Federal Criminal Code, are complex and detailed; but the states of this nation understand the importance of taking responsible action to reform the criminal laws of this country. We in Congress can do no less.

The legislation you are considering is not, of course, a hastily conceived idea. It is the culmination of an ongoing twelve year effort begun by President Johnson in 1966 when he created the Brown Commission. This Commission concluded-after almost five years of hearings and careful research-that a completely new comprehensive code was necessary. Piecemeal change was ruled out as inconsistent with the goal of genuine reform.

Since then, years of futile effort have gone into the process of revising our Criminal Code. During this period much thought and effort have been invested by many people-Senators Hruska, Hart and Thurmond, Congressmen Edwards, Kastenmeier and Mikva of the Brown Commission, Professor Louis Schwartz who will shortly testify and Attorney General Bell. All have been enormously helpful. In particular, I wish to single out the late Senator John McClellan, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures, who understood the importance of this effort. He spent years of work on the subject of recodification and was very much committed to this particular legislation. He recognized better than anyone that it constitutes a skillful compromise of different views and attitudes about crime.

S. 1437 and H.R. 6869 are symbols of Congressional bipartisanship and were drafted with one overriding thought in mind-to avoid the controversies of the past, to bypass the pitfalls which have doomed previous code reform efforts. Controversial and provocative amendments were laid aside, to be dealt with separately on another day. This has been the key to the consensus which highlighted the Senate's passage of S. 1437 by an overwhelming vote of 72 to 15-the recognized need for all sides to negotiate and compromise in order to achieve a final product worthy of passage.

I hope that this approach to consideration of criminal code reform will continue in the House.

S. 1437 uses primarily four methods to reform the entire Federal criminal law. First, the bill consolidates criminal provisions currently scattered throughout all fifty titles in a logical and consistent manner. For example, there are eighty separate theft offenses and seventy counterfeiting and forgery offenses, all with their own conflicting language and definitions. S. 1437 provides for one comprehensive theft offense with the penalty varying depending on the kind and value of property stolen; five new counterfeiting offenses replace the confusion of current law. This approach in S. 1437 is designed to avoid the inconsistencies, loopholes and hypertechnicalities of current law.

Second, there is provided a dictionary of over one hundred key code terms, assuring uniform definition. The definitions of various provisions are, at the present time, divided and scattered throughout the case law, which may vary in different jurisdictions. S. 1437 is an attempt to provide a uniform understanding of what these particular provisions mean. Every effort has been made to draft offenses simply, uniformly and precisely. Verbose and technical language has been eliminated.

Third, the bills repeal many archaic and ambiguous provisions which should have been repealed years ago. For example, it is still a crime to impair military effectiveness by a false statement even though this provision has not been invoked since World War I. In a lighter vein, it remains a federal crime to lie to a ship's captain or to detain a government carrier pigeon. The legislation repeals such relics. Also, the eighty separately defined culpability terms found in current law, ranging from "wantonly" and "lasciviously" to "maliciously" and "corruptly", are repealed and replaced by just four terms-intentional, knowing, reckless, and negligent. This simplification will permit far greater clarity and uniformity.

Fourth, the bills make important new additions to the Federal Criminal Law. The Federal law currently lacks effective criminal provisions designed to meet many contemporary problems-election fraud and white collar and organized crime. As a result of this legislation, major improvements are incorporated into the criminal laws.

Many of the substantive law reforms found in this legislation have met with near unanimous acclaim. For example:

The two witness perjury rule is abolished; the extradition statutes are modernized and simplified; jurisdiction of federal magistrates is expanded to help relieve court congestion; a new crime is designed to deal with the professional fence who traffics in stolen property; a new victims compensation system is created to compensate the victims of violent federal crimes.

Forcible rape of a spouse is covered for the first time, just as any other physical assault on a spouse has been covered in the past, and in any prosecution under this series of offenses, the old requirement of special corroboration of a victim's testimony is eliminated from the law. An evidentiary proscription is also added preventing defense counsel at trial from using the technique of engaging in an irrelevant exploration of the victim's prior sexual history.

The maximum fines permitted by the code are substantially higher than those in current law, with a convicted corporation subject to a $500,000 fine for a serious offense and a convicted individual subject to a fine of up to $100,000. All too often today, fines tend to be considered by white collar offenders simply as a minor, potential cost of doing business.

The 1970 Organized Crime Racketeering statute is simplified and strengthened. The bill creates a new offense of conspiracy in the United States to assassinate a foreign official outside the United States.

The legislation expands the tax evasion offense to include cases where there is no net tax liability involved-that is, an attempt to evade taxes.

The bill expands existing law to cover the counterfeiting and forging of corporate securities and notes and bonds of state and local governments.

These are just a handful of the provisions recognized by practically all interested groups and persons as valuable reforms of current law. Many other improvements have also been made.

But, I believe that the single most important reform in this legislation can be found in the area of sentencing.

When we talk about how current laws promote injustice, the one flaw that stands out above the rest is our arbitrary sentencing system. There are no guidelines to aid judges in the exercise of their discretion. There is no appellate review of sentences. Arbitrary parole practices free one offender while extending the sentence of an offender convicted of the same crime. Judges and parole boards are free to roam at will, dispensing ad hoc justice in ways that defy both reason and fairness. Different judges hand out widely differing sentences to similar offenders convicted of similar crimes. Some offenders, including many repeat offenders, escape jail altogether while others convicted of the very same crime, go to jail for excessive periods.

The current sentencing system is a nonsystem, unfair to the defendant, to the victim, and to society which expects that a reasonable fixed penalty should be attached at the time of conviction.

