John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the committee finds itself at some point of difficulty here. It would seem to me, especially with the comments of the Chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, that this amendment, as salutory as it is intended to be, might better serve the purpose of an orderly process if it were withdrawn at this time for a committee review. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has made a very good and strong case, but it seems to me that we are leaving some things that really have to be researched by staff, and that we might be able to proceed on this very quickly as a freestanding bill. After all, we still have a great number of months remaining before this term is over, and my fears have not been allayed. It would seem to me that this juvenile justice bill itself would not be harmed in any way were the gentleman to accede to my invitation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, rather than seek time in opposition.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), who I believe is a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, that it would have been my hope that we would have brought this through the committee process. I have no objection to the measure. As a matter of fact, on its face I quite agree with it. But it is this process that could have quite as easily brought this to the floor through the full committee and the subcommittee. I was wondering if there were some reason that it did not happen that way.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have three sentences on this. The fact of the matter is that legislating from the floor on matters of Federal criminal law is not the most orderly process in the world, even when it appears to be a matter that we can all, on the surface, support. I refer to the immediately preceding amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), which certainly sounds appropriate, but we ran into a problem. In the 10 minutes we have been debating this measure we have not run into a problem, but it is not beyond my understanding that there might be a problem in here. I do not think our staff has spent much time on this. There have been no hearings. As I have indicated, I support the measure, from what I have heard of it on the floor. It still is not an orderly way to proceed. I regret that we had to do it this way. I am sorry that whatever concerned persons did not cooperate so that these hearings in the committee could be scheduled. I do not think it was around this measure, which is coming to my attention rather late. So Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). I do put the committee on notice that I am going to ask my staff to continue to research the matter and bring to the gentleman's attention anything that may be the fruits of that research.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this proposal is similar to those that are imposed upon adult offenders of the drug and firearms laws, but what we are doing is promoting the use of mandatory minimums because it is concerned with punishment and not prevention. We have yet to realize that prevention is indeed the best way to address violence. So I want to suggest to the committee that mandatory minimums, as this is, are not good policy; that they are, in fact, misguided because they create unfairness and require judicial and correctional expenditures disproportionate to any deterrent or rehabilitative effect that they may have. That is taken directly from a Drug Policy Research Center study of 1997. I do not think it is inappropriate to suggest that judges in individual cases are still in the best position to determine what sentences are appropriate for individual offenders. Mandatory minimums take discretion away from the Court to utilize other problem-solving approaches to crime prevention. What about the U.S. attorneys? When a mandatory minimum crime is involved, this makes any attempt at plea bargaining, if they are moving up a chain of crime figures, literally impossible. In this decade, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that over one-third of the Federal defendants whose criminal conduct should have triggered application of a mandatory minimum provision have somehow even yet escaped the effects of such provisions. So here for the third time in a single evening we have criminal laws named after some poor victim for whom our sympathies are overflowing, but whether or not this is the best way for us to proceed as a matter of process still remains much in doubt. We are still legislating with no committee of original jurisdiction, that I can recall, having had anything to do with what might be an otherwise well meaning amendment, to impose severe penalties on people who take children as hostage to evade arrest. Why this was not able to come through the committee in an orderly way is not clear to me. This is not gun legislation. It is the meat and potatoes of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. So I am again sorry that this could not have been taken up in a more orderly way.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, for purposes of debate.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the author of the amendment, whether shotguns and rifles are now within the purview of his amendment?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, could the gentleman from New York indicate to me where within the voluminous McCollum amendment is the language that would make it unnecessary for his amendment?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask the author of the amendment, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), with all due respect, all examples he gave were good reasons to have this amendment. It sounded like this could be a very important amendment. He says that it is now to be found elsewhere in the McCollum amendment. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) for an answer.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip, has offered an amendment that would drastically and, in my view, unconstitutionally limit the authority of Federal judges to remedy inhumane prison conditions where they are brought to their attention to the judicial process. I would remind the gentleman that, where this kind of a permission is granted, where relief is granted for this condition, it is probably in consonance with the eighth amendment to the Constitution. I think that the Philadelphia case that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) referred to is a State matter. I would like just to inquire that, in his research, since this has not come before the committee, was it his impression that this practice, which he decries, is something that occurs in the Federal system, or is he referring to the Philadelphia case which, it is my understanding, occurred in the State system? I will repeat it. Apparently the gentleman from Texas did not hear the question that I was posing to him. The question is whether or not the conditions of which the gentleman complains, that is the litigation that does release prisoners in inhumane prison conditions, does that turn on State prison conditions or is the gentleman referring to Federal prison conditions? Because it is my understanding that the Philadelphia incident, of which the gentleman remarked, was a State matter.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS. All of them were violent?

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is asking me for my definition of violence?

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but it is your term.

