MADISON SPECIAL POLICE Mr. BENJAMIN. We have authorized 54 special, police for the new Madison Building. They are requesting 26 more. They have another complement of special police assigned to the main library, Thomas Jefferson Building, and the library's rental space. Can we provide building security more efficiently through a merger of your force with theirs? Chief POWELL. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. We have serious problems there. Their men belong to a labor union organization. Ours do not. We can adjust to many things, if it would seem necessary, but I actually doubt that it would save much other than if the Congress saw fit that we completely join forces and took over the whole thing. Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you look into this, Chief, and let us know: a. The extent of potential manpower savings; b. The effect on building security; c. Any other advantages or disadvantages; d. Legislation or other action required. [The information follows:] In 1978, a committee of three high ranking Library of Congress officials and three high ranking Capitol Police officials made an in-depth study of the feasibility of a closer cooperative effort between the two police departments and the possibility of eventual merger. Short of merger but perhpas leading to merger recommendations were made in several categories. These categories were areas in which it was thought that a closer cooperative effort between the two departments might be forged. There is little doubt that a unified police department for the Legislative Banch, encompassing both the Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Special Police, would function more efficiently than two separate forces. There could be manpower savings in areas such as training, recruitment and communications. One unified force with all personnel trained in all aspects of the police function is a more flexible and therefore more valuable police system. It is probable that if there were only one police force for all the Legislative Branch buildings on Capitol Hill, that the overall effect would be better building security. For example, in the proposed plans for the James Madison Memorial Building, there is to be an interconnecting tunnel between that building and the Cannon Building. It would be more efficient if members of the same force were manning posts at opposite ends of the tunnel, rather than members of two different forces. Other advantages pertain to the usual positive aspects of any type of merger, such as one centralized authority for all police activities for the Legislative Branch, an avoidance of duplicity of tasks, a better communications network, uniformity in police qualification for employment, training, conduct, opportunity, etc. The only real disadvantage is that it would take time and man-hours to implement any kind of merger. There are many, many small problems that would have to be ironed out. Also, the Library Special Police only receive a five week training course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, whereas the Capitol Police receive eight weeks. This difference would have to be made up with in-service training. One further aspect of the Library Special Police force that may prove to be a minor impediment to merger, is the fact that the Library Police compose part of a labor union that encompasses several groups of nonprofessional Library of Congress employees: janitors, laborers, charforce, etc. This is, however, an in-house union and it is quite possible that a merger of the two police departments may abrogate any union obligation on the part of the Library Police. Also, the Library of Congress Special Police are paid at a lower scale than the Capitol Police, primarily, because of their lesser duties, and implicit in any merger of the two departments would be a pay raise for the Library Special Police. In order to provide for the merger of the two departments, legislation would have to be drafted placing the Library Special Police under the auspices of the Capitol Police Board, (Title 40 USC 193a-212a and b etc.) and perhaps transferring the authority of the Librarian of Congress from narrow oversight (in title 2 USC 167 et seq) to broad input with regard to the whole department (Title 40 as above). BUDGET FOR OVERTIME Mr. MICHEL. How much in the way of overtime is included in this budget? What is the average per officer? [The information follows:] We are requesting that $1,000,000 be set aside for overime expenses. Based upon the 644 members of the force on the House Roll, the average amount would be $1,552.80, however, this figure does not take into account the varying rates of pay of the members of the force. DISTRIBUTION OF OVERTIME Mr. MICHEL. Do you spread the overtime around among all the officers, or do only a select few receive the bulk of it? [The information follows:] Whenever it is anticipated by an element of the force that it will be necessary for personnel to work overtime, members of such element are asked in turn if they desire to volunteer for extra duty. Whether such officer accepts or declines is recorded and if the officer has declined, the next officer, in turn, is afforded the opportunity to make the same election. LOCATIONS OF ROBBERIES Mr. MICHEL. Your statement indicates that 9 robberies were committed on the Capitol Grounds last year. Were any of these in the buildings? [The information follows:] MAJOR CRIMES OCCURRING ON THE U.S. CAPITOL GROUNDS 1979 Robbery force and violence (5)—200 Block Delaware Avenue, N.E.; Unit Block 1st Street, N.E.; 100 East Capitol Street, N.E.; Unit Block 1st Street, N.E.; and Unit Block 1st Street, N.E. Robbery holdup (2)-1st and Maryland Avenue, S.W. and 1st and S.W. Drive, S.W. Robbery pocketbook snatch (2)—100 Constitution Avenue, N.E. and 100 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Mr. MICHEL. How many arrests and convictions were made in connection with those robberies? [The