Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

The Committee rejected proposals to authorize revenue sharing payments or categorical grants directly to cities pursuant to a distribution formula based in part on crime statistics. Although there can be no doubt that the cities, particularly the large cities, bear a disproportionately large share of the crime problem, the Committee is of the view that the existing block grant structure, with its pass-through requirement and its emphasis on high crime areas, has delivered an appropriate share of funds to the large cities. Statistics provided during the hearings indicated that during the fiscal years 1969-1972, the States allocated almost 65 percent of all local funds to high crime urban areas. These areas contain about 49 percent of the nation's population and about 70 percent of reported serious crimes. Significantly, in fiscal 1972 the States allocated over 71 percent of local funds to these high crime areas. Thus, under the present LEAA funding structure the large cities are now receiving a greater proportion of funds than they would be entitled to on the basis of either population or crime statistics and, signficantly, a substantially greater share than they would be entitled to under the formulas included in the legislative proposals for direct large-city grants.

The Committee does not share the view that direct grants are necessary to speed up the flow and to eliminate State bureaucracies that work to the disadvantage of the cities. Again, the only statistics made available to the Committee during the hearings simply do not support these contentions. These statistics show that the State planning agencies have been awarding funds to local subgrantees in a timely fashion and that the fund flow or "pipeline" problem is actually a reflection of the inability of local units to expend the money on subgrant projects in a timely fashion. For example, as of December 31, 1972, the State planning agencies had awarded to subgrantees 95% of fiscal year 1971 funds and 68% of fiscal year 1972 funds. However, their subgrantees, mostly local governments, had actually withdrawn for expenditure only 64% of fiscal year 1971 funds and 20% of fiscal 1972 funds.

On the second point, the contention that State planning bureaucracies generally disfavor local units, the Committee notes that, on a national average, 60% of the members of State Planning Agency supervisory boards are local government representatives."

Other provisions of the bill help to assure a continued flow of adequate assistance to the large cities. The present Act requires that 40 percent of a State's planning funds be passed through to units of local government, and a Committee amendment increases the minimum planning funds to each State from $100,000 to $200,000. The Act provides that before a State plan can be approved, it must assure an allocation of adequate assistance to deal with law enforcement and criminal Justice problems in areas characterized by both high crime incidence and high law enforcement and criminal justice activity. Other Committee amendments provide funding incentives for localities that coordinate law enforcement and criminal justice activi

1 "State of the States on Crime and Justice." A Report by the National Conference of State Criminal Justice Planning Administrators, pp. 8, 46.

21d., pp. 32-33.

"State of the States on Crime and Justice," A Report by the National Conference of State Criminal Justice Planning Administrators, p. 17.

ties with other localities, even where such coordination is achieved over a bi-state region. Moreover, under the law, it is within the discretion of the State planning agencies to fund localities for a package of programs and projects as well as simply for single programs or projects on an individual basis. Matching requirements

The cities also will benefit from various committee revisions in the Act's matching provisions. Except for construction projects, which remain at the 50 percent matching level provided in the present Act, all nonfederal match is reduced from 25 percent of total project costs to 10 percent of project costs. This new 90-10 matching ratio will now apply to all grant programs that require match-Part B planning grants, Part C block grants, Part C discretionary grants and Part E grants for corrections improvements. The Committee bill requires that this 10 percent non-federal share of project costs be contributed in cash as opposed to donated services or other forms of "soft match." Elimination of non-cash match will, the Committee believes, do away with procedures that have encouraged imaginative bookkeeping by grant recipients and visited nightmarish monitoring problems upon LEAA.

Based upon the experience of the States and cities under the cash match provisions that were added to the Act in 1970 and which became effective in the present fiscal year, the Committee believes that the new cash match requirements will not impose undue hardships upon the States. As for the cities, the Committee amendments will considerably benefit them, since the State "buy-in" has been increased from 25 percent to 50 percent for Part C grants and from 0 to 50 percent for Part B grants. Thus, the States will now be required to contribute, in the aggregate, at least 50 percent of the local share of the costs of both planning and action programs.

In the case of planning grants to regional planning units, the matching requirement has been eliminated entirely, thus authorizing 100 percent planning grants to such units. This is one of several changes in the law designed to encourage regional cooperation and planning. As noted above, LEAA will now be required to allocate discretionary funds in such a way as to provide incentives to such regional cooperative undertakings. In addition, the Committee has provided that the majority of the membership of regional planning units shall be elected local executive officials, thus increasing local participation and responsibility on such planning boards.