S. 1437 and H.R. 6869 change all of this. A sentencing commission is created and directed to establish guidelines to govern the imposition of sentences for all federal offenses. The Congress is afforded an opportunity to review and, if necessary, reject these guidelines. In sentencing offenders, a judge will be expected to sentence within the range specified in the guidelines, although if he considers the guideline range inappropriate for a particular case he is free to sentence above or below the guideline range as long as he explains his reasons for doing so. If an offender is sentenced below the range specified in the guidelines, the Government may obtain automatic appellate review of the sentence. If an offender is sentenced above the range specified in the guidelines, the offender may similarly appeal. This system is designed to promote greater uniformity and fairness, while retaining necessary judicial flexibility. Under this new approach, the gross disparities in sentencing found in current law should be significantly reduced; determinate sentences will tell the offender and society what actual prison time will be served. And with such fixed sentences, the arbitrary system of parole release will be phased out except in "exceptional circumstances."

I am, of course, aware that certain critics continue to voice concern over certain parts of this legislation. I understand and appreciate such concern; an effort of such magnitude cannot help but raise significant and important questions. But I am convinced that the portions of these bills that most trouble the critics are either an improvement over current law or simply constitute a recodification of existing law. And, while I am not satisfied with every provision in the legislation, and hope that this subcommittee and the full House will continue to make improvements, I am convinced that the proposed code does not contain any new provisions or rules of construction which will drastically alter the balance of federalism.

Let me discuss one example of concern raised in this subcommittee and explain why I believe that concern has been very much exaggerated. I refer to the claimraised frequently over the years-that this legislation would somehow greatly expand federal jurisdiction and "would yield a fivefold increase in federally prosecutable offenses." This is simply not true.

I

The fact is that S. 1437 and H.R. 6869, as a general matter, carry forward the scope of federal jurisdiction found in current law. Having said this, two additional points must be made. First, it is, of course, true that in some specific areas there has been an expansion of federal jurisdiction-but this has been with a desire to close loopholes found in current law. For example, the current code makes bank robbery a federal offense but not bank extortion. Why should one be a federal crime and not the other? Similarly, trespass in a foreign government building is a federal crime but not burglary of such a building. Why? Such distinctions cannot reasonably be justified.

Second, I agree with those who maintain that the bills provide for broad federal jurisdiction-but, again, such broad jurisdiction can be found in current law. The best example is in the often cited areas of extortion and robbery. Those who say that S. 1437 greatly expands federal jurisdiction in these areas ignore the language of the current Hobbs and Travel Acts (18 U.S.C. 1951-1952) from which the very sections in S. 1437 were derived. These statutes talk in terms of conduct which "in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce". The Supreme Court has stated that the "broad language" of these current acts manifests "a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by exortion, robbery or physical violence." The courts have given current law the broadest possible reading. And with good reason-the Hobbs and Travel Acts are two of the federal government's most important weapons in attacking organized crime and government corruption, crimes where state enforcement often proves ineffective.

The key fact in limiting federal jurisdiction-both in current law and in this reform legislation-is not the absence of jurisdiction but rather the concept of concurrent jurisdiction coupled with a policy of prosecutorial restraint in exercising federal jurisdiction. In this way, the primary role of the states in enforcing the criminal law is preserved. The International Association of Chiefs of Police-an organization hardly prepared to sanction a wholesale expansion of federal jurisdiction-recognized this fact in the Senate hearings when it stated:

"The proposed legislation provides that federal jurisdiction over an offense does not generally preclude a state or local government from exercising its concurrent jurisdiction to enforce its laws applicable to the same criminal conduct. Therefore, state and local governments would maintain their present power to enact and enforce laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens *** The I.A.C.P. supports this concept in that the association believes it is vital for effective law enforcement to permit states and localities flexibility in enforcing laws and protecting the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." (Hearings, p. 9448.) It should also be pointed out that in some areas of current law such as gambling, riot, sex offenses and credit card theft-S. 1437 and H.R. 6869 actually restrict the current scope of federal jurisdiction.

And, to those who say that the so-called ancillary or "piggyback" jurisdiction found in S. 1437 will greatly increase federal prosecutions of local crimes, I would remind them that comparable provisions already exist in current law in such areas as aircraft hijacking and civil rights (18 U.S.C. 245).

In considering S. 1437 and H.R. 6869 this subcommittee should decide whether, in examining specific sections, the expansion or restriction of federal jurisdiction is justified. The subcommittee might also examine the scope of federal jurisdiction brought forward from current law. You might consider adding a provision similar to section 207 of the Brown Commission report, which explicitly states that the existence of federal jurisdiction does not mean that it must be exercised to its fullest extent. These are important issues that the Congress should address.

But I do not believe it is fair to state that the pending bills will result in a vast expansion of federal jurisdiction or that they will have an adverse impact on the current federal criminal caseload. There is simply no evidence to support such a claim. Certainly no such evidence exists in states which have codified their local state laws. Indeed, by bringing long overdue uniformity and standard definitions to our federal laws I suspect that the legislation will, in the long run, actually reduce litigation.

I urge the House to follow the Senate's lead and finish the task of criminal code reform begun over a decade ago. Deal with the most controversial areas in separate legislation; allow the process to move forward. Politicians and scholars, civil libertarians and law enforcement advocates have all taken turns pounding at this bill. Changes have been made in the Senate, and will be made in the House, hopefully by mutual agreement. Effective, comprehensive federal criminal code reform is at last nearing reality.

The goal is in sight; let us finish the task.