information follows:] Of the nine robberies occurring on the Capitol Grounds during 1979, two resulted in arrests. One case has been heard by the Grand Jury and the subject bound over for trial at an undetermined future date. The second case was heard by the Juvenile Division, D.C. Superior Court, and the subject was found to be guilty as charged. STATUS OF GALLERY JUMPER Mr. MICHEL. What about that person who jumped from the gallery last year? What happened to him? [The information follows:] This individual was arrested and charged with Disrupting Congress. Subsequent investigation revealed that this subject had entered the United States some nine months prior to this incident on a six month visitor pass, therefore, on October 24, 1979, the U.S. Immigration Service filed a detainer for his deportation. On January 17, 1980, the subject appeared in court and was found to be guilty as charged. Sentence is currently pending and the subject remains to be held in the D.C. Jail, as he has been since his arrest. COMMUNICATIONS BUDGET Mr. MICHEL. Your budget includes $100,300 for communications. Would you provide us with a specific breakdown of what that entails? IBM maintenance-For equipment and associated interface between USCP and MPDC/ŴALES/NLETS/NCIC/system statis tics..... C. & P. Telephone lines-For radio transmitters and satellite receivers Dictaphone maintenance-For contract maintenance on Dictaphone recording machines, including lease/purchase on two CallCheck recorders..... FTS Telephone Calls between 1700 and 0900 Radio maintenance and RCA lease-For upkeep on all 2-way $ 4,500 6,000 2,500 372 30,000 Paper supplies-For miscellaneous printers and recorders associat- 4,728 Technical publications-for repair technicians to keep abreast of 200 Long distance toll calls-For calls made by the entire department... 2,000 Subtotal recurring items......... 50,300 Replacement items: Mobile radios-Replacement of 5 mobiles in excess of 5 years old at Portable radios-Replacement of 20 two-way radios, accessories, 40,000 Recorder heads-Replacement of Dictaphone playback recorder 9,000 1,000 Mr. MICHEL. What are your projected vacancies during FY 1981? [The information follows:] We currently project, through retirement and normal attrition, a total of 88 vacancies during fiscal year 1981. TRAINING BUDGET INCREASE Mr. MICHEL. Why is there a doubling of your budget for training? [The information follows:] This substantial increase of $100,955 results from several factors; an anticipated increase in personnel to be trained due to the projected vacancies during fiscal year 1981; increases in travel costs to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and increased cost for ammunition and other training items. Previously all travel, even though training related, was listed under miscellaneous. More appropriately, training related travel has been transferred under the Training item. COMPLAINTS ABOUT OFFICERS Mr. MICHEL. I've been receiving a number of complaints about the way some of your officers are directing traffic. Specifically, they are allowing the traffic to back up on the Southwest Freeway every morning almost all the way to the river. Can't something be done to straighten that out? [The information follows:] The intersection at Canal and C Streets, S.W., has been a continuing problem since the opening of the I-395 Tunnel. We have studied the traffic flow at this location on numerous occasions and have solicited outside help from the Metropolitan Police Traffic Division, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the United States Park Police. It is the consensus of all parties that conditions at this location are due to engineering and design deficiencies in the original plan for the freeway interchange, and that officers controlling traffic are doing the best possible job under the existing circumstances. Mr. BENJAMIN. There are no other questions. OFFICE OF THE DOORKEEPER WITNESSES W. RAYMOND COLLEY, DEPUTY CLERK JAMES T. MOLLOY, DOORKEEPER JACK RUSS, DEPUTY DOORKEEPER Mr. BENJAMIN. The Doorkeeper. Mr. COLLEY. Mr. Chairman, we will go to page 18 of the Clerk's basic statement. For salaries, including overtime for the Publications Distribution Service, for the Office of the Doorkeeper, $5,084,800. I will now briefly introduce the two fiscal year 1981 estimates under the control of the Doorkeeper. * Includes a net reduction resulting from nonexpenditure transfer of funds pursuant to Public Law 93-391. EDUCATION OF PAGES For fiscal year 1981, $258,500 is requested for education of Congressional Pages as provided by Part 9 of Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and Section 243 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This estimate was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of the Public Schools for the District of Columbia. These funds will be disbursed as follows: Mr. Chairman, it was noted in the Committee report on the fiscal year 1980 request, H.R. 4390, that the General Accounting Office had conducted a study of the Capitol Page School. The GAO report concluded that the quality of education at the Page School was generally acceptable. The report also recommended that the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate enter into a more formal agreement with the District of Columbia School System regarding the operation of the Capitol Page School. I am pleased to inform this Subcommittee that such a contract has been ratified for the academic year ending August 31, 1980. Officials from both the House and Senate held extensive meetings regarding the agreement last year. I want to especially express my appreciation to the Office of Finance and those Senate officials and their staff who assisted in the legal drafting, the staff of the Committee on House Administration and their Subcommittees, General Accounting Office, and in particular, the Doorkeeper of the House, the Hon. James T. Molloy, who also assisted. |