United States. Congress. House. Committee on the J.

Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 online

. (page 18 of 51)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JTaking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 → online text (page 18 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ALL OUT WAR ON CRIME. WHETHER WE FULLY SUPPORT IT OR NOT, LAST
YEARS CRIME BILL PROVIDES A POINT OF REFERENCE FROM \MIICH TO
GROW. IN THAT LEGISLATION A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC GRANT PROGRAMS
WERE SET OUT. I DO WANT TO WASTE MY TIME TODAY TO ARGUE THE
MERITS,OR LACK THEREOF, OF ANY SPECIFIC PROGRAM IN THE 1994 CRIME
BILL. RATHER, I WANT TO SET BEFORE YOU OUR POSITION ON N\ HAT WE



210



CONSIDER TO BE AN UNWARRANTED INTRUSION BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN WHAT QUITE PROPERLY ARE THE AFFAIRS OF STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.



WE NEED FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO SUPPLEMENT LOCAL FUNDING IN
FIGHTING CRIME. NO ONE DEBATES THAT ISSUE. THE ISSUE INSTEAD IS HOW
BEST CAN THAT FUNDING BE USED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT THE PROBLEMS I FACE IN OKLAHOMA CITY ARE DIFFERENT THEN
THOSE FACED BY MY COLLEAGUES EV ST PAUL, MINNESOTA OR BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS. LIKEWISE MY SOLUTIONS, BASED UPON A LIFETIME LIVING
AND WORKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ON THE FEDERAL, STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL WILL BE DIFFERENT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, PERHAPS,I AM
DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED ME TO OFFICE. IF
MY SOLUTIONS FAIL, IF I FAIL TO PROTECT MY CITIZENS, THEN THE PEOPLE
OF OKLAHOMA CITY MAKE THE DECISION AS TO MY CONTINUED
EFFECTIVENESS. THIS IS A REFERENDUM THAT EACH OF YOU REGULARLY
FACE AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE HARSH REALITY OF ELECTION DAY.

WHILE THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
MAY HAVE OFFERED MANY GOOD PROGRAMS THEY SUFFERED FROM A
COMMON FAILING - ALL WERE DICTATED AND MANAGED BY THOSE WHO DID
NOT ANSWER TO THE CITIZENS OF MY DISTRICT. THUS MY PLEA IS SIMPLE.
HELP GET ME THE MEANS TO FIGHT CRIME IN MY COMMUNITY, DON'T TELL
ME HOW TO DO IT!

LET ME GIVE AN EX.\MPLE OF HOW FEDERAL GRANT MONIES CAN BE
EFFECTIVELY USED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL WHEN PROVIDED WITH MINIMAL
STRINGS ATTACHED. IN OKLAHOMA COUNTY WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO
START A PROGRAM IN EVERY HIGH SCHOOL WHICH REWARDS STUDENTS
WITH DISCOUNTS OR PREFERENTUL HIRING FOR BEING DRUG AND ALCOHOL
FREE. WE WILL THEN CREATE A COMPETITION AND PUBLICLY RECOGNIZE
THE SCHOOL THAT IS THE MOST DRUG FREE. THE DRAWBACK IS THAT THE
PROGRAM COSTS MONEY FOR THE DRUG TESTING AND THERE ARE NO LOCAL
FUNDS AVAILABLE.

THE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION FULLY
SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS TO AMEND THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACT TO REPLACE THE NUMEROUS SPECIFIED PROGRAMS
WITH BLOCK GRANTS THAT ARE VASTLY MORE EFFECTIVE AT THE STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL. MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL MAY HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL
IN SOME AREAS BUT WE HAVE A MIDNIGHT CURFEW IN OKLAHOMA CITY.
WHAT I AM ASKING IS THAT CONGRESS LET THOSE OF US IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DECIDE WHAT PROGR\>IS WE NEED.



