[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1561-H1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas). 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 further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 667.

                              {time}  0917


                     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 further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 667) to control crime by incarcerating violent criminals, 
with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Thursday, February 9, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott] had been disposed of, and the bill was open for 
amendment at any point.
  Four hours and ten minutes remain for consideration of the bill under 
the 5-minute rule.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, 
amendment No. 2, Watt No. 2.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 17, 
     strike lines 16-23 and page 18, strike lines 1-3.
       Page 18, line 4, strike the letter ``g'' and insert instead 
     the letter ``f''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed 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 should not take 5 minutes. I actually engaged in 
some degree of debate on this amendment during the period of general 
debate.
  This amendment simply would strike the provisions in the bill having 
to do with the award of attorneys' fees.
  I now realize that I may have the wrong amendment at the desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute amendment No. 3, 
Watt No. 3, and have that one read instead. I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment that was originally read be withdrawn and that the 
Watt amendment No. 3 be substituted.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment has been withdrawn.


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer my new amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 16, 
     strike lines 10-20.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

                              {time}  0920

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment actually relates to the procedure by 
which an appeal is taken from an order in which relief has been granted 
in a prison lawsuit.
  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, I am uncertain as to what this amendment is. The 
amendment that was read does not seem to be amendment No. 3 that was 
printed in the Journal. I would like to understand what amendment we 
are on at this point.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentleman's side has a copy of them. 
We redesignated the amendments because when the bill came out of 
committee it came out in a different form that the amendments that were 
printed in the Record conform with. So we have gone back and conformed 
the amendments to comply with the actual printed bill.
  Does that address the gentleman's concern?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. It does. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I had given the gentleman's side a copy 
of this amendment and the revised amendments yesterday afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, resuming my time, the bill provides that when an order 
has been entered by the court and the defendants in the case who have 
already been found to have violated a constitutional right by prison 
overcrowding or in some other way violating a prisoner's rights and an 
effort has been made to try to correct that, when the motion to revise 
that order is made, that order continues in effect during the pendency 
of the motion to revise the court's order. Well, that is exactly what 
happens in any lawsuit. If the court ever enters an order in a case, 
that order stays in effect until the court comes back and changes that 
order or until some higher court changes that order.
  The provisions of this bill would say if the court has entered an 
order, the order is in effect, the defendant files a 
[[Page H1562]] motion with the court to change that order or to 
eliminate that order, then simply because the defendant filed a motion 
to change the order, if the court did not act on that motion within 30 
days or some arbitrary time, the defendant would win the motion.
  There is absolutely no precedent for this kind of radical change in 
any area of the law. Basically, what it says is you take overcrowded, 
overworked Federal courts, and you, without adding any additional 
personnel, any additional space, any additional opportunity for them to 
get the aid that they need--and everybody knows the courts are already 
overworked--and you take that and use it as an excuse to, in effect, 
change the whole burden of proof and process that we have followed in 
our country for years and years and years.
  Another example of some political sloganeering taking precedence over 
reasonable public policy and thought in this body.
  I would simply submit that this provision makes no sense from a 
public policy perspective. It may make some sense from an appeal to the 
political electorate's perspective, but I would even think it does not 
make any sense once you think about it and talk it out from that 
perspective.
  So I would ask my colleagues to be reasonable, go back to the process 
that has existed in all other cases in our court system and allow that 
process to continue to exist in this case.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Is there a Member 
in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I claim the time in 
opposition?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision of the bill which is being attacked by 
the current amendment is a provision that is simply designed to insure 
the expeditious consideration of motions for relief filed by States and 
local governments.
  What happens in many of these cases involving prison conditions is, 
the court, unfortunately, will not expeditiously consider such motions 
for relief by the States and local governments. In some cases, that can 
result in dangerous criminals actually being let out on the street.
  Now, what we have in the bill is something that is very reasonable; 
it gives the court adequate time to consider the motions for relief and 
simply provides that if the court does not act on the motion for relief 
filed by the State or local government within the time period 
specified, then there will be a stay.
  Now, once the court acts on the motion, the stay goes away. This is 
simply a mechanism to encourage the court to act swiftly, to consider 
these matters which are of great public importance. If the court ends 
up ruling against the State or local government, at that point the 
State or local government will have the ability to appeal that order of 
the court.
  Now, I think it is important to understand there are two different 
time periods that are specified in the bill. One time period is for 30 
days. That means that a stay will come into effect 30 days after a 
motion has been filed. But that only happens in circumstances where 
there has been no prior finding by the court that an individual's 
constitutional right have been violated. So that is a very unique 
circumstance, where there has been an order imposed that is not based 
on a specific finding of such a constitutional violation.
  I believe there is a compelling case in such circumstances for 
allowing the State or local government to obtain swift relief from 
onerous impacts of such a court order that is not based on a finding of 
specific constitutional deprivation.
  Now, it is true that other cases, where there may have been a finding 
of a constitutional deprivation, are subject to the stay provisions, 
but that stay provision only comes into place after the court has had 
the motion for more than 180 days.
  Now, I believe 180 days is certainly an adequate period of time for a 
court to consider such a matter, particularly given the fact that these 
matters involve the public safety and involve the issue in many cases 
of keeping violent criminals off the street who would otherwise 
potentially be released under the court's order.
  So I believe these are reasonable provisions.
  The important thing to understand there is there is nothing, there is 
absolutely nothing in this bill that keeps the court from keeping in 
place the provisions of the order. If the court will simply make the 
findings that are necessary under the law, if the court will simply 
deal with the matter in an expeditious manner, the court will provide 
whatever relief is appropriate for a constitutional deprivation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
additional time as I may consume and would like to address a couple of 
questions, after I make a comment, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady].
  Again, this is one of these situations like we saw yesterday and day 
before yesterday where I am not sure the other side has read the 
provisions of its own bill.
  Mr. Canady represents to my colleagues here that under one part of 
this, the 30-day provision, no order needs to be in effect. But I do 
not know where he is getting that from if he has read the provisions of 
his bill.
  It says, beginning on the 30th day after such motion is made in the 
case of a motion made under subsection B. Subsection B of this bill, an 
order is already in effect by a court because subsection B deals with 
termination of relief, relief that has already been ordered by the 
court.
  So on that point, I think he is just absolutely wrong in his reading 
of his own bill.

                              {time}  0930

  Second, I would simply ask the gentleman whether he knows of any 
other situations, legal situations in this country, in which, where an 
order is in effect by the court, and somebody is trying to get from 
under that order, and they file a motion with the court to terminate 
it, a disposition of that motion is made in one way or another without 
the court having acted on it? Is there any other legal precedent for 
this that he can cite in any other area of the law?
  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. That is the typical situation in the case of 
appeals from a judgment of the court.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are not talking about appeals. We are 
talking about going back to the same court that entered the order. This 
provision has nothing to do with appeals. This has to do with a motion 
in the court where the relief was granted. Is there any other precedent 
in the whole body of law in this country where a similar provision 
exists?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. There are provisions of law that stay certain 
orders against governmental entities. I am familiar with those in a 
variety of States where an order may be entered against a particular 
governmental entity. There is a stay imposed specifically because of 
the status of the party as a governmental entity. That is something 
that is found in the law, but let me go back tot his point that the 
gentleman raises about the 30-day stay.
  Now this is a conversation, quite frankly, that we had in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and I am simply going to repeat it to my 
colleague.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time 
because we are operating on my time here, and I will reserve the 
balance of my time and let the gentleman make his point on his time 
since I have limited time here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we discussed at length in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the 30-day stay only comes into 
[[Page H1563]] place in circumstances where there is an absence of a 
finding by the court that prison conditions violated a Federal right.
  I say to the gentleman, if you want to look on page 16 of the bill, 
beginning at line one, that's where you'll find it.
  Now obviously there is going to be a court order in place. I never 
indicated that the stay only comes in place when there has been no 
court order. Obviously there is nothing to stay if there is no court 
order. We are talking about a court order, however where the court 
order does not have a finding by the court that prison conditions 
violated a Federal right.
  Now all we are saying, it is in those circumstances the local 
government or the State should be entitled to very swift consideration 
of a motion for relief from an order that has not been based on the 
finding it should be based on. That is all that we are providing here.
  Now, as I said, this is the same explanation that was provided in the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The plain language of the bill indicates 
that that is what we are talking about, and the gentleman can see it 
there on page 16.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  I agree with one thing that the gentleman said. This is the 
explanation they gave for this provision in committee; that is true.
  The explanation in committee was wrong. The explanation they are 
giving on the floor today is wrong. The wording of this bill 
specifically says the 30-day provision applies in any civil action with 
respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief has been 
granted.
  So he has got a 30-day provision for that, and he has got a 180-day 
provision where retrospective relief has been granted, but in both of 
those cases relief has been granted.
  Now let me just say to my colleagues and to the American people that 
yesterday or the day before yesterday--I am losing track of time now 
with all of these bills that keep coming at me--we set up a different 
standard of law with respect to aliens than we set up with respect to 
gunowners as far as the fourth amendment is concerned. Under that 
provision we are treating one part of our population differently than 
we treat other parts of our population. Here we are today setting a 
lower standard again for the rights of other citizens simply because we 
do not like those citizens.
  I would say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and to all of 
my colleagues, We can't set a different standard of law and decide in 
advance who is a bad guy and who is a good guy. Our whole criminal 
justice and court system is designed to make those determinations. We 
can't make those determinations on the floor of the Congress of the 
United States. It's the courts' responsibility to make those 
determinations, and when we start with moving the courts' authority, we 
are undercutting our rights, and this makes no sense, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me in opposing it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time just to sum up very quickly.
  The issue here is whether we are going to allow courts to continue 
micromanaging prison facilities and to allow them to delay their 
consideration of motions for relief from their micromanagement. That is 
the issue. I believe that we have seen a history of abuses in this 
area. There is a compelling public interest in ensuring that local 
governments and the States are able to obtain relief in an expeditious 
manner.
  Now we are not tying the courts' hands here. We are simply saying to 
the court, ``Act, consider these matters, deal with them because they 
are of public import because they are matters that have a grave impact 
on the public safety. They're matters that in effect are life-and-death 
matters.''
  Let me say this also:
  We are not setting a lower standard for anybody's rights here. This 
bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that people who have a 
legitimate claim, people whose rights, whose constitutional rights, are 
in fact being violated, can have a remedy. But what we want to stop is 
the overinvolvement of the courts in managing the prison systems.
  I say to my colleagues, That's what this is about, and, if you want 
to have a more rational policy in this area, you will oppose this 
unfavorable amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield 
just so I can make a point?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The issue is not whether the courts will 
micromanage prisons. The issue is whether Congress will micromanage the 
courts, and that is what we are doing by putting this provision in the 
law.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I respectfully disagree. I think we are 
addressing an important public matter here, and this is certainly 
within the province of the Congress' responsibility, and indeed I 
believe it is incumbent upon the Congress to address this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 93, 
noes 313, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                                YEAS--93

     Abercrombie
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--313

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     [[Page H1564]] Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Allard
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Boucher
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Collins (MI)
     Deutsch
     Ford
     Frost
     Gillmor
     Greenwood
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Rangel
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Tucker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0959

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Chrysler against.
       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Weldon of Florida 
     against.

  Messrs. POMEROY, FRANKS of New Jersey, and de la GARZA, Mrs. MALONEY, 
Ms. FURSE, and Messrs. COLLINS of Georgia, MARKEY, and ENGEL changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FAZIO of California, Mr. MEEHAN, and Mr. STUDDS changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 112 on H.R. 667 I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1000


                     amendment offered by mr. riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. 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. Riggs: After subsection (b) of 
     section 504, insert the following new subsection (and 
     redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):
       ``(c) Availability of Funds for Jail Construction.--A State 
     may use up to 15 percent of the funds provided under this 
     title for jail construction, if the Attorney General 
     determines that the State has enacted--
       ``(1) legislation that provides for pretrial release 
     requirements at least as restrictive as those found in 
     section 3142 of title 18, United States Code; or
       ``(2) legislation that requires an individual charged with 
     an offense for which a sentence of more than one year may be 
     imposed, or charged with an offense involving violence 
     against another person, may not be released before trial 
     without a financial guarantee to ensure appearance before 
     trial.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to address the 
twofold problem of jail overcrowding in many of our communities across 
the country today, and also it is designed to address the problem of 
instances where individuals who have been arrested for serious crimes 
and violent offenders are being released back into our communities 
after arrest on their own personal recognizance and promise to appear 
in court.
  This has become a particularly exaggerated problem in our communities 
because in many instances, these individuals are not only failing to 
appear in court to stand trial on original charges, but too often are 
going back out into our communities and are committing additional 
crimes. My amendment might be known as the jail, not bail, amendment to 
H.R. 667.
  Under my amendment, each State would be given the flexibility to use 
up to 15 percent of its funding under the act for jail construction. 
However, the chief law enforcement officer of each State, the Attorney 
General, would have to find that in order for the local communities to 
utilize these funds, that the State has adopted pretrial release 
restrictions that are at least as restrictive as those in effect in the 
Federal system, or that individuals charged with serious offenses or 
crimes of violence are not released without security. That means 
without the requirement of posting a commercial bail bond.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to underscore to my colleagues that this is not 
a mandate, only an additional option for each State that qualifies and 
utilizes funding under this act.
  Let me go back to the original problem that I mentioned, which is the 
problem of jail overcrowding. There is clearly a need for greater 
prison capacity in each of our States.
  In many instances, and I know this certainly is the case in 
California, our local jails, and these are the county-run facilities, 
are often holding individuals who have been convicted of felony charges 
and are awaiting transfer to State prison, so my amendment is designed 
to recognize the problem of jail overcrowding and recognize the fact 
that, again, local correctional facilities are often being used as an 
adjunct of the State penal system.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that jails are a less secure facility than 
a prison. Jails are designed to detain temporarily prior to trial those 
who have been
 charged with a crime, or to incarcerate minor offenders. Increased 
enforcement efforts and a heightened public concern about crime have 
added the pressure on all of our correctional facilities, but 
certainly, again, our local correctional facilities in communities 
throughout America.

