[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 657-660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 DEATH IN CUSTODY REPORTING ACT OF 2008

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 3971) to encourage States to report to the Attorney 
General certain information regarding the deaths of individuals in the 
custody of law enforcement agencies, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3971

       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 ``Death in Custody Reporting 
     Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. INFORMATION REGARDING INDIVIDUALS WHO DIE IN THE 
                   CUSTODY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--For each fiscal year after the expiration 
     of the period specified in subsection (b)(1) in which a State 
     receives funds for a program referred to in subsection 
     (b)(2), the State shall report to the Attorney General, on a 
     quarterly basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the 
     Attorney General, information regarding the death of any 
     person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the process of 
     being arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or is 
     incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, State prison, 
     State-run boot camp prison, boot camp prison that is 
     contracted out by the State, any State or local contract 
     facility, or other local or State correctional facility 
     (including any juvenile facility) that, at a minimum, 
     includes--
       (1) the name, gender, race, ethnicity, and age of the 
     deceased;
       (2) the date, time, and location of death;
       (3) the law enforcement agency that detained, arrested, or 
     was in the process of arresting the deceased; and
       (4) a brief description of the circumstances surrounding 
     the death.
       (b) Compliance and Ineligibility.--
       (1) Compliance date.--Each State shall have not more than 
     30 days from the date of enactment of this Act to comply with 
     subsection (a), except that--
       (A) the Attorney General may grant an additional 30 days to 
     a State that is making good faith efforts to comply with such 
     subsection; and
       (B) the Attorney General shall waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) if compliance with such subsection by a State 
     would be unconstitutional under the constitution of such 
     State.
       (2) Ineligibility for funds.--For any fiscal year after the 
     expiration of the period specified in paragraph (1), a State 
     that fails to comply with subsection (a) shall not receive 10 
     percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for 
     that fiscal year to the State under subpart 1 of part E of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), whether characterized as the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement 
     Block Grants Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant Program, or otherwise.
       (c) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a program 
     referred to in subsection (b)(2) to a State for failure to 
     fully comply with subsection (a) shall be reallocated under 
     that program to States that have not failed to comply with 
     such subsection.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section the terms ``boot camp 
     prison'' and ``State'' have the meaning given those terms, 
     respectively, in section 901(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3791(a)).

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF INFORMATION RELATING TO DEATHS IN CUSTODY.

       (a) Study Required.--The Attorney General shall, subject to 
     the availability of appropriations under subsection (d), 
     through grant or contract, provide for a study of the 
     information reported under section 2 (regarding the death of 
     any person who is detained, under arrest, or is in the 
     process of being arrested, is en route to be incarcerated, or 
     is incarcerated at a municipal or county jail, State prison, 
     State-run boot camp prison, boot camp prison that is 
     contracted out by the State, any State or local contract 
     facility, or other local or State correctional facility 
     (including any juvenile facility)) to--
       (1) determine means by which such information can be used 
     to reduce the number of such deaths; and
       (2) examine the relationship, if any, between the number of 
     such deaths and the actions of management of such jails, 
     prisons, and other correctional facilities relating to such 
     deaths.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report that contains the findings of the 
     study required by subsection (a).
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009. Funds appropriated under this subsection 
     shall remain available until expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3971 is entitled the Death in Custody Reporting 
Act of 2008. It will reauthorize the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 
2000 which actually expired on December 31, 2006.

