[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3857-H3864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CITIZENS' RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 2018

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2152) to require States and units of local government 
receiving funds under grant programs operated by the Department of 
Justice, which use such funds for pretrial services programs, to submit 
to the Attorney General a report relating to such program, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is considered as adopted, and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2152

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act 
     of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT 
                   RECIPIENTS USING FUNDS FOR PRETRIAL SERVICES 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--For each fiscal year in which a State or 
     unit of local government receives funds under any grant 
     program operated by the Department of Justice, including the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program under 
     subpart I of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), and 
     which uses funds received under such program for a pretrial 
     services program, the State or unit of local government shall 
     submit to the Attorney General a report which contains the 
     following:
       (1) The name of each defendant participating in a pretrial 
     release program administered by the pretrial services 
     program, and whether, as applicable, each occasion on which 
     such defendant failed to make an appearance.
       (2) Information relating to any prior convictions of each 
     defendant participating in the pretrial services program.
       (3) The amount of money allocated for the pretrial services 
     program.
       (b) Publication Requirement.--Subject to any applicable 
     confidentiality requirements, the Attorney General shall, on 
     an annual basis, make publicly available the information 
     received under subsection (a).
       (c) Reduction in Funding.--The Attorney General shall, for 
     State or unit of local government which fails to comply with 
     the requirement under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, 
     reduce the amount that the State or local government would 
     otherwise receive under each grant program described in 
     subsection (a) in the following fiscal year by 100 percent.
       (d) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated to a State or unit 
     of local government under subsection (c) shall be reallocated 
     under each such grant program to States and units of local 
     government that comply with the requirement under subsection 
     (a).
       (e) Definition.--The term ``failed to make an appearance'' 
     means an action whereby any defendant has been charged with 
     an offense before a court and who is participating in a 
     pretrial release program for which funds received under a

[[Page H3858]]

     grant program referred to in subsection (a) are used as a 
     condition of pretrial release--
       (1) does not appear for any court date regarding such 
     charge;
       (2) does not appear for any one appointment with the 
     pretrial services program; or
       (3) does not appear for any post-release appearance the 
     court may require.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2152.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 
2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  A little over 50 years ago, there were three pretrial options for 
defendants accused of a crime: they were released on their own 
recognizance, granted commercial bail, or remanded to custody.
  When considering the options on whether to grant ROR, set a bail 
amount, or remand, the judge considers a number of factors, including 
the severity of the crime charged, the suspect's criminal record, the 
danger posed to the public if the suspect is released, and the 
suspect's ties to community, family, and employment. Commercial bail 
ensures the appearance of the defendant in court at no cost to the 
taxpayer.
  The situation for defendants began to change in the 1960s. The first 
U.S. pretrial services program, the Manhattan Bail Project, was 
established in 1961. The Manhattan Bail Project was intended to help 
defendants who were financially unable to post the surety bond 
conditions set in New York City.
  The program interviewed defendants to gather information on community 
ties to determine a defendant's likelihood to appear in court. Based on 
these interviews, low-risk individuals were recommended for release on 
their own recognizance or the defendant's promise to appear without 
financial obligation.
  Unfortunately, over the last four decades, pretrial release programs 
have expanded well beyond their original scope and purpose. Today, 
there are over 300 pretrial release programs nationwide, whose 
participants routinely include violent and repeat offenders, many of 
whom are able to post a commercial bond and have done so in the past. 
In many instances, the Federal Government has become a major source of 
funding for pretrial release programs.
  Currently, these pretrial release programs funded by the taxpayers 
are not required to report any information about the defendants 
released through their programs into the communities. Basic information 
on defendants is neither collected nor reported in any systematic 
fashion.
  H.R. 2152 requires jurisdictions that receive grant money from the 
Department of Justice to operate a pretrial release program to report 
certain information concerning the defendants to the Attorney General.
  The bill requires the jurisdiction to submit the criminal histories 
of the defendants and the number of times the defendant has failed to 
appear as ordered by the court. It also requires the Attorney General 
to make public the information the Department of Justice receives. In 
my mind, that isn't a whole lot to ask these jurisdictions.
  In fact, this bill is beneficial because citizens have the right to 
know what types of defendants are being released prior to their trial. 
If a defendant has a long history of criminal behavior or frequent 
failures to appear in court, the community should know that. Likewise, 
residents should be aware if their community is running a successful 
pretrial services program where defendants are regularly making it to 
their court appearances.
  Simply put, no matter what side of the bail or no-bail debate you 
find yourself on, you should support this bill. Information like this, 
in the hands of the public, is never a bad thing. It will also be 
helpful to those of us who make policy on these matters.
  I want to thank Mr. Poe for introducing this legislation, and I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 2152.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member of 
the committee, Mr. Nadler, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Goodlatte, who is now managing the bill; and I certainly acknowledge my 
fellow Texan and know that he has all good intentions on important 
legislation dealing with the question of safety and security.
  H.R. 2152, unfortunately, has been noted possibly to have 
requirements that would undermine the privacy of those who participate 
in the program, who are disproportionately poor Americans, and 
discourages the use of pretrial service programs in communities across 
the country because of the punitive measures in this bill. I rise to 
oppose H.R. 2152 because it is flawed and needs to address the 
disparate treatment of poor Americans.
  I believe the consideration of the issues underlying the bill is 
timely but, unfortunately, not directed in the right way. The House 
should examine pretrial services and bail issues with the goal of 
reforming our Nation's bail system, not for the purpose of protecting 
the use of money bail which is unfair to the indigent, unproductive, 
and expensive for American taxpayers.
  In fact, in Harris County, we have a money bail system, and a Federal 
judge, Judge Lee Rosenthal, indicated that it was disproportionately 
unfair to poor constituents in the State of Texas and, particularly, 
Harris County. We have been working to come together and have an 
agreement in our local community on recognizance bonds for individuals 
who work, and put a certain criteria in.
  Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, we are as concerned about the safety 
and security of our constituents, but it would be inappropriate for us 
to enhance the commercial bond industry, which I certainly appreciate--
they create jobs and they are businesses--in contrast to individuals 
who simply cannot afford a money bond.
  In this instance, this bill would penalize those entities, those 
communities that use Federal funds for pretrial release programs if 
they don't provide all of this data. Now, it might be important to 
provide this data for someone who is particularly dangerous, but, Mr. 
Speaker, you know just like I do, those individuals do not get a bond.
  So, as I indicated, the Citizens' Right to Know Act would require a 
State or local government that uses Justice Department grant funding to 
pay for pretrial services, which are important programs, to report, 
annually, certain information to the Department of Justice about 
defendants who participate in the pretrial services program.

