[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
{time} 1304
VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 46 printed
in part 2 of House Report No. 103-474.
amendment offered by mr. franks of new jersey
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Franks of New Jersey: Add at the
end the following new title:
TITLE .--INMATE REHABILITATION
SEC. . EDUCATION REQUIREMENT FOR EARLY RELEASE.
Section 3624(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``behavior.--'';
(2) by striking ``Such credit toward service of sentence
vests at the time that it is received. Credit that has vested
may not later be withdrawn, and credit that has not been
earned may not later be granted.'' and inserting ``Credit
that has not been earned may not later be granted.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Credit toward a prisoner's service of sentence shall
not be vested unless the prisoner has earned a high school
diploma or an equivalent degree.
``(3) The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of
Prisons has in effect an optional General Educational
Development program for inmates who have not earned a high
school diploma or its equivalent.''.
modification of amendment offered by mr. franks of new jersey
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
modify my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Add at the end the following:
``(4) Exemptions to the General Educational Development
requirement may be made as deemed necessary by the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wonder if
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks] will respond to me.
As I understand it, the gentleman from New Jersey would modify the
amendment that he has noticed by the following language, adding at the
end, ``Exemptions to the general educational development requirement
may be made as deemed necessary by the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons.'' Is that what the gentleman added?
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUGHES. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I
wonder if the gentleman can respond to me: If the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons believes that the present policy and present
exemptions are the ones that serve the interests of justice, can the
Federal Director of the Bureau of Prisons keep it as it is, the
regulations as they are?
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. If the gentleman will yield further, I have
not spoken with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I say to
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes]. It is our intention to try
to create a new policy here, and I do not know.
Mr. HUGHES. Further reserving the right to object, what I am asking
is: Is it the gentleman's intent that the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons use her exclusive judgment on the requirement of
educational opportunities and requirements within the prison system,
total discretion?
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. If the gentleman will yield further, it is
my intent to give maximum discretion to the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons. That is correct.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I withdraw my
reservation of objection, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
The text of the amendment, as modified is as follows:
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Franks of New
Jersey: Add at the end the following new title:
TITLE --INMATE REHABILITATION
SEC. . EDUCATION REQUIREMENT FOR EARLY RELEASE.
Section 3624(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)' after ``behavior.--'';
(2) by striking ``Such credit toward service of sentence
vests at the time that it is received. Credit that has vested
may not later be withdrawn, and credit that has not been
earned may not later be granted,'' and inserting ``Credit
that has not been earned may not later be granted,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Credit toward a prisoner's service of sentence shall
not be vested unless the prisoner has earned a high school
diploma or an equivalent degree.
(3) The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of
Prisons has in effect an optional General Educational
Development program for inmates who have not earned a high
school diploma or its equivalent.''.
``(4) Exemptions to the General Educational Development
requirement may be made as deemed necessary by the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Franks] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to thank Chairman Brooks and subcommittee Chairman
Hughes for agreeing to adopt the unanimous-consent agreement.
Under current law, Federal inmates are eligible to receive 54 days of
credit toward early release for good behavior. This practice is called
good time.
Under the present system, all inmates who do not have a high school
diploma are required to enroll in a GED Program, which is available at
every Federal prison in the Nation. The problem is that after 120 days,
these individuals may withdraw from the program.
My amendment would require Federal inmates to earn a General
Educational Development [GED] certificate as a condition of receiving
early release from prison.
Under my amendment, inmates could continue to receive credit for good
behavior during each year of incarceration. The credit, however, would
not vest until completion of a GED Program.
About 60 percent of Federal prisoners have a high school diploma. But
that means over 32,000 inmates lack these basic educational skills. The
Education Division at the Federal Bureau of Prisons has assured me that
this amendment could be met with existing financial resources by
rotating class schedules and more extensive use of inmate tutors.
Let us face it.
Given the highly competitive nature of our economy, individuals who
do not possess basic educational skills find it increasingly difficult
to earn an honest living.
Yet, under the current provisions of the Federal early release
program, we continue to release these prisoners back into our
communities before their full sentence is served.
It is wrong, and shortsighted to release prisoners without providing
them the opportunity to change the lifestyle which brought them into
Federal custody to begin with.
This amendment would provide the incentive for Federal inmates to
rise above the criminal elements in society by empowering them with a
high school education.
The unanimous-consent request just adopted came as a result of
certain objections raised by members of the committee. Under the terms
of the amendment now before us, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons
can create exemptions for the learning disabled, illegal aliens who are
incarcerated in the Federal system, as well as those who have a
specific job offer upon release but who have not attained a GED.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as currently drafted, takes an
important step in the right direction. Today, we can provide a strong
incentive for our prison population to continue their education. That
translates into fewer repeat offenders and safer communities for
everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1310
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
Mr. BROOKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I have reconsidered my views on this
amendment since the gentleman has amended his original language by
unanimous consent. In its amended form, I believe I can now support it.
I applaud the apparent goal of the gentleman from New Jersey to
insure that Federal prisoners do attain a high school education. We all
agree on that. But I want to review the facts.
Since 1981, all Federal prisoners who do not have a high school
diploma or its equivalent have been and continue to be required by the
Bureau of Prisons to enroll in a literacy program for 120 days already.
And if a prisoner has a documented disability precluding educational
participation or progress, then a warden can waive the mandatory
education requirement for that individual with no penalties. That is as
it should be.
I think there is now room to consider all this in the amendment, we
certainly will review it carefully during conference. The bureau's
existing mandatory education system is an undisputed, proven success.
In fiscal year 1993, 12,447 inmates were newly enrolled in the GED
classes; 33,419 were enrolled in adult continuing education classes. I
think this is useful. Now, we really do not want to create a system
where white-collar criminals can accrue good time, and poor, uneducated
white or minorities cannot. Is there any justification for forbidding
any good-time credit for those who are model prisoners but who, because
of a learning disability or a physical handicap, cannot earn a high
school degree?
By the new language in the amendment, the gentleman appears to
recognize the complexity of the problem.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, what time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has 2
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks] has 2
minutes remaining.
The gentleman from new Jersey [Mr. Hughes] has the right to close.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, very
strongly, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This is a very
straightforward amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Franks] has offered, which says, in essence,that when you are a
prisoner serving time in a prison, then you are going to have to get
your high school diploma or the equivalent of it, the GED, before you
are going to get your good time.
It is just as simple as that, before you can get out, even a day
early, even if we go to every State in this country with truth-in-
sentencing, you are still going to have to get a high school diploma or
GED to get your good time. It is something that prisoners want to
achieve. We need them to have an educational level that will allow them
to do something constructive when they get out. I cannot think of a
more important amendment, in the sense of trying to do something to
make sure that we do not have so high a rate of recidivism, as Mr.
Frank's amendment.
So I strongly urge its adoption. It is an excellent amendment. It
will provide the incentive that is missing now for prisoners to get
their GED. And any of the other problems that are raised, and I think
there are a few with it, I am sure that I think he has gone a long way
toward correcting them with his amendment. I am sure we could clean it
up at conference. We need to keep it. We need to have it.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I
intend to close.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, in line with the observations
of the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Brooks, I look forward to working
with him to make certain that the application of this amendment is such
that it allows the ``good-time'' system to maintain itself. I know it
plays a vitally important role in our system. But I think this
amendment also sends an equally important signal, and that is that we
are going to tie a relationship between the ability to access good time
or early release to the efforts that can be undertaken by those who
have the capacity to do so to improve their educational standing, which
will make them better citizens once they are released. Good-time
behavior in prison does not necessarily equate to good behavior once
you get out. Hopefully, this creates a nexus between those two
concepts.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say that my colleague from New Jersey, who is indeed a
friend, I think has the best of intentions, and I support what the
gentleman wants to do. But let me just point out a few problems with
it.
I have worked with the gentleman now for a couple of days to try to
get us to where we are. And I think what the gentleman has offered by
way of modified amendment is a vast improvement over the original
amendment.
But here is the problem: The prison system uses good time for
discipline. You may remember that in 1986 we eliminated good time for
other things. They use it for discipline.
The Bureau of Prisons has a very sophisticated reward system to
ensure that individuals in the system, inmates, get a high school
education. They have to. It is required that they take 120 days to try
to get that high school equivalency. And if they do not continue on and
get a high school degree or equivalency degree from high school, they
are penalized. They do not get promoted in jobs, they do not get prison
industry jobs, they are otherwise penalized by the Bureau of Prisons
for not getting a high school education. It is ironic that what it
would do basically is we have in our prison population 25 percent of
the illegal aliens in our system, in many instances are illiterate.
That is, many of them.
What the gentleman is saying is if his amendment were carried
forward, we would say taxpayers are going to continue those illegal
aliens in the system if they do not have a high school education. So we
would be paying because they did not get a high school education. We
could not deport them.
Now, granted, under the gentleman's amendment, the director of the
Bureau of Prisons could exempt that category. But there is another
problem with that. And that is that if they grant an exemption for them
and you do not grant an exemption for, let us say, a plumber who
because he is a slow learner her or she did not get a high school
equivalency, we are not going to permit them to leave the prison
system. So we are going to discriminate in favor of aliens and against
Americans.
So while the gentleman has a vast improvement and we need to study it
some more and see what the impact would be, we still have some problems
with the gentleman's amendment. We will work with the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 347,
noes 82, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 142]
AYES--347
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Carr
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--82
Becerra
Berman
Blackwell
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Coyne
de Lugo (VI)
DeFazio
Dellums
Dixon
Edwards (CA)
Engel
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Hamburg
Hastings
Hilliard
Hughes
Jacobs
Kennelly
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Matsui
McDermott
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mollohan
Nadler
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Swift
Synar
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
Andrews (NJ)
Fish
Gallo
Grandy
Lewis (CA)
Sharp
Washington
Whitten
{time} 1338
Messrs. TOWNS, BROWN of California, and BERMAN changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. McCLOSKEY, HYDE, SHUSTER, and CARR of Michigan changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (H.R. 4092).
H.R. 4092 achieves a necessary and critical balance between crime
prevention and punishment. While I do not agree with every provision
contained in the crime bill--namely the expansion of the number of
Federal crimes punishable by the death penalty, and the ``three
strikes, and you're out'' provision--I believe it takes significant
steps to prevent crime, and provides for some appropriate punishments
for those who violate our laws. This bill is imperfect. However, it
presents this country with an excellent opportunity to address the
issue of violence in our communities. It also moves this country in a
new direction that empowers Americans to live out their dreams without
the fear of violence.
At the core of this bill are some very innovative prevention programs
which are devoted to providing youth with employment, education, and
recreation alternatives to crime and violence. For example, H.R. 4092
authorizes $1.3 billion over 5 years to the ``Ounce of Prevention''
program which would provide grants to organizations that have a
coordinated team approach to reduce gang membership and provide
alternatives to at-risk youth. The ``Hope in Youth'' program, which has
several sites in my district in Los Angeles, would be eligible to
receive grants to continue the organization's valiant and meritorious
efforts to reduce gang membership and prevent new recruitment. The city
of Los Angeles alone has over 49,000 gang members, and so far this
year, there have been approximately 50 gang-related deaths.
In addition, the ``Youth Employment and Skills'' program would fund
programs which create employment opportunities for young adults in
areas with high crime and unemployment rates. The ``Diversionary Drug
Courts'' are also an admirable component of this crime bill, and
propose funding to State and local governments, as well as private
organizations that develop programs of intensive judicial supervision
over people with substance abuse problems. In total, this bill
authorizes $7 billion for community programs intended to prevent crime.
I urge my colleagues in conference to protect these provisions in this
crime bill which recognizes the factors which lead to crime and which
mitigate some of the discriminatory effects of previous misguided
policies.
