[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1620
 
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4092, 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 401 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 401

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent 
     crime. No further general debate shall be in order. The bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     and shall be considered as read. Except as provided in 
     section 2 of this resolution, no amendment shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed in the 
     report may be offered only in the order printed, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report are waived. If more than one of the 
     following amendments printed in part 1 of the report relating 
     to habeas corpus is adopted, only the last to be adopted 
     shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the 
     House: by Representative Hyde of Illinois; and by 
     Representative Derrick of South Carolina.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part 2 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules or germane 
     modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read 
     (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the purpose 
     of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed 
     in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form 
     of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally 
     proposed to be stricken. All points of order against such 
     amendments en bloc are waived. The original proponent of an 
     amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the 
     disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than 15 minutes.
       Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been finally adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. After passage of H.R. 4092, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 3355, with a 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider the Senate 
     amendment in the House. It shall be in order to move to 
     concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment inserting 
     the text of H.R. 4092 as passed by the House in lieu of the 
     matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived. If the motion is 
     adopted, then it shall be in order to move that the House 
     insist on its amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3355 
     and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 provides for further 
consideration of H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed 
in the report to accompany the rule. The amendments shall be considered 
in the order and manner specified in the report and shall be considered 
as read. The amendments are not subject to amendment, except as 
specified in the report, and are not subject to a demand for a division 
of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the 
amendments printed in the report.
  The rule provides that if more than one of the following amendments 
relating to the subject of habeas corpus is adopted, only the last 
adopted will be reported to the House: the amendment by Representative 
Hyde of Illinois and the amendment by Representative Derrick of South 
Carolina.
  Under the rule, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee may at any 
time offer amendments en bloc consisting of the amendments printed in 
part 2 of the report with germane modifications. The amendments en bloc 
are debatable for 10 minutes and are not subject to amendment nor a 
demand for a division of the question. All points of order are waived 
against the amendments en bloc. The original proponents of the 
amendments are permitted to submit statements for the Congressional 
Record  immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to postpone 
consideration of a request for a recorded vote and to reduce to 5 
minutes the time for voting after the first of a series of votes. The 
rule provides one motion to recommit.
  Finally, if the House passes H.R. 4092, the rule provides for a hook 
up with a companion, H.R. 3355, with a Senate amendment. The rule makes 
it in order to take H.R. 3355 with the Senate amendment from the 
Speaker's table and to consider the Senate amendment in the House. The 
rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment inserting, in lieu of the proposed Senate matter, the text of 
H.R. 4092 as passed by the House. All points of order are waived 
against the motion. If the motion is adopted, the rule makes in order a 
motion that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate amendment 
and request a conference.
  Mr. Speaker, today crime is no longer a problem faced only by big 
cities. Fear of crime is prevalent in communities both large and small 
throughout our Nation. In my district, crime terrorizes what was once 
peaceful and safe. The rule before us today will allow the House to 
further consider H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 will help our Nation to move toward a future free from 
crime and violence through a commitment of resources unprecedented in 
the history of the House of Representatives.
  The bill authorizes over $15 billion in funding to address the crime 
problem on a number of different fronts. The bill provides $3.45 
billion in Federal grants that will place 50,000 more cops on the beat 
and provides $3 billion to assure adequate prison space and help States 
to build new prisons for the incarceration of violent repeat offenders.
  The bill also focuses on crime prevention and 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.
  H.R. 4092 sends a message to criminals through stiffer penalties that 
crime does not pay. The bill expands the Federal death penalty by more 
than 60 offenses, including drive-by shooting, the murder of a police 
officer, drug trafficking, and kidnapping. The bill incorporates the 
``three strikes and you're out'' legislation and 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 
also 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. This will end the abuse of the appeals 
system which allows death row inmates to file seemingly endless 
appeals. The bill also requires States to provide defendants with 
competent lawyers to help ensure that criminals will not be let out of 
jail due to a technicality or mistake made by the trial court.
  The bill further 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.
  Finally, H.R. 4092 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.
  Mr. Speaker, far too many of us no longer feel safe in our own 
neighborhoods. Violent crime is on the rise across our Nation and the 
time has come to take back our cities and streets from the criminals 
and to ensure all Americans the freedom to live and work in safety.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 401 is a fair rule that provides for 
further consideration of this wide-reaching crime bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel].
  (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, as you might expect, I rise in opposition to 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in Singapore they cane you for vandalizing cars. In 
America, the voters should cane the Committee on Rules for vandalizing 
the legislative process.
  By unfairly imprisoning a number of good perfecting Republican 
amendments, the Democratic majority has weakened what could have been a 
very tough crime bill. By using the king-of-the-hill procedure, the 
Committee on Rules allows weak, liberal amendments to impersonate tough 
anticrime amendments.
  In almost every section of this bill, we see a tough Republican 
amendment that is destined to be weakened by a following Democratic 
amendment. From death penalty procedures to truth in sentencing, the 
Committee on Rules has copped a plea and gotten away with impersonating 
an anticrime crusade.
  Ironically, the other body was allowed to reflect the people's will. 
They passed a tough crime bill that addresses everyday concerns. Here 
in the people's House, the people's will may be subverted, unless we 
defeat this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen accounts in the press indicating that we 
Republicans are bent on obstructing this process through diversionary 
tactics and delaying tactics, and all the rest. I will tell you, when 
you are in the minority and you have to fight for time and an 
opportunity to open up the process, we have to use all the mechanisms 
that are at our command.
  I would hope, and we have admonished our Members, that as we go 
through this process, whether it be in consideration of the rule or 
consideration of the bill, that those on our side who have served with 
such distinction on the Committee on the Judiciary, who have 
significant amendments to offer, know the subject well, in and out, in 
their 5 minutes of time try to clearly and precisely differentiate what 
we are proposing versus what the other side is proposing. And there is 
a difference, a meaningful difference, not in the name of obstruction, 
but simply by way of eventually giving the American people the kind of 
product they have been demanding.
  So I would hope as this debate unfolds that there will be clear 
attention given to those clean lines of demarcation on what these very 
complicated amendments mean. It takes the attention of the House, the 
complete attention of the House, to discern those differences.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a no vote on this rule, that we might 
come up with one that would certainly open up the process and provide 
the opportunity to express the people's will.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it may be instructive to remember a little recent 
history. When the cry and hue went out for an ``instant crime bill'' a 
few months ago, the other body responded by bypassing the relevant 
subcommittees and full committee and proceeding willy-nilly to the 
floor. The 960-page product of rushing to legislative judgment without 
the benefit of careful committee deliberation is now laid out clearly 
for all to see. Moreover, the procedural pattern for considering that 
bill was to allow all nature of amendments--however frivolous--into the 
debate and, not surprisingly, into the final result.
  Well, this committee and this body chose a different way to proceed. 
Our committee spent difficult yet productive time in having numerous 
hearings, developing draft after draft of provisions to better achieve 
the goals of punishment and prevention with the least burdensome 
results on the Federal and State governments involved. This effort 
culminated in H.R. 4092, a combination of 24 separate bills which 
either passed the House last fall or were reported by the Judiciary 
Committee last month.

                              {time}  1640

  The committee reports on this body of work constitute a stack about 
that deep, about 2 inches. These are the committee reports on every 
single one of the bills included within this 4092, despite what the 
Members might have heard from misinformed individuals.
  There have been some who have decried this deliberative process--who 
have claimed that we should act without deliberation and now would want 
to endlessly debate amendments for the next 2 or 3 months. Perhaps--
also in their thinking--is the idea that such a process will permit 
this bill to fall by its own weight.
  I reject that approach. And I believe the Rules Committee has been 
eminently fair and eminently prudent in laying out the procedure and 
the amendments made in order. Major amendments in every plank of the 
bill have been made in order--death penalty, death penalty procedures, 
new prisons, habeas corpus, and ``three strikes you're out.'' The 
noncontroversial amendments--numbering 31 in all--will be gathered 
together in the form of an en bloc amendment which I intend to offer 
today. They were not chosen based on party affiliation or identity of 
the sponsor but rather were based on the subject matter addressed. The 
en bloc amendment will be followed by some 30 to 35 other substantive 
amendments addressing diverse aspects of the bill.
  It is time to move forward. The committee has done its job and 
subcommittee Chairmen Edwards, Hughes, and Schumer should be commended, 
together with subcommittee Ranking Members Hyde, Moorhead, and 
Sensenbrenner.
  For those who had a 20-point agenda, of which only 15 points were 
achieved by the rule, I am sorry, but we cannot accommodate 20-point 
agendas from 435 Members, from the left and the right, from Democrats 
and Republicans. I personally believe the omnibus legislation before 
Members will set a prototype for how to fashion crime legislation into 
the next century by breaking through the rigid mold that has 
characterized crime efforts of the past two decades. It is hardnosed 
about punishment, yet forward-looking in seeking to prevent a whole new 
generation of young people from going down the wrong road. We can do no 
less.
  The rule is a good one; vote for it and let us get on with the 
business of passing the best crime bill to come down the pike in many 
years.
  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, and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are fed up with criminals and crime. They want 
tougher crime laws, better enforcement, and more consistent, meaningful 
punishment. Most know that the Federal Government cannot solve this 
problem on its own, State and local enforcement and court actions play 
a major role. But many issues are Federal; regrettably, not all those 
issues are covered in the bill before us, despite this timely 
opportunity to include them.
  Crucial proposals to improve this bill and make America safer were 
shut out by the Rules Committee majority--20 of them on tie votes. We 
heard from more than 100 members on 180 different amendments in a 
bipartisan good faith effort to make this bill better. Skeptics and 
White House spin doctors suggest that those of us seeking broader 
debate are trying to block passage of a crime bill. Wrong. We want a 
crime bill--a good crime bill. We are not being obstructionist--we are 
trying to be deliberative. I agree that we should proceed with dispatch 
which we are, but I vehemently disagree with the President's 
irresponsible statement that amendments proposed to this bill--by 
Democrats and Republicans--are, in his words, ``frivolous or 
political.'' He seems to harbor some type of a conviction that any 
proposal differing from his own personal view is ``frivolous'' and 
``political.'' I refer to his personal view--because we still do not 
have his bill. There is no Clinton crime bill.
  But one way or other, we will pass a crime bill within the next few 
weeks. I hope it will be with broad bipartisan support but the question 
is, will it be a bill that fulfills the challenge of fighting crime? Or 
will it be a missed opportunity to do the right thing? This is not 
about which party scores quick political points. This is not about 
another White House photo opportunity. This is about making America's 
streets, schools, communities, and homes safe once again. I am urging a 
``no'' vote on this rule, but I do not ask a party-line vote. Crime is 
not a partisan matter. I urge a ``no'' vote because a better rule will 
give us a better bill to deliver to the President and to the American 
people. The President has put us on notice that he will sign the crime 
bill ``in less than a minute''. That being the case shouldn't we take 
the extra time here on the Hill to get it right. Unintended negative 
consequences are so often the legacy of short circuiting the full 
deliberative legislative process.
  Vote ``no''.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information on rollcall votes 
in the Committee on Rules on amendments to the proposed rule on H.R. 
4092:

