Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I echo my colleague's remarks because this is important. As a freshman Member, having arrived here 2 years ago, oftentimes i voted away from my party leadership. In looking at the vote tallies since we have been here, I see more party discipline than I do looking at issues. I hope Members on the other side of the aisle will vote the issue and not party leadership because that is the only way we are going to save this bill. I want to thank my colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee, for her eloquent and competent work in the Committee on the Judiciary on this bill and also her input tonight and throughout the session. As I said earlier, she is clearly one of the shining stars of this new Congress, and I appreciate her involvement as well as that of my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.

Mr. MEEHAN. And when I hear the rhetoric back and forth and all of these theories that seem to come out of political polls, focus groups, here is the evidence that matters: This is community policing in one particular community that shows a dramatic decrease in crime. It happens to be one community, Lowell, MA, police officers in the communities cutting crime. My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], mentioned her own city of Houston and the various groups of minorities. Lowell, MA, was a melting pot. I mentioned the Asian community in Lowell who are the most recent immigrants to this city and how difficult it was for them as victims of crime and how important our program was of community policing and priority prosecution, but the Irish settled in Lowell when we had a high French population in Lowell that settled there, Hispanics settled there. It has been a melting pot over a period of time. It is where the industrial revolution was born in this country, and it is always very, very important and critical that when a new group comes into the United States that they all have the communities, they have gone to form the partnership with law enforcement, with the schools, with the probation department. That is the only way that you can cut crime in an area, to form partnerships, to hear the rhetoric relative to the programs with boys' clubs and girls' clubs. You know, in Phoenix when basketball courts and other recreational facilities were kept open late, juvenile crime dropped 55 percent. It works. We have 13 new schools in Lowell, MA. Those schools are closed when school is over, beautiful new facilities, gymnasiums. And what do their kids have to do? They are on the streets. OK, that is how crime happens, kids hanging around the street. We have all of these new schools, and we have an opportunity to put together programs. We have a police department that is willing to volunteer. We need to open these structures up. We need to have the type of programs that involve tough prosecution. I mentioned the priority prosecution program. I am talking about identifying in this community 20 to 25 of the worst offenders and locking them up for as long as we could get them off the street, remove them. With the challenge of real law enforcement and really fighting crime is what you do with everyone that is left. That is what it is all about. And anyone who has ever fought crime knows that, and I cannot believe that our friends on the other side of the aisle do not know it as well, and maybe they are hoping that this will die in the other body or the President will veto it and they will not have to mention it, or they can make adjustments and call it their crime bill. It does not matter to me whether we call it a Democratic crime bill, a Republican crime bill, Clinton's crime bill, Janet Reno's crime bill. It is America's crime bill, and it works, and we should not be getting into partisan politics determining authorship or trying to tinker with the bill so that somebody else can take credit or there is an election coming down the road, and we have got to figure out how many seats for the Democrats and Republicans. All of that is nonsense. When we opened up, I made the point, and it is a very, very important point, fighting crime is serious business. It is really serious business. It is not partisan. It requires professionalism. It requires community involvement. This works. The last think we need to do is kill the program. Community policing, prevention programs for boys' clubs and girls' clubs and opening of facilities; the worst think we could do is kill this program because of sheer partisan politics. It is not in the interest of the country. I believe that any law enforcement official, anywhere these programs are working, would tell you the same thing. I mentioned Republicans, prominent Republicans, who are in law enforcement who support this program. Anyone who knows anything about these programs who have been involved, it does not matter whether independents or Republicans, they support these programs. The last thing we need with America, frankly, looking at both political parties and saying, Please just give me programs that work, I don't want to hear that they are Democrat or Republican, I don't care if Clinton or Reno or somebody else did it. Let's get the job done and make or neighborhoods safe so we can improve our standards of living. That is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. MEEHAN. The gentlewoman is absolutely right. Someone coming into a district attorney's office with a family member who has been murdered, you do not ask if they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and anybody who is for fighting crime, any Governor, whether it is Weld of Massachusetts, or a Republican district attorney in Suffolk, they support community policing and crime prevention because they know what crime is all about. This should not be a partisan issue. We had bipartisan support for this bill when it passed, bipartisan support, and everyone stood up. I remember the debate on the floor of the House when I stood in the well and I challenged Members of this Congress who did not vote for this on the other side of the aisle that if they were really serious about fighting crime they ought to volunteer for 2 weeks in a district attorney's office in their districts anywhere in America, because all it takes is opening your eyes and going into one of those district attorney's offices, or a police department. And if you go in and find out what is happening with community policing programs, and what has happened in district attorneys' offices anywhere in America, you can never come back and vote to dismantle the program.