I also urge my colleagues to protect the amendment offered by
Representatives Anthony C. Beilenson, and Howard L. Berman to the
anticrime bill once it goes to conference. This amendment would require
the Federal Government to reimburse States and localities for the costs
of incarcerating undocumented criminal immigrants who have been
convicted of a felony in State or local courts beginning in fiscal year
1999. It is estimated that there are over 30,000 undocumented persons
incarcerated in State prisons across the country, which translates to a
financial burden to affected communities of approximately $600 million
annually. Los Angeles County has estimated that 11 percent of its
prison population is made up of undocumented persons, costing the
county approximately $35 million annually. This amendment would provide
much needed relief to States and local communities for the cost of
incarcerating people who have entered our country in violation of
Federal immigration laws.
This measure also contains provisions to punish those who violate our
laws. To assist law enforcement agencies and increase criminal
penalties, H.R. 4092 also provides funding to build additional
correctional facilities. Under the measure, grants would be available
to a State or group of States to develop, expand, or improve
correctional facilities to ensure that prison space is available for
violent offenders. In an effort to reduce the rate of recidivism, a
State must establish programs for prison education and job training.
In addition, $3.5 billion would authorize grants to be provided to
State and local governments to rehire police officers who have been
laid-off, and to hire and train new law enforcement officers for
community-oriented policing. This amount is expected to fund up to
50,000 police officers. These funds could be used to increase the
number of police officers involved in crime prevention programs in the
community, to reduce the time police officers spend in court, and to
develop police policies and community programs focusing on crime
prevention.
Clearly, there are punishment provisions in the crime bill which are
controversial. However, if the Congress is going to pass legislation
which permits capital punishment as a sentencing option for over 60
Federal offenses, we must also take steps that will diminish the
possibility that innocent people will be executed. The Racial Justice
Act would provide an effective remedy for race discrimination in
individual capital cases. This act is the minimum protection necessary
to guard against death sentences that are the result of racial
discrimination. It would help eliminate racial considerations from
improperly influencing the decision to impose the death penalty.
Numerous studies, including a report released by the General Accounting
Office in February of 1990, have documented the unacceptable role that
racial considerations play at every stage of the death penalty process
at the State level. At a time when the Congress is contemplating
expanding the number of crimes punishable by the death penalty, the
Racial Justice Act must be strongly supported and retained in
conference.
Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need in this country for a
multifaceted strategy to combat crime. H.R. 4092 seeks to achieve this
balance. This measure represents an unprecedented effort to craft a
comprehensive anticrime strategy that includes funding for more police
officers, stiff punishments for truly violent offenders, and funding
for necessary correctional facilities to ensure certainty of
punishment. There are significant resources devoted to crime prevention
through giving youth employment, education, and recreation alternatives
to crime and violence. I urge the support of my colleagues for passage
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
Please join me, Mr. Chairman, in voting for final passage of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that
crime is a horrendous problem for Americans of every color and economic
station. Many people, from the central cities to the suburbs, are
afraid to go out of their house at night.
There is no question that law breakers, fairly tried, should be
punished. There is no question that government at every level should
take stronger steps to prevent and reduce crime. We need to rid our
neighborhoods of drugs. We need to stop gangs. We need to get assault
weapons off the streets. I am prepared to take strong steps. Even
though the bill includes many constructive provisions, the House crime
bill before us is not the answer.
death penalty and ``three strikes''
The most troubling aspect of the bill--and it is deeply troubling--is
that it permits the death penalty for 66 new Federal offenses. Justice
Harry A. Blackmun, a long-time death penalty supporter, made the
following statement on February 22, 1994:
Twenty years have passed since this Court declared that the
death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable
consistency or not at all, and, despite the effort of the
states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural
rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty
remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice
and mistake.
Also disturbing are the ``three-strikes-and-you're-out'' provisions.
The bill mandates life imprisonment for a conviction of a federal
violent felony if the defendant previously was convicted of two serious
federal or state drug offenses or violent offenses with a potential
sentence of 10 years. Again, this approach condemns people to prison in
a racially biased system, giving them little chance for rehabilitation.
No responsible Member of Congress can vote for this bill without
examining it in the context of the current criminal justice system. It
is a system in which:
Eighty-nine percent of defendants selected for capital punishment
under the Federal drug kingpin death penalty provisions have either
been African-American or Mexican-American, despite the fact that 75
percent of those individuals convicted under the general drug kingpin
statute were white.
Seventy-five percent of those convicted of participation in a drug
enterprise under the Federal antidrug law have been white; 25 percent
have been black. However, 78 percent of those receiving death penalty
prosecutions have been black and only 11 percent have been white.
Twenty-five percent of young African-American men are caught up in
the criminal justice system.
There are widespread racial disparities in the application of
criminal penalties. A study of mandatory minimum sentences in Florida
concluded that race was a major factor in imposing mandatory minimum
sentences.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and I tried to craft House
procedures to make the bill more acceptable. Last week, CBC members
offered amendments to eliminate some of the new death penalty
provisions. Our efforts failed.
I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that continues to
sentence African-Americans and other minorities to a system that is so
permeated with prejudice. I cannot in good conscience vote to send to
the electric chair millions of people who many respected studies show
do not get fair treatment in what is called our criminal justice
system.
the root of the crime problem
The crime bill takes some good first steps toward preventing crime,
but it fails to address the underlying causes of crime.
I represent a low-income, inner-city district where the per capita
income is $9,443, where unemployment is double the national rate and
among some young men, as high as 47 percent. I represent a district
with a 37-percent poverty rate in a city where factories have closed
and jobs have vanished, a city that has lost almost half its
population.
I came to Congress to address these problems. I have introduced a
bill to create jobs, to provide job training, to help communities solve
their own problems, to create mentoring programs, for young people.
These are the real crime prevention programs.
Of course, there are always misguided people in our society. But the
answer to the crime problem is education, health care, substance abuse
treatment, jobs, job training, role models, strong families.
The United States locks up more people per capita than any other
country. A whopping 25 percent of young black men are tangled up in the
criminal justice system. Homicide is the leading cause of death among
young black men. These numbers are an indictment of a government at all
levels, a government that is failing to reach large segments of
society.
Last year, experts told us that we needed a $60 billion economic
stimulus program. President Clinton proposed half that. Then the
Senate, in their deficit-cutting mania, cutting it to $16 billion. I
supported a full economic stimulus program because in my district, with
unemployment among African-Americans hovering at 19 percent, it is the
least we can do.
The crime bill, as reported, does include some constructive
initiatives: intensive community services in high-crime areas; funds
for after-school and summer youth programs; apprenticeship programs for
young people; programs to reduce gangs and illegal drug use by
juveniles; and grants to recruit police officers from under represented
neighborhoods. These are good provisions; however, we will not be able
to vote separately on these provisions.
I cannot support a bill that adds the death penalty for 66 crimes to
a system that is so heavily biased against minorities, a system that is
far from color blind.
President Clinton himself on the January 20 ``Larry King Live'' show
said it well when he said,
You've got to give these kids something to say yes to. That
is we have got to go into these really distressed areas and
rebuilding the bonds of family, community and work. There's
got to be education opportunities, there's got to be job
opportunities, got to be alternatives to imprisonment, like
boot camps, there needs to be drug treatment and drug
education programs. We can't have it all on the punishment *
* * .
the crime record
Last year, I voted for the Brady handgun waiting period. I voted for
$3.4 billion to put more police on the streets, I voted to use Federal
grants to prosecute drunk drivers. I voted for grants to develop
programs to reduce juvenile gangs, juvenile drug trafficking and
juvenile delinquency. I voted for grants to improve cooperative efforts
between law enforcement agencies and community groups to reduce crime.
I voted for the National Child Protection Act. I voted for the arson
prevention bill and for more substance abuse treatment for prisoners. I
voted for the Violence Against Women Act which, among other things,
makes interstate domestic violence a Federal crime.
I have introduced five bills to provide hope and opportunity to my
people. These are a few examples of steps I am taking. I cannot vote
for hysterical ``get tough'' crime bills that fail many Americans and
perpetuate a highly discriminatory system.
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Omnibus
Crime Control Act of 1994. This is a tough, comprehensive initiative to
stem the rising tide of crime in this country. Most importantly,
however, this bill strikes a balance between punishment and prevention.
This bill is tough on criminals. It puts 100,000 more cops in our
neighborhoods while also creating much-needed prison space. The bill
helps States keep violent repeat offenders in jail and provides funding
to combat violence against women. The ``three strikes you're out''
provision mandates life imprisonment for three time violent offenders.
The death penalty is expanded to include 60 violent crimes, including
the killing of law enforcement officers.
This crime bill also includes a balanced crime-prevention agenda
including my amendment to increase the number of Boys and Girls Clubs
in public housing. Programs are emphasized that keep youth away from
crime such as midnight sports leagues, law enforcement scholarships and
a police corps, which provides money for education in return for a 4-
year commitment to police work. Today, those committing crimes are
getting younger and younger. Over the past decade the number of
juveniles arrested for murder increased 142 percent. Congress is taking
a historic step in preventing crime by getting tough with criminals
and, at the same time, taking measures to prevent at-risk-youth from
becoming tomorrow's criminals.
Mr. Chairman, by passing this legislation, Congress is responding to
the critical concern over rising crime statistics in this country. I
urge my colleagues to support this bill and take an important step in
the fight against crime.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4092, a vigorous new Federal anticrime initiative that will help our
States and cities get violent criminals off the streets and put more
police officers on the streets. By adopting the strong anticrime
measures in this bill, we will help reassure law-abiding Americans that
we are determined to restrain the violent crime that now menaces our
neighborhoods and threatens our families.
This bill will provide money to put 50,000 police officers on the
streets of our cities and towns. This extra manpower will allow
officers to get out of their patrol cars and onto a regular beat, where
they can be more effective in both preventing and responding to crime.
I am especially pleased that this bill contains a substantial
increase in Federal funds to assist State and local law-enforcement
agencies, especially for prison construction. I was pleased to vote for
the amendment, sponsored by Mr. Chapman of Texas, that added an extra
$10.5 billion to the $3 billion already in the bill for building new
State and regional prisons.
Mr. Chairman, my State of Ohio now suffers from the Nation's worst
rate of prison overcrowding: Ohio's prisons are at 182 percent of
capacity. Such overcrowding poses a clear risk to prison officials. It
greatly increases the likelihood of a riot, like the deadly explosion
that occurred just 1 year ago at the maximum-security prison in
Lucasville, OH, which left one prison guard dead and many others
injured.
But much worse, chronic and severe overcrowding increases the risk
that violent offenders may be released from prison too soon in order to
make room for each newly convicted prisoner. Putting a dangerous
offender back onto the streets puts our community at risk, and it
undermines our legal system's obligation to mete out swift and sure
punishment to criminals. The House version of the anticrime initiative
backs up our ``get tough'' rhetoric with real dollars, aiding the
urgent task of prison construction.
I am proud to support this realistic measure, which offers a tough,
intelligent approach to providing the security all Americans deserve.
Of course, reducing crime will require more than simply training more
police officers and building more jail cells. This bill will allow us
to take assertive, pro-active steps to prevent crime before it occurs.
It will help to ease the tensions that give rise to crime by offering
all our people opportunities for work. It will provide our young people
with alternatives to gangs and crime. And it will provide training and
treatment for those who want to escape the cycle of violence in our
cities.
