[House Report 106-190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-190

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



 
            NATIONAL POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION ACT OF 1999

                                _______


 June 18, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1659]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1659) to reinforce police training and reestablish 
police and community relations, and to create a commission to 
study and report on the policies and practices that govern the 
training, recruitment, and oversight of police officers, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
The Amendment..............................................           2
Purpose and Summary........................................           4
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           5
Hearings...................................................          10
Committee Consideration....................................          11
Vote of the Committee......................................          11
Committee Oversight Findings...............................          13
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......          13
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................          13
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................          13
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................          15
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................          15
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......          16
Minority Views.............................................          19

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Police Training Commission 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT.

    There is established, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, a commission to be known as the ``National Police 
Training Commission'' (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 
``Commission'').

SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP.

    (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 5 
members appointed as follows:
            (1) The majority and minority leaders of the Senate shall 
        each appoint 1 member.
            (2) The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        minority leader of the House shall each appoint 1 member.
            (3) The 4 members appointed under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        shall then select 1 member.
    (b) Eligibility and Qualifications.--
            (1) Eligibility.--The members of the Commission shall be 
        individuals who have knowledge or expertise, whether by 
        experience or training, in matters to be studied by the 
        Commission under this Act. The members may be from the public 
        or private sector, and may include Federal, State, or local 
        officers or employees (other than those holding elective 
        office), members of academia, non-profit organizations, or 
        other interested individuals.
            (2) Qualifications.--The members of the Commission shall be 
        individuals who possess relevant backgrounds, credentials, and 
        experience in some or all of the following:
                    (A) Civil and criminal litigation.
                    (B) Administrative and management functions of law 
                enforcement in major cities and smaller communities.
                    (C) Community relations.
    (c) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of the 
Commission.
    (d) Length of Commission.--The Commission shall cease to exist 1 
year after the initial appointment of the 4 members described in 
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a). The initial appointment of 
the 4 members so described shall not take effect until the later of 
October 1, 1999 or the date on which appropriations are made available 
for the expenses of the Commission.
    (e) Vacancies.--Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a 
vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner in which the 
original appointment was made, and shall not affect the power of the 
remaining members to execute the duties of the Commission. If any of 
the original appointments are not made by the day that is 30 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, any members already appointed 
shall fill any vacancy existing on that date.
    (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
Chairperson.
    (g) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall be 
elected by the members.

SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS.

    (a) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of the 
effectiveness of training, recruiting, hiring, oversight, and funding 
policies and practices in law enforcement, including the following:
            (1) Training: policies, practices, and organizational 
        strategies of law enforcement, and training and instruction in 
        the use of force, the use of non lethal force, tactical and 
        defensive tactical; arrests, searches and handcuffing; verbal 
        communication; vehicle use; initial and continuing cultural 
        diversity training;

        community relations and sensitivity training of law enforcement 
        vis a vis the community and the community vis a vis law 
        enforcement.
            (2) Recruitment and Hiring: policies and practices in 
        hiring and recruiting law enforcement officers and identifying 
        and setting standards for hiring regarding educational and 
        psychological backgrounds; diversity; lengths of probationary 
        periods.
            (3) Oversight: complaint procedures regarding police 
        officers, including screening, organization, and training of 
        investigatory staff; the availability and fairness of due 
        process requirements for members of the public and law 
        enforcement officers, and obstacles to ensuring objective and 
        timely investigations; discrimination and harassment, including 
        the relationship between police and prosecutors; perjury, 
        including the ``code of silence''.
            (4) Funding: the effectiveness of the use of funding for 
        programs relating to matters described in paragraphs (1) 
        through (3) of this subsection, whether derived from the 
        Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 or 
        otherwise, by cities listed in section 210501 of such Act.''.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the initial appointment of 
the 4 members described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 3(a), the 
Commission shall submit a report to Congress of the results of its 
study, including any recommendations the Commission may make with 
regard to the matters studied including best practices.

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

    (a) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may secure 
directly from any Federal department or agency such information as the 
Commission considers necessary to carry out its duties under section 4. 
Upon the request of the Commission, the head of such department or 
agency may furnish such information to the Commission.
    (b) Service Not Compensated.--Each member of the Commission shall 
serve without compensation, and members who are officers or employees 
of the United States shall serve without compensation in addition to 
that received for their services as officers or employees of the United 
States.
    (c) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall be 
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at 
rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of 
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes 
or regular places of business in the performance of service for the 
Commission.
    (d) Staff.--
            (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may, 
        without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
        appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
        additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
        Commission to perform its duties. The employment and 
        termination of an executive director shall be subject to 
        confirmation by a majority of the members of the Commission.
            (2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be 
        compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for level 
        V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
        United States Code. The Chairman may fix the compensation of 
        other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
        and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States 
        Code, relating to classification of positions and General 
        Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay for such 
        personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the 
        Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
            (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
        employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate 
        Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without 
        reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or 
        loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
    (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--The 
Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and intermittent 
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates 
for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate 
of basic pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
section 5316 of such title.
    (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
Chairman.
    (g) Quorum; Voting; Rules.--Two members of the Commission shall 
constitute a quorum to conduct business. Each member of the Commission 
shall have one vote, and the vote of each member shall be accorded the 
same weight. The Commission may establish by vote of a majority of its 
members any other rules for the conduct of the Commission's business, 
if such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other applicable 
law.
    (h) Use of Information Acquired by the Commission.--Information 
acquired by the Commission for its study shall be used only for 
research, statistical, and reporting purposes.
    (i) Information to be Kept Confidential.--Information the 
Commission determines is confidential, including the identity of law 
enforcement officers and members of the public, shall not be disclosed 
to the public, nor made a part of any public findings, nor made a part 
of any report published by the Commission.
    (j) Applicability of Federal Tort Claims Provisions.--For purposes 
of sections 1346(b) and 2401(b) and chapter 171 of title 28, United 
States Code, the Commission is a Federal agency and each of the members 
and personnel of the Commission is an employee of the Government. This 
subsection shall not be construed to imply that any commission is not a 
Federal agency or that any of the members or personnel of a commission 
is not an employee of the Government for purposes of sections 1346(b) 
and 2401(b) and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
    (k) Hearings.--
            (1) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
        and act at such times and places, administer such oaths, take 
        such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission 
        considers advisable to carry out its duties under section 4.
            (2) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
        the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
        witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
        The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid 
        from funds appropriated to the Commission.

SEC. 6. TRAINING.

    Section 210501 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``, and provide, 
        under paragraph (4), training, recruitment, hiring, and 
        oversight assistance'' before the semicolon; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) The training, recruitment, hiring, and oversight 
        assistance under paragraph (1)(A) shall be given to the 
        following cities: New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, Los 
        Angeles, California, the District of Columbia, and Charlotte, 
        North Carolina, and to one police department from each of the 4 
        geographical regions of the country (northeast, south, midwest, 
        and west) 2 of which have less than 100 police officers and 2 
        of which have less than 300 police officers, as determined by 
        the National Police Training Commission. The assistance may 
        include funding for equipment, not to exceed 10 percent of the 
        amount of the grant made to each city. The money appropriated 
        for such assistance shall be distributed to those locations in 
        proportion to the size of their police departments and upon 
        receipt of written assurances from the police department that 
        the department will provide access to its operations to the 
        Commission. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 2000 for the purposes of such assistance the sum of 
        $3,000,000.''.

SEC. 7. DATA ON DEATHS WHILE IN CUSTODY.

