[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5860-H5864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT STATES SHOULD WORK MORE AGGRESSIVELY 
                 TO ATTACK PROBLEM OF REPEAT CRIMINALS

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 75) expressing the sense of the 
Congress that States should work more aggressively to attack the 
problem of violent crimes committed by repeat offenders and criminals 
serving abbreviated sentences.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 75

       Whereas a disturbing number of law-abiding citizens believe 
     they are prisoners in their own homes because of increasing 
     violence in our society;
       Whereas law-abiding citizens have the right to be fearful 
     knowing that violence offenders only serve on average 48 
     percent of the sentence they received
       Whereas more than \2/3\ of persons under correctional 
     supervision are currently on parole and not incarcerated;
       Whereas 1 in 3 offenders admitted to State prisons were on 
     probation or parole violators;
       Whereas the Federal Government eliminated parole in 1984 
     and prisoners convicted of Federal crimes now serve at least 
     85 percent of their sentences;
       Whereas under current Federal law, States are eligible for 
     prison construction funds if they keep felons in prison for 
     at least 85 percent of their sentence;
       Whereas in 1996, at least 25 States, among them Arizona, 
     California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
     Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
     Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, North 
     Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, have laws that 
     meet the 85 percent of sentence served requirements set forth 
     in the 1994 crime bill; and
       Whereas the National Association of Police Organizations, 
     the International Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of 
     Police, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
     National District Attorney's Association, and the Safe 
     Streets Coalition support the concept of an 85 percent 
     minimum length of service for violent criminals: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Congress commends Arizona, California, Connecticut, 
     Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
     Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New 
     York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, 
     Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and 
     Washington for their existing efforts with respect to prison 
     time served by criminal offenders;
       (2) Congress encourages all remaining States to adopt as 
     quickly as possible legislation to increase the time served 
     by violent felons; and
       (3) with respect to Federal crimes, Congress reemphasizes 
     its support for the requirement that individuals who commit 
     violent crimes should serve at least 85 percent of their 
     sentence.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 75, introduced by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], expresses the sense of Congress 
that States should work more aggressively to attack the problem of 
violent crimes committed by repeat offenders. It reemphasizes Congress' 
support for the principle that individuals who commit violent crimes 
should serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. It also commends 
the States which have enacted truth-in-sentencing legislation and 
encourages the remaining States to adopt such legislation.
  Let us remember why we passed truth-in-sentencing legislation in the 
first place. Members were tired of continually hearing from frustrated 
and angry American citizens who knew, or were themselves, the victims 
of violent crimes of criminals who already had violent criminal history 
records. Congress recognized 2 years ago that the revolving door of 
justice must be stopped. Truth-in-sentencing legislation was a response 
to the small but deadly group of criminals who get arrested, convicted 
and released back into the community before they have served even half 
their sentences.
  In fact, one of the most astonishing cases I have ever heard about: 
Four Milwaukee men were arrested last year for a crime spree which 
included two murders. Between them they had 92 prior arrests. The 
charges ranged from armed robbery and arson to theft and battery. In 
the group one 24-year-old man had 51 arrests alone. The police chief of 
Milwaukee was frustrated by the fact that his department was, as he 
told reporters, ``arresting the same individuals over and over again.''
  In fiscal year l996, 25 States met the requirements for a truth in 
sentencing grant award under legislation that we passed in Congress. 
According to the Department of Justice, several more States are 
attempting to pass such laws during the current legislative session. 
The fact that so many States have enacted truth-in-sentencing 
legislation since Congress took action in 1995 demonstrates clearly 
that incentive grants in that legislation has worked.
  Mr. Speaker, let us consider the actual use of these funds. A large 
number of States have indicated in their fiscal year 1997 applications 
that they are planning to use some of the grant funds to build or 
expand juvenile facilities for violent juvenile offenders. In fact, 
four States have indicated that their entire grant award will be used 
for juvenile facilities. Additionally, at least 13 States plan to make 
a portion of the 1997 grant funds available for local jail projects. 
Four other States are exploring the use of grant funds for 
privatization of correctional facilities. This was Congress' clear 
intention, to allow the States some flexibility in determining where 
and how to spend the money necessary to fight violent crime.
  States have responded positively to Congress' leadership on this 
issue and every citizen has benefited because more violent criminals 
remain where they belong, behind bars. The incentives grants are 
effective, and Congress must use every means possible to give

