[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to instruct 
conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  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 not to agree to any provision 
     similar to subtitle I, relating to the Local Partnership Act, 
     of to any provision similar to it, of title X of the House 
     amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that I will represent 
the opposition to this motion to instruct conferees.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This motion to instruct conferees of the House on the crime bill that 
is going on is to not agree to the Local Partnership Act or to anything 
similar to it based on a need that I believe, and I think, many Members 
do not set priorities in spending in this crime legislation.
  The chairman's mark I have seen is going to spend about $30 billion 
of money. A good portion of that money is going to social or prevention 
programs, some of which are very good and noble, some of which I agree 
with.
  The problem is that only a fraction of what needs to be spent of the 
total amount of money there for dealing with prisons and dealing with 
the real law enforcement issues is put off in the mark as we now see 
it.
  In the House version that passed out to go to conference, over $10 
billion was set aside for so-called prevention programs. Again, some of 
that is fine. If we had all the money in the world to spend, we would 
certainly do a lot of these programs. But I think every Member of this 
body understands that that is not the case.

  When the conferees come down to it, they are going to have to make 
some very tough decisions. I am a conferee, a number of Members on both 
sides of the aisle are conferees to a conference that has not yet met. 
It seems to me we need to understand that and set those priorities at 
least to give some guidance to setting those priorities to our Members 
of the conference now.
  This motion to instruct is an effort to do that. The $2 billion Local 
Partnership Act is a grant program for the cities and local communities 
that does purportedly a number of things. The money might be for 
education to prevent crime, for substance abuse treatment to prevent 
crime, for coordination of crime prevention programs funded under this 
title with other existing Federal program to meet the overall needs of 
communities that benefit from funds received under this section, of job 
programs to prevent crime, a pretty broad possibility here.
  The bottom line of it is that it just does not make sense to go 
forward with a $2 billion program that is basically a jobs program, 
which is what I see this is being, when we have so many higher 
priorities, when we have such a high rate of crime and violent crime in 
this country and a better place to send the money.
  There was a very interesting editorial in the June 13 issue of the 
Wall Street Journal written by Stephen Moore, and I will just quote a 
little bit from that particular op-ed piece Mr. Moore published.
  He said:

       Don't look now, but after 18 months in office, Bill Clinton 
     is finally going to get his long-awaited fiscal stimulus bill 
     through Congress. This year the White House and big-city 
     mayors have used an ingenious marketing strategy. They call 
     it a crime bill. In fact, it is a well-kept secret on Capitol 
     Hill that this year's crime bill is the largest urban cash 
     program to come through Congress since Richard Nixon invented 
     revenue sharing.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. Moore goes on in part of his op-ed piece to point out the $2 
billion program that I would wish us to instruct conferees to delete. 
He says:

       Some $2 billion would be allocated to the Local Partnership 
     Act of LPA which is revenue sharing. The flow of Federal 
     funds to State programs resurrected under another name. In 
     truth it is worse than revenue sharing, because part of the 
     formula for distributing the cash is based on local tax 
     burdens. The more oppressive the local tax regime the more 
     money the city get from Uncle Sam. This rewards cities for 
     high taxation. For the cities this is a big gift. For the 
     urban lobby, the LPA promises to become Uncle Sam's gift that 
     never stops giving.

  And that is exactly what I see that is wrong with this.
  The Local Partnership Act with its focus on a community's affluence, 
unemployment level and rate of taxation should be considered as part of 
an economic stimulus package, not part of a crime bill. The limited 
resources of the violent crime reduction trust fund, which will be set 
up in this crime bill whenever a conference report is issued must not 
be used for this program. It just does not make sense. The 
Local Partnership Act contains a quota provision for disadvantaged 
business enterprises. Not less than 10 percent obligated by the local 
government must go to small business concerns controlled by socially 
and economically disadvantaged individuals and women, and historically 
black colleges and universities and other colleges and universities 
with a student body that is 20 percent Hispanic Americans or native 
Americans. Instead of setting quotas in social spending programs, the 
crime conferees should be concerned with the figures that really matter 
in the fight against violent crime. According to the FBI Uniform Crime 
Reports, in 1991, 22,540 people were murdered, 11,175 of those victims 
were black. In 1992, 21,505 people were murdered, 10,660 of these 
victims were black. Blacks account for 12.4 percent of the population 
but were 49.6 percent of the murder victims in 1991 and 1992. These are 
alarming statistics. Given these facts and the limited resources to 
fight violent crime in this country, would not those who are apt to be 
victims of crime want to have the limited resources spent to put these 
violent criminals behind bars instead of spending it on a new social 
program which we are talking about in this particular case?