We need to restore the promise of opportunity and a realistic hope
for prosperity to our communities. Investments in the potential of our
people are the surest way to achieve this in the long run. Yet we must
also take bold steps to make our streets and schools safe, so that our
citizens can learn and work without fear. This crime bill will help us
to achieve both of these goals. It deserves our strong support.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, Americans across the country have
identified crime as a critical issue for Congress to address. They
expect comprehensive legislation to strengthen our criminal justice
system.
I must reluctantly oppose the so-called anticrime package before us
today because it falls short of the American people's legitimate
expectations. Not only does it not help us combat the serious problem
of crime in this country, I believe it may set back these efforts. And
when they see what's in the bill, I don't think that our constituents
back home will be fooled by its title. People are looking for serious
legislation that really addresses the level of violence in this
country, not half measures that only add to the difficulty of enforcing
existing laws.
The crime problem Congress tried to address is in large measure the
lack of deterrent or adequate punishment in the current system. Most
offenders who have been convicted of a violent crime whip through the
revolving door of justice and are back out on the streets in no time at
all. On average, violent criminals in State prisons now serve only 37
percent of their actual sentences, and 40 percent of all violent
offenders are given probationary sentences that do not require any
prison time at all. This isn't deterrence. Criminals need to know that
when they are sentenced they will serve time.
Perhaps more disturbing are the statistics on repeat offenders.
Studies conclude that 6 percent of the criminals commit approximately
70 percent of the crimes. Setting violent offenders free without
requiring them to serve hard time is almost a guarantee that someone,
somewhere will become their next victim.
As a father and as a husband, I want to do all I can to protect my
family and my neighborhood from violent crime. As representatives of
families living across this Nation, our job is to make sure that we
give law enforcement officers every advantage to protect families from
violent criminals, especially those who have made crime their career.
The measure before us is seriously lacking in addressing the problem
we face. Although I support certain aspects of the package such as
increasing the number of offenses subject to the death penalty and
initiating a version of three strikes and you're out, this bill is
noteworthy for what it lacks. The House defeated efforts to include
real truth in sentencing reforms so that convicted criminals serve out
their full sentences. In fact, this measure weakens mandatory
sentencing guidelines now in place. Also, there's nothing in the bill
to make badly needed exclusionary rule reforms that will help give
police and prosecutors additional crime fighting tools.
I am also deeply concerned about the ability to enforce the death
penalty. Instead of strengthening the deterrent value of capital
punishment, the House has further weakened it by agreeing to allow
thousands of death row inmates to challenge their sentences on the
basis of racial bias. All a death row inmate has to do is show that
there was a statistical disparity based on his own race or the race of
his victim. The bill would invalidate the capital sentence of any
defendant who decided to raise a claim without regard to whether there
was any evidence of racial discrimination in his or her case. This will
seriously infringe upon our ability to use the death penalty. It
certainly could take away the deterrent effect of imposing such a
sentence.
Congress should send the message that criminals, not victims, should
pay for crime. Furthermore, it should respond to the clear mandate for
reform by enacting a tough, comprehensive package that will strengthen
our criminal justice system. The measure under consideration today is
not such a measure. Not even close. Enough tough talk. Now we need
tough action.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, crime and all of the problems
that come with it have caused considerable pain in parts of my
district. There are neighborhoods and communities in both the inner-
city and suburban areas of America where the crime rate is high and
growing. Our citizens have expressed concern. They feel frightened for
the safety of their children and themselves. In fact in a recent poll
that I had taken in my district, crime was either the No. 1 or the No.
2 concern cited. So to say that my constituents and I and the rest of
the citizen of this country are interested in finding a way to reduce
the crime rate is quite an understatement.
I am torn about this bill because it includes some important crime
fighting measures as well as others which I think will actually cause
harm. One of the helpful provisions provides for 50,000 more law
enforcement officers to walk the beats of our cities and towns.
Undoubtedly this is welcome news to the local governments throughout
the country, most of whose resources are stretched to the breaking
point.
Similarly I believe that the $600 million funding stream for
alternative punishments--i.e. boot camps, weekend incarceration,
community service, et cetera--is a step in the right direction because
we must look at alternative, cost-effective ways of dealing with youth
offenders, especially if those ways hold some real promise of ending in
rehabilitation.
The bill we are debating today also contains the modest step of
making it illegal to sell or transfer a handgun, or ammunition for a
handgun, to a person under 18 years of age. To tell you the truth, such
commonsense measures should have already been on the law books, but
their absence just goes to show you how far we have to go before we
bring some sanity to our gun regulatory framework.
Today, women across America face an alarmingly high chance of
becoming victims of violent crime. Perhaps one of the most frightening
aspects of some of these crimes is that most women are raped, battered,
or murdered in their own home by their husbands, boyfriends, or someone
that they know. Unfortunately, the criminal court system fails to
recognize the seriousness of these gender-based violations of personal
safety and, as a result, women are often victims again when they seek
the assistance of the police and/or redress of their grievances in the
courts. Therefore, I am pleased that the Violence Against Women Act is
an important part of this crime bill.
For these reasons, I compliment the chairman and members of the
Judiciary Committee who have worked so hard in an effort to present us
with some real crime prevention provisions. To that extent they have
been successful in crafting a bill that will help our local
communities; and I fully support the bill's preventive language.
On the other hand there are other portions of this bill that are
extremely disappointing and downright frightening. At some points it
appears that the framers have caved in to the popular, but misguided,
pressure for retribution as a form of crime control.
For example the drafters of this bill seem to be of the mistaken
belief that adding 60 new Federal offenses subject to death penalties
will somehow lead to less crime. While the deterrent effect of the
death penalty has never been clearly shown, we have all witnessed the
discriminatory way that it has been used. Time and again we have seen
how African-American men and women are disproportionately sentenced to
death--even when one accounts for the crime committed. Since 1988, 33
of the 37 Federal death penalty defendants have been African-Americans.
In the current administration which I look upon as being more
enlightened regarding the unfairness in our judicial system, all of the
defendants the Attorney General has approved for the death penalty have
been African-American.
The General Accounting Office, Congress' own investigative arm, has
concluded in its study that racism definitely affects the use of the
death penalty in the United States. Further studies have found
undeniably that in an alarming 82 percent of the time, the race of the
victim influences whether or not the defendant is sentenced to death.
In addition, Justice Harry Blackmun only recently stated that,
Twenty years have passed since this court declared that the
death penalty must be imposed fairly, * * * and despite the
effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and
procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death
penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination,
caprice and mistake.
I cannot in good conscience sanction this injustice. I am aware that
this bill supposedly includes some minor safeguards to help lessen the
misuse of the death penalty but American history assures me that these
are not enough. All of us understand that the very existence of these
60 new categories for death penalties will dramatically increase
Government sanctioned killing. We all know that communities and public
opinion can, does, and will pressure judges to invoke the death penalty
whenever it is an option even though to do so is neither required nor
warranted. I simply cannot and will not be a party to hysterical
sentencing.
Be clear that my concern about the death penalty does not indicate a
lack of concern about crime. We are all affected by the crime rate.
Many among us are disproportionately affected. According to many
studies the people of lowest economic means, who make up a portion of
my constituents, are the most likely to be victims of crime; so if ever
there were a group that is concerned about making the streets safe they
are the ones.
Just this past weekend Secretary Cisneros of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development met with the residents of the Robert
Taylor Homes in my district to hear their very real concerns about guns
and violence. Unfortunately they are not receiving the same level of
protection enjoyed by every other neighborhood in Chicago. While I
support President Clinton's efforts to devise a strategy for weapons
searches by authorities in public housing which will pass
constitutional tests, I also would support an infusion of funds and
efforts to provide a better education, greater employment
opportunities, adequate job training, et cetera for the residents.
Now the tremendous increase in the number of offenses that will call
for the death penalty in this bill are not my only concern. I am also
disturbed by the way African-Americans are often treated by law
enforcement and judicial systems when the death sentence isn't imposed.
It is a known fact that they are more likely to receive harsh
punishments for the same crimes committed by others. Studies continue
to prove that African-Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive
mandatory sentences than white people.
Now I don't want anyone to get the impression that I am soft on
crime. I believe that those who commit crimes of any kind should be
punished. However I am greatly disappointed that when it comes to young
offenders the committee has seemingly decided to throw up its hands and
admit defeat, by placing a provision in this bill stipulating that
children as young as 13 will be allowed to be tried as adults.
Obviously the adult men and women in this House who drafted this bill
have decided that rather than to find out what has gone wrong with
these kids, it is easier to write them off as lifetime felons and lock
them away. What a cruel way to deal with kids who we have neglected,
who we have refused to adequately educate, refused to adequately house,
clothe and feed, who we have refused to offer even a modicum of
understanding.
Mr. Chairman, it is for all of these reasons I find it somewhat
difficult, but necessary to oppose this crime bill. Any crime measure
that budgets more for prisons than job training is not sufficient to
the task of fighting crime. Any bill which advocates new ways to put
children in prison, but does not offer sufficient resources to educate
these same children is deficient. Any bill which allows us to sentence
more people to death but denies them our best guarantees for a fair
trial is clearly unjust. I cannot support this bill and I urge my
colleague to think very carefully before they cast a supporting vote
for it.
Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4092,
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. More importantly, I
rise in support of the right of each American to be free from fear.
A few days ago, I joined residents, community activists, and police
officers in walking tours of two Missouri neighborhoods--St Louis'
Soulard neighborhood, and the Prospect Avenue area of Kansas City. The
residents of these neighborhoods are hard-working people who come from
their day jobs and immediately start their second jobs--protecting
their homes and children from fear, drugs, and crime.
The working people of St. Louis, Kansas City, and other cities,
towns, and rural communities throughout Missouri, know that the deadly
mixture of poverty, drugs, guns, and gangs has become a poison to their
neighborhoods. They live with crime every day of their live. These law-
abiding citizens--beset by lawlessness--have asked for our help. What
can this House do?
In the short term, we must expand policing and tighten punishment to
get the criminals off the streets. In the long term, we must make real
efforts to prevent crime and combat the underlying forces that lead to
criminal behavior. These efforts include the Ounce of Prevention and
Youth Employment Services [YES] programs that are part of this bill.
Also, we need to make fundamental improvements in education, emphasize
economic development in our cities, and restructure assistance to the
unemployed and underemployed.
In short, we must attack crime today with police, punishment, and
prisons. We must also attack crime well into the future with schools,
jobs, and hope. H.R. 4092 begins this important, two-pronged effort to
bring order back to our society.
Mr. Chairman, the working people of this country have asked for--
pleaded for--our help in making their neighborhoods safe once again. We
can respond by approving the hiring of tens of thousands of new police
officers trained for community policing.
They have asked for our help in stopping violent criminals who attack
society again and again with impunity. Our firm response: We will
provide money to help States build prisons to incarcerate repeat
offenders, and we will pass a Federal ``Three Strikes, You're Out''
statute, targeted at the 7 percent of criminals who commit two-thirds
of the violent crimes.
Too often today, kids who should be found with books, baseballs, and
bicycles are found instead with UZIs, Street Sweepers, and Tec 9s. What
can this House do to get these young people to trade their guns for
books and their despair for hope?
We can join the struggle against the rising tide of violent juvenile
offenders by approving millions of dollars in funding to help States
implement alternative sentencing options for young people, including
boot camps for nonviolent youth offenders who need strong discipline
and firm guidance. Also, we must allow some juveniles to be tried as
adults for violent crimes against society.
We can approve the Youth Handgun Safety Act, to get deadly weapons
out of the hands of the children in which those guns are found with
increasingly tragic consequences.
We can strike back at the purveyors of violent hate and intolerance
by approving stiffer sentences for hate crimes, which are assaults
against the foundation of our democracy.
