were proposing we need tougher laws on crimes and longer sentences and more boot camps and all the rest of it, that the real experts said that the real problem dealt with other things. And it reminded me initially of something that the man who ran our prison system in Ohio once said when we were talking about how to reduce the population in Ohio's prisons, and he said "Head Start," that we have got to get people early on in their lives and make a difference.

It is interesting. Professor Dilulio said the big problem today is that people are growing up in moral poverty, which he describes as "the poverty of being without loving, capable, responsible adults who teach you right from wrong." And I think that this whole tendency to pass a law and assume that the problem is taken care of is a cop-out and that we need to be a lot more thoughtful in some of these areas where we think that we are going to be making a difference.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things you are going to be hearing from me is that I am going to be promoting more activity on the Federal level in reordering priorities to deal with the prenatal-tothree area, which all of the experts say is probably the most important area in the development of a child, which we completely neglect.

The point I am making is that we need to spend a lot more money early on making a difference in the lives of the people in our society instead of dealing with the problem later on. And in Ohio, in terms of the Federal crimes, Mr. Chairman, the Federal prosecutors usually tell the State guys, you handle it, we haven't got time for it, besides that you have got the jails and we haven't got the jails. I mean, there is a lot of that going on at the local level.

I think probably the most positive thing from my observations over the years-and I would be interested in, General Meese, your observation-is the coordination in terms of enforcement between local and Federal officials. I experienced as mayor of Cleveland several instances where there was no coordination, and everybody was off doing their thing, DEA, FBI, Treasury, and local prosecutor, local police. If we really are interested in making a difference in terms of crime in this country, more emphasis ought to be placed on coordinating the activities of the various law enforcement officers so that they can work together to really make a difference. I would be interested in your comment on that.

Mr. MEESE. Well, thank you, Senator, and you are absolutely right; it is the coordination between the various law enforcement agencies at all levels of government. Your own experience in a sense parallels my own. We have both served at both the local, State, and now Federal Government in your case, and mine when I was Attorney General.

One of the principal objectives during the time that I served in the Department of Justice was to advance that kind of coordination. We organized the Law Enforcement Coordinating Councils in each Federal district, bringing together local chiefs of police, sheriffs, and State officials of the State Department of Justice, along with our U.S. Attorneys and the various heads of the DEA, FBI,

Marshals Service, and the other Federal law enforcement agencies. And this has gone a long way.

In the drug field, for example, the Drug Enforcement and Organized Crime Task Forces, I think this is a very important aspect. In many cases, we don't need additional resources. We need the resources we have working together more effectively and also allocating the responsibility according to what they do best. And one of the things that the proliferation of Federal laws that duplicate State laws does, it destroys that kind of allocation of responsibility as well as hampers coordination if they are all fishing in the same ponds.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, do I have time?

Chairman THOMPSON. Yes.

Senator VOINOVICH. Does the ABA comment about legislation that is being proposed?

Mr. MEESE. I believe that the ABA may. The task force operated separately from the legislative advocacy branch of the ABA. I don't know whether they do or do not comment on specific pieces of legislation. But I know the task force would hope that when they do consider and the ABA has a process whereby they take positions only after they have been adopted by the House of Delegates. But we certainly will urge on the House of Delegates, which meets only infrequently during the year, that our report on the federalization of crime be one of the criteria they use in determining the ABA position on specific legislation.

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I would suggest that they give it serious consideration. I think that if you had a task force that used criteria, perhaps what Judge Merritt suggested, and then you had some criteria in terms of when it was appropriate, and that they would make it a point that when some of this stuff is being considered here that they come in and say it is not needed, it is duplicative, it is not going to help things, that would go a long way to reduce some of these bills that are being introduced here because the people introducing them would know that there is going to be somebody that is going to comment about whether indeed they are really needed.