[[Page H5861]]

this message out to those remaining States which have not yet passed 
truth-in-sentencing legislation. There were about 6 or 7 States that 
had truth-in-sentencing legislation that required at least 85 percent 
of the time to be served that is given somebody in the sentence who 
commits a violent crime before we passed our truth-in-sentencing 
grants, and now we have almost 25, but there are still another 25 or so 
that have not passed such legislation.
  The bill of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] expresses the 
sense of Congress that all the remaining States should adopt as quickly 
as possible legislation to require an increase in the time served by 
violent felons, and I concur completely. Law-abiding citizens have the 
right to feel safe, and ensuring that violent criminals serve at least 
85 percent of their sentences is one very effective way to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren], a distinguished member of the committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply expresses the sense 
of the Congress that violent criminals should face severe penalties for 
their behavior. I think the resolution gives us an opportunity to 
reflect on one of the biggest success stories in memory, which is the 
huge decrease in the crime rate, an astonishing 34 percent reduction 
since 1991, and it is continuing to fall. I think it is important to 
realize that there are different elements contributing to the falling 
crime rate.
  First and foremost, I think it has been aggressive community based 
policing, the 100,000 new cops on the beat program. Second, I agree 
with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that repeat violent 
offenders do need to be kept from their potential victims and that 
efforts to keep violent criminals incarcerated for most of their 
sentence have played a role in the falling crime rate.
  Third, gun control efforts that we have enacted, including the Brady 
bill and the ban on assault weapons have done a lot to make our 
communities safer. Last but not least is the role of prevention 
programs. I would say of the four elements of a balanced program, it is 
prevention that has been most starved for attention and for resources. 
The cumulative effect, however, of the four balances, community 
policing, career repeat violent offenders being incarcerated, as well 
as the gun control, and then, finally, prevention programs has yielded 
this result.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] for his resolution. 
I think it is absolutely appropriate that we recognize one of the four 
elements on our balanced approach, and I would also ask us to reflect 
that it is not just that one of the four elements, but the prevention 
measures and the other that have helped achieve the success that we are 
now starting to achieve.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I 
know the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] may.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 75, and I want to thank my good friend from Michigan, the 
distinguished gentleman from Detroit [Mr. Conyers] and of course the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the very distinguished chair of 
the subcommittee, who has been a strong leader on the issue of victim's 
rights in this Congress and previous sessions. His leadership has 
resulted in a number of success stories, I think, in our control of 
violent crime especially, and I want to thank him and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the full committee chair, and the very 
dedicated staff of the subcommittee and committee for allowing this 
resolution to come before the House.
  The American public is losing confidence in our judicial system. When 
two-thirds of convicted felons are on parole and not incarcerated they 
have every right to feel that way. When a small group of criminals who 
are responsible for a majority of the violent crimes serve 
substantially abbreviated sentences, the American public has a right to 
be concerned for their safety. Mr. Speaker, law abiding citizens 
