[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 104 (Monday, June 23, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5805-H5807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3546) to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3546

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

       Section 508 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3758) is amended by 
     striking ``for fiscal year 2006'' through the period and 
     inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2012.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would like to begin by yielding as much time as he may 
consume to our distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) who 
has worked more diligently than I believe any Member in the House on 
this measure. He shepherded it through hearings and markup in 
Judiciary, and now we're on the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3546, which 
will reauthorize Byrne-JAG grants for local law enforcement.
  Officer Edward Byrne was a rookie New York police officer in New York 
City when he was killed in the line of duty in February of 1988. 
Officer Byrne came from a family of police officers and was dedicated 
to cleaning up his beat in Queens.
  Late on the night of February 26, 1988, Officer Byrne and his partner 
were staking out a house when he was murdered in his car, shot in the 
head five times with a pistol. He was only 22 years old.
  Officer Byrne's sacrifice was not in vain. His murderers and the 
criminals who employed them were found, charged, and convicted. And 
today, in perpetuation of Officer Byrne's legacy, the Byrne-JAG grant 
program is now the only Federal program that funds crime fighting and 
prevention throughout the States across State lines and nationwide.
  This program, Mr. Chairman and Madam Speaker, is more important now 
than ever. The slowing economy undermines the ability of local law 
enforcement to maintain and support crime prevention programs in our 
community as well as maintain order.
  Already, cash-strapped local governments face lower tax revenues and 
higher crime rates and recidivism. Local officials depend on these 
Byrne-JAG grants to invest in law enforcement resources that keep crime 
and drugs out of our communities. In my home State of Georgia, these 
grants provide for a specialize core of drug enforcement agencies that 
work closely together cooperating with each other and the Federal 
Government. And nationwide, the results speak for themselves.
  Byrne-JAG has led to the seizure of 54,000 weapons, the destruction 
of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the elimination of nearly 
9,000 meth labs per year. Nevertheless, Congress has consistently 
underfunded this program, and President Bush threatens additional cuts 
in the 2009 fiscal budget fiscal year. But we can't afford to deny 
local governments the resources that they so desperately need to fight 
and prevent crime.
  My bill will reauthorize Byrne-JAG funding at full 2006 levels, and I 
urge my colleagues in this body to support it.
  In honor of Officer Edward Byrne, this program will help keep our 
streets, our kids, our fellow citizens, and our communities safe from 
criminal activity and drugs.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3546, a bill to authorize 
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal 
year 2006 levels through the year 2012. This bill continues to fund the 
Department of Justice Byrne-JAG Grant Program that, as the gentleman 
from Georgia said, provides assistance to State and local law 
officials.
  These grants support a broad range of activities to prevent and 
control crimes and to improve the criminal justice system. The 
department allocates funds using a formula based on State population 
and the annual Unified Crime Report statistics. The program does have a 
minimum allocation to ensure that each State and territory receive an 
appropriate share of the Federal funds.
  Byrne-JAG funds can be used to pay for personnel overtime and 
equipment, funds are used for Statewide initiatives, technical 
assistance and training, and support for local and rural jurisdictions.
  I can say, Madam Speaker, that my experience in the past serving as 
the Attorney General of California allowed me to see the good work that 
the Byrne funds has done and continues to do, primarily in the area of 
multi-jurisdictional task forces as was mentioned by the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  This is actually an area where we actually see a synergism that 
exists among different levels of government and their law enforcement 
personnel. It is always important that they have good leadership at 
each level, and the training that took place as a result of many of 
these multi-jurisdictional task forces actually created an improvement 
in the overall training for law enforcement across the country. It is a 
remarkable thing to see agents from different agencies, different 
departments, working together for a common purpose.
  As the gentleman mentioned, you can, as a result of these task 
forces, count up the number of arrests made, the number of convictions 
obtained, the number of weapons taken off the street, the number of 
drugs taken off the street in each and every case making it safer for 
the people of the States of the United States.
  On June 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a 2007 
Unified Crime Report detailing the statistics and tracking trends for 
violent crimes nationwide. The national rate for violent crimes, that 
is including robbery, sexual assault, and murder, decreased nationally. 
Unfortunately, the report also showed the rate of violent crime rate 
increased in some communities across the country. This is not by 
accident that we see an overall improvement across the country. It is 
the result of the work of many good men and women in uniform and the 
support to organizations that they have throughout this country.
  We should understand that while sometimes the trend is to say that if 
something is a serious crime, it's a Federal crime; unless the FBI gets 
involved, it's not important, it's not going to be handled well. Well 
over 90 percent, well over 95 percent of all crime is investigated and 
prosecuted at the local and State level, not the Federal level. That's 
why these grants work very, very well when it encourages a multi-
jurisdictional approach where you can find the abilities, the differing 
abilities of the agencies and departments, the coming together to work 
with one another.
  Law enforcement officials remain committed to preventing crime and 
keeping our communities safe, and their efforts should be applauded. 
However, given the report, it is clear that additional steps need to be 
taken in order to continue to address the issue of crime.

