[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 19, 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. 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 future consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4092.

                              {time}  1346


                     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 on Thursday, April 
14, 1994, amendment No. 7 printed in part 1 of House Report 103-474, 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], had been 
disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in part 1 of 
House Report 103-474 relating to the subject matter of habeas corpus.
  If more than one of the amendments on this subject is adopted, only 
the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designated the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: Page 91, strike line 15 and 
     all that follows through line 16 on page 106.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the basic rule in the medical profession was announced 
about 500 B.C. in the Hippocratic oath, and, among other things in that 
oath is a line, ``First do no harm.'' I must say that the habeas corpus 
provisions in this bill really do harm. They are not an improvement on 
the existing sorry situation, they are an exacerbation. They make 
things far worse. They weaken habeas corpus proceedings and therefore, 
I urge Members to follow support my amendment and strike the Edwards-
Washington habeas corpus provisions from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment to simply strike what they have done to 
this bill in habeas corpus is supported by the National District 
Attorneys Association, as well as the National Association of Attorneys 
General. I have a letter signed by 30 State attorneys general, 16 of 
them Democrats, 14 of them Republicans, all opposed to the Edwards-
Washington habeas provisions in this bill, and all of them supporting 
my motion to strike.
  Mr. Speaker, other State attorneys general, including Massachusetts 
and Georgia, have sent separate letters supporting my amendment. The 
National District Attorneys Association supports this amendment to 
strike the habeas title because the provisions in the bill are worse 
than current law.
  In addition, all these law enforcement professionals are opposed to 
the Derrick amendment, which is the king-of-the-hill treatment that my 
amendment is going to get, and we will be debating that shortly.

                              {time}  1350

  The intent of the legislation we are now debating is to overturn a 
series of Supreme Court victories won by law enforcement over the past 
few years. These decisions have made habeas corpus more fair to the 
victims, the forgotten victims, and to law enforcement; they have 
reduced delay, they have enhanced finality in criminal cases and 
secured the ``one bite at the apple'' approach to post-conviction 
litigation. The proposed legislation in this bill overturns a whole 
series of Supreme Court decisions that have been necessary and 
beneficial to law enforcement.
  So let us not kid our constituents if we defeat the Hyde amendment 
and keep this habeas corpus provision in the bill that we are tough on 
crime. We are weakening, we are yielding, we are regressing, we are 
stepping back.
  Mr. Chairman, among the important decisions that the habeas corpus 
provisions in this bill reverse are:
  Teague versus Lane which prohibits new rules from applying 
retroactively on collateral review;
  Butler versus McKellar which requires Federal courts to validate 
reasonable, good faith State court rulings;
  Stone versus Powell which bars Federal habeas review of exclusionary 
rule claims which were fully and fairly adjudicated in State court;
  Brecht versus Abrahamson which requires the petitioner to prove that 
a trial error had a ``substantial and injurious effect'' in order to 
obtain relief on collateral review;
  Kenny versus Tamayo-Reyes, and Herrera versus Collins.
  Mr. Chairman, there are nine Supreme Court cases which are helpful to 
law enforcement which are overturned by the legislation supported by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Now, in title VIII, this is really interesting, it is bizarre, has an 
appointment of counsel provision which requires the States now to set 
up a counsel authority made up of criminal defense attorneys. This 
counsel authority will be required to appoint not one but two highly 
qualified criminal attorneys to represent a defendant who is charged in 
a capital case. Both of these lawyers have to meet certain 
qualifications, including lots of experience in capital cases, in 
negotiating, in dealing with psychiatric testimony. In other words, one 
does not go to trial on a capital case until Alan Dershowitz and 
Lawrence Tribe are defending you or, if you cannot get them, Jerry 
Spence and Melvin Belli. And the State will pay for that, not one, but 
two. The similar situation in health care would require two specialists 
instead of one. And the statute of limitations does not begin to run 
until both of these attorneys have been appointed and are functioning.
  And, of course, there is no enforcement mechanism in the bill to 
require the appointment of counsel, so these capital cases can sit and 
sit and sit.
  Mr. Chairman, taken together, these provisions guarantee the 
prolonging of Federal habeas corpus for many years.
  My colleagues, over 14 years ago John Wayne Gacy was convicted of 
killing 33 young men and boys in a suburb near Chicago. In 14 years of 
litigation, he has raised more than 100 claims. Just last year, one of 
his claims was that a survey conducted by a death penalty opponent 
showed that some jury members might have difficulty understanding 
instructions on mitigating factors. If the writ had been granted, the 
court could have ordered a new sentencing proceeding. This claim was 
rejected by a Federal court because it was barred by Teague versus 
Lane, but this bill reverses Teague versus Lane, thus giving a further 
opportunity to John Wayne Gacy to carry his appeals into the next 
century.

  Mr. Chairman, I have here an article from the Chicago Tribune, April 
13:

       Lawyers for convicted serial killer John Wayne Gacy, who 
     has been on death row for the past 14 years, said Tuesday 
     they have uncovered new evidence that could block Gacy's 
     scheduled May 10 execution.

  When does it all end?
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that meaningful habeas corpus reform is still 
desirable but it makes more sense to strike this provision rather than 
to enact harmful retrogressive legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, when the other body considered its crime legislation 
last year, it adopted on a bipartisan vote a motion to strike habeas 
from the bill. They knew what we should know, that this issue will hold 
up passage of a crime bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we should strike this provision and keep it out. This 
is a faulty measure, it will thwart the use of death penalty laws in 
the States and expand opportunities for delay and litigation abuse by 
prisoners in capital cases.
  Ladies and gentlemen, if the Edwards-Washington provisions in the 
bill were so good, why are all the professionals in law enforcement 
against it? Why are all the attorneys generals, all the States 
attorneys opposed to this? They know because they deal with it every 
day. This is a step back. It will prolong these appeals which are 
already criminally long enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition to this amendment. I 
share the view of many that changes are needed in our system to reduce 
the passage of time between conviction of heinous murders and their 
execution. Endless hearings and delays--many spawned by attorneys 
unable to follow the complex procedure which applies in habeas corpus 
proceedings--have unfortunately cast into question the validity of one 
of our most cherished rights, and of the working of the judicial system 
itself.
  This amendment unfortunately does nothing to correct these problems. 
By moving to strike any attempt at reform, it leaves us without a short 
statute of limitations, without strict limits on successive petitions 
and without providing competent counsel in capital cases so that we can 
reduce the errors at the front end which only lead to hearings and new 
trials.
  We must move forward with our efforts to reduce delay, achieve 
finality and promote efficiency in the habeas corpus process. I urge 
the rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is critical to the 
debate on what direction this crime bill will take. Will it be a crime 
bill that gives the tools to our police and prosecutors and other law 
enforcement authorities to put people away and to have them serve their 
sentences even if it should be a sentence of death? Or will it be 
another wolf in sheep's clothing where people posture, saying that they 
want to be tough on crime but, looking at the details, comes up with 
the opposite conclusion?
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, I think, represents legislative 
schizophrenia in the area of the death penalty and in many other areas, 
and the amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] is medicine to cure schizophrenia in the area of habeas corpus.
  Mr. Chairman, what the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
proposes to do is to reinstate existing law on the subject of appeals 
in death row cases.
  Mr. Chairman, I would prefer a restriction on existing laws as would 
the commission that was held by the eminent retired justice of the U.S. 
Supreme Court, Lewis Powell, when he made the recommendation several 
years ago. But the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] figured that was 
asking too much, so all he is asking is that we keep the existing law 
the way it is. And that is a reasonable request and that is why his 
amendment should be supported and the amendment that will be proposed 
later on by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] should be 
opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, key in Mr. Hyde's amendment is the reinstatement of the 
Teague case which is repealed both by this law unamended as well as by 
the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick].

                              {time}  1400

  The Teague case is vitally important to put some type of limitation 
on death-row appeals. Without the Teague case, anytime the Supreme 
Court renders a new decision on the procedural aspects of the death 
penalty, every prisoner on death row will have another kick at the 
habeas corpus cat, and that means that the business of endless appeals, 
and people who have been convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of 
their peers will never face the electric chair or the gas chamber.
  So without the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], all of the people who say they support the death penalty in the 
Congress can vote that way knowing that no prisoner will ever be 
executed. I do not think that is the way we should be legislating. I do 
not think we should pass schizophrenic bills that give the appearance 
of going one direction when the details and the procedures go in the 
opposite direction.
  Support Hyde and oppose Derrick.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards], the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] 
and they have been complaining for months and even years that the 
habeas system is not working, that there is petition after petition; we 
have 3,000 people on death row; nothing can get done; delay, delay, 
delay.
  And then when they have the opportunity to offer something that will 
cure this deplorable situation, and it is deplorable, what do they do? 
they offer nothing. They just strike a very good provision in this bill 
that is real reform. It is conservative reform in a lot of ways, 
because the person condemned can only appeal once under a petition in 
habeas corpus, and it must be done within 1 year after the final appeal 
in the State courts.
  The heart of the matter is, my colleagues, that it provides for 
decent counsel, competent counsel, in the trial and in the appeal 
process. That is the reason that we have these delays. There is no 
disagreement that this is the reason these delays take place.
  We are curing that ill. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is 
offering no attorney provisions at all. It is an empty gesture. He 
apparently likes the present system.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. I want to underscore the point that the gentleman is 
making. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others have 
complained mightily about the state of the law as it now exists; is 
that correct?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is correct.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. They say the appeals take too long in death penalty 
cases?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Right.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. It is a fact that over 80 percent of the death row 
appeals, and specifically the reversals, are based upon lawyer error, 
that is, people had incompetent lawyers to try death penalty cases to 
begin with; right?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is exactly right.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. You cure that by giving them good lawyers and one 
bite of the apple on appeal; is that right?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is exactly right.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. This is not the Washington-Edwards amendment. My 
amendment would have done a lot more, a lot more forcefully and a lot 
more, but the committee decided on your version rather than mine, which 
is quintessentially, in my judgment, a much better version, the 
stronger version; is that right?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is correct.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. So yours is the moderate, watered down habeas corpus 
reform that gets us beyond where we are now with all the delays?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. That is right
  Mr. WASHINGTON. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. This is real streamlining. It takes care 
of these endless delays. It provides for counsel. It is a real reform.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offers us nothing but more of 
the same delays, delay, delay.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]. Maybe he can explain why, if this 
is real reform, nobody in law enforcement is for it.
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Hyde's amendment--
an amendment which the prosecuting attorneys and the State attorneys 
general from throughout the land believe is absolutely essential to 
make this bill a true crime fighting measure.
  Nothing has done more to undermine public confidence in the 
administration of justice than the seemingly endless cycle of appeals 
pursued by death row inmates.
  And now unless we adopt the Hyde amendment, the habeas corpus 
provisions of this bill threaten to make a bad situation intolerable.
  How can anyone justify this massive step in the wrong direction?
  How can anyone explain to the American people that we should grant 
convicted murderers on death row more opportunities to delay the 
execution of their sentences, more opportunities to thwart justice--and 
more opportunities to torment the families of their victims.
  Let me tell you, the people will not buy it. They want real reform. 
They do not want to further slow down the wheels of justice.
  Let us cure this deplorable situation.
  I urge you to vote for the Hyde amendment--and remove the unwise and 
unjust habeas provisions of the bill.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde 
amendment, with all due respect to the gentleman from Illinois.
  It has been said no law enforcement people are in favor of the 
Derrick amendment, and they all want the Hyde amendment, and I am 
confused by that, I have to confess to the gentleman.
  I prosecuted for 4 years, and I have read these statutes, and I 
realize reasonable, and many are very bright, lawyers differ on 
interpretations. But for the life of me, as I travel around this 
district that I represent, people are saying to me, ``We want change in 
habeas corpus,'' and with all respect, I say to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], I do not understand your amendment, keeping it the 
way it is.
  While there needs to be change, perhaps this bill does not take it to 
perfection the way you and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] and others with long, strong law enforcement backgrounds 
would want, but it is an improvement to have a 1-year statute of 
limitations. It is an improvement not to allow more than one appeal.
  So I submit to my colleagues that this is improvement to the mess 
that we have on our hands as others have described it, and I would urge 
defeat of the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. The question was raised and has not been answered: 
Why would prosecutors oppose this amendment? It is like any work 
product. Once you put your work into something, you are duty-bound to 
defend that work product, are you not?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Well, you are, and the problem I have is in talking to 
some, I have found that they have not read the statute and others have.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. That is right.
  When there are good lawyers on the other side, does it not make your 
job a lot easier? You and I used to try cases against each other. 
Really when you are trying a good, hard-fought case, do you not want a 
good lawyer on the other side rather then somebody you have got to hold 
their hand and spoon-feed them and do your job half as good as you are 
capable of doing it just so that you do not look bad in front of the 
jury and the judge? Every lawyer in here knows that. Every lawyer knows 
that.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, well, there is one thing for sure, that 
the attorneys general are for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], those who have read it, and once they have 
read it, they understand that their work will be reviewed. Their work 
will be reviewed, and they do not want their work reviewed. Of course 
they do not.
  We have our supporters as well, and the Emergency Committee to Save 
Habeas Corpus, which was founded by four former U.S. Attorneys General, 
two Democrats and two Republicans, oppose the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] and support the Derrick amendment. The Hyde amendment to 
strike the committee provision on habeas corpus is no reform.
  We talk about what people want. I guarantee you that you can go to 
any one of your districts and tell people about the Derrick amendment 
and would support it, because they are tired of people having a 
sentence handed down and 15 years later sentence has not been executed.
  What the Derrick amendment does is it says one time, one shot at the 
apple, within 1 year with a competent attorney.

                              {time}  1410

  What the Hyde amendment does is say, ``Let's just keep it like it has 
always been, let's keep them on death row for 10, 15 years.''
  It is the easiest way that I can think of not to execute the death 
penalty--and I support the death penalty.
  So if you want to do nothing and you want to keep the system like it 
has always been in the inefficient way that it does work, and if you 
want to keep it like most of the American people do not want it, then I 
suggest you vote for Hyde. If you do not, vote against it and vote for 
the Derrick amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I simply want to say, in answer to one of the questions raised a 
moment ago by a party on the other side of the aisle, the reason why 
the prosecutors and the folks involved at the AG's office is pretty 
simple: Their main problem with the habeas corpus language in this bill 
as it is now drafted is that it would reverse the Supreme Court 
decision that has kept death row inmates from being able to take every 
new decision of the Supreme Court that comes out on criminal procedure 
and go to Federal Court and seek to get their death penalty overturned, 
and then appeal that.
  Since the Supreme Court of the United States comes down with a new 
criminal procedure ruling at least once every term, if we pass this 
legislation as it is now written, they would be able to go into court 
and add to their already existing endless appeals to the point that you 
would never have a death penalty carried out in this country again. At 
least that is one view of most prosecutors and most attorneys general. 
And I respect that. We should not be reversing Teague versus Lane, we 
should not be reversing any of the other Supreme Court decisions. Yet 
you cannot end the endless appeals by doing it; you only compound the 
problem, and it means the death penalty will never be carried out in 
this country.
  I urge adoption of the Hyde amendment to strike that language.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, when I was in law school, the Gideon case 
came down, and I though that once and for all my country stood for the 
proposition that whenever accused of a serious crime you were entitled 
to counsel, indeed to competent counsel. In case that principle in our 
law is not sacred enough for you, surely the pragmatic knowledge that 
40 percent of the reversals today are for serious constitutional error, 
would lead you to want to avoid that by the only means at hand, and 
that is to provide competent counsel.
  One would think that the two sides would come together on this 
proposition, if on none other--that you do not send a man or woman to 
death without the opportunity to have the case presented fairly by a 
competent lawyer.
  If the Hyde Amendment passes, we are left with the law as it is.
  At the fulcrum of the problem are the cases after the Teague decision 
on what constitutes ``a new rule of law.'' A new rule of law cannot be 
applied retroactively in a habeas petition case. And so enterprising 
lawyers have spent much energy trying to discover what ``a new rule of 
law'' means. It is whenever reasonable judges could disagree, under 
prevailing law. Instead, we would, with the Derrick amendment, give the 
courts definitive guidance and say that the standard now is ``a clear 
break from precedent.''
  ``Mr. Hyde, you need that, you need that codification.'' Without it, 
mark my word, what enterprising lawyers have already done with Teague 
they will continue to do. Hyde does not stop anything. What Hyde does 
is to leave us where we are.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from Texas 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding to me.
  I am really at a loss to understand what my colleague and good 
friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is all about. In 
essence, what he is doing is striking habeas corpus reform from the 
bill.
  Now, I have received in my some 20 years in Congress probably as much 
mail on the abuses of the habeas corpus process as any other process 
that we have in our criminal justice system. And that is because it has 
been abused.
  You hear the legion of cases, as I have over the years, that have 
gone up from State courts to Federal courts, back to State courts, back 
to Federal courts. Sometimes defendants have filed as many as 10 to 15 
repetitious petitions, and that is an abuse of the process.
  A vote for Hyde is a vote to preserve the present process.
  Now, my ``Dear Colleague'' alludes to the fact that in this bill is 
the requirement that we appoint competent counsel. Well, shame on us, 
that we want to appoint competent counsel throughout the country. He 
knows as well as most Members who have followed this issue over the 
years that one of the reasons why we have so many reversals in capital 
cases is because of incompetent counsel. I mean there are instances 
where lawyers right out of law school have represented a capital 
defendant. We have had drunks, intoxicated individuals, representing 
capital cases. Sometimes it takes 10 or 12 years before the Supreme 
Court catches up with it; but they reverse.
  Now, my colleague would have us set up two systems of justice, 
apparently one for the rich and one for the poor. If you want to reform 
the habeas corpus process, you have to appoint competent counsel; if 
not, you do not. Reject Hyde, and let us reform habeas corpus.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. No. The distinguished chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has the right to close, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks] each has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the question has been asked why keep it as it 
is? ``Why don't we reform habeas corpus?'' Well, because we have gone 
down that road. The last two Congresses habeas corpus torpedoed the 
crime bill. So the professionals, the people in the trenches every day, 
not retired professors, say leave habeas out of this crime bill. Let us 
get a crime bill and let us deal with habeas, which is like advanced 
calculus, as freestanding. Let us have some hearings, not file 
something, slip something in under the door at the last minute. Let us 
have hearings and deal with it in an intelligent way.
  Now, I will be pleased to read to this body, to this gallery, the 
letter from Attorney General Janet Reno supporting Mr. Edwards' habeas 
corpus, supporting Mr. Derrick's habeas corpus, if they have one, but, 
folks, I just do not think they do. I just do not think they could get 
a letter from the Justice Department supporting their position.
  Now, Mr. Hughes said shame on us that we want to appoint incompetent 
counsel. My God, who said that? I want competent counsel, but not two, 
not a chorus of them, just one, just one. And I want that one to be 
appointed by the court, the same court that appointed Lawrence Walsh, 
that appointed Mr. Fiske. Courts can appoint these people, and they can 
be competent. But you do not need two highly qualified criminal 
lawyers, experienced in psychiatric; these people are getting treated 
better than anybody else in the country, if that is what you want.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, you have to have cocounsel because that team has to 
handle the appeals as well as the trial.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is kind of like a copilot on an airplane; 
right? You would not want to fly with just one because he might get 
sick. I understand that, and I take back my time.
  I simply say that competent counsel is required under Gideon versus 
Wainwright. We are not repealing any Supreme Court cases; you are. You 
are repealing nine of them in the Edwards-Washington version. It is not 
quite the Washington version; it is not liberal enough, and I 
understand that. You gentlemen are militant opponents of the death 
penalty, and, frankly, I would like somebody to be executed within two 
decades of the time they are convicted. That is all I ask.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, if you want 
somebody to be executed, why do you not just assist in reforming habeas 
corpus so you can get on with the appeals? I am opposed to the death 
penalty, and that only delays the appeal.
  Mr. HYDE. Before the gentleman came here, we tried twice and we were 
defeated in conference.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. And you can try it again after I leave here, too.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 
expired.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, and 
I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment and in support of the 
Derrick amendment.
  Let me just say to my colleagues first that as the gentleman from 
Illinois knows, the gentleman from New Jersey, the gentleman from 
Texas, and I are in support of the death penalty. But it seems to me 
quite logical, overwhelmingly logical, that if we are going to use the 
ultimate punishment, yes, we have to be careful, and one would argue 
you have to be extra careful, because the decision is irrevocable.
  After this amendment there will be the Derrick amendment. It limits 
things to one major appeal. That is necessary because I do believe that 
lawyers have delayed and delayed for the sake of delay. But if we pass 
the Hyde amendment, we will knock one important provision of this bill 
out, one, it seems to me, that fairminded men and women have to agree 
on, and that is that there has to be fair and adequate counsel.
  Let me read to the Members some of these cases. Attorneys 
representing defendants in capital cases have been known to refer to an 
accused as a ``nigger'' in front of the jury. They indicate that they 
are representing the client with reluctance. They absent themselves 
from the court while the prosecuting witness takes the stand or present 
no evidence in favor of the client if the death penalty is not filed, 
and they file no brief on appeal.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Members believe in capital punishment, they 
still should believe--and I believe most of us do, and most Americans 
do--that defendants ought to be adequately represented, not just 
slightly above the margin but fully and fairly.
  The Hyde amendment would knock that out. The committee print keeps 
it, and the Derrick amendment would then limit the appeals. That is the 
thing to do. I ask the Members to vote no on Hyde amendment and yes on 
Derrick.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, this amendment does 
not change the status quo. Leaving the status quo in place would allow 
a steady stream of postconviction habeas appeals to any number of 
courts. It also leaves intact perhaps the greatest problem area in 
habeas litigation: The failure of the present system to require 
competent counsel at the very beginning of the proceedings. Without 
competent counsel appointed at the front end, we should not be 
surprised that habeas appeals are allowed at the back-end of the 
process.
  In contrast the substitute that will be offered shortly by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] will procedurally 
streamline the habeas process to one appeal in 12 months and set out 
impeccable counsel standards to ensure adequate representation from the 
start. I would therefore urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's 
strike amendment and cast an aye vote for the Derrick substitute which 
follows.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Hyde amendment. In the bill's current form, the initiative does nothing 
to reform habeas corpus, but rather prolongs the appeals process--
allowing prisoners on death row to further delay their sentences, 
requires two lawyers on the public dole to be appointed to represent 
defendants in each appeals process, and overturns Supreme Court cases 
that prohibit new appeals each time the high court makes an additional 
ruling. When a prisoner on death row can almost indefinitely delay 
their punishment, it's obvious the system is broken and needs fixing. 
However, habeas corpus reform in this bill is only in theory. It will 
do nothing but clog the system and increase litigation.
  Habeas corpus petitions were originally designed to determine whether 
a person is lawfully imprisoned. It is now, however, a device of 
Federal and State defendants who have been convicted and have exhausted 
all direct appeals. Because of this, many petitions that are filed are 
lacking in quality and merit. In addition, the current proposal 
attempts to overturn such Supreme Court cases as McClesky versus Zant, 
which limits a prisoner to file only one habeas corpus petition in 
Federal court unless there is sufficient proof why any new 
constitutional claim was not brought out in the case the first time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we cannot place a 1-year limitation on the filing of 
a habeas corpus petition, without creating additional loopholes in 
which criminals stand the chance of reducing their punishment, we do 
not need habeas corpus reform in this bill. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard several people comment that 
the administration's crime bill will reform the habeas corpus process. 
In reality it dilutes current law.
  The Democrats' crime bill enables criminals to abuse and prolong the 
appeals process. Death row inmates routinely abuse State appeals 
process in an effort to contest their sentence. There is no room for 
relaxing these rules in our judicial system which already prolongs 
swift justice to the perpetrators of crime. These rules increase 
litigation and have a devastating effect on the lives of the victims.
  In addition, the habeas corpus provision proposed by the Democrats 
requires that two lawyers be appointed at all stages of the appeals 
process. I fail to see the need for mandating such an intricate and 
burdensome system for appointing lawyers that will only serve to 
argument the appeals process.
  The administration's crime bill further allows Federal district 
appeals courts to overturn Supreme Court rulings that allow courts to 
apply new rules to cases on review. These rules open a Pandora's box 
that allows inmates on death row to endlessly appeal their conviction 
and prolong their sentence. This is ludicrous. The immediate effect of 
this will fall on the 36 States that have death penalties. Their 
criminal justice systems will be undermined.
  The bottom line is the endless appeals process should be reformed. 
The Democrat's bill does not do this. The Hyde amendment does. It 
strikes the Democrats habeas corpus provision and terminates the 
abusive appeals process that currently clogs our criminal justice 
system.
  The Hyde amendment reminds us that criminals are not victims of 
society; they victimize society. It sends criminals a clear message 
that their behavior will not be tolerated, and their punishment will be 
certain, swift, severe, and not open to debate. Passage of the Hyde 
amendment signifies the restoration of truth and justice back into our 
criminal justice system.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of Hyde and defeat the 
Derrick amendment.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why I cannot support 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. But a primary one 
is that it risks the execution of innocent people.
  Last year, the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Herrera versus 
Collins made it unclear whether the Federal courts can hear the claim 
of a person on death row who says he or she is innocent.
  Obviously, many of these claims will be frivolous. We should not 
waste the courts' time with them. However, unfortunately not all of 
these claims are frivolous. In just the past few years, we have seen 
many people from around the country who have been on death row for 
years who have been able to prove their innocence. They have been 
released from prison, and rightly so. Let me just mention a few--Walter 
McMillian from Alabama, Fred Macias from Texas, and Joseph Green Brown 
from Florida.
  No civilized society can tolerate the execution of an innocent 
person, and if we adopt this amendment we risk doing exactly that. This 
Congress has a solemn responsibility to state clearly that the Federal 
courthouse door is open to prisoners on death row who have newly 
discovered, persuasive claims of innocence. This is a very tough 
standard, and I am not saying that the Federal courts must release 
these people. But I am saying that these people are entitled to a 
hearing in Federal court.
  I strongly oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
because it doesn't give these people a hearing. No matter whether you 
are a liberal or a conservative, no matter what your position on this 
bill overall, you should also oppose this amendment. The amendment by 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], guarantees that the 
courthouse doors will be open to serious claims of innocence, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it instead.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 
expired, and indeed all time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270, 
noes 159, not voting 8 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               AYES--270

