[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 395 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 395
Resolved That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent crime. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against the bill and against its consideration are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary. After general debate the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House. The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to a resolution reported on or before the
legislative day of March 23, 1994, providing for further
consideration or disposition of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 395 is the first rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of
order against the bill and against its consideration. The rule provides
that after general debate the committee shall rise without motion and
that no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except as
subsequently ordered by the House.
Finally, the rule waives clause 4(b) of rule XI against a resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules on the legislative day of March
23, 1994, providing for further consideration of H.R. 4092.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to begin consideration of
H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. In the
State of the Union Address, the President urged Congress to set aside
partisan differences and to pass a strong, smart, tough crime bill. In
response to this call, the House has before it today a far-reaching
bill that does exactly that.
H.R. 4092 is a strong bill that authorizes over $15 billion in
funding to address the crime problem on a number of different fronts.
This targeting of Federal funds on crime is the largest ever considered
by the House of Representatives.
H.R. 4092 authorizes a total of $3.45 billion in Federal grants for
50,000 more cops on the beat. The legislation authorizes a total of $3
billion to help States build new prisons for the incarceration of
violent repeat offenders.
H.R. 4092 is a smart bill that focuses on the causes of crime. The
bill authorizes $7 billion for community programs intended to prevent
crime and targets $525 million for programs providing employment
opportunities for young adults in areas with high crime and high
unemployment rates. The bill authorizes $100 million to reduce gang
activities and the use of illegal drugs by juveniles and authorizes $20
million for programs in which law enforcement and child and family
services agencies work together to deal with incidents of violence
involving juveniles and children. The bill authorizes $7 million to
prevent crime against older Americans.
Finally, H.R. 4092 is a tough bill that expands the Federal death
penalty by more than 60 offenses, including drive-by shooting, the
murder of a police officer, drug trafficking, and kidnaping. The
legislation mandates life imprisonment for a conviction of a Federal
violent felony if the defendant previously was convicted of two serious
Federal or State drug offenses or violent offenses with a potential
sentence of 10 years. It provides that juveniles 13 years or older
could be tried as adults for certain violent Federal crimes. The bill
overhauls the rules for death row inmates who have exhausted the State
appeals process by allowing one Federal appeal within 1 year of the
final State decision and requiring States to provide defendants with
competent lawyers.
The bill also addresses the problem of violence against women and
provides grants to State and local governments for programs to reduce
violence against women and punishes those who commit crimes against
women. The bill establishes new Federal crimes of interstate domestic
violence, stalking, and establishes a national task force on violence
against women.
The bill also includes the use of ``bootcamps'' for youthful first-
time offenders. The bill provides $200 million for States to develop
new programs to ensure the punishment of youthful offenders, who might
otherwise be placed on probation. These grants can be used for
alternative punishment such as ``bootcamps'' which would teach troubled
youngsters the value of hard work and instill discipline.
Mr. Speaker, far too many of us no longer feel safe in our own
neighborhoods. Violent crime is on the rise across our Nation. H.R.
4092 cannot solve all of society's problems which result in increased
violence, but it is an important step in taking hold of the situation
and turning this country's crime problem around.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 395 is a fair rule that will begin
consideration of this wide-reaching crime bill. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and the bill.
{time} 1210
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, some say that the House Democratic leadership
has been stung by criticism that it has not done enough to combat crime
in America--but, not to worry. In an extraordinary election-year frenzy
to get an anticrime bill passed before we head home for a 2-week
recess, the Democrat leadership has placed the Rules Committee in the
center ring of a circus. This circus has provided us with this bill,
H.R. 4092, the 1994 omnibus crime bill. It is a compilation of almost
two dozen freestanding anticrime proposals, all rolled into one bill.
The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Brooks,
described this bill as carefully balanced and primarily made up of
measures this House has dealt with in the past. But, Mr. Speaker, we
have 114 new Members of this House who were not here for debate the
last time an omnibus crime package came through. Even Members who have
been around for awhile believe this bill needs to be improved.
These amendments, weighing in at a modest 10 pounds, are the 179
amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee for consideration
along with the crime bill--99 by Democrats and 80 by Republicans--
offered by more than 100 Members, almost one-fourth of this House. All
of these ideas come even though there is no composite committee report
for H.R. 4092.
We now embark on a contorted and confusing process of debate that
will lead us through three separate rules. That is why I have labeled
this sort of a three-ring circus, but given the nature of what we are
talking about. Perhaps we should call this the ``three strikes and
you're out'' rule. And it is the Members who are out. This rule invokes
a special procedure known as the ``two-thirds martial law rule,''
designed to pave the way for a second crime bill rule later today,
without the customary overnight layover. The second rule will likely
include a batch of amendments of high priority to the majority and the
minority, so we can advance this debate throughout the day. Then we can
expect a third rule tomorrow, to deal with the remaining amendments and
wind this whole performance up in time to go home and tell people we
did something about crime.
There is no dispute about the importance of beefing up our Federal
crime laws--in fact, the Republicans introduced a comprehensive
anticrime initiative last August 4, a bill that now carrier 95
cosponsors. Late last fall, when the other body passed a substantive
crime control bill, the minority pleaded with the majority leadership
to consider our bill in the House. No chance. But now things look a bit
different. After all, it is 1994 and Americans go back to the election
booths in just a few short months with concerns about the rise in crime
foremost on their minds. Perhaps that explains the seemingly sudden
sense of urgency on the part of our Democrat counterparts.
We all know that our constituents do not feel safe--in neighborhoods,
shopping centers, schools, and even homes and cars. As Federal
legislators we walk a narrow tightrope--setting the tone, providing the
tools and then getting out of the way so local law enforcement can do
its job. Above all, we must not pass a gutless crime bill simply to say
we did something. Logic tells us if we put criminals in jail, they
cannot commit more crimes. If we ensure that justice is swift and sure
by doing away with endless appeals, we save the States money that can
be channeled into other crime-fighting initiatives.
When people know they will be caught and punished if they commit a
crime, fewer will take the risk. And if we reinforce the importance of
our children saying ``no'' to drugs, ``no'' to sex and ``no'' to
criminal behavior while saying ``yes'' to responsibility, then we can
put a stop to the tragic cycle of juvenile violence.
Still, as important as tough and meaningful Federal legislation is,
it is only one step along a very long road. The violence and despair we
face is rooted in our communities, not within the thick white walls of
this Capitol building. We simply have to restore education, discipline,
and adherence to some basic values, especially respect for others,
decency, a sense of community and individual accountability.
Back in my district recently, I saw a very disturbing sign of the
times. Instead of the familiar ``my child is an honor student'' bumper
sticker, a car boasted the slogan, ``my child beat up your honor
student.'' How far have we come?
Mr. Speaker, in the next day and a half Members will have a brief
chance to explore some of the things that this Federal Government can
do to assist communities and law enforcement in reversing the trend of
violence, drug abuse and broken homes. It is just not enough time and
the American people expect more. I wish we had organized full debate
and deliberation after the Easter recess to take up this crucial
topic--in a more orderly and less-rushed format. For that reason, I
must oppose this rule. Crime control is simply too important to be used
as a convenient election-year gimmick.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of H.R.
4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
H.R. 4092 is the strongest anticrime bill this House has ever
considered. I am glad that we have finally moved it to the floor, so
that we can translate our rhetoric about crime into reality.
The answer too many children give when asked, ``What do you want to
be when you grow up?'' is: ``I just want to grow up.'' Far too many of
America's young people live in an atmosphere of pervasive violence that
destroys their hope for the future.
I would like to read part of a letter I recently received from one
young constituent. He wrote:
I am a freshman at Cornell University. I grew up in
Rochester, New York and I have been personally affected by
the deterioration of our American cities. Last summer, when
we were 17 years old, a friend and I were carjacked and
driven around Rochester at gunpoint by two other 17-year-
olds. We survived, but two weeks later another friend was
murdered by gang members. Upon returning from Cornell for
[Christmas], I learned that an 18-year-old girl from my
neighborhood was carjacked and then shot in the head and
chest. She died, too. Homicide statistics in the morning
paper sure become a little more vivid when you become a part
of them.
Mr. Speaker, this bill fights crime on two tracks. On one hand, it
strengthens our neighborhoods with ounce of prevention programs,
community policing, and efforts to reduce gang activities. At the same
time, the bill's provisions on law enforcement and three-time losers
ensure that serious offenders are prosecuted and put behind bars--for
good.
Our first responsibility is to those who sent us here. We owe them a
bill that restores their freedom to walk the streets without fear--and
even to daydream about the future sometimes. We cannot afford any
further delay in fulfilling this promise.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a member of the
committee.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution. I do so not because the time is not here to debate the
crime bill, because it is, but because this resolution takes away a
significant tool for the Members to know what they are voting on.
By waiving all points of order, which this resolution does, and this
waiver will be applicable toward rules II, III, and IV, the requirement
that a committee report explaining the arguments and the details of
what is about ready to come before the House is waived. That committee
report is very important from a number of standpoints.
First, it is important to describe the various features of this
comprehensive bill, which is an amalgamation and a conglomeration of
several other bills that have been reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Second, the committee report would inform the Members as to the total
cost of this legislation, because the rules require that committee
reports contain a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, as
well as an estimate as to the impact on inflation.
We are dealing here with major amounts of money, and we ought to be
giving thought to make sure that this money is being effectively spent,
rather than going back to the knee-jerk reaction of the Great Society,
where Congress simply threw money at problems and was not very
concerned about the administration of those funds or what good those
funds would bring about.
I have heard estimates that say the cost of this bill ranges from $12
billion to $22 billion over the next 5 years. That is not small change.
I think that that requires a very good look by the House as a whole as
to how these programs are being set up and how these funds are to be
administered.
Second, I am concerned that there is no funding mechanism involved in
this legislation. When the other body passed the crime bill, they
established a trust fund which would be used to finance programs like
cops on the beat and drug treatment in prisons and things like that,
for which there is no real substantive argument.
Here we are not establishing a trust fund. There is no amendment to
make a trust fund in order, so we are just having an empty promise of
an unfunded authorization bill at a time when the Congress and the
country are living under discretionary spending caps. Without a funding
mechanism, every dime that is authorized in this bill will end up
requiring a 10 cent for 10 cent reduction in other programs that are
presently funded by the Congress.
To combat crime, we have to be tough on prevention, as well as
backing up our promises.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker I am proud to support the bill and the
fine efforts of the committee to bring this bill out. As a former
sheriff, I have a couple of amendments that I would like to discuss on
this bill. I think they are important and make the bill favorable.
First of all, many times you have individuals that provide the
testimony that gets a conviction in a courtroom. Some of these
individuals are convicted and some of these felons say, ``When I get
out of jail, I'm going to hurt you. I'm going to get you, Judge,'' or
``I'm going to get you who turned that evidence against me.''
After they come out, as evidenced by an article in the Readers
Digest, too often they come back and live up to that promise, and they
literally at times have not only hurt some of those victims or some of
those people who have brought the evidence, they have killed them as
well.
The first Traficant amendment says 30 days prior to release they
notify the principals that this felon is being released into the
community, the victims, the people that gave the testimony against
them, the judge and the jury, anybody who was involved in that that may
be a principal.
Second of all, we are talking about nonviolent offenders and the
deterrence of crime. The worst day I had as a sheriff is when a young
man was raped in the Mahoney County jail. That's right, raped. There
was no reason for that nonviolent offender to be in that jail.
The Traficant amendment says the judge will have options, and could
in fact put the wrist bracelet on, with the devices where they could
monitor them in their own home, and let them pay big fines. The bottom
line is, though the Traficant amendment says that the judge could also
order that their picture be published with the offense they have
committed, and they are responsible to pay for that photograph, and let
the community know. That would probably serve as the greatest deterrent
Congress could possibly pass.
