53 million request for the police 
department and the school system.
    Now, when we pull out of Bosnia, $6\1/2\ billion later, it 
will be exactly where it was before we went in, except we will 
probably have an obligation for continued foreign aid, or 
something of that nature, which will continue to take money.
    Maybe the United Nations has a problem, but I do not think 
the United Nations ranks as importantly in my mind as does 
opening the D.C. schools and trying to provide a safe police 
department, so I am sure the President knows something I do not 
know about how we should be spending our Nation's money, but it 
looks to me like he has got his priorities headed in the wrong 
way. Bosnia is not as important to me as is the District of 
Columbia.

            position of the office of management and budget

    Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, the letter you cited is a 
response from Mr. Raines, Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget, to a letter I sent him on April 14 asking first 
that he recommend to the President that the President submit 
our proposal to the Congress, and second, I had asked Mr. 
Raines to express the administration's support for the 
proposal.
    Mr. Raines in his response declined to do that, and he 
cites a couple of reasons. First, he believes that we have not 
scrubbed the $5 billion existing District budget enough to see 
if we can find the extra $52 million within the current budget, 
but the fact is we have scrubbed the budget. We worked long and 
hard to see whether we could find additional places in the 
budget in order to get the money.
    The answer was, we could not, even with respect to the 
possibility of borrowing funds as part of the city's capital 
budget and allocating it to the schools. We had looked at 
increasing that allocation above the $20 million that is 
already earmarked, and there is no way we can find additional 
funds in that particular borrowing.

         additional request's relationship to president's plan

    Finally, Mr. Raines mentioned the President's program which 
the President has recommended for the renovation of the 
District. Those are actually 1998 proposals. This emergency is 
for 1997, so we believe that, because of the nature of the 
emergency we described, there is sufficient justification for 
including that in the supplemental for 1997.
    Senator Faircloth. Well, I saw it, and it has to be a very 
complex answer to your request, but I am somewhat direct as a 
person, and I saw many, many pictures of the First Lady looking 
at the schools and seeing what terrible shape they were in, but 
I assume she neglected to mention this to the President. 
[Laughter.]
    I am delighted to have Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the 
honorable and distinguished Senator from the State of Texas 
with us. Senator Hutchison, if you have an opening statement, 
or whatever you would like to say, we welcome it.

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

    Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
being late. I just came in from my home State this morning and 
I wanted to be here because I think this is very important. I 
appreciate your calling the hearing, and I am looking forward 
to what these individuals have to say.
    I will make a special note that General Becton has a great 
experience leading Prairie View A&M in my State, and had a 
great reputation there, and I appreciate what you are doing now 
with the D.C. schools and taking on that mission.
    I do have some questions, but I will save those until later 
in the hearing. I thank you all for being here. I hope we can 
work together to make our capital city one for the people who 
live here, and the people who come from all over the country 
and expect it to be the best that America has to offer.
    Thank you.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Hutchison, and I 
thank you for your support and encouragement on what we are 
trying to do. We all, on this appropriations subcommittee, feel 
the same way, that this is the Nation's Capital, and it should 
represent the pristine city that we all want to see here.

                         categories of repairs

    General Becton or General Williams, you are asking for 
$36.8 million for emergency capital improvements for the 
District. In the justification for the funding, you list nine 
categories of repair. Other than roof replacements, which 
certainly we can understand, that put you at risk of fire code 
violations, are any of the categories required by court order 
for immediate repair in order to open the schools in September?
    In other words, are all these repairs that you are talking 
about required by court order to open the schools?
    General Bection. I would like for General Williams to 
answer that.
    General Williams. Senator Faircloth, and Senator Hutchison, 
and Congresswoman Norton, I would just like to use a little 
precursor before I answer the question. I have been managing 
governmental and public facilities and building them for 35 
years. I have been here almost 120 days. This is the worst 
situation that I have ever witnessed in terms of the state of 
the facilities.
    I have personally been in 119 of our 157 facilities to get 
a firsthand view before the technical staff made an assessment. 
There is no pretty way to put it. We are in a real deep hole. 
The request that we have is for an emergency. It is an 
emergency because it speaks to safety and health.

                          fire code violations

    Now, in response to your direct questions about fire code 
violations, there are buildings that we have listed here that 
are on the relook by Judge Christian for fire codes.
    Senator Faircloth. They are on what, I am sorry?
    General Williams. They are on the revisit list for fire 
codes. There are buildings that in our opinion, because we are 
supposed to be finding this and not the judge, that are just as 
bad, so I have presented these because we know it is just a 
matter of time before these will also be problems, so in order 
to give assurances to the students and the public that we can 
open schools successfully in September, we have to call it as 
we see it.

                        air-conditioning request

    Senator Faircloth. One request that caught my attention was 
$450,000 of over a $5 billion request for replacement of the 
air-conditioning in one of the schools. Do you absolutely have 
to do the air-conditioning unit in order to open the schools, 
or could that wait until the normal budgeting process?
    General Williams. Senator Faircloth, that is a very fair 
question. Let me frame it this way. All of this work that we 
are calling emergency is envelope type of work. It is the type 
of work that will make the building safe and secure.
    Let us start with the roof first. We have about 50 or so 
roofs that must be replaced. We cannot patch them.
    Senator Faircloth. Fifty or so what?
    General Williams. Roofs that must be replaced. We have 
boilers which provide heat. It may not be a fire code 
violation, but we cannot open a school without having heat. The 
flip-side of that is, in this time, this season that we are 
approaching now, because of the nature of our buildings, or 
combinations of buildings, some built in the presixties and 
some in the seventies, we have to try to have them comfortable 
in the spring, and you know we have some programs during the 
summer, so that is what the chillers are about.
    Then we are out of compliance with the Americans With 
Disabilities Act, with which we have to come into compliance. 
Then we have some windows that are really not windows. They 
just do not function any more like windows. That has to be 
secured as well, and because our buildings are very old and the 
electrical distribution systems are antiquated, we have to 
provide backup generation power for the electrical power which 
again will cause an emergency if the power would go out.
    So that is what composed the $86 million by category.

                              court order

    Senator Faircloth. You reported that the D.C. public school 
system is currently under a mandate by court order for 
emergency repairs. Is the court order in effect today?
    General Williams. It is in effect today, Senator.
    Senator Faircloth. What does it say?
    General Williams. It says that we must abate certain fire 
code violations and keep them abated such that there are no 
repeats, and the judge will revisit these schools, and any that 
come up in the interim, on a periodic basis.
    So we are still under that court order.
    Senator Faircloth. Who visited these schools and made the 
report to the courts that precipitated the court order? Who did 
that?
    General Williams. This was obviously before I arrived, but 
the best I can find from research, it was a combination of 
reports from interested--from the public, but more importantly 
from the fire department itself. The fire department has a 
requirement to make routine safety inspections, and many of 
these fire code violations were lifted from search inspections.
    Senator Faircloth. Well, I had heard they were made by the 
fire department and not--the firemen themselves and not from 
public comment. Would you provide the committee with a copy of 
the court order by Friday the 25th? I will just throw in here 
that we intend to keep this record open until Friday, 5 p.m., 
for anyone who would like to insert anything in the record 
between now and then, so if you would, we would very much 
appreciate your doing that.
    General Williams. I would be delighted to.
    [The information follows:]

       Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division

parents united for the district of columbia schools, et al., plaintiffs
               mayor marion s. barry, et al., defendants

                Civil Action No. 92-3478 Judge Christian

                                 order
    Pursuant to this Court's Orders of December 15, 1995, and May 7, 
1996, the Fire Department is under a continuing Order to complete fire 
inspections of all D.C. Public Schools, every six months, by the last 
day of May and the last day of November of each year. Defendants are 
also under a continuing Order to submit fire inspection reports, at the 
latest, by the last day of May and November of each year. The 
Defendant, Mayor of the District of Columbia, shall respond to the re-
inspection reports by June 9, 1997. Said response shall be filed with 
the Court and served on Plaintiffs by June 16, 1997.
    Prior to the commencement of the hearing to review the six monthly 
fire inspection of District of Columbia Public Schools ending in May 
1997, the Court will hold a Pre-hearing Conference with Defendants and 
Plaintiffs to identify and narrow issues for the in-Court proceeding. 
The Pre-hearing Conference is scheduled for July 1, 1997, at 2:00 p.m.
    The Court will hold a hearing to review Defendants' compliance with 
the Court's Order of June 10, 1994, and subsequent Orders. Essentially, 
this hearing will address any matters left outstanding after the Pre-
hearing Conference. Said hearing is scheduled for July 10, 1997, at 
2:00 p.m. in courtroom 215.
    Defendants are reminded that, depending on the circumstance, there 
are three different dates for submitting fire inspection reports that 
must be observed. As discussed above, at the end of a regularly 
scheduled six month inspection, all fire inspection reports must be 
filed with the Court and served on Plaintiffs by the last day of May 
and November each year. Defendants should note however, that based on 
the Enforcement Plan there are two additional and different periods of 
time within which an inspection report must be submitted \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Enforcement Plan which is an Order of this Court was 
drafted by the Defendants and Plaintiffs. Defendants objected to the 
Plan being an Order of the Court and preferred to adhere to it without 
being ordered to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Enforcement Plan requires that ``school inspection reports 
shall be provided to the plaintiffs as soon as possible upon the 
completion of scheduled and unscheduled inspections.'' This provision 
was not intended to apply to those regularly scheduled six month 
inspections which culminate on the last day of May and November, but 
applies to inspections ordered by the Court to take place on specific 
dates and Court ordered ``pop visits.''
    The third period of time within which an inspection report must be 
provided occurs ``following an incident of a fire or any reported 
conditions liable to cause fire, contribute to the spread of fire, 
interfere with fire fighting operations, or otherwise affect fire 
safety, the defendants shall provide to the plaintiffs an inspection 
report listing the fire code violation(s) and any abatement(s) that 
have occurred by the date of the Report.'' Under this circumstance, 
Defendants shall provide the inspection report to the plaintiffs within 
five business days of any incident of a fire or reported Fire Code 
violation. Defendants shall comply with the time periods above in 
providing reports to Plaintiffs and this Court.
    The Defendant, Mayor of the District of Columbia, is under a 
continuing Order to abate any and all Fire Code violations that exist 
in public schools buildings and the Fire Chief shall continue to 
enforce the Fire Code as required by law. Defendants are not exempt 
from complying with the law as it relates to fire safety in District of 
Columbia Public Schools. All Fire Code violations must be abated in a 
timely fashion. The Enforcement Plan outlines the timeframe within 
which Categories I, II, and III Fire Code violations must be abated. 
Defendants will have sufficient time between the commencement of fire 
inspections and the date of the Pre-hearing Conference to address Fire 
Code violations. Defendants should use this time wisely.
    Wherefore, it is this 27th day of February 1997, hereby
    ORDERED, that Defendants shall submit to the Court and serve on 
plaintiffs the fire inspection reports for the fire inspections ending 
in May 1997, no later than May 30, 1997; and it is further
    ORDERED, that the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall respond 
to said fire inspection reports no later than June 9, 1997; and it is 
further
    ORDERED, that said response shall be filed with the Court and 
served on Plaintiffs by June 16, 1997; and it is further
    ORDERED, that the Court will hold a Pre-hearing Conference on July 
1, 1997, at 2:00 p.m.; and it is further
    ORDERED, that following the Pre-hearing Conference, the Court will 
hold an in-Court hearing on July 10, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 
215 to address any outstanding matters; and it is further
    ORDERED, that the Court's Order of June 10, 1994, and subsequent 
Orders remain in full force and effect.
    SO ORDERED.
                                         Kaye K. Christian,
                                                   Associate Judge.

                             per pupil cost

    Senator Faircloth. General Becton, how much does the 
District spend per pupil on students?
    General Becton. Mr. Chairman, I will have to provide that, 
the accurate number for the record, but it is in the vicinity 
of $7,000.
    Senator Faircloth. Per student?
    General Becton. Yes.
    [Pause.]
    General Becton. I was corrected. It is $7,100.
    Senator Faircloth. Very quickly, this is not something we 
are here to pursue, but this is a very quick statement. Give me 
a quick answer.
    We all know that this is one of the highest in the Nation. 
Could you give me a very brief response for the information of 
Congresswoman Norton and Senator Hutchison why it is so high? I 
believe it is the second highest in the Nation.
    General Becton. I do not think it is that high, sir, but 
one of the problems----
    Senator Faircloth. Well, these are the records we see.
    General Becton. One of the challenges we are faced with is, 
we are the only school district in the Nation that includes 
State funds as well as District funds. Every other school 
district has a State education department, and then apart from 
that they have these systems, whether it is Prince Georges, 
Fairfax, or whatever.
    Senator Faircloth. I understand that, but we are talking 
about the combination cost of State and city all around.
    General Becton. That is my point.
    Senator Faircloth. Even when you go at it from that angle, 
it is still the highest.
    General Becton. That pushes us up higher than what it would 
be normally for a school district.
    I have been given a chart that is interesting to point out 
that in fiscal year 1995 the actual cost per student in 
Alexandria City is $8,300, in Arlington $8,300, the District of 
Columbia, $6,900, Fairfax County, $6,400, Falls Church, $8,400, 
so we are not nearly what it was reported earlier.
    But what we are trying to do is, when we have excess 
facilities that we must spend money on, that also pushes up our 
cost per student, and as I have discussed earlier, we have 
considerable excess that we are trying to reduce.
    Senator Faircloth. Senator Hutchison, did you have anything 
that you would like to ask? Jump right in if you wish. We would 
be glad for you to do that if you would like to.

