[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]

 
                     AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUNTER

  Mr. HUNTER. 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. Hunter:
       At the end thereof insert the following new section:

     SEC.    BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

       In addition to such amounts as are otherwise authorized to 
     be appropriated, there is authorized to be appropriated for 
     each of the fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 for 
     salaries and expenses of the Border Patrol such amounts as 
     may be necessary to provide for an increase in the number of 
     agents of the Border Patrol by 6,000 full-time equivalent 
     agent positions (and necessary support personnel positions) 
     beyond the number of such positions authorized for the Border 
     Patrol as of October 1, 1993.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, I support 
it, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the 5 
minutes allotted under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this crime bill can in no way be complete unless we 
address the subject of criminal aliens. Today our neighborhoods, our 
cities, our communities are under siege by criminal aliens. Some 22 
percent of the inmates in Federal penitentiaries are criminal aliens. 
And against this invasion, this army, we have a very small contingent 
of about 4,200 Border Patrol agents nationwide who defend our borders.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of us have done analyses over the last several 
years, we have offered several amendments to incrementally increase the 
Border Patrol, but the most recent analysis by a group of retired 
Border Patrol agents, which I think is very thorough, that a number of 
us on this side and the immigration task force have worked on, 
indicates that we need at least 10,000 Border Patrol agents to be able 
to control our borders. That is so that we will be able to have agents 
in essentially the same density as in the El Paso blockade, which is 
working, in the other 11 smugglers' corridors across the 
Southwest where most criminal aliens are entering, all the way from the 
San Diego-Tijuana smuggling corridor across the Southwest, to the 
Brownsville-Matamoros corridor in Texas.

  Mr. Chairman, we need 10,000 agents. We have about 4,100. We need an 
additional 6,000 agents. That is what this amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Hunter-Moorhead-Cunningham amendment authorizing the addition of 6,000 
new Border Patrol agents over a 5-year period. In 1986, when Congress 
adopted my amendment to the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
authorizing a 50-percent increase in our border strength, our Border 
Patrol force included a total of 3,238 agents. Today, our current on 
line force has reached 4,092, only 854 more agents than we had on board 
8 years ago. Congress cannot continue to refuse to give our Border 
Patrol the manpower and resources they need to tighten our wide open 
borders. This inaction by Congress is resulting in a multibillion 
dollar price tag for health care, education and other benefits granted 
to illegal immigrants. It is the responsibility of the Congress to 
enforce the immigration laws of our country, and the Border Patrol is 
the very first line of defense against controlling illegal immigration 
and drug smuggling.

  For decades we have heard assertions from special interest groups 
that the border is unenforceable. The effectiveness of Operation 
Blockade in the El Paso sector proves, of course, that this is 
nonsense. In El Paso, apprehensions of illegal immigrants have gone 
down by 81 percent and crime has been reduced by 46 percent. This 
successful blockade demonstrates the beneficial effects of an adequate 
number of Border Patrol agents.
  Last year was a turning point for our Border Patrol force, when this 
body overwhelmingly passed the Hunter-Moorhead-Schenk amendment 
appropriating $60 million for 600 additional agents this year. The 
authorization before us today will continue this trend. Right now, we 
have a relatively small force of just over 4,000 dedicated and talented 
law enforcement officers performing a nearly impossible task in 
policing and protecting our land borders. Up to 4,500 undocumented 
aliens enter the southern California area each day. Last year the 
Border Patrol apprehended 1.25 million illegal aliens, marking the 
fourth consecutive year that apprehensions surpassed 1 million. Agents 
continue to put their lives on the line last year by interdicting 1.34 
billion dollars' worth of narcotics that would have otherwise found 
their way onto our streets and into the hands of gangs and pushers. If 
we can put 100,000 new policemen on our streets, as the omnibus crime 
bill proposes, we can certainly expand our Border Patrol force by 6,000 
over the same length of time. 81 percent of all Americans support an 
increase in our border force, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend 
the leadership and the hard work of my colleague and neighbor, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. Chairman, last year we successfully offered an amendment which 
increased INS appropriations by $60 million. Today the gentleman's 
amendment would authorize the hiring of an additional 6,000 Border 
Patrol agents and support staff. This type of Federal commitment is 
long overdue and sorely needed by the agents themselves and by those 
communities such as ours located on or near the border.
  Mr. Chairman, historically the Border Patrol has not received funding 
commensurate with its tremendous responsibilities in preventing illegal 
injury into the United States. In 1992, the Border Patrol apprehended 
over 1.2 million people attempting to enter our country illegally. In 
addition, the Border Patrol agents also have primary responsibility for 
drug interdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is of particular interest to those of us 
such as the gentlemen from California, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. 
Packard, Mr. Filner, and myself who represent the San Diego-Tijuana 
border region, the Nation's busiest and most violent border zone. Of 
the 1.2 million apprehensions in 1992, more than half were apprehended 
in our region. Thirty percent of all controlled substances seized by 
the Border Patrol in that year where confiscated in the San Diego area.
  Mr. Chairman, Border Patrol agents in San Diego have very special 
needs. They must use horses, helicopters, all terrain vehicles and even 
mountain bikes to defend our overrun and diverse border region.
  On any given night, San Diego agents, who number usually less than 
100, face thousands upon thousands of potential border violators. Many 
of us have ridden with the agents and we see the horrendous conditions 
under which they must serve.
  Mr. Chairman, States such as Florida, Texas, New York, and the State 
of California do not set Federal immigration policy, but we suffer the 
consequences of it. San Diego County does not supervise or staff the 
Border Patrol, and yet these States and our localities must absorb the 
costs when Federal policies fail as they have continued to fail these 
many years. By investing in prevention at the border, we will save 
money for our States and localities and all the taxpayers of this 
country.
  Nr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency and 
importance of this amendment and adopt it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
her hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hunter-Moorhead-Cunningham 
amendment to add 6,000 new Border Patrol agents. The text of this 
amendment is at the heart of reform legislation introduced by the 
Illegal Immigration Task Force.
  Arguing that hiring 6,000 Border Patrol agents is too costly is just 
a pretext for inaction. In fact, it costs too much not to. It is far 
more costly to allow criminal aliens to pour over porous borders and 
then have to spend more money to incarcerate them and then deport them.
  CBO has given a preliminary cost estimate for the additional agents 
of $1.6 billion over 5 years. In contrast, the cost to incarcerate 
criminal aliens is $1 billion annually. That $1 billion does not even 
begin to count the cost in lost life and lost property that these 
criminals inflict on our Nation. What we spend on these agents is 
nothing less than crime insurance for the Nation. This investment is 
long overdue.
  Not only do Border Patrol agents stop criminals at the border, they 
stop criminals before they ever get there because of their deterrent 
effect.
  This amendment realizes that an ounce of Border Patrol prevention is 
truly worth a pound of prolonged deportation cure.

                              {time}  1440

  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there is one Border Patrol agent for 
every 2\1/2\ miles of border, one Border Patrol agent for every 2\1/2\ 
miles of border.
  Now, look, illegal immigrants are not coming over in stealth planes 
that cannot be detected by radar. People are running across the border. 
It is not a sophisticated narcotics network with backpacks of cocaine.
  I have a bill that says let us also bring back some of our troops 
from overseas, put them on our border to help with this crisis.
  I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter], and I commend him for it.
  I ask the Congress to vote for it.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleagues on this 
bipartisan amendment.
  Let me make one argument that has not been made. We have made all the 
rational arguments for years. There is one we should note.
  California now has a delegation of 52 Members. Ten years ago it was 
47. At least five of the seats in our State are probably due to the 
count of illegal aliens.
  I say to my colleagues in the East and the South, think, the next 
seat lost in the year 2000 might be your own if you do not support this 
amendment.
  Ms. SCHENK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, the remainder of my 
time, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the best investments we can make in law 
enforcement today is guarding our borders, whether it is the Coast 
Guard, whether it is the Border Patrol, whether it is the Immigration 
Service, whatever it is.
  Please, this is possibly one of the most important investments we can 
make. Drugs are coming over our borders. Mexico is becoming the route 
of choice now that our interdiction efforts are working in the 
Caribbean.
  Let us keep our guard up. Let us fund our military in the Caribbean. 
Let us fund our Coast Guard, and by this amendment, let us be sure that 
we have adequate Border Patrol in place.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, in view of the time, I will simply rise in 
strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support two amendments offered by my 
California colleagues, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Beilenson. The Hunter 
amendment would add 6,000 more Border Patrol agents and necessary 
support staff. The Beilenson amendment would require the Federal 
Government to reimburse States for the costs of incarcerating illegal 
aliens.
  Illegal immigration is the single biggest issue facing my 
constituency. City and county governments, hospitals, and schools in my 
district are literally being bankrupt by the huge costs associated with 
illegal immigration. But this isn't just a local issue. Nationwide, 
illegal immigration costs American taxpayers over $5 billion a year.
  The U.S. Congress has repeatedly refused to take the necessary 
measures and provide the funds we need to secure our borders. Over 
2,000 illegal aliens cross over the 14-mile San Diego-Mexican border 
every single day. This is totally unacceptable. We must give the Border 
Patrol the manpower and resources they need to do their job. For 
decades, we have treated the Border Patrol as an unwanted child of the 
INS. Congressman Hunter's amendment takes a crucial step to bring the 
Border Patrol and its resources up to the level they should be. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and secure our 
borders against those who would seek to circumvent our laws and enter 
this country illegally.
  I also support the amendment offered by my colleague, Anthony 
Beilenson, that would reimburse States for the costs of incarcerating 
illegal immigrants. In my State alone, over 16,000 illegal aliens are 
currently incarcerated, that's 15 percent of the total prison 
population. With an annual cost of $22,000 per prisoner, California is 
spending almost $500 million to jail people that shouldn't be here in 
the first place.
  States shouldn't have to shoulder this cost. The Federal Government 
has the sole constitutional responsibility to secure our borders 
against foreign agents and to deport illegal aliens once they are 
discovered within our boundaries. If we were honoring that 
responsibility, criminal aliens wouldn't even be in this country to 
begin with and States wouldn't have to deal with the problems and costs 
criminal aliens create.
  I will vote in favor of the Beilenson and Hunter amendments and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to my 
colleague and cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], for not forcing this en bloc and 
helping us with this amendment.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we have unfunded mandates in every State. It is 
mandatory that we fund service to illegal immigrants. It costs just the 
State of California $2.5 billion per year, about $12 billion 
nationally.
  The committee on the floor has got heated debates, and Members on 
both sides of the aisle from different caucuses figure this is the best 
balanced way to stop the flow of illegals.
  When we are building new prisons, we have got over 16,000 aliens in 
our prison system, 80,000 nationally. That leaves a lot of room at the 
inn when we are trying to build prisons.
  20/20 and 60 Minutes documented the abuse on the American health care 
system.
  In California two-thirds of the babies born in L.A. hospitals are to 
illegal aliens. Then they qualify for welfare. Our taxpayers and health 
care recipients pay the price.
  Forty percent of the budget is mandated for education. That is fine, 
when the Governor ends up with $2.5 billion short because of illegal 
problems.
  The amendment that my friends, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] offer, we ask support for. It 
helps across the country. It will save $13 billion.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment, which 
would provide an additional 6,000 agents to the Border Patrol. The 
Immigration and Naturalization Service has a nearly impossible task in 
trying to patrol the Mexican border. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people 
attempt to cross illegally each day. The men and women of the U.S. 
Border Patrol are our `'first line'' of defense against illegal 
immigration and illegal drug trafficking.
  It was a shock to me to read about the border crossing activities of 
Mario Alberto Martinez, the man accused of killing Mexican Presidential 
candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio. Martinez illegally lived and worked on 
both sides of the United States-Mexico border. To further this outrage, 
he was a registered Democrat in Los Angeles County.
  I have seen first-hand how Mr. Martinez was able to `'visit'' the 
United States at his leisure. Each night there is a ``shell-game'' 
which goes on. Groups of illegals mass on the border at different 
points and wait. These people know all too well that the Border Patrol 
is undermanned, their resources are spread thin, and use it to their 
advantage. As a result, one group makes a run for the border. While our 
agents are rounding this group up, other groups cross unopposed.
  The cost of illegal immigration is skyrocketing every day. Last year, 
illegal immigrants cost the State of California over $3 billion and the 
United States $5.4 billion. The cost of illegal immigration is one our 
State governments and our Nation cannot afford.
  Additionally, our border with Mexico is an avenue for the drug trade. 
In 1993 alone, the Border Patrol intercepted over $1.34 billion worth 
of narcotics. While this is an impressive statistic, the question is: 
What amount was not seized, and where did it end up?
  Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about crime control, a secure border 
must be part of any crime bill the House considers, to leave it out 
would be a grave injustice to the people we were sworn to represent.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mr. Hunter's amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Border 
Patrol amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control Act, H.R. 4092.
  Although there are many fine provisions in the crime bill, one 
important element has not been addressed: the critical need for border 
security.
  My congressional district is a border district, with all the benefits 
and all the problems that go along with it. Many of my constituents are 
living with conditions that no one in this Chamber would put up with 
for a day, let alone for year after year.
  I have seen with my own eyes the numbers of illegal immigrants that 
come across the border each day and each night. My colleagues from 
other parts of the country may not even believe what I am about to say, 
but many residents of the 50th Congressional District in California 
have hundreds of people running through their backyards each night.
  While most cross the border in search of work and a better life, some 
are here to prey on migrants and residents of our country. This 
criminal element brings with it drugs and crime.
  The protection of our borders is our responsibility, and that is why 
I have sponsored comprehensive legislation to address the border 
problems. This amendment complements that legislation by providing 
authorization for the addition of 6,000 new Border Patrol agents and 
support personnel over the next 5 years.
  Please think of the young people whom we are working so hard to save 
from lives wasted by drug use. Please help them by voting ``yes'' on 
the Border Patrol amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is obviously a very important part of this crime 
package. You cannot deal with crime without dealing with criminal 
aliens.
  The brave men and women of the Border Patrol have supported this 
country with courage, with integrity, with faithfulness for many years. 
It is time we supported them.
  Please, support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417, 
noes 12, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     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
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     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 (CA)
     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
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     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
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     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
     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
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--12

     Collins (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Klink
     Obey
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Sabo
     Swift
     Synar
     Watt

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Kennelly
     McDade
     McNulty
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1505

  Messrs. GORDON, FORD of Michigan, and NADLER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-474.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant:
       Add at the end the following new title:

                      TITLE   --LABELS ON PRODUCTS

     SEC.   . PLACEMENT OF MADE IN AMERICA LABELS ON PRODUCTS.