  Let me turn to the other issue, Mr. Chairman, which is the question 
of requiring secured bail from offenders, and these are individuals who 
have been charged with crimes, versus free bail, which is the practice 
of releasing individuals right back out into the community on what is 
known as OR, their own recognizance, and their personal promise to 
appear in court at a later date to stand trial on the original charges.
  According to the Justice Department's own statistics, 60 percent, 60 
percent of State felony defendants who are released prior to trial are 
not required to post bail. This has created an unintended effect in our 
local communities, because one-third of these individuals are either 
rearrested for a new offense before trial, or fail to appear in court 
as scheduled. Of course, as we all know, failure to appear in court on 
original charges is in and of itself an additional crime.
  Mr. Chairman, of those already on pretrial release, 56 percent are 
released again when arrested on new felony charges. That literally 
boggles the mind, the notion that somebody could be released on a 
felony charge, and this is an initial crime, for an initial crime and 
an initial arrest, released back into the community, again many times 
simply on their written promise to appear in court at a later date, and 
then commit additional felony crimes.
  What we know from the research is that those on secured release, that 
is to say, those who have been required or who have associates or 
relatives who have assisted them in posting a commercial bail bond, are 
far more likely to come back to court and answer the charges against 
them than those who are released on their own recognizance. Fewer 
people are rearrested while out on secured release.
  My amendment, by requiring in most instances the posting of a cash 
bail, would save the taxpayer money, since 
[[Page H1565]] private industry is then put in a position of monitoring 
criminal defendants and not taxpayer-supported officials.
  Mr. Chairman, the justice system should favor the victim, not the 
criminal. That is the common theme that runs throughout our efforts 
here on the floor over the last few days as we enact the crime 
provisions, the anticrime provisions, I should say, in the Contract 
With America.
  My amendment, like the rest of the Contract With America, will reduce 
Government, reduce taxes, and reduce crime.

                                   Rio Dell Police Department,

                                  Rio Dell, CA, December 29, 1994.
       Dear Congressman Riggs, I am writing to you on behalf of 
     the Law Enforcement Chiefs Association of Humboldt County. We 
     are facing a critical point in trying to enforce the laws of 
     this state and country. Due to the Humboldt County Jail 
     capacity rating of 200 inmates, we are being forced to cite 
     and release persons for auto theft, persons committing 
     burglary and other types of felonies. All misdemeanors have 
     to be cited and released in the field.
       The problem with the cite and release system is that these 
     persons are given a date and time to appear in court. Problem 
     is, they never show up for their court appearance. So then a 
     warrant is issued for them. They are picked up, arrested, and 
     cited and released again. These subjects know they are not 
     going to go to jail, so they don't show up in court, again 
     and again. This goes on and on, month after month, year after 
     year.
       It has gotten to the point that it is causing a morale 
     problem with all police officers in all law enforcement 
     agencies in Humboldt County. If a citizen knows that a 
     subject was picked up, arrested, then they think that this 
     person is in jail. So next, they see them on the street the 
     same day and then they come after the officers, wanting to 
     know why the person is not in jail. The officers try to 
     explain to them the way the system is working. But the 
     citizens don't care about that. They blame the police 
     officers and the police departments because these subjects 
     are back out on the street. Ninety five per cent (95%) of the 
     warrants we get from the court state, ``Do not cite and 
     release. Mandatory appearance requested.'' We still have to 
     cite and release these persons because the jail will not take 
     them.
       We have a new jail being built that will not be completed 
     until 1997. And even then we will be back to square one 
     again. Within thirty days, we will be facing the same problem 
     again as the new jail will not hold over 250 inmates.
       We are losing the streets to these criminals because of the 
     system. They know that if they are arrested, all we can do is 
     cite and release them again. Point. My department arrested 
     the same person three times in one week for burglary. We have 
     had to cite and release persons with over $100,000 in 
     warrants because they did not meet the criteria to be housed 
     in the County Jail.
       We are seeking your help in securing the abandoned Navy 
     facility at Centerville Beach in Humboldt County to be used 
     as a County Jail Farm with the following usage; to house all 
     these subjects with these outstanding warrants and persons 
     that are arrested that did not meet the criteria for the main 
     jail.
       Also, we wish to establish Project Challenge. At one time, 
     we had Project Challenge but we lost the funds because the 
     state cut funds on us. Project Challenge deals with drug 
     users who will work with us to try to get off drugs, try and 
     make useful citizens out of them.
       The Centerville Beach Navy facilities face the Pacific 
     Ocean. It has all the equipment that would be needed. It has 
     its own power system, if needed. It has a large gymnasium 
     that would be beneficial for the inmates, and a large 
     kitchen. There is over 17 acres, nine of those acres could be 
     farmed and used to raise cattle that could be used to feed 
     the inmates at this facility and those at the main jail. They 
     could farm produce.
       We, the Chiefs of Law Enforcement of Humboldt County, 
     believe that if we can secure this facility, and if inmates 
     are kept busy and with the clean environment that this 
     location has, it is possible to turn some of these inmates 
     around and make useful citizens out of them. Get these people 
     on the right path and out of the system.
       No inmate would be released from this location as it is ten 
     miles out from any city. So all inmates would be transported 
     back to the main jail in Eureka and released from that 
     location.
       We, the Chiefs of Law Enforcement Association of Humboldt 
     County, hope that you can help us secure funds, possibly from 
     the new Crime Bill, to secure the facility. We will be 
     forever indebted to you for any help that you can render us.
           Sincerely,
                                                       G.P. Gatto,
     Chief of Police.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Times-Standard, Feb. 8, 1995]

                     Federal Funds for Police OK'd

               (By Kelly Johnson and Christopher Rosche)

       Help is on its way in the fight against crime in Eureka, 
     city officials said Tuesday.
       Arcata, Fortuna, Rio Dell and the Del Norte County 
     Sheriff's Department also will receive money to cover part of 
     the cost of one new officer each.
       The Justice Department announced the grants to the three 
     cities Tuesday as part of anti-crime legislation Congress 
     approved last year. President Clinton, who supported the 
     legislation, had earlier promised federal seed money to put 
     100,000 more police officers on the nation's streets.
       Tuesday's grants went to communities having populations of 
     less than 50,000. California was cleared to receive $16 
     million to help hire 212 additional officers in cities 
     throughout the state.
       Eureka will receive $75,000, Mayor Nancy Flemming told the 
     City Council at a meeting Tuesday night.
       Police Chief Arnie Millsap is interviewing officers to fill 
     current vacancies, she said, calling the interviews an 
     ``important step forward.''
       ``They're on their way, folks, and it is going to help,'' 
     she said of the new officers.
       Arcata and Fortuna also are eligible for the maximum 
     $75,000. Rio Dell could receive up to $66,883.50, the Justice 
     Department said.
       Del Norte County's cap is $70,292.25.
       The money to all agencies, however, will not be available 
     until the new officers are sworn in.
       The communities in line to receive money must also submit 
     budget information and community-policing plans.
       In Eureka, Mayor Flemming thanked her City Council 
     colleagues Tuesday night for ``moving forward aggressively to 
     get all these frightening numbers down and get our city back 
     the way we want it.''
       Legislation introduced by state Assemblyman Dan Hauser, D-
     Arcata, also would help, Councilwoman Jean Warnes said. His 
     bill would require the state to transport Pelican Bay State 
     Prison parolees back to the counties in which they were 
     convicted.
       She urged residents to call or write Rep. Frank Riggs, R-
     Windsor, for help in fighting crime in Eureka. The city can 
     use its high crime statistics to show the state and federal 
     government that Eureka needs even more help, she said.
       In a sampling of two dozen California cities, Eureka 
     appeared to have a 1993 per capita crime rate second only to 
     Oakland's. City statistics show that property crimes in 
     Eureka sharply increased from 1993 to 1994.
       A big problem, officials said, is Humboldt County's ``cite 
     and release'' jail policy. People who commit nonviolent 
     crimes are released because the jail is too crowded.
       That policy is ``scaring us to death,'' Flemming aid.
       Councilman Jim Worthen said he personally will ask federal 
     representatives for help when he travels to Washington, D.C., 
     next month on behalf of the National League of Cities.
       Eureka also must continue to work with other local cities 
     to find solutions to the crime problem, Councilman Lance 
     Madsen said.
       In its fight against crime, Eureka has to do something 
     about the ``conspiracy and blackmail by the homeless 
     movement,'' Councilman Jack McKellar said. But the city is 
     limited in what it can do about the homeless problem by state 
     and federal requirements and possible legal challenges, he 
     said.
       On Capitol Hill, the new Republican majority is working on 
     anti-crime bills that would replace the grants earmarked for 
     police hiring, drug courts and social programs with combined 
     block grants. The money would go directly to local officials 
     who would determine, within some limits, how it would be 
     spent.
       The new legislation would not, however, cancel police 
     grants already awarded.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida, the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I think the gentleman offers an excellent amendment, 
Mr. Chairman. What he is doing is carving out an ability for the 
States, if they want to, to use up to 15 percent of their money for 
jail construction and jail operation, not just State prison moneys; 
prison construction, provided that they have the same type of strong, 
tough bonding requirements on pretrial release that the Federal 
Government has.
  I think that is a very constructive amendment. It limits the amount 
that could be used for the jail purposes, keeps within the concept of 
what the prison grant program is all about, and it would add a 
condition which some States will meet. Some States will not, but it is 
an excellent carrot, as well, for that purpose, so I commend the 
gentleman on his amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. I would like to point out, to follow up what the 
subcommittee chairman said, that we do have current statistics or 
recent year statistics from the Justice Department, and I would like to 
point out to my colleague on the other side of the aisle that in the 
calendar year 1992, and this is Justice Department statistics for those 
arrested on serious charges, 37 percent of those arrested for violent 
offenses were released on a nonfinancial basis; 24 percent were 
released simply on their own 
[[Page H1566]] recognizance and personal promise to appear in court at 
a later date.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the gentleman's 
amendment. If the court were to devise or a jurisdiction were to devise 
a system which allowed for a deposit, say, of 10 percent of the amount 
of bail with the court, refundable if the defendant showed up for 
trial, would that be an acceptable alternative to buying a bail bond 
from a private bail bondsman under this proposal?
                              {time}  1010

  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time to respond to the gentleman, because I 
think that is a very legitimate question, it is the intent of my 
amendment to let the States develop those standards.
  Mr. BERMAN. So one would not be required to utilize a private bail 
bondsman under this proposal.
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct, that would not necessarily be 
the requirement.
  Mr. BERMAN. One more question. If the jurisdiction in certain kinds 
of situations offers a kind of confinement, home monitored confinement 
or some other alternative to assure themselves the individual's 
presence, is that a suitable alternative?
  It is different, it is more restrictive than OR. It provides security 
for the law enforcement authorities about where the individual is. Is 
that an acceptable alternative to buying a private bail bond?
  Mr. RIGGS. I think the gentleman makes some very constructive 
observation and questions, and I appreciate them. As the author of the 
amendment and maker of the motion I would find that to be an acceptable 
alternative to simply releasing an offender or defendant on personal 
recognizance.
  Mr. BERMAN. Could I suggest then instead of casting this in terms of 
without a financial guarantee, strike the word; either put financial 
guarantee or other suitable guarantee. I think that perhaps will solve 
the problem, other suitable guarantee.
  Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to give some further 
thought to the gentleman's suggestion. What we are striving for here 
though is a financial guarantee in most instances, not all, but most, 
because again, the evidence clearly shows that the financial guarantee 
is much more likely to ensure the defendant's return to court or an 
appearance in court to stand trial on the initial charges, No. 1, and 
much less likely to commit a subsequent crime while free on release.
  Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and I appreciate 
him doing so, I do not have my own knowledge of the statistics, but I 
accept the proposition, and I know that in some jurisdictions there are 
creative alternatives, electronic monitoring devices that ensure the 
individual cannot leave the home without the authorities knowing, these 
kinds of things.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Bilbray and by unanimous consent, Mr. Riggs was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think this issue is the old bracelet 
concept. As an individual who has operated the system for 10 years, I 
just would like to point out to my colleague from California that we 
are really talking about apples and oranges here. This is a great 
system. We have used it as an alternative to incarceration, but as far 
as I know they are being used for presentenced individuals, they are 
not for sentenced individuals, as an addendum to incarceration, not as 
a guarantee to come back, because there is that issue of processing 
that has been addressed again and again. We have used that very 
effectively in San Diego County and across California, but to use it in 
lieu of bonding, I think we have administrative problems.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. Let me suggest at this point to the gentleman that we can 
informally meet to discuss this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time. I will just be very quick.
  The amendments as proposed is an absolute requirement of a financial 
guarantee. The gentleman from California, from San Diego spoke about 
his experiences. He may be right about San Diego. I think there are 
some other jurisdictions where alternative systems, not simply OR 
release, but alternative systems are utilized to monitor a defendant in 
the pretrial phase, and I think providing a little bit of flexibility 
in this provision so we do not rule out those nonfinancial situations 
as well as what the gentleman has already done would help to make it 
clear that you do not have to buy a private bail bond and the gentleman 
does not intend this to be a bail bondsman bill. This is for law 
enforcement, and there should be alternatives to the bail bondsman 
clearly that those are allowed. Those are the only suggestions I would 
have.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Again I would be 
happy to look at the language that would address, as the gentleman from 
California put it, alternative arrangements. But I would refer the 
gentleman to paragraph one under clause c in my amendment which allows 
the Attorney General to make the determination if States have enacted 
pretrial release requirements, and that is fairly broad, at least as 
restrictive as those found in the Federal system. And I think the 
gentleman may be looking at just the second paragraph which talks about 
a financial guarantee.
  Mr. BERMAN. If I can just reclaim my time, section 3142 is what? In 
other words, at least as restrictive as those in 4132? Those allow 
alternatives to financial guarantees.
  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman would withhold for a moment, we can 
perhaps go right to the United States Code and find those provisions. 
Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Under section 3142, which runs a couple of pages at least, 
it does speak at the beginning of that section about release or 
detention of a defendant pending trial, and I quote,

       Upon the appearance before a judicial officer of a person 
     charged with an offense, the judicial officer shall issue an 
     order that, pending trial, the person be--(1) released on 
     personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured 
     appearance bond.

