LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 36
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: June 18, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R00070019001 7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE \ dune 18, 1973
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice, atd there were-yeas 321, nays 64,
[Roll No. 233]
YEAS-321
Ford, Gerald R. Mazzoli
Abdnor
Abzug
Addabbo
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson, Ill.
Andrews, N.C.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Arends
Armstrong
Ashley
Barrett
Bell
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
Blester
Bingham
Blatnik
Boggs
Bolling
Bowen
Brademas
Bray
Breaux
Breckinridge
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Mass.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Burton
Butler
Carey, N.Y.
Carney, Ohio
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clay
Cleveland
Cohen
Collier
Collins, Ill.
Conable
Conte
Conyers
Corman
Cotter
Daniels,
Dominick V.
Davis, Ga.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Dellums
Denholm
Dent
Derwinskl
Dickinson
Diggs
Dingell
Donohue
Downing
Drinan
Dulski
Duncan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Edwards, Calif.
Eilberg
Erlenborn
Each
Evans, Colo.
Fascell
Findley
Fish
Flood
Frenzel
Frey
ulton
uqua
aydos
G imo
Gi bons
Gii
Gol water
Mollohan
Good ng
Grass
Gray Morgan
Green, reg.
Green,
Griffiths Myers
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Gunter
Guyer
Hamilton O'Brien
Hammer-
schmidt
Hanley arris
Hanna atman
Hansen, Idaho tten
Hansen, Wash. P per
Harrington Pe
Harsha Pet
Harvey Pey r
Hastings Pick
Hays Pike
H5bert Poage
Hechler, W. Va. Podell
Heckler, Mass. Prayer
Heinz Price, Ill.
Helstoskl. Pritchard
Henderson Quie
Hillis Railsback
Hinshaw Rangel
Hogan Rees
Holifleld Regula
Holt Reuss
Holtzman Rhodes
Horton Rinaldo
Hosmer Roberts
Howard Robinson, Va.
Hungate Robison, N.Y
Hunt Rodino
Ichord Roe
Jarman Rogers
Johnson, Calif. Roncalio, Yo.
Johnson, Colo. Roncall N.Y.
Johnson, Pa. Rooney a.
Jones, Ala. Rose
Jones, N.C. Rose al
Jordan Rost kowski
Karth Ron
Kastenmeier Ro
Kazen R bal
Keating an
Kemp Germain
King arasin
Kluczynski Sarbanes
Koch Seiberling
Kuykendall Shipley
Kyros Shriver
Landrum Sikes
Latta Sisk
Leggett Slack
Lent Smith, Iowa
Long, L . Smith, N.Y.
McClo Snyder
McOl key Staggers
McC rmack Stanton,
Mc ads J: William
M wen Stanton,
Fall James V.
cKay Stark
cKinney Steed
McSpadden Steele
Macdonald Steelman
Madden Steiger, Wis.
Madigan Stephens
Mahon Stokes
Mallary Stratton
Mann Stubblefield
Maraziti Studds
Martin, Nebr. Sullivan
Martin, N.C. Symington
Matsunaga Talcott
Zu SPE AKER. there econ
Gross R nnels
Haley th
Hanrahan atterfleld
Hicks aylor
Huber Scherle
Hudnut Schneebeli
Hutchinson Shoup s LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
Jones, Ton Shoup
Ketchum Shuster AMENDMENTS
Long, Md. Skubitz
/ry Spence Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I move
Steiger, Ariz. that the House resolve itself into the
r Symms Committee of the Whole House on the
. Taylor, Mo.
Towell, Nev. State of the Union for the further con-
Treen sideration of the bill (H.R. 8152) to
Waggonner amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Con-
ware trol and Safe Street Act of 1968 to im-
io Wylie
Young, Alaska prove law enforcement and criminal
Young, Fla. justice and for other purposes.
Young, $.C.
OT VOTING-4s The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Edwards, Ala. Passman New Jersey (Mr. RODINO).
Fisher Quillen
Ford Rarick The motion was agreed to.
Metcalfe
Mezvil sky
Michel
Milford
Miller
Mills, Ark.
Minish
Mink
Mitchell, Md.
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Moorhead, Pa.
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Natcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
Nichols
Obey -
O'Hara
O'Neill
Approved For
Taylor, N.C.
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thomson, Wis.