       (a) Requirements for Use of Labels.--No product may bear a 
     label which states or suggests that the product was made in 
     America unless--
       (1) the product has been registered with the Department of 
     Commerce under subsection (b); and
       (2) the Secretary of Commerce has determined that--
       (A) 60 percent of the product was manufactured in the 
     United States; and
       (B) final assembly of the product took place in the United 
     States.
       (b) Registry of American-Made Products.--Not later than 12 
     months after the Secretary has promulgated regulations 
     regarding the registration of products with the Department of 
     Commerce under this section, a person shall register with the 
     Department of Commerce any product on which there is or will 
     be affixed a label which states or suggests that the product 
     was made in America.
       (c) Penalties for Fraudulent Use of Labels.--
       (1) Civil fine.--Any person who, with an intent to defraud 
     or mislead, places on a product a label which states or 
     suggests that the product was ``made in America'' in 
     violation of this section may be assessed a civil penalty by 
     the Secretary of not more than $100,000. The Secretary may 
     issue an order assessing such civil penalty only after notice 
     and an opportunity for an agency hearing on the record. The 
     validity of such order may not be reviewed in an action to 
     collect such civil penalty.
       (2) Injunctive relief.--The Secretary may bring an action 
     to enjoin the violation of, or to compel compliance with, 
     this section, whenever the Secretary believes that such a 
     violation has occurred or is about to occur.
       (d) Regulations.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations establishing procedures under which a person 
     shall register a product under this section.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Label.--The term ``label'' means any written, printed, 
     or graphic matter on, or attached to, a product or any of its 
     containers or wrappers.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed to 
the amendment will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] rise in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I do not seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman, but I 
certainly ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes in 
support of the gentleman's amendment if no one is in opposition.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. I have not heard of 
any resolution of this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] rises in 
opposition and will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is the only amendment in the bill 
that provides some protection to American workers displaced in the 
workplace by imports coming into America, and not only coming into 
America, but having an American made label put on them and deceiving 
the consuming public in America to believe they are buying a product 
that has been made in America.
  Now evidently I have a couple problems here with the committee over 
the registration that should be effected by the Commerce Department. My 
colleagues, the Commerce Department would have to create a registry of 
American made products so that we could ensure that we might know what 
is made in this country, and maybe if we knew what was made in this 
country and what was being illegally sent to this country, we would 
have a few more people at work.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my time to 
hear the defense in opposition of this amendment.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. While this 
amendment is apparently well-intentioned--and I support the goal of the 
gentleman--his amendment's potential effect on domestic commerce could 
be staggering. Without the benefit of any hearings, I believe we should 
treat very carefully in this area.
  The amendment would require the establishment of a whole new 
bureaucracy at the Department of Commerce. Every single business--in 
your district, whether ``mom and pop'' or ``Fortune 500''--would have 
to register, with the Department of Commerce, every single product that 
businessperson wants to label as made in America. There is no such 
registry system now in place at the Commerce Department now.
  Once a product is registered, then the Secretary of Commerce has the 
obligation to determine if 60 percent of the product was manufactured 
in the United States and if final assembly of the product did take 
place in the United States. As you know, I have vigorously supported 
domestic content laws; but, the unintended effects of the regulatory 
scheme involved here must be more carefully worked out.
  For this reason, I oppose the amendment in its current form for 
inclusion in the crime bill and hope Members will oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say what this real overbearing amendment would 
do. The Commerce Department would have to either send a letter or make 
a phone call and say, ``Send me a list of the products that you make 
and keep them in a file.''
  Now, if that is too big a hurdle, I thought we even discussed that 
with staff and said we would be amenable as long as the intent of 
penalizing people for putting false labels on was met, and that we 
would not even hold hard to that if it was a problem.
  That is not the problem. If you are for domestic particular content, 
you are sure not for it if you oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at his amendment. While I 
do not like some of the domestic particular content legislation that I 
have seen produced, and he and I disagree on some of those things, I 
frankly do not see anything wrong with this particular amendment.
  What the gentleman is trying to do is keep from having some 
fraudulent implantation of the term or name ``Made in America'' on a 
product that really is not ``Made in America''. And while I do not 
agree with domestic content laws, this one is not that. This is simply 
a criminal law relative to somebody who fraudulently is trying to stick 
a label on something that really was not made here.
  While there may be a little difficulty involved in this process for 
the Department of Commerce, the gentleman's amendment is well taken, 
and I support it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Let me say this about this domestic content business: 
60 percent of the contents in America, 9 percent of the contents come 
over in a boat and they are put together by a bunch of people on 
minimum wage, and it is called ``Made in America.'' The Traficant bill 
says yeah, that at least 60 percent of the contents are made by 
American workers.
  Here is a second thing it says: American workers' hands put it 
together. Now, if this is overbearing with this registry, I am willing 
to have you work that out. But I do not want to get screwed in 
conference, and I am going to ask for a vote.
  Let me say this to the Congress: There is not one piece of 
legislation that deals with illegal imports, let alone an import that 
comes in and has a ``Made in America'' label on it. We are losing jobs, 
and we are allowing people to rip us off. If you do not do it on the 
crime bill, what do you do it on? A bill that gives sanctions to the 
tooth fairy?
  I am asking the Congress to vote for this legislation, and I want the 
Congress to know that I have let the Committee on the Judiciary know I 
am not against those parts they object to and would be willing to 
compromise and incorporate their concerns. I think some of those 
concerns are legitimate. I thought that is what we discussed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not directed solely at imported 
equipment or material that comes into this country. This includes all 
domestically produced equipment facilities, and commodities as well, 
and will create a real imposition on small business throughout this 
country and a big pain to big business in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, jurisdictionally, this amendment is really within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. But then, of 
course, had no opportunity to hold hearings on the bureaucratic schemes 
created here. I do not think we ought to have it in this bill. I would 
tell you if you adopt it, you will be sorry. I am not voting for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 310, 
noes 116, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--310

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--116

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coleman
     Combest
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     English
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hoekstra
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lowey
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Meek
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Penny
     Pickle
     Porter
     Poshard
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stump
     Swift
     Synar
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torres
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Martinez
     McDade
     McNulty
     Neal (NC)
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams

                             {time}   1536

  Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, SMITH of Michigan, GUNDERSON, McCANDLESS, and 
McKEON, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. HARMAN, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. LEWIS of 
Florida, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan and Mr. STEARNS changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 printed 
in part 2 of the House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. gordon

  Mr. GORDON. 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. Gordon:
       At the appropriate place in the bill add the following:

     SECTION   . AWARDS OF PELL GRANTS TO PRISONERS PROHIBITED.

       Section 401(b)(8) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to 
     any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State 
     penal institution.''.

     SEC.   . EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     periods of enrollment beginning on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].


                         parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BROOKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the Chair is going to 
cluster these two votes and we will have one 15-minute vote and one 5-
minute vote after the Gordon-Fields amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has that discretion under the rule, to 
cluster the votes.
  Mr. BROOKS. I would request the Chair to do so. It would expedite 
matters and save us 10 minutes.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the request if my 
friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] has no objection.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Just because one blind hog may occasionally find an acorn does not 
mean many other blind hogs will. The same principle applies to giving 
Federal Pell grants to prisoners. Certainly there is an occasional 
success story, but when virtually every prisoner in America is eligible 
for Pell grants, national priorities and taxpayers lose. That is 
especially true since the education department has no way to track 
success or even know for sure if a recipient is a prisoner.

                              {time}  1540

  Pell grants were created to help low- and middle-income students get 
the education they need to improve their lives. With college tuitions 
skyrocketing and the workplace demanding more advanced education, those 
students must be our first priority.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case.
  Prisoner advocates say inmates get as much as $200 million a year in 
grants. Meanwhile, budget pressures have cut Pell grants to pre-1989 
levels, squeezing out thousands of traditional students.
  Mr. Chairman, law-abiding students have every right to be outraged 
when a Pell grant for a policeman's child is cut but a criminal that 
the officer sends to prison can still get a big check.
  Even worse, there are documented cases of sham prison schools that 
are only interested using prisoners as tools to get grants, not to 
educate students.
  Mr. Chairman, criminal rehabilitation is important, but $500 million 
a year in State and Federal funds already go to prisoner education. If 
more is needed, it should come through targeted programs with strict 
guidelines that assure cost efficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, quite simply, it makes much better sense to spend Pell 
grants on education and job training that will help keep young adults 
out of trouble. We cannot afford to throw millions of unaccountable 
dollars into prisoner Pell grants in search of a few acorns.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in these times it is easy to make statements designed 
to punish criminals. But I think it is very important that we make 
statements designed to reduce recidivism.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the House's attention to the words 
of former Chief Justice Warren Burger who said that to confine 
offenders behind walls without trying to change them is an expensive 
folly with short-term benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we need to preserve this 
program. Let us look at the total situation. In the first instance, 
prisoners are not taking significant amounts of Pell grant funds. 
Prisoners only utilize one-half of 1 percent of Pell grant funding; 
one-half of 1 percent.
  Second, that does not constitute $200 million as has been suggested 
but, rather, I submit, only $35 million out of a $6.3 billion program.
  Third, I would submit the program is working. In instance after 
instance across this country, we are seeing that when prisoners are 
eligible to take advantage of educational opportunities at the college 
level, they do not come back to prison. And after all, Mr. Chairman, is 
not that what this is all about, reducing recidivism and reducing 
crime?
  National statistics indicate that while the national recidivism rate 
is between 60 percent and 65 percent for those prisoners that partake 
of post-secondary education under this program, the recidivism rate is 
only 10 percent to 30 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit that both from a cost-effectiveness 
standpoint as well as a standpoint of reducing recidivism and, in turn, 
reducing crime, we are better off when prisoners have the opportunity 
to get this education.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the concerns of the gentleman from 
Tennessee on this issue and I will be introducing an amendment in just 
a few moments which will say that we will monitor this program and that 
we will only continue it if the Secretary of Education and the local 
secretaries for prisons say the program is working. But we should not 
cut the program out cold turkey. We should look at it and evaluate 
where we have seen success.
  Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that a lot of people do not agree with 
the gentleman from Tennessee, starting with the Attorney General Janet 
Reno, the entire Clinton administration, Secretary of Education Riley, 
Senator Claiborne Pell, the North American Association of Wardens and 
Superintendents, the American Association of State Colleges and 
Universities, the American Council of Education, the American 
Correctional Association, the United Negro College Fund, the Hispanic 
Association of Colleges and Universities, the Association of Jesuit 
Colleges and Universities, and the Association of Catholic Colleges and 
Universities.
  Mr. Chairman, what are they saying? They are saying, this program 
works, it reduces recidivism and we should keep it.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns that people have. but please 
keep in mind, this program only utilizes one-half of 1 percent of all 
the Pell grant funds. It is not $200 million. It is only $35 million. 
And most importantly, it gets results.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Fields].
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity, 
once and for all, to make incarcerated prisoners ineligible to receive 
Pell grants--the grant program designed to help low- and middle-income 
students meet the costs of attending college.
  We can do that by voting for the Gordon-Holden-Fields amendment to 
the crime bill.
  Today, incarcerated prisoners are applying for, and obtaining Pell 
grants. Every dollar in Pell grant funds obtained by prisoners means 
that fewer law-abiding students who need help in meeting their college 
costs are eligible for that assistance. It also means that law-abiding 
students who meet eligibility criteria receive smaller annual grants 
than they might otherwise obtain.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends up to $100 million a year 
on education and training programs specifically targeted at prisoners--
and that's more than enough, as far as I'm concerned.
  This amendment mandates that incarcerated prisoners be ineligible to 
receive Pell grants. Now. Period. No more studies, no more delays. It 
is a straightforward, simple amendment.
  If you oppose Pell grants for prisoners, you should vote for the 
Gordon-Holden-Fields amendment.
  We do not need any more studies. We need more higher education funds 
for our constituents' sons and daughters who are struggling to pay for 
their children's college expenses. Our constituents already pay to 
feed, house, clothe and rehabilitate prisoners. Their sons and 
daughters shouldn't have to do without so that incarcerated prisoners 
can use Pell grant funds to go to college.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time the 
opposition has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] which--while certainly not 
intended that way by my colleague--seems to me to be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. Instead, I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment which will be offered next by the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Wynn].
  Let us recall that, in 1992, Congress reformed the use of Pell 
education grants by inmates when it reauthorized the Higher Education 
Act. At that time, Congress stipulated that such grants could only be 
used by inmates for tuition and books. Inmates serving life sentences 
or facing the death penalty were made ineligible. Limits were placed on 
the percentage of a school's student body that would be composed of 
incarcerated persons. I think those were good and appropriate changes. 
However, the amendment before us completely eliminates the eligibility 
of any inmate for a Pell grant and I believe that would be counter-
productive.
  Certainly, there is a social utility in educating prisoners. Studies 
consistently have shown lower recidivism rates for those inmates who 
participate in educational activities while incarcerated. A recent 
study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons--which opposes the Gordon 
amendment--confirmed that lower recidivism results from education as 
well as instilling positive social values and vocational skills needed 
for a law-abiding and productive life after release.
  The American Correctional Association, the Association of State 
Correctional Administrators, and the North American Association of 
Wardens and Superintendents have expressed a ``fundamental opposition 
to the Gordon amendment.'' They report, and I quote:

       [The Pell Grant Program] provides a unique window of 
     opportunity for our Nation to ensure that many released 
     offenders are returned to the community with knowledge, 
     skills,and abilities that will enable them to obtain 
     employment. Moreover, the impact of providing educational 
     opportunities under the authority of the Pell grants enhances 
     the capacity of corrections officials to manage the complex 
     needs of a changing offender population.

  Particularly as nonviolent, first time offenders become an even 
larger proportion of our prison population, I believe complete 
elimination of access to Pell grants will be counterproductive. By all 
accounts, Pell grants are moneys well spent. The Wynn amendment--which 
will be offered next--will eliminate all Pell grants if Federal and 
State prison systems fail to provide this. I urge rejection of the 
Gordon amendment now and adoption of the more thoughtful, measured 
response contained in the Wynn amendment which will be offered next.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a proud cosponsor of this amendment and I say 
to all my colleagues, it is time for a reality check.
  I spent 14 years in law enforcement before being elected to this 
great institution, and I could argue for hours against why prisoners 
should not be allowed to have Pell grants, but, instead, I would like 
to read a letter I received in my district from Tamaqua. The woman 
states:

       Where is an average, hard-working student who wants to make 
     something of herself and get somewhere in life supposed to 
     turn for help? Over the years we have told our daughter, 
     ``Keep your nose clean, stay out of trouble. If you have a 
     police record, you will never get into college.'' My daughter 
     has listened, but where has it gotten her? She reads about 
     prisoners getting Pell grants and free college educations.
       What does this tell her?
       It tells her: If she was sitting in jail she would get a 
     free education.
       Just where does a hard-working normal honor student 
     involved in many extra curricular activities not only in 
     school but also in the community go for help? The prisoner is 
     rewarded with a free education.
       The average honor student is penalized because she tried to 
     save money for college and she is penalized because she 
     stayed out of trouble. Who can justify all of this?

