[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). Pursuant to House Resolution 
401 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 4092.

                              {time}  1140


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4092) to control and prevent crime, with Mr. Torricelli in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] had 
been disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 1 of 
House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan: At the end of title VII, 
     add the following:

     SEC.   . KIDNAPPING.

       Section 1201(g)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``to the penalty of death if the death 
     of the victim results and, in any other case,'' after ``shall 
     be subject''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Duncan] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple and noncontroversial 
amendment which conforms to language in the committee bill.
  At the beginning of this session I introduced a bill that would 
allow, but not require, juries to impose the death sentence for 
federally prescribed kidnaping charges when the death of a minor 
results. I am very pleased that the committee has reported a bill which 
would allow the death sentence in these cases by amending section 
1201(a) of title 18 U.S. Code.

  However, because section 1201(g) of title 18 deals specifically with 
children, I believe that further clarification should be made so that 
there will be no doubt that cases covered under section 1201(a) will 
also be covered by section 1201(g) relating specifically to children. 
My amendment will make it clear that juries will have the option of 
imposing the death sentence in these instances.
  Last year Americans were shocked by the case of 12-year-old Polly 
Klaas who was kidnaped from her home in Petuluma, CA, and later 
murdered. The suspect was a twice-convicted kidnaper who had been in 
police hands twice during the search for Polly.
  Families are no longer safe in their own homes because violent 
criminals are not concerned about the consequences of their actions or 
the possibility of severe punishment. It is estimated that this year 
over 1,100 murderers will not go to prison and those that do will serve 
only an average of 8.7 years. Although many kidnaping cases are 
unreported, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has 
estimated that between 1984 and 1993 a total of 34,814 children were 
missing.
  We cannot continue to send criminals the message that they will not 
be severely punished, and people who systematically prey on children 
must know that if they are caught and found guilty they could receive 
the death penalty.
  I believe that this fear does not exist in the minds of many 
potential murderers and kidnapers. This amendment will change that, and 
I hope that my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment 
and thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] for offering it. It 
clarifies the Federal death penalty for kidnaping presently contained 
in title VII, also applies to kidnaping of a minor that results in the 
death of that minor. That was always the intent of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for clarifying this. I would urge 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman for that kind offer. I 
certainly appreciate his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no Member in opposition to the amendment 
who has requested the time, the question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2, printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                     amendment offered by mr. watt

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Watt: Page 36, line 11, insert 
     ``or'' after the semicolon.
       Page 37, strike line 12 and all that follows through line 7 
     on page 38.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment would be to strike the 
provision in the bill which provides for a death penalty for drug 
kingpins. I am an opponent of the death penalty, but that is not what 
this argument is about.
  I would say that if I were to support a death penalty, it would 
certainly be a death penalty for drug kingpins. One might wonder then 
why am I here offering this amendment. I would say to this body that 
there are three reasons.
  No. 1, this language in the bill, which provides for a death penalty 
when death does not result from the underlying crime, is 
unconstitutional.
  The Supreme Court has indicated that a death must result in order for 
a death penalty to be applicable. And the drug kingpin statute, of 
course, results in no death.
  No. 2, although I would probably favor a death penalty for drug 
kingpins, the history of application of the existing drug kingpin 
statute has indicated that it will be applied in a racially 
discriminatory way. There have been 37 prosecutions since 1988, when 
the drug kingpin statute was passed. Thirty-three of those prosecutions 
have been against black or Hispanic individuals.
  I do not think there is anybody in this country who could argue with 
any degree of credibility that blacks and hispanics are the drug 
kingpins in this country. So the underlying proposition is, we are 
passing a drug kingpin statute that gets to the drug kingpins. If that 
were so, that would be fine. But unfortunately, that has not been the 
history of application of the drug kingpin statute.
  Finally, I would say that this particular provision in the bill may 
well end up defeating more death penalty prosecutions than it 
encourages. Most foreign governments will not extradite individuals to 
this country to be subjected to the death penalty. Many of the drug 
kingpins, we believe and the evidence has shown, are not resident in 
the United States. So to have a death penalty statute for drug kingpins 
is going to make it more difficult to get those drug kingpins into the 
country to be prosecuted.
  I would ask my colleagues to take our responsibility seriously as 
Members of Congress. Do not just say we are going to be tough on crime 
and let the Supreme Court declare this provision unconstitutional. It 
is our responsibility, in the context of the constitutional government, 
to pass laws that are constitutional. It is our responsibility to be 
responsible to the people of this country.
  I submit to my colleagues that in this particular case, we are being 
irresponsible to include this language in the bill. I would ask my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                             {time}   1150

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I have great respect for the gentleman who 
is offering the amendment, but I strenuously disagree with his decision 
to do so or his position on this amendment.
  The provision in the bill that he wishes to strike is one that I 
offered in committee. It is a drug kingpin death penalty for those who 
are organizers and leaders of a continuing criminal enterprise 
trafficking in extremely large quantities of narcotics; for example, 
300,000 grams of cocaine or 60,000 grams of heroin. We are not talking 
about the everyday, average street trafficker.
  The drug kingpin death penalty that is in this bill passed the House 
as part of the conference report during the 102d Congress in precisely 
the language that is here. Major drug traffickers do commit murders as 
a result of trafficking in very large quantities of narcotics. There is 
no question in my mind or in the minds of many reputable analysts and 
former attorneys general that such a drug kingpin death penalty would 
be upheld as constitutional.
  Former Attorney General Bill Barr, former Attorney General Ed Meese, 
former Solicitor General Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and Paul Cassell, a very 
famous professor, have all said in letters to us that they believe that 
the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold this as 
constitutional under the standards that now exist.
  We have had death penalties in the past which have been upheld where 
there has been no murder or death proven directly. One good example of 
that is treason.
  Another good example of that is espionage. In 1790 Congress passed 
the treason law, in 1917 the espionage law, and in 1946 passed a 
separate law that had a death penalty for the release of sensitive 
information concerning nuclear technology.
  I think a recent Federal court decision probably stated it pretty 
well when Judge Gee said, and I quote:

       Except in rare cases, the murderer's red hand falls on one 
     victim only, however grim the blow; but the foul hand of the 
     drug dealer blights life after life and, like the vampire of 
     fable, creates others in its owner's evil image--others who 
     create others still, across our land and down our 
     generations, sparing not even the unborn.

  It is for this reason, because of the grave public harm which 
trafficking activities in large quantities cause, and because of the 
culpable state of mind of the individuals required under this drug 
kingpin death penalty proposal, that most of us and the experts I have 
cited believe the Supreme Court would uphold this as constitutional.
  Congress has the right to speak the will of the people when danger to 
society is great enough, and certainly when we have drug kingpins, 
danger to society is great enough. The proportionality rule under the 
Eighth amendment is met, the blameworthiness of the offender is clear, 
and I would urge that the Watt amendment be defeated, that we enact 
once and for all the drug kingpin death penalty in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], and point out to the 
body that this provision was not in the original bill; it was added in 
committee, and it won by only one vote in the committee.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I am deeply concerned about 
the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty in any case where 
death does not directly result, a concern shared by the Department of 
Justice.
  That concern is based on the 1977 Supreme Court case, Coker versus 
Georgia, in which the Court held that the death penalty for rape was 
unconstitutional unless the victim was actually killed. Imposing the 
death penalty in these non-death drug kingpin cases thus is of 
questionable constitutionality.
  I have absolutely no use for drug kingpins and I support the life 
imprisonment penalties they currently face under existing law. Drug 
kingpins clearly are a scourge upon our Nation and are repugnant to 
every law-abiding citizen. As you are all aware, I very much support 
the death penalty in appropriate cases. I have no compunction about the 
ultimate punishment when heinous violent acts are committed. But, when 
we move down a path to passing an unconstitutional provision, we must 
proceed with care.
  The amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina restores the 
constitutionality of title 7, while leaving in place the existing life 
imprisonment penalties for drug kingpins. I urge support for this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Watt] has expired.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that 
if anybody is appropriate for the ultimate sentence, which is death, 
drug kingpins are. To me they are far more culpable and carry far 
greater burdens of creating turmoil in our society and ultimate death 
than the mule who may be at the bottom of the rung and pulls the 
trigger.
  We have had instances where it is not unconstitutional to have a 
capital crime for those who do not pull the trigger: Spies, treason, 
espionage. When the Nation wants to show its ultimate opprobrium for 
those who may put in danger tens of thousands of individuals, of young 
lives, this is appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum], defeat the Watt amendment, and keep the drug kingpin 
statute in the capital punishment parts of our bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has 
no time remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, 70 percent of all crime in this country is drug 
related. We are not going to do anything with this crime bill if we do 
not address the drug problem. It is the major cause of crime in this 
country, and here is a major section of the bill they want to kill. It 
makes no sense. Drug kingpins are killing our kids, they are killing 
our society, they are costing the society billions and billions of 
dollars a year, and this is an essential part of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a white issue, a black issue, a red issue, 
a pink issue. This is an American issue. If we are going to solve the 
crime problem in America, we have to deal with the drug problem. If we 
do not have a strong provision in this bill, it is not worth the paper 
it is written on.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated. In fact, I think 
this section should be have even stronger. There should be lower limits 
for the death penalty for major drug dealers. They are ruining this 
society.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out in the decision that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] pointed out regarding rape that there 
were clearly exceptions made by the Supreme Court in that decision 
stating that this was not a focus on the death penalty generally, where 
there were no murders or killings. It certainly says that wherever 
somebody has committed a crime heinous enough for Congress and for the 
public to be outraged, and to find public opprobrium, that the death 
penalty is appropriate, and those cases are there for us to define. 
That is what we are doing today.
  The death penalty for drug kingpins and those who are leaders in 
trafficking in extremely large quantities of narcotics surely is 
appropriate. Hundreds of people, thousands of people, potentially are 
killed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment to allow the drug 
kingpin death penalty to stay in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. WATT].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, 
noes 316, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 106]

                               AYES--108

     Andrews (ME)
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--316

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Owens
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Ackerman
     Dornan
     Ewing
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Gutierrez
     Rangel
     Roth
     Roukema
     Washington
     Waxman

                              {time}  1218

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Ackerman for, with Mr. Grandy against.
       Mr. Rangel for, with Mrs. Roukema against.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BERMAN, BECERRA, and SERRANO changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on the Watt amendment 
rollcall 106, striking the crime bill's death penalty provision for 
drug kingpins, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                     amendment offered by mr. scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott: Page 62, strike line 6 and 
     all that follows through line 10 and redesignate succeeding 
     subsections accordingly.
       Page 69, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 
     22 on page 70.

                              {time}  1220

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Scott] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes from the bill the death penalty 
crimes in which the States are far better suited to handle, murders 
committed during carjackings, drive-by shootings, drug and gun crimes.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote against unnecessary and 
burdensome federalization of crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chair of the Judicial Conference on Criminal Law, 
in a letter to the Committee on the Judiciary, wrote,

       Our Nation's judicial system is premised on the principle 
     that the Federal and State courts together comprise an 
     integrated system for the administration of justice. 
     Federalization of these crimes may result, paradoxically, in 
     less rather than more effective law enforcement. Scarce 
     judicial resources needed by the Federal courts to try major 
     crimes, such as complex bank fraud and embezzlement cases and 
     to provide forums for the prosecution of national and 
     international drug and money-laundering conspiracies, will be 
     diluted by a variety of cases that State courts are better 
     equipped to handle.

