[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23872-23874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2001

  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2305) to require certain Federal officials with 
responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system of 
the District of Columbia to serve on and participate in the activities 
of the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2305

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal Justice 
     Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING FEDERAL OFFICIALS ADMINISTERING CRIMINAL 
                   JUSTICE SYSTEM OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO 
                   PARTICIPATE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING 
                   COUNCIL.

       (a) In General.--Each of the individuals described in 
     subsection (b) is authorized to serve on the District of 
     Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, participate 
     in the Council's activities, and take such other actions as 
     may be necessary to carry out the individual's duties as a 
     member of the Council.
       (b) Individuals Described.--The individuals described in 
     this subsection are as follows:
       (1) The Director of the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia.
       (2) The Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial 
     Services Agency.
       (3) The United States Attorney for the District of 
     Columbia.
       (4) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons.
       (5) The chair of the United States Parole Commission.
       (6) The Director of the United States Marshals Service.

     SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
                   COORDINATING COUNCIL.

       Not later than 60 days after the end of each calendar year, 
     the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating 
     Council shall prepare and submit to the President, Congress, 
     and each of the entities of the District of Columbia 
     government and Federal government whose representatives serve 
     on the Council a report describing the activities carried out 
     by the Council during the year.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR COORDINATING COUNCIL.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2002 and each succeeding fiscal year such sums as may be 
     necessary for a Federal contribution to the District of 
     Columbia to cover the costs incurred by the District of 
     Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

     SEC. 5. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING 
                   COUNCIL DEFINED.

       In this Act, the ``District of Columbia Criminal Justice 
     Coordinating Council'' means the entity established by the 
     Council of the District of Columbia under the Criminal 
     Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia 
     Establishment Act of 2001.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the legislation under consideration, H.R. 2305.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1900

  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2305, as amended, formally establishes the 
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, a joint Federal-local effort 
designed to foster cooperation among the various agencies that have law 
enforcement responsibility in our Nation's capital. I introduced this 
measure in June of this year, was joined by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as the original cosponsor of H.R. 
2305. The bill was amended in subcommittee, and that is the version 
that we are now considering.
  The amended bill authorizes the heads of six Federal agencies, the 
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia, the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, the U.S. 
Attorney for the District, the Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Parole 
Commission, as well as the U.S. Marshal Service, to meet regularly with 
District law enforcement officials. It also requires the CJCC to submit 
an annual report detailing its activities to the President, Congress 
and the appropriate Federal and local agencies.
  The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
Assistance Authority, known as the Control Board, originally 
established the CJCC 3 years ago through a memorandum of agreement. 
Cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement agencies has 
become even more critical in recent years because the Federal 
Government has assumed the responsibility of the District of Columbia 
courts and corrections functions under the 1997 Revitalization Act.
  The CJCC is important because it brings the leaders of all 
participating agencies to the same table. They will work at getting rid 
of the interagency obstacles that are hindering attainment of the 
District of Columbia's criminal justice objectives. There are more than 
30 law enforcement agencies with a presence in the Nation's Capital. 
There are 13 governmental agencies that have a direct role in the 
criminal justice activities in the District from arrest and booking to 
trial and correctional supervision. Four of these are city agencies 
such as the Metropolitan Police Department, six are Federal agencies 
such as the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. 
And, finally, there are three agencies, Superior Court, Defender 
Services, and

[[Page 23873]]