The Committee retained language providing that cash matches shall be appropriated in the aggregate, so that a governmental unit need show only that its total grants under the Act do not exceed 90 percent of the cost of programs and projects undertaken, rather than being required to demonstrate that there is a 10 percent match for each of its programs and projects. In view of the Committee's conclusion regarding the undesirability of requiring "soft match," the Committee also eliminated the soft match with regard to funds made available under parts B, C, and E prior to July 1, 1973 which have not been obligated (or were obligated and later de-obligated) by the States or units of general local government in making awards. Such funds may provide up to 90 percent of the cost of any program or project. It is expected that the Administration, however, will not provide in excess of 50 percent of the cost of any construction program or project funded under part C lest these non-obligated funds become more "desirable" than funds made available after July 1, 1973,

The State "buy-in" provisions, with respect to funds passed through to units of general local government under Part B or C, are also written in the "aggregate." This means that a State is not obligated to buy

into any specific program or project. Rather a State may pick and choose which programs or projects and whose program or projects to assist, provided that the total of such assistance equals at least 50 percent of the total of all obligations with respect to the funds passed through. This flexibility is believed desirable so that each State may decide which units of general local government within the State are in greatest need and render assistance accordingly.

Personnel salaries

The Committee has retained the provision of the Act that limits the use of grant funds to pay the salaries of police and other regular law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. The Act provides that not more than one-third of any grant may be used to pay such salaries. The House Committee, in H.R. 8152, restricted the application of this provision to police officers' salaries only. This Committee believes that the limitation should apply to all regular law enforcement personnel to assure that LEAA funds will be used primarily for innovative and improved methods of crime control and law enforcement rather than to augment State and local salary outlays. Moreover, the meaning of the existing law is understood by LEAA and by the States and cities and should not, in the Committee's view, be clouded by language changes that will introduce a period of uncertainty while the provision is undergoing interpretation.

Private non-profit grantees

The bill provides that LEAA may make grants from its 15 percent discretionary funds to private non-profit organizations. Many important programs relating to law enforcement and criminal justice involve more than one State or locality or are national in scope. Such programs cannot be appropriately funded by a single State. Nonetheless, present law requires that LEAA grants be awarded to units of State and local government with the result that a State planning agency must be willing to accept the administrative burden of serving as the conduit for funding to non-profit organizations which are qualified to operate the multiState programs. The addition of non-profit organizations to the list of those entities entitled to receive LEAA discretionary funds would eliminate the cumbersome administrative arrangement currently employed and relieve State planning agencies of the unwarranted burden of administering grants to non-profit organizations for programs which may have little direct relationship to the "host" State. The addition of non-profit orzanizations is intended to facilitate the funding of programs operated by organizations such as, but by no means limited to: The National District Attorneys Association, The National Association of Attorneys General, The American Bar Association, the YMCA and The Urban League. It is not the intention of the Committee that private "non-profit organization" in this context be construed to mean neighborhood, community patrol activities.

The National Institute

The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice is strengthened, and given a major new role in evaluating projects and acting as a clearinghouse to stimulate research and reform. In performing its evaluation function, the Institute will find it necessary to evaluate programs or projects on the basis of standards. The Committee believes that it will be useful in appropriate cases for the Institute to refer to recommendations of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. The State plans themselves must assure that programs and projects funded under the Act maintain the data and information necessary to allow the Institute to perform meaningful evaluation.

The Committee has deleted an amendment contained in H.R. 8152 which would transfer to the Institute the present authority given to the FBI by section 404 of the Act to provide local and regional training programs for State and local law enforcement personnel. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, in its Report on Police, indicated that "During FY 1972, the FBI's approximately 1,600 Special Agent instructors provided training assist

ance

in 10,165 police training schools attended by over 300,000 State and local officers." If section 404 were amended as provided by H.R. 8152, there is serious question as to whether the FBI could continue to provide any of this assistance and an even greater question as to whether LEAA would be able to find the expertise to pick up this training burden. LEAA would be faced with two alternatives: (1) provide a considerably .smaller training program than provided by the FBI because of the lack of available ex

pertise; or (2) contract with the FBI to provide indirectly the level of service they provided directly under provisions of section 404 during FY 1972. Neither of these alternatives is desirable or necessary, in the Committee s view.

Miscellaneous

The Committee has made numerous changes to strengthen and improve existing LEAA programs and responsibilities. Part E, the special section added in 1970 to assure adequate attention to corrections programs, has been amended to require plans submitted by the States pursuant to the part to provide for the development and operation of narcotic treatment programs in correctional institutions, and to require LEAA to issue regulations to guide the States in this important

area.

