Taking Back Our Streets Act


Highlights:

The bill embodies the Republican approach to fighting crime:  making 
punishments severe enough to deter criminals from committing 
crimes, making sure that the criminal justice system is fair and 
impartial for all, and making sure that local law enforcement officials 
(who are on the streets every day), and not Washington bureaucrats 
direct the distribution of federal law enforcement funds.

The bill sets mandatory sentences for crimes involving the use of 
firearms, authorizes $10.5 billion for state prison construction grants, 
establishes truth-in-sentencing guidelines, reforms the habeas 
corpus appeals process, allows police officers who in good faith seized 
incriminating evidence in violation of the "exclusionary rule" to use 
the evidence in court, requires that convicted criminals make 
restitution to their victims, and authorizes $10 billion for local law 
enforcement spending.  Finally, in addressing one of the most 
pressing problems in our country today, the bill streamlines the 
current alien deportation system, while still allowing convicted aliens 
the right to judicial review and appeal .

Bill sponsors argue that this legislation strikes at the heart of our 
violent crime problem by deterring criminals from committing 
crimes in the first place, and making sure that if they do commit a 
crime, they serve the sentence they are given and are not able to 
abuse the appeals process.  Supporters contend that this bill fixes a 
number of problems created by the recently-enacted omnibus crime 
bill, as well as serious problems left unaddressed by that legislation.  
Critics maintain that the measure concentrates too much on 
punishment and not enough on prevention; the way to stop crime, 
they argue, is not to keep filling our jails, but to keep at-risk youth 
from going there in the first place .


Background: 

Crime in America:  Putting the Debate in Context  

Statistics paint a grim picture, illustrating clearly that the U.S. has 
failed to get a handle on its growing crime problem.  One expert has 
estimated that a 20 year old black male has a greater chance of being 
murdered on the streets than a soldier in World War II stood of 
dying in combat.    According to the FBI, the rate of violent crime in 
the U.S. is worse than in any other western-developed country, with 
a murder occurring every 21 minutes, a rape every five minutes, a 
robbery every 46 seconds and an aggravated assault every 29 
seconds.  Violent crime or property crime victimizes one in four U.S. 
households.  Every year, nearly five million people are victims of 
violent crime such as murder, rape, robbery or assault, and 19 
million Americans are victims of property crimes such as arson or 
burglary.  Juvenile crime has increased by 60 percent between 1981 
and 1990 (compared to an increase of five percent among adults) 
and the number of inmates convicted of drug offenses rose 14 
percent from 1983 to 1989.  On all fronts, the problem has reached 
epidemic proportions.

This crime crisis is particularly severe among minorities and the 
poor.  The U.S. homicide rate for black males between the ages of 15 
and 24 is 283 times that of male homicide rates in 17 other nations.  
And homicide is now the leading cause of death for blacks aged 15 to 
34.  Poor households are victimized more often than upper income 
households.  In 1992, households with incomes of less than $7,500 
experienced crime at a rate of 136.7 per 1,000 compared to the rate 
of 83.3 per 1,000 for households with incomes between $30,000 and 
$49,000.

While the problem is severe, statistics illustrate that a small 
percentage of criminals commit the vast majority of violent crimes.  
Just seven percent of criminals commit two-thirds of all violent 
crime, including three fourths of rapes and robberies, and virtually 
all murders.  A 1991 study done by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms indicated that 471 armed criminals had a total of 3,088 
felony convictions -- an average of 6.55 felonies each.  To make 
matters worse, many of these criminals either are never caught, or, if 
found guilty, do not serve their entire prison sentence.  Every year, 
over 60,000 criminals convicted of a violent crime never go to prison 
-- for every 100 crimes reported only three criminals go to prison.  
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that only 45.4 percent of 
court-ordered confinement is served on average, and 51 percent of 
violent offenders sent to prison are released in two years or less.  
These numbers are even more telling in light of the fact that at least 
30 percent of the murders in this country are committed by people 
on probation, parole or bail.  Faced with prison overcrowding, 17 
states have begun emergency release programs.  Overall, the risk of 
punishment has declined in the past 40 years while the annual 
number of serious crimes committed has skyrocketed.

