[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3857-H3864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CITIZENS' RIGHT TO KNOW ACT OF 2018
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 872, I call
up the bill (H.R. 2152) to require States and units of local government
receiving funds under grant programs operated by the Department of
Justice, which use such funds for pretrial services programs, to submit
to the Attorney General a report relating to such program, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is considered as adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2152
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act
of 2018''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT
RECIPIENTS USING FUNDS FOR PRETRIAL SERVICES
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--For each fiscal year in which a State or
unit of local government receives funds under any grant
program operated by the Department of Justice, including the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program under
subpart I of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), and
which uses funds received under such program for a pretrial
services program, the State or unit of local government shall
submit to the Attorney General a report which contains the
following:
(1) The name of each defendant participating in a pretrial
release program administered by the pretrial services
program, and whether, as applicable, each occasion on which
such defendant failed to make an appearance.
(2) Information relating to any prior convictions of each
defendant participating in the pretrial services program.
(3) The amount of money allocated for the pretrial services
program.
(b) Publication Requirement.--Subject to any applicable
confidentiality requirements, the Attorney General shall, on
an annual basis, make publicly available the information
received under subsection (a).
(c) Reduction in Funding.--The Attorney General shall, for
State or unit of local government which fails to comply with
the requirement under subsection (a) for a fiscal year,
reduce the amount that the State or local government would
otherwise receive under each grant program described in
subsection (a) in the following fiscal year by 100 percent.
(d) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated to a State or unit
of local government under subsection (c) shall be reallocated
under each such grant program to States and units of local
government that comply with the requirement under subsection
(a).
(e) Definition.--The term ``failed to make an appearance''
means an action whereby any defendant has been charged with
an offense before a court and who is participating in a
pretrial release program for which funds received under a
[[Page H3858]]
grant program referred to in subsection (a) are used as a
condition of pretrial release--
(1) does not appear for any court date regarding such
charge;
(2) does not appear for any one appointment with the
pretrial services program; or
(3) does not appear for any post-release appearance the
court may require.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2152.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
{time} 1430
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 2152, the Citizens' Right to Know Act of
2018, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
A little over 50 years ago, there were three pretrial options for
defendants accused of a crime: they were released on their own
recognizance, granted commercial bail, or remanded to custody.
When considering the options on whether to grant ROR, set a bail
amount, or remand, the judge considers a number of factors, including
the severity of the crime charged, the suspect's criminal record, the
danger posed to the public if the suspect is released, and the
suspect's ties to community, family, and employment. Commercial bail
ensures the appearance of the defendant in court at no cost to the
taxpayer.
The situation for defendants began to change in the 1960s. The first
U.S. pretrial services program, the Manhattan Bail Project, was
established in 1961. The Manhattan Bail Project was intended to help
defendants who were financially unable to post the surety bond
conditions set in New York City.
The program interviewed defendants to gather information on community
ties to determine a defendant's likelihood to appear in court. Based on
these interviews, low-risk individuals were recommended for release on
their own recognizance or the defendant's promise to appear without
financial obligation.
Unfortunately, over the last four decades, pretrial release programs
have expanded well beyond their original scope and purpose. Today,
there are over 300 pretrial release programs nationwide, whose
participants routinely include violent and repeat offenders, many of
whom are able to post a commercial bond and have done so in the past.
In many instances, the Federal Government has become a major source of
funding for pretrial release programs.
Currently, these pretrial release programs funded by the taxpayers
are not required to report any information about the defendants
released through their programs into the communities. Basic information
on defendants is neither collected nor reported in any systematic
fashion.
H.R. 2152 requires jurisdictions that receive grant money from the
Department of Justice to operate a pretrial release program to report
certain information concerning the defendants to the Attorney General.
The bill requires the jurisdiction to submit the criminal histories
of the defendants and the number of times the defendant has failed to
appear as ordered by the court. It also requires the Attorney General
to make public the information the Department of Justice receives. In
my mind, that isn't a whole lot to ask these jurisdictions.
In fact, this bill is beneficial because citizens have the right to
know what types of defendants are being released prior to their trial.
If a defendant has a long history of criminal behavior or frequent
failures to appear in court, the community should know that. Likewise,
residents should be aware if their community is running a successful
pretrial services program where defendants are regularly making it to
their court appearances.
Simply put, no matter what side of the bail or no-bail debate you
find yourself on, you should support this bill. Information like this,
in the hands of the public, is never a bad thing. It will also be
helpful to those of us who make policy on these matters.
I want to thank Mr. Poe for introducing this legislation, and I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 2152.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member of
the committee, Mr. Nadler, and the chairman of the committee, Mr.
Goodlatte, who is now managing the bill; and I certainly acknowledge my
fellow Texan and know that he has all good intentions on important
legislation dealing with the question of safety and security.