[[Page H5806]]

  During the past few months, representatives from various law 
enforcement associations visited me and my colleagues to discuss the 
Byrne-JAG funding. They have spoken with near unanimity about the 
important role Byrne-JAG funding plays in aiding their efforts to 
accomplish their law enforcement missions.
  Congress plays an important role in supporting State and local law 
enforcement by continuing to enforce to reauthorize this program at 
appropriate levels. However, we should not in any way suggest that the 
Federal Government has the first responsibility for funding local and 
State law enforcement. That remains with local and State jurisdictions, 
and frankly, if they don't understand the priority, the first priority 
of government, to try and create a modicum of safety and security for 
the people of those jurisdictions so that they can live their lives in 
some sense of security not having to worry about violent criminals 
upsetting their lives, attacking them and their loved ones. If local 
and State jurisdictions don't understand that, frankly, they don't 
understand the first obligation of government.

                              {time}  1445

  So, while we wholeheartedly support this funding program, let us 
ensure that at the local and State levels those representatives are 
held responsible by the people that elect them to ensure that the first 
priority of government is achieved: a modicum of safety and security 
for the people of the jurisdictions that they find themselves in.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I couldn't concur more with the speakers, 
our friend from Georgia, Hank Johnson, and the distinguished member of 
the Judiciary Committee who has been the Attorney General in the 
largest State in the country.
  And so I am enthusiastically supporting the continuation of these 
grants and would hope we would reauthorize this. We have got a 
reauthorization of over $1 billion this time through 2012, and I hope 
that we will enjoy the support of the Members of the House.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, once again, I 
rise in support of H.R. 3546, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and suggest that of all the costs that are involved with law 
enforcement across the country, one of the greatest is the cost of 
gassing up their cars.
  As the gentleman understands, law enforcement, yes, travels on its 
feet, but more than often travels on its wheels. The increased costs of 
energy affect us all across this Nation. Every home is affected by it, 
without regard to economic status. But think about this, our law 
enforcement agencies are very labor-intensive. They depend on people, 
yes, applying technology, but we depend on people.
  When we have concern about crime in a particular area, it doesn't do 
to say, well, we've got new computers downtown; that's going to take 
care of it. What do people want to see? They want to see law 
enforcement in their areas. And for most areas of America, that means 
seeing patrol cars coming through their neighborhoods at an appropriate 
time, seeing them respond whenever there is a cry for help as a result 
of crime or an attempt at crime.
  The costs that are implicit in this tremendous increase in energy 
costs in this country, the gasoline pump prices, affect each and every 
one of our law enforcement agencies. And so I would hope as we support 
unanimously this Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program 
for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, we also think at some point in time 
of bringing up a bill that might help us get some relief in that area. 
If you add it all up, it might add up to the total cost of the Byrne 
grant program.
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman from the place where I think they still build more 
automobiles than any other place in the country.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, not Canada, though. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I was concerned only for a moment that he wasn't going to 
bring up this subject. It was with very little ingenuity required on 
his part to tie it into this measure.
  As a distinguished member of Judiciary, has the gentleman considered 
one of the proposals about bringing the price down by nationalizing the 
oil companies in this country?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If I might respond, through the 
Speaker, I would say, Madam Speaker, the only person I know that has 
suggested that we nationalize oil companies, including refineries, is 
the gentleman from the other side of the aisle. It's worked so well 
around the world, I think you could go through all the countries with a 
nationalization. Maybe Venezuela is a trend setter here, but I don't 
think that's exactly where we want to go. So the answer to the 
gentleman, through the Speaker, is no.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3546 to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
Grant (Byrne-JAG) Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. The 
Byrne-JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. 
I support the reauthorization and I would urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.


                       Why Byrne-JAG is Necessary

  Byrne-JAG allows states and local governments to support a broad 
range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the 
criminal justice system, which States and local governments have come 
to rely on to ensure public safety. They support: law enforcement, 
prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections 
and community programs, drug treatment, planning, evaluation, 
technology improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs 
(other than compensation). In short, they are an indispensable resource 
that states use to combat crime.


                    Recent Cuts in Byrne JAG Funding

  Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2008 the Byrne-JAG program was cut by 
two-thirds. Although Congress authorized over $1 billion, only $520 
million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The appropriation was 
then drastically reduced to $170.4 million in fiscal year 2008, and the 
President has proposed further cuts for the fiscal year 2009 budget.