All this has led to public calls for "truth-in-sentencing" laws 
(requiring criminals to serve a significant percentage of their 
sentences without a chance of parole) and "three strikes, you're out" 
laws (requiring life in prison for recidivists convicted of their third 
violent felony).  Opponents of strict sentencing laws like these argue 
that "locking people up" does not address the problem of why crimes 
are committed in the first place.  Evidence suggests, however, that 
there is a strong correlation between increased incarceration and 
decreased crime rates:  from 1990-1991, states with the greatest 
increases in criminal incarceration rates experienced, on average, a 
12.7 percent decrease in crime, while the 10 states with the weakest 
incarceration rates experienced an average 6.9 percent increase in 
crime .

Recent Legislation 

Just a few weeks ago, President Clinton signed P.L. 103-322, the 
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994 after nearly one year of 
congressional hearings, mark-ups, floor votes, conference wranglings, 
a delayed recess, and weekend votes.  Many members spoke out 
against the legislation, arguing that it did little to address the 
fundamental crime problem in our country.  Relying on expensive 
"Great Society-esque" programs, the bill attempted  to do what all 
other big government social programs have failed to do:  make 
individuals responsible for their actions and instill a sense of right 
and wrong in those with a propensity to commit a crime.  Criticism 
focused not only on what the bill contained, but what it lacked.  
Republicans argued that is should have included reform of the 
habeas corpus process (the process by which inmates challenge the 
constitutionality of their sentences), a good faith exemption for the 
exclusionary rule, tough language against sexual predators, more 
money for state prison construction, and stronger requirements that 
states enact truth-in-sentencing laws to be eligible for grant 
assistance .

After a crazy weekend session at the end of August, the conference 
agreement was finally approved by the House 235-195 (Roll Call 
#416).  When all was said and done, the compromise authorized a 
total of $30 billion over six years, including $5.4 billion for 
prevention programs, $7.9 billion for new prison construction and 
$8.8 billion for new police officers.  It also included the so-called 
"three strikes, you're out" provision, applied the death penalty to 
over 50 new crimes, increased penalties for repeat federal sex 
offenders, and banned at least 150 semiautomatic weapons.  The 
final version did not include the controversial Racial Justice Act 
(which allows defendants to introduce in their defense statistical 
evidence that blacks receive death sentences more often than 
whites) or any reform of the habeas corpus process .

In addition to passing the first omnibus crime bill in four years, the 
103rd Congress also passed the Brady Bill, which established a five-
day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.  The House 
approved that measure (H.R. 1025) on November 10, 1993 by a vote 
of 238-189.  President Clinton signed it into law on November 30, 
1993 as P.L. 103-159.   Other smaller crime-related bills passed 
during this Congress include the National Child Protection Act of 
1993 (P.L. 103-209) which established criminal background checks 
for child care providers, and the International Parental Kidnapping 
Crime Act (P.L. 103-173) which made it a federal crime for a parent 
to kidnap a child under the age of 16 years from his custodial parent 
and remove him from the United States .


Provisions: 

Death Penalty Provisions (Title I) 

General Habeas Corpus Reform. The bill makes a number of revisions 
to federal and state habeas corpus processes (the process by which 
prisoners who have exhausted all direct appeals challenge the 
constitutionality of their sentences).  Specifically, it places a one-year 
limitation on the filing of general federal habeas corpus appeals after 
all state remedies have been exhausted.  State capital cases must be 
filed in a federal court within six months, and state capital prisoners 
who file a second or successive federal habeas appeal must receive a 
certificate of probable cause stating that their case has merit.  Non-
capital federal prisoners must file within two years.  The bill also 
forces federal courts to consider federal habeas petitions within a 
certain time frame .

In addition to placing a time limit on when appeals may be made, 
The bill limits prisoners to one appeal unless the defendant can show 
by "clear and convincing evidence, that but for constitutional error, 
no reasonable fact finder would have found [him] guilty of the 
underlying offense or eligible for the death penalty." 

Under current law, there are virtually no limits or restrictions on 
when prisoners can file habeas corpus appeals. For example, under 
current law, defendants can appeal anytime there is a change in the 
law or a new Supreme Court ruling.  Bill sponsors argue that delays 
of up to 14 years are not uncommon, making abuse of the habeas 
corpus system the most significant factor in states' inability to 
implement credible death penalties.  They also contend that current 
law favors the convicted criminal.  For example, the recently-enacted 
crime legislation included a requirement that at least two lawyers be 
appointed to represent the defendant at every stage of the process .