Thone
Thornton
Tiernan
Udall
Ullman
Vander Jagt
Vanik
Veysey
Vigorito
Waldie
Archer
Bafalis
Baker
Beard
Bennett
Blackburn
Burgener
Byron
Camp
Clancy
Clawson, Del
Collins, Tex.
Conlan
Crane
Cronin
Daniel, Dan
Daniel, Robert
W., Jr.
Dennis
Eshleman
Froehlich
Gilman
Adams
Alexander
Ashbrook
Aspin
Badillo
Boland
Brasco
Walsh Wolff
Wampler Wright
Whalen Wyatt
White Wydler
Whitehurst Wyman
Whitten Yates
Widnall Yatron
Williams Young, II
Wilson, Young,
Charles H., Zablock,
Calif. Zion
Wilson, Zwac
Charles, Tex.
Winn
. NAYS-64
William D.' Reid
Frelinghuysen Riegle
Hawkins Rooney, N.Y.
Jones, Okla. Ruppe
Landgrebe Sandman
Lehman Schroeder
Litton Stuckey
Mailliard Thompson, N.J.
Mathias, Calif. Van Deerlin
Minshall, Ohio Wiggins
Mosher Wilson, Bob
Moss Young, Ga.
Nix
Owens
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 further
consideration of the bill H.R. 8152, with
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose on Thursday, June 14, 1973, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
RoDINO), had 42 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
HUTCHINSON), had 40 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. RODINO).
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING).
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I extended my remarks
in the RECORD during the general debate
on Thursday, June 14. Those Members
desiring to examine my views in greater
detail will find them in the RECORD for
that date.
Mr. Chairman, although I would prefer
to add certain additional features to this
bill, particularly provisions assuring that
the bulk of the law enforcement assist-
ance "pass through" funds would go to
those metropolitan areas where the prob-
lem of crime is the greatest, I believe that
this bill is a very substantial improve-
ment over the present law. It provides
for expediting the flow of LEA funds to
local governments. It provides for citizen
participation, reduced local matching
funds, stronger audit and evaluation pro-
cedures, strengthened civil rights provi-
sion, and, in general, will provide for a
law enforcement assistance program.
The members of the Judiciary Commit-
tee and, in particular, the chairman, are
lease 2001/08/30: CIA-RD 76 7R00 00 0 6-7
4Z c ) 0 L
W or- J
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
ii further notice:
ooney of New York with Mr. Bob Wil-
- Uri
Mr.
son.
Mr. Davis of So
man.
Mrs. Burke of California wit
der.
with Mr. Mailliard.
. Ford with Mr. Mosher.
. Aspin.
Minshall of Ohio.
A motion to reconsider was laid d4 the
ti to
of the e gentleman f m Ken-
kyhere was no objection.
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
June 18, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORI) -HOUSE
these problems : there are problems of
inadequate facilit s for juvenile delin-
quents and for fos children. There is
litter in the streets; N ere are high crime
and high drug areas. venth Street still
bears the signs of the ri s of April 1968.
Boarded-up houses c be found
cities. The urban problems a urban
needs of the District of Col is are
similar or even identical to the pr lems
faced by every other major city. Ye the
per capita Government expenditures or
,he District of Columbia are much
aigher than for our Nation's other urban
:enters. They cannot be justified just on
the basis of the District as the National
+:apital. It is not that the level of sup-
:)ort for services for the District of Ce-
lumbia is too high-it is that we have
completely failed to provide enough sul=-
Port for our urban programs nationwide.
Constituents who visit my office almost
always comment on what a beautiful city
Washington is-how many beautiful
buildings-so much open space and park-
] and-how clean it is. I always think
what a beautiful city Cleveland could be
if the same level of Federal support and
In light of these figures, I feel that we
have given too much preference to this
one city, that it is time for a better and
more equitable urban policy to all our
citizens-not just to the citizens of this
one city.
The District appropriation indicates
what a city needs for survival and service.
It also provides the Congress with a
measure of the widening gap between
available urban revenues and urban
needs.
Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, we
have no further requests for time on this
side.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, we have
no further requests for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
Mr. NATCHEI , (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill be con-
sidered as read and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ken-
tucky?
