[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1472-H1526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 63 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 63
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 667) to control crime by incarcerating violent
criminals. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
for failure to comply with clause 2(1)(2)(B) or clause
2(1)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule for a period not to exceed ten hours. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause
7 of rule XCI or clause
[[Page H1473]] 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 63 is a modified open rule, providing
for the consideration of H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration
Act of 1995. The rule makes in order the judiciary amendment in the
nature of a substitute as an original bill for purpose of amendment
which shall be considered as read.
House Resolution 63 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate, the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The rule does provide
a 10-hour limit on the amendment process and affords the Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole the option of granting priority recognition
to those Members who have caused their amendments to be printed in the
Congressional Record prior to their consideration. This rule also
provides certain waivers necessary to allow for the expedient
consideration of this bill.
Specifically, the rule waives clause 2(l)(6) and clause (2)(l)(2)(B)
of rule XI pertaining to the 3-day availability of committee reports
and the inclusion of rollcall votes in Committee reports. The rule also
waives clause 7 of rule XVI because of the nongermane relationship of
the Committee substitute to the introduced bill and waives clause 5(a)
of rule XXI pertaining to appropriations in a legislative bill.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The Violent Criminal Incarceration Act will enable States to deal
more effectively with violent crime by repealing the Truth-in-
Sentencing Incarceration Grant Program and the Drug Court Grant Program
included in last year's crime bill.
The bill authorizes $10.5 billion for two new incarceration grant
programs. Half of these funds will be allocated to States that are
making progress in punishing violent criminals, and the other half will
be allocated to States that enact truth-in-sentencing laws which
require violent felons to serve not less than 85 percent of the
sentence imposed.
Additionally, the bill addresses prisoner litigation through various
reforms and would permit Federal courts to limit the relief awarded
prisoners in certain civil actions, including attorney's fees. H.R. 667
also bans weight lifting and other strength training for Federal
inmates.
This measure authorizes a net increase over the 1994 crime bill of
$1.9 billion over 5 years. Crime is one of the biggest problems facing
our Nation today, and this is money well spent. We made a commitment to
the American people in the Contract With America to build more prisons,
make sentences longer, and keep violent criminals in jail so that our
streets will be safer.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule so we can proceed with the
consideration of this important piece of crime legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1050
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend, the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding the customary half hour of debate
time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R.
667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act.
Unfortunately, the bill itself, as our colleagues on the minority
side on the Judiciary Committee noted in their dissenting views in the
committee report on the bill, is so poorly drafted in concept and in
its language that many who support the stated purpose of the bill, to
control crime by incarcerating violent criminals, are unable to support
the legislation as it is being presented to us.
While I shall not oppose the rule, I am concerned about the nature of
the rule--it is not the type of open rule the new majority has been
promising, especially for legislation as significant as H.R. 667.
First, the rule provides for several waivers of points of order,
including one for the requirement that a committee report be available
for 3 days. The advisability of this waiver should be questioned when
it is for a piece of legislation that represents a dramatic shift in
national policy, setting back, as H.R. 667 would, the ambitious prison
program we enacted just last year in the Congress.
As with other major legislation that we have been required to
consider so that the Contract With America can be fulfilled within an
artificial time period, many of the problems with this bill could have
been averted had the bill been given proper committee consideration. As
it is, the bill was rushed through committee with neither adequate
hearings nor the kind of deliberate evaluation it demands.
More important, the Republicans on the committee also included a 10-
hour time limit on the amendment process. My colleagues should fully
understand the implications of this restriction. This limit is not
applied to debate time. It is, instead, an entirely new invention: It
is a restriction on all time, including the time required for voting
itself. It will reduce actual debate time to obviously less than 10
hours.
I repeat, this is an altogether new type of constraint on debate and,
in the opinion of this gentleman and many others, an extremely
objectionable restriction that I hope we will not be asked to accept
again. Unfortunately, the attempt of the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] to strike this time limit was defeated yesterday in the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed about the disingenuous nature of this
rule. In fact, we are beginning to detect the development of a pattern
in the majority's attempt to delivery the open rules it has long
advocated and promised, but rules that are open in name only. Our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot have this both ways--
they cannot claim, as they have been doing, to be providing open rules
when the result is in actuality a process that closes down and
restricts debate.
We saw this pattern in the debate on unfunded mandates and on the
line-item veto. In each of those instances, the rule was in effect
modified after the fact. The debate on each started under an unfettered
rule, only to end with time restrictions on amendments.
I am only suggesting that the majority be
straightforward from the start in describing the terms of debate and
that they not make a habit of changing the rules in midcourse. Members
have a right to know from the beginning how they will have to deal with
the bills before us.
Unfortunately, H.R. 667 itself, which places greater restrictions on
funding for the prison construction grant program while also increasing
the funding level, begins the process of eliminating the newly enacted
community policing grant program and crime prevention programs--
including the acclaimed drug courts program which reduces the
recidivism rate of participants dramatically. Given the proven level of
success of this prevention program, which costs about $800 per
participant as opposed to $20,000 or more for the cost of a year in
prison, the cut in funding in this area will result in substantially
higher costs and more crime victims.
Ironically, it appears that States would be eligible for more funding
under the provisions of the 1994 crime
[[Page H1474]] bill. We are told that as few as three States--North
Carolina, Arizona, and Delaware--can currently qualify for funding
under either of the two pools of funds that the bill establishes. In
any case, it is clear that these funds will go to only a very small
minority of the States in the foreseeable future. So, for those of us
who support more prison cells for violent crime, this legislation is
not the promised solution.
Mr. Speaker, the programs we enacted just last year have only begun
to work--we should allow them to continue so that more police will be
on the streets of our communities and more criminals are locked up.
If I might, I would like to discuss briefly one significant issue
that we discussed in the Rules Committee. The gentleman from California
[Mr. Berman] testified, requesting that he be allowed to offer an
amendment to address another very significant problem--reimbursing
States and localities for the costs of imprisoning criminal illegal
aliens.
In today's Los Angeles Times, the Speaker was quoted as declaring
that the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants is a ``Federal
responsibility'' and calling on Congress to approve $630 million in
reimbursement to States. I could not agree more with our distinguished
Speaker, and I am glad the Speaker has finally decided to champion this
issue which several of us from affected communities have been arguing
for quite some time now. I am still concerned, however, that full
funding for State reimbursement will not be forthcoming.
Congress recognized the unfairness of this situation and acknowledged
the Federal Government's responsibility for the criminal alien
population as far back as 1986, when we approved the Immigration Reform
and Control Act. Section 501 of that act specifically authorizes the
reimbursement of States of costs incurred in the imprisonment of
illegal aliens. Unfortunately, no funds were appropriated for that
purpose until just last year, under an amendment which this gentleman
carried on the floor and which was supported by colleagues from both
sides of the aisle. The amounts recently appropriated will not even
cover one-third of the costs. In addition, no funds have been made
available for local governments, which also incur huge costs in this
regard.
During the current fiscal year, California alone will spend nearly
$400 million to incarcerate illegal alien felons. With that $400
million, California could instead build and operate two prisons housing
4,400 criminals each; put more than 2,400 highway patrol officers on
our streets; and provide drug rehabilitation programs for 3,400
inmates.
In short, this is as members know, a serious problem for many States
and one for which the Federal Government has the primary
responsibility. We will have the opportunity to hasten the work we
began on that last year, when Mr. Berman offers an amendment to this
bill today, and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Berman's amendment
at the appropriate time.
To repeat, I shall not oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to
approve it so that we may consider this important legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman emeritus of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my good friend from California Mr.
Beilenson, that I sort of take exception to the word of my colleague
when he used the word ``disingenuous.''
This Committee on Rules has been overly fair to this body, even to
the point that we are being criticized for being so open and so fair by
Members of the Democrat party who want us to move legislation along and
not take so much time on the floor.
The gentleman mentioned the line-item veto, which was not a
constitutional amendment but was in fact a proposed statute. At the
request of the minority leader, I think his name is Richard Gephardt,
he suggested on the final day of the 3 days debate we had been on that
bill that we close down debate and move it along.
We have taken exception to that. We have tried to be as open and fair
and accountable as we possible can. As a matter of fact, look at the
bills that came on this floor that we have considered during this first
5 weeks, when the Congress is normally not even in session. Boy, what
we have accomplished in this first 5 weeks is just so exciting I can
hardly stand it some times. But we put out an unfunded mandate bill, a
very complex piece of legislation, and we spent days on this floor. And
Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, all had the
opportunity to do what I have yelled about for so many years here. They
had the ability to work their will on the floor of this Congress. That,
to me, is just so terribly important.
The line-item veto, open rule. Victims Restitution Act, open rule.
Exclusionary rule, where we had really, I think, effective debate
yesterday on that bill. All of these were handled under open rules.
As a matter of fact, the only restricted debate that we have had at
all was on a proposed constitutional amendment. And that was of course,
the constitutional balanced budget amendment.
I would just point out that even with the restrictions that were
placed on that debate, that it was more open and fair than at any other
time when we debated the balanced budget on this floor. I am sure the
gentleman from California, I think the gentleman told me that. The
Democrats had twice as many alternate substitutes than we did.
So I would just take exception to the question of it being
disingenuous.
{time} 1100
Also, the gentleman mentioned the fact that we did not have the
normal 3-day layover. It was necessary to waive clause 2(l)(2)(B) of
rule XI against consideration of the bill because the rule prohibits
the consideration of a bill until the third day of which a report is
available to House Members.
And again, I would call attention to the fact that although this
report was filed on Monday, February 6, it did not become available to
Members on Tuesday from the Government Printing Office, as we
anticipated. Instead, it was not delivered to the House until early on
Wednesday, meaning that the third day of availability under the rules
would be Friday. So with consultation with the minority, they agreed to
waive the extra day so that we only had availability for 2 days and so
that we could bring the bill to the floor and have meaningful debate on
it today.
I think when it comes to the question of how long we will spend on
this bill, there is 1 hour available on the rule, which we are debating
now. There is 1 hour on general debate, and then 10 hours of
consideration for amendments.
That will take up 2 days in this body, and that
is what was suggested by the minority. We acceded to their wishes
and gave the 10 hours of debate. I just wanted to clear the air.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Boston, MA [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not from Boston. That is a lesser
inaccuracy. Under the circumstances, let us get to the more substantive
ones.
Mr. SOLOMON. Careful now.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. ``Inaccuracy'' is a perfectly acceptable
word under the rules.
The first point I would make is that the balanced budget
constitutional amendment was not the only bill we considered under a
restricted rule. We considered on the first day a statute dealing with
compliance of Congress with the laws which was considered under a
totally closed rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. I am the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the
Committee on Rules did not put out a rule on that bill. That was not a
rule.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, the gentleman makes a distinction that is absolutely
without any point or purpose whatsoever. The fact is, if the gentleman
wants to take this personally as a commentary on his record, he is free
to do that on his own time. But the question is, how has the House
considered things? And in fact,
[[Page H1475]] under the Republican leadership's direction, the House
considered an important piece of legislation, the compliance bill,
under a total closed procedure.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my own time, Mr. Speaker, so that the
gentleman can get his time and then I would be glad to respond to him.
The gentleman says if I would do it on my own time. He is on my time. I
reclaim my time and would then ask the ranking member over there to
yield time to the gentleman. Then we can have a meaningful discussion
on his time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is
that the gentleman's concern with his own personal reputation did not
seem to me to be all that relevant to the debate.
The question is, what has the House been able to do? And the
compliance bill was considered under a procedure which allowed no
amendments whatsoever. Similarly on the balanced budget amendment,
which the gentleman talks about, some amendments were allowed and some
were not.
I went to the Committee on Rules with an amendment which got the most
votes of any amendment offered in the Committee on the Judiciary. It is
the one that allowed a full debate on the question of separating out
the receipts and outlays of Social Security from the balanced budget.
And the Committee on Rules, under the gentleman's direction, refused to
allow that amendment, a freestanding Social Security amendment, not
linked with other things, to be voted on.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, first of
all, his amendment was offered, I think, in a motion to recommit. But
we had given the minority the opportunity to select any of the
amendments that they wanted to make in order. They did not select his
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would have to disagree with the
gentleman. First of all, Members should understand that, yes, there was
a motion to recommit, which the minority has, which allowed for 10
minutes of debate rather than what would have been an hour. And the
minority was not able to present that view.
Second, it has been my information, with the ranking minority member,
that we did ask that my amendment be made in order. And the fact is
that the Committee on Rules did not want it made in order. When we
dealt with the compliance bill, what was kept off the floor was the
question of frequent flier miles, because the Speaker does not want us
to be able to vote on preventing Members from using frequent flier
miles for personal purposes when they are acquired with Government
funds.
On the balanced budget, the majority did everything it could to keep
the minority from voting and fully debating the Social Security
question. The amendment that got the most votes in committee, in fact
the one amendment that drew some Republican support, was given by the
majority the shortest shrift possible. We did choose to use the
recommit for it, but that is, as I said, a 5-minute debate on each side
as opposed to an hour.
So the record is very clear that when the majority anticipates that
an issue will be troublesome, they do what they can to keep it off the
floor. They are perfectly willing to have us debate issues that are not
going to be troublesome to them politically.
Finally, I want to agree with what the gentleman from California said
when he talked about the haste, and we have a majority operating under
a self-imposed campaign promise of 100 days to bring out a large amount
of legislation. It is proving harder for them to do than they had
anticipated. They are running in strains. They are running into strains
in the committee process. They are running into strains on the floor.
Yesterday we had the bill on habeas corpus amended with the author of
it, the chairman of the subcommittee, agreeing that he had made a major
error in the bill he had brought forward and agreeing that it had to be
corrected. We do not know what other major errors are there.
To meet a political pledge, the majority is doing violence to the
procedures, in many cases, and committee meetings have been cut off
without amendment process action, and the open rules have not been
open. A 10-hour limitation on some of these major things is not a
completely open rule and is intended, in fact, to cut down on the
debate. And we have had more need for the majority itself to amend and
correct its own legislation on the floor.
There are strains that have gone on in virtually every committee, in
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in the Committee on
Science, in the Committee on the Judiciary, there have been these
problems. So what Members should understand is that we have got a
series of difficulties, procedural and substantive, because of this
haste.
I will repeat again, to my knowledge, there are two issues I wanted
to see fully debated on this floor, separating out the Social Security
receipts and outlays from the balanced budget, and the Committee on
Rules would not allow that as a freestanding
amendment, required us to do it only in the recommit because they
could not stop that one. They would have liked to, and we only had, of
course, a very small amount for debate. And the compliance bill came
out in a form in which the Speaker was able to keep us from debating
the question of whether or not Members should be restricted from, with
public funds, acquiring frequent flier miles and using them for their
personal advantage.
And so, in fact, the pattern is this, where nothing turns on it,
where there is no potential embarrassment, the majority will be for an
open rule. But where they have something that might be politically
troublesome, they are going to do what they can to try to restrict the
debate.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Newton, MA, will
continue to yield.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just asked the gentleman if he wanted
me to yield and I will.
Mr. SOLOMON. I am looking at the first 10 rules that were issued by
the gentleman's majority Democrats 2 years go, all restricted and
closed. Here is the record. The gentleman never had it so good.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I agree. I had thought, just as the
gentleman did with me, I had thought that the gentleman on the other
side was talking about how much better they would be. The point is----
Mr. SOLOMON. Absolutely.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That they are in fact using their power
to restrict debate a little bit more technically than we did. We did
tend to overuse it. The gentleman on the other side only shuts off
debate if it is going to be embarrassing to them, I acknowledge that.
Where in fact nothing turns on it and there is no problem, they will
have debate. But where we talk about restricting frequent flier miles
used with public funds for personal purposes, a pet project of the
Speaker's, apparently, then, no, we cannot debate that.
Where we talk about separating out Social Security in the balanced
budget, no, we cannot debate that. Where the gentleman from California
had an amendment that passed in the Committee on the Judiciary that
would give us a chance to give to California and other States the
relief the Speaker says he wants to give them, the Committee on Rules
makes that impossible. So, in fact, we have a pattern.
Mr. SOLOMON. Wait a minute. We have rules of the House that we have
to abide by. And I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from
California, [Mr. Berman], and for what he is trying to do. As a matter
of fact, it affects my State of New York very much so. But the
question--that was a budget waiver and creating a new entitlement
program--the question was one of germaness. The gentleman is going to
have his opportunity on this bill today, and we better kind of take it
easy and not get Members all shook up.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that the gentleman does not
want members shook up on certain issues. Fortunately, he does not have
the power to stop that.
The amendment the gentleman offered in committee is not going to be
[[Page H1476]] able to be offered because the Committee on Rules would
not give them a waiver and there are other waivers in this bill. The
notion that the rules cannot be waived is silly. There are four waivers
in this bill. There are not five. Because the fifth would have been
embarrassing. So four waivers they can give, but the fifth they cannot
give because, as with the Social Security relevance to the balanced
budget; as with frequent flier, it would be troublesome.
{time} 1110
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the gentlemen are very clever about
it. They do not get caught restricting the rules when there is no
political problem, but as soon as the issue gets tough, down go the
bars.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, just briefly?
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the managers of the
Judiciary Committee bill that has come before the floor are now in the
Chamber, so I am not going to take up any more time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I just want to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the recent remarks
of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] about frequent fliers.
I must say, it is an issue that has troubled me. I accumulate them,
and there is a concern, because they are acquired by flying with
Government-paid airfare. However, in 20 years here, I have noticed that
this job, this work, creates an awful strain on the family.
Sometimes Members like to have their spouses fly with them to see
what they are doing and where they work. Sometimes the children like to
fly with them. We are trying to establish a family-friendly place.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am torn about the uses of these frequent
fliers miles. If it can keep a family sharing the work that is done,
the issues, the responsibilities, I do not think it is all a bad thing.
That is all I want to say.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Speaker,
just to respond to the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. SOLOMON. Since the gentleman yielded to me, I yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts briefly, Mr. Speaker, because we have to
get on with this work.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will not engage the
gentleman on the merits, because I think he has some points, although I
disagree with him.
My point is that it is precisely this kind of thoughtful debate that
we have not been able to have on the floor. I would like to have a
chance to explore all the issues, but by the procedure that was used,
the whole issue was kept off the floor, and it is that procedural
objection, not the substantive one, that I am making.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield 15 seconds more?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for 15 seconds, and then that is
it. We are going on to debate on this bill.
Mr. HYDE. I understand. I am overly grateful, Mr. Speaker, to the
gentleman for yielding to me.
I just want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts,
that recognizing the practice of the former majority party in the
Committee on Rules, I would just say that he does hold us to a higher
standard, and he is right in so doing.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, that was debated on the
floor last year.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we can move this rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a wide open rule. There are four waivers of
points of order. This is not even close. This is a backhanded gag rule
that waives not one, not two, not three, but four points of order,
something the Republicans used to say was a horrible thing to do.
I would like to quote this great man who made the statement on March
31, 1993: ``Mr. Speaker, waiving the 3-day rule, the 3-day layover
requirement, is never a good idea, never.''
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who was that great man?
Mr. MOAKLEY. That great man was the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon]. I just want to show the Members, whatever side one is on,
this thing cuts both ways.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would ask, did the gentleman vote for this rule up in committee?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker. However, I am here showing the
American people and the people here that the statements made by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], are not being carried out: ``We
are going to have the wide open rules.''
We had three open rules this year that we put through on suspension
last year. We will have open rules when they figure it is
noncontroversial. When the Republicans were in the minority, they
complained loud and long about what they called closed rules.
If there was a time cap, the rules were closed. Anything but a wide
open rule they considered closed. Now they say ``Well, this is almost
an open rule.'' There is no such animal. It is closed or it is open.
All have to play by the same rules.
Mr. Speaker, that was then, and now is now. These days the
Republicans are passing out closed rules like Fenway franks at a Red
Sox game. Today's rule is no exception.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this rule counts votes on amendments toward the
10-hour time cap. In the end the 10 hours goes pretty quickly when
every three votes eat up an hour. This bill needs all the help it can
get.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why Republicans would not want all
the improvement that they could get. I do not know why on Earth they
would take money from the Cops on the Beat Program, which has provided
over 16,000 new police officers to American communities in the last 5
months, and had it over to just three States to build prisons.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of those communities that have gotten no police
officers, are represented by my Republican friends, but they are saying
they have had enough. They have had enough of new police officers in
their cities and towns, and they want to provide money for fancy
helicopters and tanks and prisons for North Carolina, Arizona, and
Delaware.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I counted, we had 50 States in the Union,
not 3. I think every single
one of them deserves to be able to apply this prison money, and I
think the Democrats should be able to offer amendments to that effect.
However, Mr. Speaker, they will not be able to, because using the
Republicans' own definition, the rule is closed and the Members of
Congress are gagged.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the issue is, for me, far less the question
of whether or not the rule is open than the question of whether there
is fundamental fairness in the operation. I think what happened to me
with respect to my amendment yesterday in the Committee on Rules was
not fundamentally fair.
In this case, by refusing to give an essentially technical waiver,
four of which were already given in this rule, as has been previously
discussed, by refusing to give me an essentially technical waiver from
the Budget Act, an amendment that I had that would have addressed the
question of the unfair situation where States and local governments in
many parts of this country, particularly on the border, but also in New
York and in Illinois and in
[[Page H1477]] other areas, are shouldering the entire burden of the
cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants who have been convicted
of felonies and who are housed in State and local prisons as a result
of those convictions, people who should not have been in this country
or in those States, except for the failure of the Federal Government to
enforce the laws that we are supposed to enforce, and we have pledged
to enforce.
I proposed an amendment to provide a capped entitlement to guarantee
to the State and local governments that they would be reimbursed for
the properly expended costs submitted to the Justice Department. After
a review of the Justice Department, and within the terms of the
amendment, I proposed payment for that capped entitlement, a capped
entitlement of $650 million, by reducing proportionally the existing
authorization, which everyone intends to fund, they claim, for
reimbursement for the States under last year's crime bill, and by
reducing the amount of the authorization in the prison bill that is up
before us today that is going to be made in order by virtue of this
rule.
Technically, Mr. Speaker, because it was enhanced, it was a capped
entitlement, a Budget Act point of order stood against it, but in terms
of the amendment, the amendment paid for itself.
The four members of the minority on the Committee on Rules all
supported granting that technical waiver. The eight members of the
majority, each of whom expressed tremendous sympathy for the amendment,
understood the inequity that exists, indicated their intention to do
something about it, recognized that my amendment paid for itself, each
of them expressed those sentiments, and then proceeded on a rollcall
vote to deny me the waiver which would have allowed me to offer that
amendment.
{time} 1120
The issue to me is not whether this rule is open or not. I understand
the need of the majority to try and manage the business of the House.
The question is whether the rules process is used to fundamentally tilt
the process one way or another.
We have a situation with this whole issue. I listened to the Speaker
this morning in his morning press conference, and he spoke eloquently
about the propriety and the legitimacy of the claims of both States
that are shouldering the costs of the incarceration of undocumented
criminal aliens and their rightful need to be reimbursed.
Two weeks ago we passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
States and local governments raised a question. They said are you going
to cut Federal spending by shifting to the States, or are you going to
cut Federal programs, and without exception the chief proponents of the
constitutional amendment said we are not going to be doing it by
shifting the cost to the States and local governments, we are going to
do it by cutting Federal programs.
Let me tell my colleagues, the biggest cost shift of all is the cost
shift that comes by forcing the State and local governments to pick up
the cost of incarcerating people who should not be in this country,
except for the failure of the Federal Government to enforce its own
laws.
A week ago we passed the unfunded mandate bill. We are not going to
do this anymore, we are not going to shift the costs to the State and
local governments, we are not going to decide what is happening. The
biggest unfunded consequences, in effect a mandate as the Speaker
himself referred to it, that goes on now is this shifting of costs to
the States and local governments. Let me say to my colleagues, were the
Federal Government to pick up the obligation we would then have an
incentive, the same incentive that the chairman of the crime committee
says is the justification for conditioning prison grants to the States
on their sentencing, we would have the incentive to do something.
The President of the United States, President Clinton, is the first
President to actually propose trying to help the States in this area
and we appropriated $130 million last year, but that is far short of
what the actual costs are. The CBO suggests they are $650 million.
I am just going to take one moment here to read a little bit from the
computer printout of the AP wire story. It says,
House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the Federal Government
should help border States pay for imprisoning illegal
immigrants, but the proposal still faces resistance from
other senior Republicans.
Gingrich said he supports the provision in the crime bill,
That is the provision that I put into the bill in the Judiciary
Committee on the alien deportation bill, which I have been told very
clearly is going to be ruled out of the order by the Rules Committee,
Gingrich says he supports that provision and supported it even before a
meeting with California Governor Pete Wilson.
Texas Governor George Bush and officials of other States
also have sought the reimbursement, contending immigration is
a Federal problem.
Arizona, California, Texas, Florida and other States have
sued the government in an effort to recoup billions of
dollars spent on illegal immigrants, contending the costs
arose because of the Federal Government's failure to enforce
its immigration laws.
``I am very sympathetic to Governor Wilson and to
Governor Bush and others who have made this case,''
Gingrich said. ``The Federal Government has failed to
secure the American borders and the Federal Government is
dumping on our border States an entirely inappropriate
problem.''
The proposal part of a larger crime package now before the
House could cost Federal taxpayers about $640 million in the
first year.
Senior Republicans, such as Representative Henry Hyde,
And it hurts me, but it says it here,
Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John
Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee oppose the
measure because of the costs.
``More money for California. What else does California
want?'' Kasich exclaimed. ``Tilt the Treasury this way,'' he
said, gesturing to signify dumping Federal dollars toward the
West Coast,
As if this is some benefit where the supplicant Californians and
Floridians and Texans and New Yorkers are coming to say, ``Please,
Federal Government, help us out with our problem.'' This misunderstands
the fundamental nature of this issue. It belies all of the rhetoric
that was given when we passed a constitutional amendment to balance the
budget. It undercuts everything that was said when we passed the notion
of no more unfunded mandates to States and local governments through
Federal action.
They are in those States. They have committed those crimes. They have
been convicted of those crimes and they are imprisoned at a cost in New
York of $24,000 per individual per year, California $20,000, Florida
$16,000 per year, each of them because the Federal Government failed to
enforce this.
This is the most compelling case for automatic reimbursement of the
legitimate costs that the States and locals spend. It will help us
focus our attention on solving the problem.
It was wrong to deny me that technical waiver in an amendment that
would have paid for itself and not added a penny to the Federal
deficit. And I think that question should be brought to the House only
because again, I am not yelling about whether the rule is open or not,
I just think in this case a waiver was not granted to keep a particular
issue from coming to the floor in a way that unfairly deprived one
Member and a number of States and a number of other colleagues who
support this measure of a chance to raise the issue in this fashion.
I have an amendment which I will be offering which will seek to do
the same thing. It will seek to reserve the first $650 million of the
appropriated moneys for the prison programs for reimbursement for the
States. Before we start putting money on the States for new prison
construction, according to our notion of social engineering, and it is
interesting how social engineering was so bad last year, but now,
depending on who is in, the different notions of social engineering are
more appropriate, but before we start spending that money, let us pay
for the costs that the States and local governments now face because of
the Federal failure to enforce the immigration laws.
That amendment will be before us. But let me tell my colleagues that
that amendment seeks to try and bring this money to the State and local
government through a reservation of funds. In other words, no funds may
be appropriated for other parts of the prison
[[Page H1478]] bill until that $650 million is given back to the
States and local governments.
But the Appropriations Committee can say when they go through that
process, notwithstanding if this amendment would pass, notwithstanding
this provision
of the law, ``We hereby appropriate the following moneys.'' Let me
tell my colleagues, the Appropriations Committee I understand has all
of these pressures, and I understand only certain States are affected.
I understand it is not a national problem in one sense of the word. But
the Appropriations Committee will be very tempted to include that
language, and then they will be legislating on an appropriation bill.
Then I suggest the Rules Committee may very well grant that waiver, and
that will be the question that they will have to face then.
So I think the Rules Committee did me an injustice yesterday by not
granting the waiver. But I think, and more important to me, I think
they did a very legitimate cause that is consistent with their own
rhetoric on the unfunded mandates bill and the balanced budget
constitutional amendment by denying that kind of a capped entitlement
program to be offered on the House floor and to be debated on the House
floor.
I am not going crazy on the rule because we will offer this other
amendment on the floor that will be in order. It is not as good. It
does not work as well. It does not fit the terms of what the Speaker
himself supports, and I believe him, because I know he cares. But I
think he is getting a lot of pressure from inside the ranks,
particularly from Members who are focused very narrowly on the Federal
budget and not on the concept of State and local unfunded mandates and
the legitimacy of specific expenditures.
I want to add one last thing, and then I will yield back the time
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has given me, and
who led this cause and got the initial language into the bill last year
which allowed for the first money to be appropriated.
The Speaker appointed a task force on California and named very
competent and distinguished colleagues of mine to lead that task force,
indicating an understanding that the problems of California are not
just isolated to California, that the country and the Congress should
not turn its back on the problems of the largest State. At the same
time that all of this is happening and that we are being kept from
offering the kind of amendment which would deal with the problem most
effectively, I find that the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Committee on
the Budget have sent a letter to the President, who submitted a
supplemental appropriation request to continue to finish the funding
for the devastating earthquake we faced in southern California, to
provide the budget funding for the floods that northern and southern
California faced, as well as additional money for the floods in other
parts of the country.
{time} 1130
And they said for the first time, of any time I can remember in terms
of congressional leadership, ``We are not going to take up your
supplemental for these federally-declared natural disasters until you
find offsets for each and every one of these expenditures.'' When I
take that together with this, I wonder about the whole meaning of that
task force.
These are positions that, if held onto, will work very much to the
detriment of my State, and I think people should think twice about
that.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to rise not only wearing my
hat as a member of the Committee on Rules, but also as chairman of the
task force to which my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman], referred.
The issue of unfunded mandates is one we addressed earlier. Quite
frankly, I would say to my friend, with whom I am working very closely
on this issue, along with our Governor, along with a wide range of
Republicans and Democrats in this House, I have to say that this
problem was created under the watch of the majority, the former
majority, which had a pattern of saying to State and local governments
that they have the responsibility of financially shouldering what is
clearly, clearly a Federal issue and should be a Federal
responsibility.
Speaker Gingrich, in appointing this task force when he asked me to
chair this, said obviously the issue of illegal immigration is going to
be one of the priority items we are going to address.
I would say to my friend, as we begin the second month of the 104th
Congress, we have, in fact, Mr. Speaker, proceeded with dealing with
this issue in a very responsible way. We are dealing with it in a
responsible way, because we reported out of the Committee on Rules by a
unanimous vote last night a rule which does not waive the Budget Act.
One of the things that has been very frustrating for many has been this
pattern of waiving the Budget Act, and it seems to me that as we look
at our attempt to deal with this, there are going to be amendments
offered which will address that responsibility in which States like
California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Illinois, those
priority States that are shouldering the responsibility which should be
Federal are facing, and it seems to me that as we look at this
question, we are doing it in a fair way under the standing rules of the
House.
Now, my friend, the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], said that if we would have had a rule
like this when they were in the majority we would have called this a
gag rule, we would have called it a rule that was restrictive, a closed
rule. I would challenge my very dear friend to find a time when a rule
came down allowing for the 5-minute rule, whereby Members were able to
stand up, offer amendments that were printed in the Record and
amendments that were not printed in the Record, where we would call it
a gag rule, restrictive rule, a closed rule. I have not done the
research on it, but I cannot imagine that gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], or the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], or the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss], or any of our Members would have called a rule that allowed
for the 5-minute rule would have been considered restrictive or closed
or gag.
What we are trying to do here is we are trying to work in a
bipartisan way. While I was here in the chair last night when this rule
was reported out, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has told me
it was handled unanimously upstairs, and what that means is that we
worked in a bipartisan way, or the committee worked in a bipartisan to
come to some kind of consensus and as well as possible to comply with
the standing rules of the House.
So it is a new day. There is a new Committee on Rules. We are going
to be able to address the issue of reimbursement on the incarceration
of illegals. We are going to be able to address a wide range of
provisions as we move ahead with this very responsible bill, and I hope
very much that we will be able to pass this rule, proceed with this
legislation which has been discussed for years and years and years, and
we are finally moving ahead with what the American people want and what
I am happy to say a new majority of this institution would like.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I just want to emphasize the point he is making about the 5-minute
rule and the way in which the kinds of rules are being admitted here
do, in fact, I think, enhance debate of the House of Representatives.
In the past, the problem with the limitations that were put on many
of these rules was they basically stifled debate. What you had was
limitations on the offering of amendments, and then time limitations
which assured that what happened on the House floor was that Members
would offer the amendment and then, because of the
[[Page H1479]] time allocations, each Member would get allocated 1
minute or 2 minutes to get up and speak. As a result, the debate always
went past each other. A Member would stand up and talk about cats. The
next Member would stand up and talk about dogs. The next guy would
stand up and talk about elephants. No one could understand what we were
doing as a result of that kind of debate.
Under the 5-minute rule, Members are permitted to yield to each
other. They can get their time extended. The fact is you get real
debate on the House floor.
I think what we have seen happening out here on the floor in the last
couple of weeks has, in fact, been impressive. People have actually
engaged each other in real debate. That is what the floor of the House
of Representatives should be all about, and it seems to me that the
rules that we are bringing forward that allow debate under the 5-minute
rule preserve that kind of tradition in the House of Representatives.
I want to congratulate the gentleman and his colleagues for the kinds
of things that they are doing to assure that we have real debate on
real issues in the House of Representatives.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his contribution. I would very
simply say that I am very pleased that there is a lot more focus on
elephants today than has been the case in the past.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). Pursuant to House Resolution
63 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 667.
{time} 1136
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
667) to control crime by incarcerating violent criminals, with Mr.
Kolbe in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we come now to the first of two bills that will address
what we on this side of the aisle, as well as many on the other side,
believe are some of the major deficiencies of last year's crime bill.
H.R. 667 deals directly with what America's criminal justice system
needs most--accountability for violent criminals. Titles I and II are
nearly identical to titles V and VII of H.R. 3, the Taking Back Our
Streets Act of 1995.
Mr. Chairman, the American people understand what is wrong with our
criminal justice system. For too long it has failed to hold law-
breakers accountable. Criminals learn that a confrontation with the
criminal justice system is nothing to be feared. As a result, a group
of violent offenders keep cycling through the system. They get
arrested, sometimes convicted, occasionally sent to prison, and then
they're almost always released after serving only a small fraction of
their sentences. This is the revolving door of justice, and it must
stop.
H.R. 667 provides more than $10 billion to enable States to expand
their prison capacity for incarcerating violent criminals. It does this
in two ways. First, it rewards States that are trying to get serious
with violent criminals, helping them to defray the costs of getting
tough with dangerous criminals. Second, it provides additional support
to States that take the bold but right step of enacting truth-in-
sentencing and require violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent
of their sentences.
This bill does not dictate sentencing policy to the States. It merely
rewards States that are doing the right thing--getting and keeping
violent criminals off the streets.
