Mr. BROYHILL. You still have the restriction that you must get your recruits from the Park Police or from the Metropolitan Police force? I know of certain instances in which you wanted to obtain certain personnel from the Metropolitan Police Department, these people wanted to be transferred, but you could not get the cooperation of the Metropolitan Police Department in obtaining those particular people. I believe that from the standpoint of recruitment and training, this legislation would be of assistance to you in helping to streamline this procedure. So far as the protection of the President and the responsibility of the Secret Service is concerned, and in relation to the Secretary of the Treasury, I think all of this can be handled satisfactorily. Mr. HUMPSTONE. I am happy to hear that, Mr. Broyhill. Are there other questions we can answer? Mr. DowDY. Thank you very much. At this point, we will insert into the record the letter of the General Counsel of the Treasury to Chairman McMillan on this proposed legislation. (The letter referred to follows:) THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C., April 4, 1968. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Department would like to take this opportunity to comment on H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, identical bills, "To establish a Commissioner of Police for the District of Columbia," which are pending before your Committee. The proposed legislation would consolidate the five separate police forces now operating in the District of Columbia; i.e., the Metropolitan Police, United States Park Police, Capitol Police, White House Police, and National Zoological Park Police. These forces would all be under the complete jurisdiction of a Commissioner of Police appointed for a four-year term by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, acting jointly. A nine-member Advisory Commission would also be appointed by the Speaker and the President pro tempore. The Department would be strongly opposed to the provision in the proposed legislation which would transfer to the Police Commissioner the functions, powers, and duties of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the White House Police. As you are aware, section 202, title 3, United States Code provides that the White House Police shall be under the control and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury and shall perform such duties as the Secretary may prescribe in connection with the protection of the Executive Mansion and grounds, White House offices and the President and members of his immediate family. The Secretary has delegated his functions under the aforementioned statute to the Director of the Secret Service. Pursuant to the provisions of section 3056, of title 18, United States Code, the protection of the President and members of his immediate family is also a statutory responsibility of the Secret Service. It is the Department's position that the protection of the President and his family is best accomplished by placing the responsibility for such protection under the direction and control of one organization. The agency responsible for Presidential protection is the Secret Service. To remove the White House Police from under the direction and supervision of the Secret Service could compromise and weaken the existing protection system, and result in a fragmentation of the authority and responsibility for the protection of the President of the United States. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this report to your Committee. Sincerely yours, FRED B. SMITH, General Counsel. Mr. Dowdy. Mr. George W. Brady, President, Federation of Citizens Associations. STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. BRADY, PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement which will take ten to twelve minutes. Otherwise I will give you our recommendation and submit the rest of it. Mr. Dowdy. If you will do that because the bells will be ringing in a moment. Your statement can be made part of the record and you can brief it. Mr. BRADY. I would like to say that the Federation is very concerned with the situation of law enforcement and crime in the District of Columbia. We consider that the situation, if you want to define it in one word, is deplorable. Unfortunately we do not detect any favorable trends in spite of the best efforts of the new District Government. We want to support any action by the Congress or in the local government which will improve law enforcement and increase respect for the law. We submitted a statement to the District Council's Public Safety Committee in August. I would like to make that part of the statement which we submit. Mr. Dowdy. That may be done. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT TO D.C. COUNCIL'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON ITS REPORT ON POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS The Federation welcomes this opportunity to present its views on the current law enforcement situation in the District of Columbia. Our comments are directed primarily toward the August 5, 1968 Report of the D.C. Council's Public Safety Committee on Police-Community Relations. Before making our comments, however, we would like to observe that we were not invited to appear before the Public Safety Committee, nor, so far as I am aware, were our written comments sought. Hence, we do not believe the statement in the report that "written comments were sought from the Community" is entirely accurate. We hope that in the future this and other committees of the Council will desire to have the viewpoint of this Federation and we hereby request that you will let us know when we can be of service. As I think you are aware this Federation is in its 59th year of service to the city. We currently represent 34 local citizens associations within the District. Our interests cover nearly all facets of city activities from city planning, budget, taxation, and education to public safety, public utilities, and transportation. The comments which I will now make were endorsed by our Executive Board on August 15, 1968. 1. We were very pleased to note the constructive tone of the report of the Council's Committee on Public Safety and in particular its rejection of the radical proposals recently advanced by certain activist groups. This Federation, like the Council, wants the Washington Metropolitan Police Force to be maintained and directed to meet the needs and objectives of our National Capital. We want to see crime reduced and mutual respect between police and the community restored in areas where it is now lacking. 