 Roll Call Votes in Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed Rule 
 on H.R. 4092 the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

       Open Rule: This amendment to the proposed rule provides for 
     a two-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 4092, The 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
       Modified King-of-Hill: Strike existing king-of-hill 
     language where it appears and substitute language providing 
     that, ``if more than one amendment is adopted, the amendment 
     adopted receiving the most favorable votes shall be 
     considered as finally adopted and reported back to the 
     House.''
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat.
       6. Sensenbrenner: Strike Subtitle I of Title X--Local 
     Partnership Act.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
       170. McCollum: Transfers half the funding for Title X 
     (Crime Prevention and Community Justice) to Title VI, Violent 
     Repeat Offender Incarceration.
       Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior.
       171. McCollum: Bars exclusion in Federal proceedings of 
     evidence obtained in circumstances justifying an objectively 
     reasonable belief that a search and seizure was in conformity 
     with the fourth amendment.
       Vote (Defeated 3-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Slaughter. 
     Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Gross.
       172. McCollum: Amends Title III and makes serious violent 
     assault felonies against victims either less than 18 years 
     old or 64 years old or older punishable by a maximum term of 
     imprisonment twice that authorized without regard to this 
     section.
       Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior.
       180. McCollum: Amends Title V, Mandatory Life Imprisonment 
     for Persons Convicted of Certain Felonies, to provide 
     mandatory prison terms for use, possession or carrying of a 
     firearm or destructive device during a serious violent felony 
     or serious drug trafficking offense for which the person may 
     be prosecuted in a court of any state.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Wheat.
       160. Smith (TX): Establishes a Criminal Alien Tracking 
     Center to help identify, incarcerate and deport criminal 
     aliens; requires registration of aliens on criminal probation 
     or parole; increases funding for INS investigators; 
     establishes expedited deportation procedures for certain 
     criminal aliens; expands definition of ``aggravated'' felony 
     to include trafficking in explosives, child pornography, 
     spying and other specified activities; increases penalties 
     for failure to depart or reentering after final order to 
     depart; provides wiretap authority for aline smuggling 
     investigations; and increases criminal penalties for passport 
     and visa document fraud.
       Vote (Defeated 4-7): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Wheat.
       177. Gingrich: Creates violent crime reduction trust fund 
     financed with reductions in federal employees (similar to 
     Senate language); requires that 90% of the funds be used for 
     prison construction grants to states that have enacted truth-
     in-sentencing laws.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
       42. Zimmer: Doubles the maximum imprisonment and fine for 
     any offense if the adult offender (over 18 years old) uses a 
     child to commit the crime or to assist in avoiding 
     apprehension. After a previous conviction for this offense, 
     the maximum imprisonment and fine are tripled.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
       134. Hutchinson: Provides penalties for the following 
     offenses when committed within a federal jurisdiction: the 
     intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary 
     manslaughter, assault or aggravated assault of a child before 
     birth.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
       24. Burton: Provides the death penalty or life imprisonment 
     without parole, probation or suspension for trafficking in 
     those drugs specified in the amendment by amounts specified 
     in the amendment.
       26. Burton: Sense of Congress that criminal background 
     checks should be performed for all prospective employees or 
     volunteers of state-license or tax-funded organization that 
     interact with children.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
       25. Burton: Provides death penalty for murders committed 
     during a sexual assault.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Wheat, Gordon.
       82. Canady/Geren: Requires states applying for grants under 
     the Violent Repeat Offender Incarceration Act to include in 
     their application to the AG assurances that they have 
     established a system to prosecute juveniles who are 14 years 
     or older and charged with violent crimes as adults. Requires 
     states to keep records of these crimes for use in future 
     proceedings.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon.
       9. Castle: Restricts the sale and donation of excess 
     firearms owned or held by federal agencies and codifies GSA 
     regulations restricting such transactions.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon.
       15. Clinger: Expands Title III--which increases penalties 
     for assaulting children--to include the elderly.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss, 
     Nays--Moakley, Frost Bonior, Hall, Wheat. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Gordon, Slaughter.
       2. Cunningham: Exempts current and former law enforcement 
     officers from state laws that prohibit the carrying of 
     concealed firearms.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Gordon, Slaughter.
       14. Doolittle: Denies federal benefits, including social 
     security and welfare payments, to individuals convicted of 
     crimes of violence.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
       65. Doolittle: Provides the punishment of life imprisonment 
     after three violent felony convictions. Does not require that 
     the convictions arise from separate episodes.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
       46. Dornan: Adds the requirement of a ``profit-seeking 
     purpose'' to the definition of ``pattern of racketeering 
     activity'' under RICO Act.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
       136. Dunn/Deal: Encourages states to establish registration 
     and tracking procedures and community notification with 
     respect to released sexually violent predators, including 
     convicted stalkers.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
       86. Franks (NJ): Creates new title, ``Penalties for Repeat 
     Sex Offenders'', to increase penalties for repeat sex 
     offenders. Makes second offenses punishable by not less than 
     five years and not more than three times the maximum sentence 
     otherwise applicable. A third offense would be punishable by 
     mandatory life imprisonment.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Frost, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter.
       87. Franks (NJ): Requires federal prisoners to obtain 
     General Equivalency Degree (GED) before being eligible for 
     early release from prison.
       Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
       140. Gekas: Clarifies loophole in drive-by murder provision 
     by including defendants who immediately exit and remain close 
     to a motor vehicle.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter, Solomon.
       137. Goodling: Increases penalties for individuals 
     possessing a firearm while committing a misdemeanor drug 
     crime (such as simple possession), and makes it unlawful for 
     anyone using a firearm during a misdemeanor drug crime to 
     possess a firearm for 5 years conviction.
       83. Goodling: Strikes Title X, subtitle J, the Youth 
     Employment and Skills Crime Prevention Program in its 
     entirety, as it is duplicative of programs for disadvantaged 
     youth under Title II-C of the Job Training Partnership Act, 
     and the Youth Fair Chance Program established under Title IV, 
     Part H of the Job Training Partnership Act.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Quillen, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Slaughter, Solomon.
       152. Hefley: Makes grants conditional upon a state or 
     multi-state compact having a policy that calls for and 
     assures that those who have been convicted of a violent 
     felony serve at least 85% of their sentence.
       153. Hefley: Amends Title 18, U.S. Code to cap 
     ``satisfactory behavior'' time credit for prisoners at 36 
     days. Currently, the cap is 54 days each year.
       154. Hefley: Prohibits payment of Social Security or 
     veterans' benefits to those confined by court order in 
     connection with verdicts of ``not guilty by reason of 
     insanity'' or similar verdicts.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat.
       45. Klug: Prohibits possession of a firearm at or near a 
     day care center or a community center.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat.
       71. Kyl: Provides for pretrial detention in serious sex 
     offense cases; increases penalties for repeat sex offenders, 
     repeat child abusers, and for drug distribution to pregnant 
     women; increases sentencing guidelines for sex offenses; 
     requires HIV testing for defendants in federal sex offense 
     case; authorizes courts to enforce restitution orders by 
     suspending federal benefits for offenders who refuse to 
     comply with restitution obligations; protects the victim's 
     right to impartial jury by equalizing the number of 
     peremptory challenges accorded the defense and the 
     prosecution in felony cases; allows for evidence of similar 
     crimes in sex offense cases; and provides for right of victim 
     to fair treatment in legal proceedings.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat, Goss.
       38. Levy: Penalizes those who transport firearms across 
     state lines or international borders with the knowledge they 
     will be used to kill, injure or intimidate; provides life in 
     prison or death penalty if weapon is actually used in a 
     violent crimes.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Wheat, Quillen.
       88. Manzullo: Designates police and fire chaplains as 
     public safety officers thereby making them eligible for 
     federal death and injury benefits.
       Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
       169. McCollum: Strikes half the funding authorized for 
     Title X, Crime Prevention and Community Justice.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
       166. McCollum: Amends Title VI--Violent Repeat Offender 
