Mel Watt

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is very similar to the Scott amendment which was just considered. However, Mr. Chairman, under the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], he would have allocated a small amount of funds under this bill in a fund at the national level to make an assessment of whether the bill was having any impact on violent crime in this country. This amendment gives that responsibility to the States or the localities which are applying for funds under this bill. Basically what it says is if you have an 85-percent service requirement, your prisoners have to serve 85 percent of their time, give us what indication you have that that has had some impact on the incidence of violent crime in your State; do not ask us to just throw money out there after this problem. If the purpose of your building new prisons or increasing sentencing or providing for longer sentencing is in fact to reduce crime, tell us that that is what has happened in your State, taking into account the increase in population. The second part of the bill requires that the States track the incidence of violent crime and keep statistical information so that that information can be available to the residents of that State and to the American people, that we are not wasting $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion of their money on something that is really not having any impact on violent crime. So instead of accepting that responsibility, taking it out of the fund at our level, this imposes on the States, which will be applying for funds under this bill, to have an assessment process and present some indication that this money that we are giving them is having some impact on violent crime. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I am advised by the leadership on our side that we have agreed to this, notwithstanding the fact that it is contrary to the proxy voting rule that is in effect and will deprive some people of the right to be on the floor and in committee at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted 2 additional minutes.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the Chair for enlightening me.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Informally.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. How can we rise out of the Committee of the Whole without a motion to that effect? I did not hear anybody make a motion. It is strictly a technical point, but there are some procedural rules that apply in this body, I thought.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Under current law they would have the right to do it, but under this bill they would not have the right to raise it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Let me go back because the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has reminded me that under present law they actually would have the right to raise it, but once this bill is passed, they will not have the right to raise it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am trying to figure out why we want to limit debate. Could the gentleman enlighten us? I just want to find out what the amendment does and what is the justification for limiting debate on it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will yield, I was not responding to that. I do not know how many appeals he had. None of them were based on a claim of innocence. That is the point the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] is making, and if a person is probably innocent, which is, I mean, that is what your words are, probably innocent, I submit to you he should be given a shot, and that is all this amendment says.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. That is the ultimate standard we are talking about; that is not the standard for review. The standard for review, based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling, is the standard that I have picked up in my amendment.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I want to be clear on exactly what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] said. The standard is convincing evidence, he says.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If this bill passes they would not have that opportunity.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, it is not about the death penalty procedure, it is about somebody coming in with credible evidence of innocence. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman understands.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the process that the gentleman has set up for raising constitutional issues is the same process within which this language would fit. It does not change that process. It does not prolong it any longer than raising a constitutional claim prolongs it.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, just for the brief purpose of assuring the gentleman that this is not a radical change. January 1995, January 23, 1995, this year, the Supreme Court said that this is the law. And all I am trying to do is stop them from changing the law. I want them to put the law in as the Supreme Court has said it is. This is not a change from existing law. I assure the gentleman.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there is one part of what the gentleman said that I just want to make sure that everybody understands. He talked about being a father and being a grandfather and doing what is necessary to protect his children and grandchildren. I want to make sure that I am clear that the gentleman would not go out, a father and grandfather, and avenge a crime committed against his child or his grandchild by shooting somebody who is innocent. And that is what this amendment deals with. I have no problem with the gentleman taking out whatever animosity or whatever frustration he has against victims, against a person who is guilty. But if a person is innocent, we do not sanction in this country going out and taking the life of somebody else just because the gentleman is frustrated.

Mr. WATT of North Carolina

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, although I doubt I will take 4 minutes. I do not know what I can say about this. I just want to make sure people understand what it is we are doing here. All of my colleagues and the American people are getting, if this amendment passes, the Federal courts completely out of the habeas business. You will not have any Federal habeas rights if this bill passes, because in order for you to get in the Federal court, the Federal court would have to find that a decision that was rendered in the State court was arbitrary or unreasonable interpretation of clearly established Federal law, resulted in a decision that was based on an arbitrary and unreasonable application to the facts, resulted in a decision that was based on an arbitrary and unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State proceeding. And what you are doing, really, is inviting rock-throwing between the Federal courts and State courts. Now, we know how gentlemanly and cordial the courts have been with each other. Federal courts never ever say to a State court that, ``Court, you have been arbitrary and unreasonable.'' That would not even be gentlemanly, would not even be proper protocol, almost, in a Federal court. I have never seen a Federal court say to a State court, ``Judge, you have been arbitrary and unreasonable.'' That is the kind of stuff that we say to claimants when they file lawsuits. So here we are now inviting the Federal courts to start throwing rocks at the State court and the State court to start throwing rocks back at the Federal court and doing away with even the one opportunity that was guaranteed, or at least provided in the underlying bill. And we are doing it, I would add, without the benefit of one iota of discussion in committee about it. I have been banging my head against this wall all day, and I am sure you are going to do whatever you want to do. But at least if you are going to do this, have somebody came in and present some evidence that it makes sense. Ask Federal judges if they think it is a good idea for them to start saying to State judges that, ``You are arbitrary and unreasonable.'' It just does not happen. So the practical effect of what you are doing is to say that you are never going to have any rights in the habeas arena in Federal court. I encourage my colleagues to be reasonable and defect this proposed amendment.