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

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Livingston
     Peterson (FL)
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)

                              {time}  1446

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. SHARP changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. DANNER, and Messrs. RICHARDSON, GENE GREEN of Texas, KLEIN, and 
PENNY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. derrick

  Mr. DERRICK. 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. Derrick:

                    TITLE VIII--HABEAS CORPUS REFORM

     SEC. 801. FILING DEADLINES.

       Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g)(1) In the case of an applicant under sentence of 
     death, any application for habeas corpus relief under this 
     section must be filed in the appropriate district court not 
     later than 1 year after--
       ``(A) the date of denial of a writ of certiorari, if a 
     petition for a writ of certiorari to the highest court of the 
     State on direct appeal or unitary review of the conviction 
     and sentence is filed, within the time limits established by 
     law, in the Supreme Court;
       ``(B) the date of issuance of the mandate of the highest 
     court of the State on direct appeal or unitary review of the 
     conviction and sentence, if a petition for a writ of 
     certiorari is not filed, within the time limits established 
     by law, in the Supreme Court; or
       ``(C) the date of issuance of the mandate of the Supreme 
     Court, if on a petition for a writ of certiorari the Supreme 
     Court grants the writ and disposes of the case in a manner 
     that leaves the capital sentence undisturbed.
       ``(2) The time requirements established by this section 
     shall be tolled--
       ``(A) during any period in which the State has failed to 
     provide counsel as required in section 2257 of this chapter;
       ``(B) during the period from the date the applicant files 
     an application for State postconviction relief until final 
     disposition of the application by the State appellate courts, 
     if all filing deadlines are met; and
       ``(C) during an additional period not to exceed 90 days, if 
     counsel moves for an extension in the district court that 
     would have jurisdiction of a habeas corpus application and 
     makes a showing of good cause.''.

     SEC. 802. STAYS OF EXECUTION IN CAPITAL CASES.

       Section 2251 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)(1)'' before the first paragraph;
       (2) by inserting ``(2)'' before the second paragraph; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) In the case of an individual under sentence of death, 
     a warrant or order setting an execution shall be stayed upon 
     application to any court that would have jurisdiction over an 
     application for habeas corpus under this chapter. The stay 
     shall be contingent upon reasonable diligence by the 
     individual in pursuing relief with respect to such sentence 
     and shall expire it--
       ``(1) the individual fails to apply for relief under this 
     chapter within the time requirements established by section 
     2254(g) of this chapter;
       ``(2) upon completion of district court and court of 
     appeals review under section 2254 of this chapter, the 
     application is denied and--
       ``(A) the time for filing a petition for a writ of 
     certiorari expires before a petition is filed;
       ``(B) a timely petition for a writ of certiorari is filed 
     and the Supreme Court denies the petition; or
       ``(C) a timely petition for certiorari is filed and, upon 
     consideration of the case, the Supreme Court disposes of it 
     in a manner that leaves the capital sentence undisturbed; or 
     ``(3) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in the 
     presence of counsel qualified under section 2257 of this 
     chapter and after being advised of the consequences of the 
     decision, an individual waives the right to pursue relief 
     under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 803. LAW APPLICABLE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 153 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2256. Law applicable

       ``In an action under this chapter, the court shall not 
     apply a new rule. As used in this section, the term ``new 
     rule' means a clear break from precedent, announced by the 
     Supreme Court of the United States, that could not reasonably 
     have been anticipated at the time the claimant's sentence 
     became final in State court. A rule is not `new' merely 
     because it was not dictated or compelled by the precedents 
     existing at that time or because, at that time, it was 
     susceptible to debate among reasonable minds.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2256. Law applicable.''.

     SEC. 804. COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES; STATE COURT.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 153 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after the section added by section 
     803 the following:

     Sec. 2257. Counsel in capital cases; State court

       ``(a) Notwithstanding section 2254(d) of this chapter, the 
     court in an action under this chapter shall neither presume a 
     finding of fact made in a State court proceeding specified in 
     subsection (b)(1) of this section to be correct nor decline 
     to consider a claim on the ground that it was not raised in 
     such a proceeding at the time or in the manner prescribed by 
     State law, unless--
       ``(1) the relevant State maintains a mechanism for 
     providing legal services to indigents in capital cases that 
     meets the specifications in subsection (b) of this section;
       ``(2) if the applicant in the instant case was eligible for 
     the appointment of counsel and did not waive such an 
     appointment, the State actually appointed an attorney or 
     attorneys to represent the applicant in the State proceeding 
     in which the finding of fact was made or the default 
     occurred; and
       ``(3) the attorney or attorneys so appointed substantially 
     met both the qualification standards specified in subsection 
     (b)(3)(A) or (b)(4) of this section and the performance 
     standards established by the appointing authority.
       ``(b) A mechanism for providing legal services to indigents 
     within the meaning of subsection (a)(1) of this section shall 
     include the following elements:
       ``(1) The State shall provide legal services to--
       ``(A) indigents charged with offenses for which capital 
     punishment is sought;
       ``(B) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who 
     seek appellate, collateral, or unitary review in State court; 
     and
       ``(C) indigents who have been sentenced to death and who 
     seek certiorari review of State court judgments in the United 
     States Supreme Court.
       ``(2) The State shall establish a counsel authority, which 
     shall be--
       ``(A) a statewide defender organization;
       ``(B) a resource center; or
       ``(C) a counsel authority appointed by the highest State 
     court having jurisdiction over criminal matters, consisting 
     of members of the bar with substantial experience in, or 
     commitment to, the representation of criminal defendants in 
     capital cases, and comprised of a balanced representation 
     from each segment of the State's criminal defense bar.
       ``(3) The counsel authority shall--
       ``(A) publish a roster of attorneys qualified to be 
     appointed in capital cases, procedures by which attorneys are 
     appointed, and standards governing qualifications and 
     performance of counsel, which shall include--
       ``(i) knowledge and understanding of pertinent legal 
     authorities regarding issues in capital cases; and
       ``(ii) skills in the conduct of negotiations and litigation 
     in capital cases, the investigation of capital cases and the 
     psychiatric history and current condition of capital clients, 
     and the preparation and writing of legal papers in capital 
     cases;
       ``(B) monitor the performance of attorneys appointed and 
     delete from the roster any attorney who fails to meet 
     qualification and performance standards; and
       ``(C) appoint a defense team, which shall include at least 
     2 attorneys, to represent a client at the relevant stage of 
     proceedings, within 30 days after receiving notice of the 
     need for the appointment from the relevant State court.
       ``(4) An attorney who is not listed on the roster shall be 
     appointed only on the request of the client concerned and in 
     circumstances in which the attorney requested is able to 
     provide the client with quality legal representation.
       ``(5) No counsel appointed pursuant to this section to 
     represent a prisoner in State postconviction proceedings 
     shall have previously represented the prisoner at trial or on 
     direct appeal in the case for which the appointment is made, 
     unless the prisoner and counsel expressly request continued 
     representation.
       ``(6) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel 
     appointed pursuant to this section during State or Federal 
     postconviction proceedings shall not be a ground for relief 
     in a proceeding arising under section 2254 of this title. 
     This limitation shall not preclude the appointment of 
     different counsel at any phase of State or Federal 
     postconviction proceedings.
       ``(7) Upon receipt of notice from the counsel authority 
     that an individual entitled to the appointment of counsel 
     under this section has declined to accept such an 
     appointment, the court requesting the appointment shall 
     conduct, or cause to be conducted, a hearing, at which the 
     individual and counsel proposed to be appointed under this 
     section shall be present, to determine the individual's 
     competency to decline the appointment, and whether the 
     individual has knowingly and intelligently declined it.
       ``(8) Attorneys appointed pursuant to this section shall be 
     compensated on an hourly basis pursuant to a schedule of 
     hourly rates as periodically established by the counsel 
     authority after consultation with the highest State court 
     with jurisdiction over criminal matters. Appointed counsel 
     shall be reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred in 
     representing the client, including the costs of law clerks, 
     paralegals, investigators, experts, or other support 
     services.
       ``(9) Support services for staff attorneys of a defender 
     organization or resource center shall be equal to the 
     services listed in paragraph (8).
       ``(10) This section shall take effect one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item added by section 803 the 
     following new item:

``2257. Counsel in capital cases; State court.''.

     SEC. 805. SUCCESSIVE FEDERAL PETITIONS.

       Section 2244(b) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (2) by inserting ``, in the case of an applicant not under 
     sentence of death,'' after ``When''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In the case of an applicant under sentence of death, 
     a claim presented in a second or successive application, that 
     was not presented in a prior application under this chapter, 
     shall be dismissed unless--
       ``(A) the applicant shows that--
       ``(i) the basis of the claim could not have been discovered 
     by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the applicant 
     filed the prior application; or
       ``(ii) the failure to raise the claim in the prior 
     application was due to action by State officials in violation 
     of the Constitution of the United States; and
       ``(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient, 
     if proven, to undermine the court's confidence in the 
     applicant's guilt of the offense or offenses for which the 
     capital sentence was imposed, or in the applicant's legal 
     eligibility for that sentence.''.

     SEC. 806. CERTIFICATES OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

       The third paragraph of section 2253, of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from 
     the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the 
     detention complained of arises out of process issued by a 
     State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the 
     order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 
     probable cause. However, an applicant under sentence of death 
     shall have a right of appeal without a certification of 
     probable cause, except after denial of a second or successive 
     application.''.

     SEC. 807. DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

       Section 2254(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``In adjudicating the merits of any such ground, the court 
     shall exercise independent judgment in ascertaining the 
     pertinent Federal legal standards and in applying those 
     standards to the facts and shall not defer to a previous 
     State court judgment regarding a Federal legal standard or 
     its application. Upon request, the court shall permit the 
     parties to present evidence regarding material facts that 
     were not adequately developed in State court. The court 
     shall award relief with respect to any meritorious 
     constitutional ground, unless, in the case of a violation 
     that can be harmless, the respondent shows that the error 
     was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.''.

     SEC. 808. CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 153 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding after the provision added by 
     section 804 of this title the following:

     ``Sec. 2258. Claims of innocence

       ``(a) At any time, and notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a district court shall issue habeas corpus relief on 
     behalf of an applicant under sentence of death, imposed 
     either in Federal or in State court, who offers credible 
     newly discovered evidence which, had it been presented to the 
     trier of fact or sentencing authority at trial, would 
     probably have resulted in--
       ``(1) an acquittal of the offense for which the death 
     sentence was imposed; or
       ``(2) a sentence other than death.
       ``(b) An application filed pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     offer substantial evidence which, if credible, would 
     establish one of the standards in subsection (a)(1) or (2). 
     An application that fails to do so may be dismissed.
       ``(c) If the court concludes that an application meets the 
     requirements in subsection (b), the court shall--
       ``(1) order the respondent to file an answer;
       ``(2) permit the parties to conduct reasonable discovery;
       ``(3) conduct a hearing to resolve disputed issues of fact; 
     and
       ``(4) upon request, issue a stay of execution pending 
     further proceedings in the district court and on direct 
     review of the district court's judgment.
       ``(d) If the court concludes that the applicant meets the 
     standards established by subsection (a)(1) or (2), the court 
     shall order his or her release, unless a new trial or, in an 
     appropriate case, a new sentencing proceeding, is conducted 
     within a reasonable time.
       ``(e) If the court determines that the applicant is 
     currently entitled to pursue other available and effective 
     remedies in either State or Federal court, the court may, at 
     the request of either party, suspend its consideration of the 
     application under this section until the applicant has 
     exhausted those remedies. A stay issued pursuant to 
     subsection (c) shall remain in effect during such a 
     suspension.
       ``(f) An application under this section may be consolidated 
     with any other pending application under this chapter, filed 
     by the same applicant.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item added by section 804 the 
     following new item:

``2258. Claims of innocence.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Derrick] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Derrick].
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, habeas corpus is the way that the Federal courts 
consider whether prisoners are unconstitutionally imprisoned. Habeas is 
the principal way the Federal courts enforce the Bill of Rights in 
State criminal cases.
  I am a supporter of the death penalty, and I want State criminal 
cases to move faster. It is unacceptable for victims and their families 
to wait years for State criminal convictions to become vital.
  There are many abuses in the current system, and it is time for 
Congress to put a stop to them. For example, prisoners may file 
multiple petitions, and there are no time limits for filing these 
petitions.
  Incompetent lawyers representing death row defendants make mistakes 
that give these defendants issues for appeal, and reduce the chances 
for a fair trial. Procedural technicalities prevent courts from 
deciding the merits of a claim in a timely way. They also create new 
issues for litigation that further delay finality.
  I want to bring a halt to these abuses and delays. But I recognize 
that habeas corpus is an essential part of our criminal justice system. 
The Federal courts are finding serious constitutional errors in an 
astounding 40 percent of State capital cases. This is simply not the 
time to restrict access to the Federal courts beyond what is absolutely 
necessary.
  The Judiciary Committee habeas provision restricts habeas petitions, 
but in my view, it does not go far enough in eliminating abuses and in 
expediting habeas cases.
  My amendment represents real habeas reform. It makes several major 
changes in response to criticisms of the committee bill by various 
prosecutors.
  For example, the committee bill says that Federal courts can 
sometimes upset State court decisions by applying new rules of law 
retroactively. My substitute says no retroactivity under any 
circumstances. This guarantees that final State judgments will remain 
final.
  The committee bill says defendants can sometimes raise issues for the 
first time in Federal court, even when they were not raised in State 
court. My amendment says absolutely not. These issues may never be 
raised in Federal court.
  The committee bill says a second or subsequent petition may be heard 
by the Federal court if it attacks the validity of a death sentence. 
prosecutors have said this standard is too vague, and may give 
defendants a loophole. My substitute takes the language from the 
amendment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] offered at committee. 
It says these petitions may only be heard if they go to the defendant's 
guilt or legal eligibility for the death sentence. In other words, 
multiple petitions will be a thing of the past.
  This is a tough, streamlined bill. It is similar to what the House 
passed on two occasions in the last Congress. But, to accommodate the 
concerns of prosecutors, it is even more restrictive in important 
areas.
  Mr. Chairman, the Derrick amendment protects the essence of habeas 
corpus, but it eliminates the abuses and delays that are plaguing the 
system. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Derrick habeas corpus 
reform amendment.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] to the Edwards-Washington habeas provision of 
this bill, H.R. 4092, does nothing to improve an already disastrous 
piece of legislation insofar as habeas is concerned. The bill will 
continue to reverse a series of Supreme Court victories won by law 
enforcement over the past few years that have reduced delay and have 
enhanced finality, and brought us a lot of closer to the one bite at 
the apple approach.
  These decisions have made the habeas system, imperfect as it is, more 
fair to the forgotten victims and to law enforcement.
  I have said it before and I am going to say it again, the reason 
habeas corpus reform is not being offered this year is because it is 
the opinion of the professionals in law enforcement that they want a 
crime bill, they want the good things that are in this bill, and habeas 
reform has upset any progress in criminal legislation in the last two 
Congresses, as it goes into conference. The liberals and the 
conservatives struggle in conference and everything is held up.
  The decision was made that habeas corpus is too complicated, too 
important, to get subsumed, to get submerged in an otherwise good bill 
that most people want.
  Habeas should be addressed as a free-standing subject with hearings, 
not filing last-minute amendments like the gentleman from South 
Carolina did. Distinguished as he is, we never had hearings on his 
bill. We never had testimony on it. He filed it two days before we 
debated the bill.
  The Derrick amendment does two things. First of all, it is the king 
of the hill, and it is designed to restore what they just lost on the 
last amendment. It substantially does that. It brings back the 
invidious aspects of their habeas corpus reform.
  Everything that changes is not for the better. What the bill of the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] does, as the last bill did, 
it weakens already existing law. First, it overturns the U.S. Supreme 
Court cases that have taken very important steps toward creating 
finality, and second, where reforms are proposed, they are ineffective 
or they are drafted in a way that there will be more delay and more 
litigation.
  Please look at the bill. Read pages 101, 102, 103, and Members will 
see the formula for endless petitions for habeas corpus. Instead of 
bringing finality to this problem, they extend it, they attenuate it, 
they stretch it out.
  There is a man who has been on death row in Arizona 29 years, the 
Harris case in California 14 years. Every State has their horror 
stories, where repeated petitions are granted and stays and hearings, 
and through the State system, through the Federal system, to the 
Supreme Court. We have got to think of the victims of these crimes and 
bring some closure, once the accused has had fair hearings, once 
through the State system and once through the Federal system.
  These reforms are filled with loopholes that create more litigation 
and more delay. My friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] has said, as I wrote down, ``No retroactivity under any 
circumstances.''
  Here is a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that he signed on March 23 with 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin]. Let me read his words: ``The 
committee bill says a second or subsequent petition may be heard by the 
Federal court if it attacks the validity of a death sentence. This is 
too vague. Our substitute says these petitions,'' plural, ``may only be 
heard if they go to the defendant's guilt or legal eligibility for the 
death sentence.''
  Which is it, Mr. Chairman, multiple petitions or not? By his own 
words, he says, ``These petitions may be heard if they go to the 
defendant's guilt or legal eligibility for the death sentence.''
  Onward and onward, the process never ends. Mr. Chairman, I request 
that Members not compound the problem. Let us deal with habeas corpus 
in an intelligent way. Let us follow the recommendations of the 
professionals in law enforcement, the attorneys general of Members' 
States, the States attorneys who are trying these cases in court, and 
put habeas to the side, where we can deal with it intelligently.
  Last, if this was a good amendment, do Members not think they would 
have a letter form Janet Reno saying, ``Please support the Derrick 
amendment.'' Ask yourself, where is that letter? Call your office to 
see if your staff got hold of it and is keeping it from you. Members 
will not find it, because they do not support this, and please do not 
support it, either.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say that everything in my bill has 
been debated, and we have had hearings many, many times in the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Derrick's amendment, which 
makes some necessary improvements in the text of the committee bill. It 
maintains the laudable goals of the committee product--a death penalty 
appeals process that is streamlined not only by strict limitations on 
the timing and number of habeas corpus petitions, but also by the 
provision of competent counsel to insure a trial process that protects 
against errors. It is certainly a step in the right direction.
  Some would have you believe that the concept of habeas corpus was 
created out of whole cloth--the work of some overzealous, activist 
judge in the late 1960's looking for a novel way to help criminals 
escape their just punishment under the law. This view not only distorts 
history but also ignores the development of fundamental rights in this 
Nation.
  The doctrine of habeas corpus goes back at least 500 years to the 
laws of England. In his classic commentaries on Anglo-Saxon law, 
Blackstone referred to habeas corpus simply as the ``great writ'' whose 
antecedents lie deep in the ``Genius of our common law.'' Habeas Corpus 
was called the great writ because it afforded the most basic of rights 
to a wronged individual--that of a remedy to cases of illegal restraint 
or confinement. The doctrine immediately became part of our own law in 
the colonial period, was given explicit recognition in article I, 
section 9 of the Constitution, and was incorporated in the first grant 
of Federal court jurisdiction in the Judicial Act of 1789. Early in his 
tenure, Chief Justice John Marshall termed habeas corpus as perhaps our 
greatest constitutional privilege.
  In voting for the Derrick amendment, let us not us forget that we are 
talking about procedural streamlining without substantively gutting a 
doctrine which is absolutely fundamental to American an Anglo-Saxon 
jurisprudence.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
learned gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Derrick amendment does not 
do a thing for the underlying bill with respect to what was in the 
provisions that I complained about and most of the attorneys general 
and the district attorneys complained about. By passing the Derrick 
amendment, by knocking out the Hyde provisions here and reinstating, in 
essence, the underlying provisions, what we are going to do is to give 
the opportunity for death row inmates to have another endless appeals 
opportunity, another bite at the apple.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very straightforward, under present law a death 
row inmate may not take a new ruling of the Supreme Court on criminal 
procedures and go into Federal court and try to challenge his death 
penalty. He may not do that.
  If the amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] 
became final and became the law, then a death row inmate would be able 
to do that. He would be able to take every new Supreme Court decision 
that came down the pike and go into Federal court and challenge his 
death penalty. And since the Supreme Court of the United States comes 
down with at least one criminal procedure ruling every term and often 
more than that, the appeals would be endless and the reforms that are 
supposedly here to streamline all of this are a mockery. They are made 
a mockery.
  Mr. Chairman, again, that is why we want to see the Derrick amendment 
defeated. We do not want law that is worse than present law. We do not 
want to end effectively the death penalty in this country as it is 
known today.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, of course, there are other problems with 
this. The Derrick amendment takes back the idea of having to have two 
attorneys appointed and creates all kinds of procedural problems. But 
the underlying, bottom line question is, that if the Derrick amendment 
passes, this is king of the hill, the Hyde effort is for naught and we 
are back to square one where we were before, which is where the AGs and 
the DAs do not want us, we are back to giving death row inmates the 
opportunity every time the U.S. Supreme Court comes down with a new 
criminal procedure ruling to go into Federal court and try to overturn 
their death penalty. And if that is the case, there will never be 
another death penalty carried out in the United States again. That is 
the bottom line.
  So vote no against the Derrick amendment if Members want the death 
penalty to survive in this country.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the most ridiculous 
arguments I have ever heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Ladies and gentleman, the Derrick amendment is of such 
enormous importance now that I cannot begin to tell my colleagues that 
unless we have this amendment we are going to be doing what four 
attorneys general have begged us not to do to the Constitution of the 
United States. And these are Ben Civiletti, Nicholas Katzenbach, Edward 
Levi, and Eliot Richardson who have said the Federal courts have no 
higher mission than to uphold the Constitution, and habeas corpus has 
been since the founding of the Republic the primary means of access to 
the Federal courts for the people who are unconstitutionally 
imprisoned.
  Mr. Chairman, remember, the courts have found constitutional errors 
in 40 percent of the cases reviewed.
  Do we want to leave our crime bill with that glaring fact in front of 
us?
  Mr. Chairman, Curt Bloodworth, for instance, sat on death row in 
Maryland from 1983 to 1994 before genetic evidence proved him innocent. 
Thanks, habeas corpus.
  Joseph Brown was within 15 hours of being executed but the Federal 
court freed him after it found that prosecutors had deliberately misled 
the jury. Thanks, habeas corpus.
  Roger Coleman was not so lucky. He was executed when the Federal 
courts refused to hear his appeal because a lawyer had missed a 
deadline by 3 days.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Derrick amendment if we believe 
in the Constitution.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Wisconsin yield to me for just 
a brief moment?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] for his contribution to this debate that we just heard. 
He is arguing for more and more and more hearings and that is precisely 
my point. That is what we get under the Derrick amendment. I thank the 
gentleman.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Derrick 
amendment and I am addressing my remarks to the 98 Democrats who 
supported the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] in the last rollcall. 
If they voted yes on Hyde, they must vote no on Derrick.
  Mr. Chairman, those who are supporting the Derrick amendment would 
have the membership believe that if the Derrick amendment fails, then 
the writ of habeas corpus is completely gutted. That is not true. The 
Hyde amendment simply keeps the present law in place on habeas corpus. 
The Derrick amendment should it be adopted would give death row inmates 
the opportunity to appeal every time the Supreme Court issues another 
ruling on the death penalty, and that means that effectively nobody who 
is sentenced to death by a jury of their peers will be executed in the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the district attorneys and the 
attorneys general are opposed to this. They are the ones who are in 
charge of the prosecutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from a letter sent to the 
Congress by 30 attorneys general, including Travis Medlock, the 
Democratic attorney general of South Carolina.

       We understand that a new habeas amendment is also expected 
     to be offered by Congressman Butler Derrick of South 
     Carolina. Preliminary review shows that this amendment is 
     also worse than current law and would overturn numerous key 
     U.S. Supreme Court cases governing habeas corpus.

  Do not support the Derrick amendment which is worse than current law. 
Vote against the Derrick amendment to keep at least some type of 
operational habeas corpus procedure that will allow people who are 
guilty to be executed.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe in the death penalty. In fact, 
I tried some murder cases where if the law would have allowed it I 
would have pulled the switch. But today we are faced with the Hyde 
amendment that has passed and the law is still the same and the 
victims' families are wondering what are we going to do about it. Are 
we going to leave it the same or will we adopt the Derrick amendment 
that puts in a statute of limitations of 1 year, limits one petition, 
and something no one has addressed is the Derrick amendment says new 
rules will not be treated retroactively.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about competent counsel. There 
have been attacks on the Derrick amendment about competent counsel. I 
understand about 40 percent of the death penalty cases that are 
reversed on appeal are because of incompetent counsel. The barbarians 
did not allow the defendants and the accused to have lawyers before 
they executed them and in this century we had a tragic, sorry state of 
affairs in Europe where people were put to death without benefit of 
counsel.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and I would urge support of the 
Derrick amendment and I would encourage support of competent lawyers 
for the accused.
  Mr. HYDE. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] 
has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, we have just done the right thing by 
passing the Hyde amendment. Let us not throw it out.
  Mr. Chairman, although I believe habeas reform is long overdue to 
streamline the appeals process, no reform is better than the so-called 
reforms included in the Derrick amendment.
  Virginia's attorney general, Jim Gilmore, has told me that based on 
his experience as a prosecutor, all habeas provisions should be 
stricken from this crime bill.

                              {time}  1510

  We have just done that.
  Let us not weaken the death penalty by putting most of it back in. 
These are not reforms. They simply undermine current law by 
guaranteeing criminals the right to continue endless appeals and will 
lead to more and not less litigation.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled inmates cannot challenge their 
convictions and sentences years after the fact based on new rules. We 
just struck from the bill language that would open the door for endless 
appeals based on new laws.
  The Derrick amendment still gives more opportunities for appeal on 
new rules than under current law. The Derrick amendment would allow 
endless claims of newly discovered evidence to be brought at any time.
  Current law provides for appointment of counsel and provision of 
other related services for Federal review of habeas petitions, but the 
Derrick amendment guarantees capital defendants to counsel for every 
stage of the proceedings. Judges will no longer be permitted to appoint 
counsel in capital trials. They will be picked by members of the 
criminal defense bar.
  This promises to create even more litigation in the Federal courts.
  Mr. Chairman, these reforms will liberalize, not shorten, the habeas 
appeals process. These so-called reforms will weaken the death penalty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Derrick amendment and keep 
the Hyde amendment we just passed.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, an example of the 
misimpression that has been conveyed of the Derrick amendment came from 
the gentleman from Illinois when he said, to show how inconsistent it 
was, he cited a statement by the gentleman from North Carolina that 
said there was no retroactivity in the bill and then compared that to a 
sentence which talked about petitions in the plural. There is no 
inconsistency between petitions in the plural and retroactivity.
  The gentleman from Illinois started out with one point and ended up 
with another. That is typical of, I think, the lack of accuracy that we 
have had with regard to the way this was described. In fact, let us be 
very clear about what we are talking about.
  No one is talking about letting anybody loose. Nothing here says you 
walk the streets. We are talking about people who are on death row. 
That is conceded. They are confined.
  The question is: Do we trust the Federal court system to have a 
chance to retry or rehear a case in an exceptional situation?
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina says no 
retroactivity, unrefuted, in fact, by the gentleman from Illinois. So 
the question is: If someone comes up with some new evidence a little 
late, if someone can find a good reason that would persuade the courts 
to overturn a death sentence, should they be allowed to do it?
  No one, as I said, is menaced. No one is talking about anyone being 
let loose. The amendment is a procedural amendment. it is not creating 
any new rule of law. It is not changing the terms of decisions.
  It is saying that there may be some exceptions such as those the 
gentleman from Michigan talked about where, after a period of years, we 
may find out that we have convicted an innocent man. It happens.
  We have a very good system. But occasionally an innocent person is 
convicted. And we are now talking about the extent to which we will 
retain within our system a capacity for self-correction when someone's 
life is at stake. That is the issue here.
  We have a carefully worked out set of rules that say where someone's 
life is at stake and someone can come forward with a plausible argument 
that he wants to bring before a judge, we will let the Federal courts 
hear it and decide it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts, he 
said it happens, innocent people get convicted. Yes; and they get saved 
by habeas corpus under current law.
  All of this 40 percent that got their convictions turned around 
because of incompetent counsel, they were benefited by current law. So 
it happens that they are saved.
  Now, we do not need to attenuate the process decades into the future, 
meanwhile causing great pain and anguish to the families of the victims 
who wonder if justice will ever be done.
  Yes, retroactivity is covered under Teague versus Lane. And what the 
Derrick amendment does is redefine what a new rule is to make 
everything an old rule, to make Teague versus Lane inoperative, so that 
more and more and more petitions can be brought.
  The idea of multiple petitions, however, is from your own language, 
not yours, my friend from Massachusetts, but the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], 
when they say, ``Our substitute,'' speaking of their substitute, ``says 
these petitions,'' plural, ``may only be heard if they go to the 
defendant's guilt or legal eligibility for the death sentence.'' Well, 
that seems to me like multiple petitions.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was not denying that 
there was a reference to multiple petitions. My point was the gentleman 
counterposed that to retroactivity. I think the gentleman wrote down 
one thing and found another. I think he just made a mistake. If you 
want to prove that he is inconsistent on retroactivity, an ``s'' on 
petitions does not do it.
  Mr. HYDE. The redefining of a new rule makes for retroactivity and 
multiple petitions under a lower standard of proof are permissible 
under the Derrick amendment. This is a giant leap backwards.
  I am still waiting for Janet Reno's letter recommending your 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman who just spoke that he 
is talking about multiple defendants. We are talking about one 
defendant at a time, on petition, within a year that must be handled by 
a capable attorney. I would suggest to you that most of the people in 
this country would support that. They are tired of seeing people 
hanging around on death row for 10 or 15 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 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 gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think Members should understand that 
Hyde has basically returned us to existing law, which is a mess. I 
mean, if anything, habeas corpus has been substantially abused in this 
country, and I think most Members want to reform it.
  Our colleague from Florida indicated that there are no differences 
between what is in the committee bill and Derrick, and that is 
nonsense. The Derrick amendment makes four major important changes.
  First of all, insofar as new rules, the Derrick amendment prohibits 
any retroactivity for new rules. That means that any new rules that 
come out of the Supreme Court after the defendant was convicted cannot 
be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding, period.
  Second, it absolutely prohibits defendants from raising claims in 
Federal court that were not raised in State courts. That is a major 
change over what is in the committee bill which I support.
  Third, it eliminates multiple petitions, one bite at the apple, with 
the exception of where the claim goes to the defendant's guilt or legal 
eligibility for the death sentence.
  I would like to hear from those who would not want to permit that to 
be raised if it goes to the defendant's guilt.
  Finally, it says the courts, the States, have 1 year to implement 
procedures for giving defendants competent counsel. Now, if you want to 
reform habeas corpus, you provide competent counsel. That is 40 percent 
of the reversals in this country.
  It is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say about the last gentleman from New 
Jersey who is such an experienced prosecutor, I would hope he has read 
page 103 of the bill: ``Claims of innocence. At any time and 
notwithstanding any other provision of law, a district court shall 
issue habeas corpus relief on behalf of an applicant under sentence of 
death,'' et cetera, et cetera. Do not read that and tell me that 
multiple petitions are not possible. They are indeed possible.
  I have a letter here from some 30 attorneys general, and here is what 
they say:

       We understand a new habeas amendment is expected to be 
     offered by Congressman Derrick. Preliminary review shows this 
     amendment is worse than current law and would overturn 
     numerous key U.S. Supreme Court cases governing habeas. For 
     this reason, we oppose the Derrick amendment or any other 
     amendments which may be offered at the last minute.

  Now, this is signed by the attorneys general of Idaho, Nevada, Texas, 
California, Montana, Florida, Arizona, South Dakota, North Carolina, 
Alaska, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Vermont, Alabama, 
Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, New Hampshire, 
Nebraska, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Connecticut, 
Guam, Missouri, and more signatures on the way. They are the 
professionals and they are bi-partisan. They should be persuasive with 
us.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I supported the habeas corpus provision 
reported by the Judiciary Committee. I think it strikes a fair balance 
between streamlining the process and ensuring fairness. But I also 
support the Derrick amendment. It is tougher than the committee bill, 
but it also strikes a fair balance.
  Habeas corpus is an essential part of our criminal justice system. If 
our Bill of Rights is to mean anything, we simply must preserve the 
Great Writ. What convinces me is that the Federal habeas courts have 
found serious constitutional error in a full 40 percent of State death 
penalty cases. This is simply no time to be unduly cutting back on 
habeas corpus.
  At the same time, however, the system is plagued by delays and other 
abuses. The Derrick amendment gets rid of these abuses, by imposing a 
short statute of limitations for filing petitions, by virtually 
eliminating multiple petitions, and by getting rid of the procedural 
technicalities that bog down the courts and delay finality.
  The Derrick amendment preserves the Great Writ, and I support that. 
But it also streamlines and expedites the process. I support that too. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time} 1520

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. It was in 1215 that King John assented to the First 
Charter of Liberties. That document, the Magna Carta, read in part: 
``No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or in any way victimized, 
neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the 
lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.''
  Each successive generation has endorsed that protection of liberties; 
in 1628, through the petition of right; in 1679 through the habeas 
corpus act.
  These simple principles inspired our own Founding Fathers in 1787 to 
guarantee these liberties in our own precious Constitution. They wrote 
these words, article I, section 9: ``The privilege of the writ of 
habeas corpus shall not be suspended.''
  This ``simple'' writ of habeas corpus insures that all our 
constitutional liberties and our own Bill of Rights are enforceable.
  Why? Because our Founding Fathers knew, from firsthand experience, 
that a government could and would commit illegal searches. Our Founding 
Fathers knew, from firsthand experience, that a government could and 
would force confessions. Our Founding Fathers knew that a government 
could and would trample an individual's right to a fair trial without 
effective counsel. Our Founding Fathers also knew one more thing that a 
right without a remedy is no right at all.
  My colleagues, let us not be the first generation to fail to uphold 
that constitution vision. Let us show some political courage. Let us 
share that vision of 200 years.
  Vote to protect and defend the Constitution, vote for the Derrick 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
Committee divided, and there were--ayes 19, noes 8.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 256, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 120]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--256

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blackwell
     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Livingston
     Peterson (FL)
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Underwood (GU)

                              {time}  1543

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Grandy against.
  Mr. KYL and Mr. GLICKMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JEFFERSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              preferential motion offered by mr. mccollum

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

       Mr. McCollum 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. Under the rules of the House, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
preferential motion.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman I am offering this motion, as I did a day or two ago, in 
order for us to have an explanation of one of the amendments that we on 
this side of the aisle believe the Committee on Rules very egregiously 
failed to allow us to offer that would have improved the situation in 
criminal justice immensely in dealing with criminal aliens.
  Almost 25 percent of the prisoners of this country are criminal 
aliens. W ought to be doing something about identifying them, deporting 
them, and so forth.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] had an amendment 
that was perfectly appropriate to this situation, and I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman to explain the amendment that he was not 
allowed to offer.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the crime bill we are now considering has many 
shortcomings, but none is shorter than its overlooking of an entire 
criminal category--criminal aliens.
  To address that oversight, I offered an amendment that would have 
included numerous criminal alien provisions. To ensure that this 
oversight remained, the Committee on Rules rejected it.
  The problem of criminal aliens is real. Nationwide they make up 25 
percent of Federal prisoners. In Texas, they make up over 40 percent. 
And in Los Angeles it was found that once released, 4 out of 10 
criminal aliens returned to jail within 1 year.
  The American people have asked us to protect them against all 
criminals. Instead, this crime bill has a domestic-content law: only 
American criminals apparently need apply.
  As the law now stands, we cannot expeditiously depot criminal aliens. 
As the law now stands, we cannot even find criminal aliens because 
there are inadequate means for tracking or positively identifying them. 
As the law now stands, we cannot even properly define their crimes 
because kidnappings, child pornography, and commercial alien smuggling 
are not even classified as ``aggravated felonies.''
  According to this so-called crime bill, all that is OK because it 
contains nothing to change it.
  Criminal aliens is not a partisan issue. Yet my amendment was 
defeated in the Committee on Rules on a partisan vote.
  Perhaps some on the other side were worried about offending some 
groups.
  It is true one group would have been offended: criminals. I can 
assure you that they are against my amendment. Because it says ``if 
you're an alien and you're criminal, then you're going to jail, then 
you're going home, and you're not coming back.''
  Regrettably some were not equally concerned about offending American 
crime victims, who suffer at the hands of criminal aliens, or American 
taxpayers, who foot the bills for them.
  I urge the Members to vote for the motion to rise and send this bill 
back to the House so that we can send criminal aliens back and keep 
them out in the first place.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. King].

