[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        A VIEW OF THE CRIME BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Manzullo] is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, crime is a very serious problem in this 
country. But because a proposed law is termed a crime bill does not 
necessarily mean the bill fights crime.
  That is why the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune 
are all opposed to the so-called Clinton crime bill. The New York Times 
said, ``Pull the plug on the crime bill.''
  We all want to fight crime. Yet why would these major newspapers come 
out against this bill? The answer is that this Clinton crime bill does 
little to fight crime, and it is expensive, too.
  But Americans would not mind spending big dollars if they thought the 
money would, in fact, reduce crime, but the Clinton crime bill, which 
will cost $33 billion, simply will not do that.
  Well, why is this crime bill so controversial? First, it still has 
not been printed up. I have here one of the few copies of the 
conference bill. It is over 1,000 pages. This conference bill is the 
result of the work of the Members of the House and Senate after each of 
those Houses of Congress passed its own bill.
  I pored through most of that bill. Let me demonstrate to you how 
complicated the wording is. Listen to this, ``For each payment period, 
the Secretary shall allocate to each State out of the amount 
appropriated for the period under the authority of section 6702(b), 
minus the amounts allocated to territorial governments under subsection 
(e) for the payment period, an amount bearing the same ratio to the 
amount appropriated, minus such amounts allocated under subsection (e) 
as the amount allocated to the State under the section bears to the 
total amount allocated to all States under this section.'' It goes on 
and on.
  I have argued before the Committee on Rules that Members of Congress 
should be given the right to read the bill before they vote on it. Yet 
that probably will not happen. Imagine voting on a $33 billion bill 
without giving Members of Congress the chance to read it.
  Well, let us look at some of the provisions of this bill. Cops on the 
beat: The bill States on its face there will be 100,000 new cops on the 
beat. We need cops. We need more cops. But what is wrong with this 
bill? First, it describes what the cops must be doing. They must be 
involved in ``community policing,'' but community policing is nowhere 
defined in the bill.
  Title I, part (q), section (f), technical assistance, subparagraph 
(2), model, states, ``the Attorney General defines what community 
policing is and how it is to be implemented.''
  This means a Federal bureaucrat decides what a community needs as 
opposed to the community itself. For example, cities may use the funds 
in the following ways: ``It can go to enhance police officers' conflict 
resolution, mediation, problem solving, service, and other skills 
needed to work in partnership with members of the community,'' to 
``develop new technologies to assist States and local law enforcement 
agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their activities from reacting 
to crime to preventing crime,'' and, ``to develop and establish new 
administrative and managerial systems to facilitate the adoption of 
community oriented policing as an organization-wide philosophy.''

                              {time}  2240

  This means the Federal bureaucrat will tell local police officers how 
to resolve conflicts and solve problems. It also means the Federal 
bureaucrat will tell a community that instead of apprehending criminals 
it should be preventing crimes from taking place. Granted, both are 
necessary, but why should the Federal Government be involved in telling 
a police force where its needs are?
  Second, the bill sets up a quota system for hiring police.
  Third, the Clinton crime bill provides only seed money for community 
that wants to hire police officers. Here is the irony: For a community 
to get a grant to hire police officers, it must show a specific 
financial need. The grant runs out in equal stages over 5 years. 
However, a community in the grant must also show that as the grant runs 
out in steps, the community must be able to afford to keep the cops 
permanently. This does not make sense.
  A community applies for a grant because it needs the money, but must 
show that as the money runs out it has the financial ability to 
continue the program. If the community has the money in the first 
place, then it could not receive the grant. Yet it has to show it has 
the money in order to continue the program.
  Fourth, the actual amount of money allocated in the crime bill for 
cops will hire 20,000, not 100,000, cops. The reason is in the 
application.
  It takes about $60,000 to $75,000 per year to hire one cop. Yet if 
you stretch out the money allocated for the program over 5 years of the 
grant, it comes out to $14,500 per cop per year.
  Fifth, the application process to get a grant shows how little 
emphasis is placed on the crime rate in the community. Let me read to 
you some of the 11 mandatory requirements to get a grant:
  The police department has to have a long-term strategy that is 
devised not by the police but by ``community groups and appropriate 
private and public agencies.''
  What does that mean? It means the Federal Government is saying that 
sheriffs and chiefs of police do not know how to use their own police 
officers but ``community groups and appropriate private and public 
agencies,'' which are never defined, do.
  The police department has to identify ``related governmental and 
community initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the 
proposal.'' And ``outline the initial and ongoing level of community 
support for implementing the program, including contributions of money 
toward the program.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is the United States Congress empowering the 
Attorney General and her bureaucrats to micromanage local police 
departments. This application process demonstrates the hoops through 
which a municipality must jump to get money that already belongs to the 
people. There is no Federal money; only money provided by the ordinary 
taxpayer that is sent to Washington, legally shrunk, and then waved by 
a Federal bureaucrat in the face of local officials who fight like heck 
to get that money that already belongs to them.
  Sixth, to implement the cops on the beat, the bill states:

       The Attorney General shall have access for the purpose of 
     audit and examination to any pertinent books, documents, 
     papers or records of a grant recipient under this part and to 
     the pertinent books, documents, papers or records of State 
     and local Governments, persons, businesses and other entities 
     that are involved in programs, projects or activities for 
     which assistance is provided under this part.