    Section 20101(b) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (9) as 
        paragraphs (7) through (10), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) assurances that the State will follow the guidelines 
        established by the Attorney General in reporting, on a 
        quarterly basis, information regarding deaths of any person who 
        is in the process of arrest, has been incarcerated or is en 
        route to be incarcerated at any municipal or county jail, State 
        prison, or other local or State correctional facility 
        (including any juvenile facility) that, at a minimum, 
        includes--
                    ``(A) the name, gender, ethnicity, and age of the 
                deceased;
                    ``(B) the date, time, and location of death; and
                    ``(C) a brief description of the circumstances 
                surrounding the death.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1659 authorizes a grant of monies to local police 
departments to enhance training programs and creates a 
Commission to study, training, recruiting, hiring and oversight 
policies and practices, particularly relating to use of force 
issues. The award of grant monies is conditioned on the 
identified police departments providing written assurances of 
their cooperation with the Commission.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

I. Use of Force By Law Enforcement and Police/Community Relations
    Significant controversy has surrounded the use of force by 
law enforcement at the local, state and national levels. ``Use 
of force'' issues can arise during a variety of police/
community contacts: use of weapons (guns, night sticks and 
other objects); use of physical force to restrain; use of non-
lethal force (i.e. pepper spray and like technologies); verbal 
communication; tactical and defensive tactical strategies; 
arrests, searches and handcuffing; and vehicle use.
    All of these tactics are integral and necessary to an 
effective policing strategy and to ensuring the protection of 
the police and the community. In implementing these strategies 
ineffectively or inappropriately, both police and members of 
the public have needlessly lost their lives. Further, members 
of various police departments across the country have been 
indicted and convicted on manslaughter and murder charges after 
using their weapons. In some cases, it appears that the police 
officers' ongoing training with their weapons is inadequate. In 
some major police departments, weapons training is less over a 
full career than one year of weapons training received by 
agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Police/community relations are central to the public 
safety, impacting on the cooperation of the community members 
with the police and in turn the success rate the police may 
have in curbing and preventing crime. These relations include 
having police officers of varying races and ethnic diversity 
who are knowledgeable about and sensitized to members of 
diverse communities.
    Without effective police/community relations, the policing 
function and the safety of our communities are at risk. One 
retired police officer, who himself had experienced verbal 
assault charges while on the job, has started a program called 
``Verbal Judo'' in which he instructs police officers in 
effective verbal communication and, particularly, in 
confrontational situations. Also, African American police 
officers in New York have taken it upon themselves to go out 
into the community to acquaint community members and youth with 
the requirements of policing and effective means of interacting 
with the police so as to avoid unnecessary confrontations.
    In addition, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has 
recommended that police officers undergo mediation training to 
more effectively resolve conflicts they encounter. Accordingly, 
police/community relations can have a direct impact on use of 
force issues.
    Whether a ``stranger'' policing strategy, ``community 
policing'' or some other policing strategy is adopted, the 
level of skill and training possessed by individual police 
officers impacts on their decision-making about whether to use 
force and, if so, what type of force and how much to employ. 
Consequently, training in the use of force and in skills which 
facilitate police/community relations impact directly on the 
quality and effectiveness of the protection afforded to the 
community by the police, as well as the ability of the police 
to prevent and reduce crime.
    Because public safety and security depend upon the 
effective, efficient, impartial and nondiscriminatory delivery 
of policing services to all communities, it is the intention of 
the Committee that the Commission remain bipartisan and non-
political in its study and recommendations. Further, certain 
police groups have expressed concern about the politicization 
of the composition of the Commission and their view that this 
could detrimentally affect the work of the Commission.
    The method for selection of the Commissioners is designed 
to reflect that intention. A provision excluding those holding 
elective office is included and is designed to foster the 
Committee's intention that the Commission remain as non-
political in its work as is possible, while at the same time 
providing the Commission access to the information and areas of 
expertise deemed necessary to accomplish its tasks under H.R. 
1659. The decision not to compensate the Commission members is 
designed to attract Commissioners who will serve due to the 
prestige, not for compensation, and in this way further the 
Committee's intention that the Commission remain as bipartisan 
and as non-political as possible in its work.
    During the week of May 3, 1999, A & E, a cable television 
station, has featured a series by Bill Kurtis on the use of 
force by law enforcement entitled ``Bad Cops.'' One of the 
repeated themes of the program was whether law enforcement 
policies regarding the use of force required revamping and/or 
reconsideration. In February, of this year, New York, immigrant 
Amadou Diallo was the target of 41 bullets shot by four (4) 
police officers in the Bronx in New York City. This incident 
refocused the nation's attention on the use of force by law 
enforcement. While some members of the New York community claim 
that it was a racial incident--four white police officers fired 
at an immigrant--others have concluded that race is not at the 
heart of the incident but, rather, the training of the 
particular police officers. The particulars of the incident 
raised a number of questions in the minds of many Americans: 
How is it that 4 officers shot at one unarmed man? Why is it 
that 41 bullets were discharged? What factors contributed to 
the public reaction to the incident and the ensuing outcry? 
What are the best methods to avoid attitudes and conduct such 
as those exhibited by Mark Fuhrman in the O.J. Simpson case? 
What is the best method of identifying officers such as Justin 
Volpe prior to their abusing inmates as he did in the Abner 
Louima case? Why do certain ethnically diverse neighborhoods 
experience very little dissatisfaction with police services 
where others appear to have heightened unresolved tensions?
    Law enforcement groups have asked ``What criteria will be 
used to evaluate whether a police program, practice or training 
is `effective' or `successful'?'' Will the Commission collect 
data? Conduct interviews? Assess curricula? Develop methodology 
and models? These are valid questions that the Commission in 
consultation with recognized experts in the field of law 
enforcement as well as community relations will have to ask and 
address. These same groups have questions concerning oversight 
issues that may be particular to one community but not 
necessarily others. It is expected the Commissioners and 
consultants will be able to assess these issues and their 
impact on delivery of policing services.
    It is contemplated that the Commission will act as a study 
commission and not an investigative commission and, therefore, 
there is no provision for subpoena power. The limitations on 
the authorized use of data received by the Commission as well 
as the confidentiality provision are designed to encourage the 
unencumbered sharing of information to the greatest extent 
possible without fear that the information received as well as 
the Commission's analyses and work product will then become 
available for use in litigation or to embarrass or attack 
members of the police and community. Rather, the Committee is 
interested in hearing from the Commission about its findings 
and conclusions concerning effective and ineffective training 
programs being used or tried by police departments and policies 
and practices in hiring, recruiting and oversight for the 
Committee's future legislative and funding decisions.
    During the Committee's hearing on H.R. 1659 and a U.S. 
Civil Rights Commission hearing into police practices in New 
York following the Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo shooting, 
both civil rights as well as law enforcement witnesses 
pinpointed enhanced training as the most important means of 
addressing abusive and deteriorated police/community relations. 
It is the intention of H.R. 1659 that the Commission's study 
will assist in identifying those practices which strike the 
right balance between effective law enforcement and positive 
relations between police and the community.
            A Solution to the Use of Force Controversy
    Although individual incidents of excessive use of force can 
be addressed through the criminal and civil court systems, this 
avenue of redress does not provide overarching, long term 
solutions. In addition, the court system has a significant 
delay in addressing these matters and does not produce 
solutions designed to remedy the root causes of the excessive 
or inappropriate use of force. Focusing on the training, 
hiring, recruitment, oversight and discipline of officers, 