                           contingency plans

    Senator Hutchison. Sure. I do have several areas that I 
would like to pursue. First, you are pursuing a supplemental 
appropriation. Do you have contingency plans that prioritize 
these needs where you are looking at other ways to have 
efficiencies in other places? What are your contingency plans 
if you do not get the supplemental appropriation, or if you get 
part of it?
    Dr. Brimmer. First let me respond, Senator. With respect to 
the schools, as I said earlier, the public schools now have an 
allocation of $20 million in the District's planned capital 
budget for which they will be borrowing in 1997.
    We have looked to see whether some additional projects, 
some other projects in that capital borrowing could be put 
aside and the funds diverted to the schools. How much, we do 
not know, but we have looked at it.
    At this juncture, it looks as though that would be very 
little, so we will also look to see whether there are funds in 
other parts of the schools' budget, and so far the school CEO 
has told us that they see no way to cancel commitments in the 
school budget now and divert the funds to the capital spending 
for repairs.

                     no reprogramming opportunities

    Dr. Brimmer. We have looked at other parts of the District 
budget overall, and this late in the fiscal year--we are 
halfway through the fiscal year--we see no opportunity to do 
so.
    As I said earlier, Senator, in response to the letter I had 
gotten from Mr. Raines, we did look ahead of time to see 
whether we could find the funds from other sources before we 
reached this judgment, so at this juncture we say no.
    In the case of the courts and corrections, now, you have 
heard what Judge Hamilton has said about the problems the 
courts are facing. They are having to add more people to 
process these arrests, so those expenditures are going forward, 
but there is no money in the courts' budget to pay for that, so 
they would need additional money.
    With respect to corrections, there is little prospect that 
the funds could be found. In corrections, we are already 
contemplating closing some of those facilities. There may be 
some opportunity to find some funds there to house these 
additional prisoners that they are having to take in.
    How much that is, we do not know, but in any case it will 
be very modest compared with the whole amount.
    One possibility, of course, is that the effort would have 
to be slowed down. If the schools cannot get the funds to make 
the repairs, then the repairs will not be made, because they 
have to pay for them. That is the real cost which prompted us 
to make the request, and why we believe the request should go 
on.
    There is no ready money any place available to do this. If 
we cannot get the funds, then the activity would have to be 
postponed.

                         the procurement system

    Senator Hutchison. I would like to address, too, I think 
General Becton and Chief Soulsby both, and perhaps Dr. Brimmer: 
The Control Board has recently issued a report on the 
contracting operations of the District saying that the 
procurement system really is not being properly managed.
    Certainly, in the memorandum of understanding, Chief 
Soulsby, you got some authority to bypass the normal 
procurement process to try to increase efficiency. I would like 
to ask, if extra money is given in the supplemental 
appropriation, what will you do to make sure that there is 
competitive pricing, that you get the best price, that the 
procurement is done in an efficient way, and I would like to 
ask Chief Soulsby if the memorandum of understanding has given 
you the ability to make any efficiencies in procurement.
    All things being equal, we do not like supplemental 
appropriations. We would rather have a budget and prepare for 
the next year, and live within that budget. That is something 
that school districts do, that cities do all over America.
    However, we are facing a supplemental appropriation, and I 
would like to try to be helpful, but I do not want to throw 
good money after bad. If we are not going to have assurances 
that the expenditures will be made in an efficient way, that 
will bear on how I would look at supplemental appropriations.
    I do not want to walk away from help of an emergency 
nature, but I certainly would want to have some assurances that 
we have procurement systems that do work, that are efficient, 
and that we will get competitive pricing, so I would ask 
General Becton, Chief Soulsby, and Dr. Brimmer if they would 
like to comment as well.

                          review of contracts

    Dr. Brimmer. May I comment first, Senator? As you know, 
under the act which established the Control Board we do have 
the responsibility to review contracts, and that means to 
approve contracts.
    With respect to the application of the contracting 
procedures in the schools, you might recall that the funds were 
appropriated to the Control Board for the construction and the 
repairs. We, in turn, have an agreement which was worked out 
prior to General Becton coming on board, the main outlines, 
where the GSA is working with us to see that this is done. The 
authority the schools have with respect to facilities oversight 
is the authority we delegated to the emergency trustees to do 
that, so it is our responsibility. It is our authority.

                           police procurement

    Senator Hutchison. So you will take responsibility.
    Dr. Brimmer. We have the responsibility, and we are 
insisting that the process, the procurement process meets the 
standards, and competitive bidding is one of those. So that is 
our responsibility. We are doing it. We will continue to do it.
    In a like vein, we have a similar arrangement with the 
police, because there, too, it was our authority which resulted 
in the delegation to the chief to bypass the rules with respect 
to procurement.
    My colleague, Steve Harlan, the vice chair, monitors that, 
and I can assure you that he, too, agrees that the standards 
are being adhered to and will be adhered to.
    Senator Hutchison. Let me just follow up on that, then, 
with you. I assume that we are talking about the supplemental 
appropriations, and that the buck stops with you. You have 
charge of the report that says there were problems in the 
procurement process.
    Are you also right now trying to go back and do everything 
you can to make sure that there are efficiencies in the 
procurement system, especially in the police department, where 
to which the Control Board has granted additional authority. Is 
there an ongoing effort right now to streamline and bypass the 
District's procurement system that is, under your own report, 
not working so well?
    Dr. Brimmer. Yes; the activity is going forward. The chief 
received his authority back in March, and I have not seen 
personally, and I do not know of the extent to which my 
colleague, Steve Harlan, has seen applications of that 
authority, but I assume that they would follow the process we 
have in place, and I will ask my colleague, if you do not mind, 
Senator, who follows this more closely than I, Mr. Harlan. 
Steve, would you comment?
    Senator Hutchison. Then after that I would be happy to hear 
from either General Becton or Chief Soulsby for their comments 
as well, but I appreciate your stepping in on this, Dr. 
Brimmer.
    Senator Faircloth. Senator Hutchison, I would just like, 
for your information, to say Steve Harlan, a member of the 
Control Board, spent a lifetime career in accounting, and so we 
are leaning heavily on him for accuracy going forward. We would 
be delighted to hear from you, Mr. Harlan.
    Mr. Harlan. That is quite a load, Senator. Thank you very 
much, Senator Hutchison. We have been working with the police 
department on procurement. We are very close to signing a 
memorandum of understanding with the GSA to basically have GSA 
take over the operation of the police department's procurement 
for a temporary period of time. This is in the final stages of 
the negotiations, and it will either be signed today or 
tomorrow.
    GSA basically buys everything the police need to buy, and 
while the overall problem of procurement within the District of 
Columbia is, in fact, very fractured, what we are trying to do 
here is to say we have got to move on with the police. We are 
going to use GSA as a helper, to train people to help us in 
their procedures and policies.
    And for a temporary period of time, and that period is 
approximately 1 year, while the rest of the procurement systems 
within the District of Columbia are updated and modified--laws 
are being changed, training is taking place, so activity is 
taking place, but it is going to take a while. So, what we have 
done is gone to GSA and said, we desperately need your help, 
and they have responded very positively.
    We are looking forward to that support, and I think it is 
on the right track.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
    General Becton. Senator Hutchison, I would like to comment. 
First, you asked a question, if there are no funds coming, what 
happens to the schools? Our funds are for an emergency, a real 
emergency. We are concerned about the safety of the kids, and I 
cannot see how we can expect them to continue going to places 
where we know there are safety problems, so it is very critical 
to us that the funds be forthcoming.
    On the subject of the procurement, we do have an MOU with 
the GSA, and procurement is under General Williams' control, 
and I would like for him to respond to the details of that, if 
I may.
    General Williams. Senator Hutchison, the procurement 
process that is currently in place is dysfunctional. It will 
not be responsive to what we need. We recognized that early on, 
and the Control Board did as well, and to that extent GSA is 
working with us to execute the capital projects that we 
currently have.
    Going forward, we hope to be looking at and making a 
recommendation that would significantly streamline these 
procedures and hopefully bring them very close to what we 
experienced in the private sector, keeping them very 
competitive, but ensuring that we remove all the bottlenecks so 
that we can fast track and do the kind of execution that is 
necessary in order to move the program very quickly.
    We have this under study now. GSA is helping us during the 
interim, but the ultimate goal is to streamline the procedures.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
    Mr. Soulsby. Good morning. I have a copy here of the 
memorandum of understanding with GSA. First of all, I would 
like to say that I have a new CFO in the police department to 
oversee these types of things.
    What the GSA is going to do is, they are going to provide 
on-site support in processing their current backlog of 
procurement. They are going to review our policies, procedures, 
and operations to suggest new improvements, and then they are 
going to draft a new policy manual that improves and modernizes 
our process.
    They will be working with us for 1 year. During the same 
period of time, we will be training our people, replacing 
people as necessary, but I expect that this will cease to be a 
problem in the very near future.
    Senator Hutchison. I have another line of questions, but I 
think it is time to let someone else have a chance. Let me just 
ask you one question, though.

