Citizens' Right to Know Act of 2018
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source