    [Senate Hearing 108-740]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-740

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4850/S. 2826

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
     COLUMBIA AND OTHER ACTIVITIES CHARGEABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART AGAINST
    THE REVENUES OF SAID DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
                          2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                              District of Columbia

                                   __________

             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 PRINTING OFFICE
    92-140                      WASHINGTON : 2004
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          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
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
                        James W. Morhard, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                  Terence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia

                          MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TED STEVENS, Alaska (ex officio)     ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex
                                             officio)
                               Professional Staff

                                 Mary Dietrich
                            Kate Eltrich (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 25, 2004

                                                                       Page
    District of Columbia: Courts.....................................     1

                            Wednesday, March 3, 2004

    District of Columbia:
        Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency...............    39
        Public Defender Service......................................    85

                            Wednesday, May 19, 2004

    District of Columbia.............................................   103

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
        Also present: Ms. Norton and Senator Strauss.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                     Courts

    STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
                COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS; CHAIR, JOINT
                COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
    ACCOMPANIED BY RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
                DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                   opening statement of senator mike de wine

        Senator DeWine. Welcome, everyone. We have with us this
    morning two members of the Kiev City Council. Let me see if I
    can do the pronunciation, Yurly Zumko and Andre Radrewski. If
    you could stand, in the back. Thank you very much for joining
    us. I am glad to have you with us.
        I hope you enjoy your stay with us today; I hope we do not
    bore you too much with our hearing today.
        This hearing today will come to order. We will convene the
    first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of
    Columbia.
        I want to take this opportunity to, again, thank Senator
    Landrieu, our subcommittee's Ranking Member and to recognize
    her continued commitment to improving life for the residents of
    this Nation. It is good to be with you again.
        Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
    on a number of important issues for our Nation's Capital, and I
    am sure that we will continue to work together this year as we
    work on the fiscal year 2005 D.C. Appropriations Bill.
        Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget
    request for the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National
    Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
    1997, the Federal Government is required to finance the
    District of Columbia Courts.
        The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in
    fiscal year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal
    year 2004 enacted level. I understand that the lion's share of
    this increase is to be used to restore the now vacant Old
    Courthouse, so that it can house the Court of Appeals, which in
    turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie Courthouse for a
    safe, family-friendly Family Court.
        The renovation of the Old Courthouse also will be an
    important historical preservation achievement. This building,
    the fourth oldest in the District of Columbia, has great
    historic significance. It is where President Lincoln's first
    inaugural ball was held, and where his assassination
    conspirators were tried and convicted.
        For a time, the building served as a hospital for the
    wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where Frederick
    Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
    law.
        The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very
    historic building to be restored to its former majesty, while
    also configuring it to be used to serve the people of the
    District as a working courthouse.
        I am pleased that Judge Wagner, Judge King followed the
    advice of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB
    to support these construction efforts. I congratulate them for
    it. It is to their credit that the President has included
    adequate funding for these important Capital projects in his
    budget request.
        I must say, however, that I am concerned to know that court
    officials and representatives of the National Law Enforcement
    Museum Fund have, unfortunately, been unable to reach an
    agreement on the design of their shared space in Judiciary
    Square.
        On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the Courts
    reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
    Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse.
    On the other hand, Congress authorized the National Law
    Enforcement Memorial Fund to build an underground Law
    Enforcement Museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old
    Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the Courts and the Law
    Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement that
    complies with both mandates. I am sure that they will be able
    to do this.
        I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund
    fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and the
    design of the plaza area, which will provide the entryway to
    both buildings. This disagreement has apparently been going on
    for almost a year, with no resolution in sight.
        I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in
    delays to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased
    construction costs.
        As chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100
    percent of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to
    ensure that there are no construction cost overruns involving
    Federal funds.
        As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will
    present the Courts' overall budget request, and then I will ask
    our witnesses from the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund,
    the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of
    Fine Arts to join the panel to discuss the design disagreement,
    which I have just mentioned.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Witnesses will be, of course, be limited to 5 minutes for
    their oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be
    placed in the record in their entirety.
        [The statement follows]:

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine

        Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today I am convening
    the first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of Columbia.
    I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Landrieu, our
    subcommittee's Ranking Member, and to recognize her continued
    commitment to improving life for the residents of the District of
    Columbia. Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
    on a number of important issues for our Nation's capital, and I am sure
    that we will continue to reach across the aisle as we begin work on the
    fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill.
        Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget request for
    the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National Capital
    Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal
    Government is required to finance the District of Columbia Courts.
        The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in fiscal
    year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
    level. I understand that the lion's share of this increase will be used
    to restore the now-vacant Old Courthouse so that it can house the Court
    of Appeals, which, in turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie
    Courthouse for a safe, family-friendly Family Court. The renovation of
    the Old Courthouse also will be an important historic preservation
    achievement. This building--the 4th oldest in the District of
    Columbia--has great historic significance. It is where President
    Lincoln's first inaugural ball was held and where his assassination
    conspirators were tried and convicted. For a time, the building served
    as a hospital for wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where
    Frederick Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
    law.
        The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very historic
    building to be restored to its former majesty, while also configuring
    it to be used to serve the people of the District as a working
    courthouse.
        I am pleased that Judge Wagner and Judge King followed the advice
    of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB to support these
    construction efforts. It is to their credit that the President has
    included adequate funding for these important capital projects in his
    budget request. I am concerned, however, to know that Court officials
    and representatives of the National Law Enforcement Museum Fund have
    been unable to reach an agreement on the design of their shared space
    in Judiciary Square. On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the
    Courts reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
    Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse. On the
    other hand, Congress authorized the National Law Enforcement Memorial
    Fund to build an underground Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land
    that partially abuts the Old Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the
    Courts and the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement
    that complies with both mandates.
        I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund fundamentally
    disagree on the level of construction and the design of the plaza area,
    which will provide the entryway to both buildings. This disagreement
    has apparently been going on for almost a year, with no resolution in
    sight. I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in delays
    to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased construction
    costs. As Chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100 percent
    of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to ensure that there
    are no construction cost overruns involving Federal funds.
        As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will present the
    Courts' overall budget request, then I will ask our witnesses from the
    National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, the National Capital Planning
    Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts to join the panel to
    discuss the design disagreement which I have mentioned.
        Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks.
    Copies of all written statements will be placed in the Record in their
    entirety.

        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
    welcome to our distinguished panelists this morning, and
    welcome to all of our guests.
        I want to just reiterate again how much of a pleasure it is
    for me to work with Senator DeWine. We have worked as a
    partnership now for several years and we can see such progress,
    particularly in the area that we are going to be discussing
    this morning, the renovation and development of Judiciary
    Square, the establishment of a very family-friendly or child-
    centered Family Court that will service not only the District,
    but serve as a model for the Nation.
        We commend you all for the work that is ongoing, and we
    look forward to continuing the partnership in that regard.
        I also express, again, the importance, at least from our
    perspective, Mr. Chairman, of the focus on establishing the new
    Family Court, because not only are we establishing a new
    building that is operational and conducive to good judgments
    and outcomes, but through the partnership of this committee, it
    can help to build a new initiative in the City that strengthens
    families, protects children from harm and expedites life
    changing and sometimes threatening decisions, to make sure that
    families and the well-being of children are of paramount
    importance for us, for this committee.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So with that, I will just put the rest of my statement in
    the record. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the focus this
    morning.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        As the first hearing of year I wanted to join my Chairman, Mr.
    DeWine in welcoming the witnesses and sharing a brief philosophy on our
    leadership of this committee and our goals. The D.C. Appropriations
    bill, under my chairmanship and continuing with Mr. DeWine, has charted
    a course to support targeted investments in the District. Congress is
    partnering with the District by enhancing security and emergency
    preparedness; strengthening schools and education standards; supporting
    the Family Court and child welfare. These three areas support the
    District's Mayor Anthony Williams' goal to revitalize neighborhoods and
    increase the population of the city by 100,000 people in the next 10
    years. People want good schools and dynamic, safe neighborhoods. This
    committee will continue this partnership, following on our investments
    in the Family Court and child services and development of excellent
    charter schools.
        Today's hearing is focused on one of our Federal agencies, the D.C.
    Courts to discuss their fiscal year 2005 budget request. In addition,
    we have asked the National Capital Planning Commission, Commission on
    Fine Arts, and the National Law Enforcement Museum to join us to
    discuss the Judiciary Square Master Plan and we appreciate their
    attendance. The Courts are really the core of the D.C. Appropriations
    bill and the center of our attention. This subcommittee exercises the
    ``State'' oversight function for the District, similar to how other
    cities and States interact.
        As one of the central functions transferred to the Federal
    Government in the 1997 Revitalization Act, the Courts serve a unique
    role to serve the public and be accountable to the Congress. I believe
    this Court, lead by Chief Judge King and Chief Judge Wagner has met
    this responsibility aptly. The fiscal year 2005 budget reflects a
    commitment to improved management of the Courts and justification for
    increased budget authority.
        The focus of this year's budget is infrastructure, and I commend
    the Courts for making this a priority. In addition, I am pleased to see
    over the 3 years that I have been on this committee that the Courts
    have undertaken facilities Master Planning process in close
    consultation with the Federal oversight panels. I look forward to a
    presentation on the Master Plan for Judiciary Square and supporting the
    Courts' needs for implementing this plan. Major renovation and
    expansion of the Courts' facilities is important to this committee;
    however we want to examine the process undertaken to prioritize these
    projects and decisions made to focus on construction/renovation rather
    than rehabilitation of existing buildings. I understand that there are
    serious maintenance issues in the current facilities, such as
    inadequate heating and air conditioning, poor lavatories, and an
    unfriendly public space.
        This committee has invested in regular maintenance at levels much
    higher than our predecessors. I think much progress has been made;
    however I understand the need for the focus to shift now to long term
    capital projects, such as constructing a new Family Court and
    completing the restoration of the Old Courthouse. These are ``marquee''
    projects which receive a great deal of attention from Congress and the
    community, but they are also much more costly and therefore take a
    greater bite out of the budget. I recognize their importance but there
    is also a balance with ongoing maintenance and making improvements to
    public space while rehabilitation projects are underway. I would be
    interested to hear your thoughts on balancing these capital
    infrastructure needs.
        The committee is also joined by witnesses from the National Capital
    Planning Commission, Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Law
    Enforcement Museum to discuss judiciary square master planning. The
    committee is particularly concerned with lack of coordination and
    cooperation with the Museum. Federal dollars and oversight is directing
    the development of Judiciary Square. It is critical that we can
    appropriately direct resources to the moving priorities that also
    reflect the needs of the District. The committee has been actively
    engaged in creation of the family court and need for a dedicated space
    for children and families. Progress of the family court construction is
    dependent on agreement of the law enforcement museum and Old
    Courthouse, freeing up space in the main Courthouse. I look forward to
    hearing progress of the various projects and options for moving forward
    with restoration of the square to the original historic design.
        I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to working to
    improve the appearance and utility of Judiciary Square.

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.
    Senator Strauss has provided a statement to be included for the
    record as well.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss

        Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on the
    subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
    Columbia, and an attorney who practices in our local courts, I would
    like to thank you for holding this hearing this morning, and for
    considering the needs of the people in the District of Columbia.
        I fully support the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request for the
    District of Columbia Courts. It is vital that the District of Columbia
    Court System be fully funded in the amount proposed by the courts. As
    the District of Columbia Senator, I myself cannot vote on this
    appropriation. I am limited to merely asking you to support their
    requests.
        As in the past, it appears that the President's request is
    significantly less than the amount requested by our judicial
    institutions. I find this unfortunate. Unlike citizens of any other
    jurisdiction, we lack the legal rights to make these funding decisions
    on our own. As I have stated before, unless the local courts are fully
    funded by this subcommittee and the Congress, they will not be fully
    funded. This is not just an issue of simply allocating appropriations,
    but for the residents of our Nation's Capital, an issue of fundamental
    justice.
        There is a compelling argument to be made that District of Columbia
    should not have to look to Congress for the sole financial support of
    its courts. I for one agree with that position. This is again a case
    where the many limits on the District of Columbia's ability to have
    self-government adversely impact the taxpayers of your own States. For
    the record, if Congress would simply grant the District of Columbia's
    petition for Statehood, the restrictions on our revenue-raising ability
    would be lifted and we could fund our court system ourselves and over
    $260 million can be returned to the Federal treasury. I have made this
    argument case many times before many committees of this body. I do not
    intend to discuss D.C. Statehood here today because the unfortunate
    truth is that while this status quo is maintained, it is absolutely
    essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court System, and I am
    obligated to support that appropriation.
        The President is requesting $225 million for the District of
    Columbia Courts for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $41.5 million to
    the Defender Services. The Courts themselves are requesting $272.08
    million for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $50.5 million for Defender
    Services. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
    Columbia Courts furthers the Courts developments by building upon prior
    achievements, and supports the Courts' commitment to serve the citizens
    of the District of Columbia. The D.C. Courts will be more empowered to
    fulfill this commitment by having the necessary funds to do so, and
    will be extremely limited in their abilities if they do not.
        In order for the District of Columbia Courts to continue to provide
    the highest level of justice to the citizens of the District of
    Columbia, it is crucial that they receive additional resources in the
    fiscal year 2005. The Court's requests command considerable capital
    investments in facilities, infrastructure, security, and technology, as
    well as operational investments to enhance the administration of
    justice and service to the public. If the courts are unable to obtain
    additional capital resources, The Moultrie Courthouse and the
    District's historic Old Courthouse, along with Buildings A and B, will
    continue to deteriorate; the Courts' information technology will fail;
    and needed security measures and equipment will not be installed,
    putting the Courts' buildings and the public at risk.
        I recognize that it can be tempting to refer to the increase of
    funds allotted to the District of Columbia Courts by the President in
    his request between 2004 and 2005 and conclude that the Court's needs
    have been met. I urge you to look past this deceiving increase. The
    Office of Management and Budget generated marks are inadequate to meet
    the needs of the District of Columbia Courts, and need to be considered
    a floor and not a ceiling for purposes of the fiscal year 2005 budget.
    I realize the President has other priorities, but the District of
    Columbia Courts are in dire need of revenue for program enhancements
    and physical improvements. The budget requests they have submitted are
    reasonable.
        The current and future needs that will be met by the budget
    proposal submitted by the District of Columbia Courts are diverse. They
    include investing in human resources, broadening access to justice and
    service to the public, promoting competence, professionalism and
    civility, improving court facilities and technology, enhancing public
    security, and strengthening services to families. In this hearing, the
    witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that they request regarding
    the aforementioned capital improvements for the fiscal year 2005. With
    the cooperation of and significant input from General Services
    Administration, the District of Columbia Courts previously proposed a
    Master Plan for Facilities. The fiscal year 2005 capital request
    reflects the significant research and planning included in this Master
    Plan. It is essential that the Courts receive the funds needed to
    complete this three-part plan in order to ensure the health, safety,
    and quality of court facilities and begin to address court space needs.
        Let me briefly address whatever conflicting design issues which may
    or may not exist between the D.C. Courts and the National Law
    Enforcement Fund. I am pleased that the D.C. Courts recently submitted
    a viable design that will simultaneously comply with Federal law and
    address the concerns of the Memorial Fund. The NCPC has encouraged the
    Memorial Fund to accept this resolution as a sound starting point for
    development, so that this project does not exceed budget restrictions,
    thereby costing taxpayers more money in order to complete it. Judiciary
    Square is the historic home of the D.C. Courts, and an original element
    of the L'Enfant plan. I am not convinced that any significant conflict
    between the plans of the two institutions exists. To the extent that
    one does however, any competing needs must be resolved in favor of our
    judicial branch. While the planned museum will no doubt enhance the
    culture and aesthetics of our community, the Court System is a
    necessary government function. While the Court System is ready now with
    capital funding, the museum continues to solicit private contributions.
    Any restriction of the Courts' mandatory operations would be a
    disservice to the people of D.C., no matter how noble the symbolism of
    the planned museum.
        Notwithstanding the importance of fully funding the District of
    Columbia Court System operating budget, I would like to ask the
    subcommittee to focus your attention on the Defender Services line
    item. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fully fund the Defender
    Services line item, at the Court's mark. Presently, there is a mere $9
    million difference in the two requests.\1\ In order to provide adequate
    representation to families in crisis, we need to fully fund Defender
    Services. I said it last year, and it remains true for fiscal year
    2005, all of this Committee's accomplished work on restructuring the
    Family Court is in jeopardy unless it has the resources to sustain it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The President allotted $134 million for Court Operations while
    the Courts requested $151.15 million, a difference of $17.15 million,
    and the President allotted $93.4 million for Capital whereas the Courts
    requested $120.93 million, a difference of $27.53 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Please note that it is not the lawyers but the D.C. Court System
    itself who is asking for an increase in the hourly rate paid to
    attorneys that provide legal services to the indigent. Their request
    includes those attorneys that work hard to represent abused and
    neglected children in Family Court. The first fee increase in nearly a
    decade was implemented in March of 2002 when it was adjusted to the
    present rate of $65 per hour. In the fiscal year 2004 request, the
    Courts recommend an incremental increase from the current $65 an hour
    to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per hour. They are again
    requesting the new rate this year.
        This adjustment is important because the Federal Court's appointed
    lawyers, literally across the street, already get paid $90 an hour to
    do very similar work. Therefore, the disparity in pay between the two
    systems creates a disincentive amongst the ``experienced'' attorneys to
    work for Defender Services in the D.C. Court. I call on this
    subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive by fully funding
    the requested increase in the Defender Services line item in the bill
    for fiscal year 2005, and then fight vigorously to defend that mark
    against adverse House action if a conference committee fight becomes
    necessary.
        The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
    most vulnerable citizens--its children. Although the budget provides
    training for new attorneys, it is the experienced advocates who best
    serve these special clients. We are in danger of losing our most
    experienced child advocates due to budget cuts. A deficiency in funds
    to Defender Services will compromise the safety of children in the
    District of Columbia, so I am compelled to ask you to secure children's
    safety in the District of Columbia by fully funding Defender Services.
        In closing, I wish to sincerely thank the subcommittee for holding
    this hearing. I know that this subcommittee has been firmly committed
    to meeting its fiduciary obligations regarding appropriations for the
    D.C. Courts. On behalf of my constituents, I thank you for all your
    hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued
    cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in this
    subcommittee for our Court system. In particular, I commend Senators
    DeWine and Landrieu for all the great work that they have done on the
    important issue. Both of you have generally treated the D.C. Courts
    with the same consideration as if they were courts in your own States.
    Finally, let me thank Kendra Canape, Marco Berte and Brian Rauer of my
    staff, for their assistance in the preparation of this testimony.

        Senator DeWine. Judge King and Judge Wagner, thank you very
    much for joining us. And we welcome your opening statements.
        Let me just announce to everyone: We have a vote on the
    Senate floor at 10:30. This committee will finish by 10:30
    today one way or the other--so we will be able to do that. I am
    sure there is plenty of time for us to do our business here
    today.
        Judge King.
        Judge King. If Judge Wagner would start?
        Senator DeWine. Oh, Judge Wagner, if you wish to start.
        Judge Wagner. Yes. Thank you.

                      STATEMENT OF JUDGE ANNICE M. WAGNER

        Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Landrieu, subcommittee members.
        Senator DeWine. Good morning.
        Judge Wagner. I want to thank you for this opportunity to
    discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
    Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing in my
    capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
    Administration in the District of Columbia. Of course, Chief
    Judge Rufus King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of
    Columbia, is present and joins in this statement and will make
    a statement of his own.
        My remarks this morning will summarize only and highlight
    our most critical priority, our capital budget request. I want
    to thank you for including in the record the detailed written
    statement we have submitted. I plan to focus my remarks on this
    critical capital requirement.
        The District of Columbia Courts, as you know, serve
    approximately 10,000 members of the public each day. They
    handle more than 200,000 cases each year, and employ a staff of
    1,200 who directly serve the public, process cases, and provide
    administrative support.
        The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are
    significant because they include funding for projects critical
    to maintaining, preserving, and building safe and functional
    courthouse facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of
    the administration of justice in our Nation's Capital. Of
    course, included in that is our Family Court, in which you both
    have been so interested in the past.
        Just under a year ago, we appeared before the subcommittee
    to discuss our capital budget. We appreciate the support for
    our Master Plan for Facilities that you, Mr. Chairman, in
    particular, expressed at that time.
        And we have taken your advice to heart, working very
    closely with the administration during its review of the
    Courts' capital budget request.
        We are very gratified that the President has included in
    his budget recommendations the major components of our
    facilities renovation plans, particularly the restoration of
    the Old Courthouse for use by the Court of Appeals, which is
    the highest court in this jurisdiction. The restoration of this
    architectural jewel, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
    Square, will not only serve to address the Courts' space
    requirements, but it will also help to revitalize this
    important public area in our Nation's Capital.
        Since the most recent study for the restoration of the Old
    Courthouse was completed in 1999, with the support of this
    subcommittee, we have been successful in mothballing the
    building, so to speak; that is, securing its roof and making it
    watertight, to prevent further deterioration.
        Last year, we procured a nationally renowned architectural
    and engineering firm, Beyer Blinder Belle, to design the
    restoration. Representatives of that firm are with us today,
    Mr. John Belle and Mr. Hany Hassan. They are recognized as
    bringing sensitive solutions to complex urban problems
    requiring a delicate mix of appropriate historic restoration
    and bold inventive design, and have received as a result
    Presidential Design awards, this country's highest award for
    public architecture. They have worked on such things as the
    Grand Central Station and the Ellis Island restorations.
        The design for the restoration of the Old Courthouse itself
    is now at the 50 percent complete stage. We will be ready to
    submit this design to the regulatory agencies next month, with
    the final design to be completed in August of this year.
        We are scheduled to begin construction in January 2005 and
    plan to relocate the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to
    the Old Courthouse when it is restored, and we expect that to
    occur in January 2007.
        This relocation is a critical path of interdependent
    actions, which must occur in a complex sequence. That is, one
    thing must occur so that other parts of the Court can be
    accommodated, including the finalization of our Family Court
    with its own separate entrance on C Street.
        Formal review and approval by the regulatory agencies of
    the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any
    delay will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration
    and delay implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for
    Facilities, including the Family Court.
        As you may know, both the Commission of Fine Arts and the
    National Capital Planning Commission called for a coordinated
    design agreement between the Courts and the National Law
    Enforcement Museum, which is authorized to build an underground
    museum with above-ground entrance pavilions on part of the
    site.
        At that time, it appeared that both projects were on
    similar construction schedules. Subsequently, however, we have
    learned that the museum construction may not commence until
    sometime between 2009 and 2012, up to 5 years after the
    completed Old Courthouse is scheduled to become the seat of the
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
        But we are confident that our respective architects will
    eventually reach a design for the plaza entranceway which is
    agreeable to all parties. However, to address the area in the
    interim between construction projects, our architects have
    prepared a phase one design that completes the Old Courthouse
    restoration without infringing on the area authorized for the
    museum. Therefore, an agreement on plaza entranceway design
    should not delay the restoration and use of this important
    public building.
        We recognize that coordination must continue with the
    museum and that some modifications to the site may be
    necessary.
        Senator DeWine. Judge, if you could conclude, please, if
    you could finish it.
        Judge King. Sir, I do not know if it's appropriate, but I
    would be happy to yield most of my time to Judge Wagner.
        Senator DeWine. That would be fine.
        Judge Wagner. Well, I have only a couple more statements to
    make.
        Senator DeWine. Sure.
        Judge Wagner. The principles of aesthetics, urban design,
    planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and
    natural resources will be best served by permitting the
    restoration of the historically and architecturally significant
    Old Courthouse.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, I thank you for your support of our facilities and
    plans and for this opportunity to discuss this very important
    issue in our capital budget.
        And Chief Judge King and I, we will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner

        Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
    for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request of
    the District of Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing
    in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
    Administration in the District of Columbia. I also serve as Chief Judge
    of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Rufus G.
    King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is also
    present today and joins in this statement.
        As you know, the Joint Committee is the policy-making body for the
    District of Columbia Courts. By statute, its responsibilities include,
    among others, general personnel policies, accounts and auditing,
    procurement and disbursement, management of information systems and
    reports, and submission of the Courts' annual budget request to the
    President and Congress. This jurisdiction has a two-tier system
    comprised of the D.C. Court of Appeals, our court of last resort, and
    the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court of
    general jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative
    support functions for our Courts are provided by what has come to be
    known as the Court System.
        My remarks this morning will summarize the request and highlight
    our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me this morning,
    along with Chief Judge King, are Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer
    for the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee and Mr. Joseph
    Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. We are prepared to answer
    questions you may wish to pose concerning the budget request for the
    Courts.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Unquestionably, we live in a changing environment, facing new
    challenges to our Nation, our Nation's capital, and our court system.
    Whatever challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of
    justice remains crucial to our way of life. The District of Columbia
    Courts are committed to meeting these new challenges. We have been
    steadfast in our mission, which is to protect rights and liberties,
    uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly
    and effectively in the Nation's Capital. Through our Strategic Plan,
    finalized in fiscal year 2003, the Courts strive to enhance the
    administration of justice; broaden access to justice and service to the
    public; promote competence, professionalism, and civility; improve
    court facilities and technology; and build trust and confidence. We
    appreciate the support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes
    possible the achievement of these goals for our community.
        The Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound financial
    management. We are undergoing significant changes to meet the
    challenges of new technologies and are working to ensure that the
    courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure. Although we
    have requested funds for several important operating initiatives, the
    critical focus of our fiscal year 2005 budget request is our
    infrastructure.
        To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2005, the
    D.C. Courts are requesting $272,084,000 for Court operations and
    capital improvements and $50,500,000 for the Defender Services account.
    The Federal Payment request includes: $9,109,000 for the Court of
    Appeals; $88,714,000 for the Superior Court; $53,331,000 for the Court
    System; and $120,930,000 for capital improvements for courthouse
    facilities.
        The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in
    fiscal year 2005. To build on past accomplishments and to support
    essential services to the public in the Nation's capital, investment in
    infrastructure, technology, and security are essential priorities. Only
    by investing in these areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure
    that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
    up-to-date, that our information technology is capable of meeting
    today's demands; and that the type of security necessary to protect our
    citizens and our institution is in place. Focus on these capital areas
    is particularly critical now to meet each of these needs and to ensure
    that the quality of justice is not compromised.
        The Courts' fiscal year 2005 request is a fiscally responsible
    budget that continues to build on our achievements. We are particularly
    proud of our progress with a number of recent initiatives. These
    include:
      --completion of the D.C. Courts' first Master Plan for Facilities
            that evaluates the Courts' space needs and provides a blueprint
            for space utilization, both short-term and long-term;
      --submission of a draft Master Plan for Judiciary Square to the
            National Capital Planning Commission, providing a plan for
            revitalization and urban renewal of this historic area where
            the Courts are located that dates to the original L'Enfant Plan
            for the Nation's Capital;
      --implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
            Fiscal Year 2001; to date, the Courts have implemented the one
            family one judge principle and transferred all required
            children's cases to Family Court judges, created attorney
            panels and practice standards for neglect and juvenile cases,
            established a Family Treatment Court, piloted a Self-Help
            Center for litigants with assistance from the bar, increased
            resources devoted to family matters with the addition of nine
            magistrate judges and three Family Court Judges, and opened the
            Mayor's Services Liaison Center in the courthouse;
      --completion and initial implementation of the Courts' 5-year
            strategic plan, ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
            Capital,'' following 9 months of extensive input from the
            public, practicing attorneys and other stakeholders, detailed
            analysis of community trends, and significant work by the
            Courts' Strategic Planning Leadership Council;
      --implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)
            in Family Court substantially completed in 2003;
      --creation of community-based courts, such as the criminal Community
            Court and prostitution calendar, that seek to improve the
            quality of community life by reducing nuisance crimes through
            community-based sanctions and treatment and social services to
            solve the underlying problems leading to the unlawful behavior;
            and
      --opening the Domestic Violence Satellite Center in Southeast, in
            cooperation with community-based advocacy groups and District
            agencies, to facilitate protection orders and services for
            large number of domestic violence victims who reside east of
            the Anacostia river.

               CRITICAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 PRIORITY--INFRASTRUCTURE

        The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000
    courthouse visitors each day, handle more than 200,000 cases each year,
    and employ a staff of 1,200 who directly serve the public, process the
    cases, and provide administrative support. The District of Columbia
    Courts are among the busiest and most productive court systems in the
    United States.\1\ For example, the Superior Court of the District of
    Columbia has the second highest number of cases filed per judge, and
    the highest number of civil and criminal case filings per capita of all
    unified State courts in the Nation. Our Court of Appeals has the
    highest number of appeals filed per capita among all States with a
    similar court structure.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See ``Examining the Work of State Courts 2002: A National
    Perspective from the Court Statistics Project'', by B. Ostrom, N.
    Kauder, & R. LaFountain (National Center for State Courts 2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are significant
    because they include funding for projects critical to maintaining,
    preserving, and building safe and functional courthouse facilities
    essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice
    in our Nation's Capital. To effectively meet these demands, the Courts'
    facilities must be both functional and symbolic of their public
    significance and character. In the 2005 capital budget, the Courts
    highest budgetary priority seeks to comprehensively address these
    issues.
        In preparing the fiscal year 2005 capital budget request, the
    Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to
    performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions. The
    Courts' request for capital funding is particularly critical in fiscal
    year 2005 because of the need to (1) address essential public health
    and safety conditions in our extremely busy court buildings; (2) meet
    the courts' space shortage requirements for conducting business, which
    includes our new Family Court, recently established by Congress; and
    (3) avoid interruption of ongoing projects, as that typically results
    in substantially increased costs.\2\ Significantly increased space
    needs for court operations and inadequate capital funding in prior
    years that necessitated maintenance deferral compel the Courts'
    significant capital request for fiscal year 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ For example, in the last decade, the estimated cost for
    restoring the Old Courthouse has more than tripled.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of
    space in Judiciary Square. The Courts are responsible for four
    buildings in the square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the
    Moultrie Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B,
    which are located between 4th and 5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W.
    In addition, when the District government's payroll office vacates
    Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will be
    returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent studies by the General
    Services Administration (GSA) have documented both the D.C. Courts'
    severe space shortage \3\ and the inadequacy of the physical condition
    of the Courts' facilities.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, 2002.
        \4\ Building Evaluation Report, 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities,
    secured by the General Services Administration (GSA), defined a present
    shortfall of 48,000 square feet of space, with a shortfall of 134,000
    square feet projected in the next decade. GSA proposed to meet the
    Courts' space needs through three mechanisms: (1) renovation of the Old
    Courthouse for use by this jurisdiction's court of last resort, the
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which will free critically
    needed space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations; (2)
    construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, a major portion
    of which will be developed as a separately accessible Family Court
    facility; and (3) the future occupation of Building C, adjacent to the
    Old Courthouse.
        The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of
    Columbia Court of Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the
    entire court system. We are very pleased that the President has
    recognized the importance of this project by supporting it in his
    budget recommendation. Investment in the restoration of the Old
    Courthouse not only will improve efficiencies by co-locating the Court
    of Appeals with all related support offices, but also will provide
    37,000 square feet of space critically needed in the Moultrie
    Courthouse for Superior Court and Family Court functions. The Moultrie
    Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial
    court. It has three separate and secure circulation systems--for
    judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the
    courthouse each day. The Moultrie Courthouse was completed in 1978 for
    the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and a 44 judge trial court,
    the Superior Court. Today it is strained beyond capacity to accommodate
    62 associate judges and 24 magistrate judges in the trial court, as
    well as senior judges and support staff for the two courts. Essential
    criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space
    in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Courts have clearly outgrown the space
    available in the Moultrie Courthouse. The space is inadequate for this
    high volume court system to serve the public in the heavily populated
    metropolitan area in and around our Nation's Capital. The Courts
    require well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient operations
    in a safe and healthy environment.

                           HISTORIC JUDICIARY SQUARE

        The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
    lend dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and, at
    the same time, complicate somewhat efforts to upgrade or alter the
    structures within the square. As one of the original and remaining
    historic green spaces identified in Pierre L'Enfant's plan for the
    capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the
    Nation's Capital.
        The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
    Square, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest buildings in the
    District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and
    Francis Scott Key practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his
    part in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The
    architectural and historical significance of the Old Courthouse led to
    its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
    designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
    unique character of the building, together with its compact size, makes
    it ideal for occupancy by the highest court of the District of
    Columbia. At the same time, the structure is uninhabitable in its
    current condition and requires extensive work to meet health and safety
    building codes and to readapt it for use as a courthouse. Since it has
    been vacated, and with the support of Congress, the Courts have been
    able to take steps to prevent its further deterioration. The
    restoration of the Old Courthouse for use as a functioning court
    building will not only provide much needed space for the Courts, but it
    will also impart new life to one of the most significant historic
    buildings and precincts in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of
    the Courts and benefit the community through an approach that
    strengthens a public institution, restores a historic landmark, and
    stimulates neighborhood economic activity.
        Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930's, are situated
    symmetrically along the view corridor comprised of the National
    Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, and John Marshall Park and form
    part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These
    buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent years,
    with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. The Superior
    Court's two highest volume courtrooms, Small Claims and Landlord and
    Tenant, moved into Building B in November 2003. This move has freed
    space in the Moultrie Building needed immediately for the Family Court,
    permitting the construction, scheduled to be complete in July of this
    year, of three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized
    case intake facility, a family-friendly waiting area, a separate
    courthouse entrance, and District government liaison offices for family
    matters.
        The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, while not
    historic, is also located along the view corridor and reinforces the
    symmetry of Judiciary Square through its similar form and material to
    the municipal building located across the John Marshall Plaza.
    Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of
    Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk's
    offices, as previously described.

                          JUDICIARY SQUARE MASTER PLAN

        The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the
    D.C. Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially an
    urban design plan--before any construction could be commenced in the
    area. The D.C. Courts have worked with all stakeholders on the Plan,
    including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
    National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), the
    Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department. A draft Judiciary
    Square Master Plan was submitted to the NCPC in June 2003 and
    subsequently approved in August 2003. We plan to submit the finalized
    Judiciary Square Master Plan next month, in March 2004.
        The Judiciary Square Master Plan integrates the facilities
    development program of the Courts into a rapidly changing and publicly
    oriented area of the District. The Plan resolves important technical
    issues related to access, service, circulation, and security while re-
    establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ``City of
    Washington.'' It provides a comprehensive framework for project
    implementation and lays the groundwork for the regulatory approval
    process with the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S.
    Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Historic
    Preservation, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, and the
    District of Columbia Department of Transportation, among others.
        The Judiciary Square Master Plan recommends (1) re-introduction of
    landscaped green space around court buildings and the construction of
    secure underground parking garages for the Courts' vehicles now parked
    in surface lots; (2) integration of a new service area, security
    features and landscape concept; and (3) coordination of the Courts'
    development with development of the National Law Enforcement Officers
    Museum by the Memorial Fund.
        The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of
    one of the last original green spaces in the District of Columbia
    awaiting revitalization, incorporating areas where the public can
    gather and creating a campus-like environment where citizens can feel
    safe and secure. The Judiciary Square Master Plan will be of great
    benefit to the City of Washington.

                           MASTER PLAN FOR FACILITIES

        The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
    projects since fiscal year 1999, when the Courts assumed responsibility
    for our capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works.
    In 1999, GSA produced a pre-design study for the renovation of the Old
    Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals. In 2001, GSA prepared
    Building Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C.
    Courts' facilities, which have been adversely affected by maintenance
    deferrals necessitated by severely limited capital funds in prior
    years. These projects culminated in the development of the first Master
    Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space
    requirements and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization,
    both in the near and long term.
        The Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, completed in December
    2002, incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning by
    experts in architecture, urban design, and planning. During this study,
    GSA analyzed the Courts' current and future space requirements,
    particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the
    Family Court. The Master Plan examined such issues as alignment of
    court components to meet evolving operational needs and enhance
    efficiency; the impact of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law
    Number 107-114); accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and
    planning to upgrade facilities, including, for example, security,
    telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space
    shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable
    square feet, and, as noted above, proposed to meet that need through
    renovation of the Old Courthouse for use by the D.C. Court of Appeals;
    construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse; and
    reoccupation of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In
    addition, the Plan determined that other court facilities must be
    modernized and upgraded to meet health and safety standards and to
    function with greater efficiency.

                        FAMILY COURT IN THE MASTER PLAN

    Interim Family Court Space Plan
        The Master Plan concluded that the Family Court would be most
    effectively and efficiently located in the Moultrie Courthouse. The
    Master Plan incorporates an interim space plan that provides the
    facilities necessary to fully implement the Family Court Act, as well
    as a long term plan that optimizes space and programmatic enhancements
    for family matters. The interim space plan for Family Court will be
    complete in the summer of 2004, and fully consolidates public functions
    on the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse. As this interim space plan
    proceeds towards completion, procedural changes have been implemented
    within the Family Court that meet the requirements of the Family Court
    Act. Essential capital components of the plan are straightforward:
      --During fiscal year 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
            space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate nine new Family
            Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The Courts
            also constructed four new hearing rooms in Building B for
            Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect
            cases and renovated short-term space for the Mayor's Services
            Liaison Office.
      --Two Superior Court operations formerly located on the JM level of
            the Moultrie Courthouse, Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant,
            were relocated in November 2003 to Building B to free space for
            the Family Court.
      --Construction on the JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse began in
            December 2003 and will provide three new courtrooms, three new
            hearing rooms, the Mayor's Services Liaison Office, a
            Centralized Family Court Case Filing and Intake Center, a
            family-friendly child waiting area, and a new Family Court
            entrance from the John Marshall Plaza into the Moultrie
            Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the
            courthouse's JM-level will be redesigned to create family-
            friendly seating and waiting areas. This work will be complete
            during the summer of 2004.

    Long Term Family Court Space Plan
        The long-term plan to optimize space and provide programmatic
    enhancements for the Family Court includes expansion of the Moultrie
    Courthouse. The Courts are pleased that the President's 2005 budget
    provides funding for the design work for the Moultrie Courthouse
    expansion. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-
    friendly facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity
    and separate entrance, which will be a model for the Nation. The plan
    envisions a safe facility that will be inviting and welcoming to
    families with children of all ages and that will incorporate a ``one-
    stop'' concept by locating all related court units in one place and
    making it easier for families to access needed social services from
    D.C. government agencies. The interim Family Court plan was designed to
    transition smoothly into this long-term plan and to maximize the
    efficient use of time and money.
        The Master Plan studied the cost and feasibility of expanding the
    Moultrie Courthouse in the Feasibility Study for the H. Carl Moultrie I
    Courthouse--May 2003. This approach has been developed with the
    overarching objectives of keeping the court system continually
    operating efficiently, while carefully complying with the Family Court
    Act. Independent projects related to the Family Court Act include the
    renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse to free space in the
    Moultrie Courthouse, system upgrades and renovation of Buildings A & B,
    occupation and renovation of Building C, leasing of space for functions
    not directly related to the public and court proceedings, and
    renovation and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. These projects
    will shift operations currently located in existing Court facilities
    (1) to create ``swing space'' that permits the required construction to
    take place in an operating courthouse that receives 10,000 members of
    the public daily and (2) to make contiguous space available for all
    related Family Court functions.

                           THE COURTS' STRATEGIC PLAN

        The capital projects included in this request are an integral part
    of the Courts' Strategic Plan, completed in 2002. The Strategic Plan of
    the D.C. Courts, entitled ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
    Capital'', articulates the mission, vision, and values of the Courts in
    light of current initiatives, recent trends, and future challenges. It
    addresses issues such as implementation of a Family Court, increasing
    cultural diversity, economic disparity, complex social problems of
    court-involved individuals, the increasing presence of litigants
    without legal representation, rapidly evolving technology, the
    competitive funding environment, emphasis of public accountability,
    competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks.
        Improved facilities were a need identified as a high priority among
    all constituency groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan
    was developed. ``Improving Court Facilities and Technology'' is the
    Plan's Strategic Issue 4. The Strategic Plan states:

        ``The effective administration of justice requires an appropriate
    physical and technical environment. Court personnel and the public
    deserve facilities that are safe, comfortable, secure, and functional,
    and that meet the needs of those who use them. Technology must support
    the achievement of the Courts' mission.''

        Two strategic goals relate to the facilities and technology
    enhancements in this capital budget:

        ``Goal 4.1: The Courts will provide personnel and court
    participants with a safe, secure, functional and habitable physical
    environment.
        ``Goal 4.2: The Courts will provide technology that supports
    efficient and effective case processing, court management, and judicial
    decision-making.''

        The fiscal year 2005 capital budget request will help the D.C.
    Courts attain these goals.

                      CAPITAL FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2005

        To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community
    and the demands confronting the District's judicial branch, adequate
    resources are essential. The most critical issue we face today is
    sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' severe space shortage
    and aging infrastructure. Investment in these areas is critical to
    enable the Courts to provide to the public and our employees facilities
    that are safe, healthy, and reasonably up-to-date and to provide the
    type of security necessary to protect our citizens and our institution.
    Unless infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional capability of
    the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the District of
    Columbia will be compromised.
        The first part of the Capital Budget request identifies projects to
    renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified in the
    Master Plan for Facilities. The request is a comprehensive, 5-year
    plan, with projects divided into phases to the extent practicable: $63
    million is requested for the construction phase of the Old Courthouse
    renovation, which will begin in fiscal year 2005; $13.9 million is
    requested for the design phase of the Juvenile Holding area renovation,
    C Street Expansion, and Renovation and Reorganization portions of the
    Moultrie Courthouse Renovation and Expansion project in fiscal year
    2005. For design and pre-design work to renovate Buildings A and C and
    for phase 1 construction in Building A, $4.9 million is requested. We
    are very pleased that the President has supported these essential
    elements of our Master Plan in his fiscal year 2005 budget
    recommendations. In addition, to design and prepare signage and
    security lighting to guide the public through the court complex, which
    will become increasingly important as court operations move out of the
    Moultrie Courthouse, $2 million is requested.
        The second part of the Capital Budget request addresses the
    condition of the Courts' existing infrastructure, including projects
    necessary for the health and safety of the public in the courthouse and
    including the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS). To meet
    these needs, the Courts make the following requests: $6 million for
    fire and security systems, as recommended by GSA and U.S. Marshal
    Service studies; $15 million for HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades
    to remediate lead-contaminated drinking fountains, provide adequate
    ventilation, and meet electrical load needs, among other things; $1.1
    million to renovate dilapidated restrooms used by the public and court
    staff; $2.6 million for, among other things, ADA accessibility, safety
    repairs, and refurbishment of run-down areas in courtrooms and secure
    areas. To replace prisoner elevators, alleviating trial delays because
    of inability to transport incarcerated persons, $0.2 million is
    requested. To improve safety and ADA accessibility in public areas, to
    clean the exterior of the Courts' buildings, to replace doors and
    windows in historic Buildings A and B, and to make other general
    repairs, $9 million is requested. Finally, $2.83 million is requested
    for continued implementation of IJIS. While we are pleased that some of
    these projects, such as IJIS, elevators and escalators, and general
    repairs, have been supported, we remain concerned that continued
    deferral of needed maintenance projects will increase costs by delaying
    major work and by forcing inefficient repairs of equipment that has
    reached its expected life and requires major overhaul.
        The capital projects identified are critical to the Courts' ability
    to meet the current and future needs of the District of Columbia
    Courts. Approval of the requested capital funding in fiscal year 2005
    offers important advantages including: (1) addressing urgent public
    health and safety conditions in the Court's busy buildings; (2)
    allowing ongoing projects to continue without interruption, thereby
    avoiding increased costs occasioned by delays; (2) and meeting the
    Courts' critical space requirements, including our new Family Court.

                         STATUS OF KEY CAPITAL PROJECTS

    Old Courthouse Restoration
        The D.C. Courts' numerous facilities renovation projects have
    converging critical scheduling paths. The Old Courthouse project is the
    first step in a series of interdependent moves that must progress in
    sequence to provide space and make way for the next step in the Courts'
    Master Plan. Since the pre-design study for the restoration was
    completed in 1999, the Courts have, with the support of Congress, taken
    steps to preserve the building, including making watertight the roof,
    and mothballing the building. Design of the Old Courthouse restoration
    began April 30, 2003 with the selection, from among nearly 30 bids in
    the General Services Administration procurement process, of Beyer
    Blinder Belle Architects and Planners LLP (BBB). BBB is a nationally
    renowned architectural and engineering firm whose historic preservation
    and renovation projects have included Grand Central Station, Ellis
    Island, and the U.S. Capitol. BBB has nearly completed the design for
    the first phase of the restoration, the parking garage to be shared by
    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and its construction is
    scheduled to commence later this year.
        The Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the preliminary concept design
    for the Old Courthouse on October 16, 2003. The Commission's
    recommendations were incorporated in the design, which is currently 50
    percent complete. Upon completion of this milestone, formal review by
    regulatory agencies (e.g., the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the
    National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)) is required for the
    project to proceed. The Courts are prepared to present the 50 percent
    complete design to the NCPC in March 2004. Formal review and approval
    of the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any delay
    will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration, and delay
    implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for Facilities, including
    enhancement to and the full consolidation of all Family Court related
    elements.
        Both the CFA and the NCPC called for a coordinated design or
    agreement between the Courts and the National Law Enforcement Museum
    (NLEM), which is authorized to build an underground museum with
    aboveground entrance pavilions on part of the site. At that time, it
    appeared that both projects were on similar construction schedules.
    Subsequently, we have learned that the NLEM construction may not
    commence until sometime between 2009 and 2012. The Old Courthouse
    construction is scheduled to commence in January 2005 with occupancy
    scheduled for January 2007.
        Our architects have prepared a ``Phase 1'' design that completes
    the Old Courthouse restoration without infringing on the area
    authorized by legislation for the museum. Therefore, an agreement on
    plaza entranceway design should not delay the restoration and use of
    this important public building. We recognize that coordination with the
    NLEM must continue, and that some modifications to the site may be
    necessary. However, the principles of aesthetics, urban design,
    planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and natural
    resources, which the CFA and NCPC must foster, will best be served by
    permitting the restoration of the historically and architecturally
    significant Old Courthouse to proceed.

    Moultrie Courthouse Expansion
        The expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse is a key element in the
    long-term plan for Family Court. The expansion builds on the interim
    plan for the Family Court, scheduled to be complete the summer, that
    will consolidate the public face of the Family Court through a
    centralized intake center and space for the Mayor's Services Liaison
    Office and provide a separate entrance as well as new courtrooms,
    hearing rooms, and a family-friendly child waiting area. The expansion
    will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
    providing, for example, additional space for child protection
    mediation, increased Child Care Center space, and safe and comfortable
    family waiting areas. It will also fully consolidate all administrative
    operations of the Family Court including relocation of juvenile
    probation (the Social Services Division) from Building B to the
    Moultrie Courthouse. A portion of the addition will meet critical space
    needs for other Superior Court operations. The Courts have requested,
    and the President supports, funds in fiscal year 2005 to design the
    addition. The addition is scheduled to be completed in 2009.

                        COMPLETE BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY

        To provide the highest level of justice to the public in the
    Nation's Capital and build on recent accomplishments, it is essential
    that the D.C. Courts receive additional resources in fiscal year 2005.
    The demands on the Courts require significant capital investments in
    facility infrastructure, security, and technology as well as
    operational investments to enhance the administration of justice and
    service to the public. Without additional capital resources, the
    Moultrie Courthouse and the District's historic Old Courthouse and
    Buildings A and B will continue to deteriorate, placing public health
    and safety at risk and undermining public trust and confidence in the
    judicial branch; the Courts' information technology will fail,
    threatening judicial decision-making and community safety; and needed
    security measures and equipment will not be installed, placing the
    Courts' buildings and the public at risk. Investments in operational
    enhancements will support strategic management; self-representation
    services; complete and accurate trial records; financial, materiel, and
    facilities management; and human resource development. Targeted
    investments in these critical areas are essential to ensuring that the
    Courts can fulfill their mission of providing quality justice in the
    District of Columbia. The Court's fiscal year 2005 budget request
    addresses these requirements by:
      --Investing in Infrastructure.--The fiscal year 2005 capital request
            reflects significant study and planning detailed in the D.C.
            Courts' Master Plan for Facilities. As noted above, today the
            Courts have a space shortfall of nearly 45,000 occupiable
            square feet, which is projected to rise to a 134,000 square
            feet shortfall over the next 10 years. To begin to address the
            Courts' space needs and ensure the health, safety, and quality
            of court facilities, the fiscal year 2005 capital request
            includes $120,930,000.
          Included in the capital budget request is $63,000,000 for the
            construction phase of the Old Courthouse restoration project,
            which will adapt it for reuse by the Court of Appeals. The Old
            Courthouse is an architectural jewel located in one of the
            significant green areas of the District original to the
            L'Enfant Plan for the capital city. Construction of the
            accompanying garage, which will be shared with the U.S. Court
            of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and remove surface parking,
            will begin during 2004. Restoring this historic landmark to
            meet the urgent space needs of the Courts and preserving it for
            future generations are critical priorities for the District of
            Columbia Courts.
          Also included in the capital budget request is $13,900,000 to
            begin work on the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, as delineated
            in the Master Plan. This amount includes $6,000,000 for the
            design phase of the C Street Expansion, which, as noted above,
            will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
            and meet critical space needs for Superior Court operations.
            The total also includes $3,900,000 to renovate and expand space
            in the Moultrie Courthouse for the juvenile holding area and
            $4,000,000 for the first phase of the renovation and
            reorganization of the Moultrie Courthouse, to make optimal use
            of existing space as envisioned in the Master Plan.
          In addition, the capital budget request includes $34,300,000 to
            maintain the Courts' existing infrastructure, preserving the
            health and safety of courthouse facilities for the public and
            the integrity of historic buildings for the community.
      --Enhancing Public Security.--The Courts are responsible for the
            protection of 10,000 members of the public who enter the
            courthouse each day, among them local and international
            visitors and 1,200 court employees. To meet the increased
            security threat post-September 11, 2001, the Courts request
            $6,956,000. Included in this figure are: $956,000 in
            operational expenditures for additional contractual security
            officers and $6,000,000 to finance capital security
            improvements recommended by a U.S. Marshal Service Physical
            Security Survey and a GSA Preliminary Engineering Report,
            including design, construction, and installation of a new
            security system, as well as additional security cameras, duress
            alarms and upgrades.
      --Investing in Information Technology (IT).--The Courts are mandated
            to operate an automated, integrated case management system to
            provide accurate, comprehensive case data across every
            operating area and appropriate case data to the judiciary, the
            District's child welfare and criminal justice communities, and
            the public. To meet this mandate and achieve the Courts'
            strategic goal of improving court technology, the Courts
            request $6,729,000 and 6 FTEs in fiscal year 2005. This amount
            includes $3,899,000 in the operating budget for infrastructure
            enhancements, upgrade of IT operations and implementation of
            the disciplined processes the General Accounting Office (GAO)
            had recommended for the Integrated Justice Information System
            (IJIS) project. In addition, the Courts' capital budget request
            includes $2,830,000 to finance fiscal year 2005 procurement of
            IJIS, which the Court launched in fiscal year 1999.
            Implementation of IJIS is well underway, with Wave 1 of the
            Family Court module operational in August 2003 and Wave 2
            operational in December 2003.
      --Strategic Planning and Management.--To support long-range strategic
            planning and management, including the development and
            assessment of organizational performance measures, $571,000 is
            requested. A comprehensive performance measurement system is a
            critical element in accountability to the public and would
            enable the Courts to report performance to the community. In
            addition, an Office of Strategic Management is essential to
            make the Courts' strategic plan the dynamic, evolving document
            that it must be to focus resources, priorities and actions.
            Specifically, the request would finance performance management
            software, training, and knowledgeable staff with the expertise
            to institutionalize a proactive, coordinated approach to
            management including the establishment, analysis, and use of
            performance measures for strategic decision-making.
      --Serving the Self-Represented.--To enhance equal access to justice
            for the more than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to
            the D.C. Courts each year, especially in the Family Court,
            Civil Division, and Court of Appeals, $2,096,000 and 13 FTEs
            are requested for staff and facilities to establish a Self-
            Representation Service Center. This amount includes $212,000
            and 3 FTEs to assume responsibility for the operation, on a
            full-time basis, of the award-winning Family Court Self-Help
            Center, which is currently only a part-time operation supported
            by volunteers from the D.C. Bar. The Courts would adopt best
            practices in assisting the unrepresented with numerous
            important legal issues and build on the public information
            kiosk project being implemented in fiscal year 2003 and the
            very limited pro bono services currently available.
      --Investing to Ensure Accurate and Complete Trial Records.--The
            Courts' fiscal year 2005 request includes $1,636,000 and 12
            FTEs to improve the production of the court record. Maintaining
            complete and accurate court records are central to the fair
            administration of justice in a court system. Accurate and
            complete records of court proceedings are critical to ensuring
            a fair trial and to preserving a record for appeal. This
            request includes funds to upgrade the Courts' digital recording
            system that is installed in 80 courtrooms and has exceeded its
            useful life, and funds to hire additional court reporters who
            are essential for certain types of proceedings, such as felony
            trials.
      --Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.--To enhance and provide
            more timely services to the public, the Courts' fiscal year
            2005 request includes $2,198,000 and 15 FTEs to support
            operating division initiatives in family, landlord and tenant,
            probate, crime victim's compensation, the juror's office, court
            interpreting services, and the Superior Court law library.
            Included in the total is $1,000,000 to restore and preserve
            Probate Division records that are required, by statute, to be
            maintained forever and readily available to the public. This
            funding will build on the Courts' recent accomplishments,
            discussed above, and ensure that the highest quality services
            are provided.
      --Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.--To enhance
            financial, materiel, and facilities management, $2,267,000 and
            17 FTEs are requested. Included in the total are $623,000 and 8
            FTEs to enhance financial and program management, including a
            new internal audit team; $898,000 and 1 FTE for materiel
            management, including warehouse space, equipment, and staff;
            and $746,000 and 8 FTEs to enhance facilities management,
            including building engineers and capital project management
            staff.
      --Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
            and retain highly qualified employees and address the risks of
            high retirement eligibility, $1,167,000 is requested for
            succession planning, leadership development, tuition
            assistance, enhanced benefits and specialized training for
            court personnel. Currently, 27 percent of the Courts' non-
            judicial employees, of whom 16 percent are in top management
            positions, are eligible to retire in the next 5 years,
            representing a potential for a tremendous loss of experience
            and talent that the Courts must plan now to address.
      --Strengthening Defender Services.--In recent years, the Courts have
            devoted particular attention to improving the financial
            management and reforming the administration of the Defender
            Services programs. For example, the Courts have significantly
            revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation
            of indigent defendants and issued Administrative Orders to
            ensure that CJA claims are accompanied by adequate
            documentation and that only highly qualified attorneys
            participate in the program. To enhance the financial management
            of the CJA program, the Courts assumed responsibility for
            issuing attorney claim vouchers from the Public Defender
            Service (PDS). Consolidation of responsibility for all
            financial management aspects of the Defender Services programs
            will enable the Courts to estimate more accurately program
            obligations throughout the voucher processing cycle. To build
            on these initiatives and more comprehensively exert greater
            management control over the Defender Services appropriation
            from a programmatic, rather than a financial perspective, the
            Courts request $91,000 and 1 FTE in the fiscal year 2005
            operating budget.
          In the Defender Services account, the fiscal year 2005 budget
            request represents a net increase of $18,500,000 over the
            fiscal year 2004 Enacted level of $32,000,000 to fund hourly
            rate increases. Of the total request, $9,500,000 would provide
            appropriated funding for the March 2002 rate increase for
            Defender Services attorneys and investigators. This increase,
            enacted in the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002, has been funded
            to-date through a reserve in the account, which is now
            depleted. Also included in the total request is $9,000,000 for
            an increase in the hourly compensation rates for attorneys from
            $65 to $90, to keep pace with the rate paid court-appointed
            attorneys at the Federal courthouse across the street from the
            D.C. Courts.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, the
    District of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed a national reputation for
    excellence. We are proud of the Courts' record of administering justice
    in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient manner. Adequate funding for
    the Courts' fiscal year 2005 priorities is critical to our success,
    both in the next year and as we implement plans to continue to provide
    high quality service to the community in the future. We appreciate the
    President's level of support for the Courts' funding needs in 2005, and
    the support we have received from the Congress. We look forward to
    working with you throughout the appropriations process, and we thank
    you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request
    of the Courts.