  The woman concludes:

       Do I tell her to put on a ski mask, go to the local bank, 
     rob it, get a criminal record and then receive a free 
     education?
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is obviously an issue that has attracted a great 
deal of controversy.
  In my closing comments, I would like to hopefully clarify some 
important points. Point No. 1: It has been suggested that law-abiding 
students are denied Pell grants because persons incarcerated are 
getting Pell grants. That is not true.
  The administration's statement clearly indicates that the 
availability of Pell grants to prisoners has no effect on the 
availability of Pell grants to law-abiding students. By law, all 
eligible students who apply for Pell grants receive them. By law, all 
eligible students who apply for Pell grants receive them.
  Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is not that we are insensitive 
to the concerns expressed on the floor regarding this matter but, 
rather, the Gordon amendment is not the correct approach. It is far 
more reasonable and far more sound for us to consider the Wynn 
amendment, which I will be introducing in just a minute, which provides 
that we would phase out the program unless there is a showing that the 
program works.
  The Secretary of Education would have to make an affirmative 
certification the program works, is cost-efficient, and reduces 
recidivism. Likewise, State prison directors would make the same 
certification. That is a more sound approach.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that because these 
two amendments were being clustered, the debate on both amendments 
would occur and then the votes on both amendments would follow 
subsequent to the debate on both amendments. Am I correct in that 
understanding?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Chair has that discretion. As the 
Chair has indicated, it is his intention to exercise that discretion. 
If the gentleman will be patient with the Chair, it is about to occur.
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the Chair. Forgive my eagerness. As you know, I am 
a freshman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 401, as the Chair has 
stated, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] will be postponed until after the debate on 
the next amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FIELDS. The question is, Mr. Chairman, what is the order of vote 
when we do have a recorded vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The vote will occur in the same order as would have 
occurred had the Chair not postponed the vote.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 printed in part 2 of 
the House Report 103-474.


                     amendment offered by mr. wynn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wynn: At the appropriate place in 
     the bill add the following:

     SEC.  . PELL GRANTS AND PRISONERS.

       (A) General Rule.--After January 1, 1996, Federal and State 
     prison inmates shall not be eligible for grants under subpart 
     1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (referred to in this section as ``Pell grants'') unless--
       (1) in the case of inmates of Federal prisons, including 
     prisons for the District of Columbia and territories of the 
     United States, the Secretary of Education makes the 
     certification prescribed by subsection (b), and
       (2) in the case of inmates of State prisons, the Governor 
     of the State in which the prison is located makes the 
     certification prescribed by subsection (b).
       (b) Certification.--The certification required by 
     subsection (a) to receive a Pell grant is a certification 
     that the provision of Pell grants to prisoners--
       (1) shows satisfactory evidence of reducing recidivism,
       (2) is cost effective, and
       (3) requires that the inmates make satisfactory academic 
     progress toward completion of the education program for which 
     the grant was made.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Wynn] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think having spoken in opposition to the amendment, 
my position is probably abundantly clear.
  We need to fight crime. We need to be hard on criminals. But we also 
need to keep in mind that we are now incarcerating more individuals per 
capita than any other country in the world, to the tune of $25,000 per 
inmate.
  To the extent that it is cheaper to provide college education to 
those inmates who desire it and have them not return, I suggest that 
the far more sound policy option would be to adopt the Wynn amendment, 
which preserves the programs through 1996 and requires the affirmative 
certification of the Secretary of Education.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brooks].
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], which is a more thoughtful, 
measured response to the issue of Pell grants for prisoners.
  Mr. Wynn's amendment eliminates Pell grants for prisoners after 
January 1, 1996, at the Federal level if the Secretary of Education--or 
at the State level if the Governor of a State--does not certify that 
the provision of Pell grants to prisoners reduces recidivism, is cost 
effective, and requires satisfactory academic progress toward 
completion of the education program for which the grant was made.
  This, coupled with the restrictions we discussed earlier that 
Congress adopted in 1992, will provide firm assurance that Pell grants 
for inmates are serving a proper function in our correctional system.
  I urge support for the Wynn amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment, and I would ask that my remarks appear in the Record as 
such, and I would urge Members to vote in the affirmative.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
  (Mr. TOWNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support to the Wynn agreement 
to eliminate Pell grants for inmates by January 1, 1996.
  The facts are clear that rehabilitation of inmates occurs when Pell 
grants are used to pursue collegiate studies. The national recidivism 
rate is 50 to 70 percent. However, for prisoners with at least 2 years 
of schooling, that figure is just 10 percent. The average Pell grant is 
$1,500 whereas the cost to incarcerate a prisoner is $30,000. Less than 
one-half of 1 percent of the 4.5 million Pell grant recipients are 
inmates. If it can be documented that they provide redemptive benefits 
for the inmate population and the society as a whole, it would not only 
be a shame, but imprudent and irrational to eliminate Pell grants.
  The issues of incarceration, rehabilitation, and recidivism are 
interrelated. The likelihood that inmates will be successful after 
release from prison is directly tied to the policies applied while they 
are incarcerated. It is hard to get a job when you don't have any 
skills or education.
  We need to offer some opportunity for prisoners to better themselves 
so that they don't become repeat offenders.
  This amendment uses a very simple cost benefit analysis to determine 
whether Pell grants should be eliminated by 1996. It must be clearly 
demonstrated on a Federal and State level that the benefits derived 
from inmates' utilization of Pell grants outweigh the costs associated 
with the program.
  I firmly believe that our prison system should utilize not only 
punitive, but rehabilitative measures that will enable inmates to 
become contributing members of society. Pell grants are a vital tool 
that can assist inmates in developing intellectually, and socially. 
Pell grants for inmates make sense and pay dividends in the short and 
long run.
  I urge my colleagues to support this valuable amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] 
has a good amendment. I am going to support it.
  One problem with it though is that it does not give an opportunity 
for those institutions that are doing a good job, that are decreasing 
the recidivism rate, and I think we should have that opportunity; at 
least, we should study to see which institutions deserve that 
opportunity. I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn] makes a very good contribution to making the good 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] an even 
better amendment.
  I urge support of the Wynn amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], the author of the preceding 
amendment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, the widow of a small-town vice-principal 
called me last month and asked how in the world the man who murdered 
her husband can be eligible for a Pell grant while her now fatherless 
daughter is struggling to pay her way through school. I think she and 
most Americans do not think we need to study this issue anymore.
  Do not be fooled by pleas for more time. Two years ago the House 
voted overwhelmingly to cut off Pell grants to prisoners, but the 
conference watered down the provision in exchange for a study. Now, a 
year and a half after the study was due, there is still no study.
  Yet one-quarter billion to one-half billion dollars in Pell grants 
have gone to prisoners in just the last 2 years.
  Waiting will not help. Pell grants for prisoners were a mistake 2 
years ago, they are a mistake today.
  Vote against the Wynn amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Gordon 
amendment and in support of the Wynn amendment.
  I understand the feelings generated by the idea that there is money 
available for inmates for education when there are law-abiding 
Americans who may be unable to obtain money for college. But there is 
more to this debate.
  I have heard argument after argument during consideration of this 
crime bill about doing something real to reduce crime. That something 
real is right in front of you. There is clear, uncontrovertible 
evidence that education reduces crime. Several studies, including one 
for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, indicate that the recidivism rate is 
about 10 percent lower for those inmates participating in educational 
programs.
  On anther amendment before us, yet to be considered, the value of 
prisoner education in reducing recidivism is promoted and given as a 
reason for the amendment. Yet now we argue that the end result is of no 
consequence.
  Pell grants are the most cost-effective and direct way to ensure that 
financially qualified inmates, who already have a high school degree or 
GED, can participate in college courses.
  The truth of the matter is that we in Congress have never 
appropriated money for Federal prisoner postsecondary educational 
programs and probably won't in the future. I am sure the argument 
against such an appropriation would be that it is taxpayer money and 
shouldn't be spent educating prisoners.
  The debate should be about reducing crime. That is what the Pell 
grants accomplish.
  Pell grants are limited to tuition and fees and limited as to what 
type of inmate who can receive the grants. The average Pell grant is 
about $1,500. Out of a total of over 1 million Americans in prison--
about 28,000 inmates received Pell grants this past fiscal year. That 
is about 1 percent of the total of all Pell grants received by 
Americans.
  One percent ought to be worth it to provide the American public with 
a reduction in crime. Instead, Mr. Gordon and his supporters would 
leave the ability to take courses to those who have money and assets. 
Only the poor inmates, the correctional staff who has to worry about 
inmate idleness--and the American public will suffer. The Wynn 
amendment on the other hand will require the Secretary of Education to 
certify by 1996 the cost effectiveness of the program for inmates of 
our prisons.
  I urge you to oppose the Gordon amendment and support the Wynn 
amendment.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues we must look at the facts on 
this amendment. We are spending at least $35 million on Pell grants for 
incarcerated felons in this country. That is $35 million that could be 
used for hardworking American families who are unable to get Pell 
grants to send their children to college.
  I will use my brother as an example. He is a school teacher, his wife 
is a secretary. My niece, Kelly, goes to Shippensburg University. They 
must borrow the money every year to send her to Shippensburg 
University, while we have incarcerated inmates at Graterford State 
Prison receiving college degrees in Pennsylvania.
  As the gentleman from Texas said earlier, we are already spending 
$100 million, Federal taxpayer dollars, for the rehabilitation of 
prisoners.
  When I was a county sheriff, I served on the prison board and we 
spent local tax dollars on GED training or vocational training. I would 
agree that we should continue to spend money on those types of 
programs. But I ask all my colleagues to defeat the Wynn amendment. We 
are sending a terrible message to the American public when we are 
spending at least $35 million sending convicted felons to higher 
institutions of learning.
  Please defeat the Wynn amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The fact is that we owe it to 
the American people. If we are not going to execute violent criminals, 
we owe to them to try to rehabilitate them. That is what this is all 
about.
  If people are willing to make the effort to get a college education, 
to make themselves constructive members of our economy and society, we 
ought to give them the ability to do so.
  We just had a hearing with the head of the Bureau of Prisons. She 
felt very strongly we do not have the resources to do all that the 
Congress is telling us we have to do. This is one opportunity to get 
the resources to enable people to get real rehabilitation, make sure 
when they get out into society they have something to contribute and we 
do not have to worry about them recommitting those crimes.
  All the Wynn amendment says is we ought to study this issue and not 
kill the program before we know whether or not it is going to work.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend from Maryland earlier in the day talked about looking at 
the whole situation. Then my good friend from Pennsylvania, who served 
14 years in law enforcement, said that it was time for a reality check. 
Let us do that for just a moment.
  The Pell Grant program is a $6.3 billion program, but last year it 
suffered a $250 million shortfall. The Department of Energy estimates, 
and this is a very conservative estimate, that Pell Grants to prisoners 
constitute at least a $73 million-per-year expenditure. Or, if you 
multiply this over 5 years, it is over $365 million, taxpayer dollars, 
going to prisoners every 5 years.
  So if you want to look at the whole situation, if you want to have a 
reality check, I think you can crystallize that into one simple 
question that each Member should ask him or herself: Can you justify 
spending a third of a billion dollars over a 5-year period, to your 
constituents, for Pell Grants for prisoners? Now, if you can answer 
that question that you should spend it, then you should vote ``no'' on 
our amendment and you should vote ``yes'' for Mr. Wynn.
  However, if you want your law-abiding constituents to have this Pell 
Grant money, then you should vote ``yes'' on Gordon-Holden-Fields of 
Texas and you should vote ``no'' on the Wynn amendment. It is important 
for people to understand that not only does this postpone for 2 years, 
many of us think this would postpone our particular amendment 
indefinitely.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. The question here is not should prisoners have education. 
The State and Federal Governments are already spending half a billion 
dollars to educate prisoners.
  The question is: Is the Pell Grant an efficient way to do that? The 
Department of Education cannot give you the name of one prisoner who 
has ever gotten a grant or whether or not they have been successful 
with that. There is no accountability. That is the problem, not whether 
prisoners should be educated, but whether Pell Grants are an 
appropriate vehicle to do that. Certainly they are not, because there 
is no accountability. I think those limited funds can better be spent 
by at-risk students to keep them out of jail, not to throw money at 
prisoners that are in jail with no accountability.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that no one would leave this 
debate thinking that, first, eligible students are being denied Pell 
Grants because of prisoners. That is not true. The administration has 
stated unequivocally that all Pell-eligible students receive their 
grants regardless of the participation of the prison population.
  Second, the prison participation is only one-half of 1 percent of the 
total program cost. But the most important issue in this debate is 
simply this: Do we pay now, or do we pay later? If we pay now, we allow 
a prison inmate to spend $1,500 a semester to get a college education. 
The statistics show that when that inmate gets that education, he is a 
lot less likely to come back to prison. The studies indicate, as I 
said, 10 to 30 percent recidivism with college training, whereas 60 to 
65 percent recidivism without college training.
  It seems to me it would be cheaper to pay now and let them get 
college training than it would be to pay $25,000 a year to house them 
in prison.
  We have got to be smart on this issue, and the smart vote is to allow 
the program to continue, allow the Secretary of Education to certify 
that it works and, when it works, we should keep that in place.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 401, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland will be 
postponed until after further proceedings on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  Pursuant to Resolution 401, proceedings will now resume on those 
amendments on which further proceedings were previously postponed and 
in the following order: Amendment No. 37, offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], and then amendment No. 38, offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  The Chair announces that in the event votes are ordered, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the 
first vote in this series.


                    amendment offered by mr. gordon

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], 
on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the ``noes'' 
prevailed by voice vote. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification as to which vote 
is coming first. It is correct that the Gordon amendment is first, 
followed by the Wynn amendment?

                              {time}  1610

  The CHAIRMAN. This vote is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], No. 37, to be followed by the one offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], No. 38.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 312, 
noes 116, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--312

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

                               NOES--116

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Houghton
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kopetski
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Mann
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Washington
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Crane
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Gutierrez
     McDade
     McNulty
     Waters
     Whitten

                              {time}  1630

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grandy for, with Mr. McNulty against.