H.R. 2152, unfortunately, has been noted possibly to have
requirements that would undermine the privacy of those who participate
in the program, who are disproportionately poor Americans, and
discourages the use of pretrial service programs in communities across
the country because of the punitive measures in this bill. I rise to
oppose H.R. 2152 because it is flawed and needs to address the
disparate treatment of poor Americans.
I believe the consideration of the issues underlying the bill is
timely but, unfortunately, not directed in the right way. The House
should examine pretrial services and bail issues with the goal of
reforming our Nation's bail system, not for the purpose of protecting
the use of money bail which is unfair to the indigent, unproductive,
and expensive for American taxpayers.
In fact, in Harris County, we have a money bail system, and a Federal
judge, Judge Lee Rosenthal, indicated that it was disproportionately
unfair to poor constituents in the State of Texas and, particularly,
Harris County. We have been working to come together and have an
agreement in our local community on recognizance bonds for individuals
who work, and put a certain criteria in.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, we are as concerned about the safety
and security of our constituents, but it would be inappropriate for us
to enhance the commercial bond industry, which I certainly appreciate--
they create jobs and they are businesses--in contrast to individuals
who simply cannot afford a money bond.
In this instance, this bill would penalize those entities, those
communities that use Federal funds for pretrial release programs if
they don't provide all of this data. Now, it might be important to
provide this data for someone who is particularly dangerous, but, Mr.
Speaker, you know just like I do, those individuals do not get a bond.
So, as I indicated, the Citizens' Right to Know Act would require a
State or local government that uses Justice Department grant funding to
pay for pretrial services, which are important programs, to report,
annually, certain information to the Department of Justice about
defendants who participate in the pretrial services program.
The very fact that you are in the program is an indication, in most
jurisdictions, that you are not a violent felon. You would hope that
you are not a person accused of sex crimes, sex trafficking, human
trafficking. Those are matters that can be fixed.
Information that will be required to be reported includes the name of
each defendant participating in the pretrial release program and each
occasion that the person failed to make an appearance, the record of
prior convictions of each participant, and the amount of money
allocated for the pretrial services program.
If a unit of government fails to comply with the reporting
requirement, it would lose its entire funding under the relevant
program for the following fiscal year, penalizing smaller communities,
innocent communities that didn't have the wherewithal to provide all
that data. Certainly, it would be better spent on making sure that they
use the pretrial program efficiently and safely and secure.
[[Page H3859]]
The requirements in this bill largely mirror legislative initiatives
being advanced by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, in
the States, under the false guise of transparency.
Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. I
absolutely agree with that, and I support the reporting of information
that will educate us as to what is taking place. As for H.R. 2152,
however, I question whether the categories and information that must be
reported under the bill are designed to do that or are adequate to tell
us about the efficacy of these programs. In addition, the bill requires
that this information be made publicly available by the Attorney
General.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, NAACP,
Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change have written to us opposing the
bill and expressing concerns about this publication requirement and the
harm to individuals resulting from a sharing of criminal records and
personally identifying information. I share these concerns. The groups
that I have named have been historic organizations that have dealt with
the civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, and constitutional rights
of Americans, no matter who they are.
Although the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to eliminate
the reporting of arrest records of the participating defendants, I see
no need to compile and make public information about prior convictions
and the failures to appear in connection with identifier-specific
defendants--maybe overall numbers, but this would be unnecessary and
unproductive.
The main crux of what we should be about is that a pretrial program
is a secure and safe program. The levels of a person who can
participate should be utilized with guidelines, restrictions, and,
certainly, local monitoring. But to penalize an organization, entity, a
governmental entity trying to do its best and to be fair and balanced
in the criminal justice system based on money bail is something that I
would raise the question.
You can document, in Harris County, that we have had an enormously
disproportionate impact on individuals with small offenses who have had
to go no other route but either jail or money bail. They have no money
bail. They are in jail. They could have a legitimate job. They could be
a teacher.
We just had an incident with a mother who was placed in--she was,
unfortunately, at least the allegations are, that she was driving,
unfortunately, in a school zone and had a minute amount of marijuana.
Whatever our positions are on that, she was sent to the Harris County
jail, of course, lost her job. She was gainfully employed and is,
obviously, distraught.
I hate to say it; her allegations are that she was raped in the
Harris County jail, sad to say that. But the point is, just think if
she could have been released on her own recognizance and/or a small
amount in a pretrial release program. Not given that opportunity, she
was taken in and, unfortunately, suffered these unfortunate
consequences.
Members submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to address some
of these concerns and also to encourage States to eliminate monetary
bail, but none were made in order for consideration on the floor today.
That is unusual, a closed rule on a Judiciary Committee bill that is
the arm of decency as relates to decency, dignity, liberty, justice,
and freedom.
Those are very important elements to the American people, and,
certainly, the amendments should have been at least given consideration
for the Representatives of the people of the United States in the
people's House to debate these amendments. That was not the case, so we
have a closed rule. I am baffled by that.