  That is under subsection b of the section.
  Mr. BERMAN. Just to reclaim my time, if what I hear is correct, since 
the gentleman is providing in subsection c the alternatives of one or 
two, then the alternatives described in 3142 are sufficient if they 
exist at the State level to quality for this provision?
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct. I think that would address the 
gentleman's concern.
  Mr. BERMAN. Therefore, it is not an automatic requirement of a 
financial guarantee?
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. It is that or the provision set forth in section 3142?
  Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a disturbing proposal for the following 
reasons: We are first of all dealing with pretrial and we are requiring 
cash bail. What if the person does not have cash? What if the person 
does not have any previous convictions? It is not clear to me at all 
why we need to be micromanaging into the 50 States in the Union to 
determine how they ought to have bail requirements in each State, and 
it is because of that that I do not have any sympathy for creating new 
micromanaged 
[[Page H1567]] requirements that would take 15 percent out of the 
prison construction to allow for jail construction if in fact we merely 
tighten up the bail requirement by requiring cash at the beginning when 
guilt or innocence has not yet been proven.
  So I am disturbed about this amendment, and since it has not been 
passed through the Justice Department, they have given us no indication 
that they would be supportive of it, and I do not remember it coming up 
in the committee during the discussion of the crime bill, I am very 
unexcited about here, with a dozen Members on the floor, we are now 
going to create another micromanagement position for the States.

                              {time}  1020

  And I thoroughly think that we should be getting kind of full of 
telling States of how to manage their criminal justice system.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. I would like to ask the gentleman: You have indicated we 
did not have hearings, so we did not have an opportunity to flesh out 
the constitutional implications.
  Do you have any idea how the various States will be affected by this 
amendment?
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, because there was no hearings, we are trying to 
see how this even fits into the Federal Criminal Code and into the 
existing sections, and even into the bill itself. So bringing something 
of this magnitude down on the floor is just to me something that we do 
not need to deal with now. I mean, maybe there was some reason this did 
not come up in the hearings, but there is no way that I am going to now 
suggest that on all of the things that we have put on the States that 
we are now going to tell them how they ought to handle their pretrial 
bail circumstances.
  You know, can I suggest that may be some bail bondsman's 
organizations may be, politely, behind some of this emphasize to create 
new requirements that would need their services? Because I do not know 
why else we would want to do it this way, and the gentleman is even 
thinking about the suggestion of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman] that maybe even if it could be paid into the courts would be at 
least a small amelioration of the problem that I see, and the gentleman 
is still reflecting on that.
  So, as you can tell, there is very little enthusiasm on this side of 
the aisle for the amendment.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member 
for yielding to me.
  I guess my concern goes substantially beyond the ones that have been 
expressed and back to the provisions of the fourth amendment to the 
Constitution which says excessive bail shall not be required, and yet 
here we are kind of micromanaging the State courts again and having it 
done by a group of people who have told us that they believe in all 
these States' rights, and all of a sudden we are telling the States 
what to do in every area of the court system, every area of the 
incarceration system. That is basically where I am.
  I mean, I just cannot understand why States' rights advocates are 
consistently coming into this body and micromanaging what the States 
have been doing. We have had no involvement in all of this time. I just 
have trouble understanding that.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking Member for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out again, as I said in my opening 
remarks, that my amendment will give greater flexibility to States by 
permitting those that adopt strict pretrial release practices or, 
speaking to the concern of the gentleman from California, require cash 
bail for defendants charged with serious and violent crimes to use some 
of the funds under the act for jail construction.
  This is not a new mandate. It is simply an additional option, and I 
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. CONYERS. May I suggest that we do not know what the various 
States are really doing on a State basis, and so we now have another 
qualification in the prison construction bill that tells the States 
what they must do to qualify for construction funds, and then we are 
now telling them how to run bail bonding at the same time, and then the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] is resisting the modest proposal 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] which might make it at 
least palatable to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], even if 
it is does not for myself.
  So I now find myself more often defending States' and local 
governments' rights to determine what their laws are going to be. Is 
there some assumption built into this amendment the States do not know 
when they have a dangerous crime or a person who may not show up in 
court, and that the only way that we are going to get them to show up 
in court is that we give a 15-percent set-aside in prison construction 
money for them to build more jails? And is that the real reason that 
they are not keeping people who you apparently think ought to be put on 
bail?
  I mean, what are we doing in this process? Why are we here now? 
Merely because we have a crime bill to tell the courts that they are 
letting out too many people without getting cash bail and they are not 
coming back, and they would come back faster if you put bail 
requirements, cash bail requirements, on them, and to make sure you do 
that, we will give you some money to build some more county jails or 
State jails?
  I do not think this is something that this committee has investigated 
sufficiently for us on our side to give any blessing to it in this 
brief discussion.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have reached an area where we 
are talking about micromanaging States as it relates to bail and other 
issues. This is an issue for the Congress to talk about, because it is 
a national issue; I think just as any other national issue, we do have 
standing in putting certain qualifications on the States, being it is a 
country issue, it is an issue of the United States as a whole, and just 
as there was a bubonic plague in this country at one point, we cannot 
expect one State to give inoculations and the others not to.
  This is just as bad as a disease plague, this crime. We have to treat 
it across this whole country in the same way in order to have a 
national effect, and unless I am wrong, I think we do have standing in 
telling the States that they should be doing this in concert with all 
the States.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I am not saying we do not have any 
right to look into this matter. All I am saying is that we had 
hearings, witnesses, markup, and now we meet on the floor to pass a 
pretty complex piece of legislation, and now it comes up, and so it is 
the timeliness part that I am inquiring into. I need a lot more 
information.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear to my colleagues, because 
I think they are expressing genuine concerns, No. 1, I am not acting as 
a foil for the commercial bail bond industry. I somewhat resent that 
inference.
  I am trying to address, however, a major public safety concern which 
is related to jail overcrowding and the fact that we have increasingly 
moved away from financial guarantees or alternative release provisions 
that will attempt to do two things; first, ensure that that individual 
appears in court at the scheduled date to stand trial on the original 
charges, and all the evidence is that they are much less likely to 
appear in trial if they are released back into the community on their 
own recognizance and personal promise to appear, much like signing a 
traffic citation.
  And, second, we are attempting to cut down on the immediate 
recidivism. The criminal justice system should not have a revolving 
door at the front. 
[[Page H1568]] These individuals are going right back out into the 
community, many times beating the arresting officer
 back on the street, or committing subsequent serious crimes.

  So I am addressing a major public safety concern. I am doing it in 
the form of flexibility to the States that want to, working with the 
State attorney general, adopt arrangements that will, in fact, lead to 
pretrial release form across this country.

                              {time}  1030

  That is the intent of my amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, one final question, if I may. Will the 
gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, why do we assume the State courts cannot figure out 
that they need more jails to house people?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments to the bill?


                   amendment offered by mr. mc collum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment marked B.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: add at the end, the 
     following new title:

     SEC. 1. BUREAU OF PRISONS COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 4047. Community service projects

       ``(a) Subject to the limitations of subsection (b), the 
     Chief Executive Officer of a Federal penal or correctional 
     facility may, as part of an inmate work program, provide 
     services to private, nonprofit organizations, as defined in 
     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or to 
     a component of any State government or political subdivision 
     thereof. Such services shall be provided pursuant to rules 
     prescribed by the Attorney General.
       ``(b) Services provided under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall be used only for the benefit of the recipient 
     entity and not for the benefit of any individual or 
     organization other than the recipient; and
       ``(2) shall not displace an employee of the recipient or 
     result in a reduction in hours, wages, or employment benefits 
     of any employee of the recipient.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of chapter 303, title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``4047. Community service projects.''.

  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 pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does a Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, 
but I would like to use the time allotted.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. I 
hope it is noncontroversial and we can dispose of it.
  Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Prisons has informed me that they have 
some questions that have been raised about their ability to be involved 
in community service projects with the 95,000 or so Federal prisoners 
around the country. This would make it possible for the law to let them 
go do a lot of community service projects, of course under 
restrictions, for private, nonprofit organizations or local cities or 
communities.
  Apparently, right now the interpretation of the law is they can only 
do these community projects and work projects, if there is a Federal 
hook; that is, a Federal program or some Federal nexus being involved 
in the money perhaps that goes to the local community service group 
that they are providing work and assistance to.
  This would allow them to go out to whatever nonprofit organization, 
city or county or political subdivision, whatever it may be, and 
provide community service.
  We have been very careful to restrict this; it does not involve the 
production of any product that would go out, although that might be an 
arguable thing that we should allow them to do at some point in time in 
the prison industry. But this does not get involved in that, not 
involved in the debate over prison expansion or expansion of prison 
industries.
  What it says is, inmate work programs can go out and help people as a 
community service, a volunteer thing, in lots of ways they are not now 
allowed to do.
  I would think for the purposes of getting more work out of prisoners 
and getting them to do, giving them an opportunity to do a public 
service while they are at it, that this is a very good, simple 
amendment, appropriate to the bill with which we are dealing today. It 
is something they badly want.
  I would encourage its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern here--and we just received this amendment--
is that we are not getting into the very sensitive area of products 
being produced by inmates. There is a whole area that is very sensitive 
in this regard, and I am very concerned that that is not happening 
anywhere throughout this provision.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been careful to scrutinize this, very careful. 
When we saw some language in the Bureau of Prisons they felt was not 
offensive in that regard because it involved some nature of products 
which would be exempt normally from all the considerations, I even 
struck that language from the amendment.
  So we are not offering anything that even has the word product in it 
so we do not get into that kind of debate. We have taken it out of 
there, any reference to the word product in the original language is 
gone from this amendment. It is strictly service; literally that is 
what it is, nothing else. Every reference to any kind of product or 
prison industry is gone.
  What it reads now, so that we will be very clear is: ``Subject to the 
limitations of subsection (b),'' which is where we talk about the 
services provided,

       * * * the chief executive officer of a Federal or penal 
     correctional facility may, as part of an inmate work program, 
     provide services to private, nonprofit organizations, as 
     defined is section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 or to a component of any State government or political 
     subdivision thereof.

  Strictly of services.
  (b) talks about the services, what the services can be,

       * * * shall be used only for the benefit of the recipient 
     entity and not for the benefit of any individual or 
     organization other than the recipient and shall not displace 
     an employee of the recipient or result in a reduction in 
     hours, wages, or employment benefits of any employee of the 
     recipient.

  It is really what it says it is, pure volunteer-type community 
service projects without displacing the worker at all.
  As far as the section 501(c)(3) organizations, and State or local 
units of government, so there is no problem.
  Mr. CONYERS. I believe this gentleman is satisfied as to the concern 
that I had. I see nothing but services throughout this, and that is the 
only word repeated throughout this, and the word ``product'' is crossed 
out.
  I assume that what we see is what we get, and I am prepared to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  [[Page H1569]] The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cardin: Page 8, strike lines 7 
     through 11, and insert the following:
       ``(1) $990,300,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $1,322,800,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $2,519,800,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $2,652,800,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(5) $2,745,900,000 for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  I would like to hear the discussion first before I withdraw or 
otherwise deal with my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered is a modest cut in the 
dollars that are provided in this bill for additional prison 
construction. It is a cut of $7.2 million per year. This will allow us 
flexibility when we consider H.R. 728, to reinstate the funding level 
for the GREAT program that was enacted in the 1994 legislation.
  The GREAT program is the Gang Resistant Education and Training 
Program. It is a program that has been very successful, operated by 
Treasury with local law enforcement and school officials. It provides 
police officers in our 7th grade in our schools in order to work our 
youth to prevent gangs from developing. It has worked in many of our 
communities.
  What it does is instill a better attitude with young people 
concerning police officers, which has been proven to deter gang 
activities.
  Let me just cite some of the results quoted from the Arizona GREAT 
program. As a result of that program, we have seen a drop in the 
percentage of all ethnic groups who say they belong to a gang, who want 
to be gang members. The percentage of students who reported getting 
into various kinds of trouble decreased after participating in GREAT. 
The percentage of students who know gang members and who want to be 
gang members decreased after students participated in the GREAT 
program.
  The GREAT program has worked. It currently is a partnership between 
the Federal Government and local law enforcement, along with our 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a problem in Baltimore. I did not realize we 
had a gang problem in Baltimore. I have met with our police 
commissioner in our city, Mr. Frazier. He has pointed out that we are 
starting to see more and more gang activity in our cities. As a result 
of the legislation passed last year by this Congress, Baltimore is now 
one of the 11 communities which have a GREAT program operating. It is 
going to provide police officers in our schools in Baltimore, working 
with our youth to deter gang activities.
  Currently, there are nine communities that had GREAT programs, prior 
to the enactment last year of this legislation. As a reslt of last 
year's legislation, 11 more communities have this program. We are 
doubling the funds for the GREAT program. Originally
 only Hawaii; Phoenix; Albuquerque; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City; 
Detroit, Philadelphia; Tucson; and Prince Georges County had GREAT 
programs.

