[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11545-S11549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1352. A bill to amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to restore the stenographic preference for dispositions; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 30 AMENDMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This bill, which
I am introducing with Senator Durbin, will restore the stenographic
preference for depositions taken in Federal Court. Under our system of
government, Congress has the duty and responsibility to scrutinize
carefully all of the rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by the
Judicial Conference and transmitted to us by the Supreme Court for
review--and to make modifications or deletions when appropriate.
Indeed, when many changes to the rules were proposed in 1993, some were
to be modified in legislation which was passed by the House.
Unfortunately, the crush of the end-of-session legislation that year
made it impossible for the Senate to act on this bill to modify these
changes and they took effect in December of that year.
Many of us in this body wanted to bring the bill forward, but
opponents of the proposed modifications were able to delay any Senate
consideration until after the effective date required by the Rules
Enabling Act. Because of our responsibility to review these rules, I
want to bring one of the modifications back before the Senate. This
modification concerns rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
From 1970 to December 1993, rule 30 permitted depositions to be
recorded by non stenographic means, but only upon court order or with
the written stipulation of the parties. The change in rule 30(b)
altered that procedure by eliminating the requirement of a court order
or stipulation and affording each party the right to arrange for
recording of a deposition by non stenographic means.
Testimony at hearings conducted by the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Courts and Administrative Practice in the 103d Congress raised concerns
about the reliability and durability of video or audio tape
alternatives to stenographic depositions. There was also information
submitted suggesting that technological improvements in stenographic
recording will make the stenographic method more cost-effective for
years to come.
Depositions recorded stenographically have historically provided an
accurate record of testimony which can conveniently be used by both
trial and appellate courts. In addition, the certification of accuracy
by an independent and unbiased third party is a significant component
of trustworthy depositions. Studies undertaken by the Justice Research
Institute confirm the fact that a stenographic court reporter is the
qualitative standard for accuracy and clarity in depositions, and a
court reporter using a computer--aided transportation is the least
costly method of making a deposition record.
Even now, 5 years after the rule change, court reporters associations
contend that mechanical recording frequently produces unintelligible
passages and is laden with other dangers such as the inability to
identify speakers. Rather than becoming the way of the future,
electronic recording has been faulted by judges and attorneys as an
error-prone system where tapes are often untranscribable because of
inaudible portions, machines frequently fail, and recorders pick up
every background sound, including papers rustling, coughing, and
attorney sidebar conferences which then must be edited out before use
by jurors or for the appeal process.
The case was never made for unilateral decisions on the use of
nonstenographic recording of depositions. The legislation that I am
introducing today with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin,
would restore the rule that nonstenographic recording of depositions is
authorized only when permitted by court order or stipulation of both
parties.
This version of the rule worked very effectively for over 23 years.
In fact, I am not aware of any instance where an attorney or party was
denied the ability to use an alternative method when it was requested.
However, the most important factor was that the prior incarnation of
the Rules recognized the potential for errors from methods other than
stenographic means and thus established the safeguards of stipulation
or court order. In fact, the notes to accompany the 1970 version of the
Civil Rules said it best:
In order to facilitate less expensive procedures, provision
is made for the recording of testimony by other than
stenographic means--e.g., by mechanical, electronic, or
photographic means. Because these methods give rise to
problems of accuracy and trustworthiness, the party taking
the deposition is required to apply for a court order. The
order is to specify how the testimony is to be recorded,
preserved, and filed, and it may contain whatever additional
safeguards the court deems necessary.
(Notes to accompany the 1970 Revisions to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure)
Mr. President, this legislation gives us the chance to do what we
should have done 4 years ago and restore the rule in order to maintain
the high standard of justice for which our legal system is known.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S11546]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1352
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
paragraphs (2) and (3) of Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure are amended to read as follows:
``(2) Unless the court upon motion orders, or the parties
stipulate in writing, the deposition shall be recorded by
stenographic means. The party taking the deposition shall
bear the cost of the transcription. Any party may arrange for
a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition
taken by nonstenographic means.
``(3) With prior notice to the deponent and other parties,
any party may use another method to record the deponent's
testimony in addition to the method used pursuant to
paragraph (2). The additional record or transcript shall be
made at that party's expense unless the court otherwise
orders.''.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Daschle, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 1354. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide
for the designation of common carriers not subject to the jurisdiction
of a State commission as eligible telecommunications carriers; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the communications act of 1934 technical amendment act of 1997
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce an amendment to the
Communications Act of 1934 on behalf of Senators Dorgan, Daschle,
Inouye, Campbell, and myself. This amendment enables the Federal
Communications Commission [FCC] to designate common carriers not under
the jurisdiction of a State commission as eligible recipients of
universal service support.
