September 29, 1989

              S12226
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
September 29, 1989
outlays and one is calculated at 10 percent in outlays. When both are for
prison construction, Mr. President,
that obviously makes no sense. And
the marshals' program doubtless has a
bigger outlay ratio because it deals
with renovation.
So I think dollar for dollar this will
work out so there are really no differences. But on the mathematics it has
to be scored as I have just represented.
Mr. President, there are many Federal prisoners held pretrial in State facilities which causes massive overcrowding. In Philadelphia for example, there are Federal prisoners detained. In Pittsburgh, for example,
there are spaces for Federal prisoners.
That means we cannot hold in those
facilities people who ought to be detained for State crimes. State convictions. This is very important because if
you deal with just 150 spaces, and you
deal with career criminals who are
known to commit as many as 700
crimes a year, when you deal with 150
prisoners you are dealing with 100,000
crimes.
I regret the necessity for advancing
this amendment en a Friday afternoon
at 1:20. But this issue of prison construction is something that this Senator has worked on for the last 9 years.
I have tried to get this worked out
with the managers and cannot, although we have been discussing it for
many days, and therefore I am taking
this issue to a rollcall vote.
It is simply unfair when you have
Federal prisoners taking up space in
State facilities which adds to State
crime. We are supposed to be putting
up $1.4 billion on prisons and part of it
ought to go to pretrial detention so
the Federal Government pays for Federal prisoners.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The distingnished
Senator from Pennsylvania is a
member of our committee, a very valuable member, and certainly a leader on
the Judiciary Committee itself with
respect to Federal prisons. He has
worked long and hard for State and
local facilities, and we need them in
South Carolina as well as Pennsylvania.
The fact of the matter is, though
the Federal need for prison beds is
even greater than the local and State.
Federal prison facilities have what you
call 165 percent oversaturation. The
State systems have 135 percent So the
problem is great at the State level, but
the amendment addresses not construction at all. It is a cooperative
agreement program that we have with
the States that is made with the U.S.
Marshals Service. And to give you
some idea and flavor for this, to keep
prisoners who are awaiting trial, this is
mainly in the county detention facilities. The CAP Program is designed to
assist only those facilities that axe es
sential to support the Federal courts.
It is not to cover the cost of housing
local and State prisoners.
Program funding and staff resources
are limited and, accordingly, construction and expansion projects are restricted to areas where the Marshals
Service is encountering difficulties in
obtaining adequate detention space for
Federal prisoners. And by fully funding the President's request for the Cooperative Agreement Program, we are
supporting awards like Providence, RI,
with $1 million; Akron, OH, $600,000,
Columbus, $300,000; Grand Rapids, $1
million; Oxford, $500,0000; Louisville,
KY, $500,000; Madison, WI. $250,000.
You see, in that cooperative agreement there are minimal amounts
given. It is done based on greatest
need by the U.S. Marshals Service. It
is not any kind of $25 million for 750
beds in one State. Look what the Senator from Pennsylvania really does.
We are trying our dead level best-to
leap forward in the construction of
prison facilities so we can take care of
our own and will not have to detain
them in your county facilities.
Incidentally, there is a surprising
coincidence here. This bill before us
now has two Federal Prison complexes
in it, which the Bureau of Prisons has
requested, one complex "In Colorado
and one where? In eastern Pennsylvania, Montgomery, PA, at the Allen-
wood site. What would happen if this
amendment passes? We would cut that
Federal complex in eastern Pennsylvania, which is actually three prisons—a
maximum, medium, and minimum—
and which will hold 1,950 beds, in
order for him to get his 720 beds for a
State and local facility. •.---—*.'
Another point about this is that it is
not part of the drug agreement Under
the leadership agreement we are
going to be forced to. table this amendment because it is not within the
agreement We put every dollar that
was requested by the President under
this cooperative agreement program—
$5 million in this bill and $10 million
more to the drug amendments. But,
back to this amendment, I do not want
to say you cut your nose off to spite
your face, but I can tell you for 720
beds, much, much later you are going
to lose what we are trying to do for
Pennsylvania.
We recognize the problem there and
in other parts of the country. The
1,950 bed complex has already been
approved without an earmark in the
Bureau of Prisons budget right this
minute. But that is where he is going
to transfer all of that money out
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield to our ranking member
before I move.
Mr. RUDMAN. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, the Senator from
South Carolina has said it alL But the
real issue that we are faced with
here—I am not saying we might have
worked   it   out   otherwise—the   thing
that really makes it impossible is the
different spend-out rates.
Whether the Senator from Pennsylvania, my good friend, agrees or not
the Congressional Budget Office advises us to get this $25 million that he
wants for, I am sure a very legitimate
purpose, requires a transfer of $137
million of budget authority for the
prison account
People might wonder why that is.
The why is very simple. We have to
put a lot of budget authority in this
prison account But it spends out at a
very low rate, about 10 percent, whereas the Cooperative Agreement Program spends out at a higher rate,
roughly 50 percent. So we have to
cancel 137 to get 25.
No. 2, to the extent that we can complete this enormous prison building
program that the Senator from South
Carolina and the Senator from. New
Hampshire have been working on now
for 3 years, to the extent we can do
that, we are going to take the pressure
off local and State prisons to house
Federal detainees.
For that reason, I must very regrettably—and I am not happy about it—
but I am going to have to join my
friend from South Carolina in moving
to table this at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor..
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The- PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from. Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senate is not in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate wul come to order.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time do I
have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six
minutes thirty-two seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I
have listened to the argument—Mr.
President can we have order? We are
trying to have a short time agreement,
but it is very hard to make this argument If the Senate is not in order. We
only have 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President I am
at a loss to understand the arguments
which have been advanced in opposition to this amendment When the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talks about the differences in
spend-out it just does not make any
sense if they are Federal prisons to
hold prisoners after conviction or if
they are State prisons to hold Federal
prisoners before conviction.
The spend-out is the same, and GBO
cannot justify one at 55 percent and
one at 10 percent. That is another part
of the mysticism of CBO. But I think
it is fair and accurate to say that the
spend-out will in reality be about the
same. Whatever the figures are, however, we have adjusted them so there
is no budget difference.
When the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina talks about another prison facility in Pennsylvania, I