[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______


                         HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 26, 1994

  Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on April 19, and April 21, 
1994, personal business in my home district, including the funeral of a 
very dear friend, prevented me from voting on several amendments and 
final passage of the crime bill. I would like at this time to go on 
record with my voting intentions.
  On the Chapman amendment, (A014), authorizing $10.5 billion for a 
program of grants for State prisons, I would have voted ``aye''. This 
amendment not only provides needed funds for State prisons, but sets 
aside 25 percent of available funds for states that have done a better 
job locking up violent offenders and requiring them to serve more of 
their sentence. To qualify for the remaining funds, a State must commit 
in good faith to doing a better job of incarcerating its violent 
offenders in the future.
  I also would have voted ``aye'' on the Schiff amendment (A015) to 
strike provisions in crime bill that would require states, as a 
condition for receiving prison grants, to have detailed plans for 
managing various correctional programs, including alternatives to 
incarceration, a prisoner screening and security classification 
program, prisoner rehabilitation and treatment programs, and prisoner 
work activities and jobs skills programs. While I believe that these 
kinds of correctional programs have a role in our penal system, they 
should not be used to prevent states from qualifying for prison grants 
which, ultimately, will help get more criminals off the streets and 
behind bars. The American people want criminals off the streets now. 
These provisions would create an unnecessary barrier for states that 
want to make that happen.
  On the Hughes amendment (A017) to authorize $3 billion in grants for 
state or regional correctional facilities, I would have voted ``aye''. 
These grants would be available for states or groups of states to 
increase prison space for incarcerating repeat violent offenders.
  I would have voted ``aye'' on the revised Hughes amendment (A027) 
that calls for the Sentencing Commission to conduct a study of the 
disparities between the criminal penalties for possession, trafficking, 
and dealing in crack cocaine and those associated with powder cocaine
  On the revised Franks amendment (A028), which would require all 
Federal prisoners to earn a General Education Development [GED] 
certificate before becoming eligible for early release--with exceptions 
established by the Bureau of Prisons for the learning disabled and 
illegal aliens--I would have voted ``no''. While I believe we should 
encourage prisoners to pursue education and training opportunities. I 
do not believe that early release should be predicated on earning a 
GED.
  Finally, I would have voted against the motion to recommit with 
instructions and strongly in favor of final passage of the crime bill 
as amended by the committee of the whole. I believe the bill strikes a 
reasonable balance between prevention and punishment, both of which are 
needed to rid our streets of the rising tide of crime and violence. I 
also support moving the bill to conference with the Senate and look 
forward to enacting a strong, comprehensive conference bill later this 
session.

                          ____________________