Mr. MEESE. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and, incidentally, the criteria that Judge Merritt has proposed is substantially included in the report itself, as well, as the basis on which Federal legislation is necessary. So I will certainly pass that on to the appropriate officials within the ABA.

Chairman THOMPSON. What we have run up against is the marrying together between those who seem to always look for a Federal solution, Senator, along with those who want to be tough on crime, and they get together and form a heavy majority. And those who are out there saying, hey, wait a minute, there is absolutely no indication that it is going to do any good, every State in the Union already prohibits this activity. I think last time that came up on the guns-in-school legislation, we got 21 votes, something like that, for that proposition. So I am glad you are here now, so maybe that is 22.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say one other thing, that we need to do a little better job talking about the

in the country where the number of people in our juvenile facilities has been reduced because several years ago we went to a program called Reclaim Ohio, where we are allowing our judiciary, the juvenile judges on the local level, to find alternative places for these youngsters rather than sentencing them to State facilities. And that took a little money because in the old days, their only alternative was to send them to the State because the State will pay for it. Now what we say to them is if you keep them in the local area, we will give you $75 a day. In other words, they are looking at these youngsters and saying they have mental problems, they have drug problems, but there is a different approach to dealing with this. It is not crack down, throw them in jail, and they are going to be better.

Our statistics show that boot camps, for example, don't work. We have found that boot camps for juveniles really do not help but hurt. I just think that more publicity, more best practices being shared about what really does make a difference needs to be emphasized rather than the silver bullet that so many people would like to advertise and then, as I say, go off and do something else. Chairman THOMPSON. Senator, you are pointing out something that I think is very important, and while I have still got you here, I would like to address just maybe one further question to you, again, if you please. That is, in response, again, to the current situation that we have, one of the things that we are considering is the Violent Repeat Juvenile Offenders Act. I don't know if you have had a chance to look at that. And since this juvenile crime legislation has been pending-I was on the Judiciary Committee until recently, and my concern has been just what you were talking about. Everybody has got their own idea as to what is a great program. And we sit up here in Washington and decide what makes sense to us. We find out later that either it doesn't do any good, maybe it does a little good, maybe it does harm, but we decide. And then we encourage the States to do what we decide that they ought to do in response to this problem.

My feeling has always been that as far as a Federal role is concerned, one of the things that the Federal Government does better than anyone else, I think, is probably research and development and evaluation. And perhaps maybe we ought to acknowledge our ignorance in these areas and spend a little more time just doing basic evaluation in Washington, making that information available throughout the States, be a clearinghouse for information, programs that are being tried all across the country, what works, what doesn't work, and then let States make their own determination as to what they want to do.

I would like your thoughts on this bill, General Meese. I think the staff indicated that I was going to ask you a question about it. It is complicated. It has many provisions in it, some of which I think are much better than they were. I think there is still some expansion of-we are still into this juvenile gang business. We get the camel's nose under the tent-juvenile gangs, and then people who help juvenile gangs, then people who help people who help juvenile gangs, and we keep going in that direction. And then there are a lot of grants, $450 million for the juvenile accountability block grant. That is for buildings and prosecutors and things like

that, as I understand it; $75 million for juvenile criminal history upgrades; $200 million for challenge grants, that is more in the preventive area, as I understand it; $200 million for prevention grants; $40 million for National Institute of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention, of which $20 million would go to evaluation and research; $20 million for gang programs; $20 million for demonstration programs; and $15 million for mentoring programs.

With regard to the juvenile accountability block grant, to be eligible for the grants, States must make assurances it will establish, first, a system of graduated sanctions because States don't have enough sense to realize that you ought to have graduated sanctions. We need to tell them that. We will give them the money if they will follow our wisdom because we have got those answers up here.

Second, drug testing for juvenile offenders, I think we could all agree that is a good thing in general.

Third, a system to recognize the rights and needs of the victims of juvenile crime. It is a good thing, but three things, three priorities of a million priorities that you could choose from.