211



IN A PERSONAL VIGNETTE, PARTLY IN LINE WITH THIS PLEA, I HAVE A HOBBY
UNIQUE TO MY PART OF THE COUNTRY. I AM A MEMBER OF THE
PROFESSIONAL RODEO COWBOYS ASSOCIATION AND IN MY SPARE TIME I
ENJOY PARTICIPATING IN RODEOS IN THE TEAM ROPING COMPETITION. I'VE
MANAGED TO WIN A FEW TROPHIES AND BELT BUCKLES AND IT CERTAINLY
IS DIFFERENT THEN MY DAILY WORK IN TERMS OF RELIEVING STRESS. IN
OKLAHOMA, TEXAS .AND MANY OTHER WESTERN STATES OUR PRISON
SYSTEMS HAVE PROFESSIONAL QUALITY RODEOS WITH INMATES AS THE
CONTESTANTS. AS TRUSTEES THEY COMPETE FOR A CHANCE TO MAKE THE
SHOW. THE ANNUAL PRISON RODEO, ATTENDED BY LITERALLY THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE, IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PRISON SYSTEM. WHILE THIS IS
GOOD FOR MY STATE, AND OUR PRISON SYSTEM, ITS VALUE AND
EFFECTIVENESS AS A PENAL PROGRAM WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO
DEBATE IN MAINE OR XTRMONT WHERE OTHER NEEDS MAY BE PARAMOUNT.

MY SIMPLE POINT IS HELP ME FIGHT CRIME -I WANT AND NEED YOU TO HELP
ME FIGHT CRIME, DON'T TELL ME WHATS' BEST FOR THE CITIZENS OF MY
COMMUNITY. IF I'M \M^ONG IN THE PROGRAMS AND POSITIONS THAT I
CHOSE, THEN I ANSWTR TO THEM AT THE BALLOT BOX. WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, A BUREAUCR.\T HERE IN WASHINGTON DOES NOT.

IN LINE WITH THIS POSITION LET ME CALL ATTENTION TO ONE OF THE
FAILINGS OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT
AND OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY. BOTH PROVIDE FUNDS FOR
POLICE AND BOTH PROVIDE FUNDS FOR PRISONS. HOWEVER, NTITHER
PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND
DEFENSE COUNSEL WHO ARE CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF OUR CRIMINAL
SYSTEM. ALL THE POLICE AND ALL THE PRISONS PROVIDED FOR IN EITHER
LEGISLATION ARE REDUCED IN VALUE IF THOSE WHO COMMIT CRIMES
CANNOT BE VIGOROUSLY PROSECUTED IN A TIMELY MANNER. IF YOU
FORGET THE PROSECUTOR, AND THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL
COURT SYSTEM THEN YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ALL THE ELEMENTS
NEEDED TO FULLY FIGHT CRIME.

IN KEEPING WITH THIS POINT THE TERM "LAW ENFORCEMENT," AS USED THE
BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL, NEEDS TO BE DEFINED TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY
TRADITIONAL POLICE FORCES BUT ALSO THE PROSECUTORS. THIS CLEARLY
INDICATES THAT ALL PARTS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS TO ERADICATE CRIME AND
VIOLENCE.



212



IN ADDITION A CHANGE TO THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994, NOT NOW CONTEMPLATED BY THE NEW
LEGISLATION, WOULD ALSO STRENGTHEN THE ABILITY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO FIGHT CRIME. THE 1994 CRIME BILL PROVIDES LIMITED
FUNDING IN TITLE XXI TO "EASE THE INCREASED BURDENS ON STATE COURT
SYSTEMS" AS A RESULT OF THE MANDATES OF THAT BILL. AUTHORIZED
FUNDING, HOWEVER, IS ONLY $23 MILLION FOR FY96 AND S30 MILLION FOR
FY97. WHEN DIVIDED IT BETWEEN THE STATES AND FURTHER DIVIDED UP
BETWEEN THE PROSECUTORS, PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND LOCAL COURTS THIS
WORKS OUT TO BETWEEN $153,333 AND 5200,00 PER STATE FOR PROSECUTORS.
IN ALL PROBABILITY NO ADDITIONAL MORE CASES WILL BE PROSECUTED
FOR THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY. I WOULD URGE THAT THE AUTHORIZATIONS
IN THIS TITLE BE INCREASED TO INSURE THAT THE INCREASED EFFORTS OF
THE POLICE FORCES ARE NOT WASTED BY THE INABILITY OF DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS TO PROSECUTE THOSE PERSONS THAT THE POLICE ARREST.