Universal Service provides intercarrier support for the provision of
telecommunications services in rural and high-cost areas throughout the
United States. However, section 254(e) of the 1996 act states that only
an eligible carrier designated under section 214(e) of the
Communications Act shall be eligible to receive specific federal
universal support after the FCC issues regulations implementing the new
universal service provisions into the law. Section 214(e) does not
account for the fact that State commissions in a few states have no
jurisdiction over certain carriers. Typically, States also have no
jurisdiction over tribally owned companies which may or may not be
regulated by a tribal authority that is not a State commission per se.
The failure to account for these situations means that carriers not
subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission have no way of
becoming an eligible carrier that can receive universal service
support. This would be the case whether these carriers are traditional
local exchange carriers that provide services otherwise included in the
program, have previously obtained universal service support, or will
likely be the carrier that continues to be the carrier of last resort
for customers in the area.
Mr. President. This simple amendment will address this oversight
within the 1996 act, and prevent the unintentional consequences it will
have on common carriers which Congress intended to be covered under the
umbrella of universal service support.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1355. A bill to designate the U.S. courthouse located in New
Haven, CT, as the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse''; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the richard c. lee federal courthouse act of 1997
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored today to
introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Dodd to name the
Federal courthouse in New Haven, CT, after our dear friend and the
former eight-term mayor of New Haven, Richard C. Lee. Congresswoman
Rosa DeLauro is introducing the same proposal in the House of
Representatives.
If it may be said that Federal buildings should help reflect the very
best of the principles, purposes and spirit of America, then this
courthouse could have no more appropriate name above its doors than
that of Mayor Lee. For Dick Lee is the quintessential American, proud,
principled, hardworking, and productive. In New Haven, he shook loose
entrenched bureaucracies and forged new community coalitions dedicated
to rebuilding New Haven after years of neglect and blight. He became a
nationally recognized urban pioneer and helped to change the landscape
of the American city.
Dick Lee was born in New Haven. He loves the city and its richly
diverse people. In May of last year, Mayor Lee was honored by the New
Haven Colony Historical Society. During that tribute, Prof. Robert Wood
of Wesleyan University drew inspiration from Mayor Lee's eloquence
about his work. Dick Lee said that the core of a mayor's job was
``wiping away tears from the eyes'' of a city's people so that ``each
tear becomes a star in the sky'' and not a source of daily despair.
``Filling the sky above with stars'' was his highest calling. ``The
tears in the eyes of the young and the old, the hungry, the unloved,
the ill-housed, the ill-clothed, and worst of all, the ignored'' were
not to be tolerated.
Dick Lee was raised in a devout Irish Catholic family that was not
blessed with wealth but with greater gifts: with faith, talent, and the
willingness to work hard to better themselves and their community. He
served for many years on the Board of Aldermen of New Haven and held a
number of journalism jobs, including 10 years in public relations at
Yale University. In 1949, he became the youngest man to run for mayor
in New Haven's history. He lost that year by 712 votes. He lost 2 years
later by only two votes. But he did not give up on himself, or the city
of New Haven and was elected mayor in 1953.
Once in office, Dick Lee devoted himself with extraordinary energy
and imagination to the human and physical renewal of New Haven. One of
his most provocative ideas was that the greatest post-World War II
problems in our cities--poverty, unemployment, and poor housing--could
not be solved by the cities or States alone. The Federal Government had
to become a partner in America's urban redevelopment.
Dick Lee worked tirelessly and with enormous success during the
Eisenhower Administration to bring Federal programs to New Haven. As
head of the Urban Committee of the Democratic National Committee in
1958, Lee authored the first versions of Model Cities and War on
Poverty legislative proposals. And after his dear friend, John F.
Kennedy was elected, Dick Lee exercised a large and constructive
influence on the national effort to renew America's urban areas and to
restore hope and opportunity to the people who lived in them.
Dick Lee also understood that just as the human face of New Haven
needed reinvigoration, so did the city's physical appearance and
infrastructure. For this, Dick Lee turned first to a plan by Maurice
Rovital who developed a blueprint for New Haven while a member of the
Yale faculty. But then he boldly invited many of America's greatest
architects to design buildings for his city, making New Haven one of
America's greatest architectural crossroads.
Dick Lee appointed a deputy mayor and administrator of redevelopment.