Mr. Chairman, women and children are frequently victimized by the
worst crimes in our society. Women are rightly afraid to walk the
streets at any hour, and my home of Kansas City was recently reminded
of the horrors of child abuse by the tragic deaths of 4-year-old
Briiana Buersmeyer and 5-year-old Angel Melton at the hands of their
mothers' boyfriends. The Crimes Against Children Registration Act and
the Child Abuse Prevention Act might well save other children from the
sad fate of Angel and Briiana.
By passing these provisions of H.R. 4092, along with the Violence
Against Women Act, this House will be taking a stand on behalf of those
who have so long been abused by the kind of violent, destructive crimes
that have no place in any civilized society.
We can make these real, tangible efforts to strike back at the
epidemic of crime that has infested too many American neighborhoods,
and touched too many American families. H.R. 4092 lets the gun thugs
and urban terrorists know that the tide is turning against their bloody
reign of terror.
More police, fewer guns, stricter punishment--these initiatives will
help bring law back to the streets now. H.R. 4092 isn't built on
abstractions: this bill represents tough, pragmatic solutions to
problems that the people of this country and my State struggle against
every day. This bill isn't perfect and it doesn't represent a final
solution, but it is a good start to a difficult task.
While the increased policing and the stricter punishment will allow
us to make our streets safer in the short-term, we will also attack the
root causes of crime with $7 billion in innovative prevention programs.
I am an original cosponsor of the Family And Community Endeavor Schools
[FACES] Act introduced by Representative Gephardt and included with
other prevention programs in this bill. These prevention measures will
help make our schools safe havens for the entire community, provide
unique projects to attack the plague of drug addiction, and offer the
employment skills and opportunities so desperately needed in crime-
ravaged neighborhoods and towns.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a stark choice. We can politicize a
national problem that crosses every boundary of party, philosophy,
income, and race, or we can act together to take back our
neighborhoods. We won't ever be in total agreement with all the
provisions of an anticrime bill, but we must agree that our final goal
is a safer, saner society. I urge the prompt passage of H.R. 4092.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4092, the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an important step toward
confronting and addressing crime.
If this bill is enacted, a criminal who has already been convicted of
two serious drug offenses, or violent offenses with a potential
sentence of 10 years, will face life imprisonment if convicted of a
third Federal violent felony. This provision--known as three-strikes-
and-you're-out--will keep repeat violent offenders off the streets.
In recognition of the critical role that our communities, themselves,
play in fighting crime, this bill provides grants for community
policing. This support will enable State and local governments to
rehire police officers who have been laid off, as well as hire and
train new officers.
There are also measures to reduce the incidence of violence against
women, and to punish those who commit crimes of violence against women.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act also increases
Federal penalties for assaults against children and it requires anyone
who has committed a crime against a child--including sexual offense--to
register with State law enforcement.
This crime bill supports programs that reduce gang membership and
provide alternatives for youth who are at-risk. It also gives local
governments fast access to flexible Federal funds for a variety of
anticrime strategies. The counter the effect that poverty and despair
have on our youth, the bill supports programs that provide employment
opportunities for young adults in areas with high crime and
unemployment rates. It also enables communities to develop midnight
sports leagues for their youngsters. Other provisions in the bill
provide for substance abuse treatment for Federal prisoners and
increased sentences for Federal hate crimes.
The bill includes a number of provisions that attack crime in rural
areas, including one which I introduced along with my colleague from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak], a former police officer. This measure will help
ensure that rural communities do not lose ground as the rest of the
country moves forward on new anticrime strategies. The Fazio-Stupak
amendment expresses the sense-of-Congress that rural areas should
continue to receive the level of support that they had prior to
enactment of this crime bill--that rural America should not receive
less funding that it did in fiscal year 1994.
Last month, a delegation of law enforcement representatives from my
congressional district was here in Washington attending the White House
briefing on the crime bill. Immediately following the briefing, these
representatives joined me in a private meeting with Attorney General
Janet Reno and advised her of their concerns about the pending
legislation. At the top of their list was their apprehension about
losing the Federal funding that supports their narcotics task forces.
Without this support, these communities are left wide open to drugs and
the violence that accompanies this persistent problem.
Although, in response to input from rural law enforcement, a portion
of these funds has been restored, it is important for us to maintain
our previous level of support for this important component of the rural
anticrime effort. The amendment puts Congress firmly on record that, as
we attempt to attack crime in the cities and suburbs throughout
America, rural communities do not get left behind.
Crime invades our communities and has a tremendous impact on the
quality of life. It affects everything--from our health care costs, to
our safety and security, to the quality and cost of educating our
children. In response, we have a crime bill that balances the
prevention and punishment necessary to tackle this problem. It focuses
attention and resources on the State and local levels--the front-lines,
where the bulk of the responsibility for responding to crime lies. And
it moves us closer to meeting our overall goal of ensuring that justice
is dispensed equally and fairly, and that punishment is also fair, fast
and consistent.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act is a good
beginning. But, this crime bill cannot do the job alone. We must be
prepared to sustain the initial investments that this administration
has begun to make in the roots of our society--in education,
employment, health care, and other human services--if we are really
going to turn this situation around. We must realize that, because
crime is not an isolated problem, it cannot be dealt with in isolation.
The crime bill is not the cure-all, but it is definitely an important
part of the overall solution. It is a good place to start, and the time
is now. We should all be able to put aside our partisan differences and
come together on behalf of what is good for this country--our
communities, our families, and our children. I urge my colleagues, on
both sides of the aisle, to join me in support of this crime bill, this
crucial step in the healing process, and to support its final passage.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
H.R. 4092, the House crime bill. I have no reservations about my
``nay'' vote, although I realize that many Americans want crime
legislation passed.
Mr. Chairman, the crime bill before the House is anemic. It reflects
the enormous differences that exist between conservatives and liberals
with regard to man, the State, and yes, criminal justice.
The Clinton administration, most notably Attorney General Janet Reno,
believes that everybody is equally good. If a 22-year-old delinquent
brutally rapes and murders an innocent victim, he is not a bad person
who needs to be jailed for life or sentenced to death. Rather, we are
told to look at the root causes of the criminal's behavior.
We are told that society is failing these poor criminals. To deter
crime, the liberals say, the Federal Government needs to provide every
American with a high-paying job, self-esteem, and adequate recreational
opportunities.
If you don't believe me, look at the House crime bill. It includes a
Great Society-style provision that calls for spending mainly on social
welfare programs. It provides $6.9 billion in grants to crime-prone
areas for recreation, job training, and other activities. The bill
provides grants for after-school programs for inner-city youth and for
midnight basketball games.
My opposition to this bill was not sealed, however, until yesterday,
when the House failed to strike the Racial Justice Act from the
legislation. I believe that this provision will result in the effective
abolition of capital punishment. The Racial Justice Act permits a
defendant to make a statistical showing that death sentences are being
imposed or administered in a disproportionate manner based upon the
defendant's race. The act also requires a prosecutor to rebut this
statistical showing ``by a preponderance of the evidence.''
The Racial Justice Act requires prosecutors to prove a negative: That
race was not the basis for any of the prosecutor's, jury's, or judge's
decisions. The evidentiary difficulties and vast resources that will be
required to make such a showing in every post-conviction capital case
will undoubtedly preclude use of the death penalty.
This act disregards one of the fundamental precepts of our criminal
justice system: that an individual is tried on the facts of his or her
case, not on statistics from a sampling of unrelated crimes.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the act overturns a number of U.S. Supreme
Court cases, including McCleskey versus Kemp, in which the Court
rejected a discrimination claim founded solely on statistics.
Lastly, this provision is inconsistent with meaningful habeas corpus
reform.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose House crime bill primarily because it includes
this pernicious Racial Justice Act. I would note that I am in good
company. The Racial Justice Act is opposed by the attorney general of
California and the California District Attorneys Association. In fact,
the U.S. Senate rejected a measure similar to the Racial Justice Act
for 3 consecutive years.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4092, the House crime bill, and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a great deal of
disappointment to oppose the crime bill which has been under
consideration here in the people's House. We had the opportunity to
give the American people a tough crime bill and even with the adoption
of several good amendments to strengthen it the bill before us is still
far too soft and full of pork.
In fact, it is so full of pork that I am surprised that it did not
squeal and run out of the Chamber when it was brought to the floor.
Once again, Members with pet projects that could not pass on their own
have larded on the pork in a bill that they are certain will pass
because it carries the ``crime bill'' label.
But, Mr. Chairman, even the pork would not be so bad if the rest of
the bill truly returned deterrent power to the justice system.
Criminals and victims alike should be fully certain that the justice
system would provide a sure, swift, and severe punishment for criminal
behavior. The American people are fed up with a system of justice that
is kinder to criminals than it is to the victims of crime; and, quite
frankly, so am I.
When I went home to Kentucky for the district work period at Easter
the people who came to my open door meetings told me that they did not
think that they should have to wait for a violent criminal to get a
third conviction before we locked him away for good. They are right.
The average law-abiding citizens of Kentucky and of this Nation deserve
to be protected from the human predators that our criminal justice has
consistently returned to the streets to commit more and more criminal
acts.
Likewise, women in our society should not have to wait for some
future crime bill for their legitimate concerns to be addressed. My
colleague, the gentlelady from New York [Ms. Molinari] attempted to
offer an amendment that would have established just penalties for
assaults on women and children but the majority decided to ignore the
issue rather than allow us to vote on it. The crime bill should address
these concerns but it does not.
In its infinite wisdom the majority of the Rules Committee also
decided to exclude the legitimate concerns of my good friend, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] who wanted to offer an amendment
dealing with the criminal acts of illegal aliens. This House should
have addressed this issue in this bill.
I can only assume that we did not address these needs because we are
more interested in passing anything rather than passing a bill that
would protect victims of crime and really deter criminal acts. The
crime bill is just another piece of feel-good legislation so that we
can go home and crow about how we got tough on crime when it is mostly
cosmetic change.
In fact, the changes are much more apparent than real in this bill.
While we said much about the death penalty, we fit in a racial quota
provision that virtually assures that the death penalty will never be
imposed when the convicted criminal's race is brought into the
sentencing by the defense counsel. This is outrageous. Race should
never be a consideration in application of the law and especially in
the penalty phase of a trial. Our society can never be colorblind as
long as the courts are forced to consider race rather than content of
the character. This type of provision has no place in the criminal
justice system.
Mr. Chairman, we need a real crime control bill, not just window
dressing. The American people are depending on us and we should not let
them down on something this serious. let us defeat this bill and bring
back one that will let the people know that we are on their side, not
the criminals.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4092,
the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994. This legislation will do
absolutely nothing to deter violent crime in America. In all
likelihood, passage of this legislation will put American citizens in
greater harm of being victimized by dangerous street thugs. In fact,
the crime bill is aptly named, because what the Democrats have done to
it is a crime. And Bill Clinton's fingerprints are all over it.
It is no wonder the American people are angry and frustrated with the
violent crime that is gripping our Nation. While the population of the
United States increased 44 percent since 1960, violent crime has
increased by more than 500 percent. And since the early 1950's, the
expected punishment for committing a serious crime in the United States
has been reduced by two-thirds. Yet over that same period, the total
number of serious crimes has increased sevenfold. In addition, more
than half of all violent criminals are put back on the streets while
awaiting trial. Of those, 20 percent escape and 16 percent commit
another crime. And for every 100 serious crimes committed, only 5
criminals go to jail.
Why has the crime rate exploded over the last three decades? Because
we have allowed sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists to
explain and excuse criminal behavior, so the punishment rarely fits the
crime. Moreover, many of my colleagues continue to focus their
attention on gun control as well as dubious and costly social programs
as a way to reduce crime. Being good liberals, they believe that man is
perfectible. Therefore, those who commit crimes are not criminals, but
victims--of society, poverty, bigotry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
This has led to our current crime epidemic.