deserve to feel safe, and when we keep this small but deadly group of 
criminals incarcerated for appropriate sentences, our streets are safer 
for both our citizens and for police officers as well. It is a 
commonsense approach to a recurring problem.
  Since 1984, the Federal Government has required Federal criminals to 
serve 85 percent of their terms. In 1994 and again in 1995, the U.S. 
House of Representatives approved incentives to reward States that 
passed legislation to keep violent criminals imprisoned for at least 85 
percent of their sentences. Any State that reaches that benchmark is 
eligible for Federal funds for prison construction. In 1995, only five 
States achieved that goal. Today some 25 States, including my home 
State of Michigan, have put into place harsher prison sentences for 
those citizens who flagrantly disregard the law and threaten our 
safety.
  I introduced this resolution 2\1/2\ years ago to commend those States 
who have adopted longer sentences and to encourage the remaining States 
to more aggressively attack the problem of violent crime committed by 
repeat offenders and criminals serving abbreviated sentences.
  One of my constituents, Sherry Swanson, was the victim of a cruel act 
by a violent repeat offender. Sherry was a vibrant 19-year-old with a 
bright future. Her life was drastically altered as a result of the 
actions of a violent repeat offender who has not only a disrespect for 
the law but also a disrespect for life. The predator that attempted to 
end Sherry's life had in the 10 months following his early release 
committed three sexual batteries, armed robbery, two kidnapings and two 
first degree murders. That was just in 10 months.
  Mr. Speaker, a person with this record should not have been allowed 
back on the streets to commit yet another series of heinous crimes. If 
this habitual criminal had remained in custody, two people would be 
alive today. Two people would not be suffering from the results of the 
kidnaping, one person would not be terrified of another robbery, three 
people would not have been sexually abused, and a young woman, Sherry 
Swanson, would not be partially paralyzed.
  Numerous studies have already proven that longer sentences for those 
who repeatedly ignore the law result in safer streets for all of our 
citizens. Yes, there are inequities in our judicial system. They must 
be corrected. But are we willing to sacrifice the rights of victims? 
The victim does not deserve only part of their fear or part of their 
injury. Why should the violent criminal serve only a small part of 
their penalty?
  We need to send a strong message to the public that we are working 
hard to end the arrogance of criminals who know that they will not be 
punished for taking a life. We are working hard to end the ability of 
violent criminals to return to the streets after only serving one-third 
of their sentence, to strike again, taking a husband away from a wife, 
a child from a mother, or a father from his children. We must send a 
strong message to the States that not only are the incentives and 
financial assistance available, but the American public demands safer 
streets.
  Lastly, we must send a strong message to criminals that they will not 
be able to return to the streets and that the sentence handed down will 
be the sentence served. We must send a message that our justice system 
is not a flea market where there is always a bargain to be had. Mr. 
Speaker, justice is not a commodity for haggling; just ask the victims.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with this sense-of-the-
Congress resolution because most of the supporters of this are the 
conservative Members of Congress who came to Congress talking about 
States rights, the rights of States to take care of their own business, 
and frequently the Federal Government was considered to be meddling 
when it imposed their requirements on the States. That is what we are 
continuing to do today. We ask that States rights be considered on 
welfare matters, on civil rights matters, on the environment; that is 
what