The last amendment deals with disabled police officers, those who
have been injured or disabled in the line of duty. It calls for the
establishment of counseling centers for many of these disabled,
wounded, or officers who end up losing their homes, losing their
marriages, because of their job and because of the injury they sustain.
It creates a fund, $3 million, to establish these regional counseling
centers that can work with the policemen that are so affected to try
and help to bring them around.
I would appreciate it if the committee would give an opportunity for
these amendments as we come down to a more specific rule, and I would
hope that they would be included in the list of amendments.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from San Dimas, CA, Mr. Dreier, a distinguished member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding me the time.
I congratulate him for his very fine statement.
I listened to my friend, the sheriff from Ohio, talking about his
amendments that he hopes to include in this bill. The fact that he is
talking about his amendments and the other 177 amendments that we are
now hearing upstairs in the Committee on Rules leads me to join the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] in opposing this rule.
Why? Well, here we are talking about a very important crime bill, and
this rule grants an hour of general debate, but what are we going to
debate?
{time} 1230
We do not know what amendments are going to be allowed under this
rule that is finally going to come down that will make that
determination. So it is a very sad commentary on where we are today
when we want to proceed with discussions on legislation that we have
not even seen.
Yes, we have the bill upstairs. The bill is this thick, as the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] pointed out. The stack of amendments
is about three times as thick, so let us do this in an orderly way. Let
us make a determination what amendments are going to be considered when
we bring this to the floor and allow general debate to take place
around those amendments. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he many consume to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Brooks.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
The debate over the crime bill last Congress is instructive in
considering the rule today. At that time, The Rules Committee permitted
about 50 amendments to be made in order under the rule adopted by the
House. As usual, I think that the Rules Committee both then and now is
striving to achieve exactly the right balance and mix: enough
amendments and alternatives to allow a good healthy debate of the major
issues, but not so many that the House cannot finish its work because
of overlapping and duplicating amendments.
I should note that during the recent markup in the Judiciary
Committee of 13 of the underlying bills included in H.R. 4092, 63
different amendments were proposed: 24 of them were adopted, another 24
were defeated, and 15 others were either ruled nongermane or withdrawn.
And let us also remember that almost half of the provisions of the bill
before us have already been formally adopted by the House by votes such
as 421-0, 422-0, 413-23, and 394-32.
Some of the issues garnering considerable debate in committee
included the three strikes you're out proposal, the grants to States
for prison construction provisions, death penalty and procedures, the
crime prevention proposals, habeas corpus, and racial justice.
It is my belief that the alternative proposals made in order under
the rule for the major sections of the bill are both fair and
appropriate to the offerors on both sides of the aisle. As I said at
the Rules Committee yesterday, I believe that my colleagues on the
other side should be given a fair chance to debate their major
proposals and this rule addresses that need.
I know there are some who ask why we do not delay consideration of
the bill because so many amendments have been filed and because the
House has not had sufficient time to consider the committee's work
product. But in response to that argument I say to all of my
colleagues--do not fall for the delay trick. The bill tracks very
closely the work product of the crime conference report adopted by the
102d Congress. I reject those who want to wait till late spring or
early summer to vote. We have had an overabundance of process in
crafting this bill and remaining open to major amendments. It is time
to move forward. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule so we can get on
with passing the crime bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will just briefly tell the distinguished
chairman that I have here what looks like the ``Congressional
Directory'' in front of me. It is not. In fact it is just a list of the
Members that wish to testify at the other ring of this circus up in the
Rules Committee right now, and I know he appreciates the hard work the
Rules Committee does and we appreciate the hard work his committee
does. But we do not want to do your work and you do not want to do our
work, and we are simply suggesting perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that the work
is not yet complete because there are so many Members who feel that
they have something to contribute to this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, one of the important elements that is
contained in the bill that we are going to be considering in both
general debate and then which will itself be subjected to amendments
later, is the death penalty to which the chairman has alluded in his
remarks.
In the past, we have had monumental discussion and debate over this
important issue. We ought to begin this debate and make it abundantly
clear that the American people support by overwhelming majorities the
imposition of the death penalty in the brutal murders that they read
about day after day or see depicted on television.
We have been struggling for a generation in this Chamber to convince
those who oppose the death penalty, those Members of Congress who
oppose the death penalty, that first we ought to have a death penalty
and second that they should not stand in the way, those who oppose the
death penalty, in crafting procedures so that the death penalty, when
imposed, will meet the constitutional standards and not just line up
people on death row who, with appeal after appeal, will avert the final
judgment that has been conferred upon them by their fellow citizens.
This is an important portion of the debate which is forecast now by
me in which I want to lay down some forecasts and some warnings.
The bill as it is now contained on the death penalty allows so much
discretion in the jury that will be deciding life or death for the
brutal murder who has already been convicted theoretically in a
previous trial, and now the punishment is being decided, a brutal
murderer has been convicted of that murder and now the convict is in
front of the death penalty jury.
The way the bill is now crafted there is so much discretion left in
the jury as to what guidelines to confer on the process to determine
whether or not a person should have the death penalty that it becomes
unconstitutional and reverts back to the 1970's where the Supreme Court
said with too much discretion in the jury they can, on the basis of
favor or prejudice, find either death or life not on the facts but on
how they feel about a certain defendant and how that defendant looks to
them.
And so my amendments, which I hope will become in order, will tighten
up the procedure and allow guidelines for the jury to be able to impose
the death penalty in proper brutal cases and be confirmed by the
Supreme Court.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleagues, what is all of the
fuss about? The folks on the other side of the aisle have been
importuning us that we must do something about crime. I have agreed
with them.
{time} 1240
I felt we have to do more about crime. I feel that we have a
comprehensive and broad bill, and we have to have a bill that is paid
for, and so what is happening is because we have been, since session
has gotten back with hearings and subcommittee and full committee
markup, we do not want to get caught in a conference that drags on
through the summer.
Yes, we are moving as quickly as we can to get a crime bill on the
floor.
Now, I understand all of our concerns. I have amendments, the
gentleman from New Mexico has amendments, everyone has amendments; they
want to see them in order. But I can tell you this, that there will be
a second rule, and maybe a third. Nothing wrong with that, in my
judgment.
The question is, Will the rule be fair or unfair; will it allow the
great debates to occur on the issues that face us; will they allow us
to debate the death penalty; will they allow us to debate three strikes
and you are out; will they allow us to debate the programs that we have
put into the bill? My strong feeling is that they will.
So I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to
prejudge but wait and just see. Sure, we do not have to do the rule
now. We could wait until everything is worked out in the Committee on
Rules, and I admit that that is the regular order, and then maybe we
will not have a bill for 3 more weeks come to the floor.
We have momentum now. We have some degree of consensus. We do not
agree on everything, but the broad outlines of a crime bill that says
punish those who commit violent crimes toughly and prevent,
particularly, smartly, by focusing on youth who could go one way or the
other. That is basically in agreement. The details do remain to be
worked out, but I would plead with my colleagues not to slow down what
we are doing. Wait and see. See what the rules yield.
My guess is that my colleagues will be quite pleased that every major
issue will be debated and voted upon by this body and that we will
emerge by Friday afternoon with a bill that almost every one of us can
be very proud of, a bill that for the first time deals with both
punishment and prevention and for the first time puts its money where
its mouth is and says we are not going to just talk about programs, we
are actually going to create them and implement them.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of the gentleman from New York very
interesting, because this is the part of the debate about the Committee
on Rules. The Committee on Rules is trying to determine what we are
going to bring to the floor. About half the reports on this bill have
not yet been filed. Yes, some have been filed, as the chairman, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], said, but a great many have not.
It is very hard for us to tell what the debate is going to be about
and who is or is not going to have a chance to have deliberative
democracy at work on their proposals and ideas on this, because we do
not know yet.
Why are we here trying to pass a rule when we do not know what the
rule is?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the very
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is a former
prosecutor and a former defense attorney who knows a good deal about
this subject.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with the subject I brought up
before my colleagues earlier this morning about the subject of repeat
offenders.
Of all the different aspects of trying to solve the problem of crime,
which is a complex problem in my judgment, the single most identifiable
problem is the repeat offender. That is the individual who has chosen
to commit crimes as a career. That is why they are also called career
criminals. These individuals, depending on the crime they have
selected, may commit three, four, five offenses a day, but whatever it
is, it is 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
The career criminal, the repeat offender, is addressed in this bill
under the provision three strikes and you are out. Three strikes and
you are out is commonly discussed across the country. The problem is
that in general it means three crimes, in this case, three violent
crimes and mandatory life in prison.
Nevertheless, that is a general idea. The idea of the specifics of
three strikes and you are out can vary considerably from legislature to
legislature to the Congress.
For example, the legislature in the State of New Mexico where I am
from just passed a three-stikes-and-you-are-out bill, but the
definition of the crimes that would apply to become one of those
strikes is so narrow that I doubt it will apply ever, ever to very many
criminals. It is not effective in the least.
Here in this bill, a strike is not defined as an offense. The list of
offenses, although I think it can be increased and improved, is
basically a decent list of offenses. Nevertheless, a strike is not a
crime by itself.
In other words, if somebody commits three murders, murders three
people in a row sitting right here, that is one strike. If a person
murders someone on Monday, murders someone on Tuesday, and murders
someone on Wednesday, that is one strike, not three strikes. Neither of
those examples are three strikes.
Why not? Because the definition of a strike in the bill before us is
not the crime but the conviction for the crime. Before you can move
from a crime or set of crimes as a first strike to a second strike,
there has to be an intervening conviction. There has to be a conviction
so the individual can be punished, have a chance to reflect on their
ways and decide not to be a repeat offender.
With that in mind, I would suggest that if we are going to be dealing
with violent criminals, two strikes, that is, two convictions for
violent crimes should warrant mandatory life in prison.
Now, in committee, in the Committee on the Judiciary where I serve,
that idea was rejected by the majority on the idea that somebody could
make, well, a mistake when they are 19 years old and then, well,
another mistake when they are 39 years old, and, hence, be subject to
mandatory life in prison.
In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it works that way. I do
not think somebody commits a murder, a rape, an armed robbery, goes to
Harvard, gets an MBA, joins the Peace Corps for a couple years, comes
back, and commits another murder or rape or armed robbery. I do not
think that happens.
I submit essentially you have a career criminal.
I am going to offer the two strikes and you are out to the Committee
on Rules. I have done so, and I hope they make it in order and we can
vote on it.
But I have offered an alternative. If two strikes, that is, two
convictions for violent crime is rejected for the reasons given, the
alternative I would offer to the House of Representatives is as
follows: if the first strike, that is, the first conviction is for a
series of the same crime, that is, two or more armed robberies, two or
more rapes, or two or more murders and so forth or the equivalents
under Federal law and then there is a conviction and then there is
another series of the same offense, two or more armed robberies and so
forth, that person is a career criminal. That person, under my
alternative amendment, would have committed at least four individual
acts of violent felonies.
Under that situation, I am arguing that those should be two strikes
that put a career criminal away for life. It makes no sense to give a
serial criminal a third chance to go out and be a serial criminal.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman earlier has
made good points about the process.
I do not have any question at all about the genuine sincerity of the
Members working to prepare a rule or to bring this bill forward, but to
suggest that those of us who are concerned about how quickly this
process is moving and how kind of messed up it seems to be over these 3
days, for them to suggest we want to delay this bill is disingenuous.
We do not want to on this side. We very strongly want to see crime
legislation out.
