Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has crimes that are very serious crimes. My question was, are there any crimes for which the sentencing guidelines now are a year or less?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are there any offenses in here that if one does twice, do the sentencing guidelines now provide for a year or less for any predicate offenses that the gentleman is describing?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what else does it apply to other than section 2241? What kinds of activities does it apply to?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does not conflict, but what does it apply to? Because it appears, looking through all of these sections, that some crimes for which one could get probation, two of those would result in a life imprisonment. I mean that is why we have a Sentencing Commission. They can go through this to determine what the appropriate sentence would be, and we are having a great deal of problems trying to determine all of the areas to which it might apply. It obviously applies to the very serious sexual offenses, but there are a lot of offenses listed in there, touching through clothing, for example, that it may apply to, and two offenses of that for which probation would probably be the sentence would result in a mandatory life sentence. Is that right?

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

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems of doing this outside of the committee is that we do not have the opportunity to research and figure out exactly what the impact of the amendment is. Section 2241 of the code already has a two-strikes provision. If I could engage the gentleman from Wisconsin in a colloquy, I would like to inquire of him, how does this amendment change present Federal law?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this may be a no-brainer, but it would have been nice if we had brought it up under the normal procedure so we would have time to evaluate it. Under this amendment, a State would have to pay if they hold somebody for 10 years of a 20-year sentence and then let them go because they only served half the time. But they would have an exemption if they held them for 4 years of a 4-year sentence. If the person served all of the time of a 4-year sentence, held them for 4 years, same offense, they would not have to pay. If the State had held them for 10 years of a 20-year sentence, they would have to pay. I think it would have been nice if we had the opportunity in committee to develop this issue, to see if it made any sense or not. We were denied that opportunity, and, therefore, I will oppose the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, does this side have the right to close since we are defending the committee position?

Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have, as I have indicated, a great deal of problem with the amendment. We should have gone through subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman, to explain how this got here and let him say a little bit about the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman could have convinced a majority of the members of the committee after we had had a hearing and a markup through the regular process, maybe it would have worked, but we are not doing that. We are coming out here and exchanging sound bites. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, that has nothing to do with parole. As a matter of fact, if a person had 4 years and they had to serve it all, maybe I misread it. CQ has the summary of the amendment of the gentleman which says the amendment would not require funds transferred if the criminal had served 85 percent of his original sentence and if the first date had, quote, truth in sentencing with a higher than average typical sentence for a crime, which means the average sentence, all one has to do is serve the average. Someone cannot be held longer than average. Virginia went through this. We took a 10-year sentence, which was a year and a half to 10 years, average 2\1/2\, doubled the average time served so that the average time was 2\1/2\. We doubled the average time so now everybody has to serve 5 years. Now, if we think about it for 15 seconds, the person that could not make parole at all would have served all 10 years. Now that there has been a crackdown on crime, they have to be released after 5 years, even if they are telling stuff that was on those posters. Maybe if we had had some time in committee we could have discussed this, but the gentleman comes springing this out on us without hearings, and we are just doing the sound bite.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment emphasizes the need for us to have held hearings on some of these so that we could determine actually what is going on. This seems well intended; it might work, might not but we just do not know. It is interesting that there is an exemption in this bill for those States that have abolished parole and require prisoners to spend 85 percent of their time in prison; it is truth in sentencing. I like to call it not truth in sentencing but a half truth in sentencing, because as that poster points out if parole is abolished, people can no longer be held. The half truth is a person cannot get out early but they cannot hold them longer either. If a person has a short sentence for which they have to serve 85 percent, they would be eligible for the exemption under this, but if they have a much longer sentence with parole, then they would have been able to retain them. Let us give an example of how that thing works. I am not sure whether I heard the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) right, but I thought he mentioned Mr. Klaas in California. The perpetrator in that case was Richard Allen Davis, who was in prison on a 6-month to life sentence. He was denied parole, denied parole, denied parole. They finally cracked down on crime and abolished parole. He was resentenced to 7.2 years which he had already served and he got on out because they had to let him out, and he committed another crime. He received 8 years; served 8 years. They could not hold him longer because they had abolished parole. Then he got out and kidnapped and murdered Polly Klaas. If that had been parole, he never would have been out on the first offense, certainly never would have been out on the second offense, but because parole was abolished they had to let him out. Even the people, with quotes that the gentleman said, they had to let them out because they could not hold them longer. Maybe if we had had a hearing, maybe we could flesh some of this out so we could determine whether abolishing parole and letting somebody out is better than having a much longer sentence when there is some discretion.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-McCollum amendment was not subjected to the regular process and therefore we do not know what is wrong with the present law in trying juveniles as adults or what is wrong or why the mandatory minimums need to be imposed. I point out on page 12, line 14 of the amendment there are changes in incarceration with adults where the protections of juveniles are very seriously jeopardized. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent at the end of the time for the gentleman from Florida that I be able to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and go right to the vote on the McCollum amendment. I will make that unanimous consent request at the end of his time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).