2. We were disappointed that we did not find any words in the report regarding the responsibilities of the individual citizen in maintenance of law and order. Of course we need much better relations between the police and the community but community relations is a two-way street. One might almost say that the emphasis in the report on the demand for changes in police actions and attitudes would lead one to think that lawlessness is the fault of the police. We believe that one of the greatest problems in our present situation is the breakdown of 97-945 0-68- -9 respect for the law. We are not sure just how this can be corrected but it certainly will not be done without giving great and continuing emphasis to the fundamental principle of respect for the law. The problem is compounded by recent statements by certain otherwise responsible civil rights leaders that "law and order" are racist words. How can this possibly be accepted? Much is written that the policeman is considered the "enemy" by a segment of the population. How can we overcome this attitude? Perhaps the police are not perfect but their efforts are for the good of the community. Please note that the U.S. Post Office Department has recently joined the fight against crime by issuing a commemorative stamp entitled "Law and Order." In summary on this point we believe that the City Government should (1) emphasize that the majority of its citizens are law abiding and think that the police are doing a good job; (2) give full support to the police from the top of the Government down; (3) give short shrift to those who attempt to downgrade the police to satisfy their own political aims; (4) give high priority to devising and initiating educational programs to promote respect for the law in those segments of our citizenry who do not now have it; and (5) encourage cooperation with the police. If these actions are successful we will not need one thousand more policemen and elaborate police community relations programs. Further, we recommend strongly that the Council not accept the Committee's view that "at this point in time the city Government must act on the principle that changes in police attitudes will result in reciprocal attitudes on the part of the public." Rather we believe that active educational programs as just suggested are of at least equal importance and should be conducted in parallel. 3. Because of the extensive publicity given to the proposals of the Black United Front and the Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee we have the responsibility to comment directly on them: (a) We believe that these proposals spring from a false premise, namely that "the people regard the police as their enemy." This kind of preachment renders a disservice to the cause of better police-community relations. (b) We believe that policies and actions of the police must be uniform throughout the city. If such vital functions as hiring, firing, promoting, and transferring are placed in the hands of the people in each precinct we can foresee only chaos. (c) We denounce as extreme racism the suggestion that the Chief of Police be replaced by a Negro. We consider this a grandstand play to gain political capital when in fact it is an act of political irresponsibility. Those who make this suggestion would be the first to uphold the civil service job rights of their political constituents while stripping Chief Layton of his. (d) The proposals that in certain areas of the city only police of the same color as the majority of the citizens be on patrol are unsound for many reasons, two of which are: first, this would require that boundaries of such areas be defined which would be almost impossible to do and would be unfair to minority groups and; second, such a pattern would promote a new type of segregation which runs counter to all that this country has been trying to accomplish in recent years. 4. We believe that the police recruiting program should proceed on the basis of candidates without regard to race. We do not believe a black-white quota should be set as has been suggested. Equally logical arguments can be made that since this is the Nation's Capital, the black-white ratio should be based on that of the country as a whole rather than on that in the District of Columbia. We would further point out an important reason for hewing to the line in maintaining the highest possible quality of recruits: if the standards are lowered, many of a group which enters with lowered standards will be unable to advance as rapidly as those that do meet the standards. Then, after a few years charges will undoubtedly be heard that this group has been discriminated against in promotions to top jobs. Therefore, we consider it vital that all recruits meet the same established standards. 5. We support the Police Cadet Program and are pleased to see that it is currently targeted to a level of 350 cadets. 6. We endorse the proposal for a study of the citizen advisory mechanism and the development of specific guidelines for citizen involvement. We recommend that these clearly limit the role of the advisory group and not interfere with the authority of the Police Department. We are pleased that the Committee recommends a public hearing on the proposals coming out of this study and we request that the Council give adequate notice of the hearing in order that interested groups will have time to prepare responsive comments. 7. We are aware of pending legislation in the Congress (H.R. 14430 and 14448) which propose to establish "an independent office in the Government of the Dis trict of Columbia with the title of Commissioner of Police in the District of Columbia" with responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Force, the Park Police, the White House Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Zoological Park Police. Although the Federation has not as yet taken a position on this proposal we are impressed by Deputy Mayor Fletcher's four reasons for opposing this legislation, namely, a diffiusion of authority, reversal of the trend for citizen participation, waste and duplication of administrative functions, and creation of more problems in coordinating the police functions with other associated functions of the City Government. Hence, we will probably oppose this legislation at this time and recommend that it be tabled for approximately one year. If after that time the District Government has not made enough progress in providing adequate law enforcement, then this legislation to shift control of the Police Forces to Congressional control should be reconsidered. 