[[Page H5862]]

my colleagues were saying, I was not saying that, and that the States 
know best; that is what my colleagues were saying, I was not saying 
that. And now we have this sense-of-the-Congress resolution in which we 
tell the States that we know best.
  Does anybody care to explain why we have this bifurcated policy when 
it comes to criminal matters that all of a sudden we know better than 
the States who write their own State criminal laws, and we who write 
our own Federal criminal laws, we are not telling the States that they 
ought to shape up and join the other 16 States and abolish parole.
  Why?
  OK, silence.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman from 
Michigan's concerns and say that of course the Congress cannot mandate 
to the States increases in the length of sentences for violent 
predators, however the concept, of course, due to the leadership of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and others, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] in the House of Representatives who were advocates 
on behalf of victims rights saw legislation incorporated into the 
Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, which many of us supported, which in fact 
would reward States with financial incentives if, in fact, they would 
agree to keep their violent criminals, not all criminals, but violent 
criminals, those who cause a serious threat to the public and to 
innocent citizens.
  Mr. CONYERS. But how is it we knew better what they should do with 
their State criminals than they did?

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I think in some cases, I would say to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], it was a condition where severe 
financial pressures at the State level allowed for overcrowding of the 
prison system without adequate facilities to house all of those people 
who were sentenced to terms in prison. So some States were actually 
paroling violent criminals after serving only 20 or 25 percent of their 
sentence, and these criminals were going out and engaging in repeat 
behavior, again causing great trauma and violence to other citizens 
that might not have been exposed had they not been paroled early in the 
first place.
  Mr. CONYERS. That was not going on in Michigan, and the gentleman 
knows it. So why did the gentleman persuade Governor Engler of 
Michigan, who does not know particularly much about criminal law at the 
State or Federal level, to do something like this?
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, we did have several instances in Michigan, I 
would say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], one that I can 
think of when I was a State legislator back in Lansing, in which a 
person had committed two second degree murders, served 4 years on the 
first sentence, 8 years or about 6 years before he was paroled to a 
halfway house in Lansing on the second offense, and then also 
continued, and strangled and raped a young lady in east Lansing and 
killed a police officer. As he was driving her car through downtown, he 
committed a small traffic infraction, was pulled over by a Lansing 
police officer, and was shot. The corrections department in that case 
had paroled him a bit earlier. By mistake, the computer had credited 
him with too much good time.
  But I was a member of the State senate when that family brought a 
lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections because of their 
losses, and the losses in two families could have been prevented had he 
been incarcerated for the full length of his sentence.
  Mr. CONYERS. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is that a reason 
to eliminate parole for everybody in the State of Michigan? I yield to 
the gentleman for a response.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it totally eliminates 
parole. It says if you receive a determined number of years as your 
sentence, you shall serve 85 percent of that. In other words, if you 
receive a 10-year sentence, you should serve 8\1/2\ years before you 
are paroled back on the streets.
  Mr. CONYERS. Has the gentleman examined what criminal justice 
authorities say about this kind of draconian addition of time to people 
who are incarcerated who may be rehabilitatable, and that this works in 
a very onerous way upon people who, as the gentleman may know, are 
receiving longer and longer sentences than ever before?
  In other words, it may be considered counterproductive to the very 
thing that the gentleman is trying to accomplish. This includes the 
concept of three-strikes-and-you-are-out, which is another throw-the-
baby-out-with-the-bath-water situation.
  We are paying States to go along with us, and now the gentleman is 
passing a sense-of-the-Congress resolution asking the States that have 
not jumped in on the cash-flow, which, by the way, is $800 million so 
far, and I know the gentleman is concerned about balancing the budget, 
but we have to fight crime at all costs.
  Does the gentleman have a little concern that maybe all of these 
impositions of more and more time, mandatory minimums, 85 percent, we 
pay people, States, hundreds of millions of dollars to build more 
facilities, since they cannot afford it anymore themselves, we have 
three-strikes-and-you-are-out at the Federal level, three-strikes-and-
you-are-out at the State level, does the gentleman not have any sense 
that maybe we could be more efficient and effective in reducing crime 
than just piling on sentence upon sentence upon sentence?
  I yield to the gentleman for a response.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would again emphasize to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary that, in fact, we are 
not mandating in this resolution nor in the Federal law that was passed 
in 1994 that States must do this, but for them to consider that.
  I do not know if we have a total, I would say to the gentleman, on 
what the effect or what the impact of violent crime is across the 
country, if we were ever to total up the cost. But in the case of Ms. 
Sherry Swanson, who is now 28 years old, and she was shot twice in the 
head when she was 20 years old working at a convenience store during a 
robbery attempt, and I know that her medical bills exceeded $1 million, 
plus her life has been forever changed.
  So yes, $800 million is a significant amount of money, and of course, 
as the gentleman knows, and the gentleman noted, I am a supporter of 
the balanced budget amendment and balancing our spending with our 
revenues in the Federal Government. I think we, as policymakers in this 
body, must make tough decisions on how we apportion out those limited 
resources that we have and certainly decide the priorities in terms of 
Federal spending. But I think violent criminals who are in and out of 
prison and hurting our fellow citizens are worthy of our attention and 
our resources.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Those are legitimate 
sentiments that are held by many in this body.
  Could I ask my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan, and we are 
friends, and this is a friendly discussion, does he believe that we 
should continue to deprive judges of the discretion necessary to 
fashion criminal sentences in individual cases appropriate to the 
persons standing before them in the court?
  I yield to the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. BARCIA. I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that, as a State legislator, I have 
supported determinant sentencing with a number of years prescribed for 
a type of crime that is committed. However, I am very respectful of the 
ability for a member of the judiciary to mete out a sentence that is 
fair and to take into account all the circumstances of a particular 
crime.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that in the three strikes 
legislation in California, in particular, it has clogged the courts, 
the processes, so much that neither the prosecutors nor the defense 
lawyers bother with it anymore, because employing it makes it 
absolutely unworkable? Does the gentleman have any knowledge on that?
  Mr. BARCIA. Yes. I do not have any knowledge on how the three-
strikes-