                              {time}  1445

  This is a bipartisan effort which I introduced with my colleague from 
Virginia, Representative Randy Forbes, and who was, at that time, the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime. Its purpose is to provide 
continued and improved oversight over the conduct of law enforcement 
officials during arrest and imprisonment of fellow citizens.
  Before the enactment of the Death in Custody Act of 2000, States and 
localities had no uniform requirements for reporting the circumstances 
surrounding the deaths of persons in their custody, and some had no 
system for requiring such reports. The lack of uniform reporting 
requirements made it impossible to ascertain how many people were dying 
in custody and from

[[Page 658]]

what causes, although estimates by those concerned suggested that there 
were more than 1,000 deaths in custody each year, some under very 
suspicious circumstances.
  Consequently, an environment of suspicion and concern arose 
surrounding many of those deaths. Some that were ruled suicides or 
deaths from natural causes were suspected of being homicides committed 
by officers, fellow prisoners or others. Indifference to prisoner 
rights and the safety of those in custody made scrutiny of suspected 
deaths a low priority, so such questionable causes were rarely 
investigated.
  In the mid-1980s, researchers, reporters, prison and jail 
accreditation organizations, prison reformers, activists, and others 
began to give more scrutiny to the death rate in our Nation's jails and 
prisons and to the fact that such deaths were not being routinely 
reported to anybody.
  In fact, by 1986, only 25 States and the District of Columbia even 
had jail inspection units. Moreover, even the States that did report 
deaths did it on the basis of different reporting standards. The 
insufficient data and the lack of uniformity of the data collected made 
oversight of prisoner safety woefully inadequate.
  However, the interest in oversight that emerged shed light on the 
conditions in State and local jails, which began a rising tide of 
wrongful death litigation. The increasing litigation forced some 
measure of accountability, and conditions somewhat improved. Moreover, 
activism and news of the litigation spurned by media interests, and 
that shed further light on the conditions in our present jails and 
prisons.
  The watershed moment for bringing the death in custody rate to 
national attention occurred in 1995. After a 1-year investigation by 
journalist Mike Masterson into prison conditions and the death rate of 
persons in custody, the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey ran a series of 
award-winning editorials that brought the seriousness of the lack of 
reporting to the Nation's attention. The editorials went on to detail 
abuses, including racially motivated violence, overzealous police 
investigations, cover-ups and general law enforcement incompetence, 
which prompted Congress to take action.
  Following successive introduction of bills in several Congresses by 
my colleagues from Arkansas, first Representative Tim Hutchinson, then 
later Representative Asa Hutchinson, the Death in Custody Reporting Act 
of 2000 was passed. The law required States receiving certain Federal 
grants to comply with reporting requirements established by the 
Attorney General.
  Since the enactment in 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has 
compiled a number of statistics detailing the circumstances of prisoner 
deaths, the rate of deaths in prison and jails, and the rate of deaths 
based on the size of various facilities and so forth. But the most 
astounding statistic reported since the enactment of the bill before is 
the latest Bureau of Justice statistics report dated August 2005, which 
shows a 64 percent decline in suicides and a 93 percent decline in 
homicides in custody since 1980. Those statistics showing a significant 
decline in the death rate in our Nation's prisons and jails since 
stricter oversight has been in place suggest that the oversight 
measures, such as the Death in Custody Reporting Act, play an important 
role in ensuring the safety and security of prisoners who are in the 
custody of State facilities.
