John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment merely sets aside $5 billion in a separate block grant for the prevention programs formerly authorized in the 1949 crime bill but does not specify funding levels for each program. Local governments can choose which program is best for them. Only 20 percent of last year's crime bill, that is $6 billion of the $30 billion total went for prevention programs. But the new majority cut $2\1/2\ billion here in favor of more prisons. So what we are doing is creating a prevention program worth $5 billion in a separate block grant restoring each and every one of those that were struck in the 1994 crime bill. This is a more cost effective approach because the prevention programs are essential to dealing with crime on the front end of the problem, nourishing the health growth of communities, and study after study shows that this dose of prevention will now avoid the most costly police courts and prisons that later come on. Let us look at the data of just a few of them. The drug treatment program: A July 1994 study of the cost of treating 150,000 participants in drug treatment programs in California found benefits in a ratio of $7 in benefits for every $1 spent. Criminal activity declined by two- thirds, alcohol and drug use by two-fifths and health care costs by one-third. Recreational programs in Phoenix, AZ, crime was cut in half by keeping recreation centers open until 2 a.m. In Fort Myers, FL, juvenile arrests dropped 28 percent when the city built a new recreational center in a low-income area. The costs of these programs is often as low as an amazing 60 cents per participant. President Bush selected one of the programs, midnight basketball in College Park, MD for one of the 1,000 Points of Light Program. Gang intervention programs in Spokane, WA helped steer juveniles away from gangs while offering constructive alternatives. The list goes on and on, but we want to eliminate once and for all the simplistic notion that all prevention programs are wasteful. We repeal them in favor of a no-strings block grant that we think will effectively reach some accommodation between the 1994 crime bill and the 1995 proposal that is before us in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, this amendment is pretty large.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, because of the lateness of the hour, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 15 minutes on this amendment, for and against.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a disturbing proposal for the following reasons: We are first of all dealing with pretrial and we are requiring cash bail. What if the person does not have cash? What if the person does not have any previous convictions? It is not clear to me at all why we need to be micromanaging into the 50 States in the Union to determine how they ought to have bail requirements in each State, and it is because of that that I do not have any sympathy for creating new micromanaged prison construction to allow for jail construction if in fact we merely tighten up the bail requirement by requiring cash at the beginning when guilt or innocence has not yet been proven. So I am disturbed about this amendment, and since it has not been passed through the Justice Department, they have given us no indication that they would be supportive of it, and I do not remember it coming up in the committee during the discussion of the crime bill, I am very unexcited about here, with a dozen Members on the floor, we are now going to create another micromanagement position for the States. And I thoroughly think that we should be getting kind of full of telling States of how to manage their criminal justice system.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, because there was no hearings, we are trying to see how this even fits into the Federal Criminal Code and into the existing sections, and even into the bill itself. So bringing something of this magnitude down on the floor is just to me something that we do not need to deal with now. I mean, maybe there was some reason this did not come up in the hearings, but there is no way that I am going to now suggest that on all of the things that we have put on the States that we are now going to tell them how they ought to handle their pretrial bail circumstances. You know, can I suggest that may be some bail bondsman's organizations may be, politely, behind some of this emphasize to create new requirements that would need their services? Because I do not know why else we would want to do it this way, and the gentleman is even thinking about the suggestion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] that maybe even if it could be paid into the courts would be at least a small amelioration of the problem that I see, and the gentleman is still reflecting on that. So, as you can tell, there is very little enthusiasm on this side of the aisle for the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I am not saying we do not have any right to look into this matter. All I am saying is that we had hearings, witnesses, markup, and now we meet on the floor to pass a pretty complex piece of legislation, and now it comes up, and so it is the timeliness part that I am inquiring into. I need a lot more information.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, one final question, if I may. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues of the Congress, this recommit motion takes, perhaps, up to $5 billion in unallocated funds and puts back into the cops on the beat program. Now, yesterday the new majority whispered a secret about this prison funding proposal on the floor today. They finally admitted that the truth-in-sentencing scheme would probably be so burdensome on the States that most would never qualify for it, and then the gentleman from Florida offered what I call a ``cover your back'' amendment saying that unexpended funds would be used for Federal law enforcement. This motion to recommit would allow those unexpended funds, which we are all sure will happen, to be used for the most important program we have in the crime bill, the cops on the beat program. Mr. Chairman, the President's police program is the single most desired crime-fighting response demanded by our citizens across the several States. The Republican majority is proposing to repeal the program and put in its place revenue sharing and a prison funding program that in the end will actually provide less money for prisons and not one guarantee for a single community policeman. People are afraid to go out of their houses to the corner store. The average response time in our neighborhoods to violent crime is getting longer and longer, and people, are demanding change. We can build all the prisons we want, but without police officers on the beat we will never apprehend them. So let us do what the police are asking us to do, to get them from behind their desks and on the beat, provide them more resources to fight crime. No one, no one can deny the effectiveness of this program, and this will be the far better place to put those unexpended funds. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. I believe this gentleman is satisfied as to the concern that I had. I see nothing but services throughout this, and that is the only word repeated throughout this, and the word ``product'' is crossed out. I assume that what we see is what we get, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. May I suggest that we do not know what the various States are really doing on a State basis, and so we now have another qualification in the prison construction bill that tells the States what they must do to qualify for construction funds, and then we are now telling them how to run bail bonding at the same time, and then the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is resisting the modest proposal of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] which might make it at least palatable to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], even if it is does not for myself. So I now find myself more often defending States' and local governments' rights to determine what their laws are going to be. Is there some assumption built into this amendment the States do not know when they have a dangerous crime or a person who may not show up in court, and that the only way that we are going to get them to show up in court is that we give a 15-percent set-aside in prison construction money for them to build more jails? And is that the real reason that they are not keeping people who you apparently think ought to be put on bail? I mean, what are we doing in this process? Why are we here now? Merely because we have a crime bill to tell the courts that they are letting out too many people without getting cash bail and they are not coming back, and they would come back faster if you put bail requirements, cash bail requirements, on them, and to make sure you do that, we will give you some money to build some more county jails or State jails? I do not think this is something that this committee has investigated sufficiently for us on our side to give any blessing to it in this brief discussion.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have looked this amendment over, and there is no problem with directing a study to be completed, within 6 months back to us, about the prisoner transfer treaty with Mexico, and so on this side we would be delighted to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Florida, has very adequately described the bill. I agree with his interpretations. H.R. 668 would amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act and other laws to make it easier to deport aliens who commit crimes in the United States and to provide law enforcement officials with additional tools to fight violations of immigration laws. The bill would broaden the definition of ``aggravated felony'' established by the 1994 crime bill so as to expand the reach of the summary deportation procedures that were put into effect last year. The 1994 act permits the INS to use an abbreviated administrative process with no right to an administrative hearing and with a limited right to judicial review to deport an alien--other than a lawful permanent resident--who commits an ``aggravated felony.'' The Attorney General is specifically denied the ability to withhold deportation of such individual on other grounds; for example, asylum. The list of offenses that would be considered to be ``aggravated'' felonies would be expanded to include certain crimes related to gambling, prostitution, document fraud, reentry of deported alien at improper time or place, commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered, perjury, bribery of a witness, and failure to appear to answer charges. The procedures for removal of such aliens would be further streamlined and their reach extended to include aliens who are admitted to the United States as lawful permanent residents, but on a ``conditional bases.'' Such conditional status is conferred on the spouses--and spouses' children--of citizens and lawful permanent residents as a device to discourage fraudulent marriages and deny participants of such fraudulent marriages the benefits of lawful permanent resident status. The bill also adds a requirement that expedited proceedings be conducted, in or translated for the alien into, a language the alien understands. In addition, H.R. 668 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend a restriction that exists on the Attorney General's discretion to provide relief from deportation--under INA section 212(c)--for lawful permanent residents who have committed an ``aggravated'' felony. Such relief is now limited to individuals who have lived in the United States for more than 7 years, but who have served sentences of less than 5 years. The bill amends the law to deny the availability of section 212(c) relief to lawful permanent residents who are sentenced, rather than serve 5 years. Other significant provisions of H.R. 668: Collateral attacks of a deportation order in a subsequent prosecution that is based on violation of the order would be limited; Certain alien smuggling-related offenses would be added to the list of Rico-predicate offenses; The Attorney General would be granted authority to seek wiretaps in connection with alien smuggling investigations; and Aliens who are convicted of a felony crime involving moral turpitude within 5 years of entry--10 years in the case of legal permanent resident aliens--would be deportable, regardless of sentence actually imposed. Under current law, aliens who commit crimes of moral turpitude can only be deported if they are actually sentenced to or serve at least 1 year in prison. Finally, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 would be amended to ensure that units of local government are eligible for reimbursement for the cost of incarcerating convicted criminal aliens. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.