        Senator DeWine. Thank you.
        Judge Wagner. Thank you, sir.
        Senator DeWine. Judge King.

                     STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING, III

        Judge King. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Landrieu. It is a pleasure to be back here and primarily to
    express my gratitude on behalf of the Superior Court, at any
    rate, for your support for our budget in the past and the
    President's support for our budget as we go forward with the
    construction plan.
        We are engaged in the execution of a complex master plan
    that runs over 10 years. We have outlined that in our written
    submission, which I trust will be included in the record.
        Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record.
        Judge King. I adopt Chief Judge Wagner's oral statement as
    well, and I will just make a point or two.
        Thus far, the construction in the Moultrie Building to
    round out the first part of the Family Court renovations is on
    time and in budget. My commitment is to try to keep it that
    way. And to that end, my door is always open and my phone lines
    are always open for any discussions that are needed to help
    that process along.
        The one point that I just want to put on the record,
    because I know it is capable of getting lost in the shuffle is:
    The President did not support our request for capital funding
    for the aging infrastructure. Our building is 30 years old,
    essentially. The systems, the HVAC and mechanical systems and
    electrical and so on, are all at the end of their useful life.
        I personally have had an occasion when the temperature in
    my courtroom rose to above 90 degrees, because the air
    conditioning had failed. We just had to adjourn for the day.
    And that is very frustrating when you have a judge ready to go,
    staff ready to go, marshals ready to go, and the lawyers are
    prepared to try the case, and you just cannot try the case. So
    that is an issue that is over the horizon.
        There is a $15 million request for aging infrastructure,
    renovation and maintenance that has not been addressed. And at
    some point, it is going to need to be addressed.
        But I am very grateful for the support for the capital
    budget. And I will be glad to answer questions.
        Senator DeWine. Good.
        Judge King. Thank you.
        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
        Senator Landrieu. Could you all just, Judge, just hit--
    would you just hit the highlights again of the--I know you have
    given us the time frame in the documents here. But just review
    for me on this plan that you have, when the Courts move into
    what building, so that I could just get a sense of when the
    Family Court will be in their new facility? What is the general
    time line, if you have it handy? If you do not, I understand.

                          COURT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

        Judge Wagner. I do not have it handy, but I can--let me
    see.
        Judge King. I can give you most of the basic points. The
    Family Court will be moved--all of the public functions of the
    Family Court will be moved into the JM and first floor levels
    of the Moultrie Courthouse as of July of this year, in about 5
    months, 6 or 5 months.
        I believe the move for the Court of Appeals is scheduled
    for 2005. The actual occupancy is a little bit later, but the
    construction starts in 2005. When that move is accomplished in
    2007, we will then round out the relocation of various
    functions to bring all of the office or administrative
    functions of the Family Court into the JM and the first floors.
        Senator Landrieu. So I am understanding that the Family
    Court basically moves first into their renovated space. They
    are moving first into their renovated space.
        Judge King. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. Is that correct?
        Judge King. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And then the next piece is the----
        Judge King. The C Street Expansion----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Renovation.
        Judge King [continuing]. Which will begin in 2006.
        The C Street Expansion is finished in 2009. We are running
    with design phases while we are doing the building of the Old
    Courthouse and then----
        Senator Landrieu. You all have--you are in the position to
    have control of this schedule so that--because they are really
    moving pieces. And those pieces have to move in a way that
    really helps us to meet these time lines to get these Courts
    functioning in the new spaces that we are trying to provide.
    And you all know that any barriers to move people or the
    authority to make the contractors even move faster or get out
    of the way or the architects--I mean, do you all feel like you
    have blue skies ahead, or do you need us to do anything that
    helps you to make sure you stay on the schedule?
        Judge King. The one thing that we have almost no control
    over is the funding, and we are looking to you for that, and
    you have been very supportive. But given the funding, we have
    more barriers to----
        Senator Landrieu. But if the funding, you know, is short,
    then it puts a crimp in this particular formula.
        Judge King. That is correct. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Judge King. If the funding is not there, then we have to
    come up with alternatives.
        Senator Landrieu. All right.
        Judge Wagner. And the Courts' plans have to be approved by
    the regulatory agencies during this process. While we do not
    control that, we try to cooperate with them to get all of our
    submissions in so that we cause no delays.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Senator DeWine. Let me invite our other panelists to come
    up.
        Craig Floyd is the Chairman and Executive Director of the
    National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Patricia
    Gallagher is the Executive Director of the National Capital
    Planning Commission. And Frederick Lindstrom is the Assistant
    Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts since 2001.
        Ms. Gallagher, let us start with you. If you can--we have
    everyone's written statement, which will become a part of the
    record.
        Ms. Gallagher, if you could make some comments, and then we
    will move to Mr. Lindstrom, and Mr. Floyd.

    STATEMENT OF PATRICIA GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
    ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTINE SAUM, SENIOR URBAN DESIGNER, NATIONAL CAPITAL
                PLANNING COMMISSION

        Ms. Gallagher. Good morning, Senator. Is this on?
        Senator DeWine. Yes, if you push it down, that is--yes.
        Ms. Gallagher. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
    Senator Landrieu, and members of the subcommittee. I am Patti
    Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
    Commission. On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for this
    opportunity to testify.
        We understand from the Conference report language in the
    Omnibus bill that there is concern that NCPC may be delaying
    the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate the Old City
    Hall at Judiciary Square, and we are here today to assure you
    and the members of the subcommittee that NCPC has not delayed
    this renovation.
        NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National
    Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in Spring 2003 during
    the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
    May 2003, the Courts gave an informational presentation on the
    master plan to our Commission. And then in August 2003, the
    Commission adopted this draft plan.
        NCPC staff has been working closely with both parties to
    ensure that the redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including
    the Old City Hall renovation, meets the highest standards of
    planning and urban design. This process is complicated in that
    we are working to satisfy the requirements of two legislative
    mandates, the National Law Enforcement Museum Act of 2000, and
    the District of Columbia Family Courts Act of 2001.
        Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C. Courts
    that they have to reorganize and improve the Courts' services
    and facilities.
        In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, Congress
    authorized the Memorial Fund to build its museum on Federal
    land that partially abuts the Old District of Columbia City
    Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by the
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
    Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum
    underground and limit its aboveground construction to two
    10,000-square-foot entrance pavilions.
        In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
    renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-
    foot-wide zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old
    City Hall where no aboveground museum construction is
    permitted. These areas are depicted on the map attached to my
    written testimony.
        Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying
    with both mandates, while respecting each of the parties'
    separate and distinct visions for the common plaza area. The
    Courts and the Memorial Fund each consider the plaza to be a
    key part of the entrances to their buildings, and they continue
    to fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and
    design control each party is permitted to have within the plaza
    area.
        The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003
    submissions to review proposed memorial designs and museum
    designs that would have interfered with the entrance to the
    renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were clearly
    in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
    kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions.
        Subsequently, in July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft
    Judiciary Square Master Plan. This master plan depicted the
    plaza as an unobstructed open space extending from the
    renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street, Northwest. The
    Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the
    basis that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the
    plaza area.
        As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City
    Hall for re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project.
    And delays in its construction could needlessly increase the
    cost to taxpayers.
        Our Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7,
    2003 approved the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. And in an
    effort to move both projects forward, our Commission departed
    from its normal process of requiring an approved master plan,
    and authorized the Courts and the Memorial Fund to proceed with
    the design submissions for their individual projects.
        A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both
    projects to have unimpeded access to their respective
    entrances. Therefore, our Commission asked the parties to
    mutually agree on a design solution before requesting further
    NCPC approval.
        Although NCPC staff has been working with both sides since
    last spring to facilitate an acceptable solution, we are unable
    to report progress, that an agreement has been reached.
    However, on February 13th, the Courts presented to the NCPC
    staff for the first time an interim design that would maintain
    the plaza as an open area, and one that would provide
    sufficient space for the Memorial Fund to construct its
    entrance pavilions while allowing both projects open access to
    their respective entrances.
        The Courts' proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape
    solution that could be modified when the Memorial Fund
    completes its fund raising and is prepared to proceed with
    construction.
        We understand that the Courts are prepared to move forward
    with this interim design despite the inevitable disruption to
    the plaza area and its entrances once the design of--once the
    museum design construction begins.
        Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it
    appears to respect the design parameters set out in the
    National Law Enforcement Museum Act. We feel that it is a
    viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
    Courts' construction project to move forward.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We have spoken to both the Courts and the Memorial Fund to
    encourage the use of this interim design as an acceptable
    solution and have informed them that this design, if accepted
    by both parties, would be eligible for immediate review by our
    Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our utmost to
    accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review as
    expeditiously as possible.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Patti Gallagher

        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Patti
    Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
    Commission (NCPC). I would like to thank you on behalf of the
    Commission for this opportunity to testify. We understand from the
    Conference report language in the Omnibus bill that there is concern
    NCPC may be delaying the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate
    the Old City Hall at Judiciary Square. I would like to assure you and
    the members of this Committee that NCPC has not delayed this
    renovation.
        NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National Law
    Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund) in spring 2003
    during the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
    May 2003 the Courts gave an information presentation on the master plan
    to our Commission, which adopted the draft plan in August 2003. NCPC
    staff has been working closely with both parties to ensure that the
    redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including the Old City Hall
    renovation, meets the highest standards of planning and urban design.
        This process is complicated in that we are working to satisfy the
    requirements of two legislative mandates--the National Law Enforcement
    Museum Act (Public Law 106-492) and the District of Columbia Family
    Courts Act of 2001. Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C.
    Courts that they reorganize and improve the Courts' services and
    facilities. In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (the Act),
    passed in November 2000, Congress authorized the Memorial Fund to build
    its museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old District of
    Columbia City Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by
    the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
    Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum underground and
    limit its aboveground construction to two 10,000-square-foot entrance
    pavilions. In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
    renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-foot-wide
    zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old City Hall where no
    aboveground museum construction is permitted. These areas are depicted
    on the attached map.
        Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying with both
    mandates, while respecting each of the parties' separate and distinct
    visions for the common plaza area. The Courts and the Memorial Fund
    each consider the plaza to be a key part of the entrances to their
    buildings and they continue to fundamentally disagree on the level of
    construction and design control each party is permitted to have within
    the plaza area.
        The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003 submissions
    to review proposed museum designs that would have interfered with the
    entrance to the renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were
    clearly in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
    kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions. Subsequently, in
    July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft Judiciary Square Master Plan.
    This master plan depicted the plaza as an unobstructed open space
    extending from the renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street NW.
    The Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the basis
    that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the plaza area.
        As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City Hall for
    re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project and delays in its
    construction could needlessly increase the cost to taxpayers. Our
    Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7, 2003 approved the
    draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In an additional effort to move
    both projects forward, our Commission departed from its normal process
    of requiring an approved master plan, and authorized the Courts and the
    Memorial Fund to proceed with design submissions for their individual
    projects.
        A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both projects to
    have unimpeded access to their respective entrances. Therefore, our
    Commission also asked the parties to mutually agree on a design
    solution before requesting further NCPC approval. Although NCPC staff
    has been working since August with both sides to facilitate an
    acceptable solution, we are unable to report that an agreement has been
    reached. Very recently however, on February 13, 2004 the Courts
    presented to NCPC for the first time an interim design that would
    maintain the plaza as an open area, and provide sufficient space for
    the Memorial Fund to construct its entrance pavilions while allowing
    both projects open access to their respective entrances. The Courts'
    proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape solution that could be
    modified when the Memorial Fund completes its fundraising and is
    prepared to proceed with construction of the museum. We understand that
    the Courts are prepared to move forward with this interim design
    despite the inevitable disruption to the plaza area and its entrance
    once the museum begins construction.
        Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it appears
    to respect the design parameters set out in the Act. We feel that it is
    a viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
    Courts' construction project to move forward. We have spoken with both
    the Courts and the Memorial Fund to encourage the use of this interim
    design as an acceptable solution and have informed them that this
    design, if accepted by both parties, would be eligible for immediate
    review by our Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our
    utmost to accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review
    as expeditiously as possible.
        This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.

        Senator DeWine. Mr. Lindstrom.

    STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. LINDSTROM, ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY, U.S. COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
        Mr. Lindstrom. Certainly. Good morning, my name is
    Frederick Lindstrom, and I am the Assistant Secretary of the
    Commission of Fine Arts. I am substituting today for our
    Secretary, Charles Atherton, who could not be present today.
        The Commission appreciates the opportunity to join the
    discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old City
    Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the
    new National Law Enforcement Museum. As you know, discussions
    relating to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite
    a few years, and the Commission has been supportive of the
    building's reuse as an operating courthouse.
        The existing configuration of the monumental entrance on
    this important building does not allow for ADA accessibility;
    nor will it allow for the addition of the required visitor
    security screening facility on the south side of the building
    without adversely affecting the structure's historic character.
    Therefore, the Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public
    entrance on the north side of the building, where one existed
    up until the 1917 renovation.
        With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
    specified the location of the new museum, it has been our
    expectation that both projects would be able to coexist in
    Judiciary Square and that the sponsors and their architects
    would fully coordinate and cooperate on developing the designs.
    So far, the Commission has been disappointed by the lack of
    coordination and cooperation and the inability to develop
    complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
    Judiciary Square.
        The Commission believes that the new museum serves a very
    worthy objective. However, access to the Courts building should
    not be obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The
    dignity of the public entrance to the courthouse must come
    first.
        We believe that other designs should be investigated to see
    if the Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the
    openness and accessibility that both projects desire and
    deserve. With passage of Public Law 106-492, that has in a way,
    since that was signed into law, has inhibited that exploration
    of other possibilities, at least for the museum.
        One possible way that we have suggested, the Commission has
    suggested to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum
    and the Courts, would be to locate the museum's main entrances
    to the other side of E Street, at the southern edge of the
    Memorial Plaza. And this is a realistic possibility considering
    that the major portion of the underground museum has been
    authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
    And there may be other alternatives worth exploring as well.

      PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. ATHERTON, SECRETARY, COMMISSION OF
                                   FINE ARTS

        From the very beginning of the review process, we have
    emphasized the need for coordination of all the projects
    currently slated for Judiciary Square, and there are quite a
    few projects that are slated for the Square at this time. And
    it is essential that all of these projects be fully coordinated
    and work in a cooperative fashion for an acceptable design to
    be achieved.
        This concludes our written testimony, and I would be happy
    to respond to any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator DeWine. Yes. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Charles H. Atherton

        Good Morning, my name is Charles Atherton and I am the Secretary of
    the Commission of Fine Arts. The Commission appreciates the opportunity
    to join your discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old
    City Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the new
    National Law Enforcement Museum. As you may know, discussions related
    to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite a few years and
    the Commission has been supportive of the building's reuse as an
    operating courthouse. The existing configuration of the monumental
    entrance on this important building does not allow for ADA
    accessibility, nor will it allow for the addition of the required
    visitor screening facility on this side of the building without
    adversely affecting the structure's historic character. Therefore, the
    Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public entrance to the north
    side of the building, where one existed until the 1917 renovation.
        With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
    specified the location of the museum, it has been our expectation that
    both projects would be able to coexist in Judiciary Square and that the
    sponsors and their architects would fully coordinate and cooperate on
    the designs. So far, the Commission of Fine Arts has been disappointed
    by the lack of coordination and cooperation and the inability to
    develop complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
    Judiciary Square. The Commission believes that the new museum serves a
    worthy objective, however; access to the court building should not be
    obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The dignity of the
    public entrance to a courthouse must come first.
        We believe that other designs should be investigated to see if the
    Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the openness and
    accessibility that both projects desire and deserve. One possible way
    to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum and the courts would
    be to locate the museum's main entrance(s) to the other side of E
    Street, at the southern edge of the memorial plaza. This is a realistic
    possibility considering that a major portion of this underground museum
    has been authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
    There maybe other alternatives as well.
        From the beginning of the review process we have emphasized the
    need for coordination of all the projects currently slated for
    Judiciary Square. It is essential if an acceptable design is to be
    achieved.
        This concludes our written testimony. I would be happy to respond
    to any questions you might have.

        Senator DeWine. Mr. Floyd.

    STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. FLOYD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LAW
                ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND
        Mr. Floyd. Mr. Chairman, our organization is a major
    stakeholder in Judiciary Square. In 1991, at the direction of
    the United States Congress we built and now assist the National
    Park Service in the maintenance and operation of the National
    Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square.
        In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further
    authorization to build a National Law Enforcement Museum right
    across the street from the National Memorial. The National Law
    Enforcement Museum Act was authored by a distinguished member
    of the Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Ben
    Nighthorse Campbell.
        Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to
    build this museum. The site and precise boundaries of the
    museum were spelled out in very clear terms, and a diagram
    showing the museum's boundaries is displayed for your
    convenience. Two above-ground pavilions, totaling approximately
    10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the museum.
    The rest of the museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
    feet, will be located underground.
        And I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this museum will
    be funded exclusively through private donations. No taxpayer
    dollars are going to be used at all.
        The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law
    were established after much discussion and many meetings with
    the Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia
    Courts, after they informed us of their plans to renovate and
    expand the Old Courthouse building.
        Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
    proximity, the public review agencies have required that we
    consult with the Courts in our design plans for the museum
    plaza area, and mutually agree on an acceptable solution. We
    are working in good faith toward a final resolution. However,
    it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have some serious
    differences with the Courts about the design of the museum
    plaza area.
        First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the
    Memorial Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the
    museum plaza area, just as the Courts should be allowed to
    design, build and maintain the areas within their boundaries.
    The Courts disagree and have included the museum plaza, the
    space between this and surrounding the museum pavilions in
    their design plans.
        Not only is this in conflict with the authority that
    Congress gave the Memorial Fund over that property, but their
    plans have ignored a number of our stated needs and concerns.
        The museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million
    museum. There are many technical, aesthetic and practical
    considerations when designing and maintaining the roof and
    plaza area of our museum; air ventilation, visitor staging,
    water leakage, and skylights to let natural light down into the
    museum, to name just a few.
        It should be noted that we are anticipating between 300,000
    and 500,000 visitors annually. On peak days, visits may exceed
    4,500 people. The museum is requiring security screening at the
    pavilion level. The plaza design must take into account this
    queuing requirement. For these important reasons, we cannot
    cede control of the museum plaza area to the Courts or to
    anyone else.
        Further, Senator Campbell addressed this issue in very
    strong terms in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of
    Fine Arts in October of 2003. He said, in part, ``The public
    law provides full use and control of the museum site,
    aboveground and underground, to the Memorial Fund. Any
    accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the
    museum site, including the plaza area between the two entrance
    pavilions, is and will be at the sole discretion of the
    Memorial Fund.''
        We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects.
    While the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is
    planned for 2005 to 2006, construction on the museum is not
    expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually
    granted us until 2010 to begin construction.
        This means that no matter what the Courts decide on for the
    final design for the courthouse, and any entry on the north
    side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would
    be irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and
    build anything on the north side of the courthouse that would
    have to be demolished when we begin construction on the museum.
        Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed
    to accommodating the future access and usage needs of the
    Courts. Any final solution must work for both the Courts and
    the Memorial Fund. However, we are not prepared to relinquish
    control of the museum plaza area, as defined by the boundaries
    in the Museum Authorization Act. And we are not prepared to
    make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish the
    National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
    Judiciary Square.
        And let me just make one final comment. This is the first I
    have heard of the Commission of Fine Arts' suggestion that we
    move our entrance to the Memorial side of E Street, the north
    side. We explored that option. Judge Wagner and I together
    looked at that very closely. I responded to the Judge's
    concerns in that area. And two things prevented us from doing
    that. One, the National Park Service strongly opposes the idea.
    They own and control the National Law Enforcement Officer's
    Memorial, and they do not think it should be disrupted in any
    way. And secondly, any major entrance to the museum on that
    site would cause a major disruption and really demolition of a
    major portion of the National Law Enforcement Officer's
    Memorial, including part of the memorial walls that include
    more than 16,000 names of fallen officers.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And for those reasons, I have indicated to Judge Wagner
    that that would not be an acceptable solution, but we did
    explore it carefully.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Craig W. Floyd

        Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to testify
    on the appropriations request by the District of Columbia Courts to
    renovate and expand the Old Courthouse Building in Judiciary Square. I
    am here today on behalf of our board of directors, which is comprised
    of representatives from 15 national law enforcement organizations (copy
    of board of directors and organizations they represent is attached).
    Collectively, these organizations represent virtually every law
    enforcement officer, family member and police survivor in the United
    States.
        Our organization, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
    Fund, is a major stakeholder in Judiciary Square and has great interest
    in any construction and renovation plans in the area. In 1991, we built
    and now assist the National Park Service in the maintenance and
    operation of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in
    Judiciary Square. Today, that Memorial stands proudly as a richly
    deserved tribute to the more than 16,000 law enforcement officers who
    have been killed in the line of duty and whose names are inscribed on
    the Memorial's marble walls, including 698 from your home State of
    Ohio, Mr. Chairman.
        In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further authorization to
    build a National Law Enforcement Museum in Judiciary Square, right
    across the street from the National Memorial. The ``National Law
    Enforcement Museum Act,'' Public Law 106-492 (copy attached), was
    authored by a distinguished member of the Senate Appropriations
    Committee, U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As a former deputy
    sheriff, Sen. Campbell has a special understanding and appreciation of
    the extraordinary level of service and sacrifice that our law
    enforcement officers have given our Nation.
        Sen. Campbell also knows that many other Americans lack that
    understanding and appreciation, mainly because they are not familiar
    with the dangers and importance of the job, or the proud history of the
    law enforcement profession. The proposed museum will help to educate
    Americans about the police profession's worth to our country by
    properly commemorating law enforcement's outstanding record of service
    and sacrifice.
        Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to build this
    Museum. The site and precise boundaries of the Museum were spelled out
    in very clear terms. (A diagram showing the Museum's boundaries is
    attached for your convenience.) Two above ground pavilions, totaling
    approximately 10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the
    Museum. The rest of the Museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
    feet in size, will be located underground.
        The authorizing law specifically states that the National Law
    Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ``shall own, operate, and maintain
    the Museum after completion of construction.'' Congress also required
    that ``The United States shall pay no expense incurred in the
    establishment or construction of the Museum.'' All of the funding for
    this Museum, just as it was for the Memorial, will come from private
    funds. No taxpayer dollars will be used. Finally, Congress stipulated
    that sufficient funds to complete construction of the Museum must be
    available before we are allowed to commence construction. We were given
    until November 2010 to begin construction of the Museum, or our
    authority to build the Museum will terminate.
        The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law were
    established after much discussion and many meetings with the Joint
    Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia Courts, which
    has plans to renovate and expand the Old Courthouse building to the
    south of the Museum site. We have been very sensitive to their needs
    and interests throughout this process. In fact, we fully supported a
    provision that was included in the Museum Act authorizing the Courts to
    construct an underground parking structure to better meet their
    security and parking needs.
        We also agreed to a provision in the Museum authorizing law that
    calls for us to ``consult with and coordinate with the Joint Committee
    on Administration of the District of Columbia courts in the planning,
    design, and construction of the Museum.'' I believe the record is clear
    that the consultation and coordination called for in the legislation
    has occurred, and it will certainly continue to occur until the Museum
    is completed. (A chronology of that consultation and coordination is
    attached.)
        Let me say for the record that the renovation plans of the D.C.
    Courts for the Old Courthouse building are certainly consistent with
    our own efforts to appropriately restore the Judiciary Square precinct
    to a condition equal to its historic significance. The establishment of
    the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial as the centerpiece of
    the Judiciary Square complex was a major step in this direction.
    Completion of the National Law Enforcement Museum and the renovation of
    the Old Courthouse building will fulfill this important vision.
        Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
    proximity, both the National Capital Planning Commission, and the
    Commission of Fine Arts have required that we collaborate with the
    Courts in the design plans for the Museum plaza area, and mutually
    agree on an acceptable solution. We are working in good faith toward a
    final resolution. However, it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have
    some serious differences with the Courts about the design of the Museum
    plaza area.
        First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the Memorial
    Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the Museum plaza
    area. The Courts disagree and have included the Museum plaza in their
    design plans, which simply do not take into consideration our needs and
    concerns. For example, their plans do not provide the skylights we need
    to allow natural light down into the underground Museum area. Their
    plans call for the elimination of an important outdoor reception plaza
    area, and their proposed water elements pose water leakage hazards that
    would be out of our control and pose serious risks to our $15 million
    worth of exhibits below. We believe that their proposed monumental
    staircase and large glass entranceway would serve to overwhelm the
    Museum pavilions and diminish the Museum's presence and importance.
        The Museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million Museum.
    There are many technical, aesthetic and practical considerations when
    designing and maintaining the roof and plaza area of our Museum--air
    ventilation, visitor staging, water leakage, and skylights to let
    natural light down into the Museum, to name just a few. It should be
    noted that we are anticipating between 300,000 and 500,000 visitors
    annually. On peak days, visits may exceed 4,500 people. The Museum is
    requiring security screening at the pavilion level. The plaza design
    must take into account this queuing requirement. For these important
    reasons, we cannot cede control of the Museum plaza area to the Courts
    or anyone else.
        Further, Sen. Campbell addressed this issue in very strong terms in
    a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts dated October
    14, 2003 (copy of letter attached). He said, in part:

        ``It was always my intent, and the authorizing law clearly states,
    that the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc.
    (``Memorial Fund'') shall be solely responsible for preparation of the
    design and plans for the Museum, subject to the approval of the
    Secretary of the Interior, the CFA and the National Capital Planning
    Commission. Further, the public law provides full use and control of
    the Museum site (aboveground and underground) to the Memorial Fund. Any
    accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the Museum
    site, including the plaza area between the two entrance pavilions, is
    and will be at the sole discretion of the Memorial Fund.''

        We believe that our needs and interests in the plaza area, along
    with the stated access needs of the Courts, can be successfully
    addressed. We have been sharing ideas with the Courts on the Museum
    plaza area for several months now, and the next meeting is scheduled
    for this Friday, February 27. Our architects will be providing the
    Courts with our latest design plans and I am confident that we are
    getting close to a final resolution on this important issue.
        We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects. While
    the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is planned for 2005-
    2006, construction on the National Law Enforcement Museum is not
    expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually granted
    us until 2010 to begin construction. Under even the most optimistic
    schedule, the Museum would not be completed until at least 2009, and at
    the outside, by 2012. This means that no matter what the Courts decide
    on for the final design for the Courthouse, and any entry on the north
    side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would be
    irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and build
    anything on the north side of the Courthouse that would have to be
    demolished when we begin construction on the Museum. In fact, our
    construction plans call for closing E Street for approximately 18-24
    months, so access on the north side of the Courthouse will be severely
    limited during that time.
        Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed to
    accommodating the access and usage needs of the Courts. While our
    earlier plans were not successful in meeting those needs, we are
    working aggressively toward a final resolution. Any final solution must
    work for both the Courts and the Memorial Fund. However, we are not
    prepared to relinquish control of the Museum plaza area, as defined by
    the boundaries in the Museum Authorization Act. And, we are not
    prepared to make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish
    the National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
    Judiciary Square. As Sen. Campbell said in his October letter to the
    Commission of Fine Arts:

        ``This Museum should never be allowed to become a secondary
    consideration. Our Nation's law enforcement officers, especially the
    thousands of fallen heroes who are honored across the street at the
    National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, deserve no less.''

        I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and the other Subcommittee members
    share that opinion. We look forward to working with the Courts and with
    this Subcommittee in ensuring that the rightfully grand vision we all
    share for Judiciary Square is fully realized.

        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.

                      LOCATION OF THE MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM

        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you
    bringing this group together so that we can perhaps explore
    some options that work well for the Courts and work well for
    the museum.
        And you will have to forgive me, because we are not
    familiar with all of this, many of the details, but maybe a
    little background would be helpful to me, Mr. Floyd, about how
    the memorial got to Judiciary Square in the first place. And as
    you and the organization that we want to be very respectful to
    searched for spaces to put this museum, how did you come across
    or settle on this particular space?
        Mr. Floyd. Well, it was approximately 1988 when we toured
    Washington to find an appropriate location for the National
    Memorial. And with the help of the National Park Service and
    the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning
    Commission, we realized that there was strong linkage between
    law enforcement and Judiciary Square. It is the seat of our
    Nation's judicial branch of government and the seat of the
    criminal justice in this Nation of ours.
        And everyone involved felt that that would be the
    appropriate location for a National Memorial honoring law
    enforcement, so that is how we first arrived at Judiciary
    Square in 1988. We built the memorial in 1991.
        And then when we decided to build a museum to complement
    the memorial and further our mission, we felt that it needed to
    be located very close to where the memorial is. There needed to
    be close proximity. We explored the area, and the Federal
    property that now serves as the court parking lot across E
    Street to the south we viewed as the prime location for that.
        Congress agreed with us when we took that proposal to them,
    and they unanimously approved the legislation authorizing that
    site for our museum.
        And I should point out and emphasize that Judge Wagner was
    very helpful in negotiating that site for us. We spent many
    months talking this through and defining the boundaries of our
    museum so that it would not impact negatively on their
    courthouse.
        Senator Landrieu. Because both of these projects are so
    important, and I am just wondering maybe, Ms. Gallagher or Mr.
    Lindstrom, things that Congress does and can undo, things that
    Congress does and can change--you know, it is not--anything is
    not in stone. Even things that are built are torn down and
    redone. So I want to not just--I want to explore all of the
    options.
        And you all have worked with the law enforcement folks. I
    know that area is developed quite a bit and part of the
    challenge is that there is so much being constructed and built
    all along that area in the Mall. But is there any other space
    of land other than this particular plaza that the museum could
    be located near to the memorial, which is important for them,
    or is this just the only spot that they can be in?
        Mr. Lindstrom. Well, I--let me back up. With the--before
    the public wall, I do not believe that they consulted with the
    Commission of Fine Arts on the siting of the museum. And I know
    that was before your time, Ms. Gallagher. So this law was
    passed without a conference with our commissioners of the
    appropriateness of actually locating it under E Street.
        So once the law was passed, all those explorations were
    sort of moot. There are, perhaps not, open spaces in Judiciary
    Square, but there are other structures that could be
    rehabilitated for the museum, just as the Courts is doing for
    the Old City Hall, rehabilitating it for their new court.
        The building that comes to mind is the building that is
    immediately adjacent to the west side of Memorial Plaza.
        Senator Landrieu. Could you explain it out with the map?
    Because, Mr. Floyd, unless, you know, one possible solution--
    and I realize the plaza is very important. We respect the law
    enforcement across the country, and we want you all to have
    something that, you know, we are all very proud of, and really
    fulfills our mission.
        But I am wondering if there were--if we could help you, if
    there are other buildings that are very, you know, right on the
    plaza, so, A, we are not going underground. Is there a
    particular reason why you want to go underground as opposed to
    being on top of the ground? And if you can be on top of the
    ground just as easily as you can be under the ground, maybe we
    can help you find a building and help you build it.
        Mr. Floyd. I appreciate that, Senator. I would respond with
    two things. One, there was a public hearing that the Senate
    held on this issue when we were discussing the site for this
    museum.
        The Commission of Fine Arts and other agencies did testify.
    And I believe there was fairly universal support for the
    proposal. The National Park Service also testified. We did
    explore other options, some of the existing buildings, court
    buildings surrounding us, for example, and just found those
    buildings unsuitable for a museum.
        It is important to understand that a museum requires
    certain space requirements and openness and so forth. We did
    not find any of the buildings in the area suitable for that.
    And Congress, after due deliberation I should point out, and
    working with a number of the public review agencies and the
    National Park Service, felt that the Court property, the Court
    parking lot property that ended up being the site for the
    museum was the best and most appropriate location.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, and I realize that, and I know that
    you all have worked a great deal on this, and I am not going to
    reach any conclusion. I am just exploring our options, because
    they are all very good public purposes that are being
    discussed. And there are other buildings and other spaces and,
    you know, there are a lot of demands on this little plot of
    land called the District of Columbia, which is a district. And
    there are lots of--you know, it is the City, it is also the
    Nation's Capital, it is also the Park Service for recreation,
    so we go through this all the time. This is not anything that
    is unusual.
        But I am just thinking for the extent of the renovations
    the Court needs, and you want to do a good job with your--of
    course, with your project. I mean, is it too late to, in your
    opinion, to just explore other options or buildings, even if--
    now, I am not sure if there are any buildings that could
    actually be demolished and constructed new for you. I do not
    know if we would be restricted in that, because maybe all of
    these are historic buildings and cannot be.
        Mr. Floyd. Senator, I can only say that we have already
    spent over $3 million to----
        Senator Landrieu. Oh, right.
        Mr. Floyd [continuing]. Develop this site and to develop
    the plans for the museum. The schematic design plans for the
    building have already been completed. I think we have spent
    over $600,000 to accomplish that. I think it would be a great
    misuse of our donors' money to now revisit the idea of moving
    elsewhere. And I will say, I appreciate the concern----
        Senator Landrieu. That is a problem, because you have got
    $3 million in private dollars----
        Mr. Floyd. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Committed to this site.
        Mr. Floyd. Yes. Well, we are totally committed. And Judge
    Wagner and I, I think, need to get together. We have tried to
    hand this off to our architects most recently, I am afraid
    without great success, although they have another meeting
    scheduled for Friday.
        And I think we are getting closer. They came to us with a
    plan early February that our architects are now going to be
    responding to on Friday. I think once that occurs, Judge Wagner
    and I can sit down and talk.
        We are going to work this out. I really do not think we are
    that far away. So the idea of, you know, can we both live on
    that site? I think the answer is absolutely yes. I do not think
    Judge Wagner would have agreed to the legislative solution that
    we proposed back in 2000 if she did not agree with that.
        Senator DeWine. Let me just say, if I could jump in here,
    we need a deadline. We have got--this subcommittee provides 100
    percent of the funds for the District for the Courts. We have
    got a responsibility to make sure we do not have overruns, that
    we do not waste money.
        Senator Landrieu.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, before we--Eleanor, I just
    wanted to recognize that you were here before you left. I just
    want to recognize the Congresswoman from the District, as well
    as our shadow Senator, Paul Strauss, but thank you all. We have
    received your----
        Ms. Norton. Thank you for holding the hearing. Thank you
    very much.
        Senator DeWine. It is good to see you.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.

                                   SITE PLANS

        Senator DeWine. We have got--you know, we have got an
    obligation to move on.
        Ms. Gallagher, you were--do you want to describe the
    physical problem here? I saw your model back there. Not that we
    are going to--not that Senator Landrieu and I are going to get
    into this here. We are not. We cannot.
        Ms. Gallagher. Well, there is a--what we interpret as an
    obstruction in the Memorial Fund's design for the plaza.
    Abovegrade construction that--that we perceive in the last----
        Senator DeWine. I cannot see it.
        Ms. Gallagher. I think, if I may with your permission, our
    chief architect is here and she may be able to describe this.
        Senator DeWine. Yes, just briefly.
        Ms. Gallagher. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. Just real briefly.
        Ms. Saum. In a nutshell----
        Senator DeWine. For the record, what is your name, ma'am?
        Ms. Saum. My--I am sorry. My name is Christine Saum. I am a
    senior urban designer at the National Capital Planning
    Commission.
        The last time we received additional plans for this
    facility was last spring. But this model appears to me to be
    pretty much the same, in that the drawings we received last
    spring, the plaza location here on E Street between the museum
    pavilions was approximately 8 feet lower than the plaza shown
    here for the entrance to the courthouse.
        Direct access between the two plazas is obstructed by a
    water feature and a skylight that provides light to the
    underside, to the lower levels of the museum. And access to the
    courthouse would be required to pass behind the two museum
    pavilions by their loading docks and service areas. And we
    thought that was inappropriate for the entrance of the
    courthouse and did not----
        Senator DeWine. Why is it inappropriate?
        Ms. Saum. Because we thought that to have the access to a--
    to an important court, the Superior Court, you should not be
    required to go around behind the loading dock, essentially. We
    thought that they needed direct access.
        And it was our interpretation of the Museum Act that when
    it stated that there was a 100-foot-wide area to be maintained
    where no aboveground construction was to be created, that the
    purpose for us to provide direct access to the courthouse and
    not merely to provide open views.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you.
        Judge King, Mr. Floyd said he thinks you all are getting
    close. Of course, that has to satisfy Ms. Gallagher, Mr.
    Lindstrom, and a lot of other folks----
        Judge King. I will just respond briefly, and then I know--
    --
        Senator DeWine. Are you closer than not?

                         ENTRANCE TO THE OLD COURTHOUSE

        Judge King [continuing]. Chief Judge Wagner will. The Act
    is plain. It says there is a 100-foot corridor to get to the
    courthouse, so that it is an entrance, a main entrance with the
    security features and everything you need for the courthouse.
    It says that. It is very clear in the Act. I do not think we
    are close on that.
        Since last fall, the Court has revised its effort, its
    plan, to try to meet some of the concerns at CFA and NCPC. The
    Memorial has not.
        And the one other thing I do not want to let pass without
    commenting on is: We are renting space, swing space, while we
    do our renovations. We are depending on all of the buildings in
    the area, most of which are historic court buildings, for the
    ultimate filling out of our 10-year plan, so if we start giving
    those buildings away, then we are going to have to pay for it
    somewhere else. We are going to have to build space or lease
    space or do something, and it will become much more disruptive
    than any plan that we are talking about in terms of the Act as
    it stands now.
        Senator Landrieu. So you would prefer them to stay
    underground where they are, as opposed to having to give up one
    of the other buildings or use some comparable site. But the
    problem is that underground design that they have is not
    conducive to the functioning of the Courts building generally.
        Judge King. Well, no. The law says they are to have an
    underground building with two pavilions not to exceed 25 feet
    in height, and outside a 100-foot corridor that goes from E
    Street to the Courts buildings.
        So, as we say in the courthouse, ``Follow the law.'' That
    is all we need to do.
        Senator DeWine. Judge Wagner.
        Judge Wagner. May I say something? At the time the Act that
    was passed, of course, it was not the first bill. It was
    amended.
        And if you look back at the legislative history, you will
    see that after over 2 months of negotiations, the National Law
    Enforcement Memorial Fund and the Courts reached an agreement
    to clarify that the building of this museum will in no way
    conflict with the Courts' expansion and renovation, which was
    planned at that time. And so that is how the museum went
    underground.
        And if you have ever been down to the Smithsonian castle on
    the Mall, the model was essentially that. There is no blockage
    to the entranceway to the Castle imposed by the two underground
    museums on the Mall. That was how we thought we could coexist
    in this very small space.
        Symbolically, and given the historic character of Judiciary
    Square, we were concerned if the entranceway to the courthouse
    gives the appearance that there is blockage that is imposed by
    law enforcement. The separation is something that is required,
    given our way of life and our system of government in this
    country.
        And so within those parameters, we are working to try to
    accommodate our interests and the interests of the public in
    having this historic building----
        Senator DeWine. Well, let me----
        Judge Wagner [continuing]. You know----
        Senator DeWine. Yes. I do not think anyone is more
    supportive of, you know, the National Law Enforcement Fund than
    Senator Landrieu and I. You know, we want this to move forward
    very, very, very, very much.
        I guess the question is, Mr. Floyd, having heard these
    comments, where do we go from here?
        Mr. Floyd. I think the basic thing that the Courts want and
    need and deserve is access to their courthouse on the northern
    side, which they are planning to build as part of their plan.
    And I am absolutely personally committed to making that happen.
        I agree that the initial design that we developed with
    aboveground skylights precluded that to--in their mind, because
    they did not want to go around. They wanted to go straight up
    the middle. So we are now coming back to them with a design
    approach that gives us skylights, will allow natural light to
    get down below, but will give them direct access to their north
    entry of the courthouse, as their architects proposed to us
    earlier this month.
        It has only been a couple of weeks since we have had a
    chance to look at their plans, and we are now prepared to
    respond on Friday. And I think we are all in agreement that we
    want to give them what they want, and we just want to have
    control over that space so that we can maintain and deal with
    water leakage issues and make sure that we have the staging
    area for our visitors that we need. Those are our main
    concerns.
        And I do not see this as a major impasse. But their
    architects and ours have got to work in cooperation.

                           SUBMISSION TO NCPC AND CFA

        Senator DeWine. I understand. But with all due respect, you
    know, there has been no agreement for a year. And that is what
    this committee has to look at, and we have got a fiscal
    responsibility to make sure something moves here. So, you know,
    I want you to reach an agreement. I think it is imperative, you
    know, that this agreement is reached.
        So, you know, I am going to put everybody on notice that I
    expect you to reach an agreement and submit your plans to the
    National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on the
    Fine Arts no later than March 3. If the Courts and the National
    Law Enforcement Fund cannot reach an agreement by March 3, then
    the Courts and the Law Enforcement Fund can submit their own
    individual plans to the NCPC and the Commission.
        Finally, I ask the National Capital Planning Commission and
    the Commission on the Fine Arts to review these plans if they
    are able, even though the submission deadline for them is
    viewed as past. This project is time critical and a decision on
    the design simply cannot slip another month. So that is what we
    are going to have to do.
        So, you know, hopefully we can reach this agreement. I hope
    you all can get together and in the next couple of days and get
    this thing ironed out. You know, we want both--you know, we are
    for all of you. I mean, we really are. And we want, you know--
    everybody has public policy objectives that I think everyone is
    for. And there has not been anything said up here that we are
    not for.
        But you are the ones that have to mesh them. We cannot mesh
    them for you. We are not architects, and we are not sitting in
    your shoes, but you have got to get it worked out. And if you
    cannot get it worked out, you are just going to have to submit
    the plans, I guess, and let them deal with it. So that is where
    we are.
        Mary, anything else?
        Senator Landrieu. I just--are the architects for Mr. Floyd
    here?
        Mr. Floyd. They are. Davis Buckley is.
        Senator Landrieu. Will you stand please, so I can recognize
    you?
        And you are the representing the firm, representing the
    architects?
        Mr. Floyd. He is the principal, yes.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. Well, we just hope--I want to
    support the chairman. I think those deadlines are tight, but
    there is a real need to work this out. And I am hoping that the
    architects that are present for both of these projects
    understand what is being said, and that these are both two
    beautiful projects, and I am sure with a little bit of
    understanding, it could be worked out. And if not, then it
    could jeopardize them both, and that is just not necessary.
        So I know money has been spent, but there is going to be
    hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the final construction
    of this, so, yes, $3 million has been spent. But if $3 million
    could be spent up front a little bit better, then we can go
    ahead and do this for everybody. If not, it can cause a lot of
    problems.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator DeWine. I mean, you know, we see this Memorial and
    that tribute to law enforcement as something we want to see. We
    want to see the magnificent courthouse restored. And they are
    two good things we want to have, and let us just make sure it
    gets done.
        Anything else?
        Senator Landrieu. No.
        Senator DeWine. All right. Thank you all very much. Good
    luck.
        [Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., Wednesday, February 25, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:37 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

    STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR., DIRECTOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            PAUL BRENNAN, COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICER
            REVEREND DONALD ISAAC, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST OF THE RIVER
                CLERGY-POLICE-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

        Senator DeWine. Good morning. Today we are reviewing the
    fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of Columbia's
    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the District
    of Columbia's Public Defender Service.
        Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
    Government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal Government is
    required to finance both of these independent agencies. First,
    we will hear from Paul Quander, Director of CSOSA. His agency
    is responsible for supervising adults who are on pretrial
    release, probation, and/or parole supervision in the District
    of Columbia.
        The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget request is $187.5
    million for CSOSA, an increase of $19 million or 12 percent
    over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. We would like to hear
    how these additional resources would be used to further the
    agency's mission and goals. Last year, this subcommittee
    appropriated funds above and beyond the President's request to
    enable CSOSA to reduce its caseload ratio for sex offenders
    from 36 to 1 down to 25 to 1; for domestic violence offenders,
    from 42 to 25 to 1; and for offenders with mental health
    problems from 47 to 1 to 25 to 1.
        Also, this subcommittee provided additional resources to
    allow CSOSA to purchase GPS anklet monitoring equipment to
    ensure that parolees are not going to places like schools,
    libraries, where they are prohibited from frequenting. I am
    concerned, however, that the fiscal year 2005 budget request
    does not include the funds to continue these important efforts,
    and this is something that this subcommittee will have to deal
    with.
        After Mr. Quander testifies, we will then be joined by the
    Reverend Donald Isaac who will discuss the District's faith/
    community partnership with CSOSA which aims to reconnect
    offenders with their communities before returning home from
    prison. I am interested to see how CSOSA is using video
    conferences to allow families and mentors here in the District
    to stay in touch with their loved ones who are incarcerated 5
    hours away down in North Carolina.
        Mr. Ronald Sullivan will then testify, during the second
    panel, to present the Public Defender Service budget. PDS is an
    independent Federal agency that provides legal representation
    to indigent adults and children facing criminal charges in the
    District. PDS also provides legal representation for people in
    the mental health system, as well as the children in the
    delinquency system, including those who have special education
    needs due to learning disabilities. The President's budget
    request for PDS is $29.8 million which is an increase of $3.7
    million over fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
        As usual, witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes, 5 minutes
    for their oral remarks in order to leave time for questions and
    answers. Copies of all the written statements will be placed in
    the record in their entirety.
        We would also like to recognize, of course, Eleanor Holmes
    Norton, who is here. Eleanor is back there somewhere.
        There she is. Thank you for joining us, again.
        We always welcome her here.
        Senator Landrieu, for an opening statement or comments.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief,
    but I do want to make just a few comments and welcome to our
    panelists that are here with us. And, Mr. Quander, it was very
    nice meeting with you, even just briefly, yesterday.
        But I wanted to just recommit myself to working as a
    partner with Chairman DeWine. We have worked very well chairing
    and serving as ranking member alternately over the years of
    this committee as we work with the Mayor and the leadership to
    strengthen the District of Columbia in any number of ways:
    through improving our schools and education; through supporting
    and revitalizing the family court and child welfare system; and
    through working with leaders, like yourself, to bring more
    public safety into strengthening our public securities system.
        The Mayor, I think, is absolutely correct when he states
    that the goal of this District, as well as many cities
    throughout the Nation, is to stabilize and encourage people to
    stay in the District or to move back to the District, and there
    are many aspects that go into a person's decision or family's
    decision to do that. Public safety is one of them. So we thank
    you for the work and the progress that we are making in that
    area.
        The mission of the agency that you supervise is extremely
    important to maintaining and improving public safety. There are
    over 16,000 offenders and 8,000 defendants at any given time. I
    understand, from your prepared statement, that more inmates are
    transitioning directly from prison to the community with no
    halfway house options, which is a real challenge and something
    I hope we can address and speak about this morning.
        In addition, I want to make note of the great progress made
    during the course of the brief existence of this agency in
    terms of the caseload reductions that our committee has helped
    to work with you to make true. Also, the number of parolees
    rearrested on new drug charges has dropped from 27 percent to
    18 percent, which is, I think, a significant drop and a real
    measure of some success in certain areas.
        Although we do have, Mr. Chairman, some effective drug
    testing programs, I think our resources are still scarce to
    provide the kind of extensive and comprehensive drug treatment
    that is necessary, not just in this District and City, but in
    cities throughout the United States.
        So, I just want to commend CSOSA for reducing the caseload.
    I want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and make sure we can
    continue to reduce that caseload. To try our very best to work
    on strategies to reduce the turnover rate, which is very
    important, to make sure that these cases are prosecuted and
    processed in a timely manner just for the rights of the victim,
    as well as for the rights of the accused. I have a more lengthy
    statement, but that will suffice for the time being and I look
    forward to the testimony and the questions. Thank you.

