[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           CRIME LEGISLATION

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 1, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, March 1, 1995, into the Congressional Record.
                Crime Legislation in the 104th Congress

       Crime ranks as the biggest perceived problem in the 
     country. Although overall crime rates have decreased, most 
     Americans still believe crime should be a priority of the 
     federal government. While law enforcement, courts, and 
     prisons are dealt with primarily by state and local 
     governments, Congress has taken a number of steps in recent 
     months to assist in these efforts.
       Last fall, Congress passed anticrime legislation that 
     authorized $30.2 billion in assistance over the next six 
     years, with 75% of the funds for law enforcement and prisons, 
     and 25% for local crime prevention efforts such as drug 
     education programs or domestic violence shelters. The 
     centerpiece of this law is the program to put thousands of 
     new police officers on the streets. Ninth District sheriffs 
     and police chiefs recently received some $2.5 million for 44 
     additional police officers. More assistance will be available 
     in coming months. Indiana is also eligible for funds to 
     increase prison capacity and establish military-style youth 
     boot camps.
       The House recently considered a series of six additional 
     crime-related bills, which were based on proposals in the 
     House leadership's ``Contract with America''.


                         victim restitution act

       This bill would require those convicted of a federal crime 
     to pay damages to their victims. Current law permits such 
     restitution, but does not require it. Compliance with court-
     ordered payments would be a condition of probation, parole, 
     or release. This bill passed with my support.


                     criminal alien deportation act

       This bill would reimburse state and local costs for 
     incarcerating illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. 
     It also would make it easier for the government to deport 
     criminal aliens to their country of origin. With my support, 
     the House passed this bill by a large margin.


                      effective death penalty act

       Many Hoosiers believe that excessive, drawn-out appeals 
     have made the death penalty ineffective as a deterrent to 
     crime. The reforms in this bill would place a one-year limit 
     for death row inmates to file federal
      appeals of state sentences. However, the bill does not go 
     far enough to ensure that competent lawyers are appointed 
     to argue death penalty cases. A large percentage of 
     appeals result from mistakes made by inexperienced 
     lawyers. Serious death penalty reform must deal with this 
     problem. I supported this bill, but hope the Senate will 
     pass more comprehensive reforms.


                      exclusionary rule reform act

       The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens 
     against ``unreasonable searches and seizures''. In general, 
     evidence obtained in violation of these procedures is 
     excluded from trial unless 1) police officers had a search 
     warrant and 2) believed they were acting in ``good faith'' 
     compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The bill would create a 
     broad loophole in the Fourth Amendment by permitting 
     virtually all evidence obtained without a search warrant. 
     Constitutional safeguards are not always popular with a 
     public fed up with criminals going free on technicalities, 
     but there have been many recent cases in which law 
     enforcement agencies have violated civil rights in 
     unreasonable searches. I have serious concerns about the 
     implications of this bill on individual liberty, and did not 
     support the bill.


                             prison funding

       Like last year's legislation, this bill encourages states 
     to adopt measures to increase the average time served in 
     prison. Half of the grants would be reserved for states that 
     enacted ``truth-in-sentencing'' laws. I support such laws. 
     However, this bill would eliminate funding for drug courts 
     and change the grant formula to reduce Indiana's share of 
     federal money. It also runs counter to the spirit of the 
     unfunded mandates bills passed earlier this year, by 
     requiring states to rewrite their criminals laws before 
     receiving federal support. This bill would reduce Indiana's 
     funding, and I did not support it.


                      law enforcement block grants

       This bill would eliminate the current community policing 
     program and replace it with a $10 billion block grant program 
     for a variety of law enforcement purposes. Funds would be 
     allocated on a formula based on the average number of
      violent crimes in a local jurisdiction.
       I did not support this bill for two main reasons. First, 
     law enforcement block grants have a long history of abuse. 
     Under a similar program in the 1970s, local governments spent 
     funds on yachts, airplanes, military tanks, and other 
     frivolous uses, It was repealed in 1982. Such abuse is 
     expensive to prevent. This bill includes $300 million--about 
     3% of the total funds--for the Justice Department to police 
     local governments for abuse. Second, the community policing 
     program has been very successful, and one-half of the money 
     is designated for small communities and rural areas. It 
     should not be eliminated. The block grant formula in this 
     bill would provide less funding for Indiana's counties and 
     rural communities. I believe more police officers on the 
     beat, along with keeping criminals in prison, is a most 
     effective way to fight crime. The administrative cost of the 
     police grant program is just 0.08% of the total fund--which 
     means less money in Washington and more money in local 
     communities.


                               Conclusion

       The House-passed proposal deserve a mixed review. The 
     provisions for victim restitution, alien deportation, and 
     death penalty reforms are long-needed, and they received my 
     strong support. I am hopeful the Senate will take quick 
     action. However, I am concerned about the exclusionary rule 
     bill, which encroaches on important Constitutional 
     protections against government intrusion. The funding 
     provisions for prisons and block grants would hurt the Ninth 
     District and Indiana, and block grants only increase the 
     likelihood of fraud and abuse.
       I have some doubts whether crime can be fought effectively 
     with federal legislation. The primary responsibility for 
     fighting crime belongs to state and local governments, and 
     previous efforts from Washington have not generally been 
     considered effective. But the public demand for action 
     against crime is understandable, and Washington should do its 
     part to help local and state officials reduce the threat of 
     violent crime.
     

                          ____________________