  In considering the reauthorization of the bill, the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security examined the statistics and 
heard testimony from witnesses whose testimony also supported the 
suggestion that oversight has actually improved conditions. Convinced 
of the effectiveness of the Death in Custody Act, we resolved to not 
only reauthorize it but also improve it.
  To ascertain the most effective use of the statistical data, H.R. 
3971 differs from the original bill in that it authorizes $500,000 for 
a study to determine which policies and procedures have, in fact, led 
to or at least assisted the decreasing death rate among prisoners.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Forbes, for 
his support of the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3971, the Death in Custody Reporting 
Act of 2007, and commend Chairman Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman 
Scott, and Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Gohmert for their 
commitment to this bipartisan legislation.
  The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 directed the Justice 
Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect data on deaths 
that occur in the process of arrest or during transfer after arrest, as 
well as deaths that occur in jails and prisons.
  H.R. 3971 reauthorizes this data collection program and directs the 
Attorney General to commission a study to determine how to reduce 
deaths in custody and to examine the relationship between deaths in 
custody and the management of jail and prison facilities.
  The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 2001 and 2005 
there were 15,308 State prisoner deaths. The bureau also reports that 
there were 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43 juvenile deaths between 
2000 and 2005.
  Half of all State prisoner deaths are the result of heart disease and 
cancer. Two-thirds involved inmates age 45 or older, and another two-
thirds are the result of medical problems that were present at the time 
of admission.
  Although illness-related deaths have slightly increased in recent 
years, the homicide and suicide rates in State prisons have 
dramatically decreased over the last 25 years. That is positive news, 
but we still need to collect data to monitor these trends.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlelady from Texas, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the 
chairman of the subcommittee that I have the privilege of serving on, 
the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  I thank the full committee chairman, Mr. Conyers, the ranking member 
on the full committee and the ranking member on the subcommittee for 
having two important initiatives, and I speak to the underlying bill 
which addresses the question of death in custody, H.R. 3971.
  I, too, want to applaud the fact that the existence of this 
legislation is a strong statement that, in spite of individuals being 
incarcerated in the criminal justice system, in the penal system, in 
the prison system, that there is a responsibility; one for the safety 
and security of those who are incarcerated, particularly, as well, that 
younger and younger individuals are going into our criminal justice 
system of which we hope to address as we look to these issues in the 
coming year, work that has already been done in this committee. We hope 
to see some of that legislation come to fruition.
  I do want to speak specifically, Madam Speaker, to the concerns that 
I see in the State of Texas. And it may be symbolic of many States, 
particularly large States that have a very large penal system and a 
criminal justice system, if you will, or incarceration rate, and say 
that this legislation, in addition to reporting or requiring reporting 
of the deaths and suggesting the ineligibility for funds, which I think 
is an important statement, some instances of holding the particular 
jurisdictional head responsible for some of, in this instance, the 
deaths of individuals held in their particular facilities.
  For example, about 3 weeks ago, in Houston, an individual was seen 
being neck-choked by a custodian in the Harris County jail in Harris 
County in Houston, Texas, and subsequently that inmate lost their life. 
This has been an increasing occurrence in the Harris County jail. And 
certainly there have