Instead of considering this bill, the House should be taking up
legislation to encourage States to end the practice of requiring money
bail, a practice that disparately impacts the poor and most vulnerable
in our society.
For instance, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1437, the No Money Bail Act of
2017, which would reduce Justice Department grant awards to States that
do not eliminate money bail and would also eliminate bail at the
Federal level. Instead of considering H.R. 2152, we should be advancing
legislation such as H.R. 1437, or, minimally, both bills should on be
on floor at the same time.
Again, this is no attempt to undermine how we secure our communities.
I certainly take no backseat to the fact that our families,
communities, police officers, and people in the criminal justice system
should be protected, and those who have been given the benefit of a
pretrial release should adhere to the rules that are there; but I can
see no reason to be punitive to the local governmental entities as
relates to not reporting names and all those details, including prior
convictions, et cetera, et cetera.
What is the Federal Government going to do, say, if you have two
prior convictions, you can't be in the pretrial release program? That
is a local, State issue as opposed to a Federal issue, and what you are
doing is connecting desperately needed criminal justice dollars from
the Department of Justice to communities that may be trying to do their
best.
With the version of H.R. 2152 that was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee, we are not doing that, unfortunately. Therefore, I oppose
the bill and hope that the House will soon take steps to do something
about the real problem: our Nation's unjust money bail system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the chief sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for
bringing this legislation to the floor.
I have several comments that I would like to make in response to my
friend from Houston, Ms. Jackson Lee, about this legislation and about
what it is and, more importantly, what it is not.
I served 22 years on a criminal court in Houston, Texas, felony
cases, saw about 25,000 people work their way through my court. Before
that, I was a prosecutor for 8 years in State court. Mr. Speaker, I saw
a lot of people charged with criminal conduct, and this legislation is
necessary because of some problems that the system has created.
As the chairman pointed out, pretrial release is a relatively new
concept in our justice system. When a person comes and is charged with
a crime, generally speaking, in most jurisdictions, there are four ways
in which that individual can be released until their day in court:
One way is to put up a cash bond, where they put up the cash to the
sheriff's department sometimes, and after the case is over with, they
get that cash back.
Another way is to go through a bonding agency where they pay a
bonding agency a percentage and they, the bond company, are responsible
for making sure the person appears in court. If they don't appear, the
bonding company loses the entire bond money.
There is a personal recognizance bond, where an individual comes to
court and tells the judge and promises: Judge, I will come back to
court for my trial.
{time} 1445
It is an agreement between the judge and the individual.
And then there is the pretrial release system.
The pretrial release system is similar to personal recognizance,
except the person is supposed to be supervised by a government agency,
usually called the pretrial release agency, that makes sure that that
person abides by certain conditions, doesn't leave town, and that
pretrial release agency is usually run by the local judiciary or the
justice system like the county, four different ways.
This legislation deals only with the pretrial release programs in our
Nation, the 300 pretrial release programs.
The Citizens Right to Know Act is really not reforming pretrial
release, it is an accountability portion of pretrial release to let
people know how the Federal money is being used to operate.
Each year, millions of dollars in Federal grant money goes to State
and local pretrial release agencies to operate those programs. These
programs allow the accused individual to be released and await trial,
usually to stay in the jurisdiction.
However, some jurisdictions overuse the programs and release many
repeat and dangerous individuals with no
[[Page H3860]]
oversight by anybody. They are just released into the community.
Some of these released individuals disappear from the justice system
indefinitely. We don't know how many do because there is no reporting
of people under the pretrial release program to the Federal Government
when they receive Federal funds.
In many cases, repeat, violent, and hardened criminals participate.
As a result, in jurisdictions across the country, taxpayers are
literally bailing out individuals with a long criminal record on a new
criminal offense.
All across America, terrible crimes are being committed by
individuals who are bailed out on a pretrial release program because
there is no accountability of the program.
This bill is an accountability bill. Who is being released? What
types of cases are being released? How many people repeat a crime while
they are out on pretrial release?
We don't know because those records are never kept. So if the
taxpayers are going to fund pretrial release programs, as they should
in local jurisdictions, let the pretrial release program report back to
the Federal Government the results of the program. Is it working? Is it
not working? That is what we need to know, and we have no idea today.
It doesn't have anything to do with determining who is released on
pretrial release, it just wants these organizations to report back to
the Federal Government because the public has the right to know if the
program is working.
Right now, that is neither collected or reported in any systematic
fashion.
Why not? Why don't these pretrial release programs in the country
say: Yes. It is working. Everybody comes back, or a great percentage
comes back. Or: No. It is not working. People disappear. They commit
crimes. We don't know, Mr. Speaker.
All this bill does is help pretrial release let us know and let them
know and the public know, is the pretrial release program working in
that jurisdiction?
You are using Federal money to operate the program, therefore, report
back to the Federal Government on how that program is working or not
working.
It doesn't change the pretrial release program, except it requires
accountability. For too long, we have not allowed or required
accountability of what takes place under the pretrial release program.