                           bullet-proof vests

    We gave you money for bullet-proof vests. I keep hearing 
that those have not been purchased or replaced as routine 
equipment for police on the streets. The same for the cars, the 
police cars, and the repair of those. Could you speak to that?
    Mr. Soulsby. I think many of those stories were true at one 
time. A lot of those things have occurred. The purchase of the 
vests has gone through. I think we have 400 vests that will be 
delivered on----
    Senator Faircloth. Chief, would you pull the microphone 
closer to you?
    Senator Hutchison. You have 400 vests. Does any police 
officer who wants to wear a bullet-proof vest have that 
capability?
    Mr. Soulsby. Yes; what we are doing is, we are in the 
process of replacing vests. What we had is, we bought vests 
that had dates stamped, expiration dates stamped on the vest, 
just the product liability. They put a certain date on the 
stamps on the vest, but there have been checks to see whether 
or not those vests would last years beyond that. In fact, we 
have been told that they will.
    In any case, we are in the process of replacing all of 
them. We are going to have the first ones of those 400 in on 
Monday, the 28th. We will be giving some of those vests out on 
Monday, the 28th.

                           vehicle purchases

    In regards to vehicles, we have purchased several, I think 
around 300 or 400 vehicles in the last 8 months. We have 
another 150 vehicles that will be coming in within the next 3 
months.
    A lot of the things that we had, problems that we had 1 
year ago that have received a lot of publicity were because of 
the cuts. We had received a cut in our nonpersonal services 
budget from $30 million down to $16 million. This year it is 
back up to $25 million.
    So during that period of time there were a lot of things 
that we could not do day to day. We even got eviction notices 
where they tried to evict us from various police stations 
because we did not have the money and the ability to pay the 
rent. Those things have gone by the wayside.
    Right now, if we have a problem, for the most part it is 
because of the procurement system, because we have not been 
effective in getting that worked out. But those issues, those 
problems with not having basic supplies, should be stories of 
old.
    Senator Hutchison. I hope so, because it is 
incomprehensible to me that much of anything would take 
precedence over bullet-proof vests and cars that work. That 
means not hiring people where there are vacancies until that 
happens, so if you tell me it is going to happen right now, 
fine. If it does not happen right now, then I do not understand 
the priorities.
    Mr. Soulsby. I can assure you I have no more priority than 
the safety of my officers.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you. I do have other questions, 
but I will yield.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
    Congresswoman Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want 
to note the improvement that has occurred in these two 
agencies, and to commend the city officials and the Control 
Board as they have been involved in that, and, therefore, I 
think they come with some credibility when they come to ask for 
additional emergency funds.
    I think we should be particularly impressed with the quick 
changes. Perhaps there are easier-to-make changes, and General 
Becton I think will agree, in getting cops on the street than 
there are in improving educational quality, but we have seen 
great changes as a result of the reform work that has been done 
at the police department, and the reduction in crime is 
particularly welcome.

                           use of consultants

    Let me also say, however, that the very fact that such 
great changes were made in the police department as a result of 
getting agreement between the Control Board and the Council to 
send consultants in speaks to what might be done in other 
departments if the same methodology were used. I want to take 
this opportunity for the record to say I hope what has been 
done with the police departments will also be done with the 
$1.5 billion Department of Human Services, with the fire 
department, with DPW; that would make it much easier for those 
of us who are trying to get extra funds for the District.

                              court order

    I would like to say for the record, the chairman is going 
to ask for the court order, and he will not find that the court 
order lists specific schools and says what ought to be done in 
that detail. The city has been forced, however, to do repairs 
on an emergency or crisis basis. Witness Shaw Junior High 
School last week.
    Now, the court order really requires them to move before 
they have to say to children, as they had to say last week, you 
stay home for a day while we fix the roof. In putting in a 
request for emergency funds, in fulfillment of the court order, 
you are fulfilling the obligation to look precisely at 
emergency repairs that are likely to arise so that schools will 
not have to be closed and so that, for example, we do not have 
another Duke Ellington situation, where one of the best schools 
without funds from one of the universities would have had to be 
closed for a long time.

                    emergency and necessary repairs

    In that vein, could I ask you whether you have made--let me 
retreat for a second. A figure of $1 billion, or some such 
figure, has been used for overall repairs. Then there are 
necessary repairs, and then there are what might generally be 
called emergency repairs.
    Have you made a distinction between emergency repairs--this 
is an emergency supplemental--and necessary repairs that you 
would have to make and are going to have to make in any case to 
the schools?
    General Williams. Yes, Congresswoman Norton, you are 
absolutely on target because our long-range facilities plan, 
which is in draft now, speaks to the facilities situation in 
three tranches. First, the 1997 emergency work, which we are 
speaking about today. The next 2 years will require us, then, 
with the envelope of the building stabilized and secure, to go 
inside of these buildings, those that are left in the system, 
and then start making the necessary improvements to ensure that 
they are suitable to carry on the process that was intended.

                    electrical distribution systems

    An example: The electrical distribution systems are all 
antiquated. They need to be heavied up to handle all of the 
high tech donations and the like that are coming about.
    Senator Faircloth. What kind of distribution systems was 
that?
    General Williams. The electrical distribution systems.
    Senator Faircloth. Oh, the wiring.
    General Williams. Also the plumbing systems, as well. These 
were put in 50 or 60 years ago, and, of course, their useful 
life is only 25 years, so they are many, many years over.
    We have also other interior work, such as renovating bath 
facilities, which is a very routine type of requirement. Many 
of our bath facilities are not considered adequate with stalls 
and that type of thing. And then, of course, the other interior 
work in classrooms and the like will take us 2 years to do that 
work.

