```

[Senate Report 107-145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 362
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     107-145

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

 
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

                 April 29, 2002.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2305]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (H.R. 2305) to authorize certain Federal 
officials with responsibility for the administration of the 
criminal justice system of the District of Columbia to serve on 
and participate in the activities of the District of Columbia 
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
  V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................6
 VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................7

                         I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    The purpose of H.R. 2305, the Criminal Justice Coordinating 
Council Restructuring Act of 2001, is to authorize the heads of 
six Federal agencies, specifically, the Court Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the 
District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, the United 
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons, the United States Parole Commission, and the 
United States Marshals Service, to meet regularly with District 
law enforcement officials as the ``Criminal Justice 
Coordinating Council'' (CJCC). H.R. 2305 strengthens the CJCC 
by authorizing Federal participation and funds. H.R. 2305 
requires the CJCC to submit to the President, Congress, and 
appropriate Federal and local agencies an annual report 
detailing its activities.

                             II. BACKGROUND

    The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District 
of Columbia (CJCC) is the primary venue in which District of 
Columbia criminal justice agencies can identify and address 
interagency coordination issues. The CJCC for the District of 
Columbia was originally established pursuant to a Memorandum of 
Agreement entered into on May 28, 1998 by the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia, the Chief of the Metropolitan Police 
Department, the Chair of the Council of the District of 
Columbia, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee of the Council 
of the District of Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney 
for the District of Columbia, the Corporation Counsel of the 
District of Columbia, the Chief Management Officer, the 
Corrections Trustee of the District of Columbia, the Offender 
Supervision Trustee of the District of Columbia, and three 
members of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
and Management Assistance Authority (also known as the 
``Control Board.''). It has operated as an independent working 
group to foster cooperation among the 13 governmental agencies 
which have law enforcement responsibility in our Nation's 
capital.
    CJCC's mission is to address coordination difficulties 
among District of Columbia criminal justice agencies. CJCC 
members have typically met every four to six weeks and have 
formed numerous teams to address criminal justice issues, such 
as drugs, juvenile justice, halfway houses, information 
technology, and identification of arrestees. CJCC staff have 
coordinated meetings, provided data and statistics, summarized 
workgroup findings, performed best practices reviews, and 
provided other information and support to District of Columbia 
criminal justice agencies.

Establishment as a local agency

    As part of a local enactment in August 2001, the Fiscal 
Year 2002 Budget Support Emergency Act of 2001 (District of 
Columbia Laws Act 14-124, Title XV), the CJCC was established 
as an independent agency within the District of Columbia.
    Under this local law, the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
is designated as the Chair of the CJCC. Other members include 
the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia; the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Council of the 
District of Columbia; the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of 
the District of Columbia; the Chief of the Metropolitan Police 
Department; the Director of the District of Columbia Department 
of Corrections; the Corporation Counsel for the District of 
Columbia; the Director of the Department of Human Services' 
Youth Services Administration; the Director of the Public 
Defender Service; the Director of the Pretrial Services Agency; 
the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision 
Agency; the United States Attorney for the District of 
Columbia; the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee; the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the chair of the 
United States Parole Commission.
    The 2001 local law enumerates eight specific duties of the 
CJCC. Among them are the responsibility to: make 
recommendations concerning the coordination of the activities 
and the mobilization of the resources of the member agencies in 
improving public safety in, and the criminal justice system of, 
the District of Columbia; define and analyze issues and 
procedures in the criminal justice system, identify alternative 
solutions, and make recommendations for improvements and 
changes in the programs of the criminal justice system; receive 
information from, and give assistance to, other District of 
Columbia agencies concerned with, or affected by, issues of 
public safety and the criminal justice system; make 
recommendations regarding systematic operational and 
infrastructural matters as are believed necessary to improve 
public safety in the District of Columbia and Federal criminal 
justice agencies; and establish measurable goals and objectives 
for reform initiatives.

