Mr. ADAMS. When the veterans came here in 1932, did they stay on park property? Mr. CASTRO. They squatted on park property, I understand. Mr. ADAMS. They did not get a permit, did they? Mr. CASTRO. No, sir. Mr. ADAMS. When other groups such as the American Legion come to town, is that handled by the Metropolitan Police Department or do you put personnel in to handle them? Mr. CASTRO. We have a working arrangement with the Metropolitan Police which in my mind has been very workable and very satisfactory, and we cooperate back and forth on all special events. Mr. ADAMS. In other words, you put men in the field when you are going to have an American Legion parade and you pay them overtime and so on? Mr. CASTRO. If necessary, yes. An American Legion convention in Washington would probably involve a huge parade, and our jurisdiction begins at 15th Street and Constitution Avenue, which traditionally is where parades begin, and the Metropolitan Police help us out just as we help them out. Mr. ADAMS. You have to police that group when that occurs? Mr. ADAMS. How often does that happen? Mr. CASTRO. For example, the Christmas Pageant of Peace is held annually on the Ellipse. The Park Police usually handles all of that because the event is pretty well contained within the Ellipse. Mr. ADAMS. And you have to construct and dismantle structures for those events? Mr. CASTRO. Yes. That is done within our policy and regulations. Mr. ADAMS. As I remember, for the Christmas Pageant you have a fire and yule log and this tears up the turf there? Mr. CASTRO. Yes, we do. Mr. ADAMS. And you restore that turf after it is over? Mr. CASTRO. We reseed it. Mr. ADAMS. I notice at the Washington Monument you have done some reseeding there. You had a large gathering on July 4th and after that you had to reseed that area? Mr. CASTRO. Yes. We are continually reseeding and keeping up the turf there. Mr. ADAMS. You indicated there was a general policy on the use of parks and I am trying to fit that in the context of Resurrection City and Dupont Circle, with the inquiry you have a continuing contact with groups representing a variety of people and you clean up after all of them, don't you? Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAMS. And this amounts to a considerable amount of money? Mr. CASTRO. It does, indeed. We spend a considerable part of our budget on that. But we have major events such as the Watergate Concerts all summer long that involve comparatively little expense. The Fourth of July celebration attracts about 100,000 people each year. The Christmas Pageant attracts a large group, as does the President's Cup Regatta and others. Mr. ADAMS. You mentioned the expenses of sodding the site of Resurrection City and several other things which your Solicitor has ad vised are part of the general clean up you do after a lot of the other events here. I want to refer to these other expenses. I understand those expenses are in litigation? Mr. CASTRO. They are not in litigation yet. Mr. ADAMS. But they are in legal negotiation? Mr. CASTRO. They are in the hands of our lawyers. Mr. ADAMS. You turned them over to your lawyers. You said to them, "These are our expenses." The SCLC has it lawyers, and either they will settle or you will have to have a judicial determination? Mr. CASTRO. That is right. I started early in August my efforts to collect from the SCLC. By September 25, because I had nothing conclusive from the SCLC, I thought it was time for our lawyers to look at it and I turned it over to them. Mr. ADAMS. Do you ever do that with other groups that come in the city on these large meetings and celebrations? Mr. CASTRO. There is a Christmas pageant and a Fourth of July celebration, and other events. On those occasions we work with the Board of Trade and civic leaders. But I don't recall of a case other than Resurrection City where we have had to go back to a sponsor of an event to collect damages, because we haven't had any. Mr. ADAMS. That is what I was getting at. This policy of working with groups on park use has been developed over a number of years in dealing with these people? Mr. CASTRO. That is correct. Mr. ADAMS. So the event of Resurrection City or perhaps other demonstrations which occur here take you into a new field for which you are having to evolve policies just as policies have been evolved with respect to other groups in the past? Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAMS. I have no further questions. Mr. Dowdy. The Boy Scouts, American Legion, and the Watergate concerts don't do any damage, do they? Mr. CASTRO. In the main, the demonstrations you are addressing yourself to are demonstrations that seek to promote or protest legislation or influence policy. Mr. DowDY. They are peaceful demonstrations? Mr. CASTRO. We may have a flare-up and may have to make an arrest or two. Somebody might get vocal or out of order. But whenever you accumulate several thousand people, there will be some who may not agree on policy and they use this means to call attention to it. Mr. Dowdy. We have been trying to check the Code of Federal Regulations to find part 36, section 50, and we don't find it. Could you furnish that to us? Mr. CASTRO. Yes, sir. It is CFR title 36, part 50, National Capitol Park Regulation. (The regulations referred to appear in the appendix, pp. 149–167.) Mr. DOWDY. Mr. Broyhill. PURPOSE OF BILL Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Castro, I will call your attention to page 3, line 17 of the bill under consideration wherein it states: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to "(1) authorize the Police Commissioner to combine any of the police forces under his jurisdiction or transfer any officer or member of a police force under his jurisdiction to a position in another police force under his jurisdiction without the prior consent of such officer or member; or "(2) affect the rights and privileges under personnel laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act of any officer or member of a police force under the jurisdiction of the Police Commissioner.” The reason for that was to protect the integrity of each separate Police Department, as well as to protect the personnel of these departments from being arbitrarily transferred from one department to another without their consent. Also it is to protect the seniority and so forth of the personnel within the departments. Mr. Castro, there was no intent by the sponsors or authors of this legislation that the several polices forces would be completely merged into one unit, and the primary functions of the separate police departments abandoned, so I fail to see how this bill will injure in any way the principal purposes and objectives of the Park Police. On the contrary it should be most helpful in the coordination of training and equipment, as well as the coordination of the separate forces objectives at times when there are problems such as occurred in Resurrection City and elsewhere. It seems to me this will create a much better administrative set-up so far as effectiveness of the Police Department is concerned. I cannot understand, then, why you would object to this. Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Broyhill, in my judgment I think we are just adding one more layer of management. Mr. BROYHILL. We are eliminating layers. We are taking out the five present separate layers, and substituting only one. Mr. CASTRO. Perhaps so in your mind, sir. In my mind it adds a layer. I think that the Park Police would lose their autonomy under such an arrangement as this. For example, I would find it awkward, Mr. Broyhill, to do business with the Chief of the Park Police if I had to go through a Police Commissioner. In fact I would find it very awkward. I think it would be very cumbersome. Mr. BROYHILL. Let us go back to your statement, at the bottom of page 1. You refer to the Park Police having other things to do in addition to dealing exclusively with the problems of crime and law enforcement, and that this legislation would prevent you from performing these other functions. Do you know of any police department among the five we are talking about who deal exclusively with the problem of crime and law enforcement? Mr. CASTRO. I think for the record I said "partially or substantially." I didn't use the word "exclusively." I agree with you. I don't think that word is correct in that context. I think the point I should make with you, sir, is this: Our Park Police spend a good deal of their time on interpretive work by virtue of the fact that they are at the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials and the Washington Monument and other places. They have to know a great deal about these great monuments as well as the city itself, events going on, recreational opportunities that are present. In a way of speaking they serve substantially as interpreters as well as policemen. That is the point we were trying to make there. Mr. BROYHILL. It is a point well taken. I maintain, however, that the Metropolitan Police Department also has those other functions. It would be impossible for the layman to determine where the jurisdiction of one police department starts and the other ends. They both handle traffic and crowds and both have powers of arrest. How about a function such as an Inaugural, the various activities of the American Legion, and other international functions? There is constant overlapping of jurisdiction and duplication of duties of the Park Police and of the Metropolitan Police. I cannot see how you can look at the Metropolitan Police Force and say they do not have the training or the knowledge to function properly in handling the public. Mr. CASTRO. Forgive me. I don't mean to imply that at all. I make the point that in the training of our Park Police, we stress the business of interpretation, of interpreting the parks. This is a major part of our duties and responsibilities. As to the matter of overlapping jurisdiction, that is no problem because we have concurrent jurisdiction as they