There was no objection.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I mall a
point of order against the language to
as follows:
Provided. That the certificates of he Com-
missioner (for $2,500) and of the/Chairman
appropriation for such purpo;/s, exclusive of
ceremony expenses, as they 3fisy respectively
deem necessary:
Mr. Chairman, lr'e the point of
order that this is not limitation on an
appropriations 16i11, And is not author-
The portion of ,he bill to which the
point of order rel tes is as follows:
GENERAL ERATING EXPENSES
General operat' g expenses, $66,491,000, of
which $629,700 hall be payable from the
highway fund including $72,400 from the
motor vehicle arking account), $94,500 from
the water fu d, and $67,300 from the sani-
tary sewage works fund: Provided, That the
certificates of the Commissioner (for $2,500)
Defense to the District of Columbia Office
Civil Defense for the purchase of civil de-
the Department of Defense. when. author -
ized by the Commissioner.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Kentucky desire to be heard on the
point of order raised by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) ?
Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I con--
cede the point of order. As the Chair well
k.iows, the bill that was before the House.
I believe last week, took care of this mat-
ter. We concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. FASCELL). The
point of order is conceded, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the language to be
found on page 11, lines 5 through 10, at
not being a limitation upon an. appro-
priation bill, and not authorized.
The portion of the bill to which the
point of order relates is as follows:
SEc. 5. Appropriations in this Act shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C
3109 and shall be available to the Office of
the Corporation Counsel to retain the servis s of consultants including physicians
t.iorized by 5 U.S.C.
Individuals not in ex
sonal
each:
aid were provided to Cleveland. It is the
Federal tax dollars collected from cities
such as Cleveland and spent here in
Washington that makes this city so beau-
tiful.
We have built a marble "Rome" on
the banks of t e Potomac-but it is built
on the orb decay of most of the other
major citie of America.
The dis epancy in District of Colum-
bia Bove mental receipts and expendi-
tures e n be seen from the data in the
Bure of the Census publication on "Lo-
cal overnikent Finances in Selected
me opolitan Areas and Large Counties,
1 0-71."
H 4869
D.C., SMSA . Columbia SMSA (Cleveland)
2,861,638 756, 510 2,063,729 1,720,835
$650.51 $1.154.94 $459.80 $473.30
$143.59 $477.36 $17.74 $20.61
$682.55 $1,208.22 $474.23 $488.29
diagnosticians, therapists, engineers, and
meteorologists at rates to be fixed by the
Commissioner.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Kentucky desire to be heard on the
point of order raised by the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. GROSS) ?
Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to say to the members of the
Committee that this is a new provision
that is carried in the bill at this time.
This was sent up from downtown. We at
this time, Mr. Chairman, concede the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. FASCELL). The
point of order is sustained.
Are there any amendments to be pro-
posed to the bill? If not, the gentleman
from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise and re-
port the bill back to the House with the
recommendation that the bill do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
t Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. FASCELL, Chairman of the Commit-
tee di( the Whole House on the State of
the ion, reported that that Commit-
tee, hang had under consideration the
bill (H. 8658) making apropriations for
the gover ent of the District of Colum-
bia and o er activities chargeable in
whole ortriin art against the revenues of
said Disct or the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, nd for other purposes, he
reported the bl back to the House with
the recommen tion that the bill do
Mr, NATCHER\Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous questi n on the bill to final
The previous questibp was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
engrossment and third% reeding of the
The "bill was ordered t be engrossed
and 4d a third time, d was read
the third time.
The 'SPEAKER. The que on is on
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker,', on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
June 18, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
deserving of commendation for this ex-
cellent result.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. HOLTZMAN).
(Ms. HOLTZMAN asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
[Ms. HOLTZMAN addressed the com-
mittee. Her remarks will appear here-
after in the Extensions of Remarks.]
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(MISS JORDAN).
(Miss JORDAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Miss JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the committee bill which
extends and improves the Law Enforce-
ment Assistance Administration. LEAA
was created in 1968 to mount a massive
Federal attack on crime. As we all know,
that attack has not met with'complete
success, as the problem of crime still
plagues cities and rural areas across the
country. After rapid rises. for years, seri-
ous crime finally declined by 3 percent in
1972. That news has to be met with
muted enthusiasm, however, since several
categories of crime have continued to in-
crease, many areas have not yet seen re-
ductions at all, and the overall level of
crime remains at . clearly intolerable
levels.