     Incarceration, increases the funding authorization from $600 
     million to $1.485 billion for each of the fiscal years 1994-
     1998.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
       91. Molinari: Provides for death and disability benefits 
     for retired public safety officers who die or are permanently 
     injured and totally disabled as a result of injuries while 
     responding to a fire, rescue, or police emergency.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
       92. Molinari: Changes Federal Rules of Evidence by 
     providing for the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes 
     in sexual assault cases and child molestation cases.
       Vote (Defeated 3-4): Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss; Nays--
     Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon, Quillen.
       5. Oxley: Requires criminals convicted of federal crimes to 
     make restitution to their victims.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       29. Packard: Gives federal law enforcement officials access 
     to legalization immigration files for the purpose of a 
     criminal investigation.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon.
       178. Pryce: Requires Federal Bureau of Prisons to prevent 
     prisoners from strength-training or improving their fighting 
     ability and to remove all equipment designed for those 
     purposes.
       Vote (Adopted Voice Vote).
       21. Quinn: Requires a federal permit for all purchases of 
     explosives and requires a photograph and a set of 
     fingerprints to accompany the application.
       Vote (Defeated Voice Vote).
       141. Schiff: Extends U.S. jurisdiction to crimes committed 
     overseas by civilian employees of the military or their 
     dependents if those acts would be federal crimes if committed 
     in the U.S.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       142. Schiff: Adds the commission of robbery as qualifying 
     for one of the first two strikes under the three strikes 
     provision.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       143. Schiff: Adds ``Battery while armed with a deadly 
     weapon or resulting in serious bodily injury'' to the list of 
     specified violent felonies under the bill.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       144. Schiff: Changes the mandatory life imprisonment for 
     persons convicted of certain felonies from ``three strikes'' 
     to ``two strikes.''
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter, Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       146. Schiff: Adds to the three strikes provisions--
     mandatory life for the conviction of two serial violent 
     felonies.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       95. Smith (MI): Alters requirements for federal grants to 
     correctional facilities for diversional programs.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       50. Solomon: Expresses the Sense of Congress that no 
     federal department or agency should study or finance research 
     involving the legalization of drugs.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       51. Solomon: Strikes title II of the bill, maintaining 
     current sentencing for those involved in serious drug 
     offenses.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       75. Stearns: Creates a new title, ``Carrying of Concealed 
     Handguns'', to allow, notwithstanding any provision of the 
     state law, the carrying of a concealed weapon if the 
     individual is 21 years of age, has no felony convictions or 
     history of mental illness, and has completed successfully a 
     handgun safety course offered by the state.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       122 Stearns: Expresses Sense of Congress that the 
     Constitution provides all citizens the right to keep and bear 
     arms.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       84. Vucanovich: Allows and grants made under subsection (b) 
     of Section 2001 to be used for programs, projects and other 
     activities to provide for overtime costs, training, the 
     purchase and maintenance of vehicles and equipment, 
     technology and civilian support staff.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       113. Weldon: Provides state and local authorities $30 
     million in matching funds from the Crime Prevention Trust 
     Fund for gun buy-back programs.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       128. Wolf: Provides for pilot programs, conducted by the 
     Federal Prison Industries (FPI), to test the feasibility of 
     teaming private U.S. firms with FPI to produce goods 
     currently made offshore to the meet the need for increased 
     employment of federal prisoners.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       40. Zimmer: Requires mandatory minimum five-year prison 
     term for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted 
     felon, a fugitive from justice, a drug addict or illegal drug 
     user, or one who transfers or receives stolen firearms, 
     without possibility of parole, suspended or concurrent 
     sentence. Doubles penalties for certain violations of 
     firearms law and increases penalties for use or possession of 
     a firearm in the commission of a violent crime or drug 
     trafficking.
       Vote (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Moakley, Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       41. Zimmer: Limits remedies available in district court for 
     a successful challenge to the constitutionality of conditions 
     of confinement, specifically denying the court jurisdiction 
     to impose population ceilings, adjust release dates, or 
     prohibit use of tents or prefabricated housing structures. 
     Requires consent decrees regarding conditions of confinement 
     also to provide only narrowly tailored relief.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       55. DeLauro: Authorizes special grants to states that enact 
     laws to revoke the driver's license of anyone who brings a 
     handgun into an elementary or secondary school zone, that the 
     revocation is immediate and automatic upon receipt of 
     notification from a principal or equivalent official, and 
     that the revocation is for five years on the first offense 
     and ten years for each further offense.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Hall, Gordon.
       8. Harman: Denies felons convicted of violent drug-related 
     crimes the right to appeal to BATF for the right to own 
     firearms.
       Vote. (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Gordon.
       123. Orton: Creates a new category of federal prosecution 
     against ``child abuse and endangerment: for inflicting 
     serious physical injury on a minor or permitting another to 
     inflict such injury on a minor under one's care or custody.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.
       12. Reynolds: Adds a new title that bans 175 specifically 
     named semi-automatic weapons.
       Vote (Defeated 4-6): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.
       17. Traficant: Requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to 
     give 30 days prior notice to all interested parties who were 
     instrumental in convicting a federal prisoner that he or she 
     is being released.
       18. Traficant: Allows a sentencing judge the flexibility to 
     give non-violent offenders alternatives to imprisonment. 
     Provides that non-violent offenders must pay to have their 
     photos in local newspapers.
       20. Traficant: Provides penalties of not more than $100,000 
     to anyone who intentionally affixes a fraudulent ``Made in 
     America'' label to any product that is purchased with funds 
     authorized under H.R. 4092.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Gordon.
       78. Waters: Creates new title, ``Voting Rights for Former 
     Offenders'', to provide that the voting rights of a U.S. 
     citizen, who otherwise is qualified to vote in any election 
     for federal office, shall not be denied or abridged because 
     he or she has comitted a criminal offense.
       Vote (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, Slaughter. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Wheat, Gordon.
       Adoption of Rule--
       Vote (Adopted 6-4): Yeas--Moakley, Beilenson, Bonior, Hall, 
     Wheat, Slaughter; Nays--Solomon Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not 
     Voting: Derrick, Frost, Gordon.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           59      12         20       47         80 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Apr. 12, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  .................................
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a profound remark: Two plus two equals 
four. In other words, there is a logical and rational process called 
cause and effect. In terms of Newtonian physics, that means that every 
action causes an equal and opposite reaction.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why things happen, as 
controversial as that statement may be.
  A farmer neglects to tend and care for his fields--it is likely that 
the crop will fail.
  A company neglects to invest in research and development--it is 
likely that the company will not be profitable.
  In a similar way, Mr. Speaker, a society which neglects, which 
oppresses and which disdains a very significant part of its 
population--which leaves them hungry, impoverished, unemployed, 
uneducated, and utterly without hope, will, through cause and effect, 
create a population which is bitter, which is angry, which is violent, 
and a society which is crime-ridden. This is the case in America, and 
it is the case in countries throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in 
America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood 
poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our 
children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members 
think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk 
about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 
times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our 
kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as 
many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap 
between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty 
continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some 
relationship to crime?
  Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people 
in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and 
sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order 
to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the 
neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of 
priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future 
of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.