What about all of this? I know you don't have time to address all the details. Is this a right approach? Is it 50 percent right? Should we start all over again in the way we are looking at the problem here?

Mr. MEESE. Well, Senator, Mr. Chairman, my own view is that whether this bill passes or doesn't pass will have zero effect on violent crime or juvenile crime in the United States. It is the local officials, it is the local resources that are going to have the impact on this. There are some valuable things in the bill, namely, it eliminates a lot of programs that the Federal Government is presently engaged in which have been found to be useless or redundant or unnecessary. I think, quite frankly, we have plenty of money now going out of the Federal Government to the States in the juvenile field. I would get all of that money together, divide it by population and on a population or some other similar fair basis give it to the States in block grants and let them decide how best to use it.

Some of the provisions in the bill are pernicious in that it extends the federalization of crime, particularly those that relate to the firearms provision and the criminal gang provision, makes substantive offenses on the basis of Federal law, which is already covered or can be covered by the States if they so desire and see it is important.

So, as I say, if this bill did not pass, it would not have any detrimental effect on the enforcement of criminal law in the States. If it does pass, it is not going to have any real beneficial effect. I would think that, again, the best thing that the Federal Government could do is take the money already going to the States for a whole variety of these programs, give it to them in block grants

Chairman THOMPSON. Practically every department of government has juvenile crime prevention money. The Department of Agriculture, we found out, has some.

Mr. MEESE. My understanding is that there are some 300 different programs scattered among the various agencies of the Fed

Chairman THOMPSON. Judge Merritt, with regard to the judiciary, I noticed in the ABA report they said from 1980 to 1994 the number of Federal prosecutors increased 125 percent, and the number of Federal judges, both district and appellate, increased 17 percent. So you are being outgunned there in terms of

Judge MERRITT. Well, we just have to hire staff. The problem in the Federal courts is not only the rise in cases, but something has to give when that occurs, and what concerns me is that the deliberative process itself may be undermined. The Supreme Court can limit its jurisdiction to a certain number of cases a year. The Federal district courts and courts of appeal can't do so. So shortcuts then become necessary, and any shortcut reduces the amount of time a judge has for deliberation and reflection.

I might say on the subject, there is something to be said for Federal action in a symbolic sense; that is, the political arm of the government, the Congress of the United States, sees a problem and they want to act in order to express the will of their constituents. There is, it seems to me, better and worse ways to do that.

The worst way to do it is to permanently federalize the criminal area. The least worst way may be through appropriations of some kind because that is an annual year-to-year process, not permanent, and it may waste some money, but it doesn't undermine the fabric of a federalist society. So when symbolic action becomes necessary through the political process, for example, in response to Littleton and other similar events, there is something to be said for symbolic action, but little to be said for federalizing the matter as a matter of crime, and much to be said for seeing if there is some experimental program that may require some appropriations which can be easily ended from year to year.

of

Chairman THOMPSON. And perhaps more in terms of evaluation programs that are

Judge MERRITT. And research. I think there are a lot of things the Federal Government can do to assist State and local law enforcement. For example, electronic surveillance is assisting State and local governments where necessary in serious crimes. In that respect that is one example.

There is a lot of aid that can be given which doesn't entail or require the creating of Federal crime or bringing some case in Federal court by a Federal prosecutor.

Chairman THOMPSON. That is an extremely helpful and insightful analysis, I think.

Let me ask just two more things. On your five criteria that we are talking about, you said something that was interesting to me. With regard to the interstate-international aspect of it, you said something that is difficult, almost impossible to do otherwise. It is an interstate-it seems to me that the state of the law is—well, not the law but the state of Congress is that if we can remotely attach anything to interstate commerce, it is not a question of whether it is wise or not, we just go ahead, if we can remotely-or even allege, just allege, we don't even have to show that there is some connection. I take it that then we go ahead and pass laws in that area and say, well, it affects interstate commerce. And, of course, I guess in one sense or another, everything affects interstate commerce.