                      Past Problems with Byrne JAG

  The trend to reduce the grant funding may result, in part, from 
instances where Byrne-JAG funding has been abused. For example, in 1999 
Byrne-JAG funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a 
rogue police narcotics officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most 
of them African-American, in false cocaine trafficking charges. In 
other instances, jurisdictions used the funding to fund task forces 
focused solely on ineffective, low-level drug arrests, which has put 
the task force concept--and the diminished standards of drug 
enforcement that it has come to represent--in the national spotlight.

  The most well-known Byrne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas 
where dozens of African-American residents (representing 16 percent of 
the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to 
decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the 
uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history 
of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no 
audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to corroborate his 
allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the accused 
defendants were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of 
state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor 
Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years 
of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the 
Byrne grant program.
  These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law 
enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy 
that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded 
regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, State managed, and 
locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to 
anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset 
forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local 
taxpayers and governing bodies.
  The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 
report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving 
Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of 
falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, 
stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large-
scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official 
capacity.
  Texas is not the only State that has suffered from Byrne-funded law 
enforcement scandals. Scandals in other States have included the misuse 
of millions of dollars in federal grant

[[Page H5807]]

money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon 
police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to 
drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in 
Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 
study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal 
government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold 
grantees accountable.


                  Amendment Considered But Not Offered

  Because of these abuses, I would have offered an amendment when this 
bill was considered at the Full Judiciary Committee markup. My 
amendment would have addressed the responsible use of Byrne-JAG monies. 
Specifically, my amendment would have required that a State that 
receives Byrne-JAG money should collect data for the most recent year 
for which such funds were allocated to such State, with respect to:
  (1) The racial distribution of criminal charges made during that 
year;
  (2) The nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and
  (3) The city of law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges 
were made.
  My amendment would have required a condition of receiving funds that 
the State should submit to the Attorney General the data collected by 
not later than one year after the date the State received funds. 
Lastly, the report should be posted on the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
website and submitted to the Attorney General.
  My amendment is good because arrests will be transparent and the 
light of day and public airing of any problems will be the greatest 
disinfectant. My amendment is an attempt to make law enforcement more 
responsible, more accountable, and more just in their dealings with 
persons of all races and backgrounds. My amendment is but a small price 
to pay to rid the nation of scandals and disasters that occurred in 
Tulia, Texas and elsewhere.

  These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law 
enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy 
that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded 
regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state managed, and 
locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to 
anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset 
forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local 
taxpayers and governing bodies.
  The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 
report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving 
Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of 
falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, 
stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large-
scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official 
capacity.
  Texas is not the only state that has suffered from Byrne-funded law 
enforcement scandals. Scandals in other states have included the misuse 
of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and 
Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, 
and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in 
exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New 
York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government 
Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to 
adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.
  My amendment, which I would have offered, would provide oversight and 
accountability. It is not burdensome. It will not prevent the States 
from collecting and funding programs under the Byrne Grant program. My 
amendment does however shed light on any maladies that might exist in 
the system. Once we see the problems, we can fix them. My amendment is 
responsible and aims to make the Byrne-Grant program a better program 
by ensuring that the funding is used appropriately and is used with 
oversight.


                             No More Tulias

  While I support the Byrne JAG reauthorization, I would also my urge 
my colleagues to also support my bill, H.R. 253, No More Tulias: Drug 
Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2007. This 
bill also enhances accountability with respect to the use of Byrne JAG 
monies.
  First, it prohibits a state from receiving for a fiscal year any drug 
control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds, or any other amount 
from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of 
Justice, unless the state does not fund any antidrug task forces for 
that fiscal year or the state has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) 
A person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the facts that a 
drug offense was committed and that the person committed that offense 
are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law 
enforcement officer or individuals acting on an officer's behalf; and 
(2) an officer does not participate, in an antidrug task force unless 
that officer's honesty and integrity is evaluated and found to be at an 
appropriately high level.
  Second, H.R. 253, No More Tulias, requires that states receiving 
federal funds under the No More Tulias Act to collect data on the 
racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law 
specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges 
are made. I urge my colleagues to support my No More Tulias Act so that 
we can quickly bring the bill to markup.
  I also urge my colleagues to support Byrne JAG.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 3546, which authorizes the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 
2012.
  Earlier this year I was disappointed to learn of the administration's 
draconian reduction in funding which would have limited the ability of 
our law enforcement officers to obtain the necessary manpower, 
equipment, and other tools to reduce criminal activity, putting them in 
a reactive rather than proactive mode.
  The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program allows 
States and local governments to improve their criminal justice system 
by supporting activities that help prevent and control crime.
  H.R. 3546 authorizes $1.095 billion annually through FY2012 for the 
grant program. It is critically important that States and local law 
enforcement agencies have access to these much-needed resources, which 
help fight crime and drug proliferation in our communities.
  Madam Speaker, we must properly fund our local law enforcement 
officers, who put their lives on the line daily to keep the rest of us 
safe. Therefore, I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for 
this very important legislation to keep our neighborhoods safe!
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3546, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________