[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1526-H1530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if we are not willing to spend one-tenth 
of 1 percent to find out where $10 billion is going in terms of 
programs, construction, and effectiveness, I do not know how anybody 
could support this program without having this one safety corrective.
  We just passed slightly earlier an amendment that would allow for 
evaluating and mandating the efficiency of the construction of prisons, 
and prison construction. Now we are saying to look at the efficacy of 
this entire program, the construction and the prisons and the programs 
contained within this bill is unnecessary because we already know, it 
is the height of arrogance on our part. If we already knew this we 
would have built prisons a long time ago. As a matter of fact, the 
debate is very much in doubt as to how much effectiveness building 
prisons really is.
  So I urge the support of the Scott amendment as being very vital to 
this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not seek recognition. I have no 
other speakers that I know of except me as a closing speaker.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the Scott amendment. I support 
the Scott amendment basically because it questions the blind drive 
without further study toward incarceration over prevention. Why should 
we not spend a small amount of money to determine the effectiveness of 
incarceration?
  The bill assumes a government block grant, H.R. 728, will pass next 
week, and so therefore if it passes it will have an opportunity to 
eliminate many of the programs that will help policing and community 
prevention.
  I support community policing and prevention programs and therefore I 
certainly intend to vote against that bill. But at least we should, 
fiscal responsibility would say we should set aside a small amount to 
determine if we are spending all of this money in the right way and to 
what extent it is being effective.
  Therefore, State and local governments that have been very supportive 
with community policing and having resources to prevent crime will find 
they will be far more vulnerable if the block grants pass and assuming 
they will be most vulnerable, the likely community policing and 
technology that should there will not be available. This simply gives 
an opportunity to study the effectiveness of incarceration.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Scott amendment. The amendment requires 
that point 1 percent of all prison funding be used for studying the 
effectiveness of prisons as a crime control device. In other words Mr. 
Speaker, the Scott amendment questions the blind drive toward 
incarceration over prevention as an approach to law enforcement in 
America.
  This bill assumed that the Local Government Block Grants Act, H.R. 
728, will pass next week. That act will eliminate community policing 
and the crime prevention programs that we passed last year. I support 
community policing and prevention programs, and I therefore intend to 
vote against this bill.
  When we passed the crime bill last year, we were comforted by the 
prospect of putting another 100,000 police on the streets. Those police 
were expected to help stem the rising tide of crime and to make our 
streets safe again. State and local governments have responded 
enthusiastically to community policing.
  More than 8,000 applications have been made for grants to put more 
police on the streets. Last year's crime bill made sure that 
[[Page H1527]]  the resources would be used for more police and police 
related activities, such as new technology and overtime pay. The 
language of H.R. 728, which allows for block grants, would broaden the 
use of the funds. That broader use will effectively dilute resources 
for community policing and would allow funds to be used for such things 
as street lights and disaster preparation. Those are important uses, 
but those uses are not as important as more police.
  There is absolutely no requirement in this bill or in H.R. 728 that 
the funds authorized must be used for police. Last year's bill gave 
sufficient flexibility to the State and local governments while 
ensuring that the police would be hired to patrol our streets. This 
bill and H.R. 728 provide no such guarantees. In addition, any block 
grant funds that might be used for police under this year's bills, may 
well be threatened by the budget axe under the mandate of a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment. Block grant funds are far more 
vulnerable to such a result.
  We may not have any new police on the streets, if these bills pass. 
More importantly, under block grant funding, the critical prevention 
programs we passed last year are at risk.
  Over the next 5 years, under last year's bill, my State of North 
Carolina would receive millions of dollars in funds to help prevent 
violence against women. Twenty-seven million dollars would have gone 
for police, prosecutors, and victims services. And $9 million would 
have gone to grants for shelters for battered women and their children. 
There is doubt that those funds will be available under these bills.
  Under last year's bill, North Carolina would have received $6 million 
to treat some 5,400 drug-addicted prisoners, housed in our prisons. We 
would have received $21 million, over the next 5 years, for afterschool 
and in-school safe havens for our children. All of those funds will be 
in doubt, with passage of these bills. We would have received $39 
million in direct grants for a variety of local programs for education 
and jobs programs. And, we would have been eligible for millions more 
in discretionary grants, money for boys and girls clubs, and antigang 
grants. Those funds are now in doubt.
  Mr. Chairman, it is by now well established that it is far more 
costly to incarcerate an individual than it is to train or educate him. 
Prisons are warehouses and training grounds for further criminal 
activity. If we are serious about crime prevention, we should put more 
police on the streets and provide resources for programs that 
discourage crime. The Scott amendment keeps us moving in that 
direction.
  I urge support for the Scott amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  One of the concerns I had about last year's crime bill and about 
every crime bill that we have considered since we have been here is 
that we seem to be in a posture where we are just throwing money out 
there at crime without any real assessment of whether that money is 
really having any impact on the crime rate. I do not support throwing 
money at anything without having some reasonable evaluation of whether 
it is working, whether it is crime or any other thing. This is the 
people's money that we are using and it is our responsibility as 
responsible legislators to use it in a responsible way. And whether it 
is a prevention program, the building of prisons, the increasing of 
sentencing, whatever we are doing in the crime context, however 
frustrated we are in trying to address crime, we still have a 
responsibility to know that what we are doing is working to actually 
have some impact.
  I do not know how anyone could object to trying to go through some 
process, setting aside some small amount of funds to make a 
determination of whether a program or a set of programs or a series of 
programs is actually having an impact on the crime rate.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why anybody could be in 
opposition to this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], the Show-Me State.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment, because it is very obvious to me when you read 
this bill we are not going to build any prisons. And that has happened 
as a result of the Rogers amendment, we are going to be diverting money 
that should go to the cops on the beat, on the streets in our local 
communities and we are going to give it to FBI and DEA and BATF and all 
of these other agencies, so that they could have money when we cut back 
on spending in a couple of years.
  I never saw such a diversion as I just saw from my office in the 
Rogers amendment. Anyhow, they admit they are not going to spend the 
money on prisons. Otherwise, they would not use that amendment.
  So I would rather use it for cops on the beat any day, and I think 
that is right there locally where they need to fight crime, and I 
support the gentleman's amendment.
                              {time}  1810

