[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 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 1993

  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), I 
offer a privileged motion 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 (Mr. Torres). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoagland 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 meet promptly on all issues 
     committed to conference with the managers on the part of the 
     Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland].
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HOAGLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman 
Brooks and members of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Schumer and 
members of the Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee, for their very 
fine work in connection with House bill 3355, the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is truly an excellent bill which 
incorporates the latest of concepts and practices, the latest knowledge 
we have, on how to punish and prevent crime in America.
  As we all know, over 95 percent of all crime is prosecuted at the 
local level. Most anticrime laws and resources are in the hands of the 
State legislators, county boards, and city councils around the country.
  But there are some things we can do here at the Federal level to 
assist their efforts. This crime bill helps substantially.
  Every community in this country is plagued by violent crime and it's 
time to break the gridlock. It's time to send a message, we're serious 
about fighting crime.
  It's time we enact the ``3 strikes and you're out'' provision 
identifying the relatively small percentage of all criminals who commit 
the most serious crimes. We must identify those people and put them 
away for long periods of time. States with such provisions report 
excellent results.
  It's time to put more police officers on the street. We have 600,000 
police officers on the street already. This bill would add up to 
another 100,000. Experiences in Houston and elsewhere show that more 
blue uniforms involved in community policing really does work.
  It's time to enact a ban assault on assault weapons. I have yet to 
hear any good reason as to why 19 specified assault weapons should be 
available for anyone to purchase over the counter in America for as 
little as $300.
  It's time to target funding for programs like Byrne grants. These 
funds go to cooperative law enforcement efforts like the Metropolitan 
Drug Task Force in Nebraska which has resulted in 2,000 arrests and 
confiscated 600 guns from drug dealers.
  It's time to set up regional prisons to take the load off State 
penitentiaries and place violent criminals in appropriate confinements.
  It's time to enact a whole range of preventive measures such as 
midnight basketball and counseling for dysfunctional families which can 
help prevent youngsters from starting down the path of violent crime to 
begin with.
  So you see, ladies and gentleman, this crime bill contains many 
important provisions which will help deter crime in America. The crime 
bill passed the Senate on November 19, 1993. Our crime bill here in the 
House passed April 21, 1994. Two weeks after that on May 5, 1994, the 
assault weapons ban passed the House.
  Since then we have heard nothing.
  Has the bill gone into a black hole?
  Did the collision on Jupiter take it out?
  What happened?
  Between April 21 and now:
  The House Ways and Means Committee has reported a health care bill of 
over 1,200 pages.
  The Education and Labor Committee has marked up and reported a health 
care bill of over 1,000 pages.
  The House has considered and passed most of 13 appropriations 
bills. Yet we have no crime bill.

  In the meantime the criminals haven't stopped. Every day that goes by 
is another day without an assault weapons ban, without more police 
officers on the street, and without three strikes and you're out.
  Just in the past week in my community, the violence has continued. 
There was a fatal drive-by shooting, and a robbery at a local 
convenience store that resulted in one young man's death. In the last 
few months, an elderly woman was attacked and beaten to death with a 
board by a young man who lived nearby, and a 13-year-old was caught 
with a handgun and 500 rounds of ammunition at an area middle school. 
This crime bill is not a panacea, but it's a start.
  The criminals in America are not concerned about differences of 
opinion among the conferees. Every day, there are:
  Another 3,927 violent crimes committed; 28,800 property crimes 
committed; 65 murders; 288 women are raped; and 4,320 cars are stolen--
some weeks in Omaha it is over 100 cars are stolen.
  And the crime conference continues to dither.
  The only thing the criminals will understand is: three strikes and 
your out; more police officers on the street; limits on their ability 
to purchase assault weapons; regional prisons; and a lot of other 
things we have in this bill.
  The criminals don't care about the progress of the conference on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment or the Senate amendment to the House amendment.
  We have to speak their language, not the language of the conferees. 
That means passing this bill.
  That means providing funds for military-style boot camps for young 
offenders. That means providing money to build regional prisons so we 
can put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there. That means 
banning assault weapons. There is no reason that weapons designed for 
war should be readily available on the streets of Nebraska endangering 
our police officers and our families.
  The Parliamentarian told me that I could not file a motion to 
instruct conferees to report the bill by the end of this week, or the 
middle of next week because that would be out of order.
  The closest I could come to a motion to instruct is to meet promptly.
