Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 30 States would not be affected one iota by the passage of this legislation. Murderers will not be deterred from committing another murder because one State might have to pay another State some money. The point is by all people who have actually researched it they have concluded that the net effect would be zero. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nobody seriously thinks a State will be provoked into adopting a multi-billion dollar sentencing scheme to avoid a couple of hundred thousand dollars in terms of punishment under this bill, particularly when that multi-billion dollar sentencing scheme, according to the Rand study last year, shows no evidence of reducing crime. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too have compassion for Aimee. Her tragedy reminds us that we need to do all we can to prevent situations like this from happening in the future. However, this bill does not do that, and that is why I rise in opposition to the bill. The bill provides that if certain convicts are released from one State and then go to another State and commit certain crimes, that the first State will have to pay the second State's costs associated with that crime. But, if the State has adopted one of numerous truth-in- sentencing schemes, then they do not have to pay. Well, Mr. Speaker, no one seriously thinks that the payments by the State would deter a murderer from committing an additional crime, and no one can honestly believe that the incentives in the bill will provoke a State into adopting a truth in sentencing scheme, because the costs associated with the crime are measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and worse, and some of these sentencing schemes, when Virginia adopted Truth in Sentencing, it cost billions, not hundreds of thousands, not millions; billions. So that no State is going to implement this program because of this bill. Now, we were asked by the sponsor a question of whether a pedophile should have a second chance. The bill does not require a longer sentence; it provides one exception of the $100,000 payment if one has adopted the truth in sentencing scheme. Ironically, this 13 percent that do not serve any time at all, they did not get any time, they served 85 percent of nothing. So that would not be a violation of the situation. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the truth in sentencing schemes have been studied. The Rand Corporation studied it last year, and they could find no evidence that truth in sentencing schemes did anything to reduce crime. Therefore, the bill is, and I quote, ``onerous, impractical and unworkable. It is worse than an unfunded mandate. It is certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy; it is enormous and costly, with a probable public safety impact of zero.'' Now, those are not my words; those are the words of the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the Department of Justice and a noted criminologist. Yet, despite all of these very critical descriptions, the bill comes before us in an amended form on the suspension calendar without ever having been marked up in committee. Now, I am aware, as everyone here, that no good politician should vote against a crime bill named after somebody. However, I think that before we vote on the bill, we ought to have the evaluations from those who have evaluated the bill and what they actually thought about it. Since those who have evaluated have such strong concerns about it, I suggest that the Members ask their State legislatures and ask their governors whether or not they believe that it will reduce crime or whether it will simply allow Members of Congress to take credit for passing a good sound bite and continue to avoid doing all of what the experts say will actually reduce crime, and that is investing in prevention and early intervention programs. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will include for the Record portions of letters from the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, Frank Zimring, a law professor from the University of California at Berkeley, and from the Department of Justice, all of which are critical of the bill. [Excerpt from letter dated August 30, 1999 to the Honorable Robert C. Scott, U.S. House of Representatives from the Council of State Governments:] aimee's law S. 254: ``Aimee's Law'': When an offender convicted of one of several violent offenses serves an insufficient amount of his sentence in prison and, following his release, commits a similar offense in another state, the first state must reimburse, out of its JAIBG monies, the second state for the cost of apprehending, prosecuting, and imprisoning the offender. H.R. 1501: Similar provision. Recommendation: Strike this section. It appears that few, if any states, comply with the conditions set forth in ``Aimee's Law.'' At least one of the sentencing requirements if far more stringent than any of the standards provided in the violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Accordingly, as a result of this provision, each of our jurisdictions is likely to lose part of its JAIBG funding. Furthermore, the provision is almost certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy to monitor compliance with the law and to account for subsequent adjustments to block grant amounts awarded to states. In addition, although ``Aimee's Law'' seeks to punish states where adults are incarcerated for an insufficient length of time, it appears to penalize various programs, including those that serve juvenile offenders, by reducing a state's JAIBG allocation. Lastly, the premise of the bill (allowing one state to be reimbursed for another state's failure to meet truth-in-sentencing standards set by Congress) sets a precedent that has implications far beyond criminal justice.