[[Page H5863]]

and-you-are-out language is impacting across the country, but I have 
generally supported that, especially for violent crimes.
  I know we saw some instances, I think, of a minor theft out in Oregon 
or the State of Washington, I cannot remember which, in which a person 
stole a slice of pizza and was prosecuted under that law. I think in 
that case probably the prosecutors were overzealous and should be 
allowed discretion in terms of their judgment as to which of those 
offenses to pursue on the three-strikes-and-you-are-out provision.

  But, of course, not being a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
I do not profess to be an expert on the specific language that has been 
adopted by this House and Senate and signed by our President in an 
attempt to get a greater grasp of crime in this country.
  Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate the gentleman's knowledge on the subject so 
far. He is doing pretty well, better than, I will not say than some 
people on Judiciary, but he is holding his own very, very well.
  What if the gentleman found out that the three strikes provision does 
not carry any discretion, and that little incident that you talked 
about, and I have some more in which the third offense being a violent 
offense, that is it, for the rest of your natural life? Does that, or 
is that something we might want to go back and hold hearings on, for 
example, to see if it might be corrected?
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a response.
  Mr. BARCIA. Of course, I do not want to second-guess our leadership, 
neither the gentleman's nor the distinguished chair's and subcommittee 
chair's, on that very distinguished committee in this House. But it 
would be my impression as a layperson, not being a graduate of law 
school, that there ought to be discretion between misdemeanors and 
felonies on the three-strikes-and-you-are-out. That may be an issue we 
will revisit at some point in the future.
  But I can tell the Members that this resolution involves truth-in-
sentencing, and I know my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers, supported that crime bill here in the House, which contained 
the same provision for Federal offenses.
  What we are trying to do is see the same treatment of violent 
offenders at the State level, because many of the truly violent crimes, 
such as rape and homicide, unless there are extenuating circumstances, 
they are in fact infractions of State law and not Federal law. That is 
why we are attempting to pass this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman very much, because he has been 
very helpful.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the gentleman's House concurrent resolution on 
truth in sentencing, is that correct, I would ask the gentleman? The 
gentleman is the author of this sense-of-the-Congress?
  Mr. BARCIA. Yes, I am.
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman had known that I had voted against the 
crime bill of 1994, would that have slowed down the gentleman's 
enthusiasm for anything we have done or said here today?
  I yield to the gentleman for a response.
  Mr. BARCIA. I have to correct myself. I was mistaken. I know the 
gentleman is a strong supporter of gun control, and I assumed that with 
the strong gun control provisions in the 1994 bill----
  Mr. CONYERS. Was the gentleman not?
  Mr. BARCIA. Pardon me?
  Mr. CONYERS. I said, was the gentleman not?
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I voted for 
the first version but not the final version.
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman voted against the crime bill of 1994, too?
  Mr. BARCIA. Yes. We agreed on that issue in the final analysis, but 
probably for different reasons.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his colloquy with me. It has 
been very helpful.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the States that have not jumped on the 
bandwagon requiring that offenders serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentence pay very close attention to House Concurrent Resolution 75, 
which rereminds them that they are really missing out; if they would 
join in, they could be getting Federal money, if they would only listen 