My friends on the other side will say that last year's crime bill
already addressed this problem. They are mistaken. Last year's crime
bill is a clear example of misguided micro-management from Washington,
and a lack of truth-in-legislating. What was called by some a tough-on-
crime bill was in reality a missed opportunity to put accountability
back into our system of justice.
It rewards States for maintaining the status quo;
It encourages States to enact programs for getting offenders out of
prison not into them; and
It shifts funds away from truth-in-sentencing incentives and into a
general fund available to States that do not make any special effort to
incarcerate violent Criminals.
Mr. Chairman, we now have the chance to right those wrongs with H.R.
667, and to support sensible reforms that are long overdue. To be
specific, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 667 includes the following:
Title I provides nearly $10.3 billion in funding to enable States to
expand their prison capacity. Half the funds are available to States
that are making progress in holding violent criminals accountable. Such
States can qualify for funds if they can assure, the Attorney General
that, since 1993, they are:
First, incarcerating a higher percentage of violent offenders;
Second, requiring that violent offenders serve a higher percentage of
the sentences they receive; and
Third, increasing the actual time violent offenders will be serving
in prison.
Now you will hear the charge made today that these three assurances
will be difficult for States to make. And that is clearly false. States
know enough about their own corrections systems to predict time served
averages for violent criminals--they do it everywhere as a simple
matter of planning for the future. They know how many violent criminals
get sentenced to prison, and they know the averages for expected time
served. This is all we are asking of them.
The other half of the funds are available for States that enact
truth-in-sentencing laws which require violent criminals to serve at
least 85 percent of their sentences. Title I also requires States to
enact laws requiring notification of victims or families of victims
concerning the release of offenders and provide the victims an
opportunity to be heard.
Title II--Stopping abusive prisoner lawsuits--places sensible limits
on the ability of prisoners to challenge the legality of their
confinement. Too many frivolous lawsuits are clogging the courts,
seriously undermining the administration of justice.
Title II requires that all administrative remedies be exhausted
before a prisoner can bring a civil action in Federal court. The title
also requires Federal courts to dismiss any prisoner lawsuit that fails
to state a claim for which relief can be granted, or if the suit is
frivolous or malicious.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, few problems have contributed more to the
revolving door of justice than Federal court-imposed prison population
caps. Cities across the United States are being forced to put up with
predators on their streets because of this judicial activism. Title III
provides much needed relief by providing reasonable limits on the
remedies available in prison crowding suits--yet with complete
deference to the Bill of Rights and civil rights laws.
The title limits court-ordered relief to those specific conditions
affecting the individual plaintiff, and requires courts to consider the
potential impact of such relief on public safety. The title includes
provisions that will guard against court-ordered caps dragging on and
on, with nothing but the whims of Federal judges sustaining them. It
grants standing to officials who arrest, prosecute, or incarcerate
criminals to challenge any prospective relief if that relief was
granted in the absence of an actual finding by the court that the
conditions violated a Federal right. And it places reasonable
restrictions on attorney's fees.
It is my belief that the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995
will do more to stop the revolving door of
[[Page H1480]] justice than anything this Congress has done in recent
memory. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
{time} 1140
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the new majority has succeeded in turning a silk purse
into a sow's ear, in terms of our crime bill efforts. I would just like
to take a few minutes to recall what the contract has been doing to us
in the crime area.
First of all, we have just said, as of this week, that law
enforcement officers can kick the doors down on our houses at any time
for any reason without a warrant. Magistrate requirement? Oh, yes; you
go to a magistrate afterward to determine if the officer was acting in
good faith or not, instead of going before to have it determined by an
arbiter in the court.
They have also created a system so that a defendant, a criminal
defendant, can be executed even though he may have an appeal pending
before he ever knows whether the appeal has been disposed of or not.
Then the new majority, for partisan reasons, wants to eliminate one
of the great features of the 1994 crime bill, namely the promise of
100,000 new community policemen on the beat, and replace it with a
wasteful revenue sharing program that harks back to the eighties that
has failed miserably. We have had so many horror stories that we
understand why eventually the plug was pulled on that old program.
Now that the Republican majority has actually done all these things,
they are going to provide less money for prisons while trying to
pretend that they are going to be providing more. How? Because the
cumbersome truth-in-sentencing requirements in which the Federal
Government paternalistically tells States how to run their criminal
justice systems will tie the States up in such knots that they will not
be able to qualify. It is to this point on prison funding that we will
be examining this in greater detail.
Mr. Chairman, study the new majority proposal closely. First, it
takes away the $2.5 billion from the ``cops on the beat'' program and
puts it into what is already a $10 billion pot for new prison
construction. Only then it says to States, ``You can't have half of
that unless you do it our way,'' which most States tell us they cannot.
In fact, we cannot count more than three that can.
So the Republican program decreases the money both for police and for
prisons, so the truth-in-sentencing fiasco is in some ways the ultimate
hypocrisy.
At a time when there is wide consensus that we need to return power
to communities, this bill says that the Federal Government in
Washington will dictate to the local communities what to do with crime.
Simply put, it is paternalistic.
If the balanced budget amendment was the mother of all unfunded
mandates, this prison proposal might be a close second cousin because
the truth-in-sentencing requirements will create enormous costs to
State Governments that are not offset with the $6 billion dangled in
front of them in the name of truth-in-sentencing.
And so we got it right when they proposed realistic truth-in-
sentencing last year. We provided flexibility to States and allowed the
truth-in-sentencing monies to roll over to a general prison fund in the
event that it was not drawn down.
This bill, however, forces States to make promises about how long
prisoners will serve before they have served their entire sentence. How
can a State prove that?
And, puzzingly, it says that for States with indeterminate
sentencing, that the average time served for violent crimes must exceed
the national average by 10 percent. Only one problem: No such average
exists. State criminal statutes define crimes differently. So we have
ambiguities that would require sometimes dozens of criminal law changes
in each State to qualify for this madcap scheme that is before us.
But we on the Democratic side have a different program. We want to
codify what the Supreme Court has said when it comes to the fourth
amendment. We want to put 100,000 community police on the street. We
want to tell the States that their judgment is the best on how to use
their prisons and the scarce space that they need, and not tie them up
with paternalistic dictates from Washington.
And we want to replace the new majority revenue sharing program with
a crime prevention program that we know works.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida, for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank him also for the outstanding leadership
he has shown on this important issue as we have been moving these bills
to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 667, the Violent
Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995. This bill represents an important
opportunity for us to help the States keep violent offenders off the
streets by providing them with prison grants.
The bill also provides much needed relief for States dealing with the
problem of frivolous litigation by prisoners and unreasonable Federal
court intervention in the operation of jails and correctional
facilities.
Title I of the bill provides that States that have enacted truth-in-
sentencing laws in States that have significantly increased the time
violent offenders spend behind bars will receive $10 billion over the
next 5 years.
{time} 1150
Title II of the bill will significantly curtail the ability of
prisoners to bring frivolous and malicious lawsuits by forcing
prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing suit
in Federal court. In doing so it will save States and local governments
millions of dollars in helping ensure that taxpayer money is not
wasted. There is no reason that, as happened in an actual case, a
prisoner should bring a lawsuit in Federal court because he requested
chunky peanut butter for a sandwich and he was given creamy instead.
Title II also requires a Federal court to dismiss on its own motion
claims which do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted or
are frivolous or malicious. In addition, title II will require
prisoners who file lawsuits in federal court to pay at least a nominal
filing fee if the prisoner has sufficient assets. These reasonable
requirements will not impede meritorious claims by inmates but will
greatly discourage claims that are without merit.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak about title III of the bill.
Title III contains the provisions of H.R. 554, which I, along with
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, introduced earlier this year.
These provisions of the bill will substantially improve the provision
contained in last year's crime bill to restrict judicial interference
in the management of jail and correctional facilities, as well as to
stop the release of dangerous criminals from prison. This provision
will ensure that relief granted goes no further than necessary to
remedy the deprivation of an individual plaintiff's rights, and it will
make clear that imposing a prison or jail population cap should
absolutely be a last resort and that the court should take into account
the import such caps will have on the public safety.
The bill also contains provisions which will prevent permanent court
supervision of correctional facilities by placing a 2-year time limit
on prospective relief provided by the court and providing for immediate
termination of relief if there has been no prior finding that prison
conditions violated a Federal right of an individual inmate.
The bill establishes additional requirements to ensure that prison
condition litigation is conducted in a manner which is not unduly
burdensome. These requirements include requiring the court to rule
promptly on motions to modify provisions of consent decrees and placing
common sense limitation on the recovery of attorney fees in prison
litigation.
Finally, the bill gives standing in prison conditions litigation to
prosecutors and other elected officials. For too long the courts have
attempted to
[[Page H1481]] micromanage correctional facilities throughout the
country. Unnecessary judicial intervention in our jails and prisons has
often resulted in the release of dangerous criminals.
Title III will help stop the abuses and thereby protect the public.
Titles II and III will help ensure that actions in the Federal courts
do not require States and local governments unnecessarily to spend
precious taxpayer resources.
I am very pleased that these provisions have been included in the
bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] for his leadership for the gentleman from New York's
legislation, and I must say I find this a rather sad day.
I come from a State where we are growing like mad. Colorado is just
exploding. In fact, just this week we had our Denver Bar Association
just want to do a Proposition 187 to keep Californians in California
because we are exploding with them coming over the border. They meant
that kiddingly. But as a consequence, the pressure on trying to build
enough prisons, trying to keep up with the whole law enforcement
requirement, has really been stressful on our State government.
We all know that it costs a lot to build prisons, and I say, ``You
don't want to just slam-bam them up because what people want is
something that's going to hold dangerous criminals, and unfortunately
we are here today forced to debate an empty prison promise. Let's call
this the empty prison promise bill because this is a very empty promise
if you are waiting for prisons because you aren't going to get any
money if you are under the pressure that States like mine are under. In
fact, no State in the Union is going to get any money out of this bill
because, as the attorney general says, none of them qualify.''
Under the bill that we passed last year, Mr. Chairman, my State would
get help. Under the bill that we passed last year, every State would
get help. But the way this bill is crafted is no State will get help
until they reach the ceiling that the Federal Government has put in
there.
Now think about that. We just finished talking about unfunded
mandates on this House floor, and everyone tells us that for all the
States to reach this level and build a number of prisons required to
hold prisoners for 85 percent of their sentence they will have to spend
$70 billion before $1 of this bill kicks in.
Now, if that is not an unfunded mandate, I have never heard of one.
In other words, how soon we forget what our promises were just a week
ago as this body passed on unfunded mandates.
We need prison building help now, and I say to to my colleagues:
``Look. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that even if
my wonderful State of Colorado got a check tomorrow under the old bill,
which I would hope it would, but even if it did, it would still take
years to get these prisons placed and to get them built. So it still
would be a time lag before we would see help. But what will happen now
is my State is going to have a figure out where it's going to get all
this money to go it alone, to go it alone to build more prisons so we
can hold the number of people we need to hold to get to 85 percent of
the prison sentence, and then the Federal Government, under this bill,
will give them some money, and what will that be for? That will be to
alleviate prison crowding at that point.''
Mr. Chairman, that is not the people of Colorado's priority. We want
to get on with this program now. There is a reason we cannot hold
people that long, and that is we do not have the space, and we need
help with the space because these things are not cheap. There is no way
we can have a stealth prison. We got to have money. It takes money, Mr.
Chairman, and it takes time to build them, and until we have that, we
are forced to try and figure out who to put out early.
Now we at least did one thing in committee to make this bill a little
bit better, and that is to at least
allow localities to try and do boot camps as an alternative way. When
this was first written, we could not even do boot camps, so it is a
little teeny bit better.
But I rise today to say, as my colleagues know, what I heard the main
problem to be last year, we fixed last year, and I never heard of
anything taking something that was just fixed and proceed to break it,
especially after we just said to the States, ``We're not going to keep
doing these things to you,'' and then we turn right around, and do it
to them, and do it to them big time.
I think Americans are so tired of politicians trying to outdo each
other, and I understand what the outdoing is on this bill. What we are
saying is the price tag on this bill is much higher than the one we did
last year. Last year we committed $7.9 billion for immediate beginning
of grants and prison building. Under this bill it will be over $10
billion.
So, last year's was $7.9 billion, and if we pass this one, it is
supposed to be $10.5 billion. So we are supposed to say, ``Great, we
are going to spend more on prisons, we're going to do more.'' That
sounds wonderful, but do not be fooled, Mr. and Mrs. America. The
Federal Government would not be putting one dollar out. We may have put
$10.5 billion in a pot, which is more than the almost $8 billion we did
last year, but nobody can make a claim on that pot because that pot has
been put on such a high shelf that no one State meets the standard
according to the Justice Department who will be monitoring.
Now that makes no sense. We ought to be helping the States get up so
they meet that standard. We ought to be helping the States with this
incredibly expensive problem of building prisons. That is what is there
now. If we vote for this today, we will be robbing the prevention
funds, robbing the funds for cops, and putting in prisons that no one
can get to.
Please, please vote against this bill.
{time} 1200
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my comments in support of
H.R. 667, I wish to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hyde] and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
for their leadership in bringing forward legislation which has earned
bipartisan support.
This crime problem in our country is out of control. I believe we
must do everything we can to protect our children and our communities,
and I believe that a combination of more police officers, more prison
space, and longer sentences will send a clear message to criminals that
they will be caught and that they will serve time. The middle class
working families of my district have made it very clear to me that they
want hard-core, violent criminals off the streets.
We need more prison space so we can bring an end to the revolving
door policy that moves criminals in and out of the justice system. The
recidivism rate among violent offenders is extremely high. In fact, 60
percent of convicted felons will be rearrested within three years of
their release. Eighty percent of all violent crimes are committed by 20
percent of criminals. If we keep letting them out of prison early, we
are only subjecting ourselves to the continuing threat of violence in
our neighborhoods and our society.
The Violent Criminals Incarceration Act authorizes $10.5 billion to
provide grants to the States to build and operate prisons. Half of this
money will be provided on the basis of the implementation of ``truth-
in-sentencing laws.'' This means that the felon must serve 85 percent
of his or her sentence, more than twice the average time they currently
serve.
Think of it in this way: In my State of Illinois the average murderer
serves less than 10 years, and I find it hard to believe there are some
who believe they should serve no longer.
It is also my hope that we can include language in this bill which
will make funds available specifically for juvenile facilities, and
shortly I will be offering an amendment for this purpose.
Americans are ready for real crime-fighting legislation. The Violent
Criminals Incarceration Act is just that. Not only is this crime-
fighting legislation, it is an investment in our society and deserves
the same kind of bipartisan
[[Page H1482]] support that every crime initiative or every anticrime
initiative in the Contract With America has received.
Mr. Chairman, I urge full support of H.R. 667.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, in this bill, in section 503(b)(2), it
would require that the sentencing and releasing authorities notify and
allow the victims of the defendant or the families of such victims the
opportunity to appear before those authorities and give reasons why
they should not be released. I do not oppose that.
But I am offering an amendment that was printed in the Record,
although it was not printed in the guide for the Members. It says this:
There are individuals who get convicted, for example, on a drug
offense, and when they are convicted, they look at the victim who
turned the evidence--it might have been somebody who helped get the
conviction, somebody who got immunity--and they say, ``When I get out
of here, I'm going to hurt you.''
The Traficant amendment says that the releasing authorities shall
upon release notify the families of the victims and the victims and the
convicting court that that felon is going to be released. We have many
cases where individuals who have been convicted by the testimony of
witnesses say to those witnesses, ``I'm going to hurt you,'' and they
come back and they hurt those witnesses or those individuals who helped
with that conviction.
So it is not necessarily an amendment that is going to require a
whole lot of brain surgery, but it is a safeguard for the victims, the
families of victims, the courts, the officers of the courts who made
those arrests, and the policeman who may have been involved in an
undercover sting when they made the arrest, and that person looks at
that police officer and says, ``When I get out of here, I'll deal with
you.''
This gives them notification. It gives the courts such notification.
It is something we should do, and it is in fact something that is
remiss from this bill. It makes this bill a better bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time given to me by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and all the effort he has given to this bill and
other bills.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that this is
a very real life, commonsense, practical amendment that I hope both
sides can agree to, because it is really important to know that out
there in the world there are these kinds of threats of ``what will
happen when I get out.''
We have got to curb that. We have got to curb jury intimidation, we
have got to curb witness intimidation, and we have got to make the
courts safe for people to go in and give testimony and believe that
they are going to live a safe, honorable, reasonable life after they
have done their duty.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, let me say in response to the gentleman
that we appreciate the leadership he has given over the years to help a
lot of people. I believe that he has helped, and I do not believe my
amendment hurts anybody who is getting released or keeps them from
getting a job. I do not want to do that. I do not want to hurt that
person who has paid his dues. I just want a safeguard to make sure that
someone does not live up to a promise they made when they were being
convicted, one that says, ``I'm going to hurt you,'' and then live up
to it.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I hope the
majority party will look at the amendment with favor.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to alert my colleagues that later today I will
be introducing a ``no frills'' prison amendment to this legislation.
Simply put, this amendment will provide that prisoners in Federal
prisons will be provided no more than the least amount of amenities and
personal comforts consistent with constitutional requirements and good
order and discipline in the Federal prison system.
Too often sight has been lost of the fact that prisons should be
places of punishment, that prisons should be places where you do not
want to go and to which you do not want to return.
There are amenities in our Federal prison system. There are amenities
in many of our State and county prisons. This amendment would deal only
with the Federal prisons, and there are some real examples of Federal
prisons which do earn the nickname, ``Club Fed.''
For instance, in Lomboc, CA, the Federal penitentiary there offers
all-channel cable TV, movies 7 days a week, pool tables, handball,
tennis, and miniature golf.
The Federal prison in Estill, SC, has dormitories with cathedral
ceilings, carpeting, skylights, checker and chess tables, and it offers
basketball and handball courts.
Prison perks are wrong in two respects: No. 1, they undermine the
theory of prisons as places of punishment, and No. 2, they waste
taxpayers' money. Professor John DiIulio of Princeton has estimated
that roughly 40 percent of what we spend on prisons nationwide is for
expenses that are not necessary to secure the prisoners and not
required by the Constitution. Roughly speaking, he says, half the money
we spend on prisons is spent on nonessentials. This is a huge amount of
money when we consider that nationwide we spend $20 billion per year on
prisons.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the ``no frills''
prison amendment when I offer it later today.
{time} 1210
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer]. No one has worked harder on the crime bill than
the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his guidance and leadership on this proposal and last year's proposal,
through the arduous days of working it through.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points on this bill. The first
is that it sounds good, but will not do much. It will not do hardly
anything at all.
In the State legislature we had a word for these kinds of bills. They
were called rain dance. You know, the rain dance that the native
Americans did? They made a lot of dancing, a lot of noise: No rain.
Same thing with this bill. It sounds great: Make sure all prisoners
serve 85 percent of their maximum sentence, or you will not get any
money. Make sure the actual time served is on the increase
dramatically, or you will not get any money.
Sounds great. The only problem is, by the Attorney General's own
estimate, and it is she who will administer this bill if it is passed,
guess how many States will get money to build prisons? None. And if the
bill is amended to change some of the words that are technically
deficient, guess how many States will qualify under our estimates?
Three.
So if you are from Delaware, North Carolina, or Arizona, you should
welcome this bill, because you will get to divide up all of this $10
billion in prison money. But if you are from the other States, forget
it.
This bill is basically a false promise. It is a hoax. It will not
build any prisons. And for the few States that are very close, it may
give them the money. But the point has been made, and this one really
sticks with me, why give it to the States that are already doing a good
job? Why not give it to the States that are not incarcerating the
violent criminals? Because once a State meets the very tough and high
standard in this bill, they do not need the money. It is the States
that have not met that standard, such as my own, that need the help.
So I would say to my colleagues, look at the amount of money that
will be available to your State under present law. And that amount of
money is not available 5 years from now or 3 years from now, which it
would be even under the best of circumstances in the
[[Page H1483]] H.R. 3 bill. Look at how much is available this year.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the anger and anguish of my constituents as they
talk about crime. I feel the real frustration of police officers who
say they arrest people and then they are convicted of violent crimes
and they are out much too quickly.
I feel the anguish of families who see that those perpetrators of
vicious crimes against a loved one is not punished long enough. If you
feel those things, then you cannot vote for the bill before us, because
the bill before us does nothing.
I must say, it seemed to me that H.R. 3 and its six components were
not designed very carefully. Other parts of the contract, there is a
real ideological divide; should we have a balanced budget amendment,
should we have a line-item veto, should there be unfunded mandates. But
this part of the contract, H.R. 3, the philosophical differences with
the present law are not very great.
Oh, yes, you might fine tune it here, there, or the other way. What
was done in H.R. 3 and in this prison section and the prevention and
police section we will do in the future, seems to me, to be different.
When the contract was put together last year, it seems to me, those who
did it said ``Well, the Democrats have done a good job on crime. We
have to show that we can
do more, we can do better.'' So they rip up something that just about
every law enforcement agency supported, something that many Members on
that side of the aisle supported, and most Members on this side of the
aisle supported, and said ``Let's start over.''
Why? Why? When our streets are savaged by crime. When the anguish of
people in communities, from the poorest to the richest, is heard by us.
Why rip up a bill that is going to get money out there immediately and
start over with a bill that is a false promise and a hoax?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a member of the committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, a great deal of discussion has already started with
respect to the idea of truth in sentencing that is represented in H.R.
667. But I think there is another reason to support H.R. 667, and that
is it represents the idea of truth in legislation.
During the consideration of the crime bill which was enacted last
year, from the beginning all the way through to the time the President
signed it last September, news report after news report in all aspects
of the media said this bill includes $7.9 billion for prisons. I saw
that in newspapers, I heard that on the radio, I saw it in TV programs.
Over and over and over again, the American people were told that the
previous crime bill contained a certain amount of money for prisons.
The only problem with that representation is, it is not true. The
crime bill as written and enacted last year, does not guarantee that a
dime of that money goes to prisons. The actual wording of the
legislation says that the money can go for prisons or for alternatives
to prisons, including keeping convicted criminals right there in the
community.
Now, is there a time when alternative sentencing is appropriate? I
think so. Though I was a career prosecutor before having the privilege
of serving in Congress, I never felt that every single criminal
convicted of every offense should go to prison. I did not think that
was always necessary as a punishment or always necessary as deterrence.
But I think those who should be in prison ought to go to prison, and
the prisons need to be built to house them.
The representation was made, in my judgment falsely, in the media
when it said over and over again, American people, you should support
the crime bill, because the crime bill guarantees that money will go to
prisons.
The crime bill that was enacted said no such thing. But this bill,
H.R. 667, certainly does. All of the money authorized here is for
prisons, and therefore that is a reason why we should adopt this
legislation this week.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the minority member
for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I should be happy to be able to come to the
floor for a change and not argue that a bill that we are considering is
unconstitutional. I do not come to make that argument today, although
there are some very serious constitutional questions about a part of
this bill. But the bulk of the bill I would concede is constitutional,
so I guess I should be relieved that I am not here raising the
constitutional arguments today.
What I say to you instead about this bill is that it may be
constitutional, but it makes absolutely no sense. And that is just as
unforgivable in the legislative context, it seems to me.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know why, even though I am from the State of
North Carolina, which is one of the 3 States that would qualify for
funds under this bill, why a Congress of the United States that is
representative of 50 States would pass a piece of legislation that can
benefit only 3 States.
I guess I ought to be quiet as a person from North Carolina, which is
one of the 3 States that can benefit under this legislation, but it
just seems to me to be irrational to be talking about passing a piece
of legislation that can benefit only 3 out of the 50 States in this
country.
Second, it seems to me to be irrational to be passing a whole new set
of laws about the award of attorneys fees, when for years and years and
years we have been litigating about the standards that are applicable
in the award of attorneys fees in these kinds of cases, and all of a
sudden again the Republicans have decided, as they did in prior bills,
that they are smarter and more articulate than the Founding Fathers.
{time} 1220
Now they have decided they are smarter and more articulate than reams
and reams and reams of case law that has interpreted the attorney's
fees provisions in civil rights laws. And so we have new words. I do
now know that changing the wording of an attorney's fee statute is
going to do anything other than set off years and years and years of
more litigation about what those words mean. It is kind of like
yesterday we put a new standard in for the exclusionary rule, when we
have been litigating for over 200 years about what the words we already
had meant.
Finally, it seems to me that it is irrational in the face of evidence
that was presented at committee level that weight lifting can enhance
the self-esteem and self-image and deterrence of crime to come and say
to the American people that we are going to be so naive and so
shortsighted as to pass a statute that prohibits people in prison from
engaging in weight lifting. It makes so sense. And I submit to my
colleagues and to the American people that this is irrational and we
should defeat this bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, at the present time, I have no other
requests for time other than the closing speaker.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, there are several problems that I have with
the bill. I just want to point out a couple of them. The first, Mr.
Chairman, is the fact that we are taking $2.5 billion out of the 1994
crime bill from the programs that actually work. That $2.5 billion
added to prisons will be a drop in the bucket for the prison
expenditures.
We already have an incarceration rate five times that of the rest of
the industrialized world. Putting $2.5 more billion into it will do
very little good at all. We heard evidence that the city of
Philadelphia could use almost $2.5 billion itself. Texas and California
are going to spend tens of billions of dollars. Virginia, if they fund
the present program that we passed last August, will spend about $7
billion in the next 10 years on prisons.
[[Page H1484]] Our share of this $2.5 billion will be about 1 percent
of what we are already spending, so it will not make any difference,
but it will take money away from what works. Drug courts have been
studied. We can have, in lieu of an incarceration strategy, going to a
treatment strategy, Mr. Chairman. We can have a drop in crime of 80
percent at a cost of one-twentieth of what it costs to lock people up.
If you eliminate that program, and we have $1 billion in the present
crime bill, but not in the crime bill that is before us, if we
eliminate that, we will spend 20 times more money and end up with about
5 times more crime.
We can do better than that.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is another problem, and that is the so-
called truth-in-sentencing. Eighty-five percent, there is no rational
basis for 85 percent. We ought to focus on the time actually served, 85
percent of 5 years or half of 20 years. We want to spend twice the
money on where we actually need the money to go.
We also need to research the expenditures we are making, and we will
have amendments along those lines.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. I am grateful that we had a process in the
Judiciary Committee that would allow us to speak for States and
counties and cities that right now might be abandoned in this whole
process of prison building. I am appreciative of the acceptance of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] of my amendment that allowed for
these moneys to also go to boot camps which have proven to be
successful all over the country in so many of our jurisdictions. But I
am unhappy that we are facing a time now when States like Texas and
other large States are working so very hard to ensure that those who do
the crime pay the time, to now be penalized and not be subject to being
able to receive these very important prison building funds.
Likewise, I raise another grave concern that rather than accept the
acknowledgement by law enforcement officers across this country that
crime prevention is also incarceration, it is prevention and it is
supporting police on the street, this new bill now abolishes the
opportunities for cops on the street and prevention dollars.
I clearly think that what we are doing in this particular legislation
is penalizing law-abiding citizens and providing punishment to the
States who are trying to be more effective in incarcerating those who
committed the violent crime. I still believe, as Attorney General Reno
has joined in to say, that there is an opportunity to strike a chord of
bipartisanship, not one that follows the political road but takes the
best road to make sure that we ensure that we save the citizens of the
United States of America, we save them from the burdens of not being
able to build prisons, because we put such strict strictures on top of
them which they cannot meet.
Why penalize a State who right now, like Texas, is striving to get 40
percent even 50 percent of those who are violent criminals to be
incarcerated? Why tell them they cannot get prison dollars to build
more to ensure that those violent criminals are in fact incarcerated?
Now, as well, why tell them that they cannot use prevention dollars to
save our children?
Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for a bipartisan accord to fight for
the people of the United States of America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
As we begin this debate here on the prison and how we are going to
fund it, I wish we would take into account a number of things that are
going on. Having been a police officer for many years, it frustrated me
to no end to find that after you do a thorough investigation, you get a
conviction, you send them to prison, and there is no prison space and
there are early release programs, we need more prisons. This is true.
But every State, every geographic location in this country should be
allowed to participate in such a program. It does us who are police
officers no good to do our work, get them ready to go to prison, and
there is nothing there.
The Republican alternative that we are dealing with here today simply
says 3 States will get half of the money; the other 47 States, they
will receive their money when their prison population serves 85 percent
of its time, when the actual prison population serves it.
Michigan just passed a truth-in-sentencing law in the last few years.
It is going to take probably 8 to 10 years for our current prison
population to reach that 85 percent level. What do we do for 8 to 10
years?
{time} 1230
What do we do that it is going to take 2 or 3 years to build those
prisons? What we are doing, in the Taking Back the Streets Program, is
giving the streets back to the criminals. The money is not allocated
appropriately. In the crime bill last year, every State received money.
In the proposal before us today, three States will receive money. The
other 47 States will have to wait their turn after their prison
population actually serves their time to meet the magic numbers.
Mr. Chairman, this is nothing new. The Committee on the Judiciary
pointed that out, but because Members are so focused on moving this
bill forward, they are not giving us the flexibility that States and
local governments need.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on the minority side has expired.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to take this time to respond to a number
of statements that have been made, I think quite erroneously, on the
other side of the aisle with regard to who is eligible and who will not
be eligible for money under this $10.3 billion bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is very clear if we read the language that for the
half of the money involved for the first part of this bill, half of
that, over $5 billion, virtually every State of the Union, and I would
think every State in the Union, would be qualified, because all that is
required is that the State provide some assurances to the Attorney
General that since 1993, that the State has increased the percentage of
convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison, No. 1; No. 2, has
increased the average prison time served in prison by convicted violent
offenders, that are to be served by convicted violent offenders; and,
No. 3, increased the percentage of the sentence actually served in the
prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison.
None of that is hard to do. They keep the statistics on this.
Virtually all States do. They only have to increase these things by 1
day. It is not difficult to do. We want to see, and what we are
encouraging in this, we want to see States actually increase the people
who go to jail.
There is a substantial percentage, as shocking as it is, of violent
felons out there every year who never receive a single day of jail time
in their sentence. That simply should not be.
However, we are not requiring the State actually put every single
violent offender behind bars. We are not requiring that they do that,
but we are requiring them to demonstrate, to get the money, that they
show some increase in the percentage overall in their prison population
of convicted violent offenders, that there is an increase in the
percentage that are actually sentenced to some prison time.
Second, the increase in the average prison time actually to be served
in prison by a convicted violent offender means, for example, if we
give somebody a 6-year sentence and the average in that State is a 2-
year sentence that they are serving, that they are really serving 2
years of the 6 years; that we want to see it increased to whatever
number of years, or to 3 years, or some increase in the amount of time
that is to be served by the person who is receiving the sentence, who
is a violent
[[Page H1485]] offender. That is not hard to demonstrate, either.
Third, Mr. Chairman, we want to increase the percentage of the
sentence to actually be served by the offender who is sentenced to
prison, the percentage of the sentence. So if you have a 6-year
sentence, you can have a percentage of that sentence increased and
demonstrated. None of that is difficult to do. I dare say that every
State in the Union probably since 1993 has indeed done that, or it
would be very, very simple to accomplish, to qualify for this pool of
money.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, that these very requirements were in the
bill that had passed into law in the last Congress as part of the
qualifying materials that was drafted by the other side of the aisle.
This is not language that we created, this is language the Democrats
created, actually. It is supposed to be simple. I dare say that it is.
At any rate, this simple qualifying procedure, once accomplished,
will entitle any State to money in the first pool of $5 billion-plus
for prison grants.
Now, the second one is more controversial, I will grant. Only those
States which pass laws that say that they are going to have violent
felons actually serve 85 percent of their sentences are going to
qualify to get at that $5 billion, but that is the reason for it. We
know there are a lot of States that have not qualified, the vast
majority have not. It is an incentive grant program to encourage them
to take these violent felons off the streets and lock them up and throw
away the keys.
We want them to change their laws. This is a carrot approach. I might
add, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing about this that is an unfunded
mandate. This is not an unfunded mandate under what we passed before.
This is a carrot grant program that clearly is not part of what we
describe or define as an unfunded mandate.
This simply says to the States:
Look, we have a reason to want you to go where we want you
to get the violent felons off the streets that are going
through the revolving door. If you do that, then you can have
a lot of money. Not only that, not only can you have a lot of
money to build these prisons, we will give you a 3-year grace
period. If you pass a law under this bill that says in your
State that you will get to the 85 percent requirement for
violent felons in your State 3 years hence, and it will not
be effective for 3 years, you can get money under this grant
program under the second pool of money to build the prison
beds necessary to complete the actual imprisonment of the
people whom you have passed the law concerning.
It makes sense. It is a good incentive grant program.
North Carolina, Arizona, and Delaware are the three States the
Justice Department said at the present time already qualify. We believe
there is a clearly arguable case for California, Missouri, Virginia,
and Kansas, and I believe they would qualify based on what we have
examined of their laws, if they applied to the Justice Department,
though the Justice Department has not precertified those particular
States already.
My State of Florida currently is a good example of what we want to
see happen and what is happening around the country right now by the
State legislatures. The State Senate and the State House are prepared
to make a truth-in-sentencing provision at the 85-percent level for
violent felons and others, as a matter of fact, the first order of
business when they convene their session of the legislature this year.
It is already out there. I talked to the Senate President today. It
is his No. 1 priority, and his first bill. Mr. Chairman, I think lots
of States will make this their first bill. That is the idea; not that
they already have qualified, but that during the duration of the 5-year
life of this legislation they will.
The purpose, again, is to get States to move to change their laws to
qualify in order to get the repeat violent felon off the street and
locked up, and keep him there for a long period of time so the
revolving door stops, and we take that 6 percent of those criminals in
the population that are committing about 70 percent of the violent
crimes off the streets and stop the revolving door today, where they
are only serving about a third or so of their sentences.
At any rate, that is what the bill is about. The arguments, I think,
are nonsense to the contrary, that ``Gee, this is terrible, nobody
qualifies.'' The idea is not for a lot of people to qualify. Some
already have. Many more will soon. That is for the second pot, the
incentive grant program, the $5 billion.
Again, the first pot is 5 billion additional dollars, and that is
available to the States with actually very little, if anything, that
any of them would have to do to qualify.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. It is
common sense, it is good policy. It is the heart of the Contract With
America crime legislation on our side of the aisle, and it is what we
thought needs to be corrected, we thought all along needed to be
corrected, to make some teeth put into the law that was passed last
year.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. This legislation
represents titles V and VII of H.R. 3, the Taking Back our Streets Act,
1 of the 10 points of the Republican Contract With America, and is the
fourth of the six bills we will consider which compose this important
crime legislation.
Today's legislation boosts the State prison grants in the 1994 Crime
Control Act from $8 to $10.5 billion over 5 years while increasing the
incentives for States to curtail early parole for violent offenders. In
addition, the bill places restrictions on the ability of prisoners to
challenge the constitutionality of their confinement and limits
remedies that may be granted in a prison conditions suit.