Latin for "you have the body," a habeas corpus writ is used to 
determine whether a person is lawfully imprisoned.  Originally 
designed as a remedy for imprisonment without trial, it is now a tool 
of federal and state defendants who have been convicted and 
exhausted all direct appeals (prisoners currently have three 
successive procedures to challenge a conviction or sentence:  appeal, 
state habeas corpus and federal habeas corpus).  Critics of the 
current habeas corpus process argue that (1) most petitions are 
totally lacking in merit, (2) thousands upon thousands of frivolous 
petitions clog the federal district court dockets each year, and (3) it 
allows prisoners on death row to almost indefinitely delay their 
punishment .

Authorization of Funds for States to Prosecute Capital Cases.  
Congress already provides funds for death penalty resource centers 
to litigate federal habeas corpus petitions for death row inmates.  
The bill authorizes equal funding for states to prosecute these cases.  
Bill sponsors argue that equal funds should be provided to both the 
defense and the prosecution in these cases .

Reform of Death Penalty Procedures.  The bill mandates that juries 
be instructed to recommend a death sentence if aggravating factors 
(circumstances of the crime that increase the level of guilt) outweigh 
"mitigating factors" (circumstances that reduce the degree of moral 
culpability).  Juries must also be instructed to avoid any "influence of 
sympathy, sentiment, passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factors" in 
their decisions .

Under the recent omnibus crime control act, the Justice Department 
is required to notify the court and the defendant that it intends to 
seek the death penalty, and it must indicate the "aggravating" factors 
it intends to prove as the basis for imposition of a capital sentence.  
The law specifically states that a jury is never required to impose a 
death sentence (even if it finds that aggravating factors outweigh 
mitigating factors), and that death penalties can never be imposed on 
individuals who are mentally retarded, incompetent or under 18 
years of age at the time of their crime.  Critics of current law argue 
that it (1) establishes an elaborate system of aggravating and 
mitigating factors, but then allows juries to ignore the evidence and 
make an arbitrary sentencing recommendation; (2) gives too much 
discretion to a judge and jury; (3) weakens current law; and (4) 
greatly complicates the use of any new federal death penalty .

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for Drug Crimes (Title II) 

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473) created 
the U.S. Sentencing Commission to develop and monitor sentencing 
guidelines to be used by federal judges when sentencing criminal 
defendants.  Despite the commission's suggestions that mandatory 
minimum sentences tend to warp the guidelines system, Congress 
has enacted about 100 mandatory minimum sentences for a variety 
of federal crimes.  Many federal judges have complained that these 
restrictions are foolish, wasteful and cruel (sometimes requiring 
them to impose a sentence without regard to the nature of the 
offense or the character and background of the offender), and that 
they have no deterrent effect on crime.

Supporters of mandatory sentences counter that they complement 
the sentencing guidelines, prevent disparity in sentencing, and 
ensure certainty of punishment.  Mandatory minimums send a strong 
and unmistakable message to criminals that they will serve a set 
minimum sentence if they commit certain violent crimes.  Mandatory 
minimums are also used by prosecutors to extract confessions from 
low-level offenders in exchange for reduced sentences.  The 
information is then used to build cases against criminal crime bosses.  
Although judges object to mandatory minimums because they take 
away their sentencing discretion, prosecutors see them as important 
law enforcement tools 

The bill establishes a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for 
state or federal drug or violent crimes that involve possession of a 
gun.  Penalties increase to 20 years for a second conviction and life in 
prison for a third.  For those who discharge a firearm with intent to 
injure another person, the first offense is punishable by a minimum 
of 20 years in prison, second offenses are punishable by a minimum 
of 30 years, and third violations get life in prison.

Finally, possession or use of a machine gun or other destructive 
device during the commission of these crimes is punishable for no 
less than 30 years.  Second-time offenses are punishable by life in 
prison .

Mandatory Victim Restitution (Title III) 

The bill mandates that criminals pay full restitution to their victims 
for damages caused as a result of the crime.  (Current law allows the 
court to order that such restitution be made but it does not require 
it.)  In addition, the bill allows (but does not require) the court to 
order restitution of any person who, as shown by a preponderance of 
the evidence, was harmed physically, emotionally or financially by 
the unlawful conduct of the defendant .