  As a result of the legislation last year, Trenton, New Jersey; New 
York City; Washington; Boston; Miami; Memphis; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; 
Milwaukee; Wilmington; and Baltimore now are in this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I am imploring the sense of fairness of all Members of 
this House. We are here to set priorities.
  The amendment that I am suggesting will be a very modest cut in 
prison construction, $7.2 million. According to the information that 
has been made available for me, the average cost of a medium-security 
prison would cost $36 million today, and a maximum-security prison in 
Florence, CO, costs $66 million. $7 million will hardly build the 
entrance to these types of facilities or the reception center.
  Compare that to building part of a prison, to developing 11 programs 
in our communities working with the police and students to stop gang 
activities.

                              {time}  1040

  Clearly we are better served by putting the money into our schools, 
putting the money into prevention. Yes, prevention. Last year we had a 
good balance between prevention and prison construction. I am just 
asking that in this one case a program in which the Federal Government 
has assumed a good deal of responsibility in making funds available to 
local governments, that we provide the wherewithal through this 
amendment so that we will be able to continue that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the reservation of a 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation of a point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]. I did not see that 
there was any problem with this amendment technically. I do, however, 
oppose the amendment.
  What the gentleman is attempting to do is take some money, strike it 
from this bill, x amount of dollars, and then have it reserved or be 
able to argue next week, presumably when we bring up the prevention and 
the local block grant programs, that there is some money available to 
tack on that he saved to tack on some program for gang prevention.
  First of all, I do not like the idea of taking any money out of the 
prison grant program. I think we got the right amount in here. I see no 
reason to do that, to reduce it by whatever sum, however paltry it may 
appear. I think these several millions of dollars over the 5-year 
period is not that paltry. It is pretty significant. It is, I think, $7 
million 1 year, a couple million another, and it all adds up to $20 or 
$30 million more.
  But besides that, in principle we are beginning already by this 
amendment the debate on the local community block grant concept
 that is going to come up next week in the block grant bill where we 
are going to provide, or we do provide in that bill that will come out 
here on the floor, some $10 billion to the local cities and counties to 
use as they see fit to fight crime. I am quite sure that when we get to 
that and we have that debate the point will be well made, and everybody 
here can see it and understand it, that the best arguments that the 
gentleman is going to make about having gang prevention programs will 
succeed in many cities. They will succeed, I think, in quite a number 
of them, probably in Baltimore, near his area, maybe in Orlando, in my 
city, when the plea is made to the city council or to the county 
commission who gets the moneys under that bill, but not every community 
needs gang prevention programs. Not every community has a gang problem, 
and it seems to me that that is the essence of what that debate next 
week is going to be.

  We should provide resources to the cities and the counties with 
maximum flexibility to fight crime, to use in the best way they see fit 
in their particular community, because what is good for somebody in 
Fresno, CA, might not be good for somebody in New London, CT. It is an 
entirely different scenario in each case, and what the gentleman is 
suggesting doing here today is take some money, let us save some money 
today, so I can offer a specific, targeted, categorical grant program 
for gang prevention in a bill that will come up next week that is not 
even designed for categorical grants. It is designed entirely the 
opposition direction, for pure block grants with maximum flexibility 
that does not designate how this money is to be used, nor do you have 
to say you have to use it for that in order to qualify for it.
  So, I have to oppose this amendment, do oppose it for both the 
reasons of its cutting the money out of this bill and because of the 
gentleman's stated purpose for doing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  [[Page H1570]] Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Treasury Department's gang resistance 
education amendment is a worthy program, and I think the amount is 
small enough so that, if it is deleted from prison construction 
legislation, there will be no great harm done. It is not like we have a 
whole string of these. This is the only one of this kind that I know 
that has occurred, and I met several times with the Assistant Secretary 
of the Treasury, Ron Noble, who is fully committed to eliminating the 
influence of gangs through demonstration projects.
  Now we all complain about the increase of gang participation. Here is 
something that we can do about it, and so I do not want to jeopardize 
this provision, and I support very enthusiastically the amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] for his comments.
  Clearly we are here to make choices, and this is a very minor cut as 
far as prisons are concerned, cannot even build part of a prison of any 
significant size.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a minuscule amount of money, but it 
is money that will actually work. Gang reduction programs work. A 
program was studied in a Spokane, WA, school. They used a school to 
offer at-risk youth a variety of recreational and educational 
activities just Friday and Saturday nights. There was a volunteer 
effort of local merchant-donated materials. There was an intense 
evaluation that found that crime was reduced in the area after the 
program was implemented. The view of police officers as positive role 
models by youth was enhanced, and most of the participants recommended 
the program to their friends.
  This will reduce crime. The minuscule amount of money that will get 
lost in rounding off in the prison construction changed to this kind of 
program can do the most good. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would 
adopt this very worthwhile amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that my friend from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] cannot point to any harm done by this amendment, 
yet the absence of enacting this amendment and providing the 
wherewithal will have severe consequences on communities that are 
trying to prevent gang activities, working with the police and working 
with the schools, and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just have to point out the fact that this is not minuscule, and any 
of us who get here and think that a million dollars, and this is much 
more than that, this is $20, $30 million when it cumulatively is looked 
upon over the 5-year life of this bill; anybody that thinks this is 
minuscule has really got blinders on. This is what the public gets 
outraged about, to think we can come up here and think that a million 
dollars, or $2 million, or $3 million, or $7 million, or $30 million, 
is minuscule. It is not. It is something, real money.
  And the second point I would like to make is, yes, I do see some harm 
in this. This is the camel's nose under the tent, sure enough, because 
what the gentleman is suggesting is that we take this money and allow 
him then next week in a different bill to say and make the claim that 
he is using this money for categorical grant programs when this side of 
the aisle does not believe there ought to be categorical grant programs 
for prevention in general. We do not believe that the money ought to be 
designated by the Federal Government to go for gang prevention any more 
than we believe it ought to be designated to go for cops on the 
streets. We believe that the moneys that are submitted to the States, 
actually submitted directly to the counties and the cities in that bill 
to be offered out here next week, should be given to them to use in 
their sole discretion to decide whether they want to use it for gang 
prevention or something else. But we should not create special programs 
in this area that weed out all whys, and we do not know that.
  So I think this is a very significant amendment. I think it is an 
amendment that thrusts us into the debate next week, and I think the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] knows good and well that it does, 
and I strongly oppose it for that reason.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman know what an average 
cost for a maximum security prison is today?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I do not have it off the top of my head, but I am sure 
it is more than your bill by quite a lot, or your amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. And the same thing with a medium security prison. We 
cannot build a prison for the amount of money that is in the amendment 
that I have brought forward, but yet in the absence of this amendment 
being made available, 11 communities will go without a program dealing 
with any antigang activities.
  I think it is a clear choice.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the 
gentleman, I don't believe any community is going to go without a gang 
prevention program that wants it, and we're going to have a bill out 
here that provides to the cities and communities of this country over 
$10 billion next week to use as they want to use. Surely those that 
want gang prevention programs and think they are important will be able 
to find a lot more than this gentleman's amendment would provide for 
that purpose next week.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise because I have to point out that just 
yesterday, after the gentleman tells us today that this money is for 
prisons and should only be used for prisons, just yesterday, when we 
were debating the question of unallocated funds, the gentleman 
hurriedly put together an amendment to send these unallocated funds 
back to the Federal Government, not to the local governments that he 
says ought to be the decisionmaking entities, but rather back to 
Federal Government to build Federal courthouses----
  Mr. McCOLLUM. First of all, reclaiming my time, we did not send the 
money back by that amendment to build Federal courthouses. We sent it 
back for very severe law enforcement purposes, including the FBI, the--
--
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I will not right now--to criminal investigators of the 
INS and for purposes of building more Federal prisons, if that is what 
is needed.
  Second, what we are dealing with are apples and oranges here. We are 
dealing with are apples and oranges here. We are dealing with a 
question of prevention programs versus prisons. We are dealing with two 
different things here.
                              {time}  1050

  Yesterday we were dealing with a question of the unallocated funds if 
we do not use them all up. Today we are stripping money out altogether, 
not designating 36 or however many million dollars for some other 
purpose if it is not used in this bill. We are actually stripping money 
out of this bill altogether presumably so the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Cardin] can make an argument next week that he saved this money 
for another amendment that he can offer for a categorical grant program 
that this side of the aisle simply does not believe with in principle. 
Not that we do not believe there should be gang prevention programs, 
but we do not believe that the Federal Government should be dictating 
through categorical grants that you have got to have a gang prevention 
program to get X amount of money. That is the difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  [[Page H1571]] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to this point, because I was on the 
floor when we had the debate about unallocated funds, and I want to 
really heighten the contradiction that has taken place here today.
  In point of fact, the gentleman from Florida did allocate money to 
Federal courthouses and Federal prosecutors, and, by his own statement, 
INS, another Federal agency. I do not know how we got from local prison 
funds back to the INS and back to the FBI and back to the Alcohol, 
Firearms and Tobacco Bureau and back to Federal courthouses, because 
that was the testimony of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] on 
this floor when he said yes, we need more Federal courthouses and more 
Federal prosecutors and we need more Federal this and that.
  The fact of the matter is the gentleman had no problem taking money 
out of the program, unallocated funds, and sending them back to the 
Federal Government, but yet now when we have the very legitimate 
program that deserves attention, he resists taking a very small amount 
of money for a very worthwhile cause.
  It seems to me that gang prevention is a better use of our dollars 
than continuing to build these prisons or, as what happened yesterday, 
sending money back to Federal agencies.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Wynn] who made the points he did. Yesterday's amendment that he 
keeps referring to, there was some confusion during the discussion, but 
there was absolutely no money and is no money being allocated or 
reserved or blocked off that is not used for the grant programs under 
the prison program here today for the possible use in constructing or 
operating a Federal courthouse.
  There were several provisions being made though in case the money is 
not used up in this bill, in case the States do not use it all. I think 
they will use it all for building prisons or operating State prisons, 
but if they do not, then the appropriators may use the moneys left from 
these grant programs at the end of the periods of time out where they 
are not used, for the purpose of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
INS investigators, U.S. attorneys, as I recall, and the National 
Institute of Justice for Technology Development.
  I believe that was the limit of what we did yesterday. The point is 
still the same, and that is that Mr. Cardin's amendment is not designed 
to tell us where to put unallocated, unused funds in this bill. The 
gentleman is striking several million dollars from this bill 
altogether. That is quite a different matter.
  I am strongly opposed to that, and I am strongly opposed to the 
principles being espoused to use that money, to hold it back somehow so 
it might support an argument on an amendment next week that we set up a 
new categorical grant program which will be in violation of the basic 
principles of the bill produced next week.
  So I am very strongly opposed to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is 
pretty direct in that there is no money left over, so this is the only 
opportunity we have to preserve the GREAT anti-gang program.
  There are two parts to this program, if I could point out to my 
friend from Florida. One is yes, it preserves the money, which is 
absolutely essential if we are going to be able to have the programs 
continued. But it does a second thing. The GREAT Program is a 
partnership in more than just dollars with Federal law enforcement. It 
also is cooperation between Federal law enforcement and local law 
enforcement. The police officers locally are trained through the 
National Police Service, so we use the training facilities nationally. 
Without the Federal program existing, it is going to be much more 
difficult to be able to continue this type of partnership.
  I would urge my colleague to think about what we are doing here 
today. We are here to make choices. We have passed many amendments that 
restrict what States can do, how they can receive moneys for prison 
construction. When it suits us, we have a Federal involvement in micro-
managing and establishing national priorities, however you want to 
characterize it. When it is appropriate for us to say we cannot let 
people out on their own recognizance, to get Federal funds, we say 
that. If the locals must have certain guidelines on sentencing, we say 
that.
  But I would hope that we would have a national policy that our law 
enforcement people would work with local law enforcement to stop 
juvenile gang activities, to work in our schools. The GREAT Program 
offers us that opportunity. This amendment preserves it, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, only to say in closing that this amendment would strike a 
sizable amount of money, several millions of dollars from the Prison 
Grant Program. The bottom line of what it does is try to lay a 
predicate for a debate next week over the whole premise of the local 
community Block Grant Program.
  It would be an undermining amendment. It is a camel's nose under the 
tent. It is a bad amendment, and I urge a no vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 295, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               YEAS--129

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--295

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     [[Page H1572]] Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Becerra
     Collins (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Martini
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1116

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Martini against.
       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Zeliff against.

  Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. TALENT changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Ms. RIVERS, Mr. MORAN, Mr. DOGGETT, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs. 
MEEK of Florida, and Mr. COLEMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                   amendment offered by mr. mccollum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked amendment 
``A.''
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum: Add at the end, the 
     following new title: Section 1. Administration of Federal 
     Prison Commissaries.
       Section 4043 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the current language and inserting the following:
       ``(a) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons may establish, 
     operate, and maintain commissaries in federal penal or 
     correctional facilities, from and through which articles and 
     services may be procured, sold, rendered, or otherwise 
     provided or made available for the benefit of inmates 
     confined within those facilities. Only those articles or 
     services authorized by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 
     may be procured from or through prison commissaries for the 
     use of inmates.
       ``(b) There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States a revolving fund to be called the Prison Commissary 
     Fund which shall be available to the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons without fiscal-year limitation to carry out the 
     purposes, functions and powers authorized by this section. 
     Funds currently on deposit in the ``Commissary Funds, Federal 
     Prisons'' account of the Treasury shall be transferred to the 
     Prison Commissary Fund.
       ``(c) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons may 
     accept gifts or bequests of money for credit to the Fund. The 
     Director may also accept gifts or bequests of other property, 
     real or personal, for use or other disposition by the Bureau 
     of Prisons. A gift or bequest under this section is a gift or 
     bequest to or for the use of the United States under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
       ``(d) Amounts in the Prison Commissary Fund which are not 
     currently needed for operations shall be kept on deposit or 
     invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United 
     States and all earnings on such investments shall be 
     deposited in the Prison Commissary Fund.
       ``(e) There shall be deposited in the Fund, subject to 
     withdrawal by the Federal Bureau of Prisons--
       (1) revenues received from the sale of articles through 
     prison commissaries;
       (2) revenues received from services rendered by prison 
     commissaries;
       (3) a gift or bequest of money for credit to the Fund;
       (4) proceeds from the sale or disposal of donated property, 
     real or personal, for credit to the Fund;
       (5) earnings or interest which may be derived from 
     investments of the Fund;
       ``(f) The Fund shall be available for the payment of any 
     expenses incurred by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 
     establishing, operating, and maintaining prison commissaries 
     and the Prison Commissary Fund, including the employment of 
     personnel, the purchase of equipment, security-related or 
     otherwise, and those expenses incurred in the provision of 
     articles or services procured, sold, rendered, or otherwise 
     provided or made available to inmates.
       ``(g) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized 
     to use monies from the Prison Commissary Fund for the general 
     welfare of inmates. No inmate shall be entitled to any 
     portion of the Fund.
       ``(h) Employees compensated by or through the Prison 
     Commissary Fund may be assigned additional duties other than 
     those directly related to commissary activities.
       ``(i) The provisions of sections 554 and 555 and 701 
     through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to 
     the making of any determination, decision, or order under 
     this section.''.