Half of the funds available each year under this act would go to
States that have worked to toughen their incarceration records over the
years, while the other half goes to States that have enacted ``truth in
sentencing'' and victim notification laws. The bill also amends the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act [CRIPA] to make maximum
use of administrative rather than judicial procedures and to compel
judges to dismiss frivolous, false, or weak lawsuits brought by
inmates. H.R. 667 also limits the remedies that can be granted or
enforced in prison conditions suits, and prevents judges from placing
arbitrary caps on prison populations.
Finally, in response to the rising tide of violence in our Nation's
prisons, and the concern about inmates who spend their time simply
strength training, H.R. 667 bars prisoners from engaging in physical
activities designed to increase their strength or fighting ability, and
orders the immediate removal of all exercise training equipment, except
for those specifically authorized for medical reasons.
Mr. Chairman, statistics indicate that a small percentage of
criminals commit the vast majority of violent crimes. Just 7 percent of
criminals commit two-thirds of all violent crime, including three-
fourths of rapes and robberies, and virtually all murders. To make
matters worse, many of these criminals either are never caught, or, if
caught and found guilty, do not serve their entire prison sentence.
Every year, more than 60,000 criminals convicted of a violent crime
never serve time--for every 100 crimes reported only 3 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 2 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
which require criminals to serve a significant percentage of their
sentences without chance of parole, and ``three strikes, you're out''
statutes requiring life in prison for repeat offenders 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
lower crime rates. In fact, from 1990-91, 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.
Mr. Chairman, the time for coddling the criminal has passed. The
American people are crying out for us to put away--and keep away--
America's violent criminals. They have tasked us with putting an end to
the frivolous inmate law suits and the seemingly pleasant treatment of
murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and the like. We have made
substantial efforts this week to help our police and prosecutors
capture and prosecute these heinous individuals. Today we give them a
place to put them
[[Page H1486]] behind bars and the tools to keep them there. I urge
the support of this important legislation.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, Republicans are keeping their promises and
working to pass the Republican crime fighting agenda. Our message is
clear. Criminal behavior will no longer be tolerated. Punishment must
be certain, swift, and severe. Criminals are not victims of society,
they victimize society and belong behind bars.
Today's criminal justice system distorts common sense and puts
criminal's rights far out ahead of victim's rights. The result,
criminals running rampant on our streets and law-abiding citizens
afraid to go outside. The Republican crime fighting agenda seeks to
turn this distortion around and make criminals afraid to break the law.
The best crime fighting tool is a criminal justice system which sends
criminals the message that your chances of being caught are high. Once
we catch you, you will be punished quickly and severely. The Violent
Criminal Incarceration Act works to do just that. It breaks the
gridlock in our criminal justice system which gives legal escape routes
to repeat violent offenders.
Criminals will finally have to face the consequences of their
actions. They will do the time for committing the crime. Violent
criminals belong behind bars, not behind the coat tails of expensive
lawyers clogging up our overburdened judicial system with endless
baseless appeals.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. For the
second time in the last 6 months, I come to the floor of this body
totally perplexed by the mistaken belief of my Republican colleagues
that throwing billions more taxpayer dollars down the prison-building
sinkhole will somehow miraculously solve the crime problems we face in
this country. In the words of Bart Simpson, Mr. Speaker, ``Aye
Carumba!''
H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, strips $2.5 billion
in already scarce and long-awaited police and prevention dollars from
last year's Crime Control Act without a second thought. You know it's
funny that the GOP vehemently rejects targeting Federal grants for
these particular initiatives, but doesn't even flinch in deciding to
impose an overwhelming number of Federal conditions for prison building
grants included in H.R. 667.
What is even more confusing to me is the fact that, after the last
few weeks of spirited rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about
the inherently evil nature of unfunded mandates, we have a bill before
us today which would impose just such mandates on many States.
Under H.R. 667, the awarding of prison grants is contingent upon
States meeting extremely stringent and largely unworkable sentencing
requirements. States would be required either to show that, since 1993,
their correctional policies have increased the percentage of convicted
violent offenders sentenced to prison, increased the average time
actually served by prisoners, and increased the percentage of sentences
actually served or they would have to mandate that those convicted of a
violent felony serve at least 85 percent of the sentences ordered by
the court.
Those States that could not meet these requirements would then either
have to spend millions of dollars simply to build the necessary
additional prisons to handle the overcrowding that would result from
having to house prisoners for a longer period of time--an unfunded
mandate which my GOP friends all love to hate--or forgo prison grants
altogether. In this second instance then, H.R. 667 would actually
provide less funding for prison construction than there was under last
year's crime bill that was derided as too soft on crime by my
Republican colleagues.
Moreover, the prison construction grants under this legislation are
targeted to States based on their population rather than on their rate
of violent crime--in direct contradiction to the language included in
last year's crime bill. This doesn't seem to jive with rationality, Mr.
Speaker.
Meanwhile, as precious Federal dollars are being wasted pouring
concrete and forging steel bars, our communities which so vociferously
called out for more cops, more control, more resources on the local
level to provide greater social and economic opportunities for
underserved youth and their families will be once more neglected, left
holding the bag. Welcome back to the 1980's, Mr. Speaker.
I would, however, like to at least give credit to the leadership for
formulating a crime policy that is in keeping with its Contract on
America. Yesterday the GOP in this body passed legislation that would
allow evidence illegally obtained by law enforcement officials to be
admitted as evidence in Federal trial proceedings, thereby effectively
gutting the fourth amendment's constitutional protections against
improper searches and seizures. Today, they will more than likely pass
this bill to increase prison construction to incarcerate those
Americans convicted with the use of illegally obtained evidence. If
anything the GOP has been consistent in its assault on the Constitution
and all the ideals of equality and justice that this country has stood
for over the years. You've got to respect that, Mr. Speaker--not.
I strongly urge my colleagues to rise up and reject this politically-
motivated, ill-conceived, wrong-headed approach to the substantive
crime problems that exist in our Nation and to continue with the more
reasonable and balanced program that both the President and my
Democratic colleagues and I worked so tirelessly to enact last year.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 667
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Criminal
Incarceration Act of 1995''.
TITLE I--TRUTH IN SENTENCING
SEC. 101. TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANT PROGRAM.
Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``TITLE V--TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANTS
``SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to
provide grants to eligible States and to eligible States
organized as a regional compact to build, expand, and operate
space in correctional facilities in order to increase the
prison bed capacity in such facilities for the confinement of
persons convicted of a serious violent felony and to build,
expand, and operate temporary or permanent correctional
facilities, including facilities on military bases and boot
camp facilities, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent
offenders and criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing
suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons
convicted of a serious violent felony.
``(b) Limitation.--An eligible State or eligible States
organized as a regional compact may receive either a general
grant under section 502 or a truth-in-sentencing incentive
grant under section 503.
``SEC. 502. GENERAL GRANTS.
``(a) Distribution of General Grants.--50 percent of the
total amount of funds made available under this title for
each of the fiscal years 1995 through 2000 shall be made
available for general eligibility grants for each State or
States organized as a regional compact that meets the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(b) General Grants.--In order to be eligible to receive
funds under subsection (a), a State or States organized as a
regional compact shall submit an application to the Attorney
General that provides assurances that such State since 1993
has--
``(1) increased the percentage of convicted violent
offenders sentenced to prison;
``(2) increased the average prison time actually to be
served in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to
prison; and
``(3) increased the percentage of sentence to be actually
served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison.
``SEC. 503. TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS.
``(a) Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.--50 percent of
the total amount of funds made available under this title for
each of the fiscal years 1995 through 2000 shall be made
available for truth-in-sentencing incentive grants to each
State or States organized as a regional compact that meet the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(b) Eligibility for Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive
Grants.--In order to be eligible to receive funds under
subsection (a), a State or States organized as a regional
compact shall submit an application to the Attorney General
that provides assurances that each State applying has enacted
laws and regulations which include--
``(1)(A) truth-in-sentencing laws which require persons
convicted of a serious violent felony serve not less than 85
percent of the sentence imposed or 85 percent of the court-
ordered maximum sentence for States that practice
indeterminate sentencing; or
``(B) truth-in-sentencing laws which have been enacted, but
not yet implemented, that require such State, not later than
three years after such State submits an application to the
Attorney General, to provide that persons convicted of a
serious violent felony serve not less than 85 percent of the
sentence imposed or 85 percent of the court-ordered maximum
sentence for States that practice indeterminate sentencing,
and
``(2) laws requiring that the sentencing or releasing
authorities notify and allow the victims of the defendant or
the family of such victims the opportunity to be heard
regarding the issue of sentencing and any postconviction
release.
``SEC. 504. SPECIAL RULES.
``(a) Additional Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under section 502 or 503,
[[Page H1487]] a State or States organized as a regional
compact shall provide an assurance to the Attorney General
that--
``(1) to the extent practicable, inmate labor will be used
to build and expand correctional facilities;
``(2) each State will involve counties and other units of
local government, when appropriate, in the construction,
development, expansion, modification, operation, or
improvement of correctional facilities designed to ensure the
incarceration of offenders, and that each State will share
funds received under this title with any county or other unit
of local government that is housing State prisoners, taking
into account the burden placed on such county or unit of
local government in confining prisoners due to overcrowding
in State prison facilities in furtherance of the purposes of
this Act; and
``(3) the State has implemented or will implement, not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the
Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995, policies to
determine the veteran status of inmates and to ensure that
incarcerated veterans receive the veterans benefits to which
they are entitled.
``(b) Indeterminant Sentencing Exception.--Notwithstanding
the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section
502(b), a State shall be eligible for grants under this
title, if the State, not later than the date of the enactment
of this title--
``(1) practices indeterminant sentencing; and
``(2) the average times served in such State for the
offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault exceed, by 10
percent or greater, the national average of times served for
such offenses.
``(c) Exception.--The requirements under section 503(b)
shall apply, except that a State may provide that the
Governor of the State may allow for earlier release of a
geriatric prisoner or a prisoner whose medical condition
precludes the prisoner from posing a threat to the public
after a public hearing in which representatives of the public
and the prisoner's victims have an opportunity to be heard
regarding a proposed release.
``SEC. 505. FORMULA FOR GRANTS.
``To determine the amount of funds that each eligible State
or eligible States organized as a regional compact may
receive to carry out programs under section 502 or 503, the
Attorney General shall apply the following formula:
``(1) $500,000 or 0.40 percent, whichever is greater, shall
be allocated to each participating State or compact, as the
case may be; and
``(2) of the total amount of funds remaining after the
allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to
each State or compact, as the case may be, an amount which
bears the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds
described in this paragraph as the population of such State
or compact, as the case may be, bears to the population of
all the States.
``SEC. 506. ACCOUNTABILITY.
``(a) Fiscal Requirements.--A State or States organized as
a regional compact that receives funds under this title shall
use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to
guidelines which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General.
``(b) Reporting.--Each State that receives funds under this
title shall submit an annual report, beginning on January 1,
1996, and each January 1 thereafter, to the Congress
regarding compliance with the requirements of this title.
``(c) Administrative Provisions.--The administrative
provisions of sections 801 and 802 of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall apply to the
Attorney General in the same manner as such provisions apply
to the officials listed in such sections.
``SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title--
``(1) $997,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(2) $1,330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(3) $2,527,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(4) $2,660,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(5) $2,753,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(b) Limitations on Funds.--
``(1) Uses of funds.--Funds made available under this title
may be used to carry out the purposes described in section
501(a).
``(2) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available
under this section shall not be used to supplant State funds,
but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would,
in the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State
sources.
``(3) Administrative costs.--Not more than three percent of
the funds available under this section may be used for
administrative costs.
``(4) Matching funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this title may not exceed 75 percent of the
costs of a proposal as described in an application approved
under this title.
``(5) Carry over of appropriations.--Any funds appropriated
but not expended as provided by this section during any
fiscal year shall remain available until expended.
``SEC. 508. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this title--
``(1) the term `indeterminate sentencing' means a system by
which--
``(A) the court has discretion on imposing the actual
length of the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum;
and
``(B) an administrative agency, generally the parole board,
controls release between court-ordered minimum and maximum
sentence;
``(2) the term `serious violent felony' means--
``(A) an offense that is a felony and has as an element the
use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force
against the person or property of another and has a maximum
term of imprisonment of 10 years or more,
``(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its
nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force
against the person or property of another may be used in the
course of committing the offense and has a maximum term of
imprisonment of 10 years or more, or
``(C) such crimes including murder, assault with intent to
commit murder, arson, armed burglary, rape, assault with
intent to commit rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery; and
``(3) the term `State' means a State of the United States,
the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.''.
SEC. 102. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.--
(1) Part v.--Part V of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is repealed.
(2) Funding.--(A) Section 1001(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by striking
paragraph (20).
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A), any
funds that remain available to an applicant under paragraph
(20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 shall be used in accordance with part V of such
Act as such Act was in effect on the day preceding the date
of enactment of this Act.
(b) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994.--
(1) Repeal.--(A) Subtitle A of title II of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
(B) The table of contents of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by striking the matter
relating to subtitle A of title II.
(2) Compliance.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (1), any funds that remain available to an
applicant under subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 shall be used in
accordance with such subtitle as such subtitle was in effect
on the day preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Truth-in-sentencing.--The table of contents of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is
amended by striking the matter relating to title V and
inserting the following:
``TITLE V--TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS
``Sec. 501. Authorization of grants.
``Sec. 502. General grants.
``Sec. 503. Truth-in-sentencing grants.
``Sec. 504. Special rules.
``Sec. 505. Formula for grants.
``Sec. 506. Accountability.
``Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 508. Definitions.''.
TITLE II--STOPPING ABUSIVE PRISONER LAWSUITS
SEC. 201. EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``in any action brought'' and inserting
``no action shall be brought'';
(2) by striking ``the court shall'' and all that follows
through ``require exhaustion of'' and insert ``until''; and
(3) by inserting ``are exhausted'' after ``available''.
SEC. 202. FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS.
Section 7(a) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) The court shall on its own motion or on motion of a
party dismiss any action brought pursuant to section 1979 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States by an adult
convicted of a crime and confined in any jail, prison, or
other correctional facility if the court is satisfied that
the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted or is frivolous or malicious.''.
SEC. 203. MODIFICATION OF REQUIRED MINIMUM STANDARDS.
Section 7(b)(2) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(b)(2)) is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B) through
(E) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively.
SEC. 204. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.
(a) Dismissal.--Section 1915(d) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``at any time'' after ``counsel and may'';
(2) by striking ``and may'' and inserting ``and shall'';
(3) by inserting ``fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted or'' after ``that the action''; and
(4) by inserting ``even if partial filing fees have been
imposed by the court'' before the period.
(b) Prisoner's Statement of Assets.--Section 1915 of title
28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) If a prisoner in a correctional institution files an
affidavit in accordance with subsection (a) of this section,
such prisoner shall include in that affidavit a statement of
all assets such prisoner possesses. The court shall make
inquiry of the correctional institution in which the prisoner
is incarcerated for information available to that institution
relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets. The court
shall require full or partial payment of filing fees
according to the prisoner's ability to pay.''.
TITLE III--STOP TURNING OUT PRISONERS
SEC. 301. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR PRISON CONDITIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 3626 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison
conditions
``(a) Requirements for Relief.--
``(1) Limitations on prospective relief.--Prospective
relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions
shall extend no further
[[Page H1488]] than necessary to remove the conditions that
are causing the deprivation of the Federal rights of
individual plaintiffs in that civil action. The court shall
not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court
finds that such relief is narrowly drawn and the least
intrusive means to remedy the violation of the Federal right.
In determining the intrusiveness of the relief, the court
shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused
by the relief.
``(2) Prison population reduction relief.--In any civil
action with respect to prison conditions, the court shall not
grant or approve any relief whose purpose or effect is to
reduce or limit the prison population, unless the plaintiff
proves that crowding is the primary cause of the deprivation
of the Federal right and no other relief will remedy that
deprivation.
``(b) Termination of Relief.--
``(1) Automatic termination of prospective relief after 2-
year period.--In any civil action with respect to prison
conditions, any prospective relief shall automatically
terminate 2 years after the later of--
``(A) the date the court found the violation of a Federal
right that was the basis for the relief; or
``(B) the date of the enactment of the Stop Turning Out
Prisoners Act.
``(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any
civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant
or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination
of any prospective relief, if that relief was approved or
granted in the absence of a finding by the court that prison
conditions violated a Federal right.
``(c) Procedure for Motions Affecting Prospective Relief.--
``(1) Generally.--The court shall promptly rule on any
motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil
action with respect to prison conditions.
``(2) Automatic stay.--Any prospective relief subject to a
pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the
period--
``(A) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is filed,
in the case of a motion made under subsection (b); and
``(B) beginning on the 180th day after such motion is
filed, in the case of a motion made under any other law;
and ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling
on that motion.
``(d) Standing.--Any Federal, State, or local official or
unit of government--
``(1) whose jurisdiction or function includes the
prosecution or custody of persons in a prison subject to; or
``(2) who otherwise is or may be affected by;
any relief whose purpose or effect is to reduce or limit the
prison population shall have standing to oppose the
imposition or continuation in effect of that relief and may
intervene in any proceeding relating to that relief. Standing
shall be liberally conferred under this subsection so as to
effectuate the remedial purposes of this section.
``(e) Special Masters.--In any civil action in a Federal
court with respect to prison conditions, any special master
or monitor shall be a United States magistrate and shall make
proposed findings on the record on complicated factual issues
submitted to that special master or monitor by the court, but
shall have no other function. The parties may not by consent
extend the function of a special master beyond that permitted
under this subsection.
``(f) Attorney's Fees.--No attorney's fee under section 722
of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988)
may be granted to a plaintiff in a civil action with respect
to prison conditions except to the extent such fee is--
``(1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual
violation of the plaintiff's Federal rights; and
``(2) proportionally related to the extent the plaintiff
obtains court ordered relief for that violation.
``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `prison' means any Federal, State, or local
facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults
accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated
delinquent for, violations of criminal law;
``(2) the term `relief' means all relief in any form which
may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent
decrees and settlement agreements; and
``(3) the term `prospective relief' means all relief other
than compensatory monetary damages.''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--Section 3626 of title 18,
United States Code, as amended by this section, shall apply
with respect to all relief (as defined in such section)
whether such relief was originally granted or approved
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 3626
in the table of sections at the beginning of subchapter C of
chapter 229 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``crowding'' and inserting ``conditions''.
TITLE IV--ENHANCING PROTECTION AGAINST INCARCERATED CRIMINALS
SEC. 401. PRISON SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited
``The Bureau of Prisons shall ensure that--
``(1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not engage in any
physical activities designed to increase their fighting
ability; and
``(2) all equipment designed for increasing the strength or
fighting ability of prisoners promptly be removed from
Federal correctional facilities and not be introduced into
such facilities thereafter except as needed for a medically
required program of physical rehabilitation approved by the
Director of the Bureau of Prisons.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.''.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-
minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having
been read.
Are there any amendments to the bill?
Amendment offered by Mr. Canady of Florida .
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment
No. 16, which has been printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Canady of Florida: Page 18, line
11, after ``agreements'' insert ``(except a settlement
agreement the breach of which is not subject to any court
enforcement other than reinstatement of the civil proceeding
which such agreement settled)''.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment,
and is intended to clarify the definition of the term ``relief'' as
used in title III of the bill, the provisions of the bill relating to
prison conditions litigation.
The amendment makes clear that any prison conditions litigation may
be settled between the parties without the involvement of the Federal
court. There should be no question that this bill allows parties to
settle prison condition cases out of court.
Through this clarifying amendment, settlement agreements that do not
require court enforcement are explicitly removed from the definition of
the term ``relief'' contained in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of the clarifying amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, let me just engage my colleague in a colloquy to get a
better understanding of what he is trying to do.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says that he is exempting from the
attorney's fees provisions for any private settlement. I guess the
concern I have is I am not aware of any prison litigation which is
taking place which has been settled without either court approval or
court involvement of some kind.
{time} 1240
These cases simply do not resolve themselves in the way that an
automobile accident resolves itself. In fact, every prison litigation
involves a public issue which typically is brought as a class action
and under the rules of civil procedure cannot be settled without court
involvement.
I am trying to get a better understanding of what you think you are
accomplishing. I do not really think this amendment accomplishes
anything based on my understanding of the way these kinds of litigation
cases play themselves out.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this. I think the gentleman is correct in
stating that in most cases, court involvement is required to settle
prison condition litigation. I do not think there is any dispute about
that. There are circumstances, however, in which particular matters,
particular cases can be settled without the involvement of the court.
In this amendment we are just trying to make absolutely certain that
in those cases, none of the provisions of this bill would have to come
into play.
I understand that you have an underlying problem with the provision
of the bill that requires that in order for the court to order any
relief, there must
[[Page H1489]] have been a specific finding that an individual was
deprived of his constitutional rights, and I understand that you
believe that that----
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, just reclaiming my time,
that is not the focus of my concern about this amendment. I think the
focus of my concern is that the gentleman is covering cases that do not
exist. So the need for this amendment, I just do not understand.
Can the gentleman cite one case that he is aware of, a prison
litigation case or a prison condition case where the case has been
resolved by private settlement? I take it that would be the only
situation that the gentleman's language would apply to.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
this specifically would also apply in circumstances where there was a
class action and the class action was going to be dismissed. In order
to dismiss any class action, the court must approve the dismissal and
that will come into play potentially in these circumstances, and this
definition would take that circumstance into account and would allow
the dismissal of such class actions with the court's approval without
any specific finding of any particular facts with respect to
constitutional deprivations.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am not necessarily going to speak in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I think the gentleman is
not going to be able to override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the body of case law that has to do with the lawyers' and the
courts' responsibility to members of a class of people who are not even
before the court by sticking this little amendment into the bill.
I think while it may not do any harm, I hope the gentleman is not
going to go out and tell anybody that this solves any kind of problem
that exists.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I understand the gentleman's concerns. I
understand that the gentleman views our approach as fundamentally
flawed. I believe that this does address some of the concerns that
other people have raised, and I believe it does so in a way that is
efficient.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. chapman
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Chapman: Page 2, after line 3,
insert the following:
SEC. 2. CONDITION FOR GRANTS.
(a) State Compliance.--The provisions of title V of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as
amended by this Act, shall not take effect until 50 percent
or more of the States have met the requirements of 503(b) of
such Act.
(b) Report.--Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Attorney
General shall submit a report to the Congress not later than
February 1 of each fiscal year regarding the number of States
that have met the requirements of section 503(b) of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as
amended by this Act.
(c) Effective Date.--Beginning on the first day of the
first fiscal year after the Attorney General has filed a
report that certifies that 50 percent or more of the States
have met the requirements of section 503(b) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended by
this Act, title V of such Act shall become effective.
(d) Prisons.--Until the requirements of this section are
met, title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 shall remain in effect as such title
was in effect on the day preceding the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the majority,
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman, for all his
hard work and the work we did last year on truth-in-sentencing.
I must take just a minute to remind my colleagues and remind the
House of where we are on this issue of prisons and how current law
works.
The 1994 crime bill, clearly the toughest provision of it was the
truth-in-sentencing provisions. Those provisions assume, one, that our
prison systems are overcrowded and, two, that if we want violent
criminals to go to prison and stay there longer, we need to assist the
States.
We created in that legislation two pots of money: One in which at the
discretion of the Attorney General based upon violent crime rates in
the country, assistance from the Federal level would go to build new
State prisons to incarcerate violent criminals if the State made a
good-faith effort to change or comply its laws to qualify for the
second pot. The second pot quite honestly and very simply just said,
``You've got to put more violent criminals in prison more often, for
longer periods of time, and we will measure each of those standards in
such a way that if you qualify, then you are eligible for the prison
construction funds.''
I think it is great to get as tough as we can on violent criminals.
It is not so great to change the law today in such a way that the vast
majority of the States cannot qualify for the prison funds. We cannot
lock up violent criminals if we do not have a place to put them.
Current law, the 1994 crime bill, gives us a reasonable way to do
both, get violent criminals in prison and a carrot, as the gentleman
has suggested, to get the States to continue to get tougher and tougher
and tougher each year on violent crime.
My first amendment bringing us up to the current point does simply
this. It leaves in place current law. It leaves in place current law;
that is, the financial resources there to assist the States for new
prison construction and to incentivize the States to toughen their
sentencing, toughen their prosecutions and lengthen the sentence for
violent criminals. But it does so by saying that until at least half,
25 States can qualify under the new law, we do not stop the progress we
have made, we do not cut off the spigot, we do not deny the States the
ability to continue constructing prisons and moving forward. We will
move forward under current law until half the States as certified by
the Attorney General can qualify under this new bill.
In my discussions today on the floor of the House, I understand
perhaps as few as only 3 States and at the most 6 States can qualify
under this new legislation for prison construction funds. Forty-four
States at the minimum are going to be shut out of this prison
construction money, are going to be denied the fiscal resources to do
the things that we ask them to do to lock up violent criminals, if we
pass this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply says we should not do that until
we know at least half of our States can qualify for this funding, and
that we continue the present program until the Attorney General can so
certify.
With the notion here today or at least the belief that as many as 44
States cannot qualify under this bill, we will literally stop the good
work of the last Congress, stop the good work of the gentleman from
Florida, stop the work of getting violent criminals off our streets,
stop the work of building new prisons, stop the work of incentivizing
our States.
I will tell you, my State of Texas has said that there is no way that
they can comply with a hard 85-percent rule, and that is from a State
which currently is constructing or is under the largest prison
construction period in the history of the country, Federal or State
system.
We are building the prisons, 77,000 new prison beds in Texas, and
even with those new prison beds added to the 40,000-plus prison beds we
already have, we cannot comply with a hard and fast 85 percent rule. We
cannot do it. And we are spending $2 billion, with a ``B'', $2 billion
of Texas taxpayers' money for these new prisons.
Mr. Chairman, why would we want to pass a bill in the House today
when Texas is doing what we have asked them to do? When Texas has
doubled its sentences in the last 5 years for violent crime, why would
we say now, ``We're cutting you off, Texas''? And not only Texas, we
are cutting off perhaps as many as 43 other States.
I ask my colleagues, we had better check with our prison authorities
back at home. We had better check with our department of corrections
officials. We
[[Page H1490]] better find out what this bill does to us. We ought to
pass this amendment to keep current law in place until we know the
States can qualify for the funding.
{time} 1250
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that Texas does not qualify for the second
pool of money, and I know quite a number of other States do not. We
debated that and I concur.
What the gentleman wants to do wrecks the incentive program to get
them to qualify. They could qualify any number of different ways, if
they manage to lower the amount of sentence, if they want to qualify so
that 85 percent of whatever it is, if they need to do that, then just
lower the maximum sentence down in those areas. The statutes can be
changed in all kinds of ways to qualify, if that is what is needed.
Of course, I want to see them serve 85 percent of real sentences, so
if we have truth-in-sentencing, whatever it is the States are saying
out there, let us at least let them serve 85 percent of whatever
sentence is awarded.
The fact of the matter is the gentleman wants us to say we have to
wait until 50 percent of all 50 States qualify to pass any money out.
That destroys the incentive. That undermines the very premise of this
pool of money that is out there, $5 billion, dangling as a carrot to
get the States to make the changes, to get the revolving door, the
repeat violent felons off the streets. So it really undermines the
essence of the bill to make the change the gentleman wants.
I would add one other caveat. I think the gentleman from Texas,
having worked with me in good faith for a long time on this matter over
a period of several years, understands fully that his State, as do
virtually all of the States of the Union, qualifies for the first pool
of money. There is another pot of $5 billion out there that Texas will
be able to draw from to help it assist in building its prisons
immediately and in each fiscal year, and I daresay that the Attorney
General will grant Texas, who needs the assistance in this regard,
money to do that until such time as it feels it can pass the laws to
make it qualify for the second pool of money.
I would further remind the gentleman that we have a 3-year grace
period of once Texas gets to the point of saying look, within 3 years
we get more money than we could get under the second pool of money, we
can qualify to build the necessary beds that will get us to the 85
percent rule, at the level of the sentencing length that we want to be
at for these serious, violent felons, then Texas can go ahead and get
the money to be able to qualify at that point in time. They do not have
to actually implement.
So there are all kinds of opportunities out there for the gentleman's
State as well as others to meet the needs of that State in building
prisons to take these violent felons off the streets.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman recognizing
that our State has, which it has, and I appreciate the gentleman
recognizing that our State has taken the initiative legislatively to
qualify for the first pot of money, the $5 billion.
But I would say to the gentleman, and would suggest that not every
State has taken those steps, and not every State can qualify for that
first pot of money if this legislation as currently drafted passes.
So while Texas has taken those initiatives, we still cannot qualify
for the second pot, and I would suggest to the gentleman it is very
likely, if not guaranteed, that not all States can qualify for even the
first pot.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, it may be that not all States can
qualify for the first pot, but I would guess that most do at this
point, because it only requires minimum advancement of 1 day in the
averages that are there. But I would suggest what we are dealing with
here now again is a destruction by the gentleman's amendment of the
very underlying premise of why truth-in-sentencing grants are out
there, to offer the carrot that would get the job done in order to
encourage States to make the motion to get
to the 85-percent rule, to take these repeat felons off the streets.
If we do not keep those provisions in the bill the way they are
today, we are not going to get States to take that step. They are never
going to expend the money that is needed.
Do not forget that this is a 75-25 match. When they do take the steps
under the first pool of money they get 75-percent grants from the
Federal Government and only have to put up 25 percent. Boy, that is a
good deal for States like Texas that are in need of building more
prisons and are going to do it anyway. So they are going to get Federal
assistance in doing it. That will move them a long way toward the
golden rainbow they want to get to.
The other point we can make is our provision allows them to build not
the most expensive type of prisons, but alternatives, boot camps even
that might alleviate already existing hardened prison cells where they
can put the violent felons, and that will again help them get there for
the purposes of our bill, which does not cover truth-in-sentencing or
all types of prisoners and criminals, only the most violent felons that
are really the bad, bad apples that we are talking about in order to
qualify.
So I am not in support of the gentleman's amendment. I must oppose
it. I think that it is a gutting amendment for the purposes of the
truth-in-sentencing bill.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word, and I want
to speak in strong support of my colleague from Texas's amendment here.
I want to say I represent the State of Alabama, one of 44 of 47 States
that likely would not qualify under this current approach to building
prisons.
In my former life I was the president of the Alabama District
Attorneys Association. I spent 10 years prosecuting violent offenders,
violent juvenile offenders, and just this week I was checking on three
of those who are in prisons where they will have to be released because
there simply is not enough bed space or places to incarcerate those
prisoners.
I think the 1994 crime bill made sense. I think we started an
effective partnership with the States where we gave the States a hand
in building prisons, and we told them that we wanted to be part of the
solution, not part of the problem.
I think it is only fair and this amendment seeks to address that,
that we amend this incarceration provision so that we do allow States
to begin gaining in this partnership with us, and I think it is only
fair that we rectify this by saying that when 50 percent of them reach
this level then we will provide prison grants for the States.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and I do so with
a certain degree of reluctance because the gentleman from Texas who has
offered this amendment has been a leader in trying to establish truth-
in-sentencing laws in his own State and throughout the country.
Nevertheless, I must agree with the views of the gentleman from
Florida, the subcommittee chairman, that what we are tying to do there
is to help those States which are going to move ahead to protect their
citizens by keeping confined the most violent of criminals. And we do
not want to penalize those States willing to move ahead now because
other States, for whatever reason, are not willing to move. And, as has
already been pointed out, half of this money is most likely going to be
available to virtually every State immediately. That is over $5
billion, but I suggest we want to make the other half of this fund the
other approximately $5 billion available immediately to those States
that say yes, we are going to confine our worst offenders for as long
as possible.
I would again reiterate the fact that in this bill there is a 3-year
grace period, that if a State does not have a provision that requires
the serving of a minimum of 85 percent of a prison term for a serious
violent felon now, if they enact it, it does not have to go into effect
in their States for 3 years before they are still eligible now for
those funds to assist them at that time.
[[Page H1491]] I think we want to help those States move forward now.
Several States obviously already have. I am convinced other States will
if they get some further assistance on what everyone acknowledges is
going to be an expensive but a necessary undertaking.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
This is an amendment that truly goes halfway to the other side, and
is one that I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] for and
our colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer].
The country has a violent offender program that is working at this
minute, and it is in the 1994 crime bill prisoner grant program.
We know that this program works, we know that most of the States
choose to take advantage of it and those that can, do. But, H.R. 667
would totally disrupt the program and it will replace the carefully
negotiated, well-known conditions of the 1994 crime bill being
implemented as we speak and replace it with different formulas and
different conditions.
The people at the Department of Justice and elsewhere believe that
perhaps three States could qualify for one-half of the funds under the
present funding scheme in H.R. 667.
{time} 1300
But this amendment simply says let us keep the program that we have
now, one that we know that works and is working until such time it is
clear the new program will work. That is about all that we are doing
here is forming a bridge to make sure that there is continuity and
coordination until half the States would qualify under 667.
And the point that we are making is that if the new majority is right
and 667 should kick in real soon, fine, but if they are not, with this
50 percent or more requirement that the States are meeting the so-
called truth-in-sentencing, we will be able to have something during
the time that we are waiting until more States are able to qualify
under the very complex provisions of the proposals that are in 667.
So let us be smart and bipartisan and support Chapman-Schumer at the
same time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 261, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 110]
YEAS--169
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--261
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--4
Collins (MI)
Rose
Smith (MI)
Walker
{time} 1320
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Walker against.
Mr. SKELTON and Mr. CHALLAHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. KENNEDY of Rhode
Island, KLINK, DOYLE, MASCARA, HALL of Texas, McHALE, BARRETT of
Wisconsin, and PAYNE of Virginia changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1320
amendment offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 4, line 21, strike
``, and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 5, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 5, after line 2, insert the following paragraph:
(3) laws requiring that the releasing authority notify the
victims of serious violent felons or the family of such
victims and the convicting court regarding the release of a
defendant.
[[Page H1492]] Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that, when a serious
violent felon is being released from prison, the releasing authority
shall notify the victims, the family of the victims and the convicting
court of that release.
Many of these prisoners when convicted say, ``When I get out, I'm
going to hurt you.'' This will prevent that.
Mr. Chairman, it is a good measure. It is accepted by both sides.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is a good
amendment. It is an amendment which would say that, as he has stated,
``that if you have a serious violent felon out there that has committed
a very serious crime, you have to notify the victims and the convicting
court when you release him from jail.''
It seems like a good thing to do for anybody, and it is a condition
that adds to the already existing conditions on victims rights in this
bill, and I would be more than happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers],
the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a very
practical one that requires notification in those instances where
someone is being released and that the victim's family would be able to
know about it, or police officers, or others. We have had a number of
cases of intimidation, and sometimes actual violence that has occurred,
and this kind of notification would work no harm on anyone in or out of
the court system, and it does follow along with the protection for
victims that we have examined before.