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I hope the gentleman would proceed as quickly as possible. The Committee on the Judiciary is waiting for this bill to conclude so that we can complete a lot of work that we have been handling, so I would hope that the gentleman would proceed as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) to transfer one-half, or approximately $122 million, of Truth in Sentencing prison grant funds to Boys and Girls Clubs and drug court programs. Mr. Chairman, the so-called ``truth''-in-sentencing is actually a ``half-truth''-in-sentencing. Proponents of truth-in-sentencing will tell us that nobody gets out early. That is the half truth. The whole truth is that no one is held longer, either. When States adopt truth-in-sentencing schemes, the first thing they do is to reduce the length of sentences that judges have been giving out under the parole system and then direct the defendant to serve all of the reduced sentence. For example, under a parole system, if a judge says 10 years, the average defendant will serve about 3\1/2\ years. Some will get out earlier, some will get out later. The more dangerous criminals can be held longer. But under truth-in-sentencing, everybody gets 3\1/2\ years. Those who could have gotten out early are held to the full 3\1/ 2\ years, but those who could not have made parole, those that would have served 10 years, get out in the same 3\1/2\ years. The problem is that the lower-risk prisoners will serve more time and the most dangerous will serve less time. Even if we were to double the average time served and double the prison budget so that everybody serves 7 years, the worst criminals will still get out earlier than they would under the parole system. So under truth-in-sentencing, the less dangerous criminals get punished severely, but actually rewards the most dangerous, hardened criminals who could never have made parole. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we know that prison education and job training are the most effective ways of reducing the chances that someone might return to a life of crime after they get out. But when we abolish parole, we eliminate the incentive they had to get that education and job training, and that is why a Rand study last year concluded that truth-in-sentencing does not reduce crime. Finally, not all States qualify for truth-in-sentencing grants, whereas all States qualify for crime prevention programs. And the few States that do qualify for truth-in-sentencing funds can only use those funds for prison construction. At this point, some States have actually overbuilt prison space. My own State of Virginia, in fact, is trying to lease out prison beds to other States. We have an excess of about 3,000 excess prison beds that we are trying to lease out. So there is no reason for us to give money to States to build prison beds that they do not even need. Mr. Chairman, States are already spending tens of billions of dollars on prison construction every year, so this $121 million spread out amongst the 30 or so States that qualify for truth-in-sentencing funds cannot possibly make any measurable difference in the number of beds built and, in fact, like the Rand study concluded, cannot make any measurable difference in crime. But if that money is spent on boys and girls clubs and drug courts, we can certainly make a difference in the crime rate. We know that housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs experience a dramatic decline in drug activity. In fact, Boys and Girls Club participants had less truancy and were more likely to graduate from high school. The Department of Justice reports the presence of Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing reduced juvenile crime 13 percent and reduced drug use 22 percent. Studies of drug court programs have repeatedly shown that drug offenders subject to drug court programs have a lower recidivism rate than those who are sentenced to prison. Studies have shown that the drug courts are so effective, in fact, that they save more money than they cost. So, Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop throwing money away on bad crime policy. The evidence shows that truth-in-sentencing has not reduced crime, but we do know that drug courts and Boys and Girls Clubs will reduce crime, and that is why I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, the amendment was designed to take money out of the truth-in-sentencing grant and not the law enforcement block grant, but specifically, just the truth-in- sentencing grant money that all States do not even qualify for.

Mr. SCOTT. We asked Legislative Services to draft it such that only the truth-in-sentencing block grant was implicated, and we have been advised by them that that is what it does.

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the reduction is on page 28, line 5.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would move $10 million from the truth-in-sentencing prison grant funding to the community-oriented police services crime identification technology program. The money would be there for use of States to use for eliminating their DNA testing backlogs, including the backlog of rape evidence cases. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the minority that the Congressional Quarterly inadvertently said it came out of another fund, but the amendment is supposed to come out of the truth-in-sentencing money and go to the community-oriented policing services crime identification technology program. Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, DNA has moved the role of forensic laboratories from bit player to star player in the criminal justice system. I am proud to say that my State of Virginia has been a leader in the use of DNA evidence. Our crime lab, under the professional direction of Paul Ferrara, was one of the first to use DNA testing for criminal justice purposes. Not only has the DNA analysis proved to be an efficient and convincing way of identifying perpetrators of serious and sometimes heinous crimes, but it has also proved a convincing way to exonerate the wrongfully accused and sometimes imprisoned individuals. For example, DNA played a prominent role in the recent moratorium on executions instituted by the Governor of Illinois after the Innocence Project established that 13 people on death row in that State were actually innocent. It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, to have an innocent person wrongly convicted, Mr. Chairman, but it also means that the real perpetrator remains free to commit more crimes. Just this morning a man from Montgomery County, Maryland, a few miles from here, was released from rape and murder charges based on DNA analysis, and another person who was currently being held on the charge of rape in another case was apparently implicated. Currently there are hundreds of thousands of collected but untested DNA samples from offenders and suspects from around the country. Last week during consideration of a bill to address the backlog our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), reported that New York City alone has over 16,000 unprocessed rape kits. No one in this House, Mr. Chairman, has been a stronger advocate for more funds for DNA testing than our friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). None of the proposals before the House