From there, the real work began. That work included rebuilding downtown
New Haven, salvaging the Long Wharf area, restoring Wooster Square,
constructing the Knights of Columbus headquarters and the Coliseum,
residential rehabilitation, rent supplements, nonprofit housing
sponsors and the renewal of inner-city neighborhoods.
Mayor Lee forged new coalitions to reaffirm his city's sense of
community and make it easier to get things done. His Citizens Action
Commission was a unique amalgam of business, labor and civic leaders
and was designed to build support for the redevelopment effort.
Robert Dahl, in his book ``Who Governs? Democracy and Power in the
American City,'' wrote that Mayor Lee ``had an investment banker's
willingness to take risks that held the promise of large long-run
payoffs, and a labor mediator's ability to head off controversy by
searching out areas for agreement by mutual understanding, compromise,
negotiation, and bargaining.
He possessed a detailed knowledge of the city and its
people, a formidable information gathering system, and an
unceasing, full-time preoccupation with all aspects of his
job. His relentless drive to achieve his goals meant that he
could be tough and ruthless. But toughness was not his
political style, for his overriding strategy was to rely on
persuasion rather than threats.
[[Page S11547]]
Robert Leeney, former editor of the New Haven Register and a wise and
eloquent observer of the local scene wrote:
New Haven and the problems of New Haveners have shaped Dick
Lee's life. When the Senate seat, later filled by Thomas
Dodd, hung like a plum within his grasp he wouldn't reach for
it because the Church Street project was badly stalled and
home needs took first priority in his public vision and on
his personal horizons. His simple belief in--and his
unshakeable dedication to--this city and its people started
young and they have never ended. . .. He grew up to
citizenhood with a classic, almost a Greek, sense of the
city-state's call upon his talents and of its shaping effect
upon his life and the lives of his neighbors. . ..
Mr. President, law is the way we choose to express our values as a
community, our aspirations for ourselves and our neighbors. In that
fundamental sense, naming the grand federal courthouse in New Haven
which sits proudly on the old New Haven Green and next to city hall is
an honor which Mayor Dick Lee thoroughly deserves. In his public
service, he worked tirelessly to express the best values of his
community and to help its people realize their dreams for themselves.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1355
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF RICHARD C. LEE UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE.
The United States courthouse located in New Haven,
Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ``Richard
C. Lee United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the United States
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a
reference to the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse''.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to join with my fellow
colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in introducing this bill
which would designate the U.S. courthouse in New Haven, CT, as the
``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse.'' I strongly believe that
this designation would be a fitting tribute to Dick Lee's service and
commitment to the city of New Haven, and I commend my good friend and
colleague for putting this legislation forward.
A self-educated man who was legendary for his charm, Dick Lee is
widely considered as one of the most forceful, most capable, and most
dedicated mayors that the State of Connecticut an this country has ever
known.
After losing two bids to become mayor, Dick Lee went on to win eight
straight elections, serving as the mayor of New Haven from 1954 to
1969. His first two elections were very close, losing by only two votes
in his 1951. Dick Lee learned from these narrow defeats, and they
helped to shape his political career. He realized that every single
person mattered, and he always did everything in his power to help his
constituents, particularly those who were in need. He was always eager
to tackle, rather than turn away from constituents' problems. He also
exhibited great foresight in anticipating the problems that awaited New
Haven and other cities, and he offered imaginative and progressive
solutions to these concerns.
The focus of his ideas was to preserve and rehabilitate
neighborhoods, and to engage in urban planning done with the community,
not for it. He supervised the clearance of slums in New Haven and
revitalized once decaying areas by rebuilding businesses and homes. He
oversaw the building of two new public high schools and a dozen
elementary schools. To ensure that residents would have a greater
investment in their communities, he pushed for the building of housing
that low-income families could buy rather than rent. And Hew Haven was
also the first major U.S. city to create its own antipoverty program.
Many viewed Dick Lee's views as ahead of his time, and he quickly
established a national reputation as a visionary of urban
revitalization. On the strength of this reputation, Mr. Lee became a
respected advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson on matters of urban
policy.
Mr. Lee was approached about a possible cabinet position, but rather
than lobby for a political appointment for himself, he used his
political capital to help secure Federal funding for his urban
redevelopment initiatives back home in New Haven. At one point during
Dick Lee's tenure, New Haven was receiving more Federal money per
capita than any other city in the country.