Mr. MEEHAN. When was the last time the gentleman saw a program where you could apply for a grant on one sheet, anyone could fill it out, any police department? Not only that, when is the last time the gentleman saw a Federal program produce results so quickly?

Mr. MEEHAN. I would like to point out, my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], had talked about gang violence and what the difference is when the community police officers get into that community and learn that community. When I was assistant district attorney in Middlesex County I got a call one afternoon. It was about 2:15 one afternoon, and the State Police informed me that a 15-year-old boy from Lowell, MA, had been shot in the head, a culmination of what was gang activity in the city of Lowell during that time period. We had had an influx of Asian immigrants into the city, many of whom had been victims of crime, Asian crime on Asian crime, where the people, immigrants from other cultures who came from a culture where they did not necessarily trust authority and did not know what the role of the police department was, whose side the police department was really on. It was very difficult for us in the DA's office to get witnesses of crime to participate and to tell us what happened in a crime, because they did not know whether to trust us or whether to trust the police, so they did not trust anyone. In this murder of a 15-year-old boy, it was the culmination of months of gang activity in the city. People were keeping their sons and daughters home from Lowell high school. We sent a district attorney up to the scene of that. The DA, Tom Reilly, who is a very innovative and hardworking DA, went up to the city. We instituted a priority prosecution program there. We brought in people from the Asian community to the table of the mayor's office; we brought in the probation department that had the probation records of all the individuals involved. We brought in the school department, which could give us a perspective of who attended school, who did not, who the bad actors were, who the people were who were trying to get headed in the right direction. We brought the police department to the table. We also brought the DA's office to the table, and the DA met on this task force every single week, every week. We identified over a period of time the 25 ring leaders of these gangs, the individuals who could not be rehabilitated, who had long criminal records, who the school department agreed, the probation department they had to go to prison for as long as we could get them there. We were able to remove those 25 individuals and get them the toughest sentences we could. The question is, what do you do with the remaining individuals. If you do nothing, in 8 months or 9 months, you have 25 new individuals again ready to be prosecuted and removed from society. However, we went a step further. The DA, Tom Reilly, established a community-based prosecution team where the police officers played a role in the community, and partnerships were formed in getting the police officers to understand the culture of many of the new immigrants. We started to get cooperation, because they realized they could trust the prosecutor's office, they could trust the police department. The soccer leagues, the police department, just as the experience in Houston, the police department played a role there. We had basketball leagues, and they are still going on today. Crime, Asian crime, the victims of crime decreased dramatically in that city. I know that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], is here, the vice chairman of the Democrat Caucus, a member of the Crime Task Force, and also a Member who has had, I know from conversations in committee work, many of these types of problems where you identify a problem, go in and do the cutting edge of what works, so I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, [Barbara Kennelly.]

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. The point that the gentlewoman made relative to getting police officers into the community is important for two respects. One is, you can reduce crime. But my experience has been, we have a DA up in Middlesex County, Tom Riley, who has really been on the cutting edge of priority prosecution programs. And what happens is, a police officer working with the community, the schools, the probation department, they can identify who the worst offenders are, who the gang leaders are, who the ringleaders are, identify them and make them a priority and get them out of that neighborhood. Those who cannot be rehabilitated or those who need to be removed are removed. And you get them out of the neighborhood and then you work with the vast majority of the individuals that are left. That is the type of law enforcement that works. And it is proven all over the country.