  Mr. WILSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ALLARD, Mr. EDWARDS of Texas, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. 
MOLLOHAN, GLICKMAN, and VISCLOSKY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     amendment offered by mr. wynn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 263, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                               AYES--162

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Washington
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--263

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (CA)
     Crane
     Fish
     Gallo
     Grandy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Petri
     Torres
     Waters
     Whitten

                              {time}  1640

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McNutly for, with Mr. Grandy against.

  Mr. GUNDERSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. UNDERWOOD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-474.


                    amendment offered by mr. mccurdy

  Mr. McCURDY. 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. McCurdy:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
       TITLE ____POLICE CORPS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACT

     SEC. ____. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are to--
       (1) address violent crime by increasing the number of 
     police with advanced education and training on community 
     patrol; and
       (2) provide educational assistance to law enforcement 
     personnel and to students who possess a sincere interest in 
     public service in the form of law enforcement.

     SEC. ____. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``academic year'' means a traditional academic 
     year beginning in August or September and ending in the 
     following May or June;
       (2) the term ``dependent child'' means a natural or adopted 
     child or stepchild of a law enforcement officer who at the 
     time of the officer's death--
       (A) was no more than 21 years old; or
       (B) if older than 21 years, was in fact dependent on the 
     child's parents for at least one-half of the child's support 
     (excluding educational expenses), as determined by the 
     Director;
       (3) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office 
     of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education appointed 
     under section ____.
       (4) the term ``educational expenses'' means expenses that 
     are directly attributable to--
       (A) a course of education leading to the award of the 
     baccalaureate degree in legal- or criminal justice-related 
     studies; or
       (B) a course of graduate study legal or criminal justice 
     studies following award of a baccalaureate degree,

     including the cost of tuition, fees, books, supplies, 
     transportation, room and board and miscellaneous expenses.
       (5) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning stated in the first sentence of section 1201(a) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
       (6) the term ``participant'' means a participant in the 
     Police Corps program selected pursuant to section ____;
       (7) the term ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and
       (8) the term ``State Police Corps program'' means a State 
     police corps program that meets the requirements of section 
     ____.
                        Subtitle A--Police Corps

     SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF THE POLICE CORPS AND 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT EDUCATION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department 
     of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney 
     General, an Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement 
     Education.
       (b) Appointment of Director.--The Office of the Police 
     Corps and Law Enforcement Education shall be headed by a 
     Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (c) Responsibilities of Director.--The Director shall be 
     responsible for the administration of the Police Corps 
     program established by this subtitle and shall have authority 
     to promulgate regulations to implement this subtitle.

     SEC. ____. DESIGNATION OF LEAD AGENCY AND SUBMISSION OF STATE 
                   PLAN.

       (a) Lead Agency.--A State that desires to participate in 
     the Police Corps program under this subtitle shall designate 
     a lead agency that will be responsible for--
       (1) submitting to the Director a State plan described in 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) administering the program in the State.
       (b) State Plans.--A State plan shall--
       (1) contain assurances that the lead agency shall work in 
     cooperation with the local law enforcement liaisons, 
     representatives of police labor organizations and police 
     management organizations, and other appropriate State and 
     local agencies to develop and implement interagency 
     agreements designed to carry out the program;
       (2) contain assurances that the State shall advertise the 
     assistance available under this subtitle;
       (3) contain assurances that the State shall screen and 
     select law enforcement personnel for participation in the 
     program; and
       (4) meet the requirements of section ____.

     SEC. ____. SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Scholarships Authorized.--(1) The Director may award 
     scholarships to participants who agree to work in a State or 
     local police force in accordance with agreements entered into 
     pursuant to subsection (d).
       (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each 
     scholarship payment made under this section for each academic 
     year shall not exceed--
       (i) $7,500; or
       (ii) the cost of the educational expenses related to 
     attending an institution of higher education.
       (B) In the case of a participant who is pursuing a course 
     of educational study during substantially an entire calendar 
     year, the amount of scholarship payments made during such 
     year shall not exceed $10,000.
       (C) The total amount of scholarship assistance received by 
     any one participant under this section shall not exceed 
     $30,000.
       (3) Participants who receive scholarship assistance under 
     this section shall continue to receive such scholarship 
     payments only during such periods as the Director finds that 
     the recipient is maintaining satisfactory progress as 
     determined by the institution of higher education the 
     recipient is attending.
       (4)(A) The Director shall make scholarship payments under 
     this section directly to the institution of higher education 
     that the student is attending.
       (B) Each institution of higher education receiving a 
     payment on behalf of a participant pursuant to subparagraph 
     (A) shall remit to such student any funds in excess of the 
     costs of tuition, fees, and room and board payable to the 
     institution.
       (b) Reimbursement Authorized.--(1) The Director may make 
     payments to a participant to reimburse such participant for 
     the costs of educational expenses if the student agrees to 
     work in a State or local police force in accordance with the 
     agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (d).
       (2)(A) Each payment made pursuant to paragraph (1) for each 
     academic year of study shall not exceed--
       (i) $7,500; or
       (ii) the cost of educational expenses related to attending 
     an institution of higher education.
       (B) In the case of a participant who is pursuing a course 
     of educational study during substantially an entire calendar 
     year, the amount of scholarship payments made during such 
     year shall not exceed $10,000.
       (C) The total amount of payments made pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) to any 1 student shall not exceed $30,000.
       (c) Use of Scholarship.--Scholarships awarded under this 
     subsection shall only be used to attend a 4-year institution 
     of higher education, except that--
       (1) scholarships may be used for graduate and professional 
     study; and
       (2) if a participant has enrolled in the program upon or 
     after transfer to a 4-year institution of higher education, 
     the Director may reimburse the participant for the 
     participant's prior educational expenses.
       (d) Agreement.--(1)(A) Each participant receiving a 
     scholarship or a payment under this section shall enter into 
     an agreement with the Director.
       (B) An agreement under subparagraph (A) shall contain 
     assurances that the participant shall--
       (i) after successful completion of a baccalaureate program 
     and training as prescribed in section ____, work for 4 years 
     in a State or local police force without there having arisen 
     sufficient cause for the participant's dismissal under the 
     rules applicable to members of the police force of which the 
     participant is a member;
       (ii) complete satisfactorily--
       (I) an educational course of study and receipt of a 
     baccalaureate degree (in the case of undergraduate study) or 
     the reward of credit to the participant for having completed 
     one or more graduate courses (in the case of graduate study); 
     and
       (II) Police Corps training and certification by the 
     Director that the participant has met such performance 
     standards as may be established pursuant to section ____; and
       (iii) repay all of the scholarship or payment received plus 
     interest at the rate of 10 percent if the conditions of 
     clauses (i) and (ii) are not complied with.
       (2)(A) A participant who receives a scholarship or payment 
     under this section shall not be considered to be in violation 
     of the agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph (1) if 
     the recipient--
       (i) dies; or
       (ii) becomes permanently and totally disabled as 
     established by the sworn affidavit of a qualified physician.
       (B) If the participant who has received a scholarship is 
     unable to comply with the repayment provision set forth in 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii) because of a physical or emotional 
     disability or for good cause as determined by the Director, 
     the Director may substitute community service in a form 
     prescribed by the Director for the required repayment.
       (C) The Director shall expeditiously seek repayment from a 
     participant who violates an agreement described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (e) Dependent Child.--(1) A dependent child of an 
     individual referred to in paragraph (2) shall be entitled to 
     the scholarship assistance authorized in this section for any 
     course of study in any accredited institution of higher 
     education. Such dependent child shall not incur any repayment 
     obligation in exchange for the scholarship assistance 
     provided in this section.
       (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual is a law 
     enforcement officer--
       (A) who is a member of a State or local police force or is 
     a Federal criminal investigator or uniformed police officer;
       (B) who is not a participant in the Police Corps program, 
     but who serves in a State for which the Director has approved 
     a State Police Corps plan; and
       (C) who is killed in the course of performing police 
     duties.
       (f) Application.--Each participant desiring a scholarship 
     or payment under this section shall submit an application as 
     prescribed by the Director in such manner and accompanied by 
     such information as the Director may reasonably require.

     SEC. ____. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS.

       (a) In General.--Participants in State Police Corps 
     programs shall be selected on a competitive basis by each 
     State under regulations prescribed by the Director.
       (b) Selection Criteria and Qualifications.--(1) In order to 
     participate in a State Police Corps program, a participant 
     shall--
       (A) be a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
       (B) meet the requirements for admission as a trainee of the 
     State or local police force to which the participant will be 
     assigned pursuant to section ____(c)(5), including 
     achievement of satisfactory scores on any applicable 
     examination, except that failure to meet the age requirement 
     for a trainee of the State or local police shall not 
     disqualify the applicant if the applicant will be of 
     sufficient age upon completing an undergraduate course of 
     study;
       (C) possess the necessary mental and physical capabilities 
     and emotional characteristics to discharge effectively the 
     duties of a law enforcement officer;
       (D) be of good character and demonstrate sincere motivation 
     and dedication to law enforcement and public service;
       (E) in the case of an undergraduate, agree in writing that 
     the participant will complete an educational course of study 
     leading to the award of a baccalaureate degree and will then 
     accept an appointment and complete 4 years of service as an 
     officer in the State police or in a local police department 
     within the State;
       (F) in the case of a participant desiring to undertake or 
     continue graduate study, agree in writing that the 
     participant will accept an appointment and complete 4 years 
     of service as an officer in the State police or in a local 
     police department within the State before undertaking or 
     continuing graduate study;
       (G) contract, with the consent of the participant's parent 
     or guardian if the participant is a minor, to serve for 4 
     years as an officer in the State police or in a local police 
     department, if an appointment is offered; and
       (H) except as provided in paragraph (2), be without 
     previous law enforcement experience.
       (2)(A) Until the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this title, up to 10 percent of the applicants 
     accepted into a State Police Corps program may be persons 
     who--
       (i) have had some law enforcement experience; and
       (ii) have demonstrated special leadership potential and 
     dedication to law enforcement.
       (B)(i) The prior period of law enforcement of a participant 
     selected pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall not be counted 
     toward satisfaction of the participant's 4-year service 
     obligation under section ____, and such a participant shall 
     be subject to the same benefits and obligations under this 
     subtitle as other participants, including those stated in 
     subsection (b)(1)(E) and (F).
       (ii) Clause (i) shall not be construed to preclude counting 
     a participant's previous period of law enforcement experience 
     for purposes other than satisfaction of the requirements of 
     section ____, such as for purposes of determining such a 
     participant's pay and other benefits, rank, and tenure.
       (3) It is the intent of this subtitle that there shall be 
     no more than 20,000 participants in each graduating class. 
     The Director shall approve State plans providing in the 
     aggregate for such enrollment of applicants as shall assure, 
     as nearly as possible, annual graduating classes of 20,000. 
     In a year in which applications are received in a number 
     greater than that which will produce, in the judgment of the 
     Director, a graduating class of more than 20,000, the 
     Director shall, in deciding which applications to grant, give 
     preference to those who will be participating in State plans 
     that provide law enforcement personnel to areas of greatest 
     need.
       (c) Recruitment of Minorities.--Each State participating in 
     the Police Corps program shall make special efforts to seek 
     and recruit applicants from among members of all racial, 
     ethnic or gender groups. This subsection does not authorize 
     an exception from the competitive standards for admission 
     established pursuant to subsections (a) and (b).
       (d) Enrollment of Applicant.--(1) An applicant shall be 
     accepted into a State Police Corps program on the condition 
     that the applicant will be matriculated in, or accepted for 
     admission at, a 4-year institution of higher education--
       (A) as a full-time student in an undergraduate program; or
       (B) for purposes of taking a graduate course.
       (2) If the applicant is not matriculated or accepted as set 
     forth in paragraph (1), the applicant's acceptance in the 
     program shall be revoked.
       (e) Leave of Absence.--(1) A participant in a State Police 
     Corps program who requests a leave of absence from 
     educational study, training or service for a period not to 
     exceed 1 year (or 18 months in the aggregate in the event of 
     multiple requests) due to temporary physical or emotional 
     disability shall be granted such leave of absence by the 
     State.
       (2) A participant who requests a leave of absence from 
     educational study, training or service for a period not to 
     exceed 1 year (or 18 months in the aggregate in the event of 
     multiple requests) for any reason other than those listed in 
     paragraph (1) may be granted such leave of absence by the 
     State.
       (3) A participant who requests a leave of absence from 
     educational study or training for a period not to exceed 30 
     months to serve on an official church mission may be granted 
     such leave of absence.
       (f) Admission of Applicants.--An applicant may be admitted 
     into a State Police Corps program either before commencement 
     of or during the applicant's course of educational study.

     SEC. ____. POLICE CORPS TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Director shall establish programs 
     of training for State Police Corps participants. Such 
     programs may be carried out at up to 3 training centers 
     established for this purpose and administered by the 
     Director, or by contracting with existing State training 
     facilities. The Director shall contract with a State training 
     facility upon request of such facility if the Director 
     determines that such facility offers a course of training 
     substantially equivalent to the Police Corps training program 
     described in this subtitle.
       (2) The Director may enter into contracts with individuals, 
     institutions of learning, and government agencies (including 
     State and local police forces) to obtain the services of 
     persons qualified to participate in and contribute to the 
     training process.
       (3) The Director may enter into agreements with agencies of 
     the Federal Government to utilize on a reimbursable basis 
     space in Federal buildings and other resources.
       (4) The Director may authorize such expenditures as are 
     necessary for the effective maintenance of the training 
     centers, including purchases of supplies, uniforms, and 
     educational materials, and the provision of subsistence, 
     quarters, and medical care to participants.
       (b) Training Sessions.--A participant in a State Police 
     Corps program shall attend two 8-week training sessions at a 
     training center, one during the summer following completion 
     of sophomore year and one during the summer following 
     completion of junior year. If a participant enters the 
     program after sophomore year, the participant shall complete 
     16 weeks of training at times determined by the Director.
       (c) Further Training.--The 16 weeks of State Police Corps 
     training authorized in this section is intended to serve as 
     basic law enforcement training but not to exclude further 
     training of participants by the State and local authorities 
     to which they will be assigned. Each State plan approved by 
     the Director under section ____ shall include assurances that 
     following completion of a participant's course of education 
     each participant shall receive appropriate additional 
     training by the State or local authority to which the 
     participant is assigned. The time spent by a participant in 
     such additional training, but not the time spent in State 
     Police Corps training, shall be counted toward fulfillment of 
     the participant's 4-year service obligation.
       (d) Course of Training.--The training sessions at training 
     centers established under this section shall be designed to 
     provide basic law enforcement training, including vigorous 
     physical and mental training to teach participants self-
     discipline and organizational loyalty and to impart knowledge 
     and understanding of legal processes and law enforcement.
       (e) Evaluation of Participants.--A participant shall be 
     evaluated during training for mental, physical, and emotional 
     fitness, and shall be required to meet performance standards 
     prescribed by the Director at the conclusion of each training 
     session in order to remain in the Police Corps program.
       (f) Stipend.--The Director shall pay participants in 
     training sessions a stipend of $250 a week during training.