We need to stop focusing on criminals as victims of society and start
focusing on the real victims--law-abiding citizens who are afraid to
walk down their own street at night; children who routinely fall asleep
to the sound of gunfire; students who are too frightened to go to
school; and those whose neighborhoods are victimized by violent gangs
and drug dealers. I should know. Many of my own constituents face these
fears each and every day.
Unfortunately, our criminal justice system has become so lenient that
criminals routinely serve pathetically short sentences and are allowed
to walk free to abuse us again. For example, according to the FBI, in
1988 the median murder sentence for prisoners released that year was 15
years. The average time served, however, was only 3.5 years.
It is plainly obvious that criminals no longer fear the law. They
know that it is unlikely that they will be caught. If and when they do
get caught, they rarely get prison sentences. If they do go to prison,
they know that they will be out in no time. Criminals laugh at the
system. And embarrassingly enough, so do other nations.
Take the Fay caning case, where an 18-year old American living in
Singapore has been charged with a 10-day spree of vandalism and
sentenced to six strikes with a bamboo cane. President Clinton and the
media have expressed their outrage, claiming it is a barbaric and
tortuous method of punishment.
Yet last year, only 58 murders, 80 rapes, 1,008 robberies, and 3,162
car thefts occurred in Singapore. During the same period, the city of
Los Angeles, with about the same population as Singapore, had 1,100
homicides, 1,855 rapes, 39,227 robberies and 65,541 stolen cars. And
Singapore employs half the number of police officers as the city of Los
Angeles. Singapore is also a city without litter, graffiti, and gangs.
``Women confidently stroll the streets late at night,'' writes the Los
Angeles Times reporter in Singapore. ``The subway is clean, and
muggings are rare. Gang warfare, significant scourge in the 1950's, has
been stamped out.''
Commenting on the Fay case, a Singapore official said the reason his
country is tough on crime and criminals is because it does not want to
become like New York City. Can you blame them? The deplorable condition
of New York City is a direct result of liberal social policies that
place the rights of criminals above victims and law-abiding citizens.
In the early days of America, criminals were subjected to public
ridicule, public floggings, even public hangings. Syndicated columnist
Cal Thomas recently stated, ``Crime was dealt with harshly because it
was seen as a threat to an orderly society. Now, we explain and excuse
violent criminals because they were abused, or they are poor or
otherwise disadvantaged.'' Indeed, since the 1960's liberals have been
literally obsessed with root causes, such as poverty, deprivation,
abuse, hopelessness, and alienation--30 years later, our Nation's crime
rate has tripled. Is there no end to such misguided policies?
Having said this, I am deeply troubled by the weak, do-nothing crime
bill we are considering today. It relies heavily on costly social
welfare programs that will have absolutely no effect on criminal
behavior whatsoever. We have tried these kinds of programs over the
last three decades. They do not work and are a waste of precious
resources.
Also, with the passage of the racial justice amendment, this
legislation will virtually eliminate the death penalty by establishing
racial quotas in death penalty cases. For instance, if you or a member
of your family is murdered, the murderer can avoid the death penalty
if, based on statistical evidence, in too many other cases, other
killers received the death penalty for killing people of your own race.
Try explaining this to one of your constituents whose family member
just had their life snuffed out by an unremorseful street thug.
What disturbs me most about this provision, which is adamantly
supported by the Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses, is that
minorities--especially African-Americans--are overwhelmingly more
likely to be victims of violent crime. Let us not forget the words of
the Rev. Jesse Jackson who said, ``there is nothing more painful to me
* * * than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start
thinking about robbery--then look around and see somebody white and
feel relieved.'' This statement reveals a great deal about crime in
America--especially in our inner cities. And it is just outrageous that
anyone would prioritize discrimination over victimization. How do these
people sleep at night?
Equally disturbing are the provisions of this bill that allow
convicted criminals to file appeal after appeal after appeal to avoid
the death penalty. Indeed, this bill further liberalizes the
interminable habeas corpus appeals process by relaxing the rules on
when a defendant can file an appeal, among other things. What is so
ironic is that the Democrats have added 66 new crimes that will soon be
subject to the death penalty in this bill. Yet the language of this
legislation makes the death penalty virtually unenforceable. Talk about
a public relations scam.
This crime bill also makes changes in mandatory minimum sentencing
guidelines that will ultimately result in the release of 16,000
criminals onto our streets who will be free to abuse us again. This
provision will not control criminals. It will emancipate them.
If we are to reduce violent crime in America, we must operate under
the assumption that people will change their behavior only if they
believe the costs of criminal behavior are too high. What we need,
therefore, is swift and sure justice with tough, mandatory sentences
for criminals, including the death penalty for particularly heinous
criminals. We also need an effective juvenile justice reform system
that sends a powerful message to young people that criminal behavior is
intolerable and will be punished severely. Furthermore, adequate prison
facilities are necessary to ensure that all violent criminals are
locked behind bars for a long time--and in many cases, forever.
That means we have to spend money on building adequate prison
facilities. Indeed, the FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that, from 1980-
91, the 10 States with the greatest increases in criminal incarceration
rates experienced the greatest decreases in crime. If we can control
violent criminals, we can control violent crime.
We must also put a stop to the endless appeals that have made a
mockery of the death penalty, as well as reform the rules that allow
criminals to go free on technicalities. And I want to see more cops on
the beat, which is why I have been the lead supporter of the police
corps bill. The police corps would establish an ROTC-type program for
young people who want to build a career in law enforcement. Its
inclusion in the crime bill will eventually result in 100,000 more cops
on the streets of America.
Mr. Chairman, America's criminal justice system is failing as a
result of bad public policy enacted by liberals who care more about
criminals than they do about victims. This bill is a disgrace and an
insult to the intelligence of the American people who are begging for
protection from the threat of violence. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on H.R. 4092.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4092, the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
The problem of crime is one the greatest concerns of the American
people. Some 22 million households are affected by crime each year.
Violent crime has increased 25 percent in the past 5 years. Despite the
fact that more criminals are in jail than ever before, millions of
Americans do not feel safe in their neighborhoods and communities. Guns
are even becoming common at schools and gang violence is spreading
beyond the core city areas into suburbs and smaller towns. Citizens are
upset about the erosion of public safety and they are demanding that
something be done about it.
H.R. 4092, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, is a
tough and comprehensive anticrime bill. It will provide us with many
new tools and programs to help us fight crime in our communities. While
I have concerns about some of the sentencing and certainly the death
penalty provisions of the bill, on the whole I believe it is a strong
bill which will help us address the problem of crime in our Nation. On
the crime control and law enforcement side, the bill provides for
100,000 new police officers on the beat, funds for prison construction,
a tempered ``three strikes and you're out'', provision grants to stop
violence against women, Drug treatment for State and Federal prisoners
and prohibitions on the sale of handguns to youth. I am pleased that
the House version of the crime bill places a stronger emphasis on crime
prevention than the Senate bill. The House bill contains $7 billion for
prevention programs including model intensive grants, youth employment
and skills training, local partnerships, antigang grants and some
important provisions such as the police corps which were added on the
House floor.
Mr. Chairman, while there are many features I would like to discuss
about the crime bill, I would like to focus on the urban recreation and
at-risk youth provisions which I authored along with Representative
George Miller, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. This
section is identical to the bill H.R. 4092, which passed the House of
Representatives as a freestanding measure on March 22, 1994, by a vote
of 361 to 59. The amendment has the support of over 50 national
organizations including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America, the National Association of Police Athletic
Leagues, major league baseball and the National Recreation and Park
Association. It was added to H.R. 4092 as part of the Brooks en bloc
amendment. I would like to thank Chairman Brooks for including this
provision in the en bloc amendment and for his leadership on this
comprehensive anticrime bill.
The urban recreation and at-risk youth provisions of the crime bill
recognize the important role that urban recreation programs play in
developing positive values in our young people and in keeping them away
from crime. Grants would be authorized to urban areas with a high
prevalence of crime in order to expand park and recreation
opportunities for at-risk urban youth. These grants would be available
for rehabilitation of facilities, improvements to increase the security
of urban parks and operating support for innovative and successful
recreation programs. Such a program can be a highly effective tool in
preventing crime and improving the quality of life of urban
neighborhoods.
Many young people in urban areas have little or no access to sports
and recreation because of badly deteriorated facilities or because of
program cutbacks. Urban recreation has been grossly neglected as a
national priority over the last decade. Ironically, recreation
opportunities for low and middle income urban residents declined over
the same period of time that health clubs proliferated for the higher
income residents. Urban dwellers, especially those in economically
distressed communities, are the most dependent on having public parks
and recreation programs. Low-income residents do not have the time or
financial resources to travel to distant parks for recreation purposes.
At a recent hearing of the Natural Resources Committee, testimony was
provided by city park directors, policemen, boys and girls clubs and
midnight basketball leagues about the effectiveness of urban recreation
programs as a crime prevention measure. The reason why these programs
are so vital to anticrime efforts is because they target the age group
most prone to crime--youth; 50 to 60 percent of all crime in the United
States is committed by people 10 to 20 years of age. The incidence of
crime peaks between the ages of 16 and 18 and quickly drops after age
21. If we can reach young people through sport and recreation programs
before they turn to a life of crime, we will save dollars and lives.
Urban park and recreation programs have been around since the
creation of New York's Central Park in the 1850's. Even then, it was
recognized that young people need safe places to recreate and
constructive activities to occupy their time, in fact positive
alternatives to antisocial behaviors. The wisdom of this approach is
more true now than ever.
In 1978 Congress enacted a program to help distressed urban areas
develop recreation opportunities. The Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery [UPARR] Program provides matching grants to economically
distressed cities for repair of park and recreation facilities and for
innovative recreation-based programs for youth. While the UPARR Program
has proven to be effective, it has suffered from a lack of stable
funding. UPARR received no funding from 1985 to 1990, and the past 2
years it has received only $5 million annually. The number of requests
from cities which have matching funds ready to go is two to three times
what the UPARR Program is able to fund.
The Miller-Vento amendment was drafted to maximize cost efficiency
and program effectiveness. First, it uses the administrative resources
and procedures of the existing UPARR Program in order to minimize costs
and bureaucracy. Second, it leverages additional resources by requiring
a 30 percent local match. Third, it requires park and recreation
officials to coordinate their efforts with law enforcement, social
service agencies and nonprofit community organizations involved in
youth crime prevention. Fourth, it is flexible enough to allow
nonprofit organizations such as boys and girls clubs, police athletic
leagues, and midnight basketball programs to receive funding
assistance. Fifth, it requires eligible cities to submit a plan which
states how they intend to improve recreation opportunities in crime
ridden neighborhoods over the long-term. Finally, it requires
facilities which have been improved as a result of this grant program
to remain open for public recreation uses in perpetuity.
Congress has previously recognized the importance of recreation in
preventing crime and delinquency. Amendments to the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1992 and the National Affordable
Housing Act have specifically included authorization for recreation
program. There are other prevention programs in H.R. 4092 which mention
recreation, and I am supportive of these provisions. The Miller-Vento
approach is cost-effective because it builds on a successful existing
program instead of creating new programs and bureaucracies to like
other provisions of the House crime bill.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to explain the Vento amendment which
adds the Secretary of the Interior to the ounce of prevention council
established by section 1010 of H.R. 4092. The ounce of prevention
council as currently proposed would consist of the Attorney General,
the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor,
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy. The Ounce of Prevention Council advises the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on making grants for various
programs to communities which have high incidence of crime and juvenile
delinquency. Program grants may be for education, recreation, job
placement, or substance abuse programs.