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Chinese freighter, the Golden Venture, ran 
aground off the coast of New York last June, it altered the Nation to 
the evil reality of human smuggling and slave trade.
  Subsequent hearings by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus detailed 
the network of Chinese gangs in New York, and also in States such as 
Virginia and Florida, which amass great fortunes by trafficking in 
human cargo.
  These gang lords amass great fortunes by charging $30,000 per 
immigrant, or $6 to $9 million per ship, and then enslave their human 
cargoes in lives of narcotics, gambling, and prostitution.
  Yet the Federal Government and local law enforcement officials have 
their hands tied, because the average sentence for slave trading is 18 
months, and the maximum fine is $5,000. Not a bad cost of doing 
business when the profit is $9 million per cargo.
  Mr. Chairman, last July I introduced the Alien Smuggling Prosecution 
Act, cosponsored by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 
which would have extended the RICO statute to human smuggling. If RICO 
applies to the smuggling of tobacco, it should certainly apply to the 
smuggling of human beings.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] included my bill 
in his crime package, which was rejected by the Committee on Rules. I 
believe that it deserves full debate, and I ask that the motion of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] be adopted.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that the reason why we 
are offering this amendment procedure is to make an effort to get a 
chance to vote on the Smith amendment on criminal aliens. A vote for 
the McCollum amendment, to report this bill back and rise at this point 
in time, will give us the only opportunity to have a vote on a criminal 
alien amendment, a chance to vote on deporting some of these aliens 
that constitute about 25 percent of our prison population in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on McCollum. It is a 
procedural vote, but it is the only way, because the Committee on Rules 
denied this amendment for us to have an opportunity to vote on a 
meaningful criminal alien deportation amendment out here on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what it is all about. We have got to have a 
chance to improve this bill, to make some sense, to help the States 
free up some prison space.
  Please vote yes on this procedurally, and give us a chance to have a 
criminal alien vote today.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the 
preferential motion?
  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, this is a hodgepodge of immigration 
provisions, some of which have some merit. But they should all be 
considered in the deliberative process of the Committee on the 
Judiciary. Everybody knows that. But some other provisions are 
downright harmful. One section would immediately jeopardize U.S. 
treaties which allow us to deport criminal aliens to their home 
countries.
  I believe that would be a mistake. I think we want to retain that.
  Already, we have passed a number of important immigration amendments 
in the en bloc amendment: the Inslee amendment, to allow and help the 
INS accept aid in deporting undocumented criminal aliens who volunteer, 
and the Becerra amendment, adding a provision on criminal aliens and 
immigration enforcement. We still have pending, approved by the 
Committee on Rules to come before this floor, the Hunter amendment 
authorizing 6,000 new border patrol agents, a Beilenson amendment on 
Federal pay to incarcerate illegals.
  I believe this is a delaying tactic plain and simple, which just adds 
time to the consideration of this bill. It adds time tonight, it might 
add time tomorrow, and it might add time Thursday evening. And I would 
just say it is unnecessary and not constructive. I would ask Members to 
vote no on this motion to kill the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
International Law, Immigration, and Refugees, I have to say there are 
many estimable provisions in this bill. I carry the legislation that 
would require criminal aliens to be deported more quickly.
  The problem is there are real technical problems with this bill. The 
chairman mentioned one. If we abrogate treaties for deportation now, 
before renegotiating new ones, we will be able to send no one back. We 
should be sending more people back more quickly, so the States do not 
pay for them.
  The second thing I would say, my colleagues, is this: Aside from the 
deliberative process, you know, we could end up like the other body, 
where anyone comes along, offers any amendment they want, and we get a 
hodgepodge, a mess. I think everyone agrees, everyone who has looked at 
both bills, the bill from the other body and this body, that our bill 
is focused, our bill does not have contradictory provisions, our bill 
is really aimed at what we have to do.
  So the rule did not do certain things I wanted, such as a trust fund. 
I have supported actually the gentleman's proposal for his amendment, 
because I thought most of the provisions were worthy. But the Committee 
on Rules has ruled. If we are going to undo this, we will be back to 
the old situation where we have millions of amendments come on the 
floor and we get no bill at all. This is a sure path of good intentions 
paving the road to nothing. I would urge all my colleagues to reject 
this, let us get on with the business of the House, let us move along. 
As you can see by the last vote, the process has not been so jaundiced 
that changes in the bill could not have been made. So let us get on 
with the bill, not change it. They lost the vote on the rule; we should 
not be redoing it.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
ask for a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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 184, 
noes 246, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               AYES--184

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     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
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     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
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     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
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Frank (MA)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Peterson (FL)

                              {time}  1613

  Mr. APPLEGATE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HORN 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. 10 
presented in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 24, line 23, strike 
     ``Violent Felons'' and insert ``Criminals''.
       Page 25, line 4, insert ``or a serious drug offense'' after 
     ``serious violent felony''.
       Page 25, line 9, strike ``of--'' and all that follows 
     through ``drug offenses'' in line 12 and insert ``serious 
     violent felonies or serious drug offenses, or any combination 
     of such felonies and offenses.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Brooks], is opposed to my amendment. As this bill was reported 
from the committee, a serious drug offense may count as only one of the 
first of two strikes under the three-strikes-and-you-are-out concept.
  My amendment would allow a serious drug offense to count as any or 
all of those three strikes, Mr. Chairman. The definition of a serious 
drug offense was already defined in the committee bill, and it involves 
only, I repeat only, a major, major violation. More precisely, it means 
that the person has been convicted for trafficking in large quantities 
of the most dangerous drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, serious drug criminals should be treated exactly like 
violent criminals, because drug criminals are the primary cause of 
violent crime in this country.
  Everyone here is familiar with the great work done by the 
organization called Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Listen to what 
the president of that organization had to say about the relationship 
between crime and violence and drugs:

       This country of ours cannot and will not make progress with 
     crime and violence until we make a serious commitment to 
     addressing the common denominator in these problems. That 
     common denominator is drug abuse.

  I would say to the Members, drug-related activity and the violence it 
encourages is on the increase on the streets of this Nation, in the 
schools, in our neighborhoods. Drug use by 8th graders is way up. Use 
of crack and marijuana and LSD and heroin and cocaine is way up.
  According to yesterday's Washington Post, as a matter of fact, 
heroin-related cases are up by 44 percent. Emergency rooms nationwide 
report a 10-percent increase in drug-related activities.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly a serious drug crime should be considered a 
strike under the three-strikes-and-you-are-out rule, and I would ask 
that my amendment be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], as always, has offered a well-
intentioned amendment, but one that gives precedence to drug offenses 
over violent crimes. The committee has voted to count drug offenses but 
wants the three-time-loser statute to be ultimately triggered by 
violent crimes.
  For this reason, title 5 of H.R. 4092 is aimed squarely at repeat 
violent offenders. Its whole purpose is to send a particular message to 
those who would commit violence in our society--after the third time, 
you have lost your right to be a part of this society. You are going to 
prison for life.
  Title 5 already includes drug offenses via a carefully-tailored 
amendment offered during the committee's work on the excellent proposal 
by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is a thoughtful 
Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. It ensures that people 
who use violence in the drug trade are captured by the three-time-loser 
proposal. Thus, title 5 permits one of the first two strikes to be 
solely a serious drug offense, with no violence involved. But, the 
third strike must involve violence--in keeping with the nature and 
purpose of the proposal.
  Title 5 of H.R. 4092 is not intended to deal with other types of 
crimes. It is not intended to supplant existing Federal criminal 
penalties for habitual offenders or career criminals. Under existing 
Federal sentencing guidelines, those people already face up to 30 years 
in prison.
  So, I would say to my colleagues, let us not lose sight of the target 
and keep focused on violent criminals. They are the ones who undermine 
the very fabric--the national security--of this Nation. I urge a nay 
vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and must again rise in opposition to the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support ``three strikes and you're out.'' ``Three 
strikes and you're out'' makes a great deal of sense when we aim it at 
the most violent, repetitive criminals in our society. What we have 
learned through the years is if we extend that over and over and over 
again, we will lose the focus on those violent criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, under this bill, somebody who sells 1,000 marijuana 
plants 3 times would get life imprisonment. That should be punished, it 
should be punished severely, but if we are going to fill up our jails 
with people like that, then people who commit one and two violent 
crimes will get much less of a sentence.
  Mr. Chairman, we have learned through the years that unless we focus 
our scarce prison resources on the most violent, other people fall 
through the cracks and our system does not work.
  So I say to my colleagues, ``three strikes and you're out'' is a 
worthy proposal. We should support it. And there is not enough 
punishment against the severe violent criminal. But to add in drug 
offenses all three times is not only going to fill up the prisons with 
the nonviolent in many cases but will also lead to violent criminals, 
who maybe do not commit three strikes but who commit one and two, to be 
let out far too early because there is not enough space for them.
  Do not take a good thing and ruin it and dilute it. We want to go 
after drug criminals but the No. 1 group we want to go after is the 
violent, repetitive criminal that is wreaking havoc in our society. And 
by doing things that sound good, saying let us add in this, let us add 
in that, let us add in this, in effect what we are doing is not going 
to be punishing the drug criminals but letting some of the violent 
criminals off the hook.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have but one speaker and if the 
gentleman from Texas is going to sum up and has only one speaker, then 
I will conclude.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the Members that the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks] has the right to close debate, and he has only 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to hard to vote for this bill. As I have 
already pointed out in my statement, serious drug violations as defined 
by my amendment involve large-scale trafficking of the most dangerous 
types of drugs. The ACLU and the National Organization for Legalizing 
Marijuana are telling people, and I think I just heard it on the floor 
here, that this amendment would apply to the possession of small 
amounts of marijuana. According to the Office of Legislative Counsel, 
the ACLU is dead wrong. It is not true.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that my amendment uses the definition of 
serious drug offenses which is already in the bill. It is the Judiciary 
Committee's language. I do not want to change that. The provision under 
this act requires possession of 1,000 kilos. Do Members know how much 
that is? That is 2,000 pounds of marijuana.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. You call that a small amount? I will not yield.
  Mr. Chairman, I take exception.
  The gentleman knows better than to be rude like that.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope I did not lose any time just now.
  I take strong exception to those who deny the relationship between 
drugs and violence in our country. Violent crime in this country is 
caused by people who sell drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, let us examine the facts. Illegal drugs play a part in 
nearly half of all homicides and violent crime in this country. This is 
a fact. In fact, 48 percent of all men arrested for homicides test 
positive for illicit drugs at the time of arrest.
  Did my colleagues know that? Forty-eight percent. Illegal drug use is 
a factor in half of all family violence. Most of this violence is 
directed against whom? Women and children.
  Drug dealing has bought unprecedented violence to our schools. We 
read about it every day in the paper.
  And what about the effect of illegal drugs on younger children? The 
fact is that 30 percent of all child abuse cases involve a parent using 
illegal drugs. Is that not violence?
  Even worse, infants in this country are now suffering under the pain 
and violence of drug pushers. The number of drug-exposed babies has 
soared in recent years.
  Mr. Chairman, listen to the fact. Drug-addicted babies account for 11 
percent of all births in the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, what is this country coming to when one out of every 
nine babies is born already addicted to drugs? And that is not 
violence?
  Ladies and gentlemen, an individual involved in a serious drug 
violation, just like a person who commits a violent crime, should be 
put away behind bars for good.
  Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand why we are deemphasizing this 
terrible scourge which is running this Nation. If we pass this 
amendment we will send a message to the drug dealers who commit violent 
crimes of feeding drugs to our children. We are not going to put up 
with it.
  The Members have to vote for this amendment, please.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that the language of the bill 
says 1,000 kilograms or more, or 1,000 plants, regardless of their 
weight. There is a difference. Either one may be used. This bill is 
designed to put violent criminals who want to kill you in jail, not to 
just put people who are hauling marijuana around and smoking pot in 
their backyard.
  I tell my colleagues, it is a lot more important to put rapists and 
violent criminals in jail than it is to put a few minor drug dealers. 
We have already addressed serious drug offenses in the bill and in a 
sufficient manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a no vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 303, 
noes 126, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 122]

                               AYES--303

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     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
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--126

     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Peterson (FL)
     Rose
     Washington

                              {time}  1648

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. HAMBURG changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. HEFNER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11, 
printed in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 25, line 12, strike ``and one or more serious drug 
     offense''.
       Page 25, line 14, strike ``serious drug offense''.
       Page 25, line 18, strike ``serious drug offense''.
       Page 16, line 16, strike subparagraph (H).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in 
opposition will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am far more strongly 
convinced of the merits of this amendment than of its chances for 
success, but, given the possibility that a hundred Members may have 
made a mistake on the last vote, I will offer it.
  What this amendment would do would be to undo what the House just 
did, plus it would remove from the bill in the ``three strikes and 
you're out'' provision nonviolent drug crimes; that is, drug crimes, 
possession of an awful lot of marijuana that can now be a third crime 
which will send someone to jail for life. It is known as the joints to 
the joint amendment or possession of a much smaller amount of crack or 
cocaine from which we infer intent to distribute. My amendment would 
knock those out.
  Mr. Chairman, we are, in my judgment, as a society making a profound 
error in our approach to drugs of which the bill, particularly the bill 
as amended, is an example. The approach that we have been taking, which 
is heavily law enforcement oriented against users, and this bill, as 
amended, especially, step up the extent to which users will be very 
severely penalized, in some cases sent away for life; it distorts our 
resources, it makes the problem of crime, in my judgment, worse rather 
than better. We ought to be following a strategy with regard to drugs 
that is heavily oriented towards treatment and prevention and 
education.
  Mr. Chairman, the punitive approach in which users are treated not 
simply as criminals, but as criminals so dangerous that even where no 
violence has occurred they must be locked up forever under provisions 
of this amendment, does not work. It does not protect people. It means 
that users of drugs will be competing for prison space with violent 
criminals. It means that they will be clogging the justice systems, and 
we could talk about building more prisons and talk about more 
prosecutors, but, as a practical matter, we will always be crowded. 
There will always be a push up against the limit of those resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the hopes that the membership 
will begin a turnaround in which we will deemphasize the penal approach 
to drug users. If people who because they are drug users commit other 
crimes, if they steal, if they murder, if they mug, they ought to be 
severely punished. I am talking now only to the extent to which one can 
be punished purely for possession of a sufficient amount from which we 
infer one is going to distribute or purely because they are a user who 
shares and trades with others; to treat that as if it were a violent 
crime is to continue a wholly mistaken, self-defeating, expensive and 
damaging approach to the drug problem, and that is why I offer this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman who offers this amendment 
has stated, this amendment, if it passed, would undo what the House did 
just a moment ago. The bill, as presented to the House floor from the 
Committee on the Judiciary, said that one serious drug offense could be 
used as one of the three strikes for the purpose of life imprisonment. 
The House voted a moment ago to raise that to all three strikes. All 
three convictions could be for serious drug offenses.
  It must be emphasized first that we are talking here about serious 
drug offenses as defined already in the bill, and that includes major 
people who are major traffickers in drugs. Second of all, it has to be 
emphasized that for all of the so-called strikes in the bill a 
conviction is a strike, not an offense, so the way this bill would 
actually work in operation is somebody would have to commit one or more 
offenses under this act because it could be more than one, be 
convicted, and that would be strike one. They would then have to go out 
and commit one or more offenses under this bill, and that would be 
strike two. Then they would have to go out and commit one or more 
offenses under this bill, and that finally would be the so-called 
strike three that would implement the life in prison.
  Mr. Chairman, the House has just shown its will in terms of the 
overwhelming vote, and for that reason I ask for a rejection of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this approach, the approach 
in the bill, as it came out of committee, and the approach that the 
House took, is throwing good money after bad by this society. The 
question is not whether it is a good thing for people to be taking 
drugs. It is not. The question is whether we are better going to deal 
with that problem by the current situation in which we take an 
overwhelmingly penal approach to people who use drugs. The most amount 
of money we spend, the most activity we do right now, is to catch 
people who use drugs and put them in prison. That is the direction this 
amendment goes in. I think that is disastrously mistaken, and I oppose 
it here as part of an effort to substitute for this enormous 
expenditure of money on locking up for very, very long periods of time 
people who are simply users, because I say to my colleagues, If you 
simply use and have enough will infer you're going to distribute, and, 
if you use and share, then you're a distributor under this law.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to redirect these resources into education 
programs which can work with people who are young enough and into 
treatment. We should not kid ourselves. We are in a mood where people 
talk about cutting the Federal budget, where they talk about voting for 
less and less. We are not going to simultaneously substantially 
increase expenditures from prison and also increase to the extent we 
should funds for drug treatment.
  I do not think there is a solo policy which has failed as badly as 
our drug policy, and I do not understand the desire to carry out that 
failure further.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out this amendment is really one 
to strike one of the underlying causes of opportunity for us to get to 
``three strikes and you're out''. One of the strikes could be a serious 
drug offense, and, if we pass this amendment, it would not be. It is 
inconsistent completely with the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York we just adopted a few minutes ago, as the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has just pointed out. It would strike one of the 
underlying predicate offenses; that is, instead of just a serious 
violent felony, a serious drug offense.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all of our body understands that 
fact and votes against this amendment. It really weakens this 
considerably and makes ``three strikes and you're out'' quite different 
from what came out in committee.
  I urge a no vote and thank the gentleman from New Mexico for having 
yielded to me.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, because Members just considered this issue 
in the previous vote, I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. 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. Volkmer:
       Page 27, line 22, after ``2111'' insert ``, 2113, or 
     2118''.
       Page 29, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
       ``(i) no firearm or other dangerous weapon was used in the 
     offense and no threat of use of a firearm or other dangerous 
     weapon was involved in the offense; and

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes. Is there a Member who seeks recognition in 
opposition to the amendment?
  If not, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would merely add two more 
Federal offenses to the ``three strikes and you're out'' provision, 
bank robberies and robberies and burglaries involving controlled 
substances.
  Mr. Chairman, also in the second part, under the nonqualifying 
felonies section, it adds language to require proof that there was no 
threat of use of firearm or other dangerous weapon during a robbery, or 
an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit robbery.
  Mr. Chairman, this is basically all the amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my distinguished friend, I 
support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer], and thank the gentleman for his thoughtful contribution in 
the development of this legislation. The gentleman has been a strong 
and ardent supporter of strong law enforcement from his early days as a 
prosecutor through his time here in the Congress. I hope we pass this 
amendment, and urge an affirmative vote.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I support this amendment. I 
think the gentleman has made a good contribution to improving this 
legislation. The gentleman and I discussed several weeks ago how the 
legislation has some weaknesses in the definition.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Volkmer amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Brooks and 
Chairman Schumer for crafting a bill which takes a balanced approach 
toward combating and preventing crime. I also want to thank them for 
ensuring that the three-time loser provision was included in the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. I introduced the three-time 
loser bill in November of last year, so that it could serve as a 
mechanism to close the revolving door on people who have themselves 
proven by their actions that they do not deserve to live in a civilized 
and ordered society. One week later three-time loser was passed by the 
U.S. Senate.
  Three-time loser has also been endorsed by numerous States, a 
majority of the American people, and the President of the United 
States. Hopefully, the House of Representatives will soon be added to 
this list.
  Mr. Chairman, the three-time loser bill targets only a small number 
of those who commit the most serious crimes in America, and it is 
sharply focused upon removing those individuals who repeatedly pose a 
threat to their fellow citizens.
  Enough is enough! The time has come for us to rid our streets, 
schools, workplaces and communities of these repeat offenders.
  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Volkmer's amendment strengthens the bill by 
increasing the number of repeat offenders subject to the three strikes 
and it serves to close loopholes which may have been left open.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague for allowing me to 
speak and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, Americans have become paralyzed by fear in 
a society that condones crime. The time has come for violent chronic 
repeat offenders to fully understand that their behavior will not be 
tolerated and they will not be excluded from the ``three strikes and 
you're out provision.'' Furthermore, individuals contemplating repeated 
criminal activity must believe that their chances of being caught are 
real. And once caught, they must know they will be punished swiftly, 
and in a manner to match the severity of the crime they committed.
  The Democrats' crime proposal fails to deter chronic offenders from 
carrying out repeated attacks on innocent victims. This is illustrated 
in the ``three strikes and you're out'' provision. The administration's 
language weakens this provision, and neglects to add many felonies to 
the list.
  The legislative language the Democrats use in their crime bill also 
dilutes the provision. It mandates life imprisonment without parole for 
criminals convicted of three violent crimes, although one of the first 
two strikes may be a nonviolent drug offense, and requires the third 
strike to be a Federal crime. This is not feasible since 95 percent of 
violent crimes fall under State or local laws, and many chronic 
offenders will be unaffected by the provision.
  The administration's crime bill also requires that each of the three 
strikes must be from different criminal episodes. This language allows 
criminals to carry out any number of State crimes that can be from the 
same episode, and escape severe punishment. Where is the justice in 
this equation. The sobering truth about the Democrats' ``three strikes 
and you're out'' provision is that it will have very little effect on 
deterring repeat offenders.
  The Solomon and Volkmer amendments remedy this flaw by strengthening 
the provision. Their amendments add serious drug offenses, bank 
robbery, robberies and burglaries involving controlled substances to 
the series of felonies that would count toward the ``three strikes and 
you're out'' provision.
  There is no reason we should keep turning habitual offenders 
convicted of crimes back into society. As they say in baseball, and I 
strongly believe the American people now echo this sentiment, ``three 
strikes and you are out''.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no Member having sought recognition in 
opposition to the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The amendment was agreed to.