to us a little bit more. We cannot make the States impose these 
sentences.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond very, very briefly. I will not 
take the chair's time or the Members' time very long. A couple of 
points the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] made I feel deserve a 
little response.
  One of them is with respect to the truth-in-sentencing legislation, 
to begin with. It was designed to provide a reward in part to those 
States that chose to, by their own voluntary commitment, make this 85-
percent rule imposed upon those who commit violent crimes in their 
State, to make sure they serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. 
It was not anything mandatory.
  What Members of the Republican party on this side of the aisle have 
complained about over the years, in particular, are mandates on the 
States, unfunded mandates in particular, that have been involved in a 
lot of legislation that past Congresses have enacted.
  We have not complained about incentive grants, per se. We have been 
very concerned about the multiplicity of grant awards that are out 
there that say, you can only get x dollars if you apply in the 
prevention area for crime for this program or that program or the other 
program.
  We have insisted that where there is Federal money involved and there 
are grant programs out there, that there be a wide variety of 
discretion at the local and State level, preferably in the form of 
block grants or very limited targeted grants.
  This truth-in-sentencing law we passed in 1994 and revised after our 
party took over the majority is shaped in such a fashion that it allows 
maximum flexibility to the States to provide for how they spend the 
money in prison construction, if they choose to apply for it. They can 
build some jails with it at the local level, they can build juvenile 
facilities, they can build major State prisons with it.
  The States, all States, are eligible for half the grant money, half 
the $400 million that has been appropriated each year, but those States 
which actually enact truth-in-sentencing laws that require at least 85 
percent of a violent felon's sentence to be served are eligible for the 
other half that has been put aside. I think that makes eminent sense. I 
do not think that is in any way inconsistent with the philosophy that 
most of us have expressed in devolving as much power as possible to the 
States.
  This resolution today that expresses the sense of the Congress is the 
right of free speech. We are not telling the States to do anything. We 
are simply saying, as legislators looking at this matter, as the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia] so ably pointed out, we think it 
would be a good idea if they take another look. If they have not become 
eligible or not applied for the second half of the grant programs for 
building prisons and jails in their State, it does require as a form of 
eligibility that they impose an 85-percent service time that violent 
felons serve on violent felons, and that they do so because it makes 
good sense for public safety. No, we do not know best, but we hope they 
will join us in that comment.
  The last I would point out on the three-strikes-and-you-are-out, at 
least at the Federal level, the three strikes requirement, in order to 
get a life sentence mandated, requires there be two underlying violent 
or serious drug offenses committed either at the State or Federal 
level.

                              {time}  1700

  The third one has to be a violent Federal crime. Then you go away for 
life. I think most of us in this body have supported that. California 
is a little different, and debating California law, I do not see the 
merits of in this bill. I think this resolution is a sound one, as I 
said before. I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the 
passage of House Concurrent Resolution 75, a concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress regarding States' efforts against 
repeat criminals. I was pleased to join my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Barcia, in introducing this bill because it highlights one 
of the most dramatic problems in our Nation's war on crime--namely it 
is estimated that 80 percent of all violent