                              {time}  1650

  And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison 
more people per capita than any other country, and all of the 
executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can 
either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, 
rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.
  Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one 
of hate and vengeance.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the previous speaker that 
yes, two plus two equals four.
  Fact: Why are liberals for this bill and why are conservatives 
against it? No question about it, this bill in its present form coddles 
criminals and makes it tough on law enforcement officials.
  Mr. Speaker, the frustration caused by the arrogant Democrat 
leadership around here would be almost unbearable to me, who has been 
here for 16 years, were it not for the fact that elections are less 
than 6 months down the road, and boy, are things going to change.
  Mr. Speaker, 104 Members took the time to draft and submit and to 
testify on some 180 amendments before our Committee on Rules on this 
crime bill. We took 12 hours of testimony from these 104 Members. In 
addition, yesterday we put in another 4 hours up in the Rules Committee 
just marking up this rule.
  Now 46 Republicans on this side and 45 Democrats on that side are 
being denied their constitutional rights, your constitutional rights to 
represent the 600,000 people back home. That is 25 percent of this body 
being shut out of the legislative process, 45 Democrats and 46 
Republicans who are the victims of this drive-by procedural mugging. 
That is right, Members are being mugged.
  This rule denying your amendments is almost identical to the gag rule 
the Democrat leadership tried to foist on us just before recess 2 weeks 
ago when we voiced our strong opposition on this floor and the press 
was here watching it. The Democrats pulled the bill. Why? And then 
Majority Leader Gephardt convened a meeting the next day with me, and 
with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our Republican whip, 
and with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], our leader on this 
bill. And we sat down and we talked about it. We came away from that 
meeting with a clear impression that a much fairer and a much more 
bipartisan rule so that you 45 Democrats could be recognized would come 
out of that Rules Committee. And we were told that we would be engaged 
in a meeting during this 2-week process.
  I canceled a trip to Korea on a trade mission to try to bring jobs to 
my district because of a pending meeting that we could sit down and 
negotiate a fair rule. No meeting ever took place, and this restrictive 
rule guaranteeing the outcome before a single vote is taken is being 
jammed down our throats today.
  And Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the President of the United 
States of America had the audacity on Monday to use the Justice 
Department auditorium steps as a TV studio to make a partisan attack on 
this crime issue. He said we should not waste our time with frivolous 
or political amendments.
  That is an insult to every Member of this body. I for one deeply 
resent the President attempting to dictate to this Congress what 
amendments are and are not appropriate on this floor.
  Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is the same President who has 
not even bothered to send his own crime bill to this Congress 15 months 
later. And yet he has the gall to tell us how to write our crime bill. 
And keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that he dares to charge us, the 
Republicans, with delay when we introduced our tough crime bill 8 
months ago in August, and it is still languishing someplace. Nobody can 
find it.
  Mr. Speaker, what kind of frivolous and political amendments are the 
Republicans being denied? The Smith of Texas amendment establishes a 
criminal alien tracking center. Is that frivolous? Is that nongermane? 
The Gingrich violent crime trust fund to fund more prisons, is that 
political? The President of the United States asked for that, and it is 
not in this bill, and we cannot offer the amendment. Is that political, 
Mr. President, wherever you are?
  Is the McCollum amendment to shift more money from prevention 
programs to building more prisons, is that frivolous, Mr. President? Of 
course not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The Chair will advise the 
gentleman that he may not address the President directly, and the Chair 
would call that to the attention of the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for calling that to my 
attention. I seem to have forgotten it.
  Is this Solomon-Hayes bipartisan amendment to restore current minimum 
sentencing, and listen to this, America, for serious drug offenders, 
sentences which are stricken by the bill, is that frivolous? I guess it 
is if Members think recent dramatic increases in drug trafficking, drug 
abuse and drug-related crimes is frivolous. My constituents do not 
think so.
  Neither do the kids over in Baltimore who were just caught in the 
fifth grade selling cocaine.
  Who sold it to them? They ought to go to jail with a minimum 
sentence, and we are repealing it in this bill. And I cannot offer the 
amendment to stop it.
  Mr. Speaker, the people are mad as hell about the rising crime rate, 
and they want to get though crime. They want to lock up these violent 
repeat offenders, and they want to throw away the keys. I do not want 
to let them out as this bill would do.
  Mr. Speaker, by denying the Members their right to offer these 
amendments that would make the crime bill tough on criminals and 
helpful to law enforcement, the liberal Democrat leadership is 
guaranteeing that the final bill will be a watered-down cop-out that 
makes it easier on criminals and harder for law enforcement to 
apprehend and convict these murderers who take the lives of law-abiding 
citizens. And they are often your daughters and your wives and mine 
too. And they let them go free. And that is wrong, and this bill is 
going to do nothing to stop it.
  You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and commend the Rules 
Committee for this excellent rule, which has been crafted under the 
most difficult of circumstances.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank President Clinton 
for restoring the Byrne Memorial Fund Formula grants, which fund some 
State and local law enforcement programs.
  In northwest Indiana, the Byrne Memorial Formula grants fund the 
activities of the Lake County Drug Task Force, which on the afternoon 
of Tuesday, August 17, 1993, raided a home in Dyer, IN, and seized 176 
pounds of cocaine with an estimated street value of $15 million.
  On February 20, the Drug Task Force working in conjunction with other 
local and Federal law enforcement agencies seized 3,100 pounds of 
marijuana in Michigan.
  The Clinton administration's action will make it possible for 
successful programs like the Lake County Drug Task Force to continue to 
compete for Federal dollars to get drugs off of our streets and put 
criminals behind bars.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Levy].
  (Mr. LEVY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, I recommended that this House adopt 
legislation that would criminalize the interstate transportation of 
firearms by persons knowing that the firearms would be used unlawfully. 
As the crime bill approached the House floor, I proposed that my 
firearms measure be incorporated into it through an amendment that the 
Rules Committee is now refusing to allow.
  I became interested in this subject after a lone gunman shot up a 
commuter train in my district. When the shooting stopped six Long 
Islanders were dead, many more were injured. The firearm used in the 
crime was purchased legally in California by an angry young man who 
waited 15 days to purchase the weapon as the law of California 
requires.
  The Brady bill was not in effect when this gun was purchased. Had it 
been, it would have made no difference.
  To my many friends who supported the Brady bill, let's admit today 
that despite its passage, there will be cases--like the Long Island 
Railroad massacre--in which handguns fall into the wrong hands. And it 
is our obligation to punish those who use firearms in violent crimes. 
So why won't we do that?
  Mr. Speaker, it is a Federal crime to transport explosives across 
State lines for the purpose of using them illegally. An alleged 
criminal in upstate New York faces the death penalty under Federal law 
because people died when they opened letter bombs that he made using 
explosives purchased in Kentucky. Why should we treat firearms 
differently?
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, you can spend a year in jail under our law for 
illegally transporting dentures in interstate commerce.
  Think about that. If you and I left here today, bound for New York--
one of us with illegally made false teeth in his pocket and the other 
with a gun--and the one with the gun used it in a homicide in New 
York--the guy with the false teeth would have committed a Federal crime 
but the murderer would not.
  This is madness. Defeat the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who has been 
instrumental in this legislation.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today, make no mistake 
about it, is a bill that if it passes in its present form would end the 
death penalty in the United States. According to the prosecutors with 
whom I have spoken, and I have spoken with a number, it is their 
opinion that it is highly improbable that after this bill became law we 
would ever have another death penalty carried out in the 36 or 37 
States where the death penalty is currently available.
  This bill has other deficiencies, but none is more glaring than that. 
I will leave it to others to explain the details of it, but it is 
fairly straightforward that you find in the habeas corpus provisions 
where there are statements in this bill, as it is now written, which 
would reverse the Supreme Court decision that says that once somebody 
has gone on Death Row, and a new Supreme Court ruling comes down on 
some technical matter not related to their original trial, but on a 
criminal law matter, they may not go into Federal court and seek to 
have their death penalty reviewed. However, if this bill became law, 
that decision of the Supreme Court would be reversed. We would have the 
months of delay every time there is a new Supreme Court ruling on a 
criminal technical procedural matter as each Death Row inmate went back 
into court and sought to have his matter reviewed.

                              {time}  1700

  As a practical matter, the death penalties of this country would come 
to a grinding halt.
  The same thing is true with respect to the death penalty when it 
comes to the so-called Racial Justice Act, where an inference of 
discrimination is built in that prosecutors would have a very difficult 
time overcoming, an inference of discrimination on the basis of 
statistics where you say in a given jurisdiction a certain number of 
those in minorities, racial minorities, are getting more death 
penalties than whites are getting in a district as related to the total 
population of the minority to the white population in that 
jurisdiction.
  Those kinds of roadblocks, those kinds of back-door problems are very 
severe in this bill. The bill, therefore, is a bad bill. It is a bill 
that is going backwards instead of forwards in solving the problems we 
have with crime in this Nation, if you look at it from that 
perspective. It is one of the reasons we are so concerned on our side 
of the aisle when we are not allowed to offer amendments that would do 
things to improve this bill.
  Yes, we will have amendments to address those two particular problems 
on the floor, and I hope my colleagues take them out of this bill and 
erase them so we will have a bill at least that is not harmful, 
although it certainly is a bill that, without the amendments that we 
are being denied by the Committee on Rules, will not be wholly 
adequate.