     SEC. ____. SERVICE OBLIGATION.

       (a) Swearing In.--Upon satisfactory completion of the 
     participant's course of education and training program 
     established in section ____ and meeting the requirements of 
     the police force to which the participant is assigned, a 
     participant shall be sworn in as a member of the police force 
     to which the participant is assigned pursuant to the State 
     Police Corps plan, and shall serve for 4 years as a member of 
     that police force.
       (b) Rights and Responsibilities.--A participant shall have 
     all of the rights and responsibilities of and shall be 
     subject to all rules and regulations applicable to other 
     members of the police force of which the participant is a 
     member, including those contained in applicable agreements 
     with labor organizations and those provided by State and 
     local law.
       (c) Discipline.--If the police force of which the 
     participant is a member subjects the participant to 
     discipline such as would preclude the participant's 
     completing 4 years of service, and result in denial of 
     educational assistance under section ____, the Director may, 
     upon a showing of good cause, permit the participant to 
     complete the service obligation in an equivalent alternative 
     law enforcement service and, if such service is 
     satisfactorily completed, section ____(d)(1)(B)(iii) shall 
     not apply.
       (d) Layoffs.--If the police force of which the participant 
     is a member lays off the participant such as would preclude 
     the participant's completing 4 years of service, and result 
     in denial of educational assistance under section ____, the 
     Director may permit the participant to complete the service 
     obligation in an equivalent alternative law enforcement 
     service and, if such service is satisfactorily completed, 
     section ____(d)(1)(B)(iii) shall not apply.

     SEC. ____. STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       A State Police Corps plan shall--
       (1) provide for the screening and selection of participants 
     in accordance with the criteria set out in section ____;
       (2) State procedures governing the assignment of 
     participants in the Police Corps program to State and local 
     police forces (no more than 10 percent of all the 
     participants assigned in each year by each State to be 
     assigned to a statewide police force or forces);
       (3) provide that participants shall be assigned to those 
     geographic areas in which--
       (A) there is the greatest need for additional law 
     enforcement personnel; and
       (B) the participants will be used most effectively;
       (4) provide that to the extent consistent with paragraph 
     (3), a participant shall be assigned to an area near the 
     participant's home or such other place as the participant may 
     request;
       (5) provide that to the extent feasible, a participant's 
     assignment shall be made at the time the participant is 
     accepted into the program, subject to change--
       (A) prior to commencement of a participant's fourth year of 
     undergraduate study, under such circumstances as the plan may 
     specify; and
       (B) from commencement of a participant's fourth year of 
     undergraduate study until completion of 4 years of police 
     service by participant, only for compelling reasons or to 
     meet the needs of the State Police Corps program and only 
     with the consent of the participant;
       (6) provide that no participant shall be assigned to serve 
     with a local police force--
       (A) whose size has declined by more than 5 percent since 
     June 21, 1989; or
       (B) which has members who have been laid off but not 
     retired;
       (7) provide that participants shall be placed and to the 
     extent feasible kept on community and preventive patrol;
       (8) ensure that participants will receive effective 
     training and leadership;
       (9) provide that the State may decline to offer a 
     participant an appointment following completion of Federal 
     training, or may remove a participant from the State Police 
     Corps program at any time, only for good cause (including 
     failure to make satisfactory progress in a course of 
     educational study) and after following reasonable review 
     procedures stated in the plan; and
       (10) provide that a participant shall, while serving as a 
     member of a police force, be compensated at the same rate of 
     pay and benefits and enjoy the same rights under applicable 
     agreements with labor organizations and under State and local 
     law as other police officers of the same rank and tenure in 
     the police force of which the participant is a member.

     SEC. ____. ASSISTANCE TO STATES AND LOCALITIES EMPLOYING 
                   POLICE CORPS OFFICERS.

       Each jurisdiction directly employing State Police Corps 
     participants during the 4-year term of service prescribed by 
     section ____ shall receive $10,000 on account of each such 
     participant at the completion of each such year of service, 
     but--
       (1) no such payment shall be made on account of service in 
     any State or local police force--
       (A) whose average size, in the year for which payment is to 
     be made, not counting State Police Corps participants 
     assigned under section ____, has declined more than 2 percent 
     since January 1, 1993; or
       (B) which has members who have been laid off but not 
     retired; and
       (2) no such payment shall be made on account of any State 
     Police Corps participant for years of service after the 
     completion of the term of service prescribed in section ____.

     SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle--
       (1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 and $250,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996; and
       (2) such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, and 1999.

     SEC. ____. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than April 1 of each year, the 
     Director shall submit a report to the Attorney General, the 
     President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and 
     the President of the Senate.
       (b) Contents.--A report under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) state the number of current and past participants in 
     the State Police Corps program, broken down according to the 
     levels of educational study in which they are engaged and 
     years of service they have served on police forces (including 
     service following completion of the 4-year service 
     obligation);
       (2) describe the geographic, racial, and gender dispersion 
     of participants in the State Police Corps program; and
       (3) describe the progress of the State Police Corps program 
     and make recommendations for changes in the program.
            Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Scholarship Program

     SEC. ____. ALLOTMENT.

       From amounts appropriated under section ____, the Director 
     shall allot--
       (1) 80 percent of such amounts to States on the basis of 
     the number of law enforcement officers in each State compared 
     to the number of law enforcement officers in all States; and
       (2) 20 percent of such amounts to States on the basis of 
     the shortage of law enforcement personnel and the need for 
     assistance under this subtitle in the State compared to the 
     shortage of law enforcement personnel and the need for 
     assistance under this subtitle in all States.

     SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       (a) Use of Allotment.--
       (1) In general.--A State that receives an allotment 
     pursuant to section ____ shall use the allotment to pay the 
     Federal share of the costs of--
       (A) awarding scholarships to in-service law enforcement 
     personnel to enable such personnel to seek further education; 
     and
       (B) providing--
       (i) full-time employment in summer; or
       (ii) part-time (not to exceed 20 hours per week) employment 
     for a period not to exceed 1 year.
       (2) Employment.--The employment described in paragraph 
     (1)(B)--
       (A) shall be provided by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies for students who are juniors or seniors in high 
     school or are enrolled in an institution of higher education 
     and who demonstrate an interest in undertaking a career in 
     law enforcement;
       (B) shall not be in a law enforcement position; and
       (C) shall consist of performing meaningful tasks that 
     inform students of the nature of the tasks performed by law 
     enforcement agencies.
       (b) Payments; Federal Share; Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) Payments.--The Secretary shall pay to each State that 
     receives an allotment under section ____ the Federal share of 
     the cost of the activities described in the application 
     submitted pursuant to section ____.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share shall not exceed 60 
     percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of scholarships and student employment provided under this 
     subtitle shall be supplied from sources other than the 
     Federal Government.
       (c) Responsibilities of Director.--The Director shall be 
     responsible for the administration of the programs conducted 
     pursuant to this subtitle and shall, in consultation with the 
     Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, issue rules 
     to implement this subtitle.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--A State that receives an 
     allotment under section ____ may reserve not more than 8 
     percent of the allotment for administrative expenses.
       (e) Special Rule.--A State that receives an allotment under 
     section ____ shall ensure that each scholarship recipient 
     under this subtitle be compensated at the same rate of pay 
     and benefits and enjoy the same rights under applicable 
     agreements with labor organizations and under State and local 
     law as other law enforcement personnel of the same rank and 
     tenure in the office of which the scholarship recipient is a 
     member.
       (f) Supplementation of Funding.--Funds received under this 
     subtitle shall only be used to supplement, and not to 
     supplant, Federal, State, or local efforts for recruitment 
     and education of law enforcement personnel.

     SEC. ____. SCHOLARSHIPS.

       (a) Period of Award.--Scholarships awarded under this 
     subtitle shall be for a period of 1 academic year.
       (b) Use of Scholarships.--Each individual awarded a 
     scholarship under this subtitle may use the scholarship for 
     educational expenses at an institution of higher education.

     SEC. ____. ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) Scholarships.--A person shall be eligible to receive a 
     scholarship under this subtitle if the person has been 
     employed in law enforcement for the 2-year period immediately 
     preceding the date on which assistance is sought.
       (b) Ineligibility for Student Employment.--A person who has 
     been employed as a law enforcement officer is ineligible to 
     participate in a student employment program carried out under 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. ____. STATE APPLICATION.

       (a) In General.--Each State desiring an allotment under 
     section ____ shall submit an application to the Director at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Director may reasonably require.
       (b) Contents.--An application under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) describe the scholarship program and the student 
     employment program for which assistance under this subtitle 
     is sought;
       (2) contain assurances that the lead agency will work in 
     cooperation with the local law enforcement liaisons, 
     representatives of police labor organizations and police 
     management organizations, and other appropriate State and 
     local agencies to develop and implement interagency 
     agreements designed to carry out this subtitle;
       (3) contain assurances that the State will advertise the 
     scholarship assistance and student employment it will provide 
     under this subtitle and that the State will use such programs 
     to enhance recruitment efforts;
       (4) contain assurances that the State will screen and 
     select law enforcement personnel for participation in the 
     scholarship program under this subtitle;
       (5) contain assurances that under such student employment 
     program the State will screen and select, for participation 
     in such program, students who have an interest in undertaking 
     a career in law enforcement;
       (6) contain assurances that under such scholarship program 
     the State will make scholarship payments to institutions of 
     higher education on behalf of persons who receive 
     scholarships under this subtitle;
       (7) with respect to such student employment program, 
     identify--
       (A) the employment tasks that students will be assigned to 
     perform;
       (B) the compensation that students will be paid to perform 
     such tasks; and
       (C) the training that students will receive as part of 
     their participation in the program;
       (8) identify model curriculum and existing programs 
     designed to meet the educational and professional needs of 
     law enforcement personnel; and
       (9) contain assurances that the State will promote 
     cooperative agreements with educational and law enforcement 
     agencies to enhance law enforcement personnel recruitment 
     efforts in institutions of higher education.

     SEC. ____. LOCAL APPLICATION.

       (a) In General.--A person who desires a scholarship or 
     employment under this subtitle shall submit an application to 
     the State at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the State may reasonably require.
       (b) Contents.--An application under subsection (a) shall 
     describe--
       (1) the academic courses for which a scholarship is sought; 
     or
       (2) the location and duration of employment that is sought.
       (c) Priority.--In awarding scholarships and providing 
     student employment under this subtitle, each State shall give 
     priority to applications from persons who are--
       (1) members of racial, ethnic, or gender groups whose 
     representation in the law enforcement agencies within the 
     State is substantially less than in the population eligible 
     for employment in law enforcement in the State;
       (2) pursuing an undergraduate degree; and
       (3) not receiving financial assistance under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.

     SEC. ____. SCHOLARSHIP AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--A person who receives a scholarship under 
     this subtitle shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Director.
       (b) Contents.--An agreement described in subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) provide assurances that the scholarship recipient will 
     work in a law enforcement position in the State that awarded 
     the scholarship in accordance with the service obligation 
     described in subsection (c) after completion of the 
     scholarship recipient's academic courses leading to an 
     associate, bachelor, or graduate degree;
       (2) provide assurances that the scholarship recipient will 
     repay the entire scholarship in accordance with such terms 
     and conditions as the Director shall prescribe if the 
     requirements of the agreement are not complied with, unless 
     the scholarship recipient--
       (A) dies;
       (B) becomes physically or emotionally disabled, as 
     established by the sworn affidavit of a qualified physician; 
     or
       (C) has been discharged in bankruptcy; and
       (3) set forth the terms and conditions under which the 
     scholarship recipient may seek employment in the field of law 
     enforcement in a State other than the State that awarded the 
     scholarship.
       (c) Service Obligation.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     person who receives a scholarship under this subtitle shall 
     work in a law enforcement position in the State that awarded 
     the scholarship for a period of 1 month for each credit hour 
     for which funds are received under the scholarship.
       (2) Special rule.--For purposes of satisfying the 
     requirement of paragraph (1), a scholarship recipient shall 
     work in a law enforcement position in the State that awarded 
     the scholarship for not less than 6 months but shall not be 
     required to work in such a position for more than 2 years.