  But make no mistake about it, this motion should be construed as a 
motion to return the bill promptly--by the end of this week or the 
middle of next week.
  That is what this vote means, and Mr. Speaker, there is no reason the 
conferees can't meet tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow 
night until they finish their work and get the bill to us by Friday or 
by midweek of next week.
  Other committees are doing it. What's the delay.
  Mr. Speaker, get us a crime bill promptly so we can get it passed and 
into effect--now.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOAGLAND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska for yielding and thank him for his speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure the gentleman from Nebraska, and 
indeed all the Members of the House, that although the conference has 
only had one formal meeting, we are meeting constantly with Members of 
the Senate and with ourselves to promptly resolve the conference. This 
is a 1,100 page bill that changes a lot of things in America insofar as 
criminal justice is concerned.
  We are, and our obligation as conferees is, to support the will of 
the House, and we are trying to do that. And we are trying very, very 
hard. We are being aided by our Speaker, by Senator Biden, and by the 
President of the United States, and by the Chief of Staff, Leon 
Panetta.
  I want to assure the gentleman from Nebraska and everybody else that 
we are not delaying this conference. We expect it to move ahead. We are 
asking for the conference to meet tomorrow or the next day, but I am 
confident that we will begin meeting on Monday. If we do, as I think we 
are well on the road to be doing, we will have resolved in these 
private meetings most of the tough issues, and we will have a 
bipartisan bill that can pass overwhelmingly.
  So I am certainly in favor of the gentleman's motion to instruct the 
conferees, and I am going to vote for it. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and 
we go home.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate those 
assurances.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the gentleman's proposal tonight, 
the motion to instruct to get the conferees to act on the crime bill. 
But I find there is a lot of irony in this.
  First of all, I heard the gentleman from California, whom I respect 
greatly, one of five senior members of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
comment there were meetings constantly going on privately, but we have 
not had the public meetings. I would say those meetings are all on the 
other side of the aisle. I do not know a single House Republican who 
has been included in any of those meetings.
  In fact, it is the problems of the other side and their gridlock 
over, I presume, the Racial Justice Act or so-called Racial Justice Act 
that would, according to the attorneys general of the 50 States and our 
district attorneys around the country, effectively end the death 
penalty in the United States if it were to become law, and it is in our 
House bill. It is that proposal that has got the Democrat Party hung 
up, unable to resolve this.
  They are meeting privately. I do not know any Republican that has 
been meeting. We have been going on and on like the gentleman form 
Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] has been saying. The Senate passed its bill in 
November. We passed our bill in April. We had conferees appointed in 
May. We had one meeting on June 16 that was public where the conferees 
did get to give speeches, but we never had a chance to get out and get 
with the business.
  I hope when we have a conference, that we are going to find it is 
bipartisan, that we will actually be able to do what the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs did yesterday on a couple of bills 
in conference, is walk them through and let each Member have an input 
into it and have the discussions and the debates and the amendments 
that you normally associate with a conference, that we did not have 
last Congress when we had a crime bill that unfortunately did not 
become law.
  I would note one other irony in here of particular concern to me. 
While I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Nebraska, who has 
brought this proposal today, I have to note that he twice voted for the 
Racial Justice Act that last got them hung up on the other side in his 
own party. I gave him the opportunity twice. One time his vote was the 
decisive vote. It only passed this House by one vote. It is nonsense. 
It should not been passed in the first place. If it had not been passed 
and he had not voted for it then, it would be a problem today and we 
would have gotten on with this conference and long been meeting. That 
seems to be the problem.

  I must say the American public is tired of our messing around. They 
are concerned with violent crime in this country. They are very 
concerned with the fact that 6 percent of the criminals are committing 
better than 70 percent of the violent crimes, and those 6 percent are 
not serving but about a third of their sentences. They want to see us 
enact laws that will help the States to incarcerate those criminals, 
and get to truth in sentencing, and provide the funding for the 
prisons. And they would like to see us do what is not in our crime bill 
even. They would like to see us end the endless appeals that death row 
inmates have, that the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from 
Nebraska who is offering this side, his side is hung up on and never 
been able to let us get a good provision out of here that indeed allow 
us to continue to have the death penalty in the United States.
