Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 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, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the statement. (For the conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of

There was no objection.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RODINO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 1973, by a vote of 391 to 0, the House passed the bill, H.R. 8152, amending title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968. By that action, the House took an important, affirmative step to meet the continuing challenge of crime and to address the pressing needs of our criminal justice system.

As an important part of that legislation, the House bill authorized appropriations of $1 billion for each of the next 2 fiscal years for the Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration.

Subsequently, on June 28, the Senate passed an amended version of H.R. 8152, requesting a conference, which was agreed to by the House on June 30. The conference committee met on July 11, 13, and 16, arriving at an agreement which I believe represents a balanced and constructive piece of legislation. That agreement incorporates nearly all the important provisions of the House bill, and

adds new Senate language which both improves the bill and strengthens the program.

The major compromise is a 3-year authorization-$1 billion for fiscal year 1974 and 1975 and $1.25 billion for fiscal year 1976. The Senate bill had provided a 5year authorization at funding levels up to $2 billion by 1978.

Frankly, the importance of the program and its past history over a 5-year period had convinced the House Committee on the Judiciary that continuing and vigilant congressional oversight was necessary to insure the program's accountability, and to allow for periodic reappraisals of our fight against crime. A 5-year authorization wolud not be consistent with that responsibility.

Thus, the confeernce report adopted a 3-year authorization, accommodating the need for genuine oversight with the need to allow for comprehensive planning. I believe both can be accomplished in the best interests of the program.

Briefly, on other important matters, the conference took the following action: First. Agreed to the Senate amendment providing for one additional Deputy Administrator;

Second. Omitted the Senate provision authorizing the transfer of LEAA moneys

to the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission for law enforcement purposes;

Third. Agreed to the Senate amendment authorizing the use of block grant and discretionary funds for planning grants to interstate metropolitan regional planning units;

Fourth. Combined the Senate and

House training provision, by retaining the FBI training program for police, and providing that the National Institute

assist State and local governments in local training programs for all law endeveloping and conducting regional and forcement and criminal justice personnel. The two agencies are to complement rather than duplicate each other's efforts;

Fifth. Agreed to the Senate amendments authorizing the National Institute to serve as an international as well as a national clearinghouse for the expansion of law enforcement and criminal justice information; and granting authority for international as well as national information dissemination and technical assistance by the Institute;

Sixth. Agreed to the Senate provision that upon receiving a complaint of discrimination in the administration of programs assisted under this Act, a State

Governor has "a reasonable time" rather than the House passed "60 days" to respond. At the same time, the Conference adopted the House provision that upon the expiration of "a reasonable time," administrative proceedings would be initiated automatically;

Seventh. Omitted Senate amendments providing compensation for victims of crime and percentage allocations to address juvenile justice. The House in disagreeing with these amendments, and the Conference Committee in adopting important legislation on both these subjects is pending in both Houses. While both Houses feel that comprehensive legislation is needed, separate bills are the

more responsible way to proceed on each of these matters.

Mr. Speaker, the foregoing items do not exhaust the list of actions taken by the conference committee, but they do reflect many of the more important amendments. Most importantly, the totality of the package is a strengthened bill which reflects the reasoned input of both Houses.

I am gratified that the important features of the House bill, which were the product of 4 months work by the Committee on the Judiciary, have been retained. Thus, the scope of LEAA's mandate is clarified to include the improvement of criminal justice, as well as the detection and apprehension of criminals. The exercise of Federal responsibility is emphasized by focusing on the approval of comprehensive State plans. Matching requirements are simplified; reduced and made a more realistic responsibility for States and localities. New provisions assure an accelerated flow of funds from Washington to the States in the first instance, and then from the States to the streets of our localities where they are most needed in the fight against crime.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues who contributed so much to this conference report and legislation: Messrs. CONYERS, FLOWERS, SEIBERLING, Ms. JORDAN, Messrs. MEZVINSKY, HUTCHINSON, MCCLORY, SANDMAN, DENNIS, and FISH.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HUTCHINSON).

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

(Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was

given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the conference report on H.R. 8152, the Crime Control Act of 1973. On June 18, 1973, the House bill 391 to 0. Although the Senate thereafter was adopted by this body unanimouslyadded an amendment in the nature of a substitute, it substantially tracked the language of the House bill.

The most important difference was the length of the grant-making authorization of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The House provided a 2-year authorization; the Senate provided a 5-year authorization. The conference report provides a 3-year

authorization.

Additionally, the Senate amendment

differed in three respects: victims of crime, juvenile justice, and local comprehensive planning. The Senate amendment provided that the States could use LEAA funds to establish programs to compensate victims of violent crime. Fortunately, this provision was deleted in conference. In my opinion, our limited Federal resources may be better spent on preventing and reducing crime than on compensating some victims of some crimes after such crimes have occurred.

With regard to juvenile justice, the Senate amendment would have required that each State spend 20 percent of its LEAA funds on juvenile justice programs in this year, and 30 percent thereafter, regardless of its particular needs in that area of competing needs in other areas

of law enforcement and criminal justice.

