Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we invite our colleagues today to join us in sending our congratulations and very best wishes to Herbert H. ``Herb'' Brin on the 80th anniversary of his birth. Herb was born in Chicago in 1915 to Jewish immigrant parents and went on to become one of the founding beat reporters of the City News Bureau, covering everything from gangland killings to the rise of Nazi- sympathizer groups, which he helped expose before entering the Army during World War II. Injured in training, Brin became a regular reporter-columnist for Stars and Stripes, interviewing four-star generals for the enlisted man's newspaper. After the war, he moved with his wife to California and became a star reporter for the Los Angeles Times, covering stories such as the trial of Adolf Eichmann. In 1953, Herb quit the Times to take over the Heritage group of Jewish newspapers, with editions covering Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego Counties. His personal, no-holds-barred style of journalism broke scoop after scoop. Heritage first brought into national attention the rise of the Aryan Nations and other neo-Nazi hate groups. His coverage of the Klaus Barbie trial in Lyons was picked up all over the world. Year in and year out, Herbert Brin has been a tireless champion for Los Angeles, for Israel, and for the Jewish people. Those of us fortunate enough to know Herb are filled with admiration at the many achievements of his life. Throughout his distinguished career in journalism, he was always the most vigilant of watchdogs on issues affecting the Jewish community. On many occasions, the statements and conduct of opponents of Israel and anti-Semites were exposed only because of his diligence and personal commitment to justice. Thank you for a lifetime of service to the Jewish community--and many, many happy returns of this day!

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I would appreciate it. The mayor and the city council may love the local block grants. I know what is going to happen. Each council member is going to want to take part of that money for programs they think are worthwhile in their own districts. The mayor will have his own ideas. We will eliminate the impetus for them to make the cutting decisions to provide the local match. At the end of the day there will be substantially less police on the streets. The efforts of Los Angeles to recover will be set back. I think the gentlewoman is absolutely right in her case. I thank her for yielding.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a point to what the gentlewoman said. Before we get too crazy about worshipping at the alter of local government, I just want to tell the story of Los Angeles, the most under policed major urban area anywhere in the United States by far, an area with twice the geography and one-half the population of New York City, that has less than one-quarter of the uniformed personnel on the streets. In the area of the San Fernando Valley that several of us represent, an area of over 1.2 million people, there are less than 100 uniformed police officers on patrol at any given time. How did this situation come about? Somehow over the last 20 or 30 years the mayor and the city council of that city over the years allowed that situation to develop. We are talking here about wiping out the most important anticrime measure that could possibly be offered to the city of Los Angeles, a chance for them to receive a substantial amount of Federal funds if they start prioritizing and making tough decisions in order to get a local match which will put hundreds and hundreds, I would say thousands in the end, of more police officers on that street. This is a city that has suffered riots, where the drive-by shootings and the gang killings, stories of them have been carried all over the United States. This is a city where people live in palpable fear, where more and more people are thinking of carrying a gun on the street as the only protection they have. This is a city that desperately needs to increase its uniformed personnel to have any chance at the economic recovery that it has not enjoyed, as the rest of the Nation has rebounded from the recession of the early 1990's. As sure as I stand here, without the cops on the street program as passed and signed by the President last year, without the local match required in that program with the Republican substitute that they are offering here to wipe out that program, there will be less police, substantially less police on the street than there would have been with this program. The mayor and the city council may not prefer this. They would love the block grant.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I will just be very quick. The amendments as proposed is an absolute requirement of a financial guarantee. The gentleman from California, from San Diego spoke about his experiences. He may be right about San Diego. I think there are some other jurisdictions where alternative systems, not simply OR release, but alternative systems are utilized to monitor a defendant in the pretrial phase, and I think providing a little bit of flexibility in this provision so we do not rule out those nonfinancial situations as well as what the gentleman has already done would help to make it clear that you do not have to buy a private bail bond and the gentleman does not intend this to be a bail bondsman bill. This is for law enforcement, and there should be alternatives to the bail bondsman clearly that those are allowed. Those are the only suggestions I would have.

Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the gentleman's amendment. If the court were to devise or a jurisdiction were to devise a system which allowed for a deposit, say, of 10 percent of the amount of bail with the court, refundable if the defendant showed up for trial, would that be an acceptable alternative to buying a bail bond from a private bail bondsman under this proposal?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. So one would not be required to utilize a private bail bondsman under this proposal.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BERMAN. Therefore, it is not an automatic requirement of a financial guarantee?

Mr. BERMAN. It is that or the provision set forth in section 3142?

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BERMAN. If I can just reclaim my time, section 3142 is what? In other words, at least as restrictive as those in 4132? Those allow alternatives to financial guarantees.

Mr. BERMAN. One more question. If the jurisdiction in certain kinds of situations offers a kind of confinement, home monitored confinement or some other alternative to assure themselves the individual's presence, is that a suitable alternative? It is different, it is more restrictive than OR. It provides security for the law enforcement authorities about where the individual is. Is that an acceptable alternative to buying a private bail bond?

Mr. BERMAN. Just to reclaim my time, if what I hear is correct, since the gentleman is providing in subsection c the alternatives of one or two, then the alternatives described in 3142 are sufficient if they exist at the State level to quality for this provision?

Mr. BERMAN. Could I suggest then instead of casting this in terms of without a financial guarantee, strike the word; either put financial guarantee or other suitable guarantee. I think that perhaps will solve the problem, other suitable guarantee.

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and I appreciate him doing so, I do not have my own knowledge of the statistics, but I accept the proposition, and I know that in some jurisdictions there are creative alternatives, electronic monitoring devices that ensure the individual cannot leave the home without the authorities knowing, these kinds of things.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he is right, assuming that these States file enough claims to take up that appropriated money. If not, then the States who do qualify can dip into that money. And so I guess we have covered the ground. I thank the gentleman for showing the flexibility to take care of this and, more importantly, to start this in fiscal year 1996. The States who are facing these costs are in a crisis in their budgets. They need the money this coming fiscal year.

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Very quickly, I do not think this takes a lot of time. We have an assistance program for low-income people to get subsidies on energy. We do not apportion that based on population. We focus that on States where cold weather requires people to have extraordinary high heating bills. We have crop subsidy programs and we do not base that on population, but we do base that on areas where the crops are growing. The whole logic of this program is to deal with the--try to assist the States with the costs of dealing, particularly, with the high rates of violent crime. This amendment makes perfect sense. I cannot understand why the formula would be on any other basis, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BERMAN. You raise an interesting point on empty authorizations. This program has been authorized since the 1986 law. Until President Clinton proposed money last year and the Congress appropriated $130 million, we never funded $1. As you mentioned for the program of health and education, reimbursements to the States for the cost of the legalization program, nearly every single year President Reagan or President Bush sought to rescind that entire fund. Congress kept it, fortunately, but there is a logic to this in the sense that with the pressure and interest in funding new prison construction, the requirement that this money be appropriated first probably forces this not to be an empty authorization, and it is the basis upon which I think it probably makes some sense.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. I think we should be very careful not to overpromise here. Assuming, for example, Texas does not meet the truth-in- sentencing law requirements. They would not be eligible for the money appropriated out of the prison funds, the first portion of which is reserved for this program. It then will depend, for Texas, on there being an adequate appropriation in the Beilenson program that was enacted last year as part of the crime bill so that you can go there where, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, you have preference. So it is just very important to watch the appropriation process and make sure. The $650 million total is what CBO says will be full reimbursement for States and local governments for the costs. But it very much depends on the balance of appropriations between the two accounts.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just on that one point?