Court Responsibility.  Under the bill, restitution is to reimburse the 
victim for necessary child care, transportation and other expenses 
incurred while participating in the investigation or court proceedings.  
The court is to determine the amount of restitution based on the 
victim's situation and not on the economic resources of the offender 
or the fact that the victim is entitled to insurance or other 
compensation.  The court is also to set the payment schedule (e.g., a 
single, lump-sum payment or a partial payment at specified 
intervals) and method of payment (e.g., cash, return of property, or 
replacement of property). Limitations on Restitution Awards.  Court-
ordered compensation is not to affect the victim's eligibility to 
receive insurance awards or other compensation until such time that 
the court-ordered compensation fully compensates the victim for his 
losses.  In addition, the bill stipulates that if the claimant seeks 
additional awards in a civil case, any new award is to be reduced by 
the amount of the criminal court restitution order (bill supporters 
argue that claimants may seek additional awards but should not be 
able to receive a second, full compensation).

Defendant Compliance.  Compliance with the schedule of payment 
and other terms of the restitution order is a condition for probation, 
parole or any other form of release.  If the defendant fails to comply 
with the restitution order, the court may revoke probation or parole, 
modify the conditions of probation or parole, hold the defendant in 
contempt of court, enter a restraining order or injunction against the 
defendant, order the sale of the defendant's property, or take any 
other action necessary to insure compliance with the restitution 
order.  The victim or offender may, at any time, petition the court to 
modify a restitution order if the offender's economic circumstances 
change .

Law Enforcement Block Grants (Title IV) 

The bill authorizes a total of $10 million over five years ($2 million 
in each of FY 1996-2000) for local governments to fund law 
enforcement programs.  These block grants replace the police, 
prevention and drug courts titles of the recently-enacted crime bill.  
Under the bill, money may be used to (1) hire, train or employ law 
enforcement officers; (2) pay overtime to police officers; (3) purchase 
equipment and technology directly related to basic law enforcement 
purposes; (4) enhance school security measures (e.g., police patrols 
around school grounds, metal detectors, fences, closed circuit 
cameras, gun hotlines, etc.); (5) establish citizen neighborhood watch 
programs; and/or (6) fund programs that advance moral standards 
and the values of citizenship and involve local law enforcement 
officials .

To qualify for these grants, a unit of local government must show 
that it will (1) establish a trust fund in which block grant money is to 
be deposited; (2) use the money within two years; (3) spend the 
money in accordance with the guidelines in this section; (4) use 
approved accounting, audit and fiscal procedures; (5) make any 
requested records available to the Bureau of Justice Assistance and 
the comptroller of the U.S. for review; and (6) submit the required 
progress reports.  Each state that applies is to automatically receive 
0.25 percent of the funds as well as additional funds based on its 
number of reported violent crimes in 1993 compared to the rest of 
the country.  States are to distribute the funds among local units of 
government based on their population and the number of reported 
violent crimes in 1993 compared to the rest of the local 
governmental units in the state .

If a unit of local government does not spend all of its grant money 
within two years of receipt, it must repay the unused portion to the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance within three months.  The bill also 
stipulates that (1) this grant money is intended to supplement, not 
supplant, state funds; (2) grantees may not use more than 2.5 
percent of their grant for administrative costs; and (3) grantees must 
hold one public hearing on the proposed use of their grant.  The bill 
also sets out procedures to be used if a local government violates any 
portion of this title .

As noted above, The bill repeals sections of the recently-enacted 
crime control act that provide specific funds for drug courts, 
recreational programs, community justice programs and other social 
prevention spending.  Bill sponsors argue that providing money 
directly to local law enforcers and letting them decide how to spend 
the funds (as the Taking Back Our Streets Act does) is preferable to 
the current law approach of authorizing specific amounts of money 
for programs approved by Washington bureaucrats.