Also retained and strengthened is LEEP, the Law Enforcement Education Program. The Committee has raised the amount of funds that may be provided to LEEP students in order to keep pace with the cost of living. A similar increase has been authorized for the internship program added to the Act in 1970 by an amendment authorized by Senator Kennedy. The Committee added an amendment offered by Senator Taft to remove the requirement that a LEEP recipient must remain with enforcement the law agency where he was employed during his LEEP studies in order to earn cancellation of his LEEP debts. The amendment will permit a recipient to earn cancellation so long as he remains employed in law enforcement.

In addition, there are new requirements that all planning meetings be open to the public when final action is taken on State plans; that each plan must provide for "fund accounting, audit, monitoring, and evaluation procedures," to assure "fiscal control and proper management" of funds; and new provisions guaranteeing the privacy and confidentiality of research and statistical data gathered under the Act.

The Committee adopted an amendment offered by Senator Mathias in S. 1796 authorizing grants to interstate metropolitan -regional planning units to enable such units to coordinate plans of State and local units - concerned with planning for metropolitan

areas that extend across State lines. The amendment permits such grants to be made from Part C funds in order to avoid diminishing Part B planning funds available to local units and interfering with the existing → statutory formula for distribution of planning funds.

For the first time the Act itself contains provisions protecting civil rights. These provisions are substantially identical to those contained in the general revenue sharing act and in the various special revenue sharing proposals now under consideration. The Committee has retained section 518(b) of the Act which prohibits the imposition of a percentage ratio or quota system as a

condition of LEAA funding. In general, these amended provisions clarify, but do not substantially change, the legal basis of the civil rights compliance obligations of LEAA.

of

Finally, the Committee has retained the sections providing criminal penalties for embezzlement, fraud andother fund misuses, and has added language punishing "endeavors" to commit any of these offenses. The use of the word "endeavor" instead "attempt" is intended to codify the result reached in Osborn v. U.S., 385 U.S. 323 (1966) and related cases to the effect that technical defenses (such as impossibility) that have diluted criminal atteript statutes are not aplicable to statutes that proscribe endeavors to break the law.

Authorization

The bill would extend the life of LEAA for an additional 5 years and would authorize the appropriation of $1 billion for fiscal 1974, $1.25 billion for fiscal 1975, $1.5 bil1977 and $2 billion for fiscal 1978. lion for fiscal 1976, $1.75 billion for fiscal

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to make a brief statement regarding the necessity for a prompt consideration of the authorizing legislation for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

In 1968, the Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which by title I established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and authorized it to provide financial and technical assistance to the States and local governments for improved methods of law enforcement and crime control.

Two years later, the Congress again considered LEAA and in 1970 enacted a series of amendments to the 1968 legislation which were designed to improve LEAA's capabilities in supporting the initiatives of State and local government to reduce the incidence of crime in this country.

The value of this program to date must be recognized. Crime is still with us, of course, but we need to acknowledge the great strides forward that have been taken in the effort to combat lawlessness since LEAA was enacted.

Federal support of State and local crime control programs is having its desired effect. Tremendous progress is noted.

Since 1968, LEAA has provided the several States with a total of approximately $2.5 billion which in turn has been made available to all segments of the law enforcement community, including police courts and corrections, pursuant to comprehensive statewide planning strategies.

Each of the 55 States and territorial jurisdictions in the Nation now has an operative planning administration which facilitates a solution of the interdependent problems of the criminal justice process in America. These problems had been festering for decades, but until the advent of LEAA, a criminal justice planning capability simply did not exist in the United States.

LEAA has begun to turn criminal justice agencies toward mutual understanding and cooperation-not only through annual comprehensive plans assessing the needs of all components of the system, but, most importantly, through the exchange of local/State and

police/court/corrections views 1 the State boards.

The latest FBI crime statistics indicate that inroads are being made on the crime problem.

For the first time since 1955-17 years-there was last year an actual downturn of crime in this country.

The number of serious crimes reported in the United States in 1972 was 3 percent less than in the year before.

Declines of from 2 to 7 percent were reported in 1972 for burglary, auto theft larceny, and robbery.

In the six U.S. cities of a million or more population, the combined decrease for all crimes was 12 percent; in cities of 500,000 to 1 million, it was 7 percent; in cities of 100,000 to 500,000, it was 2 percent.