  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the director of the FBI testified, ``The 
facts are that right now, I don't think I am fully staffed to fulfill 
all of my current responsibilities.'' If this bill passes, Mr. 
Chairman, the FBI will have to investigate local carjacking murders, 
drive-by shootings, drug and gun crimes, in addition to the espionage, 
drug kingpin, and racketeering cases.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, this is not a provision in the bill that deals with 
carjacking itself; it deals with murder when you have carjackings. I 
think the problem that is important here is how many crimes are being 
committed today all over this country involving interstate 
transportation of cars and kidnapping of people and murders that go 
along with them. There is no question there is a Federal concern when 
we have people who are brutally and heinously murdered in various and 
sundry locations in the process of a carjacking operation. That is a 
very common trait interstate and it is very appropriate for the Federal 
Government to be involved.
  I would urge my colleagues to sustain the position of the committee 
and leave the murder of carjacking as a death penalty in this bill. 
That is all that we are about today. The effort is to strike the death 
penalty for murders committed during the course of a carjacking.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment. There is really very 
little else that can be said on it. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  (Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Scott's 
amendment because I think it puts the responsibility for these crimes 
where it belongs--with the States.
  I support the Federal death penalty and I support Federal law 
enforcement enforcing the Federal law to the fullest. But we cannot 
make every offense into a Federal death penalty offense.
  These offenses that are in this amendment are already covered by 
State law--murders from cars by carjackers and by drug dealers or 
gunrunners are already crimes in every State.
  For instance there is absolutely no Federal connection in the driveby 
shootings provision in this bill. There is no requirement that any 
driveby shooting occur on Federal property, or even across State lines 
and we have made it a Federal death penalty offense. Why? There's no 
reason.
  And then we have added murders committed during Federal gun or drug 
crimes to the Federal death penalty list. So if a person commits a 
murder and uses an illegally possessed firearm that has been in 
interstate commerce, the Federal system now becomes involved in the 
murder prosecution. The Federal Government cannot handle the Federal 
criminals it already has to deal with.
  The States are better equipped and better able to deal with these 
crimes, they are traditional responsibilities and we should not 
overload the Federal system with them. FBI Director Freeh recently said 
that they are already understaffed for the current workload. We are 
doing a disservice by adding these nonconnected Federal death penalty 
offenses.
  Let us support the Federal death penalty, but let us support offenses 
that belong there, not those that do not.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I wish to thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], for bringing this point to us, 
because it has been made so ably by our colleague from Kansas as well 
as the author of this provision that the federalization of State 
crimes, because they are heinous, is no more rational than for us to 
make any other local crimes we do not like a Federal crime.
  We do not have places to put the people that we would convict. We do 
not have a system set up.
  So I would merely join in strongly urging support for the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman said is entirely correct. We 
have fewer than 700 Federal judges. They have important constitutional 
issues. We should not turn them into police court judges. We should not 
keep federalizing these State crimes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I wish simply to point out that while I respect the arguments being 
made on the other side, carjacking does involve, frequently, a Federal 
nexus; it does involve frequently interstate transportation of those 
vehicles; it involves, oftentimes, matters which are a Federal concern. 
The implementation of this requires some discretion so that not every 
carjacking murder is going to wind up being in Federal court. I would 
think this is an appropriate thing to keep in the bill for use in 
appropriate cases by Federal authorities. It is again, in my judgment, 
appropriate to have a death penalty for murder, and that is all this 
is, for murder in carjackings.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment to strike it 
from the bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just very briefly, the passage of this amendment will avoid 
jurisdictional confusion and rivalries between local police and the 
FBI, local prosecutors, and U.S. attorneys.
  I would hope we would leave this matter to the States. All of these 
are crimes in the States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4, printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                   amendment offered by mr. kopetski

  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kopetski: At the end of title VII, 
     insert the following:

     SEC.   . SUBSTITUTION OF PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR 
                   DEATH PENALTY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, wherever a 
     Federal law provides for the imposition of the penalty of 
     death, the court shall instead impose the penalty of 
     imprisonment for life.

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski].

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. KOPETSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself and my good friends, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  The Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano amendment would, quite simply, strip out 
all the death penalty provisions in H.R. 4092, and insert, in their 
place, life imprisonment. And, as there is no parole in the Federal 
system, our amendment requires life imprisonment without opportunity 
for parole as a substitute for death sentencing.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before us today one of the few instances where 
the Congress clearly legislates morality. Certainly, many of us are 
troubled by the death penalty on moral, and possibly, religious 
grounds. But more importantly, from my point of view, the Government--
especially the Federal Government--sets the standards for society. I 
believe I speak for many in this Chamber when I say Government should 
be setting an example for our citizens on how to conduct their lives. 
Government, by its actions, should not, therefore, ratify and 
legitimize death in our society. But I do not want to dwell on that 
aspect. There are substantive policy grounds on which to oppose the 
death penalty. I will recount five of them here.


                             too expensive

  Life imprisonment without hope of release is more cost effective than 
the death penalty. Per case estimates of death sentences greatly exceed 
the cost of life imprisonment. In California, for example, death 
penalty cases cost an average of $600,000, according to the Loyola of 
Los Angeles Law Review, compared with $427,000 for life imprisonment. 
In Oregon the cost is $1.2 million for death penalty cases as opposed 
to $600,000 for life without parole.


                         executing the innocent

  A sentence with the finality and irrevocability of death is 
inappropriate in a system where miscarriages of justice can and do 
occur. Stanford Law Review documented hundreds of cases in which 
innocent individuals were sentenced to death, 23 of whom were wrongly 
executed. Let me repeat that, because it's a staggering number: 23 
people lay dead who were later exonerated of wrongdoing. In the last 
few years, several death-row prisoners have had their sentences 
reversed and were freed based upon wrongful convictions.


                         racial discrimination

  Between 1930 and 1990, roughly 4,000 persons were executed in the 
United States, 53 percent of whom were black. During these years, 
African-Americans made up roughly 12 percent of the country, indicating 
they are executed in extreme disproportion to their representation in 
society. A 1990 GAO report confirms prior findings that a convicted 
perpetrator of a capital crime is much more likely to receive the death 
penalty if the victim is white and much less likely to receive the 
death penalty if the victim is black. Since 1976, 87 percent of those 
executed had white victims while only 11 percent had black victims. 
Besides race, the death penalty discriminates against the poor. 
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, roughly 90 percent 
of those on death row could not afford to hire an attorney.


                          does not deter crime

  Study after study shows that certainty of punishment is the main 
deterrent to criminals, not severity of punishment, as some would have 
us believe. The murder rates in death penalty States have generally 
been higher than in non-death-penalty States. Even if severity were the 
leading factor in deterrence, however, I believe you could make the 
case that life imprisonment without parole is a sterner, more 
foreboding sentence. A survey of death-row inmates in Tennessee found 
that half felt a sentence of life without hope for release would be 
worse, in their minds, than the death penalty.


                          Inequity of justice

  We are casually, but unfortunately, federalizing what has 
traditionally been an area of States' rights. My colleagues may be 
interested to know that the Conference of Chief Justices, the 
association of State supreme court chief justices, opposes the 
federalization of State crimes as violative of long-held principals of 
federalism. Moreover the State chief justices, judging by the 
resolution I've read and will submit for the Record, find the 
provisions of this bill little more than insulting to current State 
efforts and illusory in their promised effects.
  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmum recently reversed his 
longstanding support for the death penalty, in remarks made in the 
context of a dissenting opinion in Callins versus Collins. Twenty years 
ago, Justice Blackmum pointed out, when the Supreme Court swept away 
existing death penalties and asked the States to start over, 
governments and courts thought they could iron out the rough spots in 
the application of the death sentence. But, as Blackmum suggests to say 
in his recent dissent the courts and legislatures could not, and the 
experiment itself is a failure. I have copies of Blackmum's dissent, 
and I would be happy to share them with Members.
  Mr. Chairman, this is our intent: To substitute the sternest 
alternative sentence possible in place of the death penalty. We do not 
deny that the crimes listed in the expansion of the Federal death 
penalty in H.R. 4092 are heinous crimes, and deserving of the stiffest 
sentences. In my view, life without any hope of release constitutes 
death by incarceration, a stiff penalty by any standard.
  I urge support of the Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] which would strike 
the death penalty provisions of H.R. 4092 and substitute mandatory life 
imprisonment.
  I have the utmost respect for the gentleman's sincere philosophical 
beliefs about the death penalty. However, in a civilized society there 
are acts so despicable, so heinous, that society must collectively 
express its revulsion for these acts by imposition of the death 
penalty. That penalty must, of course, be imposed under 
constitutionally sound procedures, which I also support.
  I believe the death penalty--in appropriate circumstances--to be a 
just penalty. I do not believe in theoretical disputes about how much 
deterrence or punishment is achieved by meting out the death penalty. 
Plain common sense tells us the death penalty is the only way to send 
an unequivocal message that some conduct simply will not be borne by 
innocent victims of heinous crimes without the highest price to be 
paid.
  A civilized society cannot send out mixed or ambiguous signals about 
how certain heinous acts will be treated. H.R. 4092 reflects this sound 
philosophy, and I believe it should be preserved. I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, the Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano amendment would 
replace the death penalty called for in H.R. 4092, the bill we are 
debating, with a bill more constitutionally morally sound and a less 
expensive sentence of life without parole.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4092 would apply the death penalty, as my 
colleagues know, to over 60 new Federal offenses. Yet, in February of 
this year, Supreme Court Justice Blackmun stated--and I quote, that 
``[t]wenty years have passed since this court declared that the death 
penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency or not 
at all,'' and he said, ``despite the effort of the states and courts to 
devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting 
challenge, ``Justice Blackmun said,'' the death penalty remains fraught 
with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake.'' History 
shows us, if we are wise, that minorities have continuously received a 
disproportionate share of society's harshest punishments, from slavery 
to lynchings. The race of the victim also constitutes a factor in the 
discriminatory fashion in which the death penalty is applied. The GAO 
stated, and I quote, that ``those who murdered whites were found more 
likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks,'' when 
we all know, as we must, all murder is wrong.
  Moreover, a large body of evidence shows that innocent people are 
often convicted of crimes, including capital crimes, and that some of 
them have been executed. There have been, on the average, more than 
four cases per year in which an entirely innocent person was convicted 
of murder, and many of those persons were sentenced to death.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of 46 cases that have either been 
overturned or where the prisoner was released in light of new evidence, 
and include it with my remarks for printing in the Congressional 
Record:

             Forty-Six Death Row Cases Found To Be in Error


                             Released--1973

       (1) David Keaton, Florida; Convicted: 1971. Sentenced to 
     death for murdering an off duty deputy sheriff during a 
     robbery. He was released after the actual killer was 
     convicted.


                             Released--1976

       (2) Thomas Gladish, Richard Greer, Ronald Keine, Clarence 
     Smith, New Mexico; Convicted: 1974. The four were convicted 
     to murder, kidnapping, sodomy, and rape and were sentenced to 
     death. They were released after a newspaper investigation 
     caused a drifter to admit to the killings.


                             Released--1977

       (3) Delbert Tibbs, Florida; Convicted: 1974. Sentenced to 
     death for the rape of a sixteen year old and the murder of 
     her companion. The conviction was overturned by the Florida 
     Supreme Court because the verdict was not supported by the 
     weight of the evidence.


                             Released--1978

       (4) Earl Charles, Georgia; Convicted: 1975. Convicted on 
     two counts of murder and sentenced to death. He was released 
     when evidence was found that substantiated his alibi.
       (5) Jonathan Treadway, Arizona; Convicted: 1975. Convicted 
     of sodomy and first degree murder of a six-year-old and 
     sentenced to death. He was acquitted at retrial by the jury 
     after 5 pathologists testified that the victim probably died 
     of natural causes and that there was no evidence of sodomy.


                             released--1979

       (6) Gary Beeman, Ohio; Convicted: 1976. Convicted of 
     aggravated murder and sentenced to death. Acquitted at the 
     retrial when evidence showed that the true killer was the 
     main prosecution witness at the first trial.


                             released--1980

       (7) Jerry Banks, Georgia; 1975. Sentenced to death for two 
     counts of murder. The conviction was overturned because the 
     prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence.
       (8) Larry Hicks, Indiana; Convicted: 1978. Convicted on two 
     counts of murder and sentenced to death. He was acquitted at 
     the retrial when witnesses established his alibi and when the 
     eyewitness testimony at the first trial was proved to have 
     been perjured.
       (9) Johnnie Ross, Louisiana; Convicted: 1975. Sentenced to 
     death for rape. He was released when his blood type was found 
     to be inconsistent with that of the rapist's.


                             released--1981

       (10) Charles Ray Giddens, Oklahoma; Convicted: 1978. 
     Conviction and death sentence reversed by the Oklahoma Court 
     of Criminal Appeals on grounds of insufficient evidence.
       (11) Michael Linder, South Carolina; Convicted: 1979. 
     Sentenced to death but was acquitted at the retrial on the 
     grounds of self defense.


                             Released--1982

       (12) Annibal Jaramillo, Florida; Convicted: 1981. Sentenced 
     to death for two counts of first degree murder. He was 
     released when the Florida Supreme Court ruled the evidence 
     did not sustain the conviction.
       (13) Lawyer Johnson, Massachusetts; Convicted: 1971. 
     Sentenced to death for first degree murder. The changes were 
     dropped when at this new trial a previously silent eyewitness 
     came forward and implicated the state's chief witness as the 
     actual killer.


                             Released--1983

       (14) Chol Soo Lee, California; Convicted: 1977. Convicted 
     and sentenced to death for killing a fellow prisoner. The 
     conviction was overturned because of improper jury 
     instructions and Lee was released.
       (15) Billy Jo Wallace, Georgia; Convicted and sentenced to 
     death for murder. His conviction was overturned by the 
     Supreme Court of Georgia based on perjured testimony.


                             Released--1986

       (16) Anthony Brown, Florida; Convicted: 1983. Convicted of 
     first degree murder and sentenced to death. At the retrial, 
     the state's chief witness admitted that his testimony at the 
     first trial had been perjured.
       (17) Neil Ferber, Pennsylvania; Convicted: 1982. Convicted 
     of first degree murder and sentenced to death. He was 
     released at the request of the state's attorney when new 
     evidence showed that the conviction was based on perjured 
     testimony.