[[Page 659]]

been occurrences in the whole State system, but we have a county jail 
system which people are either held for trial or either they are 
actually serving their time there, and in the last decade we've had 106 
deaths, plus, in the Harris County jail. Many of them have come about 
through the inability to secure medicine, to secure medical care. One 
instance is an individual in his own pool of blood, and the, if you 
will, caretaker, the guard, was asked to get relief and he said, What 
do you expect for me to do, get a Band-Aid?
  So in some instances the deaths are caused because of such horrific 
occurrences, such egregious occurrences that there seems to be a 
necessity for additional penalties. So I would rise to support this 
initiative, H.R. 3971, for the good work that it has already done, look 
forward to working with the chairperson of the subcommittee and the 
full committee Chair as we move toward the Senate to ensure that this 
bill, in and of itself, becomes law, because I think it's an important 
statement, but also it's a statement that saves lives.
  It is so tragic to hear from wives and mothers, fathers of those 
incarcerated. These individuals have families. And I know that the 
existence or the presence that they have in the jail system means that 
there have been charges. Some of them in the local jails are being held 
for trial, so, therefore, they have not been convicted. We owe, as a 
civilized Nation, the kind of incarcerated presence that allows people 
to live, to be tried by the judicial system, but to allow them to live 
unless rendered another judgment by that system. So I think it is key 
that we look at whether or not the actions are egregious as we proceed 
to report on or receive reports made by our State Attorney General and 
others.
   Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3971, the 
Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished 
colleague from Virginia, Representative Bobby Scott. This important 
legislation will require that any State that receives certain criminal 
justice assistance grants will be accountable to report the treatment 
of inmates to both the Attorney General and to Congress.
   How a government treats its detainees is a critical test for a 
nation's civility and maturity. How we treat detainees, especially the 
most vulnerable among them--detainees with medical conditions, be it 
pre-existing or one developed after they have been taken into custody--
is an important measure of how humane our entire justice system is.
   In the mid-1980s researcher and activist scrutiny of the death rate 
in the Nation's jails and prisons began to emerge. The research focused 
on criticism of jail and prison conditions from the 1960s to the 1980s. 
Studies such as the ``National Study of Jail Suicides: Seven Years 
Later,'' by Lindsay M. Hayes and Joseph R. Rowan in 1988, that examined 
the death rate in jails and prisons found very little reporting of the 
circumstances surrounding the deaths of prisoners. In fact by 1986, 
only 25 States and the District of Columbia even had jail inspection 
units. Moreover, even the States that did report deaths differed on 
basic reporting standards. For example, jurisdictions differed on the 
definition of ``custody,'' which made it difficult to determine whether 
a prisoner had died during arrest, in a jail before trial, or post 
conviction.
  The insufficient data and the lack of uniformity of the data 
collected made oversight of prisoner safety woefully inadequate. 
However, the study brought to light the potential that oversight had 
for improving conditions. The authors found that in the 1970s when 
there was little or no focus on deaths in custody, it had been unusual 
for a jail to be sued for negligence when a prisoner died in custody. 
But by the 1980s it was unusual for a jail not to be sued. The interest 
in oversight that emerged in the 1980s had shed light on conditions in 
state and local jails and began a rising tide of wrongful death 
litigation. The increasing litigation forced some measure of 
accountability and conditions somewhat improved. Moreover, activism and 
news of the litigation spurred media interest, which shed further light 
on conditions.
  In 1995, after conducting a 1-year investigation, the Asbury Park 
Press of New Jersey ran a series of award-winning editorials that 
brought the seriousness of the lack of reporting to the Nation's 
attention. Among the examples the Asbury Park Press highlighted was the 
story of Elmer Johnson of Charleston, MO. Mr. Johnson died in a jail 
cell after he was arrested for ``failing to obey a police officer.'' 
The coroner ruled Mr. Johnson's death a suicide but evidence to the 