at this time are sufficient to address the backlog fully, but several bills are being considered by the Committee on the Judiciary, and one of which was reported from subcommittee included a $10 million authorization, and therefore, the $10 million request in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the truth-in-sentencing prison grant program can only be used for prison construction, so the money is sending tens of millions of dollars to a few eligible States, some of which, like my State of Virginia, do not even need the money for that purpose. Virginia has thousands of beds that it rents out to other States or keeps empty. Other States have accumulated truth-in-sentencing money because they are not currently building prisons, and many States do not even qualify for any of the money at all, but all of the States qualify for DNA testing and have DNA testing backlogs. Mr. Chairman, tragically, because of the DNA backlog, thousands of individuals who have committed serious crimes remain free while police waste their time, as well as waste the time and lives of innocent suspects. In the meanwhile, we are sending money for States for prison building, whether they need it or not. To add insults to injury, a recent study by the Rand Corporation on truth-in-sentencing prison incentive programs concluded that it was not reducing crime at all. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would better prioritize our scarce resources for protecting public safety and properly administering criminal justice by putting them first to use in sorting the guilty from the innocent and apprehending the guilty. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by the gentleman from West Virginia to restore funds to aeronautics research programs. This amendment is particularly important, given the actions we took last night to cut an additional $30 million from these programs on top of the cuts contained in the bill. Our national investment in aeronautics is moving dangerously in the wrong direction. We have already experienced a 30 percent cut in NASA aeronautics funding over the last 2 years, and then we made cuts in the bill and another cut last night. The National Research Council report in 1999 warned us that past cuts have already wreaked havoc and may threaten U.S. preeminence in our aerospace industry. Their leading panel of scientists warned us that continued reductions in aeronautics research and technology would jeopardize the ability of the United States to produce preeminent military aircraft and the ability of the aeronautics sector of the United States economy to remain globally competitive. Mr. Chairman, if these cuts are to be enacted, our aviation system is set on a disastrous course. The cuts we are making will put the safety and reliability of our air transport system at risk in the near future. Mr. Chairman, aeronautics research has yielded significant technological breakthroughs that we have seen recently; aircraft safety and efficiency, which includes wing design, noise abatement, structural integrity and fuel efficiency. Mr. Chairman, every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology, and it is important to remember that these technological developments take 5, 10, 20 years before they ever come to fruition. We know that domestic air traffic will triple in the next 20 years, and that is why we need to make these investments today. Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not just shortsighted, they are dangerous. I support the Mollohan amendment, because it will ensure the future safety and efficiency of our air transportation system.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a true bipartisan effort. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their work in crafting reauthorization which will ensure that federally-impacted school districts will continue to be compensated for the loss in property tax revenue due to the military or Federal presence in their district. I want to specifically thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) on behalf of the Virginia Tidewater Delegation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) and myself for his assistance in resolving a unique situation in the district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) at the Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach. As a result of the efforts of the chairman, the Virginia Beach school district can continue to receive Impact Aid without future penalties and other school districts who find themselves in a similar situation as it relates to rehabilitated military housing will have the appropriate guidance. Mr. Speaker, Impact Aid continues to be an important funding stream for school districts that enroll a high number of children whose parents serve in the military or whose parents are Federal employees. There is one part of the bill, however, Mr. Speaker, that needs improvement. I encourage the conference committee to work towards adjusting the funding formula to better reflect the impact of military and civilian dependent students whose parents work on Federal and military installations but actually reside in the local community. The school districts, obviously, will not benefit from the taxes paid by the employer of Federal employees. And employer taxes represent a substantial portion of the tax base which pays for public schools. And so, an increase in aid for those children will help compensate what the loss is to the school districts by the loss of employer taxes. That means a lot to school districts in Norfolk, Newport News or Hampton in my district. But the same scenario holds true for the other school districts in the Hampton area of Virginia such as York County, Virginia Beach, and Chesapeake. I want to congratulate my colleagues on this reauthorization, and I look forward to working with them towards full compensation of school districts for the loss in taxes that they receive and the Impact Aid as an extremely crucial part of helping that funding gap.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, although there was no subcommittee mark and no committee mark, we have been denied an extension of time. Everybody knows this is a waste of money. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining within the time period. I yield that 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the committee.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time on this debate be extended by 20 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I request 20 additional minutes of debate, to be equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.