                             released--1987

       (18) Joseph Green Brown, Florida; Convicted: 1974. Charges 
     were dropped after the 11th Circuit ruled that the conviction 
     was based on suppression of exculpatory evidence by the 
     prosecution.
       (19) Perry Cobb, Darby Williams, Illinois; Convicted: 1979. 
     They were convicted and sentenced to death for a double 
     murder. They were acquitted at retrial when an assistant 
     state's attorney came forward and destroyed the credibility 
     of the state's chief witness.
       (20) Henry Drake, Georgia; Convicted: 1976. Reconvicted to 
     a life sentence at his second retrial. Six months later, the 
     parole board freed him, convinced by an exoneration of Drake 
     given by his alleged accomplice.
       (21) John Henry Knapp, Arizona; Convicted: 1974. Released 
     after the state Supreme Court ordered a new trial.
       (22) Wilbert Lee, Freddie Pitts, Florida; Convicted: 1963. 
     They were convicted of a double murder and sentenced to 
     death. They were released when they received a full pardon 
     from Governor Askew because of their innocence.
       (23) Vernon McManus, Texas; Convicted: 1977. After a new 
     trial was ordered; the prosecution dropped the charges 
     because a key prosecution witness refused to testify.
       (24) Anthony Ray Peek, Florida; Convicted: 1978. Convicted 
     of murder and sentenced to death. He was acquitted at his 
     second retrial because the erroneous conviction was based on 
     faulty expert testimony.
       (25) John Ramos, Florida; Convicted: 1983. Sentenced to 
     death for a rape-murder. The decision was vacated by the 
     Florida Supreme Court. At his retrial, he was acquitted.
       (26) Robert Wallace, Georgia; Convicted: 1980. Sentenced to 
     death for the slaying of a police officer. The 11th Circuit 
     ordered a retrial because Wallace was not competent to stand 
     trial. He was acquitted at the retrial because it was found 
     that the shooting was accidental.


                             released--1988

       (27) Jerry Bigelow, California; Convicted: 1981. Convicted 
     of murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was 
     overturned by the California Supreme Court and was acquitted 
     at the retrial.
       (28) Willie Brown, Larry Troy, Florida; Convicted: 1983. 
     They were released when the evidence showed that the main 
     witness at trial had perjured himself.
       (29) William Jent, Earnest Miller, Florida; Convicted: 
     1979. They were released in a plea agreement at their 
     retrial.
       (30) Clarence Womack, Alabama; Convicted: 1982. Convicted 
     of murder and sentenced to death. The conviction was 
     overturned by the Supreme Court of Alabama based on 
     suppression of evidence by the prosecution and false 
     testimony.


                             released--1989

       (31) Randall Dale Adams, Texas; Convicted: 1977. Convicted 
     of murder and sentenced to death. He was ordered to be 
     released pending a new trial by the Texas Court of Appeals. 
     The prosecutors didn't seek a retrial due to substantial 
     evidence of Adam's innocence.
       (32) Jesse Keith Brown, South Carolina; Convicted: 1983. 
     The conviction was reversed twice by the state Supreme Court. 
     At the third trial he was acquitted.
        (33) Nathan Brown, Georgia; Convicted and sentenced to 
     death. U.S. District Judge Bowen reversed the conviction and 
     sentence based on prosecutorial misconduct.
       (34) Robert Cox, Florida; Convicted: 1988. Released by an 
     unanimous decision of the Florida Supreme Court on the basis 
     of insufficient evidence.
       (35) Timothy Hennis, North Carolina; Convicted: 1985. 
     Convicted on three counts of murder and was sentenced to 
     death. The state Supreme Court granted a retrial. At the 
     retrial, Hennis was acquitted.
       (36) James Richardson, Florida; Convicted: 1963. Released 
     after reexamination of the case by the Miami State's Attorney 
     office concluded he was innocent.


                             released--1990

       (37) Clarence Brandley, Texas; Convicted: 1980. Awarded a 
     new trial when evidence showed prosecutorial suppression of 
     exculpatory evidence and perjury by prosecution witnesses. 
     The case was not retried.
       (38) Patrick Croy, California; Convicted: 1979. Conviction 
     overturned by the state Supreme Court because of improper 
     jury instructions. Acquitted at retrial after argument of 
     self defense.
       (39) John Clifford Skelton, Texas; Convicted: 1982. 
     Convicted of killing a 46 year old man by exploding dynamite 
     in his pickup. The conviction was overturned by the Texas 
     Court of Criminal Appeals due to insufficient evidence.


                             released--1991

       (40) Bradley P. Scott, Florida; Convicted: 1988. Released 
     by the Florida Supreme Court on the basis of insufficient 
     evidence.
       (41) Gary Nelson, Georgia; Convicted: 1979. Convicted and 
     sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 6-year-old 
     girl. Released after it was shown that the willful 
     suppression of evidence in the state's possession pointed to 
     the guilt of another.
       (42) Jimmy Lee Horton, Georgia. Horton, a black man, was 
     convicted of murder and sentenced to death by an all white 
     jury. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the pattern 
     of wholesale strikes against black jurors by the prosecutor 
     were unconstitutional.


                             Released--1993

       (43) Kirk Bloodsworth, Maryland; Convicted: 1984. Convicted 
     and sentenced to death for the rape/murder of a young girl. 
     He was granted a new trial and given a life sentence. He was 
     released after further DNA testing proved his innocence.
       (44) Fredrico Martinez Macias, Texas; Convicted: 1983. 
     Convicted of the machete slaying of Robert Haney. A federal 
     appeals court overturned the conviction and the prosecution 
     was not able to get another indictment against him because 
     the grand jury felt there was a lack of evidence.
       (45) Walter ``Johnny D'' McMillian, Alabama, Convicted: 
     1986. Conviction was overturned by the Alabama Court of 
     Criminal Appeals and was freed after prosecutors decided not 
     to retry him.
       (46) Gregory Ralph Wilhoit, Oklahoma, Convicted: 1985. 
     Convicted of killing his estranged wife while she slept. He 
     was released after 11 forensic experts testified that a bite 
     mark found on his dead wife's breast did not belong to him.

  Finally, seeking and imposing the death penalty is much more 
expensive than its closest alternative, life imprisonment without 
parole. Capital trials are longer, they are more expensive at every 
step of the way than other murder trials.
  The death penalty is discriminatory, arbitrary, unfair, expensive and 
fraught with error. Those are the conclusions of everybody who has 
studied in a fair and objective way the imposition of this penalty, and 
so imposing the death penalty for over 60 new Federal crimes is a 
foolish attempt to appear tough on crime by seeking revenge instead of 
seeking solutions and putting an even greater burden on the taxpayers 
of this Nation. We all under stand; some of us do, what it is like to 
be victimized, but we must also understand that we have to be honest 
and fair in our assessment of what an enlightened society must do. It 
is less expensive to put people away for the rest of their lives 
despite those sorts of arguments to the contrary.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano 
amendment.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important debate because many 
people genuinely do not agree that the death penalty is a deterrent or 
that it should be on the books.

                              {time}  1240

  Others believe that there is some discrimination that is carried out 
in the actual implementation of death penalties generically. I think 
both positions are wrong. The death penalty has a place in our society. 
We should defeat this amendment for that reason.
  The death penalty with regard to deterrence is not going to deter 
everybody who might commit a murder or commit a heinous crime subject 
to the death penalty, but it does deter a certain number of people. 
Statistically it is impossible for us to be able to demonstrate that in 
every case because the people who do not commit those crimes or do not 
commit the murders that would get the death penalty are not around on 
death row or in jail somewhere to interview.
  But it is just common sense, and I think it has been proven by many, 
many studies that the death penalty indeed does deter a substantial 
amount of crime when it is carried out properly.
  The biggest problem we have with it today is that we do not have the 
swiftness and certainty of punishment, and we have the endless appeals 
that the death row inmates have, but that is another problem.
  With regard to the discrimination aspect, I would submit that the 
real statistics show that in actuality, as far as black men or women 
who are sentenced to death are concerned, compared to white, normally 
what we will find in those studies is that most of the crimes that were 
committed by the blacks who get the death penalty were against other 
blacks or minority members, and that indeed in most cases were the 
studies have been done, whites actually have a greater chance in front 
of a sentencing panel of getting life imprisonment rather than the 
death sentence on a proportion of the number of cases that are brought 
to bear.
  So I think that the bottom line is that neither argument is 
meritorious. The death penalty has a place. It is not discriminatory. 
It is very important that it be properly structured and carried out. 
but we do not want to strike the opportunity for the Federal Government 
to give the death penalty. We need to finally, after many years of not 
having it, reinstate the procedures in this legislation, which it does, 
to allow the death penalty to be carried out for things like 
assassination of the President, drug kingpins, and so forth.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to 
me, and I urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and a 
great champion of the Bill of Rights, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I compliment him on offering this important 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to make it very clear that all of the 
evidence is that there is no deterrence in death penalties.
  I do not know how many of you saw McNeil-Lehrer 3 nights ago where a 
triple murderer was asked over and over again by Robert McNeil, 
``Didn't you know if you murdered those people, you could get the death 
penalty?''
  He said, ``No, of course I didn't think about that.'' He said, ``It 
doesn't deter anything. You feel you have to do it, you don't think you 
are going to get caught, and that's it.''
  And he said, ``Throughout the prisons where I have been incarcerated, 
everyone has the same attitude.''
  There are 13 States that do not have the death penalty, and I can 
assure my colleagues that their murder rate is no higher in those 
States than in the rest of the country, including States like 
California that have the death penalty.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate one point for my colleagues: the 
death penalty is more expensive, not less, than life imprisonment. 
Again, estimates in California are that death penalty cases cost 
roughly $600,000, compared to $427,000 for life imprisonment.
  Moreover, adding more death penalty cases would further clog up the 
already overburdened Federal courts, squeezing out not only other 
criminal cases, but also civil cases, including business law. According 
to a recent article in The Washington Post, nearly one-half the working 
hours of the Florida supreme court are spent on death penalty cases. 
The lesson from Florida is clear: death penalty cases crowd out other 
court business. The Congress should think carefully before imposing the 
same burden on the Federal system.
  Mr. Chairman, let's instead learn from the experience of the States. 
According to a recent article in The Washington Post, last year's level 
of executions was the highest in 30 years, and yet, under present law, 
there were roughly six new death sentences for ever execution. Under 
present law, the backlog of death sentences continues to grow, the 
average wait for execution may soon surpass 20 years, and death row 
inmates come to fear old age more than execution. Quite frankly, we can 
not kill them fast enough under current law. The system is broke. 
Adding even one new Federal death penalty would add hardship to an 
already overburdened system, yet, to my disbelief, the House is 
proposing to add over 60 new Federal death penalties!
  Mr. David Sarasohn of the Oregonian newspaper recently wrote of the 
problems the Federal court system will encounter with death penalty 
cases, and I will include the article at the end of my remarks.
  And, Mr. Chairman, in addition to moral questions and policy 
questions, there is another fundamental flaw with this provision, as 
written. That flaw is in the values the bill, as written, espouses. 
When I say the value systems are flawed, I should also point out, I 
mean this as separate from the moral aspects, which I described 
earlier.
  We can only vote on what is before us, not on broad policy objectives 
that we may wish to read into each bill for political benefit or 
expedience. And before us today is a bill which places a higher value 
on the life of a Federal bureaucrat than on the men, women and children 
whom we represent. For example, if you murder a Federal court official, 
you get sentenced to death under this bill, but, if you murder the 4-
year old down the street, you do not. If you are for the death penalty, 
you have to explain to your constituents why you value a Federal 
employee more than you value their life or the life of their child. 
There is another anomaly. Under the bill if you murder someone in a 
Federal courthouse you get the death penalty. If you murder them 
outside the courthouse, you don't.
  And before us today is a bill which places a higher value on our 
lives, as Members of Congress, than on the men, women, and children we 
represent. Again, if you are for the death penalty, you have to explain 
to your constituents why you value your life and the lives of your 
colleagues in Congress higher than you value their life or the life of 
their child. If you are voting against the Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano 
amendment today, my colleagues, you are not just voting for the death 
penalty in the abstract, you are voting for some very troubling value 
systems.
  Life has its ironies. Today Americans are outraged at the punishment 
by caning in Singapore. Our President has asked that the sentence not 
be carried out. Yet today we vote as a society to impose the death 
penalty.
  I urge support of the Kopetski-Mfume-Serrano amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include here the article to which I referred, as 
follows:

                 50 New Death Penalties! Do I Hear 60?

                          (By David Sarasohn)