Mr. MEEHAN. I might add, our colleague from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] has been a leader in the Committee on the Judiciary on these issues, has been extremely active and has experience as a Houston city council member, a lawyer, and I have to say has been a very articulate, outspoken advocate on these crime prevention programs, antigang activities. And I am delighted that she could join us tonight because she certainly has made a tremendous impression as a new Member of Congress. And I wonder if she could relate some of the experiences that she has had in Houston. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. I do not remember any time the Federal Government undertook such a major project, putting 100,000 police officers on American streets, and did it so quickly without really any of the bureaucratic messes that have plagued other programs in the past. Just this past September, President Clinton signed into law what I believe was the most comprehensive, smartest, toughest crime bill in the history of this country. This legislation, as the gentleman indicated, was the result of many years of hard work from law enforcement professions. When I listened to the debate and the rhetoric in the Congress, I cannot help but think that we would be better off if we had more Members of Congress with some of the experiences in law enforcement. It would help kind of frame what this debate ought to be about. It seems to me any law to put more police officers on the streets is very, very important, particularly this community policing, which is really the cutting edge of law enforcement. We have an Attorney General now, Janet Reno, who is a lot different from previous Attorneys General in that she has been in the front line of the fight against crime. It is not often when we have been able to point to an Attorney General that has ever prosecuted a case, that ever has managed a criminal law enforcement agency, that has ever had to put prosecutors out to a homicide scene. As I listen to the rhetoric in the Congress, it is very, very clear that there are very, very few Members of Congress who have had that experience in the front lines of the fight against crime. And this crime bill, with 100,000 police officers, is without question working everywhere in America.I want to mention my home city of Lowell and community-based prosecution. When I first became the first assistant DA in Middlesex County, by the way, it is one of the largest counties in the country, we had 13,000 criminal cases per year that came into that office. It was my responsibility under the district attorney when there was a homicide anywhere in Middlesex County to have to respond to a beeper from the State police to get to a homicide scene to begin the investigation. The first five homicides in the county, three of them were in the city of Lowell. It is an area that has suffered through a very, very difficult time in terms of crime. Since the passage of the initiatives from this Attorney General and this administration, they have formed community partnerships, which are the hallmark of community oriented policing. During the last year Lowell has opened up several neighborhood precinct departments in several neighborhoods. They put together something called Team Lowell that involves the community, the probation departments, the police department, and the school departments, working together to identify career criminals and identify those who are the repeat offenders. They have also put together a community response team, with inspection services. They have closed down more drug houses. That is what the front line of fighting crime is all about. They have established flag football leagues, where the police officers are volunteering their time to work in these leagues to get kids headed in the right direction. As I listen to the debate and I anticipate the debate on this bill, I am very concerned because the Republican alternative will not put 100,000 new police officers on the street.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Stupak, I want to congratulate the gentleman for his efforts. One of the ways I think we are better able to articulate what we need to do in the fight against crime is to rely on the various experiences that the Members of Congress have. Certainly the gentleman's experience, 12 years as a police officer, is a very, very important experience and one that I hope that our colleagues will pay attention to as we debate this bill offer the coming days. I wanted to comment first of all, the gentleman mentioned the one- page application. Because he was a police officer, the gentleman is aware that oftentimes police departments across the country express concern in dealing with the Federal Government because of bureaucracy in the past. But the gentleman has indicated a one-page sheet is all a police department had to fill out. I would imagine that the gentleman has gotten some favorable responses from the police departments in his district, as I did.