Further, we cannot succumb to the
temptation to measure LEAA's success
simply in terms of its contribution to a
reduction in crime. This is clearly a key
objective, but success must also be meas-
ured in terms of improvements in the
whole system of law enforcement and
criminal justice, and in these terms, this
Nation still has a long way to go. The
prevailing conditions in the fields of
criminal justice and law enforcement are
still intolerable. Obsolete State criminal
codes, congested courts, overburdened
probation and parole systems, inhumane
and ineffective correctional institutions
and ineffective police departments are
just a few of the deplorable character-
istics of our crime control systems.
In this light, it was clear to the com-
mittee that LEAA must be allowed to
continue, and hopefully, to improve its
work. The distinguished chairman of
your committee has already explained
the major provisions and improvements
in the bill before us today, so I will con-
fine my comments to only a few of the
major areas addressed, with varying
degrees of success, by the committee bill.
The committee has, wisely I think,
largely rejected the administration's pro-
posed revenue sharing approach to law
enforcement as an unwarranted relaxa-
tion of Federal direction and control. For
example, the requirement for prior ap-
proval of State plans by LEAA before
block grant awards are made has been
retained and language added requiring
LEAA to undertake a thorough review of
these plans rather than acting simply as
a rubber stamp. Although there is scant
evidence that LEAA has used this au-
thority effectively in the past, since no
State plan has ever been rejected prior
approval is the linchpin of the Federal
role in the safe streets program. Without
it, LEAA would be reduced to a mere ac-
counting and checkwriting bureau with
no influence over anticrime programs.
H.R. 8152 has also retained the special
earmarks for the law enforcement educa-
tion program and the part E corrections
program in the belief that these national
emphasis programs should not be left
merely to the discretion of the States.
Iwould also like to call your attention
to the time.limits this bill places on the
grant-making process for both the Fed-
eral-State block grants and the State-
local project grants. A major portion of
the testimony presented during the com-
mittee's hearings was directed at the de-
plorable delay and inefficiency in putting
LEAA funds to work by a cumbersome
bureaucracy. Local governments often
wait 6 months to a year after submitting
applications for LEAA funds to State
agencies before the applications are ap-
proved and the grants made. The com-
mittee also wanted to assure that the
strengthened requirements for LEAA
prior approval of State plans did not re-,
suit in further delays in allocating funds
to State planning agencies. Consequently,
a time limit of 90 days for the approval
of State plans and a limit of 60 days for
the approval of grant applications to
State planning agencies by local units of
government have been added to the bill.
The committee bill also contains the
administration's recommendations for
new civil rights language, together with
an amendment which I offered.
It is now more than 5 years since the
National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders identified the lack of adequate
representation of minorities in law-en-
forcement agencies as one of the key
problems in. the breakdown of communi-
cation between police and the citizens
of the ghetto. While progress has been
made in some areas in the employment of
minorities and women in law agencies,
many problems of discrimination remain.
One need go no further than the reports
of decided Federal cases to obtain evi-
dence of the persistence and prevalence
of racism in law enforcement.
For example, a Federal district court in
Mississippi found in, 1971 that the Mis-
sissippi Highway Patrol had never em-
ployed a single black officer. Of 743 per-
sons employed by the department of
public safety in 1971, only 17 were blacks
and they were all employed as cooks or
janitors. Morrow v. Crisler, 4 E.P.D. par-
agraph 7541 (S.D. Miss. 1971) ; aff'd.-F.
2d-(5th Cir.; April 18, 1973).
While the situation in Mississippi Is
perhaps the most blatant, similar prob-
lems of discrimination have been found
by Federal courts to exist in Alabama,
Massachusetts, and Bridgeport, Conn.
See NAACP v. Allen, 340 F Supp. 703
(M.D. Ala. 1972) ; Castro v. Beecher, 459
F. 2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972) ; Bridgeport
Guardians Inc. v. Bridgeport Civil Serv-
ice Commission 5 CCH E.P.D. 8502 (D.
Conn. 1973).
Other cases alleging discrimination are
pending before Federal courts in Ala-
bama, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Connecti-
H 4871
cut, Illinois, California, and Ohio, and
before State commissions in Missouri,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Indiana, Penn-
sylvania, and Connecticut.