Dick Lee still lives in New Haven in the same house that he purchased
more than 30 years ago. In light of all the work that Dick Lee did for
the people of his home town and his effective advocacy on behalf of all
of America's cities, I think that it is only appropriate that one of
New Haven's Federal buildings should bear his name. Therefore I urge
all of my colleagues to support this bill to designate the Federal
courthouse in New Haven as the ``Richard C. Lee United States
Courthouse.''
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 1356. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
Internet service providers from providing accounts to sexually violent
predators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the internet service providers account prohibition act of 1997
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, in the past few years, I have been
shocked by the number of crimes I have read about that are connected to
the Internet.
This was a problem that did not even exist just a few years ago, but
now it has become very prevalent.
What is happening is that sex offenders and pedophiles are using the
Internet to recruit children.
I think I have a solution that can help this situation.
Today, I am introducing legislation that would prevent a convicted
sex offender from having an Internet account. Under my bill, the on-
line service provider would be barred from providing an account to
anyone who is a sexually violent predator or who has registered under
Megan's law.
I do not think this would be difficult to enforce, because convicted
sex offenders are already on a data base.
A background check on that data base could keep them offline.
Mr. President, we all know that proper parental supervision is the
best defense against this type of crime, but I am finding that some
parents aren't as computer literate as their children and it is almost
impossible to watch children every minute of every day.
In my view, it is time to pull the plug on sex offenders and take
them offline.
Mr. President, as I said, this problem has been growing year by year.
It has grown to the point where the FBI has set up a special task force
to track down computer sex offenders.
In 1993, the FBI formed a task force known as Innocent Images.
It was created after a 10-year-old boy was declared missing in
Maryland. Unfortunately, he has never been found. But the FBI did come
across two neighbors who have an elaborate computer network--where they
were recruiting young victims over the Internet. The key suspect is in
jail, but has never told the police anything about the disappearance.
This is what one agent said about the program:
Generally we would come across people trying to trade
(illicit pictures) within five to ten minutes . . . It was
like coming across a person at every street corner trying to
sell you crack.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Washington Post reported on a man that had
contacted over 100 underage girls via a computer. He was arrested and
received 2 years in jail. I have no doubt, he will be back on the
Internet when he gets out of jail. My bill is designed to stop him
again.
The task force has conducted over 330 searches that have resulted in
200 indictments and 150 convictions. Another 135 have been arrested.
If we do not stop sex offenders on the Internet, I believe the number
of crimes will grow.
Tragically, just a few weeks ago, an 11-year-old boy was murdered in
New Jersey by a teenager who himself had been molested by a man he met
on the Internet. The man was a twice convicted sex offender.
We have got to stop this activity and stop it now.
Mr. President, there will be critics who call this unconstitutional.
They can certainly tie themselves up in knots about the legalities, but
my
[[Page S11548]]
main concern is for the safety of our children.
I think we have ample precedent for doing something like this. First,
we have Megan's Law that requires registration of sex offenders.
Second, the Supreme Court, in Kansas versus Hendricks, upheld a State
statute that kept a sexual predator committed in a State mental
institution, after his criminal sentence had run. I think it is clear
that for sexual predators--they do not enjoy the rights that all of us
enjoy. There is a difference.
More simply put, is this any different than denying a felon the right
to own a gun. Is it different than barring a habitual drunk driver from
having a driver's license?
The Internet is the new weapon of the sexual predator. It is their
key to invading our homes.
We have to send a clear message that the Internet will not become the
favored tool of the pedophile. Instead of roaming the streets, the sex
offenders of the 1990's are roaming chat rooms and the Internet looking
for victims.
This legislation will put a stop to that.
I hope that we can have hearings on this bill and that we can
consider it next session.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1357. A bill to require the States to bear the responsibility for
the consequences of releasing violent criminals from custody before the
expiration of the full term of imprisonment to which they are
sentenced.
the fairness and incarceration responsibility Act
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to introduce legislation today
dealing with violent offenders. I want to preface it by saying that all
of us in this country understand that crime rates are coming down some,
and we are appreciative of that. But violent crime is still far too
prevalent.
In North Dakota a couple of weeks ago, we had a young woman named
Julienne Schultz who stopped at a rest area on a quiet rural road and a
quiet part of our State. She ran into a man in the rest area who
abducted her, slashed her throat, and left her for dead. Well, I am
pleased to tell you today that Julienne did not die, and she is
recovering.