  The very fact that you are in the program is an indication, in most 
jurisdictions, that you are not a violent felon. You would hope that 
you are not a person accused of sex crimes, sex trafficking, human 
trafficking. Those are matters that can be fixed.
  Information that will be required to be reported includes the name of 
each defendant participating in the pretrial release program and each 
occasion that the person failed to make an appearance, the record of 
prior convictions of each participant, and the amount of money 
allocated for the pretrial services program.
  If a unit of government fails to comply with the reporting 
requirement, it would lose its entire funding under the relevant 
program for the following fiscal year, penalizing smaller communities, 
innocent communities that didn't have the wherewithal to provide all 
that data. Certainly, it would be better spent on making sure that they 
use the pretrial program efficiently and safely and secure.

[[Page H3859]]

  The requirements in this bill largely mirror legislative initiatives 
being advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in 
the States, under the false guise of transparency.
  Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. I 
absolutely agree with that, and I support the reporting of information 
that will educate us as to what is taking place. As for H.R. 2152, 
however, I question whether the categories and information that must be 
reported under the bill are designed to do that or are adequate to tell 
us about the efficacy of these programs. In addition, the bill requires 
that this information be made publicly available by the Attorney 
General.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, NAACP, 
Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change have written to us opposing the 
bill and expressing concerns about this publication requirement and the 
harm to individuals resulting from a sharing of criminal records and 
personally identifying information. I share these concerns. The groups 
that I have named have been historic organizations that have dealt with 
the civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and constitutional rights 
of Americans, no matter who they are.
  Although the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to eliminate 
the reporting of arrest records of the participating defendants, I see 
no need to compile and make public information about prior convictions 
and the failures to appear in connection with identifier-specific 
defendants--maybe overall numbers, but this would be unnecessary and 
unproductive.
  The main crux of what we should be about is that a pretrial program 
is a secure and safe program. The levels of a person who can 
participate should be utilized with guidelines, restrictions, and, 
certainly, local monitoring. But to penalize an organization, entity, a 
governmental entity trying to do its best and to be fair and balanced 
in the criminal justice system based on money bail is something that I 
would raise the question.
  You can document, in Harris County, that we have had an enormously 
disproportionate impact on individuals with small offenses who have had 
to go no other route but either jail or money bail. They have no money 
bail. They are in jail. They could have a legitimate job. They could be 
a teacher.
  We just had an incident with a mother who was placed in--she was, 
unfortunately, at least the allegations are, that she was driving, 
unfortunately, in a school zone and had a minute amount of marijuana. 
Whatever our positions are on that, she was sent to the Harris County 
jail, of course, lost her job. She was gainfully employed and is, 
obviously, distraught.
  I hate to say it; her allegations are that she was raped in the 
Harris County jail, sad to say that. But the point is, just think if 
she could have been released on her own recognizance and/or a small 
amount in a pretrial release program. Not given that opportunity, she 
was taken in and, unfortunately, suffered these unfortunate 
consequences.
  Members submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to address some 
of these concerns and also to encourage States to eliminate monetary 
bail, but none were made in order for consideration on the floor today. 
That is unusual, a closed rule on a Judiciary Committee bill that is 
the arm of decency as relates to decency, dignity, liberty, justice, 
and freedom.
  Those are very important elements to the American people, and, 
certainly, the amendments should have been at least given consideration 
for the Representatives of the people of the United States in the 
people's House to debate these amendments. That was not the case, so we 
have a closed rule. I am baffled by that.
  Instead of considering this bill, the House should be taking up 
legislation to encourage States to end the practice of requiring money 
bail, a practice that disparately impacts the poor and most vulnerable 
in our society.
  For instance, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1437, the No Money Bail Act of 
2017, which would reduce Justice Department grant awards to States that 
do not eliminate money bail and would also eliminate bail at the 
Federal level. Instead of considering H.R. 2152, we should be advancing 
legislation such as H.R. 1437, or, minimally, both bills should on be 
on floor at the same time.
  Again, this is no attempt to undermine how we secure our communities. 
I certainly take no backseat to the fact that our families, 
communities, police officers, and people in the criminal justice system 
should be protected, and those who have been given the benefit of a 
pretrial release should adhere to the rules that are there; but I can 
see no reason to be punitive to the local governmental entities as 
relates to not reporting names and all those details, including prior 
convictions, et cetera, et cetera.
  What is the Federal Government going to do, say, if you have two 
prior convictions, you can't be in the pretrial release program? That 
is a local, State issue as opposed to a Federal issue, and what you are 
doing is connecting desperately needed criminal justice dollars from 
the Department of Justice to communities that may be trying to do their 
best.