        preferential motion offered by mr. mc collum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum 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.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to explain the fact that this particular 
amendment we are offering to rise right now is the third in a series of 
four to point out to the body and to the public the fact that there are 
some very significant amendments that the Committee on Rules did not 
allow that most of this body would be more than willing to vote for and 
that should be in any good, tough criminal justice matter.
  There are three amendments in this case dealing with crimes against 
women, and I am going to yield to each of the authors of those 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Molinari] to explain the amendment she would have offered.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about one amendment 
that the Democrats on the Rules Committee did not think important 
enough to allow for debate.
  It changes the Federal rules of evidence to let prosecutors in sexual 
assault and children molestation cases introduce evidence that the 
defendant has committee similar crimes in the past.
  This is not point for frivolous discussion. This same amendment was 
adopted by the other body 75-19 and is part of their crime bill.
  Under the present rules prior evidence is sometimes excluded from a 
trial for fear it may prejudice the jury into rendering a verdict based 
on emotion rather than fact. The ironic result is that serial rapists 
and child molesters go free because current law encourages reversals.
  Rape and child molestation are crimes usually committed in secret and 
neutral witnesses are usually lacking. Many trials become a matter of 
the victim's word against the defendant's, forcing the jury to decide 
who is more credible.
  The past conduct of a person with a history of rape or child 
molestation provides evidence that he or she has the combination of 
aggressive and sexual impulses that motivates the commission of such 
crimes and lacks the inhibitions against acting on these impulses. A 
charge of rape or child molestation has greater plausibility against 
such a person.
  Usually, rapists develop a pattern among their victims. Their 
assaults show striking similarities as they move from victim to victim. 
When these patterns are outstanding, these patterns can be helpful in 
determining true guilt and true innocence.
  I would stress that prior evidence is not automatically allowed. The 
judge must still determine that it has direct relevance on the case at 
hand. All of a defendant's usual rights of rebuttal and cross-
examination remain unchanged.
  Mr. Chairman, if now is not the time to act on these proposals, when 
will the time come? The other body adopted this important amendment 
overwhelmingly. So it will in fact have to be debated, in conference, 
behind closed doors.
  It is not a delaying tactic.
  If this crime prevention bill is not the proper vehicle for making 
these changes to address the serious crimes of sexual assault and child 
molestation, then what is the proper forum?
  I would like to know. Hundreds of thousands of victims of sexual 
assault and child molestation each year would like to know.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kyl].
  (Mr. KYL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of striking the enacting 
clause in order that the full House will have the opportunity to 
consider important amendments by Representatives Molinari, Dunn, and 
myself dealing with the issue of sexual violence.
  The process by which we are considering this crime bill on the floor 
is symbolic of how more than 100 Members have been shut out of offering 
amendments to H.R. 4092. I was one of those members shut out of the 
process. In the interest of time, I will include only part of my 
amendment--requiring those accused of sexual offenses to be tested for 
HIV. I am supportive of Representative Molinari's amendment to change 
the Federal rules of evidence (which was also a provision of the 
amendment I offered to the Rules Committee) and Rep. Dunn's amendment 
to encourage States to establish tracking procedures with respect to 
released sexual violent predators.
  My amendment would require testing of accused sex offenders for HIV, 
with disclosure of test results to the victim. Test results would be 
inadmissible at trial. This provision passed as section 531 of the 
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1991 (which did not pass into law). A 
number of States have passed laws providing for HIV testing of accused 
sex offenders. It's time now to pass a law allowing for HIV testing of 
accused sex offenders in Federal cases.
  The trauma of victims of sex crimes maybe greatly magnified by the 
fear of contracting AIDS as a result of the attack. Victims have the 
right to know whether they have been exposed to the virus, without 
waiting months or years while the case is pending. And, paying for 
victims to be tested for HIV (which is provided for in the bill and 
which I support) will not provide the same necessary information that 
testing of the accused will provide. Finally, if the accused sex 
offender does test positive, the victim must be given the opportunity 
to seek early treatment and counseling.
  Defendants in rape cases have no privacy interests which outweigh the 
victim's right to know whether the victim will die as a result of the 
crime. Probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime is 
a sufficient basis for arresting and detaining the person, and for 
taking blood samples. It is an equally sufficient basis for conducting 
an HIV test on the accused.
  The House should have the opportunity to consider these important 
sexual violence amendments. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of 
striking the enacting clause to H.R. 4092.
  Although other important provisions of my amendment will not be 
considered today, they are equally important. The bill on which they 
are based, H.R. 688, introduced last year by Representative Molinari 
and myself, would expand and toughen sexual violence laws and increase 
the rights of victims. H.R. 688 would:
  Double the maximum penalty for recidivists convicted of sexual 
assaults;
  Require HIV testing of accused sex offenders (results inadmissible at 
trial);
  Provide for pre-trial detention of the accused;
  Suspend Federal benefits to offenders who refuse to comply with 
restitution obligations;
  And, equalize the number of peremptory challenges accorded to the 
defense and to the prosecution in felony cases;
  Protect victims from abuse in legal proceedings;
  And, allow for evidence in court of similar crimes of the accused.
  Allowing for evidence of similar crimes of the accused at trial, as 
Rep. Molinari has pointed out today, is particularly important. It 
would go a long way toward neutralizing the psychological damage a rape 
victim often experiences going through the judicial process. It is 
common in rape and child molestation cases that the victim is too 
traumatized, intimidated, or humiliated to file a complaint and go 
through the full procedure of a criminal prosecution. However, the 
victims in such cases are often willing to bear the burden of 
testifying when they find out that the person who marred their lives 
has also victimized others.
  As the cochair of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on 
Women's Issues, I have held a number of hearings dealing with sexual 
violence. At those hearings, witnesses testified that the most 
important thing we can do to protect and empower citizens from sexual 
and domestic violence is by restructuring our criminal justice system, 
including increasing penalties for offenders.
  Paul McNulty, former director of policy at the Department of Justice, 
said at one of the hearings:

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

  The Sexual Assault Prevention Act is an extremely important component 
of our efforts to combat crime, particularly violence against women and 
children. The Congress should have the opportunity to pass this bill in 
its entirety as part of comprehensive crime legislation.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of striking the 
enacting clause in order to consider three important bipartisan 
amendments. My amendment, offered along with Mr. Deal, a member from 
the other side of the aisle, would encourage States to establish 
registration and tracking procedures and community notification with 
respect to released sexually violent predators.
  This amendment, modeled after a successful Washington State law, 
would monitor sexually violent predators--including those convicted of 
stalking--wherever they may locate once they are released, even if they 
move across State lines. Washington State leads the Nation in coping 
with this small group of criminals who terrorize mostly women in their 
neighborhoods, homes and workplaces.
  Already, both the House and Senate have passed legislation that 
requires law enforcement officials to notify communities when child 
molesters and others who pose a threat to children are released. That 
is right and good, a warning that society owes to parents and their 
children. Likewise, our society owes to women some notification that a 
predator is being released. And law enforcement officials should be 
encouraged to track their movement.
  The Senate has done just that by including in its crime bill 
virtually identical language which was accepted with little debate on 
the Senate side by Senator Biden and the Republican leadership. The 
House should do the same on behalf of women all across America.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that all three of the proposed amendments 
were not allowed by the Committee on Rules, but go to violence against 
women and stalking, which is something that this body understands need 
to be addressed federally. We all would support these amendments if 
they were out here. They were one of a very limited list of select 
amendments that we on this side of the aisle thought should be given 
preference, and the Committee on Rules chose not to.
  Mr. Chairman, the only way these amendments can be brought up for a 
vote today is if we give them the opportunity by granting this 
preferential motion to rise. It would then allow us to offer these 
amendments through the process of the Speaker recognizing me.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to rise to allow 
these amendments to be offered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 
5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, this is another amendment to try and kill 
the entire bill, a delaying tactic that I find really a little 
tiresome, when the bill includes the Title XIII the Jacob Wetterling 
Crimes Against Children Act, Title V, the proposed three-time loser 
section covers sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact and assaults with 
intention to commit rape. Title III includes assaults against children. 
Title XII includes the Child Sexual Prevention Act. Title XVI has the 
omnibus violence against women provisions, which I trust Members are 
for. Still to be acted upon, we have amendments approved by the 
Committee on Rules covering child pornography, introduced by a 
Republican, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. We have yet to 
come a stalking and domestic violence amendment introduced by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of good material in here to protect 
children and women. We want to keep it in here. We cannot add every 
untried idea that has ever been dreamed up but has never had a minute 
of hearings or this bill will be a little bit too cumbersome to fly. So 
I am hopeful that we can defeat this procedural amendment to strike, 
and go on with the consideration of this crime bill.

                              {time}  1710

  The CHAIRMAN. 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 taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, noes 
245, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--180

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     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
     Penny
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     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 (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     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
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     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
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Allard
     Buyer
     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Kaptur
     Neal (NC)
     Peterson (FL)
     Washington
     Williams

                              {time}  1729

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Kaptur for Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Messrs. REED, LIPINSKI, and RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BARCIA 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.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. chapman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chapman:
       Add at the appropriate place the following:

                      TITLE  --TRUTH IN SENTENCING

     SEC.  . GRANTS.

       The Attorney General is authorized to provide grants to 
     States to build, expand, or operate space in correctional 
     facilities in order to increase the prison bed capacity in 
     such facilities in order to reach the goals set forth in 
     section

     SEC.  . FEDERAL FUNDS.

       (a) Distribution of Funds in Fiscal Year 1995.--Of the 
     total amount of funds appropriated under this title in fiscal 
     year 1995, there shall be allocated to each State an amount 
     which bears the same ratio to the amount of funds 
     appropriated pursuant to this title as the number of part I 
     violent crimes reported by the States to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation for 1993 bears to the number of part I 
     violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation for 1993.
       (b) Distribution of Funds in Fiscal Years 1996 Through 
     1999.--75 percent of the total amount of funds appropriated 
     under this title in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 
     shall be allocated to each State according to the formula 
     establish in subsection (a) adjusted to reflect in each year 
     the most recent data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     reporting Part I violent crimes.
       (c) Good Faith Effort.--In order to be eligible for funding 
     under subsections (a) and (b), a State shall submit an 
     application and give the Attorney General assurances that it 
     will make a good faith and cost effective effort to become 
     eligible for a grant under subsection (d).
       (d) Truth in Sentencing Incentive Fund.--25 percent of the 
     total amount of funds appropriated under this title in each 
     of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 shall be 
     allocated to each eligible State according to the same ratios 
     established in subsection (b) multiplied by the percentage 
     change in the States' percentage of time to be served by the 
     persons convicted of violent crimes divided by the average of 
     all States' percentage change in percentage of time to be 
     served by the persons convicted of violent crimes. States 
     which have achieved a Truth in Sentencing standard of violent 
     criminals serving 85 percent of prison time assessed shall 
     receive the incentive funds based on the average of such 
     percentage change ratios of all States multiplied by the 
     States percentage of total Part I violent crime reported.
       (e) Eligibility for Truth in Sentencing Incentive Fund.--In 
     order to be eligible for grants under subsection (d), a State 
     must demonstrate that it has since 1993--
       (1) increased the percentage of convicted violent offenders 
     sentenced to prison;
       (2) increased the average prison time actually to be served 
     in prison by convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison; 
     and
       (3) increased the percentage of sentence to be actually 
     served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison.
       (f) Law Changes.--As evidence of such good faith effort to 
     meet the goals contained in subsection (e), a State may make 
     changes to its laws and regulations which may include--
       (1) truth in sentencing laws which will require persons 
     convicted of violent crimes to serve not less than 85 percent 
     of the sentence imposed;
       (2) mandatory prison sentences for persons convicted of the 
     most serious violent crimes;
       (3) pretrial detention for persons whose release it can be 
     shown would pose a danger to any other person or the 
     community;
       (4) sentencing authority to allow the defendant's victims 
     or the family of victims the opportunity to be heard 
     regarding the issue of sentencing and provide that the victim 
     or the victim's family will be notified whenever such 
     defendant is to be released; or
       (5) that a person who is convicted of a serious violent 
     crime shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if--
       (A) the person has been convicted on 2 or more prior 
     occasions in a court of the United States or of a State of a 
     serious violent crime, or of 1 or more serious violent crimes 
     and 1 or more serious drug offenses; and
       (B) each serious violent crime or serious drug offense used 
     as a basis for sentencing under this subsection, other than 
     the first, was committed after the defendant's conviction of 
     the preceding serious violent crime or serious drug offense.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of this title, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1995;
       (2) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (3) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       (b) Limitations on Funds.--
       (1) Nonsupplanting requirement.--Funds made available under 
     this section shall not be used to supplant State funds, but 
     shall be used to increase the amount of funds that would, in 
     the absence of Federal funds, be made available from State 
     sources.
       (2) Administrative costs.--Not more than 3 percent of the 
     funds available under this section may be used for 
     administrative costs.
       (3) Matching funds.--The portion of the costs of a program 
     provided by a grant under this section may not exceed 90 
     percent of the total costs of the program as described in the 
     application.
       (4) Carry over of appropriations.--Any funds appropriated 
     but not expended as provided by this section during any 
     fiscal year shall be carried over and will be made available 
     until expended.

     SEC.   . DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``violent crime'' means--
       (A) a felony offense that has an element the use, attempted 
     use, or threatened use of physical force against the person 
     of another, or
       (B) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its 
     nature, involves substantial risk that physical force against 
     the person of another may be used in the course of committing 
     the offense.;
       (2) the term ``serious drug offender'' has the same meaning 
     as that is used in section 924(e)(2)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       (3) the term ``State'' means any of the United States and 
     the District of Columbia;
       (4) the term ``convicted'' means convicted and sentenced to 
     a term in a State corrections institution or a period of 
     formal probation; and
       (5) the term ``Part I violent crimes'' means murder, rape, 
     robbery, and aggravated assault as those offenses are 
     reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes 
     of the Uniform Crime Reports.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] will be recognized for 10 minutes and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Is there a Member who seeks recognition in opposition?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if I could claim the time by unanimous 
consent, I would do so, but I am not opposed to this amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that I may claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no Member in opposition, the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, since there is no Member in opposition, 
may I ask unanimous consent to claim the entire 20 minutes of time 
under the amendment?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the Chair a moment ago 
when the Chair asked whether there was any opposition to this and no 
one stood in opposition, I requested the opportunity by unanimous 
consent to have the 10 minutes that otherwise would be in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman's inquiry whether or not he can make a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to make a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to have 10 minutes in support of this amendment in lieu of no Member 
being in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear that the basic thrust of 
the crime bill under consideration in the House of Representatives 
based from a policy standpoint has two prongs: The first and very 
important is prevention. The legislation that we have considered and 
will ultimately decide contains very important, innovative programs, 
but also a part of the crime bill and a part I think our constituents 
expect us to address is the enforcement provisions. And while we have 
considered three strikes legislation, while we have considered new 
death penalties under the Federal Criminal Code, it seems that what we 
have yet to consider and what up to this point has been lacking in our 
legislation is an effort on the part of the Congress through the 
Federal statutes to influence the conduct of State legislatures in the 
incarceration of violent criminals at the State level.
  Mr. Chairman, we know from statistics that 96 percent or 97 percent 
of the prosecution for felony offenses in this country occurs in the 
State courts, not in the Federal courts.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chapman amendment is an effort to influence the 
outcome of the sentencing and the time that violent and repeat 
offenders will serve as a result of State prosecutions in America.
  Mr. Chairman, our prisons across this country are bursting at the 
seams. In my home State of Texas in previous years, we were full in our 
State prisons and State prisoners in fact were serving much of their 
time in the county jails.
  If we can help the States through a grant program build the prison 
space to house the most serious and violent offenders in our 
communities, in our neighborhoods across this land, we can make a 
difference in Washington on the rate of violent crime in every 
community in America.
  Mr. Chairman, while some quibble with the statistics, we are told 
that a very small percentage of the felon population commit a very 
large percentage of the violent crimes in this country.
  What the Chapman amendment does quite honestly and quite simply is 
target that small percentage of violent and repeat offenders who are 
wreaking havoc, dealing carnage in our communities, in our schools, 
across this country of ours. And it does it by simply having a funded 
incentive that tells the States:

       If you will incarcerate and keep the violent and repeat 
     offenders in prison for longer periods of time, we will help 
     you construct those prisons to hold them.

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not mandate an 85-percent result, and 
I want that to be very clear. It does not mandate that States have to 
incarcerate violent and repeat offenders for any set percentage of 
their time. But let me tell you what it does do, and it is very 
important.
  For States to qualify for the grant funds under this amendment, the 
States must in each of the next 5 years increase the percentage of 
convicted violent offenders that are sentenced to prison. That is, if 
you commit a violent crime, you must, to qualify for the funds, commit 
a larger percentage each year to prison. You must at the State level 
increase the average prison time that is actually served in the prisons 
when you have been convicted of a violent crime, and you must increase 
the percentage of sentence that is to be served by violent offenders.
  Mr. Chairman, what this does is simply say that States to qualify for 
these funds must get tougher and tougher and tougher on violent 
criminals across this land. And if they do that, and if they will 
perform by targeting that small percentage of felons that are 
committing the majority of violent crimes, then we in Washington will 
say, ``We will help you with the resources you need to keep those 
people in jail.'' You cannot rape, you cannot pillage, you cannot 
plunder, you cannot kidnap, you cannot murder if you are in jail. And 
that is the goal and I think it will be the result of the Chapman 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, because it has been an issue, that there 
has been some concern about the cost of this amendment, because my 
amendment would be added as an addition to the crime bill and I am 
sensitive to those concerns expressed by the Department of Justice and 
the administration and a number of my colleagues, and I want to see the 
conferees in a conference with the Senate work that issue out. But we 
should not diminish or minimize the impact that this kind of 
legislation can have on violent crime in America.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by the President, by the 
Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Law Enforcement 
Alliance of America, the National District Attorneys Association, the 
Safe Streets Alliance, and a variety of other associations.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Chapman amendment is a commonsense 
approach to dealing with the issue of violent crime, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous unanimous-consent request, the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I support the Chapman amendment. I want to say why and what I think 
is good about it and what may not be quite enough that is in it.
  First of all, the underlying bill is deficient in ways that need to 
be remedied in terms of prison grant programs to try to correct the 
problem of too many people in State prisons around this country and not 
enough room to keep the repeat violent felons. It is a very difficult 
problem, because the underlying bill does not (a) provide enough money, 
or (b) provide any real teeth in requirements that States move their 
laws along in return for getting the money to the point where they 
actually abolish parole for repeat violent offenders.
  The problem is we have 6 percent of the criminals in this country 
committing about 70 percent of the crimes and serving only an average 
of about one-third of their sentences. It is this group of people 
getting out again and again and again to repeat their crimes that are 
the key problem that the American public wants us to address across 
this Nation right now with crime legislation. Anything else we do here 
today or tomorrow is not going to resolve the problem the American 
public sees if we do not move the States in the direction of actually 
implementing truth in sentencing and getting rid of the opportunity for 
these violent felons to get back out on the street to repeat their 
crimes.
  What the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] is doing in his amendment 
is, first of all, providing an adequate amount of money. About $10 
billion is what we have been told by the experts is what will be 
required to build enough prison space in this country to put violent 
felons away who are repeat offenders and keep them there for the full 
duration or at least 85 percent of their sentences. To that degree, I 
applaud particularly this amendment.
  Second, I believe this amendment goes a long way to encouraging the 
States to do some of the things they should do by saying they must 
demonstrate they will increase the percentage of convicted violent 
offenders sentenced to prison, increase the average prison term 
actually served, and increase the percentage of the sentence to be 
actually served in prison.
  However, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] knows, I do not 
think his amendment goes far enough, which is why I am offering one a 
little bit later to correct what I think are deficiencies still in his. 
He does say they must show evidence of good faith that they are doing 
these things, and maybe they may show good faith by going to an 85-
percent rule, in other words, by abolishing parole and by doing some 
mandatory sentences for violent felons and by changing their pretrial 
detection laws. They may do that. But there is no requirement in the 
proposal offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] that States 
actually go to an 85-percent rule for those who are convicted of 
serious violent felonies.
  There is no requirement for them to be eligible to get prison 
construction money that they do so. And I think that that is a very, 
very big deficiency in this amendment. That is why a little bit later, 
as I said, I am going to offer an amendment that will do that, that 
will say to put some teeth in this and say to the States that you must, 
in order to get prison grant money from the Federal Government, change 
your laws to do this.
  However, I want to point out to my colleagues that the Chapman 
amendment is a freestanding amendment. It does not substitute for the 
underlying language in the bill. It would not be in any way affected by 
an amendment I am going to offer in a little while or the substitute by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] to mine. It is totally a 
freestanding addition to this bill. It adds $10 billion to it. It is a 
constructive amendment. It moves us somewhat in the direction of truth 
in sentencing.
  I wish he had left his original language the way it was in the 
original bill. But I support the amendment the way it is now, and I 
urge that it be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
for his comments. I appreciate his willingness to work together on this 
important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman], distinguished Member of our 
delegation, for contributing in a positive fashion to development of 
this bill.
  As a former district attorney, he is very familiar with the State 
criminal justice system, and to his credit, he listens very carefully 
to the concerns raised by State and local government officials who did 
not want to be tied to specific mandates to receive Federal assistance 
in their struggle to provide adequate prison space, yet were strongly 
impressed by the general thrust of the proposal.
  I think the solution of incentives for the States is a very creative 
one which deserves our strong support, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote 
for the Chapman amendment.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman. I support his 
amendment. It puts $10.5 billion in for prison grant programs for the 
States.
  The gentleman has done a good job of working with the Governors and 
corrections officials around the country. It is complementary to what 
we have done in the bill relative to prison grants to the States, and I 
intend to support it.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Chapman truth-in-sentencing amendment.
  The need to have violent criminals serve out their full term became 
tragically evident to me.
  In 1969 a man from my home State in Oregon embarked on a drug and 
alcohol binge which ended with the murder of two women, and he was 
sentenced to two life imprisonments, but unfortunately life does not 
mean life. He was recently released after serving 25 years, and just a 
few months after his release, he has been charged with the alleged rape 
of a 4-year-old girl.
  This man would have been in prison today, Mr. Chairman, if Oregon's 
truth-in-sentencing law had been enacted at the time of his conviction.
  It was not until 1989 that Oregon passed a truth-in-sentencing law. 
It is for 82 percent of the sentence, and the State department, Oregon 
State Department of Corrections, has reported it is successful.
  Let us assure that our prison space is used to keep violent criminals 
in prison.
  I urge that my colleagues support the Chapman amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chapman amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  I want to say very, very briefly, although I agree with the gentleman 
from Florida, I wish this was even a stronger statement in favor of the 
truth in sentencing in this bill. It makes the point we wish to promote 
truth in sentencing around the country.
  It is my opinion that one of the greatest failings in the system 
today is that sentences do not mean what they say that they mean. Life 
in prison, as indicated by the previous speaker, is not life in prison. 
All too often when a judge sentences a convicted violent criminal to, 
say, 5, 10, 20 years in prison, whatever the case may be, the actual 
sentence is 2\1/2\ or 5 or even less sometimes.
  The point is the sentences that appear in the newspapers to our 
communities' convicted violent criminals sentenced to so many years in 
prison are not for real. In all too many cases, the individual is 
released through either discretionary parole or through the operation 
of good-time credit or through some other means that allows this 
individual to be back on the street.
  That is why this amendment is constructive, is a useful addition to 
the bill, and why I support it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  (Mr. BAKER of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Chapman 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  It is for this Congress to address the need to keep violent felons 
locked up and not out wandering the streets.
  This amendment gives States financial incentives to build and operate 
new prisons with just a 10-percent State match.
  Truth in sentencing targets violent offenders only the first time 
they victimize an innocent citizen, not the third time.
  The Chapman amendment would allow States to house approximately 
100,000 new violent prisoners. My California colleagues should take 
note that the Golden State would be eligible for $447 million in 
additional prison construction funds in 1995.
  The potential savings to society and victims over 5 years would be 
between $48 billion and $62 billion.
  The memory of Polly Klaas demands that we pass truth in sentencing. 
Polly Klaas' father, Mark, has devoted himself to passing truth-in-
sentencing laws, and I applaud Mark for his tremendous courage. Mark is 
trying to bring some good out of the senseless tragedy of his daughter, 
Polly, and truth in sentencing is a good place to start.
  It is time to get serious about locking up the 7 percent of violent 
criminals which commit two-thirds of all violent crimes. Support the 
Chapman amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, the people in the fourth district, the law 
enforcement officials of the Fourth District of Arkansas, have told me 
explicitly there are five things that need to be done: more prisons, 
more police, better equipment, criminal law reform, and preventive 
measures.
  We have here one of those particular needs that is being taken care 
of by this amendment, the Chapman amendment, and that is having more 
prisons.