  Secondly, there are no teeth in the prison grant program in this 
bill. The No. 1 problem facing this Nation in crime is the revolving 
door. Most of the crimes that are a concern to the American people are 
violent repeat offenders who commit State crimes. Six percent of all 
criminals commit about 70 to 80 percent of all violent crimes in this 
country and are serving an average of less than one-third of their 
sentences.
  If we are going to provide money and, yes, we should provide money 
for prisons, for States to build more prisons to house these violent 
criminals, then we should provide some eligibility requirements to 
insure that the States are going to change their laws to guarantee that 
those who commit violent crimes and are repeat violent offenders serve 
at least 85 percent of their sentences instead of getting out after 
serving only a fraction.
  We need to put deterrence back into our criminal laws again. Law 
enforcement officials tell all of us regularly that criminals do talk 
to each other, and there is a message system out there. Right now they 
factor in the minimum amount of jail time they expect to serve as the 
cost or price of doing business.
  Until we put the message of deterrence back into our criminal system 
and put swiftness and certainty of punishment into that system and 
incarcerate those who commit these violent crimes for a long period of 
time and throw away the keys, those 6 percent of the criminals, and 
take them off the streets and more or less permanently, we cannot solve 
the violent-crime crisis in this country.
  What is also wrong with this bill is the fact that the priorities are 
wrong. There are about $8 billion for prevention of root causes of 
money being spent in one title of this bill, the fairly diverse shotgun 
approach that is out there supposedly solving the underlying cause of 
crime.
  The problem we have with this bill, the underlying bill, in this 
regard is very simple: All of us believe that we ought to be getting at 
root causes at some point, but we have a problem like somebody who has 
been run over by a truck, and you have a paramedic come on and he has 
got big crush injuries, his arm is cut off, he is bleeding to death. 
The paramedic's first problem is to stop the fellow from bleeding to 
death and apply a tourniquet.
  Our first problem is to take the violent criminals off the streets. 
Root causes? Yes, we should be addressing them. When you only put $3 
billion toward prisons and you put $8 billion toward root causes, we 
have the cart before the horse, and it is very wrong.
  We were not allowed amendments in this bill today for changing the 
exclusionary rule to overcome the technical problems of allowing 
evidence in in search-and-seizure cases. We do not have an opportunity 
to offer the amendment that would address the criminal alien problem. 
Twenty-five percent of the criminals in this country in prisons today 
are aliens.
  We have not been allowed to offer an amendment that would double the 
sentences of those who commit crimes against children under 18 and 
those over 64, or to double the time in jail for somebody who commits a 
crime against a child, and we do not have the money for trust funds.
  There are lots of things that are not in the bill. The bill is 
inadequate, but it is also a bad bill. As I said earlier, if this bill 
passes, we will never have another death penalty carried out in this 
country. We need to correct that. We need to defeat this rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994. This is a bill that has been a long 
time in the making. And it is a bill that helps answer the fears and 
concerns of people all over this country--fears that crime is out of 
control and that our communities are no longer our own.
  In my district, I hear those fears expressed every day and I see the 
harsh reality behind them. I talk to students--one of whom told her 
teacher she could not take a test. Why? Because that morning on the way 
to school she had seen someone shot in the head. Another student in my 
district was recently shot and wounded and a third was arrested for a 
shooting that took place at a mall in my hometown. Parents, seniors, 
children--they have all come to me worried about the safety of those 
they love and are asking us to take action. And that is what this bill 
will do.
  Compared with the previous crime-related measures that Congress has 
considered, this crime bill distinguishes itself in several ways: It 
represents the largest commitment the Federal Government has ever 
pledged to the crime problem; it addresses the needs of victims; and it 
strikes an appropriate balance between punishment and prevention.
  This bill contains tough new punishments to deter crime and put 
habitual criminals away. It will put repeat violent offenders away for 
life upon conviction of a third offense; it will expand the list of 
Federal offenses for which the death penalty can be imposed; and it 
will allow for the prosecution of young offenders in Federal court as 
adults for certain serious, violent offenses.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill puts such a strong emphasis 
on youth crime prevention, authorizing funding to assist at-risk youth 
with after-school treatment and recreation programs in our most crime-
ridden cities. It also addresses one of the most tragic of violent 
crimes--domestic violence.
  In addition, it also recognizes the importance of coordinating the 
efforts of law enforcement and social service organizations who are 
dealing with the special problems associated with children and 
violence, by authorizing the Police Partnership Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait any longer. We are familiar with the 
startling national statistics on crime. We know that every 2 minutes 
someone in the United States is shot. We know that every 17 seconds a 
violent crime--a murder, rape, robbery, or assault--is reported. And we 
know--some of us firsthand--that almost a third of all families in 
America have had someone victimized by crime.
  In Connecticut, gun-related deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds now 
exceed all disease-related deaths combined. Last weekend in my hometown 
of New Haven, three people were shot and one killed in gun-related 
incidences--including one drive-by shooting. Elderly people in my 
district talk about being repeatedly robbed and assaulted in their own 
homes--the list of victims goes on and on.
  We must take action now. We must deliver a meaningful crime bill to 
the American people to restore their hope and to help bring peace to 
our communities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on the 
Omnibus Crime Control Act and pass this landmark legislation.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. King].
  (Mr. KING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Chinese freighter, the Golden Venture ran 
aground off the coast of New York last June, it alerted the Nation to 
the evil reality of human smuggling and slave trade.
  Subsequent hearings by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus detailed 
the network of Chinese gangs in New York who amass great fortunes by 
trafficking in human cargo. Just last week, the press reported that 
these New York gangs are now smuggling Chinese nationals into this 
country through Virginia.
  These gang lords amass great fortunes by charging $30,000 per 
immigrant--or $6 to $9 million per ship--and then enslaving their human 
cargoes in lives of narcotics, gambling, and prostitution.
  Despite the best efforts of Federal and local law enforcement 
officials, we are not winning the war against these gangs because, very 
simply, our laws are incredibly weak. The average sentence for slave 
trading is 18 months; the maximum fine is $5,000--not a bad cost of 
doing business when the profit is up to $9 million per cargo.
  Last July, I introduced the Alien Smuggling Prosecution Act, 
cosponsored by Congressman Kennedy, to extend the RICO statute to human 
smuggling and give the Government the weapons to break the backs of 
these slave trade gangs. If RICO applies to the smuggling of tobacco, 
it should certainly apply to the smuggling of human beings.
  Mr. Smith included my bill in his crime package which was rejected by 
the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith's legislation deserves full 
debate and I urge, therefore, that the rule be defeated.

                 [From the New York Post, Apr. 6, 1994]

 China ``Hostage'' Ship Gives Feds the Slip--183 Smuggled Into Grip of 
                         Ruthless New York Gang

                   (By Larry Celona and Murray Weiss)

       A freighter with 183 Chinese nationals hidden in its hull 
     has slipped into U.S. waters and delivered its human cargo 
     into the arms of violent New York gangs, The Post has 
     learned.
       Heavily armed members of the Fuk Ching gang reportedly 
     shepherded the smuggled immigrants from the boat into trucks 
     with commando-like precision and drove them to ``safehouses'' 
     in New York City and Baltimore, law-enforcement sources said.
       Investigators believe the Fuk Ching is holding the 
     immigrants hostage and demanding a smuggling fee of $30,000 
     per person--or $6 million--from their relatives, the sources 
     said.
       The sources said the FBI has joined the investigation. The 
     agency has had success in probing the Fuk Ching, which is 
     based in Chinatown and was responsible for the sensational 
     Golden Venture operation last June.
       In that case, six immigrants died in choppy Jamaica Bay 
     when a freighter carrying 298 aliens from China's Fujian 
     province ran aground off Queens.
       The tragedy brought to light the magnitude of the Chinese 
     smuggling trade here--and how the Fuk Ching gang ruthlessly 
     makes millions of dollars by keeping their ``hostages'' in 
     cramped safehouses in Brooklyn and Queens.
       According to the sources, the freighter in the latest case 
     left mainland China four months ago--originating from the 
     Fujian province--with its human cargo hidden in squalid 
     conditions.
       There were conflicting accounts about whether any federal 
     law-enforcement agency had been tracking the latest ship to 
     slip into the country.
       After making its 11,000-mile trek, the freighter docked in 
     Virginia 10 to 14 days ago, rather than risk making its way 
     to New York.
       Sources said the 183 aliens were met by machine gun-toting 
     Fuk Ching gang members, who herded them into rented trucks.
       Several trucks were driven to Baltimore, where there is a 
     large Chinese population.
       The FBI believes the rest were brought to Brooklyn and 
     Queens, where they have been frantically telephoning 
     relatives in the United States and China to raise money to 
     buy their freedom.
       The Fuk Ching gang is known for keeping its captives 
     chained, freed only to work minimum 14-hour days in 
     restaurants controlled by the gang.
       Nineteen Fuk Ching members--including gang leader Ah Kay--
     were arrested in connection with the Golden Venture tragedy.
       Since then, authorities said, the gang has increasingly 
     used ports in Virginia as docking points for its smuggling.
       While drug smugglers face terms of life behind bars, those 
     convicted of smuggling people into the country face only five 
     years in prison.
       Spokesmen for the FBI and the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service declined comment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Republican Policy 
Committee and the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, and my dear colleagues, it is a delight to 
appear in combat, with a small ``C,'' with my friend from South 
Carolina, the father of the October Surprise excursion which only cost 
us $3.5 million, and I will say to the gentleman and produced zilch, 
and I will say that the gentleman, when he gets his head in a 
direction, he proceeds that way wherever it leads, and he has done a 
similar benefit to the community in introducing a new habeas corpus 
provision 2 days before we got to the floor for our big half-hour 
debate on crime this year.
  We talked about education for a month, but we got a half-hour on this 
side to debate crime, out of the largesse of the Democrats' heart, and 
I appreciate that.
  But my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, who is skilled in 
many fields, although he does not serve on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, introduced his own habeas corpus bill, without hearings, 
without consideration by the attorneys general of the States' attorneys 
of this country, and it is the ``king of the hill'' provision that will 
override my amendment when we do get to that.
  Now, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], who is, as I 
say, a very skilled legal mind, talks about his habeas corpus proviso 
attenuating, shortening the endless hearings that consume habeas corpus 
appeals. What he does not tell you about is that even under his 
amendment under this bill that the Democrats bring forward that is 
tough on crime, when a man is accused of murder and cannot afford a 
lawyer under this bill, the defense bar, not the court, must appoint 
not one but two criminal lawyers who are very skilled in criminal law 
and in the handling of psychiatric testimony.