It does not collect data on each pretrial release defendant to
determine if these agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants
adhere to their pretrial requirements and whether the defendants
actually show up for trial. It collects it on all defendants that the
pretrial release program must report to the Federal Government.
Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of these
programs, and without basic information like this, Congress can't
ensure that the programs are working around the country.
Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers need to know if their resources are being
spent wisely, and that communities are being protected.
There have been numerous cases where individuals were released on
pretrial release bonds, and they had a long criminal record, and they
commit another offense.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter regarding pretrial
release programs.
October 27, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Gentlemen: We are writing to express our strong support for
HR 2152, the Citizens Right to Know Act, sponsored by Rep.
Ted Poe (R-TX). The legislation has been referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.
This legislation is long overdue. It requires pre-trial
release agencies receiving federal funds to report to the
Department of Justice, who participates in their programs,
including participant:
Criminal history, including previous charges filed
Previous failures to appear for trial
Previous and current non-compliance infractions
Currently these pre-trial release programs aren't required
to report any information about the defendants released
through their programs. Basic information on defendants is
neither collected nor reported in any systematic fashion. The
DOJ only collects data from pre-trial release agencies
related to crime rates and trends in the aggregate. It does
not collect data on specific participants and programs. Thus,
there is no mechanism to determine if pre-trial release
agencies are effective in ensuring that defendants adhere to
their pre-trial release requirements or whether these
defendants actually show up for trial.
Without this legislation, policymakers and taxpayers have
no ability to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded
pre-trial release programs. And without such data, hundreds
of federally funded pretrial release programs lack sufficient
accountability to U.S. taxpayers. This lack of accountability
has allowed many repeat and violent offenders to get out of
jail on our tax dollars.
Until the 1960's, principal options for the accused were
ROR (release on one's own recognizance) commercial bail or
incarceration. Commercial bail ensured the appearance of the
defendant in court at no cost to the taxpayer. Pre-trial
release programs began in the 1960's for the purpose of
securing release for indigent, non-violent offenders who
couldn't afford monetary bail.
However, over the last four decades, pre-trial release
programs have expanded well beyond their original scope and
purpose. Today there are over 300 pre-trial release programs
nationwide whose participants routinely include violent and
repeat offenders, many of whom are able post a commercial
bond and have done so in the past. In many instances, the
federal government has become a major source of funding for
pre-trial release programs.
If Congress continues to fund pre-trial release programs,
then Congress must be able to determine the effectiveness of
such programs. Taxpayers deserve to know if their limited
resources are being spent wisely and their communities are
being protected.
We believe swift passage of H.R. 2152 will provide greater
transparency for pre-trial programs, greater accountability
for taxpayer funds, and increased public safety for our
communities.
Sincerely,
Patricia Wenskunas, Crime Survivors; Mark Klaas, Father
of Polly Klaas, Klaas Kids Foundation; Ronald Lampard,
Criminal Justice Reform, Reform Task Force, American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC); Jim Backlin,
Christian Coalition; Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring; Kay
Daily, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary; Susan Carleson,
American Civil Rights Union; Harriett Salerno, Crime
Victims United; Beverly Warnock, Parents of Murdered
Children; Gary Bauer, American Values; Jim Gilmore,
Free Congress/American Opportunity Foundation; Beth
Chapman, Professional Bail Agents Association; Larry
Cirignano, Children First Foundation.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Citizens Right to Know Act simply
states that if a State or local jurisdiction is going to use Federal
money for a pretrial release program, they must report to the Federal
Government information on who participates in the program, the criminal
records of those individuals, the appearance rate at trial, and the
previous failure to appear of those programs.
I also want to be clear that any State or local jurisdiction that
does not report this information will lose the portion of Federal funds
which they use for pretrial release programs only. Other Federal funds
will not be affected that go to, for example, Byrne grants. I just want
to clear that up because my friend, Ms. Jackson Lee, mentioned that
they are going to lose all Federal funds. No. They just lose the funds
that apply to Federal pretrial release programs if they don't report
those statistics.
There is some question about the privacy of individuals. If States
have a law to protect the privacy of certain persons on pretrial
release, this bill does not change that. This bill says that if the
State has those privacy laws for individuals, which some do, that is
fine. That will not be affected or overruled by this Federal law.
I think that this legislation is necessary to see if these programs
are working. If they are working, maybe we ought to expand them. If
they are not working, maybe Congress needs to reform the pretrial
release program.
This legislation enjoys widespread support. One of those supporters
is the National Association of Police Organizations. I include in the
Record a letter indicating their support.
National Association of
Police Organization, Inc.,
Alexandria, VA, May 9, 2017.
Hon. Ted Poe,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Poe: On behalf of the National Association
of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to you to
express our support for the Citizens' Right to Know Act of
2017, H.R. 2152.
[[Page H3861]]
NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from
across the United States that serves to advance the interests
of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal
advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978,
NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and
associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and
more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to
fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.