Of the 154 cities having 100,000 or more population 94 of them reported a decline in serious crime. This compare: with decreases reported by 53 cities th year before, 22 cities in 1970, and only 17 cities in 1969.

Serious crime in our Nation's Capital declined last year by 27 percent-th steepest drop of any big city in the country.

On June 30 the current authorizing legislation for LEAA will expire. With approximately 1 week left on the calendar prior to the expiration date, it i essential that we move swiftly to guarantee continued support for the operations of LEAA.

Committee embarked upon an ambitious Early this year, the House Judiciary set of hearings to consider the fate of this program. This month, the House Committee completed action on a number of proposals and on June 18, the House passed H.R. 8152, which would provide a number of worthwhile changes to the statutory scheme governing LEAA. This bill is now pending on the Senate calendar.

By and large, the House-passed bill would not reject the basic provisions upon which LEAA currently operates.

On June 5 and 6 of this year the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures conducted its hearings on this program and a series of related proposals. During the hearings, the subcommittee received testimony from the Attorney General, Members of Congress, mayors, State directors of the LEAA National League of Cities/U.S. Conprogram and representatives of the ference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the National Association of Regional Councils, and the National Association of Urban Criminal Justice Planning Directors.

Points of view expressed during the hearings ranged from the testimony of the Attorney General in support of the administration's special law enforcement revenue sharing proposal (1234) which I introduced early in the current session, to testimony by Members of Congress and others in support of various proposals to modify the Stateoriented bloc grant program by providing for direct categorical or bloc grants

to the larger cities based upon popula- tion to the seriousness of the juvenile detion and crime statistics. linquency problem.

After carefully studying all of the bills and considering the testimony received the subcommittee on June 16 reported to the full Judiciary Committee a "clean" bill which in essence rejected all proposals for major changes in the LEAA program. In this regard, the subcommittee agreed with the conclusion reached by the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives which also suggested an approval of the basic structure and authority of LEAA but recommended a number of changes designed to streamline the existing bloc grant funding mechanism and emphasized LEAA's responsibility for administering the program and for assisting the States in comprehensive planning.

On June 20, the full Committee on the Judiciary met to consider the bill which was drafted by the Criminal Laws Subcommittee. At that meeting it appeared to this Senator that there was overwhelming support for the bill. However, it also appeared that it would be impossible to promptly report the bill to the Senate for consideration and action prior to the June 30 deadline.

Accordingly, this Senator believes that the Senate as a whole must proceed with haste to a consideration of the LEAA program.

The distinguished chairman of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee (Senator MCCLELLAN) and I have introduced today a proposed amendment to H.R. 8152 which incorporates the recommendations of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee. Thus, the Senate, as a whole, will have the opportunity to consider the work product of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee in addition to the Housepassed measure as we move, hopefully, to guarantee the continued existence of LEAA.

AMENDMENT NO. 249

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

JUVENILE JUSTICE AMENDMENT

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of an amendment which Senators COOK, MATHIAS, and I are submitting for printing and intend to offer to the bill extending the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, and a copy of the letter concerning this amendment which we have sent today to our colleagues be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the letter and amendment were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

LEAA reports that on an average, 19% of the total block grant funds are already being allocated to juvenile delinquency programs. In light of the fact that juveniles account for half the crime problem in this country, we consider this amendment to be a minimal effort.

A "comprehensive program to improve juvenile justice" is broadly defined in our amendment to include programs and services to prevent juvenile delinquency, rehabilitate juvenile delinquents, and to improve all aspects of the juvenile justice system. Our amendment thus leaves maximum flexibility for states to determine their greatest needs with respect to juvenile delinquency programs and services. Our amendment would also provide a transitional year to allow the states to bring their juvenile justice programs up to an adequate level.

As members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, we believe that juvenile delinquency is one of the most critical aspects of the crime problem facing our nation today. During the past decade, arrests of juveniles under 18 for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, jumped 193%. Existing programs are plainly inadequate: recidivism among juvenile offenders is currently estimated to be at least 75%. Statistics confirm that today's juvenile delinquent is tomorrow's adult felon.

The minimal first step we can take in reversing this alarming trend is to put our crime control money to work on our biggest crime problem-juvenile delinquency.

We urge you to support our amendment. If you have any questions or wish to cosponsor our amendment, please contact one of us, or have a member of your staff call Mathea Falco, x-2951 (Senator Bayh), Ron Meredith, x-4343 (Senator Cook), or Quincy Rodgers, x-4654 (Senator Mathias).