In fact, a lot of Republicans were concerned because we did not see
this bill out last year before the August recess, certainly before the
November recess, and we made our complaints known at the time that the
serial bills were brought up, some of the smaller bills that are
incorporated in this larger one we are going to debate today and
tomorrow and presumably the next day.
Our concern is how, over the last couple of weeks, we have suddenly
rushed to judgment with so many times and hours in markup in the
subcommittee and then the full committee, and now to get this bill out
just before we go on this recess, the haphazard process with which the
Committee on Rules is considering the amendments before us, which makes
it very difficult for the minority to get its amendments in order, to
get itself heard, to make those decisions that are important to go to
the floor.
A number of my colleagues have expressed those concerns to me. They
are simply procedural in nature, and I think they should be recognized
as that with some justification.
Sixty-five Americans are murdered and 288 Americans are raped each
and every day in this country. A boy born in 1974 stands a greater
chance of being a homicide victim than a soldier in World War II stood
of dying in combat. Nine hundred and seventy-nine criminals are
released early from prison every day, and approximately 6,000 convicted
rapists received no prison sentence at all last year.
I would suggest those figures and that data tell us why the American
people are so anxious for us to enact Federal criminal laws that
provide leadership across the board to the States and to everybody
involved in this war against the violent criminal and why this
legislation we are about to consider is so important.
{time} 1250
The product that is coming out today is a hobgoblin of all kinds of
things, many of them well intentioned. But the primary concern that
this Member has and I think most on our side of the aisle have is that
when all is said and done, the limited resources we have are devoted to
the real problem, the primary problem that we must address, which is
applying a tourniquet to those bleeding to death, in the straight,
literal sense of the word, from violent repeat offenders, those who are
getting out, those 6 percent or so who are committing 70 to 80 percent
of the violent crimes and serving about a third of their sentences in
this country.
We must stop that revolving door, we must incapacitate those who are
committing these heinous, violent crimes again and again. And only when
we do that can we turn our attention and the limited resources the
Nation has to fight crime to some of the root-cause problems that
exist. That is not to say we ignore them in the meantime, it is just to
say that the high priority out of this legislation and all others in
the States going on today has to be directed to this violent criminal
crisis that we have in this country.
To anything less than that, to do anything less than moving toward
truth-in-sentencing so that we really send a message that puts
deterrence back in our criminal justice systems, with swiftness and
certainty to send a message to the criminals is to not do the job the
American people expect us to do because we will not be stopping the
crisis we have today.
So as we look at the amendments that come down the road, the most
important ones deal with this subject, how do we move on, how do we
send a message? Put truth-in-sentencing so that we require everybody to
serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. There is a big incentive
to the States to do that; Federal laws are not sufficient. We have got
to be able to encourage the States, though we do not pass the State
laws here, we need to find ways to do this, such as the prison grant
program, attaching eligibility requirements that encourage in
reasonable fashion States to do such things; get to pretrial detention,
get to appropriate mandatory sentences for these very bad people and
take them off the streets; end the endless appeals of death-row inmates
that do not have the burden that this bill would do that would cause
the prosecutors never to be able to carry out or have carried out the
death penalty again in this country.
We need to get to the point where we are sending the message to deter
the violent criminal and take the worst off the streets for a very long
period of time, including the ``three strikes and you're out''
legislation, which all of us certainly support not only here but in the
States.
So I do not know what the rest of the rule is going to look like any
more than anyone else here does today, but I am deeply concerned, I say
to the gentleman from Florida, because it might not contain the things
we want to, because we must have the opportunity to amend the bill. The
bill, in its present form, is not a good bill. It has some good
features in it, but it is not doing the job that is necessary.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding and letting me explain the
thought premises involved in this debate.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I
reserve the right to close. I have one speaker remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we have no other speakers besides myself. So I
presume we can get on with this rather quickly. I yield myself the
balance of my time.
I want to say in summation what we have been talking about here on
this rule--and we are talking about the rule--this is very serious
business. We are talking about a criminal justice bill, but we are
talking about the rule, and that is a little something different.
In terms of criminal justice, we all know we want a program that is
smart, we want a program that is tough, and we also want a program that
is complete. And that is what our concern is. We have so much to weigh
in such a short period of time that it is virtually certain that we
cannot complete it in an organized, efficient and accurate management
way. It just simply cannot be done, given the volume of paper.
That means somebody is going to get left out, some good ideas are
going to be missing, and we will probably have some unintended
consequences that will be extremely negative. That seems to be what
happens when we rush legislation.
Nobody can say the Republicans have delayed or tried to delay. We
have been ready and willing since August 4 with a package--August 4 of
last year--and now here we are on March 23, suddenly confronted with a
work period or holiday deadline saying, ``Oh, my gosh, what we talked
about in August and pleaded for in August of last year we suddenly now
have to get done so that when Members go home they are comfortable and
do not get asked embarrassing questions about `why haven't you done
anything on those initiatives about getting tough on crime that the
Republicans brought forward last August?'''
Well, I understand that. I sympathize. Everybody would like the
comfort of being able to say what is going on. But nobody wants to
report that we did a sloppy, incomplete, or poor job on a bill that is
so important.
I think that I am speaking of the rule now, and I am characterizing,
I think, the way in my view it is being sold. That is the way the rule
is being sold by the leadership on this. They are trying to convince
the Members that this is a little bit like buying baloney, you get it a
slice at a time, ``Trust us, it is going to be good, but you are just
going to get it a slice at a time.'' But we are going to take at least
three cuts at this rule.
Let me tell you what that means: If you come in here and say, well,
this is not a malevolent rule, 1 hour of general debate, no problem, I
can support that. But what you do not know is how much further you are
going to be brought along, it is like a fish nibbling ever closer to
taking the bait and grabbing that hook, because by the time we get to
the third slice of this particular piece of baloney, you are going to
find that you do not have a choice and a lot of Members are going to
find they got locked out, left out, and we will not have completed
deliberation. That is my big concern with this. We start out with what
is benign and we end up with something that is not quite as benign when
we are through.
I would guess it is not fair to say that 1 hour of general debate is
enough on this. How many hours have we debated on the balanced budget
amendment? How many hours have we debated other subjects? Crime is
probably No. 1 out there in the polls in this country. One hour is not
enough, surely.
What are we going to debate anyway? Are we just going to discuss--go
back and check that in the process indeed about half of the reports
have not been filed? So we really do not know what is in the bill or
what is not going to be in the bill, because we still have all these
amendments to do as you go along.
We have had testimony upstairs, alternating our time between the
floor and our hearing room. The committee upstairs had testimony coming
from Members. ``Well, I didn't have a chance to finish this,'' in front
of the committee, or, ``We are trying to work this out with Chairman
Brooks in some other way,'' or, ``We are going to try to work this out
in some other way,'' or, ``We are going to get together and see if we
can communicate some amendments.''
This is really a strange way to go through the legislative process.
Frankly, in my 5 years, I have never seen anything quite like this so
far.
I guess what I conclude with is that this is simply just not ready to
bring forward to this House. I know there is greater urgency to move
this bill. I want to move it too because I want to say Congress has
done a great job on crime. But it is more important to me to say we
have done a great job on crime and then be able to deliver the product
than to say we have done a great job on crime and come up with a
gutless bill.
That is my fear, and that is why I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is a fair rule, and it is not unprecedented. This is the way we
have handled bills that get as involved as this one. There are before
the Committee on Rules at this time 176 amendments that we are trying
to deal with. It is impossible to deal with all of that in the so-
called one ball-of-wax. What we are trying to do is get a crime bill
passed as expeditiously as possible. It makes, to me at least, common
sense that we go ahead and take care of the general debate.
What will be made in order will be voted on this House, whether it be
one more rule, two more rules, or three more rules. I cannot think of a
fairer way to do it.
You know, I do not think there is a more important bill that comes
before or that is going to come before this Congress.
We are daily giving up our freedom in this country or ours. For over
200 years we have been known as the land of the free. We are no longer
the land of the free because we are no longer free to walk the streets
and byways of this country without fear of great bodily harm to
ourselves and to our families and to our friends.
There is no more important bill than this. I hope that we are going
to make some concrete steps forward.
You know, we have more people incarcerated in prisons in this country
per capita than any other nation in the world, and we keep building
them. We cannot build them fast enough. But it does not seem to help
the crime rate. I was looking at a television program last night.
{time} 1300
I see where the Chinese shipped over 1 million cheap rifles into this
country last year. Now these are not rifles used for hunting. These are
rifles that are used to kill people. And what are they doing with the
profits? According to the news, Mr. Speaker, they are using it to help
build up their military.
As my colleagues know, we have lost whatever judgment we ever had
about this society of ours and what we are letting happen to it daily.
I say to my colleagues, ``I mean, you know, you don't have to be locked
in a jail to lose your freedom. All you have to do is to be like me, to
have a home within four or five blocks of our Nation's Capitol with the
most sophisticated burglar alarm, to pull up in front of your house and
to look up and down the street to make sure you have a quick run into
the house so that you know there aren't any suspicious characters
around. As you ride down the street and you stop at stop lights, you
look over next to you and wonder, wonder if there might be a gun on the
seat of that car next to you and, just for the heck of it, your head
will be blown off.''
Mr. Speaker, this is imprisonment. This is imprisonment, and we daily
are becoming more and more imprisoned in this country. And why? We fail
to realize it, but we fail to take steps to do anything about the gun
culture in this country.
And then I ask, ``Why don't we take steps to do something about the
abuse of drugs in this country that contribute to 80 percent of the
people who are locked up in State and Federal incarceration today?''
It is beyond me. I do not know what it is going to take.
But I can assure my colleagues that it is not going to be pleasant,
what is going to happen if we do not do something, and we are going to
have given away everything that this country ever meant. We are going
to have given away everything that our forebears fought and died for
just because we do not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the
problem today.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 175, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 84]
YEAS--240
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Glickman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--175
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--18
Andrews (NJ)
Bryant
Gallo
Gonzalez
Lambert
LaRocco
Mazzoli
McMillan
Moran
Natcher
Ortiz
Pelosi
Spratt
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Washington
Weldon
Woolsey
{time} 1322
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). Pursuant to House
Resolution 395 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4092.
{time} 1324
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4092) to control and prevent crime, with Mr. Torricielli in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear today on behalf of
the Committee on the Judiciary to begin general debate on H.R. 4092,
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The
legislation is the result of perhaps the most extensive review of
policy and substance surrounding the complex issue of crime in the past
15 years.
There is a simple, irreducible reason why crime--both its punishment
and prevention--is the preeminent issue on the minds of most American
citizens: it is because no force is more damaging to the fabric of
national life than acts of violence against person and property. We
cannot as a people be truly free when we live in fear; and there is
none among us who has not at one time felt fear in the workplace, in
one's neighborhood, and, yes in one's own home.
Crime also has a corrosive effect on a society. By draining the
energy and resources of the Government from more productive pursuits,
crime stifles economic progress and impedes the development of a
standard of living to allow our citizens to enjoy the fruits of their
labor, and their freedom as Americans.
The omnibus legislation before you is carefully balanced: it's
hardnosed about punishment yet forward looking in seeking to prevent a
whole new generation from going down the wrong road. We can do no less.
From the outset, our purpose has been to construct a bill that can
reach the President's desk and not be a hodge-podge of ill-conceived
initiatives. To this end, the legislation before you is respectful of
the States and the important historical role they have played in this
arena. Unlike some other legislation, H.R. 4092 avoids placing undue
burdens on the States in the area of prison enhancement, and, equally
important, does not seek to federalize every crime under the Sun. That
is because we have to be realistic and acknowledge up front an
undeniable fact: As hard as we try at the Federal level, no omnibus
legislation can be a panacea for crime afflicting our neighborhoods.