8. Before summarizing our comments I would like to say this with regard to the Chief of Police. We believe that Chief Layton has done and is doing an excellent job for the community. We are aghast at the attacks against him and can only ascribe it to groups bent on destroying our Police Department to create anarchy in the District. Our reaction to the appointment last fall of a Director of Public Safety was that it was a move to downgrade the Police Department and the initial actions of Mr. Murphy when appointed to that position tended to confirm this opinion. We do not say that this is the reason but it is a fact that the worst outbreak of lawlessness in the history of Washington occurred under the new City Government and the Director of Public Safety. We recommend that all members of the District of Columbia Government and of the D.C. Council support our Chief of Police whoever he may be. He is currently Mr. Layton who we believe is doing a good job under difficult conditions and who we are proud to support. Now, to summarize our comments: 1. We commend the Committee for its report on Community Relations with most of whose recommendations we heartily agree. 2. We urge that the Committee and the Council consider in their policies and actions the importance of finding ways to develop respect for the law in those segments of our citizenry where it is now lacking, while taking, in parallel, actions to improve police procedures. 3. We urge the Council to continue to reject radical proposals which would result in undue influence of local citizen groups over the police. 4. We recommend that standards for police recruiting not be relaxed. 5. We support the Police Cadet Program and its currently planned enlargement. 6. We endorse the review of the Police Advisory mechanism and its consideration by the Council after a public hearing. 7. We oppose at this time proposals to transfer the Metropolitan Police from D.C. Government to Congressional control. 8. We support Chief Layton and call upon the Council to do the same without equivocation. Mr. BRADY. We covered this question of this particular legislation regarding the establishment of a Commissioner appointed by Congress, and I would like to read in a part from our report. I might say that the District Council has not as yet adopted the report of their Public Safety Committee. They are holding hearings on it and I think probably they will take some action, but not accept it in toto. Mr. BRADY (reading). "With regard to the pending legislation in the Congress (H.R. 14430 and 14448) which propose to establish 'an independent office in the Government of the District of Columbia with the title of Commissioner of Police in the District of Columbia' with responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Force, the Park Police, the White House Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Zoological Park Police, although the Federation has not as yet taken a position on this proposal we are impressed by Deputy Mayor Fletcher's four reasons for opposing this legislation, namely, a diffusion of authority, reversal of the trend for citizen participation, waste and duplication of administrative functions, and creation of more problems in coordinating the police functions with other associated functions of the City government. Hence, we oppose this legislation at this time and recommend that it be tabled for approximately one year. If after that time the District Government has not made enough progress in providing adequate law enforcement, then this legislation to shift control of the Police Forces to Congressional control should be reconsidered." That is our brief conclusion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DOWDY. Thank you. Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Brady, you represent the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia. There are two Federations. What is the other one? Mr. BRADY. The District of Columbia Civic Federation. Mr. BROYHILL. What is the difference between the two? Mr. BRADY. Our membership is largely white and the membership of the Civic Federation is largely colored. We are not exclusively either, however. Our membership is composed of approximately 34 local area citizen associations throughout the District of Columbia. Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you very much. Mr. DowDY. Without objection, the statement of John R. Immer, Vice President of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN R. IMMER, VICE PRESIDENT, DUPONT CIRCLE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION I am Vice President of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, and immediate past president of the city-wide Federation of Citizens Associations. On behalf of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association I want to say that we strongly support H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448, and consider their adoption to be absolutely essential to peace, order, and stability in the inner city areas of Washington, for the following reasons: 1. Crime has risen 175 percent since 1960. There are, or were last year, 2,500 major crimes with guns committed in the District of Columbia last year. This was pointed out by President Johnson in a message to Congress on March 13, 1968. President Johnson said: "The long shadow of crime falls over the streets of the Nation's Capital, mocking its proud institutions. Crime today is the first problem in the nation's first city. It is on the rise. The rate of increase in January was the lowest in 19 months-but that fact would provide little comfort for the victims of these crimes:-24 murders and rapes-758 automobile thefts-786 robberies and aggravated assaults-1864 burglaries and major larcenies. Last year, almost 2,500 major crimes were committed in the Nation's Capital at gunpoint-murders, assaults and robberies. . . . The proposal I have recommended-the D.C. Gun Control Act-would help bring safety to the District's streets, homes and stores. It would . . Add ten years imprisonment to the regular penalty when a firearm is used in a robbery or an attempted robbery." The House adopted the Poff Amendment by a vote of 412 to 11 on July 24, but the Senate adopted a far weaker amendment. Both the Star, the Washington Daily News, the Washington Board of Trade, the D.C. Police Wives Association, and the D.C. Policemen's Association of the District of Columbia support the Poff Amendment, and it is our hope that the House will insist on this amendment, in conference with the Senate. We do not think that the Poff Amendment, or the bipartisan bills to establish a Police Commissioner in charge of a unified police force will stop crime completely and forever, but they will help greatly, and they must be adopted by this Congress. But it is absolutely clear that the National Crime Bill which Senator McClellan and others got through the Congress and the President signed into law in June has not stopped crime. |