however, can address the underlying causes.
    The Police Training Commission Act of 1999 is designed to 
be one of the solutions to the occurrences of excessive and 
inappropriate uses of force, to recruiting and hiring issues 
that may be related thereto, and to oversight and discipline of 
officers who engage in inappropriate or excessive use of force.
            The Collection of Data on Deaths While In Custody
    An estimated 1000 men and women die questionable deaths 
each year while in police custody or in jail. A number of 
deaths that occur in state and local jails are ruled suicides, 
but that determination is often tainted by inadequate record-
keeping, investigative incompetence, and physical evidence that 
suggests otherwise. In addition, many of the individuals listed 
as ``suicides'' had been arrested for relatively minor 
offenses--greatly reducing their incentive to take their own 
lives. The FY 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary 
Appropriations Act directed the Office of Justice Programs at 
the Department of Justice to determine the feasibility of 
creating a single source for annual statistics on in-custody 
deaths--including federal, state and local incidents. The 
provision directs the Attorney General to develop guidelines 
for the reporting of deaths in custody and requires that at a 
minimum, the report include (1) the name of the deceased; (2) 
the gender of the deceased; (3) the ethnicity of the deceased; 
(4) the age of the deceased; (5) the date, time and location of 
the death; and (6) a brief description of the circumstances 
surrounding the death. The FY 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and 
Judiciary Appropriations Act directed the Office of Justice 
Programs at the Department of Justice to determine the 
feasibility of creating a single source for annual statistics 
on in-custody deaths--including federal, state and local 
incidents. In March 1998, DOJ reported that this goal is 
achievable. As H.R. 1659 deals with the issue of police 
accountability, the committee believes it is appropriate to 
require that these statistics be reported.
II. H.R. 1659, the ``National Police Training Commission Act of 1999''
    On May 5, 1999, Congressman Serrano introduced H.R. 1659, 
the ``National Police Training Commission Act of 1999'', which 
Chairman Hyde co-sponsored.
    The Act has two components. The first component consists of 
a grant of seed money to some of the nation's largest and more 
diverse police departments as well as smaller, regional 
departments for the purposes of training, hiring and 
recruiting, and oversight. The second component provides a 
Congressional oversight mechanism; that is, a Commission to 
study these departments' use of the grant monies and the 
effectiveness of the training programs and policing strategies, 
the hiring and recruiting practices and policies, and oversight 
policies and practices. In particular, the Commission will 
focus on these policies and practices as they relate to law 
enforcement's use of force. The Act calls for the Commission to 
then report its findings to Congress and to make 
recommendations regarding its findings of effective programs 
and policies, including ``best practices'' and concerning the 
continued involvement of the federal government in these 
areas--both in terms of oversight as well as funding. At the 
conclusion of the Commission, a report will be forwarded to 
Congress detailing the findings of the study and its 
recommendations as to further Congressional involvement and 
funding of these programs.
    The selection of the police departments was not based on 
determinations that they had particular excessive use of force 
issues. Rather, in recognition that all police departments 
around the country have and are experiencing use of force 
issues. The bill identifies the following cities: New York, New 
York, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, the District 
of Columbia, Charlotte, North Carolina, and to one police 
department from each of the 4 geographical regions of the 
country (northeast, south, midwest, and west) 2 of which have 
less than 100 police officers and 2 of which have less than 300 
police officers, as determined by the National Police Training 
Commission. Their police departments are the following sizes: 
Washington D.C. (3512 sworn members), New York (39,000 sworn 
members), Chicago (14,000 sworn members), Los Angeles (10,000 
sworn members), Charlotte (1385 sworn members), two (10 sworn 
members each) and 2 (300 sworn members each).
    These cities were selected not because they have unique 
problems with police training or the use of force. Rather, 
these cities were selected because by virtue of their differing 
sizes they will present the Commission with data of a wide 
array of issues concerning police/citizen contacts and in turn 
issues surrounding the use of force. Many of these cities have 
a greater diversity in the communities served by the police 
departments and also therefore present the opportunity to study 
the delivery of policing services to minority and ethnically 
and culturally diverse communities. Additionally, the cities 
are geographically diverse, with major police departments 
spread from Washington D.C. in the East, Chicago in the Midwest 
and Los Angeles in the West as well as Charlotte in the 
southeast, with four smaller departments (two with less than 
300 officers and two with less than 100 officers) in the 
northeast, south, Midwest and west. In this way, the Commission 
will have access to the greatest array of information to study 
on uses of force, hiring and recruitment practices and 
oversight and disciplinary matters of local police departments.
    It is the intention of the Committee that the police 
departments receiving grant monies will direct those monies to 
the purposes mentioned in H.R. 1659 and for enhanced training 
in these areas. The Commission's study however will not 
necessarily be limited by the purposes to which the monies are 
directed and can embrace any of the study topics addressed in 
H.R. 1659 in addition to the departments' uses of the grant 
monies. This decision not to limit the Commission's study is to 
reflect the Committee's intention that the Commission provide 
meaningful recommendations on effective law enforcement 
training, including ``best practices'' as part of its report 
and in recognition of the fact that use of force issues are 
effected by a number of factors including hiring and recruiting 
practices, training and oversight and disciplinary practices.
    The $3 million in grant monies for training will be 
distributed to the departments identified in proportion to the 
number of sworn members of the police departments. It is 
estimated that enhanced training, excluding the cost of certain 
equipment necessary and incidental to that training, will cost 
approximately $50.00 per police officer for a training program 
designed to benefit an entire department to a $100.00 per 
police officer for a more specialized training program 
designed, for example, to train officers in select communities 
where there are more pronounced difficulties in police/
community relations or for more specialized training. 
Flexibility in administering the grant monies will be necessary 
and should not be strictly limited to amounts premised on these 
calculation. Further, flexibility will be necessary in the 
departments with 100 to 300 officers as the small size of the 
departments might increase the costs of training programs they 
might select. Thus, it is estimated that Washington D.C would 
receive approximately $350,000 in grant monies; that Chicago 
would receive approximately $700,000, New York approximately $1 
Los Angeles approximately $500,000, Charlotte approximately 
$70,000 and approximately $100,000 to be distributed to the 
four smaller cities.
    Monies for equipment is permitted where the equipment is 
necessary and incidental to the particular training programs 
selected by the local police departments. However, the monies 
that may be spent on equipment are limited to 10% of the total 
grant monies received by a department. Thus, it is expected 
that to the extent a department seeks to focus some of its 
training monies on, for example, non-lethal use of force 
training, such as use of pepper sprays and similar 
technologies, that up to 10% of the grant monies received may 
be devoted to the purchase of the technologies necessary and 
incidental to this training. While it is not possible to 
anticipate all equipment that could be deemed necessary and 
incidental, it is also anticipated that a department could 
purchase some video equipment to the extent that the video 
equipment might be used in training officers in the area of 
community involvement and interaction. Of course, these 
training videos must be made available to the Commission 
subject to the restrictions on the use of data and 
confidentiality provisions contained in H.R. 1659.
    It is expected that because these larger departments 
experience a wide range of contacts between police and 
citizens, their activities will provide better insight into a 
wider range of effective training programs in the use of force 
areas identified in the bill. In turn, this diversity will 
offer greater assistance to Congress and police departments for 
future consideration of effective training programs and 
policing strategies, hiring, recruiting, and oversight policies 
and practices.
    The Commission is to be a bipartisan Commission comprised 
of knowledgeable professionals with policing, sociological, 
organizational and other relevant law enforcement experience. 
Four Commission members will be selected by the Speaker of the 
House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader 
and the Senate Minority Leader. Those 4 members will then 
select the fifth member and together they will determine the 
Chairman of the Commission. The Commission will have the 
ability to call upon appropriate experts and knowledgeable 
persons and resources both inside and outside of government in 
performing its oversight study.