  They would like to see us have something we did not get a chance to 
vote on this year, because his party and the Committee on Rules did not 
allow us to have that, which is the opportunity to change the rules of 
evidence on searches and seizures, so local law enforcement can get 
more evidence in to get convictions in a lot of these crimes where 
people are getting off, the so-called exclusionary rule to the good 
faith exception.
  So I find while they definitely want to see us act and we all want to 
see the conference act, that anybody standing here tonight on the other 
side calling for us to act promptly on a matter that they produced the 
problem on in the first place, and their party is hung up in, really 
has a lot of ironic questions that have been raised, even though we are 
going to support this motion.
  I think, appropriately, it has given the Republicans the opportunity, 
as we are taking tonight to say wait a minute now, where is the 
bipartisanship? Where is the opportunity for us to get in there in the 
room? Where is the opportunity for us to be in those so-called private 
meetings, hammering out some of these things.
  Our staff have not even been involved. At least on the other major 
committees I am involved with, Republican and Democratic staff on both 
the House and Senate are getting together to work out these details so 
we have an agreement.
  In this particular bill, the history of the Committee on the 
Judiciary is for them to work it out on the Democrat side in some 
secret meeting somewhere. It looks like it is happening again this 
time. I am saddened by that fact.
  But yes, I want us to meet promptly. There is a violent crime every 
22 seconds. The gentleman is right. There are 476,370 people who have 
been victims of violent crime in the 90 days that have elapsed since 
the crime bill was passed by this House; 277,830 have been victims of 
aggravated assault; 26,820, according to the time clock, have been 
victims of rape in those 90 days. And 5,850 Americans have been 
murdered since the House passed a crime bill that we have not been able 
to get a conference on, because the other side is hung up trying to 
come to some resolution internally to please one of its factions on the 
issue that is spurious about the question of so-called racial justice.
  I am for equal justice in sentencing and fairness, and I do not want 
race to be a part of any sentencing. But let me tell you, I do not want 
to abolish the death penalty in this country, and that is what the AG's 
and district attorneys say that provision would do. That is what is 
causing this bill to be hung up, I am told. I am not in the room, but I 
am told that there is a big fight over there on your side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the conferees on H.R. 4092, 
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, to report this vital 
measure immediately. We simply cannot afford to hold the safety of our 
streets hostage to political haranguing any longer.
  Over 3 months ago, an overwhelming majority of the House passed this 
legislation, which represents the largest Federal anticrime commitment 
in American history. The legislation passed by the Senate is similar to 
the House legislation on the major issues. However we cannot seem to 
come to agreement long enough to take the first step in taking back our 
communities. This is what they mean by politics as usual.
  We cannot afford to wait any longer. Each day that passes without a 
report from the conferees, is another day without three strikes and 
you're out, another day without more police officers on the street, and 
another day with military-style assault weapons freely available to 
kill innocent persons.
  Our communities desperately need the conferees to report this bill 
and we in Congress need to pass it. Not only do we need this bill 
passed to ban military-style assault weapons, but passage of our 
anticrime bill is necessary to prohibit the transfer of guns and 
ammunition of juveniles.
  Among the most important reasons we must pass this bill is to 
authorize between $1.8 and $6.9 billion for crime prevention programs 
to provide education, treatment, recreation, and job opportunities for 
at-risk youth.
  Every day without a crime bill in my district is a day in which the 
Broward County Juvenile Justice Program goes without the essential 
funds it needs. Funds that would be used to keep our children in 
school. Funds that would be used to evaluate the many problems of 
juvenile offenders and give them the treatment they so desperately 
need. This is just one example among many from my congressional 
district of how our delay in getting a report from the crime bill 
conferees is shortchanging our constituents and our society.
  Today is yet another day in which the crime bill will not be passed. 
Today and every day we delay reporting this bill is a day in which 
thousands of new cops will not be put on the street. Consider all of 
the prison beds which will not be constructed today. Think about the 
drug kingpins who will be allowed to kill without fear of the death 
penalty today. Think of the assault weapons which will not be taken off 
the street today, and most importantly think of the lives which may be 
lost due to our lack of action on this critical piece of legislation.
  Today the House and Senate will not insure that criminals receive 
swift and sure punishment. Today we will not extend the death penalty 
to crimes like trafficking in large amounts of drugs, killings by drug 
kingpins of police officers, drive-by shootings which result in death, 
espionage, treason, murder of law enforcement officials, and 
intentional killing of witnesses which results in death. And, the 
States will have to wait until we can act before having access to 
between $6.5 and $14.1 billion for building new prisons.