                   PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

        Senator DeWine. Senator Strauss has submitted a statement
    which will also be included in the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Statement of Senator Paul Strauss

        Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on this
    subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
    Columbia, and an attorney who practices in our local courts, I would
    like to state for the record that I fully support the fiscal year 2005
    Budget Request for the District of Columbia Court Services Offender
    Supervision Agency and the Public Defender Services, I would like to
    thank you for holding this hearing this morning. On behalf of my
    constituents, I appreciate your consideration of the needs of the
    people in the District of Columbia. It is vital that these two agencies
    be fully funded in the amount asked for today. As the elected Senator
    from the District of Columbia, I myself cannot vote on this
    appropriation. Therefore, I am limited to merely asking you to support
    the requests.
        Due to our lack of self-determination, we are unable to provide or
    fund certain government services on a local level. Consequently, the
    Federal Government has sole discretion as to the funding levels for
    these agencies. I do not intend to discuss the issue of self-
    sufficiency and budget-autonomy here today. However, as long as
    Congress continues to control these institutions, which should be
    operated by the District, Congress has an obligation to fully fund the
    budget requests of the agencies present.
        The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused to
    have ``. . . assistance of counsel for his defense.'' Public Defender
    Services (PDS) satisfies this mandate by playing a vital role in our
    system of due process. In order to uphold the Constitutional rights of
    indigent Defendants, it is crucial that PDS's financial requirements
    are met. The District of Columbia's Public Defender Services have
    demonstrated an outstanding record of performance. In their 30 years of
    existence, PDS has set a national standard of excellence with its
    innovative approaches that are applied by some of the most talented
    lawyers in the country. They are an agency that this Congress, this
    subcommittee, and the citizens of the District of Columbia should be
    proud of.
        The other organization present here today also provides a necessary
    service to the people of Washington, DC. The Court Services and
    Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) encompasses multiple stages of the
    legal process. Among them is the Pretrial services Agency (PSA), which
    Supervises defendants pending trial and/or sentencing. Additionally,
    the Community Supervision Program (CSP) manages the cases of offenders
    on probation, parole, or supervised release. Overall, CSOSA has
    developed a pragmatic approach to both administering the cases of the
    accused, and in reintegrating past criminal offenders into society.
    Furthermore, it offers valuable services to victims and provides
    separate services for women, children, and those in need of
    professional treatment. The Assessment and Orientation Center (AOC)
    clinically treats both defendants and offenders who are afflicted with
    drug addictions. With an 80 percent completion rate, and a decreased
    arrest rate among graduates by 75 percent, AOC has an outstanding
    record of success. However, without sufficient funding AOC may have to
    revert to a ``single treatment approach'', which is known to be much
    less effective than a multifaceted intervention. Furthermore CSOSA has
    been in the process of expanding their operation by hiring additional
    supervision officers, and enhancing their global Positioning System,
    which monitors high-risk domestic violence and sex offenders. Moreover,
    all of the programs of CSOSA ensure the safety and well being of the
    citizens of the District of Columbia. It is therefore imperative that
    their budget request is granted so that they can continue to do so.
        In conclusion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for holding
    this important hearing. I ask that you approve the budget proposals
    submitted today. I commend Senators DeWine and Landrieu for their
    continued interest in the fate of our Nation's Capital. Their valuable
    support has sustained the functioning of our vital institutions. I
    would also like to applaud the witnesses from both agencies, who have
    constructed compelling testimony in justifying their budget requests.
    Finally, I would like to thank Regina Szymanska and Brian Rauer for
    their help in preparing this statement. I look forward to further
    hearings on this topic, and I'm happy to respond to any requests for
    additional information.

        Senator DeWine. Well, I think, this is going to be a very
    interesting hearing.
        Our first witness is the Honorable Paul Quander, Jr., who
    is the Director of the Court Services and Offenders Supervision
    Agency, who was nominated by President George Bush on October
    18, 2001 and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to his appointment,
    he served as Assistant United States Attorney in the District
    of Columbia and as Deputy Director for the District of Columbia
    Department of Corrections. We welcome him back.
        And thank you very much, and you can proceed with a
    statement and then we will go to the videotape, then.

                       STATEMENT OF PAUL A. QUANDER, JR.

        Mr. Quander. Thank you, and good morning.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to appear today in support of the Court
    Services and Offender Supervision Agency's fiscal year 2005
    budget request.
        As you know, CSOSA's budget request includes the Pretrial
    Services Agency which, although a component of CSOSA, operates
    independently with a separate budget. The District of Columbia
    Public Defender Service also transmits its budget with CSOSA
    but is not a part of CSOSA.
        CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget request totals
    $187,490,000, an increase of 12 percent over fiscal year 2004.
    Of this, $118,343,000 is for the Community Supervision Program;
    $39,314,000 for the Pretrial Services Agency; and $29,833,000
    for the Public Defender Service.
        At any given time, the Community Supervision Program
    supervises approximately 14,000 offenders on probation, parole,
    or supervised release. The Pretrial Services Agency supervises
    approximately 7,000 defendants pending trial and/or sentencing.
        The Community Supervision Program's proposed budget
    represents a 13 percent increase over fiscal year 2004 funding.
    Of the $14 million increase, approximately $8.9 million is
    allocated to one new program initiative. This increase funds
    staffing and operating expenses for the first year of
    operations for our Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million in no-year
    funds to renovate Karrick Hall, an eight-story building on the
    grounds of D.C. General Hospital. This facility housed CSOSA's
    21-bed Assessment and Orientation Center since 1996. The
    Assessment and Orientation Center provides 30 days of intensive
    clinical assessment, treatment readiness, and reintegration
    programming to high-risk defendants and offenders with serious
    drug abuse problems. Since its inception, over 80 percent of
    participants have completed the program, and arrest rates among
    program graduates decreased nearly 75 percent. Based on its
    demonstrated effectiveness, CSOSA will expand this program as
    the focal point of a Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        At present, the Assessment and Orientation Center treats
    approximately 250 individuals per year. The 108-bed Reentry and
    Sanctions Center, once completed, will provide approximately
    1,200 program slots annually.
        This expansion will allow us to make the program available
    to women, develop a dedicated mental health unit, and open
    three additional men's units. In addition, the center will
    provide short-term residential interventions as a sanction for
    individuals who relapse.
        CSOSA's program model emphasizes accountability. Our
    flexible system of intermediate sanctions enables us to balance
    our external controls with the offender's developing sense of
    internal self-control. We know, however, that external
    authority alone is not sufficient to increase the offender's
    sense of responsibility to self, family, and community. For
    that, he or she needs to establish permanent, personal
    connections to positive individuals and institutions. These
    connections are essential to long-term change.
        Supervision occupies, at most, a few years of a person's
    life. During that time, the offender must develop the personal
    resources that will permanently support him or her.
        In the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, faith
    institutions are a permanent source of guidance, fellowship,
    inspiration, and assistance. These institutions have long
    histories of helping the less fortunate and encouraging
    personal change. Therefore, faith institutions are a natural
    point at which to connect returning offenders with their
    communities.
        In 2001, CSOSA and the City's clergy forged a partnership
    to develop mechanisms through which faith institutions could
    contribute to successful reentry. We chose mentoring as our
    first initiative to emphasize the value of personal
    relationships in this work. From the initial call to action in
    January 2002, to last month's Reentry Worship events, we have
    raised awareness and involved over 200 volunteers in our
    mentoring program.
        Last year, we expanded the mentoring program to reach
    inmates at the Rivers Correctional Institution in North
    Carolina, which is a Bureau of Prisons contract facility
    housing over 1,000 D.C. offenders. Reverend Donald Isaac, the
    Chairman of the CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership Advisory
    Council will share the clergy's perspective on this initiative
    with the subcommittee.
        As the faith initiative matures, we hope to demonstrate the
    public safety benefits of linking returning offenders with the
    community's natural support systems. We are in the initial
    stages of evaluating the program, but we have already seen the
    difference this intervention can make in individual lives.
        This has been a year of great promise for CSOSA. We have
    continued to refine the tools we use to supervise offenders.
    This spring, we will implement an expanded automated screening
    instrument that combines risk scoring and needs assessment to
    generate a prescriptive supervision plan for each offender. We
    recently expanded our case management system to include
    automated treatment tracking. With the additional fiscal year
    2004 funding supported by the subcommittee, CSP, Community
    Supervision Program, has begun hiring additional supervision
    officers to lower high-risk offender caseloads and expand our
    use of Global Positioning System monitoring on high-risk
    domestic violence and sex offenders.
        The Pretrial Services Agency has made significant progress
    with implementation of a new program funded last year, the
    Mental Health Supervision Unit. This new unit provides
    comprehensive mental health assessments and links defendants
    with a range of mental health services provided by the City's
    Department of Mental Health.
        During fiscal year 2003, Pretrial Services Agency also
    provided strong support to the D.C. Superior Court's
    implementation of its new East of the River Community Court.
    The shift from a traditional case processing orientation to a
    problem-solving system of supervision has been very labor-
    intensive for PSA, and the agency continues to explore ways to
    realign existing staff to lower general supervision caseloads.
        Community supervision plays a vital role in keeping our
    city safe. It is the bridge that offenders must cross to move
    from bad choices to a better life. It is our job to make it
    both difficult and undesirable for the offender to reverse
    direction and travel backwards. Our supervision officers have
    an equal responsibility to encourage progress and address non-
    compliance and relapse.
        Every time I visit one of our field units, I am reminded
    how difficult their job is. But every time I hear that an
    offender got a promotion at work or completed treatment, I am
    reminded how rewarding it can be. As more partners join us in
    this work, I believe our forward momentum will carry more and
    more offenders to the long-term success of living as
    productive, crime- and drug-free citizens.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We thank the subcommittee for its continued interest in,
    and support of, our initiatives. I will be pleased to answer
    any question you may have at this time.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Paul A. Quander, Jr.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today in support of the Court Services and
    Offender Supervision Agency's fiscal year 2005 budget request. As you
    know, CSOSA's budget request includes the Pretrial Services Agency
    (PSA), which, although a component of CSOSA, operates independently
    with a separate budget. The District of Columbia Public Defender
    Service also transmits its budget with CSOSA's but is not part of
    CSOSA.
        CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget request totals $187,490,000, an
    increase of 12 percent over fiscal year 2004. Of this, $118,343,000 is
    for the Community Supervision Program (CSP), $39,314,000 for PSA, and
    $29,833,000 for the Public Defender Service.
        At any given time, CSP supervises approximately 14,000 offenders on
    probation, parole, or supervised release. PSA supervises approximately
    7,000 defendants pending trial and/or sentencing.
        CSP's proposed budget represents a 13 percent increase over fiscal
    year 2004 funding. Of the $14 million increase, approximately $8.9
    million is allocated to one new program initiative. The increase funds
    staffing and operating expenses for the first year of operation for our
    Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        In fiscal year 2002, CSOSA received $13 million in no-year funds to
    renovate Karrick Hall, an eight-story building on the grounds of D.C.
    General Hospital. The facility has housed CSOSA's 21-bed Assessment and
    Orientation Center, or AOC, since 1996. The AOC provides 30 days of
    intensive clinical assessment, treatment readiness, and reintegration
    programming to high-risk defendants and offenders with serious drug
    abuse problems. The program has been extremely successful. Since its
    inception, over 80 percent of participants have completed the program,
    and arrest rates among program graduates were found to be nearly 75
    percent lower than among offenders who did not receive this
    programming. Based on its demonstrated effectiveness, CSOSA decided to
    make this program the focal point of a Reentry and Sanctions Center
    that would serve a larger population. At present, the AOC treats
    approximately 250 individuals per year; the 108-bed Reentry and
    Sanctions Center will provide approximately 1,200 program slots
    annually.
        This expansion will allow us to make programming based on the AOC
    model available to women, develop a dedicated unit for individuals with
    serious mental health issues, and open three additional units for male
    defendants and offenders. This type of intensive, structured,
    sanctions-based treatment is clearly effective, and we are very pleased
    that we will soon be able to expand its use.
        We are also pleased that we will not need to interrupt the program
    during the renovations. We have procured an interim facility in
    Northwest Washington and are now completing the transfer of operations.
    The new space also allows us to increase overall capacity to 27 beds
    during the renovation period.
        Developing the Reentry and Sanctions Center demonstrated the value
    and effectiveness of our community partnerships. We worked closely with
    the city during the Reservation 13 master planning process to identify
    the best location for the Center at this site. Once the decision to
    renovate Karrick Hall was finalized, we worked cooperatively with the
    city and neighborhood associations on our short-term occupancy of the
    interim facility. At each stage of the process, we kept our partners
    and neighbors informed of our intentions. The community has continually
    supported our presence and recognized our contribution to public
    safety.
        CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand the range of
    program options available to our supervision officers. Most treatment
    professionals believe that relapse is part of recovery. A single
    treatment experience is rarely sufficient to enable long-term substance
    abusers to overcome their addiction. Most often, the road to recovery
    is fraught with obstacles and detours. The Reentry and Sanctions Center
    will provide not only the initial 30-day preparatory program, which
    increases the likelihood that subsequent treatment will be effective,
    but also short-term residential sanctions for individuals who relapse.
        CSOSA's program model emphasizes accountability. Our flexible
    system of intermediate sanctions enables us to balance our external
    controls with the offender's developing sense of internal
    accountability. We know, however, that external authority alone is not
    sufficient to increase the offender's sense of responsibility to self,
    family, and community. For that, he or she needs to establish
    permanent, personal connections to positive individuals and
    institutions. These connections are essential to long-term change.
    Supervision occupies at most a few years of a person's life. During
    that time, the offender must develop the personal resources that will
    support a changed lifestyle.
        In the District of Columbia, as elsewhere, faith institutions are a
    permanent source of guidance, fellowship, inspiration, and assistance.
    These institutions have long histories of helping the less fortunate
    and encouraging personal change. Therefore, faith institutions are a
    natural point at which to nurture connection between returning
    offenders and their communities.
        In 2001, CSOSA and the city's clergy forged a partnership to raise
    awareness of the offenders' needs and develop mechanisms through which
    faith institutions could help to meet them. We chose mentoring as our
    first initiative to emphasize the value of personal relationships in
    this work. From the initial call to action in January 2002, to this
    year's Reentry Worship events early last month, we have raised
    awareness and involved over 200 volunteers in our mentoring program.
    Rev. Donald Isaac, the Chairman of the CSOSA Faith/Community
    Partnership Advisory Council, will share the clergy's perspective on
    this initiative with the subcommittee.
        Last year, we expanded the mentoring program to reach inmates at
    the Rivers Correctional Institution in North Carolina, which is a
    Bureau of Prisons contract facility housing over 1,000 D.C. offenders.
    We will show a short video about the mentoring program and a clip of
    our video conference mentoring with Rivers at the conclusion of Rev.
    Isaac's statement.
        As the faith initiative matures, we hope to demonstrate the public
    safety benefits of linking returning offenders with the community's
    natural support systems. We are in the initial stages of evaluating the
    program, but we have already seen the difference this intervention can
    make in individual lives. Mentors have helped their mentees get and
    keep jobs, maintain abstinence, find housing, and heal family
    relationships. A mentor cannot and should not replace the community
    supervision officer, but the mentor can help the offender to establish
    relationships that last far beyond the supervision term.
        Beyond mentoring, the faith initiative makes available to offenders
    the support services offered by many churches and mosques. These
    services include job training programs, food and clothing banks,
    counseling and support groups, and family services. Through referral to
    faith-based services, CSOSA expands the range of support available to
    offenders.
        This has been a year of great promise for CSOSA. We have continued
    to refine the tools we use to supervise offenders. This spring, we will
    implement an expanded automated screening instrument that combines risk
    scoring and needs assessment to generate a prescriptive supervision
    plan for each offender. We recently expanded our case management system
    to include automated treatment tracking. With the additional fiscal
    year 2004 funding supported by the subcommittee, CSP has begun hiring
    additional supervision officers to lower high-risk offender caseloads
    and expand our use of Global Positioning System monitoring on high-risk
    domestic violence and sex offenders. CSP and PSA also processed almost
    4,000 treatment placements.
        PSA has made significant progress with implementation of a new
    program funded last year, the mental health supervision unit. This new
    unit provides comprehensive mental health assessments and links
    defendants with a range of mental health services provided by the
    city's Department of Mental Health. We expect that this will greatly
    improve our ability to supervise defendants who manifest significant
    programmatic needs.
        During fiscal year 2003, PSA also provided strong support to the
    D.C. Superior Court's implementation of its new East of the River
    Community Court. The shift from a traditional case processing
    orientation to a problem-solving system of supervision has been very
    labor-intensive for PSA, and the Agency continues to explore ways to
    realign existing staff to lower general supervision caseloads.
        Community supervision plays a vital role in keeping our city safe.
    It is the bridge that offenders must cross to move from bad choices to
    a better life. It is our job to make it both difficult and undesirable
    for the offender to reverse direction and travel backwards. Our
    supervision officers have an equal responsibility to encourage progress
    and address non-compliance and relapse. Every time I visit one of our
    field units, I am reminded how difficult their job is. But every time I
    hear that an offender got a promotion or completed treatment, I am
    reminded how rewarding it can be. As more partners join us in this
    work, I believe our forward momentum will carry more and more offenders
    to the long-term success of living as productive, crime- and drug-free
    citizens.
        We thank the subcommittee for its continued interest in, and
    support of, our initiatives. I will be pleased to answer any questions
    you may have at this time.

        Senator DeWine. Great. Thank you very much.
        You have--why don't we go to your presentation?
        Mr. Quander. Thank you, and with the----
        Senator DeWine. Then we will go to questions. You can, you
    know, bring up Reverend Isaac, now, or----
        Mr. Quander. Actually, if I may----
        Senator DeWine. Or do you want----
        Mr. Quander [continuing]. I would like to invite, with the
    Committee's permission, Paul Brennan, who is a supervisory
    community supervision officer and an individual who is
    intimately responsible for actually implementing and actually
    making sure that the Global Positioning System monitoring
    system is working.

                        DEMONSTRATION OF GPS MONITORING

        Paul supervises one of our sex offender units, and these
    are the individuals who we want to make sure we have constant
    control and monitoring. So Paul has been instrumental in
    getting the system up and running, and he is the individual who
    is most familiar, and I would like to invite him to come
    forward and to just talk for a moment and explain what we have
    done and how we have done it.
        Paul.

                           STATEMENT OF PAUL BRENNAN

        Mr. Brennan. Good morning. First, I would like to make sure
    you have a handout that looks like this, to follow along.
        Senator DeWine. We do not.
        Mr. Brennan. Well, let us look here.
        Senator DeWine. Yes. One. Okay. Very good. Okay.
        Senator Landrieu. We have another one.
        Senator DeWine. We are in business.
        Mr. Brennan. Great. What I am going to show you is just a
    brief clip of an offender--of a sex offender, high-risk sex
    offender released from prison. It is going to show his
    movements to a location that we later had to investigate----
        Senator DeWine. All right.
        Mr. Brennan [continuing]. And I will talk about the
    findings of what we found out. What you will see on the screen
    is the offender at a bus stop that we identified. The green
    represents--the green dots represent the offender. The arrows
    will represent movement of the offender.
        As you can see, the offender is around this bus stop here.
        Senator DeWine. Where does this show up, though, in the
    real world? I mean, it does not show up here in the Capitol on
    the screen. Where is it?
        Mr. Brennan. It shows up on our computer screen that we can
    pull up from our office.
        Senator DeWine. And who monitors that?
        Mr. Brennan. The supervising officers will monitor this on
    a daily basis.
        Senator DeWine. The officer for that particular individual
    or is there just somebody who monitors it in general?
        Mr. Brennan. Each officer will be monitoring their
    offender's movements each day.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mr. Brennan. They will be most intimately aware of what the
    issues are to look for.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mr. Brennan. With this particular offender, he's a child
    molester and we want to keep him away from schools. He's not
    allowed to use the internet and so forth.
        You see his movements as he comes into the City. He stops
    at this location. We lose GPS at this location. That typically
    means an offender has gone inside of a building. We know that
    this is G Street. We know that Martin Luther King Library is
    down here.
        We brought the offender in and investigated why he was in
    this particular location, and from that investigation
    determined that he was using the internet at Martin Luther King
    Library which was a condition of his release that prohibited
    him from doing such. So from that, we were able to sanction the
    offender, put tighter restrictions on him.
        I am going to show you another clip of the same offender
    who is at the halfway house. He goes to the same bus stop. Down
    at the bottom of the screen you can--in your handout you can
    see it clearer, the time, the date, and he travels down to
    Anacostia Metro Station. Now, he's on his way--he is permitted
    to leave the halfway house to go to a job program. The job
    program is not in this area.
        So what caused us to be concerned is: Why is he going out
    of his way to go to this particular stop? What we notice are
    the red indicators here of schools. The time of day is between
    7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. So when kids are going to school, they
    may be taking that particular subway station.
        As I play the movements, you can see that the offender is
    there for an extended--almost an hour, which is highly unusual,
    and you can see him loitering around the location. And this,
    right here, and that to us is suspicious. Why is he in that
    location?
        In a minute you'll see him now getting on public
    transportation. We lose GPS. That means he is probably on a
    bus, and then he ends up in this location. He gets off the bus,
    and now he is walking to his program. You see a school here.
    And there is his program, right here. And it sees him stop.
    Now, here is the closest Metro. So, why was he at the Anacostia
    station? We later determined that he had gone there repeatedly.
    That was enough for us to take it back to the parole commission
    and revoke his parole.
        Do we have time for one more clip?
        Mr. Quander. Let me just make a point. We would never have
    known the travel pattern of this individual unless we had the
    monitoring system. What happened was once he went to the
    Anacostia station, the next morning when the supervising CSO
    took a look at his screen, the information automatically was
    there. So he could look at it, analyze it, and indicate--the
    indications were right there, that there were three schools,
    and we also saw that he was standing there for 1 hour.
        And why does a sex offender get off at a subway stop which
    is not the closest one to where he is going and which is in
    close proximity to three schools? We were able to use this
    information to confront him with it and get him to acknowledge,
    No. 1, yes, he was there and, No. 2, he should not have been
    there. And then we could take the appropriate action.
        The other thing that this allows us to do is when we
    present this to a releasing authority, whether it is the
    Superior Court or the U.S. Parole Commission, it makes it very
    difficult for people to explain away. There is no longer an
    issue as to whether or not you were there. This technology
    proves it. There is not much that you can say. It is
    irrefutable, essentially, and allows us to keep control over a
    population that we are most concerned about. Okay.
        Senator DeWine. Good. No, that was great. Thank you, very
    much.
        Mr. Quander. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.
        Mr. Brennan. The hardware is up here if you wanted to
    examine it. Also, in the green packets, there is a description
    of how it works and that is from the company. Feel free to
    review that.
        Senator DeWine. Sure. Go ahead.
        Senator Landrieu. How expensive was this system to put in
    place and what is the annual cost of maintaining it? And I am
    not talking about the people that have to analyze it. I am just
    talking about the software and the general maintenance.
        Mr. Quander. We are--we have a vendor, a contract with a
    vendor. Our costs are $6 a day per unit that we have available
    to us. The committee appropriated $100,000 for us to get the
    program up and operational. We would like to expand the use to
    get as many as 200 individuals on to the GPS system.
        Senator Landrieu. Let us talk about the cost if we could,
    Mr. Chairman, for just a minute. This is the device that costs
    $6 a day?
        Mr. Quander. It is the whole system.
        Senator Landrieu. It is the whole system?
        Mr. Quander. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. And for $6 a day you can monitor a
    felon----
        Mr. Quander. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. A person? And we have money
    to monitor how many?
        Mr. Quander. Right now, we can monitor 100 individuals.
        Senator Landrieu. And how many do we have?
        Mr. Quander. Right now, there are nine that are actually on
    the program.
        Senator Landrieu. No. How many offenders are we trying--
    what is our goal of trying to monitor, how many?
        Mr. Quander. I am--I have funding to monitor 100. I would
    like to monitor 200.
        Senator Landrieu. All right. How many----
        Senator DeWine. But how many----
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Then would----
        Senator DeWine. Excuse me. How many are we actually
    monitoring right now?
        Mr. Quander. Today, we have nine offenders on GPS.
        Senator DeWine. Why are we only at nine?
        Mr. Quander. Because we are still in the pilot phase of the
    program----
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mr. Quander [continuing]. And we are evaluating. The other
    issues are: We have to train staff. Right now, most of the
    offenders are in the sex offense unit, and so Mr. Brennan, who
    supervises that unit, has received the training and the know
    how. The other thing, it is intensive as far as analyzing the
    material.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mr. Quander. Once this information is provided, then the
    CSO has to sit down, has to analyze it, know the patterns, and
    then confront the individual and do the follow up. So, it is
    labor intensive. So, we have to be in a caseload ratio.
        So, right now, although the sex offense caseload is about
    29 to 1 as of January, this past January, the closer we get it
    down to those lower numbers, the more effective we can use
    this, make this tool.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me try to re-ask my question, and I
    am very impressed with the technology and, believe me, I want
    to help you, and I can see the benefits of it. I can also see
    the--and understand the issue you just raised because we have
    talked about it before. But as good as the technology is, it is
    only as good as you can analyze it and have the people there to
    sit at the screen and to do the appropriate calculations and
    then take the time to follow up.
        So I am clear, I am just trying to understand that this
    pilot, although it is good, it seems to me to be very, very
    small in the sense that we have, according to this, 500 sex
    offenders that are released on the streets and we are
    monitoring nine, nine people right now?
        Mr. Brennan. We have actually hooked up over 50 in the
    course of the pilot.
        Senator Landrieu. So 50 out of 500 of the sex offenders.
    And how many of the mental health--we have 666 mental health
    individuals that are described as mental health. Are we
    monitoring any of those?
        Mr. Quander. None of the mental health population are on
    the GPS.
        Senator Landrieu. How about domestic violence?
        Mr. Quander. Well----
        Senator Landrieu. We have 1,122?
        Mr. Quander. During the course of the pilot phase, there
    have only been two, I believe, domestic violence individuals.
        Senator Landrieu. This is a very small pilot, but it is
    very promising.
        Mr. Quander. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. But the problem is: The resources are
    short and the staffing issues are substantial. But it seems
    like, is it the, I guess--I am going to finish up here in a
    minute.
        But is it the code of consensus of the professionals that
    do this that this is a pretty extraordinary system if it can be
    funded and staffed appropriately? Because, as you said, I mean,
    I am sure everything is--nothing is foolproof, but this seems
    pretty convincing to me; that is, trying to monitor activities
    of people and trying to catch them before another terrible
    incident occurs. Is that your general sense?
        Mr. Quander. It is, and----
        Senator Landrieu. I am not trying to lead you to an answer.
    I just want to know what your feeling is, yes or no.
        Mr. Quander. It is, and let me try to respond this way.
    Possibly 3 weeks ago we provided training to the Judges, the
    Criminal Division Judges in Superior Court, for what is
    involved in dealing with the sex offender, and a portion of
    that training dealt with the Global Positioning System, and we
    walked through it because we wanted to educate them so that
    they knew it was available so that they could use it.
        Once we did that demonstration, the phone calls have been
    coming in. So there is a need. There is agreement in the
    community, the criminal justice community, that this works,
    that it is a tool that can better protect the public.
        It is also a tool that helps us assist the offenders to be
    successful in their period of supervision. The more individuals
    that I can keep on the streets of the District of Columbia
    successfully complying with the rules, the better we are as a
    city, and the better their chances are for completing
    supervision successfully in taking advantage of all the other
    tools that we have available. This helps us to keep offenders
    accountable, and if we have them accountable, then we can do
    all the other things that we need to do to make that
    transition.
        Senator DeWine. The pilot program will run its course when?
        Mr. Quander. Well, we have funding for this fiscal year,
    and we have funding for 100 for next fiscal year, but as I
    indicated, we are very interested in trying to expand, because
    I want to make it available to the CSO's who have individuals
    who are just on their regular caseload.
        Senator DeWine. When do you think you will move from the
    nine up to the next stage? I mean----
        Mr. Quander. Actually, we are looking to do that by the end
    of May. There is some training that has to take place with the
    staff. There are some union issues that have to be overcome,
    but I am not anticipating any problems, because we are talking
    about a change in the way that we do business. So by the end of
    May we should be close to having 50 and by the end of the
    fiscal year, we will have a minimum of 100 people, I believe,
    on the Global Positioning System.
        Senator DeWine. What kind of union issues do you have?
        Mr. Quander. Union issues are just that there is a change
    in the way that we are going to do business. This is going to
    require our staff to analyze material, to be familiar with
    patterns, to do things just a little differently. I am not
    anticipating any problems. In fact, I have a meeting with the
    union scheduled next week. They know where we are going. The
    staff is very receptive. They like it. It gives them an
    opportunity to do the work that they really want to do, and
    that is to make a change in individual's lives. The more tools
    that we can give the staff, the easier it is for them to do
    their job and the better the results.
        Senator DeWine. Good. Okay. Very good. What else do you
    have to show us here?
        Mr. Quander. There is one additional slide if you would
    like to, Paul.
        Senator DeWine. Yes, I think we had better--I think we had
    better move to Reverend Isaac at this point.
        Mr. Quander. Reverend Isaac?
        Senator DeWine. Reverend Isaac became the Director of the
    East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership in 2001.
    This partnership was created to address issues associated with
    high-risk youth and the young adults who are at risk of being
    in the criminal justice system. Reverend Isaac also serves as
    the Chairman of CSOSA's Faith Advisory Committee, and is a
    member of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, and has
    served on the Board of Directors of the Thurgood Marshall
    Charter School.
        Reverend Isaac. Yes. Good morning.
        Senator DeWine. Reverend, thank you for joining us.
        Reverend Isaac. Thank you for having me.
        Senator DeWine. We appreciate it very much.
        Reverend Isaac. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF REVEREND DONALD ISAAC

        Reverend Isaac. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    thank you for this opportunity to appear today to represent the
    partnership between the Court Services and Offender Supervision
    Agency and the District of Columbia faith community.
        I am Reverend Donald Isaac, Executive Director of the East
    of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership and Associate
    Pastor of the Southeast Tabernacle Church. I am also Chairman
    of the CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership Advisory Council, and
    it is in that context that I come before you today.
        Over the past few years, government has begun to understand
    and notice the extent to which the faith institutions
    contribute to community stability, family strength, and public
    safety. The executive order establishing the White House Office
    of Faith-Based and Community Programs states that, ``Faith-
    based and other community organizations are indispensable in
    meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed
    neighborhoods.'' As a minister in the District of Columbia, I
    see the truth of that statement every day.
        I have dedicated my ministry to reversing the trend of
    escalating crime and violence amount our City's young people.
    Therefore, I am very interested--I was very interested when
    CSOSA issued the call in 2001 asking the City's clergy to
    establish a faith/community partnership that uses the power and
    resources of faith institutions to help offenders under
    community supervision.
        From the very beginning, several aspects of CSOSA's
    approach to the faith/community partnership were encouraging.
    First, CSOSA represents--respects the autonomy and authority of
    faith institutions. Second, they acknowledge that our resources
    are limited, and that a partnership is a two-way street. They
    are willing to give something to get something. CSOSA put in
    place and funded a structure to support offenders' access to
    faith/community programs and services. And third, they value
    and respect all creeds and denominations.
        CSOSA supports the efforts of our Advisory Committee--or
    Council to remain truly representative of the City's
    congregations. Our Advisory Council currently has 19 members
    drawn from the City's diverse Christian and Muslim
    congregations.
        The Faith/Community Partnership chose mentoring as its
    first initiative because it allows individual volunteers and
    returning offenders to connect in an immediate and personal
    way. Relationships are the core of mentoring, but successful
    mentoring involves much more than conversation. It involves
    empathy and support. Mentors must be able to understand the
    obstacles and temptations their mentees face, the obligations
    of community supervision, and the opportunities they need to
    find.
        CSOSA has developed and delivered mentor training that
    touches on most of these issues, but no classroom experience
    can prepare an individual for how hard the work is.
        The initial 100 matches between mentors and mentees have
    yielded wonderful examples of that support. Shirley Hall was
    released from prison in October 2002 at the age of 39. When she
    joined us, she had a long history of drug use and
    incarceration. In fact, she was referred to us after having her
    parole revoked for drug use. She told us that she needed the
    support of other women to stay out. We placed her with Upper
    Room Baptist Church.
        Reverend Catherine Bago, the associate pastor, has worked
    for many years with substance abuse and runs a well-regarded
    aftercare program. Shirley received a lot of support from the
    women's group at Upper Room, as well as from Reverend Bago
    personally. She has been drug-free since her release and is
    pursuing a long-term career as a commercial driver. She has
    managed to stay clean even though she has faced a lot of
    stress. Both her parents have been ill, and she started a job
    that did not work out. She may have relapsed, but she did not.
    She stayed strong and credits that success in part to the
    support she received from Upper Room.
        Ms. Hall's case provides a good example, not just of the
    personal support mentoring provides, but of faith-based support
    services, as well. Ms. Hall's parole has had a special
    condition requiring substance abuse aftercare. Attendance at
    Reverend Bago's program has enabled her to satisfy that
    condition in a way that reinforced her connection to the faith
    community. Upper Room's program lasts as long as Ms. Hall wants
    to attend it. Ms. Hall has had access to a supportive women's
    group long after her parole has ended.
        The District of Columbia faith institutions provide a wide
    range of support services, including job training and
    placement, family counseling, food and clothing banks, and
    transitional housing. We at the East of the River Clergy-
    Police-Community Partnership are proud of our recently
    developed housing facility, which was dedicated as part of this
    year's reentry activities.
        ERCPCP is also pleased to have been selected as a pilot
    program for the Ready4Work Program administered through the
    Department of Labor. This program will enable us to greatly
    expand our job readiness and placement activities over the next
    3 years.
        Another lead institution in the CSOSA Faith/Community
    Partnership, New Commandment Baptist Church, has received funds
    from the Department of Justice to expand its program, as well.
    Our involvement with CSOSA has prepared us for the challenge of
    administering broader initiatives and, in turn, the offenders
    under CSOSA supervision will benefit from an increased range of
    support programs.
        The CSOSA Faith/Community Partnership has grown from a
    dozen ministers at a conference table to a City-wide initiative
    involving hundreds of individuals. We are beginning to attract
    the additional resources needed to expand the services that are
    essential to success. We have expanded mentoring to reach out
    to prisoners, to prison inmates before they return home.
    Because those early weeks are so critical, we want to make sure
    the inmate knows where to find us as soon as he gets off the
    bus.
        All this adds up to a promising start. CSOSA is committed
    to working with us, and we are committed to providing permanent
    fellowship and support to any offender who wants it. We are in
    this for the long haul, and we hope that the resources will be
    available for us to make even more of our inspirations into
    realities.
        CSOAS--excuse me. CSOSA reached out to us because they
    recognized the limitations of law enforcement. Community
    supervision lasts only a short time, while the faith community
    can be a source of permanent inspiration. Community supervision
    is a consequence of past behavior, but faith institutions can
    influence the course of future behavior. Community supervision
    is about external accountability, but faith is about internal
    change. As in any good marriage, the two partners in this
    enterprise complement each other.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I look forward to continuing our work with CSOSA, and I
    thank you again for this opportunity to tell you about it. I
    will be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this
    time.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Reverend Donald Isaac

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to appear today to represent the partnership between the
    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and the District of
    Columbia faith community. I am Rev. Donald Isaac, Executive Director of
    the East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership and Associate
    Pastor of Southeast Tabernacle Church. I am also the Chairman of the
    CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership Advisory Council, and it is in that
    capacity that I come before you today.
        Over the past few years, government has begun to notice the extent
    to which faith institutions contribute to community stability, family
    strength, and public safety. The Executive Order establishing the White
    House Office of Faith-Based and Community Programs states that
    ``[f]aith-based and other community organizations are indispensable in
    meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed neighborhoods.'' \1\
    As a minister in the District of Columbia, I see the truth of that
    statement every day. I have dedicated my ministry to reversing the
    trend of escalating crime and violence among our city's young people.
    Therefore, I was very interested when CSOSA issued their call in 2001,
    asking the city's clergy to establish a faith/community partnership
    that uses the power and resources of faith institutions to help
    offenders under community supervision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ White House Office of the Press Secretary, ``Executive Order:
    Establishment of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,''
    January 29, 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From the beginning, several aspects of CSOSA's approach to faith/
    community partnership were encouraging. First, CSOSA respects the
    autonomy and authority of faith institutions. Second, they acknowledge
    that our resources are limited, and that a partnership is a two-way
    street. They are willing to give something to get something--CSOSA put
    in place and funded a structure to support offenders' access to faith
    community programs and services. And third, they value and respect all
    creeds and denominations. CSOSA supports the efforts of our Advisory
    Council to remain truly representative of the city's congregations. Our
    Advisory Council currently has 19 members drawn from the city's diverse
    Christian and Muslim congregations.
        The Faith/Community Partnership chose mentoring as its first
    initiative because it allows individual volunteers and returning
    offenders to connect in an immediate, personal way. Relationships are
    the core of mentoring, but successful mentoring involves much more than
    conversation. It involves empathy and support. Mentors must be able to
    understand the obstacles and temptations their mentees face, the
    obligations of community supervision, and the opportunities they need
    to find. CSOSA has developed and delivered mentor training that touches
    on most of these issues, but no classroom experience can prepare an
    individual for how hard the work is.
        The initial 100 matches between mentors and mentees have yielded
    some wonderful examples of that support. Shirley Hall was released from
    prison in October 2002 at the age of 39. When she joined us, she had a
    long history of drug use and incarceration; in fact, she was referred
    to us after having her parole revoked for drug use. She told us that
    she needed the support of other women to stay out. We placed her with
    Upper Room Baptist Church. Rev. Catherine Bago, the associate pastor,
    has worked for many years with substance abuse and runs a well-regarded
    aftercare program. Shirley received a lot of support from the women's
    groups at Upper Room, as well as from Rev. Bago personally. She has
    been drug-free since her release and is pursuing a long-term career as
    a commercial driver. She has managed to stay clean even though she has
    faced a lot of stress--both her parents have been ill, and she started
    a job that didn't work out. She might have relapsed. But she didn't.
    She stayed strong, and she credits that success in part to the support
    she received from Upper Room.
        Ms. Hall's case provides a good example not just of the personal
    support mentoring provides but of faith-based support services as well.
    Ms. Hall's parole has a special condition requiring substance abuse
    aftercare; attendance at Rev. Bago's program enabled her to satisfy
    that condition in a way that reinforced her connection to the faith
    community. Upper Room's program lasts as long as Ms. Hall wants to
    attend it. Ms. Hall will have access to a supportive women's group long
    after her parole is ended.
        The District of Columbia's faith institutions provide a wide range
    of support services, including job training and placement, family
    counseling, food and clothing banks, and transitional housing. We at
    East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership (ERCPCP) are very
    proud of our recently developed housing facility, which was dedicated
    as part of this year's Reentry Week activities. ERCPCP is also pleased
    to be selected as a pilot site for the Ready4Work program administered
    through the Department of Labor. This program will enable us to greatly
    expand our job readiness and placement activities over the next 3
    years. Another lead institution in the CSOSA/Faith Community
    Partnership, New Commandment Baptist Church, has received funds from
    the Department of Justice to expand its programs. Our involvement with
    CSOSA has prepared us for the challenge of administering broader
    initiatives, and in turn, the offenders under CSOSA supervision will
    benefit from an increased range of support programs.
        The CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership has grown from a dozen
    ministers at a conference table to a citywide initiative involving
    hundreds of individuals. We are beginning to attract the additional
    resources needed to expand the services that are essential to success.
    We have expanded mentoring to reach out to prison inmates before they
    return home. Because those early weeks are so critical, we want to make
    sure the inmate knows where to find us as soon as he gets off the bus.
        All this adds up to a promising start. CSOSA is committed to
    working with us, and we are committed to providing permanent fellowship
    and support to any offender who wants it. We are in this for the long
    haul, and we hope that the resources will be available for us to make
    even more of our inspirations into realities. CSOSA reached out to us
    because they recognized the limitations of law enforcement. Community
    supervision lasts only a short time, while the faith community can be a
    source of permanent inspiration. Community supervision is a consequence
    of past behavior, but faith institutions can influence the course of
    future behavior. Community supervision is about external
    accountability, but faith is about internal change. As in any good
    marriage, the two partners in this enterprise complement each other.
        I look forward to continuing our work with CSOSA, and I thank you
    again for this opportunity to tell you about it. I will be happy to
    answer any questions you may have at this time.

        Senator DeWine. Reverend, thank you very much.
        Am I understanding that you have a video that shows some of
    the teleconferencing that goes on with some of the inmates? Can
    you show that for us?
        Reverend Isaac. Yes.
        That is it.
        Senator DeWine. Good. That is very good. Now, who has the
    availability to access that? I saw that was a mentor there, or
    he was identified as. Family members have the ability to do
    that, as well, or----
        Mr. Quander. Actually, we do; we invite the family members
    down, during certain portions of the video conferencing, so
    that we can establish that connection. Some of the men--what we
    are trying to emphasize are those pro-social values that the
    faith institutions have, and a part of that is that
    restructuring of that family or reconnection because some of
    those family bridges have been burned and the mentors and the
    faith community help us, oftentimes, reestablish and reconnect
    with those men, and the more that we can do that the more
    support that we have, the more assistance that the CSO has in
    making sure that offenders are being held accountable, and at
    the same time that those services and support mechanisms are in
    place.
        So the family members do come down, including the children,
    so that they can reestablish those connections with their
    fathers.
        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
        Senator Landrieu. Let me pursue that line of questioning
    about trying to keep convicted felons connected to their
    families, restrengthening the families where possible.
        With the women prisoners--I understand that we have quite a
    challenge with all the prisoners, but particularly with women,
    many of whom are mothers, as many of the men would be fathers.
    But I understand that the majority of women are placed either
    in West Virginia or Connecticut?
        Mr. Quander. That is correct.
        Senator Landrieu. And how many miles away are those
    facilities, Alderson and Danbury?
        Mr. Quander. I am not sure, but I believe that Alderson is
    within 500 miles of the District, but I also believe that it is
    probably a 6- or 7-hour drive there. Danbury is going to be an
    8-hour drive, I believe.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Quander. So it is a significant distance that families
    often have to travel so that they can stay connected. One of
    the things that we are working with, just as we have
    established this video conference with Rivers in North
    Carolina, we are working with the Bureau of Prisons and with
    other organizations and the faith group to establish a similar
    link either at Alderson or at Danbury. So that we can start the
    same process and, hopefully, we can strengthen what we are
    doing and strengthen those families through this
    teleconferencing capability.
        Senator Landrieu. And I am just focused on the number here.
    I have about 12 percent of the population that we are talking
    about is female, about 8,000 in jail. So, roughly, that would
    be a little over 800, maybe 1,000 female individuals, if my
    math is correct. Eight thousand in jail, 12 percent female,
    does that match with what you all--approximately, 1,000?
        Mr. Quander. I think it is going to be a little less than
    1,000 female offenders----
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Eight hundred?
        Mr. Quander [continuing]. Through a----
        Senator Landrieu. Eight hundred, maybe? Somewhere--am I
    right, between about 700 and 1,000? Is that safe?
        Mr. Quander. I believe that would be accurate. Yes.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay.
        Mr. Quander. But the Bureau of Prisons would have the best
    stats, the best information.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. If there is 700, Mr. Chairman, to
    1,000, I am wondering what kind of other options there are for
    the teleconferencing opportunities, whether they are, you know,
    once a week, once a month, once a quarter, with family members,
    or trying to get some of those inmates closer to the community.
    I think there are a couple of components here.
        I mean one is trying not to just reunite them with the
    community, but reunite them with the families which is part of
    the community which is important, trying to keep those bonds
    from fraying in the first place, as well as, the professional
    supervision, so it all works together in an integrated way.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I think we have quite a challenge, A, to
    try to keep these inmates closer, physically, but also use this
    technology when the physical location is impossible to really
    make that connection. Now, what is limiting us? Is it--again,
    is it the cost of the software? Is it the--what are the
    limitations so that this is not being available to all, let us
    say, 700 or 800 women, now?
        Mr. Quander. One of the issues is that the women are not
    located in one facility. They are spread throughout the
    country. Alderson, I believe, houses the largest number of
    female offenders, D.C. co-defenders. And, I believe, that
    number is going to be--actually that is, as I understand it,
    there are 67 women in Alderson facility. There is, I believe, a
    lesser number in the facility in Massachusetts--in Connecticut.
        All total from the Bureau of Prisons, I understand, is
    approximately less than 300 females that are housed in Bureau
    of Prisons' facilities throughout the country, but they are
    spread throughout the country. And so, thus, one of the
    limitations is that we do not have them in one or two central
    locations. Those two central locations are Alderson and
    Danbury. And so that is why we are focusing on that.
        We have actually had meetings with the Bureau of Prisons,
    and the Bureau is receptive. They see the benefit. The wardens
    and the support staff in those facilities see the benefit of
    doing this. We are just in the process of trying to make it
    happen. We are the agency that actually receives the
    individuals once they have left the prison. What we want to do
    is sort of extend our reach to get them before they have come
    to us, because we think there are some services that we can
    provide that will help them with that transition, and the faith
    community has been very supportive, and we think we are there.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, the final thing I will say on that,
    I think the Chairman and I would be more than happy to help you
    with the Bureau of Prisons to try and develop a stronger
    partnership as people are getting close to their release time,
    to move them closer to the community, physically, and then
    connect them via as much, you know, using some of this new
    technology as possible, not just for the women but for the men.
        But, I think, particularly in terms of many of these women
    who are the primary caretakers of the children, we want those
    relationships to be maintained as much as possible. So that is
    all I will say, Mr. Chairman. But any ideas you have, please
    let us know and we will work with you on that.
        Mr. Quander. Thank you. One of the things that we have
    discussed with the Bureau is designating those two facilities
    and the Rivers facility, essentially, as a feeder site; as
    individuals get closer to their release date, using those
    facilities so that we can have a critical mass, and if we have
    a critical mass at these facilities, then we can continue to
    use those services.
        If the facility is Alderson or Danbury, that is fine. And
    the Bureau has indicated its willingness to work with us to,
    maybe, sort of, funnel individuals in that direction, so that
    if we can get them there, then we can start establishing some
    of the services that, I think, we can provide.

                     STATUS OF REENTRY AND SANCTIONS CENTER

        Senator DeWine. Mr. Quander, I just have one question. In
    your written statement and your oral statement, you talked
    about the Reentry and Sanctions Center.
        Mr. Quander. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. I am unclear how far along that is as far
    as capacity. You say, ``At present, the AOC treats
    approximately 250 individuals per year. The 108-bed Reentry and
    Sanctions Center will provide, approximately, 1,200 program
    slots annually.'' So are you totally up and running or--I do
    not quite understand that.
        Mr. Quander. No. Where we are----
        Senator DeWine. This and that.
        Mr. Quander. Okay. Where we are, Senator, is that we have a
    facility which is on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital,
    Karrick Hall, which is--we have to renovate, essentially gut,
    put new heating, air conditioning. I mean, we have to go in.
    This committee appropriated $13 million----
        Senator DeWine. In 2002, right? Which one----
        Mr. Quander. Yes. But we had to negotiate with the city. We
    had to bring the community in. There were a lot of issues that
    needed to be resolved before we could actually enter into the
    lease agreement, which took us a while to get.
        Senator DeWine. So where is that construction? Where is
    that?
        Mr. Quander. Actually, all the paperwork is done. We had 21
    men that were in the facility. They have been relocated to
    swing space, which is in the community. Construction is
    beginning. We are anticipating having the facility ready for
    operation, hopefully, in May of 2005. We will be able to expand
    that population in our facility so that we can house women
    there, so that we can house a mental health unit and four units
    for men, which will really increase our capacity to provide the
    type of service that we need. And with this group, this is the
    group of that core 30 percent of long-term substance abusers
    with at least six prior contacts. These are the individuals
    who, we believe, are doing most of the damage in our city. If
    we can get their substance abuse problems under control----
        Senator DeWine. So you will be rolling by May of next year,
    then?
        Mr. Quander. That is what we are anticipating, having the
    facility and going in and rolling. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. And what does that do then to your
    operating budget when you hit that level?
        Mr. Quander. Well, right now, we are funded--we have
    partial year funding for that, that will take us through fiscal
    year of 2005. And fiscal year 2006, there is going to be a
    substantial increase that we are going to need to continue the
    operation.
        Senator DeWine. Are you covered in this proposed budget
    then?
        Mr. Quander. Yes, for 2005.
        Senator DeWine. That would be a partial year, then?
        Mr. Quander. A partial year, that is correct.
        Senator DeWine. And you are covered in the President's
    budget for that?
        Mr. Quander. Yes, for the partial operations.
        Senator DeWine. Because you are going to be substantially
    up--I mean, once you move into that facility, it is like you
    are moving into any new facility, your costs just kind of go
    up, is that right?
        Mr. Quander. That is correct. So for the partial year 2005,
    I believe, we are covered. The issue will be in fiscal year
    2006, when we go to full-year funding for the program.
        Senator DeWine. Let me ask one last question and then we
    will move to our next panel: This committee has worked with you
    to take down the ratio when you are dealing with sex offenders
    and other special population offenders, but from your budget
    submission, it appears that your general population--you are at
    a ratio of 1 to 125. That sounds high. How does that compare to
    other jurisdictions?
        Mr. Quander. No, actually, our general population--our
    general supervision numbers are about 50 to 1. What you may be
    referring to----
        Senator DeWine. Maybe I misread that.