The existing LEAA statutes contain no
provisions designed to prevent dis-
crimination in benefits or employment
on the basis of race, color, national
origin, or sex. As a result, LEAA has been
particularly slow to develop an effective
civil rights enforcement program. In
fact, it was not until 2 years after its
establishment that LEAA admitted it
has a civil rights enforcement responsi-
bility and created a civil rights compli-
ance office and implementing regula-
tions.
The administration suggested new lan-
guage for this legislation, with what I
hope was the intention of strengthening
LEAA's civil rights enforcement powers
and responsibilities, which has largely
been incorporated in section 518(b) of
H.R. 8152. These provisions parallel the
language of title VI of the Civil Rights
Act 1964 with an added prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of sex, but
they also specify special procedures for
enforcing those provisions. These special
procedures are appropriate to the block
grant nature of the LEAA program. They
direct the administration, whenever it
determines that a State or local unit of
government has violated the civil rights
provisions, to request the State's Gov-
ernor to secure compliance. If within 60
days he has failed or refused to secure
compliance, LEAA is required to begin
its own enforcement procedures.
The effect of my amendment to the
administration's suggested provisions is
to require LEAA to first use the same
enforcement procedure which applies to
any other violation of LEAA regulations
or statutes. That procedure of notifica-
tion, hearings, and negotiations is spelled
out in section 509, which provides the
ultimate sanction of funding cutoff if
compliance is not obtained. LEAA is also
authorized to undertake civil action in
any appropriate U.S. district court for
such relief as may be appropriate.
This amendment was necessary to rev-
erse LEAA's traditional reliance on court
proceedings to correct discrimination,
rather than undertaking administrative
enforcement of civil rights requirements.
Desillte this declared preference for ju-
dical remedies, which is not the proced-
ure used for any other violation of LEAA
guidelines or statutes, LEAA has not ini-
tiated a single action in court and has in-
tervened in only a limited number of
cases brought by private groups. Even
these interventions were begun long
after the suits were filed and usually as
the result of external pressures of court
order. In effect, LEAA has had no civil
rights enforcement program. The civil
rights provisions in this bill give LEAA
the necessary powers and require the
establishment of an effective civil rights
program.
It is also worth noting the new re-
quirements in this bill for LEAA to begin
careful evaluation of the programs it
funds so that the substantial Federal re-
sources LEAA controls can be directed
into effective efforts to control and re-
duce crime. The Attorney General ad-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 18, 197S
mitted the weakness of LEAA's record in
this regard, since only limited attempts
have been made in the past 5 years to
measure program effectiveness and to
share information with the States about
innovative ideas which work. The com-
mittee bill gives major new authority to
the National Institute for Law Enforce-
ment and Criminal Justice to evaluate
LE.A.A programs and their success or
failure, and to share the results of its
own research and development activi-
ties.
I', is the intention of the committee
that the National Institute to utilize
wherever possible the report of the Na-
tional Advisory Commission on Criminal
Justice Standards and Goals in these
evaluations. This Commission has pro-
duced a massive document which spells
out in considerable detail what each seg-
ment of the criminal justice system
should be striving to achieve. I hope that
the National Institute will make major
use of this new authority so that LEAA
will no longer simply throw money at the
problems of crime in the vague hope that
something will work.
Mr. Chairman, all these improvements
in the Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-
ministration constitute a bill which is
deserving of strong support. However, I
was disappointed that one critical prob-
lem with the administration of the LEAA
programs was not adequately resolved.
Large urban areas, where the problems
of crime are the most severe, still do not
have a large enough role in the safe
streets program.
City governments and local law en-
forcement agencies are not equal part-
ner:; in the LEAA process, even though
they are manning the front lines in the
battle against crime. Their influence on
the planning and priority setting process
is minimal except in a very few States.
They are faced with a multi-layered
bureaucracy, delays, uncertainties, and
frecueni rejection of their own priori-
ties for LEAA funds. They are forced to
apply to State planning agencies for
LEAA funds piecemeal, waiting as long
as 12 months before funds are made
available. The block grant philosophy of
allowing maximum flexibility to State
governments has not been applied, as
logic and effectiveness require, to local
governments. Instead, our crime-
wracked urban areas are forced into a
individual categorical grant process con-
trol_ed by a set of priorities imposed by
the State with scant consultation.
I am convinced that a more respon-
sible role for our high crime urban
areas can and should be created, with-
out destroying the statewide priority
sett ng role which is properly the respon-
sibi'ity of the State planning agency.