  As the gentleman, Mr. Moore, said in his column, especially that is 
so since the structure of this program is designed strictly for urban 
areas and skewed to those with the highest tax rates. It just does not 
make sense. Of all the prevention programs in this particular 
legislation, this 50-page one in the House version that we sent over to 
conference, is the one that clearly had the most problems. If we want 
to take some of the money out of the prevention area, and I certainly 
think we should, we cannot begin to fund it all, we should instruct the 
conferees that this is where we want them to look, this is where we 
want them to take it out and not somewhere else. Again, that is the 
purpose of this.
  The overall chairman's mark that we have seen and again, we do not 
know what is going to come out of this conference. It was supposed to 
meet today, I do not know when it is going to meet. Every passing day 
is a problem for us. It is one violent crime every 22 seconds, one 
murder every 22 minutes, one forcible rape every 5 minutes, one 
aggravated assault every 28 seconds. And yet we cannot seem to get 
together as conferees and have a conference. It has been postponed a 
number of times.
  But when we do get together on this, the chairman's mark indicates 
that even if we took this $2 billion out there would be nearly $6 
billion left in prevention monies in the bill in addition to monies for 
prisons and so forth. We simply cannot afford to go this route. Beside 
this is a bad, bad particular program that this motion to instruct 
would strike or proposes to strike.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, we are here today on yet 
another motion to instruct conferees by my friend [Mr. McCollum], a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who only yesterday offered 
yet another motion to instruct the House conferees.
  Yesterday he insisted that the House revote the provision that we 
spend $13.5 billion for a particular part of the crime bill. today he 
comes forward again with yet another motion to instruct conferees, 
which is setting a new precedent for the use of this parliamentary tool 
in the House.
  Now he says that $2 billion is an excessive amount in the bill and 
that it is his intention that in the name of fiscal responsibility that 
we strike these $2 billion. Why?
  Well, because it is part of the prevention package in the crime bill 
which is one of the reasons that I supported the crime bill, because we 
have a balanced crime bill for the first time which deals not only with 
punishing criminals but creating additional police officers that would 
be federally funded. For the first time it is looking at the way that 
we might head off those who might be moving into criminal activities.
  So I am here to urge that this motion be rejected because the Local 
Partnership Act reaffirms our confidence in local government. We are 
saying that local governments at the city level and at the county level 
know at least as much about preventing crime as Washington does. So 
this provision passed by the House, supported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary would give our most needy urban and rural governments 
flexible Federal funds so that they could decide after a public hearing 
how they best prevent crime.
  Those who attack the Local Partnership Act at this stage of the game 
are really attacking their own local governments, they are really 
saying, we don't think you know how to prevent crime. We don't think 
the mayors and the police chiefs and the county law officers understand 
what this particular problem is. That is precisely why in a very 
specific prevention package we have the Local Partnership Act. We have 
determined by formula the way that this money should be going and it 
employs local self-help by giving more funds to local governments that 
have imposed high taxes upon themselves. I understand that is under 
criticism now by my friend. Who else would we want to reward more than 
those communities who have put a maximum tax upon themselves already. 
And that is now factored into the formula to determine how this money 
should be spread. It is a good idea. It is a very important concept.

  I would urge that we very quickly, as quickly as possible, vote to 
keep this program in the crime package and not to give the conferees 
any further instructions.
  As one of the conferees, I have been instructed to death on this 
bill. We had hearings, we had debate on the floor, we are now being 
confronted with a series of revisitations to the crime bill, one motion 
at a time. We have had a couple already. I do not know how many more 
are coming on.
  I too urge that we get the conference under way. I would like at this 
point to bring to my colleagues' attention a letter received from 
attorney General Janet Reno, and I would like to quote one paragraph.

       The Local Partnership Act is one of the important 
     prevention programs included in the House Crime Bill that 
     make the bill a balanced and common sense approach to 
     fighting crime. The program provides resources to local 
     governments, which are most familiar with local needs, to 
     take necessary steps to fight crime. It is supported by local 
     officials from across the country.
       It is important for Congress to include prevention programs 
     like the Local Partnership Act in the Crime Bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