     SEC. ____. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle--
       (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Bureau 
     of Justice Assistance;
       (2) the term ``educational expenses'' means expenses that 
     are directly attributable to--
       (A) a course of education leading to the award of an 
     associate degree;
       (B) a course of education leading to the award of a 
     baccalaureate degree; or
       (C) a course of graduate study following award of a 
     baccalaureate degree,

     including the cost of tuition, fees, books, supplies, and 
     related expenses;
       (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning stated in the first sentence of section 1201(a) of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
       (4) the term ``law enforcement position'' means employment 
     as an officer in a State or local police force, or 
     correctional institution; and
       (5) the term ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, 
     Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

     SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) General Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subtitle 
     $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 
     and 1999.
       (b) Uses of Funds.--Of the funds appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
       (1) 80 percent shall be available to provide scholarships 
     described in section ____(a)(1)(A); and
       (2) 20 percent shall be available to provide employment 
     described in sections ____(a)(1)(B) and ____(a)(2).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  (Mr. McCURDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 20 seconds.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. McCURDY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BROOKS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we hope to cluster 
these votes, as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the provisions of House Resolution 401, the chair 
has that discretion. It is the Chair's intention to exercise that 
discretion.
  Mr. BROOKS. I would ask that the Chair invoke that discretion 
provided within the rule and cluster the votes on the McCurdy amendment 
and on the Martinez amendment, after debate on both amendments has been 
completed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule provides for this discretion, and it is the 
Chair's intention to exercise it.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering to the crime bill will 
establish a Police Corps program to provide college students with aid 
for education in return for serving 4 years with a State or local law 
enforcement agency.
  This amendment is included in the version of the crime bill which was 
passed by the Senate and was reported by the Crime and Criminal Justice 
Subcommittee. In 1991, I offered a similar amendment which was passed 
by the House by a vote of 369 to 51. The Police Corps program is 
strongly supported by the administration--in fact, as Governor of 
Arkansas, President Clinton instituted the Nation's first Police Corps 
program.
  College students would be able to obtain a scholarship for up to 
$10,000 per year, up to a total of $30,000, to pursue their own chosen 
course of study. They would receive intensive police training over the 
course of two summers, and upon graduating, they would serve 4 years 
with their State or local police department.
  Participants would be selected on a competitive basis, by the State 
and local law enforcement agencies that would employ them. Failure to 
complete the full 4 years of service would obligate the student to 
repay the full scholarship, plus a penalty of 10 percent.
  Police Corps officers would be fully empowered as sworn officers, but 
are intended to supplement, not replace, existing career forces. To the 
extent that it is possible, Police Corps officers are directed to be 
assigned to community and preventive patrol.
  The Police Corps program provides numerous benefits to State and 
local police forces. Because they will not receive pension benefits, 
police corps officers will cost about one-third less than regular 
police officers. The program will establish a core of well-trained 
citizen officers who will have a special commitment to service as 
beneficiaries of this particular educational opportunity. Finally, it 
will give future community leaders firsthand knowledge of and 
experience with police work, and these individuals will continue to 
support it throughout their lives.
  My amendment also includes a separate provision creating a law 
enforcement scholarship program of education assistance for individuals 
currently employed as law enforcement officers.
  The amendment authorizes $100 million in fiscal year 1995, and $250 
million in fiscal year 1996 for the Police Corps program. The law 
enforcement scholarship program is authorized for $30 million for 
fiscal years 1995-99.
  Last year, Congress enacted historic legislation to establish a 
national service program. Police Corps, like national service, 
emphasizes mutual obligation and community service. I urge you to join 
me in supporting this amendment to the crime bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my colleagues for their strong 
support.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if there is a person 
designated in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], rose in 
opposition and has claimed the 5 minutes
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] would be kind enough on his side to offer a minute or 
two to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman does not have the time, I would be 
glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have friends on both sides of this issue, and I have 
for a number of years been involved with the question of whether we 
should have a Police Corps or not. Reluctantly, in some ways, because I 
do have friends who strongly feel and passionately feel we should have 
it, I stand here in opposition to it tonight.
  The reason for my opposition is simply because I do not believe that 
it is the necessary or proper role of the Federal Government to be 
attempting to add to the cause in terms of the police in this country. 
We have not had an overwhelming request from the police to do this. 
Some certainly strongly favor this program. Others do not feel that it 
would be an appropriate or necessary thing to add to their cause or 
their purpose, and it is a very expensive proposition for us to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I am, just as much as anyone else, in favor of having 
well-trained police officers and encouraging their training and so 
forth, but it does far more than that. This goes into a scholarship 
assistance program much like we have had in the military for our 
military officers. It gives us an opportunity to, as the arguers say on 
behalf of it, provide scholarship money. I just do not believe that 
that inducement or that particular course of action is required in 
order to provide the kind of police structure and police force we need 
in this country.
  We are already adding in this bill a very large number of police 
officers around the country to assist in police forces. Again, this is 
a very expensive, long-term new program of the Federal Government that, 
in good conscience, I cannot believe is necessary or bring myself to 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to 
my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], who I know does 
support the measure.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague. I do 
follow the gentleman's lead on most crime issues, but in this case we 
have in a gentlemanly way agreed to disagree.
  When Adam Walinski, a distinguished American from New York, first 
brought this to me back in 1988, I was immediately taken with it 
because I spent 4 years in high school ROTC and almost 3 years in 
college Reserve Officer Training Corps, and I immediately grasped the 
similarities, because some American cities are on a war footing.
  This legislation is virtually identical to that introduced with 
bipartisan support, with the help of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
McCurdy], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Michel] back in 1989.
  Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize one of the most important points is 
that the Police Corps will successfully attack crime and increase 
public security by substantially, Mr. Chairman, augmenting the number 
of college-educated police officers on patrol across the country.
  I rode all night in my largest city of Santa Ana, about 10 days ago, 
with a police sergeant. The next night I rode in South Central Los 
Angeles. There was a little more action in South Central Los Angeles, 
but still a pretty quiet night, and I discussed this in depth with 
these officers. They feel that anything that helps them get more 
trained people on the streets is something that we should do, although 
it is not generally a Federal role.
  I think what it will do is that it will make those police officers 
who decide to go on in life, as I and most people who had ROTC moved on 
to other professions, it will make those people more responsive to the 
years they spent on the police service and to the communities they 
serve.
  Today's police departments do face strained budgets, and mayors, 
chiefs, leaders of police labor groups all complain that many law 
enforcement agencies are not attracting and detaining enough of the 
brightest young men and women to get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, I have five excellent reasons for supporting this 
measure. I include for the Record this information:
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Police Corps amendment 
to the Omnibus Crime Control Act. This amendment is virtually identical 
to legislation I first introduced with bipartisan support back in 1989.
  A major contributing factor in the rise of crime and disorder is the 
declining strength of police departments. Indeed, there are now 3.2 
serious crimes for every one police officer in America.
  The Police Corps will successfully attack crime and increase public 
security by substantially augmenting the number of college-educated 
police officers on patrol across the country. It will also make police 
forces more representative of, and responsive to, the communities they 
serve. Moreover, as crimes and the criminals who commit them become 
more sophisticated, Police Corps will ensure that our police keep pace.
  Today's police departments not only face strained budgets, but also 
have trouble finding qualified candidates. Mayors, chiefs and leaders 
of police labor complain that ``many law enforcement agencies are not 
attracting and retaining enough of the brightest young men and women to 
get the job done.'' Police Corps will properly address this problem.
  Indeed, police departments will benefit greatly from fresh talent 
that would supplement forces, especially in inner cities where tangled 
bureaucracies, cynicism, and corruption have become commonplace.
  Police Corps is about one thing: preventative maintenance. We can't 
begin to confront the problem of crime unless we have more police on 
patrol, before the crime takes place. And what is the point of enacting 
tougher laws on crime if we do not have the police to enforce them? 
Although we do have a lot of topnotch great cops out there, they are 
simply spread too thin.
  Please join Mr. Hyde and me in support of this key amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer], chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal 
Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy], creating a police corps program. 
It is designed, as we all know, to increase the number of law 
enforcement officers with advanced education and training and so it 
would constitute a national investment in the police force.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that there is another 
provision in the bill which we placed in our subcommittee which would 
deal with the noncollege-educated, particularly in the minority and 
inner city communities, a program where community groups, churches and 
other nonprofit groups could help train young people to go directly to 
the police academy. These two programs complement one another. This is 
not an either/or situation. That one is in the bill and will not be 
voted on and I would hope we get support for both. Credit for that one 
goes to the Rev. Johnny Ray Youngblood of East Churches in Brooklyn who 
put this together. But I would say this bill would help not only put 
more officers on the streets but give college graduates a chance to 
demonstrate responsibility and public altruism.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not think it is a panacea but it is an 
important element of an overall crime program that I think makes a lot 
of sense. I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma 
for pressing this issue. This does two good things: First it provides a 
good college education for some highly motivated young people; and, 
second, it provides the police forces of our country with some highly 
motivated educated young people. It is a win-win situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is a great idea, and I am pleased to support 
it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield my final 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the gentleman from Oklahoma, I 
appreciate his efforts, but I must stand here and oppose this 
particular amendment for a number of reasons, which I think most people 
would find very important.
  First, while certainly in concept the police corps may be an 
admirable idea, I regret that the practical problems connected with it 
just do not make it a problems connected with it just do not make it a 
feasible legislative initiative today. Police organizations I believe 
have not indicated that they want this program. They say it is very 
serious that we consider the morale that may be affected by passing a 
program that allows scholarships to be given to some people while 
others have gone through the program of actually becoming officers 
without having been given a cent to go through the process of becoming 
an officer.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to consider those who go through the effort of 
working hard and going through a 4-year institution to do so. It is 
important to remember that we are talking about a substantial amount of 
money, $350 million or more. I think it is unwise at this stage to 
divert some of the money that we have in the trust fund that we have 
for some of these other programs, whether it is crime prevention, cops 
on the beat or incarceration. Three hundred fifty million will have to 
come out of something. Where it comes from we do not know from this 
particular amendment, and for those Members who would look at the 
language and see it requires 4 years of college, they will see that not 
everyone goes through 4 years of college and it may affect those who do 
not, particularly minorities, adversely.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to consider that very 
closely in the process of voting for this amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] 
filed an amendment with the Committee on Rules to establish a 
correction scholarship program designed to offer corrections officers 
on the job the opportunity to work toward a college education. The 
Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order because they 
believed that the McCurdy law enforcement scholarship program would 
include corrections officers.
  Mr. Chairman, for the record, I ask my colleague, does his amendment 
provide scholarship assistance to correctional officers, those who work 
in our prisons and jails, as well as to police officers?
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his 
effort and support for correctional officers, and he is correct that in 
subtitle (b) of the amendment, the definition of law enforcement 
position means employment as an officer in a State or local police 
force or correctional institution and, therefore, should be covered.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I gladly 
support his amendment.
  Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 401, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] 
will be postponed until after debate on amendment No. 41 offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 printed in part 2 of 
House report 103-474.


                   amendment offered by mr. martinez

  Mr. MARTINEZ. 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. Martinez:
       At the end of title X, add the following:
                Subtitle ____--Private Security Officers

     SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Private Security 
     Officers Quality Assurance Act of 1994''.

     SEC. ____2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Employment of private security officers in the United 
     States is growing rapidly.
       (2) The private security industry provides numerous 
     opportunities for entry-level job applicants, including 
     individuals suffering from unemployment due to economic 
     conditions or dislocations.
       (3) The American public is more likely to have contact with 
     private security officers in the course of a day than with 
     law enforcement officers.
       (4) Juveniles in the United States, including those at risk 
     of delinquency, are most likely to have their earliest 
     contact with private security officers because of the 
     significant presence of such officers in schools, shopping 
     malls, and retail establishments.
       (5) The American public demands the employment of 
     qualified, well-trained private security officers.
       (6) The States and employers should be required to 
     determine the qualifications of applicants for employment as 
     private security officers.
       (7) Employers should be required to ensure at least minimum 
     training for newly hired private security officers and 
     refresher training for experienced private security officers, 
     based on State-imposed standards.
       (8) State requirements, if any, for screening and training 
     private security officers vary widely.
       (9) Public safety would be improved if all States required 
     appropriate screening and training of private security 
     officers.
       (10) States should enact laws imposing minimum standards 
     that are uniform nationwide for the screening and training of 
     private security officers.
       (11) State law applicable to private security officers 
     should apply to all private security personnel.

     SEC. ____3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``employee'' includes an applicant for 
     employment.
       (2) The term ``employer'' means any person that--
       (A) employs one or more private security officers, or
       (B) provides, as an independent contractor for 
     consideration, the services of one or more private security 
     officers (including oneself).
       (3) The term ``felony'' means an offense for which a term 
     of imprisonment exceeding 1 year may be imposed.
       (4) The term ``misdemeanor'' means an offense for which a 
     maximum term of imprisonment of 1 year or less may be 
     imposed.
       (5) The term ``person'' shall have the meaning given it in 
     section 1 of title 1 of the United States Code.
       (6) The term ``private security officer'' means--
       (A) an individual (other than an individual while on active 
     duty as a member of the military service or while performing 
     official duties as a law enforcement officer) who performs 
     security services, full time or part time, for consideration 
     as an independent contractor or an employee, whether armed or 
     unarmed and in uniform or plain clothes,
       (B) an individual who is the immediate supervisor of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A), or
       (C) an individual who--
       (i) is employed by an electronic alarm company and whose 
     duties include servicing or installing alarm systems, or
       (ii) monitors electronic alarm systems from a location in 
     the State in which such systems are situated.
       (7) The term ``registration permit'' means a license, 
     permit, certificate, registration card, or other formal 
     written permission, to provide security services.
       (8) The term ``security services'' means the performance of 
     one or more of the following:
       (A) The observation and reporting of intrusion, larceny, 
     vandalism, fire, or trespass.
       (B) The prevention of theft or misappropriation of any 
     goods, money, or other item of value.
       (C) The observation or reporting of any unlawful activity.
       (D) The protection of individuals or property, including 
     proprietary information, from harm or misappropriation.
       (E) The control of access to premises being protected.
       (F) The secure movement of prisoners.
       (G) The maintenance of order and safety at athletic, 
     entertainment, or other public activities.
       (H) Providing canine services for guarding premises or for 
     the detection of any unlawful device or substance.
       (I) The transportation of money or other valuables by 
     armored vehicle.
       (9) The term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (10) The term ``State regulatory agency'' means an 
     appropriate State regulatory entity.

     SEC. 4. STUDY, REPORT, AND RECOMMENDATIONS REQUIRED.

       The Attorney General of each State shall report the 
     provisions of the State's program to the Attorney General of 
     the United States on or before December 31, 1996. If a State 
     fails to report that it has established a program in 
     accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Attorney 
     General shall: (1) notify the Judiciary Committee of the 
     Senate and the Judiciary Committee of the House of 
     Representatives of such failure, and (2) notify the Chief 
     Executive Officer of the State of such failure and propose 
     appropriate action to encourage or compel the State to comply 
     with this Act. If no further action is taken by the State 
     within 1 year of the issuance of such notice by the Attorney 
     General may reduce the State's share of funding appropriated 
     for the fiscal year in which such determination of failure to 
     comply is made under the provisions of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. In no evernt 
     shall such reduction exceed 10 percent of such appropriated 
     funding.

     SEC. ____5. ISSUANCE OF STATE LICENSES TO EMPLOYERS; 
                   REGULATION OF PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES.