I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for offering the
amendment and applaud the fact that we have received the support of the
other side.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I think all these comments explain it
very well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. schumer
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 2, strike line 4 and
all that follows through the matter preceding line 1, page
12, and insert the following:
TITLE I--PRISON BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
SEC. 101. LOCAL CONTROL PRISON GRANT PROGRAM.
Subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:
``Subtitle A--Prison Block Grants
``SEC. 201. PAYMENTS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS.
``(a) Payment and Use.--
``(1) Payment.--The Attorney General shall pay to each
State which qualifies for a payment under this title an
amount equal to the sum of the amount allocated to such State
under this title for each payment period from amounts
appropriated to carry out this title.
``(2) Use.--Amounts paid to a State under this section
shall be used by the State for confinement of persons
convicted of serious violent felonies, including but not
limited to, one or more of the following purposes:
``(A)(i) Building, expanding, operating, and maintaining
space in correctional facilities in order to increase the
prison bed capacity in such facilities for the confinement of
persons convicted of a serious violent felony.
``(ii) Building, expanding, operating, and maintaining
temporary or permanent correctional facilities, including
boot camps, and other alternative correctional facilities,
including facilities on military bases, for the confinement
of convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens for the
purpose of freeing suitable existing space for the
confinement of persons convicted of a serious violent felony.
``(iii) Contributing to funds administered by a regional
compact organized by two or more States to carry out any of
the foregoing purposes.
``(b) Timing of Payments.--The Attorney General shall pay
to each State that has submitted an application under this
title not later than--
``(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available,
or
``(2) the first day of the payment period if the State has
provided the Attorney General with the assurances required by
section 203(d),
whichever is later.
``(c) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney
General shall adjust a payment under this title to a State to
the extent that a prior payment to the State was more or less
than the amount required to be paid.
``(2) Considerations.--The Attorney General may increase or
decrease under this subsection a payment to a State only if
the Attorney General determines the need for the increase or
decrease, or if the State requests the increase or decrease,
not later than one year after the end of the payment period
for which a payment was made.
``(d) Reservation for Adjustment.--The Attorney General may
reserve a partnership of not more than 2 percent of the
amount under this section for a payment period for all
States, if the Attorney General considers the reserve is
necessary to ensure the availability of sufficient amounts to
pay adjustments after the final allocation of amounts among
the States.
``(e) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
``(1) Repayment required.--A State shall repay to the
Attorney General, by not later than 27 months after receipt
of funds from the Attorney General, any amount that is--
``(A) paid to the State from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
``(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Attorney General.
``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Attorney General shall reduce
payment in future payment periods accordingly.
``(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Attorney General as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to States.
``(f) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under this title to States shall not be used to supplant
State funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of
funds that would, in the absence of funds under this title,
be made available from State sources.
``SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title--
``(1) $232,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
``(2) $997,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(3) $1,330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(4) $2,527,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(5) $2,660,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(6) $2,753,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(b) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 2.5 percent of
the amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)
for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000 shall be
available to the Attorney General for administrative costs to
carry out the purposes of this title. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
``(c) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.
``SEC. 203. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall issue
regulations establishing procedures under which a State is
required to give notice to the Attorney General regarding the
proposed use of assistance under this title.
``(b) General Requirements for Qualification.--A State
qualifies for a payment under this title for a payment period
only if the State submits an application to the Attorney
General and establishes, to the satisfaction of the Attorney
General, that--
``(1) the State will establish a trust fund in which the
State will deposit all payments received under this title;
``(2) the State will use amounts in the trust fund
(including interest) during a period not to exceed 2 years
from the date the first grant payment is made to the State;
``(3) the State will expend the payments received in
accordance with the laws and procedures that are applicable
to the expenditure of revenues of the State;
``(4) the State will use accounting, audit, and fiscal
procedures that conform to guidelines which shall be
prescribed by the Attorney General after consultation with
the Comptroller General and as applicable, amounts received
under this title shall be audited in compliance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984;
``(5) after reasonable notice from the Attorney General or
the Comptroller General to the State, the State will make
available to the Attorney General and the Comptroller
General, with the right to inspect, records that the Attorney
General reasonably requires to review compliance with this
title or that the Comptroller General reasonably requires to
review compliance and operation;
``(6) a designated official of the State shall make reports
the Attorney General reasonably requires, in addition to the
annual reports required under this title; and
[[Page H1493]] ``(7) the State will spend the funds only
for the purposes authorized in section 201(a)(2).
``(c) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--If the Attorney General determines that
a State has not complied substantially with the requirements
or regulations prescribed under subsection (b), the Attorney
General shall notify the State that if the State does not
take corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the
Attorney General will withhold additional payments to the
State for the current and future payment period until the
Attorney General is satisfied that the State--
``(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsection (b).
``SEC. 204. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
``(a) State Distribution.--Except as provided in section
203(c), of the total amounts appropriated for this title for
each payment period, the Attorney General shall allocate for
States--
``(1) 0.25 percent to each State; and
``(2) of the total amounts of funds remaining after
allocation under paragraph (1), an amount that is equal to
the ratio that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported
by such State to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993
bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes reported by all
States to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993.
``(b) Unavailability of Information.--For purposes of this
section, if the data regarding part 1 violent crimes in any
State for 1993 is unavailable or substantially inaccurate,
the Attorney General shall utilize the best available
comparable data regarding the number of violent crimes for
1993 for such State for the purposes of allocation of any
funds under this title.
``SEC. 205. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.
``Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this title
may be utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities
or community-based organizations to carry out the purposes
specified under section 201(a)(2).
``SEC. 206. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
``(a) In General.--A State expending payments under this
title shall hold at least one public hearing on the proposed
use of the payment from the Attorney General.
``(b) Views.--At the hearing, persons, including elected
officials of units of local government within such State,
shall be given an opportunity to provide written and oral
views to the State and to ask questions about the entire
budget and the relation of the payment from the Attorney
General to the entire budget.
``(c) Time and Place.--The State shall hold the hearing at
a time and place that allows and encourages public attendance
and participation.
``SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``For the purposes of this title:
``(1) The term `State' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, except that American Samoa, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be considered as one
State and that, for purposes of section 104(a), 33 percent of
the amounts allocated shall be allocated to American Samoa,
50 percent to Guam, and 17 percent to the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(2) The term `payment period' means each 1-year period
beginning on October 1 of any year in which a grant under
this title is awarded.
``(3) The term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, this is the block grant amendment to H.R.
667. It is a very, very simple concept. It says, ``Let the money for
building prisons be distributed to the States on a block grant basis
without any formula that stands in the way of the States getting the
money.'' We take the language; the block grant language is the very
same language in H.R. 3 that applies to the police and the prevention
parts of the bill; and what we do is we distribute the money to the
States and say, ``As long as you're building and operating prisons, you
may use that money.''
What is the difference? My colleagues, the difference is very simple:
``If you are in any of these States, which is all of them, under this
amendment your State will get money, millions of dollars, to build
prisons. If you vote no on this amendment and keep the very complicated
formula now in H.R. 3, your State will get no money.''
H.R. 3 sounds good, but according to the attorney general, just as
recently as this morning--who is in charge of administering H.R. 3,
should it become law, not a single State will get money.
Now we make a very simple argument:
The other side has argued that block grants are the way to go. It
certainly is the way to go for police, as in the bill that will be
before us Monday. It certainly is the way to go for prevention, which
is the bill that will be before us Monday. Why in God's name is it
different for prisons?
We are making H.R. 3 consistent. We are saying very simply:
If you want your State to get money and build the prisons
that are needed, support the block grant. If you're from
California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, any of the
States in this country, your State will get real dollars
under the block grant.
Many objected to the formula in the crime bill last year. This
amendment takes out that formula. Many object to the formula in H.R. 3.
It takes out that formula. It simply says, if the States know what they
are doing, if we want to return responsibility for fighting crime back
to the States, then give them the money, and let them build.
I say to my colleagues, ``If you vote for this amendment, that's what
will happen.''
I say to my colleagues, Yes, we want the States to incarcerate more
violent criminals. No question about it. But under the present law your
State will not get the money--you're from Illinois, you're from
Pennsylvania, you're from Louisiana, you're from Florida; your State
won't get money, at the very best, for 3 years, and at the very worst,
for 20 years, under H.R. 3, but under the block grant you will.
So what are we doing here, my colleagues?
I hear the anguish of my constituents when they complain about crime.
I hear the plaintive cry of police officers who say they arrest
criminals and they are back out on the streets. I care about that, and
that is why I have proposed this amendment. I propose this amendment
because instead of a lot of verbiage and a very complicated formula
that at best is under dispute as to how much it gives to each State,
give them a block grant.
What about the language for how the money is distributed under the
block grant? It is the very same language proposed by the majority, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum], that distributes the money for police, that distributes the
money for prevention.
{time} 1330
So I say to my colleagues very simply, if you want to get tough on
crime, put your money where your mouth is. A no vote on this amendment
will deprive your State of millions of dollars of badly needed prison
building dollars.
So it is a simple amendment, my friends. It is not complicated. It is
not what you would say is the old way, which means lots of formulas,
lots of Federal intervention. It simply says States, here is your
money; go build the prisons.
The public will be watching. They will want to see if we really want
to get tough on crime, or if we just want fidelity to some document
that was poorly written and poorly planned. I urge a ``yes'' vote on
the block grant amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is an extension of a debate that, of course, began
in the Committee on the Judiciary, and I understand the position of the
gentleman from New York. But let me take this a step further.
What the gentleman from New York is essentially arguing is if our
side has proposed a block grant approach to assist State and local law
enforcement with police and prevention programs, why then would we
propose grants that have certain conditions with respect to prisons?
The gentleman is essentially asking, is there not a contradiction
somewhere?
Well, if there is a contradiction, Mr. Chairman, it is not at that
point. If there is any contradiction at all with what the majority is
proposing, it is the fact that we propose identifiable prison grants.
Because it could be argued why not give the money to the States to
choose whether or not to build prisons? Maybe some States do not want
to build prisons.
Now, the problem with that hypothetical is it does not fit any
realistic situation. The gentleman from New York has recognized that,
because his amendment to this bill is also a prison grant proposal.
[[Page H1494]] So what we have in common here is that both those of
us who authored the original bill and the gentleman from New York's
amendment are for prison grants. We are both making the assumption that
every State has made a decision that it needs a prison system of some
kind.
So there really is no debate here about are we in some way infringing
upon State and local judgment by offering prison grants, because we
both know that prison grants are necessary and we both have offered
prison grants. So that is not the difference between us.
The difference between us, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this
amendment is that under the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer], it will be business as usual in the prison systems
throughout much of the United States. It will be the continuation of
revolving door justice. It will be the continuation of as soon as the
police complete a case and go on to the next case, they find in a
relatively short period of time they have got the same violent offender
back to deal with again.
What the bill says as written is that we recognize those States that
are seeking to improve their system, which is to extend the time of
incarceration of serious violent felons. And this is in two ways. One
way is the truth in sentencing approach, but that is half the money.
The other half of the money is for simply an increase in the
incarceration of serious violent criminals, without the specificity of
serving 85 percent of the maximum.
We are saying that we understand that those state legislatures which
have undertaken to protect their citizens from violent criminals will
within their prison systems absorb greater costs, because there is no
doubt, there is no hiding from the fact, the longer a prison sentence
is, the more costs there will be to the State.
Now, the States that are recognizing that the cost is worth it, that
the protection of their citizens is not only worth the expenditure in
and of itself, but it saves money, because criminals, especially career
criminals, will cost the taxpayers more money on the outside than the
wildest imagined cost of their incarceration, we recognize those States
will spend more money to incarcerate serious violent criminals longer.
And as an incentive to help those States improve the prison system and
the revolving door justice, we have written the bill with these
incentives. To go to the block grant system at this point would be to
say to the States that have a revolving door now, ``You can keep it.
You can pretend like you are doing something to protect your citizens,
when you are not doing enough.''
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. It is not enough to arrest violent criminals. It is not
enough to convict them. It is not enough to lock them in jail. You have
got to keep them in jail. If there is one thing that offends the
public, it is knowing that you get a 10-year sentence and you are out
in 3.
This bill provides the incentive necessary to have the States elevate
their sentencing to 85 percent of the years granted. That is what the
public wants. We would be very foolish just to say build more prisons,
if the same 5 to 7 percent of the hardened criminals that commit 70
percent of the crime go in and come out, go in and come out.
We can kill two birds with one stone here by providing the resources
to build the badly needed prisons, but at the same time make sure that
these violent, and we are talking about violent felons, get locked up
for a decent term, at least 85 percent of their sentence.
So we would be just foolish to give the money and say do the right
thing. We are going to goad them to do the right thing by providing
this carrot, this incentive.
So I reject the amendment, however much I am warmed by the fact the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] likes the block grant approach.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to
say, and this may or may not be significant, but I would note in the
gentleman's amendment he has added a word which does not appear in our
bill. The amendment says that ``The funding can be for expanding,
operating, and maintaining temporary or permanent correctional
facilities, including boot camps and other alternative correctional
facilities.''
The word ``alternative'' does not appear in our bill. The word
``alternative'' has come to mean something other than confinement. I
wonder if the gentleman can explain if that is in fact what he means.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here listening to this
debate, and I just really wonder how many Members of this body have
done as I have done? I have been working with the State of Missouri for
some time now because we have been trying to comply with and work with
the present law, the 1994 crime bill, to get additional money to build
prisons for our criminals. Not only that, the State of Missouri, under
the leadership of our Governor, has this year proposed in their budget
a large increase for prison construction, because we know that we need
to have that prison construction, because last year the general
assembly and our Missouri Governor did a truth-in-sentencing law.
So you think, hey, we are doing good. We are taking criminals and
putting them in prisons, making them serve longer sentences, and we
have got a truth-in-sentencing law. So we ought to comply under the
1994 act.
Well, under the general provisions, we do. Under the truth-in-
sentencing, we do not. Under this bill we get nothing. Under this bill
we get nothing. Under this bill we get nothing.
Why do we not get it? For the simple reason that our truth-in-
sentencing law is not in compliance with last year's law because we did
not use the words ``violent criminals.''
{time} 1340
We used a definition that does not comply, and we actually set, the
Missouri General Assembly actually set up the criminal actions, the
crimes that could be punishable, that were severe enough. And they do
not qualify as all total encompassing.
As a result, we are not going to be in compliance with the present
law under the truth-in-sentencing. That is a little silly. It is a
little bit silly.
Now, what do we do under the bill? We do not keep that terminology.
We change it to violent felonies. Now we are going to have a new
definition of what they have to comply with. And as a former member of
the Missouri General Assembly, I want my colleagues to know, those that
have served in a State legislature, how many times did they object to
the Federal Government telling them how to write in detail the laws of
the State of Texas, the State of Illinois, the State of Georgia, or any
other State? But that is what we are doing in this bill. We are trying
to tell the State legislative bodies that this is the way they have to
write it in detail, if they want these penitentiary moneys, if they
want to build prisons.
I have been corresponding with my department of corrections head,
with my Governor's office about this quandary, because we want to build
prisons. We want to put criminals, violent criminals, behind bars. We
want to keep them there for 85 percent of their time. But they are not
going to help us one bit.
To the gentleman from Illinois, I say, ``When you threw that rock,
you didn't get two birds, you got none. You didn't get any with this
bill. You are going to miss the whole mark.''
That is why I support the amendment of the gentleman from New York,
because for sure, I am going to have prisons under a block grant. There
are not all of these onerous conditions on my State legislature and my
Governor.
I said that this would come up, this debate would occur back when we
were talking about the unfunded mandates. I had an amendment to that,
which I withdrew, but I wanted to discuss it. And this is it.
Sometimes we think we know it all. We know it all. Well, they are
trying it right now. They are saying they know what is good for the
States, they know how they should have to write their legislation in
order to get this money.
[[Page H1495]] Where did the money come from? It did not grow on
trees out here. It did not float from the sky. That money came from
right back home, folks. It sure did, and what is that? I thought we had
Members up here that believed in States rights.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I remember the gentleman was a leader in
resisting the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit that was imposed by the
Federal Government on the States, and the gentleman was in violent
opposition to the Highway Beautification Program. The gentleman is a
crusader for States rights. He speaks with some credibility. I just
suggest that you do not need to be a nuclear physicist to understand
that we ought to lock these people up and not kid the people that 10
years means 3 years. And the gentleman ought to help us do that.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to tell the gentleman is
that the State legislatures that want to do it, like Missouri wants to
do it, we are doing it. We have got to build new prisons. We are taking
money away from higher education, from mental health and everything to
build those prisons, right now in this year's budget. We already have
truth-in-sentencing. It just does not meet the little bit of criteria
that the gentleman writes, so we do not get any of the Federal money.
But we are going to do it on our own anyway.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he
can meet it and get his share.
Mr. VOLKMER. No. We cannot get it. Under this bill, I get some money.
It is going to help my State. And maybe under that, maybe Missouri's
higher education will be able to get a little more of the budget
because they will get a little bit of their money back from the Federal
Government that they send here anyway. That is what the Schumer
amendment does.
I strongly support it. If Members really believe in States rights, if
they really believe in building prisons and letting the legislature
decide, I hope they have as good sense as the State of Missouri and a
few other States that have truth-in-sentencing, because I believe in
truth-in-sentencing. But I do not believe that I should dictate it to
anybody, especially a State legislative body. I believe that that State
legislative body and that Governor should be able to decide on its own
what is good for their own State. I do not believe that I should make
that decision for them.
I do not believe that I have all the answers, that I am smarter than
they are. That is what the bill says. You are smarter than the State
legislative bodies and governors.
I object to it. I feel strongly, I urge everybody to support the
amendment of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, for those who doubt that there is progress, they should
have been at the Committee on the Judiciary markup on this bill.
Because there is the most blatant, glaring, irreconcilable
inconsistency in approach between this bill, which dictates to the
States, which assumes that the State legislatures are not smart enough
or courageous enough or courageous enough to deal with sentencing, and
we have heard Members on the other side say, in effect, we cannot trust
the State legislatures to do this on their own so we have to tell them
how to do it. That is a total inconsistency between this and the bill
we will see on Monday, where in fact they say, we will give things to
the States and we should not proscribe anything because that would be
an interference with States' rights.
At the committee session, the best answer we got to that was the
chairman citing Ralph Waldo Emerson that a foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of small minds, which I pointed out is a remark everybody
says when they get caught in an inconsistency and cannot come up with
an answer. They have had a few days so they have elaborated a rationale
to try to explain it. But it makes no sense.
Today they will be telling us that we cannot trust the State
legislatures, the we must dictate to them and dictate to them, it seems
to me foolishly, as I will get into.
Then on Monday they will tell us that we must give everything to the
States and make no Federal proposals.
What holds these two together, and I think it is very clear, what
motivates the Republicans here is clearly no consistent philosophy
about deferring to the States, because they will dictate to the States
today and denigrate their capacity for self-determination. And then on
Monday they will defer to it. What they have in common is this.
Last year, over the opposition of most of the Republicans, the
Democratic Congress and the Democratic President passed a good, tough
crime bill that had sensible prevention funds, that had money for
prisons, that had money for police.
Now, when the Democrats do something that is wrong, my Republican
friends are a little unhappy. But when the Democrats do something that
is manifestly right, they are very, very unhappy. They cannot tolerate
the notion that we would have been as successful as we were. And,
therefore, they have come forward with legislation which would
interrupt a process that is well along of getting crime fighting funds
out to the States.
They are doing it today, and they will do it on Monday. They will
take absolutely inconsistent positions. They will be Federalists today
and States' rights people on Monday. And the only common thread is that
they want to undo what we did last year. Having lost last year, they
are not prepared to abide by that, and they will disrupt the processes.
Police officers who are being hired will now face an uncertain future
if their bill passes and becomes law, because they do not like the
notion that the Democrats might have gotten credit for putting out more
police.
The States will be told, and here is the degree of proscription, it
says to a State, you get money if you have increased the extent to
which you were sentencing violent criminals. So if you are a State
which had already been sentencing violent criminals to long sentences,
you will lose money to a State that still sentences them to less than
you do because they have gotten more less than you do. If you have been
doing it for 10 years and they have been doing it for 6 and they get up
to 8, 8 will be more than 10 by the peculiar arithmetic that the
Republicans have been driven to by their desire to mess this thing up.
Because what they will measure is not how long you sentence people but
whether or not you increased it.
Similarly, they will be told that they have to serve 85 percent of
their sentence. If in fact people are sentenced to 15 years and serve
10 of those 15 years, that is only two thirds, they do not qualify. But
if they were in fact sentenced to 8 years and serve 7 of the 8, that
will be more than 85 percent, and they will qualify. They use
meaningless items. States that in fact have tougher sentencing will
manifestly lose out under this bill to States that have less sentencing
because the Republicans needed to come up with a way to undo what we
had done.
{time} 1350
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As I understand it today, Mr. Speaker, just to underscore the
gentleman's points, the point we have been making, the Speaker, at his
morning press conference said that his Members would vote for this bill
whether their States got money or not. I would suggest that is not a
way for people to vote, particularly those of us who want to
incarcerate more violent criminals.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would not want to get between the
Speaker and his troops, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman so instructed
them or advised them, that is his prerogative. We should be very clear,
though, that this bill is premised on the notion that, left to their
own decisionmaking process, the States of this Union will not
adequately deal with violent criminals.
[[Page H1496]] Therefore, the Federal Government must prescribe, but
not only prescribe, prescribe foolishly; tell them that they must have
85 percent of the sentence served, no matter what that length of time
is.
I hope the Schumer amendment is adopted and sense prevails over
partisanship.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully take this from the top.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being presented to us as
basically a mirror image of what is in the bill, with the exception
that the proponents of the amendment offer a block grant approach,
rather than the bill's provisions, which encourage greater sentences
for those who commit serious violent crimes.
I have to go back again and say I am at least not certain that that
is correct, Mr. Chairman. It may well be, but the language that is in
the amendment adds a word when it talks about funding correctional
facilities; it adds the word ``alternative,'' that under the amendment
the funds can go to alternative correctional facilities. The word
``alternative'' was used all throughout the last crime bill to mean
alternatives to confinement.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that is the reason why,
although the media announced over and over again how much money in the
last crime bill would go to prisons, not a dime has to go to prisons.
It could go into community situations for those who have committed
serious crimes, and there may be, for other individuals, a place for
community corrections, but a confinement bill should be a confinement
bill. A prison bill basically should be a prison bill.
Second of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say, again, that the
contradiction, if we are offering it, is not the one argued by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank]. The contradiction, if
offered, in theory is the fact that we would offer a prison grant. What
right do we have to tell the States, ``You should be interested in
prisons''? But their amendment is a prison grant amendment, too, so
that is not the difference. The difference is our encouraging and
wanting to assist those States which have come to the realization that
they want to do more to lock up violent criminals longer.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer] is going to keep the same revolving door
that has so disgusted the American people throughout this country.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Schiff] is trying too hard to reconcile the irreconcilable, but he is
unsuccessful. He says it is inconsistent just to even talk about prison
grants. What he is apparently arguing is that either you say that
everything the Federal Government provides to States goes in one
undifferentiated huge revenue-sharing pot, or else you have no
difference between categorical programs and specificity in the
categorical programs.
In other words, we have generally said there was general revenue-
sharing, then there were categorical programs which say ``for health,''
which say ``for prisons,'' et cetera. The question then becomes do you
overprescribe in the category.
It is one thing to say, ``We will give you money for prisons and we
will give you money for crime fighting.'' It is another to say, ``We
will give you money for prisons if, in fact, you do 85 percent and if,
in fact, you do all these specific things.'' The gentleman is wrong
when he says this is meant to encourage the States. This does not
encourage, this says to the State, ``You will meet the rather contorted
definitions we have or you get nothing.'' That is much more than
encouragement. That is coercion, and it is a perfectly valid point.
However, to say, as he has said, ``Well, under the amendment of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], we will go back to the revolving
door'' is to say that the State legislatures and Governors of this
country cannot be trusted, because what the amendment of the gentleman
from New York does is to leave it up to the States.
When we say that is going back to the revolving doors, as the
gentleman says about this amendment, as his amendment said, ``You
cannot trust the States, they will not do it right, we know better,''
that is a perfectly valid position, but take off your Thomas Jefferson
costume when you are saying it and put on your Alexander Hamilton mask.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come down to the central
issue. Once we have decided it is all right to offer States prison
grants, and that by offering that, it is not a violation of federalism,
as long as we seem to be both on board on that, the major issue in
prisons, of all the issues, is what is the length of time served by
those who have been committed to prisons.
Mr. Chairman, our bill offers to help those States which are trying
to keep the serious violent criminals off of the streets longer.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply answer to my friend, the gentleman from
New Mexico, if he surveyed the 50 States, probably every one of them
wants to keep the criminal in jail longer.
The States, probably on this issue, probably more so than on the
other issues that the gentleman is for a block grant on, agree.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Gallegly] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gallegly was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, every State wants to incarcerate more
violent criminals. The question is simple on this; that is, do we give
the States the money to do it.
Under the formula in the base bill, under the best of estimates, only
three States, Delaware, North Carolina, and Arizona, would be eligible
for the money.
Mr. Chairman, I have a Governor in my State who is very tough on
crime, the newly elected Governor. He would not be getting a nickel of
money to build the more prisons that he promised in his campaign under
this formula. We know that for a fact.
I would say what he is going, Mr. Chairman, is, quite frankly, taking
some people out of jail, but because the bar that the gentleman has set
is so unrealistically high that the Governors of most States, after
all, 30-some-odd of the Governors are Members of the gentleman's party,
would not be able to use the money at all, so the issue, Mr. Chairman,
is not who wants to incarcerate. Just about every State does. My State
does, and I do.
The issue, Mr. Chairman, is will the formula in the bill or a block
grant that automatically gives the money better serve the State in
doing it?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GALLEGLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, some States are, through their legislature,
showing the priority of passing laws which will incarcerate their
serious violent criminals longer. It is the purpose of this bill to
assist those States.
There are two pots of money, and we believe that virtually every
State, if not in fact every State, would qualify under the first.
{time} 1400
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if the States were doing everything right, we would
not
[[Page H1497]] have all this furor about truth-in-sentencing. The
truth of the matter is, 10 years does not mean 10 years; 15 years does
not mean 15 years. The public thinks it does, but they are learning
that it does not.
We are trying to use a concept that is alien to some people in this
Chamber. It is called incentives. It works in economics, and it works
in crime fighting.
The gentleman from Massachusetts said somehow a pall of depression
falls over us Republicans when the Democrat administration does
something right. I would just tell the gentleman: NAFTA and GATT. When
the administration does something right, and it does--it does--they get
support from this side of the aisle. But the romance with categorical
grants has been on their side.
I recall the last crime bill, the so-called omnibus crime bill, if
you wanted to get a piece of that $50 million, you had to have midnight
basketball. You had to shoot free throws, because that was a Federal
program and you had to participate. We were telling communities. ``If
you want some of this money, then here's a program where you can get
it.''
But what we are doing here is saying here is money to build prisons.
If you want to build prisons, let we have truth-in-sentencing. That is
a simple exchange. It is not asking too much.
I think this is what the public wants. They want tougher sentences,
and we are going to help them impose the tougher sentences by giving
them the resources to build prisons. That ought not to be too
difficult.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
But I must say I was disappointed when the gentleman from Illinois
said under the bill we passed last year, if you wanted part of the $50
million pot, you had to do midnight basketball. That is not in the
bill. It was permissive, just as it is in their bill that they are
going to bring up on Monday. Midnight basketball was an option. To say
that under the bill we passed you had to do midnight basketball is
simply a misstatement.
Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, is it not true that there was a $50
million program for midnight basketball?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Not as I understand it.
Mr. HYDE. Was it $49 million?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. No; in the original bill there was such a proposal. Many
people said that that is not a good idea and it was block-granted. So
in the crime bill that is now law, there is no pot of money for
midnight basketball. It is the same as the gentleman's bill, H.R. 729.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Permissive.
Mr. SCHUMER. It is one of the many options under a block grant.
Mr. HYDE. That is an improvement.
Mr. SCHUMER. It is now law.
Mr. HYDE. May I ask the gentleman, were there any categorical grants
in that omnibus crime bill?
I wanted to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] because he
is an expert on this: Were there any categorical grants?
Mr. SCHUMER. There were certain large programs that had categorical
grants.
Mr. HYDE. Are those where we tell the States what they must do to get
the money?
Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to congratulate the gentleman
for the nimbleness with which he skipped away from his error, in which
he said that you had to do midnight basketball when in fact you do not.
Mr. HYDE. I appreciate the congratulations. I usually disappoint the
gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is true. That is true. Therefore, it
seemed to me, it behooved me to give credit where credit was due. But
the point I would make is that, yes, we have had some categorical
programs. We have never claimed or pretended that we were against some
direction to the States. It is the gentleman on the other side who had
made that point, and it is that point which they are directly,
blatantly, and thoroughly contradicting today.
If I could make one last sentence, I will give the gentleman one more
credit. He began by saying if the States were doing the right thing.
Yes, that is exactly the point. This is a bill from people who do not
agree with choices the States are making, and they are going to coerce
them to make other ones. That is valid. But do not pretend to be the
Articles of Confederation when you are in the process of doing that.
Mr. HYDE. Coerce? Reclaiming my time, coerce is not the same as
incentive. And we are providing incentives for them to have--does the
gentleman not agree that sentencing someone to 10 years and they get
out in 3 is a fraud?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Of course. How could the gentleman answer if I do not
yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Under the gentleman's bill, if you
sentence them to 10 years and they serve 3, there are two ways you can
qualify. You can make them serve 8 or 9, or you can cut the sentence to
4. The gentleman's bill does not require you to increase the time
served. It simply says it has got to be 85 percent of the sentencing.
So the gentleman's bill is flawed even in trying to do what he says
he is trying to do.
Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's conversion to block
grants is indeed reassuring.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has
expired.
(At the request of Mr. Schumer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hyde was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the chairman, and I always do. He is always very
courteous and generous in the yielding.
Let me just say that the gentleman's colleague, the gentleman from
Florida, just before made the very point the gentleman from
Massachusetts made.
He said, and we sort of let it go by, but he said, and check the
record, ``Well, the States could qualify for this. They can reduce the
maximum sentence.''
This bill does not require an increase in the maximum sentence. It
simply requires that truth----
Mr. HYDE. Truth-in-sentencing.
Mr. SCHUMER. Exactly.
Mr. HYDE. Right. Honor. Integrity.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would say to the gentleman, a far more important
argument than truth-in-sentencing, important as that is, is having
people serve, violent criminals serve a long time in jail. Our proposal
makes that happen much more than the gentleman's.
Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, if someone is sentenced to a term of
years, the public is entitled to know that term of years is pretty
close to what he is going to serve. If it is too low a term of years,
they will get new judges. But I welcome the gentleman's conversion to
block grants.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, when I hear the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary tell me that midnight basketball is some Democratic
prerogative, I would be otherwise proud of it, but the fact of the
matter is in the block grant program combining prevention and police
programs coming up Monday, midnight basketball is as permissible in
their program as it would be and is in ours, in the 1994 crime bill,
and we are proud of that.
But to come on the floor and continually deride it, and this being
one of the most economical investments that we can make in prevention
programs, I mean, how much cheaper can you get than a hoop, a net and a
basketball?
So it seems to me very, very important when we recognize that it is
in both of our programs and it was started in the former President
Bush's 1,000 points of light.
[[Page H1498]] Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I do not criticize midnight basketball at all. I think it
is a great way to spend your hours from midnight till 3 a.m. I do
wonder how you get up and go to school the next day, but I will leave
that to deeper thinkers than I am.
Mr. CONYERS. I think that you are criticizing midnight basketball, if
you think it keeps people from going to school.
The people in the cities that are using it happen to think that it
keeps people from doing activity that might otherwise bring them in
connection with the law.
So I think that the gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot
continually deride midnight basketball, and then tell me in the next
breath that he really likes it, but he thinks they ought to be getting
ready for school.
My larger consideration here today is that if you wanted to relieve
the number of people that are in prison so that you could keep the
violent offenders, how about overcrowded State prisons that had
releases that would not occur if we had boot camps, drug courts and
prevention programs that were keeping minor offenders and young people
from taking up all of this space?
We have the largest and most infamous lockup rates in the world in
this country. In the inner cities of the United States, it is 3,000
people per 100,000 that are in prison. So there are no circumstances
that I will ever advocate building more prisons to lock up more people.
I would advocate, however, building more prisons to contain violent
offenders and support the block grant program as opposed to a program
that the States clearly will never qualify for.
It is in that spirit and that limited spirit only that I support a
block grant program. It is not that I have just converted or changed my
position incredibly for the purposes of this debate.
The fact of the matter is there is flexibility in block grant
programs in this bill and the one we consider next that allows for boot
camps, allows for drug courts, allows for prevention programs, and,
yes, allows for night basketball.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make one other point to my colleagues,
particularly on the other side of the aisle.
If this amendment is voted down and H.R. 3 is passed and becomes law,
the gentleman will find out a year from now how many prison spaces his
State will be able to build. My guess is a year from now, the vast
majority of us will find that our State has not gotten a nickel from
the bill and has not built a single prison space, whereas under our
proposal the States get anywhere from $10 million to $400 million to
build prisons.
Mr. CONYERS. In addition, look what we have done just in today's
debate alone. We have rejected the only amendment that would give us a
carryover that would allow a few years for the States to get ready for
your draconian proposal because you have rejected allowing a bridge in
which until 50 percent of the States could qualify, we could at least
use the 1994 crime bill distribution of prison construction funds.
What you have done is you have blown up any possibility of us getting
any money to the States, and now you are saying that the block grant
program itself which you cited is now going to be ineffective.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Schiff and by unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.
I just want to ask of the gentleman from Michigan, I thought I heard
the gentleman from Michigan say that he favored the block grant
approach because it offered flexibility to the States in terms of
whether to use funds for prisons or other kinds of programs.
Mr. CONYERS. It would allow boot camps, not prevention programs but
at least boot camps for helping relieve those who would be coming in as
nonviolent offenders and youthful people.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
{time} 1410
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In my
State the Governor, again, a get-tough-on-crime Governor, because the
prisons are filled with low level drug offenders and the violent
criminals get out more quickly, wants to build boot camps. Under the
proposal on the other side he would not be allowed to. But in our
proposal he would, and that would in effect incarcerate the violent
criminals much longer.
This is a conservative Republican Governor who called for this, and
that is what the gentleman from Michigan is talking about.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Michigan yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I want
to say I think we are getting at a part of this amendment now that I
raised and which has not been really developed by the other side until
right now.
There is a difference here between a block grant approach and between
our proposing to help those States that want to incarcerate violent
criminals longer. We have debated that and I presume in a few minutes
we are going to vote.
But the gentleman from Michigan's reference to alternative
confinement that might be allowed under the bill, that is the language
that was used in the crime bill to mean other than confinement such as
community corrections. And I have suggested twice, and I am now
suggesting a third time, that really may be the bigger difference in
the amendment in this bill, that the amendment would allow block grants
for nonconfinement alternatives.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Government gives money to the States
in the form of block grants to build prisons, I think the Federal
Government should have something to say about how this money is used
and what kind of prison we are going to build, what length people
should be incarcerated for. I think this is an important issue.
