[House Report 104-21]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                                       
104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     104-21
_______________________________________________________________________


 
               VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


February 6, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. McCollum, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 667]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 667) to control crime by incarcerating violent 
criminals, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and summary..............................................     7
Background and need for the legislation..........................     8
Hearings.........................................................     9
Committee consideration..........................................    10
Vote of the committee............................................    10
Committee oversight findings.....................................    17
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................    17
New budget authority and tax expenditures........................    17
Congressional Budget Office estimate.............................    17
Inflationary impact statement....................................    20
Section-by-section analysis and discussion.......................    20
Agency views.....................................................    29
Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported............    35
Dissenting views.................................................    55

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 
1995''.

                      TITLE I--TRUTH IN SENTENCING

SEC. 101. TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANT PROGRAM.

  Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
is amended to read as follows:

                 ``TITLE V--TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANTS

``SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

  ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to provide 
grants to eligible States and to eligible States organized as a 
regional compact to build, expand, and operate space in correctional 
facilities in order to increase the prison bed capacity in such 
facilities for the confinement of persons convicted of a serious 
violent felony and to build, expand, and operate temporary or permanent 
correctional facilities, including facilities on military bases and 
boot camp facilities, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent 
offenders and criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing suitable 
existing prison space for the confinement of persons convicted of a 
serious violent felony.
  ``(b) Limitation.--An eligible State or eligible States organized as 
a regional compact may receive either a general grant under section 502 
or a truth-in-sentencing incentive grant under section 503.

``SEC. 502. GENERAL GRANTS.

  ``(a) Distribution of General Grants.--50 percent of the total amount 
of funds made available under this title for each of the fiscal years 
1995 through 2000 shall be made available for general eligibility 
grants for each State or States organized as a regional compact that 
meets the requirements of subsection (b).
  ``(b) General Grants.--In order to be eligible to receive funds under 
subsection (a), a State or States organized as a regional compact shall 
submit an application to the Attorney General that provides assurances 
that such State since 1993 has--
          ``(1) increased the percentage of convicted violent offenders 
        sentenced to prison;
          ``(2) increased the average prison time actually to be served 
        in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison; 
        and
          ``(3) increased the percentage of sentence to be actually 
        served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison.

``SEC. 503. TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS.

  ``(a) Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.--50 percent of the total 
amount of funds made available under this title for each of the fiscal 
years 1995 through 2000 shall be made available for truth-in-sentencing 
incentive grants to each State or States organized as a regional 
compact that meet the requirements of subsection (b).
  ``(b) Eligibility for Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.--In order 
to be eligible to receive funds under subsection (a), a State or States 
organized as a regional compact shall submit an application to the 
Attorney General that provides assurances that each State applying has 
enacted laws and regulations which include--
          ``(1)(A) truth-in-sentencing laws which require persons 
        convicted of a serious violent felony serve not less than 85 
        percent of the sentence imposed or 85 percent of the court-
        ordered maximum sentence for States that practice indeterminate 
        sentencing; or
          ``(B) truth-in-sentencing laws which have been enacted, but 
        not yet implemented, that require such State, not later than 
        three years after such State submits an application to the 
        Attorney General, to provide that persons convicted of a 
        serious violent felony serve not less than 85 percent of the 
        sentence imposed or 85 percent of the court-ordered maximum 
        sentence for States that practice indeterminate sentencing, and
          ``(2) laws requiring that the sentencing or releasing 
        authorities notify and allow the victims of the defendant or 
        the family of such victims the opportunity to be heard 
        regarding the issue of sentencing and any postconviction 
        release.

``SEC. 504. SPECIAL RULES.

  ``(a) Additional Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
under section 502 or 503, a State or States organized as a regional 
compact shall provide an assurance to the Attorney General that--
          ``(1) to the extent practicable, inmate labor will be used to 
        build and expand correctional facilities;
          ``(2) each State will involve counties and other units of 
        local government, when appropriate, in the construction, 
        development, expansion, modification, operation, or improvement 
        of correctional facilities designed to ensure the incarceration 
        of offenders, and that each State will share funds received 
        under this title with any county or other unit of local 
        government that is housing State prisoners, taking into account 
        the burden placed on such county or unit of local government in 
        confining prisoners due to overcrowding in State prison 
        facilities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act; and
          ``(3) the State has implemented or will implement, not later 
        than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the Violent 
        Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995, policies to determine the 
        veteran status of inmates and to ensure that incarcerated 
        veterans receive the veterans benefits to which they are 
        entitled.
  ``(b) Indeterminant Sentencing Exception.--Notwithstanding the 
provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 502(b), a State 
shall be eligible for grants under this title, if the State, not later 
than the date of the enactment of this title--
          ``(1) practices indeterminant sentencing; and
          ``(2) the average times served in such State for the offenses 
        of murder, rape, robbery, and assault exceed, by 10 percent or 
        greater, the national average of times served for such 
        offenses.
  ``(c) Exception.--The requirements under section 503(b) shall apply, 
except that a State may provide that the Governor of the State may 
allow for earlier release of a geriatric prisoner or a prisoner whose 
medical condition precludes the prisoner from posing a threat to the 
public after a public hearing in which representatives of the public 
and the prisoner's victims have an opportunity to be heard regarding a 
proposed release.

``SEC. 505. FORMULA FOR GRANTS.

  ``To determine the amount of funds that each eligible State or 
eligible States organized as a regional compact may receive to carry 
out programs under section 502 or 503, the Attorney General shall apply 
the following formula:
          ``(1) $500,000 or 0.40 percent, whichever is greater, shall 
        be allocated to each participating State or compact, as the 
        case may be; and
          ``(2) of the total amount of funds remaining after the 
        allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be allocated to 
        each State or compact, as the case may be, an amount which 
        bears the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds described 
        in this paragraph as the population of such State or compact, 
        as the case may be, bears to the population of all the States.

``SEC. 506. ACCOUNTABILITY.

  ``(a) Fiscal Requirements.--A State or States organized as a regional 
compact that receives funds under this title shall use accounting, 
audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to guidelines which shall be 
prescribed by the Attorney General.
  ``(b) Reporting.--Each State that receives funds under this title 
shall submit an annual report, beginning on January 1, 1996, and each 
January 1 thereafter, to the Congress regarding compliance with the 
requirements of this title.
  ``(c) Administrative Provisions.--The administrative provisions of 
sections 801 and 802 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 shall apply to the Attorney General in the same manner as such 
provisions apply to the officials listed in such sections.

``SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this title--
          ``(1) $997,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          ``(2) $1,330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          ``(3) $2,527,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          ``(4) $2,660,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          ``(5) $2,753,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
  ``(b) Limitations on Funds.--
          ``(1) Uses of funds.--Funds made available under this title 
        may be used to carry out the purposes described in section 
        501(a).
          ``(2) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available under 
        this section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but 
        shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in 
        the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State 
        sources.
          ``(3) Administrative costs.--Not more than three percent of 
        the funds available under this section may be used for 
        administrative costs.
          ``(4) Matching funds.--The Federal share of a grant received 
        under this title may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of a 
        proposal as described in an application approved under this 
        title.
          ``(5) Carry over of appropriations.--Any funds appropriated 
        but not expended as provided by this section during any fiscal 
        year shall remain available until expended.

``SEC. 508. DEFINITIONS.

  ``As used in this title--
          ``(1) the term `indeterminate sentencing' means a system by 
        which--
                  ``(A) the court has discretion on imposing the actual 
                length of the sentence imposed, up to the statutory 
                maximum; and
                  ``(B) an administrative agency, generally the parole 
                board, controls release between court-ordered minimum 
                and maximum sentence;
          ``(2) the term `serious violent felony' means--
                  ``(A) an offense that is a felony and has as an 
                element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 
                physical force against the person or property of 
                another and has a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 
                years or more,
                  ``(B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by 
                its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical 
                force against the person or property of another may be 
                used in the course of committing the offense and has a 
                maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, or
                  ``(C) such crimes including murder, assault with 
                intent to commit murder, arson, armed burglary, rape, 
                assault with intent to commit rape, kidnapping, and 
                armed robbery; and
          ``(3) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
        the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or 
        possession of the United States.''.

SEC. 102. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.--
          (1) Part v.--Part V of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
        and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is repealed.
          (2) Funding.--(A) Section 1001(a) of the Omnibus Crime 
        Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by striking 
        paragraph (20).
          (B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (A), any 
        funds that remain available to an applicant under paragraph 
        (20) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
        Act of 1968 shall be used in accordance with part V of such Act 
        as such Act was in effect on the day preceding the date of 
        enactment of this Act.
  (b) Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.--
          (1) Repeal.--(A) Subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime 
        Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is repealed.
          (B) The table of contents of the Violent Crime Control and 
        Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by striking the matter 
        relating to subtitle A of title II.
          (2) Compliance.--Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 
        (1), any funds that remain available to an applicant under 
        subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
        Enforcement Act of 1994 shall be used in accordance with such 
        subtitle as such subtitle was in effect on the day preceding 
        the date of enactment of this Act.
          (3) Truth-in-sentencing.--The table of contents of the 
        Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is 
        amended by striking the matter relating to title V and 
        inserting the following:

                 ``TITLE V--TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS

``Sec. 501. Authorization of grants.
``Sec. 502. General grants.
``Sec. 503. Truth-in-sentencing grants.
``Sec. 504. Special rules.
``Sec. 505. Formula for grants.
``Sec. 506. Accountability.
``Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 508. Definitions.''.

              TITLE II--STOPPING ABUSIVE PRISONER LAWSUITS

SEC. 201. EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.

  Section 7(a)(1) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``in any action brought'' and inserting ``no 
        action shall be brought'';
          (2) by striking ``the court shall'' and all that follows 
        through ``require exhaustion of'' and insert ``until''; and
          (3) by inserting ``are exhausted'' after ``available''.

SEC. 202. FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS.

  Section 7(a) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 
U.S.C. 1997e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(3) The court shall on its own motion or on motion of a party 
dismiss any action brought pursuant to section 1979 of the Revised 
Statutes of the United States by an adult convicted of a crime and 
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility if the 
court is satisfied that the action fails to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted or is frivolous or malicious.''.

SEC. 203. MODIFICATION OF REQUIRED MINIMUM STANDARDS.

  Section 7(b)(2) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1997e(b)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and 
redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (E) as subparagraphs (A) 
through (D), respectively.

SEC. 204. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

  (a) Dismissal.--Section 1915(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) by inserting ``at any time'' after ``counsel and may'';
          (2) by striking ``and may'' and inserting ``and shall'';
          (3) by inserting ``fails to state a claim upon which relief 
        may be granted or'' after ``that the action''; and
          (4) by inserting ``even if partial filing fees have been 
        imposed by the court'' before the period.
  (b) Prisoner's Statement of Assets.--Section 1915 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(f) If a prisoner in a correctional institution files an affidavit 
in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, such prisoner shall 
include in that affidavit a statement of all assets such prisoner 
possesses. The court shall make inquiry of the correctional institution 
in which the prisoner is incarcerated for information available to that 
institution relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets. The court 
shall require full or partial payment of filing fees according to the 
prisoner's ability to pay.''.

                 TITLE III--STOP TURNING OUT PRISONERS

SEC. 301. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR PRISON CONDITIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 3626 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions

  ``(a) Requirements for Relief.--
          ``(1) Limitations on prospective relief.--Prospective relief 
        in a civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 
        extend no further than necessary to remove the conditions that 
        are causing the deprivation of the Federal rights of individual 
        plaintiffs in that civil action. The court shall not grant or 
        approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such 
        relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to 
        remedy the violation of the Federal right. In determining the 
        intrusiveness of the relief, the court shall give substantial 
        weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation 
        of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
          ``(2) Prison population reduction relief.--In any civil 
        action with respect to prison conditions, the court shall not 
        grant or approve any relief whose purpose or effect is to 
        reduce or limit the prison population, unless the plaintiff 
        proves that crowding is the primary cause of the deprivation of 
        the Federal right and no other relief will remedy that 
        deprivation.
  ``(b) Termination of Relief.--
          ``(1) Automatic termination of prospective relief after 2-
        year period.--In any civil action with respect to prison 
        conditions, any prospective relief shall automatically 
        terminate 2 years after the later of--
                  ``(A) the date the court found the violation of a 
                Federal right that was the basis for the relief; or
                  ``(B) the date of the enactment of the Stop Turning 
                Out Prisoners Act.
          ``(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In any 
        civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or 
        intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination of 
        any prospective relief, if that relief was approved or granted 
        in the absence of a finding by the court that prison conditions 
        violated a Federal right.
  ``(c) Procedure for Motions Affecting Prospective Relief.--
          ``(1) Generally.--The court shall promptly rule on any motion 
        to modify or terminate prospective relief in a civil action 
        with respect to prison conditions.
          ``(2) Automatic stay.--Any prospective relief subject to a 
        pending motion shall be automatically stayed during the 
        period--
                  ``(A) beginning on the 30th day after such motion is 
                filed, in the case of a motion made under subsection 
                (b); and
                  ``(B) beginning on the 180th day after such motion is 
                filed, in the case of a motion made under any other 
                law;
        and ending on the date the court enters a final order ruling on 
        that motion.
  ``(d) Standing.--Any Federal, State, or local official or unit of 
government--
          ``(1) whose jurisdiction or function includes the prosecution 
        or custody of persons in a prison subject to; or
          ``(2) who otherwise is or may be affected by;
any relief whose purpose or effect is to reduce or limit the prison 
population shall have standing to oppose the imposition or continuation 
in effect of that relief and may intervene in any proceeding relating 
to that relief. Standing shall be liberally conferred under this 
subsection so as to effectuate the remedial purposes of this section.
  ``(e) Special Masters.--In any civil action in a Federal court with 
respect to prison conditions, any special master or monitor shall be a 
United States magistrate and shall make proposed findings on the record 
on complicated factual issues submitted to that special master or 
monitor by the court, but shall have no other function. The parties may 
not by consent extend the function of a special master beyond that 
permitted under this subsection.
  ``(f) Attorney's Fees.--No attorney's fee under section 722 of the 
Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) may be granted 
to a plaintiff in a civil action with respect to prison conditions 
except to the extent such fee is--
          ``(1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual 
        violation of the plaintiff's Federal rights; and
          ``(2) proportionally related to the extent the plaintiff 
        obtains court ordered relief for that violation.
  ``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
          ``(1) the term `prison' means any Federal, State, or local 
        facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles or adults 
        accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 
        delinquent for, violations of criminal law;
          ``(2) the term `relief' means all relief in any form which 
        may be granted or approved by the court, and includes consent 
        decrees and settlement agreements; and
          ``(3) the term `prospective relief' means all relief other 
        than compensatory monetary damages.''.
  (b) Application of Amendment.--Section 3626 of title 18, United 
States Code, as amended by this section, shall apply with respect to 
all relief (as defined in such section) whether such relief was 
originally granted or approved before, on, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
  (c) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 3626 in the 
table of sections at the beginning of subchapter C of chapter 229 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``crowding'' and 
inserting ``conditions''.

     TITLE IV--ENHANCING PROTECTION AGAINST INCARCERATED CRIMINALS

SEC. 401. PRISON SECURITY.