                               PRETRIAL CASELOADS

        Mr. Quander. But I would like to speak to that just for one
    moment, because that is the ratio of the general supervision in
    the pretrial services area for those individuals who have not
    been adjudicated or convicted.
        Senator DeWine. Pretrial?
        Mr. Quander. Pretrial.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mr. Quander. That ratio is extremely high, as you noted. It
    is about 127 to 1. I believe----
        Senator DeWine. How does that compare to other
    jurisdictions, pretrial service----
        Mr. Quander. In the----
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. Comparing apples to apples,
    then?
        Mr. Quander. It is difficult to compare because the
    District is unique. If you look at Federal pretrial in
    surrounding jurisdictions, Northern Virginia and in Maryland,
    those numbers are in the range of about 60 to 1. What we have
    requested is an area that will get us down to 80 to 1. It is--
    --
        Senator DeWine. How about State pretrial?
        Mr. Quander. State pretrial, there are not any standard
    numbers that we have been able to really pull together, but we
    do know that 127 to 1 is--that does not allow us to do anything
    but just to process the paperwork. If we are going to do the
    type of supervision that we need, our numbers in that area have
    to come down, and they have to come down dramatically.
        Senator DeWine. So these--just so I understand, these would
    be the felons, misdemeanors, what are they? Who are they?
        Mr. Quander. On the pretrial side?
        Senator DeWine. Yes, right, that is what we are talking
    about.
        Mr. Quander. It would be felons and misdemeanors----
        Senator DeWine. Mostly a----
        Mr. Quander [continuing]. But mostly felons.
        Senator DeWine [continuing]. Mixed group.
        Mr. Quander. Yes, but mainly felons that are in there and
    then----
        Senator DeWine. Mainly felons?
        Mr. Quander. That is correct.
        Senator DeWine. Okay. Pretrial, mainly felons, 125 to 1.
    Yes, that does sound high.
        Mr. Quander. It is.
        Senator DeWine. We all agree it is high, right?
        Mr. Quander. Yes, we do.
        Senator DeWine. We agree it is a problem?
        Mr. Quander. We believe it is a potential problem. Yes.
        Senator DeWine. So, really--I mean, we are using nice words
    here, but we are not doing much.
        Mr. Quander. We are only----
        Senator DeWine. We are watching them on paper?
        Mr. Quander. We are processing----
        Senator DeWine. Processing paper, but that is about all we
    are doing, is it not?
        Mr. Quander. I like to go out, and I like to talk to the
    people that are really do the work, and I went out recently and
    spoke with a pretrial services officer and she said, ``Mr.
    Quander, all I am doing is processing paper.''
        Senator DeWine. Well, if they mess up, we know it maybe.
        Mr. Quander. Exactly. And she indicated that she----
        Senator DeWine. If the police pick them up again, we know
    it, but that is about it.
        Mr. Quander. And she said she wants to do more, but she
    cannot with the caseload with the way that it is.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator DeWine. I see it. Okay. So we have got a problem.
    Okay. All right. Thank you all very much.
        Mr. Quander. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike DeWine
                         community supervision program
        Question. What are the key performance goals and measures used to
    manage CSOSA's offender supervision program?
        Answer. CSOSA's Community Supervision Program (CSP) has adopted
    improvement in public safety as its most important outcome. While many
    factors influence public safety, CSP can contribute to it by reducing
    recidivism among the population under supervision. Both new convictions
    and revocations that result in loss of liberty contribute to the
    overall recidivism rate.
        The achievement of this long-term outcome depends on CSP's success
    in changing the offender's behavior and assisting him or her in
    establishing a stable, crime-free lifestyle. It is necessary to
    confront the problems most often at the root of criminal behavior as
    well as to enforce conditions of release. CSP targets five key
    intermediate outcome areas for its offender population that must first
    be addressed to improve public safety:
      --Decrease Rearrest.--The rate of rearrest is one indicator of
            potential criminal activity among the supervised population.
            Effective supervision and sanctions should result in a
            decreased rearrest rate among the offenders under supervision.
      --Decrease Technical Violations.--Offenders violate the conditions of
            their release by using drugs, changing residence or traveling
            without permission, failing to complete treatment, and other
            behaviors. Such ``technical'' violations often precede more
            serious criminal behavior. CSP has therefore targeted a
            reduction in the percentage of offenders who accumulate
            multiple technical violations as an important measure of
            whether its sanctions-based supervision model is effective.
      --Decrease Drug Use.--Substance abusers must make progress toward
            reducing their drug use. CSP tracks changes in substance abuse
            using drug testing. The measurement of drug use (as measured by
            positive test results) will reflect the effectiveness of the
            Agency's testing policy and sanctions for positive tests.
            Positive drug test results among offenders who have received
            treatment will be the primary method for assessing the
            effectiveness of treatment interventions.
      --Increase Job Retention.--CSP works with its partners in the
            community to develop employment opportunities for offenders
            under supervision. Because of data availability concerns,
            initial targets focused on the rate of employment among its
            offenders. However, with the deployment of a new information
            system, CSP has modified the measure to focus on the offender's
            ability to maintain employment. This new measure allows for job
            change and periods of training but not for long periods of
            unemployment.
      --Increase Education Levels.--An offender's chances of success
            improve markedly if he or she functions at a higher educational
            level. CSP has implemented a system of learning labs to provide
            educational programming. The objective is to enroll offenders
            needing assistance in a GED or adult literacy program and to
            measure progress throughout participation.
        Progress toward the intermediate outcomes is directly related to
    achievement of the long-term outcome of increasing public safety in the
    District of Columbia. If offenders are held accountable for their
    actions and improve the factors that contribute to personal and
    economic success, they are less likely to recidivate. In that way,
    achievement of the intermediate outcomes results in the long-term
    outcome of reduced recidivism.
    Critical Success Factors (CSF's)
        CSOSA established the following four Critical Success Factors
    (CSF's) as our primary operational strategies. The CSF's define the
    core day-to-day activities within community supervision. Without
    successful performance of these activities, it would be impossible to
    make progress toward the Agency's intermediate- and long-term outcomes.
      --Risk and Needs Assessment.--Establish and implement (a) an
            effective risk and needs assessment and case management
            process, including regular drug testing, to help officials
            determine whom it is appropriate to release and at what level
            of supervision, including identification of required treatment
            and support services, and (b) an ongoing evaluation process
            that assesses an offender's compliance with release conditions
            and progress in reforming behavior so that further
            interventions can be implemented if needed;
      --Close Supervision.--Provide close supervision of offenders,
            including immediate graduated sanctions for violations of
            release conditions and incentives for compliance;
      --Treatment and Support Services.--Provide appropriate treatment and
            support services, as determined by the needs assessment, to
            assist offenders in reintegrating into the community; and
      --Partnerships.--Establish partnerships with other criminal justice
            agencies, faith institutions, and community organizations in
            order to facilitate close supervision of the offender in the
            community and to leverage the diverse resources of local law
            enforcement, human service agencies, and other local community
            groups.
        The CSF's define interdependent processes that, taken as a whole,
    determine long-term outcomes. Risk and needs assessment continually
    inform how offenders are supervised and which services they receive.
    Through partnerships with the community and other criminal justice
    agencies, CSP develops service capacity and improves its supervision
    practices.
        CSP has also put in place a system of output-oriented performance
    measures to track specific oeprational activities related to each CSF.
    Most of these activities are defined within Agency policies. Therefore,
    the specific performance measures track whether we are in fact
    implementing our program model.
        Question. How does CSP classify offenders to enable close
    supervision of those offenders who are high risk for committing serious
    or violent crimes?
        Answer. To classify offenders into an appropriate level of
    supervision, CSP uses a screening instrument that is automated and
    fully integrated within its information system, SMART (Supervision and
    Management Automated Records Tracking). The screener is administered by
    the Community Supervision Officer (CSO) and reviewed by the Supervisory
    Community Supervision Officer (SCSO). Based on answers provided in the
    screener, a score is calculated for the offender's risk. The score, in
    combination with the SCSO's and CSO's assessment, is used to recommend
    the offender's classification to an appropriate supervision level
    (Intensive, Maximum, Medium, or Minimum). Although the recommendation
    is generated automatically, it can be overridden by the CSO with
    supervisory approval. Close supervision is provided to offenders who
    are in an Intensive or Maximum level of supervision.
        The current version of the screener focuses primarily on risk level
    and does not incorporate other factors which, when addressed through
    programmatic interventions, can affect recidivism (see Andrews, Bonta,
    & Hoge, 1990; and Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen,
    1990). ``Principles of Effective Intervention,'' developed by several
    prominent Canadian researchers (also known as the Canadian Model),
    recommends the use of a comprehensive risk and needs assessment to
    determine the offender's risk of recidivism. This comprehensive
    assessment includes factors such as:
      --Criminal associates;
      --Criminal attitudes;
      --Antisocial personality patterns;
      --Family functioning;
      --School/work;
      --Substance abuse; and
      --Use of leisure time.
        CSP has redesigned and broadened its screener instrument to
    incorporate the Canadian Model. This new assessment instrument will
    also be fully automated within SMART and will not only recommend a
    level of supervision but also will generate a recommended prescriptive
    supervision plan. This plan will present realistic goals and objectives
    for the offender, define appropriate intervention strategies, and track
    the offender's progress. The new screener will enhance and standardize
    the case planning process and will ensure that all offenders are
    appropriately classified, supervised, and placed in programming. It is
    expected that the new screener will become operational by the early
    summer of 2004.

                             SUPERVISION STRATEGIES

        Question. What techniques are used to monitor the offenders,
    particularly those who are high risk?
        Answer. CSP's supervision strategy emphasizes both risk management
    (minimizing the likelihood of reoffense) and cost avoidance (minimizing
    the circumstances in which reincarceration is necessary to contain the
    offender's non-compliant behavior). Both strategies are achieved
    through appropriate classification and programmatic placements, as well
    as the use of graduated sanctions to address non-compliance.
        Several practices have been implemented to closely monitor high
    risk offenders. These practices include the use of:
      --electronic monitoring;
      --supervisory reprimands;
      --increased office reporting;
      --accountability tours;
      --halfway house placements;
      --halfway back; and
      --GPS monitoring (pilot) for high risk offenders.
        These practices are employed within the context of the offender's
    individual case plan and Agency operating policies. There is no
    effective ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to community supervision. Each
    offender is a unique individual requiring a unique set of programmatic
    interventions and behavioral controls. The Agency has developed a
    comprehensive array of tools that the Community Supervision Officer can
    deploy in the formulation and execution of the case plan.
        Although the Agency has made impressive strides in the full
    implementation of its supervision strategy, not all elements are fully
    operational. For example, the revised auto screener is being tested
    prior to full implementation, and the planned Reentry and Sanctions
    Center will increase the range of intermediate sanctions available to
    CSO's. The GPS monitoring program will also be expanded to become a
    permanent option for supervising high-risk offenders. With the full
    implementation of the remaining elements of the Agency's strategy,
    baseline data will be captured from which the Agency will be able to
    set strategic benchmarks and initiate longitudinal studies to access
    the strategy's effectiveness.
        Question. How many offenders entered CSOSA supervision in fiscal
    year 2003? How many departed after successfully completing terms of
    community supervision? How many offenders did CSOSA supervise over the
    course of a year?
        Answer. CSOSA provided supervision to 21,603 individuals in fiscal
    year 2003. The flow of intakes and case closures is summarized in the
    following table.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Satisfactory Closures\1\
                              Type of Case                                Intakes    -------------------------------
                                                                                        Expiration      Termination
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Probation.......................................................           6,025           1,728             438
    Parole..........................................................           1,943             394              14
    Supervised Release..............................................              55              19  ..............
    Civil Protection Order..........................................             440             174               7
    Deferred Sentence Agreement.....................................             287              74               4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.....................................................           8,750           2,389             762
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A case may be closed satisfactorily either through expiration of the supervision term, or early termination
      due to the releasing authority's decision to discontinue supervision (generally as a result of the offender's
      exceptional compliance).

        Question. What is the average length of supervision for
    probationers and parolees?
        Answer. The average length of probation is 20 months, and of
    parole, 5 years (60 months).
        Question. Describe CSOSA's use of intermediate sanctions on
    offenders.
        Answer. Intermediate sanctions represent forms of punishment, less
    restrictive than incarceration, that are intended to provide a range of
    correctional options that vary in severity, according to the offenders'
    non-compliant behavior, and are related to the offender's level of risk
    and needs. Intermediate sanctions are designed to both hold offenders
    accountable for their actions and to deter them from engaging in
    criminal activity. These sanctions are best supported when integrated
    with treatment and intervention programs focused on the offender's
    needs, such as substance abuse, employment, and other issues that may
    contribute to the likelihood of reoffense. By using intermediate
    sanctions, CSOSA tries to change the offender's maladaptive, non-
    compliant behavior and to increase the likelihood that the offender
    will achieve successful reintegration into the community.
        Successful use of intermediate sanctions requires close
    supervision, good documentation, well-informed collaboration,
    sufficient resources, and a clear understanding between CSOSA staff and
    the offender. The most notable tool CSOSA uses to impose intermediate
    sanctions is the offender accountability contract, which reflects
    widely accepted ``best practices'' in offender supervision.
        A critical factor in CSOSA's strategy to reduce crime and the rate
    of recidivism is its ability to introduce an accountability structure
    into the supervision process and to provide swift responses to non-
    compliant behavior. According to CSOSA policy, offenders under
    community supervision must enter into an accountability contract within
    25 working days of the case assignment. By signing this document, the
    offender acknowledges his or her responsibilities under probation,
    parole or supervised releases as granted by the D.C. Superior Court or
    the United States Parole Commission. The accountability contract
    clearly informs the offender of the consequences of non-compliance with
    the rules and regulations of community supervision. The offender
    acknowledges that he/she understands which behaviors will lead to
    intermediate sanctions and which behaviors will result in the request
    of a hearing before the releasing authority and possible
    reincarceration.
        According to Agency policy, there are substance abuse violations
    and other non-criminal ``technical violations'' that warrant the
    imposition of different intermediate sanctions. If the CSO has reason
    to believe the offender is in violation of the general or special
    conditions of the offender's release, intermediate sanctions are
    imposed to address the non-compliant behavior. Sanctions available for
    the CSO to use include:
      --Daily check-in with the supervision officer for a specified period
            of time;
      --Attendance at a group activity for a specified period of time;
      --Increased drug testing;
      --Increased face-to-face appointments with the supervision officer;
      --Electronic monitoring for a specified period of time;
      --Community service for a specified number of hours;
      --Placement in a residential sanctions facility or residential
            treatment facility for a specified period of time; and/or
      --Travel restrictions.
        The use of these intermediate sanctions not only serves to hold
    offenders accountable and assist in changing their non-compliant
    behaviors, but also assists the Agency in achieving its mission of
    increasing public safety and reducing recidivism.
        Question. Describe CSOSA's experience in reporting offender
    violations to the releasing authorities.
        Answer. On a regular and consistent basis, CSS staff meet with
    administrative staff of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and
    the Administrative Judges of the Superior Court for the District of
    Columbia to discuss issues of mutual concern. With regards to the USPC,
    agreements have been reached on the types of cases that will require
    the immediate issuance of a retake warrant by the USPC (i.e.,
    subsequent offender felony arrest involving a victim). For all cases in
    which the Agency has deemed the offender to be an imminent danger to
    public safety, the USPC has agreed to the faxing of violation reports
    to their office. These emergency violation reports receive the highest
    priority for review and consideration by the USPC staff for
    presentation to a Commissioner. Our experience generally has been that
    the USPC is very responsive to the Agency with both the request for an
    emergency warrant and the violation reports that are processed on a
    non-emergency basis.
        With regards to the Judiciary, staff must request in the violation
    report that a show cause (violation) hearing be scheduled. Our
    experience is that the Judiciary usually does not issue bench warrants
    based solely on the request of staff. Once a violation report is
    submitted, a violation hearing is scheduled based on the Judge's
    calendar (schedule) and can take from 30 to 60 days to be held. Once a
    violation hearing is scheduled, the Court notifies the offender and
    his/her attorney by mail of the scheduled date for the violation
    hearing. If the offender fails to report to the violation hearing on
    the scheduled date, the Judge will immediately issue a bench warrant
    for the offender's arrest. In cases where CSOSA staff are concerned
    that the offender poses a significant public safety risk, staff can
    request an expedited violation hearing from the Judiciary. On rare
    occasions, the Judge may issue a bench warrant, prior to a hearing, if
    the risk is deemed imminent. In instances of an expedited violation
    hearing, the hearing is usually set within a two-week timeframe. It has
    been our experience that the Judiciary honors CSOSA staff's request for
    a show cause hearing.
        Question. What is the rearrest rate for offenders under CSOSA
    supervision? How has that rate changed in the past year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the overall rearrest rate was 15
    percent (13 percent for probationers and 17 percent for parolees). The
    fiscal year 2002 arrest rate was 18 percent (21 percent for
    probationers and 13 percent for parolees).

                                REENTRY STRATEGY

        Question. CSOSA has been working with various stakeholders to craft
    a Citywide Offender Reentry Strategy. Please describe the process and
    the status of implementation.
        Answer. Between December 2001 and April 2002, a group of community
    advocates, community-based service providers, and government agency
    representatives worked together to craft a comprehensive reentry
    strategy for adult offenders returning from incarceration to the
    District of Columbia. The primary participants in this process
    included:
      --Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA),
      --Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ),
      --Office of the Corrections Trustee,
      --D.C. Prisoners Legal Services Project,
      --D.C. Department of Corrections (DCDC),
      --D.C. Department of Mental Health (DMH), and
      --Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
        The goal of the ``Comprehensive Reentry Strategy for Adults in the
    District of Columbia'', which was completed in June 2003, is to provide
    a detailed, long-range plan for an effective continuum of reentry
    services for D.C. offenders during incarceration, transition from
    incarceration to the community, and life in the community during and
    after supervision. In addition, the strategy proposes an agenda for
    reentry service provider quality assurance, community education about
    the relationship between public safety and effective reentry, and
    legislative priorities.
        The core of the strategy is the development of an assessment-driven
    reentry plan tailored to each offender's needs, strengths, and
    aspirations. The plan should remain with an offender through the three
    phases of reentry: institutionally based programs, transitional
    services, and community reintegration.
        In September 2003, five workgroups led by respected leaders from
    criminal justice system agencies and community-based organizations
    completed an Action Plan that sets an implementation timeline for the
    strategy. The strategy establishes ambitious goals for all parties
    involved, emphasizing that reentry services should be available to all
    offenders returning from some form of incarceration (jail or prison) to
    the community.
        Implementation requires coordination among Federal agencies
    involved in the local criminal justice system, local agencies, and
    community-based organizations. Improved pre-release planning provides
    represents the cornerstone process to build an effective, integrate
    reentry system. Pre-release planning begins with the functional
    assessment of the risk factors that define the intensity supervision if
    the offender leaves incarceration to parole or supervised release. The
    functional assessment also identifies needs that require intervention
    if an individual's risk factors are to be reduced in order to promote
    improved public safety.
        Implementation of the strategy involves broad participation by
    local, Federal, and non-profit agencies. The city will take a major
    step toward implementation this spring by opening the One Stop Reentry
    Service Center, which will provide subsidized job training and wrap-
    around support services to an initial cohort of 165 adult offenders and
    40 juvenile offenders. Initial funding for the pilot year of the
    Service Center's operations will be provided through a Department of
    Justice grant. The Mayor plans to include in his fiscal year 2006
    budget a request for operating funds to sustain and expand the center.
        Question. What are the most critical needs of offenders under
    supervision? How are those needs being addressed, both by CSOSA and by
    the District of Columbia?
        Answer. Most offenders enter supervision with needs in the areas of
    employment/education and substance abuse. Over 50 percent of the
    offender population is unemployed, and about 60 percent tested positive
    for drug use at least once during fiscal year 2003. Approximately 4,100
    offenders tested positive two or more times for PCP, heroin, or cocaine
    in fiscal year 2003. Mental health issues may accompany and exacerbate
    these problems.
        Housing is also a critical need for many offenders. Often, the
    combination of unemployment and substance abuse leads to residential
    instability. The offender may leave prison with nowhere to go or may
    lose his or her residence due to drug use or financial issues.
    Underlying all these issues is the offender's need to develop healthy
    social relationships and to learn how to manage his or her time.
        The following table summarizes CSOSA's activities in each area of
    need and the District of Columbia agency responsible for each type of
    need. The table is adapted from the ``Citywide Reentry Strategy''.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Responsibility of
              Area of Need              CSOSA Activity       City Agencies
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SUBSTANCE USE/HISTORY...........  Assess offender's   Addiction
                                       addiction           Prevention and
                                       severity.           Recovery
                                      Place offender in    Administration--(
                                       the appropriate     service capacity
                                       substance abuse     needs to expand
                                       treatment program   to address the
                                       (current            remaining needs
                                       appropriation       of the offender
                                       allows for CSOSA    population).
                                       to meet 16
                                       percent of the
                                       population's
                                       addition
                                       treatment need).
                                      Place offender in
                                       drug testing
                                       requirements.
                                      Enforce violations
                                       of behavioral
                                       contract.
    EDUCATION/LEARNING DISABILITIES.  Conduct a Test of   State Education
                                       Adult Basic         Office in
                                       Education to        collaboration
                                       assess the          with the
                                       educational         University of
                                       functioning level   District of
                                       of individual       Columbia (service
                                       offenders.          capacity needs to
                                      Provide adult        expand to address
                                       basic education     the remaining
                                       programming at      needs of the
                                       one of four         offender
                                       learning labs       population).
                                       staffed by CSOSA
                                       learning lab
                                       specialists.
    EMPLOYMENT......................  Conduct a Test of   D.C. Department of
                                       Adult Basic         Employment
                                       Education.          Services--Plans
                                      Assess offender's    are in place to
                                       vocational          utilize Serious
                                       aptitude and job    and Violent
                                       skills.             Offender Reentry
                                      Assist offender in   Initiative funds
                                       job search if he    to provide Life
                                       or she has          Skills, Job
                                       employment          Training, and
                                       history, an 8th     Placement
                                       grade reading       services to
                                       level or better,    approximately 150-
                                       and marketable      200 offenders
                                       job skills.         (additional
                                      Provide or make      employment
                                       referrals to city   training and
                                       agencies for        placement service
                                       adult basic         capacity is
                                       education           needed).
                                       services or
                                       referrals.
    HOUSING.........................  Counsel offender    (Service capacity
                                       to seek a healthy   needs to expand
                                       residential         to address the
                                       environment;        remaining needs
                                       encourage           of the offender
                                       offender to move,   population).
                                       if necessary.
                                      Maintain listings
                                       of transitional
                                       housing options
                                       available through
                                       non-profit and
                                       faith community
                                       and refer as
                                       necessary.
    MENTAL HEALTH...................  Refer offender to   Mental Health
                                       CSOSA contract      Psychological
                                       psychologist for    Evaluation--D.C.
                                       mental health       Department of
                                       screening to        Mental Health.
                                       determine need     Counseling,
                                       for more in-depth   community-based
                                       psychological       support services
                                       evaluation and      for offenders
                                       treatment.          with diagnosed
                                      Place offenders      mental health
                                       with diagnosed      disorders--D.C.
                                       mental health       Department of
                                       disorder or         Mental Health.
                                       Offender conforms
                                       to the norms of
                                       daily
                                       functioning,
                                       dress, appearance
                                       and behavior.
    PHYSICAL HEALTH/DISABILITY......  Refer to D.C.       D.C. Department of
                                       Department of       Health--Primary
                                       Health.             Healthcare at
                                                           neighborhood
                                                           health clinics
                                                           operated by the
                                                           D.C. Health and
                                                           Hospital Public
                                                           Benefit
                                                           Corporation.
    LEISURE TIME/SOCIAL               Counsel offender    (Service capacity
     RELATIONSHIPS.                    to develop pro-     needs to expand
                                       social hobbies      to address the
                                       and interests.      remaining needs
                                      If eligible, refer   of the offender
                                       for Faith           population).
                                       Community
                                       Partnership
                                       services,
                                       including
                                       mentoring.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Supply the Committee with a description of CSOSA's faith-
    based initiative, including the number of offenders who have
    participated in the initiative and any accomplishments to date. Are
    faith-based institutions also providing services to meet offenders'
    needs?
        Answer. CSOSA's faith-based initiative is a collaboration between
    the Agency and the District of Columbia's faith institutions. The
    initiative focuses on developing mechanisms through which offenders on
    supervision can establish permanent connections with the community's
    positive, pro-social institutions. Crime is inextricably linked to the
    individual's alienation from mainstream values. By overcoming that
    alienation, the faith community can help the offender replace negative
    associations and attitudes with positive contact and messages.
    Furthermore, the faith institution can address issues of personal
    accountability and change that are beyond the scope of community
    supervision. The church or temple cannot (and should not) replace law
    enforcement, but it can provide a permanent source of positive contact
    and moral guidance. The Community Supervision Officer represents
    external accountability by enforcing release conditions; the faith
    institution represents internal accountability by stressing spiritual
    growth. In addition, CSOSA recognized from the initiative's inception
    that the District's faith institutions provide many practical support
    services, such as tutoring, job training, food and clothing banks,
    personal and family counseling, and substance abuse aftercare. CSOSA
    wanted to ``tap into'' this important source of community-based
    programming in order to expand the range of support services available
    to offenders.
        The faith initiative's governing body is the CSOSA/Faith Community
    Partnership Advisory Council. Established in 2001, the Advisory Council
    membership represents a range of denominations; efforts are currently
    underway to broaden both the membership of the Council and its
    representational diversity.
        Late in 2001, CSOSA and the Advisory Council chose mentoring as the
    initial focus of the initiative to connect faith institution volunteers
    with offenders returning to the community from prison. A successful
    outreach event was held in January 2002, in which faith institutions
    across the city addressed the issue of reentry and issued a call for
    volunteers. Over 400 people attended our initial mentor information
    meeting in February 2002. Since then, the ``Reentry Worship'' event has
    become an annual citywide occurrence.
        CSOSA and the Advisory Council then established a structure through
    which the mentor program could be coordinated and faith institutions
    could provide services to offenders. The city was divided into three
    clusters, and CSOSA issued a Request for Proposals to establish a
    contractual relationship with a lead institution in each cluster. The
    lead institutions are: Cluster A (Wards 7 and 8)--East of the River
    Clergy/Police/Community Partnership; Cluster B (Wards 5 and 6)--Pilgrim
    Baptist Church; Cluster C (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4)--New Commandment Baptist
    Church.
        Each institution employs a Cluster Coordinator, who coordinates
    mentor and other service referrals and performs outreach to increase
    the involvement of faith institutions in the cluster.
        CSOSA also developed and implemented training programs for both
    mentors and the program coordinators at each faith institution. The
    training familiarizes prospective mentors with the structure and
    requirements of community supervision, the offender profile, and the
    program's administrative and reporting requirements, as well as
    providing role-playing exercise in which mentors encounter the
    challenges of mentoring. To date, approximately 200 mentors and
    coordinators from more than 40 institutions have been trained.
        The initial cohort of 24 returning offenders was ``matched'' with
    mentors in August 2002. Since then, the number of offenders in the
    program has grown to over 100. In 2003, CSOSA expanded the program to
    include inmates at the Bureau of Prisons' Rivers Correctional
    Institution in North Carolina. Rivers houses over 1,000 District of
    Columbia inmates. Thirty-three Rivers inmates were placed with mentors,
    who attended biweekly mentoring sessions conducted through video
    conference technology. All but four of the inmates have been released
    as of February 23, 2004.
        Mentoring remains just one facet of CSOSA's faith initiative.
    Through the cluster coordinators and site visits by CSOSA staff,
    outreach ministries and services have been identified. In addition,
    faith institutions have been directed to Federal, local, and
    philanthropic resources to upgrade their capacity for service. For
    example, CSOSA has verified the capacities and availability of the
    following outreach services:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Institution             Outreach Ministry  Available Capacity
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AP Shaw United Methodist........  Anger Management..  7 program slots.
    Grace Apostolic.................  GED classes.......  Varies.
    Paramount Baptist...............  Food and Clothing.  10-12 referrals
                                                           weekly.
    SE Tabernacle...................  Job Services        30 referrals/
                                       Referrals.          month.
                                      Weekly support      Maximum 15 per
                                       group for Ex-       week.
                                       offenders.
    Redemption Ministry.............  Job Training/       35 referrals per
                                       Placement.          class cycle.
                                      Substance Abuse     Ongoing capacity
                                       Counseling.         for 15 clients.
                                      Family Assistance   Varies according
                                       (housing,           to need.
                                       transportation).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Through grant funding from the U.S. Department of Justice,
    Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS), one of CSOSA lead faith
    institutions, New Commandment Baptist Church, is now able to facilitate
    and expand its ability to intercede, with CSOSA and other faith
    institutions, to improve the likelihood that participating parolees
    will have lower rates of recidivism. CSOSA's network of
    interdenominational faith-based participants will contribute to the
    success of this effort. Collaborating with the District of Columbia
    Jobs Partnership, New Commandment Baptist and other faith institutions
    are able to enroll returning offenders in job readiness training
    programs, educational and vocational training, interviewing skills and
    job placement.
        Another participating faith institution, East of the River Clergy/
    Police/Community Partnership, has recently received a grant award from
    the U.S. Department of Labor to facilitate and place returning
    offenders into jobs which offer career opportunities. It is projected
    that the availability of this resource will substantially build the
    capacity of the District of Columbia to better serve the returning
    offenders and their families.
        From the enthusiasm of a core group of concerned citizens, the
    CSOSA faith initiative has grown to a citywide effort involving
    hundreds of individuals in a wide range of activities to support
    returning offenders. We look forward to the initiative's continued
    growth as a sustainable long-term resource that offenders can access
    both during and after their term of supervision.
        Question. Does CSP have specific programs to meet the needs of
    female offenders?
        Answer. Currently, CSP has several gender-specific programs to
    address the needs of female offenders. CSP contracts for residential
    placements in gender-specific residential programs, such as Demeter
    House, which treats chemically-addicted mothers, who may be accompanied
    by their children while in the program. The Substance Abuse and
    Treatment Branch also provides weekly in-house group sessions for
    women. In addition, the Transitional Intervention for Parole
    Supervision (TIPS) program has a community supervision officer on-site
    at the Fairview Community Corrections Center to assist women with
    reentry issues. The Fairview CCC also may be used for public law
    placements and as an intermediate sanction for high risk/needs women
    offenders.
        CSP is working to expand gender-specific programs. The expanded
    Reentry and Sanctions Center will contain a unit for female offenders.
    Additionally, a team of managers received training at the National
    Institute of Corrections Academy last year on implementing effective
    agency-wide programs for female offenders. The members of this team now
    are leading a work group to implement these strategies around such
    issues as victimization and trauma, mental health and medical problems,
    family and child rearing, and economic self-sufficiency. The Agency is
    working to:
      --Implement additional, in-house gender-specific group counseling
            programs and training group facilitators;
      --Develop a comprehensive training curriculum that provides
            information/tools for line staff and administrators to
            effectively manage female offenders;
      --Compile a resource guide to ensure that Community Supervision
            Officers are aware of, and have access to, available in-house,
            community and government programs;
      --Work with our faith-based partners to female women offenders are
            linked to mentors;
      --Strengthen partnerships with the many community organizations and
            government agencies that provide services to this population;
            and
      --Arrange child-care opportunities with our community partners to
            allow female offenders to engage in programming and supervision
            activities.
        Question. CSP last requested an increase in drug treatment funds in
    fiscal year 2002. Is this funding sufficient to meet the demand for
    treatment? What measures are in place to ensure that these resources
    are used most effectively? Is there any evidence that CSOSA drug
    treatment reduces drug use, rearrest, and recidivism in the District of
    Columbia?
        Answer. During fiscal year 2003, CSOSA's Office of Research and
    Evaluation estimated that there were over 4,100 chronic substance-
    abusing offenders in need of treatment intervention. This estimate is
    based on the number of offenders who tested positive for cocaine,
    heroin or PCP two or more times. (Offenders testing positive for
    marijuana and/or alcohol are generally given intermediate sanctions and
    referred to in-house services.)
        Each offender, on average, requires three placements to satisfy
    treatment-programming requirements. For example, offenders with chronic
    substance abuse histories are most often referred to detoxification
    followed by residential and outpatient services. For the chronic drug-
    using population, CSOSA would require the ability to make a minimum of
    12,300 substance abuse placements per year (4,100 offenders  3
    treatment placements).
        The fiscal year 2003 appropriation (approximately $8.6 million)
    enabled CSP to make 2,021 treatment placements. This addressed 16
    percent of the estimated requirement. To ensure that limited treatment
    funds are being used efficiently our treatment specialist staff
    performs a battery of assessments to determine the appropriate
    treatment recommendation for each offender.
        In fiscal year 2003, a data management system was introduced, which
    allowed automated tracking of the agency's treatment related data.
    Fiscal year 2003 was the pilot year for use of the automated tracking
    system and the system was modified and adjusted as required during the
    year. It is anticipated that data on the effectiveness of interventions
    will be available from the automated treatment tracking system within
    the next 6 to 9 months.
        Question. Does CSOSA contract for drug treatment services? How do
    you ensure that vendors are providing quality services?
        Answer. CSOSA currently contracts with 11 drug treatment vendors
    throughout the Washington metropolitan area. Quality Assurance
    Specialists routinely monitor each vendor to ensure that all treatment
    services are provided in accordance with national and local standards.
        Vendor monitoring occurs through compliance reviews and unannounced
    site visits. The compliance reviews are performed on an annual basis
    based on standards for treatment services. The areas subject to review
    include staffing, documentation, physical plant and administrative
    operations. Upon completion of the review, the vendors are provided
    with a time sensitive plan to correct any deficiencies. Subsequently,
    this plan is monitored through unannounced site visits to ensure
    compliance.
        In an effort to continue improving the quality of interventions
    provided by our drug treatment vendors, CSOSA also provides ongoing
    technical assistance.
        Question. What management strategies are employed for inmates on
    Special Supervision?
        Answer. Special Supervision is the rendering of comprehensive,
    treatment-oriented services, combined with intensive supervision, for
    those offenders assessed as ``special needs'' offenders. Special needs
    offenders include offenders convicted of sex crimes and crimes of
    domestic violence, those diagnosed with a mental illness, and those
    assessed with a substance abuse addiction. Programmatic improvements
    for special supervision populations continue to evolve. However, the
    increasing number of offenders presenting with co-ocurring disorders,
    combined with limited staff resources, continues to present challenges
    in providing comprehensive services for these populations.

                              SPECIAL SUPERVISION

        Question. What do you do differently for Special Supervision
    Offenders than the General Supervision population?
        Answer. Special supervision offenders are high risk offenders.
    Immediately upon release to the community, ``special needs'' offenders
    are placed on an intensive or maximum level of supervision for the
    first 90 to 180 days, with weekly community and office contact,
    including urinalysis surveillance for illegal drug use. To closely
    manage these special supervision offenders, CSO's working with these
    caseloads have much smaller caseloads ratios than CSO's managing
    general supervision offenders. The Agency's target caseload supervision
    ratio for the ``Special Supervision'' teams is 25 offenders per CSO,
    versus 50 offenders per CSO for general supervision. This smaller ratio
    allows the special supervision CSO to provide close offender
    accountability, intensive counseling, treatment referrals, and tracking
    activities. The Agency is approaching the targeted caseload ratio,
    which will improve public safety.
        To ensure that all ``special needs'' offenders receive required
    services, a comprehensive referral, placement and assessment tracking
    system has been implemented for all sex offender, mental health, and
    substance abuse cases. These offenders are carefully screened to match
    appropriate treatment services with their needs. CSO's refer offenders
    to treatment groups on-site, as well as makes referrals to vendor-
    provided treatment services, such as residential substance abuse
    treatment and sex offender treatment services. Also, sex offenders,
    depending on their classification level, are required to register with
    the Sex Offender Registry, every 90 days or once a year, for life, as
    determined by their conviction and the law. In fiscal year 2003, 185
    sex offender assessments and 42 polygraph examinations were conducted.
        Offenders convicted of a domestic violence offense participate in
    CSOSA-provided Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) or Family
    Violence Intervention Program (FVIP), if the offender is unable to
    afford private domestic violence counseling services. These group
    sessions also can include family members and, if appropriate, the
    victim of the offense and/or other interested community support
    persons. In addition, CSOSA offers individual counseling as needed.
    Those offenders who can afford to pay for private domestic violence
    treatment are closely monitored to ensure attendance and progress in
    treatment.
        Question. This committee included funds in CSOSA's fiscal year 2004
    appropriation for 27 new positions to provide for increased supervision
    of high-risk sex offenders, mental health cases, and domestic violence
    cases, as well as to expand the use of global positioning system (GPS)-
    based electronic monitoring. GPS electronic monitoring employs state of
    the art technology to offender supervision and hold great promise for
    solving crimes and detecting offender movements or patterns that would
    enable CSOSA to take action before he or she commits more crime. This
    technology would appear to be a valuable tool for supervising all high-
    risk offenders, and in particular, sex offenders and domestic violence
    offenders in which offenders are supposed to avoid certain locations,
    such as schools or specific residences.
        What is the status of implementing the special supervision
    initiative? When will the new officers be hired? When filled, what will
    the new caseload ratios be?
        Answer. Two new Special Supervision Teams start CSP's 6-week
    training academy on March 22, 2004. After these staff complete training
    and enter supervision duties, CSP caseload ratios for sex offender,
    mental health and domestic violence supervision will be reduced to
    approximately 29:1 (based on January 2004 cases). CSP is unable to hire
    additional staff from the fiscal year 2004 supervision initiative due
    to inadequate funding for these positions in our fiscal year 2005
    budget request. Simply, CSOSA cannot support all 27 staff in fiscal
    year 2005 with the resources contained in our fiscal year 2005 budget.
    If all staff from the fiscal year 2004 special supervision initiative
    were hired, these high-risk caseload ratios would decrease to 25:1.
        Question. What is the status of implementing the GPS system? What
    criteria do CSOSA use to determine which offenders are placed under
    electronic or GPS monitoring? Using these criteria, how many offenders
    would be placed on GPS at any given time? How many offenders are
    currently under GPS monitoring?
        Answer. CSOSA currently is piloting Global Positioning System (GPS)
    electronic monitoring technology to monitor movement of the highest
    risk offenders in the community. Primarily used as a tool to monitor
    sex offenders, CSOSA also utilizes GPS to monitor high risk domestic
    violence offenders. These populations generally have stay away orders
    from people or places within the community, and GPS has shown promise
    to be a useful tool to monitor compliance with these conditions. GPS
    allows CSOSA to place strict curfews on offenders, as well as to
    establish ``exclusion zones,'' which are areas or addresses the
    offender is prohibited from entering. Offenders who are placed on this
    type of electronic monitoring generally have violated conditions of
    their supervision, and the GPS is used when other intermediate
    sanctions have been exhausted. Additionally, offenders whom CSOSA deems
    particularly high risk, due to their originating offense or suspicion
    that the offender may be re-offending, also may be placed on GPS
    monitoring. Offenders who are under parole or supervised release
    supervision may be placed on GPS electronic monitoring at CSOSA's
    discretion. In probation cases, CSOSA must obtain a court order,
    modifying the offender's supervision conditions, in order to place the
    offender on GPS monitoring.
        Since April 8, 2004, 51 offenders have been placed in the GPS pilot
    at a cost of $6.00 per day, per offender. Currently, 9 offenders are
    under GPS. Using CSOSA's criteria, above, for placing sex offenders,
    domestic violence offenders, and other high risk offenders under GPS,
    the Agency estimates that the following number of offenders could be
    placed under GPS in fiscal year 2004:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. Offenders
                       Fiscal Year 2004                         Under GPS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    October-December, 2003................................                 0
    January-March, 2004...................................                12
    April-June, 2004......................................                30
    July-September, 2004..................................                60
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The system currently piloted by CSOSA is a passive one, which means
    CSOSA is notified of violations by e-mail the next business day
    following the violation. Some violations also may be reported to our
    sex offender supervision staff by cell phone. At any time, our staff
    also may link to the GPS system and track real-time the offenders who
    are in the program. However, CSOSA is not a 24-hour law enforcement
    Agency and does not have the resources available to respond immediately
    to each violation.
        Through future collaborations with the Metropolitan Police
    Department (MPD), it is CSOSA's goal to provide MPD with the ability to
    respond immediately to GPS electronic monitoring violations of CSOSA
    offenders as the violations occur. Additionally, the GPS data can be
    linked to MPD crime data to assist law enforcement to determine if
    offenders on GPS tracking were at or near reported crime sites.
        Currently, CSOSA contracts for GPS services with Veridian, which is
    a component of General Dynamics. The hardware used for monitoring is
    provided by PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc. CSOSA uses Veridian, instead of
    direct contracting with PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc., because Veridian
    offers several advantages that PRO TECH Monitoring, Inc. does not
    currently offer, such as:
      --Web based access to the data;
      --Linkage with police crime data; and
      --The ability to change hardware if a new, more advanced, efficient,
            or cost-effective product enters the market with another
            company, other than Pro Tech.
        Question. Is the GPS technology being used for defendants?
        Answer. No. However, if resources become available, the Pretrial
    Services Agency would pilot this type of monitoring for high-risk
    defendants with court orders to stay away from particular persons or
    places.

                              INFORMATION SYSTEMS

        Question. What is the status of CSP's offender case management
    system, for which funding was provided in fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. Initially deployed in January 2002, the Supervision and
    Management Automated Records Tracking System (SMART) replaced an
    unreliable and outdated legacy system. SMART has provided the Agency
    with an efficient and accurate method for tracking supervision
    activities, improving supervision management and reporting, and
    enhancing management of the treatment process for offenders.
        Since the supervision module's initial release, many features and
    modules have been added to SMART. A treatment module has been
    implemented to track each offender's progress, as well as a related
    module that allows treatment vendors to verify attendance at scheduled
    outpatient sessions. This integrated treatment module not only
    encompasses the tracking of offender treatment activities, but also
    manages all treatment-related financial transactions. In addition,
    CSOSA now has the capability to electronically transmit Pre-Sentence
    Investigation (PSI) reports directly to the Superior Court and the
    Assistant United States Attorney's Office. Current modules under
    development will provide automatic notification when the Metropolitan
    Police Department arrests an offender under supervision, as well as the
    revised screener and the prescriptive supervision plan.
        In order to continue the significant improvements in offender
    supervision, CSOSA needs to continue enhancing SMART's capabilities.
    The current intake procedure involves the manual process of entering
    sentencing information from both the Courts and the Bureau of Prisons
    (BOP). The proposed Intake Module would streamline this function by
    automating the transfer of sentencing information directly from the
    Courts and the Bureau of Prisons, as well as electronic Notices of
    Actions from the U.S. Parole Commission. Automatic transmission of
    sentencing information would ensure that CSOSA receives the sentencing
    information for each offender. Additional proposed enhancements also
    include:
      --Wireless mobile computing to provide officers with access to the
            SMART application while performing supervision in the
            community;
      --Biometrics to provide a fail-proof method for identifying offenders
            reporting for drug testing or drug treatment programs;
      --Archiving and expunging case records in accordance with Federal
            regulations;
      --Additional interagency data sharing with both local and Federal law
            enforcement agencies; and
      --Improved management and operational reporting using Business
            Objects to ensure the effective supervision and allocation of
            resources to attain the Agency's critical success factors.
        Without these technological enhancements, it will be very difficult
    for CSOSA to continue its forward momentum in improving public safety
    through close supervision.
        Question. Are CSOSA information systems integrated with other law
    enforcement systems? Are CSOSA systems secure from hackers?
        Answer. CSOSA has aggressively implemented internal process
    automation, remote connectivity to external criminal justice data
    repositories, and justice data exchange. The information collected and
    managed by SMART is requested by local and national law enforcement
    agencies. The Agency has established data exchange agreements with
    several local and Federal law enforcement agencies. Criminal justice
    data is currently being exchanged with the Metropolitan Police
    Department, the Pretrial Services Agency, the District of Columbia
    Department of Corrections, the United States Attorney for the District
    of Columbia, the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the
    U.S. Parole Commission, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Federal
    Bureau of Investigations. The fulfillment of the Agency's mission is
    contingent on obtaining timely and accurate information from law
    enforcement agencies. Interagency data exchange provides the necessary
    criminal data for preparation of Pre-Sentence Investigation reports
    (PSI), Alleged Violation Reports (AVR), Warrants, and Notices of Action
    (NOA's) to improve offender supervision, and ways to control crime and
    improve the safety of the public.
        While CSOSA facilitated some initial electronic data exchange
    agreements with other agencies, it is crucial to establish additional
    exchange processes with the other law enforcement entities, such as the
    Courts. SMART is capable of receiving data from other entities, yet
    other agencies systems are not always postured to participate in the
    data exchange process.
        The successful deployment of SMART, and the initial data exchange
    communication with other agencies, has moved the Agency closer to
    accomplishing our strategic goals. As we increase our data exchange
    capability with other law enforcement agencies, the need to enhance
    security measure increases. To continue this forward movement, it is
    imperative that CSOSA systems, data and infrastructure be secure. CSOSA
    continues to make strides in addressing IT security. We have developed
    an IT Security Master Plan, established an Incident Response Team, IT
    Security and Patch Management Working Groups, however more work must be
    accomplished to ensure a secure information technology environment.
        SMART is a critical Agency system that must be secure. As the
    sophistication of hackers advance, CSOSA must enhance the capability to
    protect Agency resources to ensure that measures can be taken to fend
    off attacks and exploits. The challenge of managing new exploits and
    adherence to emergent Federal regulations (FISMA, A-130 etc.) requires
    a vigilant IT Security Program. CSOSA must implement an IT Security
    tool set to include enhanced WEB scanners, network intrusion software,
    and e-authentication devices. Also, the implementation of the IT
    Security Master Plan is necessary to comply with FISMA and/or
    regulatory requirements. The successful implementation of an Agency IT
    Security Program is dependent on identifying adequate resources to
    secure the Agency's information technology resources and comply with
    regulatory requirements.
        Question. CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 appropriation included
    $13,015,000 in no-year funds to renovate Karrick Hall or some other
    facility for use as CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions Center. What is the
    status of the renovations?
        Answer. In September 2002, CSOSA signed a long-term lease with the
    District of Columbia for the use of Karrick Hall as CSOSA's Re-entry
    and Sanctions Center. Also, in September 2002, the city government was
    developing a Master Plan for the D.C. General Hospital Campus,
    including negotiating a transfer of control of the land from the
    Federal Government to the D.C. Government. CSOSA worked closely with
    the D.C. Government and the community throughout these planning
    processes. In July 2003, we reached agreement with the city to proceed
    with the renovation of Karrick Hall. A contract for Architectural and
    Engineering Design and Construction Management was signed in September
    2003.
        Karrick Hall is an eight-story, 60,000 square foot building and
    since 1996, has been the home of the Assessment and Orientation Center.
    The AOC program is a model program CSOSA now operates in partnership
    with the Washington Baltimore High Intensity Drug Task Force program,
    also known as HIDTA. When Karrick Hall is complete, the AOC will become
    CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions program.
        On February 27, 2004, the AOC vacated Karrick Hall and moved into a
    temporary location at 1301 Clifton Street, NW. The AOC will be at 1301
    Clifton until the renovation is complete, in the spring of 2005. While
    at 1301 Clifton, the AOC will expand its program from 18 beds to 27.
        Karrick Hall is a 60,000 square foot eight-story building
    constructed on the grounds of the D.C. General campus circa 1961. The
    renovations include:
      --Replacing the building's infrastructure (installing all new
            plumbing, electrical, windows and exterior architectural
            features as well as new heating and air condition systems and
            fire systems);
      --Installing two new elevators in place of the existing units; and
      --Installing new restrooms and ensuring all new systems meet the
            requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
            handicap accessibility requirements.
        When complete, the Reentry and Sanctions Center will expand to 108
    beds, which will service 1,200 offenders and defendants annually. The
    program will include 4 male units, one unit dedicated to females and
    one unit for the dually diagnosed.
        We are very excited about this initiative because the AOC program
    has a proven track record of success. A study conducted by the
    University of Maryland in May 2002 found there was a 74 percent
    reduction in re-arrests 1 year following completion of the AOC program.
    Expanding the capacity of this program has obvious positive impacts on
    public safety and quality of life.

                          REENTRY AND SANCTIONS CENTER

        Question. Does CSOSA's fiscal year 2005 budget include funding for
    the expanded operation of Reentry and Sanctions Center?
        Answer. CSOSA's budget request includes only partial-year funding
    for fiscal year 2005 because the building renovation will not be
    complete until spring 2005. Fiscal year 2006 will be the first full
    fiscal year that all six units at Karrick Hall will be fully
    operational. The full-year operating cost in fiscal year 2006 will be
    approximately $18 million. To fund complete, annual operations would
    require an increase in fiscal year 2006 of approximately $5.5 million.
        Question. Does CSOSA perform independent audits of its budget and
    finances? What are the results of such audit, including audit findings
    and status of corrective actions?
        Answer. Although not required by the Chief Financial Officers Act
    or other Federal law or regulation, since inception CSOSA's Funds
    Control policy required an annual audit of our budgetary financial
    statement (Statement of Budgetary Resources). The auditing firm of
    PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) LLP has conducted four independent audits
    of CSOSA's Statement of Budgetary Resources since Agency inception. In
    each audit, no material weaknesses were identified and CSOSA received
    unqualified opinions. The audit of CSOSA's fiscal year 2002 Statement
    of Budgetary Resources successfully concluded in September 2003. Thus
    far, the only finding raised has been concerns about our ability to
    fulfill new and much more stringent standards resulting from
    legislation enacted in 2002.

                              FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Question. Please elaborate on the new legislation and standards
    affecting CSOSA's financial management.
        Answer. The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Public Law
    107-289) establishes new requirements in the area of financial
    management for all small agencies. These are the same financial and
    audit requirements which the larger cabinet level agency have been
    subject to for the past several years. The Act requires all executive
    agencies, regardless of size, to prepare and audit six financial
    statements versus the one Statement of Budgetary Resources currently
    prepared and audited by CSOSA. This will increase the scope of audit
    coverage and will require CSOSA to implement additional policies,
    systems and procedures in many areas. The changes are all positive
    steps in improving stewardship of taxpayer dollars, but CSOSA is
    struggling to put the proper infrastructure in place. It will take time
    and additional resources.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2005 budget include the request for
    financial resources to comply with the new laws affecting financial
    management, and if not, what is the cost and how will you deal with the
    problem?
        Answer. We estimate the Agency-wide cost (including the Pretrial
    Services Agency) to be $980,000 and we will no choice but to divert
    funding from programs such as supervision, treatment or employee
    training.
        Question. Within the past 2 weeks, the Washington Post reported on
    the arrest of a repeat sex offender who is suspected of several rapes,
    as well as molesting a 12-year-old girl. The Post also reported that
    Superior Court had sentenced the man to probation several months prior
    to the recent assaults but procedural errors resulted in this sex
    offender being unsupervised by CSOSA. Do you understand the full extent
    of the problems that caused this to happen? Please describe how such
    errors could have been avoided, or could be prevented in the future,
    including any resources that may be necessary.
        Answer. CSOSA has closely examined this case. The exchange of data
    between Superior Court and CSOSA needs to be improved by increasing
    automation. These automated changes may require the Clerk's office to
    modify its existing business processes. CSOSA also needs to institute
    some operational changes within our Offender Intake program. We have
    short-term fixes in place in our attempt to ensure that we receive
    probation grants from the Court and input all intake data into SMART.
    However, we recognize the need for permanent solutions in terms of both
    automation and the enhancement of our Offender Intake operation. We
    recently completed a comprehensive review of the Offender Intake
    operation. The review defined organizational and procedural changes
    that would enhance the operation's efficiency. The review very clearly
    stated the need for additional resources, but more analysis is needed
    to accurately quantify the impact. Funding for these improvements has
    not been requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
        Question. Provide the number of D.C. inmates in each Federal Bureau
    of Prisons facility by gender.
        Answer.