                              {time}  1710

  In other words, they have got to pick an Alan Dershowitz and Lawrence 
Tribe or, if they are busy at the time, then they get Jerry Spence and 
Melvin Belli.
  Until those appointments are made and are functional, the statute of 
limitations stops. It could go on for years and years and years. The 
social spending that is near and dear to the hearts of the Democrats 
makes up the bulk of this bill, something like $6.9 billion, and for 
prison space, crumbs.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the prior speaker 
that although my amendment was not before the Committee on the 
Judiciary, a good lawyer is always available.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the rule, but I 
believe, as we did with the education bill, that every Member's idea 
should have been brought to the floor and debated and all amendments 
should have been made in order.
  But we are about to expand police in our country, and that is needed. 
But I think we would be better off by having a few more parents.
  We are going to build more jails, but I think we would be better off 
with more parents.
  We have more probation officers; we would be better off with more 
parents.
  We are going to have more courts and more judges, and I think America 
would be better off with more parents.
  Ladies and gentlemen, America is not safe. It is very simple; a crime 
bill is not enough. We have got to change the tax laws and the trade 
laws, and we need more parents and more jobs, and we are not getting 
them.
  But I want to talk about this crime bill with some specificity. In 
China they have a new consumer protection law: If you are a worker and 
you manufacture a faulty product, you can get a life sentence. That is 
certainly excessive. They now have a law that deals with fraud; a 
president of a company in China pulled off an illegal scheme on a bank 
of $300,000, and he was executed. Certainly, that is excessive.
  Now, we talked about the caning in Singapore. Caning is a whipping 
across the buttocks. It is bloody; it is painful. That was for spray-
painting automobiles.
  In America, if you spray-paint an automobile, in most cities you 
would get a lecture and a fine.
  Now, I am not saying that we should be caning people, but anyone in 
Singapore who spray-paints an automobile or commits vandalism gets 
caned, and here is all I know: There is very little crime in China and 
there is very little, if any, crime in Singapore.
  In America, it is Dodge City.
  We have gone overboard coddling murderers, rapists, and the rights of 
those creeps, while we are seeing tombstones pop up like mushrooms.
  I am going to have a tough vote this year, a tough vote on that Hyde 
amendment, because I think Henry Hyde's intentions are right. There are 
going to be some tough votes in this House. But I will say this, that I 
am glad the Committee on Rules put in the fraudulent-label law. I think 
it is time for companies who import products and put American labels on 
them, it is time for them to get hit in the pocketbook. I am concerned 
about jobs and I am concerned about families.
  I think we should change the Tax Code, change the trade laws, keep 
families together, create jobs, and it will do more about crime in this 
bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule. The crux of this bill is about $8 billion of social spending, and 
this rule does not allow a debate, it does not allow an amendment, does 
not allow anything to touch that $8 billion.
  Programs are funded in this bill to increase the self-esteem of the 
young criminals and to fund midnight basketball recreation programs. 
There are some of us who think that that money would be better spent on 
building more prison space for those who are convicted by a jury of 
their peers.
  But, furthermore, the legislation that this rule protects does not 
allow for funding of these programs. So, instead of the $8 billion 
being funny money, it is phony money, because it is an unfunded 
authorization bill and the amendment that the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] proposed to set up a trust fund to pay for this was not 
made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  Much is said about hiring 50,000 cops on the beat; but looking at the 
text of the legislation, the cities and municipalities do not even have 
to use the money to hire more police officers. They can use it for any 
other municipal function, including welfare and education.
  So it is misdirected money.
  But finally, even if this bill does provide money and it is used for 
law enforcement, the money will run out in 3 years. So, communities 
will be put in an unpleasant catch-22 situation of either having to lay 
off the cops on the beat 3 years from now or putting the cost of those 
cops directly on the real estate tax rolls.
  That is a fraud. We should not be doing things like this in the name 
of fighting crime. We should be backing up our rhetoric with money and 
there is no money in this bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. You know, Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another 
crime bill. And we start off once again by an acrimonious debate over 
the fact that a lot of Members did not have their amendments made in 
order. I understand that. We have as much consternation on the 
Democratic side as the Republican side over that. And I regret that 
that is the case, because there are too many important issues that we 
need to debate to be sidetracked by that particular debate.
  But what really troubles me is not that; what troubles me most is 
that there are so many Members on this side of the aisle who are 
friends of mine, who do not want a crime bill, they want the issue. 
They want the issue in November.
  That is sad, that is a sad commentary, because the crime problem is 
too serious to be a political football. But that is what it has become. 
This is a good bill. It does not have all the provisions that I would 
like in it.
  To a lot of Members, the 50 death penalties in there are not enough, 
they would like to have 50 more. And as the chairman of our full 
committee has indicated, we could not accommodate some Members but I 
have always believed in capital punishment and I believe we should 
reserve it for the most egregious of offenses. And I say to my 
colleague from Illinois that I understand his concern about those 
provisions dealing with habeas corpus. We have had this debate for a 
long time. But his support of the Powell Commission, which would set up 
two standards in this country for attorneys, one for the rich and one 
for the poor, is something that I could not accept and I suspect that 
most of this country could not accept.
  Under the Powell Commission recommendation, if in fact you will not 
accept the reforms of habeas corpus--and we do have to reform habeas 
corpus because it is in shambles and it is disgraceful that we have so 
many bites of the apple. I mean they keep going up, back and forth, for 
15, 16, 17 years, rehashing, in many instances, nothing new. That is an 
abuse of the system. We do need to reform it. But when we do, it seems 
to me we need to preserve a system that will in fact reach those 
situations where we have potentially innocent defendants. And the 
Derrick amendment would create a 1-year statute of limitations and it 
would provide competent counsel.
  I say to my colleagues that one of the problems we have in the 
criminal justice system with capital cases is during that 15-year 
period of time, 50 percent of the capital cases in this country are 
thrown out because of incompetent counsel. That is not saving 
taxpayers' money, that is not good criminal justice.
  My colleagues on this side of the aisle would create a dual system of 
justice in this country, exactly what we do not need. It is a good 
bill. It does not have everything that I would want in it, but I think 
it is probably one of the best comprehensive bills we have reported out 
of the Committee on the Judiciary in many a year, and I am proud to 
support it, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is a member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. I agree with 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] that crime is an 
important issue for the country. It is probably the most important 
issue for our people right now. I have to say that I do not share his 
confidence that the Clinton administration has really a top priority of 
getting tough on crime. I know that has been the rhetoric, but I would 
point to the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration recommended in the Department of 
Justice budget for the next fiscal year a reduction in the number of 
employees employed in the criminal division and a reduction of the 
number of criminal prosecutors out in the U.S. attorneys offices. At 
the same time, Mr. Speaker, they recommended an increase in the number 
of antitrust personnel at the Department of Justice. Now I have nothing 
against the antitrust division, but I would point out that, when 
President Clinton gave the State of the Union Address, he did not say 
the American people were afraid of being mugged by a bunch of antitrust 
violators.
  Mr. Speaker, what this rule comes down to right now is what is the 
importance of a bill that will address, or that hopes to address, the 
most important issue before the American people, which is crime?
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] very correctly, in my 
opinion, cited H.R. 6, an education policy bill which we had on the 
floor of the House of Representatives for a number of weeks in which we 
had an open rule, which means, of course, that any Member could offer 
an amendment whenever they wished. I ask, ``Isn't the fight against 
crime at least equal to our education policy?'' I would suggest that it 
is even more important because we cannot educate our children, we 
cannot be more productive in the workplace if we are not safe to send 
our children to school in safety, to go to work in safety and to even 
be in our homes in safety.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this rule and in place of it a 
rule that will respect the request of dozens of Democrats and dozens of 
Republicans who seek to offer amendments to this bill to debate it to 
its fullest extent to produce a truly concrete and effective bill 
against crime.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for having yielded this 
time to me.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland].
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly urge passage of this 
comprehensive crime bill as soon as possible. Violence is on the rise 
across this country and the battle against it will take nothing short 
of a historic response from this Congress.
  Imagine, if my colleagues will, a country where more than 23,000 
people died violent deaths in 1992. Imagine a country where gunfire is 
a daily occurrence in many neighborhoods and where it is not safe to 
walk to the grocery store or run some other simple errand after dark. 
Imagine a nation where a woman is raped every 47 seconds and where 
gunfire could soon overtake car accidents as one of the leading causes 
of death of young people. That country is not Bosnia, or Somalia--that 
country is the United States of America.
  In eastern Nebraska, we have seen an alarming rise in the number of 
violent crimes. Just last month, a 94-year-old woman was brutally 
attacked and robbed as she walked home from the neighborhood drug store 
in an area that one would normally consider safe. What are we coming 
too?
  One of the most troubling things about rising violence is that the 
character of crime is changing. First, younger and younger kids are 
committing violent crimes. Over the past decade the number of juveniles 
arrested for murder increased 142 percent. Second, juvenile criminals 
commit crimes that are often more impulsive and random. Random violence 
heightens our sense of vulnerability. Third, the widespread 
availability of handguns is allowing violent criminals to strike with 
increasing ferocity.
  This crime bill will help give communities like Omaha the tools we 
need to fight crime and get violent criminals off the streets. Let us 
pass it quickly.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chief 
deputy whip of the minority party, the gentleman from the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for having yielded this time to me, and the debate about this 
rule comes down to a question of why not allow amendments to be debated 
on the House floor? The answer to that is clear. The reason why we are 
not having amendments debated on the House floor is because of the 
internal politics of the Democratic caucus.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats cannot allow certain amendments to come to 
the floor or they will lose people within their own caucus for final 
passage of this bill, and so what they have done is they have gone 
inside themselves and they have produced a rule that ensures that tough 
amendments cannot come to the floor. What they want to be able to do is 
talk tough and act weak.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, what we have on this floor is a lot of tough talk 
and one of the weakest bills that one could possibly imagine. This is a 
bill that will make thugs and thieves very happy. Why will it make 
thugs and thieves very happy? Because it does not just preserve the 
status quo. That it does is actually weakens present law. It ensures 
that we will probably never be able to carry out death penalty 
provisions. It ensures that more technicalities will be in the law for 
people to get off. Yet it simply ensures that thugs and thieves across 
this country will find in the Federal law more respite than they have 
in the past.
  What is it that our middle class citizens have been saying? What has 
the middle class citizenry across the country been saying about crime? 
I say to my colleagues:
  ``If you're walking across a parking lot late at night in a shopping 
center, and you're afraid, most of middle class America is not saying, 
`What that thug that I think may come at me needs is a little more 
welfare,' and yet what the Democrats have on the floor today is a bill 
that expand welfare to criminals. If you're walking downtown, and you 
see a glass window being broken, most of middle class America doesn't 
say, `What that thief needs is a good midnight basketball league.' Most 
of middle class America says at that point, `It's time to get those 
guys and put them behind bars to stay.' If you're locked behind the 
door of your apartment or your house afraid to come out at night, and 
you're a middle class citizen, you're not saying, `What that thug needs 
out there in the night, wants and needs, is a new social worker.'''