                              {time}  1750

  We have people at home who are afraid to go into their driveways 
without being robbed, they are afraid to go into automatic teller 
machines, they are afraid to sit in front of their homes because of 
drive-by killings, and this is in rural Arkansas.
  We need to put these people away so the police do not have to look at 
them again, so that the people who testify against these criminals do 
not have to face them again, and so that society does not have to face 
them again. Somehow we will get a message across to other criminals 
that we are serious about what we are doing.
  If we look at the States who have used more incarceration, we have a 
12.7 percent decrease in crime. If we look at those who have not had 
such incarceration rates, the rate of violent crime has gone up 6.9 
percent. It is time for us to help the policeman, it is time for us to 
help ourselves and to vote for the Chapman amendment so that we can get 
more prison space and keep prisoners in jail and in prison.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Schenk].
  Ms. SCHENK. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chapman amendment for truth-
in-sentencing which provides States with over $10 billion in prison 
funds and makes those funds contingent on States requiring violent 
criminals to serve most of their sentences.
  Our fellow citizens across the country have sent this Congress a 
clear message: ``Stop early parole for rapists, murderers, and child 
molesters, and maybe we will stop them from striking again.''
  My State, California, has the fourth highest violent crime rate in 
the Nation, and yet murderers spend an average of only 14 years in 
prison, rapists an average of 4, and child molesters an average of only 
3 years. The damage they do, of course, lasts a lifetime.
  This amendment will change that. It actually provides funds to build 
prisons and does not simply institute another unfunded mandate. The 
issue here is simple: If a criminal does the crime, he or she must 
serve the time.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me urge my colleagues to vote again for the Chapman amendment, at 
the same time pointing out the fact that there are some deficiencies in 
it. It provides the $10 billion that is really needed for building 
enough prisons to house repeat violent offenders. As I said previously 
6 percent of the criminals in this country commit about 70 percent of 
the crimes and are serving only about a third of their sentences. So 
what we must do is to move to get these people off the streets before 
we do anything else. It is very much like somebody who is run over with 
a truck. They have a lot of internal injuries, and we would like to get 
at the root causes of those problems that they have got and repair 
them. But if they have got their arm cut off and they are bleeding to 
death, the first thing you have to do is apply a tourniquet. That means 
taking that 6 percent off the streets, in this case, locking them up 
and keeping them more permanently.
  What the Chapman amendment does not do--it wants to move in that 
direction, but it has not put the teeth in it that my amendment which I 
will offer will--it does not have the quid pro quo for the States to 
require them to go to the system that we all want to see them get to, 
truth-in-sentencing, and that is to abolish parole for repeat violent 
offenders and require them to serve at least 85 percent of their 
sentences instead of the third they are doing now.
  So I urge the Chapman amendment be adopted. It is freestanding.
  Then I would hope that my amendment could be heard, and Mr. Hughes' 
effort to substitute for it will be denied so that we can get on and 
put the teeth in it where Chapman goes about two-thirds of the way of 
doing but does not quite complete.
  I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his offering the amendment.
  I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Chapman 
amendment.
  I support Mr. Chapman's amendment.
  It would provide States a potential of $10.5 billion in prison money 
over and above $3 billion they'll receive under the prisons title 
crafted by Mr. Hughes' subcommittee.
  Seventy-five percent of the funds in the Chapman amendment would be 
allocated based on States' relative rates of violent crime nationally.
  Twenty-five percent of the funds would be allocated to a ``Truth-In-
Sentencing Incentive Fund.'' For this 25 percent, States would receive 
funds based on evidence that they have made a good faith effort to 
adopt truth-in-sentencing laws * * * laws guaranteeing that State 
prisoners serve 85 percent of their sentence.
  There is no doubt that States need this money for prisons, because 
every State in the Union has a dire emergency of prison overcrowding. 
In my home State of New York, prisons are at 130 percent of capacity. 
In California, they are at 165 percent of capacity. And in Ohio, which 
has the worst problem of prison overcrowding, they are at 179 percent 
of capacity.
  It's the kind of overcrowding that's forcing States to throw violent 
criminals back on the streets. According to a recent Bureau of Justice 
statistics survey of State prisoners who have committed every kind of 
violent crime, the average sentence is 18 years, but the average time 
served is only 8 years.
  This amendment does raise the issue of how different programs should 
be funded under the crime bill. The crime bill reported out by the full 
Judiciary Committee is indeed a good balance between prevention and 
punishment, and I want to make sure this amendment does not take away 
any money from the $9 billion in crime-prevention and treatment 
programs that we authorized at full committee.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As the gentleman knows, the bill reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary contains about $8 billion in programs to prevent crime, 
including $2 billion for the Local Partnership Act. Is it the 
gentleman's intent that during the conference on this bill the $10.5 
billion or so authorized by his amendment would not come by cutting the 
funds authorized in the bill for these prevention programs, including 
the LPA funds?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the prevention package at the full level in 
the House bill, particularly that portion that contains the LPA funds 
because of its positive impact on rural areas in crime prevention.
  I congratulate the gentleman for his positive role in constructing 
that amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Chapman].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 377, 
noes 50, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 124]

                               AYES--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     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 (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     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 (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
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--50

     Becerra
     Blackwell
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Ehlers
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Hilliard
     Kanjorski
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sabo
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stokes
     Swift
     Synar
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Velazquez
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews (NJ)
     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Johnson (CT)
     Kaptur
     Peterson (FL)
     Stark

                              {time}  1815

  Messrs. OBERSTAR, FLAKE, TUCKER, BLACKWELL, TOWNS, FOGLIETTA, and 
MFUME changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BROWN of California changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by Mr. schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. 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. Schiff:
       Page 33, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 3 
     on page 34.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would remove a portion of section 6 of 
this bill. My amendment would not add any new language. It would remove 
a portion of the bill which requires the States to have certain 
correctional department policies in exchange for being qualified to 
have funds to help them incarcerate violent criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add that following my amendment, regardless of 
the result of that amendment, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will offer an amendment, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] 
has a substitute for Mr. McCollum's amendment that would totally delete 
this portion of the bill and add new language.
  What I want to explain is why I am offering this amendment. I am 
offering it for two reasons: First of all, for those who support the 
McCollum amendment, which will be offered next, I would urge a yes 
vote, because the McCollum amendment, as any other amendment before 
this body, may or may not pass.

                              {time}  1820

  And if it does not pass, at least, though I do support it, if it does 
not pass at least we would remove the language that is in the bill 
today.
  Second of all, this amendment that I am offering would offer a 
neutral alternative in terms of Federal policy toward the States in 
exchange for the States' accepting aid to build custodial facilities to 
hold violent criminals.
  Frankly, a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have said to 
me that they would prefer to assist the States without dictating policy 
either on the correctional end, as the bill does, or on the sentencing 
end.
  Therefore, for those of my colleagues who believe that the Federal 
Government should be neutral in terms of policy but give the grants to 
help the States incarcerate violent criminals as the States deem best, 
I would also urge a yes vote on this amendment.
  I would like to go into that second reason first.
  Mr. Chairman, the existing language of the bill, of title VI, says 
that the States, in order to qualify for Federal funds, must give 
assurances, and that is the word out of the bill, I think one can 
translate that ``mandate,'' assurances that, for example, they have a 
prisoner rehabilitation and treatment program. Well, I wonder what the 
rehabilitation and treatment programs for a serial murderer are going 
to turn out to be.

  The point is, for this and for all the other provisions in this 
section, including post-released assistance to those who have been 
released from custody, the Department of Justice, the Federal 
Department of Justice will be the final arbiter as to whether the 
States' programs for corrections meet the standards of this bill. In 
other words, instead of having the Federal courts run the State prison 
systems, which have happened so many times, we would substitute with 
the bill as written the Department of Justice running the State 
correctional systems.
  And passing my amendment would take this provision out of the bill. 
It was for that reason that the National District Attorneys Association 
have endorsed my amendment. And I would like to read the letter from 
their president to me which reads:

       The association has long been concerned with the intrusion 
     of the Federal Government into issues that are by right 
     within the realm of the State. In keeping with this belief, 
     we are vehemently opposed to the requirement for assurances 
     that social programs will be provided as currently 
     incorporated in title VI of H.R. 4092 or the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Hughes.

  That is the later amendment which is the substitute for the McCollum 
amendment.

       To this end, we fully support your efforts to remove this 
     language from the crime bill and strongly urge the passage of 
     your amendment to this effect.

  So my amendment, if passed, would take out the language which gives 
the Department of Justice the approval or disapproval authority over 
State correctional policies.
  Second of all, I believe that this bill as written constitutes a poor 
policy. If we are going to have a policy that dictates to the States, I 
do not think it should be this one. This policy seeks to set up an 
integrated management policy which has been described as using 
resources wisely.
  I believe that that means, on the part of the sponsors, releasing 
certain individuals from prison early or setting up a system where 
certain individuals are not sentenced to prison in the first place for 
the sole purpose of creating enough room in the penitentiary for other 
criminals. In other words, I believe this is intended to promote, keep 
some prisoners out of prison to allow more prisoners to be 
incarcerated.
  I want to stress that standing by themselves, there is absolutely 
nothing wrong with alternative sentencing policies. I promote such 
policies. Even though I had a career in law enforcement before being 
elected to the House, I do not believe that every convicted criminal 
needs to go to prison. But that decision should be made individually on 
the merits of the individual case of the criminal and the criminal's 
crime and the criminal's threat to repeat the crime again. No criminal 
should be released from prison, no criminal should avoid being able to 
avoid being sent to prison to make room for someone else.
  It is true that we do not want to see our citizens robbed at gun 
point by violent criminals. But it is also true that we do not want to 
see our citizens' houses broken into or their cars stolen or their 
goods taken by the so-called nonviolent criminals. Those criminals who 
are a threat to society should be behind bars, and the decision of the 
space, of the number of prison spaces should be set by who needs to be 
in prison rather than the other way around, of releasing somebody who 
may continue to commit crimes just to create space for others.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  I think the committee-reported bill has treated the State assurance 
issue very well in developing a tough yet workable program to create 
more prison space. What the bill requires is that the State assure the 
Federal Government that it has a comprehensive correctional plan.
  That strikes me as an eminently reasonable general requirement, and I 
am informed that it is widely supported by the Governors, State 
legislators, and others who have weighed in on the issue.
  Surely, any State correctional system should have a comprehensive 
plan on how to classify prisoners, how to manage its resources, how to 
rehabilitate those prisoners that can be rehabilitated, and so forth. 
However, to congressionally mandate specific changes to State criminal 
law before allowing States to build new prisons for violent offenders 
is contrary to the goal of incarcerating the bad actors we want off the 
street.
  I think language in the bill is perfectly appropriate, and I urge 
rejection of this amendment that would strike it.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] 
basically would strike provisions in the bill that would create a 
comprehensive plan on the part of the States to be eligible for Federal 
money. How can anybody be opposed to developing a comprehensive plan to 
manage precious Federal resources or State resources?
  I do not know how my colleague, who is a dear friend of mine, from 
New Mexico can argue that there is something pernicious about 
developing a comprehensive plan. I mean, part of our problem in this 
country is that we have not done a very good job of managing resources. 
Members can ask any Governor throughout the country and they all 
support basically developing a comprehensive plan, or any corrections 
official, and they will tell us we have not done a very good job.
  And it is true, as part of that plan, they should be identifying 
those defendants who basically are the ones that should be moved into 
diversion programs.
  Now, the gentleman from New Mexico does support diversion programs. 
Not every individual who is a nonviolent offender, who has not carried 
a weapon, who has not committed an offense that has seriously hurt 
anybody is a fit subject for diversion. And any correction official, 
Democrat or Republican, throughout the country will tell us that we 
need to do a better job of basically managing our resources. That is an 
important component.
  Yes, we do have to lock up more violent offenders and we do have to 
have truth in sentencing. I support that. And we do have to ensure that 
inadequate sentences, particularly if violent offenders are involved, 
need to go to jail and stay there. And we do have to do a better job of 
classification of individuals when they are in the system.

                              {time}  1830

  We do have to develop, it seems to me, policies within the system to 
track those individuals. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems we have in 
this country is that folks that are going to be released on the streets 
sometime in the future come into the system illiterate and they leave 
illiterate. They come in without skills and they leave without skills. 
They come in with drug problems and they leave with drug problems. They 
come in with psychiatric problems and they leave that way.
  It should not surprise anybody to know that when we do not deal with 
those problems when they are in the system, they are going to be back 
in the system in 6 months. It has become a revolving door. States all 
agree that they need to move in that direction.
  That is why just about every Governor throughout the country supports 
this initiative. Every corrections official throughout the country 
supports the direction we are trying to move the States. That is a 
direction the Federal Government is going and it is a good direction.
  I say to my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], I 
do not know where he is reading into this statute that in some way we 
are going to be releasing inmates that should not be released. That is 
not the thrust of this bill. I think the gentleman has seriously 
misread it. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] has 4 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself two minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey asked where did I get the 
idea that the policy in this bill as written is designed to release 
people that should not be released. The answer is in the idea of where 
alternative sentencing is placed.
  If alternative sentencing programs were set as an independent portion 
of this bill, then I would support it, but in this particular section 
it is placed in the area of prison space That is a direct message to 
the States: ``If you want more space for violent criminals, release 
some other criminals or do not let them go to prison in the first 
place.''
  It is interesting, this bill among other things makes insurance fraud 
a Federal crime. The sponsor recognizes that there are nonviolent 
offenders who do damage society, and they should not be released if 
they are going to continue to damage society, whether they are 
burglars, whether they are auto thieves, whether they have ripped off 
savings and loans, or whatever the offense is.
  Equally, if not more important than that, who decides whether the 
State has an adequate Department of Corrections policy? According to 
this bill, ``the States will have to give assurances,'' that is a quote 
from the bill, to the Department of Justice that they have these 
policies in order to qualify for Federal funds to incarcerate violent 
criminals. This gives the Department of Justice the power to say 
whether all the policies of the State are correct or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland], who worked at the Lucasville 
State Prison.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress I did serve 
for 6 years at Ohio's only maximum security prison in Lucasville, OH, 
and I can tell the Members that the job of a corrections officer is a 
difficult and a dangerous one. In 1991, there were 10,192 inmate 
assaults against staff in correctional institutions.
  I would point out to my colleagues that if they vote for the Schiff 
amendment, they will be eliminating the Strickland amendment which 
passed last week as part of the en bloc amendment. My amendment 
requires States to provide appropriate training in dealing with repeat 
violent offenders. Such training will save lives. It ought not to be 
eliminated.
  If we are going to provide grants to States to incarcerate society's 
most difficult individuals, the very least we can do is to make sure 
that they provide the appropriate training so that those who guard them 
can do so safely. With this crime bill, we are putting more violent 
people behind bars. In doing so, let us not endanger the courageous men 
and women who we charge with guarding them.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to 
close in this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize first and once again, so there is 
no confusion, I do not oppose the idea of alternative sentencing where 
it is deserved in the particular case, where a criminal can most likely 
be rehabilitated in society. The problem is that this provision that 
requires the management of resources, as it is pointed out, is in the 
same section that creates space for violent criminals.
  There is a clear message there that the States should look to see 
whom they can release, not because the criminals to be released deserve 
to be released, not because they will not still vandalize society 
through entering our homes, stealing our goods, stealing our cars, 
shoplifting from our stores, and doing whatever, but simply because we 
want to create room.
  I acknowledge that an armed robber is a more serious criminal in most 
cases than certain other crimes, but we do not want to have our cars 
stolen or our homes broken into any more than we want to be robbed at 
gunpoint.
  I would conclude by pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that the reason the 
National District Attorneys Association supports my amendment is, they 
have taken the position that such mandates should not be placed upon 
the States. They have argued, in the letter which was read before, that 
the Federal Government should not dictate to the States, ``You have to 
have this, this, this, and this,'' in order to be qualified for the 
funds.
  For those colleagues who think we should be neutral in policy, that 
we should say to the States, ``You have the first line against crime, 
you decide how to use these funds to incarcerate violent criminals, we 
will not look over your shoulder in terms of looking at your 
corrections policy,'' this is the correct amendment. This is the only 
amendment that offers that position, that assists States without 
dictating to them how they run their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my great respect for the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], I must strongly disagree with his amendment. No 
State in the country has enough prison resources to deal with all of 
those who commit crime. We know that.
  It is simply demagogic to wish that they can, so to say that the 
States should not come up with a plan so that the most violent people 
get the most prison time and down the list is silly. Every State should 
plan.
  This is not saying anyone has to be released. This is not saying that 
anyone should not get prison time. It is saying to every State system, 
``Think about where you are going to put your scarce resources. Do not 
ever come up with the situation where someone who has a small amount to 
marijuana serves 5 years, and someone who has hit a little old lady 
over the head three times serves 1 year,'' which happens in State after 
State after State.
  Talk to the Governors, talk to the corrections officers, talk to the 
penal experts. Every one of them would support that.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
support the committee bill.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Basically, this amendment would take away the obligation of the States 
to plan to use Federal resources. At the core of this legislation are 
two basic principles: accountability of Federal funds and flexibility 
for the States. The only way we can reasonably and realistically 
achieve those things is to require the States to consider a whole range 
of options in a comprehensive, coherent plan. That is all this 
legislation does.
  Mr. Chairman, to strip away the planning component from this 
legislation would basically be telling us to give the money to the 
States without any accountability, and to try another approach by 
micromanaging would be to take away their flexibility.
  The committee bill builds on two principles: accountability and 
flexibility. That is a sound approach. It is an approach we should 
support by rejecting this amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York put his finger on it, it is 
silly. It is the first time I have heard, in my 20 years, of somebody 
being opposed to a comprehensive plan to better manage resources. I do 
not think I have ever heard that argument before.
  Throughout this country, we are cutting people loose that are not 
ready to go back into society, because we do not have prison resources 
for them, to make room for those coming in. In some parts of this 
country you have to make an appointment to go to jail, practically. 
That is what it has come to.
  It suggests that we should not require the States, in taking 
advantage of precious Federal resources, to be accountable, to develop 
a comprehensive plan, to prioritize. That is silly. I would hope my 
colleagues reject this amendment. It does not make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' 
vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 216, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               AYES--205

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Darden
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     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
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews (NJ)
     Brewster
     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Kaptur
     Linder
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Rose
     Sharp
     Stark

                              {time}  1900

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Franks of New Jersey for, with Ms. Kaptur against.
       Mr. Grandy for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Messrs. PORTER, SWETT, TEJEDA, and DEUTSCH changed their 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. 15, 
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:
       Strike title VI and insert the following:

     SEC 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Violent Offender 
     Incarceration Act''.