Each year, millions of dollars in federal grant monies go
towards state and local pre-trial release programs, which
allow accused criminals to await their trial at home, rather
than in jail These programs, which in many cases serve
repeat, dangerous criminals, often operate with little
oversight, putting public safety at risk. Increased oversight
of these programs would decrease the possibility of the
accused committing crimes while on pretrial release or simply
disappearing to avoid facing justice.
The Citizens' Right to Know Act addresses the lack of
oversight of these programs by mandating that federally-
funded pre-trial service agencies publicly report on program
participants, including if they have a history of criminal
behavior, whether they appear for their trail, and whether
they have ever previously failed to appear for trial. As
federal dollars are going towards bailing out criminals, this
Act helps ensure that the accused face justice and our
communities are protected.
We look forward to working with you to pass this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this so we can know
exactly what is taking place with Federal funds that are being used to
keep people and let people, as Ms. Jackson Lee pointed out, out of jail
without having to use some other type of system. And if it is working,
let's expand it. If it is not working, maybe Congress needs to be
involved to make sure that people do show up for trial, because that is
the whole key of a bond, is to release the person under some type of
bond, like a pretrial release bond, but we want them to appear in
court.
I had cases in my court where people were released on pretrial
release bonds; they would show up for trial. I had cases in my court
where they were released on pretrial release bonds, and they are still
running loose years later.
We don't know the statistics of who is released and who comes back
and who is released who never comes back.
This legislation just wants a report to Congress so we can decide on
reforms if necessary in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. He is
a dear friend. As we debate this question, I think it is a very
important moment as we look at comprehensive criminal justice reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Courts,
Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that this body oppose H.R. 2152, which
is a classic piece of legislation which poses itself as a solution, but
it is in search of a problem. The solution has very ominous
consequences for minorities and poor people, and infringes on the
constitutional rights of citizens, that they should be presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty when they participate in these pretrial
release services.
When I was a magistrate court judge in DeKalb County, Georgia, over a
period of 12 years, starting in 1989 to a time about 5 years before I
came to Congress, it was my duty to commit people to pretrial services.
Everybody knows how it works, everybody knows who is eligible, and
everybody knows that it is a roaring success. There are no problems
with pretrial services, which help poor people and basically
minorities, who tend to be disproportionately caught up in the criminal
justice system.
It helps people who can't afford to make a money bail to be able to
get out of jail with some minimal supervision as they await disposition
of the charges against them.
It is a simple program administered by State and local authorities
around the country. It works. There is no question about it. There is
no need for any Federal supervision or oversight of these programs.
What H.R. 2152 would do would be to require local governments who
receive DOJ funding for pretrial services to send a report to the DOJ,
the Jeff Sessions DOJ, detailing the personally identifiable
information on those defendants participating in alternative bail/
pretrial release programs, which are typically utilized by those who
can't afford money bail.
Sending this information to the DOJ will create a permanent record of
the defendants who are awaiting trial, and that data will remain in a
Federal database, even if the charges against the accused are dropped
or the accused is found innocent.
Pretrial service programs are critical in protecting those who are
unable to post bond during their pretrial stages, and this legislation
would disproportionately impact minorities and poor people.
The presumption of innocence is one of the most sacred elements of
our criminal justice system and a pillar of many modern-day criminal
justice operations in modern society throughout the world.
H.R. 2152 threatens this right to a presumption of innocence.
Pretrial service programs are critical, and poor people and minorities
should not be penalized by being permanently marked in a Federal
database, and for that reason I ask my colleagues to not approve this
solution in desperate search for a problem with ominous implications
for poor and minority people.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2152, the Citizens Right to Know Act.
As a cosponsor of this bill, and a law enforcement for over a decade,
I believe this bill is common sense and a needed piece of legislation.
May I share respectfully with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle who may be in doubt of this bill, if you are in support of
pretrial diversion programs, then you should support this bill.
The existence of pretrial diversion courts is manifested in our
Nation due to a righteous need for proper adjudication at all levels of
the economic strata and all portions of our culture and society.
But the pretrial diversion program comes after arrest. Arrest is made
by the police officer investigating the incident. Innocence is presumed
until adjudicated guilty or otherwise, and within 48 hours of arrest,
probable cause has to be presented in the form of an affidavit to a
magistrate court, and that judge will determine if that American has
been righteously incarcerated, his freedom taken from him, our most
precious right as Americans.
We stand in the body which gave birth to the concept of a man and a
woman's right to be free, and I support that.
The diversion programs across America, however, through their rather
brief history within our judicial system, have failed to provide
sufficient data to the jurisdictional authorities that gave birth to
them, and that data has not been shared at the Federal level which
supports them financially through the harvesting of treasure from the
American people that we serve.
