This amendment gives that responsibility to the States or the localities which are applying for funds under this bill. Basically what it says is if you have an 85-percent service requirement, your prisoners have to serve 85 percent of their time, give us what indication you have that that has had some impact on the incidence of violent crime in your State; do not ask us to just throw money out there after this problem. If the purpose of your building new prisons or increasing sentencing or providing for longer sentencing is in fact to reduce crime, tell us that that is what has happened in your State, taking into account the increase in population. The second part of the bill requires that the States track the incidence of violent crime and keep statistical information so that that information can be available to the residents of that State and to the American people, that we are not wasting $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion of their money on something that is really not having any impact on violent crime.
Melvin Watt: “This amendment gives that responsibility to the States or the localities which are applying for funds under this bill.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to funding and accountability for violent crime reduction efforts.
Share
More from Melvin Watt
It is horrific to me, to think that, one day, when my daughter enters the workforce, that she might be harassed.
What we learned, first and foremost, is that having one foot in the public sector and one foot in the private sector does not work because when you have a foot in the public sector, taxpayers take the risk, and a foot in the private…
This is in line with my consistently repeated belief that it is the role of Congress, not FHFA, to decide on housing finance reform.
There is no rational reason, if you think about it, why a superior tax lien would be having an interest rate of 10, 11, 12 percent when a lien subordinate to it is going at 4 percent or 5 percent.