Local criminal justice and law enforce-
ment plans could be drawn up by local
governments, in cooperation with State
planning agencies, and block grants
awarded to those local governments on
the basis of those plans. Such an ar-
ran,ement would greatly increase the
efficiency of the entire LEAA process
and get the money where the problems
are quickly.
With this exception, Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support the committee bill, and
urge my colleagues in the House to sup-
port it as well.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. McCLOPY).
(Mr. McCLORY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his 1,e-
marks.)
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. it will
be my intention to discuss primarily that
part of the Law Enforcement Assistance
Act which relates to the National Insti-
tute of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice. This part of the bill is under
part D, and is to be found on pages 21 to
24 of the measure (H. R. 8152) which is
now pending for discussion before the
committee.
Many in this Chamber will recall the
amendment to the omnibus crime bill of
1968 by which we established the Na-
tional Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice as a part of this overall
Federal program directed against crime.
The overall concept of the National
Institute is that it should be a profes-
sional high-level agency or institute for
the purpose of giving guidance and dire e-
tion in the overall attack on crime, with-
out, however, endeavoring to provide any
kind of Federal police force or domina-
tion or control of the broad law enforce-
ment and criminal justice functions
which belong to the State and to the local
units of government. I should recall that
this amendment to the 1968 act received
substantial support from our former col-
league, William Cramer of Florida, and
was developed and adopted as the result
of substantial bipartisan support in this
Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, I will not go into the
background of the dilution of the Na-
tional Institute's authority. However, I
should observe that its role was reduced
substantially in the final version of the
bill which we passed in 1968, and it has
never been adequately funded since that
time.
Mr. Chairman, in the measure before
us, we undertake to correct the existing
deficiency in the National Institute by
establishing its intended role as a clear-
inghouse and evaluating agency with
respect to research and development
projects which are authorized under this
legislation. It is further specified that the
Institute shall disseminate the results of
such efforts to State and local govern-
ments.
This- should fulfill a great reed which
the testimony before our committee em-
phasizes. In other words, large sums of
money are expended in developing new
and advanced techniques, both with re-
spect to the use of sophisticated equ.p-
ment and in the administration of pro-
grams of crime prevention, apprehension,
prosecution, rehabilitation and others.
Yet there is still no method by which
the best result obtained under these de-
velopments may be made available to all
others who are charged with enforcing
the law or otherwise working in our
criminal justice system. Accordingly, the
Institute will now have an augmented
role as a clearinghouse to receive, and to
disseminate information of vital impor-
tance in the reduction of crime In Amer-
lea.
A second role of the Institute which
has been largely omitted up to the pres-
ent time is that of training. The test,
mony from local and State law enforce-
ment officials has reiterated time and
time again that the most urgent need
is that of training programs for their
personnel.
The Institute accordingly, is assigned
the responsibility of assisting in training
programs at the request of States or units
of general local government-or a com-
bination thereof. This authority applies
with respect to all segments in the law
enforcement and criminal justice field-
not just police or prosecutions. While it
is anticipated that many regional train-
ing programs may involve but a single
States may join in requesting the estab-
State, it is likewise possible that several
lishment of such training programs on a
regional basis. Where smaller programs
may be indicated, the Institute is author-
ized to carry out programsof institution-
al assistance consisting of research fel-
lowships, and to present special work-
shops for the dissemination of informa-
tion resulting from research, demon-
strations and special projects. Finally,
the Institute is authorized to establish
its own research center to carry out pro-
grams described in this part of the new
law.
Thus, a large responsibility is reposed
in the National Institute to develop and
administer that high-level type office
which can identify and make available
the most modern developments and tech-
niques relating to law enforcement and
criminal justice. The evaluation role 19 a
particularly sensitive one, which I would
expect the Institute to fulfill through the
benefit of an advisory committee or other
agency which was representative of every
level of government as well as knowledge-
able persons from the academic and civic
segments of our society. In this connec-
tion, the Institute may wish to refer to
recommendations of the National Advis-
ory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals-although some of
those may not be desirable.
Mr. Chairman, these provisions con-
tained in the measure which extends the
omnibus crime bill of 1968 for another
5 years are distinct improvements over
the existing law, and like other parts of
this measure which are being modified
on the basis of our experience-are at
the same time contributing to a greatly
improved administration at the Federal
level, which can serve to direct and in-
spire improvements in law enforcement
and criminal justice at the local and
State levels.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
MEZVINSKY).