  (a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited

  ``The Bureau of Prisons shall ensure that--
          ``(1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not engage in any 
        physical activities designed to increase their fighting 
        ability; and
          ``(2) all equipment designed for increasing the strength or 
        fighting ability of prisoners promptly be removed from Federal 
        correctional facilities and not be introduced into such 
        facilities thereafter except as needed for a medically required 
        program of physical rehabilitation approved by the Director of 
        the Bureau of Prisons.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new item:

``4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 667 is to enable states to deal more 
effectively with violent crime. To that end, the bill provides 
more resources to states to expand their prison capacity for 
incarcerating violent criminals. Furthermore, it limits 
prisoner lawsuits by requiring the exhaustion of administrative 
remedies prior to a civil action, and restricts the ability of 
Federal judges to affect the capacity and conditions of prisons 
and jails beyond what is required by the Constitution and 
Federal law.
    The bill includes four titles. Titles I and II are nearly 
identical to titles V and VII respectively of H.R. 3, the 
``Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995.'' Title III incorporates 
the provisions of H.R. 554, the ``Stop Turning Out Prisoners 
Act,'' and Title IV addresses the problem of prison violence 
associated with weight-lifting equipment.
    Title I provides nearly $10.3 billion dollars to assist 
states expand their prison capacity for violent criminals, an 
increase of more than $2 billion over last year's crime bill. 
It rewards states that are trying to get serious with violent 
criminals. If states are giving violent criminals longer 
sentences and requiring them to serve longer portions of their 
sentences, then these states will receive substantial grants 
for six years to help defray the costs of incarcerating more 
dangerous criminals. Moreover, if states go as far as enacting 
truth-in-sentencing and require violent criminals to serve at 
least 85 percent of their sentences, then they will qualify for 
more substantial grant funds.
    Title II--Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits--places 
sensible limits on the ability of detained persons to challenge 
the legality of their confinement. Too many frivolous lawsuits 
are clogging the courts, seriously undermining the 
administration of justice. The title addresses the problem of 
frivolous lawsuits in three significant ways. First, it 
requires that all administrative remedies be exhausted prior to 
a prisoner initiating a civil rights action in court. Second, 
it requires the court to dismiss any prisoner suit if it fails 
to state a legitimate claim of a violation for which relief can 
be granted, or if the suit is frivolous or malicious. And 
third, it eliminates the requirement that minimum standards of 
acceptable prison conditions be developed with the input of 
prisoners. Under section 203, convicted criminals will no 
longer be helping to define what the terms of their 
imprisonment should be.
    Title III provides much needed relief by providing 
reasonable limits on the remedies available in prison crowding 
suits. The title limits court-ordered relief to those specific 
conditions affecting the individual plaintiff, and requires the 
court to consider the potential impact of such relief on public 
safety. Title III includes provisions that will guard against 
court-ordered caps dragging on and on, with nothing but the 
whims of federal judges sustaining them. It allows law 
enforcement officials who arrest, prosecute, or incarcerate 
criminals to challenge any relief that would affect their 
localities if that relief was granted in the absence of an 
actual finding by the court that the conditions violated a 
Federal right. And it places reasonable restrictions on 
attorney's fees.
    Title IV prohibits weight-lifting by federal prisoners, and 
requires the removal of weight-lifting equipment from federal 
correctional facilities.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Every year in America thousands of people are killed, raped 
or assaulted by dangerous criminals who are known by the 
criminal justice system to be severe threats to public safety. 
The reason such criminals are in the communities and not behind 
bars is often because there is simply not enough prison space 
to hold them.
    Most people, but especially police and prosecutors, know 
that a relatively small group of dangerous criminals keep 
cycling through the system. They get arrested, sometimes 
convicted, occasionally sent to prison, and then they are 
almost always released early after serving only a small 
fraction of their sentences. This ``revolving door of justice'' 
has plagued the nation for too long.
    The statistics have become familiar to many. Violent 
criminals in state prisons only serve an average of 38 percent 
of their actual sentences. In state criminal justice systems, 
convicted murderers are given average prison sentences of 20 
years in length, but they only serve about 8.5 years. For rape, 
the sentence is 13 years, but the time served in only 5 years. 
It's no surprise that more than thirty percent of all murders 
are committed by criminals on bail, probation or parole at the 
time of their attacks.
    Title I of H.R. 667 rewards states that are bearing high 
fiscal costs for taking the necessary step of getting and 
keeping violent criminals off the streets.
    The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
failed to address this problem. Its reverter clause allowed 
funds to be awarded even if states made no move toward truth-
in-sentencing. Title I provides the opportunity to right those 
wrongs, and to support sensible reforms that are long overdue.
    Title II--Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits--addresses the 
problem of frivolous lawsuits. Too often prisoners initiate 
suits which are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim 
for which relief can be granted. Such suits clog the courts, 
waste law enforcement resources, and hinder localities in their 
efforts to fight crime.
    Title III--Stop Turning Out Prisoners--addresses the 
problem of federal court-imposed prison population caps by 
limiting the remedies that can be granted or enforced by a 
court in a prison conditions suit alleging a violation of a 
federal right. Courts hearing such suits have often approved 
and enforced consent decrees giving expansive relief to the 
complaining inmates. While both state courts and federal courts 
have in some instances entered these unnecessarily broad 
consent decrees, it is the federal courts that, often with 
seemingly good intentions, used these consent decrees to 
intrude into a state criminal justice system and seriously 
undermine the ability of the local justice system to dispense 
any true justice.
    Population caps are a primary cause of ``revolving door 
justice.'' The statistics alone do not reflect the incalculable 
losses to local communities caused by criminals confident in 
their belief that the criminal justice system is powerless is 
stop them. In Philadelphia, over 100 persons have been murdered 
by criminals set free by the prison population cap. The 
Subcommittee on Crime heard compelling testimony from Detective 
Patrick Boyle, a twenty-eight-year veteran of the Philadelphia 
Police Department. He spoke of the day-to-day problems faced by 
police officers on the streets when lawbreakers know that the 
Philadelphia criminal justice system is powerless to 
incarcerate them because of a federal court-ordered prison cap. 
Detective Boyle also spoke as a victim of crime. Detective 
Doyle's son, a rookie Philadelphia Police Office, was murdered 
when he stopped a car stolen by a criminal defendant who had 
been repeatedly released because of the federal prison cap 
order.
    Title IV--Enhancing Protection Against Incarcerated 
Criminals--requires that the Bureau of Prisons ensure that 
federal prisoners do not engage in any activities designed to 
increase their fighting abilities, and that all weight-lifting 
equipment be removed from federal prisons. The title addressed 
the problem of prisoners devoting their period of incarceration 
to becoming more physically threatening through intensive 
weight-lifting, as well as the problem of prison violence in 
which weight-lifting equipment is used as weapons.
    Taken together, the four titles of H.R. 667 represent a 
long overdue effort by the federal government to assist states 
in their efforts to deal with violent crime.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime held two days of 
hearings on H.R. 3 on January 19 and 20, 1995. Titles I and II 
of H.R. 667 are nearly identical to titles V and VII 
respectively in H.R. 3.
    On the issue of truth in sentencing the subcommittee 
received testimony from the Honorable Daniel Lungren, Attorney 
General for the State of California, and the Honorable James 
Gilmore, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    On the issue of federal court control of state prisons and 
local jails, testimony were received from three witnesses: the 
Honorable Lynne Abraham, District Attorney of Philadelphia, on 
behalf of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; 
Detective Patrick Boyle, with the Philadelphia Police 
Department, on behalf of himself and the Philadelphia Police 
Department; and Mr. Alvin Bronstein, Esq., Director of the 
American Civil Liberties Union Prison Project, representing the 
American Civil Liberties Union.

                        Committee Consideration

    On February 1, 1995, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported the bill H.R. 667, as amended, by a vote of 23 
to 11, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    The committee then considered the following amendments with 
recorded votes:
    Mr. Schumer offered an amendment to eliminate the bill's 
$10 billion truth-in-sentencing grant program and replace it 
with a $7.7 billion block grant program. The Schumer amendment 
was defeated by a 12-17 roll call vote.

                              ROLL CALL 1

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Sensenbrenner                   Mr. Hyde
Mr. Inglis                          Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. McCollum
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Gekas
Mr. Schumer                         Mr. Coble
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. Smith (TX)
Mr. Reed                            Mr. Canady
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Buyer
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Hoke
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Bono
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
                                    Mr. Watt
    Mr. Schumer offered an amendment that prohibits H.R. 667 
from taking effect until 50 percent or more of the states 
qualify for truth-in-sentencing grants. The Schumer amendment 
was defeated 11-16.

                              ROLL CALL 2

        AYES                          NAYS
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Hyde
Mr. Schumer                         Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Berman                          Mr. McCollum
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. Coble
Mr. Reed                            Mr. Smith (TX)
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Canady
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Inglis
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Buyer
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Hoke
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr

    Mr. Scott introduced a substitute amendment that strikes 
the 85 percent served requirement and reduces funding by $2.5 
billion. The amendment was defeated 13-16.

                              ROLL CALL 3

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Schumer                         Mr. McCollum
Mr. Berman                          Mr. Coble
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. Smith (TX)
Mr. Reed                            Mr. Canady
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Inglis
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Buyer
Mr. Becerra                         Mr. Hoke
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Bono
Mr. Lofgren                         Mr. Heineman
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
    Mr. Chabot offered an amendment that requires the Bureau of 
Prisons to prohibit prisoners from engaging in physical 
activities designed to increase fighting ability and to remove 
equipment designed for such purpose. The amendment was adopted 
18-9.

                              ROLL CALL 4

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Hyde                            Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Sensenbrenner                   Mr. Coble
Mr. McCollum                        Mr. Inglis
Mr. Smith (TX)                      Mr. Bono
Mr. Canady                          Mr. Conyers
Mr. Goodlatte                       Mrs. Schroeder
Mr. Buyer                           Mr. Berman
Mr. Hoke                            Mr. Scott
Mr. Heineman                        Mr. Watt
Mr. Bryant (TN)
Mr. Chabot
Mr. Flanagan
Mr. Barr
Mr. Schumer
Mr. Boucher
Mr. Reed
Ms. Lofgren
Ms. Jackson Lee

    Mr. Watt offered three amendments en bloc requiring actual 
reductions in crime as a condition for prison grants. The Watt 
amendment was defeated 8-20.

                              ROLL CALL 5

        AYES                          NAYS
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Hyde
Mr. Berman                          Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Scott                           Mr. McCollum
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Coble
Mr. Becerra                         Mr. Smith (TX)
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Canady
Mr. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Inglis
                                    Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Buyer
                                    Mr. Hoke
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
                                    Mr. Schumer
                                    Mr. Bryant (TX)
                                    Mr. Reed
    Mr. Watt offered two amendments en bloc which sought to 
expand prospective relief available to any plaintiff by 
eliminating the automatic termination of prospective relief 
requirement and by eliminating the ``substantial weight'' 
requirement. The amendment was defeated 9-21.

                              ROLL CALL 6

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Reed                            Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. McCollum
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Coble
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Schiff
Mr. Becerra                         Mr. Canady
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Inglis
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Hoke
                                    Mr. Buyer
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
                                    Mr. Schumer
                                    Mr. Boucher
                                    Mr. Bryant (TX)
                                    Ms. Lofgren

    Mr. Watt offered an amendment to strike the automatic stay 
requirement. The amendment was defeated 10-18.

                              ROLL CALL 7

        AYES                          NAYS
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Hyde
Mr. Schumer                         Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Berman                          Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Boucher                         Mr. McCollum
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Gekas
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Coble
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Schiff
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Canady
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Inglis
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Buyer
                                    Mr. Hoke
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
    Mr. Watt offered an amendment to strike limits on 
attorney's fees. The Watt amendment was defeated 10-21.

                              ROLL CALL 8

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Schiff                          Mr. Hyde
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Moorhead
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Bryant (TX)                     Mr. McCollum
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Gekas
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Coble
Mr. Watt                            Mr. Gallegly
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Canady
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Inglis
                                    Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Buyer
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Hoke
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
                                    Mr. Schumer
                                    Mr. Boucher
                                    Mr. Reed
    Mr. Scott offered an amendment to strike title three of the 
bill. The amendment was defeated 5-25.

                              ROLL CALL 9

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Watt                            Mr. McCollum
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Gekas
                                    Mr. Coble
                                    Mr. Smith (TX)
                                    Mr. Gallegly
                                    Mr. Schiff
                                    Mr. Canady
                                    Mr. Inglis
                                    Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Buyer
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
                                    Mr. Schumer
                                    Mr. Berman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TX)
                                    Mr. Reed
                                    Ms. Lofgren
                                    Ms. Jackson Lee
    Mr. Schumer offered an amendment to shift unused truth-in-
sentencing grant funds to general grants. The amendment was 
defeated 12-21.

                              ROLL CALL 10

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Conyers                         Mr. Hyde
Mrs. Schroeder                      Mr. Moorhead
Mr. Schumer                         Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. Berman                          Mr. McCollum
Mr. Frank                           Mr. Coble
Mr. Bryant (TX)                     Mr. Gekas
Mr. Reed                            Mr. Smith (TX)
Mr. Nadler                          Mr. Schiff
Mr. Scott                           Mr. Gallegly
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Canady
Ms. Lofgren                         Mr. Inglis
Ms. Jackson Lee                     Mr. Goodlatte
                                    Mr. Buyer
                                    Mr. Hoke
                                    Mr. Bono
                                    Mr. Heineman
                                    Mr. Bryant (TN)
                                    Mr. Chabot
                                    Mr. Flanagan
                                    Mr. Barr
    Final Passage. Motion to report H.R. 667 favorably, as 
amended. The motion passed 23-11.