  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that what middle class America wants is 
thieves behind bars. They want to get career criminals off the streets. 
They want violent young thugs in our society treated as adult 
criminals. They want us to begin to do the things that are necessary to 
clean up crime in the country.
  We need to consider a serious crime bill on this floor that has tough 
language in it. The Democrats in their committees cannot produce that 
kind of bill. They will not even allow us to try to produce that kind 
of bill with votes on the House floor because it does not fit their 
internal political situation.
  That is the shame of where we are in the Congress today. Legitimate 
amendments that allow middle class Americans to get what they want in a 
crime bill simply will not be allowed to be debated on the floor here 
this afternoon.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that we can defeat this rule and 
come back with a bill that will allow middle class America to have the 
tough crime bill it wants.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I have been listening to the 
kinds of conversation that I heard from our distinguished colleagues, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for 19 omnibus crime 
bills. ``Make 'em tougher and tougher.''
  Mr. Speaker, here is what the gentleman calls a weak crime bill. It 
has 66 death penalties; count them.
  I rise here merely to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, even though it 
has got too much punishment in it and not enough prevention, a novel 
idea to those who are trying to sound tough and get reelected, but I 
want to quote a letter from the Conference of Mayors sent to me by 
Mayor Dennis Archer in Detroit from Mayor Wellington D. Webb in Denver 
and Mayor Sharpe James in New Jersey, and it talks about the Racial 
Justice Act which may be eviscerated if we are not diligent on this 
floor in the coming week. Here is what they say:

       We believe that both supporters and opponents of the death 
     penalty will agree that these racial disparities in the 
     imposition of the death penalty deny African-Americans equal 
     protection under the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. The 
     Racial Justice Act specifies a procedure for defendants to 
     offer evidence,

  And I hope that that is carefully supported by Members of both sides 
of the aisle.
  The letter in its entirety is as follows:

                                    City and County of Denver,

                                       Denver, CO, March 31, 1994.
     Hon. Kweisi Mfume,
     Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus, 2419 Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
         Dear Mr. Chairman: We write in support of H.R. 4092, the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the 
     Crime Bill that is currently before the House.
       We are very concerned about violent crime, and feel that 
     there is an urgent need for a multifaceted strategy to combat 
     it. We are pleased with President Clinton's advocacy of 
     federal funding to put 100,000 more police on our streets, a 
     federal ban on assault weapons, and federal funding for 
     constructive intervention for young offenders. This has 
     alerted the entire nation to the need for bold new 
     partnerships involving all levels of government and citizens 
     to rebuild communities and families.
       We wish to support your efforts to blend the need for 
     certain and severe punishment for today's most serious 
     offenders with the need for compassion and community-building 
     to provide potential offenders with alternatives, 
     opportunity, and hope.
       Accordingly, there are several provisions in this bill 
     which we believe to be critical to achieving some measure of 
     parity between punishment and prevention by addressing the 
     root causes of crime alongside of the need to sound tough.
       First of all, we strongly support the $6.8 billion in crime 
     prevention measures contained in Title X of H.R. 4092. For 
     the first time in the history of omnibus crime bills, there 
     is an opportunity to include a comprehensive legislative 
     package directed at preventing crime in our communities from 
     which our cities will greatly benefit.
       Second, we strongly support the inclusion of the Racial 
     Justice Act in H.R. 4092. The Racial Justice Act is a crucial 
     civil rights measure which would help eliminate racial 
     considerations from improperly influencing the decision to 
     impose the death penalty.
       Study after study has documented racial bias resulting from 
     abuse of prosecutorial discretion in charging, plea 
     bargaining and sentencing. In Georgia, for instance, a study 
     showed that African Americans who kill white people received 
     the death penalty 16.7 percent of the time while whites who 
     kill whites are sentenced to die only 4.2 percent of the 
     time. Seven of nine people executed in the Middle Judicial 
     District of Georgia were black, and 71 percent of those 
     executed in Alabama were black.
       We believe that both supporters and opponents of the death 
     penalty will agree that these racial disparities deny African 
     Americans ``equal protection'' under the Fourteenth 
     Amendment. The Racial Justice Act specifies a procedure for 
     defendants to offer evidence in court, including statistical 
     evidence, in support of their claim of racial bias in death 
     penalty decisionmaking. Given that the Crime Bill includes 66 
     new death penalty crimes, it is critical that the Racial 
     Justice Act be included at this time.
       We understand that efforts will be made during the debate 
     of the House of Representatives in April to delete, or 
     seriously modify, both the Prevention Package (Title X) and 
     the Racial Justice Act (Title IX). We urge you to oppose 
     these efforts so that H.R. 4092 can be passed quickly, 
     thereby enabling the Senate and House conference to promptly 
     complete Congressional consideration of significant crime 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Wellington E. Webb,
       Mayor, Denver, CO,
                                         Chair, U.S. Conference of
                                    Mayors Task Force on Violence.

     Sharpe James,
       Mayor, Newark, NJ.

     Dennis Archer,
       Mayor, Detroit, MI.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  (Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule.
  This past Christmas, four bombs exploded in western New York killing 
five people.
  The individuals responsible for these heinous acts were able to 
purchase these explosives because of a loophole in Federal explosives 
law, a loophole that allows anyone to walk in and purchase explosives 
with any valid ID. A loophole that could be closed today by an 
amendment I have to offer. But sadly, that's not going to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment is supported by the Institute of Makers of 
Explosives, National Rifle Association, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms. The amendment is based on legislation I had already 
introduced which bipartisan support. My amendment would require a 
Federal permit for certain explosives transactions and require a 
photograph and fingerprints to be taken when applying for a Federal 
permit.
  I offered my amendment and testified before the Rules Committee. 
However, my amendment was not made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is not controversial. What it does is save 
lives. Why can't we have a vote on my amendment?
  My New York colleague, the distinguished gentlelady, Mrs. Slaughter, 
a member of the Rules Committee, has her own explosives amendment, but 
it is different from mine. I have no objections to her amendment and I 
plan to vote for it. However, her amendment does not close the loophole 
that allowed this terrible tragedy in western New York. The were over 
47,000 transactions in 1993 that used this loophole, involving 693 
million pounds of explosives.
  How many of these transactions are another tragedy waiting to 
happen--and where will they happen? How many more people must be killed 
or hurt?
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. This was a horrible tragedy 
in my district--and it could happen in any one of yours. Vote for your 
constituents today and defeat the rule--or--vote for more business and 
usual in Washington. The choice is yours.

        Amendment to H.R. 4092 Offered by Mr. Quinn of New York

       At the end insert the following:

                          TITLE  --EXPLOSIVES

     SEC.  . CONTROL OF RESTRICTED EXPLOSIVES.

       (a) Prohibition Against the Distribution or Receipt of 
     Restricted Explosives Without a Federal Permit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 842 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--
       (I) by inserting ``that are not restricted explosives'' 
     after ``explosive materials'' the 2nd place such term 
     appears; and
       (II) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) to distribute restricted explosives to any person 
     other than a licensee or permitee; or''; and
       (iii) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by 
     inserting ``that are not restricted explosives'' after 
     ``explosive materials''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``if the explosive 
     materials are not restricted explosives,'' before ``a 
     resident''.
       (2) Restricted explosives defined.--Section 841 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) `Restricted explosive' means high explosives, 
     blasting agents, detonators, and more than 50 pounds of black 
     powder.''.
       (b) Requirement That Application for Federal Explosives 
     License or Permit Include a Photograph and Set of 
     Fingerprints of the Applicant.--
       (1) In general.--Section 843(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting ``shall 
     include the applicant's photograph and set of fingerprints, 
     which shall be taken and transmitted to the Secretary by the 
     chief law enforcement officer of the applicant's place of 
     residence, and'' before ``shall be''.
       (2) Chief law enforcement officer defined.--Section 841 of 
     such title, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) `Chief law enforcement officer' means the chief of 
     police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee 
     of any such individual.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period 
     that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                            Institute of Makers of Explosives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Quinn,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Quinn: Reference is made to your letter 
     dated March 17, 1994 requesting comments on legislation you 
     propose to introduce that would: (a) prohibit the 
     distribution or receipt of ``restricted explosives'' without 
     a federal permit, and; (b) require federal permit 
     applications to include photograph and fingerprints.
       As discussed during meetings with your staff, IME has 
     recognized the need to strengthening existing federal 
     regulations for many years. The loophole in current 
     regulations that allowed the purchase of the explosives used 
     in a wave of bombings in your district during late December 
     1993 needs to be eliminated and the permit application 
     process for individuals needs to be strengthened.
       Your proposed legislation addresses both issues and the 
     Institute of Makers of Explosives therefore supports the 
     legislation you will introduce next week.
       It has been a pleasure working with your office. I have 
     been particularly impressed with the time and effort Earl 
     Whipple and Beth Meyers have devoted to this issue which 
     allowed IME to voice its positions. Be assured IME is 
     prepared to discuss matters involving commercial explosives 
     at any time.
           Sincerely,
                                          Frederick P. Smith, Jr.,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                       National Rifle Association,


