[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.

                          ____________________