  The text of the complete letter is as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Chairman, House Government Operations Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conyers: I am writing to you and Chairman 
     Brooks because I understand that a motion may be offered 
     today which would seek to instruct the House of 
     Representatives' conferees on the Crime Bill to reject the 
     Local Partnership Act--which was included in the Crime Bill 
     that passed the House in April. I urge the House to reject 
     the Motion to Instruct.
       The Administration supports passage of the Local 
     Partnership Act as part of a comprehensive Crime Bill which 
     should also include, among other key provisions, a funding 
     mechanism to ensure that the bill's promises will be 
     achieved; assistance to state and local communities to help 
     them put an additional 100,000 police officers on our 
     nation's streets; a ban on assault weapons; assistance to 
     states to build necessary correctional facilities to ensure 
     that violent offenders are incarcerated; tough and certain 
     punishment for repeat and violent offenders, including the 
     President's ``three strikes'' proposal and the death penalty 
     for the most heinous offenses; and innovative crime 
     prevention programs that give our young people something to 
     say yes to.
       The Local Partnership Act is one of the important 
     prevention programs included in the House Crime Bill that 
     make the bill a balanced and commonsense approach to fighting 
     crime. The program provides resources to local governments, 
     which are most familiar with local needs, to take necessary 
     steps to fight crime. It is supported by local officials from 
     across the country.
       It is important for Congress to include prevention programs 
     like the Local Partnership Act in the Crime Bill. I again 
     urge defeat of the Motion to Instruct and prompt passage of 
     the Crime Bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] for yielding. I think he is aware of some concerns that 
have been expressed from my office to his with regard to the formula 
used in the Local Partnership Act, and I simply wanted to ask if, if I 
am correct in that regard, that he is familiar with those concerns, if 
there is any possibility that we might see a modification of this 
conference.
  Specifically what I am asking about is the way the formula works. The 
city of Detroit gets about $29 million, and my city of exactly the same 
size gets about $2.3 million. There are a lot of complicated reasons in 
the formula for that, but the bottom line is it is very difficult for 
me to defend that kind of a formula when I go back home, and I think 
perhaps the gentleman or the other authors of the provisions----
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague 
that I do not want to go city by city through the House of 
Representatives this evening, but could we not engage in how the 
formula is constructed, if we could meet, and how it might be modified, 
if it can be modified?
  Mr. BRYANT. Certainly.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I join in the motion to instruct conferees to remove the 
Local Partnership Act from the crime bill because the Local Partnership 
Act, whether one chooses to support it or not support it, is not and 
has never been a crime prevention program. The Local Partnership Act, 
as included in the House passed version of the crime bill, was 
originally drafted as H.R. 581 by the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Government Operations, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers]. However that bill, as introduced on January 26, 1993, states 
19 findings at the beginning of the bill as to why the Congress should 
pass the Local Partnership Act. Not one of the 19 findings mentions 
crime or crime prevention. The 19 findings deal solely with economic 
stimulation and the disparities of income, income readjustment.
  Just to give an example:
  Finding No. 2 in the original Local Partnership Act states effective 
local governments in the services they provide contribute to national 
economic growth. National economic growth, of course, is a laudable 
goal for the Congress of the United States, but not in a crime bill.
  To give another example:
  Finding No. 2 states the disparities and per capita income between 
cities and their suburbs accelerated in the 1980's, and it goes on in 
finding No. 12 to state there is a growing discrepancy in the ability 
of the Nation's local governments to provide these public services for 
their residents. Hence this weighted formula on how to distribute the 
Federal funds.
  The point is that this bill was drafted for the purpose of economic 
stimulation and for the purpose of readjusting income to cities. Both 
of these are worthwhile topics. Both of these ideas deserve their 
forum, but not in a crime bill, in a crime prevention section, or any 
other section. To simply change one part of the bill and to say the 