                                Hearings

    The Full Committee held a day of hearings on H.R. 1659 on 
May 12, 1999. Testimony was received from U.S. Representatives 
Jose Serrano, Gregory W. Meeks, and James T. Walsh; Julius 
Davis, Deputy Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department; 
Edward A. Flynn, Chairman of the Police Executive Research 
Forum Legislative Committee and Chief of Police for Arlington 
County; Martin L. Pfeifer, Trustee for the Fraternal Order of 
Police; Callie L. Baird, Administrator In Charge of the Office 
for Professional Standards of the Chicago Police Department; 
Charles B. Roberts, Assistant Deputy Superintendent for the 
Chicago Police Department; Terrence W. Gainer, Assistant Chief 
of Police for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 
Department; Hiliary Shelton, Director of the Washington Bureau 
of the NAACP; Ronald Hampton, President of the National Black 
Police Association; Gerald Papa, youth community counselor in 
New York City; and Madame Kadiato Diallo, mother of Amadou 
Diallo. Additional material was submitted by Clarence N. Wood, 
President of the Human Relations Foundation of Chicago, 
Illinois and Robert T. Scully, Executive Director, National 
Association of Police Organizations, Inc.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 19, 1999, the Full Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1659, as amended, by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    The bill was reported favorably by voice vote. There were 
eight amendments resolved by voice vote. Chairman Hyde's 
technical amendment passed by voice vote and provided for 
language suggested by the Congressional Budget Office, excluded 
persons holding elective office from serving as Commissioners, 
changed the length of the Commission and the due date for the 
report from 180 days to 1 year after the Commission began, 
provided that Commissioners would not be compensated for their 
service on the Commission, limited the permissible uses of the 
information acquired by the Commission and provided for its 
confidentiality, added a Federal Tort Claims Act provision to 
protect members and personnel on the Commission, allowed the 
Commission to conduct hearings, permitted no more than 10% of 
the grant monies to be used for the purchase of equipment 
necessary and incidental to the training to be conducted by the 
police departments in accordance with the bill, and requiring 
that the police departments receiving the grant monies provide 
written assurances that the Commission will have access to 
their operations. Mr. Hutchinson offered an amendment which 
passed by voice vote as amended to add one police department 
from each of four geographical regions of the country 
(northeast, south, midwest and west) to the list of cities 
whose police departments would receive grant monies and be the 
subject of the Commission's study. Mr. Watt offered an 
amendment to Mr. Hutchinson's amendment which passed by 
unanimous consent to add Charlotte, North Carolina. Mr. Scott 
offered an amendment to Mr. Hutchinson's amendment providing 
that 2 of the police departments selected would have less than 
100 police officers and 2 would have less than 300 police 
officers.
    Mr. Scott offered an amendment to amend Section 20101(b) of 
the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act to 
provide for the collection of data on deaths of persons in 
custody which was adopted by voice vote as amended. Mr. Conyers 
and Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment that passed by voice 
vote to add the word ``perjury'' to the oversight items to be 
studied by the Commission, to add the term ``best practices'' 
to the Commission's study of effective training programs, to 
include the ``relationship between police and prosecutors'' to 
the oversight items to be studied by the Commission, and to 
include ``initial and continuing cultural diversity training'' 
as one of the training programs.
    Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to strike the cities 
of New York, Chicago and Los and insert ten jurisdictions to be 
determined by the Attorney General of the United States with 
priority given to jurisdictions with a history of law 
enforcement misconduct as the cities to receive grant monies 
and to strike the grant monies amount of $3,000,000 and to 
insert language providing for such sums as may be necessary. 
The amendment was defeated by voice vote. Mr. Conyers and Ms. 
Waters offered an amendment conditioning all distributions of 
grant monies under the bill on the abolition of any provision 
that might permit law enforcement officers to delay answering 
questions posed by internal review boards. That amendment was 
defeated by voice vote. Ms. Waters offered an amendment to 
require the Department of Justice to perform its mandate and to 
carry out its duties under Section 14141 of the 1994 Violent 
Crime Reduction and Law Enforcement Bill by reporting to 
Congress every six months the cases being investigated and the 
amount of funds spent and needed to comply wit the law which 
failed by voice vote.
    In addition, there were four recorded votes during the 
Committee's consideration of H.R. 1659, as follows:
    1. An amendment offered by Mr. Conyers to establish and 
adequately funded and effective civilian review board or 
comparable agency for all law enforcement officials of the 
particular jurisdiction with a history of misconduct. Defeated 
9 to 13.

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mr. Berman                          Mr. Gekas
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. Coble
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Gallegly
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Canady
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Goodlatte
Ms. Waters                          Mr. Jenkins
Ms. Baldwin                         Mr. Hutchinson
Mr. Weiner                          Mr. Pease
                                    Mr. Cannon
                                    Mr. Rogan
                                    Ms. Lofgren
                                    Mr. Delahunt

    2. An amendment offered by Ms. Waters to authorize not less 
than $1,080,000 in new funds for expenses related to the 
enforcement against pattern and practice discrimination under 
42 U.S.C.A. 14141. Defeated 13 to 15.

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mr. Frank                           Mr. Gekas
Mr. Berman                          Mr. Coble
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Smith
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Gallegly
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Canady
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Goodlatte
Ms. Waters                          Mr. Chabot
Mr. Meehan                          Mr. Barr
Mr. Delahunt                        Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Rothman                         Mr. Hutchinson
Ms. Baldwin                         Mr. Pease
Mr. Weiner                          Mr. Cannon
                                    Mr. Rogan
                                    Mr. Scarborough

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform were received as referred to in clause 
3(c)(4) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1659, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 27, 1999.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1659, the National 
Police Training Commission Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
and Lisa Cash Driskill (for the state and local impact), who 
can be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.
H.R. 1659--National Police Training Commission Act of 1999.
Summary
    H.R. 1659 would authorize the appropriation of $3 million 
for fiscal year 2000 for the Attorney General to provide 
training and other assistance to law enforcement agencies of 
selected cities. The bill also would establish the National 
Police Training Commission. Assuming appropriation of the 
necessary funds, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1659 
would result in additional discretionary spending of about $4 
million over the 2000-2004 period.
    This legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
H.R. 1659 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Any requirements imposed on states would be a condition of 
receiving certain grants under the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government
    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1659 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 750 (administration of justice).
    For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
amounts authorized by the bill for training and other 
assistance to law enforcement agencies will be appropriated by 
the start of fiscal year 2000 and that outlays will follow the 
historical spending patterns of similar programs administered 
by the Department of Justice.

                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
                                    [By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003     2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law
  Authorization Level \1\..........................................        6        0        0        0        0
  Estimated Outlays................................................        3        2        1        0        0
Proposed Changes
  Estimated Authorization Level....................................        4        0        0        0        0
  Estimated Outlays................................................        2        1        1        0        0
Spending Under H.R. 1659
  Estimated Authorization Level \1\................................       10        0        0        0        0
  Estimated Outlays................................................        5        3        2        0        0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount authorized for training assistance for law enforcement agencies in Public Law
  103-322. That law also authorized funding for training assistance for 1999 and previous years, but to date, no
  funds have been appropriated for that purpose.

