[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.
____________________