  Mr. Speaker, the conferees have had 3 months to work out the 
differences between the two measures. Every day that they continue to 
confer, the law-abiding citizens of America suffer from random gun 
violence, lack of police protection, and a fear that crime will go 
unpunished.
  Therefore, it is time to report the anticrime bill so that we can 
send it to the President and put the Federal Government back on the 
side of America's law-abiding citizens.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to salute the 
gentleman from Nebraska who has shown great courage and inventiveness 
in bringing this question forward in this method, instructing the 
managers to meet promptly.
  I think it is amazing that we need this instruction as a lever, as a 
device to get some momentum going on the crime bill, whichever everyone 
has been posturing over and flexing muscles and talking about how 
serious the problem is and all the great things these bills do to 
grapple with that problem.
  We named our conferees in the House April 21. That is 3 months ago 
tomorrow. And then 52 additional House conferees were appointed May 17. 
That is over 2 months ago. And the Senate conferees were appointed May 
19. But here we are in the deep freeze, frozen in amber, immovable, 
intransigent. Nothing is happening. Yet we hear this cascade of 
statistics about the rapes and the car shootings and the kidnapings and 
there is no movement.
  So we on this side are stunned by this sudden burst of activity on 
the part of the majority party. We can only say, there has been one 
meeting of the conferees, and that was June 16, when opening statements 
were made. And then it has been Death Valley. Nothing is going on that 
we know of.
  The gentleman from California said there had been meetings. These are 
stealth meetings because no Republicans have been invited and no 
Republican staff. So they are negotiating between themselves, and this 
may be the most expeditious way to go, but we do not know that. Nobody 
knows that. And the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] does not 
know that or he would not be bringing this motion to instruct.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Nebraska a question, if I 
could capture his attention for a moment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Are these crime meetings? The gentleman said they are 
going in smoke-filled rooms. Is this sort of like health care?
  Mr. HYDE. I do not know about smoke-filled rooms, but they are going 
on behind closed doors.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Nebraska a question.
  I take it that the gentleman attends Democratic caucus meetings and 
that he attends meetings where the Speaker and the majority leader and 
the powerful chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary are present. 
Has he ever addressed them on this subject and asked them why we have 
not had conferences? There has been considerable discussion over here.
  Would the gentleman share with us their responses to him? I do not 
want him to betray a confidence, but what have they told him when he 
asked them when in the heck are we going to have a conference on the 
crime bill?
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of complicated 
issues that need to be worked out.
  Mr. HYDE. But not with us. It is among themselves, these complicated 
issues, is that the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Well, we did not discuss who was involved in the 
complicated issues conferences, only that they are very complicated. Of 
course, those of us who are anxious to get this passed and get it 
enacted, so the deterrent effect in many of these provisions can 
continue to be felt, can begin to be felt, I should say.
  Mr. HYDE. I just wanted to say again that I salute the gentleman's 
courage in standing up on his side and saying, let us get going. I 
think that is wonderful. It is something we Republicans can all assent 
to with some enthusiasm. And if the gentleman ever gets any answers, I 
would appreciate it if he would let us know. I thank the gentleman very 
much.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. LaRocco].
  (Mr. LaROCCO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaROCCO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
bringing this motion to the floor. I think that what we are doing here 
is talking about a sense of urgency.
  I do not come to the well here to point fingers at the minority or 
the majority. I just come here to bring a message from the people of 
Idaho that they want to see this issue resolved. I think that we want 
to move ahead as fast as we can.
  People are waiting in America for us to resolve this issue. The 
gentleman has brought us this motion, and I think it is important to 
discuss that we want to have a vote on this. We want to do it quickly. 
We want to work hard. That is the expectations from the people of 
America, that we do our business here. I think it is OK to focus on 
this.
  I have told people that I did not come to town to dance. I came here 
to make a change in people's lives, and in a positive way. I think we 
have taken a bold step on the floor of the House here in the past to 
resolve the crime issue, and I hope that we can move forward.
  I like certain aspects of this bill. I voted for it. Truth in 
sentencing, police on the beat, boot camps, prevention measures. It is 
a smart bill. It is a tough bill. I want to vote on it. And there are 
going to be aspects of it that I might not like, but we need to have 
this opportunity before we go home for the August break. The gentleman 
from Nebraska makes a good point.