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is interesting, and I thank the gentleman, when we had the crime debate in August just before the recess, it became frustrating for me listening to the rhetoric of many Members of Congress who had never been in a district attorney's office, had never been police officers, and really had very little experience, real life experience, in crime, in fighting crime. I challenge Members of Congress to take some time during their recess to go into a district attorney's office and volunteer, whether it be volunteer to work with attorneys on cases, whether it be to volunteer with victim witness advocates, who have to take the victims of crime and let them know what their rights are and help them through the criminal justice process, which is so intimidating to many victims, particularly victims of domestic violence, who really are victims twice, once to the original abuse, and twice when they have to go through a court system that frankly is not equipped to deal with the devastating problem that is permeating American society. But I challenge Members, and I have talked to Members to see whether any had the time to go into a district attorney's office, or to go into a police department and learn what the front lines of the fight against crime is really all about. I cannot help but believe if more Members had been willing to do that, to really find out what is happening in district attorney's offices across this country, in attorney generals' offices across this country, in police departments, whether they be urban police departments, whether they be county police departments or suburban or rural police departments, it would certainly help the tenor of the debate here if we can begin to debate real, professional crime tactics, real, professional crime opportunities that we have around this country, rather than to listen to the bantering back and forth based on, as I say, a focus group, a political poll, what sounds good, what might make the President look bad, what they might be able to embarrass the Attorney General with, partisan politics, back and forth. It is amazing. This is not a partisan issue; this is serious business. I feel very strongly that efforts to kill this community policing program are not in the interests of the communities that we represent, the communities clear across America. It is really important that we stay the course and let this program work. Four months, 4 months, and we are talking about dismantling a program that I have shown very persuasive evidence tonight that is working, not only in Lowell, MA. It is working all over the country. To take partisan politics to defeat this is something that disturbs me greatly. I hope that the debate on this will be a debate based on the merits of the argument. I oftentimes would break with my own party's leadership in the last 2 years, and boy, oh, boy, talk about party discipline this year, march step-by-step, go to the left, go to the right. I hope that we can have a legitimate debate about the community policing program in this country, because it would be great for America, it would be great for law enforcement in this country, and I think in the long run it would dramatically increase standards of living by lowering the crime rate all over this country. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on the Crime Task Force. I look forward to working with him over the next several days, and well into next week. I don't know how long we will get to debate the community policing program. It seems we are going to spend more time up front debating the first few days of the various victims' issues, which I think there is a broad agreement on. There is nothing wrong with, as I say, making minor adjustments to the bill. We spent half a day, three-quarters of a day, debating something that we all agree on, that we all agree on, but it seems when we get down to the end of this debate on community policing and prevention programs that are working, it looks like we are going to be a little squeezed for time, because we are going to be running out of time. I am not sure whose birthday it is, but we have to get it done on Tuesday, so there is not going to be a whole lot of time. I would hope that we could get a discussion based on the merits of the arguments over the next few days, and your experience as a police officer for 12 years has been invaluable to our task force, invaluable to the Members of Congress who are looking at this issue objectively, trying to find professional solutions to what many Americans feel is the No. 1 problem facing this country, crime. So thank you for your efforts, and thank you for putting together this special order. I look forward to working with you.