Federal funding

    The FY 2002 appropriations for the District of Columbia 
(P.L. 107-96, 115 Stat. 923 at 925) provides for a Federal 
payment of $300,000 to the City Administrator for the Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia.

GAO assessment of criminal justice coordination challenges in the 
        District of Columbia

    In March 2001 the General Accounting Office (GAO) released 
a report, ``D.C. Criminal Justice System,'' \1\ on the 
effectiveness of coordination among the District's various 
criminal justice entities. As explained by GAO, the criminal 
justice process--from arrest through correctional supervision--
in any jurisdiction is generally complex and typically involves 
a number of participants including police, prosecutors, defense 
attorneys, courts, and corrections agencies. Because of the 
large number of agencies involved, coordination among agencies 
is necessary for the process to function as efficiently as 
possible within the requirements of due process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination Needed 
Among Participating Agencies,'' GAO-01-187, March 30, 2001 (210 page 
report); see also ``D.C. Criminal Justice System: Better Coordination 
Needed Among Participating Agencies,'' GAO-01-708T May 11, 2001 (GAO 
prepared testimony before House Subcommittee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GAO emphasized that the unique structure and funding of the 
District of Columbia's criminal justice system, in which 
Federal and District of Columbia jurisdictional boundaries and 
dollars are blended, creates additional coordination 
challenges. The District of Columbia criminal justice system 
consists of four District of Columbia agencies principally 
funded through local funds, six Federal agencies, and three 
District of Columbia agencies principally funded through 
Federal appropriations. Seven of the ten stages of the District 
of Columbia's criminal justice system require coordination 
among agencies funded by different sources.
    Because of the different sources of funding, reporting 
structures, and organizational perspectives of the various 
agencies involved in the District of Columbia criminal justice 
system, GAO stressed that it has been difficult in the District 
of Columbia to coordinate systemwide activities, reach 
agreement on the nature of systemwide problems, and take a 
coordinated approach to addressing problem areas that balances 
competing institutional interests. CJCC's ability to effect 
cooperation among the various agencies has been limited because 
it has no formal authority or power over any member agency.
    According to GAO, without a requirement to report successes 
and areas of continuing discussion and disagreement to each 
agency's funding source, CJCC's activities, achievements, and 
areas of disagreement have generally been known only to its 
participating agencies. GAO observed that this has created 
little incentive to coordinate for the common good, and all too 
often agencies have simply ``agreed to disagree'' without 
taking action. Further, without a meaningful role in the 
establishment of multi-agency initiatives, CJCC has been unable 
to ensure that criminal justice initiatives are designed to 
identify the potential for joint improvements, and that they 
are carefully coordinated among all affected agencies.
    GAO found that while there has been notable success in 
areas where agencies share a common interest, there is a 
general lack of coordination among participating agencies. 
According to GAO, poor coordination of numerous projects, such 
as case processing, information technology, correctional 
supervision, and the sharing of responsibilities among 
agencies, have led to inefficient operations and poor program 
performance. GAO also stated that funding is a problem for CJCC 
because the Control Board disbanded in 2001 and because funding 
of CJCC through any individual participating agency potentially 
diminishes its stature as an independent entity in the eyes of 
several CJCC member agencies, reducing their willingness to 
participate.
    GAO offered several recommendations to address the 
deficiencies identified. Among them, GAO recommended that 
Congress consider funding CJCC; require CJCC to report annually 
to Congress, the Attorney General, and the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia; and require all District of Columbia 
criminal justice agencies to report multi-agency activities to 
the CJCC, which would serve as a ``clearinghouse'' for these 
initiatives.

                        III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    H.R. 2305 was introduced on June 25, 2001 by Representative 
Connie Morella (R-MD) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-
DC). It was referred to the House Government Reform 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia on July 9, 2001. H.R. 