    The National Police Training Commission, composed of five 
members appointed by the Congress, would prepare a report 
within one year on the effectiveness of various personnel and 
funding policies for law enforcement agencies. CBO expects that 
the commission would hire a small staff, meet once a month, and 
gather extensive testimony from witnesses. Assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the 
commission would cost about $700,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Pay-as-you-go considerations
    None.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments
    H.R. 1659 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA. The bill would authorize $3 million to be distributed 
among nine communities for police training and assistance. The 
bill also would require states to collect data on deaths 
occurring in the process of arrest or in state or local 
correctional facilities, as a condition of receiving certain 
grants under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994.
Estimated impact on the private sector
    The bill would impose no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by
    Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860), Impact on State, 
Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Cash Driskill (225-3220).
Estimate approved by
    Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill is the 
``National Police Training Commission Act of 1999''.
    Section 2 establishes the Commission and titles it 
``National Police Training Commission''.
    Section 3 provides the details of the Commission.
    Subsection (a) provides that there will be 5 members: the 
Senate majority and minority leaders will each appoint one; the 
Speaker of the House and minority leader will each appoint one; 
and the fifth will be appointed by these four members.
    Subsection (b)(1) specifies who is eligible to be appointed 
as a member of the Commission and specifies that they are to 
have expertise in law enforcement, training, and may be from 
the public or private sector (excluding those holding elective 
office) and may include federal, state or local police 
officers, members of academia, non-profit organizations or 
other interested individuals.
    Subsection (b)(2) specifies the qualifications necessary 
for membership on the Commission and include civil and criminal 
litigation experience, administrative and management experience 
in law enforcement in major and/or smaller cities, and 
community relations.
    Subsection (c) specifies a that the term of membership on 
the Commission will correspond to the life of the Commission.
    Subsection (d) provides that the life of the Commission 
will be 1 year following the initial appointment of four 
members.
    Subsection (e) provides the mechanism for filling vacancies 
on the Commission.
    Subsection (f) provides that the Commission will meet at 
the call of the Chair.
    Section 4 provides that the functions of the Commission are 
to (a) study the effectiveness of training, recruiting and 
hiring, oversight and discipline and the funded programs and 
(b) report within 1 year of the initial appointment of 4 
members on the results of its study and with recommendations.
    Section 5 provides authority for certain administrative 
functions including (a) obtaining information from federal 
agencies (b) that Commission members will not be compensated
    (c) reimbursement of travel expenses (d) staffing of the 
Commission, their compensation and the detailing of government 
employees (e) the procurement of expert services (f) meetings 
(g) a quorum, voting and rules (h) the authorized and limited 
uses of the information acquired by the Commission (i) a 
confidentiality provision permitting the Commission to restrict 
certain information from being made public by the Commission 
(j) the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act to 
Commission members and personnel and (k) the availability of 
hearings by the Commission for the receipt and taking of 
evidence and testimony.
    Section 5 provides compensation for experts and other 
persons hired on an intermittent basis to assist the Commission 
in its study and recommendations to Congress.
    The bill limits the use of data received by the Commission 
to research, statistical and reporting purposes. It provides 
for the confidentiality of not only the identity of any law 
enforcement officer and member of the public in addition to any 
additional confidentiality provisions the Commission may 
impose. H.R. 1659 permits the Commission to hold hearings for 
the purpose of receiving testimony and other evidence it deems 
important to its mission. Rather, this Section requires as a 
condition to receiving grant monies that the cities identified 
cooperate with the Commission by making its training, hiring 
and recruiting and oversight activities available to the 
Commission for review and study.
    Section 6 amends the Crime Control Act of 1994 to permit 
training not simply of management level police but also of the 
rank and file officers in the areas addressed in this bill and 
authorizes the expenditure of $ 3 M from the Violent Crime 
Reduction Trust Fund authorizations FY 2000 to the cities and 
locations mentioned in the bill, following receipt by the 
Department of Justice, of written assurances from the grant 
recipients that they will provide access to their operations to 
the Commission.
    Section 7 is intended to amend the Crime Control Act of 
1994 to require that states receiving certain grant monies 
assure that recipients of the grant monies adhere to reporting 
guidelines issued by the Attorney General in recording deaths 
of persons in custody. The reporting requirements include 
reports to the Attorney General on a quarterly basis and 
include (1) the name, gender, ethnicity, and age of the 
deceased; (2) the date, time, and location of death; and (3) a 
brief description of the circumstances surrounding the death.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported


    In compliance with clause 3(e) of Rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):




         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

    

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



               TITLE XXI--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

    

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



         Subtitle E--Improved Training and Technical Automation



SEC. 210501. IMPROVED TRAINING AND TECHNICAL AUTOMATION.


    (a)  * * *
    

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) Training and Investigative Assistance.----

            (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall, 
        subject to the availability of appropriations----

                    (A) expand and improve investigative and 
                managerial training courses for State, Indian 
                tribal, and local law enforcement agencies , 
                and provide, under paragraph (4), training, 
                recruitment, hiring, and oversight assistance; 
                and
    

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



            (4) The training, recruitment, hiring, and 
        oversight assistance under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
        given to the following cities: New York, New York, 
        Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, Washington, 
        District of Columbia, and Charlotte, North Carolina, 
        and to one police department from each of the 4 
        geographical regions of the country (northeast, south, 
        midwest, and west) 2 of which have less than 100 police 
        officers and 2 of which have less than 300 police 
        officers, as determined by the National Police Training 
        Commission The assistance may include funding for 
        equipment, not to exceed 10 percent of the amount of 
        the grant made to each city. The money appropriated for 
        such assistance shall be distributed to those locations 
        in proportion to the size of their police departments 
        and upon receipt of written assurances from the police 
        department that the department will provide access to 
        its operations to the Commission. There are authorized 
        to be appropriated for fiscal year 2000 for the 
        purposes of such assistance the sum of $3,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 Minority Views To H.R. 1659, The National Police Training Commission 
                              Act of 1999

