the State alone is responsible. And so it would occur that a unified court or corrections systems would become fragmented. It is respectfully suggested that these proposals are a giant step backward. Perhaps such risks to the program could reasonably be taken if somehow a clear need for a shift in funding were demonstrated. No such case has been made. The only statistics brought to our attention during subcommittee hearings (appendix G, p. 890, et seq.) stood ready to refute any case in its incipient stages. They indicated that the high crime urban areas of this Nation in fiscal year 1972 had 49 percent of the population and 70 percent of the crime in their respective States, and received 71.3 percent of the local share of the block grants. The crime-statistics formula would guarantee only 63 percent, and doubtlessly in such a situation what was designed as a floor would also serve as a ceiling. Thus we see little benefit and much mischief in such proposals. Two additional amendments to present law contained in H.R. 8152 deserve comment. Section 306 governs the making of discretionary grants. At present, only States and units of general local government are eligible to receive such grants. However, the committee learned that LEAA has been making grants to private nonprofit organizations through eligible recipients. Although current law does not expressly prohibit this practice, it should be noted that Congress in 1970 rejected requests for such authority and that under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius it would be reasonable to conclude that only governmental entities are eligible to receive discretionary grants. This is as it should be. We are not pleased with the present practice of permitting some private nonprofit organizations to receive funds intended only for governmental entities. The size of the discretionary fund is not so great and the needs of State and local government are not so slight that funds would otherwise go unwanted. If so, LEAA should make that fact known to us. We well understand that the present practice requires complex bookkeeping and that this burden could be erased by the amendment to present law authorizing the practice. However, we remain unconvinced that the practice is a good one. If the law cannot restrain the practice, perhaps the administrative burdens will keep such deviations to a minimum. A motion to strike the provision authorizing the practice failed 23-14 on a rollcall vote. We hope that the House reverses this result. Our concluding comments likewise concern a provision on which Congress expressed itself in 1970 in contradiction to H.R. 8152. In House-Senate conference it was decided that it would be unwise to require that State planning agencies be composed of citizen, professional, or community groups. It was argued that such groups may be represented under the then current law on such agencies but to require representation would lead to litigation over the composition of such agencies with the effect that injunctions, preliminary or remedial, would slow the flow of funds to State and local governments. We agree. An amendment to strike the requirement and substitute permissive language (declaratory of present law) failed on an 18-18 rollcall vote. We hope that the House reverses that decision. We the undersigned Members ascribe to the foregoing additional views. EDWARD HUTCHINSON, ROBERT MCCLORY, HENRY P. SMITH III, TOM RAILSBACK, DAVID W. DENNIS, HAMILTON FISH, Jr., WILEY MAYNE, LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, JOSEPH J. MARAZITI. INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MR. WIGGINS I concur in the foregoing additional views, except insofar as they may be understood to express unequivocal disapproval of the making of discretionary grants to nongovernmental agencies. On this point, I am not ready to take an inflexible position. One of the important purposes of this discretionary fund is to encourage innovation. That purpose may not be served if a nongovernmental agency is denied an opportunity to contribute its unique competence to the solution of a law enforcement problem and to receive financial support for its efforts. It must be remembered that the discretionary funds are controlled. The possibility of wasteful expenditures on programs having only limited law enforcement benefits is thus minimized-if the managers of the fund use prudence and commonsense in the exercise of their discretion. Their track record thus far is good. To restrict their discretion, as some have urged, would not be supportive of the general purposes of the legislation nor justified on the basis of their overall performance to date. CHARLES E. WIGGINS. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution as follows: H. RES. 436 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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 all points of order against section 1 of said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LATTA), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 436 provides for an open rule with 2 hours of general debate on H.R. 8152, a bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. All points of order against section 1 of the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill-are waived. The bill replaces the present system of LEAA administration with an Administrator and a Deputy Administrator. The bill strongly indicates the intention of the Congress that moneys expended under the act address all aspects of the criminal justice system. H.R. 8152 retains Federal responsibility for administering the program and for assisting the States in comprehensive planning. Approval of State plans is retained as a condition precedent to funding. The bill also reduces the State-local cash-matching-fund requirement to 10 percent, and requires that all planning meetings be open to the public. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 8152 is to make a variety of amendments to title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), that established the Federal law enforcement assistance program. Most importantly, the bill would authorize appropriations for the next 2 fiscal years for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration-LEAA-created by the 1968 act as a financial and technical partner for State and local governments in reducing crime and improving the Nation's criminal justice system. The committee believes the changes in existing law represented by H.R. 8152, as amended, are major steps forward in the fight against crime. Most importantly, the new language addresses those deficiencies that have most severely hampered aspects of LEAA performances in the past. The bill eliminates the unwieldy "troika" system of LEAA administration, and replaces it with a single Administrator and a Deputy Administrator appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Also in this regard, the committee has broadened the definition of law enforcement and criminal justice to include prosecutorial and defender services. The purpose of rehabilitating criminals as well as simply detecting and apprehending them is added to the purpose of the act. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of House Resolution 436 in order that we may discuss and debate H.R. 8152. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LATTA asked and was given permision to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 436 provides for the consideration of H.R. 8152, the law enforcement assistance amendments. This is an open rule with 2 hours of general debate. The rule also contains a provision that waives all points of order against section 1 of the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI. This deals with appropriations in a legislative bill. The purpose of H.R. 8152 is to make a number of amendments to title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, that established the Federal law enforcement assistance program. In addition, the bill authorizes appropriations for the next 2 fiscal years for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration-LEAA. The total cost of the bill is $2 billion: $1 billion for fiscal year 1974 and $1 billion for fiscal year 1975. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule so that the House may work its will on this legislation. Hopefully the House will defeat the bill. Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. RODINO). The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 8152, with Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. RODINO) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HUTCHINSON) will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. RODINO). Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, the House today, in considering the bill, H.R. 8152, addresses as vital an area of concern as any it will consider this Congress. The incidence of crime in a free nation, and the operation of that nation's criminal justice system truly measure the strength of a free society. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice told us what every American knew too well: There is crime in America, more than ever reported, far more than ever is solved, for too much for the health of the Nation. But the Crime Commission told us something else as well: America can control crime if it will . . . It must welcome new ideas and risk new actions. It must resist those who point to scape goats, who use facile slogans about crime by habit or for selfish ends. It must recognize that the government of a free society is obliged not only to act effectively but fairly. It must seek knowledge and admit mistakes. In 1968, partially in response to the report of the President's Commission, the Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Con trol and Safe Streets Act, a comprehensive Federal program to assist the States and localities in reducing crime and improving the Nation's criminal justice system. Approximately $2 billion has been expended pursuant to that legislation, administered by the Law Enforcement As |