                        modernization of schools

    And then, of course, the out-years, 2000 and beyond, we 
have to start addressing modernization, because we have to 
speak to the right size of facilities for each category of 
education. That is elementary, making certain that the school 
is, in fact, equipped facilitieswise for the size that the 
educational reform calls for.
    So our long range plan, emergency now, this is what it 
takes in order for us to safely open the schools that are left 
in the system next school year. Tranche No. 2 will be 
improvements inside because we have the building stabilized. 
And then going forward 2000 and beyond we will be into 
modernizations, adding wings as appropriate, and that type of 
thing.
    Ms. Norton. General, what is the value of the work already 
done? What is the dollar value of the work done this fiscal 
year in repairs in schools?
    General Williams. Well, as General Becton pointed out, we 
have roughly $30 million that we have in hand.
    Ms. Norton. I want to know the dollar value of the work 
done and completed by now.
    General Williams. The amount of work that we have currently 
ongoing is about $13 million of that $30 million. The rest of 
it is in various stages of being prepared to be let as soon as 
possible.
    Ms. Norton. So you have either obligated or----
    General Williams. Or in the process of.
    Ms. Norton [continuing]. Or have targeted where that money 
must go, and what you need now is over and above that $30 
million?
    General Williams. Absolutely. Yes.
    Ms. Norton. We have spoken about GSA and the help they have 
been in procurement. As I understand it, GSA has also been 
helpful with respect to construction and repair. Is that the 
case, or is that being done inside?
    General Williams. GSA, Congresswoman Norton, was used in 
the interim and is still used. The first tranche of our work, 
the $11.5 million, GSA is managing that for us because, 
obviously, we did not have staff or anyone in place to do that. 
GSA will stay with us as long as we need them to assist us with 
these matters because they have contractors already onboard. We 
can get to them and piggyback very quickly and get the work 
done.
    So we are in an excellent position as a risk mitigator in 
terms of the money that is given to us because we do have GSA 
as a backup to help us to fast track and get through the 
procurement maze.
    Ms. Norton. This is a very important shortcut through the 
procurement maze that also gives you people who you know can do 
the job. It ought to be noted for the record that the District 
has to reimburse GSA, and that this is not any free lunch.

                       designing an academic plan

    General Williams. Yes; we do.
    Ms. Norton. Finally, may I ask you one final question--
inevitably. I would like to know, General Becton, your progress 
on producing--we are here talking about repairs. Frankly, you 
had to do that. You had to get there first because if children 
do not have a safe place to go, nothing else, frankly, matters 
that happens within that school building. I would like to ask 
you about your progress in designing an academic plan, and 
whether you believe that in doing the school closings, academic 
factors should figure as one of the factors when the closings 
are done.
    General Becton. We are in the process of reviewing the 
draft of our academic plans as we speak.
    Ms. Norton. Do you expect the plan, then, to be released 
within the next week?
    General Becton. We are going to have it released before the 
end of this school year; hopefully, much earlier than that. But 
we still have some hurdles to go over and some other things to 
check into. Also, I must go before my board of trustees to 
present the plan to them.
    You raised a question about the closing and whether 
academics were considered. While I choose not to get into a 
long discussion about that, the answer is we are closing 
buildings and not programs. Programs we guarantee will be 
intact and properly----
    Senator Faircloth. May I ask for order in the room, please. 
There will be no more outbursts.
    General Becton. I can assure you that programs will be 
intact, ma'am.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
    General Williams and General Becton, we have gone pretty 
thoroughly into the GSA and how we are going to do it. You all 
know, and no one is confused about one of the problems we face 
in discussing the problems of the District of Columbia with the 
Congress, because we read daily, and have for 20 years, about 
one scandal, fiasco, behind the other, whether it happened or 
not. But we have been inundated with this type of report. So 
you are dealing with a Congress that is extremely skeptical of 
how money is spent in the District of Columbia.

                            medicaid payment

    The latest thing we have read about was the Medicaid 
payment, I believe, to a Medicaid contractor in which the GSA 
said one figure; Tony Williams, who I have great respect for, 
said something of a lesser figure, maybe $6 million; and then 
we understand the Mayor wanted to pay the contractor $18 
million. Well, this is the type of thing that has been all over 
the papers and everywhere else. I am not being specific. I am 
just trying to say this is the problem we face, and that is the 
reason for the very penetrating questions that you are going to 
get and have gotten as to how the money that goes to the 
District has been spent. And that certainly makes the Congress 
reluctant to send more money into a situation which we have 
been led to believe, and certainly the facts indicate the 
history of it, a world of money has been thrown away and 
misspent.
    Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Faircloth. Yes.
    Dr. Brimmer. May I comment on the issue you just raised, 
because it is a vital one. As you know, at the Control Board we 
have been vitally concerned about the allocation of funds and 
the use of those funds to make certain that they are used for 
the purposes intended. The case you just described is 
illustrative of the more general problem.
    Senator Faircloth. Is what kind of case?
    Dr. Brimmer. It is illustrative of the more general problem 
that goes well beyond the schools, and the case you just 
mentioned was not particularly a school problem. But what you 
see there was a case where a contractor had provided services 
under conditions where the pricing and others were unclear. So, 
what you see is a dispute. The question is whose judgment is to 
prevail.
    You said precisely that the very large figure, the $18 
million in that case, was a recommendation by the 
administration. But you will notice that the person actually 
concerned in administering the program recommended a much 
smaller figure.
    Senator Faircloth. How much was that figure?
    Dr. Brimmer. About $6 million.
    Senator Faircloth. That is a pretty good difference.
    Dr. Brimmer. The chief financial officer suggested a figure 
even lower, in the neighborhood of $2 to $3 million. And it 
depends on how the original contract is interpreted.
    But in our case, we are backing a combination of the chief 
financial officer and the person who is running the program. We 
believe that the judgments of the technical people are the ones 
that must prevail here. We will see to that because, in the 
end, we would have to approve that if it is a contract, and we 
would not approve it unless we had the recommendation of those 
two people.
    Senator, you can count on the fact that when issues like 
this arise that they will come to us, and remember, we were 
charged by the Congress to see that the financial 
responsibility side is met, and we will see to that. So, 
hopefully, you will not see anything like that in the future.
    Senator Faircloth. Well, I thank you. And this is what I am 
talking about. I am not saying the Control Board created the 
problem. The reason for the Control Board and the school board 
and all of the others, is to try to eliminate the problem. But 
what I am saying is that this image and the daily scandal 
schedule has gotten the Congress extremely leery. That is the 
problem.
    Dr. Brimmer. Yes; and then finally, Mr. Chairman, the funds 
being requested here for the schools and so on would come to 
us, to the Control Board, and I assure you that we will see 
that the funds are spent properly, for the purpose that they 
have been requested, and that the people carrying it out will 
be responsible, and we will see to it.
    Senator Faircloth. All right.

                    repairs of schools being closed

    General Becton, none of these repairs will be committed to, 
or in other words, you are not planning to repair any schools 
that are going to be closed?
    General Becton. We will not repair any schools that are 
going to be closed.
    Senator Faircloth. So we can go out and rest assured that 
you are not going to be repairing schools that will be closed?
    General Becton. You can be assured of that, Senator. And I 
would like to just make one other comment in reference to the 
earlier question. I realize what has happened in the District 
before, I realize what has happened in the school system 
before, but there are a couple of us sitting at this table that 
have got a credibility over many years of public service, and 
it is on the line. And we are going to stick to what we say we 
are going to do.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you.