Office of the Corrections Trustee that are local in nature but are 
funded by the Federal Government.
  There is plenty of evidence, including recent reports from the GAO 
and the Council for Court Excellence, that shows that these individual 
agencies of the District of Columbia's criminal justice system are not 
always working in concert; and as a result, efforts at reform have 
sometimes stalled.
  Some prime examples of the lack of coordination have been in the area 
of police overtime. According to the General Accounting Office the 
Metropolitan Police Department continues to lose millions of dollars 
each year because officers are waiting for court appearances or to 
consult with the U.S. Attorney's Office. The agencies use 70 different 
information technology systems that are not linked to one another. And 
most tragically, miscommunication among agencies have led to mistakes 
in correctional supervision, sometimes with fatal consequences. For 
instance, the killing of Bettina Pruckmayr, who was robbed and stabbed 
38 times in 1995 by a convicted murderer who should have had his parole 
revoked on a drug charge but for the failures of the criminal justice 
system. This shows a terrible waste of human and monetary resources 
which I hope will be corrected by the CJCC.
  With proper funding and structure, I believe the Criminal Justice 
Coordinating Council can be a very useful tool in fostering interagency 
cooperation. Not only can it assist in making day-to-day operations of 
the various criminal justice agencies more efficient, but in doing so 
the CJCC can help ensure that broader policy goals such as reducing 
violent crime and meting out justice more swiftly are also 
accomplished.
  The language of H.R. 2305, as amended, reflects the input received 
from the Department of Justice. I thank the Department for its 
suggestions.
  I recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) for her support of this legislation; and I would particularly 
like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), for his interest in issues 
affecting the District of Columbia and his help in bringing this 
important legislation affecting our Nation's capital expeditiously to 
the floor. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) of 
the full committee. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2305.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2305, the Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2001, a bill to 
strengthen the District of Columbia's Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council by ensuring Federal participation and funds.
  I also thank the Chair of the D.C. subcommittee, the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for working closely with the ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), to develop 
this measure.
  In 1998, the District of Columbia's financial authority created the 
D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The goal of the CJCC was to 
coordinate criminal justice activities between the various Federal and 
D.C. agencies that have responsibility for different aspects of the 
criminal justice system in the District of Columbia. This coordination 
is essential because following the passage of the District of Columbia 
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act in 1997, most of the 
District's criminal justice entities were either Federal agencies or 
D.C. agencies funded by the Federal Government.
  Currently, there are 13 agencies with responsibility for some aspect 
of D.C.'s criminal justice system. All of these agencies are members of 
the CJCC, in addition to the Mayor's office and the Council of the 
District of Columbia. The goal of the CJCC is to provide a forum to 
identify and resolve coordination issues that arise in the District of 
Columbia's criminal justice system and to help implement critical 
justice reforms.
  The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act meets the 
legitimate concerns by District actors and the CJCC not to become a 
super agency while at the same time ensuring that supremacy clauses and 
federalism notions are respected. Specifically, the bill recognizes the 
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council as the appropriate entity set up 
by District legislation, the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for 
the District of Columbia Establishment Act of 2001 to coordinate 
criminal justice activities in the District.
  In addition, the bill requires that Federal agencies with a role in 
criminal justice matters in the District, including Court Services and 
Offender Supervision, Pretrial Services Agency, Office of the U.S. 
Attorney, the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Patrol 
Commission, serve on the CJCC, participate in its activities, and take 
such action as may be necessary to fulfill their duties on the CJCC.
  However, in keeping with the mandates, no District official can 
compel a Federal official to take any action. The bill also authorizes 
Federal funds to carry out the duties of the CJCC. This measure will 
strengthen and enhance the CJCC as a vital coordination entity for the 
District's multi-jurisdictional criminal justice system.
  Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella) for her work in bringing this important legislation to the 
floor. I urge its passage.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2305, the 
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2001, a bill 
to strengthen the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council by ensuring federal participation and funds. I want to thank 
the Chair of the D.C. Subcommittee, Representative Connie Morella, for 
working closely with me to develop this measure.
  In 1998, the District of Columbia Financial Authority (control board) 
created the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). The goal 
of the CJCC was to coordinate criminal justice activities between the 
various federal and D.C. agencies that have responsibility for 
different aspects of the criminal justice system in D.C. This 
coordination is essential because following the passage of the District 
of Columbia Revitalization and Self Government Improvement Act 
(Revitalization Act) in 1997, most of the District's criminal justice 
entities are either federal agencies, or D.C. agencies funded by the 
federal government. In the Revitalization Act, the District exchanged 
its traditional static federal payment for the federal funding of 
several functions normally funded by states. These functions included 
such criminal justice matters as prisons, offender supervision, public 
defender service, and courts.
  Currently, there are 13 agencies with responsibilities for some 
aspect of D.C.'s criminal justice system. These agencies can be broken 
down into three categories: (1) D.C. agencies that are D.C. funded: the 
Metropolitan Police Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, 
Department of Corrections, and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; 
(2) federal agencies that are federally funded: the Office of the U.S. 
Attorney, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. 
Parole Commission, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, D.C. 
Pretrial Services Agency; and (3) D.C. agencies that are federally 
funded: the Superior Court, the Public Defender Service and the Office 
of the Corrections Trustee.
  All of these agencies are members of the CJCC in addition to the 
Mayor's Office and the Council of the District of Columbia. The goal of 
the CJCC is to provide a forum to identify and resolve coordination 
issues that arise in the D.C. criminal justice system and to help 
implement criminal justice reforms.
  The Fiscal Year 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations Act mandated 
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) perform a study to examine the 
effectiveness of coordination among the various entities charged with 
the operation of the District's criminal justice system. GAO released 
its report, entitled D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination 
Needed Among Participating Agencies in March 2001.
  On May 11, 2001, the D.C. Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 
examine the coordination of criminal justice activities in the District 
of Columbia and the GAO report.

[[Page 23874]]