                              ROLL CALL 11

        AYES                          NAYS
Mr. Hyde                            Mr. Conyers
Mr. Moorhead                        Mrs. Schroeder
Mr. Sensenbrenner                   Mr. Frank
Mr. McCollum                        Mr. Schumer
Mr. Gekas                           Mr. Berman
Mr. Coble                           Mr. Nadler
Mr. Smith (TX)                      Mr. Scott
Mr. Schiff                          Mr. Watt
Mr. Gallegly                        Mr. Serrano
Mr. Canady                          Ms. Lofgren
Mr. Inglis                          Ms. Jackson Lee
Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. Buyer
Mr. Hoke
Mr. Bono
Mr. Heineman
Mr. Bryant (TN)
Mr. Chabot
Mr. Flanagan
Mr. Barr
Mr. Boucher
Mr. Bryant (TX)
Mr. Reed

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 667, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974;

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, February 6, 1995.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 667, the Violent 
Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 667 could affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                    Robert D. Reischauer, Director.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 667.
    2. Bill title: Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on February 1, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 667 would repeal the truth-in-
sentencing incarceration grant program enacted in Title II of 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and 
replace it with two new incarceration grant programs. H.R. 667 
also would repeal theP
drug court grant program under Title V of the 1994 crime bill. 
To be eligible for the first type of grant (general grants), 
states must increase the incarceration rate, average time 
served, and percentage of sentence served for violent 
offenders. To be eligible for the second type of grant (truth-
in-sentencing grants), states must enact truth-in-sentencing 
laws and laws requiring that the victims of the defendant or 
the family of such victims be given the opportunity to be heard 
on the issue of sentencing and any post-conviction release.
    Title II of H.R. 667 would address prisoner litigation 
through various reforms. One provision would require the 
exhaustion of administrative remedies before a complaint would 
be referred to federal court. Another provision would provide 
federal courts with the authority to dismiss a case if they 
determined that an action was frivolous or malicious or lacking 
a valid claim under which relief could be granted. In addition, 
the bill would allow the federal courts to review a prisoner's 
statement of assets obtained from the prisoner's place of 
incarceration when determining whether or not to waive part or 
all of a civil filing fee. Title II would permit federal courts 
to limit the relief awarded prisoners in certain civil actions, 
including attorney's fees. Title IV would ban weight lifting 
and other strength training for federal inmates.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 667 would 
increase the authorization for appropriations for incarceration 
grants in the 1994 crime bill from $7.7 billion to $10.5 
billion dollars over the 1995-2000 period. At the same time, 
H.R. 667 would repeal existing authorizations of $0.9 billion 
for drug court grants. Thus, H.R. 667 would result in a net 
increase in authorizations of appropriations of $1.9 billion 
dollars over the 1995-2000 period. The following table provides 
year-by-year estimates of the federal costs for H.R. 667.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations of appropriations:                                                                               
    New authorization level...................        232        998      1,330      2,527      2,660      2,753
    Repeal of existing authorization..........  .........       -900     -1,150     -2,100     -2,200     -2,270
    Less: Existing appropriation..............        -53  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Net increase in authorization level.....        179         98        180        427        460        483
                                               =================================================================
Estimated outlays.............................         40         90        140        206        331        440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 750.
    For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amount 
authorized by the bill would be appropriated for each fiscal 
year and that outlays would reflect the historical spending 
patterns of similar grant programs. The additional 
authorization for 1995 is assumed to be provided in a 
supplemental appropriation following enactment of this bill.
    To the extent that the provisions affecting prisoner 
litigation would deter cases from being filed or from moving 
forward, the federal court system could realize some savings. 
However, based on information from the Administrative Office of 
the United States Courts (AOUSC), CBO does not expect that the 
number of civil cases filed by federal prisoners would be 
reduced significantly by enactment of these provisions. In 
addition, to the extent that the requirement for the statement 
of assets would serve as an economic disincentive for filing 
claims, the federal government also could realize some savings 
in court costs. However, according to the AOUSC any such 
savings would be insignificant and possibly offset by increased 
administrative costs incurred for processing the statement of 
assets.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: 
Appropriations for drug court and incarceration grants 
authorized in the 1994 crime bill total $53 million for fiscal 
year 1995. H.R. 667 would authorize additional grants of $179 
million for 1995, and much larger amounts in subsequent years. 
The following table provides a comparison of the current-year 
appropriation with the gross authorizations contained in H.R. 
667.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 667                                                                
 authorization                                                          
 level............      232      998    1,330    2,527    2,660    2,753
Current-year                                                            
 appropriation....       53       53       53       53       53       53
                   -----------------------------------------------------
      Difference..      179      945    1,277    2,474    2,607    2,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: CBO estimates that by 
restricting the circumstances under which attorney's fees would 
be awarded to prevailing prisoners for certain cases, the 
federal government could realize some savings in direct 
spending because these fees are paid out of the Claims, 
Judgments and Relief Acts account. However, CBO cannot estimate 
either the likelihood or the magnitude of savings from this 
account because there is no basis for predicting either the 
outcome of possible litigation or the amount of potential 
compensation.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: The 
amounts authorized for appropriation would be used to make 
grants to states. Grant recipients would be required to fund at 
least 25 percent of the cost of the projects for which the 
grants are intended. To qualify for these grants, states must 
provide assurance that they have enacted stricter laws and 
regulations relating to sentencing, implemented policies to 
ensure that incarcerated veterans receive veterans' benefits, 
and will share funds with local governments for the 
construction or expansion of correctional facilities when 
appropriate. The funds for the grants would be allocated 
according to a grant formula specified in the bill, and any 
remaining funds would be allocated to each state according to 
population. Thus, while many states may not currently qualify 
for these grants because of the strict sentencing guidelines, 
those states could receive some funding after the incarceration 
grants are distributed. Assuming states meet the qualification 
requirements for receiving grants as authorized by H.R. 667, 
CBO estimates that the resulting state shares would total at 
least $415 million over the 1995-2000 period. Some of this 
funding would, in turn, assist states in completing the 
construction or expansion of correctional facilities necessary 
to meet the sentencing requirements of H.R. 667.
    The state courts under this bill also could realize some 
savings to the extent that prison litigation is reduced. In 
particular, CBO expects that the states would benefit by the 
provision that would enable federal courts to dismiss frivolous 
cases without first hearing a motion for dismissal from the 
states; this would reduce the workload significantly for state 
attorneys who under current law must respond to every claim 
filed. At this time, CBO cannot estimate the amount of such 
savings to the states.
    9. Cost comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Susanne S. Mehlman.
    12. Estimate approved by Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N. Van 
de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 667 
will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 of the bill states the short title as the 
``Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995.''

                      Title I--Truth in Sentencing

Section 101. Truth in Sentencing Grant Program

    This section would amend Title V of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, ``Drug Courts,'' by 
substituting in its place ``Title V--Truth in Sentencing 
Grants.''

Sec. 501. Authorization of grants

    This section authorizes the Attorney General to provide 
grants to eligible states and to states organized as regional 
compacts to build, expand and operate correctional facilities 
for the purpose of incapacitating serious violent criminals. 
Grants may also be used to build, expand and operate 
facilities, including facilities on military bases, for 
nonviolent offenders if such efforts are designed to free up 
existing prison space for violent criminals.
    Subsection (b) limits an eligible state or eligible compact 
of states to receive a grant from either section 502, the 
``General Grants,'' or section 503, the ``Truth in Sentencing 
Grants.''

Sec. 502. General grants

    This section establishes the first of two grant categories 
for state prison grants. Under subsection (a), half of the 
total funds available each year under this title are to be 
available during fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for general 
grants to states that are making progress in incarcerating 
violent criminals, as delineated in subsection (b) below. 
Subsection (b) provides three specific conditions that states 
must meet in order to qualify for general grants. Since 1993, 
states must have: (1) Increased the percentage of convicted 
violent offenders sentenced to prison; (2) increased the 
average time served by violent offenders' in prison; and (3) 
increased the percentage of the sentences that violent 
offenders actually serve.

Sec. 503. Truth-in-sentencing grants

    Section 503 establishes the second of the two grant 
categories. Under subsection (a), half of the total funds 
available under this title each fiscal year from 1996 through 
2000 are reserved for truth-in-sentencing grants. In order to 
qualify for such grants, under subsection (b) states must 
submit an application to the Attorney General which provides 
assurances that each state applying has already enacted truth-
in-sentencing laws requiring serious violent felons to serve 
not less than 85% of the sentence imposed; or, under subsection 
(1)(B) the application must provide assurances that where such 
laws have been enacted but not yet implemented, that they will 
be implemented within three years of a state's application for 
funding. Under subsection (2) all states applying for truth-in-
sentencing grants must have already enacted laws requiring 
notification of victims or families of victims concerning the 
release of offenders and afford such victims an opportunity to 
be heard.

Sec. 504. Special rules

    This section establishes certain special rules. Under 
subsection (a)(1), a state must assure the Attorney General 
that, to the extent practicable, inmate labor will be used to 
build and expand correctional facilities.
    Under subsection (a)(2), a state must assure that, when 
appropriate, it will involve counties and other units of local 
government to build and expand correctional facilities. 
Furthermore, a state must assure that it will share grant funds 
under this title with other units of local government that 
house state prisoners, taking into account the degree to which 
such units are confining state prisoners due to crowding 
resulting from activities undertaken in furtherance of this 
title. Thus, if states, as a result of increased incarceration 
of violent criminals pursuant to the funding conditions of this 
Act, place an added burden on local jails, states should assist 
local governments to meet this burden.
    Under subsection (a)(3), a state must assure the Attorney 
General that it has implemented, or will implement within 18 
months of this title's enactment, a policy to ensure that 
incarcerated veterans receive the veterans benefits to which 
they are entitled.
    Subsection (b) provides that even if a state has not met 
the truth-in-sentencing requirements of paragraphs (1) through 
(3) of Section 502(b) above, it can still qualify for funds if 
it meets the following two requirements: First, under paragraph 
(1), it must practice indeterminate sentencing; and second, 
under paragraph (2), the average time served for the crimes of 
murder, rape, robbery, and assault in such state must exceed by 
10 percent or more the national average of time served for such 
offenses.
    Under subsection (c), an exception is made to the truth-in-
sentencing grant requirements in section 503(b), which allows 
the Governor of a state which complies with the truth-in-
sentencing requirements to permit the release of a geriatric 
prisoner, or a prisoner with a medical condition which prevents 
the prisoner from posing a threat to the public. Prior to such 
a release, however, there must be a public hearing where the 
public and the prisoner's victims have had an opportunity to be 
heard regarding the proposed release.
    The committee expects that the public hearing requirement 
will discourage the early release of offenders who should not 
be released as a matter of sound policy, even though they may 
technically qualify for such release.

Sec. 505. Formula for grants.

    This section establishes the formula for disbursing the 
funds to eligible states. Under paragraph (1), no eligible 
state is to receive less than $500,000 or .40 percent of the 
total annual funding, whichever is greater. And under paragraph 
(2), eligible states receive an additional amount based on 
population from the funds remaining after the allocation in 
paragraph (1) is made. Specifically, the additional amount is 
the amount which bears the same ratio to the remaining funds as 
the ratio that the population of the state of compact bears to 
the population of all states.

Sec. 506. Accountability

    This section seeks to ensure accountability over the grant 
funds, and requires recipient states to use accounting, audit 
and fiscal procedures that conform to the guidelines to be 
prescribed by the Attorney General, and to submit annual 
reports.

Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations

    Subsection (a) authorizes nearly $10.3 billion for fiscal 
years 1996 through 2000 to carry out this title. Subsection (b) 
requires that no funds received under this title supplant state 
funds, and that the federal share of any proposal funded under 
this title not exceed 75 percent.

              Title II--Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits

Sec. 201. Exhaustion requirement

    Currently, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 
Act authorizes federal courts to suspend civil rights suits 
brought by prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 for 180 
days while the prisoner exhausts available administrative 
remedies. This section requires prisoners to exhaust all 
available administrative remedies before filing a civil rights 
action in a federal court.

Sec. 202. Frivolous actions

    An enormous burden is currently placed on state officials 
to respond to prisoner suits which lack merit and are often 
brought for the purpose of harassment or recreation. This 
section requires a federal court, on its own motion or 
another's motion, to dismiss a civil rights action brought by a 
prisoner if the action fails to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted or is frivolous or malicious, thereby 
eliminating the need for defendants to use resources responding 
to meritless claims.

Sec. 203. Modification of required minimum standards.

    The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons act requires 
the promulgation of minimum standards of acceptable prison 
conditions to be used in the administrative procedures for 
resolving grievances. It further requires that such standards 
be developed with the advice of inmates. Section 203 eliminates 
the requirement that prisoners contribute to the development of 
those standards.

Sec. 204. Proceedings in forma pauperis

    The present standard for sua sponte dismissal of complaints 
filed by prisoners seeking in forma pauperis status allows 
dismissal only if the complaint if frivolous or malicious, or 
if the allegation of poverty is untrue.
    This section requires dismissal of a complaint brought in 
forma pauperis if the complaint fails to state claim upon which 
relief may be granted, or is frivolous or malicious, or untrue.
    Section 204 adds subsection (f) to 28 U.S.C. 1915. 
Subsection (f) requires a prison inmate to include a statement 
of his or her assets in any affidavit filed in forma pauperis. 
It also requires the court to verify the statement of assets by 
making inquiry of the correctional institution in which the 
prisoner is incarcerated and impose full or partial payment of 
filing fees according to the prisoner's ability to pay.