                       why pay increase emergency

    We will move to you, Chief Soulsby. Let me ask you a 
question. I really do not question the inequity in pay with the 
District police force and some surrounding police forces, but 
why the emergency? Why does this need to come up? Would you 
explain to us why this needs to come up in an emergency bill 
rather than in the normal budgeting process?
    Chief Soulsby. Senator, quite frankly, as we have been in a 
financial crisis we are also in a public safety crisis. We have 
had too many people victims of crimes, too many murders, too 
many just victims across the board. The entire country has 
heard of the problems.
    Senator Faircloth. Again, would you move the microphone 
really close? We do not have the best sound system here.
    Chief Soulsby. I understand, and I have the lowest voice. A 
big body with a low voice. [Laughter.]
    The entire Nation has heard many stories about the crime 
situation in Washington, DC. This is the Nation's Capital. 
People need to come here for many reasons, just to conduct the 
business of the Nation. We have taken steps, the MOU partners 
have taken steps to say that, for us to function as a city, we 
have to move forward and get crime and the fear of crime under 
control. In doing that they have changed the rules of day-to-
day policing in this city. They have given the chief of police 
powers heretofore unheard of. They have given up various 
authorities. They have come together in an unprecedented way, 
working together, saying we are going to put aside our egos, we 
are going to put aside our self-interests, and we are going to 
say the most important thing here is to get public safety under 
control.

                  number of officers making no arrest

    At the same time, the study done by the police department 
showed that we had 1,000 officers who had not made an arrest in 
a year.
    Senator Faircloth. I am sorry, what was that?
    Chief Soulsby. We had 1,000 officers who had not made an 
arrest in a year. We had another 1,000 to 1,100 that had made 
between 1 and 10 arrests in the year. So over one-half of our 
force had produced, just in that one category, few arrests. Yet 
we had people dying, we had people victims of crime all over 
town.
    What a police officer does, for the most part, is generally 
unsupervised moment to moment, and almost everything a police 
officer does is self-motivated. If I see a person run through a 
red light, do I stop that vehicle? If I see some minor offense 
occur, do I take action or do I look elsewhere? We have gone 
through that some of the people in the department have not had 
pay raises in 7 or 8 years. Within the last 2 years they took 
away salaries and benefits up to 12 percent of the pay.

                            personnel rules

    The morale was destroyed of many of the officers. Plus, 
many of our personnel rules allowed us to--it became 
impossible, quite frankly--to terminate employees who should 
not be in the department in some cases. We would terminate them 
and they would get reinstated.
    The MOU partners have changed that dynamic, and they are 
going to allow us to do that. We are going to rewrite personnel 
rules; we are going to do everything we can from the standpoint 
of management to make this a professional police department. 
But none of that works unless we get a motivated police 
department.

                        number of arrest doubled

    What has occurred in 1 month, 1\1/2\ months, is the number 
of arrests has doubled, the number of tickets written are 
doubled, almost every measurable thing that officers do has 
doubled, because they have seen, first of all, a change in the 
dynamics of the police department, a sense of we are about 
police work now. If you do not do your job, you are going to 
leave. And also they have seen a leap of faith, quite frankly. 
They think that things are going to get better. They need to 
see that, they are so underpaid and so frustrated.
    If we do not come forward with this pay raise, if we do not 
give these officers a sense of hope, then I am afraid that the 
steps that we have taken in the last 2 months will go right 
down to numbers we cannot accept. If we are sincere about 
making a difference in this city, that difference has to be 
made by the individual officer in every neighborhood in this 
city.

                          redeployed officers

    On top of that, we redeployed 400 officers. Within the next 
2 to 3 months we are going to change job descriptions and 
redeploy another 500 to 1,000 officers. We are going to upset 
their apple cart across the board.
    What is in it for them? We are going to expect them to do 
different things. We are going to take them out of little 
niches, but we are going to expect them to be highly motivated 
and go out unsupervised and be the police officer, the 
professional they should be. I need this, the members need 
this, and I think if we do not have it it will adversely 
impact.
    Now, we could say, ``What is the emergency? Let us wait 
until October.'' I cannot afford to wait until October to keep 
my people motivated to move forward. If we are sincere about 
making this a safe city, it has to happen now. It must happen. 
And I think to do less than that would dramatically impact our 
ability to turn the city around, and I think you are already 
seeing it. If you had told me 6 months ago that we would see 
these people motivated, working together in the way they are 
working now, that we would see a 28-percent reduction in 
homicides now, we are just getting started.
    I think the things that they did in New York City and the 
things they are doing in other cities will happen here. I think 
by this time next year police departments around the country 
will be coming here to find out what we are doing. But that 
does not happen in my office. That happens with the individual 
officer on the beat in every beat in this town. And those 
officers are underpaid and underequipped. It is an emergency. I 
need it now.

                    recommendation of the mou group

    Dr. Brimmer. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, please, sir; 
while we included it in the request, the public safety 
recommendation was the recommendation of the MOU partners, the 
collaborative effort of the police, the Control Board, the 
superior court, the U.S. attorney, and the others. My 
colleague, Steve Harlan, is the board member who is our 
representative on that group, and I would like for him to 
comment, if you do not mind, as to why we did it, why did the 
group, not just the chief, but why did the group consider this 
to be a matter of an emergency.
    Of the $15.5 million for public safety, the police 
department accounts for about $8.8 million. The rest includes 
$4.9 million for corrections. The superior court has a number 
of items here, so I would like Mr. Harlan to take a couple of 
minutes, if you do not mind, sir, to explain to the committee 
why the whole group considered this an emergency.
    Mr. Harlan. I think it can be couched this way, Senator: It 
is time for massive change. Enough already, if you will. Crime 
is far too high. We have got to put a stop to it. We cannot say 
we are going to put a stop to it October 1. We have got to put 
a stop to it today and every day.

                        no pay raise for 7 years

    As the chief has said, we have asked these police officers 
to do a lot of different things now. They have been underpaid, 
continue to be underpaid. Many have not received a raise in 7 
years. Contrasted to what is going on in the neighborhood or 
other police jurisdictions, they are significantly below. But 
the whole issue is one of an intensity, it is one of a focus, 
and it is one of a high demand that we as citizens are placing 
on these police, and they are saying, ``We are up to it.''
    But with that comes evidence that you will, in fact, 
support us. And we are not asking for a full restitution even 
to the average of the surrounding jurisdictions, because that 
is about 14 percent. What we are asking for is a signal, a very 
strong statement of support to these police that a 10-percent 
increase is due now, we are going to get it, but we expect a 
lot in return. That is what we are trying to do.
    It is an emergency. In March we saved about 15 lives in 
this city, and there have been about 20 lives saved so far and 
more will be saved in the month of April. That is a big 
improvement in the murder rate. So it is an emergency, and our 
MOU group looked at it that way and they said, ``We cannot ask 
people to do something that we are not ready to do.'' We cannot 
say to them, ``You have to do it right now, but we are going to 
do business as usual.'' It is no longer business as usual.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Mr. Harlan.
    I will now ask Senator Hutchison for her questions.