I respectfully submit to my colleague that I am a compassionate
American man that believes in innocence until proven guilty, and I
would like for diversion court programs to continue and grow across our
country to better serve the needs of we the people, to recognize the
fact that all of us, in some way, are failed and fallen, and we should,
of course, with compassion, move forward through the judicial system.
The pretrial diversion programs that exist across our country depend
upon a cornerstone of confidence among the jurisdictional authorities
that they operate within and the Federal Government that funds them,
that they are operating within parameters that are accepted across the
country as abiding by laws local, State, and Federal.
{time} 1500
To not share data that is readily available by these courts with the
Federal Government that funds them is an angle that could be used to
defeat these courts that we support. So the compilation of data
righteously collected and disseminated is something that we should
support if we further support these very court systems.
So this legislation before us today would give Federal and State law
enforcement agencies vital data on criminal offenders, repeat or
otherwise, who
[[Page H3862]]
are placed within the diversion court systems. This information is
crucial to both promoting public safety and giving policymakers better
insight into the effectiveness of pretrial programs, which I support.
I would like to thank Congressman Poe for his leadership on this
issue, and I urge my colleagues very respectfully, on both sides of the
aisle, to support this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me indicate and reemphasize points that I made and, as well,
points that Mr. Johnson made.
This will have a disparate impact, and what strikes me of great
concern is that this amendment was, in essence, a closed rule.
I submitted an amendment that would basically gather data--which, I
think, is what the proponent of this legislation wants--to ensure that
pretrial release is working, to show that people who would be a threat
to the community are not running without restraint, and to show the
number of people who would appear for their appearance, if you will, in
court who were beneficiaries of the pretrial release program. Those are
all good elements, but it concerns me, again, that we don't have any
clear parameters of whom this will hurt.
And also, small communities are dependent upon Federal grants. Their
structure may not be the best, and so, if you are now asking them for
reporting of individual names and past offenses, I beg the question of
the value of that information.
What we really should have is aggregate numbers of who, under the
pretrial program, is able to or is, in essence, not meeting the
criteria and is breaking the agreement and commitment they have to
either appear or to stay in a certain area. That is important
information, and I think the DOJ could utilize that in an aggregate
form.
Why are we giving names that will remain in the DOJ database for
someone who may ultimately go back to work, as this mother may go back
to her family and her life would hopefully--even though she experienced
a tragedy in the jail and lost her job, let's hope that she has a
future.
But if she were caught in this bill, would her name now be in the
database? I have not researched her case. It seems that this might have
been her first offense, but it certainly was a minor offense with a
small amount of marijuana. As the facts evidence, it was the
jurisdictional, the geographic area that she was in that caused the
greatest trouble.
So the other side of it is that money bail is another issue that we
should have looked at. We should have put both bills on the floor of
the House because there is a movement across the Nation to begin to
address, again, disparate treatment of money bail--not on the issue of
race, but on the issue of economics.
So the person working in the fast-food place is in jail and, most
likely, loses their job. We know that people who work in fast-food are
mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers taking care of
families, and being in jail does not help them take care of their
family. You can be assured--unlike maybe other positions where you can
say I was on vacation or that you didn't even stay in jail because you
had the money to get out of jail--you cannot say you are on vacation
for a couple of days or that you were nothing because you are right out
back at work. You are fired.
A very evident case is the gentleman who was wealthy in Texas--a very
renowned case--found in a hotel room in Galveston. He had decapitated
his roommate's head and disposed of it--is my recollection. I stand to
be corrected if my recollection is not correct--in the Galveston Bay,
and because he could post a $100,000-plus bond, Mr. Speaker, he was
released. Put that on any poor person, and we would be aghast at even
how this person got bond set. But he did. Ultimately, he was acquitted
in that case. I still shake in my boots.
So the issue is there is more to this than giving names and putting
it in a database in the DOJ for persons who may never commit another
offense in life. Money bail contributes, again, to the unnecessary
detention of many low-risk pretrial defendants, inappropriate release
of high-risk defendants who have financial means--as I just indicated,
a person who decapitated a person's head--unwarranted financial burdens
on low-income communities, and the gamble of placing public safety
in the hands of a bail bonding industry that will always profit before
the public good, a real point to the unfairness of the money bail.
Yet you would deny funds to small towns that are doing pretrial
release, or even big counties and cities that are trying to do their
best, but they need these Federal funds. Find another way for us to be
able to assess what is going on.
Wealth-based detention has disastrous consequences: overcrowding of
local jails, lost jobs, lost housing, poor sanitation and medical care,
broken families, and it drains local budgets.
In many cases, an arrestee may be held longer in jail while awaiting
trial than any sentence she or he would likely receive if convicted.
Right now, in my own county and other big counties around the Nation
that have not corrected that, they are doing that right now: causing
innocent people to plead guilty to offenses that they did not commit in
order to shorten the lengthy pretrial detention. Individuals who are
detained are not able to assist their attorneys in the investigation of
charges against them, resulting in many wrongful convictions and longer
sentences.