  With the version of H.R. 2152 that was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee, we are not doing that, unfortunately. Therefore, I oppose 
the bill and hope that the House will soon take steps to do something 
about the real problem: our Nation's unjust money bail system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chief sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  I have several comments that I would like to make in response to my 
friend from Houston, Ms. Jackson Lee, about this legislation and about 
what it is and, more importantly, what it is not.
  I served 22 years on a criminal court in Houston, Texas, felony 
cases, saw about 25,000 people work their way through my court. Before 
that, I was a prosecutor for 8 years in State court. Mr. Speaker, I saw 
a lot of people charged with criminal conduct, and this legislation is 
necessary because of some problems that the system has created.
  As the chairman pointed out, pretrial release is a relatively new 
concept in our justice system. When a person comes and is charged with 
a crime, generally speaking, in most jurisdictions, there are four ways 
in which that individual can be released until their day in court:
  One way is to put up a cash bond, where they put up the cash to the 
sheriff's department sometimes, and after the case is over with, they 
get that cash back.
  Another way is to go through a bonding agency where they pay a 
bonding agency a percentage and they, the bond company, are responsible 
for making sure the person appears in court. If they don't appear, the 
bonding company loses the entire bond money.
  There is a personal recognizance bond, where an individual comes to 
court and tells the judge and promises: Judge, I will come back to 
court for my trial.

                              {time}  1445

  It is an agreement between the judge and the individual.
  And then there is the pretrial release system.
  The pretrial release system is similar to personal recognizance, 
except the person is supposed to be supervised by a government agency, 
usually called the pretrial release agency, that makes sure that that 
person abides by certain conditions, doesn't leave town, and that 
pretrial release agency is usually run by the local judiciary or the 
justice system like the county, four different ways.
  This legislation deals only with the pretrial release programs in our 
Nation, the 300 pretrial release programs.
  The Citizens Right to Know Act is really not reforming pretrial 
release, it is an accountability portion of pretrial release to let 
people know how the Federal money is being used to operate.
  Each year, millions of dollars in Federal grant money goes to State 
and local pretrial release agencies to operate those programs. These 
programs allow the accused individual to be released and await trial, 
usually to stay in the jurisdiction.
  However, some jurisdictions overuse the programs and release many 
repeat and dangerous individuals with no

[[Page H3860]]

oversight by anybody. They are just released into the community.
  Some of these released individuals disappear from the justice system 
indefinitely. We don't know how many do because there is no reporting 
of people under the pretrial release program to the Federal Government 
when they receive Federal funds.
  In many cases, repeat, violent, and hardened criminals participate. 
As a result, in jurisdictions across the country, taxpayers are 
literally bailing out individuals with a long criminal record on a new 
criminal offense.
  All across America, terrible crimes are being committed by 
individuals who are bailed out on a pretrial release program because 
there is no accountability of the program.
  This bill is an accountability bill. Who is being released? What 
types of cases are being released? How many people repeat a crime while 
they are out on pretrial release?
  We don't know because those records are never kept. So if the 
taxpayers are going to fund pretrial release programs, as they should 
in local jurisdictions, let the pretrial release program report back to 
the Federal Government the results of the program. Is it working? Is it 
not working? That is what we need to know, and we have no idea today.
  It doesn't have anything to do with determining who is released on 
pretrial release, it just wants these organizations to report back to 
the Federal Government because the public has the right to know if the 
program is working.
  Right now, that is neither collected or reported in any systematic 
fashion.
  Why not? Why don't these pretrial release programs in the country 
say: Yes. It is working. Everybody comes back, or a great percentage 
comes back. Or: No. It is not working. People disappear. They commit 
crimes. We don't know, Mr. Speaker.
  All this bill does is help pretrial release let us know and let them 
know and the public know, is the pretrial release program working in 
that jurisdiction?
  You are using Federal money to operate the program, therefore, report 
back to the Federal Government on how that program is working or not 
working.
  It doesn't change the pretrial release program, except it requires 
accountability. For too long, we have not allowed or required 
accountability of what takes place under the pretrial release program.
  It does not collect data on each pretrial release defendant to 
determine if these agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants 
adhere to their pretrial requirements and whether the defendants 
actually show up for trial. It collects it on all defendants that the 
pretrial release program must report to the Federal Government.
  Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of these 
programs, and without basic information like this, Congress can't 
ensure that the programs are working around the country.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers need to know if their resources are being 
spent wisely, and that communities are being protected.
  There have been numerous cases where individuals were released on 
pretrial release bonds, and they had a long criminal record, and they 
commit another offense.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter regarding pretrial 
release programs.

