[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.

                          ____________________