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 6 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 6 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


definition crimes involving the transportation of persons for the
purposes of prostitution; serious bribery, counterfeiting or
forgery offenses; serious offenses involving trafficking in stolen
vehicles; perjury and subornation of perjury; and an offense
relating to the failure to appear to answer for a criminal offense
for which a sentence of two or more years may be imposed.

Section 302 would modify the INA to make it clear that
the existing expedited deportation procedures which apply to non-
resident criminal aliens apply also to aliens admitted for
permanent residence on a conditional basis) . That section would
also prohibit the Attorney General from using his or her
discretionary power under the INA to grant relief from deportation
to any non-resident alien who has been convicted of committing an
aggravated felony.

Section 803 would modify that portion of the INA which
determines who may be denied entrance to the Untied States and who
may be deported from the country. Under present law persons who
are legal permanent residents and have lived in the country for
seven years may leave temporarily and return but not be subject to
all of the INA provisions that determine who may legally enter the
United States. If any of these people have been convicted of an
aggravated felony and served five years in prison, however, the
government may be exclude them from the country notwithstanding
their seven years of residence. The change made by section 803
would strengthen this exception to allow the government to exclude
these persons if they were merely sentenced to five or more years
in prison for one or more aggravated felonies. The change is being
made so that the government may exclude aliens who commit serious
aggravated felonies but are released in less than five years on
parole or due to prison overcrowding.

Section 803 would also modify another provision of the
INA which enables aliens who are subject to deportation proceedings
to avoid deportation if they can show that their life or freedom
would be in danger in the country to which they are to be deported.
Several exceptions to this protection already exist in the INA.



84



Section 803 would add an additional exception to this protection
when the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Section 804 applies to cases where an alien is being
charged with attempting to reenter the U.S. after having been
deported. The penalties for illegally reentering the U.S. after
having been deported were enhanced by the 1994 Crime Act. This
section makes it clear that the alien charged with illegally
reentering may only challenge the validity of the original
deportation order when the alien can show that he or she has
exhausted all administrative remedies, that the deportation order
improperly deprived the aliens of the opportunity for judicial
review, and that the deportation order was fundamentally unfair.

Section 805 modifies a part of the 1994 Crime Act which
created an "Criminal Alien Tracking Center" but failed to specify
any purpose for the center. Section 805 specifies that the center
is to be used to assist Federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies in identifying and locating aliens who may be deportable
because they have committed aggravated felonies. That section also
modifies the 1994 Crime Act to provide that the center is to be
operated by the INS Commissioner with the cooperation of the
Director of the FBI. Present law places the center's operation in
the hands of the Attorney General and does not require FBI
cooperation.

Title IX — AMENDMENT TO VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACT

This technical title repeals the prison grant program
provision of the 1994 Crime Act. It also repeals all but three of
the prevention programs of the 1994 Crime Act. The remaining
programs are those which authorize funds for drug treatment of
prisoners in federal and state correctional facilities respectively
and the program authorizing funds for tuberculosis testing and
prevention in federal and state correctional facilities.



85



Editor's note.

Many of the provision of H.R. 3 were separately introduced as bills in the 104th
Congress. The language of some of these bills differed slightly from the corresponding title of
H.R. 3.

Title I of H.R. 3 was introduced as H.R. 729. This bill was passed by the House, with
additional floor amendments, on February 8, 1996 by a vote of 297 yeas to 132 nays. Amended
provision of H.R. 729 in were included in the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996" which became Public Law No. 104-132 on April 24, 1996.

Provisions similar to title II of H.R. 3 were introduced as part of H.R. 1488. No action
was taken on this legislation.

Title III of H.R. 3 was introduced as H.R. 665. This bill was passed by the House on
February 7, 1996 by a vote of 43 1 yeas to nays. Provisions similar to H.R. 665 in were
included in the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" which became Public
Law No. 104-132 on April 24, 1996.

