[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 20, 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 (Mrs. Meek of Florida). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 401 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4092.

                              {time}  1158


                     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. Spratt 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, April 19, 1994, amendment No. 16 printed in part 1 of House 
report 103-474 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] 
had been disposed of.


         Amendments En Bloc, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Brooks

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc made in order 
under the rule, and I ask unanimous consent that the modifications be 
considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc, as modified.
  The text of the amendments en bloc, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by Mr. Brooks, 
     consisting of amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Beilenson, 
     amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Kennedy, amendment No. 40 
     offered by Mr. Moran, amendment No. 48 offered by Ms. Pryce 
     of Ohio, amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Canady, and 
     amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Canady:


                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

       At the end insert the following new title:

                      TITLE XXIV--CRIMINAL ALIENS

     SEC. 2401. FEDERAL INCARCERATION OF UNDOCUMENTED CRIMINAL 
                   ALIENS.

       (a) Federal Incarceration.--Section 242 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(j) Federal Incarceration.--
       ``(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall 
     take into the custody of the Federal Government, and shall 
     incarcerate for a determinate sentence of imprisonment, an 
     undocumented criminal alien if--
       ``(A) the chief official of the State (or, if appropriate, 
     a political subdivision of the State) exercising authority 
     with respect to the incarceration of the undocumented 
     criminal alien submits a written request to the Attorney 
     General; and
       ``(B) the undocumented criminal alien is sentenced to a 
     determinate term of imprisonment.
       ``(2)(A) If the Attorney General determines that adequate 
     Federal facilities are not available for the incarceration of 
     an undocumented criminal alien under paragraph (1), the 
     Attorney General shall enter into a contractual arrangement 
     which provides for compensation to the State or a political 
     subdivision of the State, as may be appropriate, with respect 
     to the incarceration of such undocumented criminal alien for 
     such determinate sentence of imprisonment.
       ``(B) Compensation under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     determined by the Attorney General and may not exceed the 
     median cost of incarceration of a prisoner in all maximum 
     security facilities in the United States as determined by the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `undocumented criminal alien' means an alien who--
       ``(A) has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment, and
       ``(B)(i) entered the United States without inspection or at 
     any time of place other than as designated by the Attorney 
     General,
       ``(ii) was the subject of exclusion or deportation 
     proceedings at the time he or she was taken into custody by 
     the State or a political subdivision of the State, or
       ``(iii) was admitted as a nonimmigrant and at the time he 
     or she was taken into custody by the State or a political 
     subdivision of the State has failed to maintain the 
     nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to 
     which it was changed under section 248, or to comply with the 
     conditions of any such status.
       ``(4)(A) In carrying out this subsection, the Attorney 
     General shall give priority to the Federal incarceration of 
     undocumented criminal aliens who have committed aggravated 
     felonies.
       ``(B) The Attorney General shall ensure that undocumented 
     criminal aliens incarcerated in Federal facilities pursuant 
     to this subsection are held in facilities which provide a 
     level of security appropriate to the crimes for which they 
     were convicted.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect October 1, 1998.
       (c) Limitation.--The authority created in section 242(j) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by this 
     section) shall be subject to appropriation until October 1, 
     1998.


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KENNEDY

       At the end of the bill add the following new title:

      TITLE    --NATIONAL STALKER AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REDUCTION

     SEC.   . AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO FEDERAL CRIMINAL INFORMATION 
                   DATA BASES.

       (a) Access.--The Attorney General shall amend existing 
     regulations (published at 28 C.F.R. 20.33(a)) to authorize 
     the dissemination of information from existing national crime 
     information databases, including the National Crime 
     Information Center and III (``Triple I''), to courts and 
     court personnel, civil or criminal, for use in domestic 
     violence or stalking cases. Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to permit any person or court access to criminal 
     history record information for any other purpose or for any 
     other civil case other than for use in a stalking or domestic 
     violence case.
       (b) Entry.--The Attorney General shall amend existing 
     regulations to permit Federal and State criminal justice 
     agencies, assigned to input information into national crime 
     information databases, to include arrests, warrants, and 
     orders for the protection of parties from stalking or 
     domestic violence, whether issued by a criminal, civil, or 
     family court. Such amendment shall include a definition of 
     criminal history information that covers warrants, arrests, 
     and orders for the protection of parties from stalking or 
     domestic violence. Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to permit access to such information for any 
     purpose which is different than the purposes described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Procedures.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall be proposed no later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, after appropriate consultation with 
     the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
     officials charged with managing the National Crime 
     Information Center, and the National Crime Information Center 
     Advisory Policy Board. Final regulations shall be issued no 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC.   . NONSERIOUS OFFENSE BAR.

       The Attorney General shall amend existing regulations to 
     specify that the term ``nonserious offenses'', as used in 28 
     C.F.R. 20.32, does not include stalking or domestic violence 
     offenses. Nothing in this section is intended to change 
     current regulations requiring that juvenile offenses shall be 
     excluded from national crime information databases unless the 
     juvenile has been tried as an adult.

     SEC.   . PERFORMANCE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, through the Director 
     of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is authorized to provide 
     performance grants to the States to improve processes for 
     entering data about stalking and domestic violence into 
     national crime information databases.
       (b) Eligibility.--Eligible grantees under subsection (a) 
     are States that provide, in their application, that all 
     criminal justice agencies within their jurisdiction shall 
     enter into the National Crime Information Center all records 
     of (1) warrants for the arrest of persons violating civil 
     protection orders intended to protect victims from stalking 
     or domestic violence; (2) arrests of persons violating civil 
     protection orders intended to protect victims from stalking 
     or domestic violence; and (3) orders for the protection of 
     persons from violence, including stalking and domestic 
     violence.
       (c) Performance-Based Distribution.--Eligible grantees 
     under subsection (a) shall be awarded 25 percent of their 
     grant moneys upon application approval as ``seed money'' to 
     cover start-up costs for the project funded by the grant. 
     Upon successful completion of the performance audit provided 
     in subsection (d), the grantees shall be awarded the 
     remaining sums in the grant.
       (d) Performance Audit.--Within 6 months after the initial 
     25 percent of a grant is provided, the State shall report to 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice 
     Assistance, the number of records included in national crime 
     information databases as a result of the grant funding, 
     including separate data for warrants, arrests, and protective 
     orders. If the State can show a substantial increase in the 
     number of records entered, then it shall be eligible for the 
     entire grant amount. However, the Director shall suspend 
     funding for an approved application if an applicant fails to 
     submit a 6 month performance report or if funds are expended 
     for purposes other than those set forth under this title. 
     Federal funds may be used to supplement, not supplant, State 
     funds.
       (e) Grant Amount.--From amounts appropriated, the amount of 
     grants under subsection (a) shall be--
       (1) $75,000 to each State; and
       (2) That portion of the then remaining available money to 
     each State that results from a distribution among the States 
     on the basis of each State's population in relation to the 
     population of all States.

     SEC.   . APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       The application requirements provided in section 513 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3711 et seq.) shall apply to grants made under this title. In 
     addition, applications shall include documentation showing--
       (1) the need for grant funds and that State funding does 
     not already cover these operations;
       (2) intended use of the grant funds, including a plan of 
     action to increase record input; and
       (3) an estimate of expected results from the use of the 
     grant funds.

     SEC.   . DISBURSEMENT.

       (a) General Rule.--No later than 30 days after the receipt 
     of an application under this title, the Director shall either 
     disburse the appropriate sums provided for under this title 
     or shall inform the applicant why the application does not 
     conform to the terms of section 513 of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 or to the requirements 
     of section    of this title.
       (b) Regulations.--In disbursing moneys under this title, 
     the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance shall issue 
     regulations to ensure that grantees give priority to the 
     areas with the greatest showing of need.

     SEC.   . FEDERAL NONMONETARY ASSISTANCE.

       In addition to the assistance provided under the 
     performance grant program, the Attorney General may direct 
     any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to use its 
     authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law 
     (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and 
     managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support of 
     State and local law enforcement efforts to combat stalking 
     and domestic violence.

     SEC.   . AUTHORIZATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for each of the 
     fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, $2,000,000 to carry out 
     the purposes of the Performance Grant Program under this 
     title.

     SEC.   . TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR JUDGES.

       The National Institute of Justice, in conjunction with a 
     nationally recognized nonprofit organization expert in 
     stalking and domestic violence cases, shall conduct training 
     programs for judges to ensure that any judge issuing an order 
     in stalking or domestic violence cases has all available 
     criminal history and other information, whether from State or 
     Federal sources.

     SEC.   . RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTRASTATE COMMUNICATION.

       The National Institute of Justice, after consulting a 
     nationally recognized nonprofit associations expert in data 
     sharing among criminal justice agencies and familiar with the 
     issues raised in stalking and domestic violence cases, shall 
     recommend proposals about how State courts may increase 
     intrastate communication between family courts, juvenile 
     courts, and criminal courts.

     SEC.   . INCLUSION IN NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING 
                   SYSTEM.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation and the States, shall compile data 
     regarding stalking civil protective orders and other forms of 
     domestic violence as part of the National Incident-Based 
     Reporting System (NIBRS).

     SEC.   . REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       The Attorney General shall submit to the Congress an annual 
     report, beginning one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that reports information on the incidence of 
     stalking and other forms of domestic violence, and evaluates 
     the effectiveness of State anti-stalking efforts and 
     legislation.

     SEC.   . DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title--
       (1) the term ``national crime information databases'' 
     refers to the National Crime Information Center and its 
     incorporated criminal history databases, including III 
     (``Triple I'');
       (2) the term ``stalking'' includes any conduct that would, 
     if proven, justify the issuance of an order of protection 
     under the stalking, or other, laws of the State in which it 
     occurred; and
       (3) the term ``domestic violence'' includes any conduct 
     that would, if proven, justify the issuance of an order of 
     protection under the domestic violence, or other, laws of the 
     State in which it occurred.


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

       At the end, add the following:

TITLE   --PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF INFORMATION IN STATE MOTOR VEHICLE 
                                RECORDS

     SEC.   . SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Driver's Privacy 
     Protection Act of 1994''.

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON RELEASE AND USE OF CERTAIN PERSONAL 
                   INFORMATION FROM STATE MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS.

       Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 121 the following:

   ``CHAPTER 123--PROHIBITION ON RELEASE AND USE OF CERTAIN PERSONAL 
              INFORMATION FROM STATE MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS

     ``Sec. 2721. Prohibition on release and use of certain 
       personal information from State motor vehicle records

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, 
     employee, or contractor thereof, shall not knowingly disclose 
     or otherwise make available to any person or entity personal 
     information about any individual obtained by the department 
     in connection with a motor vehicle record.
       ``(b) Permissible Uses.--Personal information referred to 
     in subsection (a) of this section shall be disclosed for 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) to carry out the purpose of the 
     Automobile Information Disclosure Act, the Motor Vehicle 
     Information and Cost Saving Act, the National Traffic and 
     Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Anti-Car Theft Act of 
     1992, and the Clean Air Act, and may be disclosed for 
     paragraphs (3) through (14), as follows:
       ``(1) For use by any Federal, State, or local agency, 
     including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying 
     out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on 
     behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out 
     its functions.
       ``(2) For use in connection with matters of motor vehicle 
     or driver safety and theft, motor vehicle emissions, motor 
     vehicle product alteration, recall or advisory, and motor 
     vehicle customer satisfaction.
       ``(3) For use in the normal course of business by a 
     legitimate business or its agents, employees, or contractors, 
     but only--
       ``(A) to verify the accuracy of personal information 
     submitted by the individual to the business or its agents, 
     employees, or contractors; and
       ``(B) if such information as so submitted is not correct or 
     is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but 
     only for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal 
     remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security 
     interest against, the individual.
       ``(4) For use in connection with any civil, criminal, 
     administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, 
     or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body, 
     including the service of process, investigation in 
     anticipation of litigation, and the execution or enforcement 
     of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a 
     Federal, State, or local court
       ``(5) For use in research activities, including survey 
     research, and for use in producing statistical reports, 
     provided that the personal information is not published or 
     redisclosed and provided that the personal information is not 
     used to direct solicitations or marketing offers at the 
     individuals whose personal information is disclosed under 
     this paragraph.
       ``(6) For use by any insurer or insurance support 
     organization, or by a self-insured entity, or its agents, 
     employees, or contractors, in connection with claims 
     investigation activities, antifraud activities, rating or 
     underwriting.
       ``(7) For the purpose of providing notice of the owners of 
     towed or impounded vehicles.
       ``(8) For use by any licensed private investigative agency 
     or licensed security service for any purpose permitted under 
     this subsection,
       ``(9) For use by an employer or its agent or insurer to 
     obtain or verify information relating to a holder of a 
     commercial driver's license that is required under the 
     Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. App. 
     2710 et seq.).
       ``(10) For use in connection with the operation of private 
     toll transportation facilities.
       ``(11) For any other purpose in response to requests for 
     individual motor vehicle records if the motor vehicle 
     department has provided in a clear and conspicuous manner to 
     the individual to whom the information pertains an 
     opportunity to prohibit such disclosures.
       ``(12) For bulk distribution for marketing or solicitations 
     if the motor vehicle department has implemented methods and 
     procedures to ensure--
       ``(A) that individuals are provided an opportunity, in a 
     clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit such disclosure; 
     and
       ``(B) that the information will be used, rented, or sold 
     solely for bulk distribution for marketing and solicitations, 
     and that such solicitations will not be directed at those 
     individuals who have requested in a timely fashion that they 
     not be directed at them.

     `Methods and procedures' includes the motor vehicle 
     department's use of a mail preference list to remove from its 
     records before bulk distribution the names and personal 
     information of those individuals who have requested that 
     solicitations not be directed at them.
       ``(13) For use by any requestor, if the requestor 
     demonstrates it has obtained the written consent of the 
     individual to whom the information pertains.
       ``(14) For any other purpose specifically authorized under 
     the law of the State that holds the record, if such purpose 
     is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or public 
     safety.
       ``(c) Resale or Redisclosure.--Any authorized recipient of 
     personal information may resell or redisclose the information 
     for any use permitted under subsection (b). Any authorized 
     recipient (except a recipient under subsections (b)(11) or 
     (12)) that resells or rediscloses personal information 
     covered by this title must keep for a period of 5 years 
     records identifying each person or entity that receives the 
     information and the permitted purpose for which the 
     information will be used.
       ``(d) Waiver Procedures.--A State motor vehicle department 
     may establish and carry out procedures under which the 
     department or its agents, upon receiving a request for 
     personal information that does not fall within one of the 
     exceptions in subsection (b), may mail a copy of the request 
     to the individual about whom the information was requested, 
     informing such individual of the request, together with a 
     statement to the effect that the information will not be 
     released unless the individual waives such individual's right 
     to privacy under this section.

     Sec. 2722. Additional unlawful acts

       ``(a) Procurement for Unlawful Purpose.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any person knowingly to obtain or disclose 
     personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for any 
     purpose not permitted under section 2721(b) of this title.
       ``(b) False Representations.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person to make false representation to obtain any personal 
     information from an individual's motor vehicle record.

     Sec. 2723. Criminal penalty

       ``Any person that knowingly violates this chapter shall be 
     fined under this title.