Mr. MEEHAN. That is an interesting point. We are going to commit extra moneys, we are going to take money out of other sections of the bill and give it to build still more prisons without even having--we talk about local mandates, how people, once these prisons are constructed--who is going to pay for them? The local communities and the States are going to have to try to pay for them. You are right, many of them do not have the money to pay for them. It is interesting, I had gone back to the D.A.'s office during the congressional break, and they had listened to a lot of debate on the crime bill. And they said, ``Boy, we disagree with much of rhetoric that we heard. And it sounded like you guys were really getting a lot of rhetoric about getting tough on crime.'' Ninety to 95 percent of all crimes in this country are enforced, prosecuted on the local and State level. And I have been amused by the debate in the Congress about getting tough on crime, and we are going to require so many of this and so many of that. And the truth of the matter is, all this bill is about is giving local prosecutors, local police departments some help. And no bill has ever given this much help in the history of the Congress to local communities in hiring more police officers and actually putting them on the street. The other thing that I think is unfortunate is this bill passed with bipartisan support. This is not something that just Democrats should support or just Republicans should support. Anyone who has been in law enforcement, whether they are Democrat or Republican, support community policing. Governor Bill Weld from Massachusetts, a Republican, a prominent Republican, strongly supports community policing. And guess what, he is a former Federal prosecutor. He knows a little bit about what law enforcement is really all about. He also supports, strongly supports the basketball programs that were part of that bill. Guess what? He is a law enforcement official. Ralph Martin, a Republican district attorney of Suffolk County, strongly supports community policing money. So the truth is anyone that knows anything about what works in law enforcement in this country and what does not work strongly supports community policing. So here we are, it seems to me, having this partisan debate back and forth. I have to believe it is all about authorship. It is all about, you have some of the same Republicans who supported this bill now apparently are going to go along with making some changes so it now can be a Republican crime bill rather than a Democratic crime bill. We need a crime bill. We do not need it to be Democratic. We do not need it to be Republican. This issue transcends partisan politics. I wish that we could take the expertise that is available. If there is some tinkering that needs to be done, let us make some changes. But not wholesale changes that may result in my hometown community of Lowell, MA not being able to put together the type of community policing programs that work, that is making the quality of real people's lives better day in and day out because as a police officer in the communities that knows that community, making sure that burglaries, larcenies, and car thefts, businesses are safer, all are going down by anywhere from 20 to 41 percent. Those are the facts. Unfortunately, too often in the debate around here, the facts are secondary. It is all sound bites, political polls: ``We don't want to know what law enforcement professionals say. What we want to do is what we think will make either the President look bad, the Democrats look bad, or somebody else look good.'' It is a foolish way to attempt to fight crime, and it is really unfortunate if we take a step backward, rather than forward, when we have a program that is working. It is interesting that I talked about an urban area in Massachusetts, Lowell, MA, where it is working effectively, and you cited examples of rural areas where community policing is working effectively. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate ought to be all about.

Mr. MEEHAN. There will be absolutely zero earmarked. What they are attempting to do is put money into block grants and send them to communities, and hope that those communities use the money correctly, and hope that those communities are on the cutting edge of community policing. So there is no guarantee there will be any police officers as a result of this crime bill. Let me also say in regard to that, as I watch and try to figure out how in the world we could have passed a crime bill initiative like this, it has only been given four months to work, and all of a sudden there are new proposals coming forward. I see stories where it shows there are political polls that have been conducted to come up with this data, focus groups where they bring in citizens and figure out what citizens are thinking or what the buzz words are. And it really bothers me, because the fight against crime is serious business. It requires a level of professionalism. It requires looking beyond political polls and focus groups and looking at hard data of what works and what does not. That is what this bill is all about. Community policing works. It works anywhere where it is instituted in America properly. In my city of Lowell we have 13 city police officers that undertook a program of community policing, where we got those police officers in the community, learned who was who in the community, identified those worse offenders, those people who should be made a priority, and made them a priority in the criminal justice system. It worked with the majority of the other people to get the trust. The gentleman told a story at one of the task force meetings of what happens and where you get information. You more likely get information riding in the neighborhood from a kid riding a bicycle, assuming that police office has the credibility. That is what happens under community policing. It is interesting to me, because there was a press conference