[[Page H5864]]

crime committed in the United States is committed by only 7 percent of 
the population. That is a very telling statistic that sheds some light 
on the problem of crime in the United States.
  In the last 20 years, we have seen the war on crime take on new and 
ominous proportions with an innovative criminal element devising new 
and ever more violent crimes such as with carjackings and drive by 
shootings. How do we battle that 7 percent of the population to ensure 
our safety? One of the best ways is to guarantee that the criminals who 
repeatedly commit violent crimes serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences as House Concurrent Resolution 75 states in no uncertain 
terms.
  In my home State of New York, we have had some of the worst reports 
of a criminal element at work, and only in recent years, we have been 
able to see a reduction in our crime rate through community policing 
and a get tough approach on lesser crimes. While it sounds troublesome 
and tedious to have the police crack down on petty crimes, the recent 
case of John Royster demonstrates the value of this practice. Mr. 
Royster was arrested by police and fingerprinted for jumping a New York 
subway turnstile. It was his only recorded offense. Three months later, 
the same prints were reportedly found to match those at a drycleaning 
business on Park Avenue where the owners had been beaten to death. It 
was because of this match that Mr. Royster confessed to four brutal 
attacks including a highly publicized attack in Central Park that left 
a woman in a coma. Now the next step for Mr. Royster is punishment--
hard time in a State penitentiary. I will work with my colleagues, both 
here and in the New York State House, to make sure that Royster stays 
in prison.
  Putting away violent, repeat offenders like John Royster is essential 
if we are to make successful inroads lowering crime and strengthening 
our communities. I thank Congressman Barcia for his work on this 
problem and ask for all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, 
to join us in strong support for this important resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 75 of which I am an original sponsor. This important 
legislation commends those States that have already adopted truth-in-
sentencing laws and encourages the remaining States to do the same.
  Most Americans believe that convicted violent offenders serve their 
full sentences; sadly this is not the case.
  According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, violent criminals--
those who commit murder, rape, assault, or armed robbery--serve only an 
average of 48 percent of their sentences, and one out of every three 
offenders admitted to State prisons were either on probation or parole 
for a previous offense at the time. According to the committee report 
accompanying this bill, on any given day there are three convicted 
offenders on probation or paroles for every one convicted felon in 
prison.
  To turn this trend around over 25 States, including my home State of 
Michigan, and the Federal Government have truth-in-sentencing laws on 
the books. Under this concept, convicted violent offenders are required 
to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
  Both the 103d and 104th Congresses passed legislation providing 
financial incentives in the form of prison construction funds to States 
if they adopt laws requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of 
their prison terms. Unfortunately, 25 States still have not adopted 
such laws.
  Law-abiding citizens have the right to know that those who commit the 
most hideous of crimes in our society serve the time their sentences 
require.
  The resolution before us today is simple. It asks that those who 
commit violent crimes do the time that the law requires of them. I wish 
there was not a need for this type of resolution, but until then, I 
hope all my colleagues vote to encourage States to do the right thing.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 75, which expresses the Sense of the Congress 
that States should work aggressively to ensure that violent offenders 
serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentences. As a cosponsor of 
this legislation, I commend the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Barcia], 
for this hard work and leadership on this issue and ask all my 
colleagues to support this important resolution.
  Although the most recent statistics on violent crime indicate that we 
are beginning to make progress in our fight for safer neighborhoods, we 
must remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure public safety and 
recognize the achievements of States such as Florida which have taken 
strong steps to attack the problem of repeat violent offenders. Only 
with continued cooperation between Federal, State, and local officials 
can we hope to maintain the downward trend in violent crime rates.
  This resolution commends Florida and 24 other States which have taken 
steps to ensure that violent felons serve at least 85 percent of their 
prison sentences. Nationwide, violent offenders serve an average of 
only 48 percent of the sentences they receive--a statistic which is 
unacceptable and greatly erodes Americans' confidence in our justice 
system. House Concurrent Resolution 75 applauds those States which have 
taken proactive steps to prevent the problem of repeat violent 
offenders and encourages other States to follow their lead in enacting 
strict sentencing guidelines. While guidelines alone will not solve our 
Nation's crime problem, they have proven an effective tool in ensuring 
that violent felons remain off our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of those States listed in this 
legislation, including my home State of Florida, and urge all of my 
colleagues to support this important resolution which recommits this 
Congress to the fight for safer communities.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House 
Concurrent Resolution 75.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________