programs going to be funded are for the purpose of preventing crime 
does not change the basic idea that the whole purpose of this bill is 
just to spend money as fast as possible. In fact, finding No. 4 states 
local governments would spend quickly and productively any additional 
Federal funds they receive under this act. In other words the whole 
idea is just to spend money just to jump money into the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, a true crime prevention program would not be this broad, 
would not be this shotgun. It would take the time to analyze in much 
more specificity what kinds of programs are we taking about, how would 
they actually prevent crime. This is a substitution of an economic 
stimulus package that has not passed the House under the name, under 
the guise and pretense of crime prevention.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the motion to 
instruct conferees. The portion of the House crime bill to which this 
motion is addressed represents a classic example of how to throw money 
at a problem. The so-called Local Partnership Act does indeed throw 
money in the general direction of the crime problem, but unfortunately 
it gives the taxpayers no assurance that the money spent will produce 
the desired results.
  The provisions of the legislation in fact add up to an elaborate 
revenue sharing program, Mr. Speaker, which may in the absolute 
discretion of local governments be used to fund a jobs program of some 
description. Although the funds may be used for other broadly defined 
purposes related to crime prevention, any recipient government may 
spend every single penny of the grant funds on a ``job program to 
prevent crime.'' What kind of jobs programs will that be? How will such 
jobs programs operate? Who will receive the jobs? There are no answers 
to those questions in the language of the legislation. The bill simply 
says ``a job program to prevent crime;'' that is it.
  Mr. Speaker, past experience shows that such an undefined jobs 
program will, in at least some places, in fact become a patronage 
program for political cronies. Now a patronage program for political 
cronies may be what some people want out of this bill, but it is not 
what the American people want, and it is certainly not something that 
will do anything to solve the urgent problem of crime in America.
  The Members of this House need to pay close attention to this issue. 
I would suggest that the Members look at the Congressional Record of 
Monday, April 25, on page H2662, and they will see 13 lines there which 
describe the way these funds, the $2 billion, will be used. There are 
13 lines to describe how we will use $2 billion.
  That is ridiculous. This is a program that is out of control. The 
Members of the House need to focus on this. The legislative language in 
question here is a perfect formula for abuse and a waste of taxpayers' 
dollars. We need to put money into programs that have a proven record 
of success, not throw away money into political patronage programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the House should adopt the motion to instruct and send a 
clear message to the conferees that we do not want to waste the 
public's money on this ill-conceived program.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what our colleagues will be 
voting for if they vote for this motion in this amendment. They will be 
voting to cut funds that will go to local DARE programs that have kept 
kids off the street and away from drugs. They will be voting to end 
Boys and Girls Clubs that give children in high-crime and high-risk 
areas an alternative to a life of crime. If our colleagues vote for 
this motion, they will be voting to take resources out of the hands of 
local crime control officials in their own district, both Republicans 
and Democrats who have asked for help in attacking crime at the root by 
preventing it before it happens. Our colleagues would be voting to take 
resources from local communities who would use these funds to bring 
metal detectors into schools to make them safer so kids can learn, to 
keep schools open later to give children an alternative to the streets 
and to counsel children to keep them away from drugs and violence.
  By voting for this motion today, you will be sending a clear message 
that Washington knows better than local communities how to fight crime, 
that Washington bureaucracy knows what works better than local crime 
officials and that there is nothing Washington can do to help needy 
rural and urban communities to fight crime. By voting for this motion 
you will be voting against local police officers, sheriffs, citizens, 
all of whom support the balanced prevention package that we passed in 
the crime bill and all of whom want us to vote against this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what this amendment is all about. This 
amendment is nothing but another delaying tactic by those who do not 
want a crime bill. They just want crime as a political issue.