The Vento amendment would add the Secretary of the Interior to the
Ounce of Prevention Council because of the longstanding involvement of
the Secretary of the Interior in recreation and youth programs. The
principal statutory responsibility for outdoor recreation lies with the
Secretary of the Interior as do the largest Federal programs promoting
State and local recreation. These programs are the Land and Water
Conservation Fund [LWCF] Act of 1965 and the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Act [UPARR] of 1978. Together these two programs have provided
over $3.5 billion in funds to State and local governments for the
acquisition and development of park and recreation facilities and the
provision of recreation programs and services. The Secretary of
Interior has additional responsibilities and authorities for recreation
and youth development through the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 and
the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970.
The ounce of prevention grant program contained in subtitle B of the
title X of H.R. 4092 proposes park and recreation programs and
facilities in several sections. Recreation is an eligible use of
program funds; programs can be carried out on State or local parks and
recreation centers; and funds may be used to renovate recreation
facilities. The Department of the Interior has operated recreation
grant programs for a total of 45 years. This experience and the
longstanding statutory responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior
for recreation and youth programs makes the addition of the Secretary
to the Ounce of Prevention Council an appropriate and meritorious idea.
Mr. Chairman, some provisions in the measure and the votes of the
House concern me, they demonstrate that significant misunderstanding
exist regarding the antisocial behavior and the criminal justice
system. Federalizing a crime is not an automatic solution. The death
penalty in my view is an admission of frustration not a solution. So
often our society in modern America is insulated and isolated, there
does not appear to be much empathy or understanding of the social
conditions and plight of significant populations and sectors of our
society. The dehumanizing, antisocial behavior of the criminals and
inexplicable actions should be met by the reason of law deliberation
not retribution.
Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations about several provisions of the
crime bill, I believe it is a strong and comprehensive bill which
strikes a good balance between tougher law enforcement and crime
prevention programs. I urge Members to vote in favor of H.R. 4092 and
hope that a conference of the House and Senate can correct some of the
outstanding problems with the House and Senate passed measures.
{time} 1340
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Kennelly) 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, he reported the bill back to the House with
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. MCCOLLUM
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCollum of Florida moves to recommit the bill (H.R.
4092) to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to
report the bill back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Strike title IX and insert the following:
TITLE IX--EQUAL JUSTICE ACT
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Justice Act''.
Sec. 902. PROHIBITION OF RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES
CONCERNING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR OTHER
PENALTIES.
(a) General Rules.--The penalty of death and all other
penalties shall be administered by the United States and by
every State without regard to the race or color of the
defendant or victim. Neither the United States nor any State
shall prescribe any racial quota or statistical test for the
imposition or execution of the death penalty or any other
penalty.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act--
(1) the action of the United States or of a State includes
the action of any legislative, judicial, executive,
administrative, or other agency or instrumentality of the
United States or a State, or of any political subdivision of
the United States or a State;
(2) the term ``State'' has the meaning given in section 541
of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the term ``racial quota or statistical test'' includes
any law, rule, presumption, goal, standard for establishing a
prima facie case, or mandatory or permissive inference that--
(A) requires or authorizes the imposition or execution of
the death penalty or another penalty so as to achieve a
specified racial proportion relating to offenders, convicts,
defendants, arrestees, or victims; or
(B) requires or authorizes the invalidation of, or bars the
execution of, sentences of death or other penalties based on
the failure of a jurisdiction to achieve a specified racial
proportion relating to offenders, convicts, defendants,
arrestees, or victims in the imposition or execution of such
sentences or penalties.
SEC. 903. GENERAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST RACIAL PREJUDICE OR BIAS
IN THE TRIBUNAL.
In a criminal trial in a court of the United States, or of
any State--
(1) on motion of the defense attorney or prosecutor, the
risk of racial prejudice or bias shall be examined on voir
dire if there is a substantial likelihood in the
circumstances of the case that such prejudice or bias will
affect the jury either against or in favor of the defendant;
(2) on motion of the defense attorney or prosecutor, a
change of venue shall be granted if an impartial jury cannot
be obtained in the original venue because of racial prejudice
or bias; and
(3) neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney shall
make any appeal to racial prejudice or bias in statements
before the jury.
SEC. 904. FEDERAL CAPITAL CASES.
(a) Jury Instructions and Certification.--In a prosecution
for an offense against the United States in which a sentence
of death is sought, and in which the capital sentencing
determination is to be made by a jury, the judge shall
instruct the jury that it is not to be influenced by
prejudice or bias relating to the race or color of the
defendant or victim in considering whether a sentence of
death is justified, and that the jury is not to recommend the
imposition of a sentence of death unless it has concluded
that it would recommend the same sentence for such a crime
regardless of the race or color of the defendant or victim.
Upon the return of a recommendation of a sentence of death,
the jury shall also return a certificate, signed by each
juror, that the juror's individual decision was not affected
by prejudice or bias relating to the race or color of the
defendant or victim, and that the individual juror would have
made the same recommendation regardless of the race or color
of the defendant or victim.
(b) Racially Motivated Killings.--In a prosecution for an
offense against the United States for which a sentence of
death is authorized, the fact that the killing of the victim
was motivated by racial prejudice or bias shall be deemed an
aggravating factor whose existence permits consideration of
the death penalty, in addition to any other aggravating
factors that may be specified by law as permitting
consideration of the death penalty.
(c) Killings in Violation of Civil Rights Statutes.--
Sections 241, 242, and 245(b) of title 18, United States
Code, are each amended by striking ``shall be subject to
imprisonment for any term of years or for life'' and
inserting ``shall be punished by death or imprisonment for
any term of years or for life''.
SEC. 905. EXTENSION OF PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES.
(a) Section 241 Amendment.--Section 241 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``inhabitant of'' and
inserting ``person in''.
(b) Section 242 Amendment.--Section 242 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``inhabitant of'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``person in'', and by striking
``such inhabitant'' and inserting ``such person''.
Mr. McCOLLUM (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
Theree was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, what we are here today right now for is
on a motion to recommit with instructions. Those of us on our side of
the aisle could have offered a lot of things in this motion to recommit
that we have not done today.
We are very concerned, as you know, about the 40 years of consecutive
control of this House by one political party, the Democrat party, and
the fact you did not in your Committee on Rules allow us the
opportunity to offer an amendment that would have changed the rules of
evidence so we could have avoided in criminal cases a lot of technical
impediments to getting convictions. We have been very upset we did not
get out of your Committee on Rules the opportunity to offer an
amendment that would help us deport criminal aliens, that comprise 25
percent of the prison population of this country. And a lot of us are
concerned that we do not have in this bill sufficient guarantees that
the States will actually go to truth in sentencing, to end the
revolving door that is spinning out those that are repeat convicted
violent felons in return for the grant money that is in this bill.
But we are not offering any of those things in this motion to
recommit today. We are offering only one thing, because we think this
is not a partisan issue. It is too important.
We are offering only one thing in this motion to recommit today,
because we do not think that it is something that can be put on the
table as a partisan matter. It is too darn important. It is a motion to
recommit with instructions to revote the McCollum amendment on the
Equal Justice Act that we had a vote on yesterday that was a virtual
tie.
The reason why this is so important was expressed this morning in a
headline in the Philadelphia Enquirer, and I call all of my colleagues'
attention to it. The headline reads, ``House approves racial bias test
for death penalty.'' The subheadline reads, ``Nearly 4,000 death row
convicts could try to use the provision. Hundreds could escape
execution.''
The bottom line is that if this proposal I am offering right now
fails to pass today, we will effectively end the death penalty in the
36 states of the Union where it is under law today applicable to give
capital punishment.
Now, that is not just my view. That is a nonpartisan view. This is
the view of some 7,000 State and local prosecutors who have expressed
that to us from the National District Attorneys Association.
I have before me today a letter dated April 20 signed by William C.
O'Malley from the National District Attorneys Association that says:
We strongly urge the House of Representatives to recommit
with instructions to repeal title IX, the Racial Justice Act
of the crime bill, H.R. 4092.
This particular letter said:
While this legislation is entitled to invoke racial
connotations, it is in fact patently designed to end the use
of the death penalty in this country.
That is what 7,000 district attorneys in this country say about the
bill as it is unamended today. It says further that this legislation
places an impossible burden on the prosecutors to prove a negative. It
raises an inference of discrimination on the basis of statistics that
are impossible for the prosecutor to overcome.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that this is not a black
and white issue. This is a fact that even white capital punishment
people on death row today could claim this and get out from under their
particular burden of being on death row. It is a matter of
jurisdiction, not case-by-case. Not the individual case question on
discrimination, but if the jurisdiction has. It is a very wrong, wrong
thing, that the States attorneys of this country understand is
virtually impossible.
This is not a partisan issue, because there are 33 States attorneys
general who want this same thing done today. They want this motion to
recommit with instructions to pass, because they understand the death
penalty will be effectively repealed. And 18 of the 33 signers of this
attorneys general letter are Democrats. Eighteen of the 33.
This is not a partisan issue to the law enforcement community of this
country. It is an issue to restore the death penalty as we know it.
I also have a letter from the Law Enforcement Alliance of America
representing 40,000 law enforcement professionals, who say:
The Nation's law enforcement professionals urge you to
support Congressman McCollum's proposal to recommit this
bill.
There is very little more that will anyone could say about this,
except to say to Members that you are not going to vote on a procedural
matter here today in the next couple of minutes. You are going to vote
on a motion to recommit with instructions, the effect of which is to
immediately amend this bill, to put the Equal Justice Act in place of
what is in the bill today. That would end the death penalty. It is a
vote on whether or not we are going to restore the death penalty, that
would otherwise be removed by this bill.
Make no mistake about it: Not a single Member of this body can hide
behind the fact that this vote might be technical or procedural in
nature. As soon as this motion is carried, we will have final passage
on this bill, as amended with these dastardly provisions of this bill
that would strike the death penalty removed.
I urge my colleagues in no uncertain terms to send a message that the
American public wants, that we do demand that we have back in the laws
of this country and put in full force and effect the deterrent effect
of the death penalty, and that we not allow in the name of so-called
racial justice that we strike out the entire provisions of the death
penalty.
I would remind you of one other thing: Despite what my good friend
the Majority Leader said out here on the floor yesterday, this is
retroactive. It does apply to every death row inmate today in our
prison system, and every single one of them, white or black, would be
off the hook, unless you vote for the motion to recommit that I have
offered today. Please vote yes. Please protect the death penalty. Let
us not have a bad bill out here today.
{time} 1350
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Brooks] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This motion makes the sixth time that the other side of the aisle has
seen fit to try and derail through procedural tactics the toughest,
most carefully structured crime bill to come out of the House in 20
years. The effort to stall movement of the crime bill first began as an
effort to try and defeat the rule at the very beginning of the debate,
even though that rule permitted 68 amendments going to every major
plank of the bill.
The same negative effort was next seen in a series of unprecedented
motions to rise and to ``strike after the enacting clause.'' All went
down to inglorious and appropriate defeat.
At the end of the process, we now witness the latest reincarnation of
their efforts to stop the crime bill with a motion to recommit with
instructions.
As we all know, the motion to recommit contains language that has
already been voted down by this body. Yet the other side persisted in
denying the truth recognized by all objective observers. The bill now
poised to pass the House represents a breakthrough effort to achieve a
balance between hard-nosed punishment and forward-looking prevention.
I want to address the misleading headline about racial justice from
the article the gentleman referred to from the Philadelphia Inquirer,
an article where orientation seems to the right of Attila the Hun. The
sub-headline blares out: 4,000 death row convicts could escape
execution if racial justice is enacted.