     Sec. 2724. Civil Action

       ``(a) Cause of Action.--A person who knowingly obtains, 
     discloses or uses personal information, derived from a motor 
     vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this 
     chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the 
     information pertains, who may bring a civil action in a 
     United States district court.
       ``(b) Remedies.--The court may award--
       ``(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages 
     in the amount of $2,500;
       ``(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless 
     disregard of the law;
       ``(3) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs 
     reasonably incurred; and
       ``(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the 
     court determines to be appropriate.

     Sec. 2725. Definitions

     ``As used in this chapter--
       ``(1) ``motor vehicle record'' means any record that 
     pertains to a motor vehicle operator's permit, motor vehicle 
     title, motor vehicle registration, or identification card 
     issued by a department of motor vehicles;
       ``(2) ``personal information'' means information that 
     identifies an individual, including an individual's 
     photograph, social security number, driver identification 
     number, name, address (by not the 5-digit zip code), 
     telephone number, and medical or disability information. Such 
     term does not include information on vehicular accidents, 
     driving violations, and driver's status; and
       ``(3) ``person'' means an individual, organization or 
     entity, but does not include a State or agency thereof.''.

     SEC.   . EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect 3 years after the date of 
     enactment. in the interim, personal information covered by 
     this title may be released consistent with State law or 
     practice.


                    amendment offered by mr. canady

       At the end of the bill insert the following:

        TITLE   --CIVIL RIGHTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT

     SEC.   . EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.

       Section 8 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``in any action brought'' and inserting 
     ``no action shall be brought'';
       (ii) by striking ``the court shall'' and all that follows 
     through ``require exhaustion of'' and insert ``until''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``are exhausted'' after ``available''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or are otherwise fair 
     and effective'' before the period at the end.

     SEC.   . FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS.

       Section 8(a) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) The court shall on its own motion or on motion of a 
     party dismiss any action brought pursuant to section 1979 of 
     the Revised Statutes of the United States by an adult 
     convicted of a crime and confined in any jail, prison, or 
     other correctional facility if the court is satisfied that 
     the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 
     granted or is frivolous or malicious.

     SEC.   . MODIFICATION OF REQUIRED MINIMUM STANDARDS.

       Section 8(b)(2) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (A) and redesignating subparagraphs (B) through 
     (E) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively.

     SEC.   . REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE CHANGES.

       Section 8(c) of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
     Persons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e(c) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or are otherwise fair 
     and effective'' before the period at the end; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or is no longer fair 
     and effective'' before the period at the end.

     SEC.   . PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.

       (a) Dismissal.--Section 1915(d) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``at any time'' after ``counsel and may''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``and may'' and inserting ``and shall'';
       (3) by inserting ``fails to state a claim upon which relief 
     may be granted or'' after ``that the action''; and
       (4) by inserting ``even if partial failing fees have been 
     imposed by the court'' before the period.
       (b) Prisoner's Statement of Assets.--Section 1915 of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) If a prisoner in a correctional institution files an 
     affidavit in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, 
     such prisoner shall include in that affidavit a statement of 
     all assets such prisoner possesses. The court shall make 
     inquiry of the correctional institution in which the prisoner 
     is incarcerated for information available to that institution 
     relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets. The court 
     shall require full or partial payment of filing fees 
     according to the prisoner's ability to pay.''.


                    amendment offered by Mr. Canady

       At the end of the bill insert the following:

                      TITLE  --PRISON OVERCROWDING

     SEC.   . APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR PRISON OVERCROWDING.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Subchapter 
     C of chapter 229 of part 2 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following.

     ``Sec. 3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison 
       crowding

       ``(a) Requirement of Showing With Respect To the Plaintiff 
     in Particular.--
       ``(1) Holding.--A Federal court shall not hold prison or 
     jail crowding unconstitutional under the eighth amendment 
     except to the extent that an individual plaintiff inmate 
     proves that the crowding causes the infliction of cruel and 
     unusual punishment of that inmate.
       ``(2) Relief.--The relief in a case described in paragraph 
     (1) shall extend no further than necessary to remove the 
     conditions that are causing the cruel and unusual punishment 
     of the plaintiff inmate.
       ``(b) Inmate Population Ceilings.--
       ``(1) Requirement of showing with respect to particular 
     prisoners.--A Federal court shall not place a ceiling on the 
     inmate population of any Federal, State, or local detention 
     facility as an equitable remedial measure for conditions that 
     violate the eighth amendment unless crowding is inflicting 
     cruel and usual punishment on particular identified 
     prisoners.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection shall not be construed to have any effect on 
     Federal judicial power to issue equitable relief other than 
     that described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, including 
     the requirement of improved medical or health care and the 
     imposition of civil contempt fines or damages, where such 
     relief is appropriate.
       ``(c) Periodic Reopening.--Each Federal court order or 
     consent decree seeking to remedy an eighth amendment 
     violation shall be reopened at the behest of a defendant for 
     recommended modification at a minimum of 2-year intervals.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--Section 3626 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall apply to 
     all outstanding court orders on the date of enactment of this 
     Act. Any State or municipality shall be entitled to seek 
     modification of any outstanding eighth amendment decree 
     pursuant to that section.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter C of chapter 229 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is ameneded by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``3626. Appropriate remedies with respect to prison crowding.''.

       (d) Sunset Provision.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section are repealed effective as of the date that is 
     5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.


                amendment offered by ms. pryce of ohio:

       Add at the end the following:

                 TITLE   --PRISON SECURITY ENHANCEMENT

     SEC.  . PRISON SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 4047. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited
       ``The Bureau of Prisons shall take care that--
       ``(1) prisoners under its jurisdiction do not engage in any 
     activities designed to increase their physical strength or 
     their fighting ability; and
       ``(2) that all equipment designed for this purpose be 
     removed from Federal correctional facilities.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 303 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``4047. Strength-training of prisoners prohibited.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].


 modification to amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by mr. brooks

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Beilenson 
amendment, as modified, be that which is at the desk now.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 32, as modified, offered by Mr. Beilenson:
       At the end insert the following new title:

                      TITLE XXIV--CRIMINAL ALIENS

     SEC. 2401. INCARCERATION OF UNDOCUMENTED CRIMINAL ALIENS.

       (a) Incarceration.--Section 242 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Incarceration.--
       ``(1) If the chief official of the State (or, if 
     appropriate, a political subdivision of the State) exercising 
     authority with respect to the incarceration of an 
     undocumented criminal alien (sentenced to a determinate term 
     of imprisonment) submits a written request to the Attorney 
     General, the Attorney General shall, as determined by the 
     Attorney General--
       ``(A) enter into a contractual arrangement which provides 
     for compensation to the State of a political subdivision of 
     the State, as may be appropriate, with respect to the 
     incarceration of such undocumented criminal alien for such 
     determinate sentence of imprisonment, or
       ``(B) take the undocumented criminal alien into the custody 
     of the Federal Government and incarcerate such alien for such 
     determinate sentence of imprisonment.
       ``(2) Compensation under paragraph (1)(A) shall be 
     determined by the Attorney General and may not exceed the 
     median cost of incarceration of a prisoner in all maximum 
     security facilities in the United States as determined by the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `undocumented criminal alien' means an alien who--
       ``(A) has been convicted of a felony and sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment, and
       ``(B)(i) entered the United States without inspection or at 
     any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney 
     General,
       ``(ii) was the subject of exclusion or deportation 
     proceedings at the time he or she was taken into custody by 
     the State or a political subdivision of the State, or
       ``(iii) was admitted as a nonimmigrant and at the time he 
     or she was taken into custody by the State or a political 
     subdivision of the State has failed to maintain the 
     nonimmigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to 
     which it was changed under section 248, or to comply with the 
     conditions of any such status.
       ``(4)(A) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Attorney 
     General shall give priority to the Federal incarceration of 
     undocumented criminal aliens who have committed aggravated 
     felonies.
       ``(B) The Attorney General shall ensure that undocumented 
     criminal aliens incarcerated in Federal facilities pursuant 
     to this subsection are held in facilities which provide a 
     level of security appropriate to the crimes for which they 
     were convicted.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect October 1, 1994.
       (c) Limitation.--The authority created in section 242(j) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by subsection 
     (a)) shall be subject to appropriation until October 1, 1998.
  Mr. BROOKS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Spratt). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving this legislation toward 
completion, I am at this time offering a second en block amendment 
consisting of six provisions made in order under the rule. They are the 
Beilenson-Berman-Condit-Thurman amendment requiring the Federal 
Government to incarcerate or to reimburse States and localities for the 
costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens; the Kennedy amendment to 
provide criminal history information for use in stalking and domestic 
violence cases; the Moran amendment protecting the privacy of 
information provided to State motor vehicle departments; the Canady 
amendment requiring State prison inmates to exhaust the prison's 
administrative remedies prior to filing an action in Federal court; the 
Canady-Geren amendment on prison overcrowding; and finally the Pryce 
amendment on strength training for prisoners.
  These amendments are discussed in the subject matter addressed. And, 
while I strongly support the Beilenson, Kennedy, and Moran amendments, 
I have concerns about some of the others. I offer these Democratic and 
Republican amendments now simply to move this important legislation 
forward to passage, conference, and enactment into law.
  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 wish to first of all say that I support all of these 
amendments that are out here today that are being offered. I think that 
they are a good set of amendments.
  They are being done en bloc so we will not have a lot of time to 
discuss all of them. I certainly support the Beilenson, Berman, Condit, 
Thurman amendment. It deals with reimbursing the States and paying for 
costs of housing undocumented aliens in our State prisons. My State of 
Florida is affected deeply by that.
  I do not think it goes far enough. I think the date for its actual 
enactment ought to be moved up from 1999 so we get this process going 
on much closer, and I hope we have some opportunity to do that in this 
process.
  I also particularly support the two Canady amendments, the Canady No. 
49, and the Canady-Geren amendment. They go a great deal of the 
distance we need to go toward trying to help alleviate the problems 
Federal courts have created for prison overcrowding by making rulings 
that are not always consistent with the way that most of us would think 
would be the norm for judging these matters. I do strongly believe they 
should be ultimately in the final product of whatever comes out of this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Canady], the author of these two amendments.
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks], for the inclusion of these two amendments in 
the en bloc amendment at this time.
  In recent years we have seen an explosion of frivolous litigation by 
prison inmates. We have also seen the Federal courts engage in 
micromanaging State and local correctional facilities.
  My two amendments are designed to address these two problems. They 
are based on the commonsense notion that the inmates should not be 
allowed to run the institutions in which they are incarcerated.
  Although the amendments, quite frankly, do not go quite as far as I 
would like to solve these problems, I believe that they do represent 
significant improvements in the status quo, and for that reason, I 
would urge the House to adopt them as a part of this en bloc amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Canady/Geren 
amendment because I've seen close to home how court orders designed to 
limit prison populations can have perverse and disastrous results.
  In 1989, a Federal district judge issued an order placing a ceiling 
on the population of inmates at the county jails in Essex County, NJ.
  When the population rose above that cap, the county had to post bail 
for prisoners, using taxpayer dollars for their bond.
  The court order created a nightmare. Of the 3,852 defendants who were 
released courtesy of the bail fund, 66 percent either committed a crime 
while on bail or jumped bail; 273 of them were arrested for violent 
crimes--11 for murder.
  Court orders of this sort destroy the credibility of the criminal 
justice system. I urge my colleagues to support the Canady/Geren 
amendment by voting for the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Beilenson, 
Condit, Thurman amendment. For too long the States that are the victims 
of our national immigration policy have been forced to use their scare 
funds to educate, feed, and incarcerate illegal aliens. This 
arrangement is no longer acceptable.
  Today, over 50,000 of our prisoners in State and Federal facilities 
are not citizens of this country. In my State of California, more than 
12 percent of the State prison population, some 16,000 inmates, are 
illegal aliens. The cost to California for incarcerating undocumented 
criminal aliens in fiscal year 1994-95 will be $393 million.
  In this legislation there are funds for prisoners, programs for gang 
members, and even court time for midnight basketball players. My 
question is: ``Where is the support for the taxpayers of California, 
Florida and all other States affected by illegal immigration?'' 
Shouldn't the taxpayers of these States be reimbursed for our Nation's 
failed immigration policy?
  Congress has a bad habit of making ``feel good'' policy--but then 
does not provide the money to pay for it. Congress should end the 
failed national immigration policy, or at the very least it should have 
the decency to pay for it. Please join me in support of the Beilenson, 
Condit, Thurman amendment.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], the author of a very critical 
amendment that we have just been discussing.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Beilenson-Berman-Condit-
Thurman amendment to H.R. 4092. I prefer an amendment that takes effect 
next year, but we are forced to delay implementation.
  With regard to the policy behind this amendment, our government was 
established by a special social contract. Certain responsibilities were 
given to the Federal Government; others remained with the States.
  Immigration is a Federal responsibility. If the Federal Government 
fails to control our borders, then it must assume responsibility for 
the consequences of its inaction. So, if you let into this country 
aliens who commit crimes against Americans, then you should pay for 
their imprisonment.
  I approach this situation from the perspective of 10 years in the 
Florida Senate. For years, I was forced to shift State funds from one 
or another program to criminal justice and other programs whose costs 
increased because of the presence of illegal aliens. In March, Governor 
Chiles released a report cataloging the cost of illegal aliens to 
Florida: $884 million a year.
  In the criminal justice system, the problem has changed dramatically 
in the past 14 years. In 1980, the supervision cost--probation and 
parole--of criminal aliens in Florida totaled about $86,000 for 245 
offenders. By 1993, this cost--which comes entirely from State 
revenues--increased to $6.8 million to cover nearly 5,100 aliens.
  In 1988, the cost of incarcerating 1,288 other aliens--non-Mariel 
Cubans--was nearly $13.8 million. By 1993 it was $27.7 million for 
2,042 prisoners--now $15,500 a year per prisoner. During this period, 
Florida spent $130.7 million from its general revenues. The Federal 
Government provided Florida with nothing.
  Since 1988, Florida has spent nearly $52.6 million to incarcerate 
Mariel Cubans. The Federal contribution was $11.4 million, or 18 
percent.
  When you include the costs to California, Texas, New York, Illinois, 
New Jersey, and other States, you must conclude that the Federal 
Government has been abrogating its responsibilities to all taxpayers.
  For too many years the Federal Government has created and sustained a 
fiction that alien criminals do not impact State criminal justice 
systems. The Federal Government repeatedly turned a deaf ear to pleas 
from States heavily impacted by these criminals.
  The grievances that this amendment seeks to address are legitimate, 
and our needs substantial. All we seek is justice. It will be later 
rather than sooner, but nevertheless justice.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], the distinguished author of the Moran amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the first thing we are going to do is yield 
to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards], who helped us on this bill that may provide more protection 
to the individual citizen than virtually any other amendment we have in 
this bill.
  Very few people realize that anybody can write down the license plate 
number of your spouse and daughter and find out where they live and 
their name and their Social Security number in many States; it should 
not be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this 
amendment in order and to particularly thank the chairman of the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Congressman 
Don Edwards, for holding very constructive hearings on the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act, which helped to strengthen and improve this 
amendment. Congressman Edwards is a credit to this institution and he 
will be sorely missed after his retirement at the end of this session.
  The amendment that I am offering today will close a loophole in State 
law that allows anyone, for any reason, to gain access to personal 
information--defined as a driver's name, address, and Social Security 
number--in your DMV file. Currently, in 34 States across the country 
anyone can walk into a DMV office with your tag number, pay a small 
fee, and get your name, address, phone number and other personal 
information--no questions asked. Think about that. A total stranger can 
obtain personal information about you without knowing anything more 
about you than your license plate number and you are helpless to stop 
it.
  You may have gone to the trouble of getting an unlisted phone number 
and address, but the DMV will sell it anyway, to anyone who asks. 
That's what happened in California to Rebecca Schaeffer, promising 
young star of the television show ``My Sister Sam.'' Although she had 
an unlisted home number and address, Ms. Schaeffer was shot to death by 
an obsessed fan who obtained her name and address through the DMV. In 
Iowa, a gang of thieves copied down the license plate numbers of 
expensive cars they saw, found out the names and addresses of the 
owners and robbed their homes at night. In Virginia, a woman regularly 
wrote to the DMV, provided the license plate numbers of drivers and 
asked for the names and addresses of the owners who she claimed were 
stealing the fillings from her teeth at night.
  In each of these cases, the drivers whose personal information was 
released were never notified of the request or the subsequent release 
of their information. By selling personal information from DMV records 
without providing a name removal option, States are violating 
requirements for procedural fairness and the ``due process 
principles,'' reflected in the Constitution.
  The amendment I am offering simply gives drivers the ability to 
restrict release of personal information for reasons that are totally 
incompatible for the reasons it was collected. In doing so, it strikes 
a critical balance between an individual's fundamental right to privacy 
and safety and the legitimate governmental and business needs for this 
information.
  The amendment authorizes unlimited access to personal information for 
courts, law enforcement, governmental agencies, and for other driver 
and automobile safety purposes. It authorizes access to businesses to 
verify information provided by the driver and to access personal 
information if that information is incorrect or outdated. Licensed 
private detectives could access the information for any purpose 
authorized in the amendment.
  Marketers use DMV lists to do targeted mailings and other types of 
marketing. This amendment will allow them to continue to do so, as long 
as they agree not to market drivers who object to their personal 
information being used for marketing purposes. Eight States have 
already instituted opt-out systems which allow drivers to restrict the 
use of their name for marketing purposes. This amendment will not alter 
those opt-out systems.
  My intent is for this provision to furnish States that proceed with 
op-out systems with substantial flexibility in the operation of these 
systems, including the flexibility to furnish multi-purpose users with 
a single list of license holders. Any driver that had notified the 
State that he/she did not want to receive direct mail solicitations 
would still be on that list, but the State would have to clearly 
identify to the purchaser the individuals to whom solicitations should 
not be directed and the purchaser would have to agree not to direct 
solicitation to that driver. In addition, if the multipurpose user 
resold the file to a third party that only used the information for 
marketing purposes, the multipurpose user would have to delete all of 
the names of those individuals that did not want to receive 
solicitations before the sale of that file. To the extent that the 
possibility of confusion exists on this issue, I would welcome 
appropriate changes to the language in conference that would clarify my 
intention.
  The amendment would also allow any non- authorized person to access 
DMV information, as long as the DMV provides all drivers the 
opportunity to restrict the sale of their personal information for non-
authorized purposes. The basic presumption is that personal information 
in DMV records will be open unless a licensee specifically restricts 
access for non-authorized purposes. If drivers choose to restrict 
access to their file, someone coming in off the street, without a 
permissible purpose could not gain access to that person's file. 
However, insurance companies, law enforcement professionals, attorneys, 
and all other authorized users would continue to have access to this 
information.