       In 1988, faced with the embarrassing reality that eight 
     years of loudly tough-on-crime government had somehow turned 
     the country into an all-night drug store, Vice President 
     George Bush had a great idea. The answer, he explained, was 
     capital punishment for ``drug kingpins.''
       Congress, most of which was running for re-election, ran to 
     pass a new federal capital punishment bill before the polls 
     opened. It was in such a hurry, in fact, that it failed to 
     specify how the kingpins were to be executed--although there 
     was some feeling that prolonged exposure to the Bush-Dukakis 
     debates might do it.
       Five and a half years later, how many drug kingpins has the 
     federal government actually executed?
       About as many as the nights George Bush has recently spent 
     in the White House. The federal government, in fact, hasn't 
     executed anybody for 30 years. The most dangerous thing a 
     drug kingpin could do would be to hold his breath until it 
     did.
       On the other hand, the great majority of the congressmen 
     who voted for the idea got re-elected.
       Inspired by their stunning success with this approach, the 
     Senate and House are now in the process of creating more 
     federal capital crimes, filling up two crime bills with 
     menacing poses. The House crime bill now includes 40 federal 
     capital counts--although different people reach different 
     courts--and the Senate includes 52.
       Big talk from a jurisdiction that hasn't actually executed 
     anyone lately--a lot bigger than the chance that any of this 
     has anything to do with stopping crime.
       Nobody's going to be terribly upset about the Senate's plan 
     to make genocide a capital crime--especially not in 
     Yugoslavia. And most people would stand behind execution for 
     murdering the president, vice president or high-level members 
     of their staffs, although this could immediately provoke an 
     inside-the-Beltway quarrel about who is or isn't high-level.
       But the Senate bill also contains language that federalizes 
     any murder committed with a gun that crosses state lines, 
     which could flood the federal courts and set off some 
     substantial fights with states--many of which have recently 
     actually executed people.
       Among the new listings included in the House's 40 death 
     penalties is ``Use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting 
     in death,'' which is probably already covered in most places. 
     The House joins the Senate in specifying a death penalty for 
     a killing on a maritime facility, such as an offshore oil 
     rig.
       Most of these dozens of new capital crimes are different 
     ways of describing murder. Most of them will never be used; 
     many are what Leigh Dingerson, of the National Coalition to 
     Abolish the Death Penalty, calls ``statistically non-
     existent.''
       ``Murder on a maritime platform,'' she notes, ``is not the 
     kind of crime I'm concerned about in my neighborhood.''
       Kill a high-level member of the vice president's staff on a 
     maritime platform, of course, and you'd really be in trouble.
       All the experience of a federal death penalty shows that 
     all this will be insignificant; the feds will not be 
     executing large numbers anytime soon. Lots of other 
     experience suggests that the federal courts are not currently 
     set up as the places to deal with capital trials, and a 
     sudden burst of them--the Senate's interstate gun amendment 
     could potentially create 6,000 a year--could blow out the 
     federal circuits' circuits.
       ``It's a foreign concept to this system,'' says Dennis 
     Balske, an assistant federal defender in Portland and former 
     chairman of the Death Penalty Committee of the National 
     Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ``It's a whole body 
     of law totally different than anything else out there. It's 
     incredibly specialized, and everyone in the system would have 
     to go back to school.'' This, of course, is not Congress's 
     goal; Congress's goal is to go home and explain that it's 
     been tough on crime.
       This entire approach has not been what you'd call closely 
     thought out. There is, for example, the question of just how 
     the federal government would execute someone.
       The 1988 law, which currently has six people under federal 
     sentence of death, didn't say anything about how it should 
     happen. So just as the Bush administration was leaving 
     office, it ordered the Justice Department to build a federal 
     Death Row and lethal injection chamber at the federal prison 
     in Terre Haute, Ind. It should be completed this year, but 
     any attempt to use it--promises David Bruck of South 
     Carolina, one of the federal system's two Federal Death 
     Penalty Resource Counsels--will face a legal challenge 
     arguing that means of execution has to be set legislatively, 
     not bureaucratically.
       The new laws suggest borrowing state facilities--which asks 
     just what the point is of the Terre Haute location.
       You could ask the same thing about the new death 
     penalties--unless you're a congressman running for re-
     election.
       After all, it worked once.

  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, with the 
concurrence of the other side, that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Kopetski] have an additional 1 minute to speak in hopes that he may 
yield one-half of that time to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, let me just say as we close this debate that 
the argument by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] carries 
merit. I believe, also, that you can make sensible arguments on both 
sides of this issue, and you can be looked at as being laughable on 
both sides of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are saying with our amendment is to take this 
burden off the taxpayers, millions of dollars wasted in appeal after 
appeal after appeal instead of giving somebody life without parole, 
using that money in the criminal justice system to enforce the law and 
to take care of others who are breaking the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of the amendment 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] as well.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Kopetski] is recognized 
for 30 seconds.
  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, we talk about being a 
civilized society in this debate and I think life is often full of 
ironies. This Nation has been debating whether the penalty in Singapore 
ought to be carried out on a young man because he is going to be caned. 
The irony is as that debate rages, and most Americans, I believe, are 
opposed to the caning of that young man, here we are, the 
representative body of the people, about to impose the most heinous 
form of punishment, the death penalty, and I believe that to be wrong.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I had 
the honor of offering a similar amendment before the House Judiciary 
Committee last month.
  This amendment replaces the death penalty with life imprisonment. Mr. 
Chairman, I do not believe the death penalty is right, and I know there 
are many who disagree with me. But even those who believe the death 
penalty is morally right should be worried about mistakes. The death 
penalty, once imposed, can never be recalled. Innocent people should 
never be put to death. As the late Justice Marshall said:

       No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of 
     perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human 
     error are all too real. We have no way of judging how many 
     innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain 
     that there were some.

  Last year, Chairman Edwards released a report which documents 48 
people on death row who were released because of significant new 
evidence of their innocence since 1973. Gary Nelson of Georgia spent 11 
years on death row, waiting to be executed. He was finally released 
after a review of the prosecutor's files revealed that material 
information had been improperly withheld from the defense. Later the 
district attorney admitted that there was not a single element of the 
prosecution's case which had not been impeached or contradicted.
  In 1984, Federico Macias was convicted of murder in Texas. He was 
granted habeas because of ineffective assistance of counsel. He was 
released in 1993 after a grand jury refused to reindict him for lack of 
evidence.
  Also in 1984, Kirk Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for the rape 
and murder of a young girl. In 1993, he was released after subsequent 
DNA testing confirmed his innocence.
  These are not isolated incidents. In 1987 alone, nine people 
sentenced to death were released because of a finding of innocence or 
of guilt only of a lesser charge. The fact that so many came so close 
to death makes me wonder how many weren't so lucky. I urge you to vote 
to strike the death penalty, and substitute life imprisonment instead. 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
[Mr. Kopetski].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KOPETSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111, 
noes 314, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--111

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Rahall
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--314

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Green
     Johnson (CT)
     Murphy
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Synar
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1306

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Murphy against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Green against.

  Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GONZALEZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                   amendment offered by mr. mccollum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum:
       Page 46, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(d) Aggravating Factors for Drug Offense Death Penalty.--
     In determining whether to recommend a sentence of death for 
     an offense described in paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 
     3591, the jury, or if there is no jury, the court, shall 
     consider any aggravating factor for which notice has been 
     provided under section 3593 of this title, including the 
     following factors:
       ``(1) Previous conviction of offense for which a sentence 
     of death or life imprisonment was authorized.--The defendant 
     has previously been convicted of another Federal or State 
     offense resulting in the death of a person, for which a 
     sentence of life imprisonment or death was authorized by 
     statute.
       ``(2) Previous conviction of other serious offenses.--The 
     defendant has previously been convicted of two or more 
     Federal or State offenses, each punishable by a term of 
     imprisonment of more than one year, committed on different 
     occasions, involving the importation, manufacture, or 
     distribution of a controlled substance (as defined in section 
     102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or the 
     infliction of, or attempted infliction of, serious bodily 
     injury or death upon another person.
       ``(3) Previous serious drug felony conviction.--The 
     defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal or 
     State offense involving the manufacture, distribution, 
     importation, or possession of a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802)) for which a sentence of five or more years of 
     imprisonment was authorized by statute.
       ``(4) Use of firearm.--In committing the offense, or in 
     furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise of which the 
     offense was a part, the defendant used a firearm or knowingly 
     directed, advised, authorized, or assisted another to use a 
     firearm, as defined in section 921 of this title, to 
     threaten, intimidate, assault, or injure a person.
       ``(5) Distribution to persons under twenty-one.--The 
     offense, or a continuing criminal enterprise of which the 
     offense was a part, involved conduct proscribed by section 
     418 of the Controlled Substances Act which was committed 
     directly by the defendant or for which the defendant would be 
     liable under section 2 of this title.
       ``(6) Distribution near schools.--The offense, or a 
     continuing criminal enterprise of which the offense was a 
     part, involved conduct proscribed by section 419 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act which was committed directly by the 
     defendant or for which the defendant would be liable under 
     section 2 of this title.
       ``(7) Using minors in trafficking.--The offense or a 
     continuing criminal enterprise of which the offense was a 
     part, involved conduct proscribed by section 420 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act which was committed directly by the 
     defendant or for which the defendant would be liable under 
     section 2 of this title.
       ``(8) Lethal adulterant.--The offense involved the 
     importation, manufacture, or distribution of a controlled 
     substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), mixed with a potentially 
     lethal adulterant, and the defendant was aware of the 
     presence of the adulterant.
       Page 51, line 7, strike ``, in the case'' and all that 
     follows through ``the jury'' in line 14, and insert ``an 
     aggravating factor required to be considered under section 
     3592 is found to exist, the jury''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] is opposed 
to the amendment and will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the drug kingpin death penalty is for those who are 
organizers and leaders of trafficking in very large quantities of 
narcotics; for example, 300,000 grams of cocaine or 60,000 grams of 
heroin.
  We just passed, a few minutes ago, approved, I should say, the drug 
kingpin death penalty and the technical terms of the actual language 
saying we want to impose that death penalty. But because of the 
bifurcated manner in which the legislation was brought to the floor 
through committee, the aggravating factors that are constitutionally 
essential to making this drug kingpin death penalty viable, which were 
a part of it in the last Congress, when we passed the conference report 
having the drug kingpin death penalty as part of it, because it was 
bifurcated in the Committee on the Judiciary, those aggravating factors 
were not a part of the bill. And they are not a part of it now.

                             {time}   1310

  Consequently, in order to make the vote that the Members took 
earlier, the majority of the Members of this body, valid, and have a 
drug kingpin death penalty in this bill in a way that can be 
implemented, we need to pass the amendment I am offering right now.
  The general provisions of aggravating factors required by the Supreme 
Court after its 1972 ruling, which made all death penalties in this 
country unconstitutional, was that we come with specificity in naming 
aggravating factors to be used in the imposing of the death penalty.
  The States that had the death penalty before have long since enacted 
those provisions. We today are getting our first shot at doing that at 
the Federal level for those things such as assassinating the President 
and other crimes on the books with the death penalty to be imposed. 
Most of those involve situations in which there is, or has been, a dead 
body or a murder that has clearly been committed.
  In the case of the drug kingpin death penalty, no murder is required 
to be proven itself. As we explained in the debate on the amendment of 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to try to strike this from 
the bill, there would be, however, a very egregious situation created 
if anybody trafficked in the large quantities we are dealing with here, 
as an organizer of such trafficking, and that is why as a matter of 
public policy Congress wants to impose the death penalty.
  In doing that, however, we need specific aggravating factors to be 
put in the law to make the carrying out of this particular death 
penalty for drug kingpins constitutional. The list of those that I have 
included in my amendment for aggravating factors for consideration to 
impose such a death penalty would be previous conviction of an offense 
for which the sentence of death or life imprisonment was authorized, 
previous conviction of another serious offense which is described in 
the amendment, a previous drug felony conviction, the use of a firearm 
in the commission of the drug crime that is described in the drug 
kingpin bill, the distribution to persons under 21 of the narcotics 
involved, distribution near schools, using minors in the trafficking 
and organized trafficking effort that these organizers are directing, 
and the use of a lethal adulterant in the process of doing this.
  I believe that every one of these aggravating factors is an 
appropriate one to be considered. Of course, the normal mitigating 
factors could be used on the defense of the other side, as well.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed generally to imposing the 
death penalty where death does not result. It seems to me that actual 
murder should be necessary to impose the harshest of punishments. For 
that reason, I supported the Watt amendment to strike the drug kingpin 
death penalty. Having lost that vote, I would have difficulty resisting 
the provisions which are constitutionally necessary and essential for 
the implementation of the drug kingpin death penalty--which is now the 
position of the House.
  I will, therefore, support the McCollum amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support and 
explanation. I particularly thank the chairman of the committee. He has 
done an excellent job of making his position clear and his support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a repeat debate over an old issue. I certainly 
have not changed my position, but I do not think we ought to make it 
easier to implement a law that is very clearly wrong.
  The law established in 1977 by Coker against Georgia by the Supreme 
Court was very explicit. That case was a terrible rape case, a brutal 
rape case, but the woman was not killed. The Supreme Court ruled, and I 
believe it was 7 to 2, that the death penalty was disproportionate, and 
therefore unconstitutional under cruel and unusual punishment, because 
for the Government to execute someone in connection with another crime, 
somebody should have been killed, somebody should have been murdered. 
Even in this brutal rape case, the Supreme Court said that it was 
inappropriate and unconstitutional, cruel and unusual, to have the 
death penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee that I chair just in the last few 
weeks received a report on the implementation of the drug kingpin law 
that was put into effect a number of years ago. We found that, out of 
37, I believe, Federal drug kingpin capital cases, the death penalty 
was administered disproportionately against minorities. The crimes were 
all similar.
  African-Americans are 13 to 14 percent of our country, but in the 
report that we issued, we found, and this was confirmed by the General 
Accounting Office in an earlier report, that where the death penalty is 
administered, overwhelmingly for the same kind of crimes, whites do not 
get the death penalty, where African-Americans do.
  In these drug kingpin cases, quite a number of them really are not 
drug kingpins. A lot of them are just low-level participants who are 
involved in drugs, and this law will be used conveniently to apply the 
death penalty even in cases where no homicide has occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, although I know the House has already decided to 
approve the law generally, I think we ought to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wish to reiterate my strong position on this 
particular matter in terms of the importance of putting the procedures 
in place. As the chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] 
indicated in his reasoning for supporting this amendment, we need to 
have the right aggravating and mitigating factors in law for dealing 
with this peculiar beast that we have here, the drug kingpin death 
penalty. Without having my amendment that I am offering now, we will 
not have an effective death penalty, which the House recently voted--in 
the past few minutes--that it supported.
  Consequently, it seems to me that it is very important that the 
Members understand that the vote is not, again, on the drug kingpin 
death penalty itself, but it might as well be. It is on what is 
required to sustain constitutional tests that the Supreme Court has 
set, and those mitigating and aggravating factors that we normally 
would have in a death penalty case are all available, but in addition 
to that, because there is not necessarily a death that has to be proven 
here, and because this is a very different kind of a death penalty 
reasoning, then there are peculiar aggravating factors that need to be 
put in law.
  As I indicated earlier, we list those very explicitly, such as the 
previous conviction of an offense for which a sentence of death or life 
imprisonment was authorized, previous conviction of other serious 
offenses, a previous serious drug felony conviction, the use of a 
firearm, the distribution to persons under 21, distribution near 
schools, use of minors in trafficking, and a lethal adulterant, 
offenses involving adulterants.
  The fact of the matter is that there are arguments that have been 
made before about this whole matter, but the bottom line is that when 
somebody is an organizer and leader of an organization that trafficks 
in huge quantities of narcotics, as is in the drug kingpin death 
penalty provision, clearly people are going to die as a result of that, 
and people are in harm's way.
  There is an abundance of evidence of the constitutionality of this by 
experts, former attorneys general, like Barr and Meese and former 
Solicitor General Ken Starr.
  It is important, however, that we now place in the law to supplement, 
to make sure it works, the drug kingpin death penalty, these procedures 
that I have just outlined and described, so I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
this amendment to put the procedures, the aggravating factors, into the 
law and let the drug kingpin death penalty work. Let it become a part 
of this bill, fully and completely.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 340, 
noes 87, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 108]