     SEC 602. GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants to individual eligible States and to eligible States, 
     organized as regional compacts--
       (1) to develop, construct, expand and operate correctional 
     facilities to ensure that prison space is available for the 
     confinement of persons convicted of a serious violent felony, 
     and
       (2) to develop, construct, expand, and operate temporary or 
     permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on 
     military bases, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent 
     offenders and criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing 
     suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons 
     convicted of a serious violent felony.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this title a State or States, organized as regional compacts, 
     shall submit an application to the Attorney General which 
     includes--
       (1) a plan consistent with section 2(b)(2)(A) to 
     incarcerate all criminals convicted of a serious violent 
     felony over the next 5 years with Federal assistance;
       (2) a certification that the State or States--
       (A) have established a truth in sentencing policy under 
     which offenders will serve no less than 85 percent of the 
     term of imprisonment to which they are sentenced with respect 
     to conviction of a serious violent felony after having been 
     convicted of a prior serious violent felony or a serious drug 
     offense;
       (B) have established pretrial detention similar to and at 
     least as restrictive as that provided in the Federal system 
     under section 3142 of title 18, United States Code;
       (C) have established provisions which require that a person 
     who is convicted of a serious violent felony shall be 
     sentenced to life imprisonment if--
       (i) the person has been convicted (and those convictions 
     have become final) on 2 or more prior occasions in a court of 
     the United States or of a State of a serious violent felony, 
     or of 1 or more serious violent felonies and 1 or more 
     serious drug offenses; and
       (ii) each serious violent felony or serious drug offense 
     used as a basis for sentencing under this subsection, other 
     than the first, was committed after the defendant's 
     conviction of the preceding serious violent felony or serious 
     drug offense;
       (D) have established provisions which require the 
     sentencing authority to allow defendant's victims (limited to 
     the victims of defenders convicted of a serious violent 
     felony) or the family of victims the opportunity to be heard 
     regarding the issue of sentencing, and provide that the 
     victim and victims family is notified whenever such defendant 
     is to be released;
       (E) will use funds received under this title to supplement, 
     not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds.
       (c) Exception.--The sentencing requirements under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection (b)(2) shall apply 
     except that the State may provide that the Governor of the 
     State may allow for the release of a prisoner over the age of 
     70 after a public hearing in which representatives of the 
     public and the prisoner's victims have an opportunity to be 
     heard regarding a proposed release.
       (d) Additional Eligibility Provision.--A State shall also 
     be eligible for funding under this title when such State has 
     enacted legislation that provides for the State to be in 
     compliance with this section not later than 3 years after the 
     date of the enactment of such legislation or with respect to 
     subparagraph (A) of the subsection (b)(2) a State may receive 
     funding upon approval of the Attorney General of a good faith 
     plan to reach the 85 percent requirement within 5 years.
       (e) Consideration.--The Attorney General, in making such 
     grants, shall give consideration to the special burden placed 
     on States which incarcerate a substantial number of inmates 
     who are in the United States illegally.

     SEC. 603. FEDERAL FUNDS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1995 through 1999 to carry out the purposes of this 
     title.
       (b) Carry Over of Appropriations.--Any funds authorized, 
     but not expended during a fiscal year shall be carried over 
     and will be made available until expended.
       (c) Matching Requirement.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this title may not exceed 75 percent of the 
     costs of a proposal described in an application approved 
     under this title.

     SEC. 604. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       The Attorney General shall issue rules and regulations 
     regarding the uses of grant funds received under this title 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this title.

     SEC. 605. DEFINITIONS AS USED IN THIS TITLE.

       As used in this section--
       (1) The term ``arson'' means an offense that has as its 
     elements maliciously damaged or destroying any building, 
     inhabited structure, vehicle, vessel, or real property by 
     means of fire or an explosive;
       (2) the term ``assault with intent to commit rape'' means 
     an offense that has as its elements engaging in physical 
     conduct by which a person intentionally places another person 
     in fear of aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse (as 
     described in sections 2241 and 2242 of title 18, United 
     States Code);
       (3) the term ``extortion'' means an offense that has as its 
     elements the extraction of anything of value from another 
     person by threatening or placing that person in fear of 
     injury to any person or kidnapping of any person;
       (4) the term ``firearms use' means an offense that has as 
     its elements those described in section 924(c) or 929(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, if the firearm was brandished, 
     discharged, or otherwise used as a weapon and the crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime during and relation to 
     which the firearm was used was subject to prosecution in a 
     court of the United States or a court of a State, or both;
       (5) the term ``kidnapping'' means an offense that has as 
     its elements the abduction, restraining, confining, or 
     carrying away of another person by force or threat of force;
       (6) the term ``serious violent felony'' means--
       (A) a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and 
     wherever committed, consisting of murder (as described in 
     section 1111 of title 18, United States Code); manslaughter 
     other than involuntary manslaughter (as described in section 
     1112 of such title); assault with intent to commit murder (as 
     described in section 113(a) of such title); assault with 
     intent to commit rape; aggravated sexual abuse and sexual 
     abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242 of such 
     title); abusive sexual contact (as described in section 
     2244(a)(1) and 2244(a)(2) of such title); kidnapping; 
     aircraft piracy (as described in section 902(i)(2) or 
     902(n)(2) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 
     1472(i)(2) or (n)(2)); robbery (as described in section 
     2111 of title 18, United States Code); carjacking (as 
     described in section 2119 of title 18) extortion; arson; 
     firearms use; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to 
     commit any of the above offenses;
       (B) any other offense punishable by a maximum term of 
     imprisonment of 10 years or more that has as an element the 
     use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force 
     against the person of another or that, by its nature, 
     involves a substantial risk that physical force against the 
     person of another may be used in the course of committing the 
     offense;
       (C) robbery; an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to 
     commit robbery, or an offense described in paragraph (6)(B) 
     shall not serve as a basis for sentencing under this title if 
     the defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
     that--
       (i) no firearm or other dangerous weapon was involved in 
     the offense; and
       (ii) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily 
     injury (as defined in section 1365) to any person; or
       (D) arson shall not serve as the basis for sentencing under 
     this title if the defendant establishes by clear and 
     convincing evidence that--
       (i) the offense posed no threat to human life; and
       (ii) the defendant reasonably believed the offense posed no 
     threat to human life;
       (7) the term ``serious drug offense'' means--
       (i) an offense subject to a penalty provided for in section 
     401(b)(1)(A) or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act or 
     section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and 
     Export Act; or
       (ii) an offense under State law that, had the offense been 
     prosecuted in a court of the United States, would have been 
     subject to a penalty provided for in section 401(b)(1)(A) or 
     408 of the Controlled Substances Act or section 1010(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.
       (8) the term ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or 
     possession of the United States.


   amendment offered by mr. hughes as a substitute for the amendment 
                        offered by mr. mc collum

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McCollum 
amendment, and I offer a substitute made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The text of the amendment offered by Mr. Hughes as a substitute for 
the amendment offered by Mr. McCollum is as follows:

       Strike title VI and insert the following:

                TITLE VI--VIOLENT OFFENDER INCARCERATION

     SEC. 601. GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General may make 
     grants to individual States and to States, organized as 
     multi-State compacts, to develop, expand, modify, or improve 
     correctional facilities and programs to ensure that prison 
     cell space is available for the confinement of violent 
     offenders.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this title a State or States, organized as multi-State 
     compacts, shall submit an application to the Attorney General 
     which includes--
       (1) assurances that the State or States, have implemented, 
     or will implement, correctional policies and programs, 
     including truth in sentencing laws that ensure that violent 
     offenders serve a substantial portion of the sentences 
     imposed, that are designed to provide sufficiently severe 
     punishment for violent offenders, including violent juvenile 
     offenders, and that the prison time served is appropriately 
     related to the determination that the inmate is a violent 
     offender and for a period of time deemed necessary to protect 
     the public;
       (2) assurances that the State or States have implemented 
     policies that provide for the recognition of the rights and 
     needs of crime victims;
       (3) assurances that funds received under this section will 
     be used to develop, expand, modify, or improve correctional 
     facilities and programs to ensure that prison cell space is 
     available for the confinement of violent offenders;
       (4) assurances that the State or States have a 
     comprehensive correctional plan which represents an 
     integrated approach to the management and operation of 
     correctional facilities and programs and which includes 
     diversional programs, particularly drug diversion programs, 
     community corrections programs, a prisoner screening and 
     security classification system, prisoner rehabilitation and 
     treatment programs, prisoner work activities (including, to 
     the extent practicable, activities relating to the 
     development, expansion, modification, or improvement of 
     correctional facilities), and job skills programs, a pre-
     release prisoner assessment to provide risk reduction 
     management, post-release assistance, and an assessment of 
     recidivism rates;
       (5) assurances that the State or States have involved 
     counties and other units of local government, when 
     appropriate, in the development, expansion, modification, or 
     improvement of correctional facilities and programs designed 
     to ensure the incarceration of violent offenders;
       (6) assurances that funds received under this section will 
     be used to supplement, not supplant, other Federal, State, 
     and local funds; and
       (7) documentation of the multi-State compact agreement that 
     specifies the development, expansion, modification, or 
     improvement of correctional facilities and programs.
       (c) Consideration.--The Attorney General, in making such 
     grants shall give consideration to the special burden placed 
     on States which incarcerate a substantial number of inmates 
     who are in the United States illegally.
       (d) Matching Requirement.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this title may not exceed 75 percent of the 
     costs of a proposal described in an application approved 
     under this title.

     SEC. 602. RULES AND REGULATIONS.

       The Attorney General shall issue rules and regulations 
     regarding the uses of grant funds received under this title 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this title.

     SEC. 603. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       The Attorney General may request that the Director of the 
     National Institute of Corrections and the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons provide technical assistance and 
     training to a State or States that receive a grant under this 
     title to achieve the purposes of this title.

     SEC. 604. EVALUATION.

       The Attorney General may request the Director of the 
     National Institute of Corrections to assist with an 
     evaluation of programs established with funds under this 
     title.

     SEC. 605. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this title, the term ``State or States'' 
     means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, American 
     Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $600,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1995 through 1999 to carry out the 
     purposes of this title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] is recognized for 20 minutes, consuming the time allocated 
for his amendment and that in opposition to the substitute amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] is recognized for 10 minutes in support of 
his amendment and 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise to offer an amendment today which puts some teeth 
into the so-called truth-in-sentencing provision. Right now we have 
varying amounts of money in this bill in order to provide prison grant 
money to the States to construct prisons to house repeat violent 
offenders. Everybody here supports that. I support it; Democrats and 
Republicans support it. I do not imagine there is a soul here who does 
not, in principle, support that idea.
  But, quite frankly, this is not the end-all/be-all, just throwing 
money at the problem. The reason we want to build more prisons, the 
reason why we need more prisons, is because we have a revolving door. 
We have a revolving door that is spinning out very quickly those who go 
in who supposedly are going to serve fairly lengthy sentences which 
they are given, but they really do not, for committing violent crimes.
  Today 6 percent of the criminals in this country commit about 70 
percent of the violent crimes and are serving only about a third of 
their sentences, some say as high as maybe 38 percent. In order to get 
them to serve as much as possible and preferably the full amount of 
those sentences, we need to provide some teeth in here.
  We have a crisis in violent crime in this country.
  My amendment is the only amendment here today, the only opportunity 
we are going to have in this bill that is going to accomplish this.
  Now, I know there are some Governors and some other folks here today 
who are going to say we should not require the States to do this, that, 
or the other, we should not attach any strings. Well, the last vote was 
about strings. In fact, there are a lot of strings attached to the bill 
we have here for grant money that goes out to the States.
  Generally this Member has not been for a lot of strings being 
attached, but when you have a crisis like this, when you have the guts 
of the problem before you and the guts of the problem is that we do not 
have a real serving of sentence time by those who commit violent crimes 
and we do not have States that have changed their laws or who are 
willing to voluntarily without some incentive, that it is time we 
provided some strings and some incentives. If there is any place where 
some strings should be attached, it is here. That is what my amendment 
would do.
  My amendment would provide $10 billion to the States to construct or 
operate, either one, prison space for violent repeat offenders or 
prison space for nonviolent prisoners that would free up prison space 
that exists already suitable in the States to house violent offenders.
  The underlying provisions of this bill do not do that. They do not 
provide money for both construction and operation, just construction. 
And the underlying provisions of the Hughes proposal in his proposed 
substitute do not provide for prison construction or operational money 
to go for the purposes of constructing those prison spaces that would 
be less expensive, perhaps on military reservations or in closed 
military bases, which would free up existing suitable spaces for 
violent offenders.
  Second, my amendment would require, in return for getting the money 
that the States that are involved in this, either in compacts or 
individually, change their laws so that they require--their State laws 
require that repeat violent offenders serve at least 85 percent of 
their sentences; change their State laws so that there are pretrial 
detention laws in the States involved in this--and hopefully all 50 
States--that are at least as tough as the Federal pretrial detention 
laws involved in repeat violent cases, so that we do not see violent 
felons who have been already convicted one time, returned to the 
streets on bail willy-nilly, so that ``danger to the community'' 
standards can be applied as they are in the Federal processes.
  Third, it would require the States pass ``three strikes and you're 
out'' laws before they can get the kind of grant money that we have 
here. We have just passed a ``three strikes and you're out'' provision 
for life imprisonment for three-time violent felons that applies for 
Federal crimes. But that is a minuscule portion of the crimes in this 
country. If you really want ``three strikes and you're out,'' you have 
got to have the States complying and passing those laws. And it would 
require that States pass provisions that have a right for victims and 
their families to be heard in sentencing and to be notified of the 
release of serious violent felons.
  This amendment provides a clear choice between very different 
approaches in dealing with violent criminals. The language in title VI 
gives money to the States with no strings attached. There would be no 
guarantee that any State taking money to build prisons would take steps 
to stop the revolving door.

  Title VI permits the revolving door of the criminal justice system to 
spin just as fast in the future as it does now. On the other hand, the 
McCollum amendment provides more money to every State, more than three 
times the amount of the underlying bill, in exchange for guarantees 
that violent criminals will be kept off the streets.
  The decision that is to be made on the prison grant program is one of 
the most critical decisions this Congress will make in the fight 
against violent crime. There are two principal reasons why the McCollum 
amendment must be approved.
  First, the amendment would guarantee that the States will slow the 
revolving door as a condition of Federal assistance for building and 
operating State prisons. Second, it would provide the full funding 
required to do this. On the other hand, the Hughes amendment would kill 
the McCollum amendment, it is an absolute substitute. If it passes, 
there will be no opportunity to vote on these provisions that are in 
the McCollum amendment.
  The Hughes amendment is proposed by the National District Attorneys 
Association.
  As I said earlier, the Hughes amendment places no requirements on the 
States to ever pass the laws that require the 85 percent time to be 
served. I think it is a very weak amendment in that regard.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, the Nation's largest bipartisan 
individual membership group of State leaders, have written to me a 
letter in which they sate,

       We urge all Members of Congress to vote to defeat the 
     Hughes Amendment and to vote for both the McCollum Amendment 
     and the Chapman Amendment, each of which provides $10 billion 
     or more to build prisons. Voting for both of these amendments 
     will send a clear signal to the House-Senate Conference that 
     a $22 billion Crime Bill should provide no less than $10 
     billion to do what the American people are demanding--get 
     violent criminals off our streets. Nothing else in the Crime 
     Bill comes close to promising these significant crime control 
     effects.

  Mr. Chairman, that is the American Legislative Exchange Council of 
our State legislatures.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Troopers Coalition have written:

       We find the Hughes Provision and Amendment unacceptable to 
     law enforcement. There needs to be more funding to keep the 
     career criminals in prison for a longer period of time. We 
     agree that attention must be paid to efforts to rehabilitate, 
     but we also strongly feel that the ``system'' must have 
     adequate facilities and resources to keep such violent and 
     career criminals off the street and out of Main Stream 
     society. Therefore, we strongly recommend the McCollum and 
     Chapman alternative provisions.

  Mr. Chairman, we have endorsements from several Governors, Governor 
Allen of Virginia, Governor McKernan, who says, ``I support Congressman 
McCollum's proposal for a twin grant program for prison space to 
individual eligible States or eligible States organized as regional 
compacts.''
  Also, John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, says,

       As I travel the country, it is very clear that the American 
     people are fed up with the level of violence in this country. 
     One sure way to stem the violence is to incarcerate for long 
     periods of time those who commit violent crime. I urge your 
     support of the McCollum Amendment.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the choice is very clear. To vote for 
the Hughes substitute to mine is to vote for the bill as it is, just 
simply put it back in. It is a gimmick; it is a cover.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], chairman of the full Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], and in strong support of the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee that has jurisdiction over 
prison matters and has spent hours and hours working on these problems.
  We all know that the States are having a crisis in prisoner 
population. Virtually every jurisdiction in the country is struggling 
to house an ever-growing prison population. The Hughes amendment offers 
them immediate assistance.
  The McCollum amendment appears to offer Federal assistance to the 
tune of $10.5 billion. But--before a State could get one penny of this 
money, the State would have to have a truth-in-sentencing law of no 
less than 85 percent--not 80 percent, not 84 percent--exactly 85 
percent or no help. The State would have to have a three-time loser 
law. And, it would have to have the same pretrial detention system as 
the Federal Government. Unless and until all of these specific mandates 
have been adopted by a State exactly as the McCollum amendment 
stipulates--which could take years, for legislatures to meet even if a 
State was inclined to do so--the State would not be eligible for one 
red cent of these grant moneys.
  The States have vigorously opposed the Federal mandates contained in 
the McCollum amendment. They say that the cost of these mandates would 
be enormous for them--20, 30 or even 40 State dollars for every Federal 
dollar received. The States see the Federal mandates in the McCollum 
amendment as a ``Hobsons's Choice''--they desperately need the Federal 
assistance, but they cannot afford the mandates attached to it and they 
can't afford the elapsed time even if they could. As Mr. Inglis said 
during full committee debate of the McCollum amendment and I quote: 
``We bless them and curse them all at the same time.''
  Believe it or not, in our great federalist system, the States are our 
partners and often have better ideas. We need to listen to them. The 
Committee on the Judiciary rejected the McCollum amendment and I urge 
my colleagues to follow suit today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McCollum amendment, and 
adopt the Hughes substitute instead with an affirmative vote.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  (Ms. SHEPHERD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Chairman, Utah has a model sentencing system. 
Convicted criminals in the State serve just under 85 percent, 84.2 
percent to be exact, of their full sentence under indeterminant 
sentencing guidelines. Our system works better than almost any other in 
the nation, and States like Utah should not be penalized doing what 
works.
  But under the McCollum amendment, these model States would be 
penalized.
  The McCollum amendment would give states that have determinant 
sentencing the opportunity to participate in the new regional prison 
system. But Utah has a model system that works.--It achieves all the 
goals of truth in sentencing.
  By mandating that States adopt ``truth in sentencing'' provisions in 
order to be eligible for Federal dollars in prison construction money 
we are essentially telling States like Utah that the Federal Government 
does not care whether their systems have worked, that the Federal 
Government arrogantly believes it knows best and that, like it or not, 
the States must go along--and pay the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to work with States to reach everyone's 
ultimate goal--to ensure that dangerous convicted criminals serve their 
full term. If States are already achieving this goal, they should be 
rewarded, not punished.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against the McCollum amendment and 
support the Hughes substitute.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Hughes].
  Mr. Chairman, we need to send to conference two strong truth-in-
sentencing amendments. The Chapman amendment would take us a long way 
towards real truth in sentencing, and the McCollum amendment would do 
even more.
  The Hughes amendment is phony truth in sentencing. Hughes would not 
require the most violent to serve more hard time. It only requires them 
to serve a substantial, whatever that is, portion of their sentence. 
That means more violent criminals could be, once again, walking the 
street. The Hughes amendment requires that States have plans to release 
criminals to make room for the most violent. That is not the real 
solution to burglaries, car thefts and other serious crime.
  By defeating the Hughes amendment, Mr. Chairman, we can get a vote on 
the McCollum amendment, strong truth in sentencing. The McCollum 
amendment gives States 5 years to adopt truth-in-sentencing policies, 
meaning criminals must serve at least 85 percent of their sentence at 
the end of 5 years. States would also have to allow the victim, or 
victims' families, to make a statement at the time of sentencing. It 
would require imprisonment after several violent offenses for life. 
Implementing ``three strikes and you're out'' is part of the McCollum 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the memory of Polly Klaas demands we pass truth in 
sentencing. Polly Klaas' father, Mark, has devoted himself to passing 
truth-in-sentencing laws, and I applaud Mark for his tremendous 
courage. Mark is trying to bring some good out of the senseless death 
of his daughter, Polly, and truth in sentencing is a good place to 
start.
  It is time to get serious about locking up the 7 percent of violent 
criminals that commit two-thirds of all violent crime. Support the 
District Attorneys Association. Reject the Hughes amendment so we can 
get a clean vote on the McCollum truth-in-sentencing amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, this is about McCollum No. 4. It has 
undergone a major transformation over the time that we debated in 
committee, the time that we brought it to the floor, and I rise in 
opposition to the latest version of McCollum, and I think the latest 
version of McCollum is worse than the first version of McCollum, and I 
will tell my colleagues why.
  Mr. Chairman, under the McCollum amendment States would not be 
eligible for any of the grant money unless they have complied with 
mandates that are contained in McCollum, and I just pick out the one, 
that individuals who are second-time violent offenders must serve 85 
percent of their sentence. Well, the problem is not only with second-
time offenders, but it is with first-time offenders. The gentleman's 
amendment only deals with second-time violent offenders, and any State 
that does not incarcerate 85 percent of the sentence they receive as 
second-time violent offenders get no money.