    It should now be clear to all members, and the nation at-
large, that police misconduct is a manifest issue. The litany 
of incidents is familiar and has incendiary potential for our 
cities.\1\ Faced with such compelling evidence, the majority 
asks for yet another commission to study problems that we all 
know to exist. While we understand and applaud the motives 
behind this legislation, we, and a host of advocacy groups 
spanning the civil rights and law enforcement communities, 
believe that the energies of Congress should be focused on the 
adoption of legislative priorities that would address the 
substance of law enforcement management and strengthen the 
current battery of tools available to sanction misconduct.\2\ 
The incremental approach of H.R. 1659 misses a real opportunity 
to initiate reforms that would restore public trust and 
accountability to law enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amadou Diallo--Unarmed West African immigrant--shot 41 times by 
New York City police. Nineteen year old African American shot 12 times 
in the back as she sat in her car--Riverside, California. Louima--
Haitian immigrant--sexually assaulted by New York City police. Rodney 
King--beaten by four Los Angeles police officers. A New Orleans woman 
murdered by police officer against whom she filed a complaint (officer 
convicted and on death row).
    \2\ See studies by Amnesty International , ACLU, and The NAACP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the most basic methodological level, H.R. 1659 lacks 
recommendations to define the mission and guide the study of 
the National Police Training Commission (the ``Commission'') 
and selects a random number of cities, without any stated 
selection criteria. At best, we are concerned that the 
Commission's study will generate the kind of anecdotal data 
already in existence on the issue. As to substance, H.R. 1659 
fails to address major subjects that impact on the issue of 
police misconduct, including, ``so called'' 48-hour rules, 
civilian review procedures, pattern and practice enforcement 
(42 U.S.C.A. 14141) and deprivation of rights under order of 
law (18 U.S.C.A 242). Given the pervasiveness and seriousness 
of the issues at hand, our attention is better spent on the 
implementation of solutions, rather than merely on the 
continuing study of an obvious problem. Our concerns with the 
approach taken by the committee-reported bill are as follows:
I. The Commission's Study Will Not Yield New Relevant Data
    At the hearing on H.R. 1659, The Police Executive Research 
Forum (``PERF'') highlighted the methodological weaknesses of 
H.R. 1659's approach to studying the issue of police 
misconduct.\3\ PERF was especially critical of H.R. 1659's 
short Commission duration and of the ambiguity of its mission. 
While the Commission's term was extended from six months to one 
year by amendment, we are concerned that its mission remains 
clouded in ambiguity. Historically, research in this area has 
been particularly hampered by the lack of data for a range of 
subjects critical to determining why police officers ``go 
wrong'' and to determining the actual effectiveness of programs 
designed to address police misconduct.\4\ However, H.R. 1659 
gives the Commission no guidance on how to focus its effort. 
Further, given the multiplicity of factors tied to the issue of 
police misconduct, it is still unclear whether one year is 
sufficient to yield sound new recommendations or will simply 
result in reiteration of the recommendations already on the 
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Judiciary Hearing on May 12, 1999.
    \4\ Samuel Walker, Citizens Review of the Police--1998 Update, 
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, March 
1998, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of selection criteria for participating 
jurisdictions also will limit the Commission's study to 
anecdotal proof already present in abundance.\5\ As originally 
submitted to the Committee, the Commission was to center its 
research efforts on four (subsequently expanded to nine) cities 
and award their law enforcement agencies grants from a pool of 
$3,000,000 to ensure cooperation.\6\ Unfortunately, there was 
no scientific methodology guiding the selection process. As a 
consequence, there is no evidence that the Commission will 
generate statistically significant sample data for the nation's 
17,000 law enforcement agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See e.g., Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police 
Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, 
New York: The Commission, 1994 at 85; Citizen Review of Police Conduct 
Task Force Report, Santa Clara County Bar Association, April 28, 1992; 
Christopher Commission, Report of the Independent Commission on the Los 
Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles: The Commission, 1991.
    \6\ While the number of focus jurisdictions was expanded from four 
to nine, the pool of funds for participating cities was held at 
$3,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With H.R. 1659, we risk waiting another year to receive 
only superficial determinations on an issue that merits our 
most serious consideration and action now. Due to its lack of 
guidance or methodology, there is a substantial likelihood that 
the Commission will merely recount the myriad of training, 
recruitment and oversight programs under consideration in 
cities across the country.
II. H.R. 1659 Fails to Address the 48-Hour Rule
    At our hearings, numerous questions were raised regarding 
the appropriateness of the New York City Police Department's 
``48-Hour Rule,'' which allows police officers to refuse to 
speak to ranking officers conducting internal investigations 
for two full business days following the time they are 
identified as suspects in alleged misconduct.\7\ Additionally, 
under the rule, police who are potential witnesses in a 
criminal case are not required to submit to an interview until 
four hours after they have been identified as witnesses.\8\ If, 
at any time during the investigation of an offense, an officer 
acting as a witness becomes a suspect, the 48-hour rule goes 
into effect.\9\ We are concerned that this rule, and similar 
rules and procedures, have the potential to undermine the 
integrity of police misconduct investigations. Yet nowhere is 
this concern mentioned or referenced in the legislation's 
text.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ New York Police Department Patrol Guide, Sec.  118-9.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ See H.R. 1659 Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New York City's 48-hour rule came about, in part, because--
in civil matters--government employees do not have a right 
against self-incrimination and can be compelled to respond to 
inquiries about their public duties. They also may face 
punishment or termination for refusing to answer such questions 
or lying in response to such questions. The New York City 
Police Department's Patrol Guide states that officers who are 
suspects in an alleged offense must answer questions 
``specifically directed and narrowly related to official 
duties'' or face suspension.\11\ To balance this requirement 
with an officers' Fifth Amendment right against self- 
incrimination, the 48-hour rule was established to give 
officers an opportunity to consult with an attorney before 
submitting to questioning. It later became a collective 
bargaining issue when it was included in the Police Benevolent 
Association's contract with New York City in 1991.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Article XIX of the Police Benevolent Association contract with 
the City of New York for 1991 (renewed in 1995) states: ``The 
Guidelines for Interrogation of Members of the Department, in force at 
the execution date of this Agreement, will not be altered during the 
term of this Agreement, except to reflect subsequent changes in the law 
or final decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the 
Court of Appeals of the State of New York regarding the procedures and 
conditions to be followed in the interrogation of a member of the 
Department.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many--including Chairman Hyde--have expressed concern that 
the 48-hour rule merely gives police officers 48 hours to ``get 
their story straight'' and, in so doing, reduces the 
reliability of police testimony and diminishes the public 
perception of police truthfulness.\13\ Beyond the issue of 
perception, the delay may allow investigators to lose their 
intensity and focus as time passes and as they begin to work on 
other matters.\14\ Again, the concern is that, the longer 
investigators must wait to question a suspect, the greater the 
possibility that vital evidence may disappear or be lost.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Deflecting Blame: The Dissenting Report of Mayor Rudolph W. 
Giuliani's Task Force on Police/Community Relations (1998).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other investigations have determined that extreme versions 
of the 48-hour rule are unnecessary and detrimental to 
investigations and public confidence in investigations.\16\ In 
the wake of the August 8, 1997 assault of Abner Louima by New 
York City police officers, New York City Mayor's office 
established a ``Task Force on Police/Community Relations'' (the 
``Task Force'') and granted the Task Force the power to make 
recommendations.\17\ The Task Force recommended, among other 
things, that the New York City Police Department abolish the 
48- hour rule.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Although the New York rule appears to be anomalous, it is our 
nation's largest city and therefore worthy of national study. In 
Chicago, officers who injure or kill someone while on duty must give an 
oral statement to a commanding officer ``without delay.'' The Los 
Angeles Police Department also takes statements from officers at the 
scene of a shooting. To avoid subsequent complaints by officers that 
they were harassed into talking, those under investigations are assured 
by officers that their statements will not be shared with Los Angeles 
prosecutors. ``No Questions Asked: New York Rules Means It's Tough to 
Convict Police in Diallo Case,'' Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1999.
    \17\ Id. Deflecting Blame: The Dissenting Report of Mayor Rudolph 
W. Giuliani's Task Force on Police/Community Relations (1998).
    \18\ In response, New York Mayor Giuliani denounced the Task Force 
as ``small minded,'' ``silly,'' and ``cop bashers'' and, shortly 
thereafter, disbanded the Task Force. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As these kinds of rules and procedures are becoming more 
prevalent with the adoption of law enforcement officer ``bills 
of rights,'' serious research should be completed to assist in 
the development of guidelines that give officers a reasonable 
period of time, depending on the circumstances of the inquiry, 
to consult with an attorney before they are questioned.\19\ By 