in the city of Lowell last week; the police chief wanted to have a press conference and show what happened in the city of Lowell as a result of the community policing efforts. The report is out, and I got a copy of that report this week, that shows the number of assaults, burglary, larcency, and car thefts. In 1994 they have changed dramatically. For example, burglaries are down 34 percent in the city of Lowell as a result of community policing; residential burglaries, down 32 percent; business burglaries, down 41 percent; larcenies, down 23 percent; car thefts, down 20 percent. Now, a lot of Members will not want to make determinations of how they going to vote based on this, because it is hard data from a police chief in a community that is making community policing work. You see, this is not a political poll. It is not a focus group. It is not anything that necessarily sounds good. It is not something that has anything to do with authorship of a crime bill. It is just cold, hard facts of what is working in Lowell, MA. And it is community policing. All of these categories, crime is down significantly, and the police chief of that community says the reason it is down is because of the fact that they have instituted the community policing program there. This is how we should be determining what we do in the crime bill, what is working and what is not. That is what fighting crime is all about. I know in your experiences you have had experiences where some things work and some things do not. Once we know what works, we have to put it into the form of legislation that gets the job done. Community policing gets the job done.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to join with my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] to discuss what is going to happen before this body this week, and that is action on the crime bill. Just this past September President Clinton signed into law the smartest, most comprehensive, toughest crime bill in the history of this country. This legislation was the result of input over a 6-year period from Members of Congress and law enforcement officials all across this country. It puts more cops on the streets. It builds more prisons, it pays for crime prevention programs and imposes tougher penalties for violent crimes. Before I got elected to Congress I had an opportunity to learn a little something about crime because I ran the Middlesex County district attorney's office. We had 13,000 criminal cases in that office a year. I worked with 54 cities and towns, police departments, in urban areas and suburban areas working on a daily basis in the fight against crime, on the front line of the fight against crime. This week the Congress will begin consideration of a crime bill designed by Republican political strategists based on focus groups and political polls. I have to tell my colleagues that you do not determine a strategy for fighting crime by reading a political poll or talking to a focus group, or sticking your finger in the wind to determine which way the political winds are blowing. Fighting crime is a profession, fighting crime requires research, and experience on the front lines. And it is not ironic that the Attorney General of this country is a woman who has experience in the front lines of the fight against crime. When I heard the rhetoric during the crime bill, it was so painfully obvious to me that there were so few Members of this institution that really had experience in the front lines against crime. But not even 4 months after we passed and the President signed into law this crime bill, we are going to vote changes on this crime bill based on partisan politics, all in the name of partisan politics and solely for the purpose of claiming ownership of the crime issue. What makes matters even worse is that the changes are not going to help but going to hurt the fight against crime. The bill will not put 100,000 new police officers on the streets. It eliminates community policing programs. Community-based policing is one of the most effective proven ways to fight crime. My home city of Lowell just put a report out, because we instituted community policing, the new Lowell police chief with 13 new police officers as a result of a community policing initiative. Since instituting community policing, car theft, larceny, home burglary, and business burglaries are all down significantly. The Republican plan will put fewer cops on the streets by eliminating this community policing program and allowing local officials to do what they deem necessary, perhaps buy more fax machines, perhaps buy more automobiles. That is not effective community policing. Community policing involves community partnerships. The city of Lowell has instituted a model program in community policing, forming partnerships, because that is the hallmark of community-oriented police departments. They have put in neighborhood police precincts, cutting the rate of crime in those neighborhoods, establishing a relationship with the people in those neighborhoods. They have closed down more than 150 buildings in 1994 which were identified as drug houses. Other special units have resulted in the community response team having made over 350 arrests, school visits by precinct officers where precinct officers actually go into the schools and lecture about crime prevention and lecture about what the goals of the police department are and how the community can play a role, a flag football league where members of the Lowell Police Department actually volunteer their time to get involved with the community in that flag football program, street worker program, basketball leagues where the police officers again, they are volunteers, operating within the community to get to know the community and get those kids headed in the right direction. Community policing works. It is not a debatable proposition. There is not a law enforcement professional in the country who will say that community policing is not in the best interests of fighting crime. Gov. Bill Weld, a Republican Governor from Massachusetts, is in favor of community policing. While we look and watch the debate this week, let us put aside partisan politics and look at what really works. We cannot afford to dismantle this community policing program.