  Ostensibly a business, a business doing business with a local police 
department, would now be subject to an audit by the Attorney General.
  And now the magic words, ``The Attorney General may promulgate 
regulations and guidelines to carry out this part.''
  This is called redtape.
  Let us take a look in this bill for the provisions for prisons. We 
all know that keeping people in prisons keeps out of circulation the 7 
percent of the criminals who commit 70 percent of the crimes.
  The Clinton crime bill claims that $10.9 billion will be spent on 
building prisons. However, a closer look shows that $2.2 billion is 
authorized by not funded. $8.7 billion would then be left allegedly for 
building prisons. However, $1.8 billion of that is going to go to 
refunding States incarcerating illegal aliens. So I have no problems 
with money to help States incarcerate illegal aliens.
  That leaves the bill with a total of $6.5 billion for prison 
construction. Or it is really for prison construction?
  Title II, called ``Prisons,'' of the Clinton crime bill authorizes 
funding with the following language:

       The Attorney General may make grants to individual States 
     and to States organized as multi-State compacts to develop, 
     expand, operate or improve correctional facilities and 
     programs, including boot camp facilities and programs and 
     other alternative confinement facilities and programs that 
     can free conventional prison space to the confinement of 
     violent offenders to insure that prison cell space is 
     available for the confinement of violent offenders and to 
     implement truth in sentencing violent offenders.

  At this point it appears the Clinton crime bill will allow the States 
to spend the prison money the best way the State sees fit.
  However, further reading of the bill shows the Federal strings 
attached to this bill.
  For example, if a State obtains money to build a prison--and please 
note the Federal Government provides 75 percent of the construction 
cost for the State providing the rest for construction of prisons and 
having the money to operate the prison--and yet the redtape involved 
means two things, two significant things.
  First of all, under title II, ``Prisons,'' listen to this 
requirement:

       The States must have a comprehensive correctional plan 
     which represents an integrated approach to the management and 
     operation of correctional facilities and programs which 
     include diversion programs, particularly drug diversion 
     programs, community correction programs, prison screening, 
     ***.

  Mr. Speaker, this is saying that the Federal Government, once it 
gives money to a State to build that prison, will determine how that 
State prison is run. But there is more to it than that.
  Listen to this:

       The task force on prison construction standardization and 
     techniques states that the director of the Institute of 
     Corrections shall establish a task force comprised of Federal 
     bureaucrats and engineers, architects, construction experts, 
     to come up with a performance requirement and the task force 
     shall work to establish or recommend standardized 
     construction plans of techniques for prisons and prison 
     component construction.

  And we ask ourselves why is the Federal Government now telling the 
States how the States can build their own prisons?
  This becomes the federalization of all State prisons, not only as to 
the manner of operation but the construction materials, if the State 
opts to take the money with which to build a prison.
  Many suggest that this bill is tough on crime because of the strict 
truth-in-sentencing provisions cut into receiving Federal funding for 
prisons. At this point let us take a look at this truth-in-sentencing.
  From a Federal level, it is defined as requiring States to 
incarcerate violent offenders for at least 85 percent of their sentence 
in order to receive some 60 percent of the $6.5 billion, the so-called 
Chapman money. It sounds as if the Chapman truth-in-sentencing should 
be tough, if that is the way it will work. Think about it. This will 
supposedly close the revolving door that lets violent criminals out of 
prison early. However, a close look at the summaries of alleged crime 
conference report show differently. The Hughes money, 66 percent of the 
$6.5 billion in this bill, is not conditioned on any truth-in-
sentencing provisions. The remaining 40 percent, the Chapman money, is 
based on a formula that requires some progress, some progress toward 
longer sentences.
  The bottom line in truth-in-sentencing is that if the States do not 
work toward the goal of keeping people in prison longer or in enacting 
the 85 percent requirement, then there is a reverter provision which 
provides that the money allotted for the proposed truth-in-sentencing, 
or Chapman money, left at the end of each fiscal year will be dumped 
into the remaining 40 percent funding for the first year. So, 
basically, a State simply has to wait and then get all the money with 
no strings attached.