omission, H.R. 1659 fails to provide any guidance to the 
Commission on how to address 48-hour type rules and, therefore, 
fails to consider an important substantive issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. H.R. 1659 Fails to Address the Issue of Civilian Review Procedures
    The bill also fails to address or consider the impact of 
civilian review procedures. Civilian review of police activity 
was first proposed in the 1950's because of a widespread 
dissatisfaction with the internal disciplinary procedures of 
police departments. In general, civilian review authorities 
receive, process, and investigate claims of abuse against 
police officers. Civilian review procedures exhibit a wide 
range of variation, from sworn boards with investigatory 
authority to groups with mere review authority of internal 
police investigations.\20\ Currently, civilian review boards 
are in place in some 94 jurisdictions at the state and local 
level, including New York and Chicago. This figure represents a 
42% increase since 1995 and a 147% increase since 1990. 
Estimates indicate that civilian review procedures cover law 
enforcement agencies responsible for approximately 25% of the 
nation's population, and three-quarters of our 50 largest 
cities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See, Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright Kreisel, Varieties of 
Citizen Review: The Implications of Organizational Features of 
Complaint Review Procedures for Accountability of the Police, American 
Journal Of Police, XV 1996: 65-88. Walker, Citizens Review of the 
Police at 3.
    \21\ Id. Samuel Walker, Citizens Review of the Police at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While civilian review has been opposed by some as being 
intrusive, research indicates that if properly structured and 
funded, such procedures yield a range of community benefits. 
These include the fact that civilian review establishes the 
principle of police accountability. Research indicates that a 
complaint review system encourages citizens to act on their 
grievances and makes it easier and less threatening for 
civilians to file complaints against abusive police officers 
and practices.\22\ In addition, a civilian review agency can be 
an important source of information about police misconduct in a 
community. A civilian agency is more likely to compile and 
publish data on patterns of misconduct, especially on officers 
with chronic problems, than is a police internal affairs 
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 
Civilian Review Fact Sheet, May 1999 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, civilian review can alert police administrators 
to the steps they must take to curb abuse in their departments, 
eliminating reliance on internal affairs for reporting facts 
that may place their department in a negative spotlight. For 
example, many well intentioned police officials have failed to 
act decisively against police brutality because internal 
investigations did not provide them with the facts.\23\ Also, 
civilian review creates an atmosphere conducive to further 
reform. The existence of a civilian review agency, a reform 
itself, encourages a climate of reform that can help ensure 
that other needed reforms are implemented. While a police 
department can formulate other model policies aimed at 
deterring and punishing misconduct, those policies can be 
difficult to implement in effective manner unless a system is 
in place to guarantee that those policies are aggressively 
enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Samuel Walker and Betsy Wright Kreisel, Varieties of Citizen 
Review, American Journal of Police, XV, 1996, at 65-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many cities and some states have adopted the civilian 
review mechanisms, but often times the boards are never given 
an opportunity or funding to serve their function. For example, 
New York City's board has been plagued by charges of conflict 
of interest and Washington D.C.'s board has never been fully 
funded.\24\ H.R. 1659 represented a unique opportunity for 
Congress to take a stand on the vital issue of civilian review. 
Again, the bill does not include civilian review in the list of 
items to be studied.\25\ Accordingly, H.R. 1659 misses another 
critical opportunity to respond to the issue of police 
accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Samuel Walker, Achieving Police Accountability, Research 
Brief, Sept. 1998, at 3&5.
    \25\ See H.R. 1659 Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Full Funding and Empowerment of the Civil Rights Division Will 
        Enhance Protections Against Police Misconduct
    H.R. 1659 fails to provide full funding for the Civil 
Rights Division. One of the most effective means of combating 
police misconduct was provided through the expanded use of 
Justice Department's investigative authority. Major incidents 
of police misconduct--King, Louima and Diallo--could be 
addressed by expanding the reach of the various statutes 
authorizing such investigations or authorizing and providing 
for increased funding. Unfortunately, when full funding for the 
Civil Rights Division was proposed, it was rejected by the 
majority. The legislation similarly ignores the issue of 
expanded investigative authority under either 42 U.S.C.A 14141 
or 18 U.S.C.A 242. At a time when we are experiencing a 
national crisis of police misconduct, we should revisit the 
Justice Department's pattern and practice and criminal 
investigative authority to ensure that the Justice Department 
has the authority and resources necessary to protect the public 
interest.
    The Administration has requested $82.2 million for the 
Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. We believe 
that the Division should be funded at the full request. 
Discrimination continues to be a persistent problem in American 
society, and there is more than sufficient information 
suppoting the request of the Administration to enforce the 
civil rights laws. Among other things, the Administration's 
budget proposal would provide much needed resources in the 
Department's fight against civil rights violations, including 
16 positions to combat police misconduct.
    One of the principal means of combating police misconduct 
against minorities is through Justice Department ``Pattern and 
Practice'' investigations under 42 U.S.C. Sec.  14141. Created 
as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, Sec.  14141 makes it unlawful 
for any police department or other governmental agency to 
engage in a ``pattern or practice'' of depriving persons of 
their civil rights.\26\ This section also gives the Attorney 
General the power to obtain civil equitable and declaratory 
relief necessary to eliminate the pattern or practice of 
behavior.\27\ The Department of Justice has used this section 
to obtain a consent decree with the Pittsburgh Police 
Department, is in negotiations with New Jersey and has an 
ongoing investigation against the New Orleans Police 
Department. Also, as a related matter, section 14142 requires 
the Attorney General to collect information regarding the use 
of excessive force by police departments nationwide. As of May 
14, 1999, the Justice Department has resolved two Sec.  14141 
investigations through consent decrees, has nine investigations 
in progress, is conducting ten preliminary investigations,\28\ 
has closed ten preliminary investigations, and resolved 
numerous investigations with no further action (indicating the 
Department found no Sec.  14141 violations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ 42 U.S.C. Sec.  14141(a).
    \27\ Id. Sec.  14141(b).
    \28\ The Department would give no further definition of 
``preliminary investigation'' other than to say that it is when 
evidence is gathered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Division's success is compelling and provides a 
blueprint for further action. On February 26, 1997, the Justice 
Department negotiated its first ever consent decree pursuant to 
a Sec.  14141 investigation with the Pittsburgh, PA, Police 
Department.\29\ The agreement established guidelines for 
training, supervision, discipline, and complaint procedures for 
the police department.\30\ Specifically, the agreement requires 
that officers complete a brief report for a range of civilian 
encounters, including, each stop, use of force, arrest, 
shooting or citizen complaint. Salient data (race and gender of 
the person stopped) will be reviewed by the police, an auditor 
established by the decree, and the Justice Department.\31\ 
While it has been criticized by some for micro-managing the 
police department,\32\ the decree also has been praised for 
bringing the Pittsburgh police into the twentieth century.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Johnna A. Pro & John Schmitz, City Bows to U.S. on Police 
Reforms, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 27, 1997, at A-1. For ten 
months, the Department investigated the Pittsburgh police for excessive 
use of force, false arrests, and improper searches and seizures. Id.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ At the end of the five-year term of the agreement, and if the 
city can show that it met the terms of the agreement for two 
consecutive years, the city can petition the U.S. District Court to 
have the decree terminated. Id.
    \32\ Jodi Nirode, What's in Store for Police? Pittsburgh Abuse 
Settlement may be Revealing, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 21, 1998, at 1A; 
Chuck Bosetti, Pittsburgh Police: Betrayed and Abused, Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette, Dec. 14, 1997, at B-1.
    \33\ Johnna A. Pro, Justice Department Consent Decree Pushes Police 
to Overhaul Operations, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 1, 1998, at C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Department and the Steubenville, OH, 
Police Department reached an agreement on August 26, 1997, that 
aimed to reform police management practices, training, 
complaint review, and management of at-risk officers.\34\ This 
investigation and the resulting consent decree were the 
culmination of several police misconduct lawsuits that had been 
filed against Steubenville over twenty years, many of which 
resulted in settlements in favor of the victim-plaintiffs.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ The agreement requires that officers complete a brief report 
whenever force is used against an individual, whenever a vehicle is 
stopped, or whenever searching or seizing property; salient data (race 
and gender of the person stopped) will be reviewed by the police, an 
auditor established by the decree, and the Justice Department Id.
    \35\ Doug Caruso, Before Columbus, There was Steubenville, Columbus 
Dispatch, Aug. 9, 1998, at 1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from these two cases, the Department is negotiating 
with the State of New Jersey and the Columbus, OH, Police 
Department to resolve pending Sec.  14141 litigation through 