The horror of that attack is a horror that is repeated all over this
country, committed by violent criminals who never should have been out
of jail early. That attack was perpetrated by a fellow who came from
Washington State. He was, I guess, driving through North Dakota. He is
alleged to have committed a couple of murders in Washington State
before he left Washington a couple of months before. He ran into
Julienne Schultz, this wonderful woman from North Dakota, who was
coming back from a meeting with the League of Cities and stopped at a
rest area only to have her throat slashed by this violent criminal. He
then took his own life when stopped at a police blockade later that
night. This fellow had been in prison in the State of Washington for
prior violent crimes and was let out of prison early.
It goes on all across this country. I think this country ought to
decide that, if you commit a violent act, you are going to go to prison
and the prison cell is going to be your address until the end of your
sentence--no early out, no nothing. If you are convicted of a violent
offense, you go to prison and stay there. Your prison cell is your
address.
I will just give you a couple more examples.
Charles Miller is from West Virginia, 28 years old. A couple of years
ago he was convicted of the violent rape of a young child and was
sentenced to serve 5 years in prison. He was up for parole three times
while he was in prison. His third time --May of this year--after
serving half of the sentence, he was released on gain time, and 43 days
later he was charged with sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. The
prosecutor said, ``Unfortunately, in the State the way it is now,
everybody gets out early. We have people guilty of murder getting out
on gain time do it again. We ought to abolish gain time.''
I agree with that prosecutor.
Miami, FL, a fellow named Gainer, age 23, shot a fellow named Robert
Mays, 20 years old--got into a dispute about drugs. Sentenced to 5
years in State prison for manslaughter, served 1 year and 1 month,
released because he had accumulated 600 days of what is called gain
time for working in a prison camp. Six months after he was released he
was charged with first-degree murder once again.
Mr. Ball, 42, sentenced to 30 years of hard labor in Louisiana, cited
for 102 disciplinary infractions in prison, the last infraction being 3
months before he was released 16 years before the end of his sentence
for good behavior. He was rearrested on first-degree murder and armed
robbery charges.
Budweiser delivery man Bernard Scorconi was 45 years old, murdered by
Mr. Ball when he tried to stop him from robbing a local bar. Ball was
released 16 years earlier than the end of his sentence.
It happens all across this country, every day in every way. Violent
people are put back on the streets before the end of their sentence.
My mother was killed by someone who committed a manslaughter act, and
he was let out early. Everybody is let out early. Commit a violent act,
you get let out early. All you have to do is go to prison, accumulate
good time. In some States you get 30 days off for every 30 days served.
I am proposing today a very simple piece of legislation. Let us tell
those States who let violent people out of prison early, that you are
going to be responsible for the actions of that offender up until what
should have been the completion date of that offender's sentence. If a
State or local government decides it is appropriate to allow violent
offenders to be let out before the end of their term because they have
accumulated good time, gain time, or parole. If violent offenders serve
less than their entire sentence, then during that period of time when
they should have been in jail, if they commit another violent crime, I
want the states to be held responsible--no more immunity.
I say to local governments, be responsible. You want to let violent
people out on the street early, be responsible for it. Waive your
immunity. Let people sue you to bring you to account for what you have
done.
I am proposing that the grants we have in the 1994 crime bill dealing
with truth-in-sentencing and violent-offender incarceration be
available to those States that decide they will waive immunity and be
responsible for the acts these offenders on early release commit.
I wonder how many people in this Chamber know that there are more
than 4,000 people now in prison for committing a murder that they
committed while they were out early for a previous violent crime. How
would you like to be one of the families of the 4,000 or more people
who are murdered who understand their loved one was murdered because
someone else was let out early from prison. You know it doesn't take
Dick Tracy to figure out who is going to commit the next violent act.
It is somebody who has committed a previous violent act.
I just suggest that there are those who say prisons are overcrowded
and so the prison overcrowding forces them to release people early.
Senator John Glenn and I have talked for years about military housing
and its possible use for incarcerating non-violent offenders. Why
couldn't corrections officials utilize this kind of low-cost housing
for nonviolent offenders and freeup maximum security space for violent
offenders.
You can probably incarcerate nonviolent offenders for a fraction of
the cost of what it takes to build a prison. Fifty percent of the 1.5
million people now in prison in this country are nonviolent. We can
incarcerate them for a fraction of the cost of what we now spend to put
them in prisons.
We could open 100,000, 200,000, or 300,000 prison cells and say to
violent offenders, that is your address until the end of your sentence.
Understand that. Your address is your prison cell, if you commit a
violent crime, until the end of your sentence. We ought to provide a
creative way for states to facilitate that.