Well, I want to tell my colleagues, just as I said it in committee,
and as I said it on the floor; I will tell you again: I am going to
support no retroactivity in that racial justice provision. It will not
be in the conference report if I bring it back. Members can just bank
on it. We are not going to have it in that conference report, if I sign
it.
Now, another thing I want to tell Members, the wide array of Members
from both sides of the aisle who have contributed substantially to this
package need to stand firm and resist this last gasp attempt to split
open and stall the crime legislation.
The product is one about which we can all be proud. It shows the
value of expertise and experience in crafting legislation that will do
the job at the community and neighborhood level and not just on the
television screen with the 10-second sound bite.
Now, for the sixth time, I would ask my colleagues to opt for forward
movement. Vote no on this procedural ploy. Let us get on with passing
the crime bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Criminal Justice.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Speaker, this is an historic moment. For the first
time this body is recognizing the anguish out on the streets that
hollers to us, do something about crime.
We are tough on punishment. We are smart on prevention. This bill
should not be deterred by the ideologies of the far left or the far
right.
The racial justice provision is fair and balanced without any
retroactivity. We cannot turn this bill back to committee. This is an
historic moment.
Reject the motion to recommit. Pass this bill and for once make
America proud of this Congress.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished majority
leader of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Speaker, the final votes, the final judgment on
this bill approaches. I urge Members to vote against the motion to
recommit and to vote for the bill.
This is not a perfect bill from anyone's viewpoint in this Chamber,
but I argue to my colleagues that it is a good bill for everyone here
and for our country.
It encompasses punishment in terms of prisons and sentences and
police, and it encompasses prevention in terms of drug treatment and
education and training, to keep people from committing crimes before
they move to do that.
Everyone knows we must do both, and everyone here has worked to put
together a piece of legislation that is good for this country.
Yesterday we added racial justice, and it was the right thing to do.
It will not be retroactive, but it will keep the respect and the faith
of all of our people in our great criminal justice system.
When members vote, I hope they will not be looking at each provision
and each process and each thing that they may like or not like but keep
in their mind the young 11-year-old girl here in the District who said
she dreams not of her prom dress but of the dress she will wear in her
coffin, to think in their minds of the families of the children who
have been killed, the victims of violence.
Vote against the motion to recommit. Vote for the bill and vote for
the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 235, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 143]
AYES--192
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Darden
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lancaster
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Machtley
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Ridge
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Hoyer
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--5
Andrews (NJ)
Fish
Gallo
Grandy
Lewis (CA)
{time} 1415
Mr. SISISKY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285,
noes 141, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
AYES--285
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Ridge
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Snowe
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--141
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bliley
Boehner
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Castle
Clay
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Deal
DeLay
Dellums
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Ford (MI)
Gekas
Geren
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastings
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kyl
Lewis (FL)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oberstar
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Penny
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Rangel
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Rush
Sabo
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Velazquez
Vucanovich
Walker
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--7
Andrews (NJ)
Fish
Furse
Gallo
Grandy
Lewis (CA)
Slattery
{time} 1432
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Ms. FURSE. Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently delayed during the
passage of the bill, on the recorded vote on final passage. Had I been
here, I would have voted ``aye,'' and I ask that the record show that I
would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 4092.
personal explanation
Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed
the vote on final passage on H.R. 4092.
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 401, I call up from the Speaker's desk the bill, H.R. 3355,
with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
motion offered by mr. brooks
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 401, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brooks moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the
bill H.R. 3355 with an amendment consisting of the text of
the bill H.R. 4092 as passed by the House and to amend the
title to read as follows: ``The Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
The motion was agreed to.
Appointment of Conferees to House Amendments to Senate Amendment to
H.R. 3355
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 401, I offer
a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Brooks moves that the House insist on its amendments to
the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3355 and request a
conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
The motion was agreed to.
motion to instruct conferees
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the
bill H.R. 3355 be instructed to insist on the provision of
the House amendment that authorizes $10.5 billion for grants
for State prison construction and operation and agree to the
provisions of the Senate that requires States to change their
laws to require that defendants serve at least 85 percent of
the sentence ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Brooks] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, of those things that are in this bill we just passed,
the one that drives the most important train, the one that is the one
the public is most interested in, I would suggest, of all these things
out there today is the provision the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman]
offered, which would require us to produce $10.5 billion in grant money
for the construction of sufficient prison space in conjunction with the
States to be able to house repeat violent offenders of this country who
have come forward and caused all of the problems that we are reading
about in our newspapers and seeing on television every night.
Six percent of the criminals of this country commit about 70 percent
of the violent crimes and are getting out after serving, as many of us
have said on the floor in the past few days, only about one-third of
their sentences. If we are really going to get at the problem of
violent crime in this country, we must have the laws of this country
changed so that we lock up those people who are that 6 percent who are
getting out through the revolving door and committing violent crime
after violent crime after violent crime.
We need to lock them up and throw away the keys, it is as simple as
that.
The money is in the House bill; the language in the Senate bill is
compatible with that. We need to put the two of those together,
whatever else comes out of this crime bill when the two bodies go to
conference, and make sure that the final product that comes to the
floor of the House and the Senate for ultimate confirmation by our
bodies as a crime bill in this session is one which does what the
public wants and takes that 6 percent who are going through the
revolving door committing all these violent repeat offenses off the
streets. There is no other way that I know how to emphasize this other
than to move to instruct the conferees as I have today.
It is a very simple motion. It goes to that portion of the Chapman
proposal in the House bill that authorizes $10.5 billion for grants for
State prison construction and operation and urges us to insist on that
provision and agree to the provisions in the Senate bill that require
the States to change their laws in order to get assistance, to serve at
least 85 percent of their sentences.
We have talked about this for days. I think the issue at hand is
engaged and is very simple. I think the vote should be very simple. We
ought to vote positively on this, affirmatively to do what is necessary
to make sure that the final product does precisely this.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and rise in opposition.
Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. I think it is generally a waste of time to
instruct conferees, to be honest about it; generally I have found both
Republicans and Democrats are sort of independent of mind once they get
appointed to the conference committee.
I would say that this effort is a continuation of the gentleman from
Florida's effort to soak up all of the money that he can in a given
area which would come out of the preventive programs, because you have
just a fixed amount of money in the trust fund from which they would be
drawn.
When you limit the States and require them to serve at least 85
percent of the sentences ordered, and when you work on these
limitations for a State, you make it impossible for them to get any
immediate help.
So, what we are doing is putting more money in, and as my friend, the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] said during the full
committee, ``We are going to bless `em and curse `em at the same
time.''
{time} 1440
Madam Speaker, I say, ``You put in more money, make it impossible for
them to get it.''
I think that this is a foolish instruction. The States have
vigorously opposed the Federal mandates contained in the McCollum
amendment and reflected in this effort, and I would say that the cost
of these mandates would be enormous for them, $20, $30, even $40 for
every dollar they get in Federal grants.
It is a Hobson's choice, as I said before. I think we should not
instruct the conferees. Rely on the Republican and Democrat conferees
to do that which is best in conjunction with the Senate in an effort to
work out this bill, and bring it back to the floor in an even better
shape and, maybe, more economically structured.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve 4
years in the district attorney's office in the Harris County area,
Houston, the fourth largest city in the country. We did a better job in
those days of making sure that a criminal served more of the sentence
they were given; not good enough, but a better job than we have been
able to do in recent times, and people in Houston know all too well
that early parole has seen crime ravage across our city, and the State
has tried to respond. But under this motion, Madam Speaker, my State of
Texas could not in the timeframe meet the requirements. We would be
left out. To mandate this kind of 85 percent requirement on Texas
without the funds to build more prison space would hurt our State badly
and hurt the efforts that those citizens in Texas are trying to do, and
that is to make sure that as a goal that criminals serve the full time
of their sentence.
This is not a good way to do this. This is going to hurt States that
are earnestly trying to build more prisons and do it within their
budget.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Chapman].
Mr. CHAPMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Brooks] for yielding this time to me, and I want to say that while I
appreciate the intentions and the motives I think which I understand
and agree with of the gentleman from Florida, I am afraid that the
motion that we are currently considering is not the way to accomplish
what it is I think we both want to accomplish.
As my colleague from Texas has pointed out, my State of Texas could
not comply with the provisions if this motion were to be acted on or
become the rule of the House conferees.
Besides that, I think what this does is it take some of the good
provisions of the crime bill that we have passed and basically
instructs the House to require a mandate of State conduct and a State
legislative result that would fit what we here in Washington think it
ought to be. This is not the way to do this.
We all, I think, agree overwhelmingly, having voted, that we want
States to incarcerate violent criminals for longer periods of time, and
I have no quarrel with 85 percent of their sentence being the goal. But
if we are going to construct prison space to hold the most violent
criminals in our society, we ought to get about that, and, if States
are meeting the truth in sentencing goals, then we ought not to punish
those States that cannot automatically move to an 85-percent threshold
requirement.
So, Madam Speaker, while I want to work with the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum], and I appreciate his motives here, I am afraid
the motion in this particular instance is one that would tie the hands
of our conferees, would be much too restrictive and would, quite
honestly, make it impossible for many of our larger States to comply.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
I yield another minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] so
that he will have the time.
Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I talked in the past
about doing everything we can to get to a good-faith result by the
States, even if we do not tie the hands, and, as the gentleman knows,
we are going into conference where a lot of different things can happen
because the Senate and House versions are very differing in this whole
area of the prison construction and so on.
Does the gentleman generally concur in the basic principle that we
should encourage the States to do this and to make a good-faith effort
to, in fact, go to truth in sentencing and get the 85-percent
requirement?
Mr. CHAPMAN. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman knows that I am a
strong proponent of the States moving toward truth in sentencing, and,
as we had discussed earlier today, I will strongly support the level of
funding that is currently in the House bill, at least as provided by
the Chapman amendment for this effort.
So, I want to work with the gentleman from Florida to strengthen the
truth in sentencing provisions and hope that we can do so.
My fear is that drawing a line at 85-percent and mandating our
conferees to hold out for that line ties the hands, in effect, of the
chairman of the committee and might tie the hands of the gentleman from
Florida to work a result that we would agree would be good.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The time of the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Chapman] has expired.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume in order to continue this.
I just simply want to state that the reason why this motion to
instruct conferees is drafted the way it is is under technical rules
that I have been informed we have to do we can only instruct and insist
or agree on things that are already there either in our House version
or in the Senate version, and ideally we will blend together some of
the better of both versions, and so consequently the only way we can
send a message today that we want to get towards that 85 percent and do
what the gentleman and I both want to do is the way I have drafted this
particular motion to instruct. That is the reason. It is not to say any
more than some of the amendments that have been adopted out here today
under some concurrence that we will be absolutely going to go to a
rigidity in whatever the final version is. But technically this is the
only way that we could do it.
I wanted the gentleman to know that. I trust that any opposition he
has is purely technical as well.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CHAPMAN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and I say my objections are to
the fact that I think the motion is too restrictive. I think that the
gentleman from Florida, along with the chairman and this gentleman, are
going to work to do the very best we can. I think we agree on the goal.
I just think we ought not to pass a motion which ties the hands of our
conferees. We ought to maintain the flexibility to accomplish what it
is I think we agree about.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, I might say this much to the
gentleman, that he and I continue to differ, as we did when his motion,
his amendment, was out, and mine was out on the floor earlier. There
is, to me, the bottom line need, that we do as much as possible to get
the States to actually enact laws that are going to ensure, when they
build these new prisons, that they put away the prisoner to serve 85
percent of their sentences. That is a target goal, that is what the
Federal law is today, and abolishing parole, and only leaving a little
amount for good time instead of allowing these repeat violent offenders
off after they serve only about a third of their sentences. We must get
assurances, not just that the States are going to do, you know, have
the money, and go out and do what they are going to do to build more
beds to house prisoners for serving 40, or 25, or whatever percent of
their term, but they are really going to, in conjunction with building
these prisons, make sure these 6 percent of the criminals who commit 70
percent of the violent crimes serve the 85 percent of their sentence.