       (a) Requirements.--A State shall have in effect 
     requirements and procedures for issuing licenses to, and 
     reviewing security services of, employers. A State may 
     require that an employer name an individual to serve as the 
     designated holder of the license issued under this 
     subsection.
       (b) Limitation on Fees for Issuance of Licenses.--A State 
     may not impose on an employer a license issuance fee in 
     excess of the prorated direct costs of administering the 
     requirements and procedures described in subsection (a).
       (c) Assignment of Private Security Officers.--(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), and subject to section 
     ____9, the requirements and procedures described in 
     subsection (a) shall provide, at a minimum, that an employer 
     may not permanently assign an employee to duty as a private 
     security officer until such employee obtains a security 
     officer's registration permit as provided in section 
     ____8(a).
       (2) An employer may assign an employee to duty as an 
     unarmed private security officer pending the results of the 
     preassignment check of records described in section ____6 and 
     the issuance of such permit if, before the assignment--
       (A) such employer--
       (i) submitted an application as required by section 
     ____6(a)(1), and
       (ii) verified the employee's personal references and the 5-
     year employment history as required by section ____6(a)(2), 
     and
       (B) such employee completed the classroom training required 
     by section ____7(a)(1).
       (3) An employer may assign an employee to duty as an armed 
     private security officer pending the results of the 
     preassignment check of records described in section ____6 and 
     the issuance of a security officer's registration permit if, 
     before the assignment--
       (A) such employer--
       (i) submits an application as required by section 
     ____6(a)(1), and
       (ii) verifies the employee's personal references and the 5-
     year employment history as required by section ____7(a), and
       (B) such employee--
       (i) completes the training required by section ____7(a), 
     and
       (ii) has been issued a valid firearm permit or license to a 
     criminal justice agency in the State in which such individual 
     is assigned, following a national criminal history record 
     check.
       (3) If an individual is employed by an employer in a State 
     with respect to which such individual holds a valid private 
     security officer's registration permit, then such employer 
     may assign such individual to duty as a private security 
     officer (including an armed private security officer) for a 
     period not to exceed 90 days in a State with respect to which 
     such individual does not hold a valid private security 
     officer's registration permit if such individual satisfies 
     the training requirements, and complies with the restrictions 
     on the type of weapon such individual uses, in effect in the 
     State to which such individual is so assigned.

     SEC. 6. PREASSIGNMENT SCREENING.

       Each State shall have in effect a program for issuing 
     registration permits to private security officers that 
     requires at a minimum, and except as provided in section 
     ____5(c) and subject to section ____9, that an employer not 
     permanently assign an employee to duty as a private security 
     officer until--
       (1) such employer submits to the State regulatory agency--
       (A) the employee's application for employment, including a 
     history of employment and military service, personal 
     references, and a description of such employee's criminal 
     history,
       (B) a certification that such employer verified--
       (i) such employee's employment history for the 5-year 
     period ending on the date of application for employment, and
       (ii) such personal references, and
       (2) the State regulatory agency obtains the results of a 
     fingerprint check of criminal history records conducted 
     through the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to a 
     State law conforming to Public Law 92-544. An association of 
     employers of security officers, designated for the purpose of 
     this section by the Attorney General of the United States, 
     may submit fingerprints to the Attorney General on behalf of 
     any applicant for a state private security officer 
     registration permit. In response to such a submission, the 
     Attorney General may, to the extent provided by law, exchange 
     for permit and employment purposes, identification and 
     criminal history records with the state regulatory agency to 
     which such applicant has applied. Such review shall be 
     conducted, and the results of the search shall be handled in 
     accordance with the procedures in Public Law 103-209.

     SEC. ____7. PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER TRAINING.

       (a) Training.--Each State shall have in effect training 
     requirements for private security officers that consist of 
     the following, at a minimum:
       (1) For unarmed private security officers, the following:
       (A) Eight hours of basic classroom instruction, successful 
     completion of a written examination, and 4 hours of on-the-
     job training.
       (B) Such classroom instruction shall include the following:
       (i) The legal powers and limitations of a private security 
     officer, including instruction in the law of arrest, search, 
     and seizure, and the use of force as related to security 
     services.
       (ii) Safety and fire detection and reporting.
       (iii) When and how to notify public authorities.
       (iv) The techniques of observation and reporting of 
     incidents and how to prepare an incident report.
       (v) The fundamentals of patrolling.
       (vi) Deportment and ethics.
       (2) For armored car personnel and electronic alarm company 
     personnel, the State shall have in effect classroom training 
     and testing that appropriately reflects the nature of their 
     duties rather than the classroom instruction required by 
     paragraph (1).
       (2) For armed private security officers, in addition to the 
     training required by paragraph (1) or (2), the following:
       (A) Fifteen hours of weapons instruction (including 
     marksmanship described in subparagraph (B)) and successful 
     completion of a written examination on--
       (i) the legal limitations on the use of weapons,
       (ii) weapons handling, and
       (iii) safety and maintenance.
       (B) A minimum marksmanship qualification of 70 percent 
     attained on any silhouette target course approved by the 
     State regulatory agency.
       (b) Annual Training.--Each State shall have in effect 
     requirements, at a minimum, that--
       (1) unarmed private security officers complete annually a 
     4-hour refresher course in the subjects listed in clauses (i) 
     through (vi) of subsection (a)(1)(B), and
       (2) armed private security officers annually, in addition 
     to satisfying the requirement described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) complete a refresher course in the subjects listed in 
     clauses (i) through (iii) of subsection (a)(2)(A), and
       (B) be requalified in the use of weapons as described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (c) Certification.--Each State shall have in effect 
     requirements that a private security officer, or such 
     officer's employer (if any), certify to the State regulatory 
     agency completion of the training required by subsections (a) 
     and (b).
       (d) Instructional and Range-Training Program.--Each State 
     shall have in effect a program that requires that all 
     instruction and range training required by this section be 
     administered by an instructor whose qualifications meet 
     standards established by the State regulatory agency.

     SEC. ____8. STATE ISSUANCE OF REGISTRATION PERMITS TO PRIVATE 
                   SECURITY OFFICERS.

       (a) Requirements for Issuance of Registration Permits.--A 
     State shall have in effect requirements for issuing and 
     renewing, upon application, a private security officer's 
     registration permit for a 2-year period. Such requirements 
     shall include--
       (1) methods for a private security officer, or such 
     officer's employer (if any) to comply with sections ____6 and 
     ____7,
       (2) a requirement that the certification required by 
     section ____7(c) be included in the application for the 
     issuance or renewal of such permit, and
       (3) a requirement that an individual not be issued a 
     private security officer's registration permit, or assigned 
     by an employer to duty, as a private security officer if, 
     within the 10-year period ending on the date of application 
     for such permit or the date of such assignment, as the case 
     may be, such individual was--
       (A) convicted of a felony,
       (B) incarcerated, placed on probation, or paroled as a 
     result of conviction of a felony, or
       (C) convicted of a misdemeanor that, in the discretion of 
     the State regulatory agency, bears such a relationship to the 
     performance of security services as to constitute a 
     disqualification for a private security officer's 
     registration permit.
       (b) Limitation on Fees for Issuance of Registration 
     Permits.--A State may not impose on private security officers 
     a registration permit issuance fee in excess of the prorated 
     direct costs of administering the requirements described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Denial of Registration Permit.--If a State denies, for 
     any reason, an application for the issuance or renewal of a 
     private security officer's registration permit, then, not 
     later than 10 days after denial of such application, the 
     State regulatory agency shall give written notice to the 
     applicant and the applicant's employer (if any) specifying 
     the reasons for denial.

     SEC. ____9. WAIVER.

       On the request of an employer, a State shall waive the 
     preassignment screening requirements described in section 
     ____6(a), and the training requirements described in section 
     ____7(a), with respect to a private security officer if--
       (1)(A) such officer holds a valid security officer's 
     registration permit issued or renewed by the State in which 
     such officer will perform security services for such 
     employer, and
       (B) the immediately preceding employer of such officer 
     satisfied all such requirements with respect to the most 
     recent application for the issuance or renewal of such 
     permit, or
       (2) such officer is a law enforcement officer employed by a 
     governmental entity that allows such law enforcement officer 
     to serve off-duty as a private security officer.

     SEC. ____0. GRACE PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW REGISTRATION 
                   PERMITS TO PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS WHO HOLD 
                   CURRENT PERMITS.

       Until--
       (1) January 1, 1997, or
       (2) the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date a State initially puts into effect a program that 
     satisfies the requirements of sections ____6, ____7, and 
     ____8,

     whichever is later, such sections shall not apply with 
     respect to the issuance of a registration permit to a private 
     security officer who holds a private security officer's 
     registration permit that is valid without regard to the 
     operation of this subtitle.

     SEC. ____1. EMPLOYEE PROTECTION.

       A State shall have in effect a law that makes invalid and 
     unenforceable any limitation imposed by an employer on the 
     right of an employee to seek or obtain subsequent employment 
     as a private security officer after voluntary or involuntary 
     termination of employment by such employer.

     SEC. ____2. NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CHARGE.

       A State shall have in effect requirements regarding 
     criminal charges made against a private security officer, 
     including the following, at a minimum:
       (1) If a private security officer is charged with a felony 
     or misdemeanor, such officer shall notify such officer's 
     employer (if any) not later than 48 hours after the charge is 
     made.
       (2) An employer who has knowledge that its employee has 
     been so charged shall report the fact of such charge to the 
     State regulatory agency not later than 2 business days after 
     acquiring such knowledge.
       (3) The registration permit of such officer may be 
     suspended by such agency pending disposition of the charge.
       (4) Upon conviction of a felony, the State shall revoke the 
     registration permit of such officer.
       (5) Upon conviction of such misdemeanor, such State may 
     revoke such permit.

     SEC. ____3. PENALTIES.

       A State shall have in effect a law that authorizes the 
     imposition of a penalty for each violation of the requirement 
     imposed by the State to satisfy a condition of eligibility 
     specified in section ____4(a), including the following, at a 
     minimum:
       (1) After notice, and a public hearing if requested by an 
     employer charged with such violation, a daily monetary 
     penalty for each day on which violation continues.
       (2) If such violation continues after imposition of a 
     monetary penalty described in paragraph (1), and after notice 
     and a hearing described in such paragraph, suspension or 
     revocation of a registration permit issued as described in 
     section ____5(a).
       (3) Prosecution of an individual of a misdemeanor for 
     submitting an application for employment as a private 
     security officer, for the issuance of a private security 
     officer's registration permit, or for renewal of such permit, 
     if such individual knowingly included false information in 
     such application.
       (4) After notice, and a public hearing if requested by a 
     private security officer, suspension or revocation of such 
     officer's registration permit issued or renewed as a result 
     of application if such officer knowingly included false 
     information in such application.
       (5) Administrative or judicial review of each penalty 
     imposed under paragraphs (1) through (4).

     SEC. ____4. MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS.

       This subtitle shall not preclude or limit the authority of 
     a State to establish or maintain requirements that are more 
     stringent than the requirements described in this subtitle.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] will be recognized for 5 minutes and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Is the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Brooks], in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today 
because, based on my extensive investigations and hearings held by the 
Education and Labor Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I chair, as 
well as numerous media reports over the past 2 years, I find that there 
is a critical need to recognize that private security officers have 
attained a significant place in our Nation's crime control community. 
Private security officers are found in our Nation's schools, office 
buildings, shopping malls, and retail establishments, and on the 
streets of our neighborhoods. Many of these private security officers 
are armed.
  The vast majority of these private security officers are dedicated, 
hard-working, law-abiding citizens of this country, and are properly 
screened before hiring and trained before deployment.
  Yet, as media reports have shown over and over again, because of a 
lack of minimum rules in the States dealing with this industry, all too 
often people are hired and put to work in this industry with 
insufficient or nonexistent training and without even a cursory review 
of the applicant's background. Because of the lack of clear regulatory 
measures, we have seen convicted drug dealers hired, with tragic 
results. We have also heard about convicted child molesters being hired 
to protect children in schools and day care. This amendment will, I 
believe, enable this industry, which has been working with States for 
over a decade, to secure the kind of rules and regulations that will 
enable them to assure the people they are paid to protect that they are 
not ``putting foxes into the hen house.''
  I would like to discuss the particulars of this amendment.


                  background and need for legislation

                               background

  There are currently no Federal rules dealing with the requirements 
for background investigations or training of private security officers, 
other than those enacted with respect to the carrying or registration 
of weapons and those applying to one segment of the industry--armored 
car drivers and guards. Under current law, employers of private 
security officers do not have direct or indirect access to criminal 
information with respect to prospective employees for these positions, 
except to the extent provided in State law. Fourteen States have 
absolutely no provisions in their laws or regulations that deal with 
the training or pre-assignment clearance of prospective security 
officers. Information provided during the hearings on this bill 
reflecting the potential public dangers presented by inadequately 
screened or trained private security personnel justify the need for 
minimum and generally uniform State rules regarding these private 
employees. A number of States have enacted stringent laws dealing with 
these issues and this law is intended to assure the public that all 
States will have at least minimum requirements. Nothing in the statute 
would require a State to lessen its current controls or restrictions, 
and States with more stringent rules are authorized to ensure that 
those rules are met by all private security personnel, including those 
who are assigned for short periods from another jurisdiction.


                          Need for Legislation

  The private security industry has existed in the United States since 
the Civil War. Private operatives from the Pinkerton Detective Agency 
were directly involved in many activities at plants, mines and other 
locations where labor strife existed late in the 19th century and 
throughout this century. Private employers have relied on armed and 
unarmed personnel to protect company assets and persons from harm since 
the earliest days of railroad and mechanized transportation.
  The Committee on National Security Companies [CONSCO] was formed a 
number of years ago to establish industry wide standards and work for 
State legislation and rules that would make the provision of security 
services more effective. Efforts were begun in the 1970s to establish 
State standards concerning background investigation and training 
requirements to ensure that persons working in the industry were 
reliable and effective in providing these needed services.
  While the numbers of private security officers working at certain 
types of installations--such as hotels, defense factories, and other 
places where activities warranted such a presence--was always 
significant, it is only in the past two decades that the industry has 
seen phenomenal growth. Much of this is due to the increase in the 
numbers of crimes committed on private property and the profusion of 
shopping malls and large centers where significant numbers of people 
gather to shop, be entertained, or work. When the retail economy was 
located on Main Street, public police were responsible for providing 
security. As these activities moved more and more onto private 
property, property owners and managers and retail lessees began to rely 
on private individuals to ensure public safety and protection from 
theft or other criminal activity.
  In 1992, it was estimated that the number of private security 
officers, both armed and unarmed, exceeded the numbers of sworn police 
officers by 2 to 1 in some areas. Many of the private security 
officers, whether hired by contractors such as Burns, Wells Fargo or 
other large or small companies, or hired directly by the owner or 
operator of the facility, wear uniforms that, very frequently, make the 
wearer look like a policeman.


                        Explanation of the bill

                                Summary

  The amendment requires the States to establish, by law, regulation or 
rule, requirements that the employers of private security officers 
engage in screening of potential employees for these positions, train 
newly hired personnel and provide continuing training to experienced 
personnel. The amendment requires certain minimum standards, and 
authorizes the States to license employers and register individual 
security officers. The Attorney General of the United States is 
required to establish means whereby employers can receive, through 
State licensing agencies, clearance that prospective or newly hired 
employees are not wanted for a criminal act or have not had a criminal 
history that would cause them to be unsuitable for the position.