                              {time}  1840

  Now, it is easy for all of us to say we want to help police officers 
and have our pictures taken with the policemen on the beat. But this 
motion offers us one simple challenge. What are we going to do to help 
those police officers fight crime before it happens?
  This motion is one more effort to posture on crime. They could not 
kill the crime bill through the front door, so now they are trying to 
steal it away through the back door.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, the American people wanted us 
to do more to prevent crime, not less. They want us to do more to keep 
kids off the streets, not less.
  The crime bill we passed recently is a tough, smart package, that 
contains an effective balance between punishment and prevention. It 
focuses on punishment, including billions for the construction of new 
prisons. It focuses on policing, including resources to put between 
50,000 and 100,000 policemen on the beat. And it focuses on prevention, 
by giving local communities the assistance they need to attack crime 
before it happens.
  It is a smart, effective, balanced bill that passed overwhelmingly, 
with bipartisan support. And if you vote for this motion, you break 
that bond of those 3 trinity points in this bill, that are so important 
to get this bill through.

  Now, if that has not convinced you, you ought to recognize that the 
money in your State for your local officials to make the local 
decisions to deal with crime is substantial.
  To the gentlemen from Florida who have spoken this evening, they will 
lose $90 million, for every city, going to every major city and local 
community in Florida that needs to fight crime, Miami, Tampa, 
Clearwater, you name it. Gone, if this passes.
  So I ask my colleagues this evening, as late as it may be, to help us 
get a good crime package by rejecting this amendment. I do not know for 
the life of me why anybody on this side of the aisle would vote for it. 
I do not know why you would want to go back to your district and say, 
``I cut out crime for the DARE Program, I cut out the crime package to 
help kids in with drug abuse program, and I am proud of it. Because I 
think Washington knows better than my local communities.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the McCollum 
amendment, and let us get on with the business of our country.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, what the whip just said on the other side of the aisle, 
I take some issue with. I respect him a great deal. But for one thing, 
he misrepresents what this motion does. This motion eliminates one 
program only, the Local Partnership Act. It has nothing to do with the 
DARE Program or the Byrne grants or the Community Policing Program. It 
leaves completely intact all the money for the new police we are going 
to have, and the prosecutors, and rural drug training. In fact, it 
leaves alone the Model Intensive Acts, the Ounce of Prevention school 
programs, the violence against women money, the Yes grants, the prison 
treatment programs, the gang prevention, even midnight basketball and 
midnight sports, community youth activity money, youth gang prevention 
services. Boys and Girls Clubs moneys are not touched by this, police 
partnership moneys are not, safe low-income housing moneys are not 
touched, nor are the Olympic Youth Program and youth violence 
prevention.
  All of these are separate titles in the bill. We do not touch at all 
the moneys for them. All we want to get out and all I am trying to get 
our of here tonight is a $2 billion boondoggle in here. A lot of this, 
local governments would love to have us give anything we give out. They 
do not know what is in here. But you say give them grant money, they 
are going to take it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Armey].
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The American people have demanded real action by this body on crime, 
and they should not be given big spending social programs as an 
alternative.
  The LPA provides $2 billion of scarce crime fighting resources as a 
``no questions asked'' grant to cities.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people rightly recognize that the criminals 
who prey on the innocent in our society must be held accountable for 
their actions, not rewarded.
  Unfortunately, the crime bill does not reflect this priority.
  Nearly $2 billion of badly needed crime fighting funds are instead 
dedicated to the Local Partnership Act. Instead of taking the needed 
steps to stop violent crime in its tracks, the omnibus crime bill 
reestablishes revenue sharing.
  Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion wasted on the LPA could be used to build 
80 new State prisons or to place nearly 40,000 new police officers in 
our cities streets. Either of these two approaches would have a real 
impact on crime.
  Let me remind this body of the nature of the problem in this country. 
Every year in this country, nearly 5 million Americans are victims of 
violent crime. A murder is committed every 21 minutes, a rape, every 5 
minutes. Someone's car is stolen every 19 seconds.
  The American people expect us to take serious actions to solve this 
problem. This revenue sharing proposal is not even a close solution. 
The criminals who prey on the innocent should expect one clear message 
from this body.
  Their violent behavior will not be tolerated.
  If they continue to commit these heinous acts they should expect to 
get caught.
  When they get sentenced, they will serve real time.
  And if they are repeat offenders they will be sentenced for life.
  Handing out cash to fund various State crime prevention programs will 
not lock up recidivists. Insuring that failed root causes solutions 
continue won't put more police on the beat.
  The LPA is a step in the wrong direction. It is a step in favor of 
big spending social programs, but it's not even a little step in real 
crime prevention.
  To my colleagues on this side of the aisle, be aware--the American 
people are watching. They are looking to see who is working to make 
their streets safer and who is not. We will not be able to get away 
with saying we tried. We will not be able to say we meant well. We know 
what works--we know what can make a difference. And we also know what 
doesn't. If we do not use the opportunity to hold criminals accountable 
I can assure that the American people will hold us accountable. The 
American people do not want or need smoke and mirrors, and I say let us 
not be a party to ineffective pretensions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the sincerity of Members of 
this side of the aisle, my side of the aisle, who want to eliminate the 
Local Partnership Act, but I have to tell you I am somewhat surprised 
with the logic. I am surprised with the logic because for years I have 
been part of a party that says allow local governments to decide how to 
deal with crime.
  I want the city of Bridgeport in my community in my district to 
decide how to deal with crime. I want them to have the opportunity to 
spend their money as they see fit.
  Why would we on our side of the aisle decide it is all right to have 
Federal mandates? Federal mandates are all right, when it is our kind 
of mandate, but when it is someone else's kind of mandate, we do not 
want it.
  Why on our side of the aisle do we oppose allowing local communities 
to decide how to spend money when they want to deal with crime?
  I do not understand it. What I do understand about this formula is it 
is targeted. Now, maybe we did not care as much about Los Angeles or 
New York City in past years because we did not represent them. But we 
have Republicans who have to run these cities, who need this kind of 
money to deal with crime.
  I think prisons are important, and I vote to spend money for prisons. 
But I also think it is important to allow local communities to decide 
how they want to spend money to fight crime.
  Bridgeport, CT needs the resources to deal with it. And what I 
particularly find important about this amendment is, they have tried to 
focus the money where it is needed, where crime exists.
  In the past we have provided local revenue sharing money, and we have 
given to communities in my district that do not need it, like the 
Greenwiches of this world, like the Fairfields. They are in my district 
and I would love my communities to have more money, but they do not 
need it like Bridgeport needs it.
  This formula focuses on urban areas that need the money to fight 
crime. For the life of me, I hope Republicans and Democrats can agree 
that once in a while it is nice not to have a large bureaucracy that is 
going to take some of the money, that this money can become quickly 
focused to communities so they can spend the moneys on programs that 
meet their needs to fight crime.
  I hear about local jobs. As far as I am concerned, the best antidote 
to fighting crime is a job. The best antidote in my city of Bridgeport 
this summer to fight crime is to help young people have a job. That 
will make a world of difference.
  I have a lot of substance abuse in my district. I would like it to go 
to my local communities so they can use it to fight the crime of drugs.