contrary raised doubts. The editorials went on to detail abuses 
including racism, overzealous police interrogations, coverups and 
general police incompetence, which prompted congressional action.
  Congress has a responsibility to investigate this issue and call for 
reforms in order to ensure that dignity and respect for all human 
beings in our immigration detention system is preserved.
  Following successive bills being introduced by Representative Scott 
of Virginia and Representative Hutchinson of Arkansas in several 
Congresses, the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 was passed. The 
law required States receiving grants to comply with reporting 
requirements established by the Attorney General. Since the enactment 
of the act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, has compiled a 
number of statistics detailing not only the circumstances of prisoner 
deaths but the rates of deaths in prisons vs. jails and the rates of 
deaths based on the sizes of the various facilities.
  With the detailed statistical data, policy makers, both State and 
Federal, can make informed policy judgments about the treatment of 
prisoners, leading to great success in lowering the prisoner death 
rate. In fact, since the focus on deaths in custody emerged in the mid-
1980s, the latest BJS report, dated August 2005, shows a 64 percent 
decline in suicides and a 93 percent decline in the homicide rate, 
which suggests that oversight measures such as the Deaths in Custody 
Reporting Act play an important role in ensuring the safety and 
security of prisoners who are in the custody of State facilities.
  However, no actual study has been conducted to ascertain whether 
there is indeed a cause and effect between the oversight and decreasing 
death rate, and H.R. 2908 contained no provision to fund such a study. 
Therefore, to ascertain whether the cause and effect exists and how to 
make the most effective use of the statistical data, my good friend and 
colleague, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Forbes have introduced 
H.R. 3971, the Death in Custody Act of 2007, of which I am a proud 
cosponsor.
  This revised legislation is imperative to ensuring that there is 
justice within our justice system. H.R. 3971 includes all aspects of 
H.R. 2908 but also authorizes $500,000 for a study to determine whether 
the strengthened oversight has in fact led to or at least assisted the 
decreasing death rate among prisoners. H.R. 3971 is thus an improvement 
over H.R. 2908 in that with analysis accompanying the statistical data, 
we can make yet further informed decisions about policy and oversight.
  Congress has a responsibility to investigate this issue and call for 
reforms in order to ensure that dignity and respect for all human 
beings in our immigration detention system is preserved. This 
legislation will hold States responsible to report to the Attorney 
General on a quarterly basis regarding the death of any person who is 
under arrest or is in the process of being arrested, en route to 
incarceration, or incarcerated in State or local facilities. It 
furthermore imposes penalties on States that fail to comply with such 
reporting requirements and consequently will ensure that both the 
Attorney General and the Congress stay informed on the deaths of any 
and all persons in custody.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting the Death 
in Custody Act of 2007. Passage of H.R. 3971 would be the start of a 
long overdue process to eliminate unnecessary mistreatment of 
prisoners.
  Might I just quickly acknowledge H.R. 3992, with the indulgence of 
the Speaker, to applaud the, hoping, passage of this legislation that 
deals with mental health. And let me just say one small point about the 
mental health circumstance, and that is that the crisis of mental 
health is seen across America. There are so many circumstances where 
individuals suffering from severe schizophrenia and others are caught 
in the criminal justice system, or unfortunately are called to the home 
and confront the law enforcement system as opposed to the mental health 
system, and that is before, of course, these individuals are 
incarcerated. This has to do with offenders who are suffering from 
mental illness, but I wanted to at least speak to the point that those 
who don't get to the system because they are confronted through the 
police system and unfortunately will lose their lives. What do elderly 
persons do when a son or daughter is suffering from mental illness and, 
unfortunately, has a breakdown in the house and reacts violently? It is 
to call the police.
  And so in addition to this very fine bill that deals with improving 
mental