Title IV of H.R. 3 was introduced as H.R. 728. This bill was passed by the House, with
additional floor amendments, on February 14, 1996 by a vote of 238 yeas to 192 nays.
Provisions of H.R. 729 were included in H.R. 2076, the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 1996 which passed the
House on July 29, 1995. The conference report of H.R. 2076 was vetoed by the President on
December 6, 1995. Amended provisions of H.R. 728 were also included in H.R. 3019, a bill
making appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The conference report of H.R. 3019 was agreed to
on April 25, 1996, and became Public Law No. 104-134 on April 26, 1996. Provisions of H.R.
728 were also included, modified and fianded in the H.R. 3610, making appropriations for fiscal
year 1997. H.R. 3610 became Public Law No. 104-208 on September 30, 1996.

Title V and provisions similar to title VII of H.R. 3 were introduced as H.R. 667. On
February 10, 1995, the House passed H.R. 667, with additional floor amendments, by a vote of
265 ayes to 156 nays. Provisions of H.R. 667 were included in H.R. 2076, the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 1996
which passed the House on July 29, 1995. The conference report of H.R. 2076 was vetoed by the
President on December 6, 1995. Provisions of H.R. 667 were also included in H.R. 3019, a bill
making appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The conference report of H.R. 3019 was agreed to
on April 25, 1996, and became Public Law No. 104-134 on April 26, 1996. Provisions of H.R.
667 were also included, modified and funded in the H.R. 3610, making appropriations for fiscal
year 1997. H.R. 3610 became Public Law No. 104-208 on September 30,1996.

Title VI of H.R. 3 was introduced as H.R. 666. This bill was passed by the House, with
additional floor amendments, on February 8, 1996 by a vote of 289 yeas to 142 nays. The bill
was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on February 9, 1995. No fiirther action
was taken on H.R. 666 in the 1 04th Congress.



86



The provisions of title VIII were introduced as part of H.R. 668. This bill was passed by
the House, with additional floor amendments, on February 10, 1996 by a vote of 380 yeas to 20
nays. The provisions of H.R. 668 were included in the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996" which became Public Law No. 104-132 on April 24, 1996.

Title IX of H.R. 3 was technical in nature. Its provisions were included in either H.R. 667
and H.R. 728.



G.R.S.



87

Mr. McCOLLUM. It is my pleasure now to yield to my friend from
New York, a gentleman who has worked long and hard and who
has been the chairman of this subcommittee. He and I have shared
many battles in the past, but we happen to have a warm personal
relationship and. Chuck, I look forward to working with you on this
subcommittee. And I yield to you for an opening statement on the
first day of our subcommittee.

Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first, before I talk
about today's hearing, let me say how pleased I am that you will
chair this committee for the new majority. If it had to be someone,
I am glad it is you. We have worked together for many years on
the problems we will be grappling with in the months to come, and
it is going to be a very tough job.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, you have got a big pair of shoes to
fill, but if anyone on your side can do it, it is you. But I would also
say to you, in at least this opening salvo, you have an impossible
job and that job is to convince America that Congress should turn
around and go backward, not march forward and solve new prob-
lems.

Very simply put, this bill plows over old ground. It digs up old
causes. It will tie up the House for weeks, Mr. Chairman, and it
will do so needlessly because America already has a good, tough,
balanced crime bill. We passed it last year, and it is working. Sure,
you might dot an I in a different place, or cross a T, but the basic
bills that will emerge are, in most areas, quite similar. And what
we ought to be doing is building on the crime bill we struggled to
pass last year rather than simply go back and plow over old
ground.

The message I heard from the electorate was go forward, do
more, not go back and undo.

The bipartisan bill we passed last year is tough on punishment.
We heard over and over again about 64 death penalties and man-
datory minimums and all those things. You don't attempt to touch
any of those and with good reason. It is smart on prevention. We,
for the first time, said that we were going to help localities do the
kind of crime prevention that is necessary and, of course, it pledged
100,000 cops. It is a balanced bill, and it is balanced for a reason.
It is balanced because there is no single, simple answer to stopping
violent crime.