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, just in closing, we have heard a lot of 
rhetoric on the floor about how safe we are going to be if we build 
these prisons. Let us see it. Let us study one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the billions of dollars we are going to spend on the bill, hundreds of 
billions of dollars that we are going to encourage States to spend. Let 
us see if it made any difference.
  I can understand how people would not want to study it so that they 
can hide behind the rhetoric.
  If these expenditures, if these tens of billions of dollars we are 
going to spend are doing any good, let us see it. Let us spend one-
tenth of 1 percent to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I assure you, I will not consume much.
  I just want to reiterate the opposition that we on our side have to 
this amendment. It is not that the gentleman wants to do anything all 
that egregious. It is the expenditure of money on proving something 
that I think is self-evident, already known to us, and that is, by 
golly, with the high rate of recidivism we have got out there, if you 
keep people in prison longer, you are going to have a better crime 
statistic. You are going to have fewer crimes committed. We are having 
this revolving door and the repeat of violent offenders going through 
this process, and that is the reason why we are here having the money 
and trying to build the prisons we have to build to keep them off the 
streets and lock them up.
  There may be some merit to the fact that there are some root causes 
of crime out there, some need-to-address poverty or causes that are 
perhaps in the communities around the country, but that is not 
something we can address tonight. That is not something that is our 
province to do in this crime legislation.
  What we are about tonight is to try to produce a bill that provides 
enough resources to the States through grant programs so they can build 
sufficient prison beds to take off the streets and incarcerate for at 
least 85 percent of their sentences, in other words, abolish parole, 
for those committing serious violent felonies and getting out again and 
going around the horn and coming back and committing more of them 
again.
  I just think it is self-evident we do not need to spend any of this 
bill to find out if it is true or it is not true if that would help the 
problem.
  I, again, reiterate my opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The amendment was rejected.
            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 3, 
     line 11, strike the word ``assurances'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof the word ``confirmation''
       Page 3, line 17, strike the word ``and''
       Page 3, line 20, strike the period and add ``; and''
       Page 3, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(4) decreased the rate of violent offenses committed in 
     the State, taking into account the population of such State, 
     at a level at least equivalent to the lesser of the 
     percentage increase confirmed in sections (1), (2) or (3) 
     above.''
       Page 4, line 7, strike the word ``assurances'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof the word ``confirmation''
        [[Page H1528]] Page 4, line 21, strike the comma and 
     replace it with a semicolon
       Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(C) procedures for the collection of reliable statistical 
     data which confirms the rate of serious violent felonies 
     after the adoption of such truth-in-sentencing laws.''
       Page 6, line 7, strike the ``--'' and insert instead 
     ``confirms that''
       Page 6, line 8, strike the word ``and''
       Page 6, line 12, strike the period and insert instead ``; 
     and (3) the rate of violent felony offenses committed in such 
     State has decreased since such State commenced indeterminant 
     sentencing for such offenses.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Indeed I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This amendment is very similar to the Scott amendment which was just 
considered. However, Mr. Chairman, under the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], he would have allocated a small 
amount of funds under this bill in a fund at the national level to make 
an assessment of whether the bill was having any impact on violent 
crime in this country. This amendment gives that responsibility to the 
States or the localities which are applying for funds under this bill.
  Basically what it says is if you have an 85-percent service 
requirement, your prisoners have to serve 85 percent of their time, 
give us what indication you have that that has had some impact on the 
incidence of violent crime in your State; do not ask us to just throw 
money out there after this problem. If the purpose of your building new 
prisons or increasing sentencing or providing for longer sentencing is 
in fact to reduce crime, tell us that that is what has happened in your 
State, taking into account the increase in population.
  The second part of the bill requires that the States track the 
incidence of violent crime and keep statistical information so that 
that information can be available to the residents of that State and to 
the American people, that we are not wasting $10 billion, $12 billion, 
$15 billion of their money on something that is really not having any 
impact on violent crime.
  So instead of accepting that responsibility, taking it out of the 
fund at our level, this imposes on the States, which will be applying 
for funds under this bill, to have an assessment process and present 
some indication that this money that we are giving them is having some 
impact on violent crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is totally unacceptable to this side, 
because, frankly, what it does is it makes it next to impossible, I 
would suggest impossible, for some States to ever get any money under 
this bill. It makes the standard and the conditions for getting it 
increased. If somebody on the other side of the aisle was complaining 
about never getting any money under the bill as it exists now, you sure 
as heck would not get it after it is amended by this amendment.
  You have got to prove as a State your crime rate will actually drop 
as a result of getting money under here, and the crime rate will 
actually have to go down, and you will have to show the Attorney 
General it is going down as a result of getting money and building more 
prisons.
  The truth of the matter is States like Florida and other growth 
States may very well have their crime rate go up no matter what they do 
simply because there is an influx of people, because we do not have 
barriers from people moving from one State to another, and while per 
capita or whatever, maybe the crime rate is going down, but if you kept 
it the same and did not have more criminals moving in, but it presents 
an impossible situation, a condition that a State has got to show its 
crime rate in fact is dropping.
  It is something the gentleman offered in committee. I opposed it, and 
we defeated it there. I have to oppose it again here today.
  I hope the gentleman does not seek a recorded vote on this if he 
loses, but if he does, I want to announce to everybody here we will 
rise at that time. I will move to rise, and we will not have any more 
recorded votes out here tonight.
  If the gentleman's amendment does not have a recorded vote ordered on 
it, then at that point in time we might proceed to a couple of other 
amendments that are not likely to have recorded votes, but there will 
be no more recorded votes here tonight. So no one has to worry about 
it.
  But, again, I want to reiterate my opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watt amendment, 
and I find it absurd that accountability or how you plan to address 
crime is asking any State too much.
  It is, indeed, for the very reason we are appropriating these monies 
that this amendment makes abundantly good sense. It simply says that 
there should be an assessment by the applicants themselves so as to how 
they propose, indeed, that crime can go down.