WHILE I STATED THAT MY PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THE EFFECTFVE
APPLICATION OF BLOCK GRANT MONIES, LET ME DIVERT IN MY MISSION FOR
A BRIEF MOMENT TO PLACE BEFORE YOU TWO OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE
TAKE BACK OUR STREETS ACT THAT ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PLAN TO FIGHT CRIME.
AS I STATED EARLIER. PROSECUTORS HAVE AN INTEREST IN AN EFFECTIVE
PENAL SYSTEM AND ELEMENTS OF THIS LEGISLATION GO TO THE HEART OF
THIS PROBLEM. FIRST WT. NEED EFFECTIVE HABEAS CORPUS REFORM. THE
PROPOSALS IN HOUSE RESOLUTION 3 ARE A START BUT WE BELIEVE THEY
CAN GO FARTHER. WE NTED TO MINIMIZE THE INTRUSION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS INTO STATE JLDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION DID NOT INTEND THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD SIT IN
FULL APPELLATE RENTEW OF STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

NEXT WE NEED TO CALL A HALT TO FIUVOLOUS PRISONER LAWSUITS THAT
GRIND THE PENAL SYSTEM TO A HALT AND DIVERT SCARCE DOLLARS ON THE
WHIM OF A FEDERAL JL DGE. COUNTLESS THOUSANDS OF FRTVOLOUS CLAIMS
ARE FILED IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURT BY PARTIES WHO ARE
MOTIVATED BY ANGER OR GREED AND HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. THE COST
OF DEFENDING THESE SUITS IS STAGGERING AND MOST OF THE
COMPLAINANTS HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN SIT IN THEIR PRISON
CELLS AND PREPARE NTW LAWSUITS. INCARCERATION IS ONLY EFFECTFVE
WHEN IT TRULY IS PUNISHMENT AND NOT A VACATION, A CALCULATED COST
OF DOING BUSINESS OR A PLACE TO DREAM UP WAYS OF SELF ENRICHMENT.



213



AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR PERMITTING ME TO APPEAR AND PRESENT YOU
WITH THE VIEWS OF AMERICAS LOCAL PROSECUTORS. WE NEED TO WORK
TOGETHER TO END THIS NATIONAL TRAGEDY AND I PLEDGE TO YOU THAT
WE, THE PEOPLES' ATTORNEYS, WILL DO OUR PART, AND MORE, IF GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY.



214

Mr. McCOLLUM. Sheriff Peed, we look forward to hearing from
you.

STATEMENT OF CARL R. PEED, SHERIFF, FAIRFAX COUNTY,

VA

Mr. Peed. Members of the subcommittee.

Mr. McCOLLUM. You need to flip the switch at the bottom there.

Mr. Peed. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-
committee. It is indeed an honor and privilege for me to come be-
fore you and speak about H.R. 3, the Take Back Our Streets Act
of 1995. I come to you as a lifetime of law enforcement. I have 21
years of experience. My father was a law enforcement officer. He
was a deputy sheriff in Granville County, NC. He was shot in the
line of duty. And my brother was an officer in Newport News, VA.

I speak to you on behalf of the National Sheriffs Association. I
represent 3,095 sheriffs from around the country, 315 who rep-
resent over 100,000 population jurisdictions. Crime is a very seri-
ous matter. However, there are some false perceptions. Crime
today is lower, 5 percent lower, in 1992 than it was in 1972; how-
ever, violent crime and juvenile crime have been on the increase.

On behalf of the National Sheriffs Association, I would like to
address some of the issues that we see in the law. We support the
streamlining of procedures under which the courts deal with the
death penalty. It takes much too long for the death sentence to be
carried out. I do believe, however, in being fair and have no prob-
lems with allowing inmates to have competent counsel in
postconviction proceedings. We believe in the appeal process but
not a process whereby the victims are forgotten and the convicted
inmates and their attorneys can needlessly prolong the process
with endless appeals. This process is pervasive in capital cases and
not only occupies the court's valuable time in resources but makes
a mockery of our criminal justice system.