                                                 October 27, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Gentlemen: We are writing to express our strong support for 
     HR 2152, the Citizens Right to Know Act, sponsored by Rep. 
     Ted Poe (R-TX). The legislation has been referred to the 
     House Judiciary Committee.
       This legislation is long overdue. It requires pre-trial 
     release agencies receiving federal funds to report to the 
     Department of Justice, who participates in their programs, 
     including participant:
       Criminal history, including previous charges filed
       Previous failures to appear for trial
       Previous and current non-compliance infractions
       Currently these pre-trial release programs aren't required 
     to report any information about the defendants released 
     through their programs. Basic information on defendants is 
     neither collected nor reported in any systematic fashion. The 
     DOJ only collects data from pre-trial release agencies 
     related to crime rates and trends in the aggregate. It does 
     not collect data on specific participants and programs. Thus, 
     there is no mechanism to determine if pre-trial release 
     agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants adhere to 
     their pre-trial release requirements or whether these 
     defendants actually show up for trial.
       Without this legislation, policymakers and taxpayers have 
     no ability to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded 
     pre-trial release programs. And without such data, hundreds 
     of federally funded pretrial release programs lack sufficient 
     accountability to U.S. taxpayers. This lack of accountability 
     has allowed many repeat and violent offenders to get out of 
     jail on our tax dollars.
       Until the 1960's, principal options for the accused were 
     ROR (release on one's own recognizance) commercial bail or 
     incarceration. Commercial bail ensured the appearance of the 
     defendant in court at no cost to the taxpayer. Pre-trial 
     release programs began in the 1960's for the purpose of 
     securing release for indigent, non-violent offenders who 
     couldn't afford monetary bail.
       However, over the last four decades, pre-trial release 
     programs have expanded well beyond their original scope and 
     purpose. Today there are over 300 pre-trial release programs 
     nationwide whose participants routinely include violent and 
     repeat offenders, many of whom are able post a commercial 
     bond and have done so in the past. In many instances, the 
     federal government has become a major source of funding for 
     pre-trial release programs.
       If Congress continues to fund pre-trial release programs, 
     then Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of 
     such programs. Taxpayers deserve to know if their limited 
     resources are being spent wisely and their communities are 
     being protected.
       We believe swift passage of H.R. 2152 will provide greater 
     transparency for pre-trial programs, greater accountability 
     for taxpayer funds, and increased public safety for our 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
         Patricia Wenskunas, Crime Survivors; Mark Klaas, Father 
           of Polly Klaas, Klaas Kids Foundation; Ronald Lampard, 
           Criminal Justice Reform, Reform Task Force, American 
           Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); Jim Backlin, 
           Christian Coalition; Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring; Kay 
           Daily, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary; Susan Carleson, 
           American Civil Rights Union; Harriett Salerno, Crime 
           Victims United; Beverly Warnock, Parents of Murdered 
           Children; Gary Bauer, American Values; Jim Gilmore, 
           Free Congress/American Opportunity Foundation; Beth 
           Chapman, Professional Bail Agents Association; Larry 
           Cirignano, Children First Foundation.

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Citizens Right to Know Act simply 
states that if a State or local jurisdiction is going to use Federal 
money for a pretrial release program, they must report to the Federal 
Government information on who participates in the program, the criminal 
records of those individuals, the appearance rate at trial, and the 
previous failure to appear of those programs.
  I also want to be clear that any State or local jurisdiction that 
does not report this information will lose the portion of Federal funds 
which they use for pretrial release programs only. Other Federal funds 
will not be affected that go to, for example, Byrne grants. I just want 
to clear that up because my friend, Ms. Jackson Lee, mentioned that 
they are going to lose all Federal funds. No. They just lose the funds 
that apply to Federal pretrial release programs if they don't report 
those statistics.
  There is some question about the privacy of individuals. If States 
have a law to protect the privacy of certain persons on pretrial 
release, this bill does not change that. This bill says that if the 
State has those privacy laws for individuals, which some do, that is 
fine. That will not be affected or overruled by this Federal law.
  I think that this legislation is necessary to see if these programs 
are working. If they are working, maybe we ought to expand them. If 
they are not working, maybe Congress needs to reform the pretrial 
release program.
  This legislation enjoys widespread support. One of those supporters 
is the National Association of Police Organizations. I include in the 
Record a letter indicating their support.

                                           National Association of


                                    Police Organization, Inc.,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 9, 2017.
     Hon. Ted Poe,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Poe: On behalf of the National Association 
     of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to you to 
     express our support for the Citizens' Right to Know Act of 
     2017, H.R. 2152.