                              {time}  1850

  I would like it to be done without a lot of administrative costs. It 
seems to me that this is a program that Republicans have been fighting 
for for years. Let local communities decide how to spend money to fight 
crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our distinguished Republican whip.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask for less time, but the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] asked many good questions on top 
of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] fine statements that I wanted to take a couple 
minutes to talk about where we are at.
  Let me say, first of all, it is not a problem to mandate, if we pay 
for it. The Federal Government, when it is paying for something, has 
every right to say, since we are raising the money from the taxpayers, 
we have a legitimate right to say what we think ought to be done with 
the taxpayers' money. I do not blame local officials for calling our 
offices and saying, please, send me money that I do not have to raise 
taxes on. Please give me a gift so I can spend it locally. But we have 
no obligation, with a several hundred billion dollar deficit, to create 
a brand new port barrel patronage program.
  First of all, I would just say that we do not have an obligation to 
go back to a program which failed, a program in which the Federal 
Government shipped checks to various cities.
  Let me say, I am a little surprised at my good friend from 
Connecticut, who is usually at the cutting edge of these kind of 
changes, because if we go and talk to many of the best mayors of the 
country on both sides of the aisle, if we talk to Mayor Norquist of 
Milwaukee, who is a Democrat, he will tell us the problem is not money. 
The problem in the big cities is unionized bureaucracies, work rules 
that are crazy, regulations that are nuts, red tape that is 
destructive, waste and inefficiencies and a political system that is 
not responsive to small business and that kills jobs.
  If we look at Guiliani, the Republican mayor of New York, he just cut 
spending for the first time in two decades. New York City will spend 
less money under Guiliani, and he worked out a bipartisan deal with the 
Democrats.
  If we talk to King up in Rochester, NY, the county executive, he is 
cutting spending by applying quality to having better government. If we 
talk to Ed Rendell in Philadelphia, he is reforming the system by 
taking on the employee unions.
  If we go out and talk to Dick Riordan and say to him, how did you get 
the expressway built after the earthquake, years ahead of schedule, he 
will tell us bluntly, he broke the law. And he counted on no L.A. jury 
indicting and convicting him, because he was getting them to work on 
time despite the fact that it was illegal under local law to do what he 
did, because he applied common sense. And he hired a contractor, and he 
worked him 7 days a week because it matters.
  I would say to my good friend from Connecticut, this not a mandate. 
This is a question of whether the taxpayers of America, with the $200 
billion deficit, should send $2 billion to local governments measured 
by how much they have already raised taxes to hire a larger bureaucracy 
to have a bigger political machine.
  If Members look at number D on page 133, a job program to prevent 
crime. I know what that is going to translate into. In Washington, DC, 
a sick city, a city whose government is a travesty, a city which wastes 
money and ruins the lives of people, it is going to mean more political 
jobs for more city councilmen to get reelected.
  So when Members come to me and say, do you want to fight crime, I 
will give, as we voted to yesterday, $13 billion to build prisons to 
lock up violent criminals, to save the women and children of this 
country from the kind of predatory behavior we have on our streets. 
That I am willing to go to my citizens and raise money for. But if they 
say to me, in the name of fighting crime, will I send a $2 billion 
check to cities, many of which are rife with corruption, many of which 
have destructive bureaucracies, to let the local politicians build a 
bigger machine with more patronage, my answer is ``no''.
  For this amount of money, we can build 80 prisons to house 40,000 
people. I think that is a legitimate use of Federal money. I am 
prepared to lock up the people who beat their wives. I am prepared to 
lock up the people who kill others. I am prepared to lock up the drug 
dealer. I am prepared to pass Federal money for the local purpose of 
helping every local government in this country. But I am not prepared 
to give a blank check to the local political machines who hire more 
politicians. And I do not think we have an obligation to take our 
taxpayers' money and to take the money of our children by deficit to 
send it to those local machines.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I am astounded to find out how much corruption exists in the cities 
of the gentleman who has just spoken in the well. The League of Cities 
is comprised of mayors of small- and middle-sized cities whose records 
of trying to bring back a productive economy, a revitalized economy, to 
create jobs, to bring law and order, those are the kinds of mayors in 
cities that have voted in their conference to support this provision. 
And the National Conference of Mayors, Democratic, Republican, and 
nonpartisan mayors, have all agreed that this modest program would be 
something that they could use in a very important and constructive way.
  I do not think it is appropriate for us to categorize with one paint 
brush the corruption that exists in our local cities.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend from 
Michigan, when he looks at New York Times coverage of corruption in New 
York City, when he looks at Washington Post coverage of corruption 
here, he can see some of my references.
  I want to make one other point. I expect every mayor in America, if 
asked the question, would you like the Federal Government to send you a 
check you can spend, to say, with enormous, warm enthusiasm, ``Yes, 
send me the money.''
  I do not expect them to somehow say, ``Oh, please, don't burden me 
with these dollars.''
  So I appreciate that they all want it. I am just not sure that has 
any reference to public policy. It has the normal reference to any 
politician eager to get resources from somebody else.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it should be clear to us that we cannot have it both 
ways. We are providing 100,000 policemen that are federally funded. I 
did not hear anybody, when we voted for that provision, saying that we 
did not want to furnish more policemen at the local level because there 
were Federal funds involved. We did it because it was the right thing 
to do.
  If Members do not like the prevention package, they will not like the 
Local Partnership Act. But sending the money into the local communities 
for police is no less logical than sending in prevention programs to be 
determined by our local leaders.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by the remarks of my 
colleague from Georgia with respect to corruption in our big cities. 
After he just gave an impassioned speech on the floor, in the well of 
the House, talking about the mayor of New York, what a great job he 
did, talking about the mayor of Philadelphia, talking about the mayor 
of Los Angeles, which way is it? Are they corrupt, or are our big 
cities corrupt, or are they not corrupt?
  He gets up in the well, my friend from Georgia, and argues with all 
his might and passion for a couple of billion dollars for Russia. And 
when it comes to taking care of crime in our cities right here at home, 
drug abuse, school programs, and as the gentleman from Connecticut 
correctly points out, giving people a job, that is not good enough.
  I urge all of my colleagues, before they vote on this, particularly 
on this side of the aisle, to look at what they will be denying our own 
local officials in our own communities, in our own cities with respect 
to giving them the ability to fight crime independently.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to confuse the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan. My position is very simple. The 
best mayors in America are working to reform their cities. They are 
working to shrink the size of their bureaucracies. They are trying to 
change their regulations and apply common sense.
  Many of them will tell Members, and I quoted Mayor Norquist, who 
said, quite publicly, Democrat from Wisconsin, mayor of Milwaukee, 
``The money is not the problem.''
  My point is that money given by us where we raise it from our 
taxpayers should be for a purpose that our voters understand we have 
responsibility for and that I think that if we have to choose between 
paying for a directed purpose such as building prisons, which, as I 
said, this $2 billion would build 80 prisons for 40,000 criminals, I 
can defend that.

