[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9512-9513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       THE FEDERALIZATION OF CRIMES UNIFORM STANDARDS (FOCUS) ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 24, 2001

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, almost one year ago, to the day, I 
introduced the Federalization of Crimes Uniform Standards (FOCUS) Act. 
I rise today, to re-introduce that legislation.
  The bill lays out what the appropriate Federal activity--response--is 
to an offense against the Federal Government. Under the bill, Section 
6, an offense, or federal crime, is an activity with respect to which a 
clear need for uniform Federal law enforcement exists. This includes an 
activity that involves conduct of an interstate or international 
nature, or of such magnitude or complexity that a State acting alone 
cannot carry out effective law enforcement with respect to that 
conduct; or, that involves conduct of overriding national interest, 
such as interference with the exercise of constitutional rights. The 
criminal conduct must be an offense directly against the Federal 
Government, including an offense directly against an officer, employee, 
agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government.
  The idea behind this is to set a standard definition to what 
constitutes a federal crime. The current method seems to be that a 
federal crime is whatever Congress deems it to be, without any true 
consideration of the constitutional issues involved. Therefore, under 
the current methods, political will is the only thing that keeps us 
from federalizing crime. Political weakness in the face of media sound 
bite criticisms, forces Congress to act again and again to federalize 
crime--even when there is nothing but rhetoric to suggest that 
``something must be done!'' to fight crime.
  Sometimes less is better. It's high time that Congress takes a 
serious look at the federalization of crimes in the United States. The 
State and Federal Courts together comprise an intertwined system for 
the administration of justice in the United States. The two courts 
systems have played different but equally significant roles in the 
Federal system. However, the State courts have served as the primary 
tribunals for trials of criminal law cases.
  The Federal Courts have a more limited jurisdiction than the State 
Courts with respect to criminal matters because of the fundamental 
constitutional principle that the Federal government is a government of 
delegated power in which the residual power remains with the States. In 
criminal matters, the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts should 
compliment, not supplant, that of the State Courts.
  The 1999 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary shows how its 
caseload has grown:

       One hundred years ago, there were 108 authorized federal 
     judgeships in the federal judiciary, consisting of 71 
     district judgeships, 28 appellate judgeships, and 9 Supreme 
     Court Justices. Today, there are over 850--including 655 
     district judgeships, 179 appellate judgeships and 9 Supreme 
     Court Justices. In 1900, 13,605 cases were filed in federal 
     district courts, and 1,093 in courts of appeals. In 1999, 
     over 320,194 cases were filed in federal district courts, 
     over 54, 6000 in courts of appeals, and over 1,300,000 
     filings were made in bankruptcy courts alone.

  It is apparent that some growth of the federal court system should 
occur over time due to increases in population. But what also has grown 
substantially is the scope of federal jurisdiction. Federalization of 
the states criminal codes is something that politicians, especially 
here at the federal level, cannot seem to help but engage in from time 
to time. It has been over time, in response to criminal concerns 
nationwide, that Congress has again and again federalized crimes in the 
name of fighting crime and protecting the nation's populace. But, is 
the federalization of crime really an antidote for our nation's crime 
problems? Is it really proper to federalize crime so politicians can 
``prove'' their effectiveness? These are important questions that must 
be asked. We all must look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether 
there is a sound justification for having two parallel justice systems.
  Americans should not be subject to different, competing law 
enforcement systems, different penalties depending on which system 
brings them to trial, and an ever-lengthening possibility that they 
might be tried for the same offense more than once.
  In 1999, the Senate Government Affairs Committee held hearings on the 
issue of ``controlling the federalization of crimes that are better 
left to state laws and courts to handle.'' The hearings were held in 
part as a response to questions raised by Supreme Court Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist regarding the federalization of criminal law. The 
hearings also focused on the American Bar Association's Task Force on 
the same issue. The Task Force, which was chaired by former Attorney 
General Edwin Meese, concluded that in order to maintain balance in our 
Constitutional system of justice, there must be a ``principled 
recognition by Congress for the long-range damage to real crime control 
and to the nation's structure caused by inappropriate federalization.''
  Some might suggest that this is a Republican's attempt to weaken the 
laws of the land. My reply is simply that federalization of crime does 
not make anyone safer. Simply adding more laws to the federal code will 
not necessarily help the citizenry. On the contrary, it could end up 
hurting those we want to help.