      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INMATES IN THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (AS OF
                               FEBRUARY 25, 2004)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Facility   State
    State            Facility             Males   Females    Total    Total
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ALTalladega FCI                      19  .......        19       19
       ARForrest City FCI                    1  .......         1        1
       AZPhoenix FCI                         2  .......         2        2
       CAAtwater USP                        19  .......        19  .......
       CADublin FCI                          0        6         6  .......
       CATerminal Island FCI                 1  .......         1  .......
       CAVictorville Med FCI                 2  .......         2       28
       COFlorence ADMAX USP                 28  .......        28  .......
       COFlorence FCI                        4  .......         4  .......
       COFlorence High USP                  29  .......        29  .......
       CODenver CCM                          1  .......         1       62
       CTDanbury FCI                         0       84        84       84
       DCD.C. Community Corrections        199       20       219      219
       FLColeman Med                        24        1        25  .......
       FLColeman USP                       182  .......       182  .......
       FLMarianna FCI                        9  .......         9  .......
       FLMiami FCI                           1  .......         1  .......
       FLPetersburg FCI                     48  .......        48  .......
       FLTallahassee FCI                     1       16        17      282
       GAAtlanta USP                       354  .......       354  .......
       GAJesup FCI                          19  .......        19      373
       ILGreenville FCI                     13  .......        13  .......
       ILMarion USP                         28  .......        28  .......
       ILPekin FCI                           4  .......         4       45
       INTerre Haute USP                   193  .......       193      193
       KSLeavenworth USP                   218  .......       218      218
       KYAshland FCI                         6  .......         6  .......
       KYLexington FMC                      20       10        30  .......
       KYManchester FCI                     32  .......        32       68
       LAOakdale FCI                         1  .......         1  .......
       LAOakdale FDC                         3  .......         3  .......
       LANew Orleans CCM                     1  .......         1        5
       MADevens FMC                         38  .......        38  .......
       MABoston CCM                          1  .......         1       39
       MDCumberland FCI                    214  .......       214  .......
       MDBaltimore Community                26        2        28      242
          Corrections
       MIMilan FCI                           3  .......         3  .......
       MIDetroit CCM                         1  .......         1        4
       MNRochester FMC                      18  .......        18  .......
       MNSandstone FCI                       1  .......         1  .......
       MNMinneapolis CCM                     3  .......         3       22
       MOSpringfield USMCFP                 61  .......        61       61
       MSYazoo City FCI                      2  .......         2        2
       NCButner FMC                         65  .......        65  .......
       NCButner Low                         17  .......        17  .......
       NCButner Med                         48  .......        48  .......
       NCSeymour Johnson FPC                11  .......        11  .......
       NCMcRae CI                           18  .......        18  .......
       NCRivers CI                       1,119  .......     1,119  .......
       NCRaleigh CCM                         2  .......         2    1,280
       NJFairton FCI                       109  .......       109  .......
       NJFort Dix FCI                       44  .......        44      153
       NYBrooklyn MDC                        5  .......         5  .......
       NYOtisville FCI                      63  .......        63  .......
       NYRay Brook FCI                      39  .......        39      107
       OHElkton FCI                          9  .......         9        9
       OKEl Reno FCI                         3  .......         3  .......
       OKOklahoma City FTC                  30  .......        30       33
       ORSheridan FCI                        2  .......         2        2
       PAAllenwood Low                      10  .......        10  .......
       PAAllenwood Medium                   95  .......        95  .......
       PAAllenwood USP                     259  .......       259  .......
       PALewisburg USP                     258  .......       258  .......
       PALoretto FCI                         3  .......         3  .......
       PAMcKean FCI                         85  .......        85  .......
       PAPhiladelphia FDC                   21        9        30  .......
       PASchuylkill FCI                    145  .......       145  .......
       PAPhiladelphia CCM                    2        1         3      888
       SCEdgefield FCI                     125  .......       125  .......
       SCEstill FCI                         49  .......        49      174
       TNMemphis FCI                        31  .......        31  .......
       TNNashville CCM                       1  .......         1       32
       TXBeaumont Low                        3  .......         3  .......
       TXBeaumont USP                       46  .......        46  .......
       TXCarswell FMC                        0       16        16  .......
       TXFort Worth FMC                      7  .......         7  .......
       TXTexarkana FCI                       1  .......         1  .......
       TXThree Rivers FCI                    1  .......         1       74
       VALee USP                           409  .......       409  .......
       VAPetersburg Med FCI                281  .......       281      690
       WIOxford FCI                          4  .......         4        4
       WVAlderson                            0       67        67  .......
       WVBeckley FI                        161  .......       161  .......
       WVBig Sandy USP                     147  .......       147  .......
       WVGilmer FCI                        235  .......       235  .......
       WVMorgantown FCI                     87  .......        87      697
                                      --------------------------------------
               TOTAL                     5,880      232     6,112    6,112
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY

        Question. According to the fiscal year 2005 Pretrial Services
    Agency budget submission, the current caseload for defendants who are
    ``extensively supervised'' is 127:1. What types of charges are included
    in ``extensively supervised'' cases, what type of supervision is
    provided, and what, if any, implications does this have for public
    safety? If this is not the appropriate caseload ratio, what is? What,
    if any, resources are needed to achieve public safety goals? What
    changes to supervision practices would be expected if caseloads were
    reduced?
        Answer. Within the General Supervision program, defendants who pose
    a higher level of risk to community safety or of not returning to Court
    are classified as in need of ``extensive supervision.'' Defendants who
    fall into this category have been charged with a wide range of
    offenses--from misdemeanors to dangerous and violent felonies. Many of
    the felony defendants are eligible for pretrial detention based on
    their charge (i.e., robbery, burglary, possession with intent to
    distribute), but the Court has determined that placement in the
    community under extensively supervised release conditions should
    initially be ordered. The Court's expectation is that, in order to
    ameliorate the risk to public safety while on pretrial release,
    conditions such as drug testing and regular reporting will be closely
    supervised by PSA.
        With the current high caseload ratios, PSA is not able to provide
    the supervision expected by the Court or required by PSA's internal
    policies and procedures. In fiscal year 2002, General Supervision
    Pretrial Service Officers (PSO's) were unable to respond to over half
    of defendants' condition violations, such as noncompliance with drug
    testing and contact requirements. Currently, PSO's often cannot respond
    quickly to violations of release conditions and, in many instances,
    defendants are testing positive for illegal drugs for many months until
    they have a court date where the PSO is finally able to respond. This
    is particularly troubling with high risk felonies pending indictment,
    where the first court date after the preliminary hearing is often many
    months after the defendant has been released to PSA. During that time,
    because the PSO's are ``managing'' their caseloads on the basis of
    court dates rather than providing extensive supervision, warrant checks
    and criminal records checks are not regularly done to see if defendants
    have been arrested again in a neighboring jurisdiction while on
    release. Curfew conditions are not monitored by visits to defendants'
    homes. Treatment or employment opportunities are not pursued. In short,
    these higher risk defendants are not being appropriately supervised, at
    considerable risk to public safety.
        Information provided by two neighboring Federal pretrial districts
    under the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts indicates that their
    caseloads average between 42:1 and 64:1 (Eastern District of Virginia
    42:1, District of Maryland 64:1). If PSA were to reduce extensive
    supervision caseloads to 60:1, it would require the following
    resources:

                             PSO'S REQUIRED FOR CASELOADS AT 60:1 (AVERAGE MARCH-JUNE 2003)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Current     Additional
                        Extensive Supervision                        Cases        PSO's       Required    PSO Total
                                                                               (121:1) \1\    for 60:1       60:1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Felony......................................................        1,346           11           11           22
    Violent Misdemeanor.........................................          412            3            4            7
    Domestic Violence...........................................          547            5            4            9
    Nonviolent Misdemeanor......................................        1,338           11           11           22
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................................        3,643           30           30           60
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Caseloads fluctuate over the year depending on whether the Court orders ``extensively supervised'' or
      monitored conditions. This depends on the risk level of the particular defendant. The Extensive Supervision
      breakdown reflects an average from March through June, 2003 when the ratio was 121:1. The 127:1 ratio
      addressed in the question represents the period from March through September, 2003.

        With additional resources, pretrial services officers would be able
    to initiate case management of defendants with extensive supervision
    conditions. Supervision plans would be established that would include
    the following:
      --provide orientation with defendants so that they are advised about
            supervision/program requirements;
      --assess defendant's needs and risks by reviewing the bail report/
            risk assessment and by completing a social services needs
            screener;
      --conduct regular warrants and criminal history checks to ensure
            there has not been a rearrest in a neighboring jurisdiction
            while on release;
      --assess and refer defendants for substance abuse, mental health
            needs, or social services where appropriate and resources
            permit;
      --execute contracts for sanctions-based substance abuse treatment
            where appropriate and resources permit;
      --monitor conditions of release throughout the case so that non-
            compliance can be reported expeditiously to the court instead
            of only on court dates;
      --respond expeditiously to non-compliance with release conditions
            through sanctions or referral to appropriate resources such as
            treatment or a request for judicial action;
      --respond to non-compliance with drug testing after three drug
            testing infractions within 30 days rather than only on court
            dates;
      --report to the court and investigate loss of contact with the
            defendant; and
      --administer and recommend incentives where appropriate.
        Question. Many Federal agencies have not received full funding for
    pay raises in the last several years. What impact does this have on the
    Pretrial Services Agency's ability to meet program goals?
        Answer. Pretrial Services Agency's ability to accomplish our
    program goals relating to Risk and Needs Assessment, Close Supervision,
    Treatment and Services, and Partnerships is directly tied to our
    ability to hire our authorized 325 FTE. Since our certification as an
    independent entity within CSOSA in August of 2000, PSA has experienced
    significant but mission-essential program growth in the areas of staff
    and contract treatment. During this short period of time, PSA has been
    very successful in incrementally establishing the necessary
    infrastructure to support our growing FTE level; and now we need to
    maintain this FTE level to successfully provide front-line services to
    defendants and accomplish our mission.
        By fiscal year 2005, the cumulative impact of the unfunded pay
    raise increment, the difference between the President's Budget and
    Congress's enacted authorization, could well be over 5 percent of
    payroll, or over $1 million. As a small agency where approximately 72
    percent of our fiscal year 2005 funding goes into salaries and
    benefits, there are few options to address this increment beyond
    reducing staffing or reducing treatment dollars, which directly impacts
    the achievement of program goals. For example, with the option utilized
    this fiscal year, fiscal year 2004, approximately 16 positions were not
    filled until February to help address the fiscal year 2004 pay raise
    increment of 2.1 percent, or $565,000 (difference between 2.0 percent
    in the budget and the 4.10 percent actual).
        Conversely, reducing available FTE will incrementally increase
    supervision caseload ratios. Higher caseload ratios, particularly in an
    area such as General Supervision, where the ratios are already too
    high, can only cause increased concern for public safety. For fiscal
    year 2005, to address the potential unfunded pay raise increment of
    approximately 1.8 percent, or $486,000.00 (difference between the 1.5
    percent in the budget and the possible parity pay with DOD at 3.5
    percent), PSA will be confronted with not being able to fill vacancies
    and/or a reduction in contract treatment funding.

                                COMMUNITY COURT

        Question. What is the role of PSA with the D.C. Superior Court's
    Community Court? Does PSA have resources that are adequate to support
    this initiative?
        Answer. The District of Columbia Superior Court launched the East
    of the River Community Court (ERCC) in September 2002, and it was
    expanded in the fall of 2003. The ERCC shifted case management from a
    traditional case processing orientation to a problem-solving system of
    supervision. The general philosophy of the Court is grounded in a
    therapeutic and restorative justice model, incorporating an active
    connection with the community. Problem-solving is achieved by assessing
    individual needs and tailoring meaningful solutions through drug
    testing, substance abuse treatment, job training, other social services
    and community service. PSA assessment and supervision practices have
    been modified to respond swiftly and frequently to assist the Court in
    making informed decisions about release conditions intended to problem-
    solve individual need and to assure appearance in court and public
    safety. Accountability is enforced by PSA to improve the defendant's
    sense of value to the community, as well as to prevent the defendant
    from becoming involved in further criminal behavior. Today, a few PSO's
    within the General Supervision program are supervising 482 defendants
    released through the ERCC, and 433 of those defendants have a drug
    testing condition.
        Managing individual needs of defendants processed through the ERCC
    involves a labor-intensive effort by PSO's. Defendants who opt for
    trial or agree to diversion are released with a variety of release
    conditions intended to support problem-solving. PSO's spend added time
    with defendants attempting to instill a desire for self-improvement and
    community awareness while maintaining the system's requirements of
    assuring defendants' return for court dates and safety of the
    community. In some instances, PSA supervises dual sets of release
    requirements for an individual defendant. Diversion agreements with the
    prosecutor and court-ordered release conditions are simultaneously
    imposed and fashioned to promote personal change. The PSOs'
    productivity levels are increased by the two sets of release
    requirements and the types of conditions imposed. Defendants need time
    to modify negative behaviors or to make retribution to the community
    through community service. As a result, the supervision period is
    lengthened. Non-compliance with problem-solving strategies prolongs the
    length of a case as PSO's attempt to work with defendants for
    successful outcomes. When defendants succeed at diversion, prosecutors
    prefer to keep their cases open for an extended period to ensure
    continuing compliance. Defendants who fail diversion opportunities and
    request a trial automatically extend the pretrial supervision period.
        PSA resources are not adequate to effectively continue under the
    community court model. Although the Court would like to expand the
    reach of the community court to other districts beyond 6D and 7D, PSA
    does not have sufficient staff or treatment dollars to support such an
    expansion. Misdemeanor cases that usually average 170 days can end up
    on the court docket for longer periods, sustaining the need for PSA
    oversight and treatment funds. Resources are stretched thin to cover
    the variety of release requirements, to manage the high-maintenance
    nature of problem-solving, and to prolong supervision to promote
    successful outcomes or to support a second period of supervision.

                                 DRUG TREATMENT

        Question. PSA last received an increase in contract drug treatment
    funding in fiscal year 2002 to address the defendant population. How
    many defendants have drug use problems? To what extent is this funding
    sufficient to meet the demand for treatment? What controls are in place
    to ensure that these resources are used most efficiently and
    effectively?
        Answer. PSA cannot currently meet the entire substance abuse
    treatment need in its supervision population. Although defendants
    frequently are not under pretrial supervision for the period of time
    necessary to complete an entire treatment regime (placement in
    detoxification, residential and outpatient treatment sometimes followed
    by transitional housing), it can reasonably be expected that the
    typical defendant in need of treatment would receive up to two
    placements while under PSA supervision.
        During fiscal year 2003, there were approximately 3,700 defendants
    who had at least three drug testing violations while under pretrial
    supervision. Defendants are referred for comprehensive substance abuse
    assessments after three positive drug tests, and approximately 96
    percent of those assessments reflect a need for treatment. PSA drug-
    using defendants in fiscal year 2003 needed approximately 7,104
    substance abuse treatment placements (3,700 defendants  2 treatment
    placements each @ 96 percent). In-house and contract treatment
    placements totaled 1,958 in fiscal year 2003, and 215 additional
    substance abuse placements were made with externally funded community-
    based providers, a total of approximately 31 percent of the potential
    need. These placements served approximately 1,200 defendants.
        PSA has established and implemented significant best practice
    controls consisting of both manual and automated processes to ensure
    that the application of contract drug treatment funding is efficiently
    and effectively optimized.
        PSA has an active contract treatment services quality control
    program in place, and quality assurance of the services is written into
    the contracts by the incorporation of the D.C. Department of Health
    standards for drug treatment facilities. Quality is a major evaluation
    factor in awarding the treatment services contracts. Each offeror is
    required to submit a quality assurance plan for providing services to
    PSA. The treatment facilities must be certified under the D.C.
    standards for a treatment facility, and evidence of that certification
    is required for award of the contracts. The treatment services
    contracts are closely monitored by the Treatment Branch, Contract
    Treatment Services Unit, Contracting Officer Technical Representatives
    (COTR's). The COTR's make scheduled and unscheduled site visits to the
    treatment facilities, inspecting the services provided and utilizing a
    quality assurance plan and checklist to ensure compliance with the
    contract terms and conditions. Issues, or potential issues, resulting
    from site visits are immediately coordinated with a PSA Contract
    Officer and addressed with the respective vendors.
        Initial treatment placements are made by the COTR's utilizing an
    automated Task Order writing subsystem, which is an on-line, real-time
    application integrated with PSA's case management system for defendants
    and the internal funds control system, producing timely, reliable, and
    accurate information. Treatment vendor invoices are received by PSA's
    Accounting Section and reconciled with the automated Task Order writing
    subsystem. This process allows for continuous maximum use of available
    funds. For defendants who are placed on probation, the COTR's
    coordinate with CSOSA to transfer the defendants into the CSP offender
    supervision program without interruption of treatment services or
    creating duplicate obligations.
        Question. How many defendants did the Pretrial Services Agency
    supervise over the course of fiscal year 2003? What was the rate of
    rearrest for pretrial defendants while under the supervision of the
    agency? What is the rearrest rate for drug users in contrast to non-
    drug users?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Pretrial Services Agency
    supervised a total of 20,948 defendants. These defendants represent
    26,589 cases, meaning that some defendants have multiple cases and have
    been placed on pretrial release and supervised more than once. This may
    occur when a defendant is on release in one case and is rearrested on a
    different case, either during the period of pretrial supervision, or
    after the defendant's period of supervision is over.
        Twelve percent of PSA's defendant population was rearrested at
    least once during the period of pretrial supervision. As would be
    expected from the research documenting the links between drug use and
    crime, drug-using defendants (defined as those with at least one
    positive drug test) have higher rearrest rates than non-drug using
    defendants. In fiscal year 2003, 17 percent of drug-using defendants
    were rearrested as compared to only 2 percent of non-drug using
    defendants.
        The fiscal year 2003 rearrest rate is marginally lower than the
    rates from the previous 2 years. In fiscal year 2001, the rearrest rate
    for all defendants was over 13 percent, with 19 percent of drug-using
    defendants rearrested, and a little over 6 percent of non-drug using
    defendants rearrested. In fiscal year 2002, the overall rearrest rate
    was over 14 percent, with over 20 percent of drug-using defendants
    rearrested, and 7 percent of non-drug using defendants rearrested.
        Question. What is the status of PSA's defendant case management
    system?
        Answer. Version 1.0 of PRISM, Pretrial's case management system,
    was deployed in March, 2002. This release supported all aspects of
    defendant supervision, case management, drug test results, and
    substance abuse treatment. Version 1.5 was deployed in January, 2003,
    and added automated case assignment and task management functions.
    Version 2.0 development effort will be completed during the 4th quarter
    of fiscal year 2004. Staff training will begin in fiscal year 2004 with
    deployment slated for 1st quarter, fiscal year 2005. Version 2.0 will
    incorporate criminal history, arrest processing, and bail reports to
    court, and will replace the Agency's legacy ABA DABA (Automated Bail
    Agency Database) and DTMS (Drug Test Management System) information
    systems.
        In future versions, we hope to automate the release order process
    and create an electronic release order. The release order is the
    initial document that places a defendant under Pretrial Services
    supervision. Currently, the release order is a multi-part paper form,
    which is prepared manually by PSA and court staff in the courtroom and
    signed by the judge. PSA staff manually enters information on the
    release order into PSA's case management system.
        Over 30 courtrooms in D.C. Superior Court prepare and forward
    release orders to PSA throughout the week. Incomplete or illegible
    release orders or orders not received by PSA are common problems.
    Breakdowns in the manual process of transmitting release orders
    ultimately result in defendants not being supervised. Timeliness in
    posting new release conditions or any bond changes is paramount to
    effective supervision. Accuracy of on-the-record release conditions is
    also essential to ensuring the appropriate release conditions are
    imposed and supervised.
        Automation of this process would create an electronic release
    order, which could be generated in the courtroom, with printed copies
    available immediately for all relevant parties. Information could be
    posted real-time to both Pretrial Services' and D.C. Superior Court's
    information systems, assuring that both systems had reliable, timely,
    and accurate information.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

                          RE-ENTRY AND SANCTION CENTER

        Question. Please provide the schedule for renovation of Karrick
    Hall and how long the agency intends to remain in this facility, as
    part of the Reservation 13 master plan.
        Answer. In September 2002, CSOSA signed a 10-year lease with the
    District of Columbia for the use of Karrick Hall as CSOSA's Re-entry
    and Sanctions Center. From September 2002 to June 2003, CSOSA, the D.C.
    government, and several stakeholders worked to resolve planning issues,
    including the transfer of control of the land from the Federal
    Government to the DC government and the siting of the CSOSA facility
    within the framework of the Reservation 13 Master Plan. In June 2003,
    CSOSA reached agreement with the City to proceed with the renovation of
    Karrick Hall. A contract for Architectural and Engineering Design and
    Construction Management was signed in September 2003 and complete
    renovations are scheduled to be complete in Spring 2005. CSOSA plans to
    continue full operations at Karrick Hall at least throughout the term
    of the existing lease.
        Karrick Hall is a 60,000 square foot 8-story building constructed
    on the grounds of the D.C. General campus circa 1961. Since 1996,
    Karrick Hall has been the home of the Assessment and Orientation
    Center. The AOC program is a model program CSOSA now operates in
    partnership with the Washington Baltimore High Intensity Drug Task
    Force program, also known as HIDTA. When Karrick Hall is complete, the
    AOC will become CSOSA's Reentry and Sanctions program.
        On February 27, 2004, the AOC vacated Karrick Hall and moved into a
    temporary location at 1301 Clifton Street, NW. The AOC will be at 1301
    Clifton until the renovation is complete, in the spring of 2005.
        The renovations include:
      --Replacing the building's infrastructure (installing all new
            plumbing, electrical, windows and exterior architectural
            features as well as a new heating and air condition systems and
            fire systems);
      --Installing two new elevators in place of the existing units;
      --Installing new restrooms and ensuring all new systems meet the
            requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other
            handicap accessibility requirements.
        When renovations are completed in Spring 2005, the Reentry and
    Sanctions Center will expand to 108 beds, which will service 1,200
    offenders and defendants annually. The program will include four male
    units, one unit dedicated to females and one unit for the dually
    diagnosed. CSOSA's Fiscal Year 2005 Budget request contains funding for
    partial-year operations of all six units in fiscal year 2005.
        We are very excited about this initiative because the AOC program
    has a proven track record of success. A study conducted by the
    University of Maryland in May 2002 found there was a 74 percent
    reduction in re-arrests 1 year following completion of the AOC program.
    Expanding the capacity of this program has obvious positive impacts on
    public safety and quality of life.

                           SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT

        Question. What role does drug treatment play in reducing
    recidivism?
        Answer. Research supports the conclusion that effective drug
    treatment plays a significant role in reducing recidivism. Nationally,
    it is estimated that drug treatment results in a 45 percent reduction
    in criminal behavior in the 2 years following successful completion of
    treatment. A similar trend is seen in research conducted on
    participants of the Baltimore/Washington High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Area (HIDTA) treatment continuum, the system on which
    CSOSA's substance abuse treatment continuum is based. The HIDTA
    program, which is grant-funded through the Office of National Drug
    Control Policy, targets geographic areas identified as having high
    concentrations of drug-related criminal activity, such as the
    Baltimore/Washington area. The evaluation of the Baltimore/Washington
    HIDTA treatment program was conducted by the University of Maryland and
    showed that the overall arrest rate for HIDTA treatment participants
    dropped 51 percent, and the arrest rate for participants of the HIDTA
    Assessment and Orientation Center, which is operated by CSOSA, dropped
    74 percent in the 12 months following successful completion of the
    program.
        Within CSOSA, we are currently developing a system to evaluate the
    impact of treatment on recidivism. The integration of an automated
    treatment tracking module with our SMART case management system during
    fiscal year 2003 allows us for the first time to analyze the impact of
    treatment on criminal behavior. During fiscal year 2003, drug related
    violations accounted for 58 percent of all technical violations
    reported for the year. We anticipate that our outcome analysis will
    mirror the findings of both the national and HIDTA outcome studies and
    will show a reduction in recidivism and technical violations amongst
    offenders who were referred to and successfully completed a continuum
    of treatment services during fiscal year 2003.
        Question. How many offenders and defendants are served by drug
    treatment, compared with the population identified as in need of
    treatment?
        Answer. CSOSA estimates that approximately 4,100 chronic substance-
    abusing offenders required treatment interventions in fiscal year 2003,
    based on the number of offenders who tested positive for cocaine,
    heroin or PCP two or more times. It is important to note that CSOSA
    also supervises offenders who test positive fewer than two times that
    are also in need of treatment services. For purposes of this analysis
    4,100 offenders will be used as a low-end estimate.
        Each offender, on average, requires 3 placements to satisfy
    treatment-programming requirements. For example, offenders with chronic
    substance abuse histories are most often referred to detoxification
    followed by residential and outpatient services.
        Using the estimates described above, CSOSA requires the ability to
    make a minimum of 12,300 substance abuse placements per year (4,100
    offenders  3 treatment placements) to meet the population's need. The
    fiscal year 2003 appropriation enabled CSOSA to make 2,021 treatment
    placements, or just 16 percent of the total estimated need.
        Approximately 40 percent of offenders needing treatment are
    supervised at the Intensive or Maximum level, indicating a relatively
    high level of risk to public safety. CSOSA has focused treatment
    resources on this population to meet a higher percentage of need among
    the highest-risk offenders.
        Question. What kinds of programs are people placed in? Residential
    or out-patient? How do you determine which service providers offenders
    are referred to?
        Answer. CSOSA currently provides the following substance abuse
    services:
      --7-Day Medically Monitored Detoxification,
      --28-Day Intensive Residential Treatment,
      --120-Day Residential Treatment,
      --120-Day Residential Treatment and Transitional Housing for Women
            with Children,
      --180-Day Residential Treatment for Dually-Diagnosed Substance
            Abusers,
      --90-Day Supervised Transitional Housing,
      --Intensive Outpatient and Outpatient Treatment,
      --Traffic Alcohol Education Services.
        In addition to the services above, CSOSA also provides the
    following in-house interventions:
      --Substance Abuse Education Groups,
      --Assessment/Orientation Groups (Pre-treatment services),
      --Anger Management Groups,
      --Sanction Groups.
        The level of treatment recommended for each offender is determined
    by an evaluation conducted by CSOSA staff. The evaluation considers a
    variety of factors including pattern of drug use; amenability to
    treatment; prior treatment history; risk to public safety; and
    employment/living status.
        Question. How does CSOSA coordinate supervised release with drug
    treatment and counseling if those services are not provided at the
    halfway house?
        Answer. CSOSA does not provide treatment services to offenders
    residing in the halfway house on ``inmate'' status. For those
    individuals, the Bureau of Prisons provides contract treatment
    services. When the individual is released, the individual continues
    treatment under CSOSA's contract with the same vendor.
        CSOSA staff assess offenders who reside in the halfway house on
    ``released'' status (parolee, supervised releasee or probationer under
    a Public Law placement) to identify their specific treatment needs. The
    offenders are permitted to leave the halfway house to attend substance
    abuse treatment sessions at the identified treatment program. Upon
    leaving the halfway house, the offender's treatment continues and, if
    needed, the offender is referred to the next level of care.
        Offenders who enter supervision with no prior halfway house stay
    are assessed for treatment needs as part of CSOSA's intake and case
    planning process. If the offender has a release condition requiring
    treatment, placement is initiated at that time.
        Once the individual is under CSOSA supervision, the Community
    Supervision Officer (CSO) is responsible for ensuring that the offender
    is in full compliance with the treatment plan, sanctioning the offender
    for any behavioral non-compliant acts, meeting with the treatment
    professional to facilitate offender compliance, monitoring the offender
    until successful completion of treatment, or referring the offender
    back to the releasing authority if continued non-compliance with
    treatment results in removal from treatment or unsatisfactory
    compliance.

           SUCCESS RATE OF WOMEN OFFENDERS RE-ENTERING THE COMMUNITY

        Question. What specific steps or initiatives are underway to enable
    successful re-entry of women?
        Answer. Currently, CSOSA's Community Supervision Program (CSP) has
    several gender-specific programs to address the needs of female
    offenders. CSP contracts for residential placements in gender-specific
    residential programs, such as Demeter House, which treats chemically-
    addicted mothers, who may be accompanied by their children while in the
    program. The Substance Abuse and Treatment Branch also provides weekly
    in-house group sessions for women. In addition, the Transitional
    Intervention for Parole Supervision (TIPS) program has a community
    supervision officer on-site at the Fairview Community Corrections
    Center to assist women with reentry issues. The Fairview CCC also may
    be used for public law placements and as an intermediate sanction for
    high risk/needs women offenders.
        CSP is working to expand gender-specific programs. The expanded
    Reentry and Sanctions Center will contain a unit for female offenders.
    Additionally, a team of managers received training at the National
    Institute of Corrections Academy last year on implementing effective
    agency-wide programs for female offenders. The members of this team now
    are leading a work group to implement these strategies around such
    issues as victimization and trauma, mental health and medical problems,
    family and child rearing, and economic self-sufficiency. The Agency is
    working to:
      --Implement additional, in-house gender-specific group counseling
            programs and training group facilitators;
      --Develop a comprehensive training curriculum that provides
            information/tools for line staff and administrators to
            effectively manage female offenders;
      --Compile a resource guide to ensure that Community Supervision
            Officers are aware of, and have access to, available in-house,
            community and government programs;
      --Work with our faith-based partners to female women offenders are
            linked to mentors;
      --Strengthen partnerships with the many community organizations and
            government agencies that provide services to this population;
            and
      --Arrange child-care opportunities with our community partners to
            allow female offenders to engage in programming and supervision
            activities.
        Question. Does CSOSA coordinate with the Child and Family Services
    Agency (CFSA) or D.C. Public Schools to follow-up on women re-entering
    family life?
        Answer. CSOSA makes every effort to connect returning offenders
    with programs and services that can help them achieve successful
    reintegration in the community. While there is no agency policy
    requiring coordination, Community Supervision Officers (CSO's)
    informally confer and collaborate with the city's social services
    agencies on cases in which there is a common interest. The CSO may need
    to be aware of services the offender or her children receive from CFSA,
    or the CSO may initiate referral for such services. Typically, if the
    offender needs educational programming, s/he will be referred to a
    Learning Lab for assessment. The Learning Lab may refer the offender to
    D.C. Public Schools evening programs if appropriate.

                     CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

        Question. Is the CJCC well-equipped in its current status to
    continue to aide in the creation of seamless criminal justice services
    that enhance public safety and maximize resources?
        Answer. Over the course of 2003-2004, the CJCC has been able to
    strengthen its position within the criminal justice community as a
    resource tool and a catalyst for system reform, institutional
    modification and program analysis. In January of 2003, the member
    agencies of the CJCC made a commitment to address a variety of issues
    by completing a multi-year strategic plan. These issues are being
    addressed through committees and workgroups using a process of careful
    investigation and recommendations. CJCC provides support to these
    workgroups through research, data collection and tracking. The CJCC is
    now in the process of completing its second, annual report for fiscal
    year 2003.
        There is a general improvement in the trust and solicitation of
    multiagency approaches to problem solving which can only make the city
    services stronger and more efficient. Through the CJCC there has been
    the successful establishment of an infrastructure to support these
    multiagency efforts, report on progress and measure success. The
    support of the Mayor, D.C. Council, OMB and Congress has provided a
    strong foundation for the development of the CJCC.

                      RE-ARREST RATE AND PAROLE REVOCATION

        Question. Would you please submit to the committee a comparison of
    the re-arrest rates and parole revocation hearings in the District to
    other jurisdictions of similar size? (Please coordinate response with
    PDS).
        Answer. The percentage of offenders arrested while under CSOSA
    supervision was 18 percent in fiscal year 2002 and 15 percent in fiscal
    year 2003. Although comparable neighboring jurisdictions (i.e.,
    Baltimore and Richmond) do not report their rearrest data in a similar
    fashion, we will soon move to a more comparable reporting format--
    recidivism rates measured over a 24- to 36-month period for entry and
    exit cohort offender populations.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ In January 2003, the Virginia Department of Corrections
    released a 3-year recidivism study indicating that nearly 30 percent of
    roughly 9,000 offenders returned to incarceration. Of those who
    returned, the greatest share returned within the first year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To accomplish the above reporting objective, CSOSA is exploring a
    data sharing agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This
    particular agreement will enable the agency to implement its recidivism
    studies by verifying and tracking all known and reported rearrests
    contained in the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Once
    in place, ORE will collect and verify all known arrests for stratified
    random samples of entry and exit cohorts. We hope to begin reporting
    our 24- and 36-month rearrest rates beginning in the summer of 2005 and
    on a regular basis thereafter.
        Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, the United States
    Parole Commission reported 768, 1,072, and 1,240 revocation hearings
    for D.C. offenders respectively. These hearings fall into three
    categories--institutional, expedited, and local. Only local revocation
    hearings require the presence of CSOSA's CSO's for introduction of
    facts.\2\ A large share of these revocations resulted from hearings
    that were requested following an offender's persistent drug use and/or
    technical violations regardless of rearrest or prosecutorial decision
    to present charges to the judiciary.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ USPC [actual] local revocation hearings were 481 in fiscal year
    2001, 660 in fiscal year 2002, and 562 in fiscal year 2003.
        \3\ The Virginia study also indicated that nearly of third of
    recidivists were revoked to incarceration following technical violation
    and the remaining following arrests for a new charge.

                            Public Defender Service

    STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., DIRECTOR
        Senator DeWine. Let me invite our second panel up, which is
    one witness. Mr. Ronald Sullivan, Jr. is Director of the Public
    Defender Service in the District of Columbia. He was appointed
    Director in June 2002. Mr. Sullivan was in private practice
    here in the District and was a visiting attorney for the Law
    Society of Kenya. He sat on the committee charged with drafting
    a new constitution of that country.
        Mr. Sullivan is leaving the Public Defender Service this
    summer to take a professorship at Yale. We welcome him.
        Mr. Sullivan, thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you very much.
        Senator DeWine. Would you like to make a statement? And
    then we will have some questions.
        Mr. Sullivan. Indeed, I would.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I come before you today in support of the fiscal year 2005
    budget request on behalf of the Public Defender Service for the
    District of Columbia, or PDS as we are commonly known as in the
    criminal justice system.
        Throughout its history, PDS has maintained its reputation
    as the best public defender service in the country, local or
    Federal. PDS is a legal services provider that this Congress,
    this subcommittee, and this City can be proud of.
        Our track record, both historically and recently, speaks
    for itself. Indeed, just this past summer the United States
    Supreme Court appointed one of our attorneys to a case of
    national importance. The case regarded the construction and
    application of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which forbids State
    officials from depriving individuals of their Constitutional
    rights under color of State law.
        The exquisitely graceful brief produced by our attorney on
    behalf of a prison inmate proved convincing. Last Thursday, the
    Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 opinion, adopting PDS's position.
    I ask you, when was the last time you recall this Supreme Court
    agreeing 9-0 on anything?

                     PDS'S FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

        With this backdrop, I move to PDS's fiscal year 2005
    request. PDS requests $29.8 million and 227.5 FTE in direct
    budget authority. This request includes $2.3 million as our
    first ever capital investment in information technology.
        The investment will provide for development of our case
    data management systems. It will enhance our security over
    privileged attorney/client information, and it will reduce our
    risk of losing client information in the event of a local
    disaster.
        Indeed, recently, the Cook County defender office in
    Chicago was virtually destroyed by fire. This sort of disaster
    can occur, and if the institutional defender service is not
    prepared, we risk grinding the criminal justice system to a
    halt.
        Coupled with this technology investment, we are targeting
    to improve PDS's operational efficiencies in the areas of
    program planning and development, administration, human
    resources, and financial management. There is far more detail
    in my written submission, but suffice it to say PDS's skeletal
    professional support staff is woefully inadequate to support an
    agency of this size and scope.

                     PDS'S FISCAL YEAR 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Now, briefly to fiscal year 2004 accomplishments: As this
    subcommittee knows from recent press accounts, PDS, in its
    class action litigation against the District, recently filed a
    motion to place the D.C. Youth Services Administration in
    receivership as a consequence of its nearly two-decade long
    neglect of the District's most needy children. The District's
    lack of compliance with dozens of court orders to date is not
    acceptable.
        In addition to its class action litigation, PDS represents
    individual citizens one at a time when they are faced with
    criminal charges.
        One example illustrates how PDS affects the lives of D.C.
    citizens. Recently we represented a 70-year-old man. Let me
    call him John, so as not to further the injustice brought upon
    him. John was charged with felony gun possession. He had never
    been in trouble before. He worked part-time as a special police
    officer and was licensed to carry a handgun while on duty and
    to and from his home to work.
        One day after work, he stopped at the headquarters--the
    headquarters of the special police officer's department--to
    pick up some work related paperwork. He forgot to remove his
    handgun before walking into the building, since, technically
    speaking, he did not work at the headquarters.
        As a result of this mistake, John was arrested and faced
    the possibility of a felony conviction with a 5-year prison
    sentence. The conviction would have cost him his job, his means
    to supplement his retirement, and his spotless reputation,
    which he had built over 70 years.
        Fortunately, John was represented by a well-trained public
    defender. The result--it took John's jury 10 minutes to elect a
    foreperson and render a verdict of not guilty.
        PDS seeks fairness in every case it handles, and this is
    but one example of how PDS affects the lives of concrete people
    and the administration of justice in our Nation's capital.
    PDS's mission to represent indigent citizens in the District
    with diligence and zeal is clear and well defined. We do it
    responsibly. We do it efficiently. We do it cost effectively,
    but most importantly we do it well.
        The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
    has been and continues to be this country's model defender
    agency. With your support, we will continue in this proud
    tradition.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I see the yellow light is on, which indicates that my time
    is nearly expired. I thank you for your time and attention. I
    would be happy to answer any questions that this subcommittee
    may have.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr.

        Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My
    name is Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., and I am the Director of the Public
    Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). I come before you
    today to provide testimony in support of PDS's fiscal year 2005 budget
    request. We thank you for your support of our programs in previous
    years.
        The Public Defender Service, unique among local public defender
    offices in that it is federally funded,\1\ has continued to maintain
    its strong reputation in the area of providing quality criminal defense
    representation in the District of Columbia. Just last week, the United
    States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 opinion, ruled for a PDS client in a
    case briefed and argued by a PDS attorney at the request of the Court.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ As a result of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
    Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the ``Revitalization Act''), PDS
    was established as a federally funded, independent District of Columbia
    organization. In accordance with the Revitalization Act, PDS transmits
    its budget and receives its appropriation as a transfer through the
    Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) appropriation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This case is just the latest successful example of PDS's long
    history of providing quality defense representation. PDS has always
    been committed to its mission of providing and promoting
    constitutionally mandated legal representation to adults and children
    facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia who cannot afford
    a lawyer, and we have had numerous significant accomplishments in
    pursuit of that mission. However, before PDS became a federally funded
    entity, we did not always have sufficient funding to allow us to
    achieve as high a level of proficiency in our administrative
    functioning as we are known for in our legal representation. PDS's
    relatively new status as a federally funded entity \2\ has created the
    opportunity for us to focus more on enhancing our administrative
    functions: in the past 7 years, PDS has established a human resources
    office, an information technology office, and a budget and finance
    office where none previously existed. To continue this ``administrative
    maturation,'' PDS has a need for a more sophisticated structure that
    will permit not only the integration of these functions with each other
    and with PDS's program functions, but will permit the organization to
    better monitor performance and to achieve even greater results. In
    furtherance of these goals, PDS has already adopted Federal best
    practices in a number of support areas, and we are preparing to adopt
    additional Federal best practices in even more areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See n. 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is for these reasons that PDS seeks funding for our sole fiscal
    year 2005 requested initiative, the Program Management and Performance
    Integration Initiative. For fiscal year 2005, PDS requests $29,833,000
    and 227.5 FTE in direct budget authority, which includes a request for
    8.5 new FTE and $3,714,000 to support this new initiative. This
    proposed increase in personnel resources and funding--PDS's first ever
    Federal capital funding request--is consistent with the President's
    emphasis on achieving measurable results and improving operational
    efficiency.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Since undertaking in 1970 its intended role as a model public
    defender, PDS has developed and maintained a reputation as the best
    public defender office in the country--local or Federal. It has become
    the national standard bearer and the benchmark by which other public
    defense organizations often measure themselves. In a first ever
    employee survey conducted just 6 weeks ago, 99 percent of responding
    staff reported being proud of working at PDS. The independent firm that
    conducted the survey informed us that PDS received one of the highest
    overall scores the firm had ever observed in assessing staff commitment
    to an organization's mission. Congress and the District of Columbia can
    also be proud of this local defender office for our Nation's capital.
        In the District of Columbia, PDS and the District of Columbia
    Courts share the responsibility for providing constitutionally mandated
    legal representation to people who cannot pay for their own attorney.
    Under the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Act (CJA), the
    District of Columbia Courts appoint PDS generally to the more serious,
    more complex, resource-intensive, and time-consuming criminal cases.
    The Courts assign the remaining, less serious cases and the majority of
    the misdemeanor and traffic cases to a panel of approximately 350 pre-
    selected private attorneys (``CJA attorneys''). Approximately 100
    lawyers on staff at PDS are appointed to represent:
      --a significant percentage of people facing the most serious felony
            charges;
      --a substantial percentage of individuals litigating criminal
            appeals;
      --the majority of the juveniles facing serious delinquency charges;
      --nearly 100 percent of all people facing parole revocation; and
      --the majority of people in the mental health system who are facing
            involuntary civil commitment.
        While much of our work is devoted to ensuring that no innocent
    person is ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, we also provide legal
    representation to children in the delinquency system who have learning
    disabilities and require special educational accommodations under the
    Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act,\3\ people with mental
    illness who are facing involuntary civil commitment, and recovering
    substance abusers participating in the highly successful Drug Court
    treatment program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 20 U.S.C.  1400, et seq.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PDS has also provided training for other District of Columbia
    defense attorneys and investigators who represent those who cannot
    afford an attorney, and provided support to the District of Columbia
    Courts. In addition, PDS has developed innovative approaches to
    representation, from instituting measures to address the problems of
    clients returning to the community who have been incarcerated to
    creating a one-of-a-kind electronic case tracking system. Other public
    defender offices across the country have sought counsel from PDS as
    they have used our work as a pattern for theirs. As Federal best
    practices continue to spread to the State and local level, PDS is
    ideally situated to become a model for how a public defender office can
    be operated most effectively in the 21st century.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST

    Program Management and Performance Integration Initiative
        For fiscal year 2005, PDS requests $29.8 million and 227.5 FTE in
    total direct budget authority. This request includes $2.3 million as
    our first capital investment in information technology. The investment
    will allow us to expand our case and data management systems to provide
    more efficient attorney services. Software development and deployment,
    and associated hardware and licensing will enhance security of
    privileged attorney-client information and reduce our risk of loss of
    client information in the event of a local disaster.
        Recent experience in Chicago drives home the importance to the
    smooth operation of the criminal justice system of ensuring that the
    defender organization can continue to operate even if its offices are
    damaged or its computer systems are destroyed. Last fall, the building
    housing the Cook County defender's main offices was virtually destroyed
    in a fire. Had the Cook County defender lacked the capacity to retrieve
    data from backup sources and create sufficient off site work terminals,
    the criminal justice system would have stalled, and representation
    would have been rendered ineffective.
        PDS is also working to improve its operational efficiencies. PDS
    seeks $1.4 million as the resources needed to reach a level of
    sophistication in program planning and evaluation, administration,
    human resources, and financial management that corresponds to PDS's
    reputation for quality defense representation. As explained in detail
    in our fiscal year 2005 Congressional Budget Justification, the $1.4
    million in requested support would be used for:
      --program data collection and analysis;
      --data system integration;
      --performance planning;
      --performance measurement;
      --compliance with Federal standards for systems, accounting, and
            reporting; and
      --coordination of electronic financial, personnel, and performance
            records.
        Historically, PDS has maintained skeletal support in these critical
    administrative areas; however, increased performance assessment and
    accountability demands require that we improve our capacity in those
    areas. This need was also reflected in the results of the PDS employee
    survey; our scores were slightly lower on questions related to the
    quality of our administrative operations. Additional support for PDS
    programs and PDS attorneys will increase the potential for greater
    efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out PDS's mission. One of
    PDS's goals is to maximize the time that attorneys, investigators, and
    social workers spend doing that for which they are best suited--
    developing creative and effective ways to pursue justice in the
    District of Columbia.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2004 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        During fiscal year 2004, in addition to handling a variety of
    criminal, juvenile, parole, mental health, and other legal matters, PDS
    has been very successful in instituting changes to improve the overall
    quality of the District of Columbia justice system.
    Fiscal Year 2004 Initiative: Appellate Response Initiative
        In fiscal year 2004, Congress and the President provided a program
    increase for PDS totaling .5 FTE, and $100,000 in support of one new
    initiative--PDS's Appellate Response Initiative. PDS used the funding
    to hire a new attorney in the Appellate Division, where the workload
    has increased by approximately 50 percent since the passage of the 1997
    Revitalization Act without any corresponding increase in staff levels.
    The newest Appellate Division attorney began working just over 2 weeks
    ago; her work will contribute toward reducing the backlog of unfiled
    appellate briefs. This backlog is due to the staffing shortage and to
    the substantially shorter briefing schedules now being imposed
    generally in appellate cases by the District of Columbia Court of
    Appeals.
        This additional resource will enhance the ability of attorneys in
    the Appellate Division to meet their obligations, which include
    providing constitutionally mandated appellate legal representation to
    individuals who cannot afford an attorney, responding to requests from
    the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court for
    amicus curiae (``friend of the court'') briefs on complex or unusual
    issues in criminal cases, and devoting a significant amount of time to
    training both PDS and non-PDS lawyers.

                        GENERAL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

    Criminal Justice System Reforms
        PDS has remained vigilant in protecting the rights of the indigent
    in the District of Columbia criminal justice system in old cases and in
    new ones.
                Well-being of Children
        Throughout fiscal year 2003 and continuing in fiscal year 2004, PDS
    has drawn renewed attention to the conditions under which children live
    who have been committed to the care of the District of Columbia through
    the juvenile justice system. All experts agree that proper intervention
    in the lives of these children at this juncture is key to breaking the
    cycle of involvement in the system. Current conditions for committed
    children not only fail to advance the cause of reducing recidivism;
    current conditions actually promote recidivism among these children.
        As a result of PDS's tireless 18-year effort in a case known as
    Jerry M., the plight of committed children has been the object of
    intense examination in the media, in the political arena, and just last
    week in hearings before Superior Court Judge Dixon. In these hearings,
    PDS and co-counsel are seeking to have the District's Youth Services
    Administration put into receivership to finally produce the concrete
    changes necessary to save these children and protect the community.
    Whatever the outcome of this litigation, the plight of these most
    vulnerable children will improve because this case has put YSA on
    notice that the city and the public are watching. Through this lawsuit,
    juvenile justice experts have had an opportunity to examine the
    children's living conditions and recommend concrete actions that YSA or
    a receiver will be able to take to immediately improve the well being
    of committed children.
        PDS has carried out this litigation while simultaneously providing
    services that address every aspect of a child's involvement with the
    court system in innumerable individual cases and in innumerable ways.
    Among the most important have been: (1) developing qualified attorneys
    to represent children by generating hours of training for court-
    appointed counsel who practice in the new Family Court; (2) increasing
    the services to children with educational disabilities through
    litigation handled by PDS lawyers with expertise in special education
    advocacy; and (3) working collaboratively with a wide variety of
    organizations to help children transition back to the community. This
    last effort is a direct result of a fiscal year 2002 initiative
    establishing our Community Re-entry Project, which carries on to this
    day.
        In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, PDS approached Catholic University
    about providing services to girls committed to the care of the District
    of Columbia. With PDS's experience and expertise, a proposal has been
    developed for creating a group home for girls on the university's
    campus, serviced by the university's graduate programs. The proposal
    includes long-term involvement by the university in the lives of these
    girls, or what experts refer to as ``after-care.'' The proposal calls
    for providing school services, health care, mental health services,
    family services, and mentorship not only while the girls reside on
    campus but also after the girls leave the group home and transition
    back into our community. Such a wrap-around approach to caring for
    committed children could be developed at every university in this city.
    The potential of such programs for saving the lives of District of
    Columbia is enormous.
        PDS is committed to staying on the forefront of looking for ways to
    improve the treatment of children involved in our court system.
    Fairness in the Criminal Justice System
        A logical outcome of PDS's vigorous pursuit of its mission is the
    attention PDS devotes to identifying and addressing questions related
    to fairness in the criminal justice system. PDS champions this cause in
    every single case it handles. Because these are too numerous to
    describe, we focus on three cases and one project that are
    illustrative.
        Special police officer.--Recently in the Superior Court for the
    District of Columbia, our client, a 70-year-old former sergeant in the
    Marine Corps, was charged with felony gun possession. Our client had
    never been in trouble before. He operated his own security business and
    worked as a part time special police officer. He was licensed to carry
    a handgun while on duty and while traveling between his home and his
    work. One day on his way to work, he stopped at a District government
    office to drop off a form to renew his business license, forgetting
    that he was wearing his gun in its holster. As a result of this
    innocent mistake, he was arrested and charged. He faced the possibility
    of a felony conviction and 5-year prison sentence. The conviction would
    have cost him his business--his means to supplement his retirement
    income. Fortunately, he was represented by a well-trained and dedicated
    public defender. The result--it only took his jury 10 minutes to elect
    a foreperson and render a verdict--not guilty.
        Detention order reversed.--Another example involved appellate and
    trial representation. Recently, PDS represented a young man charged
    with murder in an appeal from the trial court's decision to hold him in
    jail until his trial. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial judge's
    ruling that there was sufficient reliable evidence to justify holding
    our client in jail until his trial. What the trial court, the Court of
    Appeals, and PDS did not know at the time this appeal was argued was
    that the prosecutor had failed to reveal all the relevant facts during
    the hearing before the trial judge. Through tenacious litigation and a
    persistent search for the truth, PDS uncovered evidence making it clear
    that the government's eyewitness was very suspect: the government's
    eyewitness was not simply a bystander as the trial court had been led
    to believe, but, rather, the witness had participated in shooting the
    victim and had only implicated PDS's client as part of an effort to
    secure a deal with the government. Once PDS uncovered the truth, PDS
    undertook consultations at the highest levels with the United States
    Attorney's Office, resulting in a very unusual joint motion to vacate
    the Court of Appeals opinion, an opinion that was rendered on a
    compromised set of facts. The result--the opinion was vacated, the
    integrity of the court was preserved, and truth--and thus justice--
    prevailed. Later, the United States Attorney's Office, after weighing
    the merits of the murder case itself, dismissed the charges against the
    PDS client altogether.
        Erroneous eyewitness identification.--Finally, PDS has been
    advancing the position for several years that eyewitness
    identifications can be inaccurate. Recent studies of cases where DNA
    has exonerated individuals have demonstrated that in the vast majority,
    eyewitnesses were mistaken in their identifications. Indeed, we know
    that defendants in the District of Columbia have been wrongfully
    convicted as the result of erroneous eyewitness identifications: more
    than a decade ago, a Superior Court jury convicted a former PDS client
    of multiple felonies in large part because of mistaken eyewitness
    testimony. After spending a year in prison, our client was exonerated
    by DNA evidence. Cases like these undermine public confidence in our
    criminal justice system. And yet, every single day, District of
    Columbia courts are allowing juries to evaluate eyewitness testimony
    without accurate information about its limitations.
        Over the past 30 years, social scientists have identified many of
    the specific reasons that eyewitnesses make mistakes. For example,
    studies have shown that a witness's subjective confidence in the
    strength of her identification has virtually no correlation with the
    accuracy of the identification. Unfortunately, the lay public,
    uninformed that social science and empirical evidence undermine
    reliance on such evidence, routinely misjudges what weight to give
    eyewitness testimony. Introduction of accurate social science evidence
    into the courtroom, and the use of jury instructions that accurately
    reflect this science, would go a long way toward preventing these kinds
    of errors.
        PDS has already begun to lay the groundwork to update this sort of
    ungrounded legal thinking so that criminal cases will be decided on the
    basis of reliable science. PDS has developed model instructions,
    identified experts, and most recently conducted a jury survey to
    demonstrate conclusively to jurists in the District of Columbia that
    the average juror is not familiar with current scientific research
    regarding eyewitness identification and that jurors can benefit from
    the testimony of experts when evaluating eyewitness evidence. Bringing
    the law in the District of Columbia in line with more than 16 States,
    including Alabama, Arizona, California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas;
    multiple Federal circuits; and the United States Army Court of Criminal
    Appeals is yet another example of PDS's ongoing efforts to provide
    quality representation.
        These are but a small sample of how PDS positively affects people's
    lives and the administration of justice here in the Nation's capital.