                              {time}  1900

  What I cannot defend is sending a blank check to local politicians 
across the country for them to decide how to spend it, Mr. Speaker. I 
think that is a fairly clear distinction.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor because I think it is 
important for me to deal with one of the comments made by the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] as it relates to the city of Los Angeles 
and Mayor Reardon. Our city is in deep trouble and falling apart. We 
almost had a police revolt. The mayor came to that city promising that 
he was going to expand the police department, that he was going to do 
something about crime, that he was going to put more police officers on 
the street. Believe me, he has worked at it. He cannot get it done 
because we do not have the dollars to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want officers on the street and in the schools, we 
need some support. This local partnership program will help us to fight 
crime. Please do not try to describe what the mayor is doing in Los 
Angeles if the gentleman does not know.
  Let me tell the Members, as someone who comes from that city, the 
mayor of that city, Mayor Reardon, needs help. He needs to be able to 
support his officers, expand the police force, and fight crime.
  For all of the Members who have talked about wanting to fight crime, 
being against what is going on in the cities, they need to support 
this. Members will not be able to explain to their constituents why 
they did not support spending some of their money to do what the 
American people want them to do, and that is fight crime.
  We need the money in Los Angeles. I would ask the Members not to 
instruct the conference committee to delete the local partnership 
program from the crime bill. It would be a big mistake.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] 
very much. However, she does misspeak with regard to what this motion 
does.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, this motion to instruct 
does not affect the money for police that is in this bill, or in any 
conference report at all. There is $3.45 billion for community policing 
in the House bill. My motion to instruct conferees has nothing to do 
with that. There is $300 million for the police corps. My motion has 
nothing to do with that. There is $1.15 billion for Federal law 
enforcement. My motion to instruct has nothing to do with that.
  Mr. Speaker, there is $33 million for rural law enforcement, and my 
motion to instruct has nothing to do with that. There is another $100 
million for community prosecutors, so there is roughly $5.25 billion 
for community policing and police force in this bill which this does 
not have anything whatsoever to do with.
  In fact, what we are dealing with here is a special entitlement 
program overlaid on a lot of other things that are in the bill, and 
some of these things maybe we should not have in the bill, either. As 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] pointed out a moment ago, it 
is an entitlement program that we are dealing with here, a new one, a 
new grant program to the cities. We are in the process of supposedly 
doing an economic stimulus package with this, and maybe that is 
something we should do, but not as a part of the crime bill, not in 
addition to the moneys that are already there for all these other 
things that I read off earlier.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the gentleman, does he support 
the DARE Program?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I do support the DARE Program.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, how does the gentleman think he gets a DARE 
Program unless he has the resources to do it? We can put the money in 
the budget for the police force, but unless they have money and 
resources they cannot.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the DARE Program is 
not affected by my motion to instruct. The DARE Program comes under the 
Byrne grant and other programs in this bill not under this particular 
$2 billion.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not correct.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line of this is, what we do is 
very narrow. We take out a $2 billion new revenue sharing program that 
is based on the cities and communities that have the highest tax rates 
that are in this country today, to go to that particular group by some 
formula that is really skewed. It is a crazy program, I think. We are 
not doing the job of what fighting crime is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, our side of the aisle for the most part wants to do what 
is right. We are not interested in hurting the gentlewomen's city any 
more than we are anyone else. We want to help. However, to add an 
entitlement program of $2 billion is not the answer. DARE Programs are 
fine, more police on the streets are fine, more money for prisons is 
fine. We happen to be interested in helping the Boy Scouts, too, but 
this is a program for $2 billion more in entitlements to the cities 
that goes basically for a jobs program. That is what it is, pure and 
simple, and it should not be a part of the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that on this side of the aisle I think 
we have many Members who want to participate in the debate, but the 
fact of the matter is we are prepared to close the debate now and go to 
a vote at the earliest practicable moment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM.  Mr. Speaker, A, I would like to inquire how much time 
each side has remaining, and, B, I would ask if I do not have the right 
to close. I have no other speakers but myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has the right to close 
debate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].
  (Mr. MFUME asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, actually I think the distinguished gentleman 
wanted to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the position of the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I have sat in my office and watched this 
debate with great interest. As a person who is not just a 
Congressperson but a person who pastors a church in an urban community, 
it always appalls me that our arguments are reduced to trying to 
separate programs based on what we consider to be preventive and 
programs that we consider to be necessary, as it relates to trying to 
solve the problem of crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before the Members as a person who started an 
organization out of my church with the cooperation of two people, me 
and a secretary. Today I have 790 employees. We have demonstrated that 
in a community where resources are made available, we can actually 
create the kind of opportunities that remove people from the necessity 
of having to become a part of the increasing prison population.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the day will surely come when we understand the 
goods and services available in many of the communities in this land 
are not available in these urban communities. I would hope the day 
would come when we realize that if we make an investment early on in 
the lives of these young people, we will prevent the necessity for 
building jails.
  Imagine what we are saying tonight. Approximately $100,000 to build a 
unit, $30,000 or $40,000 to keep a prisoner, and here we are arguing 
about a small portion of the resources in this bill. If we took those 
moneys and invested them in young people, we would soon discover that 
we would not have to create the jobs program on the other side of this 
ledger.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the arguments, ``This $2.5 would be 
creation of a jobs program.'' What is more job creative than building 
jails, creating job opportunities for people, for persons from 
communities who do not live there to go and be guarded by persons who 
live in communities outside of urban America? What is more job creative 
than creating opportunities for vendor contracts, for laundry, for 
meat, for bread, and for other food.
  Mr. Speaker, this argument is messed up. I would hope we would all 
stand opposed to this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just need to respond to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich]. When I came to the Congress, let me tell the Members 
what my background was: Seven years on a city council with 2 years of 
serving as a Mayor, and then 10 years in the State Senate.