I agree with subtitle (b), which governs the procedures and cir-
cumstances under which juries impose the death sentence. The jury
looking at aggravating circumstances as opposed to mitigating cir-
cumstances, I believe, provides this good balance. With the current
title II, the gun crimes, this section is important because it targets
one of the primary tools of the criminal violence in our society: The
firearm. The theme here is to incarcerate for long periods of time
criminals who carry, use, or discharge firearms in the commission
of violence. To some criminals, long periods of incarceration are the
only way to incapacitate and stop their victimization. However, the
impact of these penalties on jail overcrowding must be continuously
examined, as we have in Virginia. We are looking at risk assess-
ment in terms of predicting violence.

With regard to management of victim restitution, we strongly
support victim restitution and restitution to any person who is
harmed physically, emotionally, or financially by a crime. We talk
so much about the cost of incarceration but in many cases we for-
get the cost of victimization. I believe that there should be a bal-
ance here.

The economic status of the offender must be considered when dis-
cussing restitution. The victims' loss, however, should always take
priority, but the defender must have the means to pay and must



215

be held accountable for his action. Restitution to the victim is a jus-
tifiable burden but the burden should have limits. By giving an of-
fender who is trying to stay crime free an extremely high bill to
pay in a short timeframe may be aggravating a problem that we
are trying to solve. I agree the conditions of probation or parole
should be contingent upon the offender fully complying with court-
ordered restitution. In short, don't permit offenders to commit — or
don't permit them to commit new crimes in order to pay restitu-
tion. However, if pa3dng restitution takes a lifetime, then let them
pay it on a lifetime basis.

With regard to the block grants, we agree with the establishment
of the block grant programs and the COPS programs. Additional
law enforcement officers throughout this Nation have been pro-
vided. Grant programs are especially effective to local use of gov-
ernment. Sheriffs throughout the United States have been given
the ability to use grant money and they have put it to good use in
developing national model programs, for example, in work release
programs throughout this country, mental health and substance
abuse programs. Neighborhood watch was a national sheriffs ini-
tiative, as was DARE. The only reservation is how much funding
will go to the county and how much to the cities. We need to make
sure that we clarify what is a local unit of government. Local gov-
ernments must be spelled out in this legislation, otherwise the
cities, not counties, could end up with a significant proportion of
the money.

Also, we are concerned that if the prison jail money is not fully
funded, grant money may be in jeopardy. As previously stated,
grants are especially effective to localities and fighting crime. NSA
supports the goals of the title II of truth-in-sentencing. Persons
convicted in a court of law for violent crimes need to be separated
from society for the peace of mind of law-abiding citizens. Some
citizens are putting bars on their homes while people who commit
crimes are coming out from behind bars. Linking funding to a
State's progress in making violent crimes more accountable for
their actions is, I believe, a good feature of this title.

We also support a requirement that States be encouraged to
enact laws requiring notification of victims and families upon the
intended release of perpetrators. However, we also believe that all
Federal mandates, unfunded mandates, should be accompanied
with funding provisions.

With regard to the exclusionary rule, we strongly support the
provisions of this title to expand the good faith exemptions of the
exclusionary rule. Now one of my strong concerns here is stopping
abusive prisoner lawsuits and we have heard a number of people
talk about that.

This is an area that has needed much reform for some time. The
Federal courts have been flooded with Federal court intervention
for many years, including the Freedom of Information Act.

I support the provisions that inmates are required to exhaust ad-
ministrative remedies prior to taking to courts for Federal action.
And I would like to share a couple of cases with you. I recently pre-
vailed in both cases. Both cases were frivolous, however, in one
case, the State of Virginia was required to spend $23,000 in attor-
neys fees to defend that lawsuit.



216

There is some good news. In the Wolfish case, the U.S. Supreme
Court said double-bunking in and of itself is not unconstitutional.
However, cases are still proceeding through the district courts upon
this basis.