Only 4 percent of all serious criminal convictions are obtained in
Federal courts; 96 percent of all crime control efforts occur at the
State and local level. We cannot forget that fact in placing our
efforts in perspective today.
Will we be able to maintain this balance between punishment and
prevention between Federal assistance and primary authority vested in
the States? Judging from past experience it will be difficult, indeed.
All of us have witnessed the spectacle in the other body where a 962-
page bill was created--almost in a spirit of default. Sponsors of
amendments accepted widely divergent amendments on the stipulation that
their amendments would be accepted in turn. When we go to conference,
conferees will have their hands full, trying to see that the
equilibrium represented by H.R. 4092 is not torn asunder.
I am proud to say that Members on both sides of the aisle in this
body have labored diligently to craft a cohesive, comprehensive piece
of legislation. Subcommittee chairmen Schumer, Hughes, and Edwards
conducted some of the most probing hearings on crime issues seen on the
Hill in the past 20 years. They were ably assisted by Republicans such
as Congressmen McCollum, Hyde, Sensenbrenner, Schiff, and Ramstad in
trying to create a crime policy that makes sense and lays the framework
for future work. I commend them all.
It is clear to me that our work here today is really part of a larger
debate--a debate among the national family of citizens about what
values we wish to address and be identified with as a people. As with
any family decision, there has to be firm resolve to make hard
decisions and abide by them--but also spend the time needed with the
young among us to help them understand what is needed to lead
productive and fulfilling lives.
{time} 1330
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, all of us are here today for the same
purpose. We all want to see the crime crisis that faces this country
today, the repeat violent offender crime crisis addressed the best way
we know how.
Federal law itself is not the total answer, because most of these
crimes, as the distinguished chairman from Texas has said, are State
crimes. We need to form a Federal-State partnership. We need to reach
out. We need to provide leadership. We need to do those things that are
essential to solve this critical problem facing our Nation today.
Statistics do not tell everything, but they tell a lot. Five million
Americans are victims of violent crime every year in this country.
Sixty-five Americans are murdered and 288 are raped each and every day.
A boy born in 1974 stands a greater chance of being a homicide victim
than a soldier in World War II stood of dying in combat. Nine hundred
and seventy-nine criminals are released early from prison every day,
and approximately 6,000 convicted rapists received no prison sentence
at all last year.
An estimated 60,000 violent offenders will not go to prison this
year, including 1,100 convicted murderers and 6,900 convicted rapists.
If that sounds shocking to Members, it should. The fact of the matter
is that 6 percent of the criminals of this country are committing an
average of about 70 to 80 percent of all violent crimes of this
country. And they are serving only about a third of their sentences,
somewhere around 37 or 38 percent.
We have a revolving door that is letting them out of prison again and
again and again. So the first thing we have to do, when we look at this
crime legislation today, as thick and voluminous as it is, is to say,
is it good enough to do the job of getting these violent criminals off
the streets who are repeat offenders and locking them up for long
periods of time and throwing away the keys? Anything else that we do in
this bill is secondary to that.
I would suggest the bill in its present form does not begin to solve
that problem. We need to reach out with a partnership to the States. We
are not allowed, because of the germaneness rules of this House, to
offer the so-called regional prison concept, but some of us will be
supporting an effort to approve a grant program to build more prisons
that are absolutely essential under this bill to help the States to
provide money to States and State compacts to build them for housing
serious violent offenders or alternative nonviolent offenders who would
free up prisons for those violent offenders.
But in order to get that money, there should be conditions those
States go through to apply and to be eligible for it. One of those
conditions is that they pass truth-in-sentencing laws that basically
abolish parole for those who are serious violent felons in this
country, the repeat offenders who are causing this problem. Make them
serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, at least. Have pretrial
detention laws denying bail that are at least as restrictive as Federal
law. Pass certain minimum mandatory sentences that are appropriate in
the most heinous of crimes and provide a three strikes and you are out
provision for life sentences like the Federal Government is doing in
this bill to apply to the States where most of these crimes are
committed.
If we do not do at least that, we will not have accomplished the task
that the American public expects or at least to begin that path.
The fact of the matter is, we need to send a message of deterrence.
We need to apply a tourniquet, the country is bleeding, the wound is
there. It is open, and we need to apply a tourniquet to stop that
bleeding. We have somebody who has been run over by a car and has a
severed arm. He may have some other injuries and things that need to be
repaired, but before we can get to those other injuries we must apply a
tourniquet to stop the arm's bleeding. If we do not stop the bleeding
by getting these violent criminals off the streets, we will not have
the resources to devote to get at the root causes of crime that some of
my colleagues want to do. So I think the measure of this bill needs to
be judged on the basis of how we address that problem first and
foremost.
Sending a message, saying to somebody that if they get 20 years, they
are going to serve 20 years, if they do these violent crimes. If they
get the death penalty, it is going to be carried out instead of having
endless appeals.
If there is an essence to this legislation, it has to fall in that
category. We need to recognize that there are problems that Federal law
has created beyond the question of the death penalty procedures and the
issue of needing more incarcerations for these criminals to stop the
repeat violent felons.
We have court rules today that prohibit search and seizure evidence
from coming in to get convictions that we should be getting. We are
holding the hands of the police officers behind their backs, and we are
not getting the kind of convictions that we should get. Prosecutors and
police have demanded a change in the so-called exclusionary rule for
years. We should have the opportunity to do that.
We should double the sentences for those who are under 18 and over 65
in order to send a message that when one commits a crime against a
young person or an old person, they are going to serve an extra length
of time; a message of deterrence by putting swiftness and certainty of
punishment back into the system again, to make the criminal justice
system work.
I hope that the amendment process, when it is over, and we do not
know what it is going to be. We do not know what the rule is on the
amendments to be allowed out here today. I hope that when it is all
said and done that we will have done enough, that we will have provided
this basic framework, this partnership with the States that is required
to stop the revolving door and keep violent criminals locked up and put
deterrence back in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler].
(Mr. KREIDLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure.
Mr. Chairman, the plague of violence sweeping across this country
threatens every family, every neighborhood, every community. Crime
statistics fail to tell the full story. Even though some crime rates
are down, the fear of crime--especially random, senseless violence--is
destroying the quality of life for millions of Americans. In Washington
State, the percent of homicides in which the victim was killed by a
stranger increased from 12 percent to 28 percent from 1984 to 1992.
We used to think of crime as a problem of the inner cities, and it
still is among the greatest problems in urban areas. The congressional
district I represent is almost entirely suburban. But in one community
of 20,000 people, there were 1,500 violent crimes last year--a rate
three and a half times New York City's. Suburban schools are installing
metal detectors. Driveby shootings can happen anywhere. Children are
killing children.
In the 9th district, we have had our share of tragedies in just the
last few months:
Thirteen-year-old Larry Rodgers, stabbed to death in Lacey last
November by reputed gang members because of the color of his clothes.
Sixteen-year-old Zachariah Spears, shot to death a few days before
Christmas at Sea-Tac Mall.
Fifteen-year-old Shaun Proctor, shot to death in the back on New
Year's Day in an apparent robbery attempt in Tukwila.
Sixteen-year-old Tyrone Leon Anthony, gunned down in February during
an argument with other teenagers at a Milton convenience store.
Youngsters like these, their families, and our communities deserve
security and justice. Those who prey on them deserve punishment.
Whatever else we think about the role of government, we all agree that
government's first duty is to assure public safety. State and local
governments have assumed this duty throughout history, and continue to
have primary responsibility. But the Federal Government can and must do
more to help.
That is why I support this Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act--a comprehensive, balanced strategy to combat crime and violence.
This bill authorizes $3.45 billion in the next 5 years to pay for up
to 50,000 more local police officers across this country. This will
help cities in the 9th district like Renton, Sea-Tac, Tenino, and Yelm,
which have applied for the more limited funding we authorized last
year. Communities like these need more police to patrol the streets,
work with neighborhoods and business owners, respond rapidly to crime
reports, and arrest offenders. Without adequate policing, we cannot
hope to get criminals off our streets.
The bill also includes new sentencing laws that send a powerful
message to violent criminals: ``Three strikes and you're out!'' As a
cosponsor of the Three-Time Loser Act, I'm glad we are enacting in
Federal law the principle Washington State voters approved last year by
a 3 to 1 majority: Anyone who commits three violent felonies, anywhere,
gets locked up for good. That's how to protect society from the small
group of criminals who do the most harm, over and over again. And it
sends a message to all those who might consider violence as a way of
life.
Tough sentencing laws won't work unless we have the prison capacity
to make them stick. Too often, dangerous offenders have to be released
before their sentences expire because prisons are full. Prison
construction and operation is very expensive for States as well as the
Federal Government. This bill includes $3 billion in the next 5 years
to help States ensure that prison space is available for violent repeat
offenders.
But no one can afford all the prison cells we'll need if we don't do
more to keep young offenders from beginning criminal careers. In one
year, more than 18,000 children were held in detention facilities in
Washington State. Too many first-time juvenile offenders are either put
on probation or locked up with more serious criminals. Some get the
message that crime goes unpunished; others get advanced training in
criminal behavior, their own ``law-breaking'' degree. States like
Washington are experimenting with programs like ``shock incarceration''
or boot camps, restitution and community service, to send a different
message to youngsters: Crime does not pay. This bill provides $200
million a year to help these States send that message.
The best way to fight crime, of course, is to prevent it in the first
place. That's not just a job for law enforcement, it must involve the
whole community. This bill includes $7 billion for community programs
to prevent crime, involving schools, parents, social service agencies,
and community groups, as well as law enforcement agencies. Programs
like after-school tutoring and athletics, job training and placement,
substance abuse prevention and treatment, gang and drug resistance
education, and others can make the essential difference in thousands of
lives.
For women, the greatest threat of violence comes not from strangers
but from those whom they know. Roughly 80 percent of sexual assaults
against women are committed by someone known to the victim. And more
than 4 million women suffer from domestic violence, which Secretary of
HHS Donna Shalala rightly calls ``terrorism in the home.'' I am
especially pleased this crime bill includes the Violence Against Women
Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, which would increase
training for police and court officials, fund rape prevention and
domestic violence shelter programs, toughen laws on protective orders,
make interstate stalking a Federal crime, and establish a national task
force on violence against women.
No one who cares about public safety can ignore the traffic in
illegal firearms and the tremendous damage guns in the wrong hands can
do. That's why I support the Youth Handgun Safety Act, which is part of
this bill, making it a Federal crime to sell or transfer a handgun, or
handgun ammunition, to anyone under 18, or for a minor to possess a
handgun. The number of weapons in our schools is hard to believe: In
Washington State, school districts reported more than 1,700 guns or
knives in possession of students last year.
Another important provision in the bill is the Crimes Against
Children Registration Act, which would require States to register
people who have committed crimes against children, including sexual
offenses, for 10 years after their release from prison. I have also
cosponsored legislation to allow the Federal Government to garnish
Federal pensions for court-ordered child abuse payments.
The crime bill also allows State and local governments to use Federal
funds for improving DNA identification systems, and provides for
standards for the accuracy of DNA testing. This new technology allows
identification of criminals, especially those who commit violent
crimes, from evidence that would not have been available just a few
years ago. DNA testing offers the chance to convict criminals who would
otherwise go free.
I also strongly support the provisions in this bill that would
require enhanced sentencing for those who commit crimes motivated by
racial or religious hatred. There is no place in our country for those
who commit hate crimes.
Laws like these will help make our communities safer for everyone.