                 Title III--Stop Turning Out Prisoners

Sec. 301. Appropriation remedies for prison conditions

    This section would amend Section 3626 of title 18, United 
States Code.
            Subsection (a)(1): Limitations of prospective relief
    This subsection permits a court to grant or approve relief 
for a prisoner who is a plaintiff in a prison conditions suit 
only if that prisoner can prove a violation of his own federal 
rights. Such a requirement is not novel, but is in complete 
harmony with federal standing requirements. Through this 
requirement, Congress is reminding courts that standing must be 
the threshold inquiry in prison cases, just as it is in any 
other case. The reference to ``individual plaintiffs'' is a 
reminder to the courts that the principles of standing mandated 
by the Constitution's case or controversy requirement in 
Article III must be applied in prison conditions cases as in 
all other cases.\1\
    \1\ Article III's ``irreducible constitutional minimum of 
standing''; requires that the ``the plaintiff must have suffered an 
`injury in fact'--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is 
(a) concrete and particularized * * * and (b) `actual or imminent, not 
`conjectural' or `hypothetical' * * *'' Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 
112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (cites omitted); Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 
U.S. 149, 155, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 1722-23 (1990); Warth v. Seldin, 422 
U.S. 490, 508, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 2210 (1975). ``But the `injury in fact' 
test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires 
that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.'' Lujan v. 
Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. at 2137, quoting Sierra Club v. 
Morton, 405 U.S. at 734, 92 S. Ct. at 1366.
    This principle, that a plaintiff must demonstrate that he himself 
has suffered the complained of injury, has been recognized and applied 
by the Supreme Court specifically in the context of an inmate's claimed 
violation of the Eighth Amendment. In Helling v. McKinney, 113 S. Ct. 
2475 (1993), the Court agreed with the inmate that the condition about 
which he complained, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), 
could possible constitute cruel and unusual punishment. But, the Court 
also concluded that, to prove an Eighth Amendment violation, the inmate 
``must show that he himself is being exposed to unreasonably high 
levels of ETS.'' Helling, 113 S. Ct. at 2482 (emphasis added). Thus, 
the inmate would suffer no constitutional violation if he were not 
exposed to ETC even though other inmates in the same prison system were 
exposed to ETS. Id; see also Farmer  v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1979, 1977 
(for an Eighth Amendment claim an ``inmate must show that he is 
incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious 
harm'') (emphasis added); Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2323 
(1991) (``a prisoner advancing [an Eighth Amendment] claim must, at a 
minimum, allege `deliberate indifference' to his'' medical needs) 
(emphasis added). Similarly, as the instant status reminds lower 
courts, an individual inmate who has not been subjected to 
constitutionally excessive crowding cannot allege a constitutional 
violation based on the allegedly excessive crowding imposed on other 
inmates in the same prison system.
    An inmate who has not suffered in the least is not entitled to any 
damages or other relief merely because some other inmate in the same or 
a related facility may have suffered cruel and unusual punishment or 
violation of some other federal right. See, e.g., Butler  v. Dowd, 979 
F. 2d 661, 674 (8th Cir. 1992) (court rejected inmates claim for 
injunctive relief from allegedly cruel and unusual practices because 
the relief from allegedly cruel and unusual practices because the 
relief he requested would ``only benefit other inmates, particularly 
new inmates''); Whitnack v. Doulgas County, 16 F. 3d 954 (8th Cir. 
1994) (notwithstanding the exceedingly unsanitary condition of portions 
of the prison, the plaintiff inmates failed to prove an Eighth 
Amendment violation because they were held in that portion of the 
prison for a very brief period of time; other inmates held in those 
same areas for a prolonged period of time could suffer constitutionally 
significant harm). In order to alleviate the suffering of an inmate 
actually subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, it is possible that 
a court might find it necessary to order relief which had the 
incidental effect of granting a windfall benefit to inmates who have 
never suffered. This practical consequence of certain remedies, 
however, does not endow the inmate who has never had his rights 
violated with any right to bring a lawsuit in the first place in order 
to obtain that windfall benefit.
    By relying on the Supreme Court's law interpreting the 
Constitution's standing requirements, Congress had done nothing more in 
this provision with regard to standing than codify the existing Supreme 
Court law that is being trampled by some courts. There has been no 
intrusion upon the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the 
Constitution. ``Congress may codify or clarify existing law without 
performing a meaningless act.'' In re Intern. Harvester's Disp. of Wis. 
Steel Lit., 681 F. Supp. 512, 521 (N.D. Ill. 1988); see also United 
States v. Yancy, 827 F.2d 83, 88 (7th Cir. 1987). In particular, 
Congress is fully entitled ``to codify existing law concerning a 
defendant's constitutional'' rights. United States v. Alessandrello, 
637 F.2d 131, 138 (3d Cir. 1980) (in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 
43, which concerns a defendant's right to be present at every stage of 
his trail, Congress explicitly codified that protections of the Sixth 
Amendment Confrontation Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 
Amendment), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 949, 101 S. Ct. 2031 (1981); see 
United States v. Reiter, 897 F.2d 639, 642 (2d Cir. 1990) (same); 
S.E.C. v. Kimmes, 759 F. Supp. 430, 437 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (same) see 
also Commonwealth v. Departmental Grant Appeals Bd., 815 F.2d 778, 784 
(lst Cir. 1987) (Congress intended provisions in Administrative 
Procedure Act on district court jurisdiction ``to codify the existing 
law concerning ripeness and exhaustion of remedies'').
    Congress can enact a statute of codify existing law or clarify 
current law that is uncertain and confusing, see Vaz Borralho v. 
Keydril Co., 710 F.2d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1983), or as here, Congress 
may chose to codify existing law when at least some lower courts are 
failing to properly apply the law. See In re Kroy (Europe) Ltd., 27 
F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 1994) (in finding that Congress intended to 
codify and clarify existing law that certain expenses were not 
deductible, the court noted that one court had found the expenses were 
deductible). Codification of existing law serves to reign in lower 
courts whose wayward actions cannot all be reviewed by the Supreme 
Court but which are causing enormous harm to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsection (a)(1) limits the remedial scheme a court may 
order or approve to the least intrusive remedy \2\ and requires 
the court to give appropriate consideration, in selecting or 
approving a remedy, to any potential impact on public safety or 
the criminal justice system.\3\ The subsection reasonably and 
permissibly limits the use of court-enforced consent decrees to 
resolve prison conditions suits, while freely allowing the use 
of private settlement agreements. Parties may continue to enter 
such agreements to avoid lengthy and burdensome litigation, but 
they cannot expect to rely on the court to enforce the 
agreement.
    \2\ By requiring courts to grant or approve relief constituting the 
least intrusive means of curing an actual violation of a federal right, 
the provision stops judges from imposing remedies intended to effect an 
overall modernization of local prison systems or provide an overall 
improvement in prison conditions. The provision limits remedies to 
those necessary to remedy the proven violation of federal rights.
    The dictates of the provision are not a departure from current 
jurisprudence concerning injunctive relief. ``In granting injunctive 
relief, the court's remedy should be no broader than necessary to 
provide full relief to the aggrieved plaintiff.'' McLendon v. 
Continental Can Co., 908 F.2d 1171, 1182 (3d Cir. 1990) (citations 
omitted). This rule also applies to constitutional violations. See 
Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S. Ct. 2749, 2757 (1977) (remedy 
must be related to the condition that offends the Constitution); 
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986) (injunctive 
relief must be ``no broader than necessary to remedy the constitutional 
violation''), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987).
    \3\ Use of the word ``shall'' in this provision creates a 
mandatory, not a discretionary duty on the part of the federal judge to 
limit relief in prison conditions suits as directed by Congress. See, 
e.g., United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 109 S. Ct. 2657, 2662 
(1989) (The Comprehensive Forfeiture act states that a sentencing court 
``shall order'' forfeiture of certain property. The Court stated, 
``Congress could not have chosen stronger words to express its intent * 
* *.''), Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 67 S. Ct. 428, 430 (1947) 
(``The word `shall' is ordinarily `The Language of command.' '' (cite 
omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsection (a)(1) is further intended to prohibit state 
courts as well as federal courts from granting or enforcing 
unnecessary and burdensome remedies in prison conditions suits. 
Inmates often bring their suits in federal court, rather than 
in state court, because they have found that federal judges are 
at times more willing than are local judges to impose 
requirements on local officials. But inmates are legally 
entitled to bring suits in state courts asking the state courts 
to provide remedies for purported violations of federal rights. 
Some inmates have already brought such suits in state courts. 
By limiting the remedies that state courts, as well as federal 
courts, may provide, this provision insures that inmates will 
not simply run from the federal courthouse to the state 
courthouse to bring the same suits and to demand the same 
burdensome and unnecessary relief that the federal courts have 
irresponsibly imposed on local judicial systems. This provision 
would not, however, preclude state legislators from granting 
additional remedies as a matter of state law.
            Subsection (a)(2): Prison population reduction relief
    This subsection makes prison caps the remedy of last 
resort, permitting a cap to be imposed only if the prisoner 
proves: (1) that crowding is the ``primary'' cause of the 
federal violation; and (2) that no other remedy will cure the 
violation. These requirements are imposed in recognition of the 
severe, adverse effects of prison caps and the accompanying 
prisoner releases relied on to meet the caps.
    While prison caps must be the remedy of last resort, a 
court still retains the power to order this remedy despite its 
intrusive nature and harmful consequences to the public if, but 
only if, it is truly necessary to prevent an actual violation 
of a prisoner's federal rights.
    By requiring that a plaintiff inmate prove an actual 
violation of his constitutional rights based on the alleged 
overcrowding, this subsection will end the current practice of 
imposing prison caps when inmates in local prisons have 
complained about the prison conditions but the presiding judge 
has made absolutely no finding of unconstitutionality or even 
held any trial on the allegations. In ordering or approving 
these caps, some judges now oversee huge programs of releases 
to keep the prison population down to whatever that judge 
considers an appropriate level.
            Subsection (b): Termination of relief
    Paragraph (b)(1)--Automatic Termination of Prospective 
Relief After a 2-Year Period--provides that in order to 
continue to receive relief beyond a two-year period, the need 
for continued remedies to alleviate actual violations of 
federal rights must be proven.\4\ While this provision mandates 
automatic termination every two years, either party may seek a 
modification of a consent decree at any time earlier based on 
the existing standard for modification contained in Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
    \4\ Congress is acting well within its authority in permitting a 
remedy to be provided for the alleged violation of a federal right but 
in placing a time limit on the remedy. For example, the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965 provides that, where a court has issued a declaratory 
judgment determining the legality of a voting procedure, ``[t]he court 
shall retain jurisdiction of any action pursuant to this subsection for 
ten years after judgment and shall reopen the action upon motion of the 
Attorney General or any aggrieved person * * *.'' (emphasis added). 
Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act or 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1973b(a)(5). The reopening provision of Sec. 4(a) of the Voting 
Rights Act has remained unchallenged for over thirty years, despite 
several constitutional attacks on the Act's other provisions and 
amendments, see e.g., South Caroling v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 86 
S.Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966). More recently, in City of Rome v. 
United States, 100 S.Ct. 1548 (1980), the Supreme Court had occasion to 
examine closely the language of Sec. 4(a), and recited without comment 
the section's ``reopening'' provision. Like the provision in the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, the two-year time limit in this amendment insures 
that the court can address the propriety of the decree at regular 
intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (b)(2)--Immediate termination of prospective 
relief--allows a jurisdiction that is already subject to an 
existing federal consent decree that was entered with no 
finding of any constitutional violation, to move to terminate 
that decree. The provision appropriately prohibits courts from 
enforcing decrees that do not remedy proven violations of 
federal law.
            Subsection (c): Procedure for motions affecting prospective 
                    relief
    Paragraph (c)(1) requires judges to rule promptly on 
motions to modify or terminate ongoing orders and consent 
decrees. Under current law, law enforcement and other local 
officials are often handcuffed in their efforts to modify or 
terminate unnecessary and burdensome consent decrees of other 
orders by judge who stonewall and simply refuse, for many 
months or even years, to issue a ruling on a request for 
modification or termination. Moreover, under current law, there 
is little that the parties can do to require or even encourage 
the judge to rule on their request.\5\ By providing that the 
prospective relief that is subject to the motion will be stayed 
if the motion is not decided promptly, judges will be motivated 
to decide the motions and avoid having the stay automatically 
take effect.
    \5\ Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a), the parties 
may ask the federal court of appeals to issue a writ of mandamus 
ordering the federal district court judge to rule on the motion. As an 
extraordinary writ, mandamus is disfavored, see In re School Asbestos 
Litigation, 977 F.2d 764, 772 (3d Cir. 1992), and ``must be invoked 
sparingly,'' In re Asbestos School Litigation, No. 94-1494, slip op. at 
9 (3d Cir., December 28, 1994), and rarely, if ever, will an appellate 
court grant a writ of mandamus to force a lower court to rule more 
quickly on a motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph (c)(2) provides that where any motion is not 
ruled upon in a timely fashion, the ongoing relief in a consent 
decree is stayed pending a final ruling on the merits of the 
motion. Specifically, a motion under subsection (b)--relating 
to consent decrees entered in the absence of an actual finding 
of a federal violation--must be decided within thirty days. 
Such a motion will raise only one question: whether the court 
has made an on-the-record finding of a federal violation. Such 
a potential violation should be resolved on the basis of the 
official court record and not be subject to any factual 
dispute.
    All other motions, such as a motion to modify pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), must be decided in 180 
days or the consent decree relief is stayed.
    This provision requiring that all relief be stayed if a 
motion is not promptly decided cannot be waived by the consent 
of the parties.
            Subsection (d): Standing
    This subsection allows Federal, state, and local government 
officials, including prosecutors, to intervene pursuant to 
Federal rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1) by granting them the 
right to intervene in prison conditions cases so that they can 
challenge court-ordered prison population caps.
    Law enforcement officials who arrest, prosecute, or 
incarcerate criminals are permitted, under this new provision, 
to challenge any relief that would affect their localities, 
asserting the significant public safety concerns arising from 
such relief. The provisions of this subsection should be 
construed liberally so as to grant standing to a member of 
Congress, a governor, a member of a state legislature, or a 
member of a local unit of government, whose representative 
constituency is affected by such court-ordered relief.
    Courts, particularly federal courts, have excluded some 
state officials, such as district attorneys,\6\ from having any 
say about the disposition of such cases by concluding that 
these officials have no right to intervene as parties under the 
current law embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
24(a)(2), which requires that the intervenor have an 
``interest'' in the case. But completely apart from the 
``interest'' rationale, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
24(a)(1) requires that a party be allowed to intervene if he 
has been granted such a right by statute. Subsection (d) 
establishes such an explicit right to intervene for affected 
law enforcement officials.
    \6\ See Harris v. Pernsley, 820 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1987) (district 
attorney had no right to intervene to challenge prison cap order 
requiring the release of pretrial detainees as he lacked a substantial 
legal interest pursuant to rule 24(a)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As with all motions in prison conditions suits, courts must 
rule on motions to intervene promptly.
            Subsection (e): Special masters
    This subsection only allows United States magistrates to 
serve as special masters in prison conditions cases. 
Consequently, this provision ensures that only judicial 
officers, who have undergone the appropriate appointment and 
screening process, will be acting for the court.\7\ This helps 
ensure the appointment of appropriate individuals to perform 
the sensitive fact-finding functions in institutional prison 
litigation, which often has substantial public interest 
implications.\8\ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 authorizes 
federal judges to appoint United States magistrates to serve as 
special masters.
    \7\ Congress has acted well within its authority in specifying 
procedure in this provision. ``[T]he Constitutional provision for a 
federal court system (augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause) 
carries with it congressional power to make rules governing the 
practice and pleading in those courts * * *.'' Hanna v. Plumer, 380 
U.S. 471, 472, 85 S. Ct. 1136, 1144 (1965); see Mistretta v. United 
States, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 647, 663 (1989) (``Congress has 
undoubted power to regulate the practice and procedure of federal 
courts * * *'') (quoting Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 9, 61 S. 
Ct. 422, 424 (1941)). Article III grants Congress the power ``from time 
to time'' to ``ordain and establish'' ``inferior courts.'' U.S. Const. 
Art. III, Sec. 2. Article I grants Congress the power to ``constitute 
Tribunal inferior to the supreme Court'' and to ``make all Laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the 
Government of the United States. * * *'' U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 9, 
cls. 9 & 18.
    \8\ In Philadelphia, the former executive director of the 
Pennsylvania Prison Society, a prisoner rights advocacy group, was 
appointed as the special master. The Committee has serious reservations 
about whether such an appointment, where the master's impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned, promotes public confidence in federal 
judicial officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This subsection continues to give the court the discretion 
to use a special master to assist in resolving complicated 
factual issues by on-the-record fact-finding, based upon record 
evidence.
    In limiting the appointment of special masters to 
magistrates and in limiting the use of special masters to the 
purpose only of aiding the court in fact-finding, this 
provision applies even if the agent of the court is titled or 
described by the court not as a special master but as a 
receiver, master, master hearing officer, monitor, human rights 
committee, ombudsman, or consultant. The limitation in this 
provision on the selection and use of masters is intended to 
apply to anyone relied on by the court to make factual findings 
or to monitor or review compliance with, enforcement of, or 
implementation of a consent decree or of court-ordered relief 
in a prison conditions suit.
            Subsection (f): Attorney's fees
    This subsection permits prisoners challenging prison 
conditions under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 to receive attorney fees 
but reasonably limits the circumstances under which fees may be 
granted as well as the amount of the fees.
    This subsection limits awards of attorney fees in two ways. 
First, it narrows the judicially-created view of a ``prevailing 
party'' so that a prisoner's attorney will be reimbursed only 
for those fees reasonably and directly incurred in proving an 
actual violation of a federal right. Narrowing the definition 
of ``prevailing party'' will eliminate both attorney fees that 
penalize voluntary improvements in prison conditions and 
attorney fees incurred in litigating unsuccessful claims, 
regardless of whether they are related to meritorious claims. 
While this provision eliminates the financial incentive for 
prisoners to include numerous non-meritorious claims in 
sweeping institutional litigation, it retains the financial 
incentive to bring lawsuits properly focused on prison 
conditions that actually violate federal law.
    Second, this provision has the effect of reducing attorney 
fee awards by eliminating fees for litigation other than that 
necessary to prove a violation of a federal right. This 
eliminates the financial incentive for attorneys to litigate 
ancillary matters, such as attorney fee petitions, and to seek 
extensive hearings on remedial schemes.
    Finally, this provision establishes a proportionality 
requirement for attorney fee awards. Under current law, the 
courts retain the discretion to award attorney fees that 
greatly exceed the extent of the relief obtained by the 
plaintiff prisoners. This proportionality requirement will 
discourage burdensome litigation of insubstantial claims where 
the prisoner can establish a technical violation of a federal 
right but he suffered no real harm from the violation. The 
proportionality requirement appropriately reminds courts that 
the size of the attorney fee award must not unreasonably exceed 
the damages awarded for the proven violation.

                     title iv. enhancing protection

                     Against Incarcerated Criminals

Sec. 401. Prison security

    This section amends Chapter 303 of title 18, United States 
Code, by adding section 4048.

