[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3703-S3705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTROL OF PRISONS
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I should like to pick up on some of the
topics which the Senator from Texas was discussing and particularly
focus on one aspect of the Republican agenda on crime, prison reform. I
would like today to discuss the proposals we Senate Republicans have
developed under the leadership of the majority leader, Senator Dole, to
end frivolous lawsuits brought by prisoners, to remove our prisons from
the control of Federal judges, and return control over them to our
State and local officials.
Mr. President, let me begin by outlining the problem. In 1995, 65,000
prisoner lawsuits were filed in Federal courts alone. To put that in
context, 65,000 lawsuits is more than the total number of Federal
prosecutions initiated in 1995. In other words, prisoners incarcerated
in various prisons brought more cases in the Federal courts than all
Federal prosecutions last year combined.
The vast majority of these lawsuits are nonmeritorious. The National
Association of Attorneys General estimated that 95 percent of them are
dismissed without the inmate receiving anything.
Let me just list a few examples.
First, an inmate claimed $1 million in damages for civil rights
violations because his ice cream had melted. The judge ruled that the
right to eat ice cream was clearly not within the contemplation of our
Nation's forefathers.
Second, an inmate alleged that being forced to listen to his unit
manager's country and western music constituted cruel and unusual
punishment.
Third, an inmate sued because when his dinner tray arrived, the piece
of cake on it was ``hacked up.''
Fourth, an inmate sued because he was served chunky instead of smooth
peanut butter.
Fifth, two prisoners sued to force taxpayers to pay for sex change
surgery while they were in prison.
On and on the list goes, Mr. President, with more and more ridiculous
lawsuits brought by inmates in penitentiaries. A prisoner who sued
demanding LA Gear or Reebok ``Pumps'' instead of Converse tennis shoes.
These kinds of lawsuits are an enormous drain on the resources of our
States and localities, resources that would be better spent
incarcerating more dangerous offenders instead of being consumed in
court battles without merit.
Thirty-three States have estimated that they spend at least $54.5
million annually combined on these lawsuits. The National Association
of Attorneys General has extrapolated that number to conclude that the
annual costs for all of these States are approximately $81 million a
year to battle cases of the sort that I have just described.
In addition to the problems created by the lawsuits the courts have
dismissed, we have what is, if anything, a more serious problem--
lawsuits the courts have not dismissed that have resulted in turning
over the running of our prisons to the courts.
In many jurisdictions, including my own State of Michigan, judicial
orders entered under Federal law have effectively turned control of the
prison system away from elected officials accountable to the taxpayers
and over to the courts. The courts, in turn, raise the costs of running
prisons far beyond what is necessary and undermine the very legitimacy
and deterrent effect of prison sentences. Judicial orders entered under
Federal law have even resulted in the release of dangerous criminals
from prison. Thus, right now, our existing Federal laws are actually
wasting the taxpayers' money and creating risk to public safety.
[[Page S3704]]
Let me explain a little bit about how this works. Under a series of
judicial decrees resulting from Justice Department lawsuits against the
Michigan Department of Corrections back in the 1960's, the Federal
courts now monitor 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 a prisoner's hair is cut only by
licensed barbers; and sixth, whether air and water temperatures in the
prison are comfortable.
Complying with these court orders, litigating over what they mean,
and producing the reports necessary to keep the courts happy has cost
the Michigan taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars since 1984.
This would be bad enough if a court had ever found that Michigan's
prison system was at some point in violation of the Constitution or if
the conditions there had been declared inhumane, but that is not the
case. To the contrary, nearly all of Michigan's facilities are fully
accredited by the American Corrections Association.
We have what may be the most extensive training program in the Nation
for corrections officers. Our rate of prison violence is among the
lowest of any State. And we have spent an average of $4,000 a year per
prisoner for health care, including nearly $1,700 for mental health
services.
Rather, the judicial intervention is the result of a consent decree
that Michigan entered into in 1982, 13 years ago, that was supposed to
end a lawsuit filed at the same time. Instead, the decree has been a
source of continuous litigation and intervention by the court into the
minutia of prison operations.
The Michigan story is a bad one, Mr. President, but let me tell you a
story that causes me even more concern, and that is on the public
safety side, the example that is going on even today in the city of
Philadelphia. There a Federal judge has been overseeing what has become
a program of wholesale releases of up to 600 criminal defendants per
week to keep the prison population down to what the judge considers an
appropriate level.
As a result, a large number of defendants have been released back
onto the streets. Following their release, thousands of these
defendants have been rearrested for new crimes every year including 79
murders, 90 rapes, 959 robberies, 2,215 drug dealing charges, 701
burglaries, 2,748 thefts, and 1,113 assaults.
Under this order, there are no individualized bail hearings based on
a defendant's criminal history before deciding whether to release the
defendant pretrial. Instead, the only consideration is what the
defendant is charged with the day of his or her arrest.
