[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.
____________________