Sec. 4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited

    This section requires the Bureau of Prisons to ensure that: 
(1) federal prisoners do not engage in any physical activities 
designed to increase their fighting abilities; and (2) that all 
weight-lifting equipment and all equipment designed to increase 
the fighting abilities of prisoners be immediately removed from 
federal correctional facilities. This section only allows such 
equipment to be present in federal correctional facilities if 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons as part of a 
medically-required program of physical rehabilitation.

                              Agency Views

    The committee received a letter from the U.S. Department of 
Justice providing Administration views on H.R. 3, the ``Taking 
Back Our Streets Act of 1995.'' This letter addressed the 
issues presented in H.R. 667 in pertinent part as follows:


                     v. truth in sentencing grants


    Title V of H.R. 3, in conjunction with Sec. 901 of the 
bill, would repeal the prison funding program enacted by title 
II of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994, and replace it with a new program involving different 
standards.\1\ Under the new prison grants program, funding 
could only be used to increase, directly or indirectly, prison 
space for persons convicted of ``serious violent felonies,'' 
which are essentially defined as violent crimes carrying a 
maximum prison term of 10 years or more.\2\
    \1\ Title V of H.R. 3 also repeals the drug courts program in title 
V of the 1994 Act.
    \2\ In addition to including violent crimes with maxima of ten 
years or more, the bill's definition appears to stipulate that certain 
offenses--murder, assault with intent to commit murder, arson, armed 
burglary, rape, assault with intent to commit rape, kidnapping, and 
armed robbery--are automatically included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fifth percent of the funds (``general grants'') would be 
reserved for states that, since 1993, have increased the 
incarceration rate, average time served, and percentage of 
sentence served for convicted violent offenders, or that have 
average times served for murder, rape, robbery, and assault 
which exceed the national average by at least ten percent. The 
other fifty percent of grant funds (``truth in sentencing 
grants'') would be reserved for states that have enacted truth 
in sentencing laws requiring persons convicted of serious 
violent felonies to serve at least 85% of their sentences, and 
that give victims an opportunity to be heard regarding the 
sentence and any post-conviction release. For eligible states 
in either category, funds would be disbursed primarily in 
proportion to their general populations. The aggregate 
authorization for the program would be $10,499,600,000 over six 
years.
    Before addressing the substantive provisions of the Title, 
a bizarre funding limitation contained in it merits comment. 
Under this provision, no funds may be spent for any other Crime 
Bill purpose unless Congress appropriates the full $10.5 
billion for the prison grants.
    This means that not a dollar can be spent to hire new 
police, add new FBI agents, fund Byrne Grants, fight rape or 
domestic violence, strengthen the border patrol, or keep 
schools open after-hours, unless the Congress commits the 
entire $10.5 billion sum proposed for the prison grants.
    Thus, even if there are only a few qualifying applications 
for prison grant funds in a given year; even if no state or 
locality asks for funding to build new prisons; even if 
billions of dollars for prison construction remains unspent, 
year-after-year--Congress must continue to appropriate an 
average of $2 billion a year for more prison grants, every 
year, for the next five years, if it wants to have funding for 
even a single new police officer or federal law enforcement 
officer released.
    Why Congress would want to hold thousands of police 
departments, prosecutors' officers, victims groups, and school 
districts hostage to its own future decisions about the level 
of appropriations for prison grants seems unclear. Why 100% of 
funding for new police should be cut-off if 1% of the funding 
for prison grants is reduced is a mystery. Why funding for a 
well-established program like the Byrne Grants should be 
slashed--as it would be under Title V of H.R. 3--if Congress 
chooses only to slow down the growth of a brand new program is 
unclear.
    In addition to this strange funding rule, we oppose the 
substantive changes in this Title because we believe, in the 
end, they will result in fewer violent criminals being put 
behind bars than would implementation of the program enacted by 
the 1994 Crime Act.
    First, in contrast to the enacted program's objective of 
increasing prison space and ensuring appropriate incarceration 
for all violent offenders, the proposed new program only 
authorizes funding to increase prison space for persons 
convicted of ``serious violent felonies.'' It also only 
conditions eligibility for ``truth in sentencing'' grants 
(under proposed Sec. 503) on the state's requiring that persons 
convicted of ``serious violent felonies'' serve at least 85% of 
the sentence. This approach effectively rewards states with 
lower statutory maxima for violent crimes, since in these 
states the category of offenders convicted of violent crimes 
with maxima of ten years or more (``serious violent felonies'') 
is smaller, and hence they need to do less to satisfy the 
funding eligibility condition. In relation to the objective of 
ensuring adequate penalties for violent offenders, this 
approach of favoring states with lower maximum sentences is 
perverse.
    This approach also places undue emphasis on the current 
conviction offense. The conviction offense often does not fully 
reflect the actual offense conduct because of plea bargaining, 
and an offender with a serious history of criminal violence may 
pose a grave threat to the public, even if his current 
conviction offense carries a statutory maximum of less than ten 
years. These points are appropriately recognized in the enacted 
legislation, which conditions eligibility for truth in 
sentencing grants on laws which requires that at least 85% of 
the sentence be served for all violent offenders, or laws 
requiring that at least 85% of the sentence be served for all 
violent recidivists, together with actual increases in 
incarceration rate, time served, and percentage of sentence 
served for the full class of violent offenders. In contrast, 
the proposed new program requires nothing with respect to the 
incarceration of violent offenders as a condition of 
eligibility for truth in sentencing grants, other than those 
whose current conviction is for a ``serious violent felony'' in 
the defined sense.
    The eligibility criteria for general grants under proposed 
Sec. 502 are also problematic in relation to the proposed 
limitations on the use of grant funds, because grant funds 
could only be used to increase prison space for persons 
convicted of ``serious violent felonies,'' but eligibility for 
the general grants would depend on increasing incarceration or 
having relatively high average time served for more broadly 
defined categories of violent offenders. However, the 
authorized use of grant funds should be commensurate with the 
class of offenders for whom increased incarceration is 
required.
    Second, the proposed new program is inferior to the 
existing program in its conditions regarding recognition of 
victims' rights. Under the existing program, eligibility for 
both general grants and truth in sentencing grants is 
conditioned on ``policies that provide for the recognition of 
the rights and needs of crime victims.'' The Department of 
Justice has identified the following areas as implicating 
important rights and needs of crime victims: (1) notice to 
victims concerning case and offender status; (2) providing 
victims the opportunity to be present at all public court 
proceedings in their cases; (3) providing victims the 
opportunity to be heard at sentencing and parole hearings; (4) 
providing for restitution to victims; and (5) establishing 
administrative or other mechanisms to effectuate these rights. 
The need to provide appropriate recognition for victims' rights 
in these areas is being emphasized and elaborated in 
regulations and guidelines under the existing program.
    In contrast, the proposed new program does not include any 
victims rights condition for general grants, and only requires 
an opportunity to be heard regarding sentencing and release as 
a condition for truth in sentencing grants. Under this 
formulation, the Department of Justice would have no authority 
to impose the more far-reaching victims rights requirements 
that are being implemented under the existing program.
    Third, the existing program provides for the disbursement 
of funds to eligible states primarily in proportion to part I 
violent crimes. In contrast, the proposed new program provides 
for the disbursement of such funds primarily in proportion to 
general population. This approach of disbursing funds for 
violent offender incarceration in proportion to general 
population, without regard to the incidence of violent crimes 
in the affected areas, will produce gross misallocations of 
resources in relation to actual need.
    Hence, the proposed rewriting of the prison grants program 
in this title is an aggravated case of attempting to fix 
something that is not broken, and making it worse in the 
process. * * *
          * * * * * *


                vii. stopping abusive prisoner lawsuits


    This title contains as set of reforms to help control 
abusive prisoner litigation. We support enactment of these 
provisions.
    The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 
U.S.C. section 1997e) currently authorizes federal courts to 
suspend section 1983 suits by prisoners for up to 180 days in 
order to require exhaustion of administrative remedies. Section 
701 of this bill strengthens the administrative exhaustion rule 
in this context--and brings it more into with administrative 
exhaustion rules that apply in other contexts--by generally 
prohibiting prisoners section 1983 lawsuits until 
administrative remedies are exhausted. The amendments in 
section 701 do not change the existing provisions that 
administrative remedies need be exhausted only if they are 
``plain, speedy, and effective,'' and satisfy minimum standards 
set out in the statute or are otherwise fair and effective. 
Hence, these amendments do not raise concerns that prisoners 
will be shut off from access to a federal forum by ineffectual 
or unreasonably slow administrative review processes.
    Section 702 directs a court to dismiss a prisoner Sec. 1983 
suit if the court is satisfied that the action fails to state a 
claim upon which relief can be granted or is frivolous or 
malicious. A rule of this type is desirable to minimize the 
burden on states of responding unnecessarily to prisoner suits, 
which typically lack merit and are often brought for purposes 
of harassment or recreation.
    Section 703 deletes from the minimum standards for prison 
grievance system in 42 U.S.C. 1997e(b)(2) the requirement of an 
advisory role for employees and inmates (at the most 
decentralized level as is reasonably possible) in the 
formulation, implementation, and operation of the system. This 
removes the condition that has been the greatest impediment in 
the past to the willingness of state and local jurisdictions to 
seek certification for their grievance systems. It should be 
noted that this change will not necessarily require exhaustion 
of administrative remedies in prisoner Sec. 1983 suits where 
exhaustion would not be required under existing law, since 
exhaustion can be required where the administrative remedies 
are ``otherwise fair and effective''--even if the statutory 
minimum standards are not satisfied--and an advisory role for 
employees and inmates as provided in 42 U.S.C. 1997e(b)(2)(A) 
is not essential for fair and effective grievance systems.
    Section 704 strengthens safeguards against and sanctions 
for false allegations of poverty by prisoners who seek to 
proceed in forma pauperis. Subsection (d) of 28 U.S.C. 1915 
currently reads as follows: `` The court may request an 
attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel 
and may dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is 
untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or 
malicious.'' Section 704(a) of the bill amends that subsection 
to read as follows: ``The court may request an attorney to 
represent any such person unable to employ counsel and shall at 
any time dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is 
untrue, or if satisfied that the action fails to state a claim 
upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious 
even if partial filing fees have been imposed by the court.''
    Section 704(b) of the bill adds a new subsection (f) to 28 
U.S.C. 1915 which states that an affidavit of indigency by a 
prisoner shall include a statement of all assets the prisoner 
possesses. The new subsection further directs the court to make 
inquiry of the correctional institution in which the prisoner 
is incarcerated for information available to that institution 
relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets. This is a 
reaonsble precaution, because candor by prisoners on this 
subject cannot reliably be expected. The new subsection 
concludes by stating that the court ``shall require full or 
partial payment of filing fees according to the prisoner's 
ability to pay.'' We would not understand this language as 
limiting the court's authority to require payment by the 
prisoner in installments, up to the full amount of filing fees 
and other applicable costs, where the prisoner lacks the means 
to make full payment at once. * * *
          * * * * *


    ix. amendments to violent crime control and law enforcement act


    Section 901 in this title repeals the prison grants program 
in title II.A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994. As noted earlier, title V of H.R. 3 proposes a 
defective substitute for that program, and also covertly 
repeals the drug courts funding program enacted by title V of 
the 1994 Act. * * *
          * * * * *
Repeal of Drug Courts Program
    Drug abuse is inherently criminogenic, and a large 
proportion of all crime is drug-related. For too many drug 
abusing offenders, a normal probationary sentence or bout of 
confinement is likely to be just another shove through the 
revolving door. Conventional approaches to punishment have 
largely proven to be neither certain nor effective in this 
context.
    In response to these realities, there has been a dramatic 
growth of interest in the past few years--by judges, 
prosecutors, and others on the front lines of the criminal drug 
abuse problem--in the development of special programs which 
combine criminal sanctions with coerced abstinence for drug 
abusing offenders. These programs collective known as ``Drug 
Courts'' typically include: (1) close continuing supervision of 
participating offenders with the threat and reality of more 
onerous conditions and criminal sanctions (``graduated 
punishment'') for participants who do not comply with program 
requirements or fail to show satisfactory progress; (2) 
mandatory periodic drug testing which provides participants 
with the certain knowledge that they cannot escape the 
consequences of their actions, and affords an objective 
measurements of progress; (3) mandatory participation in drug 
treatment; and (4) follow-up measures which help to prevent 
relapses after the conclusion of the main part of the program, 
and facilitate the transition to a law-abiding, productive 
existence.
    These programs offer a critical alternative to the criminal 
justice system's failure to subject drug abusing offenders to 
measures that are necessary to alter their behavior. The 
results suggest that these initiatives have enhanced the 
likelihood that the cycle of substance abuse and crime will be 
broken. Indeed, long-term research and evaluation of these 
approaches have demonstrated that they can be effective in 
reducing both drug abuse and drug-related crime. Programs 
involving these elements of intervention, close supervision, 
and coerced abstinence through mandatory drug testing and 
graduated punishment are the approaches that the drug court 
grant program of title V of the 1994 Crime Act will support.
    Considering the seriousness of the criminal drug abuse 
problem, the limited efficacy of conventional measures in this 
area, and the promising results under drug court programs that 
have already been established, it is non-sensical to propose 
that the support that Congress has recently approved for these 
programs should be totally eliminated, and replaced with 
nothing. Hence, we oppose the proposal to repeal title V of the 
enacted legislation.
    We believe, however, that the formulation of drug courts 
program might legitimately be revised to permit the use of 
funds for more effective conventional prosecution in drug 
cases, rather than exclusively for programs that focus on 
controlling and altering the behavior of drug abusers. 
Effective enforcement requires not only efforts to reform drug 
abusers, but also aggressive measures to arrest, prosecute, and 
incapacitate the traffickers who prey on their addictions and 
weaknesses, and who account for so much of the criminal 
violence that mars the life of our nation. In furtherance of 
this objective, some jurisdictions have established or 
experimented with differentiated case management techniques or 
specialized courts that expedite drug case dispositions and 
otherwise enhance the effectiveness of prosecution.
    These innovated methods also merit support and 
encouragement, and we would be amenable to amending the drug 
courts program to permit support for prosecution-oriented 
``drug courts'' of this type as well. We would be pleased to 
work with interested members of Congress in so amending the 
drug courts funding program.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    The following is the table of contents for this Act:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                   TITLE I--PUBLIC SAFETY AND POLICING

Sec. 10001. Short title.
Sec. 10002. Purposes.
Sec. 10003. Community policing; ``Cops on the Beat''.

                            TITLE II--PRISONS

  [Subtitle A--Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing 
                            Incentive Grants

[Sec. 20101. Grants for correctional facilities.
[Sec. 20102. Truth in sentencing incentive grants.
[Sec. 20103. Violent offender incarceration grants.
[Sec. 20104. Matching requirement.
[Sec. 20105. Rules and regulations.
[Sec. 20106. Technical assistance and training.
[Sec. 20107. Evaluation.
[Sec. 20108. Definitions.
[Sec. 20109. Authorization of appropriations.]
     * * * * * * *

                          [TITLE V--DRUG COURTS

[Sec. 50001. Drug courts.
[Sec. 50002. Study by the General Accounting Office.]