But every community's first line of defense against crime is its own
citizens. No matter how many police officers patrol our streets, how
many years we lock people up, how much we spend on social services, we
will never be safe unless we reclaim our own neighborhoods. That means
we must rebuild the sense of community and the strengths of family life
that once sustained us.
We must not allow children to grow up in a world where violence is a
way of life, where gangs and drug dealing are the only future they can
see, where deadly weapons are easy for a child to obtain, where
children have children and fathers walk away, where there is no refuge
from violence in the school, the neighborhood, or even the home.
Of course we have to see that the laws are enforced and criminals
punished. We have to support our police and send the strongest message
to those who would prey on the helpless. But there will never be enough
prison cells in this country to hold all the children who are at risk,
right now, in every community, if we let them grow up without values,
without discipline, without strong families, and without hope.
As a parent and former school board member, I know we can all do more
to make our children, our families, and our neighborhoods safer. As
Members of Congress, the least we can do is enact this legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, contains an important proposal that I,
along with my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
introduced last year. This bill, H.R. 665, is now title IV of H.R.
4092. It would make it a Federal crime to defraud an insurance company.
I believe that this new statute will help prevent many of the serious
crimes perpetrated by some unscrupulous individuals in the interstate
insurance arena.
Title IV of the crime bill is the result of 3 years of hearings
conducted by the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. These hearings demonstrated that the enforcement of
insurance laws and regulations is one of the weakest links in the
present insurance regulatory system. States apparently are not
collecting adequate information, investigating wrongdoing, or taking
legal action against the perpetrators of insurance fraud even when an
insolvency results from that fraud. Statutory penalties and remedies
also seem out-of-step with the realities of today's insurance market
and the interstate and international nature of the business of
insurance today. The hearings showed that there is little fear of
meaningful administrative sanctions or criminal prosecution, and that
there is no Federal deterrent for most complex insurance fraud schemes.
In February 1990, as a result of its hearings, the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee focused public attention on the need for
Federal criminal legislation with its report, ``Failed Promises.'' In
this report, the subcommittee examined four major insurance company
failures and concluded that existing State remedies were ineffective
against the fraudulent behaviors that drove these companies into
insolvency:
[M]ost people involved with obvious wrongdoing at insolvent
insurance companies simply walk away with no real
investigation of their activities. Many of them continue to
be active in the insurance business.
The subcommittee also found that:
Federal enforcement efforts are greatly restricted because
looting an insurance company is not itself a Federal crime,
and the 5-year statute of limitations on mail and wire fraud
has often run before a case can be successfully developed.
Based on this record, Chairman Brooks and I introduced the insurance
fraud bill, H.R. 3171 in 1991. H.R. 3171 was the predecessor to H.R.
665. It was included in the crime bill that passed the House (H.R.
3371) and a similar bill was included in the Senate crime bill. The
insurance fraud provision was ultimately a part of the conference
report on the omnibus crime bill in 1992 (H. Rept. 102-405). This
conference report was passed by the House but never acted on by the
Senate. Chairman Brooks and I reintroduced the provisions in the 103d
Congress as H.R. 665, and it now constitutes title IV of H.R. 4092.
The Dingell-Brooks insurance fraud provision amends the United States
Code by adding two new sections to title 18 and by amending existing
statutes to provide adequate enforcement against insurance fraud.
New section 1033 establishes specific Federal crimes and strong
penalties for willful and material insurance fraud. This section
contains five subsections. Subsection (a) would make it a Federal crime
to file fraudulent statements with insurance regulators for the purpose
of influencing the regulators' decisions. Subsection (b) would make it
a Federal crime to embezzle or misappropriate insurance company money,
funds, premiums, or credits. Subsection (c) would make it a Federal
crime to falsify company records or to deceive its policyholders and
creditors about the financial states of an insurance company.
Subsection (d) would make it a Federal crime to obstruct the
proceedings of insurance regulatory authorities. Subsection (e) would
prohibit those who have committed a felony involving dishonesty from
engaging in the business of insurance for 5 years.
New section 1034 would authorize the Attorney General to bring a
civil action for a money penalty against any person who has violated
the provisions of new section 1033. This provision also authorizes
injunctive relief to prevent continuing conduct that violates section
1033. Under section 1034, any civil fines for violations of section
1033 would, if the violation contributed to the insurance company being
placed in receivership, be remitted to the appropriate State regulator
for the benefit of the policyholders, claimants, and creditors of that
insurance company. This provision will ensure that those harmed by
fraudulent acts will be made whole to the maximum extent possible.
Finally, the provision makes several miscellaneous amendments to
other enforcement provisions of title 18. Among these is the adoption
of a 10-year statute of limitations for offenses committed under
section 1033. This provision reflects the conclusion of ``Failed
Promises'' that more effective deterrence, detection, and punishment of
those who perpetrate insurance fraud is critical to safeguarding the
solvency of the insurance companies on which American policyholders
rely.
There are a few parts of the insurance fraud provision that may
benefit from further explanation as to the intent of Congress in
enacting them.
Section 1033(a) would make it a Federal crime to file material
statements and reports with insurance regulators or to make
overvaluations of land, property or securities that are filed with
regulators in an attempt to influence their decisions. This subsection
requires that the false statements must be ``material'' to constitute
an offense. This is intended to clarify that this subsection applies
only to those statements or reports that are materially false in the
sense that the statement could reasonably be expected to make a
difference in the actions that the regulator takes in reliance on the
statement. It is similar to the securities context, in which a
``material'' fact is one that could reasonably be expected to cause or
to induce a person to invest or not to invest. TSC Industries v.
Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976). See also United States v.
Palolicelli, 505 F.2d 971, 973 (4th Cir. 1974). Thus, under this
subsection, a material fact is one that could reasonably be expected to
lead an insurance regulator to take an official action.
This concept of materiality is also embodied in the subsection (a)
prohibition of overvaluations of land, property, and securities. The
prohibition focuses on act--that is, overvaluations--that, by their
very nature, involve elements of individual, subjective judgment. By
employing the higher standard that the overvaluation be ``willful'' in
order to constitute an offense under this subsection, it is intended,
as is the case under this same subsection as to false statements, to
incorporate the concepts of materially described above. In fact, under
the provision, both the overvaluation offense and the false statement
offense specifically require that the prohibited act be done for the
purpose of influencing the actions of regulatory officials in order to
constitute an offense.
Section 1033(b) makes the willful embezzlement or misappropriation of
money or funds an offense. A statute that requires an act to be
``willful'' in order to constitute an offense requires that the person
have the necessary ``intent''; that is, the person intended both to
commit the act and to violate the law. Therefore, although this
provision does not specifically require an ``intent to defraud'' as an
element of the crime, because of the inherently corrupt nature of the
prohibited acts, ``intent to defraud'' is nevertheless an essential
element of an offense under this subsection.
Finally, section 1033(e)(1)(A) would exclude from the business of
insurance those who have been convicted of any criminal felony
involving dishonesty or breach of trust. The term ``convicted'' is
intended to mean a conviction which is final and for which all direct
appeals have been exhausted or waived or for which the time in which to
file such appeals has lapsed. See, for example, Martinez-Montoya v.
INS, 904 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1990); In re Ming, 469 F.2d 1352 (7th Cir.
1972) and State v. Bridwell, 592 F.2d 520 (Okla. 1979).
Mr. Speaker, insurance fraud is white collar crime. Prosecution,
conviction, and incarceration have proven to be very effective in
deterring such crimes, yet most people involved with recent cases of
obvious fraud at insolvent insurance companies simply walk away with no
real investigation of their activities. In fact, many of them continue
to be active in the insurance business. It is clear from my
subcommittee's hearings and the testimony of the State insurance
regulators themselves that the current State criminal statutes and
penalties are inadequate to deal with complex insurance fraud, and that
States have neither the resources to devote to criminal enforcement of
insurance fraud at the State level nor the adequate legal authority to
address complex national and international insurance fraud schemes.
Title IV of this bill will remedy these problems.
I would like to note that this provision has broad support. The
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the National
Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Casualty
and Surety Agents, the National Association of Professional Insurance
Agents, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the
Coalition Against Insurance Fraud have all called for a Federal
criminal statute to help insurance regulators deal with the interstate
and international nature of many insurance fraud schemes that drive
insurance companies into insolvency and harm U.S. insurance consumers.
Insurance is truly an interstate and international business and abuse
of insurance companies has also become interstate and international.
This new Federal insurance fraud prevention bill will be a strong
enforcement tool to bring a stop to criminal fraud in the business of
insurance.
I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Brooks, and the Judiciary
Committee for including this insurance fraud provision in H.R. 4092,
and I urge its enactment by the House.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman not only for
his generous offer of time but for his leadership and steadfastness on
this, a very difficult and comprehensive bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. In my opinion, it is the
best criminal bill we have written since this Congress started. I am
proud of it. Members should be proud of it. Because the crime bill is
tough, and it is also smart.
It is tough where we need to be tough. It hit violent offenders with
severe punishment measures. It helps States build prison space to house
their worst criminals.
Bit it is also smart where we need to be smart. It targets help on
protecting children from violence and breaking cycles of crime and
drugs and poverty. It answers urgent pleas for communities overwhelmed
by violence. It sends them real solid help that will make a difference
to millions of Americans.
My colleagues, this bill is historic. It is a carefully-reasoned
balance of punishment and prevention. And we need both.
I urge every one of my colleagues to remember that balance as we
debate the bill. Do not focus on one little part here or another little
part there. Keep your eyes and, most importantly, your minds on the
bigger picture. See the grand strategy that holds this bill together.
We have already approved some of the titles in this bill, cops on the
beat, drug treatment in prisons, alternative punishments. I will not
address them other than to say they are a vital part of the overall
package.
Let me, instead, talk for a few minutes about the new parts of the
bill we are considering.
On the punishment side, the bill focuses on the most violent
offenders. Violent repeat offenders who prey on the rest of us will
face life imprisonment under the ``three strikes and you are out''
measure. But this is not a mindless three-time loser law. It is a smart
law that takes reality into account.
We have carefully narrowed the crimes that qualify as strikes to
target truly violent repeat offenders, and we have added a review so
that prisoners over 70 who are no longer dangerous can be released from
prison. This is not simply compassion. It is hard common sense. It will
free up prison space for the most actively violent and dangerous
criminals. In a sense, what the bill does is rationalize what we have
been doing in the criminal justice system. Is it not absurd to have
somebody serve five years in jail if they are caught for the first time
in a nonviolent crime with a small amount of marijuana and have
somebody who commits burglary after burglary after burglary serve
virtually no time at all?
{time} 1340
That is what we are trying to do here. So we have a carefully drafted
safety valve in the bill. It allows but does not require the release of
first-time nonviolent drug offenders, or their incarceration for 2
years and then their release, for cooperating with the Government. That
is another smart moderation of our tough, mandatory minimum sentencing
laws.
We must keep those laws. I believe mandatory minimums are appropriate
and proper, but they should be applied intelligently and carefully, to
be aimed at the most violent, the most repeating, the worst criminals,
the ones who make us afraid, not symbolically to take a 21-year-old who
has some marijuana plants in his house and say, ``You get 5 years and
the violent guy gets 2.'' That does not make sense.
We put $3 billion in this bill to help States build prisons. These
funds will help the States build prison space for violent criminals,
but the bill does not impose unnecessary Federal mandates on the
States. It recognizes that they are ultimately the best judges of how
to structure their systems of punishment and incarceration.
Now let me turn to the other side of the balance, the targeted
funding for smart crime prevention programs, the first time that this
House and this Congress is taking a look not only at punishing crime,
but at preventing it. The bill contains $7 billion in Federal support
for programs to help root out the causes of crime.