                              {time}  1920

  If your State, like Utah, sees violent offenders serving 84 percent 
of their sentence, they are ineligible under McCollum.
  McCollum does not do anything about one of the major problems 
throughout this country, and that is inadequate sentences. McCollum 
does nothing about sentences that are too short. Eighty-five percent of 
an inadequate sentence is very inadequate, I would say.
  That is why the substitute that I have offered basically is supported 
by the Governors throughout the country, because it does not impose 
mandates, such as 5 percent, a rigid rule that is inflexible, and it 
reaches violent offenders and even ensures that they stay in prison for 
the length of time that society needs them to stay there, and even 
ensures that they do not come out.
  The McCollum amendment basically is an effort to tell the States how 
to run their criminal justice systems.
  Now, you may think that is okay, but it is my own belief, and this 
was suggested to me by one of the Governors recently, that if you want 
to change the criminal justice system in the States, you ought to leave 
Congress and go back to your State and run for the State legislature. 
Then you can tell the States how to run their criminal justice system.
  The gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd] also put her finger on 
another of the problems of the McCollum amendment. Any State throughout 
this country that has an indeterminate system of sentencing, such as 
Utah and many other States, Idaho, will see that their whole system 
will be basically ineligible for these funds. Yet, States like Utah and 
Idaho and other States with indeterminate terms, are doing a far better 
job of incarcerating violent offenders and keeping them in prison for 
the length of time that is required to ensure that they are safe to be 
released.
  They do a better job than my State, and I say to my colleague from 
Florida, respectfully, they do a much better job than Florida does, and 
the gentleman knows that.
  We cannot tell the States how to run their systems. That is why the 
Hughes substitute is supported by Governors throughout the country. It 
does any number of things that they support.
  First of all, it requires the comprehensive plan that we just voted 
on, a plan that requires classification of prisoners, a better job of 
classification; a better job of prioritizing; of developing the 
comprehensive plan to deal with prison problems in their States. It 
basically moves us in the direction of incorporating into that plan 
such things as diversion programs, where that makes sense, to deal with 
the problems of inmates when they are in the system.
  But most importantly, and the chairman of the full committee said it 
well, it provides money now, right now. This grant program provides 
resources right now. To suggest that States cannot develop plans that 
involve utilization of underutilized military facilities is nonsense. 
The bill permits States to develop comprehensive plans that includes 
the utilization of those facilities. In fact, we have a law, a 
prioritization of military facilities, and this would encourage States 
to utilize those facilities.
  So I say to my colleagues, reject the McCollum amendment. The 
Governors oppose it, because its unfunded mandates once again. Very few 
states will plug into it because it requires them to expend more money 
than they receive in McCollum. Finally, there are sufficient monies in 
the bill. With the Hughes $3 billion and the $10.5 billion we just put 
in with Chapman, we have a lot of money in the bill for prison 
construction throughout the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been friends with the gentleman from New Jersey 
and have respected him for many years, and I know he is sincere in what 
he is producing out here today and his objections to my amendment and 
his offer, which he has been very proud of. But I think the gentleman 
is just plain wrong, with all due respect.
  I have a query of both he and Chairman Brooks. It is sort of a 
pregnant question. But if the States are so opposed to all of this, why 
does the largest bipartisan organization in the United States of State 
legislative leaders urge the Members of Congress to vote against the 
Hughes proposal and for McCollum?
  I think most State legislators understand that there are requirements 
with every grant program. In fact, the gentleman from New Jersey just 
listed the requirements he would place on the States to get the grant 
money. He listed them in broad panacea terms. But they are requirements 
that include these diversional programs we discussed a little earlier 
that some of my colleagues did not want to drop from this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that it is not a question of 
whether there are strings attached; it is a question of what the 
strings are. And why are we out here tonight talking about more money 
for prisons any way? Is it for the sake of giving more money to the 
States to build prisons for the sake of building prisons, period? The 
answer is no. States that do not have a problem with violent crime and 
repeat offenders do not need this money.
  We are out here to offer a carrot. The only reason for the grant 
money, the only reason most of us are here proposing $10 billion or 
more for prisons, is to offer a carrot to the States to get them to do 
what we think they should do, and they are not doing it now because 
they do not have the resources to do it, and because they have had no 
requirements that they do so. And that is to provide a change in their 
laws that abolishes parole for repeat violent felons.
  We abolished parole at the Federal level in 1984. It just does not 
exist. You must serve at least 85 percent of your sentence as a 
requirement for all Federal crimes.
  We are not out here proposing that for the States. We are out here 
trying to address the crisis that exists out there, and there is one 
the American public sees, with these repeat violent offenders going 
through the revolving door and getting out again and again and again in 
the key States, which is why the State legislators and State troopers 
support this so much.
  There is no point in this legislation if we do not see these changes. 
So, yes, there should be a string attached, there should be a 
requirement out here. That is the whole point of it, is to require that 
we get to the point in this country through the 50 States where the 
vast majority of them actually keep these prisoners in to serve most of 
their time, to send a message of deterrence.
  I talked to a gang mother out in California recently when I was out 
there in one of our colleague's districts. She came up to me and said:

       Congressman, I have a son who is involved in one of these 
     gangs out here. The biggest problem is that they do not get 
     the message that when they get the 20 year sentence, they 
     should serve 20 years. They should know they are going to 
     serve 20 years. They need to get that message. That would 
     stop a lot of this nonsense, this violent crime.

  That is what the police tell us too. They say there is a message 
center that goes on among criminals, especially youthful ones, and 
doing some of this time in jail, 1 or 2 years on a 10-year sentence, or 
3 or 4 years on a 20-year sentence, is a price they are willing to pay. 
They are willing to pay that cost.
  If they get the word out there on the street they are really going to 
serve 20 years when they get it, or 10 years when they get it, or close 
to it, then they are not going to commit all these violent crimes.
  We do not have deterrence in our criminal justice system today. That 
is the problem. We do not have a swiftness and certainty of punishment. 
This is the problem.
  We are not going to get there unless we adopt the McCollum amendment 
tonight. We are not going to get there unless there is some requirement 
that states when Utah gets these prison grant monies, that you actually 
change your laws to make sure that these violent criminals are 
incarcerated for that length of time, or at least 85 percent of their 
sentences.
  Now, I would submit that what the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes] has put in his substitute amendment, which is part of what is 
already in the underlying bill, is very, very weak. All he ways is they 
are going to have to serve a substantial portion of their sentence. 
That is a requirement, by the way, on the States. It just doesn't go 
all the way to 85 percent, which doesn't give us any idea of what a 
substantial portion is. That certainly doesn't give us any kind of a 
message to the criminals that we need to send. It is nonspecific. And 
further that somehow the sentences have to be appropriately related to 
that which is the offense.

  That is real vague and ambiguous. That is a requirement on the 
States, but it is not the kind of language or requirement that is going 
to send any message to these violent criminals. It is not going to 
deter crime, unless we get that message throughout this country.
  That is the whole purpose of having prison grant programs or prison 
building programs and offering to assist the State and having a 
Federal-State partnership to do it. So we need the strings.
  I would like to offer one last comment. My proposal does not require 
that the 85 percent rule abolishing parole apply to the first-time 
violent offender. I would like to see that. It doesn't require that for 
the States to get the money. This is an easier change in the laws than 
that. But they can get the money and can use the money to house first-
time violent offenders, to build prison space for them, to operate.
  The proposal of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] gives no 
money for operational costs to the States, which is one of the big 
reasons the legislatures and Governors who do support my amendment like 
it. It would have no strings attached whatsoever for that purpose.

                              {time}  1930

  It is a realistic proposal just to get incarcerated and assure that 
we are going to really put away for long periods of time the repeat 
violent offenders, the second time ones.
  That is why I am so opposed to the Hughes approach and so in favor of 
what I am offering out here tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate not only the chairman of the 
subcommittee's hard work but the way he has put together this bill.
  I have to oppose the McCollum amendment. Let me say that it is one 
thing to support the concept behind the McCollum amendment. I support 
mandatory minimums.
  I fought off, in subcommittee, efforts to eliminate them. I believe 
in truth in sentencing. But it is totally the other thing to tie these 
concepts to State eligibility for desperately needed money to build 
more prisons.
  In doing so, the McCollum amendment ensures that hardly a State in 
the Nation would get prison money under the bill. And that is because 
the cost of complying with the law would vastly outweigh monies States 
would get if they did comply.
  My own State, New York, estimates it would cost $1.6 billion to 
comply with the McCollum requirements, when doing so would bring New 
York about $250 million to $300 million in return. That is true of 
Pennsylvania. That is true of Illinois, and that is true of California 
and that is true of Florida. That is true of most every one of us major 
States. In other words, to get the monies that McCollum provides, 
necessary monies, I believe we have to build more prison cells. I am 
not one of those who say do not punish. I believe in punishment, 
particularly for violent repeat offenders, strong punishment, tough 
punishment, long punishment. But we do not get there by telling the 
States they have to do something that costs them 5, 10 times as much as 
the money they get.
  We need to build more prisons, and we need to build them at the local 
level. But the biggest problem with the amendment of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] is that ironically, despite the good intentions 
of the author, and he is a stellar individual who works hard on these 
issues. We agree on many things. And he is always out there sincerely 
trying. But his amendment is less tough on crime than the Hughes 
amendment, and that is because it will ultimately build fewer prison 
cells.
  The States are not going to be able to raise the taxes and do the 
other things that they would have to do to comply with McCollum.
  There will be years and years before my State and most of the other 
States will get any money out of this, because they cannot meet the 
requirements.
  So if Members are for mandatory minimums, like I am, and if they are 
for truth in sentencing, they can be for these things without tying 
these concepts to State prison funding that will be virtually 
impossible for the States to meet.
  Therefore, I urge that the McCollum amendment, well-intentioned as it 
is, be defeated, and the Hughes substitute be passed on.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I would like to respond because what the gentleman just said from New 
York, I think is something his State probably honestly believes is 
correct in estimating the cost. But that is not in conformity with the 
questions and answers I got from the Bureau of Prisons of the Federal 
Government.
  The Bureau of Prisons said that in order for my provision to be 
complied with, it would require construction costs of about $100,000 
per bed and that there are 91,000 beds that would be required to 
incarcerate for 85 percent of their sentences, that is, 91,000 
additional beds in the States to incarcerate for 85 percent of their 
sentences the second-time violent felons that are covered by my 
amendment or a total cost of $9.1 billion.
  And what we are proposing here is $10 billion more than that in this 
bill for these purposes, 75 percent of which would be paid by the 
Federal Government, 25 percent by the States.
  All the grant programs, including the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes] are a 75/25 percent split, so we are fully funding this. There 
is not a single bed a State would have to fill that is not paid for by 
the Federal Government, at least to the tune of 75 percent. They cannot 
get a better deal than that. They cannot get a better deal anywhere 
than that.
  In addition to that, we provide money for operating costs at a 75 
percent/25 percent ratio. That is from the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 
information they have sent to me in specific answer to the request on 
this specific amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to just point out a few things that I think perhaps make the 
Hughes substitute the more reasonable result in this particular 
instance. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida, because I 
think what he has attempted to do is good. But I am afraid he has 
missed the mark.
  I would like to share with my colleagues some of the reasons I 
believe that, as we examine on a line-by-line basis the amendment.
  But first, I say to my colleagues from Texas, Texas cannot qualify 
for funding under the provisions of this State because just like the 
gentleman from New York, we are told in Texas that we do not have the 
ability to comply where we could not do this. But that said, that is 
not the reason I think that we should defeat the amendment.
  First, I would say as compared to the Chapman amendment, this 
requires a much larger State matching grant, which makes it more 
difficult for the States. There is nothing in this amendment that 
recognizes the high crime States and sends more of the funds to those 
States with a greater problem. And this is something I think that is 
very important.

  This only applies to State if the crimes in the State penal statutes 
match element for element the crimes in the Federal Code. Because this 
particular amendment says that it applies only for those crimes, and it 
specifies them, and then it defines them by the Federal definition, the 
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the Texas Penal Code has different 
elements. Kidnapping under Texas law has different elements than 
kidnapping under the Federal law.
  This amendment requires every State's penal code conform to the 
Federal Penal Code, and they do not. And States, accordingly, could not 
qualify.
  It is for this reason that I think the Hughes substitute, and for 
other reasons, ought to be the vote of the House of Representatives. I 
urge the adoption of the Hughes substitute.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Washington].
  (Mr. WASHINGTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time 
to me.
  I was listening to the debate and had not planned on participating. I 
was attempting to follow the logic of my dear friend from Florida very 
carefully about the debate that is going on on this amendment.
  If I understand him correctly, the kind of criminals that he is 
talking about are the people that say:

       Well, I am going to go out and commit a crime.

  And they look it up in the penal code. It is a 5-to-20-year offense.

       And I am going to get the whole 20, because I have a 
     juvenile record and 85 percent of that would be 17 years. So 
     if I go out and do an armed robbery and I get $100,000 and if 
     I invest it in a money market CD at 4 percent and I am locked 
     up for the next 17 years, as long as I have one of those 
     telephone credit cards, I can call in and do bank 
     transactions over the phone. And if the Feds are going to 
     raise the rate by 2 or 3 years from now, then I can flip that 
     over and I can put half the money in this account and half of 
     that money in that account. And I can take advantage of this 
     information highway that is coming along. I have been reading 
     about that in the paper.

  The problem with that is, it is the kind of criminals that you and I 
are accustomed to who first of all never think they are going to be 
caught. And if they do not think they are going to be caught, they do 
not think they are going to be punished. And if they do not think they 
are going to be punished, then the McCollum amendment does not make any 
sense.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Washington] is 
a genius in his arguments, but I must say that is an argument against 
deterrence, period, in criminal law.
  We will all admit the death penalty does not deter every murder and 
all criminal laws do not deter all crime and they are never going to do 
that. The question is, how are we going to maximize deterrence? How are 
we going to send a message through those to whom it will go, and it 
will go through a certain number.
  I think our best experts are the police on the streets. Most of us 
who have spent time on this area, and I have for years, understand that 
they believe deeply that a deterrent message has to be sent, and it is 
not being sent right now.
  That is what this debate is all about, how do we incapacitate those 
people who are committing the most violent crimes, to get them off the 
streets so they are not going to go back out and commit them again, 
that 6 percent or so that are doing this, going through the revolving 
door, and at the same time send a tough message of deterrence to at 
least a substantial percentage of those out there who would be violent 
criminals.
  If you do the crime, you are going to do the time. That is the whole 
message. It can be real darned simple. It does not have anything to do 
with going to Wall Street to get there.
  I would also say, as I started to a moment ago, I was disappointed in 
my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman], whose amendment I 
supported earlier. I know that he had some reservations about some of 
the matters which I was proceeding with, but I also know that his 
amendment stands freestanding, and even if mine passes, it does not 
affect his whatsoever, so we need to go to the conference committee 
with the best possible options for us in this process.
  There is no provision in the Chapman amendment or in the Hughes 
amendment that is going to require the States or guarantee the States 
or that they will go to the rule of law that abolishes parole for those 
violent repeat offenders that are causing this problem, the ones that 
are out there, going through this revolving door. There is nothing.
  The only way to get a really meaningful truth in sentencing provision 
into this bill is by voting down the Hughes amendment tonight, and 
voting for the McCollum amendment.
  Let us not fool ourselves, there is no cover out there in having 
voted for the Chapman amendment, because it does not do that. There is 
no cover in voting for the Hughes amendment, because it does not do 
that.
  There is no cover in standing out there saying, ``Hey, I have a 
couple of Governors out there who do not agree with this,'' because the 
organization representing the State legislatures, who do pass the laws 
and I think are much more at the grassroots on this, have said, ``We 
want McCollum.'' The DAs have said, ``We want McCollum, and not 
Hughes.''
  We have seen the State Troopers' Association representing our State 
highway patrolmen say, ``We want McCollum, and not Hughes,'' because 
they understand at the grassroots level what the problem is.
  The problem is, we are not locking up these violent criminals for 
long periods of time. There is no assurance whatsoever out there 
tonight, in what we have passed so far, that that will ever come to 
pass.
  We can throw all the money in the world we want to out there for the 
opportunity for States to build new prison spaces, but we have 
absolutely no guarantees they are going to do that, that they are going 
to change their laws and actually cause these criminals to stay in jail 
for at least 85 percent of their sentence, unless we pass McCollum, 
none whatsoever.
  If you want to send a message, ``We want to lock them up, we want to 
throw away the key,'' vote down Hughes, vote for McCollum. Anything 
else is a fig leaf and is meaningless in that regard.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and he is a friend, I have 
worked for many years on crime legislation. When I chaired the 
Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, he was my ranking Republican, and we did a lot of tough, 
smart things that have made a difference: Money laundering, forfeiture, 
chemical tracking, and so forth.
  However, I want to say, I think my friend has lost his way on this 
one. I find myself suggesting to my friend, the gentleman from Florida, 
that he is going to do his own State in in this amendment, because his 
own State would not qualify.
  What does the McCollum amendment provide to the States? It does not 
provide a thing. It is an empty promise. If we listen to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Chapman], he was right on target, because the elements 
of the offense track the Federal code, and very few States around this 
country track the Federal code.
  Denton Darington is a senator from Idaho. He is a Republican Senator. 
He is chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and he is adamantly opposed 
to this, because it would require the State of Idaho to change 40-some 
criminal statutes in Idaho, to be eligible for this money.
  The McCollum amendment is weaker than Florida law. It only deals with 
violent offenders, in ensuring that they serve a substantial portion of 
their time, for second offenders. Florida has a requirement, as the 
gentleman from Florida knows, of 75 percent of their time for first-
time violent offenders.
  Other States have a variation of that. You cannot develop an 
arbitrary 85 percent and expect States are going to comply because, as 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, indicated, States would have to spend more money than 
they get. Besides that, the McCollum amendment does not deal with a 
very serious problem that the Hughes substitute does, and that is 
inadequate sentencing.
  Read the language of the Hughes substitute. It requires the States to 
give assurances to the Department of Justice that the sentences imposed 
are designed to provide sufficiently severe punishment for violent 
offenders. Eighty-five percent or 95 percent of an inadequate sentence 
is inadequate, and that is part of our problem.
  The Hughes amendment was developed in subcommittee, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to try to deal with a myriad of different statutes around the 
country. Very few States have identical sentencing patterns. They are 
not very similar to the Federal system and they are not similar to one 
another.
  We cannot mandate 85 percent truth in sentencing. We do in the Hughes 
substitute what we can do. We say that the States have to give 
assurances, including truth in sentencing laws, that ensure violent 
offenders serve a substantial portion of the sentences imposed. We do 
that in the Hughes substitute, but we do not lock States into an 
inflexible 85 percent rule.
  That is why the Governors throughout the country and the Conference 
of State Legislatures oppose the McCollum amendment. It is unworkable. 
It is not going to provide a penny for prison construction. We do not 
need to provide prison construction 6 years from now or 10 years from 
now, we need it now for violent offenders.
  Reject the McCollum amendment. It is a bad amendment. Support the 
Hughes substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Hughes] as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  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 CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that pursuant to rule XXIII, clause 
2, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for a 
recorded vote if such a vote is ordered on the McCollum amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 206, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               AYES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--206

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Waters
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Andrews (NJ)
     Brown (FL)
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Kaptur
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Stark

                              {time}  2006

  The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Franks of New Jersey 
     against. Ms. Kaptur for, with Mr. Grandy against.

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and Messrs. BURTON, GREENWOOD, McCURDY, 
and BEVILL changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  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. 
Baesler) 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.

                          ____________________