  This particular provision was added after hearings were held on the 
Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the press raised concerns that they 
would not have access to personal information held by the DMV. Although 
my staff tried to come up with language to specifically authorize 
access by the press, they didn't want it, claiming they didn't want to 
be treated any differently than the general public. So, in order to 
accommodate them, we changed the bill to allow access to all personal 
information unless a licensee specifically restricts it. Press groups 
support this approach.
  It is very important to note that the amendment in no way affects 
access to accident information about the car or driver. Nothing in this 
bill would stop anyone from finding out another person's driving 
record, accidents, or status.
  In addition, the amendment only penalizes individuals who knowingly 
obtain, disclose or use personal information for a purpose not 
permitted under the amendment. Individual drivers aggrieved by such 
illegal release could sue for damages in district court.
  The amendment before the House today reflects many comments and 
suggestions received during hearings held by the Subcommittee on Civil 
and Constitutional Rights. Changes were made to the Driver's Privacy 
Protection Act as a result of those hearings that make this amendment 
very different than the amendment that was offered to the crime bill by 
Senator Boxer. Unlike the Boxer amendment, my amendment allows greater 
access for private detectives and the press and more flexibility to the 
States in allowing additional uses of personal information.
  Another aspect of this legislation which received considerable 
attention at the hearings was the potential impact of the Driver's 
Privacy Protection Act on access rules applying to other kinds of 
public records held by State and local governments. The key difference 
between DMV records and other public records comes from the license 
plate, through which every vehicle on the public highways can be linked 
to a specific individual. Anyone with access to data linking license 
plates with vehicle ownership has the ability to ascertain the name and 
address of the person who owns that vehicle. Other public records are 
not vulnerable to abuse in the same way.
  Unlike with license plate numbers, people concerned about privacy can 
usually take reasonable steps to withhold their names and addresses 
from strangers, and thus limit their access to personally identifiable 
information. By contrast, no one is free to conceal his or her license 
plate while traveling by automobile.
  Recognizing this distinction, this amendment applies only to 
specified categories of personal information contained in motor vehicle 
records. It does not apply to any other systems of public records 
maintained by States or local governments.
  There are many organizations and businesses specifically concerned 
about easy access to DMV information. That's why this amendment is 
strongly supported by over 20 organizations, including the standard-
making body for all State DMVs, the American Association of Motor 
Vehicle Administrators, the National Consumers League, the Fraternal 
Order of Police, the American Insurance Association, and other 
business, consumer, police, physician, and victim's groups.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect the 
privacy of all Americans.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Edwards].
  (Mr. EDWARDS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran] worked very closely with the subcommittee I chair. We held 
2 days of hearings on his amendment to this bill. It is a good bill.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] was very skillful in writing 
the bill and very cooperative in working with the subcommittee, and we 
are looking forward to having the Moran proposal becoming law.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires States to adopt an opt-out when 
information about vehicle registrants or drivers is disclosed in bulk 
for use in marketing and solicitation.
  Our intent is to give States that proceed with opt-out systems 
flexibility in the operation of these systems, including the 
flexibility to furnish multi-purpose users with a single list as long 
as the State ensures that solicitations are not directed at individuals 
who have requested of the DMV in a timely fashion that solicitations 
not be directed at them based on their motor vehicle records.
  One means of accomplishing this would be for the State to flag or 
otherwise identify to the list purchaser the individuals to whom 
solicitations should not be directed. This is a common practice in the 
States that currently have an opt-out system in place. It is our intent 
that this amendment permit the continuation of this method and 
procedure in those States and in other States wishing to implement an 
opt-out system. Such multipurpose users may redisseminate lists of 
drivers or registrants only after they have excluded the flagged names.
  Indeed, one of the advantages of this flagging type of procedure is 
that it may be more effective than a suppression procedure in ensuring 
that individuals how have opted-out in fact not have solicitations 
directed at them. These individuals most probably already are on 
various solicitation lists previously compiled from information 
obtained from motor vehicle records and other sources. The list users 
update their data with information obtained from motor vehicle 
departments. If the updates simply skip over the names and addresses of 
individuals who have opted out, the desire of these individuals to opt-
out will not be disclosed to the list users who in turn will leave 
undisturbed the names and addresses of these individuals in their 
historical lists. Consequently, without flagged names and addresses, 
the list users probably would continue soliciting these households 
based on the earlier record they compiled, eventually stopping years 
later when the data becomes obsolete. By comparison, flagging names and 
addresses permits the opt-out to go into effect immediately because it 
enables the list purchaser to match these individuals against all name 
and address outputs to ensure that a flagged record is not released.

  To the extent that the possibility of confusion exists on this issue, 
we may make further changes to the language in conference that would 
clarify my intention.
  One other aspect of this legislation which received considerable 
attention at the subcommittee's hearings deserves further discussion: 
The potential precedential impact of the Driver's Privacy Protection 
Act on access rules applying to other kinds of public records held by 
State and local governments. These governments collect and maintain 
large quantities of records that have traditionally been open to broad 
public access, including land transaction and ownership records, voter 
registration rolls, court records, and corporate legal filings, among 
others. The testimony before the subcommittee underscored the need to 
maintain the public record character of this data, even if it is 
necessary to impose restrictions on access to some personal data held 
by State motor vehicle administrations.
  There are key differences between DMV records and other public 
records. There was no evidence before the subcommittee that other 
public records are vulnerable to abuse in the same way that DMV records 
have been abused. Unlike with license plate numbers, people concerned 
about privacy can usually take reasonable steps to withhold their names 
and address from strangers, and thus limit their access to personally 
identifiable information contained in voter registration lists, court 
records, or land records. By contrast, no one is free to conceal his or 
her license plate while traveling by automobile.
  Recognizing this distinction, this legislation applies only to 
specified categories of personal information contained in motor vehicle 
records. It does not apply to any other systems of public records 
maintained by States or local governments. There was testimony before 
the subcommittee that these records should remain publicly accessible 
in accordance with applicable State law. Broad public access to such 
records remains enormously important to our society, for preservation 
of a free press, for government accountability, and for a number of 
valuable economic and business applications.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pete Geren].
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks], and I rise in support of the Canady-Geren 
amendment.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the packaging of these 6 en bloc amendments, 
but I must say that I do have some difficulties with No. 48, the Pryce 
amendment. As presently structured, I think it is overly broad, and I 
think it could be counterproductive. It is my hope that I can work with 
Ms. Pryce and corrections officers around the country to narrow it so 
that we do not do more damage than good.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to 
me.
  I rise in support of the en bloc amendments. I thank the chairman for 
including my amendment in it. I would be very happy to work with the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] to develop better language to 
accomplish what he thinks would improve this bill. I really think we 
are finally starting on the right road to addressing the rights of 
victims as opposed to the criminal. I urge support.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House of Representatives is debating the 
issue of crime. I am offering an amendment which is a simple but a 
significant step toward reducing the threat of violence in America. My 
amendment will address a dual threat to our Nation's corrections 
officers and the general public. First, it will make our prisons safer 
by reducing the risk of assault and injury to prison personnel. Second, 
it will help protect potential victims of violent crime. Specifically, 
my amendment will prohibit the Federal Bureau of Prisons from allowing 
prisoners to engage in certain activities which are designed to 
increase their physical strength and enhance their fighting ability. 
The types of activities which would be prohibited include training with 
free weights or martial arts instruction.
  This amendment makes good common sense. History has unfortunately 
proven that weights and weight bars can be effectively used inside 
prisons as weapons. In my own State of Ohio last year, inmates at the 
Lucasville Prison used weight lifting bars to break through concrete 
stairwells in order to kidnap guards seeking refuge during an 11-day 
riot killing nine people. In addition, on March 14, 1994, 15 
corrections officers and 10 inmates were injured in the Rikers Island 
prison gymnasium. In that incident, inmates hit two officers over the 
head with a 50-pound weight, and the two officers were seriously 
injured and hospitalized. It simply defies logic that we are using 
taxpayers' money to buy state-of-the-art health clubs for convicted 
criminals. In effect, our taxpayer dollars are being used to build 
bigger and better thugs.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 81 percent of 
the assaults on law enforcement officers in the United States during 
1992 were committed with personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and 
feet. Our current prison system provides convicted felons, many of whom 
are already prone to violence, the chance to significantly increase 
their strength and their bulk--thus making future acts of violence even 
more likely.
  This proposal is not based on idle speculation, but rather on 
statistical fact. According to a 1991 survey, 54 percent of inmates 
convicted of violent crimes used no weapon other than their own body 
when they committed their offense. Thus, by building a better thug, we 
are actually providing the weapon used in many violent crimes. Finally, 
of the 50,000 violent criminals put on probation during 1992, over 
9,000 were rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years in the same 
state. Mr. Chairman, I think these statistics speak for themselves.
  As a former prosecutor and judge who worked directly with law 
enforcement, jail and prison personnel, I know full well the value of 
exercise and stress reduction as an inmate management tool. However, 
there are many other forms of exercise--including basketball, jogging, 
aerobics, handball, and calisthenics--that cost much less and make much 
more sense.