                  code enforcement to help revitalize

    Senator Hutchison. I would just like to ask one question, 
and it is in a different area. I am sorry I have to leave, but 
code enforcement is one way that I would like to know you are 
going to help revitalize, improve, repair, and clean up 
property, because obviously that has an impact on the city's 
crime statistics. I happen to have a bill that would give 
commercial revitalization tax credits so that investors will be 
able to receive tax credits for improving properties in 
economically distressed areas like the District of Columbia.
    I just think it is so important for the upgrading of a city 
to make sure that you do everything to keep your property up, 
and I would ask you if you have a vigorous system of code 
enforcement against absentee landlords to make sure that 
everything is being done, not at the city expense, that should 
be done by the landlords to properly keep buildings in repair 
and cleanliness.
    Mr. Harlan. Senator, you are exactly right. Each member of 
the MOU group has a responsibility. The District Council is 
taking the lead on modifying the law on code enforcement to put 
real big penalties in so that these absentee landlords who have 
been slapped on their wrists in the past will sustain very 
large penalties if their property is not maintained in 
accordance with the law, in accordance with the code.
    The District has been a dumping ground for trash haulers 
from Virginia and Maryland coming in and dumping tires and 
other trash in our neighborhoods. We are expanding the 
enforcement of that, and the penalties for dumping trash. All 
of these things, you are exactly right, need to be enforced, 
and we have commitments from the Mayor that the regulators will 
be more vigorous. We have gotten commitments from the Council 
to change the laws to make them more powerful, and all of that 
is being done.
    Senator Hutchison. But when? Are we talking about it being 
done now?
    Mr. Harlan. Yes; it is being done now.
    Senator Hutchison. Another bureaucratic road that will take 
2 or 3 months?

                      code enforcement legislation

    Mr. Harlan. Well, the Council is introducing legislation 
now on an emergency basis on the code enforcement. Council 
member Jack Evans, who chairs the Judiciary Committee for the 
Council, is taking the lead on that, and we are working with 
the Department of Public Works, which has hired 20 additional 
enforcers, is training them now, so it is taking place right 
now.
    Now, is it enough? Will it be perfect? Probably not in 
either one of those instances. But it is going to be a lot 
better than it has been because you are right, it must be 
enforced.
    Senator Hutchison. And you are overseeing that in the 
Control Board?
    Mr. Harlan. We are doing it as a group, and the chief is 
exactly right, and Ms. Norton is exactly right that working 
together the seven signatories here, we are working very hard 
to work together to make it happen. Each week, or no later than 
every 2 weeks, we meet and we go around the table and say, 
``You said you were going to get this done; did you get it 
done?'' It is a peer pressure type of thing. The Mayor is at 
the table, the Council is at the table, we are at the table.
    One of the things that we have to do is to work to get the 
police pay raise, so when we go to our next meeting, we would 
love to be able to say yes, we got it done.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, put on your to-do list at your 
next weekly meeting code enforcement, because that is one way 
the taxpayers will not have to subsidize the cleaning up of 
property that should be cleaned up.
    Mr. Harlan. We will.

                         prioritizing requests

    Senator Hutchison. I would also like to say I hope that you 
will be looking at prioritizing your requests, so that if you 
are not able to get all of the money you are requesting or--I 
do not know yet what the situation is going to be, but I think 
it is very important that we see an effort made by you. You 
come to us for an emergency appropriation, I would like to see 
where you are trimming and cutting to help make these things 
happen.
    I certainly want to make sure that our police officers are 
well paid. But a pay raise in an emergency appropriation is a 
very tough thing to do. That is not the proper way to budget. 
So I am not saying that I would not support it because I do 
want to do everything we can. But within the confines of your 
priorities, I hope that you are looking at ways that you can 
step up to the line and say we have made efficiencies in this 
area so we are going to contribute this if you will help us 
with a supplemental appropriation. It would make us feel more 
like a partnership than if every time you see that you are 
running low in an account you were to come and ask for a 
supplemental appropriation.
    Dr. Brimmer. Senator, I will respond to that. I chair the 
Control Board. First, this is the first time we have come to 
the Congress for a supplemental. We did it because of the 
pressing needs to do so. The issues and the activities for 
which we are asking funds were not foreseen at the time that 
the budget for fiscal year 1997 was put together. At that time 
there was no planned step-up in policing. There was no planned 
effort to enhance public safety. This came along later.
    We decided it had to be done because of the need to abate 
crime. Now, having done that, what we are saying is we must 
recognize that involves additional costs, and we have to pay 
for those. That is why we came here.

                    emergency route for supplemental

    I agree here. We normally do not support supplementals. The 
Authority did not come to the Congress with the usual 
supplemental process. We used an emergency route to get to you. 
We did it because the emergency arose after the budget was in 
place.
    With respect to trying to save money, we, of course, will 
go back and take a look. We have already been doing so. We will 
find every additional penny we can find, but we are saying that 
having done that and anticipating the results of an additional 
scrubbing, we are going to need the money.
    Senator Hutchison. I understand, and I do appreciate so 
much the things that you are doing, that you have done. I think 
that it is improving all the time, so I do want to try to be 
helpful. And I think everything we can do together to show the 
commitment on both sides is going to be important as we go down 
the road, and I want to be positive in that regard.
    Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
    Congresswoman Norton.

                    cost of training police officers

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
reinforce Senator Hutchison's point, and I think that, in fact, 
what the Control Board and the city have been doing in 
downsizing, all of that is very important for any extra money 
we are to get. I do want to say that one of the reasons why I 
support this pay raise, reluctantly, is because the police were 
forced to engage in give backs at a time when the District's 
crime rate was soaring, were sent out into battle, as it were, 
forced to give back their pay. When they did that, essentially 
the District of Columbia lost many officers and, therefore, 
lost millions of dollars because of the cost of training police 
in large cities.
    They invest thousands of dollars per capita in each cop. 
What happens is Prince Georges and Fairfax, who have a fraction 
of our crime problem, say we can pay you more to combat a lot 
less crime. We cannot afford to keep training these guys for 
the surrounding counties. So I regard this as a money saver, 
because we are losing cops after we have put thousands of 
dollars per cop in each of them.

                      court's taken very few cuts

    At the same time, what Senator Hutchison has said is 
exactly what we are going to be faced with. What trimming has 
been done? Let me ask my good friend, Chief Judge Hamilton, 
about that, because some of this money will go, of course, for 
courts, and you have listed things that manifestly will cost 
you more money--witness fees, court room interpreters, et 
cetera. The fact is that over the last 3 or 4 years, while the 
other two branches of government have been absolutely 
decimated, the courts have rather pristinely kept buying 
equipment, kept going forward, I would not begrudge you a cent. 
You have used it wisely and you have needed every cent of it.
    But the fact is that while we have taken money from school 
children, from public safety, the courts have hardly taken any 
hits. We would be in much better shape if you could tell us 
now, or by Friday as the date the chairman has indicated he 
wants data in, how the courts could absorb some of this, 
considering that you have absorbed very few cuts compared to 
other agencies, even though you need some more as is 
demonstrated by your request.
    Judge Hamilton. Congresswoman Norton and Senator Faircloth, 
the only way that the court is able to absorb financial 
distress is as a result of a reduction of its productivity. And 
when I say productivity, I mean a reduction in the disposition 
rate of its cases and controversies. Which means that if we 
reduce our productivity then our backlog begins to grow.