You cannot stop crime with just cops, you can't stop crime with
just prisons, and you can't stop crime with just prevention. You
need a tough, smart balance in all of those, and that is what our
bill gave America.

This bill destroys that balance. It wipes out the prevention pro-
grams that will keep millions of kids from ever picking up their
first gun or ever using their first drug or joining their first gang.
It tears up the contract that this Congress made last year with the
American people to put 100,000 new cops on the beat. I don't know
a single legislator who campaigned against 100,000 new cops on
the beat. I didn't hear it ever mentioned as part of the contract,
but H.R. 3, make no mistake about it, could mean that there will
be 5,000 cops or 10,000 cops or 50,000 cops or no cops on the beat.

And it replaces the solid promises of our crime bill trust fund
with a block grant program that is as slippery as an eel. That block



88

grant program promises everything to everyone, but in the end, it
deUvers absolutely nothing to anybody.

That is why this Republican crime bill takes us back to the past
and not to the future. It takes us back to the discredited dinosaur
of revenue sharing. Many of the senior members on this sub-
committee voted to abolish revenue sharing some 10 years ago, and
yet now we see a new kind of revenue sharing come forward. Call
it crime deterrence or crime prevention, and we will give you the
money and you can do whatever you want with it.

The Republican bill is so full of old, worn-out ideas and so stuffed
with political fat, that it ought to be called Jurassic pork. The
crime bill we passed guarantees 100,000 new police officers on our
streets. This crime bill guarantees pork barrel spending by cash-
starved mayors.

The block grant program is so loosely worded that all of these
billions upon billions of maybe-yes, maybe-no dollars can be spent
on just about anything. Everything that a creative mayor or county
executive can say with a straight face reduces crime or improves
public safety can be funded under this bill. This is an irresponsible
rat hole, Mr. Chairman. The Jurassic pork bill guarantees not a
single new cop, not a single cent spent on prevention to keep kids
away from crime. It is an illusion and a trick on America's local
governments, on America's cops, and on America's people. So I can-
not support it as it stands.

And one other thing. The chairman stated that we say, let's let
the localities do what they want; we know what works. Sure that
applies to prevention, that applies to cops, but not to prisons. What
if a locality knows what works in prisons? We are dictating to them
on the prison side but not on the other side.

Go all the way or go none of the way. If they have great wisdom
in how to deal with cops, they have great wisdom in how to deal
with prevention. I think that many on your side have attacked a
local mayor or local county exec time and time again for wasting
money. Then, where is their wisdom on the prison side? There, we
dictate what they must do.

In short, I cannot support this bill as it stands; and I am asking
you, Mr. Chairman, not to listen to the pollsters and the pundits
who wrote the Contract on America. Listen to the prosecutors and
police officers who spent months and years helping write our exist-
ing crime law. Save the careful balance of police, prisons, and pre-
vention.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you very much. I am going to recognize
everybody in descending order for opening statements.

Mr. Schiff.

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will offer to be brief.
But since the gentleman from New York wants to use movie titles
to refer to this hearing, in consideration of this bill today, allow me
to use another movie title, "Look Who's Talking."

The administration's crime bill that passed the Congress, with
respect to potential pork barrel spending, was enormous and in-
cluded just by one example, an example that authorized more than
a billion dollars worth of spending on an item called the Local Part-
nership Act.



89

The Local Partnership Act was introduced in 1993 for the pur-
pose of being the House of Representatives' version of the adminis-
tration's economic stimulus package. It never had anything to do
with crime prevention or law enforcement at all. It became the
Local Partnership to Prevent Crime Act only when it couldn't pass
any other way, and yet it is in the bill that the Congress enacted.
And I think that that is one of the reasons why the American peo-
ple know that the bill we passed was not very good.