  I strongly believe that prison rehabilitation programs should focus 
on giving inmates the proper education and job skills needed to become 
productive members of society. State and Federal studies show that 
education and job training reduce recidivism and assist many 
exoffenders in obtaining gainful employment. By contrast, weight 
training and boxing classes can hardly be described as essential 
programs to provide prisoners with necessary job training skills.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been endorsed by the Law Enforcement 
Alliance of America; the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers; 
the National Association for Crime Victims Rights; the Ohio Association 
of Chiefs of Police; the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association; the 
California Peace Officer's Association; Citizens for Law and Order; 
Victims of Irreparable Crime Experience; the Southern States' Police 
Association; and many others.
  I realize my amendment is not a cure-all to crime. However, it is an 
important first step toward enabling the victims of crime to regain the 
upper hand. My amendment will not deprive prisoners of anything 
essential to their health or rehabilitation.
  Why should be give convicted felons the ability to defeat us in our 
homes, on our streets, and within the correctional systems themselves. 
Mr. Chairman, who's running the prisons anyway? This amendment is a 
practical approach to protecting the public and our prison personnel 
right now. If you do not want to build a better thug, support the Pryce 
amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks, and I want to 
continue that by closing out my 30 seconds. The amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is super. She did not explain it 
during that 30 seconds, and probably did not have the time. But it 
involves the prohibiting of the Federal Bureau of Prisons from allowing 
prisoners under its jurisdiction from engaging in any activity designed 
to unduly strengthen their physical condition. I have had a lot of 
complaints about that. So I am very happy that it is here. The rest of 
the amendments are very, very important. I am happy to support this en 
bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I rise in support of the en bloc amendments. There are 2 provisions 
in here that are rather noteworthy, and I think we should give credit 
to the sponsors. One is the Beilenson amendment, which the gentleman 
from California talked to, cosponsored by Berman-Thurman-Condit. That 
will finally force the Federal Government to live up to its 
responsibilities in terms of reimbursing imprisoned illegal aliens.
  The second amendment is the Kennedy amendment, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' amendment in terms of ensuring that stalkers are 
identified before their violent threats become a reality. They are both 
noteworthy provisions. They are part of the en bloc and worthy of our 
support.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to 
reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating 
undocumented criminal immigrants.
  For too long, American tax dollars have been spent on feeding, 
clothing, and housing illegal immigrants in American prisons. In my own 
State of California, the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants was 
over $500 million last year alone. Because the Federal Government has 
failed to abide by its own laws and reimburse California for faulty 
immigration policies made here in Washington, this responsibility has 
been shouldered by California's taxpayers.
  But Californians are no longer able or willing to pay these high 
costs. Over the past 2 years, California has been rocked by devastating 
earthquakes, burned by rioters in Los Angeles, and bowled over by 
mudslides and floods. These tragedies have cost billions of dollars. 
Yet, the Federal Government still forces these same Californians to pay 
for benefits that go to nontaxpaying lawbreakers. This is outrageous.
  And it doesn't stop there. Imagine my amazement when I opened my 
April 14 edition of the Washington Post and read with disbelief that 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service was halting its policy of 
running routine fingerprint checks on immigrants. INS officials claimed 
that it was a cost-saving measure, but is it really? Over 9,000 
criminals have been prevented from entering the United States because 
fingerprint checks revealed that they had been convicted of felonies. I 
am pleased that the Attorney General has apparently reversed this 
policy change, but angered by the Federal Government's cavalier 
attitude toward dumping additional costs upon the States.
  Every one of the criminals who could have gotten into the United 
States without the fingerprint check could have committed additional 
felonies. Those costs would have been borne by the victims, and every 
criminal who was caught would simply add to the growing burden of 
incarcerating undocumented criminal immigrants.
  As I said, the fingerprint checking has been saved, but what other 
Federal initiatives are waiting to be unleashed that could increase 
crime and would increase the burden on the American taxpayer?
  Since President Clinton was stalled to direct the Federal Government 
to reimburse the States for the costs of imprisoning illegal 
immigrants, it is our responsibility to force the Federal Government to 
reimburse the States for the faulty policies made in Washington.
  So, today, I rise in strong support of Federal reimbursement of 
States and localities for the costs of incarcerating illegal 
immigrants. California needs it. The American people want it and we owe 
it to them to make it the law of the land.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. As the House is aware, this 
amendment would prohibit the Federal Bureau of Prisons from allowing 
prisoners under its jurisdiction to engage in any activities designed 
to increase their physical strength. The amendment would ban free 
weights and all types of defensive and body-building training in 
prisons within the Federal Prisons System. This is a very simple 
amendment, but it just makes common sense, which may be why Congress 
hasn't done this sooner.
  It is appalling to think that someone who has been convicted of a 
violent crime could use the taxpayer's money and resources to become 
even more capable of violent acts. In addition, I am aware of incidents 
in the gentlelady's home State of Ohio and in New York in which 
prisoners used weight lifting equipment as riot weapons. Why should we 
give those who have violated the safety of our communities additional 
resources to wreak havoc?
  We need to make sure that individuals in prisons spend their time 
learning not to break the law again, not getting themselves pumped up 
at taxpayer's expense. Certainly, I know, and my colleagues 
acknowledge, that this one measure will not solve our Nation's crime 
problem. But I don't see any reason for us not to take all the steps we 
can while we have the chance. I thank Congresswoman Pryce for her work 
on this measure, as well as the work done by my colleague from 
Michigan, Congressman Stupak. Congresswoman Pryce is a much valued 
member of the law enforcement caucus which Congressman Stupak and I 
cochair. With this proposal, we can show our commitment to helping our 
Nation's law officers. I urge the House to adopt this measure.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support in of the en bloc 
amendment offered by Chairman Brooks, and, in particular, the amendment 
offered by Representatives Beilenson, Berman, Condit, and Thurman which 
would require the Federal Government to reimburse States and localities 
for the costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens who have been 
convicted of a felony.
  The State of California will house about 18,000 undocumented felons 
this year at a cost to the State of more than $400 million. The number 
of undocumented workers in California prison is five times the number 
of any other State and represents a thirdfold increase over the last 6 
years. Increases in incarceration costs to my State have even outpaced 
the growth of the costs of providing mandated medical care and 
education for the undocumented.
  Enough is enough. The taxpayers of California cannot afford to 
continue paying the costs of incarcerating criminals who enter the 
country in violation of Federal law. We need to be tougher at the 
border and I support dramatically increased resources for the Border 
Patrol. But the Federal Government also has a responsibility to relieve 
States of the burden of incarceration of convicted undocumented felons.
  Current Federal law recognizes this responsibility, and the Beilson 
amendment ensures that we will live up to this obligation by requiring 
that, by 1998, the Federal Government will either take custody of 
illegal aliens convicted of a felony or reimburse States for the costs 
of their incarceration.
  Due in part to my strong support for the inclusion of this measure in 
the crime bill, I strongly support the chairman's en bloc amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Brooks and 
particularly Chairman Schumer for their tremendous support on this 
amendment. I would also like to recognize the efforts of 
Representatives Ramstad, Schroeder, Morella, and Senator Biden.
  Mr. Chairman, stalking and domestic violence have reached epidemic 
proportions in this country--sending constant threats of fear, pain, 
and suffering for its victims and their families.
  It's time to put an end to this horrifying cycle of violence--before 
another life is lost.
  Experts believe that each year more than 200,000 women are stalked by 
their former husbands, boyfriends, or complete strangers.
  At least nine women a day die at the hands of their stalkers.
  Nearly 30 percent of all female murders are attributed to domestic 
violence.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, 42 women were killed in a 14-month 
period by stalkers.
  Kristin Lardner's tragic case sent shockwaves of the justice system 
failing the victims it was designed to protect. She was brutally 
abused, stalked, gunned down, and murdered by her former boyfriend. Her 
stalker had a long criminal history and was on probation for the abuse 
of a former girlfriend when she sought a restraining order. But, 
tragically, the judge overseeing the case did not have access to these 
criminal history records.
  The courage of Kristin's family has turned their loss into hope for 
others. Her sister, Helen Lardner testified before this Congress that, 
``My sister might be alive today if the judge at the hearing had 
checked her eventual killer's record.''
  This amendment responds to the pleas for help.
  It gives law enforcement officials and civil and criminal courts the 
tools to enforce civil protection orders, prevent further stalking and 
domestic violence, and track offenders across State lines and 
jurisdictions;
  If gives civil and criminal State courts access to criminal history 
information for use in these cases; and
  It calls on criminal justice agencies to include information about 
stalking and domestic violence offenses in criminal history records.
  I urge my colleagues' support for taking steps outlined in this 
amendment to make the everyday lives of Americans safer.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Canady-Geren amendment to H.R. 4092, the crime bill. I believe 
this legislation is essential to the success of controlling the 
outbreak of crime and assuring the safety of our children, our senior 
citizens, and our families.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal courts across the Nation are hindering 
local efforts of law enforcement. By imposing arbitrary caps on the 
number of prison inmates, criminals are released moments after they are 
arrested due to lack of holding facilities and prison overcrowding. 
Police are forced to spend their valuable time apprehending the same 
criminals who commit the same crimes, hours or days later. In the city 
of Philadelphia, you cannot be incarcerated pretrial for car jacking, 
stalking, drug dealing, burglary, manslaughter, or weaponless robbery, 
no matter how many times you commit these crimes or fail to appear in 
court, due to prison caps.
  Mr. Chairman, the criminals across the Nation are winning the war on 
crime. They have learned that if they refuse to appear for trial, the 
local law enforcement does not have the facilities to go after them. 
Criminals rarely, if ever, report for trial. In Philadelphia, of all 
the defendants released under the prison cap, 47 percent fail to appear 
in court. What this means is that over a period of 6 years, from 1988 
to 1994, over 230,000 cases remained unprosecutable due to prisoners 
refusing to appear in court. In one city, 230,000 criminal acts went 
unanswered and close to 230,000 victims did not receive justice. Mr. 
Speaker, it is time for us to stop this ridiculous game that criminals 
are playing with our criminal justice system.
  Mr. Chairman, these prison caps are also endangering the lives and 
well-being of our families. In 1991, the city of Philadelphia was 
forced to release tens of thousands of prison cap defendants with 
pending criminal charges. Of these defendants, over 8,000 were 
rearrested for new charges, including: 77 murders, 851 burglaries, 
1,993 drug charges, and 1,102 robberies.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enclose an excerpt from a letter that I 
received from a detective of the Philadelphia Police Force. Det. 
Patrick Boyle has experienced, firsthand, the danger incurred by prison 
caps when his son, who was also a police officer in Philadelphia, was 
shot and killed by a criminal released due to the prison cap.

       My son, Danny Boyle, was assigned to the 26th Police 
     District and he soon became acquainted with all aspects of 
     patrol work in a very busy area. As you well know, 
     lawlessness and the complete disregard for human life is 
     epidemic in our country. On February 4th 1991, 12 midnight, 
     Dan reported for work and was assigned to a one man patrol 
     car. At about 2:40 AM, Danny observed a vehicle which was 
     traveling the wrong way on a one way street occupied by two 
     males. Dan stopped the vehicle, which had been stolen 
     earlier, the driver jumped from the auto and immediately 
     began firing a 9mm semi-automatic handgun at Danny. One of 
     the thirteen shots fired struck Dan in the right temple. 
     Danny died of his wounds on February 6th 1991. Dan was 21 
     years old and served with pride and distinction for one year 
     and one day.
       The perpetrator of this crime was arrested, tried and 
     convicted of first degree murder however (sic) he should not 
     have been on the streets of Philadelphia to commit this 
     murder. He had been arrested and released without posting any 
     type of bond. He ignored two bench warrants and was free to 
     commit whatever crime he chose including the murder of Dan. 
     Danny's death was a direct result of the Philadelphia Prison 
     Cap which serves the criminals well but condemns all of the 
     law abiding citizens of Philadelphia . . . I beg you to stop 
     this madness . . . and stop the revolving door of injustice.

  Mr. Chairman, while we all agree that prisons must provide humane 
treatment for prisoners, prison caps should be a remedy of last resort. 
The Canady-Geren amendment would provide desperately needed help in the 
prevention of repeat criminals, while still enabling prisoners to 
obtain Federal court relief for inhumane prison conditions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Canady-Geren amendment and 
alleviate the apparent danger caused by prison caps. We cannot allow 
the minor discomforts of prisoners to dictate the safety of our 
children and our families.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy 
amendment. Like Mr. Kennedy and our other colleagues, I, too, am 
greatly concerned about stalking and its effects on women's physical 
safety and peace of mind.
  Stalking is a despicable crime--a crime from which no one is 
completely safe. We have heard of obsessed fans who stalk celebrities, 
trying to become a part of their lives. In 1989, one such deranged fan 
murdered the actress he was stalking, bringing instant national 
attention to the danger of stalking.
  Despite the attention this case generated, the most usual stalking 
case does not involve a celebrity. Many of you have read Washington 
Post reporter George Lardner's articles about his daughter, Kristin. 
Kristin was a bright, talented young woman who was stalked and later 
murdered by an obsessive former boyfriend. Kristin Lardner was typical 
of the most usual stalking victim, a woman who is stalked by a former 
husband or boyfriend who is unable to let go after the relationship has 
ended.
  For too long, women who knew they were in danger have gone to the 
authorities to seek protection. For too long, authorities have been 
unable to arrest and charge the stalker, frequently because isolated 
acts of stalking were not considered crimes. The police could do 
nothing until the woman had actually been assaulted. Imagine having to 
wait for someone to beat or rape you before the police are able to 
offer you protection from a stalker.
  Many States are now aware of the need to define and criminalize 
stalking, so that police officers may arrest a stalker before he or she 
assaults or kills his or her target. In September 1993, the National 
Institute of Justice released its report on the Project to Develop a 
Model Anti-Stalking Code for States. The NIJ issued this report in 
response to congressional direction to prepare a constitutional and 
enforceable model antistalking code. The direction of Congress and the 
work of the NIJ allows States to criminalize stalking in clear and 
constitutional language, which manes States can move quickly to 
criminalize stalking.
  The amendment before us would allow Congress to continue helping 
States in their efforts to protect all of their citizens from stalkers. 
Courts would have access to existing national crime information 
databases for use in domestic violence and stalking cases. Grants would 
be available to States to improve their processes for collecting 
stalking and domestic violence data and entering it into national crime 
information databases. The National Institute of Justice would conduct 
training programs for judges to ensure that those judges with 
responsibility for issuing restraining orders will have all relevant 
information available to them, and will know how to access it.
  As Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues Task Force on 
Violence, I am deeply concerned about all violence issues facing women. 
We must empower our police and judges to do everything possible to 
protect us from all criminals, including those who are known to us.
  I commend my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for including the 
Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 1133, in this crime bill. As one of 
the sponsors of the act, I am grateful to the committee and to the 
House for the support shown for this bill.
  The Kennedy amendment will help to protect innocent people from the 
terror of stalking. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Beilenson-
Berman-Condit-Thurman amendment.
  In 1986, the Federal Government recognized its responsibility to be 
financially accountable for illegal aliens convicted of felonies in 
State courts. Section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
specifically authorizes the Attorney General shall reimburse States for 
the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens; but to date, 
States that bear the burden of housing this population in their jails 
have seen no money from this program.
  With over 30,000 criminal aliens in State and local prisons across 
the United States, the financial costs to these communities can be 
staggering. The State of California, with the largest criminal alien 
population in the country, estimates that the costs of incarcerating 
criminal aliens will exceed $375 million this year.
  In 1993, States including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, 
Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington reported 
that the number of criminal aliens exceeded 2 percent of their prison 
populations.
  We all know and can say that immigration policy in this Nation rests 
in the hands of the Federal Government. The Federal Government must 
acknowledge its duty to secure our country's borders from illegal 
immigration, uphold our immigration laws, and investigate and prosecute 
Federal wage and hour violations which create incentives to hire 
persons illegally.
  But the Federal Government's failure to responsibly manage our 
immigration policy, in this case, has resulted in a system which makes 
State and local governments pay the price for imprisoning people who 
have entered our country in violation of Federal laws. A policy of a 
whole nation has shifted tremendous financial costs to only certain 
States.
  Strong action must be taken to provide assistance to States which 
deal with some key problems associated with individuals who enter the 
country illegally and commit crimes.
  This amendment is an important step which will help ensure that the 
Federal Government will fulfill its obligations to all our communities 
by having the Department of Justice compensate States for the costs of 
incarcerating undocumented criminal felons or taking them into Federal 
custody.
  Doing this alone will help relieve states of a heavy responsibility 
and allow revenues for other public purposes, including crime control.
  As stewards of immigration policy, the Federal Government must live 
up to its responsibility of enforcing our country's immigration laws, 
but it must also assume financial obligations when it fails to enforce 
these laws.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Congressman Moran, asks us to 
consider the Driver's Privacy and Protection Act of 1993 as an 
amendment to the omnibus crime bill. The intent of this legislation is 
simple--to protect the personal privacy and safety of all American 
licensed drivers. Specifically, this bill responds to the senseless 
murder of Rebecca Schaeffer, who was gunned down outside of her 
apartment by a crazed fan who got her unlisted telephone number and 
address from the DMV. Many people may not know that in 34 States, 
including Florida, anyone can walk into the DMV office with a license 
plate number, pay $5 to $10, and get the car owner's name, address, 
phone number, height, weight, date of birth, and other very personal 
information--no questions asked. As it stands in those States, a total 
stranger--potentially a stalker--can easily obtain personal information 
without knowing anything more than a license plate number. Despite the 
commonsense objective it seeks to meet, Congressman Moran's version of 
the Driver's Privacy and Protection Act has generated some confusion 
and concern about who would be denied access to the DMV's personal 
records. I believe the legislation adequately balances the 
circumstances where access to the DMV information is justified relative 
to the very real concern for privacy protection. This amendment does 
not prohibit legitimate business, law enforcement and governmental 
access to such information. In fact, specific provisions within the 
bill ensure that the DMV will continue to provide information to 
individuals looking for lost relatives, people who are involved in 
court proceedings, law enforcement officials, and licensed private 
investigators. The amendment also provides for bona fide research and 
other purposes, which in effect gives access to journalists unless an 
individual specifically denies disclosure of personal information. The 
Driver's Privacy and Protection Act states that access to all 
information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and a driver's 
record will not be limited. The flow of information would only be 
denied to a narrow group of people that lack legitimate business. The 
Amendment defines ``legitimate business'' broadly, including all the 
duties of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and 
courts, verification and/or correction of personal information, private 
investigations, and anything related to the operation of a motor 
vehicle.