[[Page 660]]

health services for offenders so that when they come out they are ready 
to adjust to the society in which they return, we also want to look 
forward to the idea of providing resources for training of law 
enforcement that we've discussed extensively in our subcommittee on 
crime to help these people be advisedly trained to deal with this.
  I cite as an example the desire by our local jurisdiction to, or the 
request being made by our local jurisdiction, to pay an extra incentive 
fee for those police officers that would take mental health training so 
that they could be on a team, a task force to be called out when that 
would occur. Unfortunately, the overall response by the city government 
was not enough money. I think we should have enough money to save lives 
and, hopefully, innovative legislation like H.R. 3992 sets the pace for 
those new and innovative ideas on addressing the question of mental 
illness among offenders who are incarcerated, but also that we address 
many of the other questions that hopefully we'll have the opportunity 
to address.
  So it is my distinct pleasure to be able to rise to support the 
underlying bill, H.R. 3971, and as well the previous bill, H.R. 3992. 
And I thank the chairman for his leadership. And I think the criminal 
justice system will be better for the passage of these two initiatives.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3992, the 
Mentally III Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and 
Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from 
Virginia, Representative Robert Scott. This bipartisan legislation is 
designed to increase public safety by enabling coordination between the 
criminal justice and mental health care systems to increase treatment 
among this segment of the population.
  The enormous growth in the national prison population has intensified 
the problems presented by the needs of mentally ill inmates. 
Frequently, mentally ill defendants are inappropriately placed into 
criminal or juvenile corrections facilities, and the harmful impact 
that this has on the individual and society is reflected in increased 
recidivism rates, wasted administrative costs, and superfluous 
overcrowding of corrections facilities, among other things. Among the 
utmost dilemmas involved in managing the mentally ill prisoners is that 
correctional staffing is seldom at an adequate level to supervise and 
care for these prisoners, and correctional officers in many state 
prisons have never received training in working with the mentally ill.
  The Bureau of Justice reported that in 1998 over 280,000 individuals 
in jail or prison and approximately 550,000 of those on probation had a 
mental impairment. The mentally ill are disproportionately represented 
in jails and prisons. Five percent of all Americans have a serious 
mental illness, but 16 to 20 percent of incarcerated individuals have a 
mental impairment. Any individual who is enrolled in a juris doctorate 
program is familiar with two key terms in criminal law, Actus Reas and 
Mens Rea. Actus Reas is associated with the guilty act, while Mens Rea 
is associated with the guilty mind. Both elements are required to 
achieve a successful conviction in our criminal law system. Mental 
health offenders may have committed the physical, guilty act, but they 
are incapable of having the mind capacity to commit the crime. The act 
does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.
  The prevalence of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system has 
been the subject of many recent studies. The U.S. Department of 
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reported last July that at least 
16 percent of the U.S. prison population is seriously mentally ill. The 
highest rate of reported serious mental illness is among white female 
inmates, at 29 percent. For white females age 24 or younger, this level 
rises to almost 40 percent. The American Jail Association estimates 
that 600,000 to 700,000 people suffering from serious mental illness 
are being booked into jail each year.
  The National Alliance for the Mentally III reports that on any given 
day, at least 284,000 schizophrenic and manic depressive individuals 
and manic depressive individuals are incarcerated, while only 187,000 
seriously mentally ill individuals are in mental health facilities. 
Additionally, there are approximately 547,800 seriously mentally ill 
people who are currently on probation. These statistics seem to 
indicate that the mentally ill are unjustifiably burdening the criminal 
justice system.
  There is a dire need for resources that will provide vital 
resolutions to the crisis, expand diversion programs, community-based 
treatment, re-entry services, and improved treatment during 
incarceration. The reauthorization of the Mentally Ill Offender 
Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004 recognizes that true 
partnerships between the mental health and criminal and juvenile 
corrections systems and between the Federal and State Governments are 
needed to meet these challenges. Indeed, this bill requires that 
Federal funds authorized under this program be supplemented with 
contributions from the States, local governments, and tribal 
organizations.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has an obligation to legislate to protect the 
community from those who become aggressive or violent because of mental 
illness. We also have a responsibility to see that the offender 
receives the proper treatment for his or her illness. Far too often, 
mental illness goes undiagnosed, and many in our prison system would do 
better in alternative settings designed to handle their particular 
needs.
  In Texas, past treatment of mentally ill offenders illustrates the 
need for legislation such as H.R. 3992. Senior U.S. District Judge 
William Wayne Justice, who is experienced in dealing with mentally ill 
prisoners in Texas, ruled in 1980 that the Texas prison system is 
unconstitutional and placed it under Federal control for 30 years. In 
Judge Justice's estimation, the Texas laws that apply to the mentally 
ill ``lack compassion and emphasize vengeance.'' KPFT news reported him 
as having said,

       We have allowed the spirit of vengeance such unrivaled sway 
     in our dealings with those who commit crime that we have 
     ceased to consider properly whether we have taken adequate 
     account of the role that mental impairment may play in the 
     determination of moral responsibility. As a result, we punish 
     those who we cannot justly blame. Such result is not, I 
     believe worthy of a civil society.

  This legislation in an important first step towards restructuring a 
system that has operated in a disjointed and unsympathetic manner for 
far too long. We must continue to make this legislation adequately 
effective to preserve the lives of defendants who are actually victims.
  I am proud to support this legislation and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and calling for 
the appropriate treatment and recognition of mentally ill offenders.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers on this 
side, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3971, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to encourage States to 
report to the Attorney General certain information regarding the deaths 
of individuals in the custody of law enforcement agencies, and for 
other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________