have. Mr. BROYHILL. I think I am sharing a point with you, but again I cannot see how you separate that from the similar duties of the Metropolitan Police Force, other than what is provided for in this legislation. There is some other language in your statement with which I concur, such as that on page 3. You speak of the Metropolitan Police assisting the Park Police in discharging its obligation to the citizens of the United States. I and many of my colleagues in Congress are concerned about the national interest and the national welfare, and we feel it is a Federal responsibility to provide the protection required in the Nation's Capital. We are not ignoring the interests of and the need to protect cítizens of the District of Columbia, either, but the local citizens are only one portion of this nation. We feel that since the national interests are paramount here, it is imperative that we bring the control and supervision of all these police departments under the Congress. Or to be more accurate, under a Commissioner appointed by the Congress. I am most concerned about a coordinated police department under one supervision where the national interest is paramount. It makes no difference who makes that appointment. Mr. CASTRO. I see. Mr. BROYHILL. I think we have the tail wagging the dog here, when local misfits start to dictate the activities of the Police Department. I like a lot of the language you have in your statement, and I think it supports the general objective of the legislation. Of course, you oppose the legislation because you think it may take a certain area of responsibility out from under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. CASTRO. Not that so much as the fact that I think it would be terribly cumbersome to have a police chief responsive to a police com missioner and also to me and in turn to the Park Service and the Secretary. I have strong misgivings about that and I am sorry that I do. I wish I could concur with you wholeheartedly. You alluded to the business of police coordination. Police coordination between the Park Police and the Metropolitan Police and the Capitol Police and the White House Police and the Zoo Police is no problem. We have good coordination. I don't know of a better example of this than during the Poor People's Campaign here in Washington. We have much truck with a lot of them with the possible exception of the Zoo Police. We had no problem. Everything worked well. Though we have divided responsibility, we met daily with the Metropolitan Police. We made our plans for the day and week on the assignment of men. They assigned men to Resurrection City, too, to bolster our limited force there and things worked well. Mr. BROYHILL. That statement sounds pretty good, but you cannot convince me that five separate police departments under five separate jurisdictions and management can be coordinated effectively and efficiently and economically-at least not to the degree that it can be done under a single administrative head. It does not work that way in any other operation. you, Mr. CASTRO. I cannot think of any other type of operation that works as you suggest, sir. I am sorry to be in the position of having to disagree with you. It would be much easier if I could agree with believe me, and I would like nothing better, but I honestly do not see the wisdom of this legislation, and I have to be candid and truthful with you. Again I say coordination of police activities is a prime consideration here and I think that is working well, at least between us and the other police forces. Mr. BROYHILL. I can understand how the Secretary of the Interior, or anyone in his position, would want to have supervision and control over maintenance of the parks, the national shrines, and the Rangers and things of that nature; but I cannot see why it is necessary that the Secretary of the Interior have complete and sole jurisdiction over policing of the parks. Mr. CASTRO. I do, for this reason-Congress charged him with managing and operating that parkway. If he does not exercise police authority over it in the context of the present method I think it makes it awkward for him to discharge his responsbility. Mr. BROYHILL. I can see his responsibility so far as maintenance is concerned but in the matter of police protection I do not see what advantage the present situation presents over the authority of a trained police commissioner. I don't see how this protection would be lessened by having it under a commissioner rather than under the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. CASTRO. My judgment is that under this kind of arrangement the Park Police will lose their autonomy and their flexibility. Mr. BROYHILL. The bill says they will not. However, we can put other language in the bill to clarify that point. Mr. CASTRO. That may be something for us to consider. Mr. BROYHILL. We can do whatever is necessary to further assure the operational autonomy of the Park Police. Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. |