These get right to the heart of urban and rural America's crime
problems, which are basically problems with our kids. Kids these days
are pushed in two directions in many parts of America, rural, suburban,
and urban. They can take the life of crime, or they can take the life
of being a productive citizen. If they take the life of crime, we are
going to punish them, but before that path is taken, we ought to use
our funds intelligently to see that they become productive, hardworking
American citizens, rather than criminals.
Mr. Speaker, the ``ounce of prevention'' programs put more than $1
billion into communities for after-school, weekend, and night programs,
to give kids a constructive place to hang out after the 3 o'clock bell
rings. It will help children develop their minds and bodies in healthy
ways and safe havens, with programs in sports, education, and the arts.
There is a jobs program for the young people who are most at risk of
falling into a life of crime. Is it not better if kids will take jobs
than become criminals? We can help. We can make a difference in this
bill. We do.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by repeating, the bill is a careful
balance. I know that some of my colleagues on the right say that the
policies of the sixties and seventies prove that prevention does not
work, and some on the left say that the crime programs of the eighties
prove that punishment does not work.
Mr. Chairman, these simplistic, ritualistic positions miss the point.
The fact is that there are punishment programs that work and there are
punishment programs that do not. The same goes for prevention. We need
a law that combines the best of both, and this bill does just that.
We must not, Mr. Chairman, bog down in partisan debate, or in picking
the parts away from the whole. Our constituents are anguished about the
lack of safety. They are pleading with us to do something, and do
something real.
Do you have an ideology or partisan debate that means nothing to
them. Get them the cops on the streets, get them the prisons, get them
the tough punishment, get them the after-school programs, the job
training programs, the drug treatment programs, so that we can finally
do something real.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, Americans are fed up with violent crime.
They are scared, they want help, they want it now. This bill sends them
smart, tough help. America needs it, and we should pass it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is full of a lot of coddling for
criminals and a lot of hug-a-thug programs.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out to praise the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brooks] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
They are two extremely partisan but extremely fair Members. They are
even generous. They know this subject and they have contributed a lot,
and I want to acknowledge that.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I must say it is an embarrassment to
have 1 hour to debate the subject of crime. If we were to ask anybody
in America, ``What are the two or three biggest problems,'' invariably
we will hear crime as one of those. We have spent over 1 month debating
education in H.R. 6. We have not finished with that yet. However, we
have 1 hour to debate the subject of crime. As I say, that is a
disservice, that is an embarrassment.
This bill, if we were to analogize it to a dance, is hardly a
tarantella, it is more a minuet. I have never heard so many strong
words about how vicious crime is assailing the home and hearth of
Americans, and yet seen so little done about it.
I do not mean that there are not some very good things in this bill,
there are, and we are supporting them. But we have habeas corpus
revisions which are no reform, they are regression. They are a leap
back from present law. They weaken present law.
Mr. Chairman, I will have an amendment to strike the habeas corpus
provisions in the bill and in an amendment that will probably be
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], which does
nothing to remedy the bill's relaxation of existing weak controls over
the process of habeas corpus.
One of the most interesting and bizarre features of the habeas corpus
aspect of this bill states that a defense lawyers' group that will be
set up will have the job of appointing two, not one but two, highly
qualified criminal lawyers to defend a defendant at the trial level, at
the direct appeal level through the State courts, collateral appeal
through the State courts, and then collateral appeal through the
Federal courts; two lawyers who are highly qualified, have experience
in capital cases, have experience with psychiatric testimony and the
rest.
Until this defense lawyers' group appoints these two defense lawyers,
all proceedings stand still. This is one of the most unusual and
unsatisfactory aspects of the habeas corpus provision.
Let me say, when we want to reform something, we ought to make it
better. We ought not to weaken it and make it worse. This bill, insofar
as habeas corpus is concerned, is a worsening, a weakening, a
regression from existing law, and it ought to be defeated.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Mann], a member of the committee and an
outstanding jurist.
Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending Chairman Brooks
and Chairman Schumer for their leadership on the crime bill. It has
been a real pleasure as a member of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Criminal Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary to work with both of
the gentleman on this piece of legislation, which I think is a powerful
piece of legislation, for it very neatly balances the two things that a
comprehensive crime bill needs: on the one hand, swift, sure, and
severe punishment, and on the other hand, programs that speak to
prevention.
Mr. Chairman, I want to share with this body a news clip from the
morning paper in Cincinnati. Last night a 17-year-old teenager was
killed on the streets of Cincinnati.
All too often in Cincinnati and cities around this country juveniles
are victims of crime involving handguns and other weapons. All too
often juveniles are those who are committing crimes, some against
themselves, some against those that are adults. There is a very real
need for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the three strikes and you are out
legislation. It is appropriately and narrowly crafted. It makes clear
if a human being in this society three different times is convicted of
a violent crime, then on the third strike, that individual is going to
be put away for life.
I think it is appropriate that the death penalty provisions have been
restored, and once more those who commit capital crimes under Federal
law can be incarcerated, and if need be, sentenced to death by
execution.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a community that has experimented quite
successfully with the concept of community-oriented policing. In
Cincinnati, police officers walk beats instead of riding patrol cares.
They devote themselves not to responding always to problems, but to
working with citizens and neighborhood groups and youth groups to try
to prevent problems. It is a proactive kind of policing. I will tell
the Members that in Cincinnati it is working extremely well.
The crime bill will authorize 50,000 additional police officers for
this country of ours. That is a 10-percent increase in the officers
that will be available to agencies around this country. I know that
Cincinnati and other communities in my district are already preparing
the applications by which they may seek to support this funding, and in
Cincinnati it will be very welcome indeed.
{time} 1350
I urge my colleagues to act quickly, not to approve weakening
amendments when we get to that stage in this bill. The American people
badly want the crime problem in our society addressed, and this
Congress can do no less than respond quickly to that cry.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], the ranking member on the Committee
on the Judiciary, who we are going to miss because this is the last of
the crime bills, I guess, that we will have the pleasure of debating
with him. And indeed it will be a pleasure to have him here today, and
we are going to miss you terribly, Ham.
(Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman I think the gentleman very much for those
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, violent crime is a devastating national problem--it is
the most serious domestic problem facing America today. Violent crime
has increased over 23 percent since 1988. A violent crime is committed
once every 22 seconds--a murder is committed every 22 minutes. A rape
occurs every 5 minutes and a robbery every 47 seconds. Over 70 percent
of the violent crimes committed in our country are committed by repeat
offenders.
These are not just statistics. The victims are real people and the
ultimate victim is our society. The crime epidemic has brought with it
the pestilence of fear. We need to address this complex problem in a
comprehensive but realistic way.
I believe that we need to address the root causes of crime--we need
programs fostering education, health care, housing, and jobs. But the
root causes approach is not the short term answer to what is an
immediate problem. We have to deal with the results of violently anti-
social behavior, whatever its causes. The role of government is to
protect its citizenry and insure that law and order prevails. In short,
government at all levels, has the obligation to provide a safe
atmosphere so that real freedom can flourish.
Generally speaking, the crime bill reflecting the Judiciary
Committee's work is a measured step in the right direction. In
particular, the provision requiring life imprisonment for three-time
violent offenders--three strikes--is most laudable. I also strongly
support the bill's provisions on victims of crime, assaults against
children, and mandatory minimum sentences.
But colleagues, more--much more--needs to be addressed.
This includes Congressman McCollum's amendment requiring the States
to adopt truth in sentencing policies before they are eligible for
prison construction and expansion grant funds. In addition, Congressman
McCollum seeks to offer a drug kingpin death penalty procedures
amendment and a very important amendment providing a good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule. The last amendment mentioned is
terribly important and has passed the House on prior occasions. If a
police officer has a reasonable, good faith belief that he or she is
acting in compliance with the fourth amendment, then the evidence
seized should be admitted into evidence.
Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas has put forward an extremely
important proposal on criminal aliens that should also be made in
order. It would assist in the identification, incarceration, and
deportation of criminal aliens by establishing a criminal alien
tracking center. Most importantly, the Smith amendment recognizes a
Federal Government responsibility for the undocumented, criminal alien
population. My State--New York--for example, spends of $62 million
annually to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens. This amendment
says that the Federal Government will either take the responsibility to
incarcerate these persons or compensate the States for their costs of
incarcerating them.
Congressman Duncan Hunter has submitted a related amendment calling
for an additional 6,000 Border Patrol agents. Effective control of our
borders is an important aspect of the war against crime and the Hunter
amendment should be made in order and this too is a laudable amendment.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, our ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Crime and Criminal Justice, has proposed an amendment striking the
so-called Local Partnership Act from title X of the bill. This would
result in a cost savings of $2 billion. Title X proposes a series of
hastily-conceived and ill-planned social programs. Without more thought
they will merely waste taxpayers' money. Allow the Sensenbrenner
amendment as well.
Congressman McCollum is also proposing to double the penalties for
serious violent felonies committed against minors or senior citizens.
This is another excellent idea--aimed at protecting those among us who
are very often least able to protect themselves. Crimes against
children or against the elderly, are abhorrent and should be dealt with
accordingly.
In conclusion, I want to compliment my Republican colleagues on the
Judiciary Committee who are working so hard to fashion a strong and
effective crime bill. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Schiff], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], these gentleman
have worked hard to bring the bill to the Members today. The amendments
we have proposed, all of which have been considered in the House
Committee on the Judiciary during our markup, I hope will be made in
order under the rules to come to the House. They deserve our support in
order to have a comprehensive and effective bill.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, some time ago, Jeffrey Dahmer was
interviewed on television, no less, and he was asked a few questions he
did not like. And he said, ``I do not have to answer those questions. I
have rights, too.''
Jeffrey Dahmer stated the fact that he had constitutional rights, and
he did, and he does. He did not have to bear witness against himself.
He could have taken his fifth amendment, he could have sat back, and he
did, and he utilized all of the rights that he had.
I would like to talk a little bit about the rights of victims today.
I think that we have record numbers of tombstones popping up around
America, and everybody is beating their chest about crime, and
basically victims' rights have been overlooked by the Congress of the
United States. We go out of the way to protect the rights of murderers
and everybody, but overlook victims.
One of the most specific concerns I have as a former sheriff, and
this has happened many times, and Readers Digest has written about it,
someone gets convicted of a felony, and they look over at the
prosecutor, or they look over at a witness and they say, ``When I get
out of here, I'm going to get you.'' And when they are released, many
of them come back to the areas, find those people and hurt them,
sometimes kill them.
I have an amendment, because I believe this bill is silent on
victims' rights, in regards to that. It says 30 days prior to release
of these convicted felons, the principals involved, the judges, the
witnesses, the policemen that made the arrest, they are notified that
this person is coming back so they can at least be aware of that.
The second victim, in my opinion, is the taxpayer. Nobody wants to be
tougher on crime than I do. But many times the victim is the taxpayer
who has people in jail feeding at the trough, especially when they are
nonviolent. An amendment I have offered says look, for these nonviolent
offenders, give the judge some discretion. Why have them stay in jail?
When I was sheriff, I had a young man who was a nonviolent offender who
was literally raped in jail. Now he will present more problems to
society with a tougher sentence that we patted ourselves on the back
for than if we had just let the judge have discretion, put his wrists
in a bracelet, let him pay a huge fine, let the judge put his picture
in the paper and force him to pay for that photograph in the paper.
Third, this bill is also silent on one other major aspect. Where does
a policeman go who has been injured, or retired, or is suffering from
problems domestically, for counseling? Do they go to the mental health
center, where they may have arrested everybody sitting in the front
row? Do they go down to the community counseling center? They really
cannot.