The bill that the chairman is offering, H.R. 3, would improve
upon the existing crime bill in many ways, but let me just cite one.
The bill would require that prison funding actually go for prison
funding. All during the debate on the previous bill, the media re-
ported over and over again that a certain amount of money was
designated for prison funding. I saw that over and over again in
news reports. The only problem is, that isn't what the bill ever
said. The bill said that prison funding could also be used for alter-
natives to prison.

Now, I am not against alternatives to prison in certain cases. I
come here from a career in local law enforcement and I don't be-
lieve that every person convicted of every crime needs to serve time
in prison. But I do believe now in truth-in-sentencing. I believe in
truth-in-legislating; if we are going to tell the American people over
and over again that a bill contains prison funding, then that por-
tion should go for prison funding and no other purpose. That is
part of what H.R. 3 does, and I am proud in joining you to support
it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the
brevity of his comments this morning.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will also be brief.

The point of this legislation, and the point of all crime legisla-
tion, ought to be to reduce crime as much as possible with the lim-
ited resources we have. And as we consider our options, we ought
to recognize the fact that there are significant numbers of studies
that show how to effectively reduce crime; drug rehabilitation.
Head Start, Job Corps, many programs have been shown not only
to significantly reduce crime but save more money than the pro-
grams cost.

We have significant flexibility in the crime bill we passed last
year — with the Local Partnership Act and with the prison money,
which allows the prison money to go to programs that effectively
reduce crime.

As we discuss reducing crime and the use of incarceration, I am
delighted to hear that we are going to have some truth-in-legislat-
ing because I think that is absolutely essential. We have to con-
sider the cost of additional incarceration compared to the amount
of crime reduction we can expect. And we compare that cost and
that effect to what else you could have done with the money.

I look forward to our testimony because our focus should be on
how H.R. 3 will effectively reduce the crime rate, how much it will
cost and what else we could have done with the same amount of
money in terms of reducing crime.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the fact that you are
holding the hearings and look forward to the testimony.



90

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Virginu

As a part of my statement before the Committee, I would like to submit the fol-
lowing to be entered into the record:

Studies on Primary Prevention of Crime:

According to the APA Commission on Violence and Youth report, "there is over-
whelming evidence that we can intervene effectively in the lives of young people to
reduce or prevent their involvement in violence". Primary prevention programs (i.e.,
educational, economic, social, and health programs that target "at-risk" youth before
criminal careers begin), when "directed early in life can reduce factors that increase
risk for antisocial behavior and cUnical dysfunction in childhood and adolescence".
(see section VII, Report of the APA Commission on Violence and Youth, below).

According to the Committee for Economic Development and the Eisenhower Foun-
dation Report on Youth Investment and Community Reconstruction, for every $1.00
spent on Head Start programs, $4.75 is saved in remedial education, welfare, and
crime deterrence (original source of this data: Report of the Select Committee on
Children, Youth and Families, U.S. House of Representatives, 1985).

If crime and violence are considered as public health problems (as is the case with
heart disease, cancer, and AIDS), the shift in the policy approach would be dra-
matic: rather than focusing our efforts on treating those who already have a disease,
most public health approaches emphasize prevention of illness. Education and pre-
vention programs would therefore not be considered as "soft on crime", just as these
efforts are not considered on "soft on disease" in the public health arena.

Job Corps — ^"one of the most successful national crime and drug prevention pro-
grams" (Eisenhower Foundation) — is an intensive program that offers counseling
and hands-on job training for high-risk youth. According to Labor Department sta-
tistics, during the first year aft«r training. Job Corps participants were one-third
less likely to be arrested than non-participants. Further, every $1.00 spent on Job
Corps saves $1.45 in expenditures on crime and substance abuse treatment, welfare
dependency, and increased job productivity. About 75% of Job Corps participants
move on to a job or full-time study, and these youth retain jobs longer and earn
about 15% more than non-participants. These programs are also cost-effective: in
New York State, it costs over $30,000 per inmate to maintain state prisons, while
Job Corps training costs about $13,000 per person.

