The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CRIME LEGISLATION” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E474 on March 1, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CRIME LEGISLATION
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, March 1, 1995
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington Report for Wednesday, March 1, 1995, into the Congressional Record.
Crime Legislation in the 104th Congress
Crime ranks as the biggest perceived problem in the country. Although overall crime rates have decreased, most Americans still believe crime should be a priority of the federal government. While law enforcement, courts, and prisons are dealt with primarily by state and local governments, Congress has taken a number of steps in recent months to assist in these efforts.
Last fall, Congress passed anticrime legislation that authorized $30.2 billion in assistance over the next six years, with 75% of the funds for law enforcement and prisons, and 25% for local crime prevention efforts such as drug education programs or domestic violence shelters. The centerpiece of this law is the program to put thousands of new police officers on the streets. Ninth District sheriffs and police chiefs recently received some $2.5 million for 44 additional police officers. More assistance will be available in coming months. Indiana is also eligible for funds to increase prison capacity and establish military-style youth boot camps.
The House recently considered a series of six additional crime-related bills, which were based on proposals in the House leadership's ``Contract with America''.
victim restitution act
This bill would require those convicted of a federal crime to pay damages to their victims. Current law permits such restitution, but does not require it. Compliance with court-ordered payments would be a condition of probation, parole, or release. This bill passed with my support.
criminal alien deportation act
This bill would reimburse state and local costs for incarcerating illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. It also would make it easier for the government to deport criminal aliens to their country of origin. With my support, the House passed this bill by a large margin.
effective death penalty act
Many Hoosiers believe that excessive, drawn-out appeals have made the death penalty ineffective as a deterrent to crime. The reforms in this bill would place a one-year limit for death row inmates to file federal
appeals of state sentences. However, the bill does not go far enough to ensure that competent lawyers are appointed to argue death penalty cases. A large percentage of appeals result from mistakes made by inexperienced lawyers. Serious death penalty reform must deal with this problem. I supported this bill, but hope the Senate will pass more comprehensive reforms.
exclusionary rule reform act
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens against ``unreasonable searches and seizures''. In general, evidence obtained in violation of these procedures is excluded from trial unless 1) police officers had a search warrant and 2) believed they were acting in ``good faith'' compliance with the Fourth Amendment. The bill would create a broad loophole in the Fourth Amendment by permitting virtually all evidence obtained without a search warrant. Constitutional safeguards are not always popular with a public fed up with criminals going free on technicalities, but there have been many recent cases in which law enforcement agencies have violated civil rights in unreasonable searches. I have serious concerns about the implications of this bill on individual liberty, and did not support the bill.
prison funding
Like last year's legislation, this bill encourages states to adopt measures to increase the average time served in prison. Half of the grants would be reserved for states that enacted ``truth-in-sentencing'' laws. I support such laws. However, this bill would eliminate funding for drug courts and change the grant formula to reduce Indiana's share of federal money. It also runs counter to the spirit of the unfunded mandates bills passed earlier this year, by requiring states to rewrite their criminals laws before receiving federal support. This bill would reduce Indiana's funding, and I did not support it.
law enforcement block grants
This bill would eliminate the current community policing program and replace it with a $10 billion block grant program for a variety of law enforcement purposes. Funds would be allocated on a formula based on the average number of
violent crimes in a local jurisdiction.
I did not support this bill for two main reasons. First, law enforcement block grants have a long history of abuse. Under a similar program in the 1970s, local governments spent funds on yachts, airplanes, military tanks, and other frivolous uses, It was repealed in 1982. Such abuse is expensive to prevent. This bill includes $300 million--about 3% of the total funds--for the Justice Department to police local governments for abuse. Second, the community policing program has been very successful, and one-half of the money is designated for small communities and rural areas. It should not be eliminated. The block grant formula in this bill would provide less funding for Indiana's counties and rural communities. I believe more police officers on the beat, along with keeping criminals in prison, is a most effective way to fight crime. The administrative cost of the police grant program is just 0.08% of the total fund--which means less money in Washington and more money in local communities.
Conclusion
The House-passed proposal deserve a mixed review. The provisions for victim restitution, alien deportation, and death penalty reforms are long-needed, and they received my strong support. I am hopeful the Senate will take quick action. However, I am concerned about the exclusionary rule bill, which encroaches on important Constitutional protections against government intrusion. The funding provisions for prisons and block grants would hurt the Ninth District and Indiana, and block grants only increase the likelihood of fraud and abuse.
I have some doubts whether crime can be fought effectively with federal legislation. The primary responsibility for fighting crime belongs to state and local governments, and previous efforts from Washington have not generally been considered effective. But the public demand for action against crime is understandable, and Washington should do its part to help local and state officials reduce the threat of violent crime.
____________________