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], for this opportunity to speak on such an important issue and compliment her in putting this together. was elected to the Congress 2 years ago. I was the first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, which is the largest county in Massachusetts. And in that position, I had an opportunity to look at the child support enforcement in Massachusetts and a person from the State revenue department came into my office and asked me to make that a priority within the district attorney's office. There had been a new statute that had been passed in Massachusetts for tougher, stricter enforcement, but a case had never been tried, a criminal case under that statute. And I looked at the case of a person from Lowell, MA, someone by the name of Edward Orlando, who had gotten a divorce from his wife. And he had moved out and he moved to New York City where he set up an apartment with his girlfriend. And they lived on 52d street. And at the same time they lived in that very expensive section of New York City, he had a place in the Caribbean as well. The only problem is, Mr. Orlando left 11 children back in Massachusetts, 6 of whom were still living at home in Lowell. Audrey Orlando faced some very difficult choices. She did not receive a single child support payment for over a year. By the time several years had gone by, Edward Orlando owed his wife $47,000 in back child support. The bank was foreclosing on the mortgage of that home on Billings Street in Lowell. Audrey Orlando was unable to collect the money, facing foreclosure because of a system that was broken down and could not work. People who are not paying child support are able to go to other States and use the statutes against each other, pit one State against another, so the child enforcement officials are unable to collect that money. I took that case in the DA's office and told Mrs. Orlando I would make it a priority. I was able to use the long-arm statute to reach out and find this defendant in New York. We brought him back to Massachusetts, but not before he was detained at Riker's Island for about a month as we set up to bring him back to Massachusetts. This defendant was stunned that any prosecutor from anywhere would bring him back or hold him and detain him at Riker's Island, like a common criminal, $47,000 in back support. We brought him back to Massachusetts, where he stood trial. I decided to make this case a priority. I personally prosecuted the case. The evidence was overwhelming. Although on paper Mr. Orlando, did not have any money, we found that his lifestyle was such that the evidence was overwhelming that he in fact was not meeting his legal and moral obligation. After we finished the conclusion of the evidence and the conclusion of the final arguments, Mr. Orlando got up and pleaded guilty. He was sent to jail for 3 months, 3 months sentence, and was ordered to pay the child support. Guess what happened after the 3 months? Mr. Orlando skipped out and still has not paid the child support. I still have in my office the case of Mrs. Orlando, trying to avoid being foreclosed on her home. She is like thousands of other women across America who are stereotyped in some ways about being a welfare mother, because for a period of time she had to go on welfare. She works two jobs, 7 days a week, to try to keep those foreclosing on her home from kicking her and her family out of her home. This case illustrates the problem that we have. We need a Federal system. If a person is convicted of a speeding ticket in one community or one State and goes to another State, we have a computer system to catch that person. It is unconscionable that we do not have a way to force people to pay child support. There is a legal and moral responsibility here. Child support is not the residue of a bad marriage, it is an obligation that is legal and moral. I might add, Mr. Speaker, in closing, 90 percent, by the way, of the money, of the $38 billion that is owed in this country in child support, are men who owe women. I can't help but believe that a court system all across America dominated by male judges and male personnel, and a Congress, frankly, that is dominated by males, I can't help but think if 90 percent of the money owed were women who owed men, the system would have found a way to find a way to collect this money. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I hope that together this year we can finally set up a Federal system to make people meet their moral and legal obligation.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I invited voters from my district to a meeting in Concord, MA. to try their hand at cleaning up the budget mess. Roughly 260 people took me up on the offer. They broke into small groups, and went to work drawing up plans to balance the budget. With the full range of budget choices laid out before them, the players were asked to make the decisions needed to balance the budget. Only 16 of the 25 groups had produced a plan 1\1/2\ hours later. Not one Democrat or Republican managed to balance the budget without raising taxes. Let us face it, Congress needs a balanced budget amendment to eliminate the deficit. But it is not going to take the rest of the country very long to figure out what the people in Concord, MA, discovered last weekend: That the Contract With America version of the balanced budget amendment is a hoax. If we are serious about balancing the budget, we cannot take anything off the table yet--not even tax increases. Let us stop trying to fool the American people. Vote for the Stenholm-Schaefer amendment today, and pass a real balanced budget amendment.