(Mr. MEZVINSKY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman, the
bill that the subcommittee has presented
today is a great improvement over the
present LEAA program. We have held
extensive hearings and listened to rep-
resentatives of all those involved in the
LEAA programs. We have taken their
criticisms and comments on the present
program and numerous proposals and
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
June 18, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
used them to restructure LEAA to give
it the potential to target the crime dol-
lar to the crime problem. Our subcom-
mittee has worked hard on this bill,
guided by our untiring Chairman, the
distinguished gentleman from New Jer-
sey, and we ask for your support of this
most important piece of legislation.
This bill greatly improves the current
LEAA program and I would like to men-
tion briefly some specific changes which
deserve your support.
First, the new LEAA has been devised
to go beyond law enforcement in its nar-
row interpretation and can encompass
the whole field of criminal justice. Our
anticrime programs must not stop at the
court room door but must follow through,
with rehabilitation of those convicted. As
we all know, recidivism is one of the most
serious crime problems and hopefully
more emphasis on rehabilitation in this
bill will help us begin to find some an-
swers to combat the high rate of crim-
inal repetition.
Another aspect of this bill which is
noteworthy is its requirement for stricter
auditing procedures and greater account-
ability of the individual programs to the
LEAA. Appropriations of vast sums of
money to combat crime will not work if
the money does not get to the right
places. During the hearings it was quite
evident that LEAA money was being mis-
spent. We have all heard of many in-
stances where anticrime money was used
to provide such things as riot equipment
to towns of a few, hundred people. In
Iowa, for example, GAO is presently con-
ducting an independent audit of LEAA
money to find specific areas of waste or
improperly expended funds. I hope that
if this bill is passed today, such independ-
ent audits will be unnecessary because it
will be possible to rely more heavily on
the program's strict self-auditing proce-
dures.
Another safeguard has been incorpo-
rated into the program by reducing the
program authorization from 5 to 2 years.
although 2 years may not produce great
inroads into solving the problems of
law enforcement and criminal justice,
demanding more frequent congressional
review and scrutiny of the program will
increase our ability to perform our over-
sight function properly.
Another important improvement is the
change we have made in the discretion-
ary grants disbursed by the LEAA. Under
our program funds can go to multistate
planning units, to allow them to improve
law enforcement and criminal justice
in crime areas which do not confine
themselves to a single state.
One example exists in my district. The
Quad Cities is a metropolitan area di-
vided by the Mississippi River. It would
be naive for us to believe that the crime
problem in Davenport, on the Iowa side,
can be solved independently of the crime
problem on the Illinois side of the river.
Multistate areas must be given the re-
sources to work together. Increased ur-
banization has made such an attack on
crime imperative.
I believe by implementing this bill we
can begin to better deal with crime in
our country. For this reason, I urge you
to support H.R. 8132.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. DENNIS).
(Mr. DENNIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have
one amendment which at the appropri-
ate time under the 5-minute rule I in-
tend to offer to this bill. I take this time
to briefly apprise those who are present
as to what that amendment will be be-
cause I feel it is an important amend-
ment which indeed goes to the very es-
sence of the measure now before us.
There will be a committee amendment
offered which will provide that in respect
to the grants for law enforcement, under
part C of the bill, not more than one-
third of any such grant made under that
section may be expended for the com-
pensation of police.
My amendment will add to the com-
mittee amendment the words: "and
other regular law enforcement and crim-
inal justice personnel," so that the limi-
tation would read that: "Not more than
one-third of any grant made under this
section"-that is for law enforcement
purposes-"may be expended for the
compensation of police and other regu-
lar law enforcement and criminal justice
personnel."
This will put the law back essentially,
to where it is now. It is difficult to under-
stand why the committee amendment
should place this limitation of only up
to one-third of the grant on police sala-
ries only and exclude other law enforce-
ment and criminal justice personnel.
The reason for the limitation in the
first place is because here we have a pro-
gram which is supposed to be a new, in-
novative program which will encourage
States and localities to do things in the
criminal law field and in the law en-
forcement field that they are not now do-
ing. It was realized that if we allqwed
all the money to be used to pay salaries,
the inevitable result would be that we
would just be having a salary bill for
local personnel, a revenue-sharing bill, if
you will. That would destroy the pur-
pose of this wholem easure, and that was
the reason for the limitation which had
been there right along.