  GAO found that the CJCC is the ``primary venue in which D.C. criminal 
justice agencies can identify and address interagency coordination 
issues.'' The CJCC has worked on many such issues, including positive 
identification of arrestees, halfway house operations, and drug 
treatment of defendants. GAO praised the CJCC for its work on 
coordination projects where all participants stood to gain, such as 
data sharing and technology issues among agencies. However, GAO found 
that the CJCC was less successful on projects where one agency stood to 
gain at the expense of another, because the CJCC operates by the 
consent of the members and does not contain an enforcement mechanism.
  GAO cited numerous projects where poor coordination led to 
inefficient operations and poor program performance. One example 
discussed at length in GAO report is case processing. In the District 
of Columbia, as many as six agencies are responsible for processing a 
case before a court appearance on a felony charge can occur. Unlike 
many jurisdictions, the U.S. Attorney's office requires officers to 
meet with prosecutors personally before they determine whether to 
charge an arrestee with a felony or misdemeanor. GAO found that during 
1999, the equivalent of 23 full time officers were devoted to these 
appearances, reducing the number of officers on patrol.
  GAO cautioned that although the CJCC had been funded by the D.C. 
control board, the board did not include funding for the CJCC in the 
District's Fiscal Year 2001 budget. The last remaining staff person, 
working almost exclusively on technology issues, was funded by a grant. 
GAO recommended that ``Congress . . . consider funding CJCC--with its 
own director and staff--to help coordinate the D.C. criminal justice 
system, and to require CJCC to report annually to Congress, the 
Attorney General, and the D.C. Mayor.''
  In addition, GAO found that as of November 2000, the CJCC and other 
agencies reported ``93 initiatives for improving the operation of the 
[D.C. criminal justice] system.'' Although GAO stipulated that many of 
these coordination projects are ongoing and therefore cannot yet be 
fully evaluated, it found that of the 93 current projects there were 62 
instances where participating agencies did not agree on the 
initiative's goals (11 instances), status (10 instances), starting date 
(1 instance), participating agencies (22 instances), or results to date 
(18 instances).
  Several of the CJCC members disputed these findings, explaining that 
GAO did not examine closely enough the actual work performed on these 
projects and merely relied on summaries provided by the participants 
that may have appeared inconsistent. However, GAO found that ``this 
lack of agreement underscores a lack of coordination among the 
participating agencies that could reduce the effectiveness of these 
initiatives.'' GAO therefore recommended that Congress require all D.C. 
criminal justices agencies to report multi-agency activities to the 
CJCC, which would serve as a ``clearinghouse'' for these initiatives.
  Although members of the CJCC agree that coordination among the 
various agencies that have responsibility for the District's criminal 
justice system needs to be improved, several members disagreed with 
GAO's recommendation for a congressionally created and funded entity to 
oversee coordination and reform initiatives.
  For example, Deputy Mayor Margaret Nedelkoff Kellems, formerly the 
Executive Director of the CJCC, wrote in response to the GAO report, 
``It has been my experience [however] that to the extent that reforms 
have taken root in the District through the CJCC, it has been not only 
because of coordination resources, but equally because the member 
agencies have felt ownership over the body. As reporting to the new 
entity you describe becomes a requirement, criminal justice agencies 
might perceive it to be threatening and respond on a perfunctory basis. 
Nevertheless, I concur in your basic premise that there must be a 
coordinating organization and it must have dedicated resources.''
  Similarly, Superior Court Chief Judge Rufus King wrote, ``it is 
important that any successor [to the CJCC] not become a ``superagency'' 
which dictates to the different criminal justice agencies what the 
agenda should be or how problems which involve more than one agency 
should be approached . . . The most important thing to preserve in any 
newly constituted council is that it remain a council of independent 
agencies who are able to recognize their responsibilities to different 
funding authorities.''
  Finally, former U.S. Attorney Wilma Lewis offered the following 
criticism of GAO's recommendation: ``I have some concern about your 
proposal that Congress `consider requiring that all D.C. criminal 
justice initiatives that could potentially involve more than one agency 
be coordinated through the new independent entity' . . . I question 
whether such review is necessary for all initiatives that could 
potentially involve more than one agency. Given the interrelatedness of 
agencies in our system, it is difficult to think of any initiative--no 
matter how limited in scope or application--that would not fit that 
definition and require review by that entity. As such, I am concerned 
that such a requirement would be counterproductive, as it would 
hamstring each agency's ability to implement policies and practices 
within its appropriate sphere of activity.''
  The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act meets 
these concerns of District actors while at the same time ensuring that 
supremacy clause and federalism notions are respected. Specifically, 
the bill recognizes the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) as 
the appropriate entity set up by District legislation (the Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia Establishment 
Act of 2001) to coordinate criminal justice activities in the District. 
In addition, the bill requires that federal agencies with a role in 
criminal justice matters in the District, including Court Services and 
Offender Supervision (CSOSA), Pretrial Services Agency, Office of the 
U.S. Attorney, the Bureau of Prisons, and the United States Parole 
Commission, serve on the CJCC, to participate in its activities and 
take such action as may be necessary to fulfill their duties on the 
CJCC. However, no District official can compel a federal official to 
take any action. The bill also authorizes federal funds to carry out 
the duties of the CJCC.
  This measure will strengthen and enhance the CJCC as a vital 
coordination entity for the District's multi-jurisdictional criminal 
justice system. I once again thank Chairwoman Morella for her 
leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I urge 
its passage.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) for joining with me in this important act, and I 
thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for being a floor manager 
and for being so supportive of this legislation. I urge this body to 
endorse this bill by its vote.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2305, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize certain Federal officials with responsibility for the 
administration of the criminal justice system of the District of 
Columbia to serve on and participate in the activities of the District 
of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and for other 
purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________