John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words because a number of concerns have arisen here as the debate goes on. As my colleagues know, in most States, in most cities, juveniles are being waived over to be tried as adults. I do not see any place where that is not happening. So the violent crimes now are not being slapped on the wrist. They are being sent to the criminal circuit to be tried as adults, and I do not know if my colleagues have taken that into account. The second thing that is important to me is that, if there were a Federal involvement, what would it be to do?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. CONYERS. In addition, look what we have done just in today's debate alone. We have rejected the only amendment that would give us a carryover that would allow a few years for the States to get ready for your draconian proposal because you have rejected allowing a bridge in which until 50 percent of the States could qualify, we could at least use the 1994 crime bill distribution of prison construction funds. What you have done is you have blown up any possibility of us getting any money to the States, and now you are saying that the block grant program itself which you cited is now going to be ineffective.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CONYERS. I think that you are criticizing midnight basketball, if you think it keeps people from going to school. The people in the cities that are using it happen to think that it keeps people from doing activity that might otherwise bring them in connection with the law. So I think that the gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot continually deride midnight basketball, and then tell me in the next breath that he really likes it, but he thinks they ought to be getting ready for school. My larger consideration here today is that if you wanted to relieve the number of people that are in prison so that you could keep the violent offenders, how about overcrowded State prisons that had releases that would not occur if we had boot camps, drug courts and prevention programs that were keeping minor offenders and young people from taking up all of this space? We have the largest and most infamous lockup rates in the world in this country. In the inner cities of the United States, it is 3,000 people per 100,000 that are in prison. So there are no circumstances that I will ever advocate building more prisons to lock up more people. I would advocate, however, building more prisons to contain violent offenders and support the block grant program as opposed to a program that the States clearly will never qualify for. It is in that spirit and that limited spirit only that I support a block grant program. It is not that I have just converted or changed my position incredibly for the purposes of this debate. The fact of the matter is there is flexibility in block grant programs in this bill and the one we consider next that allows for boot camps, allows for drug courts, allows for prevention programs, and, yes, allows for night basketball.

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a very practical one that requires notification in those instances where someone is being released and that the victim's family would be able to know about it, or police officers, or others. We have had a number of cases of intimidation, and sometimes actual violence that has occurred, and this kind of notification would work no harm on anyone in or out of the court system, and it does follow along with the protection for victims that we have examined before. I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for offering the amendment and applaud the fact that we have received the support of the other side.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. This is an amendment that truly goes halfway to the other side, and is one that I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] for and our colleague on the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. The country has a violent offender program that is working at this minute, and it is in the 1994 crime bill prisoner grant program. We know that this program works, we know that most of the States choose to take advantage of it and those that can, do. But, H.R. 667 would totally disrupt the program and it will replace the carefully negotiated, well-known conditions of the 1994 crime bill being implemented as we speak and replace it with different formulas and different conditions. The people at the Department of Justice and elsewhere believe that perhaps three States could qualify for one-half of the funds under the present funding scheme in H.R. 667. But this amendment simply says let us keep the program that we have now, one that we know that works and is working until such time it is clear the new program will work. That is about all that we are doing here is forming a bridge to make sure that there is continuity and coordination until half the States would qualify under 667. And the point that we are making is that if the new majority is right and 667 should kick in real soon, fine, but if they are not, with this 50 percent or more requirement that the States are meeting the so- called truth-in-sentencing, we will be able to have something during the time that we are waiting until more States are able to qualify under the very complex provisions of the proposals that are in 667. So let us be smart and bipartisan and support Chapman-Schumer at the same time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a member of the committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. No one has worked harder on the crime bill than the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know that this is a very real life, commonsense, practical amendment that I hope both sides can agree to, because it is really important to know that out there in the world there are these kinds of threats of ``what will happen when I get out.'' We have got to curb that. We have got to curb jury intimidation, we have got to curb witness intimidation, and we have got to make the courts safe for people to go in and give testimony and believe that they are going to live a safe, honorable, reasonable life after they have done their duty.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when I hear the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary tell me that midnight basketball is some Democratic prerogative, I would be otherwise proud of it, but the fact of the matter is in the block grant program combining prevention and police programs coming up Monday, midnight basketball is as permissible in their program as it would be and is in ours, in the 1994 crime bill, and we are proud of that. But to come on the floor and continually deride it, and this being one of the most economical investments that we can make in prevention programs, I mean, how much cheaper can you get than a hoop, a net and a basketball? So it seems to me very, very important when we recognize that it is in both of our programs and it was started in the former President Bush's 1,000 points of light.

Mr. CONYERS. On this side of the aisle, we are delighted that the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois have crafted together a smart and tough amendment that allows us to deal with boot camps and other facilities for youthful offenders. It is a very important part of the bill, me. We need this all over, and I congratulate you all, including the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].