                               AYES--340

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--87

     Andrews (ME)
     Barca
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Kildee
     Kopetski
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Reed
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Goodling
      

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Murphy
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1340

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Murphy for, with Mr. Rangel against.
       Mrs. Roukema for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Mr. HILLIARD and Mr. BROWN of California changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EHLERS, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. SKAGGS, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. 
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. PENNY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1340

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the 
amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 48, strike line 1 
     through line 2.
       Page 51, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 3 
     on page 52 and insert the following:
     the jury, or if there is no jury, the court, shall then 
     consider whether the aggravating factor or factors found to 
     exist outweigh any mitigating factors. The jury, or if there 
     is no jury, the court shall recommend a sentence of death if 
     it unanimously finds at least one aggravating factor and no 
     mitigating factor or if it finds one or more aggravating 
     factors which outweigh any mitigating factors. In any other 
     case, it shall not recommend a sentence of death. The jury 
     shall be instructed that it must avoid any influence of 
     sympathy, sentiment, passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary 
     factors in its decision, and should make such a 
     recommendation as the information warrants. The jury shall be 
     instructed that its recommendation concerning a sentence of 
     death is to be based on the aggravating factor or factors and 
     any mitigating factors which have been found, but that the 
     final decision concerning the balance of aggravating and 
     mitigating factors is a matter for the jury's judgment.
       Page 53, beginning in line 3, strike ``or life imprisonment 
     without possibility of release''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and the Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the full attention of the Members 
of the Congress, especially those who oppose the death penalty or who 
oppose tightening up of the guidelines on the death penalty, for the 
purpose of illustrating my amendment, and I want to walk the Members 
through a trial, a first degree murder trial in which the antecedent 
crime was a rape.
  We have in my hypothetical a criminal who would commit a vicious rape 
on a young woman. The jury had no difficulty, in my hypothetical case, 
in finding murder in the first degree. The defendant raped, then killed 
the victim. First degree murder was returned.
  Now the jury was to set about the business of determining whether the 
death penalty or life imprisonment shall be the final outcome.
  Now is a separate hearing the bifurcated or the second part of that 
hearing where the jury's responsibility was to weigh the factors to be 
presented to them for the purpose of determining death or life.
  Now the prosecutor who successfully was able to bring about a first 
degree murder conviction has the burden of providing to the jury a set 
of, or perhaps only one, aggravating factor. The defense then, in turn, 
would bring into play a set of mitigating circumstances and the jury 
under all the language or any concept of bifurcated hearings would 
weigh the aggravating against the mitigating.
  Now is the amendment, the language of the bill here, it is stated 
that--and they take the position do the authors of the bill--that in my 
hypothetical the prosecutor cannot produce as an aggravating factor the 
fact that the individual we talked about was raped. That is not an 
aggravating factor permissible for the second part of the hearing under 
the language of the bill.
  My amendment would permit the prosecutor to present as an aggravating 
factor the fact that a woman was raped and then killed, so that the 
jury would have the right to say ``Well, if she was raped'', and they 
knew that because they convicted, then rape should be considered as an 
aggravating factor.
  Then the defense attorney can bring in any kind of mitigating factors 
it wants.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Members of the House to vote for the 
Gekas amendment to allow the prosecutor to bring in evidence of the 
rape, that is, the antecedent cause of the death of this unfortunate 
victim. That is all we ask. If you leave the bill alone, it means that 
the prosecutor's hands are tied with respect to being able to present 
the rape, which was the real crime that led to the murder, into 
evidence at the hearing on whether the death penalty should apply. That 
is how unreasonable that is.
  Now, am I conjuring up this idea for the purpose of making a speech? 
I did not just dredge this up from my own imagination.
  In the Lowenfeld case, which found its way to the Supreme Court, the 
Supreme Court found that my theory, the one I am trying to propose 
through the Gekas amendment, is constitutional and is effective because 
it limits the parameters of aggravating factors. In that case there was 
a brutal murder, murder in the first degree, which called for the death 
penalty. In the second part of the hearing the jury was permitted to 
hear from the U.S. Prosecutor, was permitted to hear the evidence as to 
the multiple murders that took place, which were an essential part of 
the murder conviction in the first place. So we have ample precedent in 
the constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court, and we have the 
absolute common sense truth that a rape, in my hypothetical, should be 
accorded the status of an aggravating factor for the purpose of the 
decision on the part of the jury as to whether or not to inflict the 
death penalty.
  Now if that is the case, then we revert to the second part of the 
Gekas amendment. Let us assume I am correct on that--and I am--we go to 
the second portion of the Gekas amendment. In the present language of 
the bill, even if we had 100 aggravating factors, I repeat that, if we 
had 100 aggravating factors that the prosecutor was able to present in 
the second part of the hearing and the defense was able to present no 
mitigating factors, under the present bill, under the language that is 
contained in the present bill, the jury could still be instructed by 
the judge to disregard all of what they have heard, the 100 aggravating 
factors, and find for the life imprisonment portion of the penalty.
  Now you would say, ``What is wrong with that?'' What is wrong with 
that is that takes the bill back to the Neanderthal days, back before 
1972. In 1972--and this is important for you to consider, ladies and 
gentlemen and fellow Members of the House--in 1972 the death penalty 
was struck down precisely because of what this bill would create, an 
unfettered, wide discretion on the part of the jury to find life or 
death based on their own whims, their own prejudices, their own biases, 
their own determination whether the smile of the defendant is worth 
considering or whether the ugliness of the defendant is worth 
considering, all of these factors that are nonstatutory would enter 
into play, and that is what the Supreme Court found so objectionable 
about the death penalty, said it was cruel and barbarous treatment and 
therefore struck it down.

                              {time}  1350

  The instruction that is permitted in this language that is now in the 
bill, which the Gekas amendment changes, the instruction that is now in 
the bill says:

       No matter what the aggravating factors are, you could 
     disregard them and, despite all of that, find for life 
     imprisonment.

  What that does is allow these prejudices, biases, and all these other 
nonstatutory elements, to enter into the deliberation of the jury.
  My amendment simply says, and it is structured so well that it was 
approved by the House of Representatives, this very same body, and the 
Senate, and the President of the United States when we passed, and 
passed into law, the drug kingpin murder statute of a few terms ago; in 
my amendment the jury will hear the aggravating factors. Then it will 
hear the mitigating factors. It will waive them, and, if they find that 
the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, they should 
find the death penalty, and vice versa.
  Now here is the other thing:
  We do have another saving feature for those who have such great pity 
for the convict, perhaps, who just killed this lady that I am talking 
about in my hypothetical. If they still have sympathy and still want to 
reach out to this defendant, still want to show how wonderfully 
sympathetic they might be, we still have a saving clause for them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
has expired.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous support of the Gekas 
amendment.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say I agreed with the second to the last 
statement of my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the procedures we have in the bill before us 
are appropriate, workable procedures for carrying out the death 
penalty.
  For those who believe that capital punishment has a place in our 
criminal justice system--and I certainly do--it is incumbent that there 
are procedures crafted to ensure that justice is done. Justice requires 
the procedures to be constitutionally sound--the bill's provisions 
achieve precisely that. They appropriately channel a sentencing jury's 
authority, so that we can separate out those killers who deserve the 
harshest of punishments, and provide for life without any possibility 
of release for others convicted of murder. They are tough, but they are 
fair.
  Mr. Gekas' amendment upsets the careful balance that is necessary to 
fully and fairly implement the death penalty. By double counting an 
offense as an aggravating factor, the Gekas amendment introduces a 
harmful degree of arbitrariness; it eliminates the jury's ability to 
impose life without the possibility of release if they decide against 
death. Moreover, the Gekas amendment mandates that a death sentence be 
imposed in certain circumstances--thus taking away the duly selected 
jury's discretion.
  I urge the Members to maintain the careful balance in the bill before 
us by rejecting the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. Chairman, as has been stated, there are times when I believe that 
capital punishment is the appropriate punishment, but that does not 
mean a jury should not have a choice, and, as this amendment is 
written, my colleagues, the bill would give the sentencing jury three 
options: the death penalty, life without the possibility of parole, and 
a prison term set by the judge. The Gekas amendment would eliminate the 
option of life without parole or release. So, if the jury thought that 
this----
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SCHUMER. After I make my point.
  If this was a pretty horrendous crime, but they did not quite feel 
that it should get the ultimate sentence, capital punishment, they 
would then only get a term of years as sentenced by the judge, and I do 
not think that makes a great deal of sense. I think the jury should 
have the option. They can and should make the choice. But to eliminate 
the middle choice will force juries, because they will not go for a 
capital sentence, quite frankly, if they do not feel it merits it. So, 
actually in effect it would reduce the sentence on those that have 
committed pretty serious acts.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding on only 
one point:
  The Gekas language does provide for life without parole by the court 
imposing same----
  Mr. SCHUMER. OK; reclaiming my time, it is simply that the jury would 
not be able to do that, and that is my point. We want to give the jury 
the flexibility there because otherwise they would not find, they are 
not going to find, for a capital crime unless they truly believe it is 
needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] for 
having yielded this time to me, and I urge opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
yielding this time to me.
  Let me say that I support the death penalty, as most of my colleagues 
know, where I believe it can be constitutionally imposed, and those of 
my colleagues who are basically opposed to the death penalty, opposed 
to it, should support Gekas because he is going to put at risk the 
Federal death statute, and he is doing it for this reason:
  When the Supreme Court a few years ago upheld the death penalty, Mr. 
Chairman, it did so because elements of the offense cannot be used as a 
basis for aggravating offenses, and let me explain why.
  When a jury finds that in fact the death penalty should be imposed, 
they have already made a decision about the elements of the offense: 
premeditation, malice aforethought. Those are the elements of the 
offense.
  When the gentleman from Pennsylvania talks about not being able to 
consider a vicious rape, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not 
explaining basically the bill before us because under subsection c, 
page 43, of the bill a jury can consider, as one of the aggravating 
factors, the heinous nature of the offense, cruel nature of the 
offense, or severe or serious physical abuse, all factors that can be 
considered under six----
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I do not have the time--under six of the aggravating 
factors. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would have us, under his 
amendment, basically consider the elements of the offense which, I 
think, is going to open up the constitutional attack, so the gentleman 
weakens the bill.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] 
has indicated, the gentleman from Pennsylvania would eliminate life 
imprisonment without parole.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have those situations where a jury 
does not want to give the discretion to the judge because they want to 
put him away for a number of years. A jury is going to have to make a 
decision as to whether to return capital punishment or give the judge 
that discretion.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] weakens the 
bill by what he has done, and I would urge a rejection of his 
amendment.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has a minute and a half remaining.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield to me as a stroke 
of surprise here?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I repeat:
  The latest case from the Supreme Court, the Lowenfield case versus 
Phelps, 1988, found constitutional the prospect of having a rape in my 
hypothetical be used as an aggravating factor, and if it is just an 
ordinary rape, if there happens to be such a thing as an ordinary rape, 
then the language that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] was 
projecting, heinous, and vicious, and so forth, may not apply to a 
rape. Yet we believe that a rape is a rape is a rape and, therefore, 
should be considered as an aggravating circumstance in the rape murder 
which I outlined to my colleagues.
  Moreover, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] misstates what 
he says was my misstatement. The jury at all times can recommend life 
without parole, under my language, and further, if they fail to do so, 
the court on its own motion, when it is determined by the jury that 
life imprisonment is the final answer, the judge himself can impose 
life without parole.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
has expired.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], my friend, understands his own amendment. He 
eliminates life imprisonment without parole where the death penalty is 
involved.
  Mr. GEKAS. That is not so.
  Mr. HUGHES. Second, the gentleman has misread the bill. A rape, a 
heinous rape or serious physical abuse, is an aggravating factor under 
the bill as written.
  Mr. GEKAS. Then vote for the Gekas amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. It is not an element of the offense. The gentleman 
misunderstands what an element of the offense is. That is not an 
element of the offense.
  I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, ``I tried capital cases. The 
gentleman is trying to tell me that rape is an only offense.''
  Mr. GEKAS. Aggravating factor.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 109]