So I only offer this thought so that we can have a viable discussion
on the money bail issue and the disparate treatment that this
legislation--though, not intended--would bring about when you ask
communities to give the names and prior convictions of persons who may
have had one or two marijuana or DUI--which all of us abhor--
convictions. But the privacy issues are a concern, and the lack of
debate on the impact of money bail and its unfairness are not being
discussed, and the lack of a rule that allows amendments, I think,
concerns me.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties
Union, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change, who expressed
their opposition to this legislation.
May 8, 2018.
Vote ``No'' on the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2017'' (H.R. 2152)
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), the NAACP, Human Rights Watch, and Color of Change,
we urge you to vote ``No'' on H.R. 2152, the ``Citizens'
Right to Know Act of 2017,'' as the House considers this
bill. This legislation raises serious privacy concerns for
the civil and human rights community given the personally
identifiable data that is to be collected and publicly
reported by the federal government. The bill also undermines
efforts to eliminate or reduce jurisdictions' reliance on
money bail systems. We urge the members to instead consider
H.R. 1437, the ``No Money Bail Act of 2017,'' and other
bipartisan efforts to encourage the elimination of money bail
systems.
The Citizens' Right to Know Act Raises Privacy Concerns
The Citizens' Right to Know Act requires jurisdictions
receiving funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
report to the Attorney General the names, arrest records, and
appearance failures for those participating in DOJ funded
pretrial services programs. The legislation allows the
Attorney General to make public the names, arrest records,
and failure appearances that jurisdictions report. Except for
a clause that subjects the data ``to any applicable
confidentiality requirements,'' the bill does not provide any
explicit privacy protections for those whose personally
identifiable information has been collected by the federal
government and is subject to public release. The bill
requires that the Attorney General penalize noncompliant
jurisdictions by denying them 100 percent of the DOJ grant
program funds that are used to support pretrial services
programs.
While we appreciate the need for the federal government to
collect and report data, personal privacy interests must be
balanced with public interests. When personally identifiable
information is being collected and publicly reported, we
believe that such information should be obtained and
disseminated only with individuals' informed consent. We also
believe that the potential to harm individual reputations
should be considered when arrest records are publicly shared.
We are troubled that the Citizens' Right to Know Act would
collect and publicly report personally identifiable
information of individuals participating in pretrial services
programs--individuals who have not been convicted of a crime
given their pretrial status.
[[Page H3863]]
The Citizens' Right to Know Act Undermines Bail Reform Efforts
The Citizens' Right to Know Act is inconsistent with
efforts to reform money bail systems, like the No Money Bail
Act, which many of our organizations support. By collecting
and reporting only certain data about pretrial services
programs and those participating in them, the Citizens' Right
to Know Act will depict a one-sided picture of pretrial
services programs and participants. For example, the
legislation's focus on when an individual has failed to
appear promises a negative narrative around the pretrial
stage. If this bill were serious about measuring the true
impact of pretrial services programs, it would collect a more
robust data set and not that which is of interest only to the
bail bonds industry.
We support bail reform that corrects the injustice of
basing a defendant's release on how much money the person
has. Instead of considering the Citizens' Right to Know Act,
Congress should take up the No Money Bail Act of 2017. This
legislation would incentive jurisdictions to reform their
money bail systems using federal resources. The No Money Bail
Act would build safer communities, stronger families, and a
fairer criminal justice system by ensuring that people who
are innocent in the eyes of the law are not deprived of their
freedom because they cannot afford money bail.
For the above described reasons, we urge members of the
House to vote ``No'' on the Citizens' Right to Know Act.
Instead, we encourage the House of Representatives to give
serious consideration to bail reform bills through
legislative and oversight hearings on the issue.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP, Human Rights
Watch, Color of Change.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Higgins of Louisiana). The gentleman
from Virginia has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Texas
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when a person is arrested and charges
are filed, usually, now, in our country, they don't sit in jail waiting
to see a judge for weeks or months. They see a judge within 24 hours.
They appear in court. The judge sets bail. This is all public record,
including the name and what the person is accused of. It is already
public record. So it is not something that is new.
The judge sets bail and determines if the person can afford a lawyer
or not and appoints a lawyer right then, within 24 hours. I think that
is marvelous in our country. I remember the old days when that did not
happen.
This idea that we are denying a person's right of privacy, it is
public already, people who are charged with crimes.
My friend from Georgia said pretrial release works. It is a proven
thing to work. Well, how does he know that? Because he says so? We
don't know if it works or not.
Mr. Speaker, in April of 2017, 26-year-old Christian Rogers was
walking along the street in New Jersey and he was shot 22 times. His
assailant, Jules Black, a 30-year-old from Vineland, New Jersey, had
just been arrested 4 days earlier by the State police and charged with
possession of a handgun. He was released on pretrial release and had a
long criminal record.
Christian Rogers is just one example of a victim who was killed
because of the pretrial release program. So I would disagree with my
friend from Georgia that it is working. We don't know the statistics.