  Mr. Chairman, the intent of this bill is simple and straightforward: 
We want to stop stalkers from obtaining the name and address of their 
prey before another tragedy occurs. We are not naive--we know this 
amendment will not stop all stalkers from commiting heinous crimes. 
Still, I believe the Driver's Privacy and Protection Act is a 
reasonable and practical crime fighting measure. The Driver's Privacy 
and Protection Act balances the legitimate public and business 
interests in keeping these records available with an individual 
driver's right to privacy.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment Mr. Berman, Mr. Condit, 
Mrs. Thurman, and I are offering addresses the serious burden placed on 
States and localities by the Federal Government's abdication of 
responsibility for the incarceration of criminal aliens. This 
amendment, which is similar to legislation I introduced earlier this 
year with Mr. Becerra and several other Members of the California 
delegation, requires the Federal Government either to take custody of 
illegal aliens convicted of a felony, or to reimburse State and local 
governments for the cost of their incarceration beginning in 1998.
  There are between 23,000 and 35,000 undocumented aliens incarcerated 
in State prisons. The States which have significant numbers of criminal 
aliens in their prisons--that is, over 2 percent of their prison 
population--include not just California, Florida, Texas, and New York, 
as one might expect, but also Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, 
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. At an annual cost of $18,000 or 
more per prisoner, this translates to a yearly financial burden of 
between $420 and $615 million on the criminal justice systems of 
affected communities.
  These costs, which are increasing rapidly, are the result of the 
Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws--a failure 
which has resulted in the unlawful entry into the United States of 
millions of illegal immigrants. In Los Angeles County alone, the cost 
of incarcerating deportable aliens is $34 million per year. If the cost 
of prosecutors, public defenders, and probation officers is included, 
the overall cost of deportable criminal aliens to the county's criminal 
justice system amounts to $75 million per year.
  The impact of convicted criminal aliens on Los Angeles County was 
documented in two studies conducted in 1990 and 1992 by the countywide 
Criminal Justice Coordination Committee in conjunction with the County 
Sheriff and the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]. Those 
reports estimated that 19 percent of the inmates in Los Angeles County 
jails were foreign born and 11 percent were deportable aliens. They 
found that over 23,000 deportable aliens go through the Los Angeles 
County justice system each year.
  Furthermore, as the 1992 report stated, ``significant numbers of 
deportable aliens who are removed from the country do, in fact, return 
to Los Angeles County and sustain new contacts with the criminal 
justice system.'' The study found that 40 percent of the 1,875 
deportable aliens who were released from the county jail in May 1990 
were re-arrested an average of two times in the following 12 months. 
Only 339 of the 1,875--less than one-fifth--of those deportable aliens 
had no previous or subsequent arrests. The other 1,536 had been 
arrested an average of seven times, for a combined total of 10,989 
arrests, since they arrived in the United States.

  Yet, while State and local governments have the responsibility for 
incarcerating criminal aliens and processing their cases, they have no 
jurisdiction, obviously, over the enforcement of immigration laws, no 
authority to deport aliens who are convicted of crimes, and no 
authority to ensure that those deported are not permitted to re-enter 
the country.
  Congress recognized the unfairness of this situation in the 1986 
Immigration Reform and Control Act [IRCA], and acknowledged the Federal 
Government's responsibility for the criminal alien population. Section 
501 of the act specifically authorizes the reimbursement to States of 
costs incurred in the imprisonment of illegal aliens. Unfortunately, 
however, this commitment has yet to be fulfilled, because Congress has 
failed to appropriate any funding for that purpose.
  Currently, the Governors of several States are seeking relief from 
this predicament by requesting--or even suing--the Federal Government 
to take custody of thousands of illegal aliens housed in their prisons. 
I expect that more demands of this kind are likely to be forthcoming 
from States and localities with large criminal alien populations as 
these communities attempt to cope with the strain that the Federal 
Government's failed immigration policy places on their budgets. And I 
believe that those demands are fully justified.
  This amendment will ensure that the Federal Government lives up to 
its financial obligations under the Immigration Reform and Control Act. 
Our amendment allows Congress and the administration 4 more years to 
pay for the incarceration of criminal aliens through the appropriations 
process; if that does not happen, then, beginning October 1, 1998, this 
amendment will force the Federal Government to pay for it. Knowing that 
the Federal Government will soon be required to assume this burden 
will, we hope, also encourage the administration, and the Congress, to 
take strong steps to stop illegal immigration altogether, so that 
potential criminal aliens will not be able to enter our country in the 
first place.
  Mr. Chairman, some Members may argue against this amendment because 
it technically creates a new entitlement beginning in fiscal 1999, 
which is a violation of the Budget Act. It's true that this proposal 
would increase mandated Federal spending, but this amendment is 
different from the classic kind of new entitlement spending, where the 
Government is assuming a new responsibility, and thus placing a new 
additional burden on the taxpayers. This is a case where, by assuming 
payment for what is unquestionably a Federal responsibility, the 
Federal Government would relieve the tax burden on many State and local 
taxpayers. The primary reason we try to control entitlement spending 
through the Budget Act is to avoid creating new tax burdens; this 
amendment, however, is tax-neutral--the net tax burden on Americans 
would remain the same--and so it does not break faith with the purpose 
of the Budget Act.
  Furthermore, the mandatory-spending approach of this amendment is a 
last-resort proposition. We agree that funding for the incarceration of 
alien criminals should be provided for through appropriations. But we 
have waited patiently for 8 years for Congress to provide funding for 
that purpose, to no avail. We will wait patiently for 4 more years and 
then, if the funding is still not appropriated, it will be mandated.
  Finally, I would point out that the cost of this amendment--roughly 
$600 million a year--is not a lot for the Federal Government; in fact, 
under the fiscal 1994 budget resolution, it is less than the amount we 
have in reserve for additional entitlement spending for the next fiscal 
year. On the other hand, for State and local governments, $600 million 
is quite a significant amount.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides relief to States for the cost 
of incarcerating people who have entered our country in violation of 
Federal laws. This cost should be borne by all U.S. citizens, not just 
those who live in regions with large numbers of illegal immigrants. 
Relieving States and localities of this substantial expense will free 
up revenues for other public purposes--including the very purpose 
served by this bill, crime control.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment.
  This amendment will allow people an opportunity to protect their 
safety by denying some individuals access to information about their 
whereabouts. Sadly, some people have used motor vehicle departments to 
learns the address of a person who does not want to give out his or her 
address. This is particularly a problem with stalkers, people who 
methodically invade every aspect of a person's life, denying them peace 
of mind and a sense of safety even in their own home. Stalkers follow, 
threaten, intimidate, assault, and sometimes kill those with whom they 
are obsessed. Allowing a government agency to aid stalkers in locating 
those they are harassing is untenable. We must ensure that the agencies 
are not misused, and that all individuals have an opportunity to 
protect their privacy.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of this amendment.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the national 
stalker and domestic violence amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts.
  As a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, I know how 
important it is for Congress to take strong steps to prevent domestic 
violence and stalking. This amendment is an excellent complement to 
that legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is often very difficult for someone being stalked to 
get protection. This amendment will give law enforcement and the courts 
access to an alleged stalker's criminal history.
  If Congress passes this amendment: No longer will alleged stalkers 
with criminal records slip through the cracks; no longer will victims 
be continuously stalked, and their lives threatened, simply because 
nobody knew the stalker's criminal background.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be part of this important bipartisan 
amendment. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join 
us.
  If we put politics aside, this body can pass a strong anticrime bill. 
The American public--and in this case, America's stalking and domestic 
violence victims--deserve nothing less.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, the Beilenson-Berman-Condit-Thurman 
amendment is not the amendment that I would like to be considering 
today.
  It is a compromise. It is the strongest language that was allowed to 
come to the floor.
  While I strongly believe that the amendment should take effect 
immediately, it would not go into effect until 1998.
  Until 1998, the language would be subject to appropriations.
  So the message that I would like to get across today is that if this 
amendment passes, we must work even harder to try to get the necessary 
appropriations to live up to our Federal obligations.
  The Beilenson-Berman-Condit-Thurman amendment would require the 
Federal Government to reimburse State and local governments for the 
costs of incarcerating criminal aliens.
  This is not a California issue, or a Florida issue, or a Texas issue.
  It is an issue of fairness and responsibility.
  If the Federal Government fails to keep individuals from entering the 
country illegally, then the Federal Government should be responsible 
for the consequences, even if they are financial.
  To force local and State governments to use their limited resources 
to deal with criminal aliens is wrong.
  They need these resources to fight crime in the streets and to keep 
violent criminals behind bars.
  There is a cost to the Federal Government.
  But this is not a luxury. It is not a new program. The money is 
already being spent by local and State governments.
  The Federal Government has already acknowledged in section 501 of the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act that criminal aliens are a Federal 
responsibility.
  This amendment would allow us to live up to this responsibility.
  It is not a solution to the problem. But it is a crucial first step.
  I urge all Members to vote in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 402, 
noes 22, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               AYES--402

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     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
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     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
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NOES--22

     Blackwell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Kopetski
     McKinney
     Meek
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Sabo
     Stokes
     Thompson
     Watt
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bacchus (FL)
     de Lugo (VI)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Houghton
     Laughlin
     McDade
     McNulty
     Payne (VA)
     Ridge
     Rush
     Washington

                              {time}  1233

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. BLACKWELL, and Mr. OWENS 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCOTT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the en bloc amendments, as modified, were agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 130 on H.R. 4092 I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 17 printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-474.


                   amendment offered by mr. mccollum

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 17.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum:

                      TITLE IX--EQUAL JUSTICE ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Justice Act''.

     SEC. 902. PROHIBITION OF RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES 
                   CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR OTHER 
                   PENALTIES.

       (a) General Rule.--The penalty of death and all other 
     penalties shall be administered by the United States and by 
     every State without regard to the race or color of the 
     defendant or victim. Neither the United States nor any State 
     shall prescribe any racial quota or statistical test for the 
     imposition or execution of the death penalty or any other 
     penalty.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the action of the United States or of a State includes 
     the action of any legislative, judicial, executive, 
     administrative, or other agency or instrumentality of the 
     United States or a State, or of any political subdivision of 
     the United States or a State;
       (2) the term ``State'' has the meaning given in section 541 
     of title 18, United States Code; and
       (3) the term ``racial quota or statistical test'' includes 
     any law, rule, presumption, goal, standard for establishing a 
     prima facie case, or mandatory or permissive inference that--
       (A) requires or authorizes the imposition or execution of 
     the death penalty or another penalty so as to achieve a 
     specified racial proportion relating to offenders, convicts, 
     defendants, arrestees, or victims; or
       (B) requires or authorizes the invalidation of, or bars the 
     execution of, sentences of death or other penalties based on 
     the failure of a jurisdiction to achieve a specified racial 
     proportion relating to offenders, convicts, defendants, 
     arrestees, or victims in the imposition or execution of such 
     sentences or penalties.

     SEC. 903. GENERAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST RACIAL PREJUDICE OR BIAS 
                   IN THE TRIBUNAL.

       In a criminal trial in a court of the United States, or of 
     any State--
       (1) on motion of the defense attorney or prosecutor, the 
     risk of racial prejudice or bias shall be examined on voir 
     dire if there is a substantial likelihood in the 
     circumstances of the case that such prejudice or bias will 
     affect the jury either against or in favor of the 
     defendant;
       (2) on motion of the defense attorney or prosecutor, change 
     of venue shall be granted if an impartial jury cannot be 
     obtained in the original venue because of racial prejudice or 
     bias; and
       (3) neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney shall 
     make any appeal to racial prejudice or bias in statements 
     before the jury.

     SEC. 904. FEDERAL CAPITAL CASES.

       (a) Jury Instructions and Certification.--In a prosecution 
     for an offense against the United States in which a sentence 
     of death is sought, and in which the capital sentencing 
     determination is to be made by a jury, the judge shall 
     instruct the jury that it is not to be influenced by 
     prejudice or bias relating to the race or color of the 
     defendant or victim in considering whether a sentence of 
     death is justified, and that the jury is not to recommend the 
     imposition of a sentence of death unless it has concluded 
     that it would recommend the same sentence for such a crime 
     regardless of the race or color of the defendant or victim. 
     Upon the return of a recommendation of a sentence of death, 
     the jury shall also return a certificate, signed by each 
     juror, that the juror's individual decision was not affected 
     by prejudice or bias relating to the race or color of the 
     defendant or victim, and that the individual juror would have 
     made the same recommendation regardless of the race or color 
     of the defendant or victim.
       (b) Racially Motivated Killings.--In a prosecution for an 
     offense against the United States for which a sentence of 
     death is authorized, the fact that the killing of the victim 
     was motivated by racial prejudice or bias shall be deemed an 
     aggravating factor whose existence permits consideration of 
     the death penalty, in addition to any other aggravating 
     factors that may be specified by law as permitting 
     consideration of the death penalty.
       (c) Killings in Violation of Civil Rights Statutes.--
     Sections 241, 242, and 245(b) of title 18, United States 
     Code, are each amended by striking ``shall be subject to 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life'' and 
     inserting ``shall be punished by death or imprisonment for 
     any term of years or for life''.

     SEC. 905. EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES.