                              {time}  2250

  But there is more. This bill has what is called early release 
provision. Sounds good. What are we talking about?
  Well, there is a reduction of mandatory minimum sentences for drug 
traffickers. That is correct. This bill reduces the number of years 
that a person convicted of drug trafficking has to spend in Federal 
prison. It is ostensibly to those who were arrested for the first time, 
probably caught for the first time. If they are nonviolent; that is, 
they do not have any guns, and they cooperate with the police, the 
authors of this bill say, well, because of their backgrounds, they 
should not have to serve such a long mandatory minimum, and this 
provision is retroactive and will result in the release of as much as 
10,000 so-called nonviolent, convicted, felonious drug traffickers, 
return them to the streets.
  And what kind of message does that send to our society?
  In my county of Winnebago, IL, the statistics show that up to 75 
percent of all crime in that county is somehow drug related, whether it 
be an individual taking drugs, trying to steal money to buy drugs or 
is, in fact, selling drugs. And yet this great crime bill looks upon 
these convicted drug traffickers, looks upon new drug traffickers, and 
says ``We are going to reduce your mandatory minimum sentence.'' That 
is not the message to send to people involved in drugs in this country.
  The Clinton administration says that they are nonviolent because they 
are simply passing drugs from one to another, answering phone calls, 
facilitating deliveries. The cops call them mules. Yet the violence 
that they do to America is they are killing our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this crime bill protects the criminals. It does not 
protect the innocent people in this Nation, and that is why these major 
newspapers have come out vehemently against this crime bill in saying, 
``For goodness gracious sakes, at least protect the victims.''
  But there is more in this bill, almost $10 billion spent on what are 
called social welfare programs. Ten billion dollars. Let me go through 
just a few of them.
  The Local Partnership Act: $1.8 billion to local governments goes to 
areas with high taxes--figure that one out, high unemployment, and high 
crime. The money is spent to augment existing Federal programs such as 
aid to the homeless or can be used for, quote, ``education to prevent 
crime, substance abuse treatment to prevent crime, or job programs to 
prevent crime.''
  The Youth Employment Skills, YES, is $650 million, quote, ``to test 
the proposition that crime can be reduced through a saturation jobs 
program.'' Six hundred fifty million dollars in a test program. It 
targets high crime areas. Participants can range in ages from 14 
through 25 years.
  Mr. Speaker, we already have 154 current job programs. But you may 
say, ``Are these targeted to the youth?'' Well, 16 of these current job 
programs are targeted to youth. Presently spending $4 billion, nine 
current job programs target the economically disadvantaged presently 
spending $2.6 billion, and the total amount of money spent on jobs 
programs in the United States is already $25 billion, and now we are 
adding some more.
  But the list of social spending goes on: $1.3 billion to private 
entities, governments, and courts chosen by the Attorney General for, 
quote, ``drug courts.'' The money can be used for a number of purposes 
such as benefits to criminals who are drug addicts. Benefits include 
child care, housing placement, job placement, vocational training, and 
health care, all supervised by a court, but there is no money that goes 
for the administration of justice. There is no money that can go to a 
State's attorney's office to hire prosecutors, or to a clerk's office 
in order to hire additional clerks in the criminal division of the 
court, or for probation officers, or for jail space.

  The model intensive grants: Here is another one, $895 million to 15 
high crime areas chosen by the Attorney General. This program has not 
specific requirements. It contains vague guidelines for funding. For 
example, money will go to programs that, ``provide meaningful and 
lasting alternatives to crime''
  The national community economic partnership: $630 million to 
community development corporations chosen by the HHS Secretary to 
upgrade the management and operating capacity of community development 
corporations and enhance the resources. Loans will be given to finance 
projects intended to provide business and employment opportunities for 
poor people.
  Child center activities: $630 million to recipients chosen by the HHS 
Secretary handed out by grant, based on percentage of poor children in 
the State compared to percentage in other States.
  Listen to this: Grants for community-based organizations to carry out 
a variety of activities including arts and crafts, dance programs, 
renovation of facilities, purchasing of sporting and recreational 
equipment and supplies.
  The list continues.
  Family and community endeavor schools called FACES: $270 million to 
local entities chosen by the Education Secretary and partly by the HHS 
Secretary. The purpose is, ``to improve academic, and social 
development by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and 
coordinates the efforts of public schoolteachers, administrators, 
social workers, guidance counselors, and grants also go to community-
based organizations to supervise various activities including sports, 
arts and crafts, social activities and dance programs.''
  Juvenile drug trafficking gang prevention grants: $125 million to 
private and nonprofit or State and local governments chosen by the 
administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Program. The grants are, ``to reduce juvenile involvement in organized 
crime without describing how this should be done.'' Very few specific 
programs aside from sports activities, ``and artistic enrichment.''
  The Ounce of Prevention Program: $100 million of grants to entities 
chosen by interagency council. No specific requirements, no guidelines.
  The youth violence prevention: $50 million to States and public and 
private entities chosen by the OJJDP administrator. Grants are to 
develop, ``programs in the area of juvenile violence.'' The program 
should include, ``alternatives to school suspension and other 
innovative projects.''
  Midnight sports: $40 million to entitles chosen by the HUD Secretary 
to fund midnight sports leagues. The bill states that there must be at 
least 80 people involved. Half of those have to come from low-income 
housing. What do they do if half do not come? What do they do if those 
that come are poor but do not live in low-income housing? Do they throw 
them off the basketball team? And these grants must have at least two 
of the following characteristics: high levels of HIV-infected people, 
high crime rates, high drug use, high pregnancy rates, high 
unemployment, and high dropout rates.
  It does not stop there.
  Community youth academies: $40 million to public or private and 
nonprofits chosen by the Attorney General to provide residential 
services to young dropouts and criminals. Among other things these 
services, ``should increase the self-esteem of such youth,'' and 
provide them with life skills.
  It goes on and on. I do not even have enough time to bring this up.
  Gang prevention services for boys and girls: $20 million for funding 
a variety of programs including music, art, and drama activity, 
physical fitness training, and life skills training.
  Hope and youth: $20 million.
  Anticrime Youth Council. Listen to this: $5 million to public and 
private community-based organizations so kids sit around in groups of 
no more than five and discuss crime.