                              definitions

  The act defines the term ``private security officer'' as a person who 
performs security services as part of the regular job. The term 
``security services'' is defined to include the following:
  Observing and reporting of intrusion, larceny, vandalism, fire, or 
trespass.
  Prevention of theft or misappropriation of any goods, money or other 
item of value.
  Observation or reporting of any unlawful activity.
  Protection of individuals or property, including proprietary 
information, from harm or misappropriation.
  Control of access to premises being protected.
  The secure movement of prisoners
  Maintaining order and safety at athletic, entertainment, or other 
public activities.
  Providing canine services for guarding premises or for the detection 
of any unlawful device or substance.
  Transporting money or other valuables by armored vehicle.
  The definition of ``private security officer'' specifically excludes 
an individual while on active duty as a member of the military service 
or while performing official duties as a law enforcement officer.
  The committee intends that the definition of ``private security 
officer'' and the definition of ``security services'' be somewhat 
broad. In saying that, however, there are a number of scenarios that 
might fit within the definition that are not contemplated to be covered 
by this act. In consultation with representatives of various 
industries, the committee concluded that a lengthy explanation of the 
types of employees that are not covered by this definition would be 
valuable.


                         retail establishments

  The definition of security services includes the reporting of theft. 
As virtually any employee of a retail establishment, including grocery 
stores, drug stores, banks, and so forth, are required, as part of 
their duties, to report theft by customers or coworkers, it is not the 
committee's intention that the duty to report theft be the sole arbiter 
as to whether the employee should be classified as a private security 
officer. In general, these establishments will have security personnel 
who are in uniform, and may or may not be armed. These personnel would, 
as a matter of course, be covered by the act. Ununiformed personnel 
whose duties parallel those of uniformed personnel, or whose duties 
include the supervision of security personnel, would be covered.
  Another aspect of security in a retail establishment is warehouse 
operations. Personnel whose sole security duty is to monitor the flow 
of goods into and out of the warehouse, such as stock clerks, inventory 
technicians, and others whose primary responsibility is prevention of 
loss through rigorous inventory management, would not generally be 
included in the definition of private security officer, absent a 
showing that they also perform other security services, or they carry a 
firearm in the course of their duties.
  Finally, the fact that on occasion, a retail merchandise or service 
employee may be required to detain an individual suspected of theft 
that is, shoplifting, does not, by itself, bring that employee within 
the definition of a security officer.


                  central station alarm establishments

  Another unique niche in the private security industry is the central 
alarm establishment. These enterprises provide, for a fee, a central 
point for the reporting of intrusion or other activity at a location 
protected by electronic or other devices that either self report, 
through an automatic alarm signal, or report through a personally 
placed telephone call, the event to a central office that, in turn, 
contacts appropriate public safety or other authorities who actually 
respond to the call. The central station employee who handles the 
contact and makes the report is not physically present, in fact, may be 
many hundreds of miles removed from the scene, at the point where the 
event occurs. These employees deal with the public very rarely, and are 
not generally contemplated to be private security officers as defined 
by the act.


                   enforcement of state requirements

  In drafting this legislation originally, I determined that some 
incentive was needed to ensure that the States that do not now have any 
rules in place with respect to private security officers would take the 
action required by this amendment. Thus, after a rather significant 
phase-in period, States will have 2 years to promulgate rules, and a 1 
year grace period after that, the Attorney General is authorized, but 
not required, to take action to reduce the State's funding under title 
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1990 by up to 10 
percent of such funding.
  As I mentioned earlier, some States already have rules in place or in 
development that meet or exceed the requirements of this amendment, 
most notably the States of New York, Virginia, Florida, and North 
Carolina. Others, such as New Jersey, are currently developing 
statutory language that would meet or exceed these requirements. Yet, 
even though many States have taken appropriate action, there remain 
more than 11 States that do not have any guidelines for training or 
background investigations of even armed private security officers.
  I realize that there are those who will decry, another state mandate. 
Well, to you I say, first, if we can, and we have in this Congress, 
mandate that those people who work with our children, even as a 
volunteer in a local boys and girls club must have background checks 
performed to ensure that those volunteers are not child molesters, we 
must mandate similar rules for those who carry weapons in shopping 
malls or at sporting events where those children spend time as well. I 
would also hasten to point out that this certainly is not an unfunded 
mandate. Employers of security guards will be subject to State fees for 
licenses and registration, fees that will enable the States to pay for 
the programs, and the FBI check costs, as well as the enforcement of 
these rules. It is our hope, of course, that those fees will be 
dedicated by the States, as is now done in Florida, solely to the 
enforcement of the rules and the control of the industry as it operates 
in that State.


                       minimum state requirements

  As I stated earlier, the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Human 
Resources held 2 days of hearings last year, during which we heard 
testimony from the State of Florida. We also have had discussions with 
the States of North Carolina, New York and Virginia. Because of the 
concerns raised by those State administrators, I have ensured that the 
amendment is clear that a State may pass more stringent rules that are 
provided for in this amendment, and may apply those rules fully to all 
security guards operating in that State, including guards from other 
jurisdictions who are sent into the State for a short period of time. 
This will enable States such as Florida to utilize the services of out-
of-State licensed guards in an emergency, as they did after Hurricane 
Andrew, with the security that those guards will be properly vetted, 
because the background check system provided for in the bill is 
nationwide, and also trained under Florida's rather exacting standards.


                          license of employers

  The key to ensuring that the results desired by this amendment are 
obtained lies in the ability of the State to control security service 
providers within the State. Thus, the amendment would authorize and 
require the States to license those who employ private security guards. 
The State would then be able to ensure that the employer does perform 
the background investigations required and provides the training 
required by State law. This is the method used in the State of New York 
under its current statute. The States of Virginia, Florida, and North 
Carolina, among others, currently license so called security guard 
companies but not other businesses that employ security guards. I 
believe, and this is a belief that is shared by State administrators, 
the security guard industry, and others; that any employer who engages 
security guards should be covered by these State requirements, to 
ensure to the public that a security guard is properly screened and 
trained to perform the job.


                        preassingment screening

  Again, one of the keys to this legislation is the preassignment 
screening of applicants. In the same manner as we have enacted 
requirements for background investigations of child care workers, 
including unpaid volunteers, this amendment requires that an employer 
secure a clearance from the State agency registering private security 
guards that the applicant has a clean criminal record. To ensure that 
persons who were convicted of a felony in another State, or who are 
wanted in another State on a criminal charge, do not become private 
security officers, the amendment authorizes a search of FBI records. 
Our hearings disclosed that, just as in the banking industry, there is 
a need to streamline the investigation process--while continuing to 
protect the raw data from unauthorized potential users, the amendment 
allows for a State to grant to an association the authority to secure 
the fingerprints and other data necessary to begin the FBI records 
check process and to submit the application directly to the FBI; but, 
most importantly, provides that the report of findings of the FBI will 
not be sent to any nonauthorized person, but will only be forwarded to 
the State licensing authority or other State agency designated by the 
State's laws. We are advised that this will reduce the turnaround time 
for these investigations by a substantial amount and enable private 
employers to secure clearances for employees in fairly short order.


                                training

  Witnesses at our hearings indicated that much of the cause for 
problems arising in areas protected by private security personnel 
result from a lack of appropriate training of the private security 
officer in such areas as patrolling, effecting appropriate requests for 
public police assistance, and so forth. The amendment requires the 
State to mandate minimum training requirements. For those States that 
currently have in place training requirements, their current policies 
far exceed those mandated in the amendment. Similarly, most security 
guard companies, and many nonsecurity guard companies who employ 
private security guards, already provide or require training that is 
more rigorous than the amendment requires. Thus, enactment of this 
amendment will not cause a disruption in the vast majority of the 
employing entities in the country, although it will require those 
employers who provide no training now to effect that training. Again, 
States are free to require additional or more stringent training rules. 
The amendment only states a bare minimum.


               registration of private security officers

  The amendment authorizes the States to put in place registration 
requirements for private security guards. Public police, who are 
already subject to more stringent training and clearance rules, are 
exempted from these requirements if, with the approval of their 
employing authority, they are employed as private security guards while 
off duty. Similarly, these requirements do not apply to any police 
officer employed by a public entity, local, State, or Federal.


                        waivers of requirements

  States are allowed to provide waivers of certain requirements with 
respect to a currently registered private security officer who changes 
employers, so that the receiving employer is not put to the expense of 
securing a full background check or providing basic training to a 
seasoned private security guard.


                          employee protection

  This provision protects employees in the industry from employer's 
attempts to prevent the employee from freely offering his or her 
services to another employer as a security guard.


                       notice of criminal charge

  Similar to the concerns about hiring private security guards, both 
industry representatives and members of the public have expressed 
concerns that current private security guards not continue on duty if 
they are the subject of a charge of a felony. Thus, the amendment 
requires the State to include notice requirements both by the employee 
to the employer and by the employer to the State licensing agency. In 
addition, States would be required to take appropriate action with 
respect to the registration of a security guard who has been convicted 
of a crime.


                               penalties

  States are required to have in effect laws that authorize the 
imposition of penalties, including fines, on employers who fail to 
provide the training, or to conduct background investigations; and for 
security guards who falsify applications.


                      more stringent requirements

  Again, as noted above, nothing in this amendment would prevent a 
State from enacting or maintaining a current law or rule that is more 
stringent than the requirements of this amendment.


                               conclusion

  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the 
protection of the people of this country who work in, shop in, live in, 
or otherwise visit locations where private security personnel are 
employed. This is a noble industry and one that has assumed a 
significant role in local law enforcement, not in competition with the 
police, but in concert with and supplemental to the regular police. I 
believe, as a former city council member and former mayor of a small 
city, that it is ludicrous to suggest that passage of this bill will be 
a rationale for local officials to replace highly trained and highly 
effective law enforcement personnel with private security officers.
  This amendment is supported by the industry, by academics who study 
private security, by State administrators who are concerned with the 
ability of private security officers to do the job for which they were 
hired, and by the public at large. The Association of Chiefs of Police 
has endorsed the need for legislation that would strengthen background 
check procedures and training requirements. That is what this amendment 
seeks to accomplish.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I think it is 
well intended, but the fact is it is an intrusion into the States, 
which normally do all the regulating of security guards. It is overly 
broad in its definition of what a security officer is. As I read the 
definition, it might include a lawyer or a legal secretary; it 
certainly includes an electronic alarm company employee whose duties 
involve servicing or installing an alarm system. I know that industry 
is something we do not want to get into Federal mandates and 
regulating.
  It ties the requirements that States have these regulations to block 
grant moneys available under a 1968 crime bill by saying the Attorney 
General can cut up to 10 percent of the block grants if the States do 
not comply.
  It is an unfunded mandate on the States. We are providing no money to 
the States to do this.
  And, quite frankly, there have been no hearings held on this, as I 
understand it. We have had no opportunity to have the committees of 
jurisdiction look at this, the Labor Committee or our committee.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just misspoke. There have 
been quite a few hearings that we held in our subcommittee.
  Furthermore, it is not an unfunded mandate. The moneys to pay for 
this will come from the registering fees and licensing fees that are 
paid for the State.
  The third point is that this bill is no more requiring the States any 
more than the States have already imposed for themselves, and the State 
of New York is much more stringent than the rules of this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Well, I will stand corrected to that extent. But I do 
not believe our committee has had a hearing on it, and I do not think 
that in this crime bill we should have this particular provision.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to provide a 
comprehensive solution to the problems of private security guards whose 
qualifications may be suspect, I have a number of concerns which lead 
me to oppose the amendment. At the outset, the Federal interest in 
private security guard regulation is not completely clear. This is a 
particular concern since the amendment details an overly intrusive 
regulatory scheme on the States. For example, it specifies the number 
and type of hour of training needed, and stipulates the topics that 
must be covered in the classroom--for every private security guard in 
the country.
  The potential consequences of such a detailed Federal scheme have not 
been studied by the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction in this 
area. These include the potential costs that the amendment will require 
the States to pay, the potentially harmful impact on smaller firms 
providing private security services and, finally, the effect that 
increased reliance on private security may have on our public law 
enforcement responsibilities--and on the citizens who might not be able 
to afford private security. I am not satisfied that we have sufficient 
answers that would allow us to go ahead with this amendment at this 
time.
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
state my opposition to Congressman Martinez's amendment, the Private 
Security Officers Quality Assurance Act of 1993, to the Crime Bill.
  The National Association of Police Organizations, the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all 
oppose this amendment because it unwisely steers Congress to 
concentrate on private security officers to the detriment of public 
safety officers.
  Congress' emphasis in this crime debate has been on increasing 
legitimate police presence in communities, this amendment diverges from 
that path.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Martinez].
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 401, further proceedings 
in the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez] will be postponed until after proceedings on amendment No. 39 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy].
  Pursuant additionally to House Resolution 401, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were previously 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 39, offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez].
  The Chair further announces that he will reduce to 5 minutes the time 
for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                    amendment offered by mr. mccurdy

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McCurdy] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ``ayes'' 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 174, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--174

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brooks
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Castle
     Clay
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kyl
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Packard
     Paxon
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Walsh
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Crane
     Fish
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Grandy
     Matsui
     McDade
     McNulty
     Rostenkowski
     Washington
     Waters
     Whitten

                                 (1730)

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. McNulty for, with Mr. Grandy against.

  Messrs. HAMBURG, QUILLEN, OBERSTAR, KIM, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. 
KASICH, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Messrs. YATES, GREENWOOD, SUNDQUIST and 
HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BLACKWELL, Mrs. UNSOELD, and Messrs. TORRES, HASTINGS, MOAKLEY, 
THOMPSON of Mississippi, CLYBURN, PAYNE of New Jersey, OLVER, and 
WAXMAN, and Mrs. BENTLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1738


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. MARTINEZ

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Martinez], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A record vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 80, 
noes 340, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                                AYES--80

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Borski
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Engel
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     McCloskey
     McHale
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pickle
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sarpalius
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--340

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Ackerman
     Bachus (AL)
     Crane
     Fish
     Gallo
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Grandy
     Hyde
     Matsui
     McDade
     McNulty
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Washington
     Waters
     Whitten

                              {time}  1739

  Mr. PALLONE, Mr. STRICKLAND, and Mrs. UNSOELD changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McKINNEY and Mr. FOGLIETTA changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Darden) having assumed the chair, Mr. Torricelli, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4092) to 
control and prevent crime, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________