Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. First of all, of all the amendments that I have had come forward, this one is the most obtrusive. The gentleman fails to see the solution to a very simple problem, that, if you let criminals out early, they are going to commit more crimes. Our intent is to keep them in there for the longest amount of time. Governor Allen's idea of no parole at all; if you get a sentence, that is what you are going to stay in there for; that is what I would like to see. But, if you let, as James Cagney said, let these low-down, dirty rats back out, they are going to be low-down, dirty rats on our streets, and the gentleman is talking about an unfunded mandate. We are giving the States a positive incentive to do this. This is not an unfunded mandate. What we want to do is make sure that if someone is sentenced to an amount of time that is a felon, that they are going to serve their time, and not get back out early and do the same thing. Because it is proven by statistics they get back out, and they have not been helped, we want to make sure that is done. The gentleman says that the law requires that we put them in longer and that we parole fewer. But it is not working again. This again is another positive incentive for the States that are not living up to that to follow through and keep these critters in longer.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made the point. Illegal immigration in our State, we have a policy and the Government does not support it, they do not get the money. It is not an unfunded mandate. They do not have to participate if they do not want. We are not mandating that they do it. But if they do not, they do not get the money.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I myself am not sure it is that bad of an amendment. Let me tell you what some of my heartburn might be, if I understand it right. In education or law enforcement, one of the problems we have is too much paperwork. I know when I was in the service, during the war, all our paperwork went in the trash barrel. We went out on the carrier level and did what we had to do, and we were able to be much more effective. After the war back in the squadrons at the bases, I spent 80 percent of my time filling out Federal reports on what we should be doing and what we should not, and I was not able to do the things I really needed to do to train the unit. This Member's idea is I do not want the Federal Government, the bureaucracy back here, to have to receive reports. I want the State and local, I want us to have goals and let the State and local establish in their own particular area what they need to do and what those standards should be. What might be good for Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin might not be good for Pete Wilson in California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 4.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to study and report to Congress within 6 months a report on the use and effectiveness of the Prisoner Transfer Treaty with Mexico. The report will be valuable to Congress as we begin a broader overhaul of immigration policy. Specifically, the report is to outline the number of criminal aliens who have been or are eligible for transfer under the treaty. Specifically, the report is to outline the number of criminal aliens who have been or are eligible for transfer under the treaty, the current treaty, and the number who actually have been transferred by Federal, State, and local institutions. The administration is directed to recommend to Congress changes in policy and consult with the Mexican Government to identify where the treaty can be improved. Indeed Attorney General Reno has discussed with her Mexican counterpart to begin looking at ways to improve this treaty. This amendment is in line with the recommendations of the Jordan Commission, sanctioned by President Clinton, who supports efforts to simplify the process for transferring criminal aliens to prisons in the country of their origin to serve out there terms. One of the problems we have, Mr. Chairman, is that our system and the treaty has not been working. We are looking for a faster method to transfer prisoners from country to country with the acceptance of both of those countries. As of June 1994, there were some 8,000 Mexicans in Federal prisons eligible for transfer. There are also a large number serving in State prisons. According to the Urban Institute's 1994 report on the fiscal impact of illegal immigration, there were some 21,395 illegal aliens incarcerated in California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, and Arizona. In California, the Urban Institute concluded the State bears an annual cost of $368 million to incarcerate approximately 15,000 illegal aliens, and I will not go through the rest of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the ways in which we can do, I think, both and not even have to build prisons in the future: In the State of California we have got 16,000 Federal felons that are illegal immigrants. There are 84,000 nationwide. That is a lot of room at the inn. If the gentleman would help us make sure that those folks are repatriated from whatever country they came from, maybe we would not have to spend as much money on our present----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with the gentleman.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Since the higher costs come along with Davis-Bacon, under construction under Davis-Bacon, I think it ought to seriously be looked into.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask, ``By reducing the costs, does that also enable you to go in and reduce the requirements for Davis- Bacon?''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will help the gentleman do that, too.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act. This bill, which is part of our Contract With America, will help to bring real justice to the millions of Americans victimized by crime each year. Too often, our criminal justice system ignores the victims of crime. Americans are justifiably outraged by a system that guarantees cable television and other creature comforts to criminals, while leaving the victims of crime facing recuperation from injuries or massive financial loss. Insurance rates are increased by a need to provide health care for victims of crime or compensating victims for losses from theft. Meanwhile, no mechanism exists to insure that criminals bear a financial penalty for their actions. This bill will change Federal criminal proceedings to insure that the victims are compensated by their assailants. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that from 1973 through 1991, there were 36.6 million people injured as a result of violent crime. In 1992, almost 34 million Americans were victims of crime. Crime against people and households resulted in an estimated $19.1 billion in losses in 1991. Each year, injuries from crime cause some 700,000 days of hospitalization. The human costs of crime are real and growing. in recent years, we still fail to adequately compensate the victims of crime. This bill requires full financial restitution. H.R. 665 instructs Federal courts to award restitution to crime victims and allows courts to order restitution to people harmed by unlawful conduct. Although victims may receive temporary relief from insurance, the criminal must ultimately pay the amount. If a victim receives compensation from a civil suit, that amount must be reduced by the amount of the restitution order. For the first time, we establish that criminals must comply with restitution orders made by the court as a condition of probation, parole, or supervised release. H.R. 665 gives judges the authority and leeway to take any action necessary to insure that victims receive proper compensation. Under H.R. 665, Federal judges must order compensation when sentencing for convictions of Federal crimes. The judge may also order compensation to any other person who was physically, emotionally, or financially harmed by the unlawful conduct. Judges are given the leeway to consider indirect costs to victims, such as lost income, child care, and other expenses arising from the need to be in court. The judge is not to consider the income or resources of the offender or victim when determining the amount of compensation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 665 is an important component in our battle to restore commonsense to our judicial system. It will act as a deterrent to crime and more importantly, shows that Congress is serious about recognizing and addressing the needs of the victims of crime. I urge passage by the House.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 729, the Effective Death Penalty Act. This legislation is long overdue. I am pleased that the House has moved so quickly to bring it to the floor. are so vicious and heinous that capital punishment is appropriate. Most of the States have enacted laws to conform with the Supreme Court's opinion on when capital punishment is constitutional. In August 1989, a commission chaired by Justice Powell concluded that the Federal habeas corpus process ``has led to piecemeal and repetitious litigation,'' ``years of delay between sentencing and judicial resolution,'' and an ``undermining of public confidence in our criminal justice system.'' But the efforts of the States and the Congress to make capital punishment more than a paper tiger have been frustrated by endless habeas corpus appeals by prisoners on death row. The bill before us changes laws affecting the death penalty in an effort to crate consistent and fair procedures for its application and to streamline the appeals process. Our current system doesn't work. There are endless and often frivolous appeals, with few limits on prisoners raising the same issues repeatedly. Today, prisoners on death row can appeal whenever there is a change in the law or a new Supreme Court ruling. This endless litigation costs the taxpayers millions of dollars and more importantly, denies justice to the victims of crime. H.R. 729 establishes strict, but fair limits on appeals. It creates a 1-year limitation period for filing a Federal habeas corpus petition contesting a State court conviction and a 2-year limitation period for a Federal conviction. The bill outlines special habeas corpus procedures that States may adopt for capital cases and limits the granting of stays when prisoners have failed to file a timely appeal. The bill also directs the courts to accelerate the process, by imposing a 60-day deadline for Federal district courts to decide a habeas corpus petition and a 90-day deadline for appeals courts to decide an appeal. Finally, in keeping with this Congress' commitment to stop passing mandates on the States, H.R. 729 will help States pay for the costs of defending their convictions against habeas corpus claims in capital cases. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is in line with the 1991 ruling of the Supreme Court that death row prisoners may file only one habeas corpus petition in Federal court unless there is a sound reason why any new constitutional claim was not raised the first time. I note that the California District Attorneys Association unanimously adopted a resolution in support of H.R. 729, calling it a significant step in the right direction. Let us heed the advice of those who know best--the district attorneys, the Powell Commission, and leading constitutional experts. Lets pass H.R. 729 and enact meaningful capital punishment reform.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] explain again. As I understand it, there is that route.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like to say one thing: I see my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], here, and even though in many of the economic issues we disagree, I want to point out something, that on the floor, when the leadership of his party was blasting Christians, two of the Members of the Black Caucus came up to me, Major, and they grabbed me by the arm and said, ``Duke, don't you ever lose your Judeo-Christian values,'' and they stick tight, and they believe in those values, and I would like to thank my friend, Mr. Owens.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You should be proud of what you are doing, but being held down and getting beaten down every day makes it kind of tough.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The tax package.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is Republicans and Democrats, the approval of Congress, what we are doing.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do not want to take a whole bunch of time. We are marking up an education bill tomorrow which is part of the contract. We are not talking too much about that; also the defense side. But we have got the freshmen represented here. Most of them we campaigned for. We have got sophomores. I just wanted to let you know how proud that we are that for 4 years, many of us sat here on the House floor and were rolled over day after day. The Committee on Rules determined every piece of legislation that came to the floor. In 20 years, the Republicans only had one motion to recommit passed. The King-of-the-Hill rules, we never won a single one, and for the first time, I heard the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] bring it up, that there are many of the Members on the other side of the aisle that really want to work and do the people's business, but the leadership, the liberal leadership, in the past has prevented that either from twisting arms or preventing it by the rules on the House floor, and I think we are seeing by the numbers of these votes that we can do these things in a very bipartisan way in which the American people are asking. You look at 290 votes or 300 votes on an amendment or against an amendment, that I think that shows bipartisanship, and I think that it shows people that this House can work, and after the contract is over in 100 days, I hope we can continue to do the same thing. I just wanted to thank you. I am over there working on this markup for tomorrow. I want to thank all of you.