  I like three-strikes-and-you're-out. People in my district want it, 
and they want us to have a vote on it. And they want us to take care of 
this soon.
  I thank the gentleman. My purpose here is to address the House, not 
to point fingers at anybody, but I think that the gentleman is going to 
add some momentum to the urgency of bringing this matter to the floor 
of the House.
  I think he feels it from his constituents in Omaha. I feel it all the 
way from Boise and Priest Lake and Port Hill, ID. Right after we passed 
this bill, 3 months after, I went home to a boot camp in Idaho and saw 
how well that was working in our great State where they mixed education 
up with prevention and detention. It worked there. They said, let us go 
on with this. Let us do it at the Federal level and do it right.
  I met with police chiefs, detention officers. They said, let us move 
ahead. Let us be smart. Let us be tough. Let us get on with it. That is 
my message today. I support this motion.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Ms. Lambert].
  (Ms. LAMBERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative 
Hoagland's motion to instruct conferees to meet promptly in order to 
pass the crime bill right away.
  On April 21 of this year, the House passed H.R. 4092, the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It has now been 3 months 
since that date, and the longer we wait to pass this bill, Mr. Speaker, 
the longer the citizens of our Nation must endure the violent crime 
that is sweeping our Nation.
  As a resident of the rural first district of Arkansas, I am 
particularly concerned about FBI statistics that show that violent 
crime is rising 5 percent faster in rural areas than in urban ones. The 
peaceful picture of rural America that depicts the little white house 
surrounded by a white picket fence and children happy at play is soon 
to be a picture of the past if we do not take immediate action. With a 
strong balance between punishment and prevention measures, our crime 
bill will provide the resources that will help our families, our 
communities, and our government work together to fight crime.
  We, as legislators, have a duty to ensure the safety and protection 
of all Americans. But until we pass anticrime legislation, our citizens 
will not have the resources to fight the crime that has invaded each 
and every one of their lives. I therefore urge our conferees to meet 
promptly to smooth out differences in our crime package, so that we can 
pass this bill and help make our nation safe again.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on April 21, this body passed a 
comprehensive crime bill to combat the pervasive crime problem in this 
Nation, and almost 3 months later it remains pending in conference. The 
American people deserve and need the benefits of this legislation. They 
deserve to see more police officers on their streets. They deserve to 
feel safe within their schools, homes, and communities, and they 
deserve it today.
  In my home State of New Jersey, 5,951 persons out of every 100,000 
are the victims of violent crimes. In the past decade violent crime has 
risen 54 percent nationwide. With statistics like these, it is no 
surprise that the No. 1 concern of Americans is crime, specifically 
violent crime.
  Yesterday, the New Jersey papers carried three separate stories about 
the murders of six different people: A Jersey City man who slashed the 
throats of his ex-girlfriend's mother, sister, niece and nephew; two 
motorcycle gangs which clashed at a picnic, leaving two people dead, 
two critically injured and eight wounded; and a young man who 
kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered a young girl. Two of these 
victims were ages 6 and 7. For Shakaya Roberts and Amanda Wengert the 
crime bill is already too late. Their murderers will not be subject to 
the three strikes provision.
  The crime statistics which confront our children now do not have to 
reflect our future. Through the implementation of effective prevention 
and nonviolent conflict solution programs, and by keeping our youth in 
school, we can avoid their traveling down the wrong road. There are no 
easy or precise solutions to the problem of violent crime; however, I 
do believe the crime bill will be a major step toward safer streets and 
safer school hallways and safer communities.
  The crime bill renews our fight against this malignancy which has 
invaded our streets, our schools, and our lives. I urge my colleagues 
to support Representative Hoagland's motion to instruct conferees and 
to get the job done now. Let us have a crime bill now.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for 
giving us the sense of urgency on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, today is day 34 of a hostage crisis in Congress. Sent to 
a conference committee on June 16, the crime bill has been held hostage 
in committee for 34 long days.
  But while Congress fiddles, America burns. Criminals go to work every 
day: in our streets, in our parks, in our businesses, and in our homes.
  From San Diego to Washington, the message is clear: crime is out of 
control and the people want action.
  We need to put more cops on the streets. We need to get assault 
weapons out of the hands of children. We need to make community 
policing a part of every community. We need to fight violent crime. And 
yes, we need to create jobs, build schools, provide decent housing, and 
restore hope to neighborhoods across America.