                               AYES--226

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Goodling
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Hayes
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Roukema
     Washington
     Waxman
     Whitten

                              {time}  1422

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Washington against.

  Messrs. SCOTT, FLAKE, BRYANT, and STUPAK changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KLINK, and Mr. FINGERHUT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
is about to offer a privileged motion pursuant to the provisions of 
clause 7 of rule XXIII, relating to striking out the enacting clause of 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the rule states that if a motion that the committee 
rise and report to the House a recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken out is adopted in the Committee of the Whole, then the 
committee must rise, but before the House acts on whether or not to 
kill the bill, I am quoting now, ``It is in order to entertain a motion 
to refer the bill to any committee with or without instructions.''
  My inquiry of the Chair is this: If we have reached this stage, is it 
in order for the gentleman from Florida to offer a motion to refer with 
instructions to report back forthwith with a germane amendment to this 
bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot speculate on who would be recognized, 
but the gentleman's point is correct, that it could be done in the 
House.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, further, if this motion to refer with 
instructions to report an amendment forthwith is adopted by the House, 
it has the effect of making in order in the Committee of the Whole the 
gentleman's amendment; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That could occur.
  Mr. WALKER. That being the case, then, as I understand it, the Chair 
has affirmed my position that this procedure allows the House the 
opportunity to make in order additional germane amendments to be 
considered by the House in committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The series of events that the gentleman has stated 
could occur.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.


              preferential motion offered by mr. mccollum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum of Florida moves that the Committee do now 
     rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
     recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of offering this motion, as 
was discussed in the parliamentary procedure, is to get the opportunity 
to offer an amendment on the floor that the Committee on Rules denied 
us and which we do now have out here today.
  This amendment is one which was adopted in the 99th Congress, the 
100th Congress, the 101st Congress, and the 102d Congress right here on 
the floor of the House in a crime bill. Unfortunately, the bill never 
became law because it never got through the conference committee with 
the Senate. But it is one that I would suggest that the vast majority 
of this body would vote for and adopt again, if given the opportunity 
to vote on it.
  What it would do would be to establish what is known as the good-
faith exception to the exclusionary rule of evidence.
  What the amendment that I would like to offer would allow would be 
evidence to be admitted, if gained in an objectively, reasonable belief 
that conduct was unlawful. If that evidence was gained by police in a 
search and seizure in an objectively, reasonable belief that the 
conduct was lawful, that the police conduct it, then we should not have 
technical evidentiary procedures set up by the courts of this country 
blocking that evidence and keeping us from getting convictions in many, 
many cases. That is what has been occurring.
  The exclusionary rule is a rule created by courts.
  It is not a rule of the Constitution of the United States. We have 
certain protections against unlawful searches and seizures, and those 
protections are enforced in a number of ways.
  The court has chosen to use this rule, but it has also granted a 
good-faith exception and said that it is the appropriate method of 
dealing with certain cases where warrants are involved. It has not ever 
ruled on the case where warrants are not involved.
  All my amendment does is to expand or would expand the opportunity 
for a good-faith exception to exist in cases where there are no search 
warrants and we are getting evidence that should be admitted into court 
to get convictions.
  The exclusionary rule has a major impact on drug prosecutions over a 
3-year period. Also 3,000 felony drug arrests in California were not 
prosecuted because of the exclusionary rule problems.
  It is something that police all over this country have asked us to 
adopt, a good-faith exception to that, we are establishing that clearly 
in those cases involved good faith, there was no improper conduct by 
the police.
  The McCollum amendment would not eliminate the exclusionary rule. 
Rather, it would maximize the availability over liable evidence bearing 
on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. So that is the purpose of 
what I am offering this motion for today.
  The motion for us to rise, as was explained in the parliamentary 
discussion, and striking the enacting clause for the opportunity that 
we would then have to instruct the Committee on Rules to come back out 
here on the Floor with a bill that would let us offer this rule, this 
good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, to have a vote on it, to 
offer an amendment and to have a vote on it, again, an amendment that 
has passed in five previous House meetings and five previous Congresses 
but was not allowed by the Committee on Rules to come out here today.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I thank the gentleman for explaining the amendment that he has 
proposed to bring forward. The House should know that because of the 
ruling of the Chair that has taken place just previous, the Members are 
really voting on the subject matter that the gentleman suggests. 
Because what we have now established is that there is a procedure for 
bringing this subject matter to the floor. And if, in fact, Members 
vote against striking the enacting clause, they are in fact casting a 
real vote against a procedure to bring this particular amendment at 
this particular time to the floor.
  It seems to me Members need to be clear now that they are not simply 
voting on a procedural matter. They are voting on something that 
ultimately could lead to a real vote on a real issue as described by 
the gentleman from Florida.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to make 
absolutely clear the point that what we are voting on today is a good-
faith exception to the exclusionary rule by this vote. It is the only 
opportunity this House will have to do what it has done in the past and 
give the police of this country and the citizens of this country the 
proper exception to the exclusionary rule to let evidence in to get 
convictions in the court proceedings that police all over this country 
have asked again and again and again for.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry to the Chair, if I may.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman can do that 
without my time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inquire, is the gentleman yielding to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]?


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. If I 
would yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for the 
purposes of one, am I using my time up on the debate we are involved 
with here for purposes of this privileged motion?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman would be.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, another parliamentary inquiry:
  Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to reserve time or on this motion 
do I have to consume all my 5 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rules of this House, the gentleman does not 
have the right to reserve time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I do not?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Then I do not wish to yield at this point, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once and for all, so the Members 
understand why this motion is being made, it is being made because it 
is our only opportunity to get a vote on the good-faith exclusionary 
rule which would allow us once and for all to win for the police of 
this country what they have been asking for for a long time, to end the 
technicalities that are stopping good and well-founded evidence from 
getting into court to get convictions in case after case.
  An aye vote is for the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule 
this House has adopted in five previous Congresses.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that should the motion carry, 
and this is not a motion to kill the bill, this is simply a motion for 
the Committee to rise, and it can at that point decide that another 
amendment can be made in order, is that right?
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion is to report to the House with a 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out, an action that 
would reject the bill if carried in the House.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry:
  Mr. Chairman, as we established in the previous colloquy, I think 
that there is also an action available to the House at that point to 
further amend the bill, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. A motion to refer would be in order.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it would be in order, and it could be a 
motion to refer and report back forthwith, which would in effect at 
that point allow an amendment on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would say that a motion to refer could 
include that instruction.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, that has precedence over the motion to 
strike the enacting clause, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. A motion to refer would be in order pending the 
question of the House's concurrence in the recommendation to strike out 
the enacting clause.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has expired.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VOLKMER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, in the event that the motion presently 
pending by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] would prevail, 
would any Member then be eligible for recognition to make a motion to 
refer, or is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] the only one 
that can make that?
  The CHAIRMAN. At that point we would be proceeding in the House and 
it would be for the Speaker to recognize.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would ask the Chair, the Speaker could recognize any 
Member?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Speaker would have his usual power of recognition 
under the precedents.
  Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] seek time?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this is a dilatory effort to 
stop this bill. Originally, it was my impression that the other side 
over here wanted to get 5 minutes to discuss some facet of the bill 
that was not included as an amendment. Now I see that it is a rather 
divisive effort to stop the entire bill, go back to what would be an 
open rule, which is not what I want to do at all, which I think would 
be counterproductive. I think we ought to kill this amendment to strike 
the enacting clause if we have got the sense God gave a goose.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], a 
distinguished former Marine.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows we have the greatest 
respect for him, but this is not an attempt to kill the bill. This is 
simply an attempt to make one amendment in order that was not made in 
order under the rule. It is a very, very germane amendment. It is very 
critical to the bill. We would like to have the opportunity to not only 
debate it for 5 minutes, but to vote on it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman that that was not my understanding of the proposal. They 
wanted 5 minutes to talk about something else, and that is fine. 
However, if they want to amend this bill, they will have to go through 
the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules had enough amendments on 
this bill to choke a horse, a big horse.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we do not even 
want it to come back to us. We want it to go through them.
  Mr. BROOKS. We do not need any more amendments, Mr. Chairman. There 
are enough amendments now available on this bill, and I am trying to 
edit this to where it makes sense, to where it would be unbelievable 
that they would want to have any more.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
will oppose this motion. We voted on the rule yesterday. That was a 
vote. There was a great deal of debate and controversy, and the other 
side amply had its chance to say there were not enough amendments, 68 
was not enough, that we were not debating every controversial 
provision, although anyone who listened on the floor this morning knows 
we are debating every controversial provision two or three times over.
  Now what we could do if we voted for this, what is to prevent another 
motion and another motion and another motion?
  I say to my colleagues, particularly those who were not here last 
year and the year before, this is the same kind of delay. This is the 
same kind of ``Well, let us bring the whole bill down unless it is 
exactly my way'' that has led us not to pass any bills in the last 
several years.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Chairman, they may not agree with every provision in this bill, but 
they know overall it is a very good bill. They had their fight on the 
rule, they know it, they know it, and many of them will vote for it. 
They have had their fight on the rule. They have lost it.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get on with the people's business and move this 
crime bill, carefully crafted with both punishment and prevention, so 
that the President can sign it and the voters and the people can 
finally get some relief from the lack of safety that is plaguing every 
home and every car and every street and every school.
  We must defeat, we must defeat any of these attempts to delay us on 
our path. We have already had that debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is saying, he is afraid 
to let the House work its will. Why is he so afraid?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair if the other 
side has any additional time.
  The CHAIRMAN. They do not. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 
the only time remaining.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
move the previous question on the preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 257, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 110]

                               AYES--170

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     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
     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
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     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 (OR)
     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

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     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
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     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
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     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
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Hilliard
     Murphy
     Quillen
     Roukema
     Washington
     Waxman
     Whitten

                              {time}  1457

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the preferential motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                     amendment offered by mr. watt

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 40, strike lines 23 through 25.
       Page 46, strike lines 22 through 24.
       Page 47, line 17, after ``tors'' insert ``listed in section 
     3592''.
       Page 48, line 2, after ``factor'' insert ``listed in 
     section 3592''.
       Page 50, beginning in line 19, strike ``and any other'' and 
     all that follows through ``exist'' on line 21.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt] will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment and would 
like to be recognized.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me put this amendment in perspective. The criminal 
defendant has been convicted at this point, and we are at the penalty 
stage, and we are deciding whether to impose the death penalty or not 
to impose the death penalty.

