[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     may not later be withdrawn, and credit that has not been 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.

                          ____________________