Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I just want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for this initiative. I think it improves the bill. It is very useful, and it certainly is acceptable to our side.

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

Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, is it not true that there was a $50 million program for midnight basketball?

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

Mr. HYDE. Was it $49 million?

Mr. HYDE. That is an improvement.

Mr. HYDE. May I ask the gentleman, were there any categorical grants in that omnibus crime bill? I wanted to ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] because he is an expert on this: Were there any categorical grants?

Mr. HYDE. Are those where we tell the States what they must do to get the money?

Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HYDE. I appreciate the congratulations. I usually disappoint the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Coerce? Reclaiming my time, coerce is not the same as incentive. And we are providing incentives for them to have--does the gentleman not agree that sentencing someone to 10 years and they get out in 3 is a fraud?

Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if the States were doing everything right, we would not truth of the matter is, 10 years does not mean 10 years; 15 years does not mean 15 years. The public thinks it does, but they are learning that it does not. We are trying to use a concept that is alien to some people in this Chamber. It is called incentives. It works in economics, and it works in crime fighting. The gentleman from Massachusetts said somehow a pall of depression falls over us Republicans when the Democrat administration does something right. I would just tell the gentleman: NAFTA and GATT. When the administration does something right, and it does--it does--they get support from this side of the aisle. But the romance with categorical grants has been on their side. I recall the last crime bill, the so-called omnibus crime bill, if you wanted to get a piece of that $50 million, you had to have midnight basketball. You had to shoot free throws, because that was a Federal program and you had to participate. We were telling communities. ``If you want some of this money, then here's a program where you can get it.'' But what we are doing here is saying here is money to build prisons. If you want to build prisons, let we have truth-in-sentencing. That is a simple exchange. It is not asking too much. I think this is what the public wants. They want tougher sentences, and we are going to help them impose the tougher sentences by giving them the resources to build prisons. That ought not to be too difficult.

Mr. HYDE. Of course. How could the gentleman answer if I do not yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he can meet it and get his share.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I remember the gentleman was a leader in resisting the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit that was imposed by the Federal Government on the States, and the gentleman was in violent opposition to the Highway Beautification Program. The gentleman is a crusader for States rights. He speaks with some credibility. I just suggest that you do not need to be a nuclear physicist to understand that we ought to lock these people up and not kid the people that 10 years means 3 years. And the gentleman ought to help us do that.

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

Mr. HYDE. It is not enough to arrest violent criminals. It is not enough to convict them. It is not enough to lock them in jail. You have got to keep them in jail. If there is one thing that offends the public, it is knowing that you get a 10-year sentence and you are out in 3. This bill provides the incentive necessary to have the States elevate their sentencing to 85 percent of the years granted. That is what the public wants. We would be very foolish just to say build more prisons, if the same 5 to 7 percent of the hardened criminals that commit 70 percent of the crime go in and come out, go in and come out. We can kill two birds with one stone here by providing the resources to build the badly needed prisons, but at the same time make sure that these violent, and we are talking about violent felons, get locked up for a decent term, at least 85 percent of their sentence. So we would be just foolish to give the money and say do the right thing. We are going to goad them to do the right thing by providing this carrot, this incentive. So I reject the amendment, however much I am warmed by the fact the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] likes the block grant approach.

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

Mr. HYDE. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's conversion to block grants is indeed reassuring.

Mr. HYDE. I understand. I am overly grateful, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that recognizing the practice of the former majority party in the Committee on Rules, I would just say that he does hold us to a higher standard, and he is right in so doing.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield 15 seconds more?

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the problem with the Watt amendment is it vitiates the very purpose of habeas corpus reform. It makes an already endless, interminable process increasingly subject to more and more delay. The fair administration of justice means these matters have to finally come to closure. John Wayne Gacy spent 14 years appealing, appealing, appealing from the time of his conviction of murdering 27 young men until the time he was executed. These matters have to be brought to closure, not as a matter of statistics, but as a matter of justice to the families of the victims and as a matter of justice to the law itself. One of the weaknesses of the Watt amendment is there is no requirement of showing due diligence in discovering this new evidence. If one sleeps on his or her rights and years go by and then in an acquittal, it seems to me that does not rise to the level of the deprivation of the constitutional right such as would make the reopening of these trials appropriate. This goes on endlessly, endlessly, endlessly; and so without a showing of due diligence that you looked for all the evidence you could and there was a reason why you could not find this--which is not a requirement in this amendment-- and probably would be acquitted by virtue of that evidence, rather than unquestionably just does not seem just. We have Supreme Court cases, Herrera versus Collins, and Schlup versus Delo, both capital cases, that stand for the principle that if you do not show a constitutional error then you have to show that you would unquestionably be released. But, bring these habeas corpus matters to closure. Have the trial as good as you can and then exercise due diligence. If there is evidence that was not presented at the trial but just across 15 years later and say here is new evidence that probably would result, means there is never any finality to these matters and that in and of itself is unjust.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the Watt amendment. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)