Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 667 - Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995

(SENT 2/9/95)
(House)
(McCollum (R) FL)

The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 667, but would support the bill if Title I were deleted and certain other changes were adopted.

Title I would establish an inferior substitute for the prison grants program created by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The substitute program would result in fewer criminals being put behind bars. Specifically, Title I would misallocate resources by:

• Distributing funds for prison expansion to eligible States primarily in proportion to population — without regard to differences in violent crime rates or other measures of need.
  
  
• Allowing funds to be used to support incarceration of only a limited sub-class of violent offenders.

The Administration also opposes Title I because:

• States with lower statutory maximum sentences for violent crimes can more easily meet the targets of the proposed "Truth-in-Sentencing" program, compared to States that impose longer sentences. This is a perverse approach that would undermine flexibility and the objective of ensuring adequate penalties for violent offenders.
  
  
• It effectively bars strength training for prisoners. Limitations of this type increase disorder and discipline problems by depriving prison authorities of the ability to withhold a privilege from prisoners.

The Administration also opposes the proposed repeal of the Drug Courts program. In light of the limited efficacy of conventional measures, and the promising results of drug court programs that have already been established, it would be a profound mistake to eliminate this program.

The Administration supports Title II, which would build on the 1994 Act through reforms that would help control excessive and abusive litigation by prisoners.

Title III attempts to build on the 1994 Act by strengthening measures that can be taken to limit litigation on prison conditions. The Title does so, however, in an excessively intrusive fashion that raises Constitutional and policy concerns.