The lawyers here may argue the nuances of the legislation, but I
would like to address this bill on people's terms for a minute.
Last summer a man in Oklahoma raped a 3-year-old girl. The people
were so outraged they did not give him 100 years, they did not give him
200 years, or a 1,000 years, or 5,000 years; they gave him a 30,000-
year sentence.
But the outrage of it all is this: That he is eligible for parole in
15 years.
I, as a Member of this body, when I vote to give money to the States,
I want to have something to say about these paroles and about these
issues. And that is why this amendment, in my opinion, is not
appropriate.
I want the people who are building prisons in the States, I want
those Governors, if they are giving harsh sentences, I want those
people to get additional block grants. I want to give them incentives
to be hard. I do not want a person who gets 30,000 years, because the
people of that State are so outraged, to be walking the streets in
another 10 or 12 years. That is what the people of America are saying,
and that is why the amendment of my friend from New York is not a
proper amendment.
If we have some liberal Governor or State legislature who says let us
let him out in 5 years or 10 years, I do not want that State to get
these block grants.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I very much sympathize with the case from Oklahoma, and
I think someone who did something like that ought to serve his life
[[Page H1499]] in jail. But under the gentleman's proposal, unless
that gentleman served 25,000 years, 85 percent of the 30,000-year
sentence, they would not qualify under H.R. 3. And that is just the
reason we would like to give the State of Oklahoma, a nice get-tough
State, money with no strings attached so we could build prisons and
build them quickly.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not the way I
read this amendment. What the gentleman's amendment would do would be
to gut the tough provisions of this bill. We would be going right back
to again having a social welfare bill and not a real crime bill, and
that is why we cannot accept the gentleman's amendment.
I want this person, I want this criminal, for example, who raped this
3-year-old girl, I do not want him out in 15 years. And I, as a Member
of this Congress, want to have something to say about that, and I think
the people in the States who are tough on those criminals ought to get
more of the grant money and not less. And that is why I am opposed to
the gentleman's amendment and why I am for this bill.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and say we are
making this issue unfortunately the way we do many issues, a lot
tougher than it has to be.
I want us to build prisons right now; I do not want to see the
prisoners in my State eligible to be released who are today being
released. They are being released because we do not have enough room
for them.
So, again, I think this amendment makes sense. We cannot have it both
ways. We cannot say we are going to block grant this money which later
we will say we are not going to block grant this money here today.
Our States are dealing with a lot of tough offenders. I was happy
that the committee chose to accept the youthful offender issue in terms
of a boot camp, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
[Ms. Jackson-Lee], which will allow States to build the youthful
offender incarceration programs that we need, because I think we have
to form a more effective partnership with the States and allow the
States to build these facilities.
If we want to incarcerate these criminals and we want to do it now,
vote for this amendment. This is a
States rights amendment and it will allow the States to deal
effectively today with those violent offenders that are out there that
we want to put away.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. I
just want to point out that it is true that the majority accepted the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] of
your side which allowed some funding for boot camps for certain
individuals who were appropriate for it, because boot camps at least
are still a type of confinement the way they are set up, the way I am
familiar with them for a confinement facility, maybe a fence, not a
wall. But we accepted that.
This amendment uses different language. This amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York talks about boot camps, and I am quoting here:
``Other alternative correctional facilities,'' and the key word here is
``alternative.'' The key word here is that has come to mean in the
crime bill we passed as nonconfinement alternatives.
So this amendment is more a philosophical difference about block
grants. Ours is a confinement bill and the amendment is not.
Mr. CRAMER. Reclaiming my time, I would assert this amendment would
allow the States the flexibility to build all kinds of facilities. I
will support later amendments to this bill that will allow other kinds
of juvenile incarceration facilities to be built, but I think the block
grant approach is the way to go.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, it is just such an anomaly from the
gentleman from New Mexico. We heard on the block grant proposal that
the States know best from everyone on that side, except on this issue.
There is no provision here for any prevention or social welfare.
Everything that must be built must be a correctional facility,
confinement, nothing else.
What I would say is that the vast majority of money will be used,
indeed, for building maximum security facilities. But boot camps, the
gentleman admitted that was all right, and other kinds of facilities
that the States may have in mind, that we do know that would be all
right as well, and the real issue here, the gentleman, in all due
respect, is throwing up a smokescreen because he knows darn well there
is going to be far more dollars to build prisons, hard core, barbed
wire prisons under this bill than under the bill there, that he is
hooking on a word that is no mandate, that is no anything.
I have faith in my Governor, I do not know if the gentleman does in
his, to use the money for the toughest type facilities possible.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very heated debate about
something I have heard a lot about in the past, and it is very
straightforward. What the gentleman from New York wants to do is gut
and completely eliminate the truth-in-sentencing provisions in this
bill, the whole purpose for creating the bill from my standpoint, I
think, and should have been the whole purpose last year of creating the
entire bill.
The truth in sentencing is to provide incentives in Federal laws for
grants to States to change their laws. That is what the purpose of the
bill is. The purpose of the bill is in order to establish incentives
for States to change their laws to make sure that we incarcerate, for
long periods of time, violent offenders, very serious violent
offenders, who right now are going through the revolving door and
serving only a fraction of their sentences, and they are creating most
of the violent crimes out there in the country today, a comparately,
relatively small number of people.
{time} 1420
We want to get them off the streets. We want States to take the steps
necessary to do this, and yet we know there is an emergency in the
States right now that the States do not have the resources to be able
to build enough prison beds on their own to do it, and we are providing
the supplement to get this to happen.
It is absolutely utter folly for us to put money out there on the
table that does not provide this conditionality. This is a carrot. This
is not an unfunded mandate that we have in this bill. This is a carrot.
This is saying, ``Look, we would like to see this accomplished like we
know you do.'' Those good States, those States that are willing to take
the steps necessary to make the matching grants in here, the 25 percent
versus 75 percent, those that are willing to get out and do it, then we
are going to provide you the money, and we are going to be so liberal
in this that we are even going to set aside half the money, $5 billion,
for States that all they have to do is just barely bump up the length
of time somebody serves a sentence and assures that violent felons
actually get increased time in their jail. They do not even have to go
to the so-called 85-percent rule. They do not have to abolish parole to
get half the money in this bill.
I have heard an awful lot from the gentleman from New York today and
in debate. I am sure he is sincere about it, about how no State can
qualify for the first set of grants. I believe that is nonsense. I
strongly disagree with his interpretation of this. The statistics, the
data we have, show that virtually every State can qualify for the first
$5 billion. It is no big deal to demonstrate, since 1993, you have
increased the length of time somebody who is a violent felon is serving
the actual sentence in your State. This is essentially all that that
does.
That is what the pattern is, the average person.
And as far as the second pot of money is concerned, the extra $5
billion, you destroy in this completely
[[Page H1500]] the incentive grant program, because we want, the
objective of this bill is that, to put the pot out there and say,
``Look, change your laws and you get the money. You do not change your
laws, the money is not there.'' It is as simple as that.
The gentleman's amendment guts that, and as I understand it, it also
strikes out from the bill the Kennedy-Geren language. It is a
substitute. I want
the people to understand this, who are watching, Members who are
paying attention and listening to the floor debate, this amendment is a
complete striking substitute amendment for the underlying bill. It
would put a block grant program in that has no strings attached to it
whatsoever; no truth-in-sentencing would be provided by this proposal.
We would give money out to States to spend that money as they want,
States that have not been doing the law changes that we would like to
see them do, and the gentleman will probably say, well, heck, that is
inconsistent with the position of the gentleman from Florida, that he
takes on the block grant program for prevention and cops, and to a
certain extent, he is right. It is inconsistent. Because I see two
different purposes. I see the purposes in the cops on the street and
the prevention grants programs as being something where the Federal
Government cannot begin to see what is the best interest to be done in
each of these cities from Spokane to Key West or wherever.
There are so many different prevention programs. Some cities can use
cops and some cannot, and so on. In the case of the prisons, we know
exactly what is wrong. We know exactly what needs to be done, and so do
the States. They need the resources to build prison beds to take the
violent offenders off the streets, abolish parole, and lock them up for
long periods of time. If they are not willing to change their laws to
do this, they should not be getting the money. That is the whole
purpose.
So there is a big difference.
I urge in the strongest of terms a ``no'' vote to this gutting
amendment that the gentleman from New York offers.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that all Members of this body are really
listening carefully to this debate.
And what really is at stake here is how much money, what additional
resources, each and every of your respective States are going to
receive under each of these proposals. States are starved for resources
to fund prisons, both construction and for operating those prisons.
We have a number of States right now, as we sit debating this issue,
that do not have enough money to operate the empty prison beds that
they already have. Some States it is not a question of building the
prisons. They do not even have enough money to operate the prisons, so
the real question is under which version of this bill do we get the
State money for prison construction and operation. Under which
provision, which proposal do we do that?
And I submit to you, and I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York which gets the fastest, the most money
to all of the States to operate and build prisons.
Now, under last year's bill, my colleagues, every State was eligible
for prison funding, for construction or operation, meeting those dire
needs, every single State in the Nation under the general provisions.
Under the proposal offered in the majority's bill, as it appears in our
legislation before us, that is not true.
So which one of your States is not going to receive any money under
this legislation? Which ones of your States are going to suffer, are
going to have money that is under current law available to them, which
ones of your States are going to have that money taken away by this
legislation? You better look at that, each one of my colleagues,
because your constituents are going to be looking at it. Your
constituents are going to ask the question, ``Did you vote for
legislation that took money that was already available to us away?''
Second, I think you need to ask, after you get beyond that, under
which of the two provisions before us today are your States going to
get more money? And I submit to you it is under the block grant
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. Every
State is going to receive dollars and more dollars than in this bill or
even last year's bill for prison operation and construction, and that
is the need. You can get esoteric about sentences and incentives, but
the real question is for resource-starved States, under which proposal
do they get the money, do they get it faster? It is under the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
I would like to engage the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] in
a colloquy if he would accommodate me, please, because I really am not
sure, under the general grant provisions here, any State is going to be
eligible for resources under the gentleman's legislation, and I just
read to you, and what does this mean, it says:
That a State or organization shall submit an application to
the Attorney General that provides assurances that such
States, since 1993, have more violent offender sentencing
time, increased the sentences, and increased the percentage
of the sentences served.
Which States have, since 1993, met those qualifications and would
receive any funding under this provision? Could you tell me?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out specifically the
wording that if any State, in fact, has not made changes in their law,
all a State has to do is to increase the average prison time actually
to be served. In other words, any State that increases the time to be
served for the violent criminals compared with 1993.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I will
be glad to explain this to him.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. My question is, which State right now would qualify for
money under general grant provisions?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Let me explain that every 2 years the Department of
Justice issues a study on exactly these points. That is why these are
in here this way. It is why it was in last year's crime bill, by the
way. This is not new language.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. What language applies to the general grants program?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further----
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time a moment, every State was eligible
under the general grants provisions for dollars.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to explain
which States. You asked that question. All I wanted to say to you is
that the trend, every time we have seen those statistics for the last
umpteen years, shows a lot of States qualify. Each year States increase
their time, most of them do.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr.
Mollohan] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I want to answer your question, because you asked the key question as
it applies to my State, because you asked under the 1994 crime bill,
what is at stake here, and you made the point correctly, so that all
States were eligible to begin their prison construction programs or to
apply for grants to operate those prisons that they are unable to
operate now.
Let me tell you about Texas. In Texas we lose $215 million. That is
what we lose. The gentleman from Florida loses, according to the
Department of Justice, the gentleman from Florida loses $230 million.
California loses $475 million.
{time} 1430
So the gentleman asked the key question. The truth of the matter is,
under current law, this program is in place, people have the ability to
begin prison construction, and there is a
[[Page H1501]] truth-in-sentencing component to apply. But you asked
the key question. I hope our colleagues are listening to this debate
because they are losing this money in every State in America and in
every congressional district if this bill passes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the key question. I would ask my colleagues
consider carefully under which provision is their State most benefited.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if there is anything the American people are crying out
for these days, it is for common sense. I think this amendment ought to
be called the commonsense prison amendment of 1995. This is a truth-in-
serving amendment, maybe more so than a truth-in-sentencing amendment.
I am much more concerned about truth in serving time in jail than in
some sort of notion of truth-in-sentencing.
Let me put in very simple terms this complicated debate.
Let us take Texas, for example. I served in the Texas Senate for 8
years. We have very tough sentencing requirements for crimes and felons
in our State. Take an example: Texas gives a sentence for a serious
felony of 100 years. That inmate, that felon serves 80 years. Another
State, for the exact same crime, sentences someone to 20 years in
prison, and they serve 17 years. So the inmate serves 80 years in
prison in Texas, they only serve 17 years in the other State, but the
other State gets the prison money and Texas does not.
Now, where is the common sense in that?
Would you not rather have somebody serve 80 years in prison if he
raped a three-year-old child than to serve 17 years in another State
and be rewarded for that?
The way the bill reads without this amendment, you could actually be
rewarding States who have a rapist serve 17 years rather than 80 years.
That is pretty simple to understand, and it just does not make common
sense.
I would like to be very specific in my remaining time and ask the
question of the gentleman from West Virginia as to what each State will
lose. I would pose this to my Republican colleagues as well as my
Democratic colleagues, that, in effect, if you vote ``no'' on this
commonsense prison amendment, this is what you are voting to cut your
own State out of in terms of new prison funding: Alabama will lose $56
million; Alaska, $12 million; Arizona might actually qualify for $44
million, one of the 3 States that might qualify.
If you are from Arkansas and you vote against this amendment, you are
taking $28 million out of your prisons in Arkansas. If you are from
California and you vote again this amendment, you are taking $475
million our of your State prison system. In Colorado you are taking $35
million out. Connecticut would lose $32 million. Delaware is a lucky
State, they may gain $14 million, even if this amendment does not pass.
Florida, as has been mentioned, will lose $230 million. Georgia would
lose $77 million, Hawaii would lose $12 million, Idaho would lose $12
million, Illinois would lose $175 million if our colleagues defeat this
amendment.
Indiana would lose $48 million, Iowa $20 million, Kansas $25 million,
Kentucky $30 million, Louisiana would lose $64 million, Maine would
lose $10 million. If our friends from Maryland vote against this
amendment, their State will lose $73 million in prison construction
money. Massachusetts would lose $69 million, Michigan $110 million,
Minnesota $27 million, Missouri $63 million, Mississippi $22 million.
We would lie $15 million from Nebraska. Nevada would lose $20 million;
New Hampshire would lose $9 million if you vote against this amendment.
New Jersey, if our Republican friends from New Jersey vote against
this commonsense prison amendment,
their State would lose $77 million. That is extra money that will have
to come out of their State taxpayers' pockets to build the prisons that
could be built with this amendment.
New Mexico would lose $26 million, New York, New York would lose $300
million. I would be amazed, I could not understand any Republican or
Democratic Member from the State of New York would vote against this
amendment and say to the taxpayers of New York, ``We are going to take
$300 million out of your pockets that you are going to have to find if
you want to be tough on these criminals.''
North Carolina, one of those three lucky States, may get $70 million
regardless. North Dakota would lose $8 million. Ohio, $90 million,
Oklahoma $34 million, Oregon $29 million, Pennsylvania $83 million,
Rhode Island $14 million, South Carolina $56 million, South Dakota $9
million, Tennessee $58 million.
I hope someone else will finish this list.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Schumer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards was
allowed to proceed for an additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman.
Texas, $215 million, Utah, $15 million, Vermont $9 million, Virginia
$41 million, Washington State $45 million, West Virginia $12 million,
Wisconsin $27 million, Wyoming would lose $10 million.
Mr. Chairman, it defies common sense to say that these millions of
dollars out of prison money in 47 States would somehow be tough on
criminals.
Vote ``yes'' on the commonsense Schumer prison amendment.
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, during the course of my campaign last year, the people
that I dealt with, the voters in Tennessee, wanted to make sure that
people who committed violent crimes, and let me underline the words
violent crimes, violent criminals spent their time in jail. I very
strongly support this bill because what it does is gives a strong
incentive to build those prisons to finds ways to lock up the violent
criminals, not in a revolving, endless cycle of putting one bad guy in
and letting one bad guy out; but to lock them up for the full amount of
their sentence, or 85 percent of their sentence. I think this bill
accomplishes that, and it does it in such a way that these States can
have the prison spaces available to keep the violent criminals locked
up in jail.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman made absolutely the correct
statement about why we need to keep the bill as it is instead of having
this gutting amendment. What the gentleman who just spoke in the well,
the gentleman from Texas, and I know he was sincere about what he was
doing, but what he was saying, though, in my judgment, misses a couple
of points.
One of the points is that absolutely no money was appropriated for
fiscal year 1996. So that is the fiscal year we are in now. Nobody is
going to lose anything, any money, no matter what, from the standpoint
of anything that has been appropriated, because it is not out there.
Second, nobody is going to lose any money anyway in the future if we
change the law, the bill and so forth, like we have in the underlying
law, because those States that he listed out there, I will guarantee
you 99 percent of them, probably 100 percent of them, will qualify for
the first pool of money under the $5 billion simple grant program where
you just have to show that since 1993 you have increased the percentage
of violent offenders sentenced to prison. That is not hard to show.
Almost every State has been doing that; reference to the Bureau of
Justice statistics shows that fact. Most every year they are submitted
every year and complied and printed every 2 years. We have seen the
records, you see a whole list of the history of that.
In addition to that, they have to show that they increased the
average prison time actually to be served. That is if they have
increased the time they are going to require somebody to serve on the
average who are serious violent felons in those States, and that is not
hard to see accomplished, because State after State is doing that.
Again, the statistics show that, the pressures
[[Page H1502]] of the public are very, very great to do that.
They have increased the percentage of sentences actually served in
prison, the percentage served in this case.
The statistics also bear out that every time these reports come out,
virtually every State in the Union has been on the march for a number
of years doing that. This is a very simple matter of encouraging the
States to be on the path they been doing for some time in increasing
the time that people are actually incarcerated for really bad crimes.
It is nothing more or less than that.
You do not have to increase it by one day. Nobody has to increase it
by one day. Nobody has to increase it for a year or 6 years or anything
else.
So it is a phony argument to say that the whole list of States he
reeled off out here will lose money if the underlying bill passes. They
will not lose any money. They will gain at least as much money, if not
more, because we are adding more money to this prison bill, including
more money to part A, by a couple of billion dollars than the present
law has. So they are going to have a larger pool of money to get at
then they had before.
In addition to that, of course, what we said before, the gentleman
made such an eloquent point about, the gentleman from Tennessee, this
also destroys, in addition to the underlying incentive grant program,
which he and I think this bill ought to be here in the first place, to
get the States to change their laws.
{time} 1440
So, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] for yielding to
me and giving me a chance to respond to that list of States that the
gentleman, I am sure in good sincere conscience, says is going to lose
money, but they really are not.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise to speak in favor of the Schumer amendment. Yesterday, I stoke
in favor of another Schumer amendment because it dealt with revolving
door habeas motions in the most effective way, instead of the arbitrary
means of the legislation passed by the committee.
I support this amendment for the same reason. It is smart and
effective.
The bill we consider today devotes $5 billion in prison spending to a
program that only three States can use. How is that effective?
I am the chairman of the Urban Caucus, and it is no secret that I
favor a balance when it comes to fighting crime. We have to spend
Federal dollars to prevent crime so we can steer violent offenders,
especially the young ones, away from prison. But, make no mistake, we
must put the most violent criminals in prison, for good, long
sentences. And, we must give States and cities the resources to build
and operate new prisons.
The question is not, ``Should we.'' The question is ``how.''
Let us not squander $5 billion of the people's money on a program
that will not work.
The Schumer amendment makes sense. It sends exactly the message that
the contract is supposed to be spreading: Let us give States and cities
flexibility to deal with their problems. It creates one block grant
with maximum flexibility. It also corrects a mistake I believe we made
last year--it removes the match requirement which has caused many local
governments to say no to Federal crime money because they just cannot
afford it.
If we really want to move forward we would be continuing the progress
we made last year. Let us build more prisons--but let us do it in the
right way.
Let us keep the right balance between prevention and punishment.
One of the things the voters said to us last November was, ``Listen
to us.'' Let us listen to our constituents, our cops, and our mayors.
Support the Schumer amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, for the money we are--if we are going to put money into
prisons, the Schumer amendment will put the money into prisons. The
underlying bill; we do not know what is going to happen or who
qualifies. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the 85 percent rule has been
referred to as truth-in-sentencing. It is actually half truth in
sentencing. It is true that people cannot be let out early, but under
the whole truth in sentencing we have to acknowledge that we cannot
hold people longer.
The gentleman that was described from Wisconsin that had all the
numbers of years and would be eligible for parole, well, he could be
denied parole and held for a long time.
In Virginia, we went to the 85 percent rule, and to do that we had to
reduce the sentence by 50 percent. It cost $7 billion, and, to put that
number in perspective, Mr. Chairman, on a national basis we are about 2
or 2\1/2\ percent of the national population. That would translate to
$250 and $300 billion to get to the 85 percent rule even after we have
reduced the sentences 50 percent.
Mr. Chairman, with parole a person with the 10 year sentence, that
puts the numbers in perspective. A person with a 10-year sentence would
serve anywhere between 2 and 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, those with a 10-year sentence, to put some numbers in
perspective under the present law in Virginia--under the previous law
in Virginia, would serve between 2 and 10 years. Those that got out in
2 were not randomly released. They had gotten education and job
training. They have a home to go back to. They have a job waiting for
them. They would get out early. Those with no job, no job training,
nowhere to go, those that would say they want to go out and commit more
crimes, they would serve longer.
Mr. Chairman, under the so-called truth-in-sentencing or the half
truth in sentencing, those with the longer sentences, those who have
actually served the 10 years, would not be getting out in 5 years.
Why should we dictate to the States a situation where there will
actually be serving--the worst will be serving less time, and those
least at risk will be serving significantly more time?
Mr. Chairman, the half truth in sentencing eliminates the ability for
States to use their prison space effectively by reserving it for those
that are really truly dangerous, relieving the flexibility of letting
those out early who are less risk.
We need the whole truth in sentencing, so those who are seriously at
risk can serve the full sentence without the reduction of one half, as
we have in Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would adopt this amendment for the
money that we are going to spend, for prisons, to go to prisons across
the board, not so that States can reduce the amount of time that the
most dangerous criminals are serving.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as I sat on the floor here for the last half hour, I
have listened to the gentleman from Florida say that we are going to
get the Truth in Sentencing Act, and I hear the gentleman from my
neighbor State of Wisconsin say we have to put a human face on this
bill in what we are trying to do here today. Let us put it in people
terms, as they have said:
``If you take a look at the example that the gentleman from Wisconsin
brought up, that the individual from Oklahoma got 30,000 years, let's
put that in human terms. Who is going to live 30,000 years, serve 85
percent of that time, as the bill requires, as the GOP bill requires?
Eighty-five percent of 30,000 years is 25,000 years. It's not
realistic. It's not going to happen. The bill, as written right now,
says, `When you get 85 percent of the actual prison time, 85 percent of
the actual prison time, you qualify for money underneath this bill.'''
The Schumer amendment, in which I am proud to support, says on page
8--go to page 8. The bill is
right there. Each State shall receive 25 percent, 0.25 percent, for
the most violent criminals, and we define what the most violent
criminals are.
Go to page 10. The most violent criminals are murderers, nonnegligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault. Those are the
people we have to get off the street.
So the Schumer amendment allows every State to receive money not just
to build prisons, but to operate and maintain prisons.
My State of Michigan, this past year we had four prisons that were
built,
[[Page H1503]] ready to go, but we had no money to operate, no
correction officers, no one to prepare the food, no one to provide the
services in those prisons. They sat empty, and the latest Department of
Justice report shows Michigan, Georgia, Connecticut, with the most
heinous criminals. We need space; there is nothing there. We have
places to hold them, but we cannot operate them. So the Schumer
amendment not only allows us to build them, the Schumer amendment
allows them to operate, it allows them to maintain their prison
population.
There are no prevention programs in here. This is not a social
welfare. This is exactly what they say they want to do. They want to
get tough on criminals, they want to lock them up, and we have to have
the means to provide for correction officers and for the maintenance of
those prisons. That is what the Schumer amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``When you take a look at it,
the State of Georgia alone on the Department of Justice facilities,
they have over 3,200 criminals that they cannot lock up, over 3,200.
This bill would help alleviate that by building the prisons and by also
allowing the operation and maintenance.''
{time} 1450
This is no social welfare program. We take the money, make it
available right now. Underneath the Republican plan, only when your
prison population actually serves 85 percent will you then get the
money. Is that going to be 3 years from now, 8 years from now? We do
not know. The Schumer amendment makes the money available right now to
build prisons for the operation and maintenance of the prisons. I urge
my colleagues to support the Schumer amendment.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are having some difficulty determining how truth in sentencing would
apply to a 30,000-year term. It reminds me of the judge who sentenced a
defendant to serve 100 years. The defendant said, ``But, Judge, I will
never live that long.'' The judge said, ``Well, you just do the best
you can.'' It is quite clear that a 30,000-year sentence would result
in a life term for a prisoner.
What this is about is gutting truth in sentencing. What this is about
is prisoners who are sentenced ostensibly to 20 years who serve 3
years. The public does not want this, their Representatives in Congress
do not want this. That is why I believe this amendment will fail.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would just make two points. Certainly we want to see
as long a sentence as possible. But what the bill does, it does not
simply say 20,000 years is too long. It does not. It says your proposal
on your side that your are supporting, would say if the person did not
serve 25,300 and some odd years, the State would fall below the 85-
percent goal.
The second point I would make is this, and this one I think is very
important. On both sides of the aisle we want to incarcerate people
longer. That is the purpose of my amendment, that is the purpose of
this amendment. The argument is not over who wants to do it. And I
think for the other side to say oh, we do; you do not, is really an
unfair form of argument. We do, too. That is why I derived it, and my
record shows it since I have been here. But which amendment will do it
better, I would submit ours does it better than yours.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if a prisoner dies
before he fulfills his sentence, it does not disqualify that sentence
under truth-in-sentencing.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as I review the legislation before us, I at first blush
thought it was an unfunded mandate bill on the States. But as I have
listened to the debate and as I have studied the bill, I find that it
is not only an unfunded mandate bill, but it is also a blackmail bill.
We have been told for years that the attitude that Congress knows
best and one size fits all, and we should tell the locals what to do
because we are smarter, has to end. With some of the legislation we
already passed this session, we indicated it is a new day, those things
are going to end.
But now that same attitude has reared its ugly head in this
legislation. What we are calling for here is longer sentences, the 85
percent goal. And my friends, it is not only on Federal crimes, which
we have a right and responsibility to legislate and dictate, but it is
on State violations of their criminal law.
We are telling the State legislatures and the Governors, who are up
here all the time hugging the Republicans, that when it comes to
welfare block grants and Medicare block grants, you can have all the
latitude you want, including millions and billions of dollars. But when
it comes to your legislature handing out prison sentences to your
inmates in violation of your State crimes, which the Republican
Congress know best, I think that is phony. I think that is hypocrisy,
and I will tell you where the mandate comes in.
Now we are going to, with the carrot and the blackmail, give the
States the bricks and mortar. We know full well, and I know full well
in Wisconsin, we need the construction dollars. We are overcrowded. But
we are going to have to change our State law to further exacerbate the
crowding problem, and then the unfunded mandates come, my friend, when
the Feds leave town after they dump the bricks and mortar and the State
and the taxpayers and the State legislatures have to cough up the
State-raised funds to house the inmates, to provide security for three
shifts a day, just like a hospital, to provide all the other
maintenance efforts. And at that point, my friends, are you going to
help the States continue that expenditure, or help pay for it?
So, Mr. Chairman, this is not only an unfunded mandate bill, but it
is also a blackmail bill. Blackmail today and tomorrow. Once the States
have incurred the costs, we are going into another area of trying to
help the States out. That is their problem. Sorry, States.
I urge the Members to support the Schumer amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot help, in listening to the debate, but be
reminded of a great line from a great movie which happens to take place
in a prison. The name of the movie is ``Cool Hand Luke.'' He is
incarcerated in prison, and the warden is punishing Cool Hand by making
him dig holes. And he is out there digging a hole. He gets done digging
this hole, and the warden comes out and says, ``Luke, you got a hole in
the yard. Fill it up.'' The warden goes back inside. Luke has to fill
the hole back up. The warden goes back outside and says, ``Luke, where
did that hole go? I want you to dig another one.'' This goes back and
forth. Finally, the warden goes out and says, ``Luke, what we have here
is a failure to communicate.''
That is what we are doing right here with the language in this bill.
It is a failure to communicate on the part of the Federal Government
and our States. Under this bill, the Federal Government is saying to
the States, ``You either dig this hole or you dig this hole, the way we
want you to do it. And if you don't do it our way, then either this pot
of money for $5 billion or this pot of money for $5 billion, you are
not going to get anything.''
What have we been doing for the past month? I just voted to prohibit
unfunded mandates. I have been working with many of my colleagues on
the Republican side to try to provide more flexibility for our States,
to do what they see is the right thing, to both prevent crime, to
incarcerate people, and then to keep them there for a long time.
But the Federal Government should not be going about telling each and
every State, my State of Indiana, you either do it precisely the way we
mandate it in Washington, DC, or you are not going to qualify for
anything.
Now, current law probably has it best. I am not particularly enamored
100 percent with the way the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]
wants to do this, in a flexible block
[[Page H1504]] grant. I would like to see some standard set, but not
the standard set and mandated under this bill.
I think we can do it better. Forty Republicans voted in the last
session of Congress for us to do it by funding police on the streets,
where many of these Republicans just qualified to get police on the
streets under the Cops Fast Program. I think we can do it by helping
our States build prisons, such as Indiana, where we are over capacity.
We do not want to be cut over $48 million with this unfunded mandate
from the Federal Government under this bill. Give us some more
flexibility. Do not do what the warden did to Luke in the movie ``Cool
Hand Luke,'' you either dig it here or dig it there. Let us communicate
with our States more effectively and with more flexibility.
{time} 1500
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, we sat for a number of days of
hearings and markups concerning the proposed changes of this crime bill
in the Committee on the Judiciary. I listened, hopefully, again, in the
spirit of bipartisanship, to my Republican colleagues promote their
arguments on the many reasons why money allocated for crime prevention
programs should be placed in block grants to the States with no
delineation. Their reasoning, States know better how to spend this
money to meet their specific needs. But now I am in a fog of
inconsistency.
We are all seeing a mirage. We are not understanding the direction in
which the majority party is going. The existing program that is being
planned now provides for disbursement of the funds to eligible States
for prison construction primarily in proportion to part 1 violent
crimes. In contrast, the proposed new program, meaning the one that is
now on the table, provides for the disbursement of such funds primarily
in proportion to the general population.
This approach of disbursing funds for violent offenders
incarceration, under the prison funding bill in proportion to general
population without regard to the incidence of violent crimes in the
affected areas will produce gross misallocations of resources in
relation to actual needs. We will not be targeting the problem. That is
to incarcerate violent offenders. This rewriting of the prison program
has aggravated the case. As we spoke earlier today, it is fixing what
is not broken.
These, Mr. Chairman, are inconsistencies in the majority's arguments.
And while they push to provide fewer to no prevention dollars, which
those of us who have come most recently from our local communities can
attest do work, they put restrictions on prison building dollars. Just
a while ago I was on the telephone talking about the urban scouting
program, a program that has put in my community more than 12,000 boys
in the urban scouting program, a prevention program of the Boy Scouts
of America, using parks and recreation staff, using police staff, a
real prevention program.
Now such dollars will go to block grants and not be used in
prevention dollars. Also we now are going to throw all that into
prisons, but yet we are going to tell the States how to use such
dollars.
They are moving to increase prison dollars while dictating spending
guidelines for their use.
The reasoning is not fluent. It is not clear. It is cloudy. It is
fixing what is not broken.
Why should dollars be sent in block grants for prevention, to help
the urban scouting program, the Boy Scouts program, the boys and girls
program, the children-at-risk program, and, yes, midnight basketball,
among others and then have requirements for prison dollars? What is
this? We first say States know best and now we are saying, no, they do
not.
Perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be willing
to agree that if States do know best and, therefore, seek their input
and blanket authority to spend Federal tax dollars which could
potentially put programs at risk during tough fiscal years, then they
would agree that if block grants are good enough for prevention
dollars, they should be good enough for prisons, too.
I support the Schumer amendment because I believe we should not play
favorites among crime dollars. Block grants for one, block grants for
all.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that States will be losing the
opportunity to incarcerate violent criminals. Texas will lose $215
million. Let us go to block grants in a fair and bipartisan way to
truly incarcerate violent offenders and truly emphasize that we are
trying to work to prevent crime together.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, who gets the right to conclude?
The CHAIRMAN. We are operating under the five-minute rule.
Mr. SCHUMER. I would ask, if there are any speakers on the other
side, for them to go because the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is
our concluding speaker and we have had about 10 in a row.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we had some figures that were thrown out before that
allegedly indicated that a number of States would lose money, would
lose prison money under this particular bill.
Those figures are not accurate. Most of the States would actually
gain a significant amount of money under this bill, and, therefore, we
oppose the Schumer amendment.
I think we also have to look at what is happening right now. Right
now violent criminals are only serving one-third of their sentence,
one-third. Murderers, what is happening with murderers in this country?
Are most of them getting the death penalty? No. Are most of them
getting life? Maybe they get the sentence but how much of the time do
they actually serve? On average a little over 8 years, for murder in
this country.
So what this bill will do will help the States and encourage the
States to incarcerate prisoners for a longer period of time because
when these criminals are behind bars, they are not out on our streets
terrorizing our citizens and committing more and more crimes.
For that reason, I would strongly encourage that we vote down the
Schumer amendment, that we pass this particular bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I think we are to wrap up the debate that has been going on on this
amendment. I would just like to reiterate before the closing argument,
I would just like to conclude the thoughts over here and let the
proponents have the last word on this, even though the rules do not say
who has the last word.
I am quite sure that we will hear again in the closing comments that
somehow States are going to lose under the underlying bill and that we
are going to have to have this bill preserved through the current law
in order for States to get the money for prison programs.
That, in my judgment, is just not so. as I have said before, and I
will not go into a long discussion of it again, under the truth-in-
sentencing concept that is out here today in the bill that underlies
this, we have two pots of money, $5 billion is very easy for States to
qualify to get the money for, $5 billion plus set aside for those
States that are willing to change their laws. Most of them have not yet
but that is why it is there. We want them to change their laws, to make
sure that violent felons, serious violent felons serve at least 85
percent of their sentences.
In other words, abolish parole and get these violent felons off the
streets, lock them up once and for all and throw away the key.
The whole purpose of this legislation is to accomplish that. That is
the singular purpose of why we would have a grant program in the first
place, is to get that to happen, not just to give money to states.