[[Page H3861]]

       NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from 
     across the United States that serves to advance the interests 
     of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal 
     advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978, 
     NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and 
     associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and 
     more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to 
     fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.
       Each year, millions of dollars in federal grant monies go 
     towards state and local pre-trial release programs, which 
     allow accused criminals to await their trial at home, rather 
     than in jail These programs, which in many cases serve 
     repeat, dangerous criminals, often operate with little 
     oversight, putting public safety at risk. Increased oversight 
     of these programs would decrease the possibility of the 
     accused committing crimes while on pretrial release or simply 
     disappearing to avoid facing justice.
       The Citizens' Right to Know Act addresses the lack of 
     oversight of these programs by mandating that federally-
     funded pre-trial service agencies publicly report on program 
     participants, including if they have a history of criminal 
     behavior, whether they appear for their trail, and whether 
     they have ever previously failed to appear for trial. As 
     federal dollars are going towards bailing out criminals, this 
     Act helps ensure that the accused face justice and our 
     communities are protected.
       We look forward to working with you to pass this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Johnson,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this so we can know 
exactly what is taking place with Federal funds that are being used to 
keep people and let people, as Ms. Jackson Lee pointed out, out of jail 
without having to use some other type of system. And if it is working, 
let's expand it. If it is not working, maybe Congress needs to be 
involved to make sure that people do show up for trial, because that is 
the whole key of a bond, is to release the person under some type of 
bond, like a pretrial release bond, but we want them to appear in 
court.
  I had cases in my court where people were released on pretrial 
release bonds; they would show up for trial. I had cases in my court 
where they were released on pretrial release bonds, and they are still 
running loose years later.
  We don't know the statistics of who is released and who comes back 
and who is released who never comes back.
  This legislation just wants a report to Congress so we can decide on 
reforms if necessary in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is 
a dear friend. As we debate this question, I think it is a very 
important moment as we look at comprehensive criminal justice reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Courts, 
Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this body oppose H.R. 2152, which 
is a classic piece of legislation which poses itself as a solution, but 
it is in search of a problem. The solution has very ominous 
consequences for minorities and poor people, and infringes on the 
constitutional rights of citizens, that they should be presumed to be 
innocent until proven guilty when they participate in these pretrial 
release services.
  When I was a magistrate court judge in DeKalb County, Georgia, over a 
period of 12 years, starting in 1989 to a time about 5 years before I 
came to Congress, it was my duty to commit people to pretrial services.
  Everybody knows how it works, everybody knows who is eligible, and 
everybody knows that it is a roaring success. There are no problems 
with pretrial services, which help poor people and basically 
minorities, who tend to be disproportionately caught up in the criminal 
justice system.
  It helps people who can't afford to make a money bail to be able to 
get out of jail with some minimal supervision as they await disposition 
of the charges against them.
  It is a simple program administered by State and local authorities 
around the country. It works. There is no question about it. There is 
no need for any Federal supervision or oversight of these programs.
  What H.R. 2152 would do would be to require local governments who 
receive DOJ funding for pretrial services to send a report to the DOJ, 
the Jeff Sessions DOJ, detailing the personally identifiable 
information on those defendants participating in alternative bail/
pretrial release programs, which are typically utilized by those who 
can't afford money bail.
  Sending this information to the DOJ will create a permanent record of 
the defendants who are awaiting trial, and that data will remain in a 
Federal database, even if the charges against the accused are dropped 
or the accused is found innocent.
  Pretrial service programs are critical in protecting those who are 
unable to post bond during their pretrial stages, and this legislation 
would disproportionately impact minorities and poor people.
  The presumption of innocence is one of the most sacred elements of 
our criminal justice system and a pillar of many modern-day criminal 
justice operations in modern society throughout the world.
  H.R. 2152 threatens this right to a presumption of innocence. 
Pretrial service programs are critical, and poor people and minorities 
should not be penalized by being permanently marked in a Federal 
database, and for that reason I ask my colleagues to not approve this 
solution in desperate search for a problem with ominous implications 
for poor and minority people.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2152, the Citizens Right to Know Act.
  As a cosponsor of this bill, and a law enforcement for over a decade, 
I believe this bill is common sense and a needed piece of legislation.
  May I share respectfully with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who may be in doubt of this bill, if you are in support of 
pretrial diversion programs, then you should support this bill.

  The existence of pretrial diversion courts is manifested in our 
Nation due to a righteous need for proper adjudication at all levels of 
the economic strata and all portions of our culture and society.
  But the pretrial diversion program comes after arrest. Arrest is made 
by the police officer investigating the incident. Innocence is presumed 
until adjudicated guilty or otherwise, and within 48 hours of arrest, 
probable cause has to be presented in the form of an affidavit to a 
magistrate court, and that judge will determine if that American has 
been righteously incarcerated, his freedom taken from him, our most 
precious right as Americans.
  We stand in the body which gave birth to the concept of a man and a 
woman's right to be free, and I support that.
  The diversion programs across America, however, through their rather 
brief history within our judicial system, have failed to provide 
sufficient data to the jurisdictional authorities that gave birth to 
them, and that data has not been shared at the Federal level which 
supports them financially through the harvesting of treasure from the 
American people that we serve.
  I respectfully submit to my colleague that I am a compassionate 
American man that believes in innocence until proven guilty, and I 
would like for diversion court programs to continue and grow across our 
country to better serve the needs of we the people, to recognize the 
fact that all of us, in some way, are failed and fallen, and we should, 
of course, with compassion, move forward through the judicial system.
  The pretrial diversion programs that exist across our country depend 
upon a cornerstone of confidence among the jurisdictional authorities 
that they operate within and the Federal Government that funds them, 
that they are operating within parameters that are accepted across the 
country as abiding by laws local, State, and Federal.