                   TITLE V--TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS

Sec. 501. Authorization of grants.
Sec. 502. General grants.
Sec. 503. Truth-in-sentencing grants.
Sec. 504. Special rules.
Sec. 505. Formula for grants.
Sec. 506. Accountability.
Sec. 507. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 508. Definitions.
          * * * * * * *

                           TITLE II--PRISONS

  [Subtitle A--Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing 
                            Incentive Grants

[SEC. 20101. GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.

  [(a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make 
grants to individual States and to States organized as multi-
State compacts to construct, develop, expand, modify, operate, 
or improve correctional facilities, including boot camp 
facilities and other alternative correctional facilities that 
can free conventional prison space for the confinement of 
violent offenders, to ensure that prison cell space is 
available for the confinement of violent offenders and to 
implement truth in sentencing laws for sentencing violent 
offenders.
  [(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
this subtitle, a State or States organized as multi-State 
compacts shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
which includes--
          [(1) assurances that the State or States have 
        implemented, or will implement, correctional policies 
        and programs, including truth in sentencing laws that 
        ensure that violent offenders serve a substantial 
        portion of the sentences imposed, that are designed to 
        provide sufficiently severe punishment for violent 
        offenders, including violent juvenile offenders, and 
        that the prison time served is appropriately related to 
        the determination that the inmate is a violent offender 
        and for a period of time deemed necessary to protect 
        the public;
          [(2) assurances that the State or States have 
        implemented policies that provide for the recognition 
        of the rights and needs of crime victims;
          [(3) assurances that funds received under this 
        section will be used to construct, develop, expand, 
        modify, operate, or improve correctional facilities to 
        ensure that prison cell space is available for the 
        confinement of violent offenders;
          [(4) assurances that the State or States have a 
        comprehensive correctional plan which represents an 
        integrated approach to the management and operation of 
        correctional facilities and programs and which includes 
        diversion programs, particularly drug diversion 
        programs, community corrections programs, a prisoner 
        screening and security classification system, 
        appropriate professional training for corrections 
        officers in dealing with violent offenders, prisoner 
        rehabilitation and treatment programs, prisoner work 
        activities (including, to the extent practicable, 
        activities relating to the development, expansion, 
        modification, or improvement of correctional 
        facilities) and job skills programs, educational 
        programs, a pre-release prisoner assessment to provide 
        risk reduction management, post-release assistance, and 
        an assessment of recidivism rates;
          [(5) assurances that the State or States have 
        involved counties and other units of local government, 
        when appropriate, in the construction, development, 
        expansion, modification, operation or improvement of 
        correctional facilities designed to ensure the 
        incarceration of violent offenders, and that the State 
        or States will share funds received under this section 
        with counties and other units of local government, 
        taking into account the burden placed on these units of 
        government when they are required to confine sentenced 
        prisoners because of overcrowding in State prison 
        facilities;
          [(6) assurances that funds received under this 
        section will be used to supplement, not supplant, other 
        Federal, State, and local funds;
          [(7) assurances that the State or States have 
        implemented, or will implement within 18 months after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act, policies to 
        determine the veteran status of inmates and to ensure 
        that incarcerated veterans receive the veterans 
        benefits to which they are entitled;
          [(8) if applicable, documentation of the multi-State 
        compact agreement that specifies the construction, 
        development, expansion, modification, operation, or 
        improvement of correctional facilities; and
          [(9) if applicable, a description of the eligibility 
        criteria for prisoner participation in any boot camp 
        that is to be funded.
  [(c) Consideration.--The Attorney General, in making such 
grants, shall give consideration to the special burden placed 
on States which incarcerate a substantial number of inmates who 
are in the United States illegally.

[SEC. 20102. TRUTH IN SENTENCING INCENTIVE GRANTS.

  [(a) Truth in Sentencing Grant Program.--Fifty percent of the 
total amount of funds appropriated to carry out this subtitle 
for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 
shall be made available for Truth in Sentencing Incentive 
Grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant, a State must 
meet the requirements of section 20101(b) and shall demonstrate 
that the State--
          [(1) has in effect laws which require that persons 
        convicted of violent crimes serve not less than 85 
        percent of the sentence imposed; or
          [(2) since 1993--
                  [(A) has increased the percentage of 
                convicted violent offenders sentenced to 
                prison;
                  [(B) has increased the average prison time 
                which will be served in prison by convicted 
                violent offenders sentenced to prison;
                  [(C) has increased the percentage of sentence 
                which will be served in prison by violent 
                offenders sentenced to prison; and
                  [(D) has in effect at the time of application 
                laws requiring that a person who is convicted 
                of a violent crime shall serve not less than 85 
                percent of the sentence imposed if--
                          [(i) the person has been convicted on 
                        1 or more prior occasions in a court of 
                        the United States or of a State of a 
                        violent crime or a serious drug 
                        offense; and
                          [(ii) each violent crime or serious 
                        drug offense was committed after the 
                        defendant's conviction of the preceding 
                        violent crime or serious drug offense.
  [(b) Allocation of Truth in Sentencing Incentive Funds.--
          [(1) Formula allocation.--The amount available to 
        carry out this section for any fiscal year under 
        subsection (a) shall be allocated to each eligible 
        State in the ratio that the number of part 1 violent 
        crimes reported by such State to the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation for 1993 bears to the number of part 1 
        violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation for 1993.
          [(2) Transfer of unused funds.--On September 30 of 
        each of fiscal years 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the 
        Attorney General shall transfer to the funds to be 
        allocated under section 20103(b)(1) any funds made 
        available to carry out this section that are not 
        allocated to an eligible State under paragraph (1).

[SEC. 20103. VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION GRANTS.

  [(a) Violent Offender Incarceration Grant Program.--Fifty 
percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to carry out 
this subtitle for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 
1999, and 2000 shall be made available for Violent Offender 
Incarceration Grants. To be eligible to receive such a grant, a 
State or States must meet the requirements of section 20101(b).
  [(b) Allocation of Violent Offender Incarceration Funds.--
          [(1) Formula allocation.--Eighty-five percent of the 
        sum of the amount available for Violent Offender 
        Incarceration Grants for any fiscal year under 
        subsection (a) and any amount transferred under section 
        20102(b)(2) for that fiscal year shall be allocated as 
        follows:
                  [(A) 0.25 percent shall be allocated to each 
                eligible State except that the United States 
                Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the 
                Northern Mariana Islands each shall be 
                allocated 0.05 percent.
                  [(B) The amount remaining after application 
                of subparagraph (A) shall be allocated to each 
                eligible State in the ratio that the number of 
                part 1 violent crimes reported by such State to 
                the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1993 
                bears to the number of part 1 violent crimes 
                reported by all States to the Federal Bureau of 
                Investigation for 1993.
          [(2) Discretionary allocation.--Fifteen percent of 
        the sum of the amount available for Violent Offender 
        Incarceration Grants for any fiscal year under 
        subsection (a) and any amount transferred under section 
        20103(b)(3) for that fiscal year shall be allocated at 
        the discretion of the Attorney General to States that 
        have demonstrated the greatest need for such grants and 
        the ability to best utilize the funds to meet the 
        objectives of the grant program and ensure that prison 
        cell space is available for the confinement of violent 
        offenders.
          [(3) Transfer of unused formula funds.--On September 
        30 of each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 
        2000, the Attorney General shall transfer to the 
        discretionary program under paragraph (2) any funds 
        made available for allocation under paragraph (1) that 
        are not allocated to an eligible State under paragraph 
        (1).

[SEC. 20104. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.

  [The Federal share of a grant received under this subtitle 
may not exceed 75 percent of the costs of a proposal described 
in an application approved under this subtitle.

[SEC. 20105. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

  [(a) The Attorney General shall issue rules and regulations 
regarding the uses of grant funds received under this subtitle 
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
  [(b) If data regarding part 1 violent crimes in any State for 
1993 is unavailable or substantially inaccurate, the Attorney 
General shall utilize the best available comparable data 
regarding the number of violent crimes for 1993 for that State 
for the purposes of allocation of any funds under this 
subtitle.

[SEC. 20106. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

  [The Attorney General may request that the Director of the 
National Institute of Corrections and the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons provide technical assistance and 
training to a State or States that receive a grant under this 
subtitle to achieve the purposes of this subtitle.

[SEC. 20107. EVALUATION.

  [The Attorney General may request the Director of the 
National Institute of Corrections to assist with an evaluation 
of programs established with funds under this subtitle.

[SEC. 20108. DEFINITIONS.

  [In this subtitle--
          [``boot camp'' means a correctional program of not 
        more than 6 months' incarceration involving--
                  [(A) assignment for participation in the 
                program, in conformity with State law, by 
                prisoners other than prisoners who have been 
                convicted at any time of a violent felony;
                  [(B) adherence by inmates to a highly 
                regimented schedule that involves strict 
                discipline, physical training, and work;
                  [(C) participation by inmates in appropriate 
                education, job training, and substance abuse 
                counseling or treatment; and
                  [(D) post-incarceration aftercare services 
                for participants that are coordinated with the 
                program carried out during the period of 
                imprisonment.
          [``part 1 violent crimes'' means murder and non-
        negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and 
        aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime 
        Reports.
          [``State'' or ``States'' means a State, the District 
        of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
        United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 
        the Northern Mariana Islands.

[SEC. 20109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subtitle--
          [(1) $175,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
          [(2) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          [(3) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          [(4) $1,900,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          [(5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          [(6) $2,070,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.]
          * * * * * * *

                         [TITLE V--DRUG COURTS

[SEC. 50001. DRUG COURTS.

  [(a) In General.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended 
by section 40231(a), is amended--
          [(1) by redesignating part V as part W;
          [(2) by redesignating section 2201 as section 2301; 
        and
          [(3) by inserting after part U the following new 
        part:

                         [``PART V--DRUG COURTS

[``SEC. 2201. GRANT AUTHORITY.

  [``The Attorney General may make grants to States, State 
courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian 
tribal governments, acting directly or through agreements with 
other public or private entities, for programs that involve--
          [``(1) continuing judicial supervision over offenders 
        with substance abuse problems who are not violent 
        offenders; and
          [``(2) the integrated administration of other 
        sanctions and services, which shall include--
                  [``(A) mandatory periodic testing for the use 
                of controlled substances or other addictive 
                substances during any period of supervised 
                release or probation for each participant;
                  [``(B) substance abuse treatment for each 
                participant;
                  [``(C) diversion, probation, or other 
                supervised release involving the possibility of 
                prosecution, confinement, or incarceration 
                based on noncompliance with program 
                requirements or failure to show satisfactory 
                progress; and
                  [``(D) programmatic, offender management, and 
                aftercare services such as relapse prevention, 
                health care, education, vocational training, 
                job placement, housing placement, and child 
                care or other family support services for each 
                participant who requires such services.

[``SEC. 2202. PROHIBITION OF PARTICIPATION BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

  [``The Attorney General shall--
          [``(1) issue regulations and guidelines to ensure 
        that the programs authorized in this part do not permit 
        participation by violent offenders; and
          [``(2) immediately suspend funding for any grant 
        under this part, pending compliance, if the Attorney 
        General finds that violent offenders are participating 
        in any program funded under this part.

[``SEC. 2203. DEFINITION.

  [``In this part, `violent offender' means a person who--
          [``(1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, 
        during the course of which offense or conduct--
                  [``(A) the person carried, possessed, or used 
                a firearm or dangerous weapon;
                  [``(B) there occurred the death of or serious 
                bodily injury to any person; or
                  [``(C) there occurred the use of force 
                against the person of another,
        without regard to whether any of the circumstances 
        described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) is an 
        element of the offense or conduct of which or for which 
        the person is charged or convicted; or
          [``(2) has one or more prior convictions for a felony 
        crime of violence involving the use or attempted use of 
        force against a person with the intent to cause death 
        or serious bodily harm.

[``SEC. 2204. ADMINISTRATION.

  [``(a) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other 
appropriate officials in carrying out this part.
  [``(b) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may utilize 
any component or components of the Department of Justice in 
carrying out this part.
  [``(c) Regulatory Authority.--The Attorney General may issue 
regulations and guidelines necessary to carry out this part.
  [``(d) Applications.--In addition to any other requirements 
that may be specified by the Attorney General, an application 
for a grant under this part shall--
          [``(1) include a long-term strategy and detailed 
        implementation plan;
          [``(2) explain the applicant's inability to fund the 
        program adequately without Federal assistance;
          [``(3) certify that the Federal support provided will 
        be used to supplement, and not supplant, State, Indian 
        tribal, and local sources of funding that would 
        otherwise be available;
          [``(4) identify related governmental or community 
        initiatives which complement or will be coordinated 
        with the proposal;
          [``(5) certify that there has been appropriate 
        consultation with all affected agencies and that there 
        will be appropriate coordination with all affected 
        agencies in the implementation of the program;
          [``(6) certify that participating offenders will be 
        supervised by one or more designated judges with 
        responsibility for the drug court program;
          [``(7) specify plans for obtaining necessary support 
        and continuing the proposed program following the 
        conclusion of Federal support; and
          [``(8) describe the methodology that will be used in 
        evaluating the program.

[``SEC. 2205. APPLICATIONS.

  [``To request funds under this part, the chief executive or 
the chief justice of a State or the chief executive or chief 
judge of a unit of local government or Indian tribal government 
shall submit an application to the Attorney General in such 
form and containing such information as the Attorney General 
may reasonably require.

[``SEC. 2206. FEDERAL SHARE.

  [``The Federal share of a grant made under this part may not 
exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the program described 
in the application submitted under section 2205 for the fiscal 
year for which the program receives assistance under this part, 
unless the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the 
requirement of a matching contribution under this section. In-
kind contributions may constitute a portion of the non-Federal 
share of a grant.

[``SEC. 2207. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

  [``The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent 
practicable, an equitable geographic distribution of grant 
awards is made.

[``SEC. 2208. REPORT.

  [``A State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local 
government that receives funds under this part during a fiscal 
year shall submit to the Attorney General a report in March of 
the following year regarding the effectiveness of this part.

[``SEC. 2209. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING, AND EVALUATION.

  [``(a) Technical Assistance and Training.--The Attorney 
General may provide technical assistance and training in 
furtherance of the purposes of this part.
  [``(b) Evaluations.--In addition to any evaluation 
requirements that may be prescribed for grantees, the Attorney 
General may carry out or make arrangements for evaluations of 
programs that receive support under this part.
  [``(c) Administration.--The technical assistance, training, 
and evaluations authorized by this section may be carried out 
directly by the Attorney General, in collaboration with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, or through grants, 
contracts, or other cooperative arrangements with other 
entities.''.
  [(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
U.S.C. 3711 et seq.), as amended by section 40231(b), is 
amended by striking the matter relating to part V and inserting 
the following:

                         [``Part V--Drug Courts

[``Sec. 2201. Grant authority.
[``Sec. 2202. Prohibition of participation by violent offenders.
[``Sec. 2203. Definition.
[``Sec. 2204. Administration.
[``Sec. 2205. Applications.
[``Sec. 2206. Federal share.
[``Sec. 2207. Geographic distribution.
[``Sec. 2208. Report.
[``Sec. 2209. Technical assistance, training, and evaluation.

              [``Part W--Transition-Effective Date-Repealer

[``Sec. 2301. Continuation of rules, authorities, and proceedings.''.