                              {time}  1910

  I have to tell Members that time that I served kept me closer to the 
people than I am in this body, because I served there every day, I was 
at home every day, and at that very same time, I taught school, 10, 12 
hours of public hearings that we would bash out things in our community 
that were good for our community, that we needed to hear from our 
community.
  These 13 lines about this particular issue, I say to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Canady], the reason there is only 13 lines is because 
of the fact that we want our local communities to make these decisions 
through public hearings. They know what is best for their communities 
and what is going to fight that crime and what kind of programs they 
need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I just ask for those Members who have never served in 
local government, please do not bash your local government because they 
really do a very fine job.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself whatever time I may consume 
in closing.
  To close, I would just like to say a couple of words. I would like to 
bring us back to the focus of what this motion to instruct is so 
everybody understands it. It is a motion to instruct crime bill 
conferees that we would like to strike out the $2 billion local 
partnership act and like them to do that when they meet with the Senate 
in a few days to work out the deal on the crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking now about $2 billion that is in addition 
to a lot of other things that are in this bill. I have heard a lot of 
debate tonight about how we need to have things besides prisons and 
besides some of the money for the police and so on. But a lot of 
confusion exists out here as to what all is involved. The fact of the 
matter is that even if we were to not have this $2 billion program, 
there would be at least $5 billion or $6 billion in programs for grants 
to local communities to do all kinds of things involving the youth.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to agree with all of those programs that 
we put into the legislation to begin with, but we would. Actually in 
the House version which is all we are instructing on, when we take the 
$2 billion out, we have still got $7 billion left. The $5 or $6 billion 
is what the Senate talks about.
  Mr. Speaker, let me quote just a couple of thoughts on this. There 
would still remain in this bill besides the community policing monies 
and all the money for the police a Model Intensive Prevention Program, 
$1.5 billion; an Ounce of Prevention Council Program for $1.275 
billion; a Youth Employment Program of about half a billion; Violence 
Against Women for about $700 million; safe schools, about $300 million; 
youth violence prevention grants of $200 million; $81 million for other 
youth prevention programs; Midnight Sports of $50 million; community 
youth academics, $50 million; police applicant recruitment, $30 
million; Police Partnerships with Children, $10 million; Safety in Low-
Income Housing, $10 million; $7 million for older Americans; Drug 
Treatment in Prisons, $450 million; $1.4 billion in drug courts and 
treatment; and $600 million in alternatives to incarceration that are 
not touched.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to agree with all those, but even after 
we take this $2 billion new entitlement out that some of those folks on 
the other side want tonight and have argued so much for, all of that is 
left in here. The bottom line is we cannot afford to do all this with 
$200 billion plus in deficits every year. We need to start somewhere in 
setting priorities. That is what we are about here to do.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, what this motion to instruct conferees does 
is simply delete $2 billion in a new entitlement program that is not 
needed. We need to spend the money instead on the prisons and on the 
law enforcement, on the other things in here. We do not need to do it 
on this. We do not need to have a new economic stimulus program for 
jobs in a crime bill of $2 billion in nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCollum motion to 
instruct conferees.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
motion to instruct conferees on the crime bill.
  The Local Partnership Act, will provide direct formula grant funding 
to local governments for education and substance abuse programs to 
prevent crime. We can stand in this Chamber and talk about how to 
prevent crime on our streets, but it is the local governments that know 
best how to prevent crime in their own communities.
  Congress is committed to enacting a balanced anticrime bill, which 
contains three essential ingredients, resources for police, punishment, 
and prevention. Striking the Local Partnership Act from this 
legislation will severely diminish the resources available for 
prevention programs. I urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to 
instruct the conferees to strike the Local Partnership Act from the 
Crime bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
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. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, 
noes 247, not voting 44, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               AYES--143

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--44

     Applegate
     Bentley
     Berman
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Engel
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Gallegly
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Kanjorski
     LaFalce
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Martinez
     McCurdy
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Penny
     Quinn
     Ridge
     Schumer
     Slattery
     Studds
     Sundquist
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Yates
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1933

  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________