But the same is true of overcrowding in an Ohio case. Over-
crowding is not in itself unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court
has ruled in two cases that you must look at the totality of cir-
cumstances. However, prisoners are still getting cases into the Fed-
eral courts under those conditions.

There is more good news. One remedy which I used recently is
called rule XI sanctions, where attorneys can be held accountable
if they, in turn, take frivolous suits. I used Federal rule XI sanc-
tions.

This title causes attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing
party, though it is very seldom used. In the case in which an attor-
ney took a prisoner's case to Federal court, in which it cost the
State of Virginia $23,000 in attorney's fees, we approached the
court about filing rule XI sanctions against that attorney and
awarding us our attorney fees, and we prevailed in both of those
cases. It cost not only $23,000 in attorney's fees, but significant
time in staff time to research and defend those lawsuits.

Finally, I would like to talk about streamlined deportation of
criminal aliens. Dangerous persons, regardless of their citizenship
status, need to be isolated from the group to which they present
a danger.

It appears that the proposed modifications to the Immigration
and Naturalization Act and other immigration laws which will in-
crease the number of crimes for which an alien could be deported,
are certainly desirable, but it would not give this country the legal
mechanism to rid itself of more dangerous individuals.

I firmly believe in the right of due process of all individuals,
whether U.S. citizens or not. There are numerous provisions in this
title with which I have very little input, but it appears to me that
the overall intent of this title is to make all criminal aliens fully
accountable and subject to deprivation of liberty in the United
States when they are convicted after a due process hearing. I fully
support seizing alien assets and immediate deportation of aliens
convicted of crimes in the United States, especially drug offenses.

I commend you for your efforts here, and I want to thank you,
and look^forward to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peed follows:]



217

Prepared Statement of Sheriff Carl R. Peed, Fairfax County, VA

Good afternoon Chairman McCollum and members of the
subcommittee. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to come
before you and speak about HR 3, the "Taking Back Our
Streets" Act of 1995. I would like to discuss the provisions of
the bill by title.

Title I: Effective Death Penalty

I support the streamlining of procedures under which the courts
deal with the death penalty. It takes much too long for the death
sentence to be earned out. I do believe, however, in being fair,
and have no problems with allowing the imnate to have
competent counsel in post conviction proceedings. I believe in
the appeal process, but not a process whereby the victims are
forgotten and the convicted inmates and their attorney's attempt
to needlessly prolong the process with endless appeals. This



218

process is pervasive in capital cases and not only occupies the
court's valuable time and resources but makes a mockery of our
criminal justice system. I agree with Subtitle B, which governs
the procedures and circumstances under which juries impose a
death sentence. The jury looking at aggravating circumstances
as opposed to mitigating circumstances provides a good balance.
II. Deterring Gun Crimes

This section is important because it targets one of the primary
tools of the criminal and violence in our society - the firearm.
The theme here is to incarcerate for long periods of time
criminals who carry, use, or discharge firearms in commission
of crimes. To some criminals, long periods of incarceration are
the only way to incapacitate them. However, the impact of
these penalties on prison and jail overcrowding must be



219

continuously examined.

Title III: Mandatory Victim Restitution

I support mandatory victim restitution, and restitution to any
person who is harmed physically, emotionally, or fmancially by
a crime. I believe that there should be a balance here - the
economic status of the offender must be considered when
discussing restitution. The victim's losses take priority, but the
offender must have the means to pay. Restitution to the victim is
a justifiable buiden, but the burden should have limits. By
giving an offender who is trying to stay crime free an extremely
high bill to pay in a short time frame, we may be aggravating a
problem that we are trying to solve. I agree that conditions for
probation or parole should be contingent upon the offender fully
complying with the court ordered restitution.



