[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.

                          ____________________