So, that is the purpose of this motion to instruct, and there is no
other way that is left for this body to speak on it other than that.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER of California. My colleagues, this is not a debate on
whether we are tying the hands of the conferees, and it is not a debate
over whether the States want to do it or do not want to do it. It is
not a debate over how much it costs to build a prison cell. It is a
debate over howl how long felons will stay in prison.
Violent felons are serving 6 years for murder, less for rape; the
public is angry about it, and what are we debating? Whether the
conferees are going to have their hands tied.
My colleagues, it is lucky they do not have a guillotine out in
Hometown U.S.A. because it would not be the hands they would be tying.
We have to decide whether we want violent repeat offenders to stay in
prison. We have tried determinant sentences, we have tried
indeterminate sentences, we have tried prison work to rehabilitate the
lesser prisoners, we have tried incarcerating them in warehouses, just
holding them for years, and, as my colleagues know, the average felon
gets off in 24 months, the average violent felon gets off in around 5
years.
I say to my colleagues, It's time. Let's pass McCollum. Let's give
them 85 percent.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Brooks] for yielding this time to me, and I urge that this motion to
instruct be rejected for a very simple and practical reason.
Now I certainly agree that we should have mandatory minimum sentences
and have fought in the bill to keep them in, and I also believe that
truth in sentencing makes sense, but it has to be thought out.
What this bill would mean, this instruction if it were adopted, would
be that just about every major State would be unable to get the money
because it requires States, particularly those like mine with
indeterminate sentences, 5 to 20, or whatever else, to put people,
incarcerate people, for a longer time than they have the space for.
{time} 1450
Now, if that is done after 10 years with the money that we provide
that would be a goal to get to, fine, but they do not. It is sort of
like the cart before the horse. It says, ``If you can't meet your goal,
you don't get the money.'' So major States, New York, Texas, and
California, and my guess is, the State of the sponsor, the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], would under this instruction not be able
to get any of the money to build any prisons. So for that reason, it is
counterproductive.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, this is the kind of thing we have tried to
avoid in this crime bill. What we have tried to do in this crime bill
is to do things that work, not do things that ideologically ring our
bells or press our buttons--everyone does that, whether they are left,
right, or center--but things that would actually make the streets
safer.
Building prisons, I believe, will make the streets safer, but saying,
You don't get money unless you can do A, B, and C, and knowing the
States would not be able to raise taxes to get that money does not make
the streets safer; it makes the people feel good.
In the interest of fairness, in the interest of responsibility, in
the interest of continuing to provide that this bill moves along in the
practical sense of doing punishment things that work and prevention
things that work, I urge that this motion to instruct be rejected.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume in order to respond to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer], and then I am going to yield time to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
First of all, Madam Speaker, I understand where the gentleman from
New York is coming from, and I have great respect for him, but I
disagree with him in the debate we had during the consideration of
amendments on this bill, and I strenuously disagree out here today with
his characterization of the situation we would be in with the States if
the 85-percent rule were to be adopted, that is, if we required States
to move to laws that require their prisoners to serve at least 85
percent of their sentence if they are repeat violent felons in order to
get the grant money in this program.
The fact of the matter is that the grant money in this program pays
for whatever they have to do to be able to comply, and it is very
simple logic, it seems to me, that seems to be escaping the gentleman
from New York that we have $10.5 billion here which the Federal Bureau
of Prisons says is plenty of money to build that which is necessary in
the States if they wish to do so to incarcerate repeat violent felons
for 85 percent of their terms.
So I do not see why there would be any delay at all in the process.
Every State in the Union that wanted to get this money and be able to
build their prisons and incarcerate their folks for the 85 percent
duration would be able to do it, and there would not be any problem. We
are providing the money. That is the whole idea here. It is the carrot,
it is the incentive, the money that is in here to build these prisons
to get the States to make these changes in their laws. And if they do
not make the changes in their laws, why are we doing it? Why are we
providing the money for the prisons? I ask that because the objective
again is to get these people to serve their time. So the gentleman's
logic escapes me.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, what I think is really puzzling is
that many who have made very strong arguments in behalf of the $10.5
billion more in Federal money to help build prisons that can be used to
house State and local prisoners as well as Federal prisoners are now
arguing and saying that we cannot require that 85 percent of the
sentence be served.
One of the reasons why the taxpayers are being asked to spend a huge
additional amount to build prisons is to try to cut down on the
revolving door, where those who have been convicted and sentenced for
crimes of violence against their fellow human beings get out after
serving only a small fraction of their sentences because there is not
enough prison space and we have to free up that space for somebody else
to go in there. It seems to me that we ought to have some kind of quid
pro quo, because if we spend $10.5 billion to build more prisons and
the violent offenders get out as they have been getting out, then the
taxpayers are taken for a ride again and the streets are not going to
be safer.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is correct in tying these
two things, that unlike many of the unfunded mandates that have come
out of this place, this is a funded mandate, $10.5 billion worth of
funding providing that the States change their laws to make sure these
violent offenders stay in jail a longer period of time. That is a good
deal for the taxpayers. It is a good deal to make the streets safer and
it is something that deserves an aye vote by every Member in this
debate today.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, do I as the proponent of this motion
have the right to close debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Then, Madam Speaker, I reserve my time. I only have the
time left for myself to close.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the chairman of a subcommittee
of the great Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HUGHES. Madam Speaker, the McCollum amendment asks us to buy a
pig in a poke. That is what we are going to buy, because McCollum
basically says we are going to ensure that States change their laws to
require that the defendants serve at least 85-percent of the sentence
prescribed in accordance with Senate amendments to the bill.
Well, the Senate, in addition to having the 85-percent rule, as the
gentleman knows, also requires sentencing guidelines, which we have had
in effect for just a few years. Some States have picked it up, and some
have not. So here we are, we are going to tell the States they have to
implement the 85-percent rule and they also have to implement
sentencing guidelines.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that? I
could get the gentleman more time if he desired.
Mr. HUGHES. I will yield in just a minute.
Mr. McCOLLUM. My point is only simply that I would not require the
sentencing guidelines.
Mr. HUGHES. Madam Speaker, that is the way the gentleman's language
reads, I would suggest to the gentleman. But let us just deal with the
85-percent rule.
This is far broader than the original McCollum amendment. The
McCollum amendment that the gentleman offered on the floor just a few
days ago only dealt with second-time violent offenders. This deals with
all types of violent offenders, first offenders, second offenders, and
so forth, and it has a number of flaws. No. 1, what McCollum is saying
is that if you are in a State--and you probably are--that does not have
85 percent truth in sentencing, you get no prison money, none, not one
penny. You can have an 85.2-percent truth in sentencing in practice and
in procedure in your State, and you get zilch, nothing. The gentleman's
own State of Florida under the amendment he has offered would get
nothing. They have about a 75-percent rate.
Many States throughout this country have indeterminate sentences.
Idaho is a good example. In Idaho, State Senator Darrington, who is
chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee in Idaho, testified the
State of Idaho would have to change 40 of its laws to get this money
under the 85-percent rule. That is ridiculous.
If we want to build prisons for violent offenders, we need to reject
McCollum. We are not going to build any prisons with McCollum.
McCollum's arbitrary formula of 85 percent is inflexible. You either
meet it or you do not, and I am not sure there are any districts in
this country or any States that would comply with the 85-percent rule
today. I believe there are not. So if we believe that we need to build
more prisons around this country to house violent offenders, we need to
reject McCollum.
Besides, McCollum has another series flaw, and that is that 85
percent of an inadequate sentence is very inadequate, so it is not
truth in sentencing that is one of our biggest problems. One of the
biggest problems around this country is that we are not imposing
sufficient sentences on violent offenders, and what we are saying is
that basically that does not matter in McCollum. That is why in the
committee bill, which is the product of numerous hearings held in a
bipartisan fashion, we reviewed testimony and fashioned a bill that
moves us in the direction where we do have truth in sentencing and
provisions in the bill that require truth in sentencing. It requires
any State to submit to the Attorney General a comprehensive plan that
deals not just with truth in sentencing but with the appropriate
sentence for violent offenders. It also has provisions in the bill that
require a better classification of violent offenders to track them when
they are in the system.
{time} 1500
That is why the committee bill, which was the result of a lot of
thought, a lot of testimony, is a far better approach, and it will
build more prisons for violent offenders.
Finally, the reason the Governors around this country are so
vehemently opposed to McCollum, and you know it from your
correspondence, is because his provision does not make sense. Here we
are telling the prisons, which are not all the same throughout the
country, that you have got to comply with this arbitrary 85-percent
rule. That makes no sense. Reject McCollum. You have done it once, and
we want you to reject McCollum again. This is worse than McCollum I.
McCollum II makes no sense.
Mr. BROOKS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to conclude.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to respond briefly to the gentleman from New
Jersey, whom I have great respect for. We have debated a lot of issues
over the years.
Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct is not at all comprehensive in
nature. It is not a repeat of any amendments on the floor. It does not
affect 99 percent of what is in the bill relative to prisons, grant
programs, or conditions. It leaves the Hughes language alone. It leaves
the Chapman language alone.
It only suggests two simple principles. It suggests when we go to
conference with the Senate, that the House insist on the full funding,
the $10.5 billion, and not cut it down to three or six or eight. Give
the States enough money in these grant programs to really do the job
that the Bureau of Prisons say is needed to lock up and keep
incarcerated these violent repeat offenders that the States have out
there. That is enough to build the beds they say are needed.
It does say let us accept the Senate language only to the extent that
the Senate language involves a requirement on the States to get this
money, that they change their laws to make sure these prisoners do
indeed serve the 85 percent.
What could be simpler? Nothing more complicated. No huge mandate or
requirement; just plain common sense. That is what the American people
would like to see out of this crime bill. They wanted to see the States
change their laws. And they wanted to see the States have enough
resources to be able to build the prison space so they can change the
laws to make sure that we take the 6 percent who are serving 70 percent
of the violent crimes off the streets, and instead of serving only a
measly 30 or 40 percent of their sentences, stay in jail and serve
essentially their full sentences, at least 85 percent.
That is all this motion to instruct does. Somebody has tried to make
it out like it is a very complicated thing, and it is not.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the motion to instruct
the conferees to do this. There are a lot of other things we debated on
this bill, but this is simple. We can go ahead and have these debates
some other day. I did not vote for the final passage of the bill
because I think it still contains provisions that would essentially
abolish the death penalty. But I do favor the provisions that will get
us to truth in sentencing.
I urge my colleagues make sure that we get the best of the House and
Senate in the final version. Vote for McCollum to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kennelly). The question is on the
motion to instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 222, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
AYES--191
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (TX)
Baesler
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Inglis
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pickle
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--19
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Barton
Calvert
Dellums
Fish
Ford (MI)
Gallo
Grandy
Houghton
LaFalce
Lehman
Lewis (CA)
McNulty
Murphy
Ridge
Talent
Thomas (CA)
Washington
{time} 1524
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Thomas of California for, with Mr. Dellums against.
Mr. VENTO, Ms. DANNER, and Messrs. LANCASTER, EHLERS, and BERMAN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. SCHENK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Brooks, Edwards of California, Hughes, Schumer, Conyers,
Synar, Moorhead, Hyde, Sensenbrenner, and McCollum.
____________________