                         OTHER PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        PDS engaged in a number of activities during fiscal year 2004 that
    improved the overall administration of justice or that had significant
    implications for individual clients.
    Appellate Division
        The Appellate Division's appellate litigation has impact throughout
    the District's criminal justice system as decisions in their cases
    often establish or clarify the standards trial court judges and
    litigants must follow in criminal and juvenile cases. The complex and
    novel legal issues the Division is called upon to address therefore are
    best handled by experienced and talented attorneys--which the Division
    has no lack of. As previously noted, in fiscal year 2003, even the
    highest court in the land looked to the Appellate Division for
    assistance.
        Supreme Court litigation.--The Supreme Court of the United States
    appointed an attorney from the Division to represent an incarcerated
    man where the Federal courts of appeals had issued conflicting opinions
    on the applicability of a rule to lawsuits challenging the conditions
    of confinement, but not implicating the fact or duration of
    confinement, i.e., matters lying at the core of habeas corpus
    jurisprudence. The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously in favor of
    the arguments advanced by the PDS attorney.
        Failure to disclose bias.--In a case in which for 10 years the
    Appellate Division challenged the United States Attorney's Office's
    refusal to comply with its obligation to provide exculpatory
    information, the trial court issued an order granting a new trial for a
    client whose trial on a murder charge was marred by secret payments
    from the government to the sole eyewitness and by a prosecutor who
    incorrectly argued to the jury that the government had done nothing to
    benefit the witness. The Appellate Division obtained two reversals of
    trial court post-conviction rulings before the trial court ultimately
    decided that PDS's post-conviction pleadings warranted a new trial.
        Prosecutorial misconduct.--In another lengthy case involving
    exculpatory evidence, the Appellate Division advanced First Amendment
    claims to convince the United States District Court for the District of
    Columbia to unseal the post-conviction proceedings in a Federal court
    conspiracy case. The court documents in that case included, among other
    things, a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
    report concluding that a prosecutor had committed misconduct by
    misusing government funds to pay government witnesses and their
    families and friends. The District Court ultimately ruled in PDS's
    favor in November, after Appellate Division lawyers had been litigating
    for almost 2 years to allow the light of public scrutiny to shine on
    court proceedings.
        The Appellate Division has been seeking a new trial on behalf of
    that same client as a result of gross misconduct by the same former
    Assistant United States Attorney whose malfeasance is detailed in the
    now-unsealed OPR report. Among other claims, our motion shows that the
    prosecutor misused a fund for the payment of court witnesses to provide
    secret payments to witnesses at the trial of our client. This
    misconduct parallels some of the misconduct that the Justice
    Department's own internal investigation uncovered in the Federal court
    case.
        Government admissions.--In still another case involving the
    government's duty of fairness, the District of Columbia Court of
    Appeals ruled that certain statements in a search warrant affidavit
    endorsed by an Assistant United States Attorney constituted government
    admissions and could be introduced by a PDS client at his trial. This
    ruling is important because it meant that the government would pay an
    evidentiary price for taking opposite positions on critical factual
    questions in two different proceedings. The case is also important
    because it is one of the most developed decisions on the question of
    when government submissions in court constitute admissions.
        Attorney-client privilege.--In In re PDS, the Court of Appeals
    wrote an opinion that may be one of the most extensive discussions of
    an issue of national importance--namely the scope of the crime fraud
    exception to the attorney-client privilege. In this case, a trial judge
    had held PDS in civil contempt (but stayed execution of any penalty
    upon PDS's representation that it would comply with the court ruling if
    affirmed on appeal) for refusing to disclose information it believed to
    be protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court of Appeals
    concluded that PDS was acting within the highest standards of the bar
    in investigating the case as it had, and that the information held by
    the PDS lawyer was protected by the attorney-client privilege because
    the elements of the crime fraud exception had not been shown.
        Habeas corpus litigation.--In a series of cases involving Appellate
    and Special Litigation Division attorneys, we have been litigating the
    question of whether District of Columbia judges have habeas corpus
    jurisdiction over cases involving clients with District of Columbia law
    issues, but who are incarcerated outside the District. We have
    litigated this question in both the District of Columbia Court of
    Appeals and in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
    Columbia Circuit. The question is now pending before the United States
    Supreme Court in a separate case. The question is immensely important
    to our clients and to District of Columbia citizens, because in the
    wake of the Revitalization Act, District of Columbia prisoners were
    moved from the now closed Lorton facility to non-District facilities.
    Because these prisoners were sentenced in the District's courts for
    violations of local District of Columbia laws, and because their parole
    is governed by laws unique to the District of Columbia and generally
    involves facts that occurred in the District of Columbia, the most
    logical forum for hearing District prisoner claims is the District of
    Columbia courts where the bench and bar have substantial expertise in
    addressing District law questions. In fact, the District of Columbia
    government has supported PDS's position--not the Federal Government's--
    in this litigation.
    Special Litigation Division
        The Special Litigation Division's focus on systemic issues in the
    District of Columbia justice system leads it to litigate those issues
    before every court in the District of Columbia--the Superior Court and
    Court of Appeals in the local system, and the District Court, the Court
    of Appeals, and the Supreme Court in the Federal system. These are some
    of the highlights of our litigation:
        Conviction of the innocent.--With the advent of DNA testing, we now
    have evidence that the American criminal justice system sometimes
    produces demonstrably wrong results--innocent people are convicted, and
    the real culprit goes free. DNA testing is a powerful tool for catching
    these mistakes, but its scope is limited to the few cases in which
    biological evidence is available, can be tested, and is connected to
    the crime. For every DNA exoneration, there are countless cases where
    testing cannot help because no DNA was left at the scene, the
    biological evidence was too degraded to obtain a conclusive result, or
    the evidence that was once there has been lost or destroyed.
        In order to effectively address the recurring, institutional
    problems that contribute to the conviction of the innocent, PDS's
    Special Litigation Division has focused on two major problems revealed
    by the DNA exonerations: common misperceptions about the reliability of
    eyewitness identification evidence, as described above, and juror
    misunderstanding of the demonstrated phenomenon of ``false
    confessions''--situations in which someone who did not commit the crime
    admits to it anyway. PDS's Special Litigation Division has marshaled a
    variety of resources on these subjects, including social science
    research, testifying experts, surveys of potential jurors to determine
    the reason for their failures to properly understand these subjects,
    and information about the causes of wrongful convictions around the
    country, in order to help the courts begin to address these problems
    systematically. The focus of these projects is to allow the defense to
    point out potential flaws in the reliability of seemingly solid
    evidence, so that the adversarial system will work more efficiently and
    not continue to produce wrongful convictions at such an alarming rate.
        Unfair delay in release from jail.--Another recurring problem in
    the District of Columbia's criminal justice system is its failure to
    release people who have been found not guilty after trial or whose
    charges have been dismissed. While local corrections officials have
    asserted some need to ``check''--often for several days--to ensure that
    the right person is being released and that the case really was
    dismissed, other systems around the country have managed to do this
    before the charges are dismissed so that people can be released
    directly from the courtroom. Los Angeles, for example, has developed a
    model procedure that ensures that people with no pending charges are
    not held in jail unnecessarily.
        The Special Litigation Division has contacted local corrections
    officials and attempted to educate them on the extreme unfairness and
    likely illegality of the current system, and has prepared model
    pleadings for lawyers at PDS to use to attempt to secure speedy release
    for clients who are no longer facing criminal charges. Because local
    officials have proven unreceptive, however, PDS also has been
    cooperating with the lawyers litigating a class action lawsuit against
    the District to address this issue.
        Special education services for youth at the D.C. Jail.--The Federal
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act \4\ was enacted to ensure
    ``that all children with disabilities have available a free appropriate
    public education that emphasizes special and related services designed
    to meet their unique needs.'' The youth housed at the District's jail
    are clearly entitled to these services--and need them most
    desperately--but are not receiving anything close to what the law
    requires because the District's public school system and the D.C.
    Department of Corrections do not have any comprehensive system in place
    for identifying those youth who are entitled to special education
    services at the jail, and for providing those services to them. PDS's
    Special Litigation Division is currently seeking to compel the
    District's school system and Department of Corrections to provide these
    important services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 20 U.S.C.  1400, et seq.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Civil Legal Services Unit
        Special education services for children in delinquency cases.--PDS
    continues to meet the need of children in the delinquency system for
    special education advocacy. The Unit's attorneys specialize in advocacy
    under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which
    mandates special accommodations in public schools for children who
    cannot be adequately educated in a traditional classroom setting due to
    a learning disability or other challenge. The Unit's attorneys ensure
    that children receive an appropriate diagnostic assessment and work
    with the school system to secure alternative educational programs. This
    past year, the Unit doubled the number of PDS juvenile clients who are
    receiving appropriate special education services and treatment in
    community schools and non-correctional facilities as an alternative to
    detention and commitment.

    Offender Rehabilitation Division
        Our Offender Rehabilitation Division offers clients access to
    resources they often could not find on their own. The benefits to the
    clients come in many areas, including employment, education, and
    housing.
        Employment.--Over many years, a former star athlete on a
    professional team lost everything--his job, his family, his home, his
    friends, and his pride--to cocaine. He began selling drugs, he was
    arrested, and he wouldn't accept anyone's help before he was referred
    to ORD. At the time our staff became involved, he didn't even have
    enough money for a $10 ID card. Through ORD's intervention, he gained
    the courage to interview for a job at a local trade association where
    he began an intensive job training and parenthood program. The result--
    he graduated from the program and has gone on to be a successful
    fundraiser for the association. He has not only gone from being
    involved in the criminal justice system to being a productive member of
    our community--he has gone even further and is giving back.
        Education.--A young woman who had been in the neglect system
    virtually all of her life later was charged with a juvenile offense and
    sent to the District's juvenile detention facility in Laurel. The
    Division assisted her in moving into a therapeutic group home, and now
    she is enrolled as a freshman at a local university where scholarship
    programs are paying for her education.
        Public benefits.--Some of our most challenging clients are severely
    mentally ill persons who are arrested on less serious charges, but
    incarcerated pending trial, and who are without support systems. Their
    incarceration results in the cancellation of all their benefits (SSI,
    SSDI, Medicaid). Without their benefits, our clients lose access to
    affordable housing and some essential services. Because of the
    collaborations that the Offender Rehabilitation Division staff is
    developing with a number of agencies and with individual contract
    providers of mental health services, this situation is improving. More
    and more of our severely mentally ill clients are now able to obtain
    financial benefits, housing, intensive outpatient mental health
    services, and in the last year, we have had tremendous success helping
    these clients re-enter the community without re-offending.

    Training
        Forensic science conference.--In addition to PDS's usual training
    efforts (e.g., annual Criminal Practice Institute and CPI Practice
    Manual, courses for court-appointed CJA attorneys and investigators),
    PDS coordinated and presented its first forensic science conference
    last summer using funds from a Department of Justice grant program.
    This free training program for defense attorneys included as presenters
    a number of nationally known forensic science experts. The success of
    this conference led the grantor to award funding to PDS for a similar
    conference to be held in May of this year.
        Investigator certification.--After adopting an investigator
    training proposal from PDS, the Superior Court implemented a
    requirement that all CJA criminal investigators be certified, receive
    initial training, pass a background check, and maintain their
    certification by attending PDS training. Senior PDS investigators and
    PDS staff attorneys prepare the training materials and coordinate
    training sessions on all aspects of criminal investigation to allow CJA
    investigators to maintain their certification. Over the past 2 years,
    PDS has held nine 20-hour training sessions and has certified 188 CJA
    investigators. PDS has scheduled two additional sessions in July and
    November 2004. This program is designed to ensure that now, and in the
    future, there are sufficient qualified investigators to assist CJA
    attorneys.
        Special education.--PDS's special education attorneys provided
    training in the fall to new Superior Court judges on special education
    issues relevant to children involved in the delinquency and neglect
    systems.

    Administrative Accomplishments
        PDS has been able to institute additional improvements in its
    operational functions. Particularly now that PDS is a federally funded
    entity, we seek to reach a corresponding level of sophistication in the
    administration and execution of our responsibilities. Recent
    improvements made by PDS provide the necessary infrastructure to
    support our programs and our program staff and increase the potential
    for greater efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out PDS's mission.
        Case management system.--PDS has expanded internal access to its
    self-designed case tracking software. The program, ``Atticus,''
    provides comprehensive case management functionality for PDS attorneys,
    staff, and management. Atticus now links the Trial, Investigations, and
    the Offender Rehabilitation Divisions to streamline referrals and
    processing for criminal and juvenile cases. Attorneys, investigators,
    and program developers can now report and track case events in a
    central electronic location, reducing or eliminating staff's reliance
    on less efficient means of communication, and ensuring that all staff
    who share responsibility for an individual case are kept fully informed
    on all case developments as needed.
        Strategic planning.--PDS has developed an Office of Management and
    Budget-approved 5-year strategic plan similar to the plans required of
    Federal executive agencies under the Government Performance and Results
    Act. PDS has also prepared a draft annual performance plan that has
    received preliminary approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
    PDS has begun to establish the baseline measures described in its plans
    in preparation for implementing the strategic plan in fiscal year 2005.
    PDS continues to make progress toward establishing the administrative
    infrastructure necessary to support the development of a performance-
    based budget request.
        Appellate brief bank.--PDS has completed the establishment of an
    appellate brief bank that consists of briefs filed in the Appellate
    Division's cases over the past 25 years. This searchable, comprehensive
    brief bank now provides far easier, more effective access to previously
    completed research, enabling attorneys to avoid unnecessary duplication
    of effort.
        Each of the above reforms, cases, or projects has contributed to a
    better, more efficient criminal justice system, or has improved the
    quality of services provided to people who cannot afford an attorney in
    the District of Columbia justice system. These activities are all
    consistent with PDS's goal of efficiently providing representation by
    qualified attorneys to those PDS is dedicated to serve.

                                   CONCLUSION

        PDS's current increased focus on enhancing its administrative
    functions represents a further step toward better serving clients and
    toward better serving as a model defender organization. The right to a
    qualified attorney for people who cannot afford one can be read to
    include an expectation that representation will be provided to clients
    not only effectively, but also efficiently. As PDS has been in the
    forefront in meeting and exceeding the standards defining what it means
    to satisfy the requirements of the right to counsel, it can also be on
    the forefront in modeling excellent financial and management practices
    in support of that right.
        I respectfully request your support of this initiative, and I would
    like to thank the members of the subcommittee for your time and
    attention to these matters and for your support of our work to date. I
    would be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee members may
    have.

        Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.

                       PDS DIRECTOR SULLIVAN'S DEPARTURE

        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Sullivan, I want to say that we
    greeted the news of your leaving to go to Yale with very mixed
    emotions, because you have, you know, done an outstanding job,
    and your leadership has been really extraordinary, and your
    commitment very inspiring, but we wish you the best at Yale.
        I am hoping, though, that before you leave that you will--
    and I am certain you will--give some indication of some others
    that could follow in the leadership that you have outlined
    because this is truly a very important agency for the District
    and for the Nation. And while we have made great progress,
    there is still some tremendous challenges, as you are aware.
        So I, for one, would be interested in your, you know,
    private comments along those lines. And as you leave, what
    three to four focuses should we give special attention to?
        Mr. Sullivan. Well, I thank you very much for your kind
    words first of all. It is bittersweet for me, as well. I was,
    in a sense, born and raised in this agency. I started as a
    staff attorney in this agency, and I bleed the colors of PDS.
        So it is with mixed emotions that I leave. I do look
    forward to my new opportunity, and I have promised to send many
    bright young law students to Washington, DC to be public
    defenders, so in that way I will still contribute.
        As to my successor, the search started in February, early
    last month, and applications are due by the 16th of March. And
    by the end of March, beginning of April, I anticipate that our
    board of trustees will have selected a new director.
        I happen to know that our very capable deputy director,
    Avis Buchanan, who is sitting behind me, is applying for the
    directorship, and I certainly wish her well in that endeavor.

                IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        As to--from our perspective, as to the three or four most
    important issues facing the District, at least with respect to
    the criminal justice system, No. 1, I would speak about
    forensic issues. I have written in detail in my written
    statement, particularly about some of the science that we are
    becoming acquainted with with respect to identifications.
        We have seen in the DNA context that for an overwhelming
    majority of persons who have been convicted and incarcerated,
    sometimes for years, but DNA evidence has exonerated them, the
    principal basis of the conviction was a false identification.
    And in almost every time, it was nothing vindictive about the
    identification. It was an honest mistake.
        Over the past several years, psychologists and professors
    in psychology departments in universities across the country
    have been looking into this issue of identification and,
    frankly, we have learned a lot about how to do identifications,
    the best way that police should present lineups, and a whole
    host of issues surrounding how we can better our identification
    processes.
        Some States, New Jersey for example, have adopted sweeping
    changes in their identification procedures. And we have
    encouraged the District of Columbia to do the same. We have
    presented the Court with some of the social science findings
    about identifications.
        And, indeed, I have been in a room with--filled with
    lawyers where most of the room picked the wrong person. There
    is a video clip, and it would sort of replicate a crime and
    then, you know, show different pictures. We have learned, for
    example, that identification is a relational concept. That is
    to say, if you show somebody six pictures, the mind tends to
    work in a way that you pick the one that looks most like who
    the perpetrator was. Whereas, if you show pictures in sequence,
    then that is a much better way to get at the actual
    perpetrator.
        So at any rate, I do not want to bore you two with a litany
    of the problems with our current identification system, but it
    has resulted in--and we know because of DNA that it has
    resulted in false convictions, and that is something that we
    are working to eradicate.
        We have begun in the last couple of years a forensic
    practice group at the agency, where we are looking into not
    only that, but DNA sciences, mitochondrial DNA is becoming a
    much more important aspect of the criminal justice system; the
    metallurgy science, with respect to bullets and that sort of
    thing, these are all very important issues. So that is one.
        Second, I would say jury pool issues. There are problems in
    the District with respect to a too narrow jury pool. We are
    working with the Court to see what we can do to expand the jury
    pool so that all citizens can, as is consistent with their due
    process rights and the Constitution, participate on the juries
    in the District of Columbia.
        So those are two sort of overarching issues to give you an
    idea of some of the things we are working on.
        Senator Landrieu. Very good. Very helpful. Thank you.

                           IN RE JERRY M. LITIGATION

        Senator DeWine. Good. Mr. Sullivan, your agency is suing
    the District on behalf of children in the juvenile justice
    system. And you cite years and years of the system failing
    these kids.
        Your lawyers told a D.C. Superior Court judge last week
    that the court-appointed receiver should take over the Youth
    Services Administration, to operate the agency and report to
    the Court every 2 months about changes and improvements. I
    wonder if you could give us some information, more information
    about this suit and what problems you see with the City's Youth
    Services Administration?
        Mr. Sullivan. The problems frankly, Mr. Chairman, are
    legion. It has been nearly two decades of not complying with
    even the most basic requirements for the health and safety of
    the most needy children in the District.
        One example, I think, will illustrate just the mind-set of
    this particular agency with respect to the children. Recently,
    we were in the hearings, my agency was in the hearings in front
    of Judge Dixon, and one of the complaints that we made in our
    receivership application was that children had to stuff
    towels--and this is at Oak Hill, the juvenile detention
    center--towels in holes in their rooms to keep rats from coming
    in at night.
        The question the District posed to the expert who produced
    this finding was that, ``Well, sir, could it be that these are
    not rats, but they are very large mice,'' as if that in some
    way justifies the presence of rodents in the children's rooms.
        I mean, and that is just one example that is just
    indicative of some of the problems, but the report from the
    inspector general, I think, in many ways lays out some of the
    most critical shortcomings of the Youth Services
    Administration. For example, numerous residents who tested
    negative for drugs when they went into this locked, secure
    facility tested positive for marijuana and PCP once they were
    in there.
        Senator DeWine. That is unbelievable, is it not?
        Mr. Sullivan. And unacceptable.
        Senator DeWine. And it is shocking.
        Mr. Sullivan. And unacceptable. And the inspector general
    postulated that the guards were the source of the illegal
    contraband.
        In violation of every fire prevention and safety
    requirement imaginable, locks on the housing unit doors are
    manual and cannot provide safety in the event of fire. Oak Hill
    did not have a trained health and safety officer there.
        Nearly 100 percent of the youth at Oak Hill are--test
    positive for drugs. It is--I mean, the list goes on and on and
    on. And it has been like this for nearly two decades.
        Senator DeWine. Well, that is what is shocking, is that it
    has been that way for two decades. And so Senator Landrieu and
    I are, you know, are going to hold a hearing. And it may take
    more than one hearing, frankly, to review the District's
    juvenile justice system.
        We want to hear specifically, you know, how the system is
    broken, why the City has been unable to fix this problem in
    almost two decades. You know, when you hear these--what the
    facts are, it just, you know, has to trouble anybody. You know,
    I am troubled to note that children in the city as young as 10
    who are merely truants or victims of a failed foster system are
    being incarcerated with serious teenage offenders. I mean, that
    just has to trouble anyone, you know. You know, that is not
    supposed to take place anyplace in this country today. We
    passed that a long, long time ago, I thought, in this country.
        You know, we hear that system allowed a 12-year-old boy to
    be sexually assaulted by nine other boys while incarcerated at
    the City's detention facility. We have learned that drugs are
    readily available as you point out in the facility. Where are
    they coming from? You know, we can only surmise or guess.
        So we are going to hold a hearing. Senator Landrieu and I
    are going to do that. And if it takes more than one hearing, we
    are going to bring in the people who know about this, and we
    are going to talk to them, and we are going to try to get to
    the bottom of this. So we appreciate your diligence on this,
    and what the lawyers who work with you have done in this area.
    We congratulate you for your diligence in this area.
        Senator Landrieu, anything else?
        Senator Landrieu. No.
        Senator DeWine. Should --

                            WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE

        Senator Landrieu. Well, I do, actually, want to submit for
    the record, and maybe you can respond to this briefly and in
    writing. There was a case--and I know we are short on time, Mr.
    Chairman, but there is a case pending--if the staff will help
    me find the news article in The Post a couple of days ago. Here
    it is. The case of lengthy delays, Ida and Charles Chase were
    arrested in the slaying of Julius Alderman during an apparent
    robbery. This was 6 years ago.
        I understand that subsequently Mr. Chase has died of a
    heart attack, but Ida is still in jail, 6 years waiting for the
    trial. And every time we try to go to trial, something happens.
    Can you just comment about this, so that I can----
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Landrieu. Briefly, and then perhaps at--more at
    length in writing?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely. I will comment very briefly
    to the degree I can. I, obviously, cannot divulge any
    confidential information.
        However, I can say that Ms. Chase maintains her innocence
    and is anxiously anticipating her trial date. It has been too
    long. There have been delays in this trial. She wants to go to
    trial, and she wants to prove her innocence, and the attorneys
    on the case are committed to doing that.
        I will say just parenthetically, and I do not--unless
    obviously you are inclined, I do not want to get into a back
    and forth. If the predicate of the question has to do with the
    article, that is, in my view, one of the most irresponsible
    pieces of journalism that I have ever experienced and certainly
    beneath the standards of a major newspaper. It is replete with
    omissions and misstatements and allows for inferences that are
    factually false.
        For example, I will just take the very last continuance.
    They make a lot about that in the paper. They say the defense
    asked for more time to review evidence. Well, what happened was
    that a month before trial, the FBI indicated to us that they
    found two additional hair samples that had not been disclosed
    before and had not been tested.
        We said, ``Well, we need to test those.'' One of them was
    on a piece of duct tape, which is very important to the facts
    of the case, which I will not go into.
        We said, ``We need to test it. We need a brief time to get
    it tested. It will take a few weeks from the lab, and we are
    ready to go.''
        The Court granted it. The prosecutor did not oppose it. The
    prosecutor said, ``I am tied up from January to July. So it is
    in July.''
        So the article says, ``Oh, defense asked for a pass. There
    is a seven-month delay.'' But it does not mention that, ``Well,
    the reason for this delay, for example, is that there is a--the
    prosecutor was not available for seven months.''
        There was one other huge omission. The article indicated
    that Judge Bowers said that there will be no further
    continuances and granted two more, but simply did not mention
    that what happened was that the D.C. Council passed the
    Innocence Protection Act, and our client, with advice of
    counsel, asserted her rights under the Innocence Protection Act
    to pre-trial testing of biological material, recognizing that
    that would delay the start date. But there was material that
    was back in, oh, boy, April--somewhere around April of 2002,
    the IPA was passed.
        All of the biological material was supposed to be disclosed
    and, you know, we still did not get those two hairs until a
    couple of months ago. So there is a lot that happened in that
    case. I do agree that it was--it is too long. We are anxious to
    get to trial. But for the article to lay the blame simply in
    the defense attorney's lap is wrong. But we are ready to go,
    and we think that it is going to be a good result.
        Senator Landrieu. And I appreciate it. And you have made--
    you know, you have made very direct and excellent and
    clarifying comments.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        But I would just say to the Chairman that we do have a
    challenge on our hand to create a system where neither those
    that are accused of a crime have to wait 6 years in jail for
    their day in court, nor those victims that have suffered
    terribly have to wait that long. So let us get about the work,
    Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Service for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu

                      RE-ARREST RATE AND PAROLE REVOCATION

        Question. Would you please submit to the Committee a comparison of
    the re-arrest rates and parole revocation hearings in the District to
    other jurisdictions of similar size?
        Answer. Statistics comparing the District's parole revocation rates
    to those of cities of a similar size are difficult to obtain, in part
    because there is no longer a local paroling authority that maintains
    such statistics for D.C. parolees. As of August 5, 1998, through the
    implementation of the Revitalization Act,\1\ the U.S. Parole Commission
    assumed responsibility for making parole decisions for D.C. Code
    offenders. The Commission estimates that slightly fewer than 50 percent
    of D.C. parolees return as parole violators. However, most of these
    ``violators'' are charged not with new crimes, but with minor
    administrative violations such as failing to meet with their parole
    officer, failing to obtain steady employment, or failing to overcome
    their drug addiction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement
    Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last year, parole boards nationwide conducted 143,154 violation
    hearings with California, New York, and Texas conducting 50 percent of
    them.\2\ In the District of Columbia, the Public Defender Service
    represented 1,349 persons who were facing revocation of their parole
    before the U.S. Parole Commission. Most of these individuals had not
    committed new crimes but had failed to follow a condition of parole
    release.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole Board
    Survey 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There has been a 652 percent increase in the number of parole
    violators, according to an analysis of the U.S. Bureau of Justice
    Statistics (BJS) data by the nonpartisan Urban Institute.\3\ In fiscal
    year 2002, 19 State paroling authorities reported an increase in
    resources in order to keep up with the demands created by the volume of
    revocation hearings.\4\ Twelve States had double digit increases in
    their parole population in 2002. Four States had a parole population
    increase of 20 percent or more: North Dakota (27 percent), New Mexico
    (26 percent), Kentucky (23 percent), and Oklahoma (21 percent).\5\
    Nationally, this was the largest increase in the parole population
    since 1995.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See, ``7-Fold Jump in Parolees Sent Back to Prison Since 1980,
    1 in 3 State Prison Admissions is Result of Parole Violation,'' Urban
    Institute, November 2, 2002.
        \4\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole
    Board, Survey 2002.
        \5\ Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, ``Probation and Parole
    in the United States, 2002,'' August 2003, NCJ 201135.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The lack of community resources is an overwhelming stumbling block
    to successful re-entry. Many parolees lack the educational or
    vocational skills necessary to become productive members of society. A
    parolee who has lost everything that he has accomplished due to
    technical parole violations must start anew upon his return to the
    community. According to a report from the Association of Paroling
    Authorities International, housing is the number one issue facing
    parolees upon their return to the community.\6\ Other issues they face
    include a lack of available, licensed, substance abuse treatment and
    vocational/employment resources and services. The chronically ill, the
    elderly, and women particularly face insurmountable obstacles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Association of Paroling Authorities International, Parole Board
    Survey, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We echo the sentiments of Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown: ``The
    revolving door is failing. They aren't getting the marketable skills
    and literacy they need in prison. It's a big huge problem.'' \7\ Parole
    violators leave the prison walls but they cannot leave the stigma
    associated with incarceration. A study on public attitudes toward
    prisoner reentry revealed that most respondents were aware that
    prisoners face daunting obstacles in returning to the community and
    establishing a noncriminal lifestyle. Most admitted, however, that they
    had not given much thought to prisoner reentry.\8\ Many persons leave
    prison with no particular place to go and very little support or
    monitoring.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See, ``Parole Violators Crowd California Prisons,'' Associated
    Press, Newsday.com, March 8, 2004.
        \8\ See, ``The Revolving Door: Exploring Public Attitudes Toward
    Prisoner Reentry,'' March 2002, Urban Institute.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the goals of PDS's Community Defender Program is to educate
    ex-offenders, including those on parole, about their legal rights and
    responsibilities following their release on parole. To that end, the
    bilingual Community Re-entry Program Coordinator regularly makes
    presentations at offender orientations hosted by the Court Services and
    Offender Supervision Agency, particularly those targeted at Spanish-
    speaking clients. The CRP has also presented educational sessions to
    other groups, including women at the Washington Transitional Center who
    are parolees. Topics covered in the educational presentations include
    housing, employment, family law, public benefits, sex offender
    registration, DNA testing, immigration, and community resources that
    are available to ex-offenders and parolees. The CRP, along with the
    Parole Division, has also developed an outline covering the same
    topics, which will be presented at the D.C. Jail to prisoners pending
    release.

                   DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION RESPONSE INITIATIVE

        Question. With the increase in cases involving DNA, have you found,
    informally, that fewer convictions are overturned on appeal?
        Answer. There are two reasons why the advent of DNA technology is
    not likely to result in fewer cases being overturned on appeal. First,
    very few cases involve biological evidence and, second, quality control
    issues affecting the reliability of DNA evidence are likely to generate
    more rather than less appellate litigation for the foreseeable future.
        To date, there have been relatively few DNA cases in the District
    of Columbia, and potential DNA cases represent a very small sample of
    the cases in the criminal justice system. That is, only a small
    fraction of criminal cases present situations where DNA can be used to
    exonerate someone (because biological evidence is often not present or
    not preserved), and in even fewer cases can DNA inculpate someone
    (because it is more difficult to show a ``match'' than an exoneration
    when, for example, the sample is degraded--allowing for minimal
    analysis, or the sample is a mixed sample--a sample in which more than
    one person's DNA is present).
        In the District of Columbia, there has been and will continue to be
    considerable litigation concerning the reliability of DNA results as
    the technology changes and as forensic labs are subject to lower
    standards than, for example, medical labs. Recent examples of problems
    in quality assurance at DNA labs include the scandal involving a DNA
    lab in Houston where results were falsified and contamination was
    rampant, and the termination of an FBI analyst after it was revealed
    that for 2 years, she had failed to run negative controls while
    analyzing samples.
        Thus, while cases involving DNA evidence where there has not been a
    challenge to the reliability of the results may make appellate courts
    more confident in the results at trial, examples of numerous DNA
    exonerations actually inform us that mistakes are likely being made in
    cases where no biological evidence was left at the scene. This should,
    if anything, make appellate courts more rigorous in their review,
    although as a practical matter we have not noticed much of a change.
    The D.C. Council did, however, pass the non-DNA portion of the
    Innocence Protection Act, D.C. Code  22-4135, in 2002. The express
    purpose of that provision was to provide closer review of innocence in
    non-DNA cases, on the theory that at least as many mistakes were being
    made in those cases as were made in the cases where DNA exonerations
    had demonstrated trial mistakes were made. It is too early to tell
    whether this provision will result in closer judicial scrutiny of
    innocence.
        Question. Or, is there anecdotal evidence that the court and public
    are more willing to convict a defendant if scientific evidence is
    present?
        Answer. PDS does have polling results of potential jurors in a
    specific case that show that jurors place extraordinarily high credence
    in scientific evidence and in DNA evidence in particular. In the view
    of most potential jurors, DNA evidence is by far the most reliable form
    of evidence, and approximately one out of three jurors believes that it
    ``can never be wrong.''
        Our polling results also show that jurors begin trials with very
    little understanding of DNA evidence, and particularly its variety and
    limitations. For example, a little under half of the jurors begin the
    trial not understanding that different types of DNA evidence exist
    (nuclear and mitochondrial). Even when jurors are told that different
    types exist, around half do not understand that nuclear DNA evidence is
    more discriminating than mitochondrial DNA evidence.
        Our polling data also showed that jurors place considerable weight
    on eyewitness identification evidence and are not familiar with the
    growing body of science delineating the weaknesses associated with
    eyewitness identification. Currently, however, efforts to present
    eyewitness expert testimony are usually denied by trial judges.
        PDS is actively engaged in training to improve defense attorneys'
    ability to explain DNA evidence to jurors, litigation to improve the
    quality of DNA evidence that is admitted in criminal trials in the
    District of Columbia, and litigation to provide jurors with expert
    information concerning eyewitness identifications.

            REPRESENTATION OF JUVENILES WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS

        Question. Does PDS handle special education administrative cases or
    those that go to court?
        Answer. Generally, PDS handles special education cases at the D.C.
    public schools administrative proceedings level, while concurrently
    serving as the clients' education advocates in delinquency cases in the
    Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
        Special education administrative hearing decisions, of course, are
    appealed to the United States District Court. Because PDS has an
    excellent record in obtaining favorable outcomes for its clients in
    special education administrative proceedings, PDS attorneys have not
    had to pursue client claims in the U.S. District Court thus far, except
    on one occasion; J.C., et al. v. Vance, et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-
    971) (D.D.C.) filed on May 2, 2003. The major issue in the J.C. case is
    the District of Columbia's failure to provide federally mandated
    special education services to eligible youth incarcerated at the D.C.
    Jail.
        Question. Is PDS part of the court ordered attorneys' fees in
    special education cases? If so, how much has PDS collected?
        Answer. PDS does not apply for or otherwise receive attorneys' fees
    in special education cases.
        Question. What role does PDS play in determining what assessment
    program a child receives or which business or other group performs that
    assessment?
        Answer. The D.C. Public Schools system assumes responsibility for
    determining what evaluations and assessments should be performed for
    children and for having them conducted by either D.C. Public School
    evaluators or independent specialists.
        In those instances in which the D.C. Public Schools either fails to
    perform evaluations and make educational assessments--or fails to
    perform appropriate, complete, or necessary evaluations and
    assessments--PDS will identify and seek independent assessments and
    evaluations from highly qualified specialists and experts in the fields
    and in disciplines associated with the disabilities of the child who is
    to be evaluated.
        Question. Does PDS play a part in determining what special
    education program or school a child is sent to?
        Answer. As the parent's attorney in special education
    administrative proceedings and as the child's education attorney in the
    related Superior Court delinquency proceedings, PDS may make
    recommendations and advocate for or against particular special
    education program placements, depending on the needs of the child. PDS
    does not itself decide the child's placement.

                 CREATION OF A MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT PROGRAM

        Question. I understand the OPTIONS program was created to reduce
    the number of mentally ill offenders who are incarcerated or
    institutionalized because no treatment is available.
        Would you highlight the effectiveness of the program and the
    services it provides to the District of Columbia that were non-existent
    before now?
        Answer. OPTIONS was created as a diversion program to divert
    mentally ill offenders charged with misdemeanors away from the jail or
    another onerous condition of release to a more therapeutic environment.
    This assures the court that the risk of flight is minimal and the
    mental health issues are being adequately addressed. The program has
    been very effective in that many people have been connected or
    reconnected to the mental health system and are getting the appropriate
    treatment. The OPTIONS program is linked with Community Connections, a
    private core service agency that affords a myriad of services and
    contracts with the Department of Mental Health. An OPTIONS client is
    given a case manager who not only services the client's mental health
    needs, but also serves as a court liaison--ensuring that clients are
    present at their court hearings and providing information to the court
    about the client's progress. The case management provided is aggressive
    and comprehensive. OPTIONS clients have access to psychiatrists to
    prescribe medication and, with the help of a treatment team, clients
    have individually tailored treatment regimens designed to address their
    individual needs. Therapeutic programs include, but are not limited to,
    day programs that provide substance abuse counseling, group therapy
    regarding mental health issues, forensic groups designed to address the
    unique needs of forensic clients, work training programs, and
    assistance with benefits and housing. Although acceptance into a core
    service agency is available to any D.C. resident with a mental illness,
    the OPTIONS program was the first program to target recent offenders to
    connect them with services and housing and to help them successfully
    navigate through the criminal justice system. Approximately 200 people
    a year have been serviced through the OPTIONS program since its
    inception in 2001. Examples of great success stories include an
    individual who successfully completed the program, received a
    probationary sentence, and got her own house through the Home First
    program; she is still stable and doing well.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator DeWine. Well, Mr. Sullivan, we wish you well, and
    we thank you for your good service very much.
        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you very much.
        Senator DeWine. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., Wednesday, March 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators DeWine, Hutchison, and Landrieu.

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
            NATWAR M. GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE DE WINE

        Senator DeWine. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order.
        Today, we will hear testimony regarding the District of
    Columbia's fiscal year 2005 local budget request. D.C. Mayor
    Anthony Williams, D.C. Council Chairman Linda Cropp, and the
    District's Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Natwar Gandhi, will
    present the city's budget and will discuss the District's
    requests for Federal resources.
        I would like to note that last year the Senate passed a
    bill by unanimous consent which would give the District
    autonomy over its local budget, eliminating the need for the
    D.C. local budget to be passed on the annual appropriations
    bill. By decoupling the local budget from the Federal
    appropriations process, we will avoid delaying the city's local
    funds from being available whenever the D.C. appropriations
    bill is not passed before the end of the fiscal year, which
    occasionally does happen.
        Senator Stevens, the chairman of the full Appropriations
    Committee; Senator Byrd, the ranking member of the full
    committee; Senator Landrieu, ranking member of this
    subcommittee; and I all cosponsored this bill. Unfortunately,
    the House has not considered a companion measure. So today we
    will not only hear city leaders present the priorities for the
    Federal payment, but we will also receive the city's local
    budget for our consideration and inclusion in the D.C.
    appropriations bill.
        As we consider the local budget, I would like to
    congratulate the city leaders on the vote of confidence that
    they have recently received from Wall Street. At a time when
    many local jurisdictions' bonds are being downgraded, the
    city's bonds were upgraded two steps, from BBB+ to A. So we
    congratulate the city and the city's leaders.
        Despite this good news about the city's short-term
    financial performance, I think we are all well aware that the
    city faces a long-term economic structural imbalance, and that
    has been well documented. This imbalance represents a gap
    between the District's ability to raise revenue at reasonable
    tax rates and its ability to provide services of reasonable
    quality to its residents.
        I recognize that the structural imbalance is driven by
    expenditure requirements and revenue restrictions, which
    frankly are mostly beyond the control of the District's
    leadership. Clearly, the city's revenue capacity would be
    larger without constraints on its taxing authority, such as its
    inability to tax Federal property or the income of non-
    residents.
        I agree that the city faces a troubling problem in the long
    term, and I plan to hold a separate hearing on June 22 to begin
    to discuss ways that the city can address this problem. At that
    hearing, we will hear from business leaders, local officials
    and economists about ways to close this gap and ensure the
    long-term economic health of our Nation's Capital and the seat
    of our Federal Government. So we look forward to that hearing
    on June 22. I think it will be a very informative hearing and I
    think a very important hearing.
        I note that some of our colleagues in the House,
    particularly some of our colleagues from Virginia, have taken
    the lead in this area and we congratulate them for that. Some
    of them will be testifying, as well, on that date and we look
    forward to their testimony. This will be, I think, a very
    important hearing and I think we will draw some attention to
    this very important issue.
        I believe that the Federal Government must recognize the
    costs it places on the city and the burden it places on the
    city's infrastructure, all the while limiting the ability of
    the city to raise revenue. Indeed, many of the problems facing
    the city result from it being the seat of the Federal
    Government. As chairman of the subcommittee, I intend to work
    to explore and develop ways to avoid a financial catastrophe
    for the District of Columbia.
        Now, we look forward today to hearing what the District's
    priorities are for Federal funding and how the city has used
    the funds we recently provided in the fiscal year 2004
    appropriations bill. Clearly, there are many worthy activities
    which will place demands on the always limited resources in the
    D.C. appropriations bill, but we look forward to working with
    city leaders to fund a number of the city's initiatives and to
    continue to make life better for all who live, work and visit
    this Capital City.
        As usual, witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their
    oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be placed
    in the record in their entirety.
        Let me now turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee
    and my good friend and colleague, Senator Landrieu.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome
    all the leaders of the city, Mr. Mayor and members of the
    Council, and thank you all for being here this morning and for
    your hard work to help make the District the wonderful place it
    is to live and a wonderful place as an example for the Nation.
        We thank you for your leadership and for acknowledging the
    very special and unique partnership that the District has with
    Federal officials. So we look forward to continuing to work
    with you across a broad array of issues, particularly on the
    transformation of the education system and reform here in the
    District; the renaissance of the Anacostia River waterfront;
    the rebuilding of the child welfare system; some additional
    general management principles that we have worked on; the
    financial discipline that this committee and others have
    helped, with your leadership, to bring to the city.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I am going to submit a more formal statement, Mr. Chairman,
    for the record to get us to our panel more quickly. I will wait
    for further comments until the question period.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu

        I would like to welcome our witness and thank Chairman DeWine for
    calling the annual hearing on the District's local funds budget. I look
    forward to hearing from the city on the status of the District's
    economy, current Federal funding priorities and a summary of the fiscal
    year 2005 local funds budget.
        The District has been careful to develop a consensus budget, and
    rather than adding funds to please every constituent group, has looked
    ahead to address looming budget pressures while maintaining priority
    services. At this time, almost every city in the country is struggling
    to maintain a balanced budget, much less deliver adequate or even good
    services to their citizens. The city is in good fiscal standing and I
    trust that this environment will continue. However, long-term economic
    pressures on the city and continued service challenges in such areas as
    public education and child welfare will require a different management
    approach. I am committed to developing a new partnership with the
    District to support building the Mayor's goal of building the
    population by 100,000 residents.
        In addition, substantial Federal funding was provided to the
    District over the last 3 years, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003,
    fiscal year 2004 ($136.3 million in direct response to requests made by
    the Mayor, out of a total $545 million in the D.C. appropriations bill
    for Federal responsibilities). The last 2 years have been unprecedented
    in the amount of discretionary Federal dollars that have gone to the
    city, as well as an increase in Congressional confidence in local
    leadership, resulting in increased autonomy for the District of
    Columbia.
        In keeping with our mandate, the Committee must balance the State-
    level agencies we are legally responsible to fund and funding the
    priority needs of the city leadership. The Mayor has requested an
    additional $253.5 million, above the $71.3 million requested in the
    President's budget. Chairman DeWine and I share a commitment to the
    restoration of the Anacostia Waterfront, improving child and family
    services, assistance for charter schools, and enhanced security this
    year. In this hearing I hope we can identify the city's main priorities
    and how best to address them with very limited funding.
        The fiscal year 2005 President's budget supports a wider array of
    local initiatives. Funding is recommended $7 million for the Unified
    Communications Center, $10 million for the combined sewer overflow
    initiative, $3 million for the Anacostia Riverwalk and $40 million for
    the three-sector School Improvement Initiative. I am interested to hear
    the city's view of two areas which the President requested that the
    Committee is seeking more information. The first, a request of $10
    million to construct a new firehouse in downtown District of Columbia
    was not initially requested by the Mayor. The second piece we need
    additional information to is the $15 million annual request for
    emergency planning and security; however, the President did not request
    any additional funds to address the inauguration. In 2001, the city was
    reimbursed for $6 million in inauguration costs. I appreciate the views
    of the witnesses on these two areas. The Chairman and I have a
    challenge ahead to balance additional requests during a seriously
    constrained Federal budget outlook.
        Last year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirmed a more
    broad challenge in a landmark report finding the city faces an annual
    deficit of $400 million to $1 billion between their revenue capacity
    and cost of providing average services. The report, requested by
    Congresswoman Norton and myself, found the underlying reason for the
    structural imbalance in the city's budget is the high cost of providing
    services in the District of Columbia. The Committee will review
    carefully the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act bill,
    introduced this month by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, to
    reinstate an annual Federal payment of $800 million to the District
    targeted for infrastructure needs. The GAO identified capital
    infrastructure suffers the most because a budget balanced on a thin
    line has no room to invest in long-term capital projects or the ability
    to borrow great sums.
        The District is uniquely situated and requires a unique
    relationship with the Federal Government; the Committee should explore
    other options for funding: changing the tax collection ability of the
    District; funding directed to specific infrastructure; reevaluating
    State functions and taking over those agencies (like State education).
    We must examine the underlying issues that create an imbalance and take
    a multi-faceted approach to addressing it, before the District goes
    back to years of deficit. I understand Chairman DeWine will call a
    hearing later this year on the structural imbalance and I look forward
    to working collaboratively with him on this complex issue.
        One major benefit for the District, with no budgetary impact,
    endorsed by President Bush, is to release the local budget from annual
    Congressional approval--local budget autonomy. The concept of budget
    autonomy for the District's local budget is building momentum on the
    Hill and I hope it will be approved this year. These are funds derived
    from locally-generated tax dollars. The last word on how the city's
    budget is expended should be made by locally-elected leaders, just like
    any other city. I am pleased to say, with the hard work of the
    Governmental Affairs Committee, the endorsement of President Bush, the
    Senate passed the budget autonomy bill this Congress. I hope the
    leaders here and Chairman DeWine will join me to gain approval in the
    House.
        I would like for the Mayor and Council Chairman Cropp to comment on
    how current and future general provisions--limitations on spending
    local and Federal funds--will be addressed under budget autonomy. I
    respect city leaders' diligence in implementing and upholding these
    ``social riders'' through the years, against local pressure. I expect
    that this same degree of respect for the law will be maintained in the
    future. There are legitimate means for Congress to provide guidance to
    the city; however it is my hope that at some point in the future
    Congressional interest in imposing riders will wane.
        In addition, this year Chairman DeWine and I have investigated the
    Youth Services Administration and Child Services Agency. I understand
    the Mayor is developing a plan to transition the Oak Hill youth
    detention facility to another model which is better focused on
    rehabilitation, not just housing, of youth involved in the criminal
    justice system. I know the Chairman has a keen interest in this project
    and I am committed to bringing national programs and resources to bear.
        The Committee also held a hearing last week on the charter school
    movement in the District. I was very encouraged to see proof that the
    District is far ahead of other cities or States in developing a strong
    charter school base. Now at nearly 20 percent of the public school
    population, charter schools are showing great innovation and have the
    ability to cultivate this innovation in traditional public schools. The
    Congress passed the first charter school law, the School Reform Act of
    1995, overseeing the creation and oversight of schools. The Committee
    will be re-examining this law to see if there are additional support
    mechanisms needed to scale up the most successful charter schools. And
    by successful, I mean looking at the chartering principles, not just
    the test scores, to make graduates more employable or college-ready or
    self-sufficient. Congress will maintain the $13 million investment in
    charter schools, as well as overseeing the $1 in $7 spent in public
    charter schools from Federal funds. I look forward to the input of
    local leaders as Congress evaluates the Federal charter law.
        Finally, I am pleased to share with the Committee that the City
    Build Charter School Initiative, started in the fiscal year 2004 D.C.
    Appropriations Act, is about to take off. The City Build Initiative was
    created to support Mayor Williams' vision of increasing the population
    by 100,000 residents. This can be done by retaining current residents
    who move to the suburbs or attracting new residents. Educational
    options are the primary factor that has been pointed to in why families
    relocate. If waiting lists or tuition are insurmountable, families will
    move to find better educational options for their children. City Build
    was created as a way to connect the economic and community development
    already underway in emerging neighborhoods with schools. The promise of
    quality schools is a tool to increase residential and commercial tax
    base of the city.
        I am excited to see a plan developing in the city to identify
    neighborhoods that are ready for school investment and a process for
    creating schools. I am pleased to have benefited from the resources of
    the Brookings Institution's Greater Washington Research Program, led by
    Dr. Alice Rivlin and David Garrison. Their research has identified 12
    neighborhoods in the midst of or which are ready for revitalization
    that would benefit from more schools. I look forward to continuing this
    partnership this year in standing up the new City Build Initiative.
        In addition to the $13 million provided for charter schools and $14
    million provided for scholarships to private schools in the fiscal year
    2004 D.C. Appropriations Act, the Congress supported an unprecedented
    investment of $13 million in public education. The conferees agreed
    that these funds would be used to raise academic achievement of
    students and strengthen leadership and instructional excellence. The
    plan transmitted by the D.C. Public Schools lacked the detail necessary
    to justify these funds and, for the most part, did not meet the mandate
    set by Congress. The Committee is currently reviewing this plan and
    will provide guidance as soon as possible. However, I think it is worth
    noting to this panel, the elected leadership of the District and the
    independent Chief Financial Officer, that our ability to continue
    supplemental funding for public schools is severely impacted by this
    lackluster plan. I think the Committee should recognize that no one on
    this panel has control over the schools' choices on how they spend
    their budget. This disconnect has become very clear to Congress.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and hope that we
    may continue the strong partnership developed over the last 3 years.

        Senator DeWine. Senator Hutchison, any opening statement?

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am so, so happy about the bond rating upgrade. For the
    first time in the recent history--I can't say all the way back,
    but for the first time in recent history you have an A rating
    across the board from every rating agency. I commend the Mayor,
    Chairman Cropp and Dr. Gandhi for really making some tough
    calls to assure that your financial stability is in place. You
    had hard choices and I so appreciate that you have worked with
    our committee every time you have had a hard choice to make
    sure that we knew everything that was happening.
        I think the building up of the reserves which was mentioned
    by all of the rating agencies as something that I and this
    committee had really asked you to do--and you have done it
    really even before the timetable that we set, and I think that
    played an important role in those upgrades.
        I just want to say that this is going to help the city
    lower its cost of borrowing, which means more money will be
    available for the programs and the needs of the city. I think
    it is going to show a stability that will attract more business
    to the city and more taxpayers to the city. So I think it is a
    win for everyone.
        I want to say that I have been working with Dr. Gandhi over
    the last few weeks. He has asked for some adjustments in the
    reserves and I have worked with him and the rating agencies to
    assure that there could be some small changes that would give
    you more flexibility in the city, but yet keep the conservative
    approach.
        I am going to recommend that there be some changes.
    Basically, those changes would be to adjust the definition of
    expenditures so that the calculation of reserves excludes debt
    service, allows the calculation of the reserve amount to be
    based on the prior year actual ending expenditures rather than
    projected expenditures, reduces the total reserve requirement
    from 7 percent to 6 percent.
        Seven percent was more than most cities in our country
    have, but when we were working with B and very low ratings,
    that was very important to show that we were serious to the
    rating agencies. But now that we are A across the board, I
    think 6 percent is quite reasonable, and the rating agencies
    agree with that. So that will give you, I think, more leeway.
    And then we would extend the repayment period from 1 year to 2
    years, no less than 50 percent in the first year if you have to
    repay the reserves. So that also gives you, I think, more
    flexibility.
        I want to say that Dr. Gandhi has really been a leader in
    this. He asked for some changes, knowing that the Mayor and the
    chairman had wanted more flexibility, and I think we have come
    to terms that will be very favorable, but also still quite
    conservative and in line with the A ratings that you have.
        So I could not be more proud of this city from the
    financial standpoint than I am because you just worked so
    closely with us. You took leadership positions and I commend
    you, and I think it is going to be a great benefit in the long
    term for the city.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS

        Senator DeWine. Senator, thank you very much.
        Senator Strauss has included a statement to be inserted in
    the record as well.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss

        Chairman DeWine, ranking member Landrieu, and others on the
    subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
    Columbia, I would like to take this opportunity to provide this
    statement on behalf of my constituents.
        Due to our lack of self-determination, we are unable to provide or
    fund certain government services on a local level. As long as Congress
    continues to utilize city services, it has an obligation to fully fund
    our city budget. I would like to address the District's fiscal year
    2005 local budget request to Congress. The hearings for this budget
    have been held in the D.C. Council, and are subsequently fundamental to
    the operation of the city. It is essential to the District that
    Congress pass this budget in time for the new fiscal year 2005, and
    avoid being caught up in Continuing Resolutions. When the District of
    Columbia's budget is held up, needed spending adjustments are not
    allowed to be implemented and the cost of debt services increases. Each
    day, our local government services suffer greatly when the budget is
    held up.
        The dilemma of our budget being held up every year can be resolved
    through budget autonomy. I appreciate the Senate passing this bill. I
    wish the House of Representatives would also vote to allow the District
    Budget to be separated from the Federal Appropriations Process. This
    step should be furthered, as our local budget has nothing to do with
    Congress. Since fiscal year 1996, the District of Columbia has
    continuously provided Congress with a balanced budget. The District has
    demonstrated itself as a competent, governing body, which should allow
    itself the right to reject all policy interference and social riders
    attempting to regulate the government within the District. It should be
    the privilege and priority of the government of the District of
    Columbia, not Congress, to make the District's economic decisions.
    Although it is presently a constitutional prerogative of Congress to
    exercise oversight of the District and its budgetary needs, it is not
    always appropriate.
        The District of Columbia has submitted a budget that calls for
    serious investments in public services and education. Mayor Williams,
    Chair Cropp, and Chief Financial Officer Gandhi have explained the
    specifics in great detail and I support their efforts in the budgetary
    requests of the District of Columbia.
        Congress should have a focus on the District of Columbia's budget,
    in respect to resolving the structural imbalance of the budget. This
    major problem concerning the budget is the gap between the District's
    ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the ability to
    provide services of reasonable quality to its residents jeopardizes the
    District's ability to retain residents. Instead of being penalized for
    residing in the District, citizens should receive the same
    constitutional rights as all American citizens.
        The government of the District of Columbia needs to be fairly
    compensated by Congress for the services it provides to Federal
    agencies. This would serve as a solution to the structural imbalance
    within the District's budget. The District's budget represents the
    citizens of the most unique city in the Nation. The District has
    repeatedly provided Congress with a budget that has proven both
    sensible and attainable. The outlook for the current fiscal year 2005
    is projected as balanced with a surplus. The District government is by
    itself the best evaluator of local expenditures. The reoccurring record
    of balanced and responsible budget management during times of economic
    hardships and declining revenues is yet another fact that proves the
    District's elected officials can govern the District. Not allowing the
    District to have complete control over its spending only increases the
    structural imbalance, therefore discouraging citizens.
        The elected officials are persistent in attaining locally raised
    revenue needed to fund various local interests such as public service
    and education. The city should be allowed to utilize tax dollars in a
    more flexible manner. This in turn would give the District government
    the opportunity to provide the community greater benefit from the
    revenue. Flexible use of revenue specifically secures and stabilizes
    public service departments within the city. My constituents have the
    right to receive the needed revenue to meet their children's
    educational needs. I urge you to approve the proposed budget, as it is
    deemed necessary to aide the District's schools. The District of
    Columbia has submitted a timely budget so Congress has appropriate time
    to approve it. I ask again that Congress pass this budget before the
    beginning of the fiscal year. It is unfair to the District and its
    constituents when Congressional delays disrupt critical improvements
    within the local area.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement. This
    local budget was optimally drafted in order to benefit the citizens of
    the District of Columbia. I support its prompt passage without riders
    or amendments. In closing, let me thank a member of my legislative
    staff, Merin Rajadurai, for his assistance in preparing my testimony
    this morning.