Perry Preschool Project Study — is one of the longest continuous research projects
in the country examining the effects of early education on the lives of economically
disadvantaged children.

This study examined whether an intensive educational intervention (simileu* to
Head Start) would benefit children with both low standardized measures of aca-
demic ability and poor economic backgrounds.

One experimental and one control group were selected for the study. The experi-
mental group received an intensive curriculum that included the child in the plan-
ning of programs and activities, and focused on concrete learning and its expression
in language. Children and their mothers also received weekly home visits to solidify
what the child learned in school and involve the parent in planning and school ac-
tivities.

Within two years following the preschool intervention, measures of cognitive abil-
ity of children in the experimental group rose by almost 20%, while the scores for
children in the control group rose only 6%. In addition, the children who attended
the preschool placed a greater value on education at age 15, were rated as more
highly motivated by elementary school teachers, and demonstrated greater school
achievement and persistence than those who did not attend the preschool.

Long-term foUowups indicated that the preschool children went on to obtain high
school diplomas (67% to 49%) and post-secondary education (38% to 21%) at higher
rates than the control group, had fewer teen pregnancies (64 per 100 to 117 per
100), were less likely to be on welfare (18% to 32%), and were more likely to be em-
ployed as adults (50% to 32%).

Results of preschools education on crime and delinquent behavior indicate that
preschool education led to improved classroom conduct (e.g., 22% of the preschool
children were rated by teachers as being in the top range of a measure of classroom
conduct, compared to 4% of the control group), and a decrease in teenaged delin-
quent behavior (i.e., drug use, aggression and criminal activity). For example, 43%
of the preschool group were non-offenders or one-time offenders through adoles-
cence, while only 25% of the control group committed one or no offenses.



91

Cost-benefit analyses of this study were conducted, including follow-up data on
the frequency and kinds of crimes committed by study participants, data on social
costs incurred by victims, and criminal justice system costs. Preschool intervention
was found to reduce the probability of one or more arrests by 20 percent. In addi-
tion, preschool intervention was found to reduce the costs of crime by almost $2,000
Eer child (this figure, based on the costs of adjudication, prison, parole, and/or pro-
ation time, and costs to victims, is expressed in 1981 dollars). In terms of edu-
cational benefits, benefits far outweighed costs: The cost of two years of the pro-
gram's operation per child (in 1979 dollars) was $5,984, while the benefits (esti-
mated as reduced costs of public education, increases in projected lifetime earnings,
and the value of released time for the child's mother) were estimated to be $14,819
per child.

A summary of this data indicated that intensive preschool education led to a
greater commitment to schooling and greater school achievement, which, in turn, re-
sulted in lower delinquency.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Thank you.

Mr. Buyer.

Mr. Buyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of my serv-
ing on the Judiciary Committee is, in fact, to serve on this sub-
committee on the issue of crime. H.R. 3 is not a comprehensive
crime bill. And I think to the ranking minority member, he under-
stands that.

With regard to saying that we need a proper balance, I agree
that we do need a proper balance. He cites that we need a balance
between police, prisons and prevention. I would disagree with him
and say that that dimension is wrong. The proper balance we need
is between prevention and education, retribution, restitution, deter-
rence and rehabilitation.

Part of the problem we have had in our judicial system over the
last 30 years is that there has been a growing emphasis on the pre-
vention side and rehabilitation, and the American people are crying
out, what happened to victim's rights? What happened to deter-
rence? That is why we had this ground swell across America in re-
gard to three strikes and you're out. People are upset.

The message that I get in 20 rural counties of Indiana — and I am
very careful not to judge the dimension of America through a rural
district; likewise, Mr. Schumer should be careful not to judge the
dimension of America through his district — ^we do need a proper
balance.

This is not a comprehensive crime bill. I wish he would, instead



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 6 of 51)