                              {time}  1500

  The statute provides this, this bill provides for consideration of 
certain aggravating factors. Now we are at the penalty stage in a 
criminal proceeding and deciding whether the defendant lives or dies, 
is submitted to the death penalty or not. This bill specifies, starting 
at page 40 of the bill and running for six solid pages, aggravating 
factors which can be considered in determining whether the defendant is 
put to death. Under an earlier amendment, if the defendant is a drug 
kingpin, there are an additional six aggravating factors which can be 
considered. In addition, the bill goes forward to say that in addition 
to those aggravating factors, the prosecuting attorney can specify 
whatever other aggravating factors he or she wishes to specify. And 
that is where the problem arises, Mr. Chairman.
  That provision which allows a prosecuting attorney to specify other 
aggravating factors which are not specified in this bill, delegates to 
the executive branch the authority to make up whatever the law is going 
to be in that particular case and is unconstitutional.
  I would appeal to my colleagues in this body, those on both sides of 
the aisle who customarily argue that we should not be giving up our 
authority to the executive branch, to exercise our responsibility in 
this body and limit the prosecutor to the aggravating factors which are 
specified in the bill which currently take up six or seven pages 
already.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate over this amendment is something which I 
think is very important but probably not understood by many of the 
Members. In this case of the death penalty, there is an opportunity 
normally given in the State courts, and we certainly think we should do 
it here in Federal courts, for there to be aggravating factors 
presented as a possible matter by a jury, or a judge if he is doing the 
sentencing, in determining the death penalty, that are particularly 
tailored to the circumstances of an individual case. We cannot as 
legislators think of all the circumstances that might exist that would 
present aggravating factors that would warrant the giving of the death 
penalty.
  So, the bill as it is now constructed lists a number of very specific 
aggravating factors, and there could of course also be mitigating 
factors that could be listed here as well, but we outline certain very 
specific ones so that we meet the Supreme Court guidelines, if there 
are some clear paths that can be followed legislatively by those who 
are making the decision on death penalties. But we should not do what 
the gentleman wants to do; we should not strike and eliminate the 
opportunity that is given in this bill for other aggravating factors 
that we cannot think of now for every possible contingency or for every 
possible type of case where the death penalty is warranted, to be 
presented to a jury or a judge in making his or her decision.
  There should be a chance with due notice which is given in this 
bill--and I think a constitutionally correct way of doing it--for the 
prosecutor to present some other well-crafted aggravating factor to 
argue in favor of capital punishment being given.
  If the gentleman's amendment passes, then the prosecutors will not 
have that opportunity to tailor any aggravating factors to the 
peculiarity of the case. I think that would bring about the potential 
for grave injustice for death penalty perhaps not being imposed in a 
case that has circumstances that are unusual or peculiar to it. I think 
that is indeed the weakness of the gentleman's amendment. If it is 
clear to everyone that that is what we are talking about and all we are 
talking about, it seems to me we all would want to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment and leave the discretion in the hands of the prosecutors to 
look on each death penalty case on a case-by-case basis and be able to 
craft an appropriate aggravating factor or two which is indeed beyond 
the parameters of what we have written in our proposals here in the 
bill as it now reads.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I 
have reserved the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out the inconsistency of my colleague's 
argument. Typically, he is the very person in this body who is talking 
against the delegation of authority that we should be exercising to the 
executive branch. There is nothing in the language in this bill which 
even requires the prosecuting attorney to tailor the aggravating 
factors in any way. There is not even any language that suggests that 
the prosecuting attorney must make it somehow appropriate, as he has 
characterized it. The prosecuting attorney could say the defendant got 
an F on his report card in the 10th grade and that could be an 
aggravating factor. He could pull any aggravating factor, unrelated to 
this offense, unrelated to anything else, that he wanted to pull and 
specify it. I would suggest, and I would ask my colleagues not to give 
that kind of discretion to prosecuting attorneys. We should not be 
pulling in prosecutors and giving them the authority to write the laws 
in this way.
  Additionally, the defendant deserves to know in advance the 
aggravating factors that will be considered.
  I would say that under this bill, given this discretion, the 
defendant will never be able to understand and know what aggravating 
factors will be considered.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding and congratulate 
him. When the Supreme Court invalidated all death penalties more than 
20 years ago, it did so because of the uncertainty in the law and 
practice at that time. The Court found that it was not possible to find 
any rational pattern or set of rules regarding which conduct would lead 
to a death penalty and which would not.
  A key factor in the Court's subsequent approval of new death penalty 
systems was the addition of specific, statutory aggravating factors. 
Uncertainty was substantially reduced, and guidance to jurors enhanced, 
by the enumeration of specific aggravating factors, which, if found to 
exist, could form the basis of a jury finding in support of a death 
penalty.
  The bill before us contains some 15 specific aggravating factors. 
This is a proper exercise of legislative and policymaking authority, 
and is in keeping with the Supreme Court's mandate that specificity and 
certainty be built into death penalty statutes.
  Much of that is lost, and the constitutionality of our death penalty 
laws threatened, if we give prosecutors unrestricted and unguided 
authority to fashion their own subjective aggravating factors, which 
would then assume a stature equal to those aggravating factors spelled 
out in the law.
  The 15 statutory aggravating factors are not only quite extensive, 
but quite broad. They include such far-reaching factors as a ``heinous, 
cruel, or depraved manner of committing an offense.'' We should not 
allow prosecutors and jurors to go beyond these already broad 
provisions.
  I support the Watt amendment.
  Mr. WATT. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to support the amendment. I disagree with 
the gentleman, ultimately, on capital punishment on other provisions in 
this bill. I certainly believe, when you are going to invoke the 
ultimate punishment, that is capital punishment, we ought to be very 
careful and very delineating in what we do.

                              {time}  1510

  To say that there should be an opened aggravating factor, that 
anything could be an aggravating factor, does, in my opinion--it is a 
close case, but it does, in my opinion, tip the scales over in favor of 
too much discretion and too much abuse leading to some of the other 
kinds of things that we have seen in certain capital cases, and so I 
would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Those of us who 
believe in capital punishment have an obligation, I think, to see that 
it is administered fairly, carefully, and with every, every, every 
predisposition so that mistakes are not made, and for that reason I 
urge that we adopt this amendment.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would simply say that we have 
a death penalty, we have added a number of additional death penalty 
provisions. There ought to, at least, be standards for evaluating when 
the death penalty will apply. If we do not have standards, the problem 
that we have had with racially disparate application of the death 
penalty will become that much more of a problem, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have again a great deal of respect for the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], but I want to read the actual language 
he is striking that is pertinent to this so we all understand what it 
says in the bill. After the aggravating factors that are delineated for 
imposing the death penalty there is this clause or sentence. It says:
  The jury, or if there is no jury, the court, may consider whether any 
other aggravating factor for which notice has been given exists.
  One thing is very clear from reading that, and that is that notice 
must be given. The defense is not going to be surprised by what is 
brought forward by the prosecutor.
  In addition, it is just the common way of doing things, to allow some 
flexibility in creating aggravating factors or mitigating factors when 
we start considering sentences, including the death penalty. No way, 
shape or form can we perfect here in the legislative body every single 
conceivable circumstance which would be something we would find 
aggravating enough in every case to be able to warrant the death 
penalty or to be able to warrant any other sentence for that matter. 
There are always new and strange cases coming about. That is why we 
have so many varied court opinions all over this country. It is almost 
mind boggling to look at how many different nuances we can find to try 
cases and try to resolve issues that come up or how many new decisions 
the Supreme Court is called upon to make over contentious matters every 
term of court.
  Mr. Chairman, we just simply find that there are a lot of variations 
on factual circumstances that we cannot think of when we sit down here 
and try to draft them all out in a neat little form. If we are going to 
have an effective death penalty back again in the fall, which we should 
have put in place for the Federal crimes that warrant the death penalty 
a long time ago, then we need to do the right procedures, and one of 
those procedures which is in this bill already the gentleman wants to 
strike is to provide a catch-all for prosecutors to be able, with 
notice, to frame and craft additional aggravating factors that might 
warrant the death penalty, and I would submit we should not take that 
type of opportunity away and foreclose an appropriate drafting of an 
aggravating factor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 308, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 111]

                               AYES--116

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--308

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Goodling
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Laughlin
     Murphy
     Neal (NC)
     Quillen
     Roukema
     Valentine
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1533

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Grandy against.
       Mr. Becerra for, with Mrs. Roukema against.

  Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. ROSE, and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would like this opportunity to step back 
from all the rhetoric over the impact of this crime bill. Preventing 
and fighting crime is not about the many meaningless provisions in this 
bill that in actuality only serve political purposes and will have 
little effect on how the law enforcement community protects the public. 
Fighting crime is indeed about protecting people's lives and 
livelihoods and making everyone feel safe and secure enough to walk 
outside their own homes. It is about providing resources and technical 
assistance to local law enforcement officials so that they can do their 
job effectively.
  It was for this very reason that Congressman Charlie Taylor, 
Congressman Schumer, and I introduced the National Triad Program Act. 
This bill advocates a strategy that in this age of cynicism is unheard 
of--cooperation. It proposes to form a coalition between local 
sheriffs, police chiefs, and senior citizens groups to reduce the 
victimization and unwarranted fear of crime which disproportionately 
plagues senior citizens. This program has been incorporated into the 
prevention title of H.R. 4092, establishing 50 pilot such programs 
across the country. The premise behind Triad is to make seniors feel 
more comfortable about reporting crimes inflicted upon them, which they 
have been reluctant to do in the past. It would, further, get seniors 
directly involved through outreach and volunteer efforts to better 
prevent crimes in their communities.
  There are presently 100 Triad programs already operating under local 
and State jurisdictions throughout the country. One of the first 
programs was started in my district in St. Martin Parish, LA, by 
Sheriff Charles Fuselier. It was through his tireless efforts and those 
of the National Sheriff's Association that this program has become such 
a nationwide success. Sheriff Fuselier has received more than a ten-
fold return on his investments in terms of the volunteers, which work 
in his office 2 to 3 days a week, and the crimes that have been quickly 
resolved because of greater senior participation.
  By the year 2030 there will be approximately 66 million senior 
citizens in American society. Accordingly, the Triad information 
network has the potential to be the cornerstone of future crime 
fighting activities within the seniors community. We must put our 
muscle and limited resources behind programs that work.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the ancient Near Eastern empire once 
ruled by the great Hammurabi, criminals would be punished for their 
offenses by his code of law-- ``an eye for an eye.'' I would think that 
by the year 1994 this uncivilized and barbaric concept of law would 
have long since been made obsolete. Yet, I stand here in front of you 
today debating over a modern version of Hammurabi's Code--the death 
penalty.
  It is my strong belief that criminals who commit violent crimes 
should be adequately punished for their offenses, but that punishment 
should not result in their death. Mr. Kopetski has offered an amendment 
that punishes them for their violent acts with life imprisonment.
  The death penalty is plagued by racial disparity and error. Numerous 
studies have shown that racial minorities are being prosecuted under 
the death penalty law far beyond their proportion in the general 
population or the population of criminal offenders. An analysis of 
prosecutions under the Federal death penalty provisions of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act signed by President Reagan in 1988, reveals that 89 
percent of the defendants selected for capital prosecution have been 
either African-American or Mexican-American. Moreover, studies have 
shown that innocent people are being sentenced to death. In 1993 alone, 
4 men sentenced to death were found innocent.
  These figures paint a sad portrait of a discriminatory and 
ineffective system of justice. They only confirm the conclusion's of 
the Honorable Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote of the death penalty, 
``the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, 
caprice, and mistake. The death penalty experiment has failed.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us bring fairness and constitutionality back into 
our justice system. I urge my colleagues to vote for Mr. Kopetski's 
amendment.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. Chairman, as Congress begins its debate on 
anticrime legislation, I find it extremely telling that we as 
legislators have ignored the wisdom of the people who are implementing 
the laws that we write. I would like to share with you a letter I 
recently received from the Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association 
which states that some of the provisions in the bill we are debating 
are so slanted in favor of the criminal that they relegate victims to a 
``position of irrelevance''.

