As of March of 1968, which was before the riots, of course, the results showed: Of those answering this questionnaire, 1642 favored the bill, 334 opposed it.

I might say that we have the cards. Many of them have comments on them. A great many of them do not.

Mr. WHITENER. May I ask how many you sent out?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. We sent out 4600 to the entire membership. I do not know what the membership was at that time. It may have been 4500, but in the neighborhood of 4500.

I do not want to be personal about this to any member of this committee, but some of the cards stated that opposition to the bill was based upon the fact that it was introduced by Congressman Broyhill. This was the substance of such opposition.

I have picked out at random, in the short time I have had, to read to you, if I have your permission

Mr. BROYHILL. If you had mentioned the other sponsors, you might have had more opposition.

Mr. MARGOLIUS. That might be.

I would like to read, if I may, some of the comments made by these men on cards that I picked out at random. These are all votes "Yes." Incidentally, some of the opposition to this proposal was an objection to bringing the Zoo Police into the same category as the Metropolitan Police. There was some opposition, also, from some of the Park Police officers, who felt that they may be losing some of their individuality. There was some fear, because of a misunderstanding of the bill, that men could be transferred from one department to another, but of course the bill is very clear that a man cannot be moved from one section to another.

I would like to read this, if I may. I think these speak beautifully of what is going through the minds of some of our policemen. I would like to say personally, not on behalf of the Association, if this vote were taken today, it would be overwhelmingly more in favor than it was in March.

One comment: "I am with the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and I know that the morale of many of our men is adversely affected by the almost continuous harassment of our men by the civil rights organizations and militants. I believe that if our top officials were responsible primarily to Capitol Hill, they would be more resistant to those who harass us and would have a tendency to back their men more. I have several reasons for favoring this change, but this is the major one.

"There also seems to be a concerted effort to demoralize our men and dominate our Department. We have become the local whipping boy." Another comment: "I feel that this will do much toward attaining the state of professionalism so long sought after by police officers."

Another comment: "A Police Commissioner would tend to establish responsibility, prevent foot-dragging, develop efficiency, coordination and professional attitudes and improved morale."

Another comment: "I feel it is about time the police efforts in D.C. were coordinated."

Another one: "I feel this would help professionalize police work in the District of Columbia."

97-945-68- -2

Here is one: "The morale of the Department being at an all-time low, I believe it is urgent to get this bill into law soon, before many good men leave the Department."

Another one: "I am in favor of the continuing viable interest by the Congress in the affairs of the District of Columbia."

Comment: "Sincere compliments and thanks to Mr. Broyhill, et al., for a rapid and brilliant attempt to save an otherwise hopeless prospect for police in the Nation's Capital."

"Very pleased with the proposal. This would certainly boost the morale of the Metropolitan Police Department and greatly improve police enforcement in the Nation's Capital."

Mr. JACOBS. Are these statements anonymous or signed?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. These are unsigned, sent in by members of the Association. They are not signed.

Another one: "I believe this would boost the morale of all policemen, and I believe the citizens would look on us differently and with pride, as this would put a stop to the Police Department being used as a whipping boy for all."

Another comment: "There are too many people running the Police Department above the rank of Chief-Mayor, Council, Members of Congress, and others."

Another comment: "I am sure this could be a saving in operating costs and overhead."

Another comment: "Would eliminate the pressure groups from the Police Department and the Commission."

I could go on. There are numerous ones like this. They all seem to indicate that there is in this bill some saving grace with respect to professionalism in the Department, increase of morale, and also the elimination of what might be termed, called by several of these officers, making the Metropolitan Police the whipping boys of the District.

I have also been asked by one of the members of the D.C. Police Wives Association, who could not be here today, to say that they are in favor of the bill, and they will submit to the committee at a later time a written statement.

I have nothing else to say on behalf of the Association unless the committee would like to ask me some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Would any member care to question Mr. Margolius?

NEED FOR COORDINATION

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Margolius, you mentioned some of the objections to the Zoo Police being brought up to the same standard as the other forces. I know there is a feeling among some of the members of the Police Department that the members of the Zoo Police Force does not have the same training and responsibility.

This is not merging the operation of the different police departments. I want to make that abundantly clear. The proposal is for an administrative consolidation only.

The other objection is the fear of personnel being transferred from one force to another without their consent. There will be an abundance of protection against that.

One of the objectives of the bill is to elevate the status of the Zoo Police, as well as of the Capitol Police. The Capitol Police is a pa

tronage force now, and they do not get the same professional training as the Metropolitan Police Force. So, it is the hope of some of the sponsors of this legislation that in the future we will provide the same training and skills in the Capitol Police Force as in the Metropolitan Police Force. No longer will we have the feeling that the Zoo Police are not of the same stature as the Metropolitan Police Department. I think that can be very quickly overcome.

Certainly, as far as transfer is concerned, all the present positions would be abundantly protected as they are at the present time.

The gentleman also pointed out that if the poll were taken now, it would be much more overwhelmingly in favor of this proposal than it was back in March.

Mr. MARGOLIUSs. I can only prophesy that. I am positive that it would be.

I also would like to comment, for what it may be worth, that Resurrection City, being on Federal property, and the Metropolitan and Park Police having been coordinated during that experience, and also the demonstrations on the Hill which have existed in the past, which of course require coordination between the Capitol and the Metropolitan Police, further establish some bases for a common head.

Mr. BROYHILL. Some of the members of the Park Police commented to some members of this committee that they could not go in and arrest people after they jumped over the fence and snatched a pocketbook and other things from tourists passing by. Have you any comment on that?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. I do not have those comments. I would like to make some personal observations, but since I am in a hearing involving two policemen, perhaps three policemen, involved in a shooting, I think I must refrain from doing that. I think this bill is merited.