There has been a program developed in Maryland which has become a
standard for a program around the country where policemen can go for
counseling. My amendment calls for us to expand upon that. There is a
small authorization of $3 million so these police counseling centers
can deal with some of these problems.
Finally, for years I have been attaching fraudulent label laws onto
many of our different respective bills. The fourth amendment does
something a little different. It says not only do we have a fraudulent
label, but we can put up to $100,000 in penalties for a company that
puts those fraudulent labels on. The victim is the American workers,
ladies and gentleman. Time after time, people are sending imports into
this country or putting fraudulent labels or deceiving the American
purchaser and the American consumer. And who is hurting? The victim is
the worker in our own country.
That amendment says put a fine, let the judge have an option of
putting a $100,000 fine on these people, in addition to the bad
publicity, and let us put a little bit of damage into their pocketbook.
{time} 1400
So I appreciate the time that the chairman has yielded to me.
Let me say this: This bill is better when this bill deals with the
rights of victims. We have gone overboard for the rights of killers and
murderers; let us not overlook the rights of victims.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, previously on the floor I discussed the repeat-offender
section of this bill. I would like to address another section. I
offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules, which I hope they will
make in order so that we can vote on it today, which will strike a
provision of the bill that requires States to have alternatives; that
is, nonprison-type sentencing programs. Now, what is wrong with
nonprison sentencing programs? The answer is: By itself, and in
appropriate cases, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I do not
believe that every single person who commits any kind of crime serves
society best by being placed in prison. The problem is, this
requirement to have alternative sentencing is in a provision that deals
with violent criminals. The message that the combined section gives to
the States is, ``You should let certain offenders go, let them out of
prison,'' or, ``Don't put them in prison,'' not because they deserved
it through individual rehabilitation or remorse, not because they are
not a threat anymore to commit the crimes that they were committing,
but specifically to create space for more serious offenders.
Now, what that means, for example, is that the States are being
encouraged to release car thieves but to jail armed robbers. Now, is
armed robbery a more serious offense than auto theft? I think in most
cases it most certainly is. But the people of the United States do not
want their cars stolen any more than they wish to be robbed at
gunpoint.
The point is this is a question of which is the cart and which is the
horse? The horse ought to be the determination: who belongs in prison
and who deserves alternative sentencing. We should not make that
decision solely by the number of spaces in existence or where will it
end? We may have to let armed robbers loose to jail someone who is even
more dangerous to society. I cannot imagine anything more destructive
to our society than releasing people to the streets who we know will
commit crimes just because we do not want to provide the space to keep
them off the streets.
I urge adoption of my amendment.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to a distinguished
Member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
Let me first thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for his efforts so far to try to
bring to this floor a bill that all of us could support and to be able
to tell the American people that we are trying to do something about
crime in this country.
It is alarming when you think about the statistics on crime. I must
say it is very difficult to fashion a bill that will get the majority
support of all the Members on both sides of the aisle on this
particular issue. I must say this is a crime bill that the House has
proposed that has a number of different proposals in it, much different
in many ways from the version of the other body. I would say it is a
great improvement of what the other body has done. Though I have some
concerns about some of the programs, let me mention some of the things
that I think will help us fight crime.
First of all, let me refer to those programs that are preventative in
nature. When you take a look at the close to $7 billion that we will be
spending to prevent criminal activity, when you take a look at those
programs that are geared to prevent children from becoming at-risk
youth or from becoming juvenile offenders and then adult offenders, I
think you find that this crime bill tries to go in the right direction.
We are trying to prevent crime, not only take care of those who have
committed crime.
One of the big problems I see these days when it comes to crime
prevention and that type crime measure is that all we do is deal with
the crime after the fact. We have victims when you deal with crime only
after the fact. We do nothing to take care of the problem about the
person who is behind that criminal who will not begin committing these
same kind of crimes.
What we have found over the last 10 to 20 years is we increased
sentences for prisoners, and yet the crime rate continues to be about
the same. We do not get a decrease even with all the prisoners we are
putting behind bars.
When you take a look at a State like California, where over 117,000
people right now are behind bars and you realize that in California we
spend $4,200 to keep a child in school and $32,000 to keep that same
child locked up behind bars, you see that we have gone in the wrong
direction.
I would hope when we finish with a crime bill, with all the
amendments, what we will do is we will say let us be tough on people
who commit crimes, let us try to compensate the victims, but let us
also close the door behind the criminal whom we lock up, so we do not
see a young person following their footsteps. And unless we realize
that we need the prevention programs that will make that possible, we
are sunk.
I would hope that the Members of this particular House will see it
judicious to come before this particular body and say that we need
prevention programs; it is time to start talking not only about
incarcerating people but also stopping children from becoming the
delinquents that become those major adult offenders.
Three strikes and you're out, we are going to have people in
geriatric wards imprisoned and we are not going to do anything about
those 14 to 25 year olds who are really committing all the crimes. We
have to do something to make sure that if we are going to be tough on a
prisoner and tough on a criminal, we are also going to be sympathetic
but tough on the youth to make sure that we prevent them from becoming
the criminals of the future.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] a member of the committee.
Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, Edmund Burke put it best when he said the primary
function of Government is to keep people safe in their homes and
neighborhoods. If that is the primary function of Government, then
Government at all levels has failed the American people.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is far from perfect. Members
combing through the 386-page document will surely find provisions they
don't like.
Enacting comprehensive legislation to respond to the epidemic of
violence in our society is not an easy task.
But we were not elected to do easy tasks.
We cannot afford to fail at passing a crime bill this Congress.
Partisanship killed the anticrime bill in the last Congress.
Bipartisanship must govern this time around.
It is time for us to take off our Republican hats, take off our
Democrat hats and work together to pass a bill most Members can
support.
I am pleased that three bills I authored comprise three titles of
this bill.
Title III incorporates H.R. 1120, the Assaults Against Children Act.
This bill closes an alarming gap in Federal law which does not allow
felony prosecutions of child abusers who inflict such substantial
injuries as broken bones and burns.
Title XII incorporates H.R. 3993, the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention
Act, which I introduced with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bliley.
This bill addresses the world-wide tragedy of child pornography and
prostitution. It makes it a crime to produce and traffic in child
pornography intended for importation into the United States.
It also strikes a blow at ``pedophile sex tourism,'' by making it a
crime to travel overseas for the purpose of sexually abusing children.
Finally, title XIII incorporates H.R. 324, the Jacob Wetterling bill,
which this body passed last fall. Named for an abducted Minnesota
youth, it would require individuals convicted of certain crimes against
children to register with law enforcement for 10 years after their
release from prison.
I want to thank both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Schumer for their support for
these bills.
Mr. Chairman, the House has the opportunity to make this bill even
better with amendments in the next few days. Let's work together to
enact a tough but smart crime bill that balances punishment and
prevention.
The American public, and the millions of crime victims in this
country, deserve nothing less.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], and all those who
worked on this package. I commend you for it.
Mr. Chairman, by addressing the crime problem in this country, we
really are addressing the problem that concerns Americans the most at
this particular time. We have a lot of amendments to debate. I am not
sure what is going to come out. Essentially, we have to start with the
legislation, and I hope we can improve it as we consider the amendments
which will be following.
I have introduced a bill which passed here and is now part of this
crime bill, the Youth Handgun Safety Act, which is cosponsored with my
distinguished colleague from Kansas, Dan Glickman, and it will prohibit
minors under the age of 18 from possessing a handgun except for use in
hunting, target practice, or a gun safety course under the supervision
of an adult.
{time} 1410
Handguns in the hands of our youth is just not a problem on the
streets of the big cities of America. Consider these cases in schools
in my small State of Delaware:
A 15-year-old brings a loaded semiautomatic weapon to school. A 14-
year-old pulls a gun on another student at a junior high school. A high
school student packs a handgun in his book bag for protection.
Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, in a survey I conducted in a Delaware
high school a couple of weeks ago 80 percent of the 255 students who
responded support the Youth Handgun Safety Act. The students agree with
the premise of the legislation, that it would send a strong message
that guns are not wanted in our schools and that minors who possess
guns, or adults who give them guns, will face tough penalties.
I am pleased this legislation is part of the omnibus crime bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the committee.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat:
An important feature of the bill that is in front of us is the death
penalty.
Mr. Chairman, we must indulge in a little bit of historic review here
so that we can inform the American public about what we are considering
voting on here today.
Back in the early 1970's, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court of the
United States struck down the death penalty largely because the
Justices felt, and they so recorded in their opinions, that there was
such a large discretion granted to the jury that the courts could not
be sure that the jury found either for the death penalty or against the
death penalty as a result of prejudice, hate, bias, or some other
freakish, and that is their word, ``freakish,'' consideration that
forced them in their minds to acquit, or release the man from life
imprisonment, or to impose the death penalty. So the Supreme Court, as
I say, struck it down.
What happened? They left a window opened to determine, to allow the
States to determine, how they could construct the death penalty that
would meet the constitutional standards. So, Gregg versus Georgia and
Proffitt versus Florida, two death cases from those two States, came up
to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court then decided, ``ah hah,
the procedures that have been set up in Georgia and in Florida, a
bifurcated hearing where the jury, after determining guilt or
innocence, presumably finding that the individual was guilty of murder,
would then have to sit in a separate session to determine the penalty,
whether it's death or life.''
Now here is what has to be made clear:
We have in front of us this jury in the second procedure, a man or a
woman who has been found guilty of a brutal murder. He is convicted; he
is a convict. There is no question of guilt or innocence. Now the jury
has to decide, under the constitutional standards, death or life
imprisonment.
Now the question is, What did the Supreme Court find in the Georgia
and Florida cases to their liking where they found it constitutional?
Here is what it is:
The jury is supposed to take the circumstances presented to them by
the prosecutor, which could be considered to be aggravating factors,
and aggravating factors are something like the individual before he
killed the women raped her. That is an aggravating factor. And the jury
is to take into account a mitigating factor like tender years. He was
only 16 years old when he committed this act, a mitigating factor.
Another aggravating factor would be that the man ran from the scene and
did not try to help the lady after shooting her, after raping her. That
is another aggravating circumstance. Another mitigating circumstance
might be that he came from a poverty background,
Now the jury has in front of it aggravating factors and mitigating
factors. Under the Profit case and the Gregg case, weighing those and
coming out in favor of aggravating circumstance, they outweighed the
mitigating factors, the jury would be justified in finding the death
penalty.
Well, now let us come back to 1994 and the bill that is in front of
us. The bill that is in front of us allows the jury so much discretion,
and where have my colleagues heard that before? I just talked about it,
so much discretion that they could in the final analysis find death or
life based on their whims, not guidelines, not aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, but on whether they liked the defendant's
looks and, therefore, gave him life imprisonment or did not like the
defendant's race or his background and so caused the death penalty to
be applied.
So, Mr. Chairman, we are back to pre-1972 where the Supreme Court
found the jury discretion so wide that they could not fairly allow the
death penalty to be imposed. The amendments that I will offer later in
these proceedings will try to bring back to a sense of sanity what the
jury instructions should be so that we could put in proper place the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and allow a jury with
guidelines to produce a death penalty or a life imprisonment for a
brutal murder, depending on how these aggravating and mitigating
circumstances show up in the minds and hearts of the jury, not on their
whims or on their prejudices.
Mr. Chairman, that is the only way that I will be able to support the
death penalty that is inherent in these bills.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is wonderful that we finally have this bill on the
floor, and I thank all of the members of the committee who worked so
hard.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to the majority leader's
speech at a school about crime, and he pointed out some very important
things.