[[Page 9513]]

  Consider that increased federalization has caused a significant case 
backlog in our federal courts. Those people with cases pending in the 
federal system for things other than criminal purposes are impacted. 
Their rights to due process for fair hearings on their issues are 
delayed. The rights of those who are criminal victims are often 
delayed, too, due to the length of time it takes at the federal level 
to hear a criminal case. The backlogs are real. The delays are 
frustrating. Justice is not being served.
  Some might say, simply, let's add more money so we can get these 
cases to trial. Again, my response to that is: why should we have two 
entirely parallel systems of justice in our country? Money is not the 
answer. Better utilization of our constitutional system of federalism 
and separation of powers is a good place to begin.
  Let the states work their will. The Federal Government doesn't always 
have the best answers. We effectively have 50 different constitutional 
republics that can and do serve as policy laboratories. The electorate 
in these states are the very same people that elect us all to Congress. 
They can take control of what is happening in their states and compare 
outcomes with 49 other state jurisdictions (not to mention the District 
of Columbia and the territories). With a federal system, will we 
ultimately move to a single federal criminal code? It would appear that 
way. It may not happen this year, this decade or even this century. 
However, over the course of time, the trend indeed is moving that way.
  This bill is a common sense approach to checking the Congress' 
penchant for federalizing crimes. It sets guidelines for Congress, 
which will certainly debate crime again in the legislative branch. The 
standards state that no federal criminal legislation shall be enacted 
unless and until certain criteria are met: the legislation must center 
on the core functions discussed earlier; the States must be 
inadequately addressing the perceived need; the Federal Judiciary is 
able to meet the needs without restructuring and without affecting 
efficiency; and, the bill includes a federal law enforcement impact 
statement. We pass bills all the time to address certain needs. Let's 
put the rhetoric to a test.
  The bill also sets up a Commission to Review the Federal Criminal 
Code. This commission will review, ascertain, evaluate, report, and 
recommend action to the Congress on the following matters: the Federal 
criminal code (Title 18) and any other federal crimes as to compliance 
with the standards in this Act; recommend changes, either through 
amendment or repeal, to the President and Congress where appropriate to 
the offenses set forth in said criminal code (Title 18) or otherwise; 
and such other related matters as the Commission deems appropriate.
  Also, for each piece of legislation passed out of congressional 
committees of jurisdiction that modify or add to federal criminal code, 
the commission must submit a report to Congress. This report will be 
called a Federal Crimes Impact Statement that shall be included in the 
reports filed prior to consideration by the House and Senate.
  The membership of the commission is important to consider. The bill 
calls for 5 appointed members--1 each from both sides of the aisle in 
the House and Senate, and one appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
United States, who shall chair the Commission. This will bring a new, 
and much needed, dimension to the debate. Under the bill, the 
commission would be charged with obtaining official data directly from 
any department or agency of the United States necessary for it to carry 
out this section--unless doing so would threaten the national security, 
the health or safety of any individual, or the integrity of an ongoing 
investigation.
  Finally, the bill would subject certain legislation to a point of 
order--if it has not met the conditions set out in the legislation. 
This would provide additional time for Congress to debate the merits of 
legislation being considered.
  In effect, this bill is about considerate and appropriate debate for 
federalizing crime. It will help educate Congress to make more informed 
decisions that impact the daily lives of all of our constituents. It 
will help take some of the politics out of the important issues that we 
face with regard to protecting people from crime.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to act. The Judiciary has made subtle and not so 
subtle pleas for Congress to refrain from and restrain its penchant to 
federalize the criminal code. For example, last year in a decision 
concerning the Violence Against Women Act, the Chief Justice writes,

     [t]he Constitution requires a distinction between what is 
     truly national and what is truly local, and there is no 
     better example of the police power, which the Founders 
     undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central 
     government, than the suppression of violent crime and 
     vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not 
     regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely 
     on the conducts' aggregate effect on interstate commerce. 
     [U.S. v. Morrison et al. decided May 15, 2000 (Syllabus)]

  Clearly, there is a message in those words about the federalization 
of crime. It is time that Congress heeds it.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important 
legislation.

                          ____________________