                                                   of America,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1994.
     Hon. Jack Quinn,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Quinn: Thank you for your letter of 
     March 18, 1994 requesting my comments on your draft 
     legislation entitled ``Restricted Explosives Control Act of 
     1994''.
       I appreciated having the opportunity of working with your 
     Legislative Director, Earl Whipple, in addressing the 
     concerns that the National Rifle Association had with the 
     original bill as introduced. I am pleased that the new draft 
     has resolved our concerns.
       Again, I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with 
     your staff on an issue of particular importance to you and 
     your congressional district.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Susan Lamson,
                                        Director, Federal Affairs.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to another very distinguished Member, 
the gentleman from greater San Dimas, Claremont, CA, [Mr. Dreier] the 
well-known, hard-charging reformer and a member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule, for more than a few reasons.
  As we all know, the desire to bring about a tough crime bill is what 
everyone says we want. But if we end up getting this rule, and if we 
end up passing the crime bill that is before us, we will be getting a 
crime bill that is weaker than the status quo. So the choice is a very 
simple one. Do we want a tough crime bill that is actually going to 
demonstrate more concern for the victim than the criminal, or do we 
want a crime packet that is going to demonstrate more concern for the 
criminal than the victim? That is really the choice we have here.
  Any Member who chooses to vote in support of this rule is voting to 
deny an opportunity for what President Clinton calls frivolous 
amendments, but let me tell the Members what a couple of those 
amendments are. Anyone who votes for this rule is voting to deny the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], an opportunity to offer his amendment 
which would specifically track and target criminals who are illegal 
immigrants. That is a major problem in my State of California, in the 
State of Florida, and, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
said, even in the State of New York.
  If we vote in support of this rule, we are voting to deny the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] his right to offer an amendment 
to put $4 billion into increasing the number of prisons instead of 
using that money to float questionable crime prevention programs.
  If we vote in favor of this rule, we are voting to deny the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] an opportunity to offer what the President 
described as a frivolous amendment, although I think it is something 
other than that, an amendment to increase penalties for violent sex 
offenders; and Mr. McCollum's amendment that would address the issue of 
those who prey upon children and senior citizens.
  If we vote for this rule, we are voting against the opportunity of 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] to offer his amendment 
which would deny Federal welfare benefits to convicted violent 
criminals.
  If we vote in favor of this rule, we are voting against the 
opportunity for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to offer 
his amendment which would close a loophole in the law covering drive-by 
shootings which now allow those to step out of their car, and get in a 
shooting, and then jump back in and speed away. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] simply wants to close that loophole, and this 
rule does not allow that.
  Unfortunately, this rule is very unfair. It is going to, in fact, 
strengthen the criminal's status in this country, and we need to do 
everything we possibly can to defeat the rule and bring about a tough 
crime package.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close on our side.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time on our side to the 
minority whip, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], 
to close debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding time to me.
  Let me just say that I was doing some reading recently about a safer 
America, and I ran across a fascinating story.
  In 1933, there was an effort to assassinate President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt and the assassin missed and he killed Mayor Cermak of Chicago 
who was standing next to the President. The assassin was arrested; 
there were eye witnesses. The assassin was tried, and less than 35 days 
after the assassination, the assassin was given the death penalty and 
he was executed so that people in America who had seen the horror of 
Mayor Cermak being killed could remember, 35 days later, why the man 
was being executed.
  Mr. Speaker, in Georgia 2 weeks ago, we had a man executed for a 
terrible murder, a man executed after a long period of appeals. That 
murder occurred 16 years ago. Sixteen years. It took 192 times as long, 
19,200 percent more time, because of all the appeals the criminal 
defense lawyers have built into the system over the years. What I find 
sad about this rule is that the Democratic machine after 40 years is 
still protecting the criminal defense lawyers. For 40 years the 
Democrats have run the House, it has gotten harder and harder to have 
an effective death penalty, for 40 years.
  The Democrat machine came in again; they refused to make amendments 
in order; they refused to give people a fair chance at creating a tough 
bill; they drafted the bill in the Committee on the Judiciary in favor 
of criminal defense lawyers. It is the first time I have ever heard 
where they, the Democrats, are now going to require the States to hire 
two, two criminal lawyers for every death penalty, two, in order to 
make sure that everything is done to protect the person convicted of 
murder.
  So let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against the machine, vote against this rule. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, we are at a historic moment here today. For 
the first time, Congress is making crime fighting a top priority. We 
have a real consensus on both sides of the aisle that a major crime 
bill is necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill is overdue. We have let crime and lawlessness 
fester to the point where a frustrated public is ready to endorse the 
brutal caning in Singapore.
  This bill is balanced. It has tough measures, like ``three strikes 
and you're out'' and money to build prisons to ensure that violent 
criminals are put behind bars.
  Mr. Speaker, it also has the most ambitious and comprehensive crime 
prevention programs in history. Tough sentences and prison cells are 
very important, but not enough. We also have to help young people at 
the crossroads to choose honest and productive lives rather than gangs 
and crime.
  More important, the bill will put 50,000 more police officers on the 
street doing community policing. Beat cops both punish and prevent.
  The long and short, Mr. Speaker, is we are deluged in this Nation 
anywhere we go with crime and the concomitant fear. We can argue the 
procedural points. We can debate and debate and debate. The public is 
saying, ``Stop all that and do something.'' This bill finally does.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] has expired.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is recognized for 2 
minutes to close debate.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, we can talk about 
this rule as not being fair, but there were 107 amendments that were 
not made in order. Five of them were bipartisan, 53 of them were 
Democrats, and 49 of them were Republican amendments. This is a very 
fair rule and it deals with what the American people want to deal 
with--the crime issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the example that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] gave, my amendment will take care of that, because what it 
says is that you see these people that are on death row for years and 
years and years and years, and their sentence is never carried out. My 
amendment says: One year, they have one petition, and it must be done 
by a capable attorney.
  ``Three strikes and you're out.'' Three violent crimes and the 
criminal is in there for the rest of his life. I cannot understand what 
is going on in this country. I see these people standing up here 
talking about crime. Yet they are not willing to do away with assault 
weapons. They are not willing to do away with those guns that are used 
to mow down people, those guns that are killing people in this country.
  Every day I hear people stand up and talk about crime. They are 
concerned about crime, but they are not willing to go for a 5-day 
waiting period to have a handgun. I hear people stand up here and say 
they are concerned about crime, but they are not willing to fight the 
lobbies who are for guns in this country and are fueling many of the 
campaigns in this country. So it really does not make a whole lot of 
sense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It deals with what the American 
people want to deal with. The rule is fair, and I ask that the Members 
support the rule.
  Mr. Kyl Mr. Speaker, this week the House will finally begin debate on 
anticrime legislation. President Clinton and House Democrats have been 
talking tough on crime. However, H.R. 4092, the crime legislation being 
championed by the House Democrat leadership, is weak on substance and 
strong on misdirected spending programs.
  As currently drafted, H.R. 4092 will do little to strengthen our 
criminal justice system--crime will not go down and the law-abiding 
citizens of Arizona and the rest of the Nation will be robbed of the 
opportunity to reclaim their streets and communities from criminals.
  Members should have the opportunity to vote for tough criminal 
justice reforms, but the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee has 
twice refused to allow floor consideration of amendments to strengthen 
our criminal justice system. In his radio address this weekend, 
President Clinton called these necessary amendments frivolous. This, 
from a President who has not drafted a single line of the crime bill we 
are debating today.
  I was the author of one of these supposedly frivolous amendments, 
rejected by the Rules Committee on a straight party-line vote, 3 to 4. 
My amendment, which includes most of the provisions of the Sexual 
Assault Prevention Act introduced last year by Representative Susan 
Molinari and I, would significantly expand and toughen sexual violence 
laws and increase the rights of the victims of these crimes. As 
drafted, H.R. 4092 will not bring about these needed changes.
  My amendment would, among other provisions: Double the maximum 
penalty for recidivists convicted of sexual assaults; require HIV 
testing of accused sex offenders (results inadmissible at trial); 
provide for pretrial detention of the accused; suspend Federal benefits 
to offenders who refuse to comply with restitution obligations; protect 
victims from abuse in Legal proceedings; and, make admissible at trial 
evidence of similar crimes of the accused.
  Allowing for evidence of similar crimes of the accused at trial is 
particularly important. It would go a long way toward neutralizing the 
psychological damage a rape victim often experiences going through the 
judicial process. It is common in rape and child molestation cases that 
the victim is too traumatized intimidated or humiliated to file a 
complaint and go through the full procedure of a criminal prosecution. 
However, the victims in such cases are often willing to bear the burden 
of testifying when they find out that the person who marred their lives 
has also victimized others
  As the cochair of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on 
Women's Issues, I have held a number of hearings dealing with sexual 
violence, At those hearings, witnesses testified that the most 
important thing we can do to protect and empower citizens from sexual 
and domestic violence is by restructuring our criminal justice system, 
including increasing penalties for offenders.
  Paul McNulty, former director of policy at the Department of Justice, 
said at one of the hearings,

       Given what we know about the recidivist nature of sex 
     offenders, you might think that the criminal justice system 
     does all that it can to keep them in prison. Unfortunately, 
     nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of 
     those who are arrested for rape are not sentenced to prison. 
     Only 33 percent of all such arrestees go to prison. For those 
     who are sent to prison, only a fraction of their sentences 
     are actually served. * * * It is, there fore, quite clear 
     that the most effective way to prevent sexual assault is to 
     punish violent criminals by removing them from the streets. * 
     * * That is why we strongly endorse H.R. 688 * * * (the Kyle 
     bill). * * * As former Attorney General William Barr stated 
     last year when discussing this bill, `It brings criminals to 
     justice and justice to victims.'

  My sexual assault amendment is an extremely important component of 
our efforts to combat crime, particularly violence against women and 
children. The Congress should have the opportunity to pass the Sexual 
Assault Prevention Act in its entirety as part of comprehensive crime 
legislation. The Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee has made 
this impossible. For this, and a myriad of other reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the rule to H.R. 4092.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). 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 244, 
nays 176, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 103]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     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
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     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
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     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)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--176

     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
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     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
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Blackwell
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     McCandless
     McCurdy
     Roukema
     Smith (OR)
     Tanner
     Wilson

                              {time}  1801

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bacchus of Florida for, with Mrs. Roukema against.

  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.

                          ____________________