  None of us will approve of everything in the crime bill, but the 
debates have been heard and the votes have been cast. Let us stop 
fighting the crime bill and start fighting crime.
  Today is day 34 of the crime bill hostage crisis. What are we waiting 
for?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California said that 
the crime bill is being held hostage. It is not being held hostage on 
this side of the aisle. As has been discussed before, the secret 
meetings are on the Democrat side. Get them to come to the floor and we 
will vote on the thing.
  The gentleman is rattling his sword before the House here. Why does 
he not do it in his conference report, because the Republicans are 
ready to come before the committee, no matter what it is.
  The gentleman from Florida said that the extremist position is 
holding the crime bill from coming to the floor. That is the racial 
justice. Bring it to the floor. We have already voted on it, we have 
debated on it, but go ahead and do it.
  What the gentleman is talking about is not doing any good. The 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] voted for the racial justice 
bill. That is one of the things that is holding this whole thing up. 
Let us bring it to the floor, even if it is in there, and I commend the 
gentleman for doing that, but let us at least bring it to the floor.
  The gentleman has no problem on this side of the aisle. Do it 
tonight. Our Members will show up. But there is no problem on this side 
of the aisle as far as bringing the crime bill. When the gentleman is 
talking about holding it hostage, it is from the Democrat side.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, it really does not serve any worthwhile purpose to have 
Members beginning to point their fingers at who is holding up the crime 
bill. We know there are issues unresolved.
  Most of us do not even know what is in the chairman's mark, but let 
me say this, it is not the racial justice issue that is holding up this 
crime bill. The gentleman must understand that whether it is assault 
weapons or other issues, there are many issues that are being 
discussed. Please, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], do not take the position that racial justice is holding up 
the crime bill.
  The fact of the matter is, there is the assault weapon issue and many 
other issues that are being discussed, as the gentleman knows, and it 
is not fair to simply point the finger in that way. It is 
irresponsible.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters], what is irresponsible. We are ready to come to the table. 
Whether it is assault weapons, whether it is racial justice, or 
whatever it is, if they want to schedule a conference report, if they 
want to go to a conference meeting, let us do it.
  The only discussion we are seeing is on that side of the aisle. No 
Republican staff or no Republican on the Committee on the Judiciary has 
been allowed to even discuss it. Bring it to the table and we will 
discuss it.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is tremendous. We are 
in the heat of agreement. I gather what we want to do is to express our 
sense of urgency that we do need to pass a crime bill. Certainly there 
might be items that still divide us, and not to minimize those 
differences, but the point is there are far more items that unite us.
  Both houses want more cops on the streets. Both houses want truth in 
sentencing. Both houses want three-strikes-and-you-are-out. Both houses 
want new tools for prosecutors. Both houses want alternative 
sentencing, like boot camps for young people. They want crime victim 
prevention. They want preventative efforts for our juvenile justice 
system.
  There are many items that are very critical to the people of this 
country, to crime victims, to the children, and to senior citizens. I 
say let us work together, let us get it done quickly, and I applaud the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland]. It is time to move this bill 
forward.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting discussion out here 
tonight. I certainly, as I said at the beginning, support the 
gentleman's motion to instruct so that the conferees and the crime bill 
move more promptly. I do not know any Republican on this side of the 
aisle who does not believe that that should be the case.
  However, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a whole parade of people come 
forward on the Democrat side of the aisle to state their strong 
convictions about this, that, or the other need for some provision in 
the crime bill, and we ought to move forward and so forth, and it is 
beginning to sound to me like it is a Democrat endangered incumbent 
amendment we are out here producing today, so everybody can give their 
testimonials.
  Just as I said earlier, there is a lot of irony in this. I do not 
diminish the importance of the subject. I think it is extraordinarily 
important. There is probably not anything that this Congress is dealing 
with that is more important than attempting to get to a resolution of 
some law on the books that will help the States, and provide a change 
in the climate that truly will lock up the violent criminals who are 
the repeat violent criminals that are committing these crimes in this 
country and keep them locked up.
  We want to do that and to do some of the other steps we need to. We 
may be debating some of the fine points and having disagreements on 
where some of the resources ought to go.

                              {time}  1950

  But what is ironic about this is that we Republicans, while we are 
listening to all of this, have not produced this particular motion to 
instruct. All the gridlock is over on the Democrat side. We have not 
been invited, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] said, 
into the room. I am a conferee. Not one staff member from the Committee 
on the Judiciary House conferees nor a member of the committee has been 
invited into a meeting since June 16, when all we did was get together 
publicly to give our opening remarks as members.