220

Title IV: Law Enforcement Block Grants

I agree with the establishment of a block grant program. Grant
programs are especially effective to local units of goverrmient.
Sheriffs throughout the United States have been given the ability
to use grant money, they have put it to good use, for example;
Work Release, Neighborhood Watch, D.A.R.E. - have been
successful. My only reservation is how much funding will go to
the county and how much to the city - we need some kind of
formula clarifying what is a local unit of government. Local
units of govenmient must be spelled out. Also, we are
concerned that if the prisons/jail money is not fully fiinded,
grant money may be in jeopardy. As previously stated, grants
are especially effective in the fight against crime.



221

Title V: Truth in Sentencing Grants

I agree with the goals of this title which will make additional
financial resomxes available to states to expand and operate
correctional facilities intended to put violent criminals out of
circulation for longer periods of time. Persons convicted in a
court of law for violent crimes need to be separated from society
for the peace of mind of law abiding citizens. Linking funding
to a state's progress in making violent criminals more
accountable for their actions is, I believe, a good feature of this
title. I also support the requirement that states be encouraged to
enact laws requiring notification of victims and families upon
the intended release of a perpetrator. However, I also believe
that all federal mandates to states should be accompanied with
funding provisions.



222

Title VI: Exclusionary Rule Reform

I strongly support the provisions of this title to expand the "good
faith" exception to the Exclusionary Rule where evidence is
gathered without a warrant in instances where officers
reasonably believe they acted properly. At the very least, the
mechanism needs to be available for law enforcement to
challenge the use of the Exclusionary Rule in these instances.
Title VTI: Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits
This is an area that has needed reform for some time. The
restrictions placed on the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act, or CRIP A, are reasonable. I support the provisions
that irmiates ai*e required to exhaust administrative remedies
prior to filing suit and that suits may be dismissed if they fail to
state a Constitutional violation or if the suit is frivolous or



223

malicious. I support Section 703 where inmates do not
contribute to the development of minimum standards, and
Section 704 in wliich the suit or case is dismissed if the inmate's
claim of poverty is false. Also, 42 U.S.C. 1988 needs to be
examined more closely to pennit prevailing parties to recoup
expenses for false or frivilous claims.

Title VIII: Further Streamlming Deportation of Criminal
Aliens

Dangerous persons, regardless of their citizenship status, need to
be isolated from the group to which they present a danger. It
appears that the proposed modifications to the Immigration and
Naturalization Act, or IN, and other immigration laws which
would increase the number of crimes for which an alien could
be deported are certainly desirable because it would give this



224

country the legal mechanism to rid itself of more dangerous
individuals. I stress also that I fu-mly believe in the riglit of due
process of all individuals whether they be United States citizens
or not.

There are numerous provisions in this title with which I, from a
local government perspective, can provide little input.
However, in general, it appears to me that the overall intent of
this title is to make all criminal aliens fully accountable and
subject to deprivation of liberty when they are convicted after a
due process hearing. I fully support seizing assets and
immediate deportation of aliens convicted of crimes in the
United States.

Thank you, once again, for this opportunity to express my views
on this important legislation.



225

Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Sheriff.

And I would like to start by pointing out to panel members some
things about the bill that was introduced, which might be a little
different, perhaps, from what you observed and what was in the
original Contract With America bill last fall. And we want to be
sure that everybody is on the same sheet of music.

For example, Sheriff Peed, under the page 50 of H.R. 3 defini-
tions, the term of "unit of local government" is defined to mean a
county, township, city, or political subdivision. So your concern is
addressed in that regard. That doesn't mean that every concern
you expressed was in each of your cases.

With Mr. Macy and Mayor Ashe, I would also like to point out
the language that is in the Law Enforcement Block Grant Program
which has been broadened quite a bit. That is here, which says
that: The moneys under this program shall be paid to each unit of
local government which qualifies, and shall be used by the unit for
reducing crime and public safety, including, but not limited to —
that language was specifically added before this bill was dropped
at the beginning of this year, on January 4, which means that all
of the restrictions and the suggestions and the ideas are just that,
they are suggestions. Which, in my interpretation, would mean, for
example, Mr. Macy, that if you wanted to apply for funding for ad-
ditional prosecutors in your county and the county had money
there, it would certainly be appropriate if the county commis-



Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on the JTaking Back Our Streets Act of 1995 : hearings before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995 → online text (page 18 of 51)