[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.
____________________