Grants for Prison Construction Based on Truth-in-Sentencing(Title V)
The bill authorizes $10.5 billion over six years ($232 million in FY 
1995, $997.5 million in FY 1996, $1.3 billion in FY 1997, $2.5 billion 
in FY 1998, $2.7 billion in FY 1999 and $2.8 billion in FY 2000) for 
the Attorney General to make grants to states so they can build, 
expand and operate prisons for serious violent felons.  This title 
replaces the prison section in the recently-enacted crime bill.  The 
bill also authorizes the AG to make grants for states to move non-
violent offenders and criminal aliens to other correctional facilities 
(including old military bases) to make room for violent criminals at 
existing prisons.  Grants are to be awarded based on two formulas:  a 
percentage that applies to all states (.40 percent) and a percentage 
based on population .

Fifty percent of the funds authorized under this section are 
designated as "general grants."  To receive these funds, states must 
show that since 1993 (1) an increased percentage of convicted 
violent offenders have been sentenced to prison, (2) the state has 
increased the average prison time actually served in prison, and (3) 
the state has increased the percentage of sentences to be actually 
served.  The other 50 percent is reserved for truth-in-sentencing 
incentive grants.  To be eligible for these funds, states must show 
that they require serious violent felons to serve at least 85 percent 
of the sentence imposed, and require sentencing or releasing 
authorities to allow the defendant's victim (or the victim's family) to 
testify on the issue of sentencing and any post-conviction release .

The bill includes an exception for prisoners over the age of 70 years 
after a public hearing in which representatives of the public and the 
prisoner's victims have an opportunity to testify on the issue of 
release.  It also stipulates that (1) grant money is to supplement, not 
supplant, state funds; (2) no more than three percent of the grant is 
to be used by states for administrative costs; (3) the federal share of 
a grant is not to exceed 75 percent of the total cost of a state 
proposal; and (4) any funds not spent in one year will carry over and 
remain available until spent .

Reform of the Exclusionary Rule (Title VI) 

The Supreme Court enforces the Constitution's Fourth Amendment 
(which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and 
seizures) through the so-called exclusionary rule. The rule holds that 
any evidence discovered as a result of improper police action cannot 
be introduced in a federal or state criminal trial -- i.e. "the criminal is 
to go free because the constable has blundered."  Critics of the rule's 
rigidity argue that it suppresses evidence of unquestionable 
reliability and leads to the acquittal of many who are obviously 
guilty.  In 1984, the Supreme Court modified the exclusionary rule to 
permit the introduction of evidence that was obtained in good faith 
reliance on a search warrant that was later found to be invalid.  
However, many have called for a "good faith exemption" in cases 
where the police officer, acting in good faith, conducted a search or 
seizure without a warrant .

The bill amends current law to allow introduction of evidence 
obtained during a search or seizure that was conducted with the 
objectively reasonable belief that it was in accordance with the 
fourth amendment, regardless of whether a search warrant had been 
granted .

Prisoner Lawsuits (Title VII) 

The bill directs federal courts to dismiss any frivolous or malicious 
action brought by an adult convicted of a crime and confined in any 
jail, prison or other correctional facility.  The bill also requires that 
prisoners filing a suit include a statement of all assets in their 
possession so the court can require a full or partial payment of filing 
fees based on the prisoner's ability to pay .

Bill sponsors argue that states are forced to spend millions of dollars 
defending prisoner lawsuits to improve prison conditions -- many of 
which are frivolous.  Critics of the proposal argue that it will restrict 
prisoners' rights to seek legitimate redress of grievances .

Deportation of Criminal Aliens (Title VIII) 

This title of the bill provides for the prompt deportation of any alien 
without a green card who has been convicted of an aggravated felony 
and who is deportable.  According to bill sponsors, it addresses the 
current problem of releasing these felons into the general population 
prior to finalization of deportation proceedings, since few of those 
released ever show up for their deportation hearings .

Definition of an Aggravated Felony.  For purposes of alien felon 
deportation, the bill expands the definition of an aggravated felony 
to include any state or federal offense involving (1) firearms 
violations; (2) failure to appear in court for a felony carrying a 
sentence of two or more years; (3) demanding or receiving ransom 
money; (4) a RICO violation; (5) owning, controlling, managing or 
supervising a prostitution business; (6) treason; (7) tax evasion 
exceeding $200,000; and (8) certain immigration-related offenses 
including alien smuggling and sale of fraudulent documents. Sponsors 
of the bill argue that these crimes are serious enough to put a 
convicted alien on the fast track for deportation .