Mr. CONYERS. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me make a case in a different way for the gentleman from Texas. It just so happens that this amendment would improperly interfere with the work of the judicial branch in our constitutional system of government because these cases are legally and properly brought, they are heard by a court, they can even be appealed to from the court. And so I think that this is a dangerous proposal that would terminate ongoing consent decrees in prison condition cases. In addition, it would prohibit judges from issuing prisoner release orders to remedy unconstitutional overcrowding. So the gentleman is saying that it does not matter where we put people who have violated the law; it does not matter what circumstances that they are put; that under no circumstances can a judge, having heard all of these arguments on both sides from the Department of Justice or the State Attorney General, they would then be precluded from passing judgment in these kind of cases. I think this is an unwarranted limitation on States rights. I object very strenuously to the gentleman's amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I include for the Record information detailing examples of horrible prison conditions: Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Women Women housed in the previously all-male Federal Detention Center in Pleasanton, California were sexually harassed and abused. They had no privacy when showering, dressing or using the toilets. Prison guards harassed the women and unlocked the women's cell doors at night to allow male prisoners to enter their cells and abuse them. When one of the women complained to a senior officer, her complaint was made known to the other officers and prisoners and she was beaten, raped and sodomized by three men who gained access to her cell during the night. She was denied medical attention for some weeks after the attack despite the serious injuries she sustained. [Lucas v. White, filed 1996] In Georgia, women, some as young as 16 years old, were forced to have sex with prison guards, maintenance workers, teachers, and even a prison chaplain. The sexual abuse came to light when many women prisoners became pregnant and were pressured into having abortions. More than 200 women testified by affidavit that they had been coerced into having sex or that they know other prisoners who had. [Cason v. Seckinger, consent decree, 1994] In Washington, DC, the court found that correctional officers and other prison employees routinely sexually assaulted, touched, and harassed the women in their care. On one occasion, a correctional officer sexually assaulted an inmate while she was a patient in the infirmary. He fondled her, tried to force her to perform oral sex and then raped her. Another officer forced an inmate to perform oral sex on him while she attempted to empty trash as part of a work detail. [Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, post trial order, 1994] Prison staff in Louisiana engaged in sexual abuse of women prisoners ranging from vulgar and obscene sexual comments to forcible sexual rape. Prison staff not only participated in the sexual misconduct but also allowed male prisoners to enter the female prisons to engage in forcible intercourse with women prisoners. [Hamilton v. Morial, consent decree, 1995] In California, women prisoners received almost no pregnancy-related medical care and, as a result, some gave birth to stillborn or severely deformed babies. One woman, while in active labor, was transported to an outside hospital seated in an upright position in shackles; her daughter suffered severe trauma at birth. Another prisoner, who received almost no prenatal care, gave birth on the floor of the jail without medical assistance three hours after informing staff that she was in labor. [Yeager v. Smith and Harris v. McCarthy, consent decrees, 1989] Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Mentally Ill and Disabled Prisoners In California, a severely mentally ill prisoner was locked naked, without medication, for two years in a ``quiet room,'' where she rubbed feces onto her face and hair, talked incoherently, and did not bathe. Another severely mentally ill inmate was in segregation when she set herself on fire and died. A bulimic, diabetic inmate was placed in a unit with inadequate staff to monitor her condition. When two officers notified a nurse that she was having seizures, the nurse told them ``not to make a fuss over her.'' She died later that afternoon. [Coleman v. Wilson, post-trial order, 1995] A prisoner with an IQ of 54, was subjected to both verbal and physical attack by other prisoners. Correctional officers dismissed his attempts to express his fears, allowing other prisoners to slash his throat and repeatedly rape and assault him. The California Department of Corrections offered virtually no screening to identify the developmentally disabled and makes little effort to protect them. [Clark v. California, filed 1996] A Utah prisoner with a long history of mental illness, including depression, self-inflicted wounds, suicide attempts and hearing voices, inflicted deep razor wounds in his abdomen. When he returned from the hospital to the Utah state prison, the prison doctors stopped all of his psychiatric medications and shackled him to a stainless board with metal restraints. He remained shackled for 12 weeks (let up on average about 4 times a week) and developed pressure sores. When he defecated he was hosed off while remaining on the board. He was stripped to his undershorts and frequently not allowed a blanket. He was eventually released from the board and sent to the mental hospital by judge's order and over the objections of prison officials. [N.L.S. v. Austin, filed 1996] A mentally-ill prisoner at the Moscogee County Jail in Georgia was observed by jailers to be barking like a dog. Without consulting a doctor, they put him into solitary confinement where his condition quickly deteriorated and he committed suicide within hours. A recent investigation by the U.S. Justice Department reported that the medical care at the jail, which houses 1,000 prisoners, consisted of one doctor working a total of four hours per week. The report also noted that jail staff regulatory placed prisoners with serious mental health problems in isolation without consulting a psychiatrist. [Porter v. County of Moscogee, filed 1996] Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Juveniles A 17-year-old boy in an adult prison in Texas was raped and sodomized. His request to be placed in protective custody was denied. For the next several months he was repeated beaten by older prisoners, forced to perform oral sex, robbed, and beaten again. Each time, his requests for protection were denied by the warden. He attempted suicide by hanging himself in his cell after a guard had ignored the warning letter he wrote. He was in a coma for four months until he died. [Case to be filed this year] In Pennsylvania, children in a juvenile detention facility were regularly beaten by staff with chains and other objects. The facility was severely overcrowded and, as recently as February 1995, was at 160% of capacity. [Santiago v. City of Philadelphia] In a state-run juvenile institution outside of Philadelphia, the children were routinely beaten by facility staff, staff trafficking in illegal drugs was rampant, and sexual relations between staff and confined youth were commonplace. [D.B. v. Commonwealth, consent decree, 1993] In Delaware, juvenile were housed in overcrowded, dirty living units with serious fire danger. Their food and clothing were inadequate. The children were physically and verbally abused, beaten and maced, and shackled. The medical and mental health care and educational programs they received were all below even minimally acceptable standards. [John A. v. Castle, consent decree, 1994] Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to add and submit the examples of horrible prison conditions involving women, examples of horrible prison conditions involving mentally ill and disabled prisoners, and examples of horrible prison conditions involving juveniles directly after my remarks.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.