                              {time}  1500

  To not share data that is readily available by these courts with the 
Federal Government that funds them is an angle that could be used to 
defeat these courts that we support. So the compilation of data 
righteously collected and disseminated is something that we should 
support if we further support these very court systems.
  So this legislation before us today would give Federal and State law 
enforcement agencies vital data on criminal offenders, repeat or 
otherwise, who

[[Page H3862]]

are placed within the diversion court systems. This information is 
crucial to both promoting public safety and giving policymakers better 
insight into the effectiveness of pretrial programs, which I support.
  I would like to thank Congressman Poe for his leadership on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues very respectfully, on both sides of the 
aisle, to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me indicate and reemphasize points that I made and, as well, 
points that Mr. Johnson made.
  This will have a disparate impact, and what strikes me of great 
concern is that this amendment was, in essence, a closed rule.
  I submitted an amendment that would basically gather data--which, I 
think, is what the proponent of this legislation wants--to ensure that 
pretrial release is working, to show that people who would be a threat 
to the community are not running without restraint, and to show the 
number of people who would appear for their appearance, if you will, in 
court who were beneficiaries of the pretrial release program. Those are 
all good elements, but it concerns me, again, that we don't have any 
clear parameters of whom this will hurt.
  And also, small communities are dependent upon Federal grants. Their 
structure may not be the best, and so, if you are now asking them for 
reporting of individual names and past offenses, I beg the question of 
the value of that information.
  What we really should have is aggregate numbers of who, under the 
pretrial program, is able to or is, in essence, not meeting the 
criteria and is breaking the agreement and commitment they have to 
either appear or to stay in a certain area. That is important 
information, and I think the DOJ could utilize that in an aggregate 
form.
  Why are we giving names that will remain in the DOJ database for 
someone who may ultimately go back to work, as this mother may go back 
to her family and her life would hopefully--even though she experienced 
a tragedy in the jail and lost her job, let's hope that she has a 
future.
  But if she were caught in this bill, would her name now be in the 
database? I have not researched her case. It seems that this might have 
been her first offense, but it certainly was a minor offense with a 
small amount of marijuana. As the facts evidence, it was the 
jurisdictional, the geographic area that she was in that caused the 
greatest trouble.
  So the other side of it is that money bail is another issue that we 
should have looked at. We should have put both bills on the floor of 
the House because there is a movement across the Nation to begin to 
address, again, disparate treatment of money bail--not on the issue of 
race, but on the issue of economics.
  So the person working in the fast-food place is in jail and, most 
likely, loses their job. We know that people who work in fast-food are 
mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers taking care of 
families, and being in jail does not help them take care of their 
family. You can be assured--unlike maybe other positions where you can 
say I was on vacation or that you didn't even stay in jail because you 
had the money to get out of jail--you cannot say you are on vacation 
for a couple of days or that you were nothing because you are right out 
back at work. You are fired.
  A very evident case is the gentleman who was wealthy in Texas--a very 
renowned case--found in a hotel room in Galveston. He had decapitated 
his roommate's head and disposed of it--is my recollection. I stand to 
be corrected if my recollection is not correct--in the Galveston Bay, 
and because he could post a $100,000-plus bond, Mr. Speaker, he was 
released. Put that on any poor person, and we would be aghast at even 
how this person got bond set. But he did. Ultimately, he was acquitted 
in that case. I still shake in my boots.
  So the issue is there is more to this than giving names and putting 
it in a database in the DOJ for persons who may never commit another 
offense in life. Money bail contributes, again, to the unnecessary 
detention of many low-risk pretrial defendants, inappropriate release 
of high-risk defendants who have financial means--as I just indicated, 
a person who decapitated a person's head--unwarranted financial burdens 
on low-income communities, and the gamble of placing public safety 
in the hands of a bail bonding industry that will always profit before 
the public good, a real point to the unfairness of the money bail.

  Yet you would deny funds to small towns that are doing pretrial 
release, or even big counties and cities that are trying to do their 
best, but they need these Federal funds. Find another way for us to be 
able to assess what is going on.
  Wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overcrowding of 
local jails, lost jobs, lost housing, poor sanitation and medical care, 
broken families, and it drains local budgets.
  In many cases, an arrestee may be held longer in jail while awaiting 
trial than any sentence she or he would likely receive if convicted. 
Right now, in my own county and other big counties around the Nation 
that have not corrected that, they are doing that right now: causing 
innocent people to plead guilty to offenses that they did not commit in 
order to shorten the lengthy pretrial detention. Individuals who are 
detained are not able to assist their attorneys in the investigation of 
charges against them, resulting in many wrongful convictions and longer 
sentences.
  So I only offer this thought so that we can have a viable discussion 
on the money bail issue and the disparate treatment that this 
legislation--though, not intended--would bring about when you ask 
communities to give the names and prior convictions of persons who may 
have had one or two marijuana or DUI--which all of us abhor--
convictions. But the privacy issues are a concern, and the lack of 
debate on the impact of money bail and its unfairness are not being 
discussed, and the lack of a rule that allows amendments, I think, 
concerns me.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties 
Union, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, who expressed 
their opposition to this legislation.