       (a) Section 241 Amendments.--Section 241 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``inhabitant of'' 
     and inserting ``person in''.
       (b) Section 242 Amendment.--Section 242 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``inhabitant of'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``person in'', and by striking 
     ``such inhabitant'' and inserting ``such person''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] rise in opposition 
to the amendment?
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would strike the so-
called Racial Justice Act from the bill and substitute the Equal 
Justice Act.
  I would remind my colleagues at the very beginning that in the 
previous Congress this House passed the same Equal Justice Act in 
substitute for the same underlying Racial Justice Act by a vote of 223 
to 191.
  The Racial Justice Act in this bill which would be stricken and which 
I oppose is also opposed by the National Association of Attorneys 
General. I happen to have a letter signed by 32 of them individually. 
They strongly oppose the underlying Racial Justice Act. It is opposed 
by the National District Attorneys Association, the National Troopers 
Coalition, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is the 
largest body representing State legislators in this country.
  The reason why they oppose the underlying Racial Justice Act is very 
simple. They perceive, as I do, that it would effectively eliminate the 
death penalty in many, if not all, death penalty cases. It creates an 
inference of racial discrimination on the basis of death penalty 
statistics. It applies retroactively, which means that there are many 
of these cases out there that are 10 or more years old where somebody 
is sitting on death row--I think we have a case in Arizona that is 
almost 20 years old--and in any one of those cases where you could show 
a racially discriminatory statistic; that is, where you have more 
blacks, for example, than whites who receive the death penalty in a 
particular jurisdiction than there are blacks to whites in the ratio of 
the general population, you would have this inference of discrimination 
which the prosecutor would have to overcome. And in those cases that 
are pending and that have already been tried many years ago, then the 
prosecutor would have the case reopened and would have to go in and 
affirmatively overcome that inference with respect to questions that 
could be asked about jury selection, et cetera, and you may have jurors 
who are dead and witnesses who are dead. It is virtually impossible, 
they tell me, to go back and do that. This is a very, very damaging 
proposal and an unnecessary one.
  In addition, the Racial Justice Act that is in the bill presently 
that my amendment would strike encourages the quota system for death 
penalty cases.
  Now, what would the McCollum substitute do, and why did the Members 
of this body in the last Congress approve it? First of all, it 
expressly prohibits racially discriminatory policies by stating that 
any penalty ``shall be administered without regard to the race or color 
of the defendant or the victim,'' and prohibits ``any racial quota or 
statistical test'' for any penalties.
  It also applies to all penalties, not merely capital punishment. The 
Racial Justice Act only refers to capital punishment cases. And it 
codifies protections against racial bias, and, in addition, it provides 
safeguards during the trial and not simply after the fact like the 
Racial Justice Act does.
  The Racial Justice Act would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court 
precedent which rejected the contention that mere statistical showings 
of racially discriminatory patterns in the application of capital 
punishment prove the death penalty is being administered in violation 
of the eighth and fourteenth amendments. That is the McCloskey versus 
Kemp case.
  With its emphasis on statistics, the Racial Justice Act encourages a 
quota system for capital punishment cases by introducing race 
consciousness in the capital case decisions. Instead, capital case 
decisions are supposed to be race neutral, and that is the purpose of 
the Equal Justice Act. By also prohibiting discriminatory policies not 
only in capital cases but in all criminal cases, it affirmatively takes 
those steps necessary to ensure that we do not have discrimination 
without taking the steps that the underlying bill would take by 
providing a statistical database, a quota system that raises problems 
for prosecutors all over this country and would reflect retroactively 
many death row inmate cases today in this country, and effectively 
nullify, I think, forever the opportunity to get the death penalty for 
those individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
McCollum substitute. It very largely is ineffective in that it just 
repeats current law.
  Mr. Chairman, perhaps I am a lucky one in this Chamber, I and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Pickle], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Rostenkowski], and a few others, because we were here in 1964 when this 
body in an overwhelming vote effectively eliminated apartheid from this 
country, apartheid that had ruined our lives and our reputation 
throughout the world.
  I might add that in that vote and in the vote the following year that 
finally enfranchised African-Americans in this country, the Republicans 
voted 82 percent for this massive revolutionary civil rights bill that 
made the United States the icon of the world.
  We are not known throughout the world with goodwill because of our 
atom bombs, our airplanes, our radio or TV sets. We are known 
throughout the world because effectively we have tried, through law and 
through good will, to have a country where all colors are welcome, all 
religious are treated fairly, and we are colorblind.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a chance today to finish a vestige, some 
remains, of this apartheid. We ought to be ashamed of the situation in 
this country, where in certain areas black Americans and Hispanic 
Americans are disproportionately executed for the same kind of crime, 
the same circumstances, that a white person would not be executed.
  I refer the chairman and my colleagues to a 1990 General Accounting 
report that pointed this out statistically. No one has ever said that 
black people are not executed for the same crimes three and a half, 
four and a half time more than white people, especially when the victim 
is white.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have much more to say other than this to my 
colleagues. You are going to have an opportunity, which is something I 
treasured, to be a part of these great reforms that made this country 
so much more decent and equitable. This might be the only chance in 
your legislative life that you can be a part of the movement. I appeal, 
especially to my Republican colleagues. Who are the party of Abraham 
Lincoln. Eighty-two percent of you voted for the 1964 and 1965 Civil 
Rights Act. We need you again this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman for 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Crime.
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum 
amendment and in opposition to the so-called Racial Justice Act.
  The race of someone who has been convicted by a jury of their peers 
of a crime should not make any difference in the sentence that is 
imposed. Since 1972, when the Supreme Court of the United States has 
set down the rules for the imposition of the death penalty, that is not 
taken into account under existing law.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1972, when the death penalty has been imposed, 
the same jury that heard the evidence and that convicted the defendant, 
found the defendant guilty, is then reconstituted, and, after a 
separated hearing, votes on whether or not the defendant deserves the 
death penalty or whether the defendant deserves a penalty that is less 
than death.
  So there is not race that is put into that jury's decision. The 
juries are protected against racial bias, and, as of yesterday, they 
will be protected against bias based upon gender.
  And who would be better qualified to determine whether or not someone 
who has been convicted of a crime deserves the death penalty but that 
jury? The jury heard the evidence. The jury was able to assess the 
demeanor of the defendant during the trial in court. The jury assessed 
the credibility of the witnesses and determined which witnesses were 
telling the truth and which were not. And what the statistical analysis 
of the Racial Justice Act, that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCullum] seeks to strike and have substituted does, is take away from 
the jury that essential determination, and instead put it in some kind 
of a quota system.
  Worse yet, if the law that the gentleman from California wants to 
have passed does find its way into the statute books of the United 
States, a feature of it will reopen the trial of everybody who has been 
convicted and sentenced to death and has been on death row. This is Mr. 
Edward's reverse bill of attainder, and we ought to vote it down.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and 
ask the attention of the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been some concern about the fact that the 
Racial Justice Act now before the House is retroactive and therefore 
could be invoked by persons already on death row. In conference, it is 
my intent to drop retroactivity and seek inclusion of a provision 
making it clear that the Racial Justice Act is prospective only.
  Would the chairman support a provision making it clear that it is 
only prospective?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. It has been my 
position from the time the proviso was at the committee--at the Rules 
Committee--and it will be my position in the conference, that the 
Racial Justice Act should be prospective only in application.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My colleagues, the McCollum amendment codifies existing law today. It 
has left in place the most serious racism still existing in our 
country, the racial application of the death penalty. It would probably 
be the unanimous view in this Chamber that racial discrimination is not 
only wrong, but evil. My colleagues, that view is worthless if you are 
not willing to act on it in this instance.
  As chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I saw 
statistics used in all forms of civil litigation. But this is not jobs. 
This is not public accommodations. My colleagues, this is life and 
death. Yet statistical evidence would almost never be used alone as 
proof. It almost never is in litigation.
  How can you explain that three-quarters of the convictions in Federal 
Court are of whites, yet three-quarters of the death prosecutions are 
of blacks? Who can live with those statistics? The McCollum amendment 
would leave them in place. There is no check on the prosecutor today. 
He chooses blacks for death. Allowing the defendant to try to show that 
that is the case is the only check on him. Do not turn your backs on 
documented racism in the application of the death penalty.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, about 6 years ago I introduced this 
amendment in its original instance. We have had good years in the House 
where it passed, and we have had other less successful years, like last 
year, when it did not. But let us face the facts: For many reasons, we 
are stuck with the death penalty. But this will not abolish the death 
penalty, and anyone that says that it will is incorrect. It will not 
cause relitigation of every death penalty case. That is not true.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very restricted version of the original 
Racial Justice Act that I and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Edwards], when I was on his subcommittee, first brought forward.
  It puts the burden on the defendant.

                              {time}  1250

  It will not cause retrials of any cases. And guess what? The judge is 
the final person who decides whether or not this racial justice 
provision should prevent the imposition of the death penalty.
  Please support this limited provision in the bill and please oppose 
the McCollum amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise to speak today in favor of the McCollum amendment, which is 
certainly one of the two or three most important amendments we will 
consider on this bill. This is such an important amendment because the 
provisions of the so-called Racial Justice Act would be so pernicious. 
Without the McCollum amendment, this bill would remain deeply flawed, 
because it would require prosecutors around this land to establish a 
racial quota system for imposition of the death penalty.
  The Racial Justice Act runs directly contrary to the traditions of 
Anglo-American justice that an individual should be tried and sentenced 
on the facts of his particular case. The Racial Justice Act would turn 
our jury system over to social scientists. It is a travesty; quite 
frankly, nothing more than a subterfuge to stop the death penalty in 
this country.
  So, far we have made substantial progress in improving this crime 
bill. Let us continue to improve this crime bill by adopting the 
McCollum amendment. We should not stop now.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished elected 
Whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, any judge or jury will tell you that the toughest 
decision they ever have to make is the decision to sentence another 
human being to death.
  To commit a person to the electric chair.
  To commit a person to death by lethal injection.
  It is the toughest decision there is.
  But the laws of our Nation allow the death penalty.
  And the law says that if a man or woman is sentenced to death, it 
should based on the facts and the facts alone.
  This amendment simply says that similar crimes should receive similar 
sentences regardless of race and if the evidence suggests a pattern of 
bias, the courts are free to look into it.
  Let us be clear--this act does not require a court to accept a 
particular study or theory.
  It does not put the burden of proof on the court--the burden lies 
with the defendent.
  And above all, it does not allow a defendent to challenge the 
underlying conviction only the death sentence.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made a decision in this country to allow the 
death penalty.
  This act simply says that we shouldn't be killing people in this 
country based solely on the color of their skin.
  and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Racial Justice Act, and 
vote no on the McCollum amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCollum 
amendment.
  The U.S. Constitution guarantees that race shall not be a factor in 
the capital sentencing process and the U.S. Supreme Court has erected 
numerous procedural safeguards to ensure that racial bias does not 
affect the imposition of the death penalty.
  But the Racial Justice Act makes the race of a defendant or the 
victims the most important factor in capital sentencing decisions by 
creating a system of statistically proportional justice where the 
penalty a defendant receives would be based on that defendant's race or 
the race of his or her victim.
  Justice should be colorblind and apply to all criminals on the same 
basis regardless of race.
  I strongly support existing protections against racial prejudice in 
individual cases, but a prosecutor should not be forced to consider 
race when deciding whether to go for a capital sentence.
  Jim Gilmore, Virginia's attorney general, has written to me that he 
believes passage of the Racial Justice Act would be a disastrous blow 
to law enforcement in general and, more specifically, to the victims of 
crime. He says it would ``seriously undermine Virginia's ability to 
uphold and carry out its lawful criminal judgments, particularly in 
capital cases.''
  The National Association of Attorney Generals has stated that the 
Racial Justice Act and habeas corpus reform provisions contained in 
this bill ``would effectively stop all State capital case prosecutions 
and executions under valid State capital sentencing schemes.''
  I support the McCollum amendment to strike the Racial Justice Act and 
insert the ``Equal Justice Act.'' The Equal Justice Act provides 
protection against racial discrimination without quotas.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McCollum 
amendment and for the Racial Justice Act. Let me make three quick 
points to my colleagues.
  First, Members believe in the death penalty as I do, one thing that 
they should stick to is that it ought to be administered fairly. It may 
be administered fairly in their part of the country. There are parts of 
the country where it is not. We ought to do something to change that.
  Second, it is not retroactive. There was a colloquy before. I support 
that. No retroactivity.
  And third, the old formulation where gross statistical measures would 
throw out a capital case are gone. It must be proven specifically in 
case after case that someone who is white and black did the same crime, 
the black person got the capital punishment, the white person did not. 
It is a rational, carefully thought-out law. I urge support for it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Franks].
  (Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, do we have a true color 
blind society? No. But should we work toward that objective? Yes.
  The McCollum amendment, the Equal Justice Act, safeguards against 
racial discrimination in sentencing and forbids racial quotas for the 
death penalty.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, there are a disproportionate number of minorities 
in our prison system. I believe a strong family unit, education and a 
sense of hope will help correct this imbalance. Establishing quotas for 
the death penalty is not the answer.
  What do we tell that mother whose child was murdered, Mr. Chairman? 
``I am sorry, Mrs. Jones, if a white man had been accused of killing 
your daughter, he would be subject to the death penalty. But a black 
man was charged with the murder and because there are too many blacks 
on death row, it would be difficult to give him the death penalty if 
convicted.
  How ludicrous. Such actions only create greater racial animosity. We 
do not correct social problems by constantly defining its remedy in 
terms of black and white.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Equal Justice Act.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, Members have heard quite a bit of discussion here today 
about this Racial Justice Act, my substitute.
  The bottom line of all of this is that we have an opportunity here 
today to really put some constraints onto the law in terms of providing 
equal justice and end discrimination in any kind of criminal case by 
enacting the McCollum substitute. We have an opportunity to strike what 
is really bad about this bill.
  This bill very clearly is. The National District Attorney's 
Association, in a letter to me, says that,

       If the prosecutors do not seek and jurors do not impose the 
     death penalty in the right proportion between races, the 
     sentences will be invalid, no matter how egregious the crime, 
     no matter how appropriate the punishment. The proponents of 
     this bill, knowing that we cannot and will not play such a 
     number game, fully expect the legislation to effectively end 
     capital punishment in this country.