No matter what the defendant has done before, even, for example, if
he or she was previously convicted of murder, if the charge giving rise
to the specific arrest on the specific date is a nonviolent crime, the
defendant may not be held pretrial.
Moreover, the so-called nonviolent crimes include stalking,
carjacking, robbery with a baseball bat, burglary, drug dealing,
vehicular homicide, manslaughter, terroristic threats, and gun charges.
Those are charged as nonviolent and consequently those arrested are not
detained.
Failure to appear rates, needless to say, for crimes covered by the
cap are up around 70 percent as opposed to noncovered crimes for
aggravated assault where the rate is just 3 percent.
The Philadelphia fugitive rate for defendants charged with drug
dealing is 76 percent, three times the national average. Over 100
persons in Philadelphia have been killed by criminals set free under
this prison cap.
Mr. President, I think this is all wrong. People deserve to keep
their tax dollars or to have them spent on progress they approve. They
deserve better than to have their money spent on keeping prisoners and
prisons in conditions a particular Federal judge feels are desirable
but not required by the Constitution or any law.
They certainly do not need it spent on endless litigation over these
matters.
Meanwhile, criminals, while they must be accorded their
constitutional rights, deserve to be punished. Obviously, they should
not be tortured or treated cruelly. At the same time, they also should
not have all the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy. Rather,
their lives should, on the whole, be describable by the old concept
known as ``hard time.'' By interfering with the fulfillment of this
punitive function, the courts are effectively seriously undermining the
entire criminal justice system.
Our distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, working with Senator
Hatch, Senator Kyl, Senator Hutchison, and myself, has developed
legislation to address these problems. Our proposals will return sanity
and State control to our prison systems.
To begin with, we would institute several measures to reduce
frivolous inmate litigation. We would require judicial screening,
before docketing, of any civil complaint filed by a prisoner seeking
relief from the Government.
This provision would allow a Federal judge to immediately dismiss a
complaint if either the complaint does not state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or the defendant is immune from suit. In
addition, State prisoners would have to exhaust all administrative
remedies before filing a lawsuit in Federal court.
We would also create disincentives for prisoners to file frivolous
suits. Under current law, there is no cost to prisoners for filing an
infinite number of such suits. First, we would require inmates who file
lawsuits to pay the full amount of their court fees and other costs. We
also would make that requirement enforceable by allowing their trust
accounts to be garnished to pay these fees. If a prisoner is unable to
fully pay court fees and other costs at the time of filing a lawsuit,
20 percent of the funds in his trust account would be garnished for
this purpose. Every month thereafter 20 percent of the income credited
to the prisoner's account would be garnished until the full amount is
paid off.
We would also allow Federal courts to revoke any good-time credits
accumulated by a prisoner who files a frivolous suit. Finally, we would
prohibit prisoners who have filed three frivolous or obviously
nonmeritorious in forma pauperis civil actions from filing any more
unless they are in imminent danger of severe bodily harm, and we would
cap and limit the attorney's fees that can be obtained from the
defendant in such suits.
As to the powers of judges to overrule our legislatures, we would
forbid courts from entering orders for prospective relief--such as
regulating food temperatures--unless the order is necessary to correct
violations of individual plaintiffs' Federal rights. We also would
require that the relief be narrowly drawn and be the least intrusive
means of protecting the Federal rights. We would direct courts to give
substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the
operation of the criminal justice system caused by the relief. And we
would impose important new requirements before a court can enter an
order that requires the release of prisoners, including that such
orders may be entered in the Federal system only by a three-judge
court.
We also would provide that any party can seek to have a court decree
ended after 2 years, and that the court will order it ended unless
there is still a constitutional violation that needs to be corrected.
As a result, no longer will prison administration be turned over to
Federal judges for the indefinite future for the slightest reason. No
longer will public safety be jeopardized by capricious judicial prison
caps. And no longer will the taxpayers be socked for enormous,
unnecessary bills to pay for all this.
Instead, the States will be able to run prisons as they see fit
unless there is a constitutional violation. If there is, a narrowly
tailored order to correct the violation may be entered.
This is a balanced set of proposals, allowing the courts to step in
where they are needed, but puts an end to unnecessary judicial
intervention and micromanagement of our prison system we see too often.
These proposals were included as part of the Commerce, State, Justice
appropriation bill. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed this
legislation. As a result, we continue to have more frivolous prisoner
lawsuits and we continue to have some courts running prisons.
President Clinton said his veto was based on other parts of the
legislation.
[[Page S3705]]
Accordingly, we will shortly be sending him a new version of an omnibus
appropriations bill that again includes these proposals. This is one
measure we can take that will plainly advance our fight against crime.
We hope this time, President Clinton will help.
Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor to the Senator from
Tennessee for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Tennessee.
____________________