[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.
____________________