I told you this earlier when I spoke. I was a judge in Harris County
for 22 years. People were released on pretrial release. The very people
who are released on pretrial release are the people that my friend from
Texas is talking about: people who can't afford a surety bond, people
who can't afford any kind of bond.
So pretrial release serves its purpose and it serves it to a specific
part of the community, but we need to know if it is working, if these
people come back for their day in court or they don't come back for
their day in court or if they commit a crime while they are on pretrial
release. We don't know the statistics.
All this legislation says is let's audit pretrial release across the
country and see if it is working, see if it is not working, see if we
can make improvements. That is all it is. It is an audit. It is not
denying anybody any rights under the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation is a good idea. We need to know
if taxpayer money is working. I appreciate the extra time the chairman
has given me.
Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am clear and I think my colleague Mr. Johnson is clear
on the pretrial release versus the money bail, but in many instances,
pretrial release may have a negative impact on a poor, alleged actor of
criminal activity as the money bail system. But this will add
additional pain and lack of promise.
As I said, my amendment was to have the aggregate number of those who
did not appear. That is viable and important information. You could
have it by counties, small towns, villages, and cities to indicate what
the impact is of pretrial release.
What strikes me as a concern is to have names and prior convictions,
because it becomes part of a DOJ database and these persons may never
commit another crime. They might have been in the hospital, maybe they
get back and say why--I don't know what it means if you didn't make the
first one and they got information that Mr. Smith was in the hospital,
didn't have a lawyer, is coming back, but his name has already been
sent out. And then you are going to penalize the local jurisdiction for
the Federal funds that they are so desperately in need of.
By the way, I am grateful that in the omnibus that we recently
passed, we plussed up all of those numbers. And I can assure you, our
communities are jumping for joy in the work that they have to do in
criminal justice reform or to secure or to make safe their communities,
particularly, our police officers for whom I have championed the COPS
on the Beat, and I just wish we could really plus that program up
because it is a very viable program that we had from the 1990s.
So taking money away is going to be, in this instance, when there
could be a positive alternative to giving the information, something
that I would be concerned about.
{time} 1515
I have already mentioned the issue that wealth-based detention has
disastrous consequences: overloading the local jails, the lost jobs,
the lost housing, poor sanitation, medical care, broken families, and
draining local budgets. So let us have a moment on the floor that we
can discuss the reform of money bails, as was done in the Federal court
in the Southern District of Texas.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that this bill is, as they say,
an effort at finding a problem. It is important that we promote
transparency and accountability in government, but this bill does not
move in that direction. I am willing to extend my hand of friendship to
my friend from Texas. We will see where this bill goes.
But we know what it may really do. The bill was written for the
purpose of burdening pretrial services programs, publicizing the
sensitive information of defendants who are charged with but not
convicted of a crime--and I think that is an important element; you
really do deserve privacy if you are just an accused and not yet
convicted--and in order to undermine the efforts to reform the money
bail system.
That is why civil rights organizations have written to oppose this
bill. I would like to think that they would be willing as well to work
with us and come halfway to address the question of the money bail
disparate treatment, discriminatory impact. By the way, it is not just
a racial disparate treatment; it is a poor people's disparate
treatment; it is a working people's treatment, when they don't have
money.
We have heard the stories. They put up grandmother's house, their
house, and it becomes a real tall mountain to climb. The money bail has
been harmful and, in some instances, shameful in what it has done to
poor, working families. And instead of considering the
[[Page H3864]]
bill that would help us reform that, we should be considering--rather,
this bill with the ask of private information. I would like to see if
we have to have this bill to do it in aggregate. No names on it would
be very helpful. And we should be advancing legislation to eliminate
the placing of financial conditions on someone's release from jail
pending trial, which is taking money away from the local jurisdiction.
The bill today does that, and I think that we can work to do better.
And I am not pleased to be opposing, but I would ask my colleagues to
consider all that I have said about bail reform and disparate treatment
and how we can best handle the needs of finding out who leaves pretrial
release and who doesn't. Let's just get the numbers.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this bill. I ask my colleagues
to join me, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by those who oppose this very simple and
straightforward legislation. Not a single Member in this Chamber should
be opposed to the Citizens' Right to Know Act.
When has more data in the hands of this body ever been a bad thing?
We have a number of obligations we owe our constituents. Two of those
obligations are to make sure our communities are safe and that tax
dollars are spent wisely. This bill accomplishes both. Without the
Citizens' Right To Know Act, we and our constituents lack the ability
to determine the effectiveness of taxpayer-funded pretrial release
programs. Without the required data, hundreds of Federally funded
pretrial release programs lack sufficient accountability to U.S.
taxpayers. This lack of accountability has the potential to allow many
repeat and violent offenders to get out of jail on our tax dollars. We
and our constituents deserve to know if resources are being spent
wisely and our communities are being protected.
Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe) on this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2152, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 872, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________