[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.

                          ____________________