  That is what the D.A.'s of this country believe. That is what I 
believe. That is what I think Members should believe. That is what the 
Racial Justice Act does.
  It is retroactive. The reading of it is that it is retroactive.
  I would strongly encourage my colleagues to follow the leader of the 
D.A.'s, the attorney generals of this country, 32 of whom have signed a 
letter opposed to the underlying bill in support of the McCollum equal 
justice amendment. Vote the same way this body did in the last Congress 
to enact my amendment, the McCollum Equal Justice Act amendment, and 
strike the Racial Justice Act which does nothing more than establish 
racial quotas.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman].
  (Mr. GLICKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Racial Justice 
Act and in opposition to the McCollum amendment. This is not to be 
applied retroactively. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCollum 
amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Racial 
Justice Act and in strong opposition to the McCollum amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of time 
of those in opposition to the McCollum amendment to the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Racial 
Justice Act, and urge Members to reject the McCollum amendment and to 
vote for the Racial Justice Act. I make this statement as a supporter 
of the death penalty, but also one who wants the death penalty to be 
meted out fairly. I want the American people to all believe in the 
fairness of our legal system.
  Listen to this fact. In one judicial circuit, even though blacks make 
up 40 percent of all murder victims, every single death penalty that 
was sought over a 12-year period involved victims who were white. 
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. There are other 
circuits, other counties, other areas where these facts are true.
  That is what this debate today is all about, it is about statistics. 
It is not about quotas. It is not about revoking the death penalty. It 
is not about overturning convictions or reopening trials, because none 
of that would happen if this act becomes law.
  The question here is much more simple than that. The question is, 
Should defendants be able to use statistics that sometimes show an 
astounding pattern of discrimination, one that is hard to find in the 
facts of any particular case? Should a defendant whose life is on the 
line be allowed to compare their sentence to other sentences, to 
compare the facts, and to be able to make a case for fairness?
  Every precedent says they should. For every other kind of 
discrimination, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, 
voting discrimination, we, the Congress, have always held that 
statistics are fair game, that they can tell an important story in a 
court of law.
  In fact, every civil rights law we have passed in modern times has 
allowed statistics to help prove discrimination. That does not mean 
that statistics are enough. Under this act the State can refute the 
statistics, or decide that they do not apply to the case at hand.
  All we are saying is, history has shown statistics to be a crucial 
instrument of justice, so my question is why ban them, which is what we 
do with the McCollum amendment? Why ban them from consideration in the 
courtroom, especially when the stakes are as high as life and death?
  I ask Member to vote for this act. Finally, let me say do not view 
this as a vote of convenience, view this as a vote of conscience. Do 
what is right on this vote.
  The American people have supported and lived in the best criminal 
justice system in the history of the world, but it is based on people's 
faith and belief and respect for that system. If they believe there is 
discrimination in how that system works, they lose faith in that 
system.
  Keep their faith. Allow there to be a proper inquiry into 
discriminatory practices in the death penalty. Vote against the 
McCollum amendment. Vote for the Racial Justice Act.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we need to stop this business of making 
special rights for a few people and get on with providing all persons 
with equal protection under the law? The American people don't want 
more exemptions for criminals.
  Even the title, ``The Racial Justice Act'' is an oxymoron. You don't 
get justice by on the basis of ethnic factors. Real justice sees no 
ethnicity.
  Mr. Chairman, what many of my colleagues don't realize is that the 
Racial Justice Act would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court precedent that 
rejects mere statistical showings of racially discriminatory patterns 
in the application of capital punishment.
  The Racial Justice Act would also open the door to endless appeals 
based on subjective statistics, which may have little or nothing to do 
with the actual trials of the individuals.
  For this reason I support the amendment offered by my friend and 
colleague from Florida as a more reasonable way to reinforce the notion 
that racial discrimination in our judicial system is wholly 
unacceptable.
  The Equal Justice Act declares that ethnicity is not an admissable 
consideration in decisions to seek or impose criminal penalties.
  I urge my colleague to support the Equal Justice Act. A ``yes'' vote 
for equal justice will codify equal protections for all, rather than 
special exemptions for a few.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the McCollum amendment which would strike the provisions of H.R. 
4092 that bar execution of prisoners who demonstrate that their death 
sentence was imposed because of racial discrimination.
  I am sure that the proponents of this amendment, like me, deplore 
racial injustice in the courts as elsewhere and would like to be 
certain that penalties for crimes are measured out without regard to 
race or ethnicity. On this point we agree, criminals should be punished 
for their crimes regardless of their race or ethnicity.
  Unfortunately our criminal justice system is far from perfect. We are 
faced with a system that time and again has disproportionately 
sentenced African-American men and women to death--even when one 
accounts for the crime committed. Since 1988, 33 of the 37 federal 
death penalty defendants have been African-Americans. In the current 
administration which I look upon as being more enlightened regarding 
the unfairness in our judicial system, all of the defendants the 
Attorney General has approved for the death penalty have been African-
American.
  The General Accounting Office, Congress' own investigative arm, has 
concluded in its study that racism definitely affects the use of the 
death penalty in the United States. Further studies have found 
undeniably that in an alarming 82 percent of the time, the race of the 
victim influences whether or not the defendant is sentenced to death.
  In addition, Justice Harry Blackmun only recently stated that:

       Twenty years have passed since this court declared that the 
     death penalty must be imposed fairly * * * and despite the 
     effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and 
     procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death 
     penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, 
     caprice and mistake.

  I cannot in good conscience sanction this injustice. I am aware that 
in his amendment Mr. McCollum would supposedly include some minor 
safeguards. His amendment would require the questioning of potential 
jurors on racial bias and require that the judge instruct the jury not 
to consider the race of the defendant or victim in sentencing. Well if 
only racial bias and discrimination could be solved by simple measures 
like this, by jurors saying they are not biased or judges giving little 
lectures. Unfortunately American history assures me that these are not 
enough.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions that this amendment would strike are the 
only way that we can bring some measures of fairness to this system. 
The fate of our system of justice rests on the citizenry believing that 
it is fair. Whenever fairness is lost so follows justice. I will not 
support this amendment which will allow racial bias to determine those 
we sentencing to death, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the crime bill that the Democrats put 
before this House imposes racial quotas into our judicial system. No 
longer will criminals be punished for the crime they committed. 
Instead, the basis of their punishment will be the color of their skin.
  The ``Racial Justice Act'' proposed by the Democrats encourages a 
judicial system built upon race consciousness, not justice.
  When our forefathers created the U.S. Constitution, I highly doubt 
they wanted a judicial system built around racial quotas. I believe our 
judicial system must be race neutral. Criminals must be prosecuted no 
matter what color they are. If we do not remain race neutral, then 
where do we draw the line with other distinctions like gender or 
ethnicity. The time has come for the Democrats to wake up and realize 
that this provision advocates racial justice, not equal justice.
  Congressman McCollum's amendment protects against racial 
discrimination by ensuring that a defendant's race is not a deciding 
factor in decisions to impose criminal sentencing. It prevents a 
prosecutor and a defense lawyer from making statements before a jury to 
appeal to racial prejudice. It also allows a trial to be moved if an 
impartial jury can not be found, and finally it preserves the Supreme 
Court precedent McCleskey versus Kemp that forbids racial quotas or 
statistical tests for the imposition of the death penalty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCollum amendment and send a 
clear message that to our judicial system that a person's skin color is 
irrelevant when sentencing a criminal for a crime that a jury of their 
peers found them guilty of committing.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Racial 
Justice Act. Despite the Emancipation Proclamation of a century ago, 
and the enactment of civil rights legislation over the past 3 decades, 
minorities in this country continue to be shackled by discrimination, 
violence and bigotry. It is unconscionable that in the United States, 
the supposed leader of the free world, people of color are still 
plagued by prejudice, poverty and crime.
  Conclusive evidence has shown that federal cases involving the death 
penalty have almost exclusively involved minority defendants. The death 
penalty provisions under the drug kingpin clause reveal that 89 percent 
of the defendants selected for capital prosecution have been either 
African-American or Latino.
  As legislators, it is our duty to put an end to this blatant pattern 
of racism. Do not get me wrong--I believe that criminals should be 
adequately punished for their crimes, but we can not continue to 
tolerate the unfair persecution of our minority population because of 
their color, ethnicity or financial status. The Racial Justice Act will 
bring fairness and cognizance to a flawed and abhorable system of 
capital punishment.
  Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty agree that its 
imposition should be fair and unbiased. The Racial Justice Act will 
ensure that minority offenders receive a fair trial by making sure that 
similar crimes receive similar sentences. I urge my colleagues to stop 
the injustice and bigotry that now engrosses our federal death penalty 
system. Support the Racial Justice Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 217, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               AYES--212

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

                               NOES--217

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bacchus (FL)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Houghton
     McDade
     McNulty
     Ridge
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1322

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. Fish against.

  Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KASICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think I know the answer to this inquiry, 
but for the record, Mr. Chairman, the delegates No. 5.
  Is it true that the delegates voting, if we voted again, would cause 
a tie, and the amendment would fail because of a tie?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman correctly states that the votes cast by 
delegates were not decisive.
  Had the Delegates not voted, it would have been a tie. On a tie vote, 
the amendment fails.
  Mr. DeLAY. So actually one could say it is a tie, so each vote to the 
negative on the amendment is a very crucial vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair answered 
the inquiry as it was stated.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify, because I do not 
think, given the way the House currently counts votes, that a normal 
citizen would realize that the real vote among the elected Members was 
212 to 212.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must state a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GINGRICH. In the record, among Members, not counting Delegates, 
is it correct, first, that the vote was 212 to 212?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman's inquiry is whether or not the 
delegates were decisive in the outcome, they were not. Had they not 
voted, it would have been a tie vote, and the amendment would have 
failed. If that is the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair has answered it.
  Mr. GINGRICH. And therefore, each of the 212 was the decisive vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Do not the rules state that when a vote is decided by 
five or fewer votes and the Delegates have voted, the five Delegates, 
that a revote is in order regardless of what the outcome might or might 
not be, hypothetically?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not correct. The rule operates where they are 
decisive, which means where there would have been a different outcome, 
had they not voted.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. But since there were, in fact, nine Members, the 
inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman: Where there were Members not voting, in 
this case there were nine Members not voting, would not the possibility 
of a revote be that five or fewer votes could change the outcome in a 
situation like we have before us today on this previous vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. A motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is there some procedure by which you can 
explain the rules to them elsewhere so we can get on with the business?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is also not a parliamentary inquiry.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. McCollum

  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 to the House with the recommendation that the 
     enacting clause be striken out.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is: Is there some 
procedure by which the minority can participate in the writing of the 
rules so they might know them better?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry. 
The Chair urges Members to respect the rules and the procedures.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for 5 
minutes in support of his preferential motion.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer at this point a similar motion to 
rise that I have offered in previous days on this bill for the purposes 
of attempting to offer, and being allowed to offer, a couple of the 
amendments which we, on the minority side, were not allowed by the 
Committee on Rules on this bill.
  We feel, as we have said before, very strongly that the opportunities 
to offer several of the critical amendments were not given to us which 
the American public would normally expect to be allowed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to 
explain an amendment that was denied by the Committee on Rules that we 
think should be allowed to be offered, and if this motion that I am 
offering today were to be approved, we would request that it be made in 
order.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, this next vote may be the most important 
political vote we cast this year, so I advise the Members to listen up.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I refer to is the Hayes-Solomon 
amendment, which was denied in committee, in the Rules Committee. We 
are taking this action to require an up-or-down vote on the mandatory 
minimum sentencing of criminals. The Rules Committee refused to make 
this amendment in order and did not want this critical debate to take 
place on the floor.
  If the debate did take place, it would have a similar outcome to that 
of the Solomon amendment which passed with 303 votes yesterday. The 
issues are that comparable.
  Mr. Chairman, title II in the bill reduces mandatory minimum 
sentences for felons convicted of serious drug offenses and it applies 
retroactively. Members had better listen to this because it offsets 
every district back home. The bill applies retroactively, which means 
that thousands of drug pushers currently serving mandatory sentences 
are going to appeal and be released from prison back onto the streets 
and neighborhoods in all our districts.
  The Rules Committee denied Congressman Hayes and myself the 
opportunity to offer our amendment that would correct this. At the very 
least, the House should be given the opportunity to debate it. Mr. 
Chairman, unless we vote on this amendment, Members will be required to 
vote on a bill that will have the effect of releasing thousands of drug 
criminals from prison and back onto the streets of America. Members, 
exactly how are you going to explain this to your opponents? And 
believe me, they will be there. Once your opponent identifies the local 
drug dealer that you vote to put back on the streets of your district 3 
years ahead of schedule, what will your answer be?
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am never going to vote for--I will yield when I am 
finished. I respect the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, the claims that this bill will save the taxpayers 
billions of dollars is total nonsense. According to CBO, the mandatory 
minimum sentence provision already in the bill will only save the 
Federal Government $15 million. Not billion of dollars, $15 million 
between the years 1997 and 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, we all should take exception with those who claim that 
nonviolent but serious drug offenders are not violent criminals. Let us 
just repeat that one more time because it affects you and your children 
and your home towns. Most of the violent crime committed in this 
country today is caused by people who traffick in drugs. Forty-eight 
percent of all men arrested for homicide test positive for using drugs 
at the time of the arrest. Illegal drug use is the cause of half of 
family violence. Half of family violence caused by drug use. And most 
of this violence is directed against women and children. And what about 
the effect of illegal drugs on young children? The fact is that 30 
percent of all child abuse cases, child abuse cases, is caused by 
parents using illegal drugs.
  And even worse, infants in this country are now suffering under the 
pain and violence of the drug pushers that this bill is going to put 
back out onto the streets, 16,000 drug pushers. The number of drug-
exposed babies, newborn infants, has soared in recent years. Eleven 
percent of all newborn babies in America are already drug addicted. 
What is going to happen when that gets up to 20 percent? What is this 
country coming to when 1 out of 9 babies are already addicted at the 
time of their birth?
  This bill would reduce the prison sentences for those who are 
responsible for this travesty. I am not going to take up more time, Mr. 
Chairman. This is a floor. It deserves debate. Then vote whichever way 
Members want to. But give us the right to decide whether the Nation 
ought to maintain minimum mandatory sentences for drug traffickers, 
major drug trafficking pushers in this country.
  We deserve to have that vote. Please vote for this motion to allow 
the amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Unfortunately, there is not time to yield. But using up 
my last amount of time: In addition to the Solomon amendment, if this 
motion to rise were granted, the McCollum amendment offering minimum 
mandatory prison sentences for those who commit felonies when in 
possession of a handgun or any firearm would be something that we would 
offer as well. We were denied that in the Rules Committee as well. So 
both of these amendments on minimum mandatory sentences would be made 
in order, that is the purpose of the motion to rise. I would encourage 
an ``aye'' vote to give us that opportunity to offer those amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
has expired.
  Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] opposed to the motion?
  Mr. BROOKS. I certainly am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] is recognize for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth attempt by the other 
side of the aisle to offer a motion to strike after the enacting 
clauses--all in an attempt to delay the progress of the crime bill. It 
takes about 25 minutes each time, 10 minutes for debate, 15 minutes for 
the vote; and that is the minimum. It is a dilatory tactic, plain and 
simple. It is just not my patience that is beginning to wear, but I 
believe the American people are a little tired of these tactics as 
well. If you do not want a crime bill, just say you do not want it.
  But I think most of us want the crime bill to succeed. It's time to 
move on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Washington].
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  I want to ask a question. I disagree with my distinguished dean that 
we should not debate the substance, because I do not think that anybody 
should be allowed to come to these microphones with the American people 
watching and have you make statements like you made and not challenge 
them.
  Tell us the basis of the conclusion that you have reached that 16,000 
drug dealers will get 3 years off their sentence. Give us the basis of 
that information, please.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will say to my respected friend----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is speaking 
on the time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. He cannot yield 
time. Time may be yielded by the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman would yield, I would answer the 
question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York will suspend. The time 
belongs to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks]. He may yield to the 
gentleman from New York.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, how much of the 1 minute that was 
yielded to me did I use in asking the question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 20 seconds remaining under the time 
yielded from Mr. Brooks.
  Mr. WASHINGTON. Then I would respectfully ask the chairman if he 
would yield that 20 seconds to the gentleman from New York to answer 
the question.
  Mr. BROOKS. I would yield 20 seconds to my beloved friend.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I can say to both my respected friends I refer to your 
committee report where you say it, and I refer to the March 17 New York 
Times article where they said it. Those are two pretty credible 
organizations.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the great ironies is that the gentleman from 
Florida--and I hope the gentleman from New York knows that the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] voted for the proposal that he is 
now seeking to strike, in subcommittee; so did the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde]; so did the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish].
  When the Rules Committee fashioned these proposals, they were trying 
to do the most controversial. The gentleman from New York's views on 
drugs, on drug penalties, is well known. It so happens we have the 
toughest drug penalty laws on the books in the Federal Government that 
I know of, much tougher than your State and my State, much tougher just 
about than any other State.
  So, ladies and gentleman, if we want to sit here and delay and each 
person wants to get up and act and say, ``I want my amendment. Let's 
trash the bill because I want mine,'' someone else gets up and says, 
``I want my amendment. Let's trash the bill.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated this issue on another vote--another 
proposal by the gentleman from New York. It so happened he won. We do 
not have to----
  Mr. SOLOMON. By over 300 votes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We do not have to debate this over and over and over and 
over again. You lost the Rules vote. The Rules vote was a vote that was 
saying to the American people, ``We want a crime bill, but we do not 
want to dither the way we did last year and the year before and the 
year before.'' We can do all these procedural things and never have a 
crime bill. I urge we vote against the motion and get on with the 
people's business.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will vote no on 
this fourth attempt to just emasculate the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 
appeard 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 179, 
noes 250, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--179