But I would submit regardless of that being the purpose, that anybody
who says that this language that is in the
[[Page H1505]] first part of this bill that deals with the first $5
billion is tough to qualify for does not understand the simplicity with
which it is written, has not researched the statistics at the
Department of Justice that clearly demonstrate that year after year as
these statistics for the three provisions that come in as statistics to
be recorded downtown, they have shown historically a trend up in ever
increasing severity of sentences and time served in all three of these
things so that it is unquestionable that 99 percent if not all States
will qualify for the first $5 billion pool. The arguments are spurious
to the contrary.
I would urge my colleagues to defeat the Schumer amendment when the
vote comes in a few minutes, because it is truly a killer amendment. It
destroys completely the underlying truth-in-sentencing provisions of
this bill. It just guts the bill altogether.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I have a point I think is very important to make. Under last year's
crime bill, as it applied to prisons, we authorized $10.5 billion, and
I ask the chairman of the committee to make sure I am right about this.
We authorized $10.5 billion, but that was not funded in the 1994 act.
We only actually funded $7.9 billion from the standpoint of the 1994
act. But under the gentleman's bill, under H.R. 667, as I understand
it, there is a $5 billion, in effect, pot A, a $5 billion pot B. States
cannot under any circumstances apply for both. They apply for a grant
either under pot A or pot B.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, they can apply for both. They can qualify
either way.
Mr. CHAPMAN. That is not what the gentleman's bill says.
Mr. McCOLLUM. The plain language does not say they cannot.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would just make the point that as I read the gentleman's bill, and I
just read it about a minute ago, it says they can apply for a grant
under one or the other. If that is the case, the gentleman's bill
actually has less money, substantially less money for prisons than the
1994 crime bill.
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the
decision that we are about to make on the Schumer amendment really is a
very fundamental decision that goes even beyond the details of this
bill. That is, whether we are going to continue campaigning and
continue sounding campaign themes or, in the second month of this
Congress, we are going to begin to govern. And my appeal, and I think
the appeal of our side with regard to this amendment is, to our friends
on the other side, let us join together and begin governing this
country. It is time to end the campaign. It ended last November.
The fact is that they have brought a bill to the floor that is filled
with flaws, as would any bill be that is essentially a campaign slogan.
The fact is that they have brought a bill to the floor that has the
crazy, almost totally unexplainable, anomalous result of only three
States being able to fully participate in a $10.5 billion bill. That is
the facts.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] brought an amendment to the
floor that fixes that in a way that is good for all of our States, it
lets every State participate. That is what is at stake here.
If we go without the Schumer amendment, Mr. Chairman, and we go with
your version, it is going to require that States prove somehow that
they are making their inmates comply with 85 percent of their
sentences. That means that every State is going to have to enact a
multitude of new laws.
As Members know, at the State level that takes at least 18 months.
Many of these States only meet every 2 years in their legislature. They
then have to build prisons using their own money, so they can keep
everybody in prison that they are now having to let out because they
are overcrowded, so they can meet the 85-percent rule.
Third, they have to then keep them in for an undetermined number of
years to prove they had met the 85-percent requirement, and the bill
does not say how in the world you calculate whether they have met it or
not.
The fact of the matter is that the guy with the 30,000-year sentence
would have to stay there for 25,000 or 28,000 years to meet it. It is a
preposterous result. It is an accidental result. It is the result of a
campaign slogan, as opposed to a bill that has been brought out here to
govern this country.
Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Schumer proposal
gives block grants to the States to build prisons based on the number
of violent crimes in the States. It lets all of our States participate.
It increases prison capacity. In short, it governs this country.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude this debate today, I would simply say that
it is time for us to quit campaigning, quit talking about campaign
slogans, and start governing this country.
Vote for the Schumer amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 251, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 111]
YEAS--179
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--251
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
[[Page H1506]] Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--4
Boucher
Collins (MI)
Frost
Souder
{time} 1530
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Souder against.
Messrs. WHITFIELD, MANZULLO, and DUNCAN changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HAYES, SPRATT, and WILSON changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1530
amendment offered by mr. weller
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weller: On page 6, after line 20,
insert the following new subsection (c):
``(c) Funds for Juvenile Offenders.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title, if a State which otherwise
meets the requirements of this section certifies to the
Attorney General that exigent circumstances exist which
require that the State expend funds to confine juvenile
offenders, the State may use funds received under this title
to build, expand, and operate juvenile correctional
facilities or pretrial detention facilities for such
offenders.
Mr. WELLER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am here to offer an amendment by Mr.
Hastert and myself today, that would permit States to use funds from
this bill to build, expand, or operate juvenile correctional facilities
or pretrial detention centers. If a State can certify to the Attorney
General that they are experiencing exigent circumstances, that is that
they are in severe need of space, then the State may use funds received
under this bill for juvenile facilities.
First of all, I would like to say that I am very pleased with H.R.
667. My amendment only seeks to improve on it. It is a positive step
forward from last year's social spending bill. I believe that if we are
going to spend billions of dollars on stopping crime, we should spend
the money wisely on prisons and police officers. By increasing police
presence and adding prison space, we will send a message to criminals
that violence and crime will not be tolerated.
Our country is facing a crisis. We do not have enough prison space,
and as a result, we continue to release criminals early. By doing so we
are facilitating the revolving door policy that moves criminals in and
out of the justice system. Too often criminals go free because there is
not place to put them.
The same problem applies to our juvenile offenders. My amendment
seeks to correct this problem. This amendment would allow States to
utilize funding from this legislation for the construction of juvenile
correctional facilities or juvenile detention centers.
The increase in recent years of crime committed by juveniles is
astounding. Juveniles have committed several thousand murders a year.
These youth are at risk of becoming products of the system; repeat
violent offenders who are in and out of prison.
In my State of Illinois, as I've learned in the case in many States,
we face a severe shortage of beds in the juvenile detention system. If
you disregard Cook County, there are only 351 beds for the entire
State. Because there are no beds to put these juvenile offenders, they
are transported all over the State--wherever a bed becomes available.
If the next night, the county needs the bed for one of their own, the
youth will either be transferred somewhere else in the State or
released. Police officers are playing chauffeur, driving these kids
back and forth across the State, when they could be using their time
much more effectively patrolling the streets. Another problem we face
is the mixing of severely violent youths in pretrial detention, with
nonviolent youths. It is in the best interest of kids if we separate
kids with a bad attitude from violent murderers and rapists.
I have a letter from the sheriff of Will County, Brendan Ward,
expressing great concern with prisoner overcrowding and lack of
appropriate juvenile detention space. A Department of Justice study
shows that more than 75 percent of the confined juvenile population
were housed in facilities that violated one or more standards for
detention living space. So as you can see, this is not just a local
problem. There has been a significant increase in juvenile crime across
the Nation. According to the same U.S. Department of Justice study, the
number of delinquency cases handled by juvenile courts increased 26
percent between 1988 and 1992. During these 5 years, cases of robbery
and aggravated assault grew 52 percent and 80 percent respectively. In
the State of Illinois, over approximately the same time span, the
number of juveniles arrested for violent offenses increased 16 percent.
The rate of juvenile crime is constantly increasing. We need to take
this into account when we consider the Violent Criminal Incarceration
Act, and make funding available for juvenile facilities.
This situation is also very discouraging because we are forced to
release these juveniles when there is no facility in which to put them.
Kids are not dumb. They realize that there is nothing that we can do to
them; they know that they can continue to get away with their actions.
With the amount of crime committed by youth gangs today, it is
imperative that they know that they will have to pay the price for
their actions, or there is no reason for them to stop. The amount of
crimes committed by juveniles is staggering. The FBI reports that in
1992, juveniles were involved in 15 percent of all murder arrests, 16
percent of all forcible rapes, 26 percent of robberies, and 23 percent
of weapon and drug law violations. The recidivism rate among these
types of offenders is very high. If we can show them that they will be
locked up, maybe they will realize that there are consequences to their
actions, and think before they commit their next crime. However,
without the proper facilities, we cannot keep these kids in custody. We
need to make sure that some of the $10.5 billion dollars in this bill
are used for juvenile detention centers.
I urge your full support for this very important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] my colleague from the great State of
the Land of Lincoln, and I ask the Members for their full support for
this very important amendment.
amendment offered by mr. doggett to the amendment offered by mr. weller
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H1507]] Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett to the
amendment offered by Mr. Weller: On line 2, insert ``or unit
of local government located in a State'' after ``State''.
On line 3, strike ``this section'' and insert ``section 502
or 503''.
Mr. DOGGETT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
{time} 1540
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Illinois on
his amendment, and I offer this further strengthening amendment, just
as he attempts to strengthen the original legislation to strengthen, in
our effort, what we are trying to do about the serious problem of
juvenile offenders, because the same problem that plagues Illinois
plagues in the State of Texas my hometown of Austin, TX.
Mr. Chairman, I would much rather prevent a crime with an effective
local crime prevention program than to confine a child. I would much
rather deter a crime with 100,000 police on our streets added under the
crime bill rather than to confine a child.
But in truth and fact, whether it is in Illinois or Texas or any
other part of this country, there are some young people who do need to
be confined and that is what this amendment and this amendment to the
amendment is really all about. There are young people out today who are
terrorizing our neighborhoods, and the only thing, after all else has
failed, that we can do with them is to confine them and to prevent them
from causing further destruction of the neighborhood.
The legislation that is now before us, as originally presented by the
committee, dealt with the problem of adult corrections and adult
offenders. It did not address this problem of juvenile offenders.
The gentleman from Illinois was thinking very much along the same
lines as I was thinking in a similar amendment that I have offered. In
lieu of that amendment, I am offering this amendment to the amendment.
The amendment on which I had worked also seeking to deal with the
problem of juvenile offenders is one that was drafted with the
participation and the cosponsorship of the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan, [Mr. Stupak], a former police officer and State trooper, and
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], a former
prosecutor. All are front line officials in the fight on crime, and
whether it is Alabama or Michigan or Illinois, we agree that there is a
serious problem with juvenile offenders.
What this amendment to the amendment seeks to do, and I understand
that it is acceptable to the sponsor, having worked with him and the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in this
regard, is to provide access for local governments to this same group
of funds.
Let me tell you why that is so important to those in the State of
Texas. We have seen the effect of violence right there in the capital
city of the State of Texas. In our community in 1988, there were 307
juveniles that had been certified to the juvenile court four or more
times in just a single year. Now, that is a tremendous amount. But by
last year, that amount had increased 538 percent, so that we have
almost 2,000 juveniles being certified to the juvenile court four or
more times. That means too often that the first time they got down
there they only got a slap on the wrist, and the same thing happened
the second and the third and maybe even the fourth time. They are back
out setting an example, a very bad example, for other young people in
the community, because we simply have not had the capacity for pretrial
detention there at the Gardner-Betts Center in our community.
Indeed, last week, we had such a serious problem there was no longer
enough capacity in the local facility, the Gardner-Betts facility, and
15 of these people were turned out back on the street again.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that in
the State of Texas our county, a growing county, has only 50 beds
allocated in the State correctional facility for the entire year.
Unfortunately, we have got more than 50 young people that are involved
in violent offenses, that are involved in serious property offenses,
and rapes and murders and aggravated assaults, and without the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, as we have modified
it now to include local governmental units, we would not be addressing
that problem at all in this piece of legislation.
I will tell the gentleman from Illinois, also, that I have visited,
in drafting my own amendment along the same lines, with the officials
at the Texas Youth Council who handle statewide, as you have in
Illinois, all of our juvenile offenders, and they were quite concerned
that this legislation, as originally proposed, did not deal with this
problem of juvenile offenders.
I think by working together as we have with this amendment and the
amendment to the amendment in a bipartisan fashion we have tried to
address this problem of the fact that, frankly, there really are some
young thugs out there that somehow we missed on prevention and somehow
we missed on education. I wish we could have taken care of that
problem. Now it is time to see that they no longer continue to do
damage within their neighborhoods and threaten the millions of
Americans who are hard-working, who are honest, and who are trying to
make a go of it without this example of dangerous young offenders.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. WELLER. My colleague from Texas, I would like to just confirm
that the language of the amendment that you are offering to our
amendment is language that we discussed and that was agreed to?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WELLER. I would ask the gentleman from Texas if he would confirm
the amendment to our amendment which he is offering is the language
that we discussed and agreed to in consultation with the chairman of
our committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. It is. I appreciate your agreement. I appreciate your
initiative on this. Because the effect, as I understand your amendment
now as amended, is by the States or the localities within a State that
is certified meeting the other requirements could apply directly to the
Attorney General of the United States and indicate that there are
exigent circumstances, and heaven knows there are exigent circumstances
right now in Illinois, in Austin, TX, and across this country with a
large volume of juvenile offenders not being adequately housed.
Mr. WELLER. If the gentleman will yield further, I support and accept
your amendment to our amendment. One of the reasons is I think of an
example in the State of Illinois, in Will County, which is the largest
county in my district, a county without a juvenile detention center. Of
course, they are anxious to construct, because they are overcrowded,
and they need a place to put bad kids and get them off the street and
keep them off the street until they have the opportunity to go to
trial, for a juvenile detention facility.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I just want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Doggett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for this initiative. I think it improves
the bill. It is very useful, and it certainly is acceptable to our
side.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the chairman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. On this side of the aisle, we are delighted that the
gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois have crafted
together a smart and tough amendment that allows us to deal with boot
camps and other facilities for youthful offenders. It is a very
important part of the bill,
[[Page H1508]] and it will not just help Texas and Illinois, believe
me. We need this all over, and I congratulate you all, including the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weller-Hastert
amendment, as amended by the Doggett-Cramer-Stupak amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is refreshing to see that ideas from both parties
can be melded together here on the House floor to make a stronger
amendment to achieve the purposes of what we all want to achieve, and
that is to provide prisons for youthful offenders.
When I was a police officer, all too often most of the people I would
arrest for crime, whether it be breaking and entering to murder, was
usually young people.
What would we do in today's society is take these young people and
put them in prisons with many members of our society who are there for
heinous crimes, and they are 20 and 30 years their senior, and they are
treated the same in a judicial system which is insensitive to the needs
of young people.
Juveniles go into these prisons, young people; a few years later I
would see them out on the street. They may be a little bit older
chronologically, but they were much, much wiser in the ways of the
crime.
If we are ever going to help young people overcome their
responsibilities to society, if we are going to help them be
rehabilitated, we should try to isolate them in youthful offender
prisons and not imprison them with hardened criminals.
So I am pleased to stand today to say that both sides of the aisle
have been able to work together. I thank the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Weller] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for their cooperation and guidance
in putting together these two amendments, and my congratulations to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] in his first amendment on this House
floor, and hope there will be many more, and the same to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I want to congratulate the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] in helping us come together, but the genesis
amendment came a year ago after the crime bill was passed, very serious
problems, especially in counties where there was simply not enough room
to take care of juvenile offenders in a pretrial situation, and they
are jockeying these young offenders across county lines, back and
forth. We needed to find a way to solve the problem.
So again, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and myself
and the gentleman from Texas across the aisle, this does solve the
problem. It takes care of those juvenile offenders that by law that you
cannot intermingle with hardened criminals and those adult criminals
waiting for trial.
{time} 1550
This is a good piece of legislation. Again, there is bipartisan
cooperation, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for putting this together.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly congratulate the authors of these
amendments, the amendment itself, and amendment to the amendment.
As I said earlier, I thought we would be making a mistake if we left
the juvenile issue out of the incarceration issue. I think it is very
important. One of the plagues on our local communities is the violent
juvenile offenders. While we are talking about violent offenders, we
should in fact be talking about violent juvenile offenders as well.
So I want to thank the Members for working in a bipartisan way
together. I think this is a terrific improvement in this legislation,
and I think it will help the local and State communities realize they
have a more effective partnership with the Federal Government.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. canady of florida
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 17.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Canady of Florida: Page 1, after
line 22, insert the following:
Such grants may also be used to build, expand, and operate
secure youth correctional facilities.''
Page 6, after line 2, insert the following (and redesignate
any subsequent subsections accordingly):
``(b) Juvenile Justice Incentive.--Beginning in fiscal year
1998, 15 percent of the funds that would otherwise be
available to a State under section 502 or 503 shall be
withheld from any State which does not have an eligible
system of consequential sanctions for juvenile offenders.
Page 10, line 7, delete ``and'' at the end of the line.
Page 10, at the end of line 10, strike the period and
insert ``;'', and add the following:
``(4) the term `an eligible system of consequential
sanctions for juvenile offenders' means that the State or
States organized as a regional compact, as the case may be--
``(A)(i) have established or are in the process of
establishing a system of sanctions for the State's juvenile
justice system in which the State bases dispositions for
juveniles on a scale of increasingly severe sanctions for the
commission of a repeat delinquent act, particularly if the
subsequent delinquent act committed by such juvenile is of
similar or greater seriousness or if a court dispositional
order for a delinquent act is violated; and
``(ii) such dispositions should, to the extent practicable,
require the juvenile delinquent to compensate victims for
losses and compensate the juvenile justice authorities for
supervision costs;
``(B) impose a sanction on each juvenile adjudicated
delinquent;
``(C) require that a State court concur in allowing a
juvenile to be sent to a diversionary program in lieu of
juvenile court proceedings;
``(D) have established and maintained an effective system
that requires the prosecution of at least those juveniles who
are 14 years of age and older as adults, rather than in
juvenile proceedings, for conduct constituting--
``(i) murder or attempted murder;
``(ii) robbery while armed with a deadly weapon,
``(iii) battery while armed with a deadly weapon,
``(iv) forcible rape;
``(v) any other crime the State determines appropriate; and
``(vi) the fourth or subsequent occasion on which such
juveniles engage in an activity for which adults could be
imprisoned for a term exceeding 1 year; unless, on a case-by-
case basis, the transfer of such juveniles for disposition in
the juvenile justice system is determined under State law to
be in the interest of justice;
``(E) require that whenever a juvenile is adjudicated in a
juvenile proceeding to have engaged in the conduct
constituting an offense described in subparagraph (D) that--
``(i) a record is kept relating to that adjudication which
is--
``(I) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an
adult conviction for that offense;
``(II) retained for a period of time that is equal to the
period of time records are kept for adult convictions; and
``(III) made available to law enforcement officials to the
same extent that a record of an adult conviction would be
made available;
``(ii) the juvenile is fingerprinted and photographed, and
the fingerprints and photograph are sent to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; and
``(iii) the court in which the adjudication takes place
transmits to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the
information concerning the adjudication, including the name
and birth date of the juvenile, date of adjudication, and
disposition.
``(F) where practicable and appropriate, require parents to
participate in meeting the dispositional requirements imposed
on the juvenile by the court;
``(G) have consulted with any units of local government
responsible for secure youth correctional facilities in
setting priorities for construction, development, expansion
and modification, operation or improvement of juvenile
facilities, and to the extent practicable, ensure that the
needs of entities currently administering juvenile facilities
are addressed; and
``(H) have in place or are putting in place systems to
provide objective evaluations of State and local juvenile
justice systems to determine such systems' effectiveness in
protecting the community, reducing recidivism, and ensuring
compliance with dispositions.''
[[Page H1509]]
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which was
crafted with my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden]
deals with the same issue that we have been discussing, juvenile
justice.
I want to commend the sponsors of the previous amendment for their
work on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Pete Geren] who has, in the last year, worked with me on legislation on
the same subject, a major portion of which is incorporated in this
amendment.
This amendment is submitted to encourage the States to implement a
serious system of consequential sanctions for juvenile offenders.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard very much in the last few minutes about
the serious problem of juvenile crime.
The statistics, indeed, tell a chilling tale. The juvenile violent
crime index rose 68 percent between 1988 and 1992, and since then it
has been going up. In the past decade, the number of juveniles arrested
for murder increased by 93 percent. In 1992 juveniles were responsible
for nearly 13 percent of all crimes cleared by police, including 9
percent of all murders, 41 percent of all forcible rapes, 16 percent of
all robberies, and 12 percent of all aggravated assaults.
Clearly, the States need resources to fight juvenile crime. I believe
we need a major initiative to reform our juvenile justice system in
this country. The juvenile justice system is failing in a monumental
way. This amendment allows the States to address this problem and
provides them with incentives to address this problem. Under the
amendment, beginning in fiscal year 1998, 15 percent of the funds which
would otherwise be available under the grant program will be withheld
if a State does not have in place by that time a system of
consequential sanctions for juvenile offenders. A system of
consequential sanctions for juvenile offenders would include: a system
of increasingly severe sanctions for juveniles who commit repeat
offenses; an effective system for prosecution of juveniles as adults
for juveniles 14 years of age or older who have committed serious
violent crimes; a requirement that parents participate in meeting the
sentences imposed on juveniles, and a requirement that juveniles who
commit serious violent felonies have their fingerprint and other
identification records sent to the FBI to insure that we can track them
on the Federal level.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a commonsense, bipartisan
approach to the spiraling problem of juvenile crime. I want to thank
the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Pete Geren] for their vital contributions to this effort.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Hyde] and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for their assistance in this
matter.
For too long we have only paid lip service to the problem of juvenile
crime. It is time we do something serious about it. This amendment is a
practical first step, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, what the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady] and I have been working on together to do is essentially
promote a new philosophy with respect to juvenile justice in our
country.
What we are seeing in community after community is that violent
juveniles commit one offense after another and face absolutely no
consequences whatsoever.
for example, at home in Oregon it was recently reported that a
violent juvenile committed 50 crimes, 32 of which were felonies, before
the juvenile system took any action to protect the community. The
problem has essentially been that the juvenile justice system has been
built on the medical model, the notion that even though you are dealing
with a repeat violent offender, somehow the offender could be
rehabilitated.
I think a number of our leading criminologists--and I would refer
specifically to the work of James Q. Wilson of Los Angeles--have
indicated that the challenge with respect to juvenile justice is to
replace this medical model, which is now in place, with a system of
accountability.
And so what we seek to do in this amendment is to, through this
Federal legislation, promote the philosophy wherein violent young
offenders who commit crimes will face real consequences each time they
commit an offense and those consequences will increase each time they
commit an additional offense.
Now, I would like to, in closing, particularly commend the Attorney
General of my State, Ted Kulongoski. He has been an advocate within the
Association of Attorneys General for an approach that would involve
graduated sanctions for each offense.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for their help.
This amendment complements the earlier one, but our colleagues should
make no mistake about it, what we would like to do through this
amendment is promote a new philosophy of accountability, a philosophy
that insures there are consequences every time a young person commits a
criminal act.
I particularly want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Canady] who has been so patient in working through this effort.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, before we rush to judgment on this, I think we ought to
at least let our colleagues and the American people know what we are
doing here. In the spirit, whether it is bipartisanship or whatever,
the American people deserve the right to know that we are saying, out
of one side of our mouth, that we should be staying out of the States'
business and we have now set upon a series of amendments that inject
the Federal Government further and further and further into the
business that has typically been the reserve of the State.
I will say to my colleagues that the Federal Government has no
juvenile law. We do not deal with juveniles in the Federal system. We
do not have laws in Federal system that deal with juvenile delinquency.
Most States have a whole system that they have put in place over years
and years and years to deal with juvenile delinquents.
And while we gloss over what we are doing here, embedded in the body
of this amendment is a provision that requires, or at least says, ``If
you are going to have any of the benefits of these funds, you have got
to have established and maintained an effective system that requires
the prosecution of at least those juveniles who are 14 years old or
older as adults under certain circumstances.''
{time} 1600
Well, I would presume, if that is a good idea, the States in their
infinite wisdom would have thought about it, and some of them have, but
I do not know that we, as a Federal Government, ought to start moving
into an area that we have never been involved in before in this way.
I mean I am resigned, I think, that this will pass, as just abut
everything else that comes forward that I think is outrageous seems to
be passing, but the American people need to understand that our
colleagues here are trying to have it both ways. They are saying,
``Look, we believe in States rights,'' out of one side of their mouth,
and they are saying out of the other side of their mouth, ``Let me tell
you what Big Brother Federal Government would like for you to do, not
only in areas that we have been involved in historically, but in areas
that we have never ever had any Federal policy discussions about,
involvement in or even any connection to.''
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the
Federal Government has been involved in juvenile justice policy for a
long time. We have been providing grants to the States with respect to
the juvenile justice systems--
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me just make
sure; do we have any juvenile facilities at the Federal level?
[[Page H1510]] Mr. CANADY of Florida. No, that is not the point, that
is not the point.
The Federal Government has been involved in the area of juvenile
justice policy and in trying to encourage the States to do certain
things in their juvenile justice system.
Now another thing that I think is important to understand about this
amendment:
This compliance with these provisions is not a requirement for
participation and receiving grant funds. All we are doing in this is--
--
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I take the gentleman to mean, reclaiming
my time briefly, that this is not a Federal mandate.
I say to the gentleman, anytime it's good for all of you to call
something a mandate, you call it a mandate, and it's not convenient
this time to call this a mandate; OK, I understand that.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
discussed earlier, this is an incentive. It is a modest, quite frankly
a very modest, incentive for States to set up systems in which they are
going to be serious about dealing with violent juvenile offenders and
creating----
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me just suggest
to the gentleman that, if he truly believes in States rights, there is
no requirement that we suggest to the States how they deal with
juveniles and get ourselves involved in these issues.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I appreciate that.
I think there is an important Federal interest. We have seen cases in
which a juvenile who committed murder in one State and was slapped on
the wrist has been let out on the streets and has moved to another
State. Now let me tell the gentleman that implicates a Federal
interest, and I think, when we see circumstances like that, it is
appropriate for the Congress to address it and provide a modest
incentive, as we are doing in this bill.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, let me just be clear
with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and say, there is not a
law that you can come in here with that you can't point out some kind
of abuse, some kind of anecdote, that would get the Federal Government
involved. Last time, last session, it was carjacking because they were
taking the cars across Federal--we never have been involved in that in
our lives at the Federal level. There is always some kind of exception
that will get the public outraged.
But this is a public policy debate. Should the Federal Government be
involved in trying to tell the States, when we are at the same time
saying to the States we are getting further and further out of the
States' way and yielding back to the States----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words because a number of concerns have arisen here as the debate goes
on.
As my colleagues know, in most States, in most cities, juveniles are
being waived over to be tried as adults. I do not see any place where
that is not happening. So the violent crimes now are not being slapped
on the wrist. They are being sent to the criminal circuit to be tried
as adults, and I do not know if my colleagues have taken that into
account.
The second thing that is important to me is that, if there were a
Federal involvement, what would it be to do?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, the view of the gentleman from Florida and
myself is that the juvenile justice system does not work. We see these
young people committing offense after offense after offense, and there
are absolutely no consequences.
What we are seeking to do with a very small portion of Federal funds
is try over the next few years to get States to adopt a new philosophy
with respect to juvenile justice so that, when a young person commits
their initial offense, the punishment will be specific, but it will not
be the most severe----
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time----
Mr. WYDEN. Offense. They will face additional punishment
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, this puts us into the business of
creating Federal law for juveniles in every city across America----
Mr. WYDEN. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. CONYERS. And the other thing that bothers me:
The gentleman raised the name of Professor Wilson, who is a great
scholar of criminal justice but whose ideas and mine occasionally
comport, and just as often they probably do not.
So, as my colleagues know, what they are asking us to do is adopt a
new philosophy, and I am sure when they say the juvenile system does
not work, they mean some parts of it do not work, and there are in many
instances for many youngsters that do not keep repeating crimes where
the juvenile system has been very successful. But in some instances it
has not been, but it is not a total failure, like other systems.
So what I am suggesting here respectfully is:
Shouldn't this matter be considered in the committee? It's
an incredibly important event, but now the gentleman from
Oregon is asking me to accept a new philosophy on the floor.
He's mentioned a professor's name, and that's supposed to do
it. I don't know what that philosophy is. It's not clear to
me exactly where we are going here.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield further?
Mr. CONYERS. Briefly, yes.
Mr. WYDEN. All we are saying is over the next 3 years let us give an
incentive to States. It is not a matter of changing the Federal
criminal code. No criminal law at the Federal level will be changed,
but because there are such serious problems with lack of accountability
at the State level, let us encourage States in a modest way to try this
out in----
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have to reclaim my time because what we
are doing again is that we at the Federal level are now telling local
government how to treat juveniles. Juveniles are under the State and
local criminal law, and so, if we do not create Federal law, we are
telling the States and other localities how they have got to operate
under this new theory that we have trotted out this afternoon with
respect to juveniles.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I just want to make the point that at
least they could try to be consistent about this. I mean my colleagues
say the juvenile laws are not working, therefore the Federal Government
is going to get further involved in the process. The welfare laws are
not working, therefore we are going to give all responsibility to the
State.
{time} 1610
You cannot have it both ways. That is what we kept saying to you in
the last debate, on the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer]. You say out of one side of your mouth, we want a block grant,
and get out of the way. Then you say out of the other side of your
mouth, we want to control what you are doing at the State level. You
cannot have it both ways. Be consistent.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. mccollum
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which is at the desk
and which has the words, ``New A,'' marked on it.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: Page 9, line 7, strike
``508'' and insert ``509''.
Page 9, after line 6, insert the following new section:
[[Page H1511]] ``SEC. 508. PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR
INCARCERATION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS.
``(a) Reservation of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, for each of the fiscal year 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 from amounts appropriated under
section 507, the Attorney General shall first reserve an
amount which when added to amounts appropriated an amount
which when added to amounts appropriated to carry out section
242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for such fiscal
year equals $650,000,000.
``(h) Payments to Eligible States.--
``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,
for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 199, and 2000
from amounts reserved under subsection (a), the Attorney
General shall make a payment to each State which is eligible
under section 242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
and which meets the eligibility requirements of section
503(b), in such amount as is determined under section 242(j)
and for which payment is not made to such State for such
fiscal year under such section.
``(2) For any fiscal year, payments made to States under
paragraph (1) may not exceed the amount reserved for such
fiscal year under subsection (a).
``(c) Use of Unobligated Funds.--For any fiscal year,
amounts reserved under subsection (a) which are not obligated
by the end of that fiscal year under subsection (b) shall not
be available for payments under this section for any
subsequent fiscal year, but shall be available, in equal
amounts, to the Attorney General only for grants under
sections 502 and 503.
``(d) Report to Congress.--Not later than May 15, 1999, the
Attorney General shall submit a report to the Congress which
contains the recommendation of the Attorney General
concerning the extension of the program under this
section.''.
Page 2, line 6, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Title''.
Page 10, after line 10, insert the following:
(b) Preference in Payments Under Section 242 (J) of
Immigration and Nationality Act.--Section 242(j)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(j)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) In carrying out paragraph (1)(A), the Attorney
General shall give preference in making payments to States
and political subdivisions of States which are ineligible for
payments under section 508 of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994.''.
Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that has
been a work product we have been doing for quite some time with the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], the gentleman from California
[Mr. Gallegly], and other people from around the country interested in
the question of whether or not we as a nation can and should and in
what manner reimburse the States for the cost of incarcerating criminal
aliens. There are enormous expenses out there, varying, depending upon
who is making the projections as to how much it costs States,
particularly Florida, California, Texas, and also New York and
Illinois. Every State in the union has criminal aliens occupying their
bedspace and doing things we would prefer they were not there doing,
costing money to those States.
You will see us with a bill out here on the floor tomorrow, I
believe, that will attempt to address speeding up the process,
expediting the process of deporting these criminal aliens, and getting
this moving, so we do not have them clogging it up with the expense and
clock running. But the States and Governors of many States have asked
us to try to find a way to fund the cost of this. In many ways the
burden that is there because of illegal immigration, criminal alien
problems, are really and truly Federal responsibilities.
They have asked us to find a way to solve cost of the problem to the
States of this mandate out there. If there is anything involved in any
of the crime bills we bring up that deals with an unfunded mandate in
the more traditional sense that we spoke of the other day when we
passed the unfunded mandate legislation, this is it.
A lot of this is grandfathered in so time has passed and it is not
appropriate to redebate this issue. But today we have an opportunity to
rectify this problem through a method that can be paid for fully and a
method that I believe everybody in this Congress would like to do.
No. 1, what this amendment will do is it will protect an existing
provision of law that was passed last Congress that provides beginning
next year approximately $330 million a year in authorization to
reimburse the States for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. It
will cordon that off and give a preference for that money to those
States that do not qualify for some additional moneys we are going to
give under the prison bill today, so there will be no question that
anybody who would have been eligible or is eligible today for those
funds put in last year, any State, will continue to be eligible for
that $330 million.
But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that on an annual basis
for the next 5 years, 6 years, or whatever, until we get this under
control, the cost to the States nationwide will be about $650 million
per year. So there is a difference, a shortfall, even if all the money
under the trust fund moneys we envision for the crime legislation. And
that was part of what was passed last year, was to cover the $330 per
year for the purpose of reimbursing States for the incarceration of
these criminal aliens. Even if we can cordon off enough money in
addition to that $330 million to meet the $650 million, we figure we
will fully reimburse the States having this problem for the costs of
incarcerating these criminal aliens.
What my amendment does is say we will protect and give preference to
everybody who is eligible right now who would not be eligible under
this new provision. But then for those States who meet the test of the
85-percent rule under this bill, who qualify as to who are able to meet
truth-in-sentencing requirements as they come on line, and many of our
larger States will, California, Florida, Texas, et cetera, over the
next couple of years, for those States there will be made available
preferentially under this grant program, prison grant program, from
dollar one, preferentially will be made available sufficient money in
order to be able to make up that difference.
So there will be another roughly $320 million a year that will be
made available that the Attorney General will have to offer out of the
first priority under the prison grant moneys, whether that is prison
grant moneys in A or B pot, whatever, the $10.5 billion in this bill.
I think this is a way to fully compensate the States. It is a
positive reinforcement method to what is being offered in the bill. It
does not disrupt the qualification of any State under the existing law
and the roughly $330 million that is there.
I want to compliment the gentleman from California for having created
the effort that was put forward in our committee, which did not stand
the germaneness test because it was an entitlement. We have come out
today with an authorization program which he worked hard on, and I want
to thank him for his participation in that effort to accomplish what we
are doing today.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Berman and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
him for his kind words, and more importantly, I thank him for offering
this amendment because, let us make it clear, what this amendment does
is it recognizes the priority of funding. Before we start appropriating
funds for new prison construction, we deal with reimbursing the States
and localities for the costs they are now expending incarcerating
undocumented criminal aliens who are convicted of felonies, who would
not be in those States were it not for the Federal failure to enforce
the immigration policy.
So the gentleman's amendment, while I would have preferred the
amendment I drafted and had preprinted in the Record, because that was
not tied in any part to the Truth in Sentencing Act, the fact is the
gentleman, by giving preferential treatment to the States that do not
comply with the Truth in Sentencing Act for the money appropriated
under last year's crime bill, and then reserving no less than a total
of $650 for this cause, has accepted the preeminent priority of funding
this unfunded consequence, if
[[Page H1512]] we want to call it that, that now exists in an unfair
fashion. So I compliment the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Berman and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. BERMAN. I want to ask a couple of questions to make sure we have
full understanding.