  [(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a) of 
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793), as amended by section 40231(c), is 
amended--
          [(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and U'' and 
        inserting ``U, and V''; and
          [(2) by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
  [``(20) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
part V--
          [``(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
          [``(B) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          [``(C) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          [``(D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          [``(E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          [``(F) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.

[SEC. 50002. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

  [(a)  In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
States shall study and assess the effectiveness and impact of 
grants authorized by part V of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as added by section 
50001(a) and report to Congress the results of the study on or 
before January 1, 1997.
  [(b) Documents and Information.--The Attorney General and 
grant recipients shall provide the Comptroller General with all 
relevant documents and information that the Comptroller General 
deems necessary to conduct the study under subsection (a), 
including the identities and criminal records of program 
participants.
  [(c) Criteria.--In assessing the effectiveness of the grants 
made under programs authorized by part V of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Comptroller General 
shall consider, among other things--
          [(1) recidivism rates of program participants;
          [(2) completion rates among program participants;
          [(3) drug use by program participants; and
          [(4) the costs of the program to the criminal justice 
        system.]

                  TITLE V--TRUTH IN SENTENCING GRANTS

SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS.

  (a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
provide grants to eligible States and to eligible States 
organized as a regional compact to build, expand, and operate 
space in correctional facilities in order to increase the 
prison bed capacity in such facilities for the confinement of 
persons convicted of a serious violent felony and to build, 
expand, and operate temporary or permanent correctional 
facilities, including facilities on military bases and boot 
camp facilities, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent 
offenders and criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing 
suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons 
convicted of a serious violent felony.
  (b) Limitation.--An eligible State or eligible States 
organized as a regional compact may receive either a general 
grant under section 502 or a truth-in-sentencing incentive 
grant under section 503.

SEC. 502. GENERAL GRANTS.

  (a) Distribution of General Grants.--50 percent of the total 
amount of funds made available under this title for each of the 
fiscal years 1995 through 2000 shall be made available for 
general eligibility grants for each State or States organized 
as a regional compact that meets the requirements of subsection 
(b).
  (b) General Grants.--In order to be eligible to receive funds 
under subsection (a), a State or States organized as a regional 
compact shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
that provides assurances that such State since 1993 has--
          (1) increased the percentage of convicted violent 
        offenders sentenced to prison;
          (2) increased the average prison time actually to be 
        served in prison by convicted violent offenders 
        sentenced to prison; and
          (3) increased the percentage of sentence to be 
        actually served in prison by violent offenders 
        sentenced to prison.

SEC. 503. TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANTS.

  (a) Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.--50 percent of the 
total amount of funds made available under this title for each 
of the fiscal years 1995 through 2000 shall be made available 
for truth-in-sentencing incentive grants to each State or 
States organized as a regional compact that meet the 
requirements of subsection (c).
  (b) Eligibility for Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants.--In 
order to be eligible to receive funds under subsection (a), a 
State or States organized as a regional compact shall submit an 
application to the Attorney General that provides assurances 
that each State applying has enacted laws and regulations which 
include--
          (1)(A) truth-in-sentencing laws which require persons 
        convicted of a serious violent felony serve not less 
        than 85 percent of the sentence imposed or 85 percent 
        of the court-ordered maximum sentence for States that 
        practice indeterminate sentencing; or
          (B) truth-in-sentencing laws which have been enacted, 
        but not yet implemented, that require such State, not 
        later than three years after such State submits an 
        application to the Attorney General, to provide that 
        persons convicted of a serious violent felony serve not 
        less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed or 85 
        percent of the court-ordered maximum sentence for 
        States that practice indeterminate sentencing, and
          (2) laws requiring that the sentencing or releasing 
        authorities notify and allow the victims of the 
        defendant or the family of such victims the opportunity 
        to be heard regarding the issue of sentencing and any 
        postconviction release.

SEC. 504. SPECIAL RULES.

  (a) Inmate Contribution Requirement.--To be eligible to 
receive a grant under section 502 or 503, a State or States 
organized as a regional compact shall provide an assurance to 
the Attorney General that, to the extent practicable, inmate 
labor will be used to build and expand correctional facilities.
  (b) Additional Eligibility Requirement.--To be eligible to 
receive a grant under this title, each State shall provide an 
assurance to the Attorney General that such State will involve 
counties and other units of local government, when appropriate, 
in the construction, development, expansion, modification, 
operation, or improvement of correctional facilities designed 
to ensure the incarceration of offenders, and that each State 
will share funds received under this title with any county or 
other unit of local government that is housing State prisoners, 
taking into account the burden placed on such county or unit of 
local government in confining prisoners due to overcrowding in 
State prison facilities in furtherance of the purposes of this 
Act.
  (c) Indeterminant Sentencing Exception.--Notwithstanding the 
provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 502(b), a 
State shall be eligible for grants under this title, if the 
State, not later than the date of the enactment of this title--
          (1) practices indeterminant sentencing; and
          (2) the average times served in such State for the 
        offenses of murder, rape, robbery, and assault exceed, 
        by 10 percent or greater, the national average of times 
        served for such offenses.
  (d) Exception.--The requirements under section 503(b) shall 
apply, except that a State may provide that the Governor of the 
State may allow for earlier release of a geriatric prisoner or 
whose medical condition precludes the prisoner from posing a 
threat to the public after a public hearing in which 
representatives of the public and the prisoner's victims have 
an opportunity to be heard regarding a proposed release.
  (e) Requirement for Incarcerated Veterans.--To be eligible to 
receive a grant under section 502 or 503, each State shall 
provide an assurance to the Attorney General that the State has 
implemented or will implement, not later than 18 months after 
the date of the enactment of the Violent Criminal Incarceration 
Act of 1995, policies to determine the veteran status of 
inmates and to ensure that incarcerated veterans receive the 
veterans benefits to which they are entitled.

SEC. 505. FORMULA FOR GRANTS.

  To determine the amount of funds that each eligible State or 
eligible States organized as a regional compact may receive to 
carry out programs under section 502 or 503, the Attorney 
General shall apply the following formula:
          (1) $500,000 or 0.40 percent, whichever is greater 
        shall be allocated to each participating State or 
        compact, as the case may be; and
          (2) of the total amount of funds remaining after the 
        allocation under paragraph (1), there shall be 
        allocated to each State or compact, as the case may be, 
        an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of 
        remaining funds described in this paragraph as the 
        population of such State or compact, as the case may 
        be, bears to the population of all the States.

SEC. 506. ACCOUNTABILITY.

  (a) Fiscal Requirements.--A State or States organized as a 
regional compact that receives funds under this title shall use 
accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to 
guidelines which shall be prescribed by the Attorney General.
  (b) Reporting.--Each State that receives funds under this 
title shall submit an annual report, beginning on January 1, 
1996, and each January 1 thereafter, to the Congress regarding 
compliance with the requirements of this title.
  (c) Administrative Provisions.--The administrative provisions 
of sections 801 and 802 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 shall apply to the Attorney General in the 
same manner as such provisions apply to the officials listed in 
such sections.

SEC. 507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out this title--
          (1) $997,500,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          (2) $1,330,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          (3) $2,527,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          (4) $2,660,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          (5) $2,753,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
  (b) Limitations on Funds.--
          (1) Uses of funds.--Funds made available under this 
        title may be used to carry out the purposes described 
        in section 501(a).
          (2) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available 
        under this section shall not be used to supplant State 
        funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of 
        funds that would, in the absence of Federal funds, be 
        made available from State sources.
          (3) Administrative costs.--Not more than three 
        percent of the funds available under this section may 
        be used for administrative costs.
          (4) Matching funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
        received under this title may not exceed 75 percent of 
        the costs of a proposal as described in an application 
        approved under this title.
          (5) Carry over of appropriations.--Any funds 
        appropriated but not expended as provided by this 
        section during any fiscal year shall remain available 
        until expended.

SEC. 508. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this title--
          (1) the term ``indeterminate sentencing'' means a 
        system by which--
                  (A) the court has discretion on imposing the 
                actual length of the sentence imposed, up to 
                the statutory maximum; and
                  (B) an administrative agency, generally the 
                parole board, controls release between court-
                ordered minimum and maximum sentence;
          (2) the term ``serious violent felony'' means--
                  (A) an offense that is a felony and has as an 
                element the use, attempted use, or threatened 
                use of physical force against the person or 
                property of another and has a maximum term of 
                imprisonment of 10 years or more,
                  (B) any other offense that is a felony and 
                that, by its nature, involves a substantial 
                risk that physical force against the person or 
                property of another may be used in the course 
                of committing the offense and has a maximum 
                term of imprisonment of 10 years or more, or
                  (C) such crimes include murder, assault with 
                intent to commit murder, arson, armed burglary, 
                rape, assault with intent to commit rape, 
                kidnapping, and armed robbery; and
          (3) the term ``State'' means a State of the United 
        States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, 
        territory, or possession of the United States.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


           OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

                  TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

          * * * * * * *

                            Part J--Funding

                    authorization of appropriations

  Sec. 1001. (a)(1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(20) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
part V--
          [(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
          [(B) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
          [(C) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
          [(D) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
          [(E) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
          [(F) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.]
          * * * * * * *

                          [PART V--DRUG COURTS

[SEC. 2201. GRANT AUTHORITY.

  [The Attorney General may make grants to States, State 
courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian 
tribal governments, acting directly or through agreements with 
other public or private entities, for programs that involve--
          [(1) continuing judicial supervision over offenders 
        with substance abuse problems who are not violent 
        offenders; and
          [(2) the integrated administration of other sanctions 
        and services, which shall include--
                  [(A) mandatory periodic testing for the use 
                of controlled substances or other addictive 
                substances during any period of supervised 
                release or probation for each participant;
                  [(B) substance abuse treatment for each 
                participant;
                  [(C) diversion, probation, or other 
                supervised release involving the possibility of 
                prosecution, confinement, or incarceration 
                based on noncompliance with program 
                requirements or failure to show satisfactory 
                progress; and
                  [(D) programmatic, offender management, and 
                aftercare services such as relapse prevention, 
                health care, education, vocational training, 
                job placement, housing placement, and child 
                care or other family support services for each 
                participant who requires such services.

[SEC. 2202. PROHIBITION OF PARTICIPATION BY VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

  [The Attorney General shall--
          [(1) issue regulations and guidelines to ensure that 
        the programs authorized in this part do not permit 
        participation by violent offenders; and
          [(2) immediately suspend funding for any grant under 
        this part, pending compliance, if the Attorney General 
        finds that violent offenders are participating in any 
        program funded under this part.

[SEC. 2203. DEFINITION.

  [In this part, ``violent offender'' means a person who--
          [(1) is charged with or convicted of an offense, 
        during the course of which offense or conduct--
                  [(A) the person carried, possessed, or used a 
                firearm or dangerous weapon;
                  [(B) there occurred the death of or serious 
                bodily injury to any person; or
                  [(C) there occurred the use of force against 
                the person of another,
        without regard to whether any of the circumstances 
        described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) is an 
        element of the offense or conduct of which or for which 
        the person is charged or convicted; or
          [(2) has one or more prior convictions for a felony 
        crime of violence involving the use or attempted use of 
        force against a person with the intent to cause death 
        or serious bodily harm.

[SEC. 2204. ADMINISTRATION.

  [(a) Consultation.--The Attorney General shall consult with 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other 
appropriate officials in carrying out this part.
  [(b) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may utilize any 
component or components of the Department of Justice in 
carrying out this part.
  [(c) Regulatory Authority.--The Attorney General may issue 
regulations and guidelines necessary to carry out this part.
  [(d) Applications.--In addition to any other requirements 
that may be specified by the Attorney General, an application 
for a grant under this part shall--
          [(1) include a long-term strategy and detailed 
        implementation plan;
          [(2) explain the applicant's inability to fund the 
        program adequately without Federal assistance;
          [(3) certify that the Federal support provided will 
        be used to supplement, and not supplant, State, Indian 
        tribal, and local sources of funding that would 
        otherwise be available;
          [(4) identify related governmental or community 
        initiatives which complement or will be coordinated 
        with the proposal;
          [(5) certify that there has been appropriate 
        consultation with all affected agencies and that there 
        will be appropriate coordination with all affected 
        agencies in the implementation of the program;
          [(6) certify that participating offenders will be 
        supervised by one or more designated judges with 
        responsibility for the drug court program;
          [(7) specify plans for obtaining necessary support 
        and continuing the proposed program following the 
        conclusion of Federal support; and
          [(8) describe the methodology that will be used in 
        evaluating the program.

[SEC. 2205. APPLICATIONS.

  [To request funds under this part, the chief executive or the 
chief justice of a State or the chief executive or chief judge 
of a unit of local government or Indian tribal government shall 
submit an application to the Attorney General in such form and 
containing such information as the Attorney General may 
reasonably require.

[SEC. 2206. FEDERAL SHARE.

  [The Federal share of a grant made under this part may not 
exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the program described 
in the application submitted under section 2205 for the fiscal 
year for which the program receives assistance under this part, 
unless the Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the 
requirement of a matching contribution under this section. In-
kind contributions may constitute a portion of the non-Federal 
share of a grant.

[SEC. 2207. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

  [The Attorney General shall ensure that, to the extent 
practicable, an equitable geographic distribution of grant 
awards is made.

[SEC. 2208. REPORT.

  [A State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local 
government that receives funds under this part during a fiscal 
year shall submit to the Attorney General a report in March of 
the following year regarding the effectiveness of this part.

[SEC. 2209. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING, AND EVALUATION.

  [(a) Technical Assistance and Training.--The Attorney General 
may provide technical assistance and training in furtherance of 
the purposes of this part.
  [(b) Evaluations.--In addition to any evaluation requirements 
that may be prescribed for grantees, the Attorney General may 
carry out or make arrangements for evaluations of programs that 
receive support under this part.
  [(c) Administration.--The technical assistance, training, and 
evaluations authorized by this section may be carried out 
directly by the Attorney General, in collaboration with the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, or through grants, 
contracts, or other cooperative arrangements with other 
entities.]
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


             CIVIL RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 7. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES.