                              {time}  2300

  But the one that is really unbelievable is this: It is a program 
called the family unity demonstration project, $22 million to the 
States and Federal prisons chosen by the Attorney General. Grants are 
to put convicted criminals in residential facilities so the criminals 
can live with their children. The children must be 7 years of age and 
under, the criminals cannot be convicted of a violent crime against a 
person or sex offense, but they can be drug traffickers and burglars. 
And a district court can sentence a defendant directly to this 
residential facility.
  Can you imagine that? Twenty-two million dollars, and have to worry 
about whether or not the Federal Bureau of Prisons is going to lease 
the home or apartment building next to you or the apartment next to you 
in which to house a convicted felon so he can live with his family.
  It goes on and on. Olympic youth development centers, $50 million. 
The U.S. Olympic committee will develop at least six centers for sports 
activity for youth, $30 million to boys and girls clubs in public 
housing, $22 million for gang resistance education and training.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot even get through the list of social programs 
that are involved in all of this.
  Now, the debate surrounding crime, prisons, and especially the truth 
in sentencing, it deals a lot with what we know as States rights. Let's 
think about that, States rights. Let's think about what President 
Johnson said until 1967. He said, and this is a quote, ``the Federal 
Government must never assume the role of the Nation's policemen. True, 
the Federal Government has certain direct law enforcement 
responsibilities, but these are carefully limited to such matters as 
treason, espionage, counterfeiting, tax evasion, and certain interstate 
crimes.''
  Now, where does the Federal Government become involved, now, today? 
The big crime bill came in the appropriations to the Department of 
Justice, where we had to fight to add back money that had been stripped 
by the administration for DEA agents, FBI agents, INS agents, and the 
Byrne grant. We had to add back 150 percent because the Byrne grant 
goes to the States for the purpose of empowering local law enforcement 
agencies to work together on a multijurisdictional basis in order to 
fight drugs.
  That is the biggest role the Federal Government has today, is the 
interdiction of drugs at the borders, and, of course, inside as the 
drugs come in, because that is something that is simply the local 
police departments cannot do.
  Well, lots of programs. But we need a crime program. We need to pass 
something less complex, yet much more effective.
  The crime program has to respect the States. It is called federalism. 
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 4592, introduced by our colleague, 
Representative Sensenbrenner. This legislation is 5 pages long, as 
opposed to 1,100. It simply rebates 2 percent of the personal Federal 
income tax collected from each State back to each State. These funds 
would be earmarked for crime fighting. That is, the States could build 
or expand and operate prisons, add personnel to their court system, 
such as judges, prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, and any other 
support staff needed, hire more police, buy more equipment, or simply 
rebate the money back to the taxpayer.
  This would truly bring the debate of crime fighting back to where 
crime is really fought, the State and local level. The local police 
chiefs and sheriffs know much more about fighting crime than 535 
Members of Congress.
  Let the local officials decide where to spend the resources to fight 
crime. Many will say this is a pie in the sky dream, that we could not 
get this kind of bill passed. Well, it would fund for 5 years $55 
billion. That is far more than $32.7 over 6 years. And you know what? 
It is a continuing amount that goes back to the States.
  Incredible. It is so simple. With the Sensenbrenner legislation, 
there is far less bureaucratic hoops the States need to jump through.
  Mr. Speaker, we all need to fight crime, the State, the local, and 
the Federal level. We do not all agree on how to fight crime, but we do 
agree that the Clinton crime bill is not the way to do it.

                          ____________________