       Dear Congressman Santorum: We are writing to express the 
     views of the Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association and 
     virtually all of the prosecutors across the nation to ask you 
     to vote for the Hyde amendment to strike Title VIII from 
     House Bill 4092, the Omnibus Crime Bill. We also urge you to 
     support the McCollum amendment to substitute the Equal 
     Justice Act provisions for the so-called ``Racial Justice 
     Act'' provisions presently in the bill. It is scheduled for a 
     vote on the House floor on Wednesday, March 23, 1994.
       Title VIII, the Habeas Corpus Revision Act of 1994, is a 
     virtual wish list for criminal defense attorneys. It 
     overturns significant United States Supreme Court case law 
     and authorizes Federal judges to overturn death sentences on 
     the basis of certain belated claims even if there was no 
     constitutional error.
       As prosecutors, we don't want, nor do we expect, Congress 
     to stack the deck in our favor. We are, however, looking for 
     a level playing field. Title VIII is so defense oriented that 
     it doesn't approach fairness and relegates victims to a 
     position of irrelevance.
       Title IX, the Racial Justice Act, is designed to 
     effectively end the death penalty in America by death penalty 
     opponents who, faced with overwhelming public opposition to 
     their position, cannot repeal the death penalty directly. It 
     mandates a highly offensive ``racial quota'' system to the 
     application of the death penalty and destroys the fundamental 
     principal that prosecutors must conduct death penalty 
     litigation in a manner that is entirely color blind.
           Very truly yours,
     Bill Ryan,
       President.
     Lynne Abraham,
       Legislative Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, the message in this letter is clear, by passing these 
provisions in the crime bill, we are not streamlining our appeal 
process or correcting inequities in our implementation of the death 
penalty. Instead, we are making it easier for criminals to continue to 
abuse our system and rendering our criminal justice system paralyzed. I 
believe it is time Congress stops talking about being tough on crime 
and cleaning up our system, while we ignore the expert advise of people 
who recognize the problems in our criminal justice system and 
experience the frustration brought on by our inability to correct them. 
With our Nation's escalating violent crime problem, we can no longer 
ignore the opinions of law enforcement and simply pass legislation 
designed to protect criminals.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to draw attention to an 
important provision in H.R. 4092 designed to protect the traveling 
public. Specifically, the purpose of the Abercrombie amendment is to 
facilitate in the investigation of violent crimes against travelers.
  Over the past few months we have seen an increasing number of crimes 
of violence directed at travelers, both domestic and foreign, in the 
United States. Unfortunately some of the incidents have been so 
notorious that they have received international attention.
  Our Nation is dependent on the travel and tourism industry. In 34 
States, it is already the first, second or third largest employer. 
Travel and tourism is the Nation's second largest employer, providing 6 
million jobs. The $74 billion we earn from international visitors make 
it our single biggest export. In the State of Hawaii, for example, the 
travel and tourism industry accounts for over 30 percent of the State's 
GDP. We cannot afford to stand by and let these crimes of violence 
affect the travel patterns of individuals.
  The Abercrombie amendment is not meant to increase the Federal role, 
that is, federalize the crime, or diminish the authority of local 
jurisdictions. Also, the amendment does not mandate States to provide 
greater protection for travelers than for their own citizens. Instead, 
the amendment gives local law enforcement officials the option to 
utilize the resources of the Federal Government to assist in the 
investigation of violent crimes against travelers. This is the approach 
taken by the Department of Justice in mutual legal assistance treaties, 
that is, assist in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. For the 
purpose of the amendment the definition of a traveler is an individual 
who is not a resident of the State in which the crime of violence 
occurs. It applies to domestic and foreign travelers.
  The amendment was drafted in consultation with Department of Justice 
[DOJ] and is consistent with Attorney General Reno's notion of working 
together. The DOJ recognizes that offenses against travelers may be 
difficult for State authorities to prosecute because of problems in 
securing testimony and other evidence, emphasizes the importance of the 
Department of Justice fully assisting State authorities in their 
efforts to obtain evidence needed for effective investigation and 
prosecution. Thus, this provision underscores both the availability of 
Federal assistance and the expectation that the Departments of Justice 
and State will use their best efforts to secure evidence needed by 
State and local prosecutors and investigators in cases involving 
serious crimes against travelers.
  The amendment has the strong support of law enforcement officials and 
the travel and tourism industry. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to 
support the Abercrombie amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member on the House 
Committee on Education and Labor, I have serious concerns about many of 
the provisions included in H.R. 4092, the Omnibus Crime Control Act, as 
well as many of the amendments which have been made in order by the 
Rules Committee. In attempting to address the crime problem which faces 
our Nation, the House Judiciary Committee brought several bills to the 
floor aimed at preventing crime and rehabilitating prisoners. However, 
many of these programs relate to issues within the jurisdiction of the 
Education and Labor Committee and are substantially similar or 
duplicative of existing programs.
  I am not opposed to providing targeted assistance to youth in 
neighborhoods with high incidence of crime and poverty, yet I am 
opposed to creating duplicative programs. I strongly believe there 
should be linkages between what we are doing in the area of crime 
prevention, employment, and education and training if we are to be 
successful in salvaging this Nation's youth. However, in creating these 
linkages, we must build on existing programs, establishing a 
comprehensive system of assistance, not a series of fragmented Federal 
programs through which millions of limited dollars are wasted on 
duplicative administrative structures. In fact, the GAO recently 
identified 154 Federal programs that in some capacity provide job 
training and assistance to disadvantaged adults and youth through a 
wide variety of delivery mechanisms.
  For example, title X of H.R. 4092 would establish a new Youth 
Employment and Skills Crime Prevention Program. Currently, we have 
numerous Federal statutes which provide very similar and in many cases 
identical forms of employment, education, and training assistance to 
disadvantaged and at-risk youth, as are provided under this 
legislation's YES Program. We have the year-round training program for 
disadvantaged youth, established under title II-C of the Job Training 
Partnership Act [JTPA]; the Summer Youth Employment and Training 
Program for disadvantaged youth, established under title II-B of JTPA; 
the Youth Fair Chance Program, which targets assistance for 
disadvantaged youth to high poverty communities established under title 
IV, part H of JTPA. In addition, we have the Job Corps Program 
established under title IV, part B of JTPA, which also provides 
intensive assistance and services to severely disadvantaged the at-risk 
youth. These are just the programs established under the Job Training 
Partnership Act, not to mention numerous other Federal statutes which 
independently provide employment and training assistance to youth and 
young adults. I attempted to offer an amendment which would strike 
title X, subtitle J of the bill, however, my amendment was not made in 
order.
  To further illustrate this point, the following is a list of 
amendments which are duplicative of existing programs within the 
jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee:
  The Olver amendment would authorize the Attorney General to make 10 
State demonstration grants that provide for at least one specialized 
domestic violence court advocate in every court where a significant 
number of protective orders are granted. This is substantially similar 
to the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which already 
provides for demonstration grants to deal with family violence. This 
existing program was appropriated $27.7 million for fiscal year 1994.
  The Martinez amendment would authorize demonstration grants for 
umbrella agencies in enterprise zones for strategic planning and 
evaluation of service programs in low-income communities and gang 
prevention programs, such as Boys and Girls Clubs. These grants 
duplicate: First; the Community Services Block Grant Act which provides 
funds for Community Action Programs [CAPS] in all communities, not just 
enterprise zones. This program was already appropriated $464 million 
for fiscal year 1994; and second; part D of the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act, which provides grants for gang prevention 
activities which was appropriated $5 million in fiscal year 1994.
  The McCurdy amendment would establish a Police Corps Program to allow 
State and local law enforcement agencies to recruit young people to 
serve a term with the police in return for aid for a college education. 
It would also establish a Law Enforcement Scholarship Matching Grant 
Program for current law enforcement personnel and young people 
interested in a career in law enforcement. The first part of this 
amendment is duplicative of the National Services Act, which 
specifically lists programs that address unmet public safety needs as 
eligible for national service grants and was appropriated $370 million 
in fiscal year 1994.
  The Gorton amendment would prohibit awarding Pell basic grants to 
anyone incarcerated in a Federal or State prison.
  I have serious concerns in regard to this amendment. During the 1992 
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress enacted changes 
affecting the eligibility of prisoners to receive Pell grants aimed at 
preventing the abuse of the Pell Grant Program. These changes included: 
First, determining that Pell funds can only be used for tuition and 
books and not for cost of living; second, eliminating persons on death 
row; third, limiting a schools total enrollment of prisoners; fourth, 
prohibiting schools from participation in the Pell program if they 
offer more than 50 percent of their courses by correspondence; and 
fifth, prohibiting States from shifting the costs of post secondary 
education for prisoners onto the Pell program.
  The Wynn amendment would prohibit Pell grants to Federal or State 
prisoners after January 1, 1996 unless it is certified by the Secretary 
of Education or the Governor.
  The Martinez amendment which would establish requirements for States 
under which they would enact regulations regarding background 
investigations and training requirements that apply to all persons 
providing private security services.
  The Owens amendment would permanently exempt State and local public 
safety agencies from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act in order 
to permit them to consider age in their hiring and retirement policies.
  In the Education and Labor Committee, we are currently looking into 
ways to reform this array of education, welfare, training, and 
employment assistance programs into a comprehensive system of services 
designed to serve the many needs of youth and adults. I would be happy 
to work with proponents of this legislation to amend our current 
programs, where necessary, to address crime prevention and poverty 
concerns. I do think however, that such amendments would be better 
developed under the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee 
through comprehensive reforms of our existing systems.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of living in fear and 
are demanding crime legislation that deals with the root of decay in 
our criminal justice system. Nationwide there is consensus that our 
criminal justice system has failed and innocent Americans have become 
the victims of a system originally conceived to protect them.
  The President's rhetoric has stressed the importance of reforming our 
criminal justice system, but he has failed to introduce a crime bill 
that effectively reforms the process. His proposal is a weak attempt at 
piecemeal legislation that is all talk and no action. He attempts to 
offer short-term flawed solutions to intricate problems that merit 
comprehensive responses.
  The administration's crime bill squanders $8 billion into several new 
useless social-welfare programs. Specifically it provides a formula 
that gives $2 billion to localities with the highest self-imposed tax 
rates. The theory is that since these communities have the highest tax 
levels, they will also have the highest levels of unemployment and 
poverty. To help alleviate their problems, President Clinton wants the 
Federal Government to send these communities a blank check. This is 
ludicrous. Why are we rewarding communities that have contributed to 
their own economic chaos. Higher taxes do not create employment or 
business and they certainly do not bring people out of poverty. In 
fact, they have the reverse effect.
  The remainder of the $8 billion from these social-welfare programs 
will be used toward several Great Society-style programs. These 
programs are targeted to crime-prone areas for recreation activities. 
For example, there is a program called midnight sports where criminals 
can participate in basketball games from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. I fail to 
see how a friendly taxpayer financed basketball game will deter these 
criminals from committing other crimes.
  Even more disturbing than this, are the major loopholes that exist 
under habeas corpus. The bill claims to reform habeas corpus, but in 
reality it weakens current law and even overturns previous Supreme 
Court decisions. These loopholes allow criminals to abuse and prolong 
the appeals process in an effort to avoid the death penalty.
  The administration's approach further weakens the legislative 
language of the three strikes and you're out provision. The bill 
imposes mandatory life imprisonment without parole for criminals 
convicted of three violent crimes, but it requires that the third 
strike must be a Federal crime. By diluting this language, repeat 
offenders are not permanently removed from the street. Without 
permanently removing these criminals from the street, the system fails 
once again to close the revolving door that is at the core of the crime 
epidemic in this country. How will these criminals be deterred when 
they do not serve the whole portion of their sentence? As they say in 
baseball, and I strongly believe the American people now echo this 
sentiment, ``three strikes and you are out.''

  The Clinton plan also allocates $3 billion in Federal grant money to 
assist State in building new prisons or improve existing ones so they 
have room to keep violent repeat offenders behind bars. However, there 
is nothing in the bill's language to ensure that these offenders will 
serve a significant portion of their sentence. Currently, convicted 
criminals are only serving about 37 percent of their sentence. Why 
should tax-paying citizens pour Federal money into State prison systems 
without there being and type of guarantee that these reforms will keep 
criminals behind bars. We must tie Federal funds to truth-in-sentencing 
reforms, otherwise we are throwing taxpayer's money away.
  The only way that we are going to stop the crime epidemic in this 
country is by repairing our current criminal justice system and 
permanently nailing shut the revolving door that enables violent 
criminals from terrorizing innocent victims in our society.
  The crime crisis in this country is real and it affects everyone. 
This crime proposal does not reform the criminal justice system as 
promised. Instead, we are once again left with empty political rhetoric 
that fails to respond to the public's cry for criminal justice reform.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
crime bill before us today. This is an issue which affects every 
citizen in every district.
  But let me tell you a story from my district. Less than 2 weeks ago, 
7-year-old Marcellina Delgado was shot near the Charter Oak housing 
project in Hartford. She was on her mother's lap as her family drove to 
her grandmother's house. What did Marcellina do to deserve such a fate? 
She was riding in a car that one gang member mistakenly thought 
belonged to an enemy gang member.

  We have all heard this story. Law abiding citizens, going about their 
business, are getting caught in gang crossfire. How many innocent 
victims must get hurt or be killed before we stand up and support those 
fighting this battle every day? Today, we in the House must give the 
answer: Enough is enough--enough crimes, enough bloodshed, and enough 
deaths.
  I know that there are Members on both sides of the aisle with 
concerns over provisions included in H.R. 4092. But now more than ever, 
we need a bipartisan approach to the fight against crime. We can no 
longer afford to argue over Democratic and Republican responses to this 
demoralizing problem. We must put our differences aside and directly 
confront this issue. The American people are asking us to act and it is 
high time we did.
  H.R. 4092 contains much we can support. It addresses not only methods 
of punishment, but methods of prevention as well. The legislation 
authorizes more than $15 billion through fiscal year 1999 for a variety 
of anticrime strategies over 5 years, half of which is for crime 
control, with the other half for crime prevention. We are also voting 
on whether to approve $3.5 billion to hire State and local police 
officers for community policing programs, $3 billion for grants to 
State prisons and $600 million for alternative incarceration for young 
offenders. Roughly $7 billion is included in H.R. 4092 for community 
crime prevention programs. Other important provisions in this bill call 
for life imprisonment for three time violent offenders, more severely 
punish crimes of violence against women, and make it a Federal crime to 
sell or transfer a handgun to a juvenile.
  The time for talk has passed. The time to act is upon us. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill so we can begin to take back our 
streets.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Gibbons] having assumed the chair, Mr. Torricelli, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4092) to 
control and prevent crime, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________