consent decrees. On April 30, 1999, the Attorney General of New 
Jersey announced that the State of New Jersey would negotiate 
with respect to a two-year Justice Department investigation 
that the New Jersey State Police were engaged in widespread 
racial profiling against black and Hispanic motorists.\36\ This 
is the first time a statewide law enforcement agency has 
negotiated with the Department pursuant to a Sec.  14141 
investigation.\37\ During the Summer of 1998, the Justice 
Department began similar negotiations with Columbus, OH.\38\ As 
of early 1999, the city was close to reaching an agreement with 
the Justice Department.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ The announcement came ten days after Governor Christine Todd 
Whitman acknowledged that the Federal investigation showed some 
officers routinely engaged in racial profiling when stopping motorists. 
Jerry Gray, New Jersey Plans to Forestall Suit on Race Profiling, N.Y. 
Times, Apr. 30, 1999, at A1.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ In July 1998, the Department stated that it had found a 
pattern of officers using excessive force, making false arrests, 
lodging false charges, and conducting illegal searches and seizures. 
Doug Caruso, City, Justice Department Near Deal on Changes for Police, 
Columbus Dispatch, Feb. 4, 1999, at 8C.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Justice Department is conducting several investigations 
of major metropolitan police departments, many of which have 
been expanded several times during their course. For instance, 
the Washington, DC police chief himself asked the Justice 
Department to investigate the rash of fatal police shootings 
that have occurred in the District.\40\ In New York, the U.S. 
Attorneys for the Eastern and Southern Districts are 
investigating the New York City Police Department for police 
brutality; the investigation started because of the Abner 
Louima incident.\41\ As a result of the widespread allegations 
of abuse on the part of the New York City Police Department, 
the Justice Department is considering whether to appoint a 
monitor for the department.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Cheryl W. Thompson, Trained Teams to Probe Police Shootings, 
Wash. Post, Jan 21, 1999, at B1.
    \41\ David Kocieniewski, Precinct Silence on Louima is Still under 
Investigation, N.Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1998, at B5; Joseph P. Fried, U.S. 
Takes over the Louima Case, N.Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1998, at A1. In July 
1998, the Federal prosecutors in New York expanded their investigation 
into the Anthony Baez incident, in which an officer who had received 
numerous complaints choked an individual to death. Benjamin Weiser, 
Prosecutors Broaden Investigation into Police Brutality, N.Y. Times, 
July 3, 1998, at B4. In February 1999, the investigation was expanded 
again because of the Amadou Diallo shooting. Benjamin Weiser, Frisking 
Policy of the Police Faces Scrutiny, N.Y. Times, Mar. 19, 1999, at B1; 
Robert D. McFadden & Kit R. Roane, U.S. Examining Killing of Man in 
Police Volley, N.Y. Times, Feb. 6, 1999, at A1.
    \42\ Jack Newfield, Feds May Soon Appoint Monitor for NYPD, N.Y. 
Post, Mar. 23, 1999, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Justice Department is conducting a third major 
investigation into the Los Angeles Police Department based on 
allegations that the police were engaged in a pattern or 
practice of civil rights abuses surfaced during the Rodney King 
incident.\43\ In 1996, the Department broadened its 
investigation into claims that the police generally use 
excessive force and are insensitive to minorities.\44\ The 
Justice Department is conducting other investigations for 
excessive force and improper searches in New Orleans, LA; 
Orange County, FL; and Eastpointe, MI, but the exact nature and 
status of those investigations is not available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Pierre Thomas, Possible `Pattern' of Abuse in LAPD Probed by 
Justice, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1995, at A1.
    \44\ Pierre Thomas, U.S. Widens Investigation of LA Police, Wash. 
Post, Oct 4, 1996, at A3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of such extraordinary effort and success by the 
Justice Department, the majority's failure to provide further 
support for pattern and practice enforcement is troubling. In 
addition to elevating symbol over substance through the 
establishment of yet another Commission, it shows a lack of 
commitment to combating police misconduct by the federal 
government, where issues of systemic discrimination by local 
law enforcement agencies can best be addressed. In this manner, 
worse than missing an opportunity, H.R.1659 represents a 
failure to understand and act on the critical, time sensitive 
nature of the issue.
V. H.R.1659 is Likely Unconstitutional
    H.R. 1659 raises a constitutional issue by vesting the 
function of selecting the recipients of federal assistance with 
the Commission, a majority of whose members would be 
legislative branch appointees. In light of the separation of 
powers doctrine and the appointments clause, as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court, H.R. 1659 would likely be held 
unconstitutional.
    The Supreme Court has established clear legal guidelines in 
several cases involving the relationship of the separation of 
powers doctrine to the appointments clause (art. II, sec. 2, 
cl. 2),\45\ congressional authority to appoint and remove 
government officials, and the related issue of Congress' role 
in the enforcement of the laws that it enacts. The Court held 
in Buckley v. Valeo that ``any appointee exercising significant 
authority pursuant to the laws of the United States'' is either 
an ``office of the United States'' required to be appointed by 
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, or is 
an ``inferior officer'' who must be appointed by the President, 
a department head, or a court.\46\ In Bowsher v. Synar,\47\ the 
Court held that the Comptroller General, who is appointed by 
the President but subject to removal by Congress, could not 
constitutionally perform the executive functions of making 
revenue predictions and specifying budget reductions that would 
be binding on the President. And, although not involving an 
appointment or removal question, the landmark decision in the 
legislative veto case, INS v. Chadha, recognized strict limits 
on Congress' role after it enacts legislation.\48\ In brief, 
for reasons rooted in the appointments clause and the 
separation of powers doctrine, the decisions of the Court noted 
above have confined Congress to its legislative role, and have 
prohibited the House and Senate from directly or indirectly 
enforcing the laws it passes, or from having a power of 
appointment or removal over those who execute the laws.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ The appointments clause states that ``[The President] shall 
nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall 
appoint... all officers of the United States, whose appointments are 
not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by 
law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior 
officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts 
of law, or in the heads of departments.''
    \46\ 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976). Buckley invalidated provisions of the 
Federal Election Campaign Act that permitted the Federal Election 
Commission (FEC)--four of whose six voting members were appointed by 
congressional officers and subject to confirmation by both Houses--to 
perform various enforcement and administrative functions under the act. 
For detailed review of the appointments clause in light of the 
separation of powers doctrine, see id. at 111-135.
    \47\ 478 U.S. 714, 730 (1986).
    \48\ 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
    \49\ The limits on congressional involvement in execution of the 
laws are reviewed in Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, Vol. 3, sec. 
46.15 (2nd ed. 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because four of the five members of the Commission are not 
appointed pursuant to the appointments clause but instead are 
appointed by the congressional leadership (with the fifth 
member being selected by the other four), the Commission will 
be considered a legislative branch entity and its members will 
neither be officers nor inferior officers of the United States. 
No constitutional issue is raised by vesting in the Commission 
investigative or study functions, such as those that might be 
performed by a congressional committee.\50\ However, selecting 
one police department from each of four geographical regions in 
the United States to receive training, recruitment, hiring, and 
oversight assistance would seem to be an executive 
function.\51\ Because the members of the Commission are not 
selected in accordance with the appointments clause, vesting in 
them the function of selecting the recipients of federal 
assistance would likely be held constitutionally dubious.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Buckley, 424 U.S. at 137.
    \51\ Cf. id. at 134 (determination by FEC of eligibility for funds 
was function to be performed by persons selected in accordance with 
appointments clause).
    \52\ Congressional Research Service, Memorandum: Constitutional 
Issue Concerning Proposed National Police Training Commission, May 20, 
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    Expert testimony at our hearings supports the contention 
that the issue of police misconduct has been subject to a 
myriad of studies. With the notable exception of the data on 
deaths in custody provision, which was added by amendment, H.R. 
1659 does not significantly advance the field.\53\ The current 
national climate requires decisive action to implement 
solutions. H.R. 1659 is a missed opportunity at each step, as 
the above discussion of programs illustrates. As a Congress we 
have been enthusiastic about supporting programs designed to 
get officers on the street. We must be just as willing to 
support programs designed to train and manage them after they 
get there. Because H.R. 1659 fails to address substantively the 
issue of law enforcement management and conduct, we offer these 
minority views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Section 7 of H.R. 1659 amends the violent crime control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to require the Attorney General to collect 
data, based upon stated criteria, on the death of any person in the 
custody of law enforcement officials. Currently there is no repository 
for such information. Systematic collection of death in custody data 
will be important to determining the urgency and scope of the issue.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Martin T. Meehan.
                                   Tammy Balwdin.
                                   Maxine Waters.

                                  