The current law definition of an aggravated felony includes murder, 
drug trafficking, trafficking in firearms or explosives, money 
laundering, terrorism, and any crime of violence carrying a prison 
sentence of at least five years .

Criminal Alien Deportation Proceedings.  The bill allows the Attorney 
General to issue a final order of deportation against any alien 
determined to be deportable for conviction of an aggravated felony 
(without requiring a deportation hearing).  An alien is defined as 
anyone who (1) was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
in the U.S. at the time that proceedings for the commission of an 
aggravated crime began or (2) had permanent resident status on a 
conditional basis at the time that proceedings for the commission of 
an aggravated crime began.  An alien against whom a deportation 
order is issued may appeal for judicial review in federal court; 
however, the court action is limited to challenging only the 
defendant's identification (whether the person is who the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] says he is and whether 
he committed the aggravated felony) .

Judicial Deportations.  When an alien whose conviction causes him to 
be deemed deportable is sentenced, a federal court may issue a 
judicial order of deportation if the U.S. attorney requested one prior 
to sentencing and the INS commissioner is in agreement.  A judicial 
order of deportation or a denial of such order may be appealed by 
either party to the circuit court of appeals.  A court action, however, 
is limited to challenging only the defendant's identification (whether 
the person is who the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] 
says he is and whether he committed the aggravated felony) .

If a judicial order is denied, the Attorney General may still pursue a 
deportation order through administrative channels .

Defenses Based on Permanent Residence. Under current law, when an 
alien is in deportation proceedings, he can use certain defenses to get 
out.  One such defense is showing that he has been a permanent 
resident of the United States for the past seven years.  The bill does 
not change the underlying defense, but changes the time frame in 
which INS can begin deportation proceedings against an alien 
convicted of an aggravated offense.  Under current law, deportation 
proceedings are to begin after the alien has served five years.  The 
bill allows INS to begin deportation proceedings when an alien is 
sentenced to a term of at least five years.  Bill sponsors argue that 
this standard is more relevant for judging the seriousness of a crime 
since dangerous criminals may be released prematurely due to 
prison overcrowding, or other reasons not related to the seriousness 
of the crime .

Defenses Based on Withholding of Deportation. Aliens may also 
reverse deportation proceedings by showing that they will suffer 
physical harm if returned to their native country.  As defined by 
international law, "withholding of deportation" is a higher standard 
of protection than asylum:  if an alien can prove such a situation 
exists, he must be retained in the U.S. unless he poses a danger to the 
public.  The bill clarifies current law to stipulate that aggravated 
felons pose a serious danger to the public and are not allowed to 
request or be granted this protection .

Enhanced Penalties for Failing to Deport or Reentering.  Under 
current law, aliens who are deportable for criminal offenses, for 
document fraud or because they are a security risk to the U.S face up 
to 10 years in prison for failure to depart.  Bill sponsors argue that 
there are no penalties for aliens who are deportable for other 
reasons but refuse to leave.  The bill retains the current law penalty 
and establishes a penalty of up to four years in prison for all other 
deportable aliens who refuse to leave.  The bill also establishes civil 
penalties for those who refuse to leave .

Under current law, an alien who is convicted of a felony (other than 
an aggravated offense), is deported and then reenters the country is 
subject to five years in prison and a criminal fine.  The bill extends 
such penalties to aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanors 
and increases the maximum sentence to 10 years.  Deported 
aggravated felons who re-enter the U.S. are currently subject to 
criminal fines and up to 15 years in prison.  The bill increases the 
maximum prison sentence to 20 years .

Finally, under the bill, a deported alien who re-enters the U.S. cannot 
challenge his original deportation unless he can show that (1) all 
available administrative remedies were exhausted, (2) an 
opportunity for judicial review was denied, and (3) the deportation 
order was fundamentally unfair .

Criminal Alien Tracking Center.  The bill directs the INS 
commissioner and the director of the FBI, with the heads of other 
agencies, to operate a criminal tracking center.  The measure 
authorizes $14 million over four years ($5 million in FY 1994 and $2 
million in each of FY 1995-98) for the center, which is to assist 
federal, state and local law enforcement agencies identify and locate 
aliens who may be subject to deportation due to conviction of an 
aggravated felony .