[blocks in formation]

On page 11, line 24, after the period, insert the following:

"No State plan shall be approved as comprehensive, unless it includes a comprehensive program for the improvement of juvenile justice, as defined in part G, section 601(n), and provides that at least 20 percentum of Federal assistance granted to the State under parts C and E for the first fiscal year after enactment of this section be allocated to such comprehensive program for the improvement of juvenile justice, and that at least 30 per centum of Federal assistance granted to the State under parts C and E for any subsequent fiscal year be allocated to such comprehensive program for the improvement of juvenile justice."

On page 50, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

"(n) "a comprehensive program for the improvement of juvenile justice" means programs and services to prevent juvenile delinquency, rehabilitate juvenile delinquents, and improve the juvenile justice system, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:

"(1) community-based programs and services for the preven.ion and treatment of juvenile delinquency through the development of foster-care and shelter-care homes, group homes, halfway houses, and any other designated community-based diagnostic,

treatment, or rehabilitative service;

"(2) community-based programs and services to work with parents and other family members to maintain and strengthen the

family unit, so that the juvenile may be retained in his home;

"(3) community-based programs to support, counsel, provide work and recreational opportunities for delinquents and youth in danger of becoming delinquent;

"(4) comprehensive programs of drug abuse education and prevention, and programs for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicted youth, and "drug dependent" youth (as defined in section 2(g) of the Public Health Service (42 U.S.C. 201 (g));

"(5) educational programs or supportive services designed to keep delinquents or youth in danger of becoming delinquent in elementary and secondary schools or in alternative learning situations;

"(6) diagnostic facilities and services on a statewide, regional, or local basis;

"(7) expanded use of probation as an alternative to incarceration, including programs of probation subsidies, probation caseloads commensurate with recognized optimum standards, the recruitment and training of probation officers and other personnel, and community-oriented programs for the supervision of juvenile probationers and parolees; and

"(8) programs and services, including training of court and correctional personnel, to improve the administration of juvenile justice, and to protect the rights of juveniles."

CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1973-

AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENTS NOS. 259 AND 260

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. BURDICK submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to amendment No. 248 intended to be proposed by Mr. MCCLELLAN to the bill (H.R. 8152) to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve law enforcement and criminal justice, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 263

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. HART. Mr. President, shortly the Senate will consider H.R. 8152, to amend and extend the Safe Streets Act which authorizes the LEAA program of Federal ald to State and local law enforcement.

As the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN) explained yesterday, the Judiciary Committee has not reported a bill. The House measure has been held at the desk and when it is called up the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Nebraska (Senator HRUSKA) will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. President, both the House bill and the substitute proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Criminal Laws Subcommittee make many thoughtful and constructive improvements in the management and control of the LEAA program. We can all agree that there are few if any concerns more important to the American people than the problem of crime. But I think we all are also aware that the safe streets program has been beset with problems, controversy, and justified criticism of some aspects of its operations.

we

ings-until June of 1969, as fiscal year
1968 was coming to a close.

I plan to offer an amendment to the
substitute offered by the Senator from
Arkansas. My amendment would limit
the authorization for LEAA to the
next 2 fiscal years. Thereafter LEAA
would have to come back to Congress
and we would have another oppor-
tunity in the not too distant future to
review how it is working.

My provision matches the language
in the House bill on authorization.
And it follows the pattern of the orig-
inal law enacted in 1968 which re-
quired the agency to come back for
additional authorization after the first
few years.

tze programs for
Congress normally does not author-
more than 2 or
3 years at a time. In light of the
of authorization is appropriate and will
concern expressed about LEAA 2 years
insure intensive review in the near
future.

I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be printed in the RECORD
at the conclusion of these remarks.

There being no objection, the amend ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

AMENDMENT No. 263

On page 45, lines 24-25, and page 46, line
1, strike out the words: "81,500,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976; $1,750,-
1977; and $2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
ending June 30, 1978." and insert in lieu
thereof: "and for succeeding fiscal years,
such sums as the Congress might authorize."
AMENDMENTS NOS. 273, 274, 275, AND 276
(Ordered to be printed and to lie on
the table.)

ments intended to be proposed by him to
Mr. KENNEDY submitted four amend-
amendment No. 248 intended to be pro-
posed to the bill (H.R. 8152), supra.