First of all, of the crimes that have victims in America, 91 percent
of those crimes there is no arrest made. The other thing that we know
is that, if we do not look at the certainty of arrest, we are in real
trouble. The certainty of arrest motivates people a whole lot more than
the severity. And finally we looked at statistics, and we looked at
prior crime bills and said, we have spent megabucks, we have spent
gigabucks, we have gotten tougher, we have made it more severe. We have
done all these things, and the crime rate looks worse than it did 16
years ago.
So, Mr. Chairman, the good thing about this crime bill is it goes a
different direction. It goes a different direction in that, while it
deals with crime very firmly, it continues to tighten loopholes. It
also tries to lift people up and prevent crime, prevent it before it
happens, and it does this with a multitude of things.
The Violence Against Women Act is a very historic bill. It is the
first time that we are saying that the Federal Government is going to
take this very seriously and try to get localities to take this
seriously because one of the things we know is very often criminals had
violence that started in the home, and, if they have seen every single
dispute solved with violence, it is very difficult to suddenly learn
conflict resolution with an hour course. So, as a consequence, this has
been a very, very important part.
We have other things in there for youth that have been mentioned by
prior speakers. One of the ones I am very excited about is the midnight
sports program. We have seen some pilot projects in the private sector
on this. They have been incredible. Maybe many of my colleagues have
heard about Chicago where right in the middle of the toughest housing
project around they put in midnight sports, and they got these young
boys interested in it. They have to come to study hall first. They get
their grades up, they get their degree, and they go on, and they have
had a terrific, terrific success with that. This helps local
communities get those going by paying just the tiniest little bit that
is required to help run the electricity a little longer, or pay the
janitors, or pay a little on the liability insurance for keeping the
place open a little longer so they can run these programs.
{time} 1420
But this is why I think this bill is really a groundbreaker, and it
is a direction-changer. Heaven only knows, we need it. We can keep
doing the things we have done before, but in that way we do not get
there. This is the way we need to proceed to get balance in the bill.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Moorhead], who is the ranking member of one of the
subcommittees bringing the legislation to the floor today.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, in the midst of the debate on health care, welfare
reform and Americans' concern about the future of our economy and its
rapidly changing nature the polls clearly show that the problem of
violent crime in our society is the issue most often on the minds of
Americans. The real crisis in America is the crisis in our streets--the
crisis in public safety and the crisis in our criminal justice system.
Statistics show that a violent crime is committed every 22 seconds,
one aggravated assault every 28 seconds, one rape every 5 minutes and
one murder every 22 minutes. Furthermore, 7 percent of the criminals
commit almost 80 percent of the violent crimes in America. On average,
these violent criminals serve only 37 percent of their sentences.
To deliver a knockout blow to violent crime and stop the revolving
door which spins violent criminals out of prison too early so they
commit more violent crimes requires setting priorities and passing laws
that put punishment and deterrence back in the system.
To his credit, our colleague Bill McCollum has developed such a
proposal entitled the ``Violent Offender Incarceration Act'' which he
will offer as an amendment to H.R. 4092. The McCollum amendment will
provide $10 billion in Federal grant money to the States over the next
5 years to be used to incarcerate violent offenders. To be eligible,
States would have to establish truth in sentencing laws under which
offenders will serve no less than 85 percent of their sentence for
conviction of a second violent felony. In addition, States would be
required to adopt three strikes and you're out laws that would mandate
life in prison for anyone convicted of a third violent felony. The
McCollum amendment is a solid proposal that will go a long way towards
eliminating the revolving door and taking violent criminals off the
street and I urge Members to carefully consider and support it.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Duncan Hunter and I hope to be
able to offer an amendment to H.R. 4092 that would provide for an
increase in the number of Border Patrol agents from 4,000 to 10,000
over a 5-year period. In a recent letter, Pete Wilson, the Governor of
California, highlighted the fact that: The message is growing loud and
clear: ``There is a national crisis in Federal immigration policy, and
State and local governments cannot continue to pay the bill for Federal
failure. By State fiscal year 1994-95, California's prisons will house
more than 18,000 illegal immigrant felons, at a cost projected to
exceed $375 million.''
The Border Patrol is the first line of defense against illegal
immigration and drug smuggling and can be an effective deterrent to
crime if substantial manpower and resources are in place.
Last year was a turning point for our Border Patrol, when the House
overwhelmingly passed the Hunter-Moorhead-Schenk amendment
appropriating $60 million for 600 additional agents for this fiscal
year. We must continue this trend by authorizing the personnel and
resources needed to enforce our laws and make our national borders
secure. We have shown we can stop the revolving door by a strategy of
deterrence through prevention as demonstrated recently in El Paso, TX.
We need to implement the same operation in San Diego and accordingly I
urge my colleagues to support the Hunter-Moorhead amendment.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, first I commend the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Brooks], and
the minority for bringing us a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, all across the Nation, each and every American has been
telling their Representative to be strong and to make their schools,
neighborhoods, and homes safe again. Mr. Chairman, the time has now
come. Today, we are prepared to pass a crime bill that represents the
largest commitment to stopping crime that the House has ever
considered.
This is the first serious effort this Congress has undertaken to deal
with the crime problem in the past 10 years. Every year, we pass crime
bills that basically are not funded and have not responded to the crime
problem. A good crime bill needs provisions that effectively reform the
current system. Mr. Chairman, the bill today contains these provisions,
and that is why it is an effective bill. This crime bill, for example,
includes provisions which reform the laws regarding parole and
mandatory minimum sentences to ensure that our sentencing system is
reformed.
President Clinton has called upon Congress to vote for a crime
package that is strong, smart and tough. A package that will punish
offenders, yet will also promote measures to prevent crime. I am proud
to stand here today to speak in favor of a crime bill that does just
that--it punishes criminals and offers good prevention measures.
Mr. Chairman, this crime bill sends the message to repeat offenders
that enough is enough. It tell them that if you do violence to others,
you will be punished. The three strikes you're out provision will send
criminals with three serious offenses to prison for life with no
possibility of release until they are 70 year old, and have served at
least 30 years in prison.
A strong message will also be delivered to those who are making money
from the sale of drugs to innocent children, and to those who murder in
the course of committing a violent Federal offense. Our message is
clear. The death penalty will now apply to you. The death penalty
provisions, however, have been well thought out to ensure that racial
discrimination is prohibited in death sentencing. Furthermore, the
provisions will guarantee that State death row prisoners have access to
competent legal counsel at all stages of the trial and appeal process.
I also support the committee's approach to issues affecting native
Americans. The best thing we as Congress can do is to allow tribes to
exercise sovereignty. The opt-in provisions for both the death penalty
and the three strikes you're out provision will allow the tribes
themselves to determine the applicability of these provisions. I also
agree with the exemption the tribes received with regard to the
prosecution of teenagers as this would have a disparate impact on
Indian people.
Furthermore, the crime bill includes provisions which helps crime
victims. It permits victims of crime and sexual abuse to present
information or make a statement at the defendant's sentencing. It is
time to pay attention to the rights of victims. It also compensates
victims and helps them get counseling.
Mr. Chairman, today is the day that we will send a message to
criminals, a simple message. We will no longer stand by and allow you
to terrorize families. The time has come to stop crime, and to give all
Americans a chance to have a future that is free from fear. Mr.
Chairman, we must send a message to criminals that if they proceed to
commit a crime, they will be punished and our courts will be supportive
of this message.
This crime bill also strengthens laws against individuals who
sexually abuse children and who deal in child pornography. It is time
that we protect children against the merchants of filth.
Smart crime prevention measures are also included in this crime bill.
Literally billions of dollars will be directed to youth crime
prevention including measures to keep kids occupied and off the
streets. This crime bill also allows grants to develop more effective
programs to reduce juvenile gang participation and juvenile drug
trafficking. It also supports drug treatment programs within State and
local correctional facilities.
Yesterday, with the majority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Gephardt], several Members visited a school in downtown Washington that
will receive assistance to keep kids in school after school hours day
and night so they can get involved with activities like basketball.
Such assistance will also encourage others to work with kids in youth
recreation programs and will give young people an opportunity to
exercise athletics in the hopes that this will build teamwork
incentives and get them off the streets.
A message will also be sent to the woman who enjoys walking her dog
at night. The message is that her chance of having the police
patrolling her neighborhood has now been increased. With 50,000 new
cops on the beat, criminals will want to think twice before harming
anyone. And let us make sure that we not forget the rural areas in
community policing. This measure should not just benefit big cities
like Los Angeles and New York, but small communities as well. The bill
also contains a wide variety of provisions intended to reduce violent
crimes that are committed against women.
Mr. Chairman, our local police have been working around the clock to
provide residents with safe streets. However, they cannot be alone in
their endeavors. Perhaps most importantly, we must recognize that in
our efforts to deter crime, we have to involve families, local
communities and local police. Everyone, from the mayor to the high
school student, must realize that stopping crime is a joint effort, and
the battle against crime will not be won unless everyone participates.
For this reason, our crime bill helps local governments and local
police find new ways to best protect those who live in their
communities. The best solutions to crime are local, and this bill
emphasizes local solutions.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that contains a good mix of
punishment and prevention.
Mr. McCOLLUM Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, what today we are dealing with is a bill that is
designed to solve the big crime problem or at least go a long way to
solving that with the States. And there are some good things in this
bill. There is no question that the cops-on-the-street provision is
good; the ``Three strikes and you're out'' needs improvement, but it is
basically a good idea. There is no question there are things in this
bill to address the juvenile problem with boot camps, but there are a
lot of things wrong with this bill and we need amendments to correct
those. One of the most egregious things some of my colleagues have
pointed out is that there are provisions in this bill which mean if
enacted there will never be another death penalty carried out in this
country because of the procedures and hoops that would have to be gone
through by prosecutors in giving the opportunities to appeal every
year. There are things in this bill that really are wrong in the terms
of how they are balanced or not balanced.
There is $8 billion in the title of this bill to go to crime
prevention, but there is only $3 billion for more prisons, and what the
States are crying out for is something to help them with the
overcrowded prisons.
There is nothing in this bill, though amendments are being offered to
help address it, that would remedy the problem of our Federal system
interfering with the prisons in the overcrowding area that would cause
more problems then good. And there is no carrot in here for encouraging
States in prison construction and in housing violent criminals, to go
to truth-in-sentencing and to abolish parole for the violent criminals
and make them serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
As I said earlier, we need to do something about ``Three strikes and
you're out,'' which needs improvement. We also need improvement in the
death penalty procedures in here. There is a drug kingpin death penalty
technically in the bill but without the kind of procedures necessary to
make sure that it would withstand the challenge of constitutionality
under the Supreme Court guidelines.
We need to make significant amendments to this bill. In its present
form, it is actually not a good bill; it is a bad bill, even though
there are good things in it.
So in the next couple of days and with what the rule produces that is
going to come out here in a few minutes to allow amendments, that is
absolutely crucial to this legislation. Above all else, as I said in
opening this general debate, we must have a partnership with the States
where most of the crime is committed to solve the revolving door
problem where the violent criminals of this country are getting back
out on the streets having served only a fraction of their sentences. We
talk about 6 or 7 percent of the criminals in this country committing
70 to 80 percent of the violent crimes and serving only an average of
37 percent of their sentences.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not address that problem, this bill will not
be a good crime bill.
{time} 1430
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just wanted to say we feel this bill is a
constructive bill, one that will help to solve crime problems in the
United States, and one that will help the States cope with their
problems. It is one that realizes four percent of the violent crimes
are in the Federal domain, and 96 percent, State and local.
This bill recognizes that fact and tries to give the States
alternative proposals to set up ways to help nonviolent prisoners
regain their citizenship and their contribution as citizens. It is a
worthwhile bill. I hope the Members will support it. We will be back
tomorrow at the same time and place.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Torricelli, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4092) to
control and prevent crime, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________