     SECTION 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 1321(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``Commissary Funds, Federal Prisons''.

  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. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, 
February 9, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, right now under the Federal law there is 
simply one sentence or two, I guess it is, under section 4043 of title 
XVIII of the United States Code dealing with prison commissaries.
  It simply says The Attorney General may accept gifts or bequests of 
money for credit to the `Commissary Funds, Federal Prisons.' A gift or 
bequest under this section is a gift or bequest to or for the use of 
the United States under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,'' et cetera.

                              {time}  1120

  The problem has been expressed to me in the strongest of terms by the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons and its Director, Ms. Hawk, that we do need 
to have some clarification of the authority that they have to operate 
Federal prison commissaries, and this bill is a perfect bill to give 
that which should be a very noncontroversial opportunity for us to do 
it.
  Right now the prison commissaries are being operated under DOJ 
circular No. 2126, under which a lot of questions have arisen about the 
authority of the department and the Director to operate these 
commissaries for the benefit of the prisoners and to collect funds and 
receive gifts and whether or not the prison inmates have some right to 
these funds and so on and so forth.
  What this amendment does today is to provide express statutory 
authority for the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to 
establish, operate and maintain commissaries within Federal prisons.
  It also provides the Director has the exclusive authority to 
determine which articles or services will be provided by or through the 
commissaries.
  [[Page H1573]] We also have a provision that establishes in the U.S. 
Treasury a revolving fund which will be used to carry out the 
establishment, operation, and maintenance of a Federal prison 
commissary system. It authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 
to accept gifts or bequests of money as she can right now for a credit 
to the fund or gifts of real or personal property for the use or 
deposition by the Bureau of Prisons as can be done now but clearly 
clarifies where it goes.
  It allows for the investment of these funds prudently and wisely 
where they are established in the Treasury. It provides for the 
authorization of departments to effect the revenues from the sale of 
commissary articles; it authorizes payment of expenses from the fund 
including the payment of expenses for the operation of prison 
commissaries and for the operation of a commissary fund and the 
expenses of commissary employees' salaries and the purchase of security 
equipment and nonsecurity equipment for the commissaries.
  It authorizes the director to use the moneys from the fund for the 
benefit if inmates, and it specifies that no inmate has any interest, 
property or otherwise, in the moneys deposited or withdrawn from the 
fund.
  It recognizes that employees compensated through the fund have a 
responsibility to perform commissary-related duties as well as general 
institutional and security-related duties, and it provides that 
judicial review is not available for any decision or determination made 
by the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding the maintenance, operation, 
et cetera of commissaries.
  I believe that this is a very necessary thing to do. We are beginning 
to see through the Federal prison system great questions raised about 
the authority for commissaries that have existed for years and years, 
as a matter of fact, since 1930 in our Federal prisons, and they are 
operating with actually no statutory authority other than the fact that 
they can receive gifts. It does not make a lot of sense and people want 
to litigate this now, and quite frankly this is a very straightforward 
procedure. There are no hidden anything's in it, and this prison bill 
seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to clarify once and for all 
the question of prison commissaries.
  I would hope the other side would accept this in the noncontroversial 
intent that it is offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have only had a brief chance to peruse this. Let me ask the 
gentleman a couple of questions.
  First of all this has been sent over by the Bureau of Prisons and is 
supported by the administration?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Second of all, it would allow people to give gifts to 
prisoners?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. It would, but the gifts are already permitted under 
section 4043. That is all that they have, though. We do not have a 
formal framework for how they utilize it or set it up. This does not 
add anything new, but it does allow gifts. It does continue that 
practice.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So present law allows gifts?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. That is correct. That is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What if these gifts were of a nature that conflicted 
with the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey, an amendment I 
supported?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. We have restrictive language on gifts that are already 
going to prohibit them from taking anything that has been passed 
subsequent to the law that is already on the books, so I would presume 
the court would interpret the restrictions as applicable that we are 
passing here today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I take it the gentleman would not characterize this as 
soft on prisoners in any way?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, absolutely not. This is 
not in any way soft on prisoners. This is strictly giving the 
prisoner--in fact the prisoners may have restricted authority here 
because the Bureau of Prisons has it all. It has the authority over the 
commissaries.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The amendment was agreed to.


            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 5, 
     line 21, strike the word ``and''
       Page 6, line 2, strike the period and add ``, and''
       Page 6, after line 2, insert the following: ``(4) The State 
     has adopted procedures for the collection of reliable 
     statistical data which compiles the rate of serious violent 
     felonies after the receipt of grant funds under Section 502 
     or Section 503 in comparison to the rate of serious violent 
     felonies before receipt of such funds and will report such 
     statistical data to the Attorney General.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed 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 simply requires the States to have a process for collecting 
reliable statistical data regarding the impact of grants that are being 
made under sections 502 and 503 of this bill on the incidence of 
violent felonies and reporting that statistical information to the 
attorney general.
  Mr. Chairman, on yesterday afternoon, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Scott] offered an amendment which would have taken a small amount 
of funds and allowed a process to be put into place at the Federal 
level to monitor the impact of these programs on crime. I offered and 
then withdrew a more aggressive amendment than this one which would 
have denied funds unless there was a showing that the increased 
sentencing and the truth-in-sentencing legislation was having some 
impact on crime, and I withdrew that amendment.
  This simply asks the States to have a process for collecting data on 
the impact that these moneys are having on the incidence of violent 
crime.
  I should point out that on the next bills that are coming, the 
prevention bills, I intend to offer the same kind of language.
  One of the concerns that I really have is that because of the outcry 
of the public to do something about crime, we are trying to respond 
legislatively to that outcry, and I commend my colleagues for trying to 
do that, but in the haste of doing it, we are not providing any process 
for determining what things are having an impact on crime and what 
things are not having an impact on crime. So even if we end up reducing 
the incidence of crime, we are not going to know which programs we 
should continue to support and which programs we should be pulling back 
from and withdrawing our support from.
  What we should be doing is trying to get some handle on what kind of 
programs, whether they are Federal programs, State programs or local 
programs, are in fact having an impact on crime, whether it is 
prevention, whether it is increased sentencing, whether it is building 
more prisons, I do not care. All of those things need to have an 
assessment process built into them and all of them need to have some 
process for assuring the collection of statistical data that at least 
allows the government, either State, local or Federal, to make an 
assessment of their impact. This begins in that direction with respect 
to the grants only that are made under sections 502 and 503 of this 
bill, but I would say I am not trying to attach this only to these 
programs.
                              {time}  1130

  I will be offering a similar amendment on the prevention programs, on 
the cops programs. We ought to be trying to assess what is working and 
what is not working.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
   [[Page H1574]] The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind the 
body that we still continue to operate under the 10 and 10 rule, 10 in 
favor, 10 opposed.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to claim that 10 
minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am reluctant to support this amendment even though I know what the 
gentleman wants is data which I think we should have.
  The reason I am reluctant is because I believe that data, I say to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], is already available 
under the uniform reporting acts, the statistical reporting acts, that 
come in. What you are doing here is conditioning receipt of the grant 
moneys in this bill on the States providing still a separate type of 
report.
  My judgment is that we can gain this data. We should have this data 
already available to our subcommittee. I would be glad to work with the 
gentleman in order to make sure that we bring and highlight whatever 
data he wants. If we do not have this power or if for any reason we are 
wrong about it, then we will find a way to get that data and make sure 
it does come independent of this. Because I do believe our subcommittee 
ought to have this data. You should have it. I do not think we should 
add something that messes up, or potentially does, an already working 
reporting program or add another layer of bureaucracy or restriction on 
the grant program.
  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. Just for the purpose of inquiring whether 
you might entertain a revision, this just simply says that if the 
information has already been checked under some other process, we would 
exempt that State from it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has been kind enough 
to furnish us the amendment this morning which we do have, but it is 
one of those things which, like some we furnished over there, we have 
not had time to digest. I would prefer not to put anything in the law 
right now. I would simply assure the gentleman this type of data is 
something the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime wants, would like 
to have. If we do not have it, I believe we do have it, based on 
representations made to me in limited resources we have this morning, I 
would be happy to work with him to make sure we do get it in some other 
form, but not as a restriction or a caveat as a condition precedent to 
allowing these grants to flow.
  If the gentleman would accept that, I would urge him to withdraw this 
amendment and let us proceed with the rest of them and we will go 
forward in the committee and make sure we get this data, but not 
through the use of this bill or through the restraints he is trying to 
impose today.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a 
response.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am 
not inclined to withdraw it, because if we are already checking the 
data, it seems to me that this amendment is harmless, because all the 
State would have to do, and if the gentleman will look at the bill 
where I have put this, this is under an additional requirement, and all 
the State would have do, if they are already providing the information, 
is to assure, and that is the bill's term, now, not my term, is assure 
that the information is being collected already, and so even if we do 
have a process already for doing this, all the State would be required 
to do is give the assurance that there is a process already in effect, 
and I do not know what harm that would do.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I probably have voted against more of the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from North Carolina than for, but 
this one seems to me to be so reasonable. All it is saying is let us 
measure it. I think we should measure every prevention program. I think 
we should measure every police program.
  One of the reasons perhaps that your side gained the majority is 
because Government programs were passed without seeing their effect.
  What is the harm of this language? It is done. I voted against the 
gentleman's amendment in committee, because what that did, it said if 
you measured it and it was negative, you stopped the money, and you 
would not build any prisons. He has taken that out. All he says is let 
us measure. How can you be against that? It is sort of Luddite. We 
ought to see the results of what we are doing.
  I would ask the gentleman to reconsider his opposition or perhaps 
mute it when the vote is called.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I myself am not sure it is that bad of an amendment. 
Let me tell you what some of my heartburn might be, if I understand it 
right.
  In education or law enforcement, one of the problems we have is too 
much paperwork. I know when I was in the service, during the war, all 
our paperwork went in the trash barrel. We went out on the carrier 
level and did what we had to do, and we were able to be much more 
effective.
  After the war back in the squadrons at the bases, I spent 80 percent 
of my time filling out Federal reports on what we should be doing and 
what we should not, and I was not able to do the things I really needed 
to do to train the unit.
  This Member's idea is I do not want the Federal Government, the 
bureaucracy back here, to have to receive reports. I want the State and 
local, I want us to have goals and let the State and local establish in 
their own particular area what they need to do and what those standards 
should be. What might be good for Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin might not 
be good for Pete Wilson in California.
  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. I just want to point out to the gentleman 
from California that this amendment, if the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] is right, that the States are already required to do it. We 
are not adding one iota of paperwork other than one page in the grant 
request that says, ``We have a process for doing this,'' where one 
sentence in the grant request says that.
  But if he is wrong, that we are not collecting it, I cannot believe 
we would take the position that we are setting up for program grants 
billions of dollars of money and will not require the States that are 
applying for the money to at least have in place some process for 
tracking the impacts on crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will ask a question 
of the author. The gentleman has a handwritten piece of my copy of the 
amendment. It says, ``The state has adopted procedures for the 
collection of reliable statistical data,'' and is that ``which compiles 
the rate of serious''?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes; yes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I just wanted to make sure the word was compiles, c-o-
m-p-i-l-e-s.
  If that is the case, if the gentleman would accept a unanimous-
consent request, I am going to make it and see if he will agree to add 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's amendment 
be modified at the end to add the words ``if such data is not already 
provided,'' and I will send this down to the desk right now.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I happily accept that proposed modification.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that 
modification to the amendment be accepted.
  The text of the modification is as follows:


[[Page H1575]]

       Modification offered by Mr. McCollum to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: At the end of the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina, insert ``if 
     such data is not already provided.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina, as 
     modified: Page 5, line 21, strike the word ``and''
       Page 6, line 2, strike the period and add `` ; and''
       Page 6, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(4) The State has adopted procedures for the collection 
     of reliable statistical data which compiles the rate of 
     serious violent felonies after the receipt of grant funds 
     under Section 502 or Section 503 in comparison to the rate of 
     serious violent felonies before receipt of such funds and 
     will report such statistical data to the Attorney General, if 
     such data is not already provided.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, with the modification, I would agree to 
concur in the amendment as the gentleman has drafted it. I think he has 
made a good argument. We want the data. I believe it is already here. 
If it is not, then we will get it. That is the end of that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
making my amendment better and clarifying it, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
                    amendment offered by mr. chapman