                              {time}  1820

  Second, statistical data is always helpful in determining if in fact 
you have been effective. So, to suggest that a State could not be 
accountable when they make an application seems absurd. It flies in the 
face of reality and certainly flies in the face of logic of this 
Member.
  I would assume that this is simply to suggest that States who have a 
commitment to address the issue of crime are willing to say how they 
propose to do it in their assessment. These are the methods and this is 
the strategy.
  Further, they would be required to give statistical data showing that 
they indeed shall be successful in using that money. Accountability is 
what is at the back of this issue, simply saying we are not throwing 
money and we are also asking them to be responsible, and I think most 
States would be responsible.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers at this time, and 
I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
in order to say that I understand the resolution of this may have been 
worked out. I yield 1 minute to the ranking minority member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I 
compliment the gentleman for his amendment because it has led to the 
possible resolution of the objective sought by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the gentleman from California.
  If we do have an agreement on a subsequent amendment known as the 
Zimmer-Scott amendment, I would implore my colleague from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt] to withdraw this amendment and we would move 
forward.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we do have an agreement about both the Scott proposal 
and the Zimmer proposal. It just has been pointed out to me, since we 
have discussed this, I say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
that the Scott amendment should stand on its own as a separate 
amendment. We have no objection to it. We would suggest both be 
offered, both Zimmer and Scott, and we will accept both of them.
  Mr. CONYERS. We will do this.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I 
be permitted to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  [[Page H1529]] There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. zimmer

  Mr. ZIMMER. 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. Zimmer: Add at the end the 
     following new title:

                        TITLE--PRISON CONDITIONS

     SEC.  . PRISON CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall by rule 
     establish standards regarding conditions in the Federal 
     prison system that provide prisoners the least amount of 
     amenities and personal comforts consistent with 
     Constitutional requirements and good order and discipline in 
     the Federal Prison system.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to establish or recognize any minimum rights or 
     standards for prisoners.