     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
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     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 (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     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
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bacchus (FL)
     Barlow
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     McDade
     McNulty
     Rangel

                              {time}  1357

  Mr. VISCLOSKY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the preferential motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-474.


              amendment offered by mr. smith of new jersey

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. 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. Smith of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                       TITLE  --SENSE OF CONGRESS

     SEC.  . CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) child pornography is the permanent record of the sexual 
     abuse or exploitation of children;
       (2) children who are victims of child pornography often 
     suffer severe physical and emotional harm;
       (3) child pornography is a serious national problem;
       (4) the Congress of the United States has a compelling 
     interest in the protection of children from sexual abuse and 
     exploitation by pornography (see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 
     747 (1982));
       (5) the Congress of the United States, in pursuit of this 
     compelling interest, has taken every opportunity to 
     strengthen child pornography laws and has, in clear and 
     unambiguous language, criminalized the production, interstate 
     distribution, receipt and possession of child pornography;
       (6) the United States Department of Justice in its brief to 
     the United States Supreme Court in the case of Knox v. United 
     States, 92-1183, has failed to support the conviction of a 
     child pornographer won by the Department in the United States 
     District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and 
     affirmed on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Third Circuit;
       (7) the Department of Justice has used its brief in the 
     Knox case as a vehicle for reinterpretation of the Federal 
     child pornography laws in contravention to legislative 
     history and past prosecution practices of the Department of 
     Justice;
       (8) the Department of Justice by declaring in its brief in 
     the Knox case that a pornographer who lasciviously exhibits 
     the genitals of children is prosecutable within the Federal 
     child pornography laws only if the depictions show a minor 
     engaged in the conduct of lasciviously exhibiting his or her 
     genitals or pubic area, creates a federally protected class 
     of child pornography, e.g. child pornography involving 
     children who are not knowingly engaged in lasciviously 
     exhibiting their genitals or pubic areas but whose genitals 
     or pubic areas are nonetheless lasciviously depicted by 
     others;
       (9) the Department of Justice by declaring in its brief in 
     the Knox case in contravention to legislative history, that a 
     pornographer who lasciviously exhibits the genital or pubic 
     area of children is prosecutable within the Federal child 
     pornography laws only if the genitals are nude or visible 
     creates a federally protected class of child pornography, 
     e.g. depictions which focus on a minor child's clothed 
     genital or pubic area with the obvious intent of eliciting a 
     sexual response in pedophiles;
       (10) the plain meaning and congressional intent of the 
     language in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     that the term ``lascivious exhibition'' refers to whether the 
     depiction is intended to elicit a sexual response from the 
     viewer, and not to the actions of the child;
       (11) the Department of Justice has employed this meaning of 
     the term ``lascivious exhibition'' since it was included in 
     the laws in 1984, and Congress has not changed the meaning of 
     the term;
       (12) Congress specifically repudiated a ``nudity'' 
     requirement for child pornography statutes (see United States 
     v. Knox, 977 F. 2d 815, at 820-823, (3rd Cir., 1992));
       (13) the ``harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting 
     child pornography laws is present when a photographer 
     unnaturally focuses on a minor child's clothed genital area 
     with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing 
     to pedophiles.'' (see Knox at 822); and
       (14) the Congress of the United States believes that the 
     reinterpretation of the Federal child pornography laws by 
     Department of Justice, unless reversed, will bring back 
     commercial child pornography and lead to a substantial 
     increase of sexual exploitation of children.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Department of Justice repudiate its 
     reinterpretation of Federal child pornography laws, defend 
     the conviction won in lower courts in the Knox case, and 
     vigorously prosecute sexual exploitation of children.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, there is an old adage that says ``if it 
ain't broke, don't fix it.'' For over 10 years we have had a strong law 
against child pornography that has worked, until the Clinton Justice 
Department sought recently to weaken it.
  This amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I 
bring today, expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the Department of Justice repudiate its reinterpretation of Federal 
child pornography laws, defend the conviction won in lower courts in 
the Knox case, and vigorously prosecute the sexual exploitation of 
children. I strongly urge an aye vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume so that I may inquire of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks], does the chairman of the committee rise in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am not in 
opposition. As a matter of fact, I am willing to accept this amendment 
and move on to the next one.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  No crimes are more abhorrent than crimes involving child sexual 
abuse.
  Even the thought of such abuse of a child is repellent to every 
person of any decency. Betrayal of a child through any abuse is both 
sickening and saddening to the extreme.
  With this in mind, in crafting H.R. 4092 we expanded Federal 
protections for children. For example, title 3 makes clear that any 
assault of a child will be taken very seriously. Title 12 creates a new 
felony for child pornographers outside the United States to mirror 
existing Federal law against domestic child pornographers. It creates 
new Federal felonies for traveling either domestically or 
internationally to engage in a sexual act with a child, and it contains 
a sense of the Congress that each State should enact strong legislation 
against child pornography. Title 13 will help States establish programs 
so that States and local governments will know the whereabouts of any 
person convicted of a crime against a child.
  The amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey assists us in this 
effort to make absolutely clear that Congress is firm, indeed adamant, 
on this point: Children in this country will be protected from those 
who would prey upon them. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, the position of the Clinton administration on 
child pornography is an outrage! This administration has weakened the 
accepted interpretation of the Federal child pornography law to the 
extent that much, if not most, of the child pornography cases which 
should be prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department cannot be 
prosecuted.
  The Clinton administration's interpretation of the law was set forth 
in a Justice Department brief to the U.S. Supreme Court last year in 
the child pornography case of Knox versus United States which involved 
a twice-convicted child pornographer. The brief was written by 
Solicitor General Drew Days who is prominently mentioned as a potential 
nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of retiring Justice 
Harry Blackmun.
  Solicitor General Days, in that brief, set forth a ``recipe'' for 
legal child pornography--that is, child pornography which the Clinton 
administration will no longer prosecute. Under the Drew Days 
interpretation of the law, the actions of the child rather than the 
pornographer determine whether the pornography is legal. The Drew Days 
brief says the child must be `'acting or posing lasciviously'' or the 
child pornography is legal. That is not what Congress intended when it 
outlawed child pornography.
  We intended to prohibit the lascivious exhibition of a child's 
genitals or pubic areas in photographs or videotapes whether or not the 
child is involved by ``acting or posing.'' We did not intend to coddle 
child pornographers as the Clinton administration has done with this 
outrageous interpretation of the law. The clear intent of Congress was 
to outlaw the sexual exploitation of children.
  Over the years the Justice Department has successfully prosecuted 
numerous child pornographers who have taken lascivious pictures or 
videotapes of children who are too young to act or pose lasciviously 
but are none-the-less sexually exploited. The Justice Department has 
successfully prosecuted numerous pornographers who have surreptitiously 
photographed or videotaped sleeping children or those who are otherwise 
unaware they were being photographed. The fact that they were not 
acting or posing was not relevant to the prosecution then and it should 
not be relevant today. This resolution, H.R. 281 encourages the Justice 
Department to continue vigorously prosecuting child pornographers in 
the same manner and under the same interpretation of the law that was 
in effect at the Justice Department prior to the Clinton 
administration.
  I fear that that Clinton administration's recipe for ``legal'' child 
pornography is not lost on child pornographers who will seek out more 
children to sexually abuse in pornography, because of the knowledge 
that they will not be prosecuted by the Justice Department. That is why 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 281 which condemns the 
actions of Mr. Days and the Clinton administration in weakening the 
Federal child pornography law.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Smith amendment to 
H.R. 4092, urging the Justice Department to prosecute child 
pornographers to the fullest extent of the law.
  The child pornography laws in the United States have worked very well 
in the past to keep our children safe. Unfortunately, the Clinton 
administration has neglected to enforce these laws, and in fact, has 
sided with a pedophile. I find it unconscionable that President 
Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and Solicitor General Days would choose 
to protect and defend criminals who prey on innocent children.
  By siding with the defendant in the case Knox versus U.S., the 
Justice Department has recklessly exposed our children to dangerous 
pedophiles. If Miss Reno and Mr. Days succeed in this case, children--
children aged 3 to 17--will be easy targets for these most vile 
criminals. The opinions of the courts in previous cases have been clear 
in their support for the intent of Congress to stop pornographers who 
pander to pedophiles.
  We must get tough on criminals. While H.R. 4092 sounds tough, it 
lacks substance and I cannot support it. However, on behalf of myself 
and the other House Members who filed in court to stop Attorney General 
Reno and Solicitor General Days, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Smith amendment and demand that President Clinton prosecute pedophiles 
and pornographers who victimize children.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith 
amendment to H.R. 4092.
  The Justice Department's Knox brief is a tragedy because it creates a 
new loophole in our child pornography laws which will lead to a flood 
of sexual abuse of children.
  The Justice Department's action completely misrepresents 
congressional intent as outlined in the Child Protection Act of 1984. 
Passage of this amendment sends a strong message to the Justice 
Department and to would-be child pornographers.
  Mr. Chairman, our children want justice from Janet Reno's Justice 
Department. Let us follow the Senate's lead on stopping child 
pornography and pass the Smith amendment unanimously.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, child pornography is a heinous crime against children.
  Child pornography devalues, debases, and dehumanizes children and 
turns kids into sex objects for exploitation and abuse by perverts.
  Child pornography robs children of their innocence and purity, it 
rips off their dignity, and profoundly undermines a child's self-
respect. The videos and pictures of this pernicious form of child abuse 
constitute a permanent record of the actual episode of exploitation 
which is then hawked to a pathetic group of individuals for fat 
profits.
  Thus, words cannot adequately express my disappointment, outrage, and 
disgust over the Clinton administration's landmark decision to ally 
itself with the purveyors and users of kiddie smut. I thought this was 
the one area of criminal justice jurisprudence where there was little 
or no dissent. I was wrong. Instead of pursuing an aggressive strategy 
designed to achieve protection for children, however, the Clinton 
administration has opted to make common cause with the child porn 
industry.
  The administration's bizarre about-face occurred last September when 
Solicitor General Drew Days petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in Knox 
versus United States to remand the case of a man convicted of a major 
crime under Federal child pornography law back to a lower court for 
review. The Clinton brief suggested that Mr. Knox's criminal behavior 
be adjudicated under a new, substantially weaker standard. And out of 
deference to the administration, the case was sent back.

  Under the Clinton-Days tortured interpretation of the law, two new 
criteria would both have to be met for a successful prosecution. 
According to Pat Trueman, former chief of the Justice Department's 
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,

       If the Days interpretation had been in effect during the 
     Reagan and Bush Administrations, much if not most of the 
     child pornography cases prosecuted by the Justice Department 
     could not have been brought.

  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the administration would transfer the 
burden from the pornographer's intent of arousing a pedophile to the 
actions of the exploited child.
  Such a crackpot standard blames the victims and lets the criminals 
off the hook. A photographer using a child without a shred of clothing 
on his or her body might be able to make a successful defense of his 
abusive actions if the prosecutor was unable to prove that the child 
acted lasciviously. Shifting the burden to a 6-, 8-, 10-, 14-, or 16-
year old is ludicrous and bizarre.
  Significantly, both the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments, previous 
Congress', and several Federal court precedents--including the 1989 
decision in United States versus Villard (Federal third circuit)--
clearly acknowledged that lasciviousness depends on the intention of 
the pornographer, not the child's actions.
  The Clinton brief also argues that nudity or discernibility of the 
child's genitalia or pubic area is required. A video of an 
infinitesimally small swath of cloth over the pubic area--and nothing 
else, whatsoever--on a little girl or a 14-, 15-, or 16-year-old girl 
wouldn't be liable for prosecution under the new Clinton 
interpretation.
  Unlike the Clinton Justice Department, the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals correctly summed up congressional intent on this point when it 
stated,

       The harm Congress attempted to eradicate by enacting the 
     child pornography laws is present when a photographer 
     unnaturally focuses on a minor child's clothed genital area 
     with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing 
     to pedophiles . . . Our interpretation simply declines to 
     create an absolute immunity for pornographers who pander to 
     pedophiles by using as their subjects children whose genital 
     areas are barely covered.

  It is outrageous to me that the Clinton Justice Department seeks to 
have this standard, designed to protect children from exploitation, 
declared null and void. Pat Trueman (chief of the Child Exploitation 
and Obscenity Office at the Bush Justice Department), notes that the 
Clinton brief,

       * * * writes a recipe for ``legal'' child pornography, 
     i.e., child pornography that the Reno Justice Department will 
     no longer prosecute * * *. With its new interpretation of the 
     Federal child pornography law, the Department gives to 
     pedophiles what they could never get from Congress.

  Just so there's no mistake as to what I am saying: Mr. Clinton would 
legally protect and provide immunity for the pornographic tapes which 
were the basis of the Knox case as described by the Third Circuit Court 
of Appeals:

       * * * various vignettes of teenage and preteen females, 
     between the ages of 10 and 17, striking provocative poses for 
     the camera. The children were obviously being directed by 
     someone off-camera. All of the children wore bikini bathing 
     suits, leotards, underwear or other abbreviated attire while 
     they were being filmed. * * * The photographer would zoom in 
     on the children's public and genital area and display a 
     close-up for an extended period of time.

  The lower court offered this portrayal of how a sales catalogue 
described a scene on the tape:

       * * * an enchanting scene showing a dark-haired beauty of 
     11 letting us have a long, slow look up her dress to view her 
     snow-white panties * * * [and] * * * scenes of a 13-year old 
     in a leopard skin bikini with a magnificent ass that she puts 
     on display for you as she walks back and forth slowly and 
     teasingly.

  The company which produced these tapes described one of them, ``Sassy 
Sylphs,'' in promotional materials as:

       Just look at what we have in this incredible tape: about 14 
     girls between the ages of 11 and 17 showing so much panty and 
     ass you'll get dizzy. There are panties showing under shorts 
     and under dresses and skirts; there are boobs galore and T-
     back (thong) bathing suits on girls as young as 15 that are 
     so revealing it's almost like seeing them naked (some say 
     even better).

  Under the Clinton reinterpretation of the law, this abuse of children 
will be immune from prosecution.
  The House has the opportunity--the duty--to demand that the 
administration repudiate this bizarre policy. The Senate has acted--
voting 100 to nil against the Clinton position--and 234 Members of 
Congress have filed in court to stop Mr. Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, our message is clear: Mr. Clinton, stop giving aid, 
comfort, and legal sanction to these criminals--it's unethical. Every 
day that passes without reversal of the administration's course, means 
more children are put at grave risk of exploitation by this hellish 
industry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 425, 
noes 3, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     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
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--3

     Edwards (CA)
     Nadler
     Washington

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bacchus (FL)
     Carr
     Collins (IL)
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     McDade
     McNulty
     Underwood (GU)

                              {time}  1428

  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I rise, Mr. Chairman, because I was in the 
Cloakroom and did not realize the vote had been completed. Had I been 
recorded, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 133.

                          ____________________