  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment printed in the 
Record, designated No. 20.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chapman: Page 2, lines 24 and 25, 
     strike ``either a general grant'' and insert ``general 
     grants''.
       Page 2, line 25, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
       Page 6, line 6, strike ``title, if the State'' and insert 
     ``title if,''
       Page 6, line 7, strike ``title--'' and all that follows 
     down through ``the'' on line 9, and insert ``title, the''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I want to take just a couple of minutes and an 
opportunity to lay the groundwork on where I think we are now in the 
bill, and I hope my colleagues will pay attention to what the 
underlying legislation requires and what the amending process to this 
point has done.
  Because what my amendment does is broaden the eligibility of States 
to apply for grants under H.R. 667. I want to read from the bill as it 
is filed and as it currently exists, under section 501(b), and the 
caption of the section is ``limitation.'' What this bill does is say an 
eligible State or States may receive either, either a general grant 
under section 502, which is the general grant fund, or, either/or, a 
truth-in-sentencing incentive grant under 503. Under the section of 
``limitation,'' this law will prevent States from applying for both 
even if those States are meeting the requirements of both sections. 
That is clearly what the statute says.
  What my amendment says it should not be an either/or situation. Those 
States that are doing the deal and getting the job done and increasing 
their sentencing in meeting an appropriate threshold ought to be able 
to apply for all the funds in both pots. That is the current law. That 
is current law. Even though the current crime bill authorizes slightly 
less money than this one does, this one divides $10 billion into 2 pots 
and says the State can only apply for one or the other.
                              {time}  1140

  So under this law there is actually less prison money available to 
States, less prison money available to the States than under current 
law. Surely that cannot be the intended consequence of the author of 
the bill, who is wanting to expand prison construction and put more 
criminals in prison for longer periods of time all over this country. 
Yet that is the result.
  My amendment will change that. It breaks down the wall between two 
grant funds and says a State doing the job can apply for both grant 
funds or funds from both pots.
  It also says--and it makes a very important change, and I want all my 
colleagues to understand this change--under this bill the bar is set so 
high that every State, to be eligible, must meet an 85 percent truth-
in-sentencing standard, and my colleague, the friend, the gentleman 
from Florida, said yesterday that to qualify for that, States may have 
to lower their penalties. Did I stand up in my chair? Lower their 
penalties for violent crime so they can qualify for the second pot of 
money? Is that what this is about, lessening the penalties for violent 
crime in America so we can meet an 85 percent standard? Surely that is 
not the intended result.
  What my amendment will do, it will say, if you are meeting the 
criteria of increasing sentences, putting more violent prisoners in 
prison and doing it longer and you are doing it so good that the entire 
country moves toward tougher sentencing, you are still 10 percent 
better than the national average, then you can qualify for the second 
pot of money even if you have not quite reached the 85 percent 
standard. Surely, surely no question, no State in America, according to 
the Department of Justice--arguably, only three--but if you do not live 
in North Carolina, Arizona or Delaware, you cannot qualify. Your State 
cannot qualify for the second pot of money.
  If you are doing the job, under my amendment, doing it right, moving 
toward increasing your sentences, and beating the national average 
every year by 10 percent, then you can. It is a commonsense amendment. 
It makes sense, and it should be adopted.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a dramatic improvement on H.R. 3. If you want 
to build more prisons, that is. Yet maybe there was some who did not 
like the block grant approach because they did want to move the States 
along rather than give them the money and move along by themselves.
  It is a compromise amendment. It is one of these rare instances where 
you can have your cake and eat it too, because we are encouraging the 
States, under the Chapman amendment, to have tougher sentences. I think 
we need that.
  We are also saying they have a real chance, if they toughen up their 
sentences, to get their money. Let us face it, under H.R. 3, as we made 
the point yesterday, not only the 3 States be eligible, but for the 
other 47 to be eligible they would have to spend some $60 billion on 
their own before being able to meet the 85 percent standard.
  My colleagues, let us not wish something to be so. The public, the 
Congress, the legislatures, the mayors, we have been wishing crime to 
go down for decades. But it keeps going up. It does not go down to the 
levels where it should. This amendment is not a wishing amendment, this 
is an actuality amendment. It greatly improves H.R. 3, and I compliment 
the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Reclaiming my time, let us not ignore what we did 
yesterday. We plucked the pocket, yesterday, of 47 States. This bill 
takes money passed by Congress, signed by the President, currently in 
the law for prison construction to fight violent crime, will rescind 
money already in the pipeline, it is going to rescind money already in 
the pipeline going to every State in America.
  Surely, if we are serious about wanting to fight violent crime, we 
need to get the funds out there, and this amendment gets it to States 
that are doing the job.
  If we are going to expand prison construction, let us not trick the 
American people, let us not trick the Members of Congress by saying we 
are going to put $10 billion in prison construction funds but you 
cannot apply for both pots.
  [[Page H1576]] Under the statute, that is what this law will do. This 
is a commonsense amendment that ought to be adopted.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman [Mr. Chapman] for his 
amendment.
  You know, in the 104th Congress so far we have heard an awful lot 
about giving more flexibility to the States. I find it highly ironic 
that the bill before us takes flexibility away from North Dakota's 
prison plan to make people serve 85 or greater of their sentences. I 
might add, North Dakota has people serving a longer portion of their 
sentence than any other State in the country.
  Under the bill passed last year, we were set to get eligible to 
receive $8.8 million for prison construction, but under the language--
this is a quote from the law--``to construct, develop, expand, modify, 
operate or improve correctional facilities to insure such space is 
available for violent offenders.''
  Let me read to you the language in the bill that is before us. It 
would allow us to take the money to build, expand, and operate. This is 
a critical distinction. They have taken from North Dakota the ability 
to advance plans that take prisoners out of the State penitentiary, the 
nonviolent ones, send them out to county jails, to make bed space for 
violent offenders in the State penitentiaries, just what we want to 
accomplish.
  But because of a drafting error, they have taken from North Dakota 
this right to access money for bed space for violent offenders. We have 
done it because we have been overly prescriptive. We have taken from 
States flexibility. We have imposed a one-size-fits-all approach out of 
Washington, DC.
  I just wonder how many Members, and goodness knows I will be watching 
when they vote for this, are going to actually be voting taking money 
away from their States, money their States would have been eligible for 
that would not be because they will be voting for language that simply 
does not work relative to the scheme of State flexibility as we 
approach the lengthening of time violent offenders serve.
  That is why I commend the gentleman for his amendment and yield back 
to him in this discussion.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
will state it.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Are we proceeding under the 5-minute rule today?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. We are proceeding under the 10-minute rule, 
10 minutes for each side.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Then at this point I would like to ask if the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will proceed. I would like to reserve the 
balance of my time at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A Member opposed to the amendment will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 10 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, what the gentleman is doing, make no mistake about it, 
is to strike the truth-in-sentencing incentive program that is in this 
bill. The $5 billion setaside is set aside in order to encourage the 
States to move to the provision we would like for them to do in their 
laws, of abolishing parole for violent felons in their State, to make 
them serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
  If you are a serious violent felon, the objective of this whole 
exercise is to get you incarcerated, locked up, and have the key thrown 
away so that you are not out there going through this revolving door 
and preying on a lot of people again and again and again, as has been 
happening. We will, by passing this gentleman's amendment today, 
destroy that incentive altogether. The carrot will be gone. The offer 
of $5 billion out there, if you are just changing your laws, will not 
be out there anymore. Sure, we know only a handful of States qualify 
today for that pot of money, but that is the idea, the whole idea 
behind having that pot of money reserved strictly for those States to 
change their laws to comply, to get them to change them, to get them to 
make that step that has been so difficult for them to do, by saying, 
``Look, we will give you the money to build the prison beds. We will 
give you 75 percent of the money it takes to build every single prison 
bed that is required for you to remove every single serious violent 
felon in your State off the streets and make them serve at least 85 
percent of their sentences.'' It would make the States do this if they 
are to get the money.
  They obviously do not have to do it today or will not have to do it 
not tomorrow if they do not want this money. But the idea is to build 
the political pressure in those States. I think once this bill passes, 
the public in every State in the Union will demand that their 
legislatures and Governors change their laws immediately to do it and 
spend whatever State resources are necessary to do that.
                              {time}  1150

  Mr. Chairman, it is my judgment, and most Republicans on this side of 
the aisle agree with me, that this is perhaps the most important thing 
we could do today in crime fighting at all in this country, is to 
provide this carrot out there to build the public pressure to get the 
resources necessary, and we provide most of them probably the vast 
majority of what is necessary from the Federal end to take the repeat 
violent felons off the street and stop this revolving door. If the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas prevails, he will simply 
have for the whole $10.5 billion the easy requirements. Just making 
progress toward incarcerating people for longer sentences is good 
enough to get the entire amount of money, and I would submit that that 
is a wrong-headed approach, it is not what we should be doing out here 
today. It destroys completely the effort to control the violent 
criminal revolving door in this country, and this is, in my judgment, 
the most serious killer amendment of the day, and I would urge its 
defeat in no uncertain terms.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this point I ask unanimous consent to 
have an additional 5 minutes of debate in addition to 30 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would that be on each side?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is that 5 
minutes on each side?
  We are getting an additional 5 minutes? That, I believe, is the 
construct; is it not?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the request.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. All right Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Chapman]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say the easy standards that 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] talks about, the law requires 
that to be eligible for even the easy money. States must put more 
violent criminals in prison every year than they did the year before, 
States must put them there for longer periods of time every year than 
they did before, and they must parole them less frequently every year 
than they did the year before. That is not an easy burden to meet, and 
to meet under this amendment the second pot of funds, not only do you 
have to do that, but you must out-reform the national average each and 
[[Page H1577]] every year by 10 percent. If States are doing that, the 
very idea that we would tell them they are not eligible for the 
funding.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] and want to make a point about how strongly I am in favor of 
the Chapman amendment because it clarifies the two vital and 
fundamental weaknesses in the bill before us.
  On February 1, 9 days ago, we passed H.R. 5 right here. It prohibited 
unfunded mandates. We passed this law 9 days ago prohibiting unfunded 
mandates.
  On page 3 of H.R. 5 it says, to begin consideration of methods to 
relieve States, local governments, of unfunded mandates imposed by 
Federal court interpretation of Federal statutes and regulations. It 
says further, to end the imposition by Congress of Federal mandates. It 
goes on, and on, and on.
  I voted for this. Many people on both sides voted for this. Yet in 
this bill we are providing exactly the kind of unfunded mandates that 
we just 9 days ago prohibited.
  Let me read for my colleagues page 3 of this bill, H.R. 667, page 3. 
We not only are talking about tougher sentences, which I am for; I 
voted for the gentleman's tougher habeas corpus and exclusionary rules, 
but now we are telling the States, ``You have to, in order to be 
eligible to receive funds under subsection A, one, increase the 
percentage of convicted violent offenders; two, increase the average 
prison time actually served; three, increase the percentage of sentence 
to be actually served.
  We are mandating down the line not just tougher penalties, 
percentages, average time, percentage of convicted violent offenders. 
Are we not saying 9 days ago we are not going to do anything more like 
this? And we do it.
  Second, the fundamental flaw in this bill, in addition to the 
unfunded mandates, is that this is the bailout bill. This is the 
bailout bill for States that have not made the tough decisions to build 
some of these prisons. We are going to funnel money to them. We are 
going to take the money away from States like Indiana, which will lose 
$48 million, and States that have made tough decisions and sometimes 
said to their citizens, ``You have to pay up to build these new 
prisons.'' Now we are saying with these unfunded mandates we are going 
to steer moneys to the States that have not made these tough decisions. 
We are going to provide Federal funds to do it, and we are going to 
bail these States out.
  That is not right.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] tries to clean up the unfunded mandates and the fairness to 
different States that is terribly skewed in the formula in this bill. 
Forty Republicans voted for current law. The Chapman amendment tries to 
steer us back to current law, and I would encourage some bipartisan 
support for this amendment. If this does not pass, I would encourage 
defeat of this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think everybody has to understand that 
this is a repeat of yesterday's debate. We have already had a couple of 
amendments to try to get at the truth in sentencing and knock it out. 
This is just another effort to do that. That needs to be clearly 
understood.
  I know there are people who do not agree with truth in sentencing, 
and they obviously strongly do not agree because that is the reason why 
they are making a third try at this today.
  There are over 6 million violent crimes every year in this Nation. 
Only 150,000 people are convicted of violent crime out of the million 
crimes that are committed. Now some of them obviously are being 
committed by the same people. Only 90,000 of the 150,000, that is 60 
percent of those convicted, ever go to prison for committing a violent 
crime, and those who do go to prison of that 60 percent of the 100,000 
that are convicted of the 6 million crimes that are committed every 
year that are violent, they only serve an average of 38 percent of 
their sentences.
  So, what we are saying is here today, in this bill, we want to get 
these people to serve their time. We want to make sure that the carrot 
is out for them to do that and that we actually provide the resources 
to the States to make sure that they have their folks locked up. I 
doubt if very many States, if any in this Union today, are locking up 
near enough prisoners in their prisons to comply with this in any sense 
of the word that we would like for them to do, but what we have set 
forth, for the first pot of money, the $5 billion that is out there in 
part A, that is not disturbed in our judgment in any way from last 
year's bill to amount to a hill of beans, and we are simply going to 
require three little things to be done by the States to qualify for 
that money, and virtually every State has already qualified.
  Just look back at the statistics down at the Justice Department of 
the last 10 years that are submitted, published every 2 years, by the 
State, and my colleagues will see that every State is marching toward 
increasing the length of time somebody has to serve, increasing the 
actual sentence for some of these violent criminals, all these violent 
criminals, and increasing the percentage of time, and there are three 
separate things, but they are complying. It is not hard to comply with. 
I would say 99 percent of the States, probably all the States, will 
receive money under part A without having to do anything more than 
assure the Federal Government of what they are already doing.
  But what this amendment does that is mischievous about it is, first 
of all, it strikes all three of these requirements. It in essence says, 
notwithstanding anything else in this bill, all you got to do is show a 
10 percent average increase in the time served over the entire course 
of whatever in your State, and, by God, you get the money for part A, 
and you get the money for part B because we are going to do away with 
any qualifications for part B that are different from part A. In other 
words, you strike truth in sentencing altogether, and you just say, 
``If you have increased the average times served by 10 percent of your 
violent felons in your prisons, you can get every penny in this bill,'' 
and I think that is absurd. That is precisely why we are having the 
debate out here today, and it is a very wrong-headed thing to do.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  First of all, of all the amendments that I have had come forward, 
this one is the most obtrusive. The gentleman fails to see the solution 
to a very simple problem, that, if you let criminals out early, they 
are going to commit more crimes. Our intent is to keep them in there 
for the longest amount of time.
  Governor Allen's idea of no parole at all; if you get a sentence, 
that is what you are going to stay in there for; that is what I would 
like to see. But, if you let, as James Cagney said, let these low-down, 
dirty rats back out, they are going to be low-down, dirty rats on our 
streets, and the gentleman is talking about an unfunded mandate. We are 
giving the States a positive incentive to do this. This is not an 
unfunded mandate.