                                                      May 8, 2018.

 Vote ``No'' on the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017'' (H.R. 2152)

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union 
     (ACLU), the NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, 
     we urge you to vote ``No'' on H.R. 2152, the ``Citizens' 
     Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House considers this 
     bill. This legislation raises serious privacy concerns for 
     the civil and human rights community given the personally 
     identifiable data that is to be collected and publicly 
     reported by the federal government. The bill also undermines 
     efforts to eliminate or reduce jurisdictions' reliance on 
     money bail systems. We urge the members to instead consider 
     H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and other 
     bipartisan efforts to encourage the elimination of money bail 
     systems.


        The Citizens' Right to Know Act Raises Privacy Concerns

       The Citizens' Right to Know Act requires jurisdictions 
     receiving funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to 
     report to the Attorney General the names, arrest records, and 
     appearance failures for those participating in DOJ funded 
     pretrial services programs. The legislation allows the 
     Attorney General to make public the names, arrest records, 
     and failure appearances that jurisdictions report. Except for 
     a clause that subjects the data ``to any applicable 
     confidentiality requirements,'' the bill does not provide any 
     explicit privacy protections for those whose personally 
     identifiable information has been collected by the federal 
     government and is subject to public release. The bill 
     requires that the Attorney General penalize noncompliant 
     jurisdictions by denying them 100 percent of the DOJ grant 
     program funds that are used to support pretrial services 
     programs.
       While we appreciate the need for the federal government to 
     collect and report data, personal privacy interests must be 
     balanced with public interests. When personally identifiable 
     information is being collected and publicly reported, we 
     believe that such information should be obtained and 
     disseminated only with individuals' informed consent. We also 
     believe that the potential to harm individual reputations 
     should be considered when arrest records are publicly shared. 
     We are troubled that the Citizens' Right to Know Act would 
     collect and publicly report personally identifiable 
     information of individuals participating in pretrial services 
     programs--individuals who have not been convicted of a crime 
     given their pretrial status.

[[Page H3863]]

  



     The Citizens' Right to Know Act Undermines Bail Reform Efforts

       The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with 
     efforts to reform money bail systems, like the No Money Bail 
     Act, which many of our organizations support. By collecting 
     and reporting only certain data about pretrial services 
     programs and those participating in them, the Citizens' Right 
     to Know Act will depict a one-sided picture of pretrial 
     services programs and participants. For example, the 
     legislation's focus on when an individual has failed to 
     appear promises a negative narrative around the pretrial 
     stage. If this bill were serious about measuring the true 
     impact of pretrial services programs, it would collect a more 
     robust data set and not that which is of interest only to the 
     bail bonds industry.
       We support bail reform that corrects the injustice of 
     basing a defendant's release on how much money the person 
     has. Instead of considering the Citizens' Right to Know Act, 
     Congress should take up the No Money Bail Act of 2017. This 
     legislation would incentive jurisdictions to reform their 
     money bail systems using federal resources. The No Money Bail 
     Act would build safer communities, stronger families, and a 
     fairer criminal justice system by ensuring that people who 
     are innocent in the eyes of the law are not deprived of their 
     freedom because they cannot afford money bail.
       For the above described reasons, we urge members of the 
     House to vote ``No'' on the Citizens' Right to Know Act. 
     Instead, we encourage the House of Representatives to give 
     serious consideration to bail reform bills through 
     legislative and oversight hearings on the issue.
           Sincerely,
         The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 
           American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights 
           Watch, Color of Change.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Higgins of Louisiana). The gentleman 
from Virginia has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Texas 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when a person is arrested and charges 
are filed, usually, now, in our country, they don't sit in jail waiting 
to see a judge for weeks or months. They see a judge within 24 hours. 
They appear in court. The judge sets bail. This is all public record, 
including the name and what the person is accused of. It is already 
public record. So it is not something that is new.
  The judge sets bail and determines if the person can afford a lawyer 
or not and appoints a lawyer right then, within 24 hours. I think that 
is marvelous in our country. I remember the old days when that did not 
happen.
  This idea that we are denying a person's right of privacy, it is 
public already, people who are charged with crimes.
  My friend from Georgia said pretrial release works. It is a proven 
thing to work. Well, how does he know that? Because he says so? We 
don't know if it works or not.
  Mr. Speaker, in April of 2017, 26-year-old Christian Rogers was 
walking along the street in New Jersey and he was shot 22 times. His 
assailant, Jules Black, a 30-year-old from Vineland, New Jersey, had 
just been arrested 4 days earlier by the State police and charged with 
possession of a handgun. He was released on pretrial release and had a 
long criminal record.
  Christian Rogers is just one example of a victim who was killed 
because of the pretrial release program. So I would disagree with my 
friend from Georgia that it is working. We don't know the statistics.
  I told you this earlier when I spoke. I was a judge in Harris County 
for 22 years. People were released on pretrial release. The very people 
who are released on pretrial release are the people that my friend from 
Texas is talking about: people who can't afford a surety bond, people 
who can't afford any kind of bond.
  So pretrial release serves its purpose and it serves it to a specific 
part of the community, but we need to know if it is working, if these 
people come back for their day in court or they don't come back for 
their day in court or if they commit a crime while they are on pretrial 
release. We don't know the statistics.
  All this legislation says is let's audit pretrial release across the 
country and see if it is working, see if it is not working, see if we 
can make improvements. That is all it is. It is an audit. It is not 
denying anybody any rights under the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation is a good idea. We need to know 
if taxpayer money is working. I appreciate the extra time the chairman 
has given me.
  Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am clear and I think my colleague Mr. Johnson is clear 
on the pretrial release versus the money bail, but in many instances, 
pretrial release may have a negative impact on a poor, alleged actor of 
criminal activity as the money bail system. But this will add 
additional pain and lack of promise.
  As I said, my amendment was to have the aggregate number of those who 
did not appear. That is viable and important information. You could 
have it by counties, small towns, villages, and cities to indicate what 
the impact is of pretrial release.
  What strikes me as a concern is to have names and prior convictions, 
because it becomes part of a DOJ database and these persons may never 
commit another crime. They might have been in the hospital, maybe they 
get back and say why--I don't know what it means if you didn't make the 
first one and they got information that Mr. Smith was in the hospital, 
didn't have a lawyer, is coming back, but his name has already been 
sent out. And then you are going to penalize the local jurisdiction for 
the Federal funds that they are so desperately in need of.
  By the way, I am grateful that in the omnibus that we recently 
passed, we plussed up all of those numbers. And I can assure you, our 
communities are jumping for joy in the work that they have to do in 
criminal justice reform or to secure or to make safe their communities, 
particularly, our police officers for whom I have championed the COPS 
on the Beat, and I just wish we could really plus that program up 
because it is a very viable program that we had from the 1990s.
  So taking money away is going to be, in this instance, when there 
could be a positive alternative to giving the information, something 
that I would be concerned about.