AMENDMENTS NOS. 277, 278, AND 279

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

In short congressional oversight in the future remains important. It is important for every program if are to maintain the proper balance of congressional and Executive power and Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I send to see to it the programs achieve the the desk to be printed several amendbenefits they are designed to achieve, ments to H.R. 8152, to provide continued But in the case of a billion dollar pro- authorization for the Law Enforcement gram dealing with perhaps the major Assistance Administration-LEAA. domestic concern of Americans and These amendments comprise the eswhich continues to be beset by prob- sential features of S. 1497, the Law Enlems, the need for continued scrutiny forcement and Criminal Justice Act of is particularly clear. Accordingly, the 1973, which I introduced with Senator House bill would extend the program HART earlier this year. for only 2 years and provides authorizations for only fiscal year 1974 and fiscal year 1975. Thereafter, LEAA would have to come back to Congress for further authorization.

In essence, the amendments would streamline the funding process and provide means of bringing moneys directly to cities and counties where law enforcement remedies must be developed. Specifically:

The substitute offered by the Senator from Arkansas would extend the First. The first amendment would proprogram for 5 years and provide spe- vide that 75 percent of the total part C cific authorization for each of the next block grant funds go directly to local 5 fiscal years. units of government comprised of popuThus there would not be an oppor- lations with 50,000 persons or more. This tunity for review of the entire pro- would not affect the percentage allocagram and its operation-as distinct tion of funds among States, but would from more limited appropriations hear- only insure that those cities and counties

with the highest incidence of crime re-
ceive a share of funding proportionate to
their needs.

Second. The second amendment would
improve the Law Enforcement Educa-

(S 11859)

tion Program-LEEP-by providing direct grants to individuals employed in law enforcement and criminal justice so that they can choose the universities that will best serve their professional needs. It would also provide funds to colleges and universities to encourage curriculums in criminal justice planning.

Third. The third amendment would make it clear that planning and implementation of law enforcement programs can be done at the regional, as well as the State and local levels. California has successfully initiated such regional programs, which defray the costs of programs that cannot otherwise be borne by individual localities. But other States have hesitated, apparently because of the ambiguities in the law.

Mr. President, these ideas were developed after many months of study and numerous discussions with law enforcement officials across the country. They have the enthusiastic support of the National League of Cities/Conference of Mayors, law enforcement officials, mayors, district attorneys and police chiefs. I am hopeful that the Senate will include them in its continued authority for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume the consideration of legislative business.

There being no objection, the Senate resumed the consideration of legislative business.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, is the pending business H.R. 8152?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures be allowed on the floor for the duration of the consideration and votes on H.R. 8152: G. Robert Blakey and Paul C. Summitt. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ken Lazarus, Chuck Bruse, Ken Davis and Chuck Kern be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate and vote on H.R. 8152.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the privilege of the floor for a member of my staff, Rick Rubin.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to George Shanks of my staff.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, the authority for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration-LEAA-will expire on June 30 of this year. If we do not want this vital program to come to an end, it is imperative that we take action before June 30.

The House, after extensive hearings and debate, has now completed its work on a comprehensive measure (H.R. 8152) to revise and to extend the LEAA program. The House-passed bill is a good bill, not perfect, but it seems to be a good compromise of competing interests. With some modifications, I am sure that a majority of the Senate will want to support it.

The Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, which I am privileged to chair, has held 2 days of hearings on a number of LEAA related proposals. Testimony has been taken from the Attorney General, Members of the House and Senate, and representatives of the Governors, counties, mayors and public interest groups. On June 19, the subcommittee also reported to full committee its own version of comprehensive legislation to revise and to extend the LEAA program. On June 20, mindful of the time pressures we are now laboring under I attempted to bring this measure up before the full Committee on the Judiciary. It appeared that a majority of the committee was apparently willing to report it out. Nevertheless, some members of the committee moved to postpone further consideration of the bill for 1 week, as the committee rules provide.

Mr. President, this 1 week delay has made it most difficult, if not impossible for the Senate and House to work its will on this comprehensive legislation in time to save this program from expiration on June 30. It appears that we will now be forced to take up the House passed measure directly on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amendment No. 248, which is pending at the desk, be offered in the nature of a substitute, that it be agreed to, and that the bill as thus amended be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

That this Act may be cited as the "Crime Control Act of 1973".

SEC. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-351), as amended (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), is struck in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:

"TITLE I-LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE

"Declarations and Purpose "Congress finds that the high incidence of crime in the United States threatens the peace, security, and general welfare of the Nation and its citizens. To reduce and prevent crime and juvenile delinquency, and to insure the greater safety of the people,

« PreviousContinue »