                              {time}  1200

  What we want to do is make sure that if someone is sentenced to an 
amount of time that is a felon, that they are going to serve their 
time, and not get back out early and do the same thing. Because it is 
proven by statistics they get back out, and they have not been helped, 
we want to make sure that is done.
  The gentleman says that the law requires that we put them in longer 
and that we parole fewer. But it is not working again. This again is 
another positive incentive for the States that are not living up to 
that to follow through and keep these critters in longer.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman 
from California that I serve with on 
[[Page H1578]] the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, 
that whether you call it a positive incentive or an unfunded mandate, 
you are stipulating in law three things: From percentage of convicted 
offenders, to average prison time, to percentage of sentence to be 
actually served. That is not a positive incentive for some States. That 
is a very specific mandate.
  I am for truth in sentencing, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] knows. But I do not think we should prescribe down to three 
and four different criterion variables what these States have to do.
  Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], he said in his comments that some States will have to 
change laws, that the people will force the State legislatures to meet 
and change laws. That will take some time. The gentleman from Florida 
knows that some States are in short session this next meeting period. 
Indiana may only meet for a couple of months. Other States may not have 
the time to qualify for this.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, there is no question that States 
will have to change their laws, most of them will. To get the second 
pot of $5 billion for truth in sentencing, they will have to go to the 
85-percent rule. There is no question about that. That is the idea.
  But they will not have to change their laws to qualify for the first 
pot of money. I believe 99 percent, from what we have seen, already 
qualify for part A of the money.
  I would also like to respond to the gentleman on the unfunded 
mandate. This is not an unfunded mandate in any way, shape or form. 
This is a grant program, clearly distinguished from the bills we had 
out here earlier that ban unfunded mandates.
  If the States do not want this money, they do not have to do what we 
require them to do. We are not mandating they do these things. We 
simply say if you want to get this money, here is the carrot. You have 
got to come get it. Unfunded mandates do not yield carrots.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made the 
point. Illegal immigration in our State, we have a policy and the 
Government does not support it, they do not get the money. It is not an 
unfunded mandate. They do not have to participate if they do not want. 
We are not mandating that they do it. But if they do not, they do not 
get the money.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
to respond briefly.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that I think we understand that this 
bill picks the pockets of the States of hundreds of millions of dollars 
that are currently in the pipeline under current law.
  The gentleman from California makes a good point. We want folks to 
put people in prison that are violent criminals and keep them there. 
That is what last year's crime bill did.
  This takes the money back. This sets the bar so high that the 
progress that is being made cannot be met. I do not understand why the 
gentleman would want to set a standard that the Attorney General, you 
say 99 percent of the States meet it. Are you sure? The Attorney 
General has looked at it and says none of the States meet it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would just like to point 
out that there was no money appropriated for prison construction for 
this fiscal year, so we are not taking any money back in what we are 
doing.
  Second, the statistics that the Attorney General has collected over 
several years that we have seen shows that progress is being made and 
States would qualify. So I beg to differ with the gentleman.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, progress may be being 
made, but the States do not qualify. They are not going to be eligible 
under the law, and the gentleman has set the standard so high that he 
is making it impossible to comply.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I have two quick points. Under the 
gentleman's own bill, the Attorney General would be the administrator. 
So even though the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] may say States 
qualify, unfortunately, if I were a Governor who wanted to build 
prisons, I would have to put more stock in what the Attorney General 
said, because she is giving out the money, not the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Second point: The gentleman from California said we want a carrot to 
encourage the States to increase sentence time. Agreed. But when you 
put a carrot out there, you want them to be able to reach it, so they 
can jump. If you put the carrot up so high that they cannot even see 
it, they are not going to try to reach for it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has 
expired, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, I do not see how anyone can argue 
that under what the gentleman's amendment does, States would qualify 
who will not qualify for part A of the grant money under what is in the 
bill. Now, you can debate all you want on part B, the truth in 
sentencing, 85 percent rule, because I am willing to concede only three 
or four States, half a dozen States, currently qualify for that. That 
has never been in question, because the fact of the matter is States 
are being given this money as the carrot.
  But under part A, what the gentleman would have after I read his 
amendment, what he is doing in striking indeterminate sentencing as an 
exception out of this, he is saying,

       Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
     section 502(b), a State shall be eligible for grants under 
     this title if, not later than the date of enactment of this 
     title, the offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault 
     exceed by 10 percent or greater the national average of time 
     served for such offenses.

  Well, that is still going to be a requirement to qualify for part A. 
It will be the only requirement for parts A or B under your amendment.
  What we are suggesting is you do not even have to have a 10-percent 
variation with regard to the national average. You just have to have 
some for ours. You have to show an increase since 1993 of the 
percentage of convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison of the 
percentage. Just any increase. Not 10 percent, but any increase. Your 
own State has to show that increase.
  Second, you have to show an increase in the average prison time 
actually to be served, that you bumped up the time under the 
regulations for sentencing. If somebody got 6 years, the sentence they 
have been given, and they are serving only two now in your State, you 
have to show that your actual prison time is going to be 2 years and 1 
day. But it does not require a big 10-percent increase.
  Third, you have to show an increase in the percentage of the sentence 
to be actually served, the percentage of the 6 years, from whatever it 
was before. If it was 2 years, it is one-third, you have to bump up by 
whatever little fraction that would be; 2.1 years obviously shows an 
increase in the percentage of the sentence. That is not actually hard 
to comply with.
  What the gentleman is doing by all of the debate and all of what he 
is saying out here today is simply arguing the same old point he argued 
yesterday and that we have heard argued on two major amendments out 
here before, and that is the gentleman does not like the carrot. The 
gentleman does not like the second pot, which is what you destroy. 
There is nothing about the first pot that we are doing anything with. 
It is very easy to get the first pot.
  But what we are all arguing about today is whether we set aside $5 
billion and say to the States we want you to get this money, to change 
your laws to make sure that serious violent felons 
[[Page H1579]] serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Truth in 
sentencing. Essentially abolish parole and only have good time.
  That is what we want them to do with the 85-percent pot of money, $5 
billion. And what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] would do by 
his amendment, make no mistake about it, would absolutely strike that 
out of this bill. There would be no truth in sentencing requirement 
whatsoever to get any money in this bill at all. It would disappear, 
and the whole thrust of the whole truth in sentencing debate would be 
resolved in favor of those States and those groups that do not want any 
restrictions and do not want to go to that. And I think that would be 
absolutely the height of folly. It would be an undermining of a basic 
principle that the Republican side of the aisle believes deeply in our 
crime legislation, what we offered last year, and what is part of the 
Contract With America.
  So this is a killer amendment. It strikes the guts out of this bill 
as we have written it, and I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  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 176, 
noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 114]

                               YEAS--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lincoln
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--248

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     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
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Frost
     Hall (OH)
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Tauzin
                              {time}  1228

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas 
     against.
       Mr. Johnston for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington against.

  Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1230


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
will state his inquiry.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I would just inquire of the Chair in terms of statements 
that had been made earlier in respect to the length of time that we 
have for votes. I noted, just as a housekeeping matter, that the Chair 
in my view correctly permitted about 20 minutes, or I assume 20. When I 
came in, it said zero. We waited another 5 minutes to finish the vote. 
I think the Chair correctly did that, because of the crowding on the 
elevators and attempting to get here from committees by many of the 
Members.
  I was just wondering whether or not the Chair would permit an 
expansion on the statement earlier made by the Speaker with respect to 
the amount of time we will be allowed to have for votes. We were told 
17 minutes would be all we would get. I notice we just got 20, maybe 
more. I am wondering whether or not we are going to continue to have 
that kind of leeway in the event crowds occur in coming to the House 
floor to cast our votes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Speaker was very clear when he stated 
his position that he would not stop a Member from voting who is in the 
well.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Actually that is not my inquiry. I was just wondering 
whether or not we were going to all be given some additional 
opportunity in the case of crowding to get here to cast our votes. I 
think that without any question, statements to the contrary 
notwithstanding, the Chair correctly handled this vote by allowing at 
least 20 minutes for us to cast this vote. I am just hoping that the 
Speaker will be advised of the amount of time it took 
[[Page H1580]] today and perhaps we can relax the hard-and-fast rule we 
were told applied on the first day.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that 
this vote did proceed in conformity with the Speaker's advisement.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was certainly in excess of 17 
minutes, was it not?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. What the Speaker said about Members 
proceeding to the well and being allowed to vote still holds.
  Mr. COLEMAN. But after 17 minutes they will not
   be allowed to vote from the well; is that my understanding?

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The 17-minute restriction still holds. 
Members should come to the Chamber and to the well as quickly as they 
possibly can.
  Mr. COLEMAN. But the chair was correct in allowing extra time. I 
think all of the Members attempted to do that on both sides of the 
aisle. The attempts, I just advise the Chair, will continue to be made 
more difficult by having, as you know, more citizens inside the Capitol 
utilizing many of these same elevators.
  I just suggest to the Chairman that he handled it correctly. I hope 
that we could get the Speaker to agree that the hard-and-fast rule of 
17 minutes is going to be very difficult for some Members to make. Out 
of a mere courtesy to our colleagues, I would hope that we would not 
hold hard and fast to some of these stated rules that we started the 
first of the session with.
  I thank the Chairman for his consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his 
observation.


                     amendment offered by mr. scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 2, strike line 4 and all that follows through the 
     matter preceding line 1, page 12 and insert the following:

                     TITLE I--PRISON GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 1. GRANT PROGRAM.

       Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994 is amended to read as follows:

                        ``TITLE V--PRISON GRANTS

     ``SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

       ``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, 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.

     ``SEC. 502. GENERAL GRANTS.

       ``In order to be eligible to receive funds under this 
     title, 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.

     ``SEC. 503. SPECIAL RULES.

       ``Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through 
     (2) to section 502, 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 indeterminent 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.

     ``SEC. 504. 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, 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. 505. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Fiscal Requirement.--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 1068 shall apply to the 
     Attorney General in the same manner as such provisions apply 
     to the officials listed in such sections.

     ``SEC. 506. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this title--
       ``(1) $497,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(2) $830,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(3) $2,027,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(4) $2,160,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(5) $2,253,100,000 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 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 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.
       ``(c) Evaluation.--From the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, the 
     Attorney General shall reserve 1 percent for use by the 
     National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness 
     of programs established under this title by units of local 
     government and the benefits of such programs in relation to 
     the cost of such programs.

     ``SEC. 507. 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 use in the 
     course of committing the offense and has a maximum term of 
     imprisonment of 10 years or more, or
       ``(C) such crimes include 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.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, February 9, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition 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, the series of crime bills we have now effectively 
block-grant the prevention and police money from the 1994 bill and then 
cut that block of money by $2.5 billion and increase the prison 
construction money by $2.5 billion.
  This amendment restores the $2.5 billion to the prevention and cops 
block grant.
  We have already seen, Mr. Chairman, the good work in getting the 
police out on the street. Many of the police have already been funded. 
The bill has only been in effect a few months and police have been 
funded already. Those cops are on the street practicing community 
policing and effectively reducing crime.
  Mr. Chairman, during the hearings on H.R. 3 and in the Committee on 
the 
[[Page H1581]] Judiciary consideration of the bill, we also heard reams 
of testimony on crime reduction that can be effectuated by primary 
prevention programs.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard testimony that the cost of drug courts was 
about one-twentieth of what it cost to put people in prison, and the 
recidivism rate was so low that you cut crime by approximately 80 
percent. Head Start and Job Corps both save more money than they cost, 
Mr. Chairman.
  We have testimony in the record showing drug treatment programs which 
are so effective, they save $7 for every $1 that you put into the 
program. We have seen recreational programs. Mr. Chairman, where for 60 
cents per participant, the crime rate in Phoenix, AZ, was cut 
significantly. Fort Myers, FL, 28 percent reduction in crime for very 
minimal expenditures. Gang intervention programs, drug courts, early 
childhood development, vocational training. Those kind of programs, Mr. 
Chairman, will reduce crime.
  The $2.5 billion that is added to the prisons in this series of bills 
which we seek to transfer will be an insignificant portion of the money 
spent on prisons. Virginia has adopted a truth-in-sentencing or so-
called truth-in-sentencing provision. The way we got to 85 percent, Mr. 
Chairman, was to reduce the sentence 50 percent, letting those who 
could not make parole, the most heinous of our criminals, let them out 
in 50 percent of the time so that the less risky prisoners could serve 
more time. That cost us $7
 billion

  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend that kind of money, we ought 
to put it in programs that will actually work.
  Mr. Chairman, the $30 billion crime bill from last year designated 75 
percent of the money for law enforcement and prisons, despite all of 
the overwhelming evidence that vastly more crime reduction can be 
accomplished through prevention programs. The present bill compounds 
the problem by increasing the prisons and decreasing the money that 
could go to police and prevention.
  If our goal is to prevent crime, Mr. Chairman, we should take the 
politics out of crime, spend the money where it will actually do some 
good, and, that is, on prevention and police officers.
  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, and I am not going to consume much on this amendment. I think 
it should be clear that if we voted, as many of us, in fact the clear 
majority did, a very large majority, against the amendment earlier 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], to strike $30 
million, $36 million from the prison grant program, we certainly would 
want to oppose an amendment that would strike $2.5 billion from the 
program.
  The gentleman obviously who is offering this amendment is offering it 
in sincere concern for the prevention programs which he liked in the 
last Congress, which this side of the aisle wants to do away with, did 
not agree with, and does not want to put more money into.
  Next week we will have an opportunity to vote on a combination of 
local block grant programs that will combine the prevention and the 
cops on the street programs of the last Congress into a $10 billion 
program to let the cities and the counties of this Nation, their local 
governments, decide how to best fight crime in their community, whether 
that be by hiring a new police officer or doing some kind of
 prevention program, whatever that they may choose to do. I think $10 
billion is plenty of money for that. I think most Americans believe 
that.