Even with the best of intentions, in this Chamber about 4 years ago
we decided that the most violent offenders have to serve 85 percent of
their time. Let's let them out only 15 percent early, stated another
way. In fact, in most States those who commit the most violent offenses
and therefore get
[[Page S11549]]
the longest sentences get the most generous amount of good time.
I know people will disagree with me about this. I respect that
disagreement. I say this. If you are the family of a young boy, 13
years old, named Hall who was murdered just miles from here, or of a
young attorney in her early 20's named Bettina Pruckmayer, who was
murdered just miles from here. Both of these young people murdered by
individuals who had been in prison for previous murders but let out
early because of the sentence system. Is it fine for us to let them
back on the street? If they do not have good time, if they are hard to
manage in prison, think about the violence done to others who are
murdered and others who are going to die while they are on street.
I am going to introduce this piece of legislation today. I hope in
the next year or so before the Congress completes its work that we
might be able to decide what we need to do about violent offenders. We
can keep violent offenders off the streets to the end of their
sentence, and we can protect people like Julienne Schultz, who,
fortunately, is going to be all right.
But this innocent young woman who was driving back from a meeting
stopped at a rest stop in a quiet rural area, had her throat slashed
and was close to being killed by a fellow who should never have been
driving through North Dakota, by a fellow who was let out by
authorities in another State which said, ``We can't afford to keep you
in prison,'' apparently, and, ``We don't have the time to keep you in
prison anymore.'' Well, we had better make time. We had better find the
resources to keep these kind of folks in prison to the end of their
term in order to help prevent further carnage and the kind of things
that are happening to innocent people all across this country.
Mr. President, I ask that the bill be pointed in the Record.
Mr. President, you have been very generous in the time today.
I yield the time. I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1357
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness and Incarceration
Responsibility (FAIR) Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) violent criminals often serve only a portion of the
terms of imprisonment to which they are sentenced;
(2) a significant proportion of the most serious crimes of
violence committed in the United States are committed by
criminals who have been released early from a term of
imprisonment to which they were sentenced for a prior
conviction for a crime of violence;
(3) violent criminals who are released before the
expiration of the term of imprisonment to which they were
sentenced often travel to other States to commit subsequent
crimes of violence;
(4) crimes of violence and the threat of crimes of violence
committed by violent criminals who are released from prison
before the expiration of the term of imprisonment to which
they were sentenced affect tourism, economic development, use
of the interstate highway system, federally owned or
supported facilities, and other commercial activities of
individuals; and
(5) the policies of one State regarding the early release
of criminals sentenced in that State for a crime of violence
often affect the citizens of other States, who can influence
those policies only through Federal law.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to require States
to bear the responsibility for the consequences of releasing
violent criminals from custody before the expiration of the
full term of imprisonment to which they are sentenced.
SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION
GRANTS.
Section 20103(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13703(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the State has implemented'' and inserting
the following: ``the State--
``(1) has implemented'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) has enacted and implemented a State law providing
that a victim (or in the case of a homicide, the family of
the victim) of a crime of violence (as defined in section 16
of title 18, United States Code) shall have a Federal cause
of action in any district court of the United States against
the State for the recovery of actual (not punitive) damages
(direct and indirect) resulting from the crime of violence,
if the individual convicted of committing the crime of
violence--
``(A) had previously been convicted by the State of a crime
of violence committed on a different occasion than the crime
of violence at issue;
``(B) was released before serving the full term of
imprisonment to which the individual was sentenced for that
offense; and
``(C) committed the subsequent crime of violence at issue
before the original term of imprisonment described in
subparagraph (B) would have expired.''.
SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING INCENTIVE GRANTS.
Section 20104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13704) is amended--
(1) by striking ``85 percent'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``100 percent''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), in addition to the requirements of that
subsection, to be eligible to receive a grant award under
this section, each application submitted under subsection (a)
shall demonstrate that the State has enacted and implemented,
a State law providing that a victim (or in the case of a
homicide, the family of the victim) of a crime of violence
(as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code)
shall have a Federal cause of action in any district court of
the United States against the State for the recovery of
actual (not punitive) damages (direct and indirect) resulting
from the crime of violence, if the individual convicted of
committing the crime of violence--
``(1) had previously been convicted by the State of a crime
of violence committed on a different occasion than the crime
of violence at issue;
``(2) was released before serving the full term of
imprisonment to which the individual was sentenced for that
offense; and
``(3) committed the subsequent crime of violence at issue
before the original term of imprisonment described in
paragraph (2) would have expired.''.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
____________________