  It there are negotiations, we do not know what they are. We are 
reading and listening to the press accounts and listening to what a few 
of our colleagues say hither and you dropping hints about it. We gather 
from all that I have heard on the various news shows on Sunday and so 
forth that the problem is, contrary to the gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Waters', comments, the problem has been and still is apparently 
over the dispute within the Democrat Party over the so-called Racial 
Justice Act because a sizable proportion of the gentlewoman's party 
seems to want to end the death penalty as we know it now or at 
least wants provisions that would effectively do that as 50 State 
attorneys general have said to us in a resolution they passed just a 
few weeks ago, or the 7,000 district attorneys, who have said through 
their association, there seems to be a strong view by at least a 
substantial portion of the other side of the aisle that, indeed, this 
is the case.

  But I gather that there is a diminishing support for this. The 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] who is offering this motion, who 
understands, I think, now, the error of his earlier votes, because he 
voted with us a few days ago to reverse his position on the Racial 
Justice Act, probably the gentleman knows better than anybody in the 
room that indeed the Racial Justice Act would be trouble in River City, 
it would be now the end of the death penalty, would at lease cause us 
to go to sentencing in States that have not had the death penalty by 
quotas, by racial quotas. But the gentleman did twice vote for it. The 
gentleman voted for it when he voted against my proposal that would 
strike it from the bill on the first day, and as I said earlier, had he 
not done it, we would not be here tonight, as I see it, worrying about 
promptness, because the fact of the matter is, if the issue is as I 
hear over that issue, it would not even be on the table. That was 
decided effectively by one vote.
  Now I know the delegates voted, so there was a five or six vote 
difference on paper, but if we took their votes away, because they 
cannot effectively have any say here, and if there had been one vote 
difference, we would have prevailed on it and the Racial Justice Act 
would not be here. We would have the Equal Justice Act. We would have 
the provision that should have been here all along, that except for 
partisan consideration and failure to look at it, a Republican proposal 
would be on the table that would step by step prevent racial bias in 
the courtroom, not just in death penalty cases but in all cases by 
providing for statutory provisions to protect from racial bias in voir 
dire, in sentencing, in every stage of a criminal proceeding.
  But, no, we are wrapped up into partisan gridlock on the gentleman's 
side of the aisle. I am amused in that sense by it but I am chagrined, 
as the American public is, that all this time has passed, all this time 
has passed since we had the initial conferees appointed. Ninety days, 
as we said earlier, have passed sine we passed the bill in the House. 
It is time to move on.

  Yes, I will vote for this motion to instruct, but I again just want 
to point out in closing, we on our side, we Republicans have never had 
a problem with moving that crime bill. We have not even been invited 
into the room. I challenge anybody to tell us when we have been invited 
into a meeting on this other than the opening first day of the 
conference, and we would love to have a bipartisan bill. We really want 
one. But we are waiting for the other side to give it to us.
  I thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland] for at least 
offering us a chance to express our views on this issue tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say briefly, this is an opportunity for us 
this evening, an opportunity for the general membership of the House to 
speak, those of us that are not on the Committee on the Judiciary 
perhaps, those of us that are not involved in the conference to say in 
a bipartisan cooperative basis, ``Look, let us just get this crime bill 
out of conference, let us get it back to the floor of the House, to the 
floor of the Senate, let us pass it and get it to the President.''
  There are a lot of difficult issues, no question about it. But a lot 
of other committees in this House and other conferences in this body 
have handled difficult issues competently and effectively and quickly. 
I think that we can get this done. We just need to gather all 435 of 
us, tell the conferees, ``Look, it has been over 3 months.'' Please 
resolve your differences, please get the bill back here because we are 
losing time.
  There are an awful lot of things about this crime bill that are 
really going to help the crime situation throughout the country. We 
have been through the statistics before. There are so many thousands of 
crimes committed every week in America. It is just horrendous. And 
clearly there are a lot of provisions in this bill that are really 
going to help deter that crime. A lot of the provisions in this bill 
are going to help prevent crime. So let us get the differences on a 
small issue resolved and get the bill passed, get it out here, get it 
to the President so we can begin to feel the beneficial effects. That 
is all this motion is.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the adoption of the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). 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 Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________