Mr. SISK. Do I understand the bills you are basically endorsing are H.R. 14430 and H.R. 14448? Are those the two bills you are talking about?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. They are identical bills, are they not? Yes. We call it the so-called Broyhill bill.

Mr. SISK. I do not want to detract from anything said by my good friend from Virginia, but I just noted that Mr. McMillan, Chairman of the Committee, joined with him and several others, including the gentleman from Virginia, in introducing H.R. 14430; and of course H.R. 14448 is sponsored by our colleague, Mr. Whitener.

Mr. BROYHILL. I made that abundantly clear at the beginning of the hearings. There is no pride of authorship on my part.

Mr. SISK. I am not discounting your interest in this at all. I just wanted to be sure that the witness was not talking about another bill, separate and apart from these two.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JACOBS. Sir, has your organization done any research into the constitutionality of this legislation in reference to the separation of powers?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. No. Now that you ask the question, I eliminated those comments because I thought it might not be material to read something that a policeman says. Several of the responses were to the effect that Congress has control over the District, and they should therefore retain it-this is the comment of several policemen, not by

the officers or counsel-and that this was bringing the Police Department back into the Constitution. That is a comment by policemen. We have not researched it.

Mr. JACOBS. Let us take up page 2 of this bill, H.R. 14448, which states the contemplated new police organization would assume the duties with respect to the White House Police. Do you see any problem there in separation of powers?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. You are asking my opinion now?

Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARGOLIUS. No, I do not. I think that is an administrative function just like parks and grounds. Just because it happens to be at the White House does not take it out of the jurisdiction of Congress.

Mr. JACOBS. As I understand, the classic constitutional law concept on the theory of separation of powers, is that except for policing its own institution, the Congress is legislative, whereas the Executive is constituted to execute the laws that the Congress passes.

I should think perhaps some research would be warranted into that question before this legislation is seriously considered.

Beyond that, as a practical matter, I just wonder how it would work out. Every once in a while the Congress and the Executive have differences of opinion, and here the Congress would have charge of the "Palace Guard" at the White House. Do you think that would present any practical problem?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. I never thought about it. It may be. As a practical matter, I would not think so. Perhaps it would.

Mr. JACOBS. It is something we ought to think about.

I am somehow reminded of a bill introduced a few years ago-it was before my time here, so it is a matter of hearsay. Somebody told me a bill was introduced to create a special flag for Congress. Maybe some of the older Members may recall that. Somehow or other, I find this rather reminiscent. It seems to me it is proposed that Congress create its own police force. The proposal for that flag bill did not pass, as I understand.

You stated in your testimony that it was the opinion of many police officers and I assume the opinion of yourself, sir-that by being controlled by the Congress, the police force would attain greater professionalism.

Mr. MARGOLIUS. That is not my opinion. I have no opinion on that. I am not a professional policeman. I do not know.

Mr. JACOBS. I just wonder, if you took into account the Rayburn Building and the way it was built, if you could come to the conclusion that greater professionalism can result from the committee kind of executive that is contemplated in this bill; that is, the chairman of this committee and the chairman of the counterpart in the other body and the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate. That is approximately the arrangement by which the Rayburn Building was built.

Would you see any contradiction there in reality with what is assumed by these police officers?

Mr. MARGOLIUS. Being a native-born Washingtonian, I would have to agree with you about the Rayburn Building, but how it came to pass, I do not know.

Mr. JACOBS. They say a camel is an example of something done by a committee.

Mr. MARGOLIUS. I would say I have not analyzed the details of the bill per se, section by section, but there is a phase of this bill that is significant to a policeman. If I may expound just a moment

Mr. JACOBS. I wish you would.

Mr. SISK. Would the gentleman yield for a clarifying question here? I lost the connection here about the Rayburn Building.

Mr. JACOBS. I will be glad to respond to my colleague.

A statement made in response to a question here indicated it was the thought of many police officers that the professionalism-I presume that means the efficiency and reliability of operations, the carrying out of plans-generally the professionalism of the Police Department would be upgraded if we in Congress controlled the police forces of the District of Columbia.

I am saying we built the Rayburn Building as a group.

Mr. WHITENER. The gentleman has brought it up, and you have agreed with him. What is wrong with the Rayburn Building?

Mr. JACOBS. First, the ceiling is three times higher than it needs to be.

In the second place, it is too big.

In the third place, it is too ornate.

In the fourth place, which brings up the next point of whether it would lower the overhead of the Police Department, it cost at least two, maybe three times as much as was planned.

The fact of the matter is that the Congress does a fairly good job in legislating, but our past record of being executives by implementation through committee action has not been too good, and that is a conspicuous example.

That balustrade across the street on the Cannon Building is another conspicuous example.

I am trying to respond to the question of the gentleman.

Mr. SISK. I have great respect and admiration for my good friend from Indiana, and he knows this. I am one who happens to support the Rayburn Building and I believe we did a good job and built a good building, and as a resident in that building, I think it is an excellent facility and was much needed. I just want to say I disagree with my friend that that is an example of poor Congressional management.

With that, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Mr. JACOBS. I will not respond further. There is an honest difference, and my colleague from California has an entirely honest mind. Mr. MARGOLIUS. When I said something about the Rayburn Building, I meant I do not happen to agree with the architecture. That is my personal opinion.

Mr. WHITENER. If I may comment, in law school, we did not have any courses in architecture. I do not know where you went to law school.