     SEC.  . ANNUAL REPORT.

       The director of the Bureau of Prisons shall submit to 
     Congress on or before December 31 of each year, beginning on 
     December 31, 1995 a report setting forth the amount spent at 
     each Federal correctional facility under the jurisdiction of 
     the Bureau of Prisons for each of the following items:
       (1) The minimal Requirements necessary to maintain Custody 
     and security of prisoners.
       (2) Basic nutritional needs.
       (3) Essential medical services.
       (4) Amenities and programs beyond the scope of the items 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3), including but not 
     limited to--
       (A) recreational programs and facilities;
       (B) vocational and education programs; and
       (C) counseling services, together with the rationale for 
     spending on each category and empirical data, if any, 
     supporting such rationale.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, the 
gentleman from New Jersey will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan seek to claim the time on this 
amendment?
  Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, prison perks are bad public policy, and they are an 
abuse of taxpayer money.
  My amendment is aimned at eliminating them from Federal prisons. In 
some prisons, inmate amenities are better than what law-abiding 
Americans on the outside get, and all this is at taxpayer expense.
  At the Lompoc, CA, Federal penitentiary, they offer all-channel cable 
TV, movies 7 days a week, pool tables, handball, tennis, and miniature 
golf. The Duluth, MN, Federal prison is called Club Fed. It provides a 
movie theater, musical instruments, softball field, gamerooms.
  The Manchester, KY, Federal prison, in which some former State 
legislators reside, has a jogging track, several basketball courts, and 
multiple TV rooms.
  Mr. Chairman, prisons should be places of detention and punishment, 
not vacation spas. Prison perks undermine the concept of jail as 
deterrence, and they also waste taxpayer money.
  My amendment would end the taxpayer abuse by
   requiring the Attorney General to set specific standards governing 
Federal prisoners that do not exceed what is necessary for prison 
order, discipline, and constitutional requirements.

  The amendment also requires the Bureau of Prisons to submit an annual 
audit to Congress listing exactly how much is spent at each Federal 
prison for basics and how much is spent for extra perks and amenities.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] to 
know that under the constraints of time, we accept his amendment on 
this side, and I would yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank all my colleagues who are waiting patiently to 
speak on behalf of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the No Frills 
Prison Act as an amendment to the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 
1995. This legislation would deny Federal funds to States who give 
inmates special privileges.
  I believe that we've lost our perspective in this Nation when 
prisoners eat better than our children, and inmates enjoy air 
conditioning while senior citizens in nursing homes swelter. Removing 
such luxuries as Stairmaster's premium cable TV, and weight rooms is 
essential to ensuring that our prisons are not country clubs, but are 
instead true place of punishment for crime.
  I commend Mr. Zimmer for his good work in creating a bill that is 
truly tough on crime, and I encourage my colleagues to support this 
worthwhile amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
                     amendment offered by mr. scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott: Page 7, line 24, insert 
     ``(1)'' before ``The''.
       Page 8, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(2)(A) A State that receives funds under this title 
     shall, in such form and manner as the Attorney General 
     determines, and under such regulations as the Attorney 
     General shall prescribe, require that the appropriate public 
     authorities report promptly to the Attorney General the death 
     of each individual who dies in custody while in a municipal 
     or county jail, State prison, or other similar place of 
     confinement. Each such report shall include the cause of 
     death and all other facts relevant to the death reported, 
     which the person so reporting shall have the duty to make a 
     good faith effort to ascertain.
       (B) The Attorney General shall annually publish a report 
     containing--
       (i) the number of deaths in each institution for which a 
     report was filed during the relevant reporting period;
       (ii) the cause of death and time of death for each death so 
     reported; and
       (iii) such other information about the death as the 
     Attorney General deems relevant.

  Mr. SCOTT (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 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] seek recognition?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, 
but I do seek recognition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member in opposition?
  If not, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been recent press reports about deaths in 
local jails and prisons. This merely requires the States and 
localities, when there is a death in the jail, to report it to the 
Attorney General so there would at least be somewhere in the U.S. 
Government a record of the information that is available.
  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 have no opposition to this amendment. The gentleman 
from Virginia is simply asking for States who receive funds under this 
proposal to report the deaths of those who die in their State prisons 
to the Federal Government, to the Attorney General, along with any 
causes.
  I think such reporting would probably be beneficial to our committee 
and to the Congress, to know the answers to these things so that we can 
have statistics available. There are a lot of other statistics that are 
gathered, and they could probably submit this with no undue amount of 
burden, 
[[Page H1530]]  since they keep those records, along with the other 
reports they submit.
  We would be prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. I commend the gentleman from Virginia for his amendment 
and support it with strong support.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to .
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cunningham) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 667) to 
control crime by incarcerating violent criminals, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________