                      rate of disposition of cases

    At the moment we dispose of 92 percent of our civil cases 
within 24 months of their filing. At the same time, we have 
been called upon to dispose of more and more criminal cases 
based upon preventive detention within 100 days of the day that 
the case was filed. And so we have to deal with more and more 
cases with fewer and fewer resources. It means that we have to 
carry a larger backlog in order to do those things that are 
absolutely necessary. And we just feel that it is absolutely 
unacceptable to reduce the productivity so far as you might 
indicate.
    Ms. Norton. It certainly would be, Judge Hamilton. I would 
nevertheless urge you to look at, other than personal services, 
no one is calling for--you know, the police department had to 
do that, and they ended up not able to get out of the garages. 
Nobody would say take it from productivity, but it is very hard 
to make the case that no further cuts should occur in the 
courts when the courts have not taken cuts and that we will not 
absorb even a little bit of this even as we ask for emergency 
appropriations which you clearly do need and which I will 
strongly support.

                    increase in number of prisoners

    Could I ask what New York did what Chief Soulsby is doing. 
There were so many inmates that came in that Mayor Giuliani had 
to put barges out on the Hudson River, and that is what he did. 
He did what he had to do, and there they are. I do not know 
what we are going to do about the Potomac River, but I have to 
ask you whether or not, with stepped up arrests, Lorton is 
going to be able to absorb these prisoners, these new 
prisoners, and whether any court orders will be affected or 
violated in the process.
    Whoever can answer that, please do so. I do not know who.
    Dr. Brimmer. Actually, that question was discussed at the 
MOU meeting, and Judge Hamilton, you were there; Mr. Harlan was 
there. Ms. Moore, the head of corrections is here. Perhaps you 
could comment on that, if you do not mind.
    Ms. Moore. Good morning, Senator Faircloth, Congresswoman 
Norton. The Department of Corrections will, in fact, be 
adversely impacted by the increased crime interdiction by the 
Metropolitan Police Department. We anticipate that at the 
current rate of intakes in our system that we will admit an 
additional 688 prisoners to our system within the next 180 
days. That puts us in a position of being about 640 cells 
short, secure cells. As of this morning we had only 40 secure 
beds in the entire system. We do not anticipate those trends to 
change. So in response to your question, no, we will not have 
adequate capacity, adequate bed capacity, at Lorton to house 
these prisoners.

                       out-source of prison beds

    We are in the process of working on a contract to out-
source more than 1,400 prison beds. We have been working very 
closely with the Financial Authority, the City Council, and the 
Mayor to deal with the capacity issue. We are hopeful that we 
will have increased capacity online soon enough to absorb the 
influx of new prisoners that will be coming into our system.
    Ms. Norton. Is part of the supplemental to go for that 
privatization or out-sourcing, or is that already in the 
budget?
    Ms. Moore. The supplemental is intended to allow us to keep 
open one of the facilities that we had intended to close during 
this fiscal year. We have actually got to take a position of 
out-sourcing beds and maintaining our current capacity.
    Ms. Norton. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I have just 
one more question.
    Senator Faircloth. Go right ahead.
    Ms. Norton. Just as you are seeking a supplemental here, 
and Chairman Brimmer is right, this is the first time any 
supplemental has been sought. In fact, the Control Board has 
imposed very tough discipline on the District, which is why I 
think they come with some credibility when they ask for 
additional money this time. There was not a supplemental but 
there was $15 million that we really had to scramble for up 
here last year. Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, helped us to get it on this side and then the House 
on the other side went along with it. And I am telling you, we 
are going to have a job convincing the House even if Senator 
Faircloth is successful in getting any extra money in the 
Senate.

            special appropriation of $15 million for police

    One thing that would help us, I am sure, would be to know 
the disposition of the extra $15 million for the police 
department which was to go for technology, cars, and other 
emergencies. Chief Soulsby, please.
    Essentially I am asking if that money has been obligated. 
Has it been spent? Has the procurement problem been overcome 
sufficiently so that this money is now being spent?
    Chief Soulsby. $8.5 million has been spent or obligated. 
Another $6.4 million is in the procurement process as we speak. 
As you well know, we submitted a plan to specify exactly what 
we were going to spend on each item. So we know exactly what we 
are buying across the board. It is a matter of getting it 
through the procurement process.
    Some of this money was laid out over issues that were going 
to occur over 1\1/2\ years or so. But every penny of the $15 
million is specified for specific items.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.

                       pay raises to individuals

    Senator Faircloth. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton.
    We are going to close here rather quickly. Chief Soulsby, I 
did want to ask you one or two questions that we are all going 
to have to answer. In the money for the emergency pay raises, 
are we going to be giving raises to people you anticipate 
firing?
    Chief Soulsby. What we are trying to do is move forward on 
that piece very quickly. That is a tough issue because there 
are about 200 people that we are looking at whether or not we 
should be firing them or not. That process will probably go 
through over the next 60 days. Within 60 days we should have 
resolved the issue with regard to each of those individuals. 
That would be a tough issue to give you a specific answer on. I 
anticipate within 60 days anyone that we intend to fire, we 
will move forward with specific recommendations to do so.
    Senator Faircloth. Well, it will probably be 60 days before 
we get the money, so fire fast.
    Chief Soulsby. I will try hard. [Laughter.]

                     pay raises tied to performance

    Senator Faircloth. Do you intend to tie these pay raises to 
a change in performance standards and work rules?
    Chief Soulsby. Absolutely.
    Senator Faircloth. Or have you already instituted the 
performance standards and work rule changes?

                       performance and standards

    Chief Soulsby. Well, as I said in my opening statement, we 
have two different committees that are looking to specific 
performance. We are also working with Booz, Allen & Hamilton as 
far as establishing new rules. We are changing our entire 
process. So there will be heightened performance standards 
across the board on everyone.
    Senator Faircloth. Would you have any problem with having 
some of these work rules written into the bill as a condition 
of receiving the funds? Would that be overly cumbersome? Is 
that practical?
    Chief Soulsby. It would probably be very cumbersome for us 
to do this because we are in the process of evolving and 
developing the system, but I am more than willing to work with 
your staff. If there is a way we can do it I would be happy to 
do it.
    Senator Faircloth. I have no further questions.
    I want to say that I am very, very new in this job, but I 
have been very much impressed by the Control Board and the new 
people that are on it. I have had an opportunity to work with 
General Becton, Chief Soulsby, and certainly Dr. Brimmer and 
Steve Harlan and all of you. I sense a renewed determination to 
make this city work. During the past 24 years we all could find 
many things to be ashamed of, and as I said, the question is 
management, not money.
    We are going to have to convince the Congress as a whole 
that the money is going to be properly spent, that it is going 
to be accounted for in a proper and businesslike manner, and 
that we do not have an adversarial role between the Federal 
Government and the government of the city of Washington.
    We all want the same thing. But when we have seen almost on 
a weekly basis one headline or another--and sometimes they 
become so commonplace they do not even make headlines anymore--
of some scandal or misuse of city funds, that simply has got to 
stop. I know that you all are as devoted to making it stop as 
any group of people could be.

                         conclusion of hearing

    Congresswoman Norton, I have enjoyed watching the thorough 
knowledge and understanding you have of the city and your 
ability to cut through to the problems without a lot of 
persiflage. And I say that I think we have all reached a 
mindset that it is time to turn this city around and do what is 
necessary to make it the kind of city we are all proud of. I 
look forward to working with each of you and all of you to make 
it happen. I thank you.
    Chief Soulsby. Thank you.
    General Becton. Thank you.
    Dr. Brimmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Faircloth. The hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., Wednesday, April 23, the hearing 
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.]