[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 195 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18295-S18296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


            THE COMMERCE, STATE, JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I reluctantly voted for the 
conference report for the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill, 
knowing that it will be vetoed, because it does contain many provisions 
that will do significant good for the country and because much of the 
funding it provides is very important to our efforts to fight violent 
crime. I look forward to working with the managers of the bill to 
resolve the problem areas of this bill when it comes up for 
consideration again.
  Let me begin by outlining what is good in this bill. First, the 
prison litigation reform title of the bill makes important and needed 
changes to the Federal laws governing lawsuits brought against prison 
administrators across the country. Right now, in many jurisdictions, 
judicial orders entered under Federal law are having an enormously 
destructive effect on public 

[[Page S 18296]]
safety and the administration of prisons. They are also raising the 
costs of running prisons far beyond what is necessary. And they are 
undermining the legitimacy and punitive and deterrent effect of prison 
sentences.
  These orders are complemented by a torrent of prisoner lawsuits. 
Although these suits are found nonmeritorious 95 percent of the time, 
they occupy an enormous amount of State and local time and resources; 
time and resources that would be better spent incarcerating more 
dangerous offenders.
  In my own State of Michigan, the Federal courts are now monitoring 
our State prisons to determine:
  First, how warm the food is.
  Second, how bright the lights are.
  Third, whether there are electrical outlets in each cell.
  Fourth, whether windows are inspected and up to code.
  Fifth, whether prisoners' hair is cut only by licensed barbers.
  Sixth, whether air and water temperatures are comfortable.
  Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, American citizens are put at risk every 
day by court decrees that curb prison crowding by declaring that we 
must free dangerous criminals before they have served their time, or 
not incarcerating other criminals at all. As a result, thousands of 
defendants who were out on the streets because of these decrees have 
been rearrested for new crimes, including 79 murders, 959 robberies, 
2,215 drug dealing charges, 701 burglaries, 2,748 thefts, 90 rapes, and 
1,113 assaults in just 1 year. Obviously, these judicial decrees pose 
an enormous threat to public safety.
  Finally, in addition to massive judicial interventions in State 
prison systems, we also have frivolous inmate litigation brought under 
Federal law. Thirty three States have estimated that this litigation 
cost them at least $54.5 million annually. The National Association of 
Attorneys General have concluded that this means that nationwide the 
costs are at least $81.3 million. Since, according to their 
information, more than 95 percent of these suits are dismissed without 
the inmate receiving anything, the vast majority of this money is being 
entirely wasted.
  Title VIII of this conference report contains important measures that 
will help stop the destructive effect on public safety, the unnecessary 
micromanagement, and the waste of resources that this litigation is 
causing. It limits intervention into the affairs of State prisons by 
any court, State or Federal, undertaken under Federal law, to narrowly 
tailored orders necessary to protect the inmates' constitutional 
rights. It also makes it very difficult for any court to enter an order 
directing the release of prisoners. Finally, it contains a number of 
very important limitations on prisoner lawsuits.
  These provisions are based on legislation that I have worked on 
assiduously along with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch, the majority leader, and Senators Hutchison 
and Kyl. They have the strong support of the National Association of 
Attorneys General and the National District Attorneys Association. They 
will make an important contribution to public safety and the orderly 
running of prisons by the State officials charged with running them 
without unnecessary Federal interference. And they will help limit the 
waste of taxpayer money now spent defending frivolous lawsuits and 
feeding prisoners' sense that as a result of committing a crime, they 
have a grievance with the world, rather than the other way around.
  I thank the appropriators in both Houses, as well as the efforts of 
the majority leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for 
seeing to it that these provisions were included in this legislation.
  The second reason I support this bill is that it makes significant 
improvements in the law governing the funding of prison grants to the 
States. Although styled truth-in-sentencing grants, the language in 
present law is so full of loopholes that it does little to advance the 
cause of incarcerating the most violent offenders or assuring that they 
would actually serve the time they were sentenced to serve. The new 
version does a much better job of targeting this money in a manner that 
creates the proper incentives.
  Now let me outline the areas of this bill with which I have serious 
reservations. First, I believe the bill goes too far in diffusing money 
that the version of this legislation that passed the Senate had 
dedicated to the hiring of police officers in the COPS Program. I 
sympathize with the desire of my colleagues in the House to give the 
States more flexibility in spending this money, but this could mean 
that our goal to put more police on the street may not be achieved. I 
would much prefer to see a system where the States do have additional 
flexibility, but are given some real incentives to spend the money 
hiring additional law enforcement officers.
  Second, Mr. President, I believe the provisions related to the 
Commerce Department fall short of what we should be doing--namely 
eliminating the Commerce Department altogether. I am the lead Senate 
sponsor of legislation to abolish the Department of Commerce, S. 929. I 
think the record is clear--the Department of Commerce is the least 
essential of all 14 Cabinet-level agencies. Any effort to reorganize 
and reform Government should begin there.
  Although this bill does not eliminate the umbrella organization of 
the Commerce Department, it does reduce and eliminate some of the 
Department's more indefensible programs and agencies. It terminates 
corporate welfare programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the 
U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, and it establishes procedures 
by which the Administration can act.
  On the other hand, the conference report fails to take a strong 
position toward indefensible programs like the Economic Development 
Administration. Whereas the Senate had funded this program at only $89 
billion, the report before us would provide the EDA with over $300 
billion for next year. Given the EDA's record of waste and abuse, I 
believe this funding is excessive and I look forward to an opportunity 
to debate the merits of the EDA, and other programs like it, when my 
bill to terminate the Commerce Department is debated on the Senate 
floor. In addition, this report deletes the fund to cover the costs of 
terminating the Department and transferring necessary functions to 
other areas of the Government. Various concerns have been raised 
regarding the cost of terminating the Department of Commerce, and this 
provision would have helped address those concerns.
  I think some of the money being spent on these unnecessary programs 
in the Commerce Department would have been better spent funding Federal 
law enforcement at the levels the Senate proposed in the pre-conference 
version of this legislation.
  Finally, this conference report accepted the House funding level for 
legal services for the poor and maintains the existing structure for 
the provision of these services, the Legal Services Corporation, albeit 
with provisions seeking to ensure that some of the worst misallocations 
of funds that the Corporation has permitted do not recur. As I 
explained when the issue came before the Senate originally in 
connection with this bill, I believe the approach the Senate 
subcommittee took to this issue originally, which would have eliminated 
the Federal Corporation and block-granted to the States Federal funds 
for the provision of legal services to the poor, was far superior. The 
Corporation itself provides no legal services to the poor, but rather 
grants Federal money to local organizations that give legal assistance 
to the poor. This is a function the States can perform at least as 
effectively as the Corporation has.
  While I voted for this conference report, I will reserve judgment on 
the next Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill.

                          ____________________