Now, why we should cut that down
to police salaries only and permit this
money to be used .without limitation for
all other law enforcement-criminal jus-
tice personnel, such as prosecuting at-
torneys, judges, public defenders, prison
guards, wardens, probation and parole
officers, it is very difficult to see. It goes
a long way toward just transferring this
into a local salary bill, and by that much
destroying the very purpose of the meas-
ure; and the purpose which has been in
it, I might add, from the beginning.
There is no reason for supporting such
a provision in the law. This becomes es-
pecially important under the recent de-
cisions of the Supreme Court, the Gideon
case, and the Argersinger case, which
quite properly require public defenders
to be appointed both in felony and mis-
demeanor cases, and it costs a lot of
money. The temptation is going to be al-
most inescapable to take practically all
this Federal money and pay it out in
legal fees, for instance, which is not
what we passed this bill for.
Both under the committee amendment
and under my amendment with the
aded words, the limitation will not ap-
ply-will not apply-to personnel who
are engaged in conducting or undergo-
ing training programs or who are engaged
in research or development or demon-
strations, all the innovative things which
were supposed to be encouraged by this
bill; but the limtation will keep us from
spending all the money on salaries.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Indiana has expired.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 1 additional minute to the gentle-
man from Indiana (Mr. DENNIS).
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, it will
avoid the inevitable competition which
will result between city A, which tries to
do the job we contemplate under the bill,
and city B, which yields to temptation to
use all the money for salaries, thereby
forcing city A to do the same.
Therefore, I hope everyone, including
even the majority of my distinguished
committee, will support this amendment
which goes right on with the basic idea
this bill is supposed to be all about.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
DONOHUE).
(Mr. DONOHUE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of H.R. 8152 as reported by
the Committee on the Judiciary.
I believe that this bill is the product
of a frank appraisal by the committee of
just what the Federal leadership role in
the fight against crime should be, and of
just how that role has been undertaken
pursuant to the congressional will ex-
pressed in 1968 by the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act.
The law enforcement assistance pro-
gram, as envisioned by the 1968 legisla-
tion, and as clarified and modified by
H.R. 8152, strikes an appropriate balance
between the need for Federal resources
and expertise, and the need for responsi-
ble State and local planning to meet
what are essentially State and local prob-
lems.
The committee had before it proposals
to remove all Federal responsibility for
the administration of this program. Such
proposals were, as always, of course,
tempting-they promise less bureaucracy
and they seem to give those closest to the
problems the exclusive right to solve
them.
But the Congress explicitly recognized
.that the urgency of the fight against
crime, and the nature of the efforts
needed to upgrade our criminal justice
system, required a "better coordinated,
intensified, and more effective" attack
by "all levels of government." The in-
creasing intensity of the problem called
for a sharing of responsibility as well as
of revenue.
H.R. 8152 accomplishes that sharing of
responsibility without depriving the
States and localities of the right to set
their own priorities,. and to undertake
their own planning. Perhaps most im-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP76M00527R000700190016-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE June 18, 1973
po:?aant the bill actually opens up and
broadens the planning process to assure
bo-.h accountability and increased citi-
zen involvement.
am particularly pleased, Mr. Chair-
m~.n, to note that the bill addresses the
past deficiencies in the LEAA program
at all levels of the process. Federal re-
sponsibility is clarified by making more
emphatic the importance of LEAA's prior
ap)roval of State plans function. At the
same time, the problems that have ham-
pered the States and localities are also
fairly and effectively met-complicated
matching requirements are simplified
and made more realistic; unjustifiable
delays in the flow of these funds to re-
cipients are made directly contrary to
new provisions added to the act. The in-
tent of Congress is clearly shown to be
the improvment of the whole criminal
justice system, and the purposes of re-
haiilitating, as well as merely detect-
inf.- and apprehending criminals are
given due emphasis.
Mr. Chairman, the House today is be-
ing asked to authorize to this program
appropriations of $1 billion for each of
the next 2 fiscal years. I believe that is a
reasonable and prudent authorization:
A fund level allowing adequate resources
to address the real needs and a time pe-
riod giving the Congress a meaningful
oversight role in the administration of
this program. For those reasons, I urge
the adoption of H.R. 8152.
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. BIAGGI).