[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6390-S6391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                       Senator Tom Coburn, MD,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2010.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am requesting that I be consulted 
     before the Senate enters into any unanimous consent 
     agreements or time limitations regarding S. 714, National 
     Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2010.
       I support the goals of this legislation and believe that 
     our criminal justice systems should be effectively and 
     efficiently managed. However, I believe that we can and must 
     do so in a fiscally responsible manner that upholds the 
     Constitution. My concerns are included in, but not limited 
     to, those outlined in this letter.
       First, this bill costs the American people $14 million. 
     While an amendment proposed by the bill's sponsor does have 
     offset language, it is insufficient. It does not specifically 
     rescind a certain program or dollar amount from the Justice 
     Department's budget. Rather, it directs the Attorney General 
     to propose an offset in the amount of $14 million. This will 
     neither guarantee a truly wasteful or fraudulent DOJ program 
     will be eliminated, nor even guarantee an offset will be 
     enacted into law, as the bill does not require Congress to 
     act on the Attorney General's proposed offset.
       Moreover, it is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize 
     the future standard of living of our children by borrowing 
     from future generations. The U.S. national debt is now more 
     than $13 trillion. That means over $42,000 in debt for each 
     man, woman and child in the United States. A year ago, the 
     national debt was $11.2 trillion. Despite pledges to control 
     spending, Washington adds $4.6 billion to the national debt 
     every single day--that is $3.2 million every single minute.
       Second, I believe this legislation gives the federal 
     government too much control over the practices of state and 
     local criminal justice systems. This commission is tasked 
     with a very broad and comprehensive review of federal, 
     tribal, state and local criminal justice systems' costs, 
     practices and policies. While I support and affirmatively 
     recommend individual states' investigation and analysis of 
     their own criminal justice systems, doing so is not the 
     responsibility of the federal government. Our Constitution 
     establishes distinct responsibilities for the federal 
     government, and we should use federal funds wisely to 
     prioritize and support those enumerated powers. By allocating 
     $14 million in federal funds under this legislation, we do a 
     disservice to our own federal criminal justice system.
       For example, the purposes of this commission are broad 
     enough to include an analysis of juvenile incarceration 
     policies. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes, 
     ``administering justice to juvenile offenders has largely 
     been the domain of the states . . . there is no federal 
     juvenile justice system.'' CRS continues, ``states and 
     localities have the primary responsibility for prevention and 
     control of domestic crime.'' This is just one example of how 
     the breadth of commission's duties not only fails the test of 
     federalism, but also fails the federal criminal justice 
     system. By focusing on issues that are clearly the 
     responsibility of the states, this bill gives short shrift to 
     needs of the federal criminal justice system.
       States are already free to share with each other the 
     positive and negative features of their individual criminal 
     justice systems. States do not need a federal commission in 
     order to communicate their ideas to one another. Furthermore, 
     the budgetary decision by a state to spend certain state 
     revenues on state corrections, for example, versus other 
     state budget line items is the business of each individual 
     state, not the federal government. Each state has different 
     needs and priorities based on its own unique population for 
     which it must account in its budget allocations. Congress 
     should focus on improving its oversight of the federal 
     criminal justice system under its jurisdiction so it can be 
     an example to the states of best practices, rather than 
     spending money on a commission to help the states determine 
     what is right for their communities.
       Third, the scope of the report required under this 
     legislation is entirely too broad to be completed within the 
     18 month timeline. If Congress is looking for specific 
     recommendations for improvements in federal, tribal, state, 
     and local criminal justice systems, this commission will not 
     accomplish that goal effectively in 18 months.
       In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
     been asked to produce similar reports in the past. However, 
     GAO has declined to do so because of the breadth of the 
     report elements, such as the ones required under this bill. 
     In addition, in GAO's experience, states do not return 
     requests for information promptly or responsively in order to 
     create a report that is actually helpful and valuable to 
     Congress. In fact, the outcome of

[[Page S6391]]

     the commission's report will be heavily based on whether 
     states choose to cooperate in providing information.
       Even if the report were narrowed to only study the federal 
     criminal justice system, the scope of issues to be examined 
     is still too extensive. In this bill, the term ``criminal 
     justice system'' remains far too broad. While a report on 
     only the federal criminal justice system could be valuable to 
     Congress, to be effective, such a report should be narrowly 
     targeted on specific features of the federal criminal justice 
     system, such as law enforcement, courts, or detention 
     facilities.
       Finally, Congress already has the authority to request 
     reports and studies of the federal and tribal criminal 
     justice system. The Judiciary Committee and its subcommittees 
     are also free to hold hearings on the topics outlined in this 
     legislation. Arguably, the Judiciary Committee is abdicating 
     to the commission part of the responsibilities it is already 
     federally funded to perform. The commission is not necessary 
     in order for Congress to study these issues, and it is likely 
     duplicative of existing Judiciary Committee duties.
       Our federal government has a debt of over $13 trillion. 
     While I realize there are likely changes we should consider 
     making to our federal criminal justice system, I do not 
     believe this commission, with its unlimited scope and $14 
     million in funding, is the best way to determine which 
     improvements may need to occur. Supporters of this 
     legislation believe nothing in the bill requires the states 
     to implement any of the commission's recommendations. It is 
     true, sponsors included language stating, the 
     ``[r]ecommendations shall not infringe on the legitimate 
     rights of the states to determine their own criminal laws . . 
     . .'' However, it is hard to imagine state and local 
     governments would not feel pressure to enact whatever changes 
     the commission recommends. Thus, in effect, not only would 
     the federal government ultimately shape state and local 
     criminal justice policy, but state and local governments 
     could also easily determine they ``deserve'' federal funds to 
     enact what the Congressionally-established commission 
     proposes.
       While there is no question there are vast improvements to 
     be made at all levels of the criminal justice system, the 
     federal government should focus on remedying the growing 
     problems in the federal criminal justice system, not spending 
     federal funds to determine what states are doing wrong and 
     how to fix those problems. States can improve their criminal 
     justice systems by learning from other states, as well as the 
     federal government, if only Congress would effectively 
     perform oversight of and insist on improvements within the 
     federal criminal justice system to make it an example the 
     states can emulate.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     United States Senator.

                          ____________________