Moreover, each State would have been tion is surprising. I do not believe that straitjacketed into adopting specified this intention was ever expressed in the reforms in the area of juvenile justice subcommittee where it is drafted, in comwhich the House has not yet examined. mittee where it was reported, or on the The conference report recognizes the floor where it was adopted. It is true that problems of juvenile justice while LEAA was authorized to assist in conpreserving the flexibility of the block ducting regional training programs. But grant program. Each State must have a it would be closer to the mark to note comprehensive juvenile justice program that former section 407 underscored the tailored to its own needs, not to the norm need for Institute training rather than and not to the average. This will place a established its parameters. greater responsibility on LEAA, for it will Finally, LEAA and the National Inhave to determine the sufficiency of the stitute were given authority to receive effort in relation to the State's par- and disseminate information internaticular needs. But I think the advantages tionally. The summary incorrectly indiwill be worth it. cates that this function should be limited

With regard to comprehensive local to cases such as skyjacking, drug abuse, planning, the Senate amendment pro- and international terrorism. Rather, the vided that local governments or com- conferees intended this limitation to apbinations thereof with a population of ply to the international technical assist100,000 might submit comprehensive ance authority because it is operational. plans rather than applications-to the The joint explanatory statement of the State for approval. The Senate amend- committee of conference correctly exment mandated that the State have a presses this legislative intention. procedure to receive such plans, but no Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report to more. No local plan was guaranteed any the House that all of the conferees apfunding or percentage of funds desig- pointed on the LEAA conference commitnated for local governments generally. tee signed this report—all of the 11 conThe conference report incorporates this ferees on the part of the House and all provision but limits the procedure to lo- of those on the part of the Senate. cal governments or combinations with a So, as the chairman of the Committee population of 250,000 and makes clear on the Judiciary has reported to you, that the State may either approve or dis- this conference report represents the approve a plan in whole or in part. The unanimous effort of the conferees. provision makes relatively no change in I simply want to add this one further the law since the provision expressly in- thought: In all of the real controversial dicates that the local plan must be con- matters involved in this bill, the Senate sistent with the State plan. Thus the receded to the House. I think numeriStates' responsibility for planning com- cally the House receded to the Senate in prehensively is assured and underscored. more instances than the Senate receded Finally, I am constrained to comment to the House. But the point is that in the on the summary of H.R. 8152 which was controversial matters we won. inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON I believe this bill is substantially the July 26, 1972, at S14745-S14746 by the bill as it passed the House, and I have distinguished Senator from Arkansas. no reservations about asking the House In describing the matching requirements to support this conference report. generally, the summary indicates that Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such private nonprofit organizations time as he may use to the gentleman meet matching requirements with their from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY). own funds and thereby implies that private nonprofit organizations have a general authority to participate in the LEAA programs as grantees. V

may

(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I am conference committee report. pleased to express my full support of the

In conference the Senate conferees suggested that by administrative practice Mr. Speaker, in the conference report private nonprofit organizations were per- the Congress recognizes for the first time mitted to be grantees of both discretion- the critical and vital role of the National ary grants and block grants. We replied Institute on Law Enforcement and Crimthat if that was the practice, it was not inal Justice in the overall function of authorized. The statute rather spe- training of law enforcement and criminal cifically denominates the eligible grant- justice personnel. This broad training ees. By amendment to present law, pri- authority is sufficiently comprehensive vate nonprofit organizations are spe- to cover every aspect of the fight against cifically made eligible to receive discre- crime. tionary grants from LEAA. Why was that amendment necessary if those organiza- tional Institute is now clothed with auMr. Speaker, in other words, the Nations have a general authority to par- thority to assist in the development of ticipate as grantees? Moreover, in my training institutes at the regional and opinion, it is unwise to foster the dele- local levels in such functions as comgation of governmental duties to non- munity relations, criminal rehabilitation, governmental agencies and thereby parole and probation, and all other law diminish both political accountability enforcement and criminal justice funcand fiscal accountability.

The summary also suggests that the training authority now granted to the National Institute "is actually the former section 407 regional training authority." To the Members of this body who developed the Institute's new role, this asser

tions and activities. There is no intent to interfere in any way with the training functions of the FBI at Quantico, Va., or with the other limited FBI training services to State and municipal governments where the FBI has expertise. At the same time, there is authority in the National

Institute to include in its training programs such traditional FBI functions the investigation of crime and the apprehension of criminals without duplicating or supplanting any work which the FBI is performing.

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that when the National Institute organizes regional and local training programs, the FBI will be invited to assist in making available its experience and know-how in dealing with these particular aspects of crime. It is my view that the National Institute should support and assist in the organization of those larger training programs in contrast to the more limited types in which the FBI is traditionally involved. For that reason, it seems to me that there should be no need to supplant or duplicate the FBI and its relatively limited involvement in regional and local level training programs. Indeed, the National Institute should supplement and greatly augment the Federal role in giving support as well as guidance and direction toward the best possible training of personnel in every kind of activity designed to reduce crime in America.

It is generally recognized that a reduction in crime is not to be accomplished through a Federal police force, or any other anticrime program which is to be operated out of Washington. Local law enforcement officials, including county sheriffs and regional and State police activities, are the key to reducing crime. It is to support the training of personnel at these levels of government that the National Institute can perform a useful and constructive role.

It is my expectation that in the development of all such training programs the National Institute will call upon those skilled individuals from our municipal police departments, our State correctional institutions, our universities which have departments of police science and criminology, experts in handling race and ethnic relations-and every other discipline which affects the problem of crime in America.

Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to construct new buildings or to establish new institutions either here in Washington or elsewhere. Adequate physical facilities exist throughout the Nation and training programs can be carried out building where any such training inwithout any need for constructing a new stitute would need to be housed.

Indeed, it would seem to me that the benefits from the training programs established and static faculty. It is my might be lost if we were to rely upon an expectation that training programs would be modified from time to time to utilize to the greatest degree possible oped in the overall fight against crime. those recognized experts who are devel

Mr. Speaker, in short, the Congress through this new authority is responding to a need which has been expressed many times that research and training are the most significant areas in which the Federal Government can play the most significant role in support of local and State law enforcement and criminal justice functions. We are making a subsantial start in this legislation and I fully expect that the benefits of these