In the underlying bill for Federal assistance for prison
construction, you have three requirements. you have a non-supplanting
requirement, a limit on administrative costs, and a requirement for
matching funds.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. My question is, to just make clear, my understanding is
this amendment, if adopted, will not require or put any of those three
limitations on. In other words, by definition this is supplanting
money. The States are now spending money to operate their prisons.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will allow, I will reclaim my time.
The gentleman is 100 percent correct, because the language that begins
this provision says ``not withstanding any other provision of this
title,'' and it is obvious on the face of what we are doing today this
is intended to be supplanting money. It is supplanting what the States
are paying out today, which they should not be paying out, because this
is a Federal responsibility.
Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, the same with
respect to the 3 percent limit on administrative costs. That was for a
new prison construction program. This provision is a reimbursement
provision. By definition, 100 percent of these costs are for operating
costs of existing State and local prisons and jails.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. BERMAN. And there is no matching requirement for the States or
local under this program.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 100 percent
correct about that.
Mr. BERMAN. And we have had a problem this year with the appropriated
monies, the $130 million. I do have to point out that President Clinton
was the first President ever to propose funding for this, and Congress
appropriated $130 million, first time ever, last year.
{time} 1620
But we have had a problem in that even though we think the language
of the existing crime bill is clear, no local governments have been
eligible for that. It is our intention, under the underlying crime
provisions that exist in existing law, that local governments be
eligible for that portion of the money, even though they are not
eligible for the Truth-in-Sentencing Act money that is provided for in
the gentleman's amendment; is that correct?
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is correct. I think the gentleman has
made excellent points about this particular proposal today. It is very,
very unique and well-crafted. The gentleman and I have worked very hard
on it. Governor Wilson of California has worked on it with us. We have
had a number of inputs from other State leaders. And the gentleman from
California [Mr. Gallegly].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if
I could just make two points. First of all, I think my colleague from
California, who authorized the original program in last year's crime
bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], through his
amendment that program stays intact. It is very important for us to
watch the appropriations process, particularly for certain States that
do not qualify for the Truth-In-Sentencing Act.
I am told by the Governor of California, even though the Justice
Department does not confirm that, but I am told without qualification
by the Governor of California that California qualifies under the
Truth-In-Sentencing Act and, therefore, will be eligible for this new
prison money that is being reserved for this program. It is on that
basis and on those assurances that I am supporting the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
those States like Texas and New York, which do not now comply with the
Truth-In-Sentencing Act, will still be better off on this amendment
because they will have a preference under the Beilenson language, any
money appropriated under that provision. So while they are not going to
be as well off as they would have been under the amendment I had
intended to offer, they will be better off than they are under existing
law.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, they are going to be
actually better off because they are going to have a separate pool of
money to draw from that the gentleman's State of California will not be
able to dig into for better than half of the money available here and
all of the money that is available under current law. So consequently
in many ways those States will be better off because they are not
affected in any way by this than they are presently. In other words,
there is more money out here and the gentleman's State and any other
qualifying State will have absolutely no divvies on the existing funds
after this is passed, that which is out there.
They will have your own pool of money to go to if they qualify.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he
is right, assuming that these States file enough claims to take up that
appropriated money. If not, then the States who do qualify can dip into
that money. And so I guess we have covered the ground.
I thank the gentleman for showing the flexibility to take care of
this and, more importantly, to start this in fiscal year 1996. The
States who are facing these costs are in a crisis in their budgets.
They need the money this coming fiscal year.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to say
in conclusion that this is a very good, fair proposal for every State
involved that has any criminal alien whatsoever in a jail. They are
going to get compensation this way and the dollars work out well. The
formula works out well. And I would be glad to answer other Members'
questions as the afternoon and the debate, if there is any more,
progresses so we can clarify that for anybody. But we worked very hard
to do this. I want to thank the gentleman for asking those questions so
we could clarify as much as possible.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. de la Garza, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
McCollum was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute).
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
de la Garza].
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, mention was made of State and local. I
want to know the extent of the local? Did this cover our county jails,
our city?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If there would be the opportunity to gain that through
the States to cover those, yes. There is no restriction on that
whatsoever in what we are offering. So the gentleman would be able to
get that kind of pipeline.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, but do we leave it then up to the option of the State? There is
no guarantee here that my local county jail, who houses the same type
of aliens, is getting any assistance.
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is leaving it up to his Governor under
this proposal. But the State, the counties, and the cities would be
eligible. We do not divvy it up here and say x amount of dollars. But
the Attorney General is deciding this and it is for each of the fiscal
years, she shall first reserve the amount and then she shall make
payments to each State which is eligible. So it goes to the State but
the States have the power and are not restricted in any way from
providing this
[[Page H1513]] money for the jails. And as the gentleman knows, a lot
of the restrictions in this bill on prisons are strictly for State
prisons. This has no such restriction. This can go to jails.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Berman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. McCollum was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as
I read the gentleman's amendment, the new moneys that come, that are
tied to the Truth-In-Sentencing Act, only go to the States. But what
this does clarify is that notwithstanding the Justice Department
position, the Beilenson bill and the clarifications offered by this
amendment to that make it clear that county jails that are housing
undocumented criminal aliens who are convicted of felonies, and Los
Angeles, it is $34 million a year, are eligible to claim that money. So
this improves, this gives them a crack at what they were not able to
get this past year.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
absolutely right. It is confusing only because we are dealing with two
different bills, one in law already and what we are doing today. We are
trying to supplement last year's and clarify it. But under the new
money for those States that have to get to truth-in-sentencing in order
to qualify for it, like California, there would have to be the money
going to, directly to the States, not so the old pot.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment merely reimburses the States for the
failure of the Federal Government to enforce its borders. The cost of
this failure to California alone is well in excess of $100 million a
year. Clearly, California and States that are impacted by this policy
cannot afford to continue to pick up the tab for the fact that the
Federal Government has shirked its responsibility to enforce its
borders and the law.
Mr. Chairman, while I wholeheartedly support this amendment, I
certainly do not want it, at least my position, to be construed that
this should be an substitute for aggressively enforcing the issue of
unchecked illegal immigration into our country. I think as the debate
goes on in the days and weeks to come, Members are going to find that
this Congress is going to very aggressively tackle that issue. But on
this amendment, I would ask my colleagues to strongly approve this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman form California [Mr. Dreier].
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would like to rise in strong support of the McCollum-Gallegly
amendment and state that the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly]
is chairman of a new task force that was put together by the Speaker,
charged with looking at this issue of illegal immigration. As he says,
this is not the sole solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
Quite frankly, we believe very sincerely that if we take this step,
it is one of several which will turn the corner on the problem of
illegal immigration so that as we look at the end of this decade, we
will, we hope, in a large way have actually brought about a solution to
the problem of illegal immigration so this funding, which is going to
be provided through this amendment, which is going to be provided
through this amendment, will not be necessary in the out years.
Now, as we look at this challenge, there are some who might conclude
that this is simply a border State issue. We have got people form
California and Texas and Florida and others that are impacted. But
quite frankly, the issue of illegal immigration is a nationwide
problem, and it is a nationwide problem that must be addressed by the
Federal Government.
As the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] said, the coauthor of
the amendment, this is an issue of the Federal Government not policing
its borders. The magnet which has drawn people across those lines into
California, into Texas, into Arizona, and into Illinois, and to New
York and other States is a problem which has been created by the
Government services which we have had as the magnet and our inability
to provide this kind of policing on the border.
Governor Wilson has worked diligently on this, but he has joined with
other Governors from throughout the country who recognize the need to
have the Federal Government tackle this.
{time} 1630
That is why all we are doing here is not providing relief,
necessarily, to States. We are simply meeting our obligation. Our
obligation is very clear and forthright, and I hope very much that the
McCollum-Gallegly amendment will pass with an overwhelming bipartisan
level of support, which can once again state that we are going what we
should do.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify, last year we passed the 1994
Obligation Act on Reimbursement. My understanding is that when we
passed that, the target date for reimbursement was 2004.
If we pass this amendment today, I would ask the gentleman, does that
change that? Are we starting reimbursement sooner?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, we do not change the law for last year at
all. It stays the same. The year 2004 in entitlement would kick in
automatically for full reimbursement. I would expect that having done
what we are doing out here today and tomorrow, we will not have need
for that, but nonetheless, we do not change that provision. There is,
however, a huge gap in the amount of money that would be available
between now and then that is being made up by this bill, in large
measure, because only $330 million a year is authorized for the next 5
years under that law, and there is an additional roughly $320 million a
year that will be available with this bill, if it passes.
Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, so I interpret that to
mean if we pass this legislation, then that period of time between now
and 2004, we can use this money to supplement that period of time?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will continue to yield, for the next 5
years, to the year 2000, yes, but since none of the legislation in this
bill or any of the other crime bills or what we passed last year in any
other respect except the trigger mechanism for 2004 went beyond the
year 2000, there will be a gap of 3 years in which we would have to
come back, if we need to, and address this matter.
That is why, in what I proposed and put out here today, there is a
requirement that we get a report no later than May 15, 1999, for the
Attorney General as a recommendation concerning the extension of this
program. So there may be a gap, but it is only because of the nature of
this legislation. It has a finite limit.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
I do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman] whose initiative in the Committee on the Judiciary really
brought about this ultimate amendment which has now been made in order
and is now being presented to the House.
This was clearly not part of the contract, Mr. Chairman, but it is a
contract that we ought to keep with the American people. I am glad to
see that the gentlemen from California, Mr. Dreier and Mr. Gallegly,
have joined the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, and that it is
not overlooked and passed over in our zeal to pass the contract
unamended.
It is obvious to me that the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]
struck a nerve. That nerve is one that we all ought to feel. That is
that we have traditionally neglected the seven States that have the
biggest burden of incarcerating illegal aliens.
[[Page H1514]] I think it is entirely appropriate that the Republican
majority has decided that the contract is not perfect as it was written
and that it ought to be adjusted whenever a good argument could be
made. But I want Mr. Berman and his friends on the Committee on the
Judiciary to get the credit for the addition they provided.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I really believe if it had not been for that sort of
leadership, we would not have been here today. I appreciate the
gentleman yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, most of those who enter our country, legally or
illegally, are law abiding. But the small number that commit serious
crimes place an overwhelming burden on the seven States that must
address this problem.
The plea for assistance with the costs of incarcerating felons who
are in this country illegally comes from all of those States that are
unfairly forced to share the disproportionate burden for this
responsibility--the confinement of America's illegal immigrant
population.
For example, in 1993, the 16,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in
California's prisons accounted for 13 percent of our prison population.
Our annual cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons is $368
million.
Adequate reimbursement to affected States would not only help with
shortages in personnel, training, and equipment. It would also ensure--
and maybe improve--safety levels in our jails and prisons, and in our
communities.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will my friend from the Central Valley
yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friend from Sacramento that he
is right on target when he refers to the fact that the contract was put
into place so that we could allow, through the standing rules of the
House, to work our will on legislation.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, that is what we said on September 27 when we
stood on the West Front of the Capitol and made that argument, so I
appreciate the gentleman's support of the goals of the Contract With
America.
Mr. CONDIT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to close,
because I am in support of the amendment.
I think what this amendment is about, Mr. Chairman, and what this
whole issue is about, and what the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman] has brought to our attention is the fact that once again we on
the Federal level have to be accountable.
This is one of those mandates on a group of States throughout the
country that is burdensome. We need to find a way to resolve that in a
bipartisan way. I think this is a way to do this.
We will have to revisit this again, Mr. Chairman, when that time
period is over. However, I think this amendment is worthwhile. I think
the efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] ought to be
acknowledged, and that we ought to pass the amendment and do the right
thing.
The responsibility is ours. The Federal Government runs IMS. We run
immigration. States have very little flexibility with immigration, so I
support the amendment.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think any reasonable person is going to
recognize that the issue of giving grants out is quite appropriate, but
that debts owed should be taken care of first. Any responsible person
would always say that debts should be paid before you start giving out
funds.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, any reasonable person would say you pay
off your debts before you start giving out loans. Any person would
recognize that there has been an outgoing debt that is continuing to be
placed across this country that the Federal Government has walked away
from.
In fact, this body has talked last year very strongly about the issue
of deadbeat dads, and making people live up to their responsibility,
and not allowing individuals to walk away from their responsibilities,
not just to be punitive, but to bring people to face their
responsibilities for everybody concerned.
Mr. Chairman, this issue really addresses the biggest deadbeat dad in
the country, and that is the Federal Government of the United States.
It has walked away from our baby, the Federal Government's baby,
illegal immigration.
What this says is that now we must pay child support for the
responsibilities that we have out there. It is not just for those of us
that are in States that are impacted severely. Across the board, Mr.
Chairman, that will help us address this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Condit was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. In closing, Mr. Chairman, as somebody who has had to
fulfill these obligations, I think all of us will recognize that this
will help us fulfill one of the items in the contract, and that is for
the Federal Government to address this issue comprehensively.
Until we address the responsibility that we are placing on other
people, but with the irresponsibility of the Federal Government, we are
not going to really grapple with the reality of what is out there. I
think this amendment really does make us responsible to the
responsibility and the problems we have committed before and allows us
to address those in an appropriate way.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that in the Committee on
Rules a few minutes ago we reported a rule which we will put on the
floor of this House tomorrow morning, the Alien Deportation Act, which
does contain the original Berman amendment.
We chose not to waive a point of order on the Budget Act because that
amendment in that bill, which will be on the floor tomorrow morning, in
our opinion created a new entitlement program. In other words, the
amendment would not have been paid for.
Consequently, under the rule that will bring that bill to the floor,
the Berman language will be struck from that bill, the new entitlement
program.
My question to the gentleman is, in his amendment, does that create a
new entitlement program, not paid for?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. No, Mr. Chairman, it does not create an entitlement
program. It is an authorization, strictly an authorization of an amount
of money that is the difference between $650 million and the amount of
money that is each year for the next 5 fiscal years in present law as
an authorization, so there is no entitlement program created by what we
are offering in this amendment whatsoever. It is strictly an
authorization.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York yield on
that issue?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is an authorization. The reason I am
supporting this amendment is because it tracked the language that we
had in the amendment that I was going to offer. It reserves the first
$650 million that is appropriated, either out of the Beilenson language
in existing law, or the new prison money, if this bill were to be
signed into law, it reserves the first $650 million for reimbursements
to the States for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal
aliens.
No other money can be spent on this prison program until that money
is paid, so it is an authorization plus.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from California
[[Page H1515]] [Mr. Berman] has explained an additional comment
correctly, but it does not make it an entitlement correctly. It is not
at all inconsistent with what he stated. He is correct that we could
cordon off money to give it priority in the spending, but it is all
authorizing language.
Money must be appropriated under the traditional methods to get the
funding out there that is asked for, so there is no entitlement, I
would say to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Therefore, no monies will go forward to the States or
counties that has not been appropriated?
Mr. McCOLLUM. That is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. One last question which is of great concern to many of
us. Many of the new Members do not understand, and the viewing
audience, I am sure, the truth-in-sentencing provision.
{time} 1640
Can the gentleman explain how that will apply to this bill and to the
funds that will go forward to the States?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. What that is meaning is that we are going to require a
State in order to be eligible for this as well as half of the money in
the underlying prison grant money bill to have in place a law that
essentially abolishes parole for serious violent felons in their State.
That is, that they have to have a law that says that that type of
defined felon must serve at least 85 percent of his or her sentence in
order to be eligible to get the new money that is put forward for
criminal alien incarceration reimbursements in this bill.
It, however, has no effect whatsoever on the moneys that would be
appropriated under the authorization under the existing laws, which is
roughly $330 million a year.
Mr. SOLOMON. And that they would have to serve 85 percent of the
sentenced time?
Mr. McCOLLUM. The gentleman is correct. That is right. For a State to
qualify to get any money under part (b) of the underlying bill for
prison grants or for the new money for reimbursing the States for the
incarceration of criminal aliens, the new money in this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Or for the new money. That is the point I wanted to get
across. That means that California, Texas, Florida and my own State of
New York had better carry out the truth-in-sentencing and the 85-
percent clause or they are not going to get any money.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Under this bill, if the gentleman will yield. But under
the existing law, they still have a pot of money they can draw on if
they do not qualify.
Mr. SOLOMON. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California, my fellow
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to say that it is very appropriate having here the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] the chairman emeritus of the
Committee on Rules, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. And the vice chair.
Mr. DREIER. Because as we look at the issue of dealing with this
problem, we are doing it under the standing rules of the House. We are
not establishing a new entitlement program as was just said in a
colloquy between the author of the amendment and the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
What we are doing now is we are coming together with funds that are
appropriated and we are simply saying that it is a priority
responsibility of the Federal Government regardless of what State you
come from to meet that Federal obligation.
I know we have a wide range of support that has come from the Speaker
of the House and others to deal with this in a responsible way. I would
like to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for
realizing that we can, in fact, deal with serious issues like this
without imposing waivers of the budget act and other provisions.
I believe that the McCollum-Gallegly amendment will go a long way
toward addressing----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Dreier and by unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say, ``I was glad to see the gentleman rise
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] concerning the Contract
With America.''
It is a new day in this Chamber because in the past we have helter-
skelter just waived the budget rules of this House and we have created
these huge deficits. We are not going to do that anymore. Here is a
situation where we could have, without much effort at all, created a
new entitlement program. We are not going to do that today. We are
going to start cutting these entitlement programs and not creating
others. And yet through cooperation on both sides of the aisle, I might
add, we have resolved this problem without having busted the budget. I
commend all of you.
Mr. DREIER. If my friend would yield one more time, I would like to
underscore again something that the Speaker of the House has said. That
is, that as we look in a comprehensive way, and it was just reiterated
by my friend the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray] a few
minutes ago, as we look in a comprehensive way in the out years to deal
with this issue of illegal immigration, I am convinced that this
responsibility will not be nearly as great for those States which are
shouldering it at this point because we plan to have tough laws,
toughening up the border patrol to ensure that we do not have that
magnet through unfunded mandates drawing people illegally across the
border from other countries into this country. I thank my friend for
yielding.
Mr. SOLOMON. Right on.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
McCollum-Berman amendment which does address the serious burden placed
on States and localities by the Federal Government's failure thus far
to adequately meet its responsibility to fully pay for the costs of
incarcerating illegal aliens.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank our colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] for successfully pressing this
matter to this conclusion. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum] for his enormously helpful help. Without his help
obviously this could not be done.
I want to thank a good many other colleagues, most especially if I
may, two friends, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] for their help in years past as
well as this year, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and
a number of others. I do not want to leave people out.
But many of us as Members know who have been working on this for some
time, this does, in fact, build successfully on the effort, at least
partially successful effort that 4 or 5 of us together made last year,
to which the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] and others have
already alluded, for all of the reasons given in earlier speeches in
the past half hour or so, this is something that should be done. I am
delighted that we seem to be on the verge of virtually total success in
this matter.
I thank our colleagues for their support on this very important
matter.
The McCollum-Berman amendment simply provides that before the
Department of Justice spends any funds appropriated under the authority
of this bill for prison construction, the Attorney General must
reimburse States for at least $650 million of the cost of incarcerating
illegal aliens convicted of felonies. In other words, it makes
reimbursement of States, for the cost of imprisoning criminal aliens a
priority over spending for new prison construction.
This amendment follows on action Congress took last year at the
behest of several of us from States with large populations of criminal
aliens. Our amendment to last year's anticrime
[[Page H1516]] bill provided an authorization for State reimbursement
from the crime control trust fund of $1.8 billion for the first 6
years, and made that reimbursement mandatory beginning in fiscal 2004.
In response to that amendment, the President requested about half the
amount needed for such reimbursement in this fiscal year, and Congress
approved $130 million, or one-fifth of what is necessary. This
amendment is an effort to ensure the appropriation of the full amount
States and localities need.
Criminal aliens are people who have entered our country in violation
of Federal laws; that makes their incarceration a Federal
responsibility, and thus a cost that should be borne by all U.S.
citizens, not just those who live in regions with large numbers of
illegal immigrants. As the House of Representatives recognized with the
recent passage of unfunded mandate legislation, the Federal Government
should not continue to pass the costs of Federal actions--or in this
case, lack of effective Federal action--onto State and local
governments. Yet that is precisely what we have been doing by making
States and localities pay for the Federal Government's failure to stop
illegal immigration.
While State and local governments have the responsibility for
incarcerating criminal aliens and processing their cases, they have no
jurisdiction over the enforcement of immigration laws, no authority to
deport aliens who are convicted of crimes, and no authority to ensure
that those deported are not permitted to re-enter the country.
Congress recognized the unfairness of this situation and acknowledged
the Federal Government's responsibility for the criminal alien
population in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA].
Section 501 of the act specifically authorizes the reimbursement to
States, of costs incurred in the imprisonment of illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, no funds were appropriated for this purpose until last
year, and the amount appropriated was not nearly enough to cover the
full costs.
In today's Los Angeles Times, Speaker Gingrich was quoted as
declaring that the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants is a
``Federal responsibility,'' and calling on Congress to approve $630
million in reimbursement to States. I could not agree more, and I am
glad that the Speaker decided to champion this issue that some of us
from affected communities have been arguing for quite some time.
However, unless we adopt this amendment, we will have no real assurance
that full funding for State reimbursement will be forthcoming.
There are between 23,000 and 35,000 undocumented aliens incarcerated
in State prisons. The States which have significant numbers of criminal
aliens in their prisons--that is, over 2 percent of their prison
population--include not just California, Florida, Texas, and New York,
as one might expect, but also Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
From 1988 to 1995, the number of illegal alien felons in California
State facilities has soared by 235 percent, from 5,700 to an estimated
19,200 by the end of this year. During the same period, the total
annual cost of incarcerating and supervising this population has
skyrocketed from $122 million to an estimated $503 million
by the end of the next fiscal year, a 310 percent increase. The
cumulative cost during this 7-year period is in excess of $2.5 billion.
In Los Angeles County alone, the overall cost of deportable criminal
aliens to the county's criminal justice system amounts to $75 million
per year, out of a $683 million budget.
Although this amendment does not actually make Federal reimbursement
for these costs mandatory, as many of us would like, it goes a long way
toward guaranteeing these payments. If Congress wants to fund new
prison construction, then, under this amendment, we will have to first
ensure that there is sufficient funding for criminal alien
reimbursement.
I would only add that this amendment is a responsible measure that
pays for State reimbursement with appropriated funds, and is not a
violation of our budget rules. Its cost--$650 million per year--is,
relatively speaking, a modest amount for the Federal Government. On the
other hand, for State and local governments, this is quite a
significant amount, and relieving them of this expense will free up
revenues for other necessary public purposes.
Mr. Chairman, because Congress has been unable, or unwilling, to meet
its full responsibility to the States with respect to criminal aliens,
it is imperative that we ensure reimbursement to the greatest extent
possible. By passing this amendment, we will be relieving State and
local governments of the unfair burden they are currently bearing with
respect to criminal aliens, and freeing up their limited resources for
other essential purposes, including of course, prison construction, the
very purpose of this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I do so to enter into a colloquy with the chairman, the manager
of the bill.
It is my understanding, I apologize for not being down here, but I
was in a Banking Committee hearing where we were discussing the Mexico
peso devaluation crisis, the gentleman is a member of the committee,
but I have a question.
As I understand your amendment, it would provide for half the
funding, half of the authorization of the funding to come from last
year's bill and the other half pursuant to the truth-in-sentencing act;
is that correct?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. What we do is we simply do not disturb the funding that
is already in the law from last year's bill. It will be unfettered.
People will have it available easily. There will be no conditions to
getting it. Except that there will be a preference then given to the
States that do not qualify for the new pool of money we are creating
today to get that money. So a State that qualifies for money under
truth-in-sentencing will not have the same rights to that existing pool
of money. So that States that are not eligible for this new pool will
have full sway with the underlying moneys.
Thereby, we thought this was being extremely fair to everybody
concerned, since California, which is the largest State affected by the
criminal alien situation, your State and mine being not far behind,
would have early on full sway on the new money.
My State is moving to truth-in-sentencing very rapidly. It is
supposed to pass this year, and I believe will become law. And so
States that do not qualify for it will be the ones to get preference
for the existing money under the existing law.
Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, I would ask, is it conceivable or is
it possible that a State that does not meet the test as provided under
the truth-in-sentencing, that they somehow would not get sufficient
moneys for a full reimbursement?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, I do not believe so. What
has been represented to us in the studies we have looked at, what the
CBO has presented and so forth--I truly believe and honestly represent
to you that I do not think that any State would come up short. There
will be a very large pool of money for States to draw on in the $330
million a year roughly that is there for each of the next several years
under the existing law for States that do not qualify for truth-in-
sentencing, and since California has $300 million or so a year, maybe
larger, that it itself says that it is concurring right now, it is
going to eat up most of the truth-in-sentencing money, anyway, and I
would say that the total amount, which is $650 million that CBO
estimates for the entire Nation, is covered by us today. So everybody
should be able to get money.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just on that one
point?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. I think we should be very careful not to overpromise
here. Assuming, for example, Texas does not meet the truth-in-
sentencing law requirements. They would not be eligible for the money
appropriated out of the prison funds, the first portion of which is
reserved for this program. It then will depend, for Texas, on there
being an adequate appropriation in the Beilenson program that was
enacted last year as part of the crime bill so that you can go there
where, as the gentleman from Florida pointed out, you have preference.
So it is just very important to watch the appropriation process and
make sure. The $650 million total is what CBO says will be full
reimbursement for States and local governments for the costs.
[[Page H1517]] The potential for everybody to be covered is there.
But it very much depends on the balance of appropriations between the
two accounts.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield to me further on that, all
of this is subject to appropriations. What is underlying and the new
money, all of it is. But we on our side are committed to fully
appropriating the money for this.
Our Speaker has said in his words just in the past day that he wants
to have this his top priority. This in his judgment and in ours is an
unfunded mandate that is intolerable to the States right now and the
sooner we recognize the illegal alien problem and the criminal alien
problem and resolve it federally and nationally, the better off.
I think the gentleman has a great deal of assurance that our side,
who now has the majority in the appropriations process, will make this
top priority.
{time} 1650
Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman my
concern. My State, as other States very much believing in States rights
and feeling that since most crime and criminals are under their
jurisdiction, and as the gentleman knows, immigration is the sole
jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and my State does house a large
number of alien, undocumented criminals, the problem that I foresee is
for some reason, for instance, in Texas we have 4,000 beds that are
taken up as a result of that. That may bring us under the requirements
under the Truth in Sentencing Act, so we are sort of in a double
jeopardy situation where we may not be able to get at that funding
because of the problem that already existed. So it is a concern to me,
and I would want the gentleman's assurances that that would be
something that would be looked at.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, I think he will be better
off in Texas if they do not qualify initially for the truth-in-
sentencing money as far as the criminal alien dollars are concerned.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the
gentleman from Texas has again expired.
(On request of Mr. McCollum and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bentsen was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Because there will be States like California and my
State of Florida that are in the process of qualifying for the truth in
sentencing this year, and within a year will be qualified, because I
spoke to our State Senate president today. I know it is a top priority
in our legislature to qualify for the truth in sentencing. Once that
happens for any State that qualifies for the truth in sentencing grant
program for Federal prison money, that State is going to dip into that
money and then under that bill they will be ineligible for any
additional, and so those States that are qualified for the truth in
sentencing will not be able to get it, but the gentleman's State will
be fighting with fewer States after that point in time for the money.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I think he makes a very important point. This is a burden
that these States are saddled with through no actions of their own or
fault of their own, and now what we are doing is when they had access
to money under the Berman amendment, what we are now suggesting is that
the States have to jump over an unrelated hurdle to get access to the
money. The point is the problem that the States have had is that they
are saddled with the burden day in and day out through no choice of
their own, and yet if they do not change their laws they cannot get
access to the money. I appreciate the gentleman has a theoretical
formula worked out about what pool of money States will go to and
whether that money will be there. It is not an entitlement, so we do
not know that it will be there at the end of this budget process. But
the fact is the burden goes on in any case, and that is what the States
are complaining about.
So now the gentleman is erecting these hurdles, and it has nothing to
do with the fact that they have thousands of beds taken up with
illegals through a failure of Federal policy.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I am glad to yield for a short time to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point that
you are no worse off or better off with regard to the underlying law no
matter what happens to the truth in sentencing. It is new money being
added, and it is only the new money being added that you did not have
before today in this provision of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bentsen] has again expired.
(On request of Mr. McCollum and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bentsen was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will continue to yield, you have new
money being added today that you did not have before, and it is only
that new money that has any conditionality to it at all. We do not
place conditionality on the existing funding mechanism that is there
today and, therefore, there is no reason for anybody to feel upset
about the conditionality, because we are not doing anything with that.
It is still there, unfettered completely, and as a whole we are all
better off since we are adding more money today.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Texas yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I am glad to yield to my colleague from Texas.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, my only question that I have, and I
appreciate the comment of the gentleman from Florida about getting the
funding, and he said his side of the aisle was going to work very hard
to get the full funding for this amendment, I wonder whether or not,
since I represent Texas, you are going to work just as hard to get full
funding for what has become known as the old statute, the Beilenson
part of the crime bill?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman would yield, absolutely. We are
committed to full funding for both of them, for the whole $650 million
to reimburse everybody. That is the commitment, and there is no problem
making that statement out here on the floor.
Mr. COLEMAN. I thank the gentleman for his answer, and thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BENTSEN. Let me just say I think this is an unfunded mandate on
the States.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bentsen] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bentsen was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BENTSEN. It is not inconsistent with what this Congress has done
in the past. In 1985 we passed the Emergency Immigrant Education Act to
deal with the 1981 Supreme Court ruling that affected our school
districts, so we have taken action in the past to have the Federal
Government step in and make reimbursements for costs which should be
borne by the Federal Government.
Here today we are talking about taxpayer money from the States, and
turning around and saying how we are going to allocate it back to the
States under certain sorts of mandates. I understand what the bill is
trying to achieve, but we have to remember those are the same taxpayers
who are shelling out millions of dollars in order to build prison after
prison, as we have in Texas probably more that just about any State in
the Union. So at the same time we are coming back, and I am a little
concerned we may be penalizing States that are trying to address this
problem, and at the same time this is a problem that is beyond their
control. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me thank the Members of this debate,
because last year I know it was the Beilenson, Berman, Condit amendment
which started this debate, which is what we are going to see coming out
in the appropriation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida
[Mr.
[[Page H1518]] McCollum] for the work he has done in the deportation,
which is also an extremely big issue for our State, making sure we can
send them back so that we do not have to have all of those costs all of
the time.
However, I do need some clarification, because I do rise to support
this amendment but want to make sure that I understand it, and since we
are colleagues from Florida and it is a big issue for us.
When the gentleman talks about the 85 percent truth in sentencing, do
the States just have to pass a piece of legislation, or do they have to
meet the requirements under that?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to my colleague from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, to me they have to meet the requirements
ultimately, but they have to pass it, and they have to have an
implementation time to begin no later than 3 years after they pass that
act.
Mrs. THURMAN. If the gentleman will yield back, I will take back my
time. During that 3-year period of time, would they be able to receive,
if they passed that legislation, would they be able to receive the
dollars that will be appropriated under this bill?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman will yield, the answer is yes,
because they would be eligible for these dollars under the criminal
alien reimbursement provisions, just as they would be eligible for
dollars under the truth in sentencing prison grant money.
Mrs. THURMAN. If I can take back my time, is there any penalty at the
end of that 3-year period of time if they were not able to meet that
85-percent truth in sentencing?
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman will yield, the answer is if they
are not eligible any longer at the end of 3 years, which would be quite
a ways into this legislation, they would slip back into the category of
those States that would have to compete for the moneys in the existing
law, that is the $330 million, and they would have a preference as a
nonparticipant State in the other pool of money, they would have a
preference in the non-truth in sentencing money.
Mrs. THURMAN. Reclaiming my time, the question then that occurs to
me, and the gentleman and I both know that we have numbers from the
State of Florida talking about I think it is $1.37 million that we have
spent just in Florida since 1988 in incarceration of illegal criminals,
I guess the concern is because that has been our burden which we have
not lived up to at the Federal level, and because they have had to
implement and construct and operate prisons in the State of Florida,
that I hope that we can look at some language. I mean I understand
where the gentleman is coming from on the 85-percent truth in
sentencing. That is a big issue for all of us, and we all want that to
happen, and all of our State legislatures want that to happen. But I do
have to agree with the gentleman from California, because we have not
lived up to this responsibility, and it has put our States at a
disadvantage, not only at the disadvantage of incarceration, but all of
the other services that we are providing that are taking away from that
construction for prison moneys because we are having to pay for a lot
of other expenses too, and I hope that we figure out a way that we do
not penalize those folks because they are trying to do a good job just
because they cannot reach that point.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentlewoman will yield, I recognize that she has
had only a little while to look at this, but I have had a lot of time
to study this, I guess, as being the author, and having had time to
look at it and study it. I am convinced, and I believe she will be too
when she has the time to digest this, that actually States that do not
qualify for the truth in sentencing will be better off after this
provision passes than they are today in terms of getting at the
existing $330 million, because there are going to be fewer people,
fewer States, if you will, fighting over that money. Therefore, there
is no money all together and they will have a preference.
So whether Florida passes a truth in sentencing provision or not, it
is going to be better off after we get this amendment in law than it is
today.
{time} 1700
But I, of course, share your wishes that we pass truth-in-sentencing.
As I said earlier, our Senate president, Jim Scott, today assured me
that is his No. 1 priority. I understand it is the number one priority
in the State house to get a bill out this year that goes to truth-in-
sentencing.
Mrs. THURMAN. Reclaiming my time, I just want to ask my colleagues to
support this, because I, like many who have spoken before me, recognize
this as an issue that faces the National Government, not our State
governments, and we are all in this together, and for those that are
going to support it, we thank you very much, because it is a big help
for us.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I just thought it would be wise to wade in with my colleague from
Florida since there were so many Members from California here just a
moment ago, and then there were those Texans here as well.
As one of those seven States that bears the brunt of the kind of
discussion that we are having regarding illegal immigrants in our
jails, I certainly want to compliment the gentleman from Florida and
the gentleman from California and all those associated with them in
crafting this legislation.
I do make a very simple appeal though, and that is that somehow or
another, centered around criminal activity, we can come up with the
most brilliant manner of going forward as legislators in finding money
all over the budget, and in the Immigration and Education Act, that was
mentioned by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas, I
remind everyone that President Reagan zeroed out the budget funding for
the Immigration and Education Act, and no offense meant to the former
President, but the simple fact of the matter is that if this money is
not appropriated, all they are doing is some kind of fancy dance trying
to give our constituents the notion that we are doing something about
this problem.
Let me tell you something. I am concerned about us paying a debt to
the State of Florida, the State of California, the State of Texas, the
State of Arizona, New York, all of the States that have this problem,
and it is a debt owed because it is a national problem, and it is not
one that is a State problem.
But at the very same time, if I had to place my eggs in a basket
whether or not to take care of an illegal immigrant in prison and a
debt owed to a State, I would much rather that this legislature be
about the business of trying to fund measures that will take care of
children who are entering our States in vast numbers, such that one
educator in Dade County reminded me that every month the equivalent of
a school enters their school system who are folk from outside this
country, and in my base county, every 3 months a whole school is
formulated.