2305 was amended in the subcommittee to address concerns raised 
by the Department of Justice that requiring participation by 
the Federal entities designated in the bill in this locally-
constituted body could be read to authorize the local agencies 
comprising a majority of the CJCC to make decisions with 
binding authority on the Federal agency participants.\2\ The 
amendment allays the concern by making clear that Federal 
agency involvement is merely authorized, but not required, 
thereby making clear that the bill does not impose on the 
Federal agencies any obligation to accede to CJCC decisions. 
H.R. 2305, as amended, was reported to the full House Committee 
on Government Reform by voice vote on September 21, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Letter of July 31, 2001 to Representative Connie Morella from 
Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 4, 2001, H.R. 2305, as amended, was considered 
by the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules, 
and passed by voice vote. H.R. 2305, as passed in the House, 
was received in the Senate on December 5, 2001, and referred to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs. On December 17, 2001, 
the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of 
Columbia.
    On March 14, 2002, H.R. 2305 was favorably polled out of 
the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of 
Columbia. H.R. 2305 was considered by the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs on March 21, 2002, approved by voice vote, 
and ordered to be reported, with no Members present dissenting.
    Present were Senators Akaka, Bennett, Cleland, Cochran, 
Levin, Lieberman, Stevens, Thompson, and Voinovich.

                    IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 entitles the Act as the ``Criminal Justice 
Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2001.''
    Section 2 authorizes the Director of the Court Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, the 
Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, 
the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the 
Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the chair of the United 
States Parole Commission, and the Director of the United States 
Marshals Service to serve on the District of Columbia Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council, participate in the Council's 
activities, and take such other actions as may be necessary to 
carry out the individual's duties as a member of the Council.
    Section 3 requires that not later than 60 days after the 
end of each calendar year, the District of Columbia Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council shall prepare and submit to the 
President, Congress, and each of the entities of the District 
of Columbia government and Federal government whose 
representatives serve on the Council a report describing the 
activities carried out by the Council during the year.
    Section 4 authorizes such sums to be appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002 and each succeeding fiscal year as may be 
necessary for a Federal contribution to the District of 
Columbia to cover the costs incurred by the District of 
Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.
    Section 5 defines the `District of Columbia Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council' as the entity established by the 
Council of the District of Columbia under the Criminal Justice 
Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia Establishment 
Act of 2001.

                    V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 3, 2002.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2305, the Criminal 
Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 2002.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew 
Pickford (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the 
state and local impact.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2305--Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Restructuring Act of 
        2002

    H.R. 2305 would authorize certain federal officials 
involved in the criminal justice system of the District of 
Columbia to serve on and participate in the activities of the 
District of Columbia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The 
act would authorize the appropriation of the necessary sums to 
cover the costs incurred by the council.
    Assuming the appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 2305 would cost about $500,000 
annually. That estimate assumes that the council would hire a 
staff of five individuals. Because the act would not affect 
direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply.
    H.R. 2305 would require the District of Columbia Justice 
Coordinating Council to prepare an annual report describing the 
activities carried out by the council during the year. This 
requirement would be an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the 
cost to the District of Columbia in complying with this mandate 
would not be significant and thus would fall well below the 
threshold established by UMRA ($58 million in 2002, adjusted 
annually for inflation). Further, the bill would authorize 
funding to cover the costs incurred by the council. The act 
contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew 
Pickford (for federal costs), and Susan Sieg Tompkins (for the 
state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. 
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analyst.

                  VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

    Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill 
evaluate the ``regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out this bill.'' Carrying out H.R. 2305 would have no 
regulatory impact. In addition, as explained in the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) letter, H.R. 2305 would 
require the District of Columbia Coordinating Council to 
prepare annual report describing the activities carried out by 
the Council during the year. This requirement would be an 
intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA). CBO has estimated that the cost to the 
District of Columbia to comply with this mandate would not be 
significant and thus would fall well below the threshold 
established by UMRA. Further, the bill would authorize funding 
to cover the costs incurred by the Council. H.R. 2305 contains 
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

                      VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that H.R. 
2305, as reported, makes no changes in existing law.

                                

```