                              {time}  1515

  I have already mentioned the issue that wealth-based detention has 
disastrous consequences: overloading the local jails, the lost jobs, 
the lost housing, poor sanitation, medical care, broken families, and 
draining local budgets. So let us have a moment on the floor that we 
can discuss the reform of money bails, as was done in the Federal court 
in the Southern District of Texas.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate that this bill is, as they say, 
an effort at finding a problem. It is important that we promote 
transparency and accountability in government, but this bill does not 
move in that direction. I am willing to extend my hand of friendship to 
my friend from Texas. We will see where this bill goes.
  But we know what it may really do. The bill was written for the 
purpose of burdening pretrial services programs, publicizing the 
sensitive information of defendants who are charged with but not 
convicted of a crime--and I think that is an important element; you 
really do deserve privacy if you are just an accused and not yet 
convicted--and in order to undermine the efforts to reform the money 
bail system.
  That is why civil rights organizations have written to oppose this 
bill. I would like to think that they would be willing as well to work 
with us and come halfway to address the question of the money bail 
disparate treatment, discriminatory impact. By the way, it is not just 
a racial disparate treatment; it is a poor people's disparate 
treatment; it is a working people's treatment, when they don't have 
money.
  We have heard the stories. They put up grandmother's house, their 
house, and it becomes a real tall mountain to climb. The money bail has 
been harmful and, in some instances, shameful in what it has done to 
poor, working families. And instead of considering the

[[Page H3864]]

bill that would help us reform that, we should be considering--rather, 
this bill with the ask of private information. I would like to see if 
we have to have this bill to do it in aggregate. No names on it would 
be very helpful. And we should be advancing legislation to eliminate 
the placing of financial conditions on someone's release from jail 
pending trial, which is taking money away from the local jurisdiction.
  The bill today does that, and I think that we can work to do better. 
And I am not pleased to be opposing, but I would ask my colleagues to 
consider all that I have said about bail reform and disparate treatment 
and how we can best handle the needs of finding out who leaves pretrial 
release and who doesn't. Let's just get the numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill. I ask my colleagues 
to join me, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by those who oppose this very simple and 
straightforward legislation. Not a single Member in this Chamber should 
be opposed to the Citizens' Right to Know Act.
  When has more data in the hands of this body ever been a bad thing? 
We have a number of obligations we owe our constituents. Two of those 
obligations are to make sure our communities are safe and that tax 
dollars are spent wisely. This bill accomplishes both. Without the 
Citizens' Right To Know Act, we and our constituents lack the ability 
to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded pretrial release 
programs. Without the required data, hundreds of Federally funded 
pretrial release programs lack sufficient accountability to U.S. 
taxpayers. This lack of accountability has the potential to allow many 
repeat and violent offenders to get out of jail on our tax dollars. We 
and our constituents deserve to know if resources are being spent 
wisely and our communities are being protected.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe) on this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 2152, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________