        Senator DeWine. Mayor, would you like to come up, and
    Chairman, Doctor? We appreciate you all joining us very much.
    It sounds like we do have some good news.
        Mayor, why don't you start off? We have your written
    statement and we appreciate it very much, and if you could just
    summarize for us and give us the highlights.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS

        Mayor Williams. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have
    said about three times that you would just like the highlights.
    So I will take that instruction and I will submit my written
    testimony for the record and will share with you and with
    Ranking Member Landrieu and certainly Senator Hutchison some of
    the highlights.
        But I want to take this opportunity as Mayor of the city to
    thank the committee, No. 1, for its support for budget autonomy
    for our city, and you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in
    calling for a hearing on the long-term structural imbalance
    issue.
        Senator Landrieu, thank you for your leadership in many,
    many different areas, particularly with the Anacostia River and
    with education.
        Senator Hutchison, I have worked with you since the time I
    was CFO and I remember talking with you one night asking for
    mercy from the reserve requirement. You did not grant that
    mercy and, in retrospect, you were right and I was wrong. So we
    are in much better shape because of it. I thank you, though,
    for your willingness to work with Dr. Gandhi and provide those
    adjustments. I think they are welcome. Certainly, as former
    State treasurers, both you and Senator Landrieu, your comments
    on our fiscal status are taken to heart by this Mayor.
        In fact, though, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    we are doing better, but there is still more to do. Because of
    the structural imbalance, the mismatch between long-term
    revenues and expenditures in the District, three things are
    happening in our city.
        First, because of the artificial restrictions on our
    revenue base against State expenditures and requirements as a
    Federal city, we end up over-taxing about half of our tax base,
    and that is not healthy for the long-term future of the city.
    We would like to have lower tax rates, and Council Chair Cropp
    has been a leader in that effort along with the Council.
        Secondly, because of this situation, we have the second
    highest per-capita debt of any city in the country, second only
    to New York City. This again reflects a mismatch between long-
    term revenues and expenditures. Because of this mismatch,
    because we are at the limit of what we can borrow, we have
    under-invested and we are deferring massive investments in
    critical services and infrastructure. Approximately $2.5
    billion of infrastructure has been deferred, including
    renovating crumbling schools, repairing the sewer overflow in
    the Anacostia River, fixing roads, and putting in place needed
    security systems to keep residents and visitors alike to our
    city safe.
        The major initiatives in our local budget include
    education. We remain proud of our robust charter school
    movement which educates approximately 20 percent of the school-
    age children in the city. Under our leadership, the local
    facilities allowance for public charter schools has increased
    by almost 400 percent, from $617 per student in 2000 to about
    $2,400 per student in the proposed budget before you.
        There is still more work to do, but we have been working
    with the subcommittee and the charter school community to
    launch the exciting City Build initiative which was funded by
    this subcommittee, and Senator Landrieu deserves enormous
    credit for that. But in education, we are working to expand
    early childhood education, to expand after-school and out-of-
    school activities; working to create five new transformation
    schools, where we have shown improvement in test scores;
    creating eight new charter schools; and upgrading school
    security.
        In the public safety area, we make room in our local budget
    to continue to fund our full complement of 3,800 officers, to
    reconfigure our patrol service areas, to build our Office of
    Unified Communications, and to work toward civilianization of
    our force. A remaining challenge before us is working with the
    Council to reform our disability procedures and processes in
    the department. We think with an additional investment there,
    we can put an additional roughly 200 officers on the street.
        Opportunity for all is a major commitment of mine as Mayor
    of the city, and we have put in place additional funds for the
    Youth Services Administration, particularly for reform laying
    the groundwork for replacing the current Oak Hill facility with
    a smaller, state-of-the-art facility. And I applaud you, Mr.
    Chairman, for your leadership on that effort, and for your
    steadfast oversight.
        There are a number of requests we have made to the Federal
    Government in the Federal appropriations area; one is the
    Tuition Assistance Grant program. We are asking for a request
    to fully fund this program at a level of $25.6 million above
    the President's mark of $17 million. This has been a very
    successful program and honoring this request will avoid having
    to either limit the program on an income basis or to limit the
    program on a pro-rata basis. This has been a very successful
    program and we would like to continue its upward path.
        Bioterrorism and forensics laboratory. Every city in the
    Nation has access to such a facility, as provided by their
    State. Many major facilities have their own. This is a critical
    public safety investment and we are requesting $9 million to
    move down the road for the planning and design phase of this
    lab. After the 4-year period of capital investment, we are
    prepared to commit the $40 million, roughly, a year to operate
    this.
        We ask for dollars for the WMATA subsidy. What we have
    found, members of the committee, is that over the years the
    Federal Government has reduced its support for transportation
    in urban areas. States have increased their support. The
    District, because of its peculiar situation, is at a loss here.
    Maryland and Virginia are increasing their support. The Federal
    Government is diminishing its support.
        So we are at the core of the Washington area and the center
    of Federal operations and have an enormous hit on our budget
    because of the amount of the subsidy. This is again a State
    function. It is something that benefits the Federal Government
    and its workers and makes us a healthy and livable region.
        Next to last, Mr. Chairman, we ask for an increase in the
    Public Safety Event Fund. We have received from the President
    $15 million. We are asking for an allocation of $25 million,
    primarily and essentially because of the inauguration. With the
    expenses for the inauguration, post-September 11, we expect to
    easily absorb this additional amount. This is a one-time
    request for this addition and we would ask for the committee's
    support.
        Last but not least, in the area of public school security
    we have seen what has happened in our public schools,
    particularly at Ballou High School. We have developed with our
    chief and in consultation with school officials a detailed
    public safety plan and are requesting from the Federal
    Government $15 million to assist us in this effort.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Again, I want to thank the committee for its support for
    budget autonomy as we move toward the road for full democracy
    in the District. With that, I would be happy, after the other
    testimony, to answer each and all of your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony A. Williams
        Chairman DeWine, Ranking Minority Member Landrieu, and other
    distinguished members of this subcommittee, I would like to thank you
    for the opportunity to testify before you today in support of the
    District of Columbia's fiscal year 2005 budget and financial plan. It
    has been particularly rewarding to work with you, Chairman, and this
    committee over the past year. The strength of State and local
    government experience you bring to your oversight responsibilities,
    along with your dedication to the District of Columbia, provide this
    panel with an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of citizens
    of the District of Columbia and make our Nation's capital an even more
    rewarding place to reside, work, and visit. My remarks this morning
    will focus on three main goals we have for working with this
    subcommittee:
      --promoting the fiscal strength of the District despite a difficult
            national economy and a long-term structural imbalance caused by
            Federal restrictions;
      --passing a local funds budget that provides for citizen priorities;
            and
      --seeking critical Federal investments relating to services for our
            residents and our special status as the Nation's capital.
    I will begin by discussing our efforts to overcome fiscal challenges.

                          OVERCOMING FISCAL CHALLENGES

        The District has worked hard to overcome many fiscal challenges
    over the past decade. Some have been of our own making, others have
    been a matter of circumstance, affecting States and localities across
    the country, and others have been imposed by the Federal Government.
    Under my leadership, along with the legislative stewardship of our
    Council, led by Chairman Linda Cropp, and the fiscal guidance of Natwar
    Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer, there are few States or localities
    that have accomplished more in such a short period of time.
        Fiscal year 2003 marked the District's seventh consecutive balanced
    budget. In April, the District received a two-notch upgrade in our bond
    rating from Moody's Investor Service and now all three rating agencies
    rate the District as grade A investment material. Over the last 4
    years, as States and cities have weathered the deepest financial crisis
    in 60 years, the District has continued produce balanced budgets and
    has managed to increase our cash reserves, which totaled over $250
    million at the beginning of this fiscal year. Our steady accumulation
    of reserves despite difficult times is due in no small part to the
    diligence of Senator Hutchison, who has advocated for robust and secure
    reserve funds. These reserves have the served the District well and
    have contributed to our string of ratings upgrades. I would also like
    to thank the senator for considering our proposal to restructure our
    cash reserves this year and hope that she and this subcommittee will
    support our proposal. This proposal, which is part of our budget
    request, would reduce our overall reserve requirement from 7 percent of
    total expenditures to 6 percent and extend the period over which the
    District can replenish the reserve from 1 year to 2 years. Even with
    these modifications, the District will have sound and stable cash
    reserves when compared to States across the country.
        We have also achieved these accomplishments despite a long-term
    structural imbalance estimated by the General Accounting Office to be
    between $470 million and $1.1 billion per year. The GAO cites multiple
    factors causing this imbalance: the high cost of providing services in
    the D.C. metropolitan area, the relative poverty of our population, and
    Federal restrictions on our revenue collection authority.
        So what explains this apparent paradox? How can the District
    achieve remarkable financial performance, yet still face this
    structural imbalance? The answer is twofold. One, our residents are
    among the most heavily taxed in the Nation, and two, the District is
    deferring massive investments in critical services and infrastructure.
    This is perhaps the most important point in my testimony today, Mr.
    Chairman and members of the committee, so I believe it bears repeating.
    In order to balance our budgets and fund our reserves, the District is
    deferring massive investments in critical services and infrastructure.
        What is the magnitude of this deferral? Approximately $2.5 billion
    of infrastructure has been deferred, including renovating crumbling
    schools, repairing the sewer overflow, fixing roads, and putting into
    place the needed security systems to keep District residents and
    visitors safe.
        As we seek solutions to address the structural imbalance and
    address our long-standing problems, it is clear that taxing our
    residents more or providing fewer services are not viable alternatives.
    Though the GAO report noted areas where the District needs to improve
    management efficiencies, the report is quite clear that this deficit
    would exist under any management structure and even if operational
    efficiencies were improved even more. One option proposed by the GAO is
    a change in Federal policy to expand the District's tax base or to
    provide additional financial support.
        Earlier this month, at the request of this committee I submitted a
    report to you that laid out a comprehensive plan for addressing
    structural imbalance in the District of Columbia. This report presented
    several alternatives for addressing the imbalance and highlighted one
    very promising vehicle, a bill recently introduced by Representative
    Eleanor Holmes Norton, the ``District of Columbia Fair Federal
    Compensation Act of 2004''. This bill would provide the District with
    an annual dedicated Federal payment of $800 million a year dedicated to
    transportation projects, debt service payments, public school
    facilities, or information technology investments. This approach to
    redressing the District's structural imbalance would allow the Federal
    Government to invest in infrastructure that benefits the Federal
    Government itself, the Washington metropolitan area, as well as the
    District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your
    commitment to find a workable solution to this problem that threatens
    our long-term fiscal viability. In addition to addressing the Federal
    contribution to our budget, we also need to repair the Federal process
    for reviewing our budget. As you know, last year the Senate unanimously
    passed a budget autonomy act for the District. This legislation,
    besides being a well-deserved boost for us Home Rule advocates, would
    significantly streamline and rationalize our budget process by allowing
    the city to better align local funds with oftentimes unpredictable and
    shifting needs. This legislation would put a permanent end to long
    delays where the District budgets resources to respond to new service
    needs, but those dollars are tied up in seemingly endless continuing
    resolutions. This bill would also allow the District to better align
    our fiscal year with the Federal grant cycle and school year, as are
    most local jurisdictions. This would eliminate a massive number of
    administrative burdens. Therefore, we are hopeful that the House of
    Representatives will follow the Senate and pass the same bill. Without
    the support of Chairman DeWine and Senator Landrieu, as well as
    Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, this historic legislation would
    not have been possible, so I offer special thanks to you all. Having
    set the context, I will now discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
    District.

                           FUNDING CITIZEN PRIORITIES

        Over the past year our citizens have articulated their priorities
    in citizen summits and town hall meetings across the city, and this
    budget is the manifestation of those discussions. Our residents are
    calling for better education, public safety, health care and housing,
    and this budget makes critical investments to improve services in these
    areas. As a result, the growth of funding in this budget is focused on
    improving critical services, perhaps the most important of which is
    public education.
        As I'm sure you noted, local leadership had a very robust debate in
    formulating this budget, and one of the topics discussed was the
    appropriate level of expenditure growth. After a healthy debate the
    Council approved a budget that funds the operations of government.
        While growth in the budget appears dramatic at first glance, the
    true story is much less severe. Almost half of the growth in the budget
    funds one-time investments such as fulfilling court orders, paying for
    debt service from prior-year investments, and funding Medicaid cost
    increases. To manage the growth of Medicaid expenses we have new
    leadership in place, which includes a new Medicaid director and a
    director of our new Office of Medicaid Operations Reform. Our new
    leadership has led an effort to bring expertise and accountability to
    the District's Medicaid office and public provider agencies. We are
    implementing the recommendations from our prior-year Medicaid audits,
    we have made significant improvements to our Medicaid budget
    development process, and we have improved our approach for billing for
    Medicaid services. In the following discussion I will discuss key
    initiatives included in this budget.

                                   EDUCATION

        Since my first budget as Mayor, I have increased the funding for
    public education by almost 60 percent. In addition to stabilizing
    funding for District of Columbia Public Schools despite continuing
    decline in enrollments, our fiscal year 2005 budget provides record
    funding for charter schools. Despite these investments, I continue to
    be concerned with the quality of education we are providing to our
    children, and I am particularly concerned with how DCPS has managed its
    budget. To address these concerns, I have introduced legislation that
    would streamline the accountability and governance of our public
    schools by creating a chancellor position that reports directly to the
    Mayor with oversight from our City Council. Based on feedback from
    Council members and the general public, I am refining that proposal to
    also create an elected State board of education that would have
    considerable State-level powers. I am encouraged by the increasing
    number of Council members who voted against the status quo at
    yesterday's legislative session. This indicates momentum in the
    direction of meaningful change. I look forward to continuing to work
    with the Council to reach agreement on a new governance structure soon.
    I hope we can rely on expedited consideration by the Congress of any
    legislation passed by the Council that would require a change in our
    Home Rule Charter. My efforts to recruit the best chancellor possible
    and strengthen the accountability structures around that new position
    are just part of my effort to improve the educational opportunities
    available to our children.
        In addition, the city remains extremely proud of its robust charter
    school movement, which educates approximately 20 percent of the school-
    age children in the city. Under my leadership, the local facilities
    allowance for public charter schools has increased by almost 400
    percent, from $617 per student in 2000 to over $2,400 per student in
    the proposed budget before you. We have also been working closely with
    this subcommittee and the charter school community to launch the
    exciting City Build initiative, which was funded by this subcommittee
    and will provide five charter schools with $1 million for their
    facilities in the coming months. Senator Landrieu deserves tremendous
    credit for her work on this program, and on charter schools in general.
        In summary, the fiscal year 2005 budget includes several new
    education initiatives, including:
      --expansion of early childhood education,
      --expansion of after-school and out-of-school activities for children
            and youth,
      --creation of 5 new transformation schools in the D.C. Public School
            system,
      --creation of 8 new public charter schools, and
      --an upgrade of school security.
    In addition, the District's new federally-funded scholarship program is
    unfolding quite well and has received approximately 1,500 applications
    from eligible families. Over 40 schools have submitted school
    commitment forms to participate in this program and more are expected
    to join. Based on these rough numbers we anticipate that will be able
    to meet our goal of serving approximately 1,700 students. The
    Washington Scholarship Fund, which is administering the program, is
    currently working with the program evaluation team, and the Department
    of Education to assess the number of slots and eligible participants to
    determine whether a lottery will be necessary for specific grade
    levels. I am confident that if such a lottery process is employed it
    will be consistent with the intent and priorities identified in the
    legislation.

                                 PUBLIC SAFETY

        On May 3, our city suffered the tragic death of 8-year-old Chelsea
    Cromartie. Chelsea's murder was a senseless cowardly act of violence
    and unfortunately, it was not an isolated event. This year, 13 more of
    our children have been victims to senseless murders. The District's
    response has been aggressive: we continue to fund 3,800 officers, we
    have conducted a new Patrol Service Area plan to enhance police
    deployment in our neighborhoods, and we have established the Office of
    Unified Communications to coordinate our emergency responses, and we
    have just launched a major new effort to concentrate resources from
    across the government on crime ``hot spots'' in order to make
    fundamental change. Recently I also introduced legislation at the end
    of last year to reform the District's juvenile justice system. This
    legislation includes key legislative changes that would make the
    District safer for residents and victims of crime while providing
    improved rehabilitation services for our youth. Through these
    initiatives the District will make great strides to provide a safe and
    secure city for those who live, visit, and work here.

                              OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

        The city is also devoting its efforts to improving services for the
    District's most vulnerable. At the Youth Services Administration, I
    have put in place transitional leadership that has already delivered
    improvements in the areas of security, treatment, staffing,
    administration, and licensing. We have also developed a comprehensive
    plan to best serve our youth and comply with and ultimately exit the
    current outstanding class action litigation. The plan also lays the
    groundwork for replacing the current Oak Hill facility with a smaller,
    state-of-the-art youth facility. In addition, this budget includes the
    following enhancements:
      --expanded coverage for traditional Medicaid clients,
      --full funding for the Health Care Alliance,
      --expanded treatment for the elderly, mentally challenged, and HIV/
            AIDS patients, and
      --facility upgrades at community clinics and ``Medical Homes''.

                 PRIORITY FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS

        Our budget includes several requests for funding projects in
    partnership with the Federal Government and I welcome this Committee's
    partnership with the District to invest available Federal resources in
    the city's top priorities.
        The President's budget includes funding for several of my top
    priorities, including education funding for public schools, charter
    schools and private school scholarships; funding for the Combined Sewer
    Overflow project, which is part of a long-term effort to clean up and
    revitalize the Anacostia River; and funding for important public safety
    investments such as the Unified Communications Center and the Fire
    Department's command center. Our budget also includes funding requests
    for several projects at a higher level than the President's mark and
    for other projects that are not included in the President's budget but
    are worthy of congressional attention. I would like to emphasize
    several of them here today:
      --Tuition Assistance Grant Program.--This program will allow 4,000
            students to pursue higher education this year--either at public
            institutions and private historically black colleges around the
            country as well as local private colleges and universities.
            This high participation rate, along with rising tuition costs,
            means that the District will need to restrict payments to
            students or make the program needs based for students applying
            to the program for the 2004/2005 school year unless Congress
            takes action to fund the program at a higher level. This would
            have a devastating impact on the program which has had such a
            profound impact on opening up college opportunities to many
            families for the first time, as well as providing an incentive
            for middle class families to remain in or relocate to the city.
            Our budget contains a request to fully fund this program at a
            level of $25.6 million above the President's mark of $17
            million. Otherwise we will have to curtail this very successful
            program.
      --Bioterrorism and Forensics Laboratory.--Every city in the Nation
            has access to such a facility as provided by the State, and
            major cities have their own. These laboratories are critical to
            tracing evidence that leads to convicting and incarcerating
            offenders in cases involving homicide, rape, and other serious
            offenses. Although the District is given some access to the
            laboratory managed by the FBI, the available capacity is
            woefully inadequate, and therefore the District faces a large
            crime rate without the tools needed to address it.
          This laboratory is also essential for assessing, detecting, and
            addressing bioterrorism attacks. As we have seen with the
            events of September 11, the anthrax attack, and the ricin
            scare, the Federal Government is a natural target for
            terrorists and the public safety infrastructure of the District
            of Columbia is the first line of defense. This laboratory would
            significantly enhance our ability to detect and respond
            effectively to such threats. Toward this end, we are requesting
            the $9 million for the planning and design phase of a
            bioterrorism and forensics lab.
      --WMATA Operating Payments.--The District's contribution to WMATA
            operations will consume $208.5 of the city's local budget in
            fiscal year 2005. Because the District is the core of the
            Washington metropolitan area and the center of Federal
            operations, this investment not only benefits District
            residents, but it benefits the entire region. Last year, for
            the first time, Congress contributed $3 million towards this
            subsidy. This year, we are asking for full funding for our
            WMATA subsidy. This support is justified because Federal
            stations, Federal workers, and visitors to the Federal
            Government constitution a significant amount of the WMATA
            activity subsidized by the District. Federal support is also
            justified because mass transit costs are typically funded at
            the State level; Maryland funds 100 percent of its localities'
            operating subsidy and Virginia funds half for its
            jurisdictions. I would argue that inherently unfair allocation
            of operating expenses allocated among Maryland, Virginia, and
            the District is a striking example of the structural imbalance
            and a logical opportunity for the Federal Government to craft
            an immediate, partial solution.
      --Downtown Circulator.--The Downtown Circulator project will provide
            the 22 million visitors to Washington, DC with an inexpensive
            and easy way to move around the Monumental Core. The service
            will connect several of the District's most popular
            destinations for residents, tourists and even Federal
            employees. In the future, the system could also be adopted by
            Federal agencies as cost-saving replacement for private vehicle
            fleets and shuttle services. The Federal Government provided
            half a million dollars for this project in fiscal year 2004 and
            the District is requesting an additional $1 million in fiscal
            year 2005, which the District will match with local funds on a
            one-to-one basis on top of considerable support from the city's
            tourism and business sectors.
      --Public Safety Event Fund.--This fund was established to fund local
            costs incurred in response to major Federal events, but this
            year it was seriously under-funded by the President and should
            be raised to $25 million in fiscal year 2005. The proposed
            level of $15 million would barely cover reimbursement for the
            District's costs associated with relatively predictable events
            such as anti-war protests, IMF and World Bank events, and high
            alert details. It does not account for any cost associated with
            the Presidential inauguration, including payment for officers
            from outside jurisdictions, the overtime costs of our own
            police officers, and the additional services from other
            agencies such as the Fire Department, WMATA, and WASA. In the
            post-9/11 security environments, total costs will cost well
            over the extra $10 million that we are requesting.
      --Public School Security.--In the wake of the tragic shooting at
            Ballou Senior High School on February 2, 2004, we need to
            redouble our efforts in this area. The approach of city
            leadership recognizes the critical importance of school
            principals and school staff in creating a climate of safety and
            the importance of providing our staff the necessary tools and
            training. There is currently legislation before Council to
            transfer the responsibility for school security to the
            Metropolitan Police Department. While the District is planning
            on funding the significant operating costs of this initiative,
            I am requesting Federal funding of $15 million to assist with
            the one-time start up costs.
      --Adult/Family Literacy Initiative.--This initiative, which was
            launched by this subcommittee, continues to address a gaping
            hole in the city's educational infrastructure. The District has
            leveraged over $1 million in private assistance with Federal
            appropriations to date and we have used this funding to fund
            literacy services to 872 adults who otherwise would not have
            received assistance. We have also recruited, hired, placed and
            provided professional development for 20 Lifelong Learning
            Coaches. I am requesting an additional $2 million to continue
            our efforts and focus additional efforts on the areas where we
            have identified significant disparities between the need for
            literacy services and the availability of those services.

                       DEMOCRACY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL

        Having presented the District's fiscal year 2005 budget and Federal
    request, I would like to close with a discussion of something that is
    beyond price, and that is the democratic rights of our citizens. The
    Senate has already signaled its interest in expanding Home Rule and
    democracy in the District by passing budget autonomy. I would like to
    ask for your individual support to take the next crucial steps. The
    District is the capital of the world's greatest democracy, and it is
    the ultimate hypocrisy that its citizens suffer from the exact
    disenfranchisement this Nation was founded to end. The United States is
    continuing to sacrifice hundreds of lives and billions of dollars to
    provide Iraqis with freedom and democracy, yet denies full democracy to
    more than a half a million people at its very heart. I urge you to end
    this injustice and provide the city with full voting representation in
    the Congress. Anything short of full democracy for our residents should
    be at the level of personal outrage for all Americans. This concludes
    my remarks today. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

        Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mayor.
        Chairman Cropp, thank you very much for joining us.

                          STATEMENT OF LINDA W. CROPP

        Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Landrieu, Senator Hutchison. It is indeed a pleasure to be here
    with the Mayor and Dr. Gandhi to testify before you with regard
    to the District of Columbia's budget. I join with the Mayor in
    thanking you so very much for the support that you have given
    to the District in the past, in particular your passage of the
    budget autonomy for the District of Columbia.
        The fiscal year 2005 budget, as many of you recognize,
    represents the eighth year in a row consecutively that a
    fiscally-sound and balanced budget is presented to you. This
    budget is also a reflection of our resolve to stand as one
    government that will remain fiscally prudent and responsible.
        The efforts of the Council and the Mayor working together
    have created a spending plan that continues to provide the
    services needed to make the District of Columbia a much better
    place to live, to work, to raise a family and to visit. The
    Council and the Mayor will continue to work in a collaborative
    effort throughout the year in order to manage government
    spending.
        Fiscal discipline has always been and will continue to be a
    top priority of the last few Councils for our legislative
    agenda. We have not only demanded it of the executive branch,
    but we also practice it. The various forms of fiscal
    discipline, from rainy-day funds, financial safeguards,
    insurance and investment policies, economic triggers, to pay-
    as-you-go funds, that we have demanded and imposed on ourselves
    in the past several years have yielded significant returns for
    the District.
        During the Council's 50-day review period of the budget, we
    held 54 hearings, totaling 296 hours of public hearings. These
    public hearings are a very important part of our budget
    process. The public hearings provide our citizens an
    opportunity, with our workforce, to comment and to critique the
    programmatic funding needs and agency performance that impacts
    them. This feedback is essential.
        The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning
    both sets of priorities and put together a fiscally-sound and
    responsible spending plan. The operating budget funds basic
    city services and programs. The capital budget, as a result of
    stringent oversight, has been aligned. For example, funds were
    redirected and targeted for those projects with higher priority
    and critical need.
        On May 14, the Council approved a $4.16 billion spending
    plan that provides adequate funding for basic city services and
    programs. The funding level for fiscal year 2005 represents a
    7.1 percent growth over the revised 2004 local budget and sets
    growth for next year's budget at 4.6. The Council is determined
    to keep our budget growth within realistic figures.
        The budget provides $40 million for the production of low-
    and moderate-income housing, and increases the funding for
    child care, substance and drug abuse treatment, and health care
    for uninsured residents. In keeping with the seven goals of the
    Council's legislative agenda, schools continue to receive full
    funding. The budget earmarks approximately $1 billion for
    public and charter schools.
        In order to address concerns about the growth of spending
    in certain agencies, while still wanting to finance programs
    important to the District's most vulnerable residents, a
    contingency fund was established. This fund would provide
    financial support for the District's budget if other sources
    were not available for the Department of Human Services' Child
    and Family Services, Mental Health, Inspector General,
    Employment Services, Youth Services, and the Office of the
    Secretary. A request to expend money from the contingency fund
    would require proof of need and the appropriate efficiencies
    that we expect from government.
        The Council supports the congressional budget request
    items, particularly the Tuition Assistance Grant program and
    the planning and security costs associated with the Federal
    presence. A total of 4,086 students are receiving funds this
    year from the TAG program. It has had a significant impact on
    furthering the education of these students. Therefore, it is
    important that the additional $8.6 million be provided to
    continue to fund this program.
        The need for funding, planning and security costs related
    to the Federal presence continues to rise. The requirements of
    homeland security have added to this cost. In the past 2 years,
    the District has been reimbursed for the costs it has incurred
    for major events held in Washington, due to the fact that we
    are the Capital City. These cost have now been capped at $15
    million.
        In the past 2 years, which have been non-inaugural years,
    the District has received $15 million to cover the costs for
    providing safety at events. The District is now being asked to
    apply the $15 million to cover the costs for the major events
    and the Presidential inaugural. Historically, the District has
    been directly reimbursed for the costs associated with the
    Presidential inauguration.
        The costs for providing security during the 2001
    inauguration were $6 million. With the addition of homeland
    security requirements, this amount has grown to $10 million.
    The District, however, is now asking for the additional $10
    million. We just cannot possibly absorb that within all of the
    other costs.
        Another area I would like for you to consider is funding to
    assist with the cost of correcting the problem of the lead in
    the water. As you are aware, investigations to date have
    revealed that the various actions of the D.C. Water and Sewer
    Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
    Washington Aqueduct may have all contributed to the problem.
        Therefore, it would appear to be appropriate for Federal
    dollars to be made available to assist in the cost for the
    testing of the water, the testing of the lead levels in
    residents, and for the replacement of the lead service line. It
    is our hope that through the joint effort of the District and
    Federal governments, we can resolve this problem and again make
    water safe in the District of Columbia.
        I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining the
    approval of the District's tax incentives that expired at the
    end of last year. The first-time homebuyer credit, the
    enterprise zone credit and the revenue bond programs are
    important to economic development in the District. The first-
    time homebuyer credit attracts residents to the District and
    assists persons in purchasing homes that might not otherwise
    have the opportunity to do so. As you are probably aware, the
    Mayor has a proposal that would bring in more residents to the
    District of Columbia, and those tax credits certainly played a
    major role in helping to grow our economy.
        The District is always challenged in developing its budget
    due to ongoing structural imbalances. I want to join with the
    Mayor in thanking you so very much for supporting and passing
    budget autonomy. It is very important to the citizens of the
    District of Columbia and we thank you for your wisdom and your
    action in that.
        On the structural imbalance, we hope that we would be able
    to rely on some of the reporting from the General Accounting
    Office and the committee and that they will look at that and
    give the District some assistance in that.
        I would like to mention one other way the Congress could
    assist the District of Columbia in its managing of funds, and
    Senator Hutchison has elaborated on that in her opening
    statement with regard to our cash reserve. We thank you for the
    changes that are being made. We think that that is the right
    direction for us to go.
        We believe that we ought to have some cash in the bank. We
    join with you in that, but the changes that were there were
    possibly just a little bit too much and we are happy we are
    moving in this direction. I would ask that you consider in the
    future as we continue along the line of fiscal responsibility
    that you look at a 3-year pay for paying it back if we need the
    emergency money within 1 year.
        In most instances, a 1-year pay-back is still too soon.
    When you look at what most other jurisdictions do, they usually
    have a 3-year time period to pay it back. So as we continue
    along fiscal responsibility, we hope that you will look at
    that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In conclusion, I would like to say that we look forward to
    working with you as we make the District of Columbia the type
    of city that we all know that it can be. We are on our way, we
    are moving in that direction, but we will continue to strive to
    make it a much better place for people to work, live and visit.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Linda W. Cropp

        Good morning, Chairman DeWine, Senator Landrieu and members of the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. I am
    pleased to be here with my colleagues to testify on the District's
    budget for fiscal year 2005.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The fiscal year 2005 budget represents for the eighth year in a
    row, a fiscally sound and balanced budget. This budget is also a
    reflection of our resolve to stand as one good government that will
    remain fiscally prudent and responsible. The efforts of the Council and
    the Mayor, working together, has created a spending plan that continues
    to provide the services needed to make the District a better place in
    which to live, to work, to raise a family, and to visit. The Council
    and the Mayor will continue this collaborative effort throughout the
    year in order to manage government spending.
        Fiscal discipline has always been and will always be a top priority
    on our legislative agenda. We not only demand it of the executive
    branch, we practice it. The various forms of fiscal discipline--from
    rainy day savings, financial safeguards, insurance and investment
    policies, economic triggers to Pay-As-You-Go funds--that we have
    demanded of, and imposed on ourselves in the past several years, have
    yielded significant returns to the District of Columbia. This is
    reflected in the District Government receiving for the seventh
    consecutive year an unqualified audit opinion and a fiscal year 2003
    Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) showing a balanced budget.
    In addition, this year for the first time, the District received an
    ``A'' rating from all of the Wall Street financial rating agencies.
        In 2004 the Council passed the fiscal year 2005 Budget Submission
    Requirements Resolution of 2004. It established the date for submission
    of the Mayor's proposed budget. It required performance plans and
    reports, and certain information and documentation be submitted to the
    Council along with the proposed budget.

                               THE BUDGET PROCESS

        During the Council's 50-day review period the Council conducted 54
    hearings totaling 296 man-hours. These public hearings are an important
    part of the budget process. The public hearings provide the citizens
    and our workforce with an opportunity to comment and critique
    programmatic and funding needs, and agency performances that impact
    them. This feedback is essential in reaching the decisions and
    determining the recommendations of each committee in the mark-up of the
    budgets.
        The Council worked diligently with the Mayor in aligning both sets
    of priorities and, put together a fiscally sound and responsible
    spending plan. The operating budget funds basic city services and
    programs. The capital budget, as a result of stringent oversight by the
    Council, was realigned. For example, funds were redirected and targeted
    for projects with higher priority and critical needs, such as schools
    for the children, housing for low and moderate income residents, and
    enhancing existing facilities for better public/Council interaction.
        The Mayor submitted the budget to the Council on March 29. The
    proposed local budget was $4.17 billion, an increase of $282.8 million
    or 7.3 percent above the revised fiscal year 2004 budget. The Council
    carefully reviewed the proposed expenditures to ensure that priority
    programs were properly funded. Adjustments were made through hard
    decisions between competing program preferences and by rooting out
    unnecessary budget cushions within the request.

                   HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET

        On May 14 the Council approved the $4.16 billion spending plan that
    provides adequate funding for basic city services and programs. This
    funding level for fiscal year 2005 represents a growth of 7.1 percent
    over the revised fiscal year 2004 local budget and sets growth for next
    year's budget at 4.6 percent. The budget provides $40 million for the
    production of low and moderate income housing and increases the funding
    for childcare, substance and drug abuse treatment, and health care for
    uninsured residents. In keeping with the seven goals on the Council's
    legislative agenda, schools continue to receive full funding. The
    budget earmarks approximately a billion dollars for public schools and
    public chartered schools.
        In order to address the Council's concerns about the growth of
    spending in certain agencies while still wanting to finance programs
    important to the District's most vulnerable residents, a contingency
    fund was established. This fund would provide financial support from
    the District's budget if other sources were not available for the
    Departments of Human Services, Child & Family Services, Mental Health,
    Health, Inspector General, Employment Services, Youth Services
    Administration and the Office of the Secretary. Requests to expend
    money from the contingency fund would require proof of need and
    approval by the CFO, the Mayor and the Council.

                             FEDERAL BUDGET REQUEST

        The Council supports the Congressional budget request items
    included in the Mayor's proposal. However, I would like to highlight
    two items included in that request. The Tuition Assistance Grant
    Program (TAG) and the Planning and Security costs associated with the
    Federal presence. The TAG program has been extremely successful in the
    District. A total of 4,086 students are receiving funds this year from
    the program. TAG has had a significant impact on furthering the
    education of these students. Therefore, it is important that the
    additional $8.6 million be provided to continue to fully fund this
    program.
        The need for funding Planning and Security costs related to the
    Federal presence continues to rise. The requirements of Homeland
    Security have added to this cost. In the past 2 years the District has
    been reimbursed for the costs it has incurred for major events that are
    held in Washington. These costs have now been capped at $15 million. In
    the last 2 years, which have been non-inaugural years, the District has
    received the $15 million to cover its costs for providing safety at
    events. The District is now being asked to apply the $15 million to
    cover the costs for major events and the Presidential Inauguration.
    Historically the District has been directly reimbursed for the costs
    associated with the Presidential Inauguration. The costs for providing
    security during the 2001 inauguration were $6 million. With the
    addition of Homeland Security requirements this amount has grown to $10
    million. The District Government is asking for the additional $10
    million to cover the anticipated costs that will be incurred for the
    2005 inauguration.
        Another area I would like for you to consider is funding to assist
    with the costs of correcting the problem of lead in the water. As you
    are aware the investigations to date have revealed that the various
    actions of the DC Waster And Sewer Authority (WASA), the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington Aqueduct may have all
    contributed to the problem. Therefore, it would appear to be
    appropriate for Federal dollars to be made available to assist in the
    cost for the testing of water, the testing of lead levels in residents
    and for the replacement of lead service lines. It is our hope that
    through the joint effort of the District and Federal Governments we can
    resolve this problem and again make water safe in the District of
    Columbia.
        I would also like to ask for your help in obtaining approval of the
    District's tax incentives that expired at the end of last year. The
    First Time Homebuyer credit, the Enterprise Zone credit and the revenue
    bond program are important to economic development in the District. The
    First Time Homebuyer credit attracts residents to the District and
    assists persons in purchasing homes that might not otherwise have an
    opportunity to do so. The Enterprise Zone credit and the revenue bond
    program are real incentives for attracting businesses to operate within
    the District.
        The District has not been able to offer these very important
    benefits for the past 5 months. It is important to our economic growth
    that these tax incentives we reauthorize.

                              FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

        Historically, the relationship between the District and the Federal
    Government has been a unique political and financial arrangement.
    Between 1879 and 1920, the Federal Government would provide assistance
    by paying half of all District expenditures. Subsequently, given the
    various Federal prohibitions on taxing nonresident incomes, Federal
    properties, Federal purchase of goods and services, the District would
    receive a direct payment. This payment was stopped in 1997 when the
    Federal Government assumed responsibility for the cost of the
    contributions to the police, firefighters, and teachers retirement
    plans, various Court services and portions of other State functions.
        It is worth recalling that when the 1997 Revitalization Act was
    passed, one recommendation was that Congress would not need to review
    or approve the District's budget because the city would no longer
    receive any Federal payments. At a minimum, Congress should no longer
    approve the local portion of the District's budget. Just like the other
    50 States, the District should be solely responsible for approving its
    own local spending. Achieving such budget autonomy will allow the
    District to implement its budget in a timely manner and will assist in
    improving the city's fiscal management. I want to thank you Mr.
    Chairman, the subcommittee and the Senate for supporting this
    initiative. It is my hope that the U.S. House of Representatives will
    soon join you in adopting this proposal.
        The District Government is always challenged in developing its
    budget due to the ongoing structural imbalance that exists between its
    spending needs and its revenue generation capacity. As noted in the
    General Accounting Office's May 2003 report the imbalance amounts to
    between $400 million to $1.143 billion per year. The report also noted
    that the cost of providing public services is much higher in the
    District than it is in the average State due to a relatively large
    poverty population, poor health indicators, high crime, and the high
    cost of living. The report stated that the District has a very high
    revenue capacity, and the city is already taxing toward the upper limit
    of our revenue capacity, thereby creating a punitive tax structure.
        Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has introduced Bill H.R. 4269,
    the District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004. The
    bill outlines the unique situation of the District of Columbia as a
    Federal city. It proposes an annual Federal payment of $800 million
    with provisions to adjust the number in the future. The $800 million
    would be made available to address important structural needs of the
    city, which the District Government cannot fully fund from its current
    budget. Transportation and street maintenance, information technology
    and DCPS capital improvements are essential to the running of the city.
    I ask for this subcommittee to support this legislation and encourage
    adoption by the Senate.
        I would like to mention one other way that the Congress could
    assist the District Government in managing its funds. Dr. Gandhi has
    proposed changes to the requirements for the Emergency and Contingency
    Cash Reserve funds. The proposed changes would provide additional
    monies for local programming and the provision of services to the
    residents of the District of Columbia while still maintaining required
    reserve levels. Your support of the proposed changes would be of great
    benefit to developing and managing our budget.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Finally, as you consider our appropriations request, we ask that
    you support and pass the budget in time for the start of the new fiscal
    year and before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. Furthermore, we
    urge you to pass the budget as is, without any extraneous riders. This
    much anticipated fiscal year 2005 budget is important because it shows
    how the Mayor and the Council can work together and underscores our
    commitment to make Washington, DC one of the best governed cities in
    the Nation.
        Nonetheless, the Council will continue to oversee the Executive's
    operations and expenditures. We will be responsive to our constituents
    who call the District their home. We will work with the Mayor,
    Congress, and the surrounding governments to achieve mutually shared
    goals. Together with the Mayor, we will produce good responsible
    budgets that invest dollars for the District and leave a legacy for
    future generations. Granted we do not always agree from time to time,
    but we will be at the table to assert ourselves as an institution and
    work for the betterment and future of our citizens.
        I thank you for this opportunity to present the fiscal year 2005
    budget and these issues of major importance to the District of
    Columbia.

        Senator DeWine. Thank you.
        Dr. Gandhi.

                         STATEMENT OF NATWAR M. GANDHI

        Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu,
    Senator Hutchison. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial
    Officer for the District of Columbia and I am here today to
    testify on the District's fiscal year 2005 budget request to
    the Congress.
        The Congress created the District's Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer to preserve and enhance the District's
    financial viability at all times. The District has made
    substantial progress in the last 7 years, achieving a
    consistent series of balanced budgets and clean audits, and
    significantly improving its financial infrastructure.
        As part of this success, the District has had a $1.4
    billion turn-around in fund balance, from a negative of $518
    million in 1996 to a positive balance of about $897 million at
    the end of fiscal year 2003. We had almost $254 million in cash
    reserves for emergency and contingency purposes at the end of
    fiscal year 2003, probably the largest of such reserves as a
    percentage of budget in the entire Nation.
        The crowning event to date, in fiscal year 2004, is the
    recent two-notch upgrade in the rating on our general
    obligation bonds from Moody's, lifting our rating to the A
    category from all rating agencies for the first time ever. And
    I particularly want to thank this committee, and particularly
    Senator Hutchison, for taking a lead on that.
        We continue to build on this record of accomplishment.
    Standardized spending plans for all agencies are now in place,
    and we are monitoring reserves against those plans using a new
    online financial management tool for controlling agency
    spending.
        The District has enacted its own Anti-Deficiency Act to
    hold financial and program managers accountable for achieving
    program results within approved budgets. The first-ever local
    anti-deficiency report identifying agencies that have strayed
    from the approved budgets and spending plans in the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2004 is forthcoming.
        With all these accomplishments in place as evidence of
    ongoing fiscal prudence and commitment to sound fiscal
    management, it is high time to grant the District local budget
    autonomy. It will allow the District to improve budget
    preparation and management quite significantly.
        Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your leadership and
    support on that matter, and we hope that the U.S. House of
    Representatives will soon follow your lead in this matter.
        The fiscal year 2004 financial outlook is good, and I am
    confident that we will end the year with a balanced budget one
    more time. The fiscal year 2005 budget request has just been
    voted on by the Council on May 14. As Chairman Cropp pointed
    out, the Council and the Mayor are currently reconciling their
    respective budget amendments, and we will provide the
    subcommittee with the final numbers as soon as they are
    available. However, I would like to briefly summarize some of
    the key points in the request.
        The local funds, taxes and fees paid by D.C. residents
    comprise about two-thirds of the total budget, or about $4.16
    billion, an increase of about $332 million, or about 8.7
    percent. Please note that the expenditure growth for the local
    funds in 2005 does not set the mold for 2006 and beyond.
    Expenditures are expected to grow at 4.5, 4.3 and 4.5 percent
    for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively.
        The 2005 budget includes important budget corrections or
    increases to recognize the true cost of providing the current
    level of services. The increases in this budget are driven by
    the cost of maintaining current programs at existing program
    levels, not by new program initiatives. All of the total
    increase of $332 million in local fund expenditures is related
    to maintaining current services.
        Two areas of note are Medicaid and public education. The
    rising Medicaid expenditures are in large part due to the cost
    of providing care to the District's aging and disabled
    population. In 2000, 20.3 percent of the District's population
    was disabled, and about 12 percent was over the age of 65. The
    cost of caring for these groups has increased at a rate much
    faster than inflation. The District has also experienced
    enrollment increases and has now reached 99-percent-eligible
    enrollment status.
        When we benchmark our Medicaid programs with our
    neighboring States, here is what we find. Fully 25 percent of
    the District's population is enrolled in Medicaid, compared to
    12 percent in Maryland and 9 percent in Virginia. The District
    spends on average $7,200 per enrollee, compared to about $5,500
    in Maryland and about $5,100 in Virginia. Per resident, the
    District of Columbia spends about $1,776, compared to about
    $649 in Maryland and $445 in Virginia.
        In public education, the formula increases in public
    education for both D.C. public schools and charter schools
    added about $70 million over the 2004 budget. However, these
    increases are needed to maintain schools as they operate today.
        The economic outlook for the District of Columbia for
    fiscal year 2005 is quite good. Retail sales, including
    tourism, are expected to be up by about 5 percent, reflecting
    the current trends. The real estate market continues to be very
    strong, with taxes on property sales remaining at all-time
    highs. Real property tax revenues are expected to increase by
    about 11 percent in 2005.
        Our 5-year financial plan projects positive net operating
    margins through fiscal year 2008. However, the District will
    operate on a very slim financial margin, about $2 million, in
    fiscal year 2005. As you are aware, in fiscal year 2002 the
    District fully funded its emergency and contingency cash
    reserve funds at the maximum current required level, totaling
    about $248 million, or 7 percent of the total expenditure
    budget. This was a significant accomplishment, achieved 5 years
    ahead of our deadline, and it has contributed significantly to
    the District's bond rating upgrades.
        Senator DeWine. Doctor, if you could wrap up, please.
        Dr. Gandhi. All I need to add here is basically the changes
    that we are currently working with Senator Hutchison's office
    on, once they are implemented into law, we will be able to
    provide still a substantial amount of cash in there.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The last thing I would want to say is basically we
    appreciate your lead on the structural imbalance, and on that
    front the recent legislation that is sponsored by Ms. Eleanor
    Holmes Norton in the House would be the most welcome correction
    for the District's structural imbalance.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. I request
    that my written testimony be made part of the record.
        Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record. Thank
    you very much.
        Dr. Gandhi. Thank you, sir.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Natwar M. Gandhi

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Landrieu, and members of the
    subcommittee. I am Natwar M. Gandhi, Chief Financial Officer for the
    District of Columbia, and I am here today to testify on the District's
    fiscal year 2005 budget request to the Congress. My remarks will
    briefly touch on the fiscal year 2004 financial outlook, the fiscal
    year 2005 request, and the overall health of the District's finances.

                           OVERARCHING FINANCIAL GOAL

        Since assuming this office, my overwhelming objective has been to
    preserve, enhance, and secure the District's financial viability for
    today and into the indefinite future. The District has made substantial
    progress in the last 7 years, achieving a consistent series of balanced
    budgets and clean audits, and significantly improving our financial
    infrastructure. As part of this success, the District has had a $1.4
    billion turned around in fund balance from a negative $518 million in
    1996 to a positive balance of $897 million at the end of fiscal year
    2003. We have over $253 million in cash reserves for emergency and
    contingency purposes, the largest such reserves as compared to budget
    that I can identify in the entire Nation. The culminating event to-date
    in fiscal year 2004 is the recent upgrade in the rating on our General
    Obligation bonds from Moody's Financial Services, lifting our rating to
    the ``A'' category from all rating agencies for the first time ever.
        We continue to build on this record of accomplishment. Standardized
    spending plans for all agencies are now in place and we are monitoring
    results against those plans using a new on-line financial management
    tool for controlling agency budgets. Across all agencies, we are
    building performance budgets that set targets for accomplishments and
    benchmark these targets against best practices in local government. The
    District has enacted its own Anti-Deficiency Act to hold financial and
    program managers accountable for achieving program results within
    approved budgets. We have recently issued the first ever local Anti-
    Deficiency report identifying agencies that have strayed from their
    approved budgets and spending plans in the first quarter of fiscal year
    2004.
        The District is making steady progress on its long-term replacement
    strategy for its administrative systems--the Administrative Services
    Modernization Program (ASMP)--spearheaded by the Office of the Chief
    Technology Officer. Over the next 3 years, all of the District's
    administrative systems--personnel, payroll, procurement, property
    management, and budget--will be upgraded and integrated with the System
    of Accounting and Reporting (SOAR). For the first time, the District
    will have a top quality, integrated information system with which to
    manage District operations. Already in operation is a new procurement
    system linked to our accounting system. A new budget system is
    scheduled to become operational in August 2004, a personnel system in
    November 2004 and a payroll system in July 2005.
        With all of these accomplishments in place, as evidence of ongoing
    fiscal prudence and commitment to fiscal viability, it is time for two
    changes in the District's relationship with the Federal Government.
    Specifically, budget autonomy will allow the District to improve budget
    preparation and management quite significantly. Without autonomy we
    must prepare specific expenditure plans and revenue estimates many
    months in advance of the actual budget year, adding more-than-usual
    uncertainty about the planned budget and posing more difficulty in
    budget execution. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your support and
    that of the U.S. Senate on the matter of budget autonomy and am very
    hopeful that the U.S. House of Representatives will soon follow your
    lead in this matter.
        It also is time for some additional Federal consideration of the
    District's infrastructure needs. The District faces about $3 billion in
    infrastructure needs in the next 4 years--mostly in schools, streets
    and transportation--that cannot possibly be funded locally. The
    District of Columbia already has the highest per capita general
    obligation debt in the Nation and a tax burden that is 18 to 33 percent
    higher than average for the States. Our only local options for meeting
    these infrastructure deficiencies are: (1) adding even more per capita
    debt--an action very much frowned on by the rating agencies, (2)
    increasing per capita tax burdens--an action likely to discourage
    current and potential residents and employers, or (3) lower delivery of
    other types of services--a difficult choice in a city with an unusually
    large population of people in need.
        In May 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) strongly
    underscored the District's unique financial challenges in generating
    the funds to finance all usual and necessary services. An annual
    structural imbalance is identified in report GAO-03-666, of $470
    million to $1.14 billion between the costs of delivering typical
    services and the revenue available from typical tax burdens, based on
    the fiscal year 2000 budget and data. Over the years, the District
    dealt with this gap by neglecting infrastructure needs and assessing
    very high taxes. Today, we continue to need assistance to address our
    many infrastructure problems.