  Some money has already been granted out this year under the existing 
law. So actually more than that would be eligible to be spent according 
to my calculations.
  I see no reason whatsoever to take $2.5 billion from the prison 
program, strike it altogether, to give the gentleman from Virginia an 
opportunity next week to argue that he has stricken this money, now 
that he has done that, he has saved it, he can now increase or add to 
or argue for more money under the $10 billion program. I suspect next 
week he is going to be opposed based on his arguments in committee to 
the concept of block grants, anyway, as opposed to doing it under the 
categoricals that are in current law.
  I understand the opposition and the differences of opinion. I just 
want the Members to understand clearly that what the gentleman wants to 
do is to strike a very sizable proportion, $2.5 billion, from this 
prison grant construction and operation program that is designed to 
take the violent felons off the streets and provide money to the States 
so that they can build the prison beds necessary to get an end to 
parole for these serious violent felons. He wants to strike the money 
that would allow the States to do this, a huge $2.5 billion amount, and 
I am very strongly opposed and urge the rejection of this amendment.
                              {time}  1240

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because although I support truth in 
sentencing, I do not support pork, and that is the problem with the 
bill as it is currently drafted.
  We watched yesterday afternoon when the Republicans basically 
presented us with a porkfest. We had a lengthy debate, and in the 
course of that debate it was pointed out that there is a $5 billion pot 
of money called truth in sentencing incentive grants, $5 billion, but 
of that $5 billion what we found out was only three States could 
qualify, and the gentleman suggested, ``Oh, no, more States would want 
to do this.'' But I checked with my people in Maryland and they said 
even though we have already doubled our sentencing requirements, the 
time-served requirements, that even with this bill Maryland would 
probably not be able to get any money because it would not be cost-
effective, it would cost the State too much money to build the prisons 
even with the grant that we could get from the Federal Government.
  So the debate went on and finally the gentleman conceded that yes, 
there are probably going to be some States that would not be able to 
take advantage of this money, so the question became what do we do with 
the unallocated funds? To those of you who are deficit hawks, watch 
out. Unallocated funds, rather than have these funds go back to the 
Treasury for deficit reduction, these funds, which could be $2 billion, 
$3 billion, because remember only three States qualify, the funds would 
be suddenly given back to the Justice Department for Federal 
courthouses and Federal magistrates and to the INS Service.
  So I see a grave contradiction today, Mr. Chairman. While the 
Republican chairman suggests we ought to give all of this money to the 
local governments for prisons, not only is the money not going for 
prisons, it is not going to the local government, it is reverting back 
to the Federal Government, not for prisons but for courthouses and INS 
and other Federal investigatory bureaus.
  I do not think that is what the American people want. I think yes, we 
can have truth in sentencing and yes, serious violators ought to serve 
more time, no disagreement there.
  The issue becomes whether we take the unallocated funds and have a 
porkfest for Federal investigatory agencies or whether we use 
unallocated funds and spend it on deficit reduction. I believe we ought 
to spend it on deficit reduction, which is why I support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia which suggests that this money ought to 
be cut.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for speakers, and I 
reserve the right to close.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  [[Page H1582]] (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott 
amendment. The people of my district are as concerned about crime as 
any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In fact, crime is 
a defining issue in urban centers like the one I represent. Every time 
I meet with constituents, crime is at or near the top of the agenda. In 
my district kids grow up on street corners because there are few 
healthy alternatives. There are no parks, no playgrounds, and no 
recreational centers, and overcrowded, ill-equipped schools neither 
prepare nor inspire the children for useful and productive careers.
  Prisons alone are not the solution. Without prevention, we will never 
get control of the crime problem. Punishment and prevention are flip 
sides of the same coin.
  Last year we struck a difficult balance between those two impulses. 
The Crime Control Act provided for more prisons and stiffer sentences. 
It also made an investment in proven crime prevention programs for 
education, recreation, and drug treatment. It offered the kids on the 
corners alternatives and hope for a better future.
  This bill upsets the delicate balance between punishment and 
prevention. I support this amendment because it helps get us back to 
the middle ground that we found last year. This bill pledges $12.5 
billion for prison construction, $2.5 billion more than was authorized 
in the 1994 act.
  Where will this money come from? From prevention programs? That is 
$2.5 billion less for our kids. No afterschool and summer programs for 
at-risk youth, no antigang initiatives, no sports leagues or 
recreational facilities, no drug treatment programs. With this bill we 
will be saying to your youth, ``We don't care about you, we do not 
expect anything from you. Prison is okay.''
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the American people are desperate for 
urgent action. I understand the temptation to adopt catchy phrases and 
simple solutions like lock them up and throw away the key. But forget 
it. It is not about catchy phrases, it is about solutions.
  I urge the President and the leadership of this House to maintain the 
delicate balance that was reached last year. I cannot and I will not 
support a measure that slashes critical social programs in order to 
appease the critics on the right. I will not play politics with the 
future of America's youth.
  I urge my colleagues and the American people to see through this 
Republican charade of deception.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida has indicated that there 
will be a block grant of $10 billion for localities to decide what they 
want to do in terms of prevention or police. Obviously they will have 
the discretion to do what they want, but they will have $2.5 billion 
less to do it with if the bill is passed without this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if we had a problem of people falling off a cliff, we 
could decide to build a fence on the cliff or we could decide to buy 
ambulances at the bottom of the cliff.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment allows us to build a fence, save money, 
prevent crime, and I would hope it would be the pleasure of the House 
to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make an observation on the 
comments made earlier by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] only to 
the extent of explaining once more that the unallocated funds in the 
prison construction program, if the States do not claim those moneys, 
which I think they will claim virtually all of them, that is a bone of 
contention I suppose with some of the others of the other side, but if 
they do not claim all of the money even under the $10\1/2\ billion 
allocated here, then the moneys here are cordoned off and reserved for 
use by the appropriators for use in the expenses of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service for investigators and for expenses of the Bureau 
of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. attorneys 
for activities and operations related to the investigation, 
prosecution, and conviction of persons accused of serious violent 
felony and incarceration of persons convicted of such offenses.
  So it is not court houses and it has very direct preferences related 
to what we are doing here today in trying to get the kind of money 
necessary to the States that they can take this group of prisoners, 
these felons off the streets and lock them up for very extended periods 
of time. And the gentleman wants to take $2\1/2\ billion out of this 
today so that he can urge you next week that he is going to put that 
money in prevention programs instead of into building more prisons.
  It is just a difference of opinion. But make no mistake, this would 
take a huge amount, $2\1/2\ billion, out of the prison program, $2\1/2\ 
billion that are really needed if we are going to finally stop the 
revolving door involving serious violent felons who just commit crime 
after crime in this country.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  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 question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 268, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               YEAS--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Funderburk
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--268

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     [[Page H1583]] Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark

                              {time}  1306

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas 
     against.
       Mr. Johnston for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington against.

  Mr. PALLONE and Mr. SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SANFORD, WARD, ENSIGN, GREENWOOD, and ROTH changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, the 
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bliley) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 63, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended? If not, the 
question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               motion to recommit offered by mr. conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary with instructions to report the bill back to 
     the House forthwith, with the following amendment: Page 9, 
     after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(7) Unallocated funds for public safety and community 
     policing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 
     funds transferred under paragraph (6) may only be made 
     available for the program under part Q of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1965.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bliley). The gentleman from Florida 
withdraws his reservation of a point of order
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues of the Congress, this 
recommit motion takes, perhaps, up to $5 billion in unallocated funds 
and puts back into the cops on the beat program.
  Now, yesterday the new majority whispered a secret about this prison 
funding proposal on the floor today. They finally admitted that the 
truth-in-sentencing scheme would probably be so burdensome on the 
States that most would never qualify for it, and then the gentleman 
from Florida offered what I call a ``cover your back'' amendment saying 
that unexpended funds would be used for Federal law enforcement. This 
motion to recommit would allow those unexpended funds, which we are all 
sure will happen, to be used for the most important program we have in 
the crime bill, the cops on the beat program.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's police program is the single most 
desired crime-fighting response demanded by our citizens across the 
several States. The Republican majority is proposing to repeal the 
program and put in its place revenue sharing and a prison funding 
program that in the end will actually provide less money for prisons 
and not one guarantee for a single community policeman.
  People are afraid to go out of their houses to the corner store. The 
average response time in our neighborhoods to violent crime is getting 
longer and longer, and people, are demanding change. We can build all 
the prisons we want, but without police officers on the beat we will 
never apprehend them.
  So let us do what the police are asking us to do, to get them from 
behind their desks and on the beat, provide them more resources to 
fight crime. No one, no one can deny the effectiveness of this program, 
and this will be the far better place to put those unexpended funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] for yielding this time to me. I rise in full support of the 
motion to recommit.
  Let me just recollect to all of my colleagues our view, the attorney 
general's view, the Justice Department's view, which gives out this 
money. Under present law, every State qualifies. Under this law, no 
State qualifies.
  Even the gentleman from Florida earlier this morning in the debate 
admitted that presently, in his views, only three States, three medium 
and little States, medium sized and little States, would qualify. So, 
let us assume that we are right. I ask, Shouldn't that money go to put 
officers on the beat instead of just sitting there? By all means.
  I say to my colleagues, If you are right, the money will be spent on 
prisons, but if this amendment passes, if you're wrong, which most 
people will look at it and think at least the money will be spent on 
cops walking the beat.
  I say to my colleagues, Don't, sell out your States. Don't for some 
nice ideological model way up in the sky that's unattainable, tell your 
States they can't get millions of dollars to build prisons. Don't sell 
out your police.
  Please support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] for yielding, and I just want 
[[Page H1584]] to remind the Members of the House that the gentleman 
from Florida with his amendment last night has readily admitted that we 
are not going to spend all this money on prisons. Otherwise why would 
he have offered the amendment that leaves this money, after 2 years, to 
go to the Department of Justice to be used for their program? Well, if 
that is the case, and I agree with the gentleman from Florida; I said 
that before; there are not going to be very many prisons built with 
this bill. We have a present law that is a lot better than their 
program, that is a lot better, but if this is going to be the case, 
instead of putting it all in the FBI, or all in the Department of 
Justice, can we not use some for cops on the beat? I think that is 
where crime fighting actually begins, with the policemen on the beat, 
in our local communities.
  I ask, What's wrong with saying that, if we don't spend it on 
prisons, let's use some of it to help our local law enforcement?
  I strongly urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I 
strongly oppose this motion to recommit. I have had some words that I 
have heard from the other side over there that have misstated at least 
what I said earlier in the debate and a lot of words that have gone 
through. I want to make it perfectly clear in my judgment, and the 
judgment of the vast majority of our side of the aisle, I believe that 
every State of the Union is going to qualify for part A, the pot that 
has $5 billion in it with virtually no restrictions on it. Part B, the 
pot that has the truth in sentencing money in it for requiring the 
States in order to get it to change their laws to require serious 
violent felons to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is going to 
be a carrot where most States will not have, and that is our idea, have 
not qualified, though I think somewhere in the neighborhood of six or 
eight States already are in that posture as opposed to the three the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] keep stating to us. I believe 
that virtually all of this money will be consumed, probably all of it, 
by the States by time the 5 years runs out in both pots, but yesterday 
we passed a particular amendment which is being proposed today by this 
motion to recommit with instructions to be changed of what would happen 
to any moneys that were not actually given out by the Attorney General 
in these grants because there were not requests for them or whatever, 
and we said yesterday, and we voted yesterday, to do this in this 
committee, that the funds, if there were any unused ones, would go for 
the purposes of Immigration and Naturalization Service investigators, 
and the expenses of the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, and Lord knows they need a lot of it, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation and U.S. 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.
  It seems to me that that is an appropriate place to place the 
residual money, if there is any, which I do not think there will be 
from the prison grant program that is designed to try to get the 
serious violent felons off the street and solve the revolving door. We 
do not need to have a big debate out here tonight over cops on the 
street again.
  What the gentleman's motion to recommit would do would be to say 
every single penny will go, not for the purposes I just enumerated, 
which is what we passed yesterday, but every single penny, if any is 
not spent in this bill, would go instead to the President's cops on the 
streets program which we will address next week.

                              {time}  1320

  We on this side of the aisle think that program needs to be merged 
into a community block grant program. We do not agree with that 
program. So consequently the purposes for which this is intended are 
not going to be served by the motion to recommit if it is passed today. 
So I urge in the strongest of terms a no vote to the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electornic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 227, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--227

     Allard
     Andrews
     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
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     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
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     [[Page H1585]] Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Berman
     Boucher
     Coburn
     Collins (MI)
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Thomas

                              {time}  1336

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Smith of Texas 
     against.
       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mrs. Smith of Washington 
     against.

  Mr. LoBIONDO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 265, 
noes 156, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               YEAS--265

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--156

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Berman
     Collins (MI)
     Deutsch
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Johnston
     Lofgren
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stark

                              {time}  1354

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Texas for, with Miss Collins of Michigan 
     against.
       Mrs. Smith of Washington for, with Mr. Johnston against.
       Mr. Deutsch for, with Mr. Berman against.

  Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. LUTHER, and Mr. FORD changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________