It is nice to find money for prisoners, but we had better find some
money for schools.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BERMAN. You raise an interesting point on empty authorizations.
This program has been authorized since the 1986 law. Until President
Clinton proposed money last year and the Congress appropriated $130
million, we never funded $1.
As you mentioned for the program of health and education,
reimbursements to the States for the cost of the legalization program,
nearly every single year President Reagan or President Bush sought to
rescind that entire fund. Congress kept it, fortunately, but there is a
logic to this in the sense that with the pressure and interest in
funding new prison construction, the requirement that this money be
appropriated first probably forces this not to be an empty
authorization, and it is the basis upon which I think it probably makes
some sense.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I want my friend from California to know
that while I stand with you almost all of the time, I am going to try
to get close to my friend from Florida who seems to know the Senate
President well enough to know what we are doing.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H1519]] Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes, because I
know many of my colleagues from Florida and other affected States have
spoken on this. I wanted to get up and also join the applause for those
who have worked out this very complex and difficult solution to what is
a very important problem, obviously the chairman, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman],
for the work he has done, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] on
the Committee on Rules, and many others who have labored long and hard.
We are a little bit in the situation that probably a lot of American
households find themselves when you do not have enough money to the end
of the month to pay all the bills. You sort of stack them up. You say,
``Well, I don't have enough money to do all of these bills so I am just
going to do this one and this one; I will do the butcher, the baker,
and the candlestick maker this month, but will let the gas company
wait.'' What happens is sort of the wheel that does not squeak is
always the one that stays in the pile that does not ever get paid off,
and over the years the Federal Government has just been a giant
household that has run up a big debt and has not paid all of its bills,
and it seems that every year the good guys who do not make a big enough
squeak are the ones who do not get paid for what they have done.
This is a piece of legislation that finally tries to deal with that.
It does not solve the whole problem, and it is not retrospective, of
course, but it does try to say to folks who are doing the right thing
out there on the front lines and say, ``Hey, we know we owe you, and we
are going to start paying the bills, at least some of the bills.'' And
I am very thankful that we have gotten to this point under the
leadership so far to carry this thing forward.
Yes, we could have done this a lot of different ways. There is no
question about it. This was not easy to craft, I know, but I think we
have come to something that is pretty good. We have got assurances it
is going to work, and I think the people who have been bearing the
disproportionate burden of the cost over the years can look and smile
and say, ``We are making some progress on this thing.''
I am sure the statistics have been made about my State of Florida;
the load we are carrying down there has gotten so out of control that
10 percent of our overall prison population is what we are talking
about here, more than 5,000 people, and we are talking about not a few
dollars. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, even so
much so that the Governor of our State has felt the necessity to bring
a suit against the Federal Government for a billion dollars to get some
claim on back money. Now, that suit did not get very far, but at least
we now have something that says we are going to start setting up the
system that is going to allow for the great household that is the
Federal Government to start paying more of its bills more equitably,
and that folks who have waited the longest and perhaps for the most
money finally see some relief in sight.
I want to again congratulate those involved and thank you for the
opportunity to say these things.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask
unanimous consent that for all amendments that remain to be offered and
are offered on this bill today or tomorrow, or whenever, until we
complete consideration of it, the entire time for debating any
individual amendment be limited to no more than 20 minutes, divided 10
minutes to a side, 10 minutes for the proponent and 10 minutes for any
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. And every amendment thereto?
Mr. McCOLLUM. And every amendment thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask the
gentleman, is he talking all amendments on the bill including time we
spend tomorrow?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, that is
correct, all amendments remaining on this bill, not any other bill,
just this bill. The reason why is that we need to progress through this
legislation in order to do the criminal alien bill tomorrow and have
time on Monday and Tuesday, as the gentleman's side wants, for us to be
able to devote to the remaining block grant bill which is part of the
effort to be bipartisan about how we consider this. There are a lot of
amendments left on this bill.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will not object, but I would ask the
gentleman, I know I have one additional amendment to come up tomorrow,
and I would ask the gentleman if, in fact, we are in debate and there
appears to be substance to that debate, I would like to be asking
unanimous consent for perhaps some additional time on that amendment. I
will not object to the gentleman's request today.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield further, I will certainly
consider it. I cannot promise the gentleman what the result will be
since I obviously cannot control, nor can the gentleman, the unanimous-
consent request.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I
think there are some important amendments to go. If we cannot have some
understanding to try to work together, I will have to object.
Mr. McCOLLUM. We will work together. I assure the gentleman we will
work together.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I
understand what motivates the gentleman from Florida. I agree to it
subject to the fact that there may be a couple of amendments on which
we may have to ask unanimous consent to go a little bit longer than
this.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, I certainly do not have a
problem working with the gentleman on that. I know he wants to strive,
as I do, to try to have good limits. If we are only talking another 5
or 10 minutes in addition or something like that, and I think that is
what both gentlemen, are thinking, I do not have a problem. What I am
really concerned about is you do not get maybe an hour out here.
Mr. CONYERS. Further reserving the right to object, what I am saying
to the gentleman is that we can agree to this subject to the fact that
there may be several that we would ask unanimous consent to move ahead.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
{time} 1710
amendment offered by mr. gallegly
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gallegly: Section 505 (2) of H.R.
667 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) of the total amount of funds remaining after the
allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to
each State or compact, as the case may be, an amount equal to
the ratio that the number of part 1 violent crimes reported
by such state or states to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the most recent calendar year for which the
data is available.''
Mr. GALLEGLY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous consent request, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really just a
commonsense change in the legislation that would ensure that prison
construction grants wind up in the areas that have the greatest need
for them.
[[Page H1520]] As currently written, the legislation distributes
these grants based solely on population and not on the violent crime
rate. This amendment would change that, and allocate these funds to the
areas that are facing the greatest challenge in terms of violent crime
and in keeping violent criminals behind bars.
H.R. 667 is designed to reduce crime in our communities by ensuring
that we have enough room in our prisons to house the violent felons who
belong there. Surely, it makes sense to base the level of funding to
any one area on the level of violent crime occurring there.
I think we all share the desire to make the most of these grants and
to make the streets as safe as we possibly can through the prison
construction they will support. It only makes sense to add prison
capacity where a clear need has been established rather than simply as
a virtue of how many live in any one State.
Mr. Chairman, these grants are intended to help us fight violent
crime by locking up violent criminals. They are not just another feel-
good Government entitlement to be blindly doled out.
When we are confronting an issue of such tremendous concern to the
American people, an extremely challenging issue that poses such a
serious threat to our very way of life--we have to be a little smarter
with our resources than we sometimes are around here.
This is not the time for us to indiscriminately hang a sign on the
government trough reading, ``Open for business.'' It is time for us to
do the work necessary to insure that these precious funds wind up in
the hands of those who have the greatest need for them. It is in that
spirit I urge support of this simple, commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Chapman].
Mr. CHAPMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I join in support of the gentleman's amendment. I did
not find his amendment printed in the Record. It is identical to an
amendment we filed yesterday and had printed in the Record, and I
would, since it is identical to the one that we filed, say that we
think it is a good one. I compliment the gentleman on his offering the
amendment and tell him I think it does target--and I tell my
colleagues--I think what it does is make a small, but very significant,
change in how the grant funds are allocated. It does that by targeting
the funds to those areas where the problem is the greatest and it bases
the allocation upon the incidence of violent crime, not on population.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, in analyzing the Republican
bill under the contract, made the following analysis, and I read from
their analysis:
The approach in the original bill of disbursing funds for
violent offender incarceration in proportion to general
population without regard to the incidence of violent crime
in the affected areas will produce gross misallocations of
resources in relation to actual need.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will reinstate the law as it currently
exists, will put back in place the allocation of the formulas of the
1994 crime bill. It is one way to target the resources to where the
need is greatest.
So I enthusiastically support the gentleman's amendment because it
remarkably resembles the one I filed yesterday in the Record. I
compliment the gentleman for his vision and look forward to supporting
him.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words and also
recognize his great wisdom.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Very quickly, I do not think this takes a lot of time.
We have an assistance program for low-income people to get subsidies
on energy. We do not apportion that based on population. We focus that
on States where cold weather requires people to have extraordinary high
heating bills. We have crop subsidy programs and we do not base that on
population, but we do base that on areas where the crops are growing.
The whole logic of this program is to deal with the--try to assist
the States with the costs of dealing, particularly, with the high rates
of violent crime. This amendment makes perfect sense. I cannot
understand why the formula would be on any other basis, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I commend both gentlemen, particularly my colleague from Texas [Mr.
Chapman], who, although he is not a member of the committee, had his
amendment printed in the Record. We are in accord.
I like the idea of revisiting the 1994 crime bill. I think this is a
good formula to take out of it and put in here.
We have no further requests for time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, we have no other Members seeking time. I
would urge support and yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Gallegly].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman's amendment No. 15?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It has a No. 2 at the top, Mr. Chairman. We
had to make a clerical change.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 7, line
18, after ``general'' insert ``including a requirement that
any funds used to carry out the programs under section 501(a)
shall represent the best value for the State governments at
the lowest possible cost and employ the best available
technology.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Is there a Member who rises in opposition to the amendment and wishes
to be recognized? If not, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Torricelli] and I are cosponsors of this amendment. It a very
simple and straightforward amendment designed to make sure that the
latest and best technology is used in building prisons and prison
cells. It mandates that the States look into this to make sure they are
using taxpayer dollars as wisely as possible in the construction of new
prisons. That is basically all the amendment does.
I think it is an important amendment. It will help control costs of
new prison construction. I think the people of this country want that
kind of scrutiny of construction of new prison facilities in this
country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to join with the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton] in offering this amendment. It is not, Mr. Chairman,
simply a question of how much we spend for prison construction, but
what value we receive; whether indeed we get the added capacity that is
required to prevent the early release of felons onto our streets and
insure that there is just and fair punishment.
Much has been learned about prison construction and ways to reduce
those costs and the time that is required for construction. Many States
and localities have learned that by prefabrication, indeed in the very
manufacturing of prison cells, often with steel in a factory setting,
these costs can be dramatically reduced. Indeed in a soon to
[[Page H1521]] be released independent national report by the Kitchell
Consulting & Engineering Co., of California, it is believed that both
the quality can be increased and the costs can be reduced by a
significant percentage by these modular steel cells. They are
prefabricated, they can be brought to the site and then put together.
Indeed at times in the future when prison populations might change,
they can even be disassembled and moved.
Our hope is that the experience of some States in using this
technology can be duplicated around the country.
All we ask is that the States and the Federal Government, as they
look at prison construction, break out of their own methods, be
creative about it, use their best judgment to get the best value for
their dollars.
{time} 1720
With that I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to
thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, for
his support for the amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask, ``By reducing the costs, does
that also enable you to go in and reduce the requirements for Davis-
Bacon?''
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would presume that it might. That has not
been a consideration in the amendment, but I presume it would.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Since the higher costs come along with Davis-Bacon,
under construction under Davis-Bacon, I think it ought to seriously be
looked into.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I think an answer to the gentleman's
question might be, ``First, because you're reducing construction time,
there certainly is an impact on construction costs. Second, while
obviously the fabrication at the site continues Davis-Bacon protection
because it is construction, the cells themselves are manufactured off
the site. Therefore they would probably not be included under
construction at prevailing wage. They would be manufactured.''
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, it ought to be pointed out, and
I think the gentleman did that, and that is, if they are constructed
off site, it is going to cut down construction costs----
Mr. TORRICELLI. If the gentleman would yield, I think that is the
savings, reducing time, that these are coming off an assembly line and
only to be put together at the site.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. As I yield back, let me say this in
conclusion, Mr. Chairman:
This modular cell construction we are talking about is one new
technology. There will be others in the years to come, and we believe
every Governor of every State should be looking into these new
technologies to cut down the cost of these new prisons that are going
to be constructed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am impressed that we want to be as efficient as
possible, and I do, too, because it will save money. I want to make a
couple of points.
The first is that this is probably the fastest growing industry in
our economy, building prisons. We now have cities and towns. It is a
fast growing industry because we are putting literally billions of
dollars in the 1994 crime bill and now billions of dollars
additionally, at least two and a half, into this one, and so I rise to
join with every efficiency that we can obtain.
But I think we want to keep in mind that we want to also ensure that
there is an effectiveness coming out of this great new industry that we
are building in the United States, namely building prisons which does
not make the happiest commentary in the world in what direction we are
going since we incarcerate more people than any other industrial
country that I know of.
So, I would urge all of my colleagues and those who have spoken in
favor of this to support the Scott amendment that will be coming up
that will ask that we also set aside a fraction of the amount of money
merely to determine and study the effectiveness of this enormous new
industry that we have spawned at the Federal level. It will be a
fraction of an amount of money, be immeasurably tiny. It is so small it
is almost beyond calculation. We would urge that we would consider both
these amendments as both moving in a very important direction.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the ways in which we can do, I
think, both and not even have to build prisons in the future:
In the State of California we have got 16,000 Federal felons that are
illegal immigrants. There are 84,000 nationwide. That is a lot of room
at the inn. If the gentleman would help us make sure that those folks
are repatriated from whatever country they came from, maybe we would
not have to spend as much money on our present----
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, beyond that I will say to my
colleague I think we ought to have immigration laws that prevent people
from effectively coming in illegally as opposed to what we do with them
after they get in----
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. And then run up the bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will help the gentleman do that, too.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. McCollum
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCOLLUM: Page 9, after line 6,
insert the following:
``(6) Transfer of Unallocated Funds.--After making the
distribution to all eligible States required under section
503, the Attorney General may transfer as provided in this
paragraph, in such amounts as may be provided in
appropriations acts, any remaining unallocated funds which
have been available for more than two fiscal years, but all
such funds shall be available for the purposes of this
paragraph after fiscal year 2000. Funds transferred under
this paragraph may be made available for expenses of the
Immigration and Nationalization Service for investigators and
for expenses of the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of
Investigations and the United States Attorneys for activities
and operations related to the investigation, prosecution and
conviction of persons accused of a serious violent felony,
and the incarceration of persons convicted of such offenses.
Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I might, this is a very technical amendment. It does
something with the funds that might not be allocated, and what it
simply says is that, if at the end of 2 years after this legislation is
in existence, every 2 years, money then begins to flow that is not
utilized, not taken up in the grant programs from certain specified
purposes dealing with prisons and law enforcement activities for
violent felonies and so forth to go to the appropriations that may be
determined by the appropriators to fight crime, and it is a way to
capture this money in the trust funds.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can I get a copy of the amendment?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Absolutely; we got a copy here. I thought the gentleman
had one; I apologize.
[[Page H1522]] What it does is it says, and since the gentleman does
not have one, I will be glad to read these provisions, that any
remaining unallocated funds which have been available for more than 2
fiscal years shall be transferred by the Attorney General as provided
by the appropriators for the purposes of the expenses of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service for investigators or for
expenses of the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and U.S. attorneys for activities and operations related to
investigation, prosecution, and conviction of persons accused of a
serious violent felony and the incarceration of persons convicted of
such offenses. I doubt seriously we are going to have any money left
over. I say to my colleagues, I think by the time you get through the
period of time we are talking about, you're going to have every penny
of this scoffed up, but this allows for us to keep the moneys that are
cordoned off in the trust funds, which we all want to keep, from the
moneys that came out last Congress in our desire to dedicate these
moneys and these resources to law enforcement and to fighting the
purposes intended. This allows us to not lose those moneys should the
grants not be allocated, should there not be enough applications for
them, or qualifications, or whatever.
So, we are trying to keep the money for law enforcement purposes and
for the purposes intended in this bill. I am sure the Bureau of Prisons
alone, the Federal Bureau or Prisons, could probably consume the
balance of any funds that are here, but we tried to make this broad
enough to give the appropriators a chance to work their will, but
narrow enough, I say to the gentleman from Michigan, that we are able
to keep it in our domain so that it is used for the purposes intended.
This is of course again assuming that the grants are not fully
awarded. I got a feeling they will all be fully awarded, but there is
no escape valve, no carry-over provision, no nothing now in the law
either in this bill or what was passed in the last Congress to take
care of that eventuality.
And so that is all that this does. It does no more than that. We have
been requested to try to do things of this nature to protect our
interests in the past, and the committee feels very strongly that that
is what it is.
When he gets here, and I think he is headed to the floor, the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] who is our appropriator for State,
Justice Appropriations Subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations,
the chairman of that subcommittee would undoubtedly like to address
this issue and encourage it because it is something that I think he
would favor as well in order for us to be sure that we do not miss out
on any moneys. In the end they go back to some general pot somewhere
for gosh knows what purpose that might be, general whatever, and I
think again that this is a very important amendment but is not one
which should be at all controversial, and I assumed the gentleman from
Michigan had a chance to examine it before. I apologize that he had
not. But in any event I do not think he will find this to be a
difficult amendment.
Again all it is is a transfer of unallocated funds for the purposes
as may be appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations as long as
they are for the purposes specified in here, Bureau of Prisons, FBI,
U.S. attorneys, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the question I wanted to
ask about this is whether this might have the effect of encouraging
agencies to come up with programs that have not been thought through,
and that is one part of the question, and the second part of the
question is, given the choice between having this money be forced into
some other law enforcement purpose that may or may not be worthy
certainly would not have been addressed directly by this Congress.
{time} 1730
Might it not be better to direct the money to the reduction of the
deficit, since we are all very concerned about that?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it has been impressed
upon me by the appropriators and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] who will be here in a moment, the chairman of the subcommittee,
that we in reducing the overhead and trying to balance the budget, may
be putting the committee in a very difficult position to fund, for
example, the investigators we need for the criminal law enforcement
positions of INS, that your administration just requested a 73-percent
increase in their current budget.
We may have trouble funding the Bureau of Prisons, which is our
Federal responsibility, where we do not allocate any money under any of
these major bills and certainly not under this $10.5 billion bill.
So if there is anything left over, it is not going to be under
somebody's creative scheme. We really need that to run our prisons and
do the things that the bipartisan group of people want to do here. No,
we are not suggesting any great devious methodology is involved.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, having looked this over, having examined the question
between putting this to the deficit balance, I would prefer that it go
into the following programs and the following departments included in
the amendment. So I would support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I have strong objections to this. Could I
just address another question to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum]?
Is there a sufficient flexibility built into this language that would
allow the use of these funds for prevention kinds of programs as
opposed to just building more prisons? I honestly have not had a chance
to look at language.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the prevention type
programs would fit under it, but it would be up to the appropriators to
decide. The way it is cordoned off, it would be up to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United
States attorneys, and for the limited purposes of Immigration and
Naturalization Service investigators. It is a very narrow law
enforcement area.
It is not inconceivable that somebody could come up with a prevention
program the FBI would want to run. But barring that, that is not the
intent. The reason why is because we just simply are worried about
adequate resources for our own Federal purposes here. Prevention
programs would normally be the kind of programs we are going to deal
with on Monday and Tuesday for money going to the States.
None of this money would go to the States. It would be recaptured,
and it would be recaptured in any event by the Federal Government. It
would simply go into some big hole that we would not have any control
over. But doing this we control it to the extent we force it into the
workings that this Committee on the Judiciary would want it to be, and
for Federal purposes, as long as it is Federal purposes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know if this
will make my colleague from North Carolina more comfortable or less,
but it is our prediction that this will be a large amount of money that
will be reserved, because I do not believe the States are going to
qualify for it. So we are talking about billions, maybe billions and
billions of dollars, all the way up to $5 billion. So I just want to
make sure that not only the Members on the committee, but all the
Members in the House understand that this little document of 10 lines
contains quite a bit of change in it. Of course, this will be revisited
in conference. So I just want us to all be aware of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I make two comments in
response to the gentleman's statement.
[[Page H1523]] No. 1, he underestimates the will of my Governor, since
North Carolina is one of the three States to that qualifies to get
these funds under this bill currently. I think you are underestimating
the will of my Governor and his pursuit of these funds, first of all.
Second of all, that raises even more the concern I have that since
some subsequent bills that are coming to the floor will have the effect
of reducing prevention dollars, that I am wondering whether the
gentleman might entertain the idea of including specifically some
language in this amendment that might allow those dollars to go to fund
prevention programs that some of the subsequent bills are going to have
under attack which are coming to the floor.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that would be
appropriate. I understand what the gentleman is getting at. But the
moneys were pretty evenly divided at about $10 billion each to the
prevention and cops under our construct, and for prisons and law
enforcement basically under this kind of legislation here today. And I
think in a moment, once the gentleman from North Carolina and Michigan
have finished their colloquy and time, I am going to yield to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], who I think can explain exactly
why we need to do this for the purposes we put in this amendment, so he
is the appropriator, and being the chairman of the subcommittee that
oversees our program.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me pursue the idea
raised by my colleague from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. What about some
prevention money or some programs that go to those that will be dealing
with it? There is a gang resistance program in Treasury. There are all
kinds of prevention programs. Because it does raise a difficult point.
We are taking, in your bill, $2.5 billion out of prevention, and now we
are taking what may well be, based on my estimates, an even larger
amount, and transferring back to very important law enforcement
agencies and departments of the Federal Government.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
really do not know the parameters of the powers we are giving to the
appropriators here, but I suspect they are pretty broad in the areas we
are giving it to them, though they are constrained here. Perhaps the
gentleman would like to direct some of his time to the gentleman from
Kentucky, who has that knowledge. I do not have it. I do not wish to
personally add to the litany here, because I fear that our money is
going to be constrained enough as it is. But, nonetheless, the
gentleman thinks there is going to be more here than I think there is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman of the Subcommittee on State,
Justice, and those things that concern us here today.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
appreciate the chairman from Florida for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the beginning of a long and productive
relationship between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee
on Appropriations, both of which are under new management. I originally
suggested a version of this amendment that the chairman is offering
back when the bill was marked up in committee, and we have been working
together on it since that time.
This amendment will assure that in the event States cannot use these
resources within a reasonable period of time, that those unallocated
resources can be appropriated for unmet Federal law enforcement needs.
Resources are just too tight to allow pots of money to accumulate
unused.
We have a challenge this year and the years ahead. As criminals are
increasingly apprehended, tried, and sentenced, Federal law enforcement
agencies must grow. New cases mean new FBI agents, new U.S. attorneys,
new judges, new marshals, new courthouses, new prisons, new probation
officers, and on and on and on.
For instance, in the new 1996 budget--proposed by the budget, there
are three new Federal prisons, seven completed prisons that will come
on line, and five prison expansions.
{time} 1740
Just for the annual cost of the seven prisons coming on line this
year, of which five will be operated by private contractors, we will
need to find $200 million to operate those on an annualized basis.
Similarly, this year there will be 31 new courthouses coming on line,
150 new courthouses planned over the next decade. Each new courthouse
requires rent payments, furnishings, new personnel, and so forth that
add substantially to the funding we need to provide just to keep up
with the country.
These are examples of the resource requirements that are coming due
on the Federal level while overall we are trying to reduce the size of
the Federal budget.
I appreciate the gentleman working with us on this amendment and in
offering it in his name. I hope to continue to work with him on it to
perfect it, and I hope to work with him when he goes to conference on
the crime bill to assure that the conference report will adequately
reflect the needs of the Federal law enforcement agencies.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out to the gentleman that has just spoken that this is a
heck of a way to run a railroad. We legislate $10 billion for prisons
and then we say, well, if there is any left over, let us use it for
courthouses and other expenses that we need. Those have to stand on
their own merit, sir. We cannot start, if we authorize a courthouse or
a prison, it has got to have money coming for it to be built. It cannot
be money left over in case it is not used. So I am quite unimpressed
about why we need the money in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I can engage the gentleman
from Kentucky for just a moment, I heard the gentleman say that the
unused funds were because of the fact that we may very well have the
courthouses and court personnel. Can the funds be used for that
purpose?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, they cannot be used for courthouses. That
comes, of course, under another part of the Government.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me put two or three
additional questions. Is there any provision, perhaps the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] might join in, that would allow for the
addition of Federal judges? And I notice in the litany that was offered
of things that it could be used for, absent from that were Federal
public defenders and provisions for attorneys for that indigent. Can it
be used for that purpose?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the amendment specifies what the additional unallocated moneys can be
used for.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would like to find out from my friend from Florida, if a very
small amendment would be permissible by unanimous consent and it would
read at the end of the last sentence, ``of such offense'' we would put
a comma ``or to the Department of Health and Human Services for
programs to prevent crime.''
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, that would not be german
to yield to the money here. We had to draft this very technically. That
is why it all related to serious violent felons, incarceration,
investigators, this sort of thing.
I would suggest to the gentleman that would be too broad. If the
gentleman wanted to specify something that fits into the area, we did
not want to get too much spreading this out,
[[Page H1524]] DEA or something like that, we probably could do it.
But I tried to draw it narrowly. The gentleman from Kentucky wanted to
broaden it even more. We sort of settled on this.
I am open but not that broad.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to the gentleman that a
point of order could have lain against this whole amendment. So I am
sorry. A point of germaneness could have lain against this amendment
itself and was not raised. And so I would ask the gentleman if that is
his only problem, that he would use the same comity with us that we
used with him.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
it is not my only problem, because obviously, if there is a
germaneness, and I do not know where it may be in here, it would be all
still in the area of law enforcement, all still in the area of Federal
domain dealing with that, the Justice Department matters, all of the
Justice Department.
The gentleman is asking me to unanimously consent to putting in a
whole different department and functions. I am reluctant to amend this
in any way other than a very minor way that might deal with something
that maybe we have not thought of and we did not mean to overlook in
terms of something, some function related to one of the law enforcement
areas.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman says that he
is amenable and he talks in terms of areas of responsibility, then
would not the Federal courts and public defenders and moneys for
attorneys for indigent defenders contemplate that?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
has expired. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] be granted 3 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can only entertain such a request if it is 3
minutes additionally on both sides.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that each side be yielded 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 3 additional minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to explain, I do not have any problem, perhaps, as we go
through, if the public defenders would balance off U.S. attorneys or
something. But I do not think that was the intent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] to
explain why this is drawn as narrowly as it is, why going into
courthouses or courtrooms--and maybe he mentioned that--would be too
broad for what is available. I feel that there will not be enough
money, but I want him to talk about why.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, mentioning courthouses was a mistake. It
does not fund courthouses. It mentioned the personnel that use
courthouses. That is what I intended to try to say. Another section of
the appropriations bill deals with money for public defenders and the
Legal Services Corporation. It is not in the bill. We can deal with
that on another day, and we can debate that all day long.
The problem here is, we do not have enough money, as it is, to fund
the existing Federal law enforcement agencies that I think we all want
to fund, the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, the war on
drugs and all of that.
I want to try, if we run short there, to have access to the Crime
Trust Fund in case it is not all used up under its State prison
construction uses. And that is the reason I would like to have this
amendment as it is.
I asked for more, frankly. We have to wait 2 years under this
amendment for this unallocated money to show it. I would like to have
had it this year, because we are going to run short this year, for the
Federal law enforcement agencies. And this is the only reason that I
wanted to have that kind of an access to this unallocated money.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime, I would like to point out that we would be willing to agree with
this reluctantly if we would add, instead of Health and Human Services,
the National Institute of Justice for law enforcement technology
programs.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I personally am interested in seeing the
National Institute of Justice protected. I have no problem with that. I
would like to have the gentleman ask on his time, while he is asking
the gentleman from Kentucky, whether or not that is within the purview
that he would agree to. He is our appropriator. I am trying to help
honor his request, too.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky,
[Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with that on this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says he has a problem with
that.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
yes, I do. We can talk about that on another bill, if the gentleman
would care to. But not on this bill. It is just not possible on this
bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all, we have
a measure here before us that gives money for things other than
building prisons. I agreed to it. I asked that we include crime
prevention programs.
I am told that that is not germane. I asked for adding the National
Institutes of Justice for law enforcement technology, which the members
of our committee are very familiar with.
{time} 1750
Now I am told that ``We are sorry, that will not work.'' I think I
get the idea, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is very unacceptable to me
for the reason that I cannot get one small program into it, so it is
clear what I will be urging Members on my side to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise Members that the gentleman from
Michigan, [Mr. Conyers], has 30 seconds remaining, and the gentleman
from Florida, [Mr. McCollum], has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan,
before he makes a declaratory statement with his last 30 seconds, if he
would reserve it and let me have my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am curious, does the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr.
Rogers], if he would answer this for me, have jurisdiction over the
National Institute of Justice, his subcommittee?
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that it is in
the Justice Department, so we do have jurisdiction, yes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. So the gentleman would have absolute discretion as a
subcommittee, then, Mr. Chairman, over how this money is divided up,
whether it goes to the National Institute of Justice or the U.S.
attorneys or the Bureau of Prisons in his subcommittee, of course,
subject to the approval of Congress, of the body voting on it, would he
not?
Mr. ROGERS. We would, Mr. Chairman, and we do, I would tell the
gentleman.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Although the gentleman would prefer not to add it in
here, there would not be any real harm in that, because it would just
be part of the pot? There is no division of the amount of money here.
This would still
[[Page H1525]] be within the gentleman's subcommittee and within the
discretion of the Committee on Appropriations, would it not?
Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman,
frankly, I do not like specifying anything in the amendment. When we
start specifying some items, then we say ``Why not do so-and-so and so-
and-so.'' There are 10,000 things we could specify in the amendment.
I think it would be best for the body, including the gentleman's
interests, if we leave that unspoken so we can deal with it in the
appropriations process. The gentleman will have a chance at that time,
if he is unhappy with it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman, I think it
would probably be in everyone's interest not to keep having a worry
over this, if we could amicably offer it. There is not going to be any
skin off anyone's teeth with this, because there is nothing that is
going to be allocated.
Mr. Chairman, if I acquiesce to the gentleman's request to include
the National Institute of Justice, I think that is probably in the best
interest of everybody here today. It is not going to make much
difference from the gentleman's standpoint. He does not like any of it.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will defer
to the chairman on this bill. This is his bill. This is his amending
process. I am going to take his judgment on it. I would prefer it not
be there, but if the gentleman is happy with it, I will manage to try
to be happy.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from
Michigan still wishes to agree with this, I ask unanimous consent, if
he is agreeable to the proposal, to amend my amendment to add ``The
National Institute of Justice'' for the activities and operations
related, as the gentleman requested.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that it would prefer to have the
amendment reduced to writing, in order to have it at the desk. We will
suspend for 1 minute while it is being put in writing.
Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] offer the amendment
that is at the desk?
amendment offered by mr. conyers to the amendment offered by mr.
mccollum
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers to the amendment offered
by Mr. McCollum: Strike out the period at the end of the
amendment offered by Mr. McCollum, and insert ``, including
the National Institute for Justice for law enforcement
technology programs.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that the amendment is not
separately debatable, and comes under the time limit.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 1 minute remaining, and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], has 30 seconds remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think what we ought to do is accept
this amendment to my amendment, and pass the whole thing. I think it is
an amicable thing. I think the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
wishes to do that.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] the name of the agency again? I heard it wrong, I
thought.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the name that the gentleman will come to
love is the National Institute of Justice for law enforcement
technology programs.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
could the gentleman from Michigan explain what that agency does?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that each side be granted 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Each side will be granted 2 additional minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I believe this has been written
incorrectly. If I am not mistaken, what the gentleman intends is the
National Institute of Justice, and it is for law enforcement technology
programs, but ``law enforcement technology programs,'' should not be
capitalized. I think the gentleman is really talking about those types
of programs that the National Institute of Justice has, is that not
correct?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, absolutely
correct.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Would the gentleman from Michigan agree to amend his
amendment to put the word ``of'' in between the ``Institute'' and
``Justice'', instead of as it is?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we intended.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] shall be modified as suggested.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment, as modified offered by Mr. Conyers to the
amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: Strike out the period at
the end of the amendment and insert ``, including the
National Institute of Justice for law enforcement technology
programs.''
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no further desire to debate this.
I think we have it correct technically now.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman fro
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a vote on this, but I will
say I am deeply troubled by this. Of all of the complaints that I get
in my district, the one that I hear more than any other is that at the
end of every fiscal year Federal agencies go rushing to the pot to
spend every conceivable amount of money that they can spend on any
thing, and never turn anything back to be applied, and our deficit
keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me that we are falling prey to that
very thing in this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to
me.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment, as modified, to the amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. scott
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment number 8.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Scott: Page 8, after line 3 insert
the following:
``(d) Evaluation.--From the amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the
Attorney General shall reserve \1/10\ of 1% for use by the
National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness
of programs established under this title and the benefits of
such programs in relation to the cost of such programs.''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the
committee, seek recognition in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I am in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires that we
[[Page H1526]] use a minuscule portion of the funding for programs
under this chapter to determine whether or not the billions of dollars
authorized under this bill, plus the hundreds of billions of dollars
the prison grants program will encourage the States to spend, whether
or not those expenditures actually reduce crime.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit a similar provision to evaluate programs
funded under the Police and Prevention Block Grant when we take up H.R.
728. The amendment will set aside one-tenth of 1 percent for research
and evaluation of the effectiveness of expenditures under the bill for
crime reduction.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures that we will try to add not only
truth-in-sentencing, but also truth in legislating, as we approach the
attack on crime. We need to know whether or not the expenditures are
actually having an effect.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen programs evaluated, like drug courts, that
cost about one-twentieth of other initiatives and have an 80 percent
reduction in crime.
We have seen studies of Head Start, Job Corps and other primary
prevention programs that save more money than they cost and reduce
crime.
We have even seen recreational programs studied, and significant
reduction of crimes are found.
{time} 1800
Mr. Chairman, according to the National Academy of Sciences, in
various studies of potential years of life lost, violence prevention
gets a small portion of the research. We spend $441 for heart, lung,
and blood research for each potential year of life lost, $697 for AIDS
research, $794 for each potential year of life lost for cancer, but
only $31 for each potential year of life lost in research for violence.
Mr. Chairman, we should invest one-tenth of 1 percent of the funds
under this bill to see whether we have wasted our money or whether the
money could have been allocated better. Five years from now after we
have spent $30 billion, we would then be considering spending another
$30 billion or more, it would be nice to know what parts of the $30
billion actually had the effect of reducing crime and what part of the
$30 billion had no effect at all.
This minuscule investment can give us the answers, and therefore I
hope the House will adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized
for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, I wish to oppose this amendment, and I
would like to argue in that behalf very briefly simply to state that
what I am concerned about at this point in time is the fact that we
already know that 30 percent of those who are convicted of all violent
crimes in this country are on probation or parole at the time they are
convicted. There is no question that prison time is a great solver in
deterring crime. If somebody is in prison they cannot commit crimes,
for gosh sakes. We do not need to spend one dime of research to
determine that. I cannot imagine the value of it, and I cannot, as much
as I respect the gentleman from Virginia, and know he is in good
conscience offering this, I cannot for the life of me see why we should
do it.
With all due respect, I am going to oppose the amendment. It just
does not make any sense to me and I do not think there is much more I
need to debate about it. I just do not have any reason to support it
and I cannot.
So, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Cunningham] assumed the Chair.
____________________