                       FISCAL YEAR 2004 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK

        Through the leadership and cooperation of our elected officials,
    the District made the necessary tough decisions to assure a balanced
    budget for fiscal year 2004. As of this time, all identified spending
    pressures have been resolved through internal or interprogram
    reallocations. I am confident we will end the year with a balanced
    budget.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Council of the District of Columbia voted to approve the fiscal
    year 2005 budget request on May 14. I would like to briefly summarize
    some of the key points in the request.
        In total, the District's gross funds operating request for fiscal
    year 2005 is $6.25 billion, an increase of about $545 million, or 9.6
    percent, over the approved fiscal year 2004 level of $5.7 billion. The
    total number of positions in fiscal year 2005 from all funding sources
    is 33,050, an increase of 882 positions.
        Local funds, taxes and fees paid by D.C. residents comprise about
    two-thirds of the total budget, about $4.17 billion, an increase of
    about $332 million, or 8.7 percent, over fiscal year 2004 levels. The
    total number of positions funded with local funds is 26,050 in fiscal
    year 2005, a decrease of 195 positions.
        Please note that the expenditure growth for local funds in fiscal
    year 2005 does not set the mold for fiscal year 2006 and beyond.
    Expenditures are expected to grow at 4.1, 4.6 and 4.3 percent for
    fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, respectively. The fiscal year 2005
    budget includes important budget corrections or increases to recognize
    the true cost of providing the current level of services, including
    entitlements experiencing both higher provider rates and utilization,
    court orders' compliance costs, attainable projections of Medicaid
    reimbursements, higher pension costs for prior years' pay raises for
    teachers, police officers and firefighters, as well as new operating
    costs from completed capital projects. Almost half of the fiscal year
    2005 local funds growth rate of 8.7 percent, or $156 million of the
    $332 million increase, is due to these one-time budget corrections for
    fiscal year 2004 service level and rate increases. The reminder of the
    growth--4.6 percent (growth rate of 8.7 percent minus 4.1 percent) or
    $176 million--is anticipated service level and cost increases for
    fiscal year 2005 alone. If we isolated service level and rate increases
    for just fiscal year 2005, it would be 4.6 percent rather than a 8.7
    percent growth, which is in-line with the previously mentioned out-
    years growth rates.

                                  COST DRIVERS

        The increases in this budget are driven by the cost of maintaining
    current programs at existing program levels, not by new program
    initiatives. All of the total increase of $332 million in local fund
    expenditures is related to maintaining current services. Program
    initiatives of $36.3 million are accommodated by making program
    reductions or shifting costs to other fund sources.
        Medicaid.--The fiscal year 2005 proposed budget for Medicaid is
    $1.4 billion, or 22 percent of the District's gross funds budget. Total
    program costs have risen 45.2 percent and local fund costs by 30.9
    percent between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year
    2005, Medicaid costs are projected to increase by $39 million.
        There are several contributing factors to rising Medicaid
    expenditures, but they are in large part due to the cost of providing
    care to the aging and disabled populations. Care for these groups has
    increased at a rate much faster than inflation because of price
    increases in prescription medications, the rapidly rising costs for
    nursing home services, and labor costs that continue to soar, driven by
    a nationwide shortage of nurses and new staffing requirements. The
    District has also experienced enrollment increases and has now reached
    99 percent eligible enrollment status. This is attributable mainly to
    aggressive outreach campaigns and program expansions such as the
    Childless Adults Waiver that offers coverage for ages 50-64 up to 50
    percent FPL and the expansion of the HIV/AIDS Waiver.
        When we benchmarked our Medicaid program with our neighboring
    States, here is what we found:
      --25 percent of the District's population is enrolled in Medicaid--
            compared to 12 percent in Maryland and 9 percent in Virginia.
      --The District spends, on average, $7,242 per enrollee--compared to
            $5,509 in Maryland and $5,177 in Virginia.
    Per resident, D.C. spends $1,776--compared to $649 in Maryland and $445
    in Virginia.
        Costs per enrollee are higher in the District than in surrounding
    jurisdictions because the District, an entirely urban area, has higher
    costs to deliver the same services as Maryland and Virginia. These
    States spread part of their service delivery over rural areas that have
    lower costs. With higher costs per enrollee and a high proportion of
    its population in need, D.C. taxpayers carry a large burden for their
    fellow residents.
        Public Education.--Formula increases in public education for both
    D.C. Public Schools and Charter Schools add $75 million to this
    appropriation. However, these increases are needed to maintain schools
    as they operate today.
        Pay Costs.--The increased cost of maintaining the District's
    workforce, essentially unchanged in size from fiscal year 2004, is $89
    million--an increase of six percent over fiscal year 2004. These
    increased costs are driven predominantly by previously negotiated
    labor/management agreements.
        Operating Impact of Capital Projects.--As a matter of good-
    budgeting, the District has decided to recognize explicitly in its
    operating budgets the on-going maintenance costs of completed capital
    projects. This approach assures that the on-going operational costs of
    such projects do not show up as subsequent spending pressures or
    inadequately maintained systems. In the past 5 years, the District has
    had an aggressive program of capital improvements in the information
    technology arena and must now budget for resultant maintenance costs.
    In fiscal year 2005, such costs add $28 million to our baseline needs.
        Debt Service and Other Fixed Costs Increases.--An increase of $68
    million is required to service the District's debt and meet fixed cost
    increases (rent, telecommunications, etc.).
        The chart at the end of my testimony breaks out these cost
    increases by type.

                              THE FISCAL FORECAST

        The economic outlook for the District in fiscal year 2005 is quite
    good, with a forecast growth in the baseline tax revenue of 5.4
    percent. Retail sales, including tourist accommodations and
    restaurants, as well as general retail, are expected to be up by 5
    percent--reflecting current trends--as will individual and corporate
    income taxes. The real estate market continues very strong, with taxes
    on property sales remaining at all time highs and real property tax
    revenue expected to increase 11 percent in fiscal year 2005. Special
    purpose revenue funds will grow by 8.7 percent.
        The fiscal year 2005-fiscal year 2008 financial plan projects
    positive net operating margins through fiscal year 2008. However, the
    District will operate on a very slim financial margin--about $1 million
    in fiscal year 2005--based on expenditure plans and forecasts of
    revenue growth. The 8.7 percent expenditure growth in the fiscal year
    2005 budget is financed through the use of growth in current year
    revenues and fund balance amounts accumulated from prior years. Once
    used, a fund balance is gone and on-going expenditure requirements must
    ultimately be met with on-going revenue streams. Our financial plan
    shows that the District of Columbia meets this requirement in the
    planning period.
        Because of these tight projected margins, any adverse disturbance
    in the District's expected financial fortune could necessitate
    immediate major cutbacks in programs and services. Our very large
    emergency and contingency reserves are of limited help, for two
    reasons. First, the conditions for use are very restrictive and,
    second, any funds used must be paid back in the next fiscal year.
    Realistically, and especially in very difficult circumstances when
    resources are desperately needed, the District cannot take advantage of
    these funds. It will be challenging for our revenue stream to sustain
    the current level of service, and there is no room for consideration of
    additional program initiatives or significant infrastructure
    investments. For these reasons, the city and its elected leadership
    will face progressively more difficult program and financial decisions
    in the years to come.

                           CAPITAL BUDGET CONSTRAINTS

        One area where the imbalance between revenues and needed
    expenditures is already apparent is in the capital budget. The Capital
    program is increasingly constrained by limited operating revenues to
    support debt service as well as by the impact of prudent debt ratios
    and debt service affordability determinations. To maintain good
    standing with Wall Street, we must cap annual capital borrowing at $400
    million in fiscal year 2005, $350 million in fiscal year 2006 and $300
    million in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. With estimated needs
    of $775 million, the District's Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal
    year 2005 has an expenditure gap of approximately $375 million.
        Structural Imbalance in the District's Budget.--In the last 7
    years, the District has submitted balanced and responsible budgets
    during periods of increasing, as well as declining, revenues. Our
    restrained budgeting in the good years helped us work through some of
    the hard times. Despite this record of balanced budgets, the District
    has a serious long-term financial problem--a structural imbalance that
    transcends short-term challenges and cyclical revenue fluctuations.
    This structural imbalance is a long-term gap between the District's
    ability to raise revenue at reasonable tax rates and the District's
    ability to provide services of reasonable quality and quantity to its
    residents. The causes and consequences of this imbalance were well
    documented by the General Accounting Office.
        The GAO defines a financial structural imbalance as an inability to
    provide a representative array of public services by taxing at
    representative rates. Using this definition, many municipalities could
    legitimately claim to have a structural imbalance. However, the
    District is unique among all municipal governments. It is the only city
    chartered in the Constitution of the United States and under the
    legislative jurisdiction of the Congress--that is, the District is the
    only Federal City of the United States of America. It is the only city
    that has no State to share costs or underwrite expenditures in whole or
    part; instead, the District of Columbia bears about $500 million
    annually in costs of Mental Health, Human Services, Child and Family
    Services, a University, Motor Vehicles, Taxation, Insurance Regulation,
    Public Service Commission, and other State services. The District is a
    city whose primary employer is self-determined to be exempt from tax on
    its property and exempt from tax on its income. Further, by Federal
    law, the preponderance of workers in the District of Columbia are
    exempt from the District of Columbia income tax. Lastly, it is the only
    municipality in the country that must exercise the responsibilities of
    a city, county, State, and school district. Although the District has
    the taxing authority for all types of taxes typical of States and local
    governments combined, it does not have the corresponding tax base
    sufficient to pay for the services it must provide.
        As a consequence of these factors, the GAO finds the District's
    structural imbalance for fiscal year 2000 to be 14.4 percent to 40.3
    percent of local revenue, depending on how it is measured. Note that
    this is after the benefits of the 1997 Revitalization Act that relieved
    the District of some State-like services and ended the annual Federal
    payment. According to GAO, the District either is among the group of
    States with the very highest shortfalls (at the very lowest end of the
    range) or the District has more than twice the shortfall of the highest
    State (at the highest end of the range). The lower-end represents a set
    of services typical of a State and the higher-end adds emphasis for
    dense urban areas. The District obviously falls somewhere above the
    bottom and, arguably, close to the top. Because of our urban population
    and service requirements, the District of Columbia's problem clearly is
    severe and exceeds that of any State.
        The GAO report also finds that the District of Columbia continues
    to defer significant amounts of infrastructure development because of
    constraints in its operating budget. When compared to combined State
    and local debt across the 50 States, GAO found that the District's debt
    ranks as the highest in the Nation both per capita and as a percentage
    of own-source revenue.

             THE BASIS FOR FEDERAL ACTION TO ADDRESS THE IMBALANCE

        Because of the District's unique status, the Federal Government--
    both the legislative and executive branches--has recognized its
    responsibility to assist the District in meeting its municipal
    financing needs. For many years, federally appointed commissioners
    administered the delivery of municipal services under the aegis of the
    Federal Government. With the establishment of limited home rule in
    1973, chartering Federal legislation provided for a Federal payment.
    The basis for such payment was laid out in Section 11601 of the Act,
    which recognized the special limitations and burdens placed on the
    District by the Federal Government. These restrictions included
    limitations on the District's taxing authority, the costs of providing
    municipal services to Federal installations in the District, and the
    special costs imposed on the District because of its status as the
    capital of the Nation.
        The District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997 restructured
    responsibilities in a way that resulted in the assumption by the
    Federal Government of prisons, courts and certain D.C. employee pension
    liabilities. In the absence of a parent State for the District, under
    the Revitalization Act, the Federal Government assumed certain
    responsibilities that in other localities would be undertaken by the
    State. At the same time, this Act phased out the annual Federal payment
    to the District but contained language permitting this issue to be
    revisited at an appropriate time.
        In addition to the courts and prisons, each year the Federal
    Government provides financial assistance to the District for a variety
    of targeted projects. Apart from pass-throughs to non-governmental
    entities and formula-driven Federal entitlement payments, this amount
    has ranged from a high of $167 million in fiscal year 1998 to a low of
    $24 million in fiscal year 2000 and was $127 million in fiscal year
    2003. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Revitalization Act, and the
    continued financial support from the Federal Government for earmarked
    projects, the District still faces an on-going structural imbalance.
        When it comes to addressing the structural imbalance, we see few
    additional options other than continuing to shortcut services. Already
    the District has extremely high tax burdens; recall that by GAO account
    this burden ranges from 18 percent to 33 percent above the average for
    States, depending on the measurement used. Increasing the tax burden on
    District businesses and residents even further simply influences
    potential and current residents or businesses to locate in adjacent
    lower-tax or higher-service States. Given the structural imbalance, the
    District must continue to choose between tax levels that are even
    higher than the national average, service levels that are lower than
    the national average, or combinations of both.
        It is my hope that the GAO report helps Congress and the District
    move beyond questions of whether there is a structural imbalance to
    questions of how the Federal Government and District government can
    work together to address this problem. And this problem must be
    addressed with urgency to assure the long-term financial viability of
    the Nation's capital city.
        Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton authored Bill H.R. 4269, the
    District of Columbia Fair Federal Compensation Act of 2004, that
    recognizes the District's unique needs and provides unique solutions.
    That Bill establishes a Dedicated Infrastructure Account within the
    general fund of the District. The fund would receive $800 million
    annually in Federal monies, with growth adjustments over time. These
    monies could be used only for transportation including streets,
    information technology, and DCPS infrastructure developments and to
    support debt service payments on bonds, notes and other obligations of
    the District. Funds would remain available until expended.
        I urge the Senate to consider the Norton bill favorably. By
    providing for infrastructure development, it can help reverse the
    history of necessary neglect and move the District of Columbia toward
    the shining example that should be set by the capital city of the free
    world. With so many financial accomplishments now well underway in the
    District of Columbia, this is the last major piece of the financial
    puzzle and the District cannot prosper into the future without it.

                           CASH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS

        The District's flexibility in managing its finances is also
    constrained by its current reserve requirements. As you are aware, in
    fiscal year 2002, the District fully funded its Emergency and
    Contingency Cash Reserve Funds at their maximum required levels,
    totaling $248 million, or 7 percent of the local expenditure budget.
    This was a significant accomplishment, achieved 5 years ahead of the
    Congressionally mandated time frame. Maintaining the 7 percent level
    for the District's Cash Reserves required an increase to $254 million
    for fiscal year 2003 and $285 million for fiscal year 2004. In fiscal
    year 2005 the emergency and contingency cash reserves combined are
    budgeted to reach $303 million. This is in addition to the $50 million
    in operating cash reserve maintained by the District. If I may, I would
    like to briefly summarize cash reserve requirements elsewhere as a
    reminder of how noteworthy the District's performance is in this area.
        No other major city has a cash reserve requirement except Denver,
    which is required to have 3 percent of general fund expenditures in a
    reserve.
        Among States, most have some form of cash reserve or ``rainy day''
    fund. Further,
      --the approximate average size of these funds is 5 percent of budget;
      --most States have no replenishment requirement, but 6 States require
            the funds to be replenished over the course of 2, 3, or 5
            years; and
      --in 21 States, the reserve funds can be used when the State faces a
            deficit for any reason, and in most other States the funds can
            be used in the event of a revenue shortfall.
        Working with Congress, the District has developed proposed changes
    to our emergency and contingency cash reserve requirements. These
    changes, included in the District's fiscal year 2005 Budget Request
    Act, would reduce the overall requirement from 7 percent to 6 percent
    (2 percent Emergency and 4 percent Contingency). The proposed changes
    would modify the requirement for replenishment from a 1-year
    replenishment to a 2-year requirement with no less than 50 percent
    being paid back in the first fiscal year after use. In addition, the
    proposed changes recognize that the District's Home Rule Act requires
    the District to maintain a separate cash reserve for expenditures
    associated with debt service payments. This separate cash reserve is in
    addition to the 7 percent emergency and contingency cash reserves. The
    proposed changes remove from the calculation of the 7 percent emergency
    and contingency cash reserve those expenditures associated with debt
    service for which this separate reserve is already maintained. Finally,
    the proposal would change the basis of the calculation of the 7 percent
    for the emergency and contingency cash reserves from local fund
    expenditures as proposed in the District's upcoming fiscal year budget,
    to local fund expenditures as calculated in the annual Comprehensive
    Annual Financial Report.
        Even with, what we hope will be congressional enactment of the
    proposed changes, you can see from the comparison to other States, the
    District has an exceptionally strong reserve position, but would still
    have among the most demanding of any jurisdiction in the country with
    respect to the amount required, the fact that access to these funds is
    granted only in declared major emergencies or serious revenue
    contingencies and the replenishment requirements.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I request that
    this testimony be made part of the record. I will be pleased to answer
    any questions you or the other members may have.

        Senator DeWine. Mayor, you have requested $9 million in
    Federal support for a new forensic lab. As a former county
    prosecutor, I certainly understand the need for good forensic
    work.
        What will be the local contribution for this and what is
    the total cost of the project? And something you and I
    discussed the other day--what are the operational cost
    estimates when the lab is up and running? Have you figured that
    out yet?
        Mayor Williams. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman. We estimate
    that the overall cost will be $80 million through 2008.
        Senator DeWine. For the construction of the lab itself?
        Mayor Williams. For the planning and the construction, and
    the District's participation would be over that period. So, for
    example, in the first year we are requesting $9 million. The
    District would contribute $2.3 million for a total of $11.3. In
    2006, the combined Federal-District contribution would be $30
    million; the same for 2007 in construction. And then in fiscal
    year 2008, for construction, commissioning, and the completion,
    it would be $8.7. So it would be a partnership.
        As I said in my testimony, we are prepared to--and I can't
    speak for whoever is Mayor at that time, but we are committed
    to putting in place $40 million. That would be about $20
    million more than we are spending right now to operate this
    facility because we believe the benefits to our city, to
    Federal workers and to visitors alike are more than worth the
    investment.
        Senator DeWine. So it would be how much per year, Mayor? I
    am sorry.
        Mayor Williams. Around $42 million, my people are telling
    me. So that is about $20 million more than we are spending now.
        Senator DeWine. For the lab itself?
        Mayor Williams. Right, so we are assuming the operating
    burden for this facility.
        Senator DeWine. So the use of the lab is just going to go
    up, as we would expect, as you and I discussed the other day.
        Mayor Williams. Right, because we are going to be doing
    more than we do now.
        Senator DeWine. Sure. It is going to do a lot more than you
    are doing now, and your results, we assume, will significantly
    increase. And if you got a good lab there, what is going to
    happen is that your prosecutors and your police are going to be
    able to use it more, and as they use it more, your costs are
    going to go up.
        Mayor Williams. Right.
        Senator DeWine. Okay.
        Mayor Williams. I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have shown a
    lot of progress with Chief Ramsey, with the oversight--the
    Council has been very strong and adamant about this--in
    improving our closure rate to where it is now leading many
    other cities. But we still have a long way to go and the
    forensics lab would really enormously help that effort.
        Senator DeWine. Your current situation now is that you use
    the FBI lab. That is free to you, is that right, or do you pay
    for that or how does that work?
        Mayor Williams. I believe it is free.
        Senator DeWine. But you have got limited use of it?
        Mayor Williams. You get what you pay for, right.
        Senator DeWine. Well, I mean in all fairness, it is a
    limited use, though.
        Mayor Williams. Right, because we are not their top
    priority, by definition.
        Senator DeWine. Right, and that is just the way it is.
        Mayor Williams. We thank the FBI and we value their
    partnership. I don't mean to say anything otherwise.
        Senator DeWine. Right, but in all fairness, it is not
    yours.
        Mayor Williams. Right.
        Senator DeWine. Let me ask you about your request in regard
    to Federal support to help the District meet its commitment to
    Metro. Why is this important?
        Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, I think it is enormously
    important because if you look at our Metro responsibilities, as
    I said before, this is something that benefits not only the
    District, but it benefits our visitors, it benefits our Federal
    workers, it benefits the overall region.
        We are paying a disproportionate share here in the District
    for regular funding compared to Maryland and Virginia because
    the formula doesn't recognize our peculiar situation, and the
    structure of the Metro, as well, doesn't. We have a number of
    stations, for example, that are right within the District's
    boundary, and the long and short of it is we have an enormous
    amount of commuter use of our Metro and that is not reflected
    in the formula.
        Finally, as I said in my testimony earlier, the Federal
    Government has withdrawn support over the years, has reduced
    its support for Metro, while States have increased support. But
    we have no State to increase support to compensate for that
    lack of Federal support. So that is all coming out of the
    District, some $210 million.
        In terms of actual benefits, we are talking about increased
    ridership, new bus systems that particularly would allow our
    lower-income workers--I know the Senate, for example, has been
    very, very supportive of mothers moving into the world of work,
    with support for day care. This would allow those mothers the
    opportunity to have transportation to get to their jobs. So
    there are enormous benefits to this, as well. I would be happy
    to go into more detail.
        Senator DeWine. No, no, that is fine.
        Dr. Gandhi. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may just add some
    numbers to what the Mayor just said, we are talking about in
    2004 roughly $163 million of operating expenditures that we
    have to provide to Metro. That goes to 171, 179, 188, all the
    way up to 2007.
        But more important is the capital needs that we have to
    provide for, and the needs are something like $250 million in
    2004, double that much, or about $420 million in 2005, and keep
    on going to $468 million in 2007. Obviously, these are enormous
    needs and we cannot afford to provide that kind of capital
    funding because we have a limitation. As the Mayor pointed out,
    we have the highest per capita borrowing in the country, and if
    we were to go out and borrow more money, it would affect our
    bond rating. So we are in kind of a catch-22 here.
        Ms. Cropp. Mr. Chairman, if you took the capital needs for
    Metro and the capital needs for our school system alone, there
    would be no more capital dollars available for any other
    infrastructure needs in the District of Columbia.
        Senator DeWine. Well, my time is up. I am going to have
    some more questions, but let me turn to Senator Landrieu.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
    have four questions, if I could, on, No. 1, the imbalance that
    I would like to get some information on the record on, the
    structural imbalance; one on the school governance issue; the
    progress we are making on child welfare; and also back to
    education and tuition assistance. There may be more, but I
    would like to try to work through these.
        I think, Mr. Mayor, based on my view, having worked with
    many of you on a variety of different issues, it would be fair
    to say--and I would like if you would agree or disagree with
    this--that with all the immediate challenges before the
    District, the structural imbalance issue is at the core or is
    essential to find some remedy.
        According to the GAO study that was commissioned by
    Congresswoman Norton and myself which was released last year--
    the chairman is aware of this study--it is estimated that,
    first of all, the gap is real and it exists. This is an
    independent third party, so that was one of the findings. It
    could be anywhere from $470 million to $1 billion.
        The other interesting part of this finding said that the
    District of Columbia cannot raise more revenue; it already has
    one of the highest taxing structures in the Nation and the
    region. It also says in this study the District of Columbia
    cannot lower spending, spending 5 percent less already than
    other urban areas for comparable services.
        It says the imbalance is largely beyond the D.C. officials'
    direct control. It does acknowledge that some additional
    management efficiencies could be achieved, but it is quick to
    say even if you did 100 percent and were perfect in your
    management, which no city is, and obviously neither is the
    Federal Government, you couldn't close the gap with management
    efficiencies. It says the District of Columbia is not the same
    as other cities. It has special benefits and burdens of being
    the Nation's Capital.
        So given that, and given your testimony, Mr. Mayor, do you
    agree with this, and what are the one or two steps that we
    could explore that, in your mind, might be a way the Federal
    Government could help close that gap? Is it focused on maybe
    capital outlay needs of the District? Could it be focused in
    other ways? What would your suggestions be to us? And I am
    hoping that this Congress could develop a remedy.
        Mayor Williams. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. I agree
    wholeheartedly with the GAO study. I think in this case where
    the GAO study has said something without any axe to grind on an
    objective basis, I think they are right on the money. They have
    also mentioned, in addition, Senator Landrieu, the fact that we
    are a higher-cost urban area. They mention that the District
    has the highest concentration of poverty in the United States.
        We have one of the largest extremes in education in our
    city and in income in our city of any city in the country, and
    this concentration of poverty presents the District with higher
    costs, particularly State costs, without the tax base to meet
    them. So we are overly bonded and we are over-taxed.
        I happen to think, chiming in with what Chairman Cropp has
    said, if we spent all of our money on our schools and on our
    Metro, we wouldn't have any more debt capacity. I think one of
    the major ways that the Federal Government can meet this
    responsibility is to take the measure that has been supported
    by a number of regional leaders and led by Congresswoman Norton
    that calls for a regular formula investment in the District,
    and to take that formula investment and put it into our
    infrastructure needs.
        I think that, No. 1, that will relieve enormous pressure on
    our budget, and, No. 2, these infrastructure needs really are
    needs that are, No. 1, regional; No. 2, benefit the quality of
    life in the District, but also benefit the Federal Government
    because it benefits our Federal workers and it benefits our
    visitors. So there is a shared interest in success in that
    area. So I would strongly support using these funds to support
    our debt financing and our infrastructure needs.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, let me say, Mr. Mayor, we are going
    to look very closely at that proposal because obviously, based
    on this study, some remedy has to be proposed. But, again, the
    importance is to recognize the gap is real, that it is not
    within the power of city officials to close the gap. So all the
    reforms that we are putting in place, whether it is financial
    reform, school reform, environmental reforms in terms of the
    clean-up efforts underway, or the reforms on child welfare
    which this chairman has led, are all in jeopardy if this issue
    is not faced head-on.
        So, Mr. Chairman, with all the challenges, I think if our
    committee could stay focused on this solution, it would be
    helpful.
        I want to outline a particular formula. It could be
    something like this; it could be something different. But if we
    thought about taking the problem down into measurable amounts,
    50 percent of the gap could be closed by a Federal relief in
    some way, 15 percent--maybe it is not that high--10 or 15
    percent by increased management efficiencies, and 35 percent
    based on maybe new strategies within the District to increase
    residents.
        One way to close the gap is to bring new taxpayers to the
    District so that you increase the tax base. The Mayor and the
    Council, I think, have some strategies in place, and my second
    question is about one of those strategies, in particular, which
    is City Build charters.
        Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you for your support and
    efforts.
        I wanted to read for the record what the City Build charter
    initiative is and then submit a longer document. With the help
    of our committee and with you all, we created a City Build
    charter school initiative. It is designed specifically to meet
    the Mayor's goal, shared by the Council, of attracting 100,000
    new residents to the District by targeting neighborhoods that
    have the near-term potential of attracting and retaining new
    homeowners, particularly those with school-age children, by
    using the promise of quality schools as an economic development
    tool to increase the residential and commercial tax base of the
    District.
        [The information follows:]

                      City Build Charter School Initiative

        ``Improving education is one of the most crucial elements to
    improving our city. It is key to attracting 100,000 new residents, who
    want to live and raise children in the District.''----Mayor Anthony
    Williams, Feb. 14, 2003.

             WHAT IS THE ``CITY BUILD'' CHARTER SCHOOL INITIATIVE?

        The ``City Build'' Charter School initiative is designed
    specifically meet the Mayor's goal of attracting 100,000 new residents
    to the District by targeting neighborhoods that have the near term
    potential of attracting or retaining new home owners, particularly
    those with school age children, by using the promise of quality schools
    as an economic development tool to increase the residential and
    commercial tax base of the city.
        In the Senate D.C. Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004,
    Congress included $5 million to develop a ``City Build'' Charter School
    Initiative. This initial appropriation will be used to create five new
    charter schools in the District neighborhoods that demonstrate the
    greatest potential for meeting the goals of the program.

                    HOW WILL THE NEW SCHOOL SITES BE CHOSEN?

        As stated in the text of the appropriations bill, Mayor Williams
    will be responsible for selecting sites for the five new charter
    schools. The determination of the neighborhoods and school sites will
    be made in consultation with the D.C. City Council, the School Board,
    advocacy groups and community and business leaders in a public meeting.
    The selection of neighborhoods best suited to help attract or retain
    100,000 D.C. residents, will take into consideration the following:
      --The number, quality and affordability of the neighborhood schools
            (public, charter and independent).
      --The waiting lists for admission to the areas high performing
            public, independent and charter schools.
      --Recent trends in the neighborhood's real estate market, including
            the sale and purchase of homes, demand for rental properties
            and the potential for population growth and increased private
            investment.

     ARE THE ``CITY BUILD'' CHARTERS THE ONLY NEW CHARTERS AVAILABLE THIS
                                     YEAR?

        No. Since the passing of the District of Columbia's charter school
    law in 1996, the District of Columbia's chartering authorities have
    approved almost 40 charters, earning the District of Columbia the
    distinction of having the highest concentration of charter schools in
    the Nation. The ``City Build'' initiative is designed to further this
    laudable growth in the use of charter schools as a means of achieving
    excellence and expanded choice for children and their parents. The
    District of Columbia's charter school law allows for up to 20 new
    charters to be created each year. To support these efforts, the Fiscal
    Year 2004 Appropriation also includes $8 million for the Charter School
    Direct Loan program and other charter school support programs, bringing
    the total Federal support for D.C. charter schools over the last 3
    years to almost $40 million.

    WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THESE AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, DON'T THEY
                                   NEED HELP?

        Yes. The ``City Build'' Charter program is only a part of an
    overall plan for transforming elementary and secondary education in the
    District. With this in mind, Congress appropriated a total of $40
    million in 2003 for school improvement activities; $13 million for
    public school transformation activities; $13 million for charter school
    enhancement programs, including the $5 million for the ``City Build''
    initiative, and $13 million to provide opportunity scholarships for low
    income students to attend private schools. The goal of all of these
    efforts is not to create competition among the various types of
    schools, but to create a strong synergy around the shared goal of
    giving parents more choice and every child a chance to succeed.
    Expanding high quality options allows parents to make the choice that
    is best for their child and their needs.

                          WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN?

        The Appropriations Committee intends for this to be a 5-year,
    ongoing appropriation. If funding allows, the goal would be to fund
    three to five new ``City Build'' charter schools each year for the next
    5 years. As other public and private funds become available and as this
    pilot program proves successful, opportunities for future ``City
    Build'' charters will be explored.

                       HOW WILL THE PROGRAM BE EVALUATED?

        Each year, the Mayor will report to Congress on the effectiveness
    of the program. Such report should include:
      --The academic performance of the students and the overall
            performance of the schools funded by this initiative.
      --The enrollment of schools funded by this initiative.
      --The waiting lists for schools funded by this initiative.
      --The impact of these schools on the sales and/or purchases of homes
            as well as rental turnover, specifically by residents with
            children.
      --The impact of these schools on the size of the population of the
            neighborhood.
      --The impact of these schools on the overall vitality of the
            neighborhood.
        At the end of the 5 years, the U.S. Department of Education will
    conduct an independent evaluation to determine if this initiative could
    be expanded to other urban areas in need of similar development.

        Senator Landrieu. So I am urging us to consider this
    strategy as one of many strategies--tax credits. There could be
    other school-related strategies, other economic development
    strategies in neighborhoods, as part of this structural
    imbalance challenge. Again, the Federal Government should step
    up and commit some resources. The city can continue to improve
    its efficiencies to close that gap, but another very important
    part of that is what can we do to attract new residents to the
    city.
        So, Mr. Mayor, my question is you have been given under our
    new law the obligation to identify the potential neighborhoods
    where these City Build charters may work to attract middle-
    income families to either stop leaving or return to the
    District.
        Without going into any specific detail, just give some
    comments about your thoughts about this initiative, your hopes
    for it. Do we think we could build on it this year and expand
    it in the years to come? Do you see as an effective tool for
    trying to get new residents back to the city?
        Mayor Williams. I think City Build is an enormously
    important initiative because it really gives us more
    flexibility and focus in improving education, and education is
    critical to providing the expectations that families have when
    they move to a city.
        The three critical things are operations, public safety and
    public education. I believe the city has made enormous strides
    on the operation front in terms of predictability, regularity
    and efficiency of service. So then that gives you public
    safety. We have begun making some inroads on public safety. We
    are running substantially below last year in crime now, and I
    applaud the chief and our public safety people, and
    particularly City Administrator Robert Bobb for focusing on the
    high-crime hot spots.
        So that leaves us with public education. The Mayor and the
    Council are engaged in discussions about the governance of
    education, bringing in the very best superintendent, and we are
    moving on that front. The Mayor and the Council have worked
    together in supporting a robust charter school effort, leading
    the country per capita in the number of charter schools, and a
    key part of that is City Build.
        We are hoping that, by June, we can receive applications
    for these City Build schools in targeted neighborhoods and,
    with City Build, provide one of two important functions, I
    think, that charter schools can provide our city. The first
    function is providing parents in these targeted neighborhoods
    with an additional choice for their children so they don't move
    out once their children reach school age, and that is
    absolutely important.
        The other area where charter schools, I think, can provide
    an enormous help is in providing additional choices and
    flexibility for kids who need additional help. An example of
    that would be the SEED School, where you have every one of
    these kids at the SEED School, in this boarding school concept,
    going to be going to college. Another example is the wonderful
    Maya Angelou School, where you are targeting kids with special
    needs.
        Charter schools can do that much more quickly, and in many
    cases more effectively for a lot of different reasons than our
    regular public schools. So the City Build concept as part of
    the larger public charter school concept is critical to
    bringing in these 100,000 new residents, because you are right,
    Senator. The reason why I set the goal, in conjunction with the
    Council, at 100,000 new residents is, yes, we are trying to
    expand our tax base.
        One way you solve this problem is to recognize that the
    District used to have around 800,000 people in it. So if we
    could use a business model, we have got a store that is built
    for 800,000 customers and we have only got about 600,000 and we
    have got a lot of slack capacity. It is like driving around the
    bus half empty, so we need more passengers, and the charter
    schools allow us to do that.
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I just want to commend you for your
    effort because almost every city in America is struggling,
    particularly cities in the South that saw a lot of flight in
    the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's because of the Brown v. Board
    of Education decision, which we mark and celebrate today.
        Mr. Mayor, as you can recall, it was a very unsettling
    decision back in the 1950's and 1960's, but we have learned a
    great deal and I think we have matured as a society. New
    Orleans, for instance, my hometown, had 750,000 25 years ago.
    Today, it has 450,000 because of the white flight that left the
    city.
        Now that we are 50 years smarter since Brown and more
    mature and more sophisticated, I think that we can devise
    strategies that will work, that will meet the needs of people
    and the great aspirations and hopes that all people have,
    regardless of race or income, about having opportunities for
    their children and for themselves.
        This is part of a very exciting strategy that many cities
    are beginning to use, and I want to commend the District for
    using schools as a lure, if you will, to attract people back to
    the cities, and smart and efficient tax cuts.
        My second question--and I thank the chairman for his
    latitude here, because schools are a great passion and because,
    I guess, we are marking Brown v. Board of Education this week.
    It is much on my mind and many of the Senators that advocate
    for fairly radical change and transformation in our school
    systems.
        I read with some disappointment, I guess, the vote last
    night. Although I have not endorsed any particular plan, Mr.
    Mayor, as you know, and Council leader Cropp, I would just want
    to state for the record that I do disagree with the statement
    that was reported in the paper this morning about the solution
    being a quality superintendent.
        Districts all over this country that think that just
    getting the right superintendent is the answer to their problem
    should line up behind the thousands of districts around this
    country that have brought in top-flight, top-quality,
    enthusiastic, well-skilled superintendents, only to find them
    leave after 3 years with very little in place.
        I would say that while it is very important to have a sharp
    superintendent, and obviously tremendous leadership from your
    principals and your teachers, a system that continues to reward
    mediocrity, resist transparency, a system that resists
    accountability, a system that focuses on process and not
    results, is doomed to failure no matter how many great
    superintendents or great principals or great teachers.
        So without endorsing or supporting any particular plan, I
    would like, Chairman Cropp, if you would just give a couple of
    thoughts, and the Mayor, about your continued efforts to try to
    find a way to create a new system--I don't know who is going to
    run it, but a new system that is accountable, that is
    transparent, that focuses on excellence, that is child- and
    family-centered and brings hope to the residents of the
    District and the region, and serves as a model for the Nation.
        This will be my last question until the second round, but
    maybe, Chairman Cropp, you could give a couple of thoughts that
    you might have.
        Ms. Cropp. I don't think, Senator Landrieu, that anyone
    would disagree with your statement as to what we need for a
    system and that everyone wants to have a better system,
    obviously, including the District of Columbia.
        The District of Columbia in recent years has gone through
    so much change. From the time that the Financial Authority came
    to the District, we have changed superintendents from the
    original superintendent, to General Beckton, to Arlene
    Ackerman, who did not really want to be superintendent, then
    another superintendent. All of this was under strict governance
    of the Financial Authority--total instability, total change for
    our school system. How could we expect anything but failure,
    when we have constant change and instability? We are now moving
    in a direction where the Board of Education recently has
    adopted certain standards that would bring about those very
    things that you just articulated.
        It seems to me that one of the things that we need to
    continue to try to do is bring about stability. Over the past
    couple of weeks, we have had an opportunity to interview
    candidates to become Superintendent of Schools, and many of us
    believe that the superintendent is an important role, along
    with the classroom teacher who has that direct nexus with the
    students.
        The one thing that we found from every study across the
    country, even all of the leading superintendents, is that
    governance is not what dictates what will bring about a good
    school system. There is an awful lot that is involved in it,
    and I think we are committed, as we struggle in the District of
    Columbia to find out what that answer is, to work together.
        As we have talked to the superintendents who have come in,
    they have seen many different governance structures work. But
    what they need is they need to have people who are committed to
    educate the young people. They need to have the ability to run
    the school system and put in the types of programs that are
    needed, and they need to have the commitment of all of the
    principals who are involved in this city to say that they are
    indeed supportive of education.
        I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised with the types
    of candidates that we got to be Superintendent of Schools. We
    have some of the top, most respected educators in the country
    who have applied. I think we still have an opportunity, in
    talking with some of the others, to bring in those individuals.
    And if we have the commitment of all of the elected leadership
    and if we have the commitment of that superintendent and if we
    get down into the bowels of the school system with the teachers
    who are really interacting and bring about some standards and
    criteria that we need to educate the type of child that we want
    to send out into society, then I think we all will be winners.
        It is a struggle. If we had the answer, everybody in the
    country would do it, but I think we are moving along the right
    way. What I would like to do is to have the school system
    submit to you some of the new changes that they have instituted
    within the past probably 3 or 4 months that I think would
    increase your level of comfort with regard to the direction
    that the school system is going--very thoughtful and
    considerate, and I think directly related to the education of
    our young people.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you. I am familiar with some of
    them, but I appreciate you sending me that additional
    information. I think the urgency of trying to scale up some of
    the things that are working in the District is what is on
    people's minds, not to wait 10 or 15 or 20 years, which is the
    entire life of a student, but to try to identify quickly the
    things that are working and scale them up with some urgency,
    considering the dismal performance of some of the schools not
    just in this city but across the Nation. To have only 20
    percent of children reading at certain levels just robs them of
    any good future that they might have.
        Ms. Cropp. Might I just add that with our budget, the Mayor
    submitted to Council and the Council approved a recommendation
    that would improve our early childhood education level. That is
    one of the main things, I think, that will make a difference
    because indicators have shown that if a child enters the first
    grade and they don't know certain basic skills such as their
    name, their address, their parents' names, or can't count to
    10, colors, they are already 3 years behind. And unless they
    really have an infusion of support, they probably will not
    catch up. So we are doing some other things budget-wise that
    will help move our system, too.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor, very quickly, because the
    chairman has been gracious.
        Mayor Williams. I am a big fan of Chairman Cropp and I
    think she has done a fantastic job with our Council and our
    city wouldn't be where it is but for her leadership. I don't
    know how she manages to keep the Council going, but she does,
    and she has a unique skill and ability to do it. We just
    disagree on this issue, and I am confident that as we get
    through the final stages of the legislative process, her unique
    skills and abilities and my initiative will allow us to reach a
    conclusion that will honor the strong voice in our city for
    democracy.
        I respect that the School Board was the first elected board
    in the city--I mean, the first elected anything in the city on
    a home rule basis. It has got to have more than just simple
    significance; it has got to have some kind of influence.
    Parents have to have a way to redress their grievances, and the
    board ought to be--and the Council has spoken to this--the
    board ought to be more about policy and not about nitty-gritty,
    in-the-weeds operations.
        I think we can do this and at the same time do two
    important things, and this is why I believe strongly that some
    change is needed. One, we really need one point of contact in
    the District government to manage the systems because the
    systems in the schools are a mess. There is no other way of
    looking at it. I mean, I know what a mess is because I saw a
    mess when I was CFO and I have seen a lot of messes as Mayor.
        Second, the needs of children. We really need one point of
    contact in the government to focus on the needs of these kids.
    Many of these kids don't have any home. So the community,
    through the government in partnership with the faith community,
    in partnership with business and in partnership with non-
    governmental organizations--the government, as the lead
    facilitator, is in loco parentis for these kids.
        Finally, when you say the studies don't really correlate
    any real outcome when it comes to governance, when you take all
    the schools systems as a whole that is true. But if you compare
    high-impact, screwed-up urban systems with high concentrations
    of poverty, there is no question that you will get better
    outcomes that lead to better test scores if you change the
    governance structure. I think you could bring God in here and
    if you don't have the right environment for success, it won't
    be successful. But that is just my opinion and the Council
    Chair and I respectfully disagree.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator DeWine. Dr. Gandhi, one criticism of the GAO report
    on structural imbalance is that the District has significant
    medical billing and claims management problems. How are you
    working to address this problem?
        Dr. Gandhi. I think we have faced a substantial problem
    particularly in the area of Medicaid reimbursement. In the
    past, we have not had any infrastructure to be able to identify
    document claims, everything that was coming to the city. We
    have been working at it for the last at least 3 years.
        Under the former City Administrator John Koskinen, and now
    under Robert Bobb, there is a special office that does nothing
    but make sure that Medicaid is properly accounted for, properly
    monitored, and that we do claim everything that is coming to
    the city. We hope that we have taken care of our past sins,
    when we had a major write-off last year, and we want to be very
    vigilant about that. The first thing that I told Mr. Bobb when
    we had our meeting when he came to the city is that there are
    three things that he should concentrate on--Medicaid, Medicaid
    and Medicaid, because that is a substantial part of our budget.
        Senator DeWine. Mayor, you requested $15 million for
    security costs related to special events in the city because it
    is the Nation's Capital--you requested, actually, $25 million
    and the President requested $15 million. Do you want to discuss
    that difference, that $10 million difference there?
        Mayor Williams. Right. The big difference, Mr. Chairman, is
    the inauguration. We estimate that, post-September 11, the
    inauguration is going to be significantly higher in its
    exposure to us than we have had in the past because of the
    additional security needs and in order to do it in a way that
    balances the need to have an open inauguration and a safe city
    and, needless to say, continuity of government.
        Senator DeWine. What does the inauguration normally cost?
        Ms. Cropp. Six million dollars.
        Mayor Williams. I think it was half that amount, right.
        Ms. Cropp. In past years, it was budgeted at $6 million.
        Senator DeWine. So you figure with the new environment, we
    are talking a lot more money than that?
        Mayor Williams. Right.
        Ms. Cropp. The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is in this year's
    budget we were not even given the $6 million that had been
    budgeted and funded in prior years.
        Mayor Williams. Some of the costs that we are looking at
    are overtime, for example, bringing in outside jurisdictions,
    some IT expenses related to coordinating all of this. Public
    works expenses are often overlooked, but they are around $1
    million, and fire and EMS as well. So I think it is a fairly
    conservative, objective request, given what we are looking at.
        Senator DeWine. Chairman Cropp, you highlighted the need to
    provide $8.6 million above the President's request for the
    Tuition Assistance Grant program. What would be the
    consequences if we were unable to provide these additional
    funds?
        Ms. Cropp. Many of our students have been able to benefit
    from that program. It would be the loss of getting education
    for a lot of citizens in the District of Columbia, and that is
    probably the worst cost.
        Senator DeWine. It has been a very successful program.
        Ms. Cropp. It has been extremely successful, and the return
    cost for that will be much greater than the initial lay-out.
        Senator DeWine. Well, I think we have gone on and kept you
    all quite a while. We appreciate it very much.
        Mary, a last question.
        Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
        Just one more, Mr. Mayor and Chairman Cropp, on the child
    welfare issue on which we are making progress. Again, I just
    thank you. We have got a long way to go, but with the
    establishment under the chairman's leadership of the new family
    court, the new principle of one judge, one family, the
    coordination of city services and court services to streamline
    and make sure that children are not lost in the system, that
    they are identified early, and seamless services brought to
    them with a focus on permanency, either reunification with
    their family, temporary foster care, and then long-term
    permanency through adoption or kinship adoption, that is a
    system that we are trying to put forward throughout the whole
    country, and in many ways in the world.
        But for the purposes of this hearing, I understand that the
    Council cut $23 million out of child welfare and put it in
    reserve. I wanted to ask you, Madam Chair, why, and ask the
    Mayor if you would comment on that situation and what you are
    doing or where you are in the process of, I think, a new hiring
    of the head of this important office.
        Ms. Cropp. The Council believed that there is a need for
    this program to continue and to be expanded. In fact, the money
    put in the contingency reserve is somewhat safeguarding those
    dollars.
        What the budget showed, as presented to the Council, was
    that there was extreme growth in the area of adoptions and
    foster care success, something that we all want to happen. And
    while we saw extreme growth of many millions of dollars in that
    particular, very important area, we also saw growth in the
    corresponding component of that program that says that there
    wouldn't be as many children left because you have put the
    children in an adoption-type program.
        The Council felt strongly that the program is of such
    importance that we wanted to err on the side of caution, and
    rather than not have the necessary dollars there for the side
    of the program that would deal with foster care, we would put
    the money in a contingency fund so that the city could have
    access to it if it was needed. But we didn't want the money
    just languishing there if there was no need. But if there is
    need for it, then the Mayor would have the ability to draw
    down. So it is in a reserve for that particular purpose.
        But if you look at the budget and you look at the line of
    children who are in foster care and then you look at the line
    of children for adoption, the adoption line is going up
    significantly, which means that the other side ought to go
    down. But it went up significantly, also, so there was a
    disconnect there. It was a non-sequitur. So then we said, well,
    let's put the money in contingency because we wanted to make
    sure that the dollars would be available if, in fact, there was
    a need.
        Senator Landrieu. Mr. Mayor.
        Mayor Williams. If you look at the growth in our budget,
    the major elements of growth have been really four-fold. That
    is what has pushed us up at an abnormal level. It isn't
    sustainable, and I don't think, as you have heard from Nat
    Gandhi's testimony, it is something we are planning on in the
    future.
        One is Medicaid, and the chairman asked a question about
    that. One was debt service. We have talked about the structural
    imbalance. One was operating costs for capital projects put in
    the operating budget. And one was court-ordered compliance.
        I am looking at what we need to do with this and I am going
    to certainly be working with the Chair to make this work, but I
    am very deeply concerned because our child welfare system is in
    a very fragile state. We have got a number of things, from
    caseload requirements, to the family team meetings that have
    been requested, some of the services for these kids that we
    want to make sure that we keep in place.
        We have moved from an utter disaster to a point where the
    court monitor came in at one of my press conferences about a
    month ago and said we are now about equal to other States.
    Well, that is enormous progress. We don't want to lapse back to
    where we were. We want to keep going in a positive direction.
    So I want to work with the Council to see that we are
    justifying to them that these funds are being used efficiently
    and we get them to these kids, and I pledge to do that in every
    way I know how.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator DeWine. Well, we thank you very much, Mayor and Dr.
    Gandhi and Chairman Cropp. Thank you very much for your good
    work and we look forward to working with you. The budget is
    always tight. There is never enough money, but we look forward
    to working with you.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, May 19, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Atherton, Charles H., Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................26, 27

    Brennan, Paul, Community Supervision Officer, Court Services and
      Offender Supervision Agency, District of Columbia..............    39
        Statement of.................................................    47

    Cropp, Linda W., Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia...   103
        Prepared Statement of........................................   119
        Statement of.................................................   116

    DeWine, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio:
        Opening Statement of.....................................1, 39, 103
        Prepared Statement of........................................     3
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    60

    Floyd, Craig W., Chairman, National Law Enforcement Officers
      Memorial Fund:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    29
        Statement of.................................................    27

    Gallagher, Patricia, Executive Director, National Capital
      Planning Commission:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    23
        Statement of.................................................    21
    Gandhi, Natwar M., Chief Financial Officer, District of Columbia.   103
        Prepared Statement of........................................   124
        Statement of.................................................   122

    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, Statement
      of.............................................................   107

    Isaac, Reverend Donald, Executive Director, East of the River
      Clergy-Police-Community Partnership............................    39
        Prepared Statement of........................................    54
        Statement of.................................................    52

    King, Rufus G., III, Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District
      of Columbia....................................................     1
        Statement of.................................................    19

    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana:
        Prepared Statement of........................................4, 105
        Questions Submitted by.......................................79, 99
        Statement of.............................................4, 40, 105
    Lindstrom, Frederick J., Assistant Secretary, U.S. Commission of
      Fine Arts, Statement of........................................    26

    Quander, Paul A., Jr., Director, Court Services and Offender
      Supervision Agency, District of Columbia:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    45
        Statement of.................................................39, 42

    Saum, Christine, Senior Urban Designer, National Capital Planning
      Commission.....................................................    21
    Strauss, Senator Paul, U.S. Senator from the District of
      Columbia:
        Prepared Statement of....................................5, 41, 108
        Statement of................................................41, 108
    Sullivan, Ronald S., Jr., Director, Public Defender Service,
      District of Columbia:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    87
        Statement of.................................................    85

    Wagner, Annice M., Chief Judge, District of Columbia Court of
      Appeals; Chair, Joint Committee on Judicial Administration:
        Statement of.................................................  1, 7
        Prepared Statement of........................................    10
    Williams, Hon. Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   112
        Statement of...............................................103, 109

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                                                       Page
    Capital Budget Constraints.......................................   127
    Cash Reserve Requirements........................................   128
    City Build Charter School Initiative.............................   133
    Cost Drivers.....................................................   126
    Democracy for the Nation's Capital...............................   116
    Education........................................................   113
    Federal:
        Budget Request...............................................   120
        Contribution.................................................   121
    Fiscal Year:
        2004 Financial Outlook.......................................   125
        2005 Budget Request..........................................   125
    Funding Citizen Priorities.......................................   113
    Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget........................   120
    Opportunity for All..............................................   114
    Overarching Financial Goal.......................................   124
    Overcoming Fiscal Challenges.....................................   112
    Priority Federal Funding for Critical Projects...................   115
    Public Safety....................................................   114
    The:
        Basis for Federal Action to Address the Imbalance............   128
        Budget Process...............................................   119
        Fiscal Forecast..............................................   126

                 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    60
    Community:
        Court........................................................    77
        Supervision Program..........................................    60
    Criminal Justice Coordinating Council............................    82
    Demonstration of GPS Monitoring..................................    47
    Drug Treatment...................................................    78
    Financial Management.............................................    73
    Information Systems..............................................    71
    Pretrial:
        Caseloads....................................................    59
        Services Agency..............................................    76
    Re-arrest Rate and Parole Revocation.............................    82
    Re-entry:
        And Sanction Center..........................................73, 79
        Strategy.....................................................    64
    Special Supervision..............................................    69
    Status of Re-entry and Sanctions Center..........................    58
    Success Rate of Women Offenders Re-entering the Community........    81
    Supervision:
        And Treatment................................................    80
        Strategies...................................................    62

                                     Courts

    Capital Funding in Fiscal Year 2005..............................    15
    Complete Budget Request Summary..................................    17
    Court Construction Schedule......................................    20
    Critical Fiscal Year 2005 Priority--Infrastructure...............    11
    Entrance to the Old Courthouse...................................    35
    Family Court in the Master Plan..................................    14
    Historic Judiciary Square........................................    12
    Judiciary Square Master Plan.....................................    13
    Location of the Memorial and Museum..............................    31
    Master Plan for Facilities.......................................    13
    Site Plans.......................................................    34
    Status of Key Capital Projects...................................    16
    Submission to NCPC and CFA.......................................    37
    The Courts' Strategic Plan.......................................    14

                            Public Defender Service

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    99
    Background.......................................................    87
    Creation of a Mental Health Treatment Program....................   102
    DNA Sample Collection Response Initiative........................   100
    Fiscal Year:
        2004 Accomplishments.........................................    89
        2005 Request.................................................    88
    General Program Accomplishments..................................    89
    Important Issues Facing the District of Columbia.................    95
    In Re Jerry M. Litigation........................................    96
    Other Program Accomplishments....................................    91
    PDS Director Sullivan's Departure................................    95
    PDS's Fiscal Year:
        2004 Accomplishments.........................................    86
        2005 Budget Request..........................................    85
    Re-arrest Rate and Parole Revocation.............................    99
    Representation of Juveniles with Special Education Needs.........   101
    Washington Post Article..........................................    98