    (a)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), [in any 
action brought] no action shall be brought pursuant to section 
1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 
1983) by an adult convicted or a crime confined in any jail, 
prison, or other correctional facility, [the court shall, if 
the court believes that such a requirement would be appropriate 
and in the interests of justice, continue such case for a 
period of not to exceed 180 days in order to require exhaustion 
of] until such plain, speedy, and effective administrative 
remedies as are available are exhausted.
          * * * * * * *
  (3) The court shall on its own motion or on motion of a party 
dismiss any action brought pursuant to section 1979 of the 
Revised Statutes of the United States by an adult convicted of 
a crime and confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional 
facility if the court is satisfied that the action fails to 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted or is frivolous 
or malicious.
    (b)(1)  * * *
    (2) The minimum standards shall provide--
          [(A) for an advisory role for employees and inmates 
        of any jail, prison, or other correctional institution 
        (at the most decentralized level as is reasonably 
        possible), in the formulation, implementation, and 
        operation of the system;]
          [(B)] (A) specific maximum time limits for written 
        replies to grievances with reasons thereto at each 
        decision level within the system;
          [(C)] (B) for priority processing of grievances which 
        are of an emergency nature, including matters in which 
        delay would subject the grievant to substantial risk of 
        personal injury or other damages;
          [(D)] (C) for safeguards to avoid reprisals against 
        any grievant or participant in the resolution of a 
        grievance; and
          [(E)] (D) for independent review of the disposition 
        of grievances, including alleged reprisals, by a person 
        or other entity not under the direct supervision or 
        direct control of the institution.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 1915 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 1915. Proceedings in forma pauperis

  (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) The court may request an attorney to represent any such 
person unable to employ counsel and [may] shall at any time 
dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if 
satisfied that the action fails to state a claim upon which 
relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious even if 
partial filing fees have been imposed by the court.
          * * * * * * *
  (f) If a prisoner in a correctional institution files an 
affidavit in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, 
such prisoner shall include in that affidavit a statement of 
all assets such prisoner possesses. The court shall make 
inquiry of the correctional institution in which the prisoner 
is incarcerated for information available to that institution 
relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets. The court 
shall require full or partial payment of filing fees according 
to the prisoner's ability to pay.
                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                      PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

          * * * * * * *

                CHAPTER 229--POSTSENTENCE ADMINISTRATION

          * * * * * * *

                       SUBCHAPTER C--IMPRISONMENT

                       SUBCHAPTER C--IMPRISONMENT

Sec.
3621.  Imprisonment of a convicted person.
3622.  Temporary release of a prisoner.
3623.  Transfer of a prisoner to State authority.
     * * * * * * *
3626.  Appropriate remedies with respect to prison [crowding] 
          conditions.
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison crowding

  [(a) Requirement of Showing With Respect to the Plaintiff in 
Particular.--
          [(1) Holding.--A Federal court shall not hold prison 
        or jail crowding unconstitutional under the eighth 
        amendment except to the extent that an individual 
        plaintiff inmate proves that the crowding causes the 
        infliction of cruel and unusual punishment of that 
        inmate.
          [(2) Relief.--The relief in a case described in 
        paragraph (1) shall extend no further than necessary to 
        remove the conditions that are causing the cruel and 
        unusual punishment of the plaintiff inmate.
  [(b) Inmate Population Ceilings.--
          [(1) Requirement of showing with respect to 
        particular prisoners.--A Federal court shall not place 
        a ceiling on the inmate population of any Federal, 
        State, or local detention facility as an equitable 
        remedial measure for conditions that violate the eighth 
        amendment unless crowding is inflicting cruel and 
        unusual punishment on particular identified prisoners.
          [(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
        be construed to have any effect on Federal judicial 
        power to issue equitable relief other than that 
        described in paragraph (1), including the requirement 
        of improved medical or health care and the imposition 
        of civil contempt fines or damages, where such relief 
        is appropriate.
  [(c) Periodic Reopening.--Each Federal court order or consent 
decree seeking to remedy an eighth amendment violation shall be 
reopened at the behest of a defendant for recommended 
modification at a minimum of 2-year intervals.]

Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions

  (a) Requirements for Relief.--
          (1) Limitations on prospective relief.--Prospective 
        relief in a civil action with respect to prison 
        conditions shall extend no further than necessary to 
        remove the conditions that are causing the deprivation 
        of the Federal rights of individual plaintiffs in that 
        civil action. The court shall not grant or approve any 
        prospective relief unless the court finds that such 
        relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means 
        to remedy the violation of the Federal right. In 
        determining the intrusiveness of the relief, the court 
        shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on 
        public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 
        system caused by the relief.
          (2) Prison population reduction relief.--In any civil 
        action with respect to prison conditions, the court 
        shall not grant or approve any relief whose purpose or 
        effect is to reduce or limit the prison population, 
        unless the plaintiff proves that crowding is the 
        primary cause of the deprivation of the Federal right 
        and no other relief will remedy that deprivation.
  (b) Termination of Relief.--
          (1) Automatic termination of prospective relief after 
        2-year period.--In any civil action with respect to 
        prison conditions, any prospective relief shall 
        automatically terminate 2 years after the later of--
                  (A) the date the court found the violation of 
                a Federal right that was the basis for the 
                relief; or
                  (B) the date of the enactment of the Stop 
                Turning Out Prisoners Act.
          (2) Immediate termination of prospective relief.--In 
        any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a 
        defendant or intervenor shall be entitled to the 
        immediate termination of any prospective relief, if 
        that relief was approved or granted in the absence of a 
        finding by the court that prison conditions violated a 
        Federal right.
  (c) Procedure for Motions Affecting Prospective Relief.--
          (1) Generally.--The court shall promptly rule on any 
        motion to modify or terminate prospective relief in a 
        civil action with respect to prison conditions.
          (2) Automatic stay.--Any prospective relief subject 
        to a pending motion shall be automatically stayed 
        during the period--
                  (A) beginning on the 30th day after such 
                motion is filed, in the case of a motion made 
                under subsection (b); and
                  (B) beginning on the 180th day after such 
                motion is filed, in the case of a motion made 
                under any other law;
        and ending on the date the court enters a final order 
        ruling on that motion.
  (d) Standing.--Any Federal, State, or local official or unit 
of government--
          (1) whose jurisdiction or function includes the 
        prosecution or custody of persons in a prison subject 
        to; or
          (2) who otherwise is or may be affected by;
any relief whose purpose or effect is to reduce or limit the 
prison population shall have standing to oppose the imposition 
or continuation in effect of that relief and may intervene in 
any proceeding relating to that relief. Standing shall be 
liberally conferred under this subsection so as to effectuate 
the remedial purposes of this section.
  (e) Special Masters.--In any civil action in a Federal court 
with respect to prison conditions, any special master or 
monitor shall be a United States magistrate and shall make 
proposed findings on the record on complicated factual issues 
submitted to that special master or monitor by the court, but 
shall have no other function. The parties may not by consent 
extend the function of a special master beyond that permitted 
under this subsection.
  (f) Attorney's Fees.--No attorney's fee under section 722 of 
the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) may 
be granted to a plaintiff in a civil action with respect to 
prison conditions except to the extent such fee is--
          (1) directly and reasonably incurred in proving an 
        actual violation of the plaintiff's Federal rights; and
          (2) proportionally related to the extent the 
        plaintiff obtains court ordered relief for that 
        violation.
  (g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
          (1) the term ``prison'' means any Federal, State, or 
        local facility that incarcerates or detains juveniles 
        or adults accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or 
        adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law;
          (2) the term ``relief'' means all relief in any form 
        which may be granted or approved by the court, and 
        includes consent decrees and settlement agreements; and
          (3) the term ``prospective relief'' means all relief 
        other than compensatory monetary damages.
          * * * * * * *

                    PART III--PRISONS AND PRISONERS

          * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 303--BUREAU OF PRISONS

Sec.
4041.  Bureau of Prisons; director and employees.
4042.  Duties of Bureau of Prisons.
4043.  Acceptance of gifts and bequests to the Commissary Funds, Federal 
          Prisons.
4048.  Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 4048. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited

  The Bureau of Prisons shall ensure that--
          (1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not engage in 
        any physical activities designed to increase their 
        fighting ability; and
          (2) all equipment designed for increasing the 
        strength or fighting ability of prisoners promptly be 
        removed from Federal correctional facilities and not be 
        introduced into such facilities thereafter except as 
        needed for a medically required program of physical 
        rehabilitation approved by the Director of the Bureau 
        of Prisons.
          * * * * * * *
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We support the stated purpose of this bill, which is ``to 
control crime by incarcerating violent criminals.'' We want 
more prisons cells built to put more violent felons in prison 
for longer periods of time.
    However, we take strong exception to this bill, because we 
believe it will do just the opposite of what it pretends to do. 
Because of serious flaws in concept and drafting, H.R. 667 
would actually result in significantly less prison cells for 
violent felons than the prison grant program in the bi-partisan 
crime bill we passed last year, the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
    A balanced and effective program for reducing violent crime 
must devote substantial resources to prison cells for violent 
felons. One appropriate role for the federal government is to 
help the States with funds to build and operate correctional 
facilities.
    A proper comity allows the States flexibility in how to use 
such Federal prison grant funds. In some cases, those funds 
might most efficiently be used for new space directly to house 
violent felons. In other cases, it makes more sense to build 
alternative correctional facilities in order to free up 
existing appropriate space for housing violent felons.
    In either case, the end result is the same--sufficient 
appropriate cell space in all of the States to ensure that 
violent felons are locked up for longer periods of time.
    The law we enacted last year embodies this comity. It 
created two pools of grant funds. One pool is for States that 
have enacted tough ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' laws. The other is 
for States willing to make a series of carefully drafted 
assurances designed to ensure that the State is moving 
expeditiously toward the goal of longer prison time for violent 
felons.
    Recognizing that the process of enacting and implementing 
``Truth-in-Sentencing'' laws in the States is a lengthy affair 
at best, and difficult if not impossible at worst, the 1994 law 
allows funds not used in the tougher ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' 
pool to flow over into the more readily available general pool.
    The bill before us resembles the 1994 Crime Bill in outer 
form. It, too, creates two pools of funds.
    There the resemblance ends, however.
    Correctional system experts in the Department of Justice 
and elsewhere say that as few as three States can qualify for 
funding under either pool in this bill. Even if one doubles 
that number in an excess of generous caution, it is clear 
beyond doubt that these funds will go to only a tiny minority 
of the States in the foreseeable future.
    In short, this grant program is a mirage. It will not build 
the prison cells for violent felons we want to see built at any 
time in the foreseeable future.
    This results from four serious defects in the bill.\1\
    \1\ Mr. Schumer offered an amendment that would have cured every 
one of these defects, and would have been completely in consonance with 
the often stated goal of the majority to give maximum due to states 
rights. His amendment would simply have converted this program to a 
block grant program for the states, under which each would get a share 
proportionate to its rate of violent crime. This idea is in concept 
indistinguishable from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program 
the majority offers in another bill, H.R. 668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, the terms of the so-called ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' 
pool are so severe that States will be required to commit 
themselves to investing enormous sums up front in order even to 
qualify for this pool.
    Second, the literal words of the so-called ``General 
Grant'' pool of funds requires States to make assurances about 
matters which, by definition, cannot be known until some years 
hence. This section requires a State to make assurances that, 
since 1993, it has increased (i) the percentage of convicted 
violent felons sentenced to prison, (ii) the ``average prison 
time actually to be served'' by those felons, and (iii) the 
``percentage of sentence to be actually served'' by those 
felons.
    States can know and make assurances about the first of 
these assuming they have an adequate data base. However, the 
other two are problematic at best. How can a State make 
assurances about how long felons will actually serve, or what 
percentage of their sentences they will actually serve, until 
the date has passed upon which the felons have been actually 
released? Since most violent felons are sentenced to terms 
significantly longer than the two years that have passed since 
1993, it would seem impossible for most States, if not all, to 
meet the literal terms of this language.
    It may be that the intent of the drafters is otherwise, as 
was represented in the markup of this bill. Unfortunately, that 
intent is poorly and inadequately conveyed in this bill, which 
has not incidentally been rushed through committee with neither 
adequate hearing nor deliberate evaluation.
    Third, the language of the special rules for States with 
indeterminant sentencing is impossibly vague. Those rules 
ostensibly permit such a State to qualify for grant funds if 
``the average time served'' for ``murder, rape, robbery, and 
assault'' exceed by 10 percent or greater ``the national 
average of time served for such offenses.''
    This raises a number of apparently insoluble questions.
    First, no such ``national average'' is known to exist, 
according to the experts our staff has consulted.
    Second, it will be impossible to construct such a national 
average until several fundamental questions of definition are 
resolved. The several States define the listed offenses in 
different ways. That being so, which offenses from each State 
should be included in the national average? Over what period of 
time is the average to be based? How often is it to be 
computed? Who or what agency is supposed to compute it?
    Third, each individual State will be vexed by the same 
unanswered questions. Which of its offense that arguably fall 
into the grossly general terms in the bill should it include in 
computing its ``average?'' Since, by definition, the average in 
an indeterminant sentencing State will constantly fluctuate, 
when and over what period of time should it compute its 
average?
    Finally, this bill lacks a ``pour over'' clause so that 
funds not expended in the ``Truth-in-Sentencing'' pool will be 
put to useful purpose. Instead, it allows either the few States 
that may qualify to split up an enormous windfall (the pot 
remaining after allocating a reserve for all States), or the 
funds to sit idle until sufficient States have been strong-
armed into complying with this bill's terms.
    These flaws are more evidence that this bill has been 
rammed through committee without adequate deliberation. If the 
majority truly wanted to build more prison cells for violet 
offenders as quickly and efficiently as possible, it would have 
enthusiastically embraced our block grant amendment. Given the 
trickle of funds that will actually emerge from the ponderous 
language in H.R. 667, we are forced to wonder this bill is 
actually intended to cut significant prison spending out of our 
national crime program.
    The flaws in this bill will inflict a bad policy on 
America. It will set back the ambitious prison program we 
passed in the last Congress, not move it forward.
                                   Charles E. Schumer.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 667 provides $12.5 billion in grant funds for prisons, 
$2.5 billion more than the 1994 Crime Bill. One-half of the 
funds are for grants to states that show increases in the 
percent of offenders sent to prison generally and in the 
percent of sentences served by violent offenders; the other 
half goes to states that enact laws requiring violent offenders 
to serve at least 85% of their sentence (so-called ``truth-in-
sentencing'').
    Ironically, the $2.5 billion was taken from funding we 
approved a few months ago for programs that have been proven to 
prevent crimes and save much more money in law enforcement and 
prison costs than they cost (e.g., Head Start, Job Corps, Boys 
and Girls Clubs, ``Midnight Basketball''). An excellent example 
of such a prevention program is drug courts. During the 
hearings on H.R. 3 and at full committee consideration, both 
panelists and members, Republican and Democrat alike, testified 
to the success of drug courts. Testimony revealed that the cost 
for a drug court participant is about $800 while the cost for a 
year in prison is about $25,000. Offenders who participated in 
the drug court program had a recidivism rate of about 11% while 
those who did not participate had a recidivism rate of about 
60%. Given this level of proven success, the cut in funding for 
drug courts will result in substantially higher costs and 
incredibly five times more crime victims.
    Furthermore, the $2.5 billion added to promote the prison 
construction will be an insignificant portion of the hundreds 
of billions of dollars states are already spending on prison 
construction. Virginia's plan to adopt the 85% truth-in-
sentencing provision requires at least $7 billion to be spent 
in the next 10 years. Virginia's share of the $2.5 billion will 
be approximately 1% of that amount.
    Given the difference between its import and its likely 
impact, a more appropriate title for the ``truth-in-
sentencing'' provision would be the ``Half-Truth-in-
Sentencing'' Act. The half-truth is that parole boards will no 
longer have the discretion to release low-risk prisoners early. 
The whole truth is that: (1) the parole board will not have the 
discretion to hold high-risk prisoners longer; (2) prisoners 
will be more likely to commit future crimes because the major 
incentives for participation in education and job training have 
been removed; and (3) states will waste billions of dollars on 
a plan that studies show has no effect on crime.
    The thirty-billion dollar crime bill as enacted into law 
last year designated over 75% of the money for law enforcement 
and prisons, despite the overwhelming evidence that vastly more 
crime and costs are averted through proven prevention programs. 
H.R. 666 compounds the problem by deleting funding for those 
programs